November 9, 1995
Mr. Paul Jorgensen
Colorado Desert District
200 Palm Canyon Drive
Borrego Springs, CA 92004
Via FAX: (619) 767-3427
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
Per your approval in our telephone conversation this morning, I am submitting via facsimile my written comments to the California State Parks published Negative Declaration regarding the preliminary plan for public use in Coyote Canyon in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, per the letter dated October 11, 1995 from Mr. David H. Van Cleve, District Superintendent. For your convenience, I also will a send you copy of my comments via express mail to the above address.
I am a seventh-generation Californian and have been a resident of San Diego County since 1966. I consider myself an environmentalist, with a particular attachment to our nearby desert. My first visit to Coyote Canyon was in 1968. Over the last 25 years I have been a regular, year- round visitor to Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Last year my family and I visited the park over 20 times, all overnight camping trips...a third of those visits included trips up Coyote Can- yon.
I have seen many positive changes to the area due to your Department's management actions, especially the restrictions placed non-street-legal off-road vehicles many years ago. However, I am distressed by the proposed changes to land use in Coyote Canyon. I honestly would support any and all actions to restrict access to the Canyon, including prohibition on motor vehicle use, providing that those actions are the result of objective, independent, scientific study of the problems. Unfortunately, your Department's proposed Public Use Plan for Coyote Canyon clearly has been formulated in a what appears to be highly political atmosphere, and lacks the firm scientific data needed to make sound management decisions. I urge you in the strongest terms to retract your proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION and call for a full environmental impact report to be undertaken.
I call for this change in your determination on the basis of the investment of a substantial amount of my time looking at the issues, since the time I was informed of your Department's decisions by an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune's on October 21, 1995. I have read and analyzed all the data provided by your Department on this subject that I could access since that time. I am distressed that much of the data used to make the land use decisions is unpublished and/or lacks hard quantitative data.
I took the time out of my work week to visit the Middle and Upper Willows on October 2, 1995 to survey the affected areas. After that trip I am more convinced than ever that the Department needs to: (1) reconsider the proposed changes to land use in the Canyon and make an honest attempt to accommodate the upper Canyon's major user group, and (2) commission a full envi- ronmental impact study before making any changes to the existing land use plans for the Can- yon. There is no clear case to be made for immediate action. My reasons for calling for a full environmental impact report are given in the attached 20-page document. I hope that you and your staff will take the time on consider my comments carefully. They represent a non-trivial effort on my part, and are reflective of what I feel are the shared opinions of an important Coy- ote Canyon user group, which has up to now, never has voiced a public opinion regarding the Canyon's use.
Best regards,
Bruce D. Lightner
Enclosure: Public Comments by Bruce D. Lightner on the Negative Declaration, Coyote Canyon dated October 10, 1995.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 1
Negative Declaration
Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan
Dated October 10, 1995.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
November 9, 1995
Bruce D. Lightner
8551 La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037
(619) 551-0770 (h)
(619) 452-6608 ext. 237 (b)
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 2
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Initial Study and Checklist
(single page form)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Donald W. Murphy, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation has
declared the following:
"DETERMINATION: a) On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I
find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared."
This determination is wrong. The correct response should be:
"DETERMINATION: c) I find the proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment, and AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required."
Careful analysis of the "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan Final Draft",
dated September 1995, plus the Department's "Environmental Checklist
Form", shows that the proposed project clearly MAY HAVE a significant
effect on the environment. Below is an item-by-item analysis of the
"Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" summary page (dated September 25,
1995), the statement of "Development Activities to Be Implemented Under
the Selected Action" (no date or page numbers), and the "California
Department of Parks and Recreation Environmental Checklist Form"
submitted by the Department for public review.
In making its erroneous determination favoring a NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
the Department has ignored a number ramifications of the proposed
project with respect to land use and the environment. In addition, the
Department's report minimizes and/or discounts the environmental
impacts of a number of the proposed changes to Coyote Canyon as part of
the proposed project. Many of the question raised by careful,
objective analysis of the Department's "Environmental Checklist Form"
can only be answered by further study. An environment impact report
would answer all of these questions. The Department is urged to play
it safe with the environment and change its determination.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 3
Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan
Dated September 25, 1995
(summary, 5 pages, no page numbers)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
First paragraph:
"Central to the plan are a number of preferred actions that will
increase the quality of recreation and protect resources of the
canyon."
These actions do not "increase the quality of recreation":
(1) Closing the entire Canyon an additional 30 days (4 months total)
(2) Building two canyon-wall to canyon-wall 300-foot long fences
(3) Prohibiting all camping in the Middle and Upper Willows
(4) Restricting all access to the Middle and Upper Willows
to only the small group of individuals capable of (and willing to)
hike off-road in the desert. (This especially affects small
children, seniors and the physically challenged)
(5) Cutting off access to half the Canyon (including Bailey's Cabin,
Alder Canyon, Horse Canyon) from access from San Diego County and
Borrego Springs. (This adds over three hours round trip for access
from the Park Headquarters in Borrego Springs.)
