The Eclectic Lapidary is currently undergoing renovation.
We'll have new issues soon!
INDEX
|
Hans Durstling points up one of the reasons The Eclectic Lapidary exists: the big magazines have lost touch with a segment of the lapidary community. We're not out to copy them or replace them. We're here to fill a very real need. Keep those cards and
letters coming email fashion, so we can keep up what we've started: to educate, entertain and share the best we have to offer...and do it on the internet.
Fort Irwin Land Proposal Update
Sacramento's weather was uncharacteristically beautiful for February on the 24th. Mild temperature, blue skies. The BLM meeting was held in the Sac City Council Chambers, raised hardwood u-shaped dais for the council members, theater style seating in the
auditorium. People arriving were greeted by ARmy Corps
of Engineers staffers who asked you to fill out a registration card and indicate if you wanted to speak so they could plan how long to allow each person.
They broke the usual pattern of these hearings by having an informational presentation by Brigadier General Scott Wallace, commander of Fort Irwin, followed by an informal, off-the-record question and answer period before the formal hearing. There were
several questions, a few answers. Some of those answers are that one rock quarry and the Iron Mountain iron mine are the only two major operating mines affected by the proposal. And the major owner of the private lands to be acquired is the Catellus
Development Group, the former real estate arm of the Southern Pacific Railroad. "Catellus Development Corporation is a full service real estate company that owns, manages and develops real estate for its own account and others. The Company's portfolio
includes 14.1 million square feet of income producing property, 5,300 acres of land leases, interests in nine joint ventures and 855,000 acres of land at December 31, 1995."
Various individuals spoke from very well reasoned and experienced positions to one liners saying the Army should not be taking this land.
After the presentations, there was a brief recess since the meeting was so short, to allow time for latecomers to arrive. I met Bernice Kring from the Grandmothers for
Peace, Jim Dent, a member of CORVA, who is rather outspoken, Charles
Botsford a former rockhound from Monrovia (east of L.A.) who worked on
the air quality section of the DEIS, a representative from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and an earnest young woman from the Army Corps of Engineers who wanted to apologize for not knowing the answer to a question about tortoise density,
but who assured me there were no tortoises in the proposed area and the charts should have read 0-19 instead of 1-19 per square mile. (20 or more tortoises per square mile is the mitigation threshold.) and somewhere in the middle of this throng, an
officer from the Fort Irwin public information office came over to say I would now be getting the statement from Fort Irwin on the Army's side of the story for the Eclectic Lapidary that I requested last month and didn't get .
If it arrives, I will print it verbatim as received.
I can't say that we can or will make an ultimate difference, but it is possible. The full Draft Environmental Impact Statement overall, is poorly written and badly organized with a disfunctional index and table of contents. But in spite of that, there is
a tremendous quantity of information in it. If anyone wants any information on any subject covered in it, please contact us and we will attempt to find the applicable sections and send you a copy. (This is a public document and no copyright is involved.)
Tell anyone you know in the area, there will be a second Barstow meeting on March 6th, 7PM, in the Barstow Holiday Inn, 1511 East Main St. in Barstow, California. The first was scheduled in a tiny room, the day after President's Day. Over 100 people
showed up and they had to book the second meeting as a result.
Text of Presentation at BLM Hearing 2/24/97
(Since I rewrote parts of my statement immediately before speaking, this will be a very close approximation of most of the actual presentation. The actual transcripts will be available in about two weeks)
Over the past 100 years, human use patterns have developed in the proposed action area. These use patterns include recreation, off highway vehicle use, collecting of fossils, rocks and minerals for personal, scientific, and educational use, conducting of
field trips by various educational institutions for the purposes of teaching our future earth scientists, outdoor photography and as a place to go to find solitude and experience the desert. These lands have been entrusted to the BLM on behalf of those
who use it now, and expect its use to be available for future generations.
There are many reasons the proposed action of the Army's Land Acquisition Project for the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California should not be approved. I will only touch on three of them here that are detrimental to the environment,
ecosystems, and cultural resources of this area.
The first reason is soils disturbance and related dust emissions.
The second is the high number of sensitive species in the area.
The third is the high probablility of damage and destruction of archeological resources.
In these three instances, and many others, mitigations are offered in the DEIS with the repeated statement that such mitigations are contingent on the availability of funding. Without funding, there will be no mitigation.
There are 36 sensitive species that are present, or have a strong potential for occurrence in the study area. These include the Desert Tortoise, the Nelson's Bighorn Sheep, the Golden Eagle and other birds, mammals, reptiles, insects and fish. Since the
total tortoise population declined by 91% from 1988 to 1995, there will be no mitigation for populations of less than 19 tortoises per square mile, what will the impact be? In addition to other identified impacts, some of which cannot be mