From the 1/3/03 San Diego Union, East County edition. Do not miss the photo from the paper, not available online.

By Chet Barfield
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

January 3, 2003

MANZANITA INDIAN RESERVATION – With bulldozers scraping the hillsides, the Manzanita Indian band is quietly pursuing an ambitious plan to turn this remote East County reservation into a magnet for gamblers, dirt bikers and off-road enthusiasts.

The project is unlike any ever undertaken by a California tribe, both in its aims and in the way it has been launched with little or no public disclosure or governmental review.

A Las Vegas man who describes himself as an investor and managing partner says Manzanita intends to open two small casinos as part of an outdoor recreation development that will surpass Glamis.

The plan includes four motocross courses, a 1,000-acre off-road park, a 250-space RV park and a shotgun target range.

The goal is to attract some of the thousands of thrill-seekers who pass by on Interstate 8 every weekend, heading out to the desert and sand dunes of Imperial County.

"This is 10 times what Glamis wanted to be," said Thomas Angelo, the tribe's managing partner. "We're creating a destination, a destination with amenities, that just happens to have a casino."

San Diego County has nothing like what's envisioned on this reservation 55 miles east of San Diego, Angelo said.

Add gambling, RV camping and a 50-acre shooting range, and he contends that Manzanita could attract 14,000 to 20,000 people a month.

That's quite a change for a 3,700-acre reservation that has little but rugged hills and open sky. Just north of the neighboring Campo reservation, Manzanita can see the night glow of the Golden Acorn Casino, but it lacks the freeway access Campo has.

Angelo would not discuss the project's cost or name the investors who are funding it. He said he hopes to get at least part of it open by February.

Tribal officials declined comment yesterday, but said they would be willing to discuss the project next week.

Angelo said plans include two casinos, both tiny by California Indian standards. The main one, on the reservation's southern boundary two miles from the freeway, would have 280 slot machines, a restaurant and a lounge. It will be next to a more-than-50-acre RV park, Angelo said.

A smaller casino with 69 slots and a restaurant is planned about a mile and a half farther north, in the middle of 200 acres of motorcycle racing grounds that have been under construction since early December.

Four levels of motocross courses are being built, ranging from hillside runs with heart-stopping jumps for experts, to an easy peewee track for kids.

Other aspects of the project include an off-road park with 1,000 acres of trails about a mile from the motocross area, and, in a different part of the reservation, a 50-acre firing range where shooters can blast clay targets that move as birds would fly.

Future additions might include paved drag strips and race tracks, Angelo said.

Limit on slots
There's a reason Manzanita is limiting its casinos to 349 slots, Angelo said. Under California's Indian gaming compacts, that's the maximum number a tribe can have and still remain eligible for revenue-sharing funds from larger casino tribes.
However, those same compacts include environmental and public-review provisions that Manzanita has not yet fulfilled.

Before any casino construction begins, tribes are supposed to notify local officials, conduct and distribute environmental reports assessing off-reservation impacts, and hold public hearings.

Although Angelo said the tribe has done its environmental reviews, no such reports have been made available. County and state officials were unaware of Manzanita's plans until a reporter made inquiries this week.

"We'll be anxious to talk with them after we learn all this from your article," said Chantal Saipe, tribal liaison for the county government. "We will be most interested in talking with the tribal council or the chairman and reviewing the environmental documents."

Likewise, the state Office of Planning and Research, which distributes the environmental impact reports required by the casino compacts, has received nothing from Manzanita.

Tribal leaders declined yesterday to discuss what has or has not been done, other than to say they intend to comply with the compact they signed in 1999.

Not specified
State officials said the compact requirements apply only to a casino and any related structures such as a hotel.
The document does not specify what other kinds of ancillary developments might be subject to outside review.

A U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs official said that apart from casinos, many types of reservation projects would not require federal environmental reviews.

The director of the tribe's internal environmental office, David Elliott, said he doesn't know what, if any, environmental studies may have been done on the Manzanita project.

"My office has been kept out of the picture," he said. "As a tribal member, I'm opposed to it for the damage it's going to do. As an environmental person, I'm opposed to it because the proper studies haven't been done."

Elliott said that in addition to off-reservation impacts, the tribe should have analyzed the potential effects on its own groundwater, air quality, soil erosion, noise and other factors.

Saipe, the county liaison, said the county has similar concerns.

"Hopefully, we will also be asked to review the environmental documents for the nongaming part of the development," she said.

_____________________________________________________________________

I wonder if we will hear, at all, from the enviromentalists on this situation? Don't bet on it. This is a glaring "look the other way" example of how liberal institutions operate.

No one will dare confront the natives on their ambitious plan to strip habitat and entomb a vast natural area in asphalt. But move some sand around with your quad (only to have the wind move it back) and your get your butt sued off and locked out.

Maybe we should support some obscure tribe to acquire Glamis under the "sacred ground" designation and then charge us (probably less than the BLM) to play there?

1. It's private land--if they fulfill their obligations under law, what's the problem?

2. I'll bet they groom the trails and pick up the trash every day--after all it's their land!

3. If groundwater is affected, they'll have shot themselves in the feet for a few mil.

4. If Glamis is closed, off-roaders and shooters (notice no solid-projectiles) would still have a place to do their thing.

5. I didn't read about camping facilities--this should be provided.

6. I can't believe that Native American ethics could be compromised to this extent--live and learn!

7. As an enviro, I can try to interest private property owners in my world view, and coerce them to follow all zoning laws and environmental reviews. At the end of the day, it's their land and their decision.

Bluesky:
"It's private land--if they fulfill their obligations under law, what's the problem?"

Read it again, no government agencies had been forewarned, no studies done, nothing.

What the OHV community does in Glamis fulfills their obligations under law as well. So if you have no problem with what the Manzanitas are doing, then all your rhetoric on this bulletin board is just talk. What happened to your mission? How come some group, in your definition, can screw up the environment and get a pass and another group catches grief? You have compromised your ideal with political posturing.
___________________________________________________________________

Bluesky:
"I'll bet they groom the trails and pick up the trash every day--after all it's their land!"

Groom a trail means more bulldozing, picking up trash means more heavy vehicles on the trails. I'm not sure who's side your on, I thought you cared for nature?
__________________________________________________________________

Bluesky:
"If groundwater is affected, they'll have shot themselves in the feet for a few mil."

So what? They lease some land, call it a reservation and start all over.
__________________________________________________________________________

Bluesky:
"If Glamis is closed, off-roaders and shooters (notice no solid-projectiles) would still have a place to do their thing"

Sporting clays means lead shot and asphalt based targets. All poisonous to local animals. Again, who's side are you on?
___________________________________________________________________________

Bluesky:
"I can't believe that Native American ethics could be compromised to this extent--live and learn"

But there will be no organized enviro outcry. Having gathered the Native America cause into the liberal camp, they can not now be publicly chastised by liberals. No dissension is allowed.
_____________________________________________________________________

Bluesky:
"As an enviro, I can try to interest private property owners in my world view, and coerce them to follow all zoning laws and environmental reviews. At the end of the day, it's their land and their decision"

I expected some refreshing single-mindedness from you on this issue. But you waffled. Recreational Glamis OHV is bad, but Native American Profit-making OHV is OK? The Chinese Communists used to have re-education schools. I think you need to dust off your little green book and report to the Sierra Club for some brain-washing.

The least enviros could do is to determine if what the Manzanitas are doing is in keeping with enviro visions. Just like Glamis. Then create laws to control the Native Americans. Just like Glamis. Then sue them so that they are controlled. Just like Glamis.

Anything the enviros do to the Manzanitas, less than was done to the Glamis OHV community, is a cop out. Just another proof than enviro policy and goals are NOT about protecting the environment.

glamis=public land. as a member of the public my voice counts on how this land is used.

manzanitas=private land. my plate is already full with public land. their lands are protected by the US Constitution. In order to protect them we must buy them. I don't know how this plays into the Sierra pacific logging company's desire to denude our forests--but they own lots of forest. Can we protect it? can we protect the 3,600 acres of manzanita reservation?

I've seen the way that OHVers crap on our public lands. I'm betting that privately owned MX parks don't allow people to drive drunk, burn magnesium, denude an area of vegetation, etc.

You want to recreate on OHVs? do it on your own land!! you have my permission.

Isn't it funny how "private land" is fair game when some dumbass with a camera sees OHV tracks on it from the freeway? Suddenly the same dork's "plate is already full with public land" when the sacred Indians are bulldozing it for an OHV park. Gee, I sure hope this doesn't "prepare the land for development," as it will "no longer be suitable habitat" for the Buttlicking Blu-Green Assmunch Dansuckers.

Bluesky:

glamis=public land. as a member of the public my voice counts on how this land is used.

manzanitas=private land. my plate is already full with public land. their lands are protected by the US Constitution. In order to protect them we must buy them. I don't know how this plays into the Sierra pacific logging company's desire to denude our forests--but they own lots of forest. Can we protect it? can we protect the 3,600 acres of manzanita reservation?

I've seen the way that OHVers crap on our public lands. I'm betting that privately owned MX parks don't allow people to drive drunk, burn magnesium, denude an area of vegetation, etc.

You want to recreate on OHVs? do it on your own land!! you have my permission.

_________________________________________________________________

Sure you can protect 3700 acres of Indian Reservation. Just do what you did to "protect" the ISDRA. Influence some politicians and file some suits. You turning your back on the plant and animal life dependent on that 3700 acreas saddens me. I expect more from you than a quick "I'm too busy to care".

I am also surprised by your attitude over not caring what I do on private land. If you expect your philsophy to win over the masses, you can not excuse incompatible behavior, just because it happens inside a fence. So if somebody bought the ISDRA and continued to allow OHV activity, suddenly the activity becomes acceptable to you?

A deed, a mere piece of paper and you vacate your(supposedly) strong personal ideology about the animals and plants survival in the ISDRA?

I'm not sure if the interaction on this board has won you over, burnt you out or bored you to death; but you are not up to your usually self.

Land is land and Nature is nature. If you care, fences don't mean ****.

So, if I understand this right, all we have to do is get the Quechan tribe to claim the ISDRA as their land, this would take the BLM out of the picture, then they could open it ALL up to OHV use, we pay them, and Blu-per would be happy as a clam.

Hmmm, might be on to something here,,,

quote:

---

So, if I understand this right, all we have to do is get the Quechan tribe to claim the ISDRA as their land, this would take the BLM out of the picture, then they could open it ALL up to OHV use, we pay them, and Blu-per would be happy as a clam.

---

H.T. may be on to something here!

LIVE FREE OR DIE!