Third paragraph:
"Monitoring...(1) visitor use survey regarding impacts of plan
implementation on quality of recreational experience."
How will this be implemented when those most effected by the changes
will no longer be visiting the Canyon?
"Monitoring...(2) changes in streambed profile in Middle and Upper
Willows where motor vehicles drove in the creek and changes in
streamflow regime and channelization after vehicle exclusion and
episodic storm event."
No baseline has been established from which to draw conclusions nor has
the Department established that motor vehicles have adversely affected
the streambed, especially as compared to the seasonal (and "episodic")
storm events (i.e., rainfall) which experience has proven is close to
100% effective at removing all evidence of motor vehicle activity from
the Coyote Canyon creek bed each winter.
"Monitoring...(3) amount of revegetation of riparian area where
motor vehicular use in the past reduced cover to 0-20%"
It will be no surprise to anyone that the vegetation will once again
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 4
grow in the road. This has been know to man since prehistoric
times...grass doesn't grow very well on the trails. That's what makes
them trails! When wheeled vehicles were invented, our ancestors soon
noticed that grass did not grow in the wagon wheel tracks either. The
real issue is whether this represents an important impact on the
"riparian area". The data presented in the "Coyote Canyon Public Use
Plan" does not make such a case. Field observation over the period
since the 1992-93 storms in the Lower and Upper Willows areas shows
that the area has proven very robust, having completely recovered from
100% removal of vegetation in many areas of the canyon. One also must
question the impact of the impending 100% reduction in vegetation due
to the Department's planned trail through the Lower and Upper Willows.
The existing Department maintained horse/hiking trail through the Lower
Willows is the same width as the current vehicle trails through the
Middle and Upper Willows, where those trails cross vegetated areas.
"Monitoring...(4) changes in amphibian use of aquatic canyon
bottomlands and use of Middle and Upper Willows by bighorn sheep,
least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher."
All of the areas mentioned are in the process of rebound from the
1992-93 storm which removed much of the vegetation from those areas,
depositing debris from the canyon bottom 10 miles downstream, and
filling the canyon bottomlands with so much sand that the stream
temporarily disappeared from the surface in most areas of the
Canyon. Any conclusions drawn from monitoring over the next several
years will be meaningless with respect to the impact of the proposed
restrictions to the use of the Canyon because of the moving baseline
caused by the ongoing recovery from 1992-93 canyon flood damage.
"If the results of the above monitoring do not demonstrate overall
improved health of recreational or resource values, the Department
will give serious consideration to modifying the plan to increase
vehicular access in the canyon."
The same comments apply. The proposed five-year monitoring period is
slated to begin two years after the end of an what the Department
claims is the equivalent of a "100-year flood" event in the Canyon.
The Lower, Middle and Upper Willows are still recovering from the
destruction caused by this event. The pace of recovery has been
excellent and can be expected to continue. Those individuals without a
hidden agenda to permanently eliminate motor vehicles from the Canyon
would admit that under these circumstances a fair assessment of the
impact of motor vehicles cannot be made with this "test".
"Lack of improvement attributed to major natural events will be
discounted."
Given the terms of the proposed 5-year "test", the cynics among us
might ask if this is just a lame attempt to show fairness.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 5
Development Activities to Be Implemented
Under the Selected Action
(no date, 3 pages, no page numbers)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Section 1., Middle Willows Road Closure Fence:
First paragraph:
"...a fence barrier to vehicle [sic] will be constructed across the
wash from bank to bank (Figure 1). The fence will be approximately
315 feet long, 5 feet high and constructed of 4 smooth wire
strands. The fence will be...designed to reduce the likelihood of
injuring bighorn sheep. ...fence will have a lockable "ranch" type
gate installed for emergency vehicle access."
The Department has failed to consider the true impact of the proposed
barrier in the proposed location (i.e., in the canyon bottom), and its
extent (i.e., canyon-wall to canyon wall). By the Departments own
words, the fence represents a potential menace to the very bighorn
sheep the Department claims it wants to protect, as well as other of
the larger animals which frequent the area. Furthermore, anyone with
experience in the desert fences of this type, and the Coyote Canyon
ecosystem in particular will recognize that the proposed fence can be
expected to load up with wind- and water-born debris. The impact of
this certain eventually on the environment of the adjacent Willows, the
streambed, and the riparian habitat has not been considered in its
report.
One also has to question the proposed "ranch" type gate in light of the
Department's "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" document's conclusion that
vehicular activity of any kind is detrimental to the area. Does the
Department plan to drive through the Willows?
