Devils Canyon Up Date

[Britain]

Looks like our Local BLM office in El Centro has desided to slip a by Permit Issue through for Devils.

This is just BS!

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro.html

For those who have ran DC its a wash , nothing grows in it and if it something does grow it gets a regualry wash out. Big horn sheep dont lamb in it, the traffic from 8 will make more noise then anything in the wash.

More here

http://www.jeepaholics.com/support/t...TOPIC_ID=60168

[Drewminator]

Hey Mr. Vern nice to see a post from you. Sorry to hear the crappy news. I finally have a rig to tackle DC. Did they say how much the permit will cost and whare you can purchase them?

[Britain]

Mr Drew!
Where have you been hiding? We are still working on the permit issue. The insurance would put most of us off limits to the canyon.

Stay tuned

[Mitch]

Vern,

The BLM report is very conflicting. As I read it, it clearly states that it won't affect vegitation do to the annual flooding nature of the wash. Sound isn't a factor compared to Hwy 8 in the area. It clearly states that lambing is not an issue, and that an adult PBS would have time to flee the route due to the slow speeds involved. The dust issue is a joke cause it states that dust and sand storms cause dust (WTF?). And when have we ever needed supplimental insurance to use our public land? Someone needs to make some friends down there. Sponsor a clean-up in the area, visit the field offices, make sure that the BLM knows that we have responsible users, tread lightly members, and get a petition going for the next meeting that they have. This truely sounds like a sucky situation.

Mitch

[Roger]

It looks like this is still in the proposal stage until July 17. If you oppose it, you better get busy and submit your objection to it. You only have a few days.

Just be sure you have well thought out arguments in support of your position.

[STORMTROOPER]

Here's what I just put in the mail

Here are my thoughts which I've already posted on the JA thread, but what the heck...

I read the EA twice and have comments that I hope you will find useful.

In describing the vehicles of OHV users who would be interested in this trail the EA uses the term “specialized rock-crawling vehicles” (and other similar terms) which connotes custom built buggies used in competitive rock crawling competitions. This description is inaccurate. A more correct description would be improved capability 4-wheel drive vehicles since they are all DMV registered highway legal vehicles.

The EA suggests the need for “routes that provide a suitable challenge for these users” As a technical off-road challenge this trail would be considered “most difficult”. This is important because there is no trail south of the I-10 with such a rating which makes this route a rare recreational resource.

Every year 5.6 million1 vehicles pass within 500’ the entire length of this trail. Given that the proposal would limit OHV activity to perhaps 200 vehicles per year, the comparative effect OHV activity would have in terms of noise, and dust pollution is negligible. Furthermore this study states that because of the sandy and rocky nature of this trail the risk of damage to vegetation minimal and “It is unlikely allowing legal or permitted OHV use will increase the damage from the current level”. Therefore noise pollution, air pollution, and damage to vegetation should not be considered factors which are mitigated by restricting access to this area.

Under the section titled “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis” the description “Opening Devil’s Canyon with no restrictions” is not accurate since the trail would be subject to the restrictions imposed by WECO. The section contains two main reasons why this option was not considered, 1) It would be necessary to amend the plan if this alternative is adopted, and 2) Unrestricted OHV use within this canyon could cause disturbance to PBS. Assuming the first item could be overcome with sufficient justification, consider the second reason. It fails to acknowledge that the PBS are already accustomed to daily disturbances of highway traffic, Border Patrol and considerable illegal immigrant activity in this area. In addition “PBS have demonstrated tolerance to limited OHV use in other areas. In areas where occasional OHV use occurs, PBS would avoid the vehicles but continue to use the area once the vehicles have left.” Lastly, the rare degree of challenge which this trail offers is such that few vehicles are capable of traversing it; thus the OHV activity would be self-limited. For these reasons it can be concluded that OHV use (outside of the lambing season) is not likely to affect PBS within their Critical Habitat and the BLM should consider this option since it does not contradict settlement agreements.

In keeping with the multiple use mission of the BLM, and in recognition of the fact that “OHV access continues to shrink due to continued development and special designations” the BLM attempts to provide OHV routes. This proposed action is gladly welcomed however I would like to suggest a few changes.

Permit Access – Assuming the “alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis” is unworkable, the special permit access option as described is a burdensome and excessively limited one.

