Below are the ASA’s comments to the BLM on the preparation on the next Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). The BLM is starting the process of writing a revised RAMP. The previous RAMP was invalidated by the court. These comments are one of the first steps to the generation of a RAMP that will affect the ISDRA for at least the next ten years.

The deadline for comments is May31, 2008.

The document may be downloaded from this location.

ASA RAMP Comments


May 27, 2008

Erin Dreyfus, Planning and Environmental Coordinator
El Centro Field Office
California Desert District
Bureau of Land Management
1661 South 4th Street
El Centro, CA 92243
(760) 337-4400

Re: Comments of the American Sand Association Regarding Scope of Proposed Recreation Area Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area


Dear Ms. Dreyfus:

The American Sand Association (“ASA”) is a non-profit organization whose members engage in motorized recreation in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (“ISDRA”). Over the past seven years, the ASA has been intensively involved in the various land use, land management, and environmental issues that affect the ISDRA; and we look forward to participating actively in the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM’s”) development of the new Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for the dunes. To that end, we set forth below a series of “scoping” comments on the proposed RAMP and its attendant Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). In preparing the comments, the ASA reviewed a number of key documents, including: the 1987 RAMP; the original court order issued by Judge Alsup in November 2000 setting aside the 1987 RAMP; the 2003 RAMP; and the court order issued by Judge Illston in March 2005 setting aside the 2003 RAMP and EIS. These documents not only inform the comments the ASA has prepared, they provide the legal context in which the new ISDRA RAMP and EIS must be developed and evaluated.

Most of the ASA’s scoping comments can be easily categorized as relating either to the RAMP or to the EIS. In some cases, however, there is overlap, as in the discussion of alternatives. Where this occurs, BLM should assume the comment applies to both the RAMP and the EIS.

1. No Need for Adaptive Management Area (AMA). The 2003 RAMP provided for a large Adaptive Management Area (AMA) designed to protect plants and animals. As few people used this area prior to implementation of the administrative closures, it is unlikely that these perceived threats actually existed or would ever materialize. The AMA, at least as proposed in the 2003 RAMP, would require a large effort to manage and enforce the rules for admittance. A better approach would be to establish monitoring areas to assess the status of any plant or animal that BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) believe is threatened. This approach would provide BLM and FWS with “control” zones for purposes of determining the ecological impacts of OHV use in open areas located nearby. If, however, BLM elects to pursue an AMA alternative, the AMA itself must incorporate access corridors for public safety, resource protection, and for public ingress and egress to designated open areas. Access corridors are likewise required in designated Critical Habitat (CH) for the Peirson’s milk-vetch and microphyll woodland areas. Therefore, we recommend that the BLM not include the AMA in its proposed action (for the reasons stated), but make it a separate alternative for consideration in the EIS. Such an alternative could be equal in size to the one proposed in 2003, or it could be smaller, based on newly-available biological data. This approach serves two important purposes: First, it removes the AMA from the preferred action. Second, it immunizes BLM against claims that it failed to consider an AMA alternative.

2. RAMP Should Establish Visitor Service Priorities. The RAMP should establish visitor service priorities to guide BLM when resources (human and financial) are limited (e.g., law enforcement and medical aid take precedent over trash collection).

3. Management Strategies Should be Peer-Reviewed and Data Driven.
Management decisions in the ISDRA should be based solely on credible data from qualified consultants, organizations, and individuals whose work can stand up to peer review. Anecdotal opinions regarding natural resources and impacts thereto should be disregarded unless independently verified with credible evidence.

4. Need to Mitigate for Loss of Recreation Land. To the extent the approved RAMP would close or otherwise reduce motorized recreation areas, BLM must mitigate the loss acre-for-acre by expanding existing open areas or creating new ones. In short, the RAMP should adopt a “no-net-loss” approach to mitigating impacts on motorized recreation.

5. RAMP Should Develop “Camp Host” Program. “Camp host” programs have been implemented at various state and national parks with great success. The ASA believes that such a program, if inserted into the RAMP, would improve visitor education and communication throughout the ISDRA.

6. No Need for Raven-Proof Dumpsters. The BLM currently utilizes “so-called” raven-proof dumpsters for the ISDRA, presumably to reduce raven predation of desert tortoises. While the BLM’s intentions are laudable, the data do not support the extra cost of these specially-designed dumpsters, as there are very few desert tortoises – and no desert tortoise critical habitat – in or near the ISDRA. Also data gathered for the nearby Mesquite Regional Landfill indicates that few, if any, ravens inhabit the ISDRA planning area. To the extent trash collection is necessary (and it may not be), BLM should adopt the most cost-effective method of doing so including implementation of a major “pack it in, pack it out” public education program.

7. No Need for Special Restrictions on Dune Vendors. The BLM has been prohibiting vendors from operating during the week to protect private businesses since implementing portions of the proposed 2003 RAMP. This makes no sense, in that some private businesses are not even open when the dune vendors are operating. We would ask the BLM to re access this policy based on each area and how it affects that area. For example, in some areas BLM is not allowing any vending during the week when there are no private businesses open in the immediate area. In other words, the dune vendors are not competing with permanent private businesses located outside the ISDRA. Ultimately, BLM should keep vendor fees competitive to ensure a level playing field and to provide ISDRA visitors with the widest array of goods and services. We also think BLM should re-evaluate all vending at the Dunes.