Third paragraph:
"The relatively flat, open wash area, immediately adjacent and
downstream from the barrier, and on either side of the read, will
be designated as a trailhead and will provide adequate trailhead
parking."
The Department is changing the fundamental recreational use of the
Middle and Upper Willows area from places that most visitors pass
through without stopping to a primary recreational "destination". The
supporting documentation ("Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan Final Draft")
does not address this fact, nor is any attempt made to forecast the
impact of this major use change on the environment and cultural
resources of the Middle and Upper Willows areas.
Section 2., Upper Willows Road Closure Fence:
First paragraph:
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 6
"A fence barrier to vehicles will be constructed at the upstream
end of Upper Willows (Figure 1). The fence will extend
approximately 320 feet long from bank to bank across the wash.
Material and construction will be the same as noted above for the
Middle Willows fence."
The same comments as with Section 1, paragraph 1, apply. In addition,
one wonders what the impact of 300+ feet of wire fencing and attached
posts will be during flood times as this mass is pulled by flood waters
through the riparian habitat of the Upper and Middle Willows areas.
The Department needs to make a formal study of the environmental impact
of the proposed barrier to the natural movement of wildlife and debris
through the canyon bottom. Also, does the Department plan to drive
through the approximately three mile streambed between the proposed
fences?
Second paragraph:
"Trailhead parking is available along the road adjacent to the
fence."
The same comment as with Section 1, paragraph 3, applies. The
Department has failed to consider the impacts of the expected major
change in use of the Middle and Upper Willows areas. Once again,
leaving the road open to motorized vehicles, possibly rerouting the
vehicle trail, may prove the better alternative.
Section 3., Equestrian, Hiking and Mountain Bike Trails Through the
Middle and Upper Willows Section:
Second paragraph:
"Three to 3.5 acres of former motorized vehicle road through the
main canyon bottom will be eliminated, 1.5 acres or more of which
is potential riparian habitat within the limits of the two oases.
Approximately one-forth of the former road, in area, will be
required to accommodate the trail-only alignment, resulting in a
net gain in undisturbed habitat of 2.3 to 2.6 acres."
The primary basis for the recommended closing of the Canyon to motor
vehicles is the alleged impact on the riparian habitat. The above
justification is a prime example of the distorted logic and "facts"
being used to justify what appears to be a foregone conclusion by the
Department. A close examination of the above facts shows the
following:
1. An independent survey of the area in question on November 2, 1995
shows that estimate of "3.0-3.5 acres of motorized vehicle road" too
high by at least a factor of two.
2. The same survey indicates that the estimate of the amount of
potential riparian habitat gain is too high by a factor of four.
The Department seems to be using numbers for the width of the vehicle
trails in the area (12 feet?) which are much wider than what is
observed (6 feet) in the Middle and Upper Willows today. The
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 7
trail-width numbers being used for the proposed mountain bike,
horseback and hiking trail seems to be 3 feet. This is not a practical
width through the riparian habitat, which is best characterized as a
"jungle", nor is it the standard being used today in the Lower Willows
area. The numbers regarding reclaimed habitat being used to justify
the closure of the Willows to motorized traffic need to be recalculated
to reflect the truth. The conclusions which were drawn on the basis of
these erroneous numbers also must be re-examined.
Section 4., Mountain Bikes
First paragraph:
"In addition, mountain bike policy in Colorado Desert District is
that bikes are not permitted on single track trails (non-motorized
vehicle roads). Once the read is closed along the 3.1 mile
segment, and exception will be made in this case to provide use of
the new trail because no alternative exists for access to the north
around Middle and Upper Willows."
It is unclear why the Department is breaking its own rules to
accommodate mountain bikes, a very small use community indeed. Those
rules were made for a reason. If, in fact, these wheeled vehicles are
not considered a problem; motorized vehicles should not be considered a
problem as well.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 8
California Department of Parks and Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(no date, 8 pages)
Project Location: Coyote Canyon, Borrego Springs
San Diego & Riverside County
Description of Project: "See the following pages for summary of Coyote
Canyon Public Use Plan and Development
Activities to be Implemented Under the Selected
Action."
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Environmental Impacts:
1. EARTH, Item b: Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over-covering of the soil? NO
The Departments response to this question is incorrect. The proper
response is YES for any the following reasons:
1. The establishment of two new trailheads with automobile parking
areas will adversely impact the soil in these areas. Soil compaction
can be expected.
2. The construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will in itself disturb the soil, but more importantly, will
result in disruptions, displacements and overcovering of soil in the
canyon bottoms near the fences.
3. The construction of new trails between the fences to be installed
at the Middle and Upper Willows will result in disruptions, displacements,
compaction and overcovering of soil.
