Italo yes those should be the BLM contacts. I suspect blm has likely made up its mind already so we also need to write to our state and federal politicians. For an issue like this it will add significant weight to our comments to educate ourselves on this a bit before responding, which is why I suggested waiting til monday. And be polite and professional when you reply - no 'your mom' jokes, they wouldn't take one seriously since they've probably seen the chimp video by now

you mean i cant email the BLM dude and threaten to knock his mom up???? WTF man???

November 16, 2010

Re: CACA-42965
2200
(CA-066.62)

Palm Springs BLM Land Swap


Dear Mr. Kalish,

I am writing to express my opposition to the Palm Springs BLM & Indian land swap referenced above. This is simply a bad deal for the American public. The BLM is not meeting its two key obligations in this deal, which are to ensure meaningful public participation, and to ensure there is public gain from the deal and that land swapped is of equal value. As neither of these have been met I demand that the land swap be cancelled.

Despite being in talks since 1999, the BLM has provided little notice to the public that this deal is in the works. It has not explained to the public what the benefits are, and it has not provided adequate forums or sufficient time for the public to respond. This land swap is of such importance that it should receive widespread publication, public meetings, and further extension of the public comment period to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate. However, this is not happening.

There has been no discussion with the people most affected by this deal--the people of Palm Springs, and the Southern California hiking and mountain bike communities. Many people are learning of this swap at the last minute, from home-made signs posted at trailheads. The lack of notice and public participation afforded by the BLM is totally unacceptable. The BLM has the legal responsibility to do more to involve the public.

While the BLM has authority under the National Monument Act to enter into a land deal, it does not have the authority to make an unequal exchange or to eliminate an important public benefit. In fact, the BLM is required by federal law to execute this deal only if it represents a public gain, and only if the lands exchanged have equal value. The lands which will transfer to the BLM under this deal are not an equal value – in fact, we are receiving substantially less in terms physical area, in terms of monetary land value, and in terms of recreational value, than we are giving up to the Tribe.

The BLM will receive 2.3 square miles of beautiful but remote land, but is giving up over 9 square miles. The land transferring to the Tribe includes many popular hiking and mountain biking trails. The Tribe restricts access to its land by limiting operating hours and by charging fees. This could shut down the iconic Skyline (Cactus to Clouds) Trail, because hikers must start early in the morning to safely complete the hike, and this would no longer be possible. Furthermore, the Tribe prohibits mountain biking on its land, meaning there will be significant loss of access to that user group as well. Many hikers and mountain bikers travel from all over Southern California to use these trails, and restrictions or loss of access will keep many of them away. Despite the promise of continued access to trails, the management plan signed with the Tribe is of little value because it can be cancelled at any time with one year’s notice. The BLM should not accept any deal where there is restricted access for hikers or loss of trails to mountain bikers. This is a matter of significant public interest.

The National Monument land being given up by the BLM has great value to the public: value to its health, to its enjoyment of life, and to its concern for the preservation of wilderness. For many people, these areas are the jewels of the National Monument and it is unthinkable that the BLM would give them up. They are irreplaceable.

This appears to be little more than a lopsided, unfair exchange of public land that shrinks the size of a National Monument by seven square miles. People currently enjoy free and simple access to these trails. Why, at a time when fewer Americans than ever before recreate outside, would we want to make it harder for people to take a hike or bike ride? Why, at a time when Palm Springs is hurting for tourist dollars and its downtown is struggling, would we restrict access to the area’s most famous trail? What possible public good comes from this exchange? There is no public good. This land swap is bad for the American public. Please do the right thing, and cancel it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

John R. Kalish
Field Manager
Bureau of Land Management
1201 Bird Center Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262

Subject: proposed BLM-Tribe land exchange

re: CACA-42965
2200
(CA-066.62)


Mr. Kalish,

I am writing to express my opposition to any loss of mountain bike trail access due to the proposed land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe). I live in Southern California and frequently mountain bike on the trails that are on BLM parcels of land that are being proposed to be transferred to the Tribe. These trails are some of the best in Southern California and offer a unique way to explore the desert.

The Tribe traditionally prohibits mountain biking on their land, meaning there will be significant loss of access because any trail that pass through land managed by the Tribe will effectively close the entire length ( BLM managed portions ) of that trail to bikes. Many hikers and mountain bikers travel from all over Southern California to use these trails, and restrictions or loss of access is unfairly prohibitive to people wanting non-motorized recreation. Despite the promise of continued access to trails, the management plan signed with the Tribe is of little value because it can be canceled at any time with one year’s notice. The BLM should not accept any deal with restricted access for hikers or loss of trails to mountain bikers.


Sincerely,
{your name}
{your address}

cc. Diane Gomez, Bob Abbey, Ken Salazar

A terse sample letter below. Cut and paste and email should take < 30 sec, NO EXCUSES!!!! Add another 30 sec if you want to change the letter slightly. Maybe another 30 sec to email/web contact the other people on evdog's list.
DEADLINE = November 19, 2010!!!!

to: John_Kalish@blm.gov
cc: Director@blm.gov, Diane_Gomez@blm.gov, kensalazar@ios.doi.gov
...