8. User Fees for Wilderness Area. Under Management Action AW #23 of the 2003 RAMP, BLM would have charged a user fee to anyone wishing to enter the Wilderness Area north of State Route (SR) 78. The new RAMP should also incorporate this management action, as it would provide a much-needed funding source for (1) ongoing resource monitoring in the Wilderness Area, (2) additional amenities, and (3) improved enforcement of the Wilderness boundary.

9. Crack Down on Unpermitted and Unattended Vehicles. The RAMP should provide for increased BLM law enforcement on vehicles without permits and vehicles left unattended for longer than one day.

10. Improve Public Awareness of ISDRA Rules. The key to public safety and resource protection in the dunes is public awareness of the ISDRA rules. To facilitate this awareness, BLM must publicize the rules more frequently. For example, the rules could be provided as a handout that goes with the annual permit. BLM would simply have to make the permit bigger and then print the rules on the reverse side.

11. Re-Evaluate Application of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Should the new RAMP incorporate a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) concept, it must apply the ROS not as a means to limit recreation but as a tool to identify and fill the need for additional camping and staging requirements. The 2003 RAMP, as an example, allowed 3 acres per camp in the wash areas, and this is an unrealistically and unnecessarily large allocation, which functions to limit the number of visitors allowed at ISDRA.

12. Update Analysis of Visitor Data. When developing the RAMP, BLM should reassess the visitation data and take into account the information obtained from the new road counters and the Haas/United Desert Gateway (UDG)/BLM studies. BLM should also factor in the calibration results from the aerial survey conducted over the past two years. Without accurate visitor counts, BLM cannot properly estimate expected revenue or generate viable business plans for the ISDRA.

13. RAMP Should Recognize and Uphold Earlier Land Use Decisions and Compromises. The RAMP is a sub-planning document to the 1980 CDCA Plan and should uphold the compromises made at that time and in subsequent years. For example, the new RAMP should:
• Acknowledge the closures of other dune areas to focus use at the ISDRA, the most popular area.
• Be consistent with the land use designations set forth in this document – i.e. I, L, M, and C lands.
• Recognize the legal history of the plan and the 9th Circuit’s acknowledgement that open areas are a viable planning tool when viewed on a desert wide planning basis.
• Acknowledge the ways that BLM’s pre-litigation (pre-2000) management of the ISDRA has been consistent with the proposed RAMP.
• Acknowledge the ways that BLM’s post-litigation (post-2000) management of the ISDRA has been consistent with the proposed RAMP, and that the plan is an extension of the BLM's commitment to use technical data to drive management decisions.

14. RAMP Development Must Start From the 1987 RAMP. As indicated in the Federal Register, the new RAMP is intended to replace the 1987 RAMP. Therefore, the RAMP development effort must start from the 1987 RAMP, not from the interim closures imposed by the November 2000 court order. For purposes of the EIS, we suggest that BLM use two analytical baselines – one based on pre-litigation conditions as they existed in October 2000 (which, by definition, would incorporate the management priorities of the 1987 RAMP), and one based on current conditions. Not only would this eliminate any possible NEPA issue, it would provide the proper historical context for the current planning effort.

15. EIS Should Consider Current “Interim Closures” as an Alternative Action. To avoid any NEPA violations, the RAMP EIS should analyze the current “interim closure” conditions as a project alternative.

16. RAMP and/or EIS Should Consider Economic Impacts of Any Proposed Reductions in Recreation. Many of the communities that serve – and depend on – recreational visitors are concerned that the RAMP may reduce tourism and recreation use in ISDRA, thereby affecting their economic well-being. This economic impact must be assessed and duly considered.

17. RAMP Should Use Current Data. Through the RAMP development process, BLM now has the opportunity to update its plan with the best available recreation use and visitation data. Today, we have more current and better information that will be critical for decision making.

18. RAMP Should Employ Integrated Data. The visitor monitoring program should be integrated (programmatically, administratively, and financially) with the biological monitoring program to better understand any cause/effect relationship that may exist between visitation and resource change.

19. RAMP Must Improve Traffic Flow To and From SR-78. There is a management need and public safety issue warranting the improvement of ingress/egress to State Highway 78 on major weekends and holidays. At the very least, the BLM, in the EIS, needs to addresses traffic and traffic-related safety issues of the proposed plan (and alternatives).

20. Limit User Fees. Beyond appropriated and grant funding. User fees should be kept to an absolute minimum required, and be in full compliance with existing law.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed scope of the new RAMP and EIS for the ISDRA. We at the ASA look forward to participating in the plan development process and working creatively with BLM and all other stakeholders to resolve the difficult land use and environmental issues that affect the dunes and the people who enjoy them.

Sincerely,






Bob Mason,
President, The American Sand Association

Sent mine a few weeks ago,
I addressed most of those items as well

Sending in the R&R Duners club comments later today. All 11 pages of them... Have been also working on the CORVA comments too.