1. EARTH, Item c: Change in topology or ground surface relief features? YES
The Department's response to the question is correct, but the explanation is
is questionable and incomplete:
"Removal of motorized vehicle use over 3.1 miles of Coyote Canyon
Road, much of it through Coyote Creek will stop the downward
cutting of the road surface from vehicle activity. Soil erosion
and sedimentation of the creek is expected to be reduced."
Less than 20% of the road 3.1 miles section of road (not "much of it")
currently runs in Coyote Creek. (This fraction could be reduced
further by the placement of a few simple simple signs by the
Department.) The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote
Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to show
that motorized vehicle use has significantly contributed to "soil
erosion and sedimentation of the creek". Independent observations have
shown that natural erosion from storms and water flow clearly have a
overwhelming, dominant effect.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 9
In fact, the construction of the Department's proposed trail through
this same 3.1 mile section of the canyon will create a change in
topology and ground surface relief features. Use of this trail by
mountain bikes, domestic horses, hikers and feral horses can be
expected to exacerbate these changes to the canyon topology.
I. EARTH, Item e: Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on of off the site? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect. The correct
answer is MAYBE.
The construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will have an unpredictable impact on the soils in the canyon
bottom adjacent to the two fences. Of particular concern is the impact
of wind- and water-born debris which can be expected to collect against
the fences and change water (and wind) flow patterns. This issue needs
further study.
Also, the proposed new trailhead and new hiking, horse, and
mountain-bike trail through the canyon will have a direct impact on
wind or water erosion of soils on and adjacent to the trailhead and
trail. Subsequent use of the trail by mountain bikes, domestic horses,
hikers and wild horses can be expected to compound the impact of these
changes.
I. EARTH, Item f: Changes in deposition or erosion of beachsands, or
changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the
channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake? YES.
The Department's response to the question is correct, but the explanation
lacks substance, and is incomplete:
"The portion of the creek that the road now passes directly through
will be subject to less erosion once traffic is eliminated."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to establish any
quantitative measure of this effect. Something more than the statement
"subject to less erosion" is needed for the purposes of this
checklist. An independent, objective study will show that when
compared to the historic natural erosion of the creek by the year-round
stream flow and the yearly storms (and occasional floods), the erosion
attributable to the small number of motorized vehicles which traverse
the canyon is insignificant.
The real reason for answering this question in the affirmative is that
the construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will have an unpredictable impact on canyon bottom adjacent to
the two fences. Of particular concern is the impact of wind- and
water-born debris which can be expected to collect against the fences
and change water (and wind) flow patterns. This issue needs further
study.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 10
In addition, the proposed new trailhead and new hiking, horse, and
mountain-bike trail through the canyon will have a direct impact on
wind or water erosion of soils on and adjacent to the trailhead and
trail. Subsequent use of the trail by mountain bikes, domestic horses,
hikers and wild horses can be expected to compound the impact of these
changes.
II. AIR, Item c: Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? NO.
The Department's response to the question is incorrect. The correct
answer is MAYBE.
The construction of two 5 foot-high, 300+ foot-long fences in the canyon
bottom, wall-to-wall, will have an unpredictable impact on the
micro-climate in the adjacent areas of the canyon. Of particular
concern is the unknown impact of wind- and water-born debris which can
be expected to collect against the fences and change wind and water
flow patterns. This issue needs further study.
III. WATER, Item a: Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements in either marine of fresh water? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the reasons
given have not yet been established by a proper study:
"The course of the creek may naturally fluctuate and different
alignments where motorized traffic is eliminated due to the reduced
channelization and down cutting that vehicle traffic causes."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to establish the
existence of, or a quantitative measure of, this alleged effect. An
independent, objective, scientific study will show that, when compared
to the historic natural erosion of the creek by the year-round stream
flow and the yearly storms (and occasional floods), the erosion
attributable to motorized vehicles which traverse the canyon is
insignificant.
III. WATER, Item b: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters [sic],
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the reasons
given have not yet been established by a proper study:
"Where motorized vehicle use is eliminated, vegetation cover is
expect to increase and erosion is expected to decrease. These
factors may result in a slower runoff rate and increased
absorption."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to establish the
existence of, or a quantitative measure of, this alleged effect. An
independent, objective, scientific study will show that, when compared
to the historic natural erosion of the creek by the year-round stream
flow and the yearly storms (and occasional floods), the erosion
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 11
attributable to motorized vehicles which traverse the canyon is
insignificant.
III. WATER, Item c: Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reasons given have not yet been established by a proper study and the
impact of other proposed changes to the canyon have been ignored. The
correct answer probably should be YES>
"The course of the creek may naturally fluctuate and different
alignments where motorized traffic is eliminated due to the reduced
channelization and down cutting that vehicle traffic causes."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to establish the
existence of, or a quantitative measure, of this alleged effect. An
independent, objective, scientific study will show that, when compared
to the historic natural erosion of the creek by the year-round stream
flow and the yearly storms (and occasional floods), the erosion
attributable to motorized vehicles which traverse the canyon is
insignificant.