7 Permits per year – This number which is apparently arbitrary is very limited. There should be not less than 20 permits per year.

Insurance/bonding requirements – The intent is not to have “off road events” but have small groups, families and friends on the trail. This is a requirement that will turn most people away.

# of persons/vehicle restrictions – This could work but most groups that would go through the permit process would want to have 15-20 vehicles in a group. A smaller group limit would also turn groups away.

Provisions for emergency response – This item seems geared to large “off road events”. Again, is this permit process intended for large organized events? How does it suit the needs of small groups of OHV users?

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this EA.

[Britain]

I think Stormtrooper sums it up. For those who havent done this trail and would like to..get those letters going. There should be a form letter done by today. If I get it before I hit the road I'll post.

If not I'm sure Stormtrooper will.

[STORMTROOPER]

John Stewart's letter

For some ideas here is John Stewart's letter...


To: Erin Dreyfuss, BLM Environmental Protection Specialist
Bureau of Land Management
El Centro Field Office
1661 S. 4th Street
El Centro CA 92243


E-mail: edreyfus@ca.blm.gov
FAX: (760) 337-4490, Attn: Erin Dreyfuss


RE: Devil’s Canyon EA Comments


I am submitting the below comments on behalf of ***(myself, club, or association)***.


An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for proposed vehicular access for special recreational events in Devil’s Canyon to provide recreation opportunities and fulfill the multiple use mission of the BLM.


As noted, the description does not accurately reflect the intent of the desire for recreation access to Devil’s Canyon. Specifically, the term “event” alludes to access being for spectator viewing and accompanied by an entry fee. This is not the case. Access to the Devil’s Canyon area is desired due to it being a route that provides a suitable technical challenge. Such an opportunity does not exist within the BLM El Centro managed public lands. Again, access would not be for “event” or “entertainment” purposes. Access would be for recreation activity provided by the technical challenge of the proposed route. Participants would be engaging in a similar recreation activity that would not be considered a “special event” in any other areas open for motorized recreation access under the current land management plan.


As noted within the EA, there is an existing need for “routes that provide a suitable challenge”. There are no other opportunities comparable within three or more hour drive of the greater San Diego metropolitan area. As a technical challenge, this route would be considered “most difficult”, this route is a rare recreational resource.


The EA describes the vehicles to be used as “specialized rock-crawling vehicles”. This is inaccurate as the vehicles to be used would be multi-function, street legal vehicles. While they may be “modified”, they certainly are not “specialized”. The vehicles would be licensed to be operated on any public road and comply with state and federal vehicle safety, smog, and insurance requirements and driven by licensed drivers.


For further clarification, the OHV (off-highway vehicle) is used throughout the EA. Within the context of California Motor Vehicle Code, the term OHV is assigned to any motorized vehicle that is capable of being off of a paved or graded surface. Within this frame of reference, the term applies to a wide variety of vehicles; some not permitted for use on public roads. In addition, Federal Code of Regulations provides similar distinctive definitions for OHV.


The Devil’s Canyon route is within 500 feet of a major Interstate highway with an estimated 5.6 million vehicles per year traffic count as documented by the California Department of Transportation. (Interstate 8 California Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) - 2007 http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all/r007-10i.htm).


As proposed, recreation activity would be limited to perhaps 200 vehicles per year. The comparative effect recreation activity would have in terms of noise and dust pollution is negligible. Furthermore, the EA states: “It is unlikely allowing legal or permitted OHV use will increase the damage from the current level”. The proposed route is a former commercial route the pre-dates the alignment of the current Interstate 8 highway. Due to the sandy and rocky nature of this route, the risk of resource damage is minimal. Therefore, noise pollution, air pollution, and damage to vegetation should not be considered as factors mitigated by restricting access.


As noted within the Cultural Resources section of the EA: “Devils Canyon was utilized as an historic route of travel from 1865 until the construction of Highway 80 in 1913. The canyon was the original route of the Mountain Springs cutoff from the Southern Emigrant Trail in the Yuha Desert over the mountains west to Jacumba and San Diego.”


Additionally, the proposed action notes there are no cultural resources other than the historic route of travel and no historic properties shall be affected.


Opening Devil’s Canyon with no restrictions is listed as under “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis”.