More importantly, the construction of two 5 foot-high, 300+ foot-long
fences in the canyon bottom, wall-to-wall, will have predictable
impacts during times of flooding. Water-born debris which can be
expected to collect against the fences and radically change flood water
flow patterns. This may result in the mass destruction of riparian
habitat areas which otherwise would be spared by flood waters. The
impact of the proposed fences needs further study.
III. WATER, Item d: Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reasons given have not yet been established by a proper study:
"As the result of the effects noted in III b, there may, on the
average be more surface water flowing in the creek."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to establish the
existence of, or a quantitative measure of, the alleged effect of the
occasional passage of motor vehicles. An independent, objective,
scientific study will show that, when compared to the historic natural
erosion of the creek by the year-round stream flow and the yearly
storms (and occasional floods), the erosion attributable to motorized
vehicles which traverse the canyon is insignificant.
III. WATER, Item e: Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reasons given have not yet been established by a proper study:
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 12
"The reduction in motorized vehicle use is expected to result in
lower turbidity in the creek and lower petroleum pollution levels."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed to show that motorized
vehicle use has had significant impact on the creek by added turbidity in
the creek, or by raising petroleum pollution levels to even a
measurable level. Further objective, independent, quantitative,
scientific study of these impacts are needed.
III. WATER, Item f: Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reasons given are confusing and do not appear to have been established
by a proper study:
"Minor alteration of ground water may occur as a result of the
effects noted in III. Any ground water change is expected to be a
positive one - with increased groundwater recharge and lower
polluant [sic] levels."
The explanation contains typographical errors, including a missing
item number in the sentence "...result of the effects noted in III"
which makes it difficult to interpret the meaning of the comment.
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) does not appear to support this
conclusion. This subject needs further study to determine whether
a significant impact on groundwater can be expected.
However, the construction of two 5 foot-high, 300+ foot-long fences in
the canyon bottom, wall-to-wall, will have predictable impacts during
times of flooding. Water-born debris can be expected to collect
against the fences and radically change flood water flow patterns.
This may result in direct changes to groundwater flow due to sediment
changes in the canyon bottom. After the 1992-93 floods, the creek went
underground in the same areas, as the direct result of flood-induced
changes to the groundwater flow. This issue needs more study.
IV. PLANT LIFE, Item a: Change in the diversity of species, or number of
any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants?) MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reason given is only partially correct and and ignores the impact of
the proposed fences in the canyon:
"The distribution and diversity of aquatic plants, riparian trees,
riparian shrubs and forbs is expected to increase where motorized
vehicle traffic is eliminated."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) does not support this conjecture
regarding plant diversity. An independent, objective, quantitative,
scientific study of this question is needed.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 13
In answering this question, the Department has ignored that fact that
the creation of two trailheads and a new trail system through the Middle
and Upper Willows area will radically change human use of these oases.
One can expect these changes to directly affect the plant life in the
area.
V. ANIMAL LIFE, Item a: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, lands animals, including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? MAYBE.
The Department's response to the question may be correct, but the
reason given is not supported by the facts and ignores the impact of
the proposed fences in the canyon:
"The elimination of motorized vehicles through the creek is
expected to result in increases in diversity and number of aquatic
invertebrates, amphibians and birds in the riparian zone."
The Department's study of this area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public
Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) does not clearly support this
conjecture regarding animal diversity. An independent, objective,
quantitative, scientific study of this question is needed.
In answering this question, the Department has ignored that fact that
the construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will have an unpredictable impact on animal life in the area by
presenting a barrier to heretofore free movement through the canyon.
In addition, the creation of two trailheads and a new trail system
through the Middle and Upper Willows area will radically change human
use of these oases. One can expect these changes to directly affect
the animal life which frequents the area, especially the larger
mammals, such as the bighorn sheep and the feral horses.
V. ANIMAL LIFE, Item b: Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or
endangered species or animals? NO.
The Department's response to the question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE.
In answering this question, the Department has ignored that fact that
the construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will have an unpredictable impact on animal life in the area by
presenting a barrier to heretofore free movement of rare and endangered
animals through the canyon. In addition, the creation of two
trailheads and a new trail system through the Middle and Upper Willows
area will radically change human use of these oases. One can expect
these changes to directly affect the animal life which frequents the
area, especially the larger mammals such as the bighorn sheep, and
their interaction and competition with the Canyon's feral horses. An
independent, objective, scientific study of this question is needed.
V. ANIMAL LIFE, Item c: Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
NO.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 14
The Department's response to the question is incorrect and clearly
should be MAYBE.
In answering this question, the Department has ignored that fact that
the construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall fences
will present a barrier to heretofore free movement of ground animals
through the canyon. An independent, objective, scientific study of this
question is needed.
V. ANIMAL LIFE, Item d: Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife
habitat? NO.
The Department's response to the question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE.
In answering this question, the Department has ignored that fact that
the construction of two 300+ foot long canyon-wall to canyon-wall
fences will have an unpredictable impact on animal life in the area by
presenting a barrier to heretofore free movement through the canyon.
In addition, the creation of two trailheads and a new trail system
through the Middle and Upper Willows area will radically change human
use of these oases. One can expect these changes to directly affect
the animal life which frequents the area, especially the larger mammals
such as the bighorn sheep and the Canyon's feral horses. An
independent, objective, scientific study of this question is needed.
VIII. LAND USE, Item a: Substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? YES.
The Department's response to this question is correct, but the
explanation fails to communicate the magnitude of this change to the
historic uses of the affected areas:
"Elimination of motorized vehicle use over 3.1 miles of road and
improved passive recreation in the Wilderness Area will alter
current land use."
It is unclear what "passive recreation" means so it is impossible to
determine whether the proposed actions will somehow "improve" this use.
However, the trails through the Middle and Upper Willows has been in use
since before the first European expeditions entered the Canyon in the
1700's. The canyon has been used for wagon traffic for well over 100
years. In fact, the road through Coyote Canyon probably is the last
remaining road of its kind in its original natural state still in use in
California.
The existing historic road through the Middle and Upper Willows Areas
provides an important contingent of Wilderness Area users access to parts
of Coyote Canyon which would otherwise be inaccessible to those users.
Such users includes seniors, the physically challenged, families with
young children, and those otherwise unable (or unwilling) to brave the
desert climate and hike with their belongings off-road. "Car camping"
is has been a tradition in this country since the advent of the
automobile. Arbitrarily denying that life-style to the current
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 15
Wilderness Area user community is not part of the Department's
charter.
Arguments to the effect that "most of Coyote Canyon remains accessible
to motor vehicles" ignores that fact that the proposed road closure
cuts the Wilderness Area right down the middle, adding more than three
hours to a trip to the upper half of the Canyon from Borrego Springs.
Similar additional travel times will be required by those accessing
Coyote Canyon from Riverside County. As a result, it becomes
impractical to visit the length of Canyon in one day. This is a
substantial negative impact on existing land use.
The Department's proposal will result in the loss of this unique area
to a large population of Californians. The Department's study of this
area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft,
September 1995) failed to make a case for the proposed actions under
comment here. Besides lacking a clear scientific mandate for the
conclusions that motor vehicles are doing damage to the Willows oases,
the report gave no serious consideration to the realignment of the
roadway in the area of the Middle and Upper Willows. In particular, the
authors of the report seemingly lacked expertise in the area of civil
engineering and road-building, or they would have given serious
consideration to other wilderness road building techniques, besides the
single "cut, fill and bridge" technique considered in the study. An
independent, objective, study by individuals trained in these matters
is needed.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES, Item a: Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? NO.
The Department's response to this question is wrong and should be
MAYBE.
The closure of the road to motor vehicle access will surely increase
the number of miles driven by the Department's vehicles in patrolling
the upper reaches of the canyon with a corresponding increase in the
use of motor vehicle fuel. In addition, the added distance visitors
will have to drive will cause increased use of petroleum products. Of
course, fewer people may visit Coyote Canyon because of the road
closure. The Department's study of the area (reported in "Coyote Canyon
Public Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995) failed collect anything
but crude estimates of the number of motor vehicles which visit the
Middle and Upper Willows areas, so it is hard to draw conclusions.
Clearly, better numbers (or any numbers) regarding the makeup of
visitor use of the Canyon needs to be collected. It is hard to imagine
making informed decisions regarding the proposed public use plan for
Coyote Canyon without quantitative data regarding existing Wilderness
Area use.
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Item a: Generation of substantial
additional vehicular movement? NO.
The Department's response to this question is wrong and should be MAYBE.
The closure of the road to motor vehicle access will surely increase
the number of miles driven by the Department's vehicles in patrolling
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 16
the upper reaches of the canyon with a corresponding increase in miles
driven. In addition, the added distance visitors will have to drive
will cause increased vehicle use. Of course, fewer people may visit
Coyote Canyon because of the road closure. The Department's study of
the area (reported in "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft,
September 1995) failed collect anything but crude estimates of the
number of motor vehicles which visit the Middle and Upper Willows
areas, so it is hard to draw conclusions. Clearly, better numbers (or
any numbers) regarding the makeup of visitor use of the Canyon needs to
be collected.
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Item a: Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new parking? NO.
The Department's response to this question is wrong and should be YES.
The creation of two new trailheads at the Middle and Upper Willows area
will require new parking areas at the trailheads.
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Item f: Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? NO.