This alternative would allow vehicular travel on the route through Devils Canyon year round and would not require a permit. The trail would be designated open to motorized vehicles under the WECO route of travel designation.


The discussion is not accurate since the route would be subject to the restrictions imposed by travel management under the current land management plan.


The discussion notes this option was not considered as it would be necessary to amend the plan if this alternative is adopted. In reality, engaging in site specific planning to provide for “special recreation permit” access is “amending” the land management plan by allowing an exception to the plan under stipulations.


As stated, “Unrestricted OHV use within this canyon could cause disturbance to PBHS. A current settlement agreement prevents BLM from authorizing any activities that are likely to affect PBHS within their Critical Habitat.”


The following quote is from the discussion of the Proposed Action on Threatened and Endangered Species: “The noise and activity of the vehicles passing through the area may result in wildlife temporarily moving away from the proposed route. The duration of the disturbance will typically be less than a full day, but may extend for a full weekend in some instances. PBS have demonstrated tolerance to limited OHV use in other areas. In areas where occasional OHV use occurs, PBS would avoid the vehicles but continue to use the area once the vehicles have left. The area would remain available as habitat for foraging and resting.”


The discussion further states that “It would be reasonable to assume PBS in the area will move away from vehicles encountered on the Devil’s Canyon route. Escape routes for PBS are abundant along the route and would not require a significant expenditure of energy.”


And, the conclusion notes that the route “does not traverse through any lambing grounds.” It is noted that impact of OHV on PBS is not well understood and they have habituated to vehicles in some areas.


The proposed action is an attempt to provide for a public requested recreation opportunity in an area that has minimal to no impact of resources.


The proposed action has some stipulations that make it impossible for the average recreationist to comply. The issue of PBS lambing season is noted and is line with similar access restrictions imposed by adjacent land management agencies.


A permit process would be acceptable provided is was intended to ensure that access to the route was on specific days of the week. However, the proposed action limits the permits to 7 per year outside the PBS lambing season and inclusive of unstated stipulations and to number of participants and/or vehicles.


The proposed permitted access time encompasses winter months that include several holiday periods. I would recommend that the number of allowed permits be increased on the holiday periods within a framework that allowed for at least two weekend permits per month with an additional four permits to cover holiday weekends.


The proposed action provides a stipulation for insurance/bonding. This requirement is excessive in that vehicles to be used are licensed, street-legal and comply with state motor vehicle laws which include maintaining required insurance coverage. And, activities to be done are similar to activities permitted in other areas open to motorized access and not requiring a special insurance/bonding. It is, after-all, small groups of families and friends engaging in recreation activity.


The proposed action provides a stipulation for provisions for emergency response. This item seems onerous as there are no other areas where participants in a recreation activity are required to provide for emergency response. In deed, does the BLM require an organized hiker in a desert areas to obtain a permit that stipulates they provide insurance/bonding and provisions for emergency response?


In conclusion, the proposed action is onerous in the requirements to obtain a “special recreation permit” when the perspective individuals are small groups of friends and family.


A more appropriate alternative would be to revisit the “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis” and provide for opening the Devil’s Canyon route outside the defined PBS lambing season on specific weekends with a reasonable vehicle number limitation per available access day.

[Navy-Jeepster]

I took stuff from Johns letter and sent it in and represented UFWDA in it.

Hope it helps.

Todd

[Borregowrangler]

Sent in my reply. It would be great to get this route open again without so many regulations.

[Elusive]

I got to run this trail once. I even met Britian out there that day.
This trail is worth fighting for and i don't think it will see that much traffic because it's a solo shot. there aren't any other trail close..

[Britain]

Closing time

I got to run this trail once. I even met Britian out there that day.
This trail is worth fighting for and i don't think it will see that much traffic because it's a solo shot. there aren't any other trail close..

Yeah got some shots of you from the second bridge.

Now to see if I can sick the Imperial County Supervisors on this

[Britain]

Latest news from 3/27 DAC

This is a real foot dragger

http://www.icorva.com/index.php?opti...news&Itemid=75

[RAT]

This is a real foot dragger

http://www.icorva.com/index.php?opti...news&Itemid=75

Verne,
Is there anything we can do besides sit and wait? Seems a waste to have such a sweet trial languishing out there because of beurocratic red tape. If there is someone specific to write to, let us know.

[Britain]

Kurt,
Let me check....