The Department's response to this question is wrong and should be YES.
The proposed changes to the Canyon will eliminate one-way traffic from
Anza, through Coyote Canyon, and on to Borrego Springs. After the
proposed fence construction, any and all vehicles entering the Canyon
from Anza, will have to leave via the steep and sometimes challenging
road at the north end (Turkey Track). The Department can expect to
find vehicles and/or drivers in the upper section of the Canyon which
are capable of going down Turkey Track but not back up, due to the
difficulty of the road. This will especially be the case after/during
rain storms and/or flash floods in the canyon. The proposed changes to
the land use in Coyote Canyon will create new traffic hazards, and may
result in serious injury or even death to Park users.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES, Item d: Parks or other recreation services. MAYBE.
The Department's response to this question is wrong and should be YES.
"Motorized vehicle recreation will be eliminated along Coyote Canyon
Road, pedestrian, equestrian and mountain bike use may increase or
remain the same. The user grout [sic] potentially affected includes
those that want to experience the challenge of completing the entire
canyon drive-through; these users are relatively few in numbers.
Approximately 85% if the current vehicle access in the canyon
(nearly 23 miles) will continue to be available. The Department
still permits motorized vehicles on approximately 490 miles of
unimproved corridors, of which about 75 miles are considered
challenging."
Cutting Coyote Canyon in two with a 90+ minute detour required to access
the upper reaches of the canyon from Borrego Springs will surely alter
the Department's existing modes of operation. The Department's
explanation of its answer to the question raises questions of its own
about the Department's understanding of the "relatively few in number"
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 17
users of the upper sections of the canyon. It is clear from personal
experience (gathered over 20 years of regular visits to the upper
sections of Coyote Canyon during all times of the year), that the
majority of the users of the upper canyon area are motor vehicle
users...not hikers, not pedestrians, not mountain bike riders, and not
equestrians. By far, the largest user community of the area in
question is being prohibited from, or severely restricted in, doing
what they have always done, without any clear justification based on a
fair study.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES, Item e: Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? MAYBE.
The Department's response to this question may be correct, but the
explanation ignores other maintenance issues:
"Closure of the roadway through the willows areas will reduce the
road maintenance required of the Department. Maintenance of the
fencelines, gates and interpretative and roadway signage will be an
increased maintenance need and will vary with incidences of
vandalism."
The Department's explanation ignores the need of regular maintenance of
the proposed two new trailheads and trail between the Middle and Upper
Willows fences.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES, Item f: Other government services? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be YES.
The Department has ignored the proposed requirement for at least 5 years
of monitoring, including visitor use, streambed profile, revegetation of
riparian area, and changes in animal use of willows areas.
XVIII. PLAN CONFORMANCE, Item a: Conflict with the State Park System's
Unit's adopted Genera [sic] Plan? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE.
The proposed actions by the Department may be in conflict with the
General Plan. The "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft,
September 1995 document used to justify the proposed actions, and answer
these questions, is incomplete, lacks the necessary depth, is wrong in
many places, is based largely on unpublished data, and shows evidence
of bias in the interpretation of what should be scientific data. More
study, including a formal environmental impact report is needed before
any action is taken. Failure to do so may subject the Department to
legal action by park users and/or State or Federal agencies.
XVIII. PLAN CONFORMANCE, Item b: Conflict with the Department of Park
and Recreation's Resource Management Directives? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 18
The proposed actions by the Department may be in conflict with the
existing Management Directives. The "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan"
Final Draft, September 1995, used to justify the proposed
actions, and answer these questions, is incomplete, lacks the necessary
depth, is wrong in many places, is based largely on unpublished data,
and shows evidence of bias in the interpretation of what should be
scientific data. More study, including a formal environmental impact
report is needed before any action is taken. Failure to do so may
subject the Department to legal action by park users and/or State or
Federal agencies.
XVIII. PLAN CONFORMANCE, Item c: Conflicts with any other applicable
adopted plan? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE.
The proposed implementation of the Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan should
be delayed until the creation of a Public Use Plan for the entire
Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.
The proposed closure of the Middle and Upper Willows areas will
eliminate access to parts of the Wilderness Area to certain physically
challenged individuals. This action is being proposed with out due
considerations of these individuals' rights of access to public
facilities. These rights are protected under both California State and
U.S. Federal law. This issue needs more study. Failure to do so may
subject the Department to legal action by park users and/or State or
Federal agencies.
XIX. AESTHETICS, Item a: The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be
YES.
The construction of two man-made 5 foot-high, 300+ foot-long fences in
the canyon bottom, wall-to-wall, in a previously pristine wilderness
area will have an obvious adverse impact on the visual experience of
visitors.
XIX. AESTHETICS, Item b: The creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to the public? NO.
The Department's response to this question is incorrect and should be
MAYBE, if not YES.
The appearance of a man-made 5 foot-high, 300+ foot-long fence in the
canyon bottom, wall-to-wall, in what was previously a pristine
wilderness area, blocking a primitive and historic road, will be deemed
by many visitors as offensive.
XX. RECREATION, Item a: Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreation opportunities? YES.
The Department's response to this question is correct but the
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 19
explanation lacks quantitative substance and fails to convey the true
impact of the proposed changes:
"Recreation opportunities will be reduced for a small percentage of
the user groups visiting Coyote Canyon, specifically motorized
vehicle users that are interested in the through route through the
canyon. Other user groups are expected to experience an increased
recreational experience due to the improved condition of the canyon
and the reduced vehicular noise in high use visitor areas."
Today, the major user of the the upper sections of the Canyon is the
"small percentage of...user groups visiting Coyote Canyon" mentioned in
the Department's explanation. This alleged "small" group of motorized
vehicle users will be the only group affected by the the proposed
closure of the Canyon. The "other [upper canyon] user groups" referred
to in the explanation are a tiny population indeed. These are the
hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers which seldom are seen in the
upper canyon areas. Claiming that their alleged "increased
recreational experience" justifies the closure for the much larger
group of motorized vehicle users is wrong. Besides, the "Coyote Canyon
Public Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995, used to justify the
proposed actions, fails to substantiate the claim that an "improved
condition of the canyon" will result from prohibiting motor vehicles.
Also, the issue of "reduced vehicular noise in high use areas" was never
discussed in the above mentioned Plan. One wonders what areas the
Department could be referring to...there are no "high use visitor areas"
in the upper canyon areas today. With the motor vehicles gone, the
place will be very empty indeed.
XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Item a: Have the potential to cause physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? MAYBE.
The Department's response to this question may be correct explanation
may be wrong:
"Reduced motorized vehicle travel within the willows oases is
expected to reduce direct impacts to natural resources from traffic
and indirect impacts to cultural resources along the present roadway
from vandalism."
The "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft, September 1995, used
to justify the proposed actions does not establish a case for reduced
vandalism by limiting vehicular traffic. In fact, the impact of the
two trailheads and the trail between Lower and Middle Willows may
increase the level of vandalism at the sensitive cultural sites. This
is because the Willows oases with be converted into "forced
destinations" for visitors, especially the majority of visitors, who
will be traveling by motor vehicle. Where before the oases were "spots
along the road", now people will be forced to stop and look around
because the road will end.
Also, due to the reduced accessibility of the Department's patrols to
the canyon above Upper Willows, increased vandalism to cultural sites
in this area can be expected.
Nov 9 12:07 1995 B.D. Lightner - NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS Page 20
XXIV. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. An examination of whether the
project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and
other applicable land use controls.
"The closing of approximately 3.1 miles of roadway through Coyote
Creek will eliminate the through vehicular route utilized by a
relatively small porportion [sic] of the visiting public. The
result of this action is to increase the protection of natural,
physical and cultural resources present within the vicinity and
directly adjacent to the current use. This action is consistent
with state and federal laws and policies aimed at preserving our
natural heritage. Further, the project is consistent with the
California Department of Parks and Recreation land use, general
planning and resource management guidelines. Anza Borrego Desert
State Park does not presently have a General Plan (GP). The GP
process is underway and completion is expect in a minimum of 4
year."
The justification for the closing of the historic and unique roadway
through Coyote Creek by claiming it affects a "relatively small
porportion [sic] of the visiting public" is not a valid one. The
Department has not even collected basic data to determine the makeup of
the affected user community, their numbers, and the true effects on
their life styles by the proposed changes. Clearly, the special needs
of seniors and the physically challenged have been completely ignored.
Lacking hard numbers, the Department seeks to mitigate its ignorance of
the true quantitative impacts of the road closing by the claim that a
small "percentage" is impacted. This same logic can be used to close
the entire canyon, or the entire Ana-Borrego park system...after all,
only a small percentage of Californians visit the park each year. This
kind of reasoning has been used by governments down through the ages to
justify many things, including slavery, tyranny, and even genocide.
The supporting documentation which accompanies the Environmental
Checklist Form, the "Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan" Final Draft,
September 1995, does not support the above strong statements regarding
land use impacts. The Department has abdicated its responsibilities to
the California taxpayers by not investing in the necessary careful
study of this matter, in order to find the true impact of their proposed
changes. A formal environmental impact report needs to be filed,
supported by a full study of the impact on the environment, and the user
community, by the proposed changes. In addition, the implementation of
the Coyote Canyon Public Use Plan should be delayed until the
Department has taken the time to produce, at the very least, a draft
General Plan (GP) for the Anza Borrego Desert State Park. The GP is
should be the guiding document for any changes to the Coyote Canyon
Wilderness Area Public Use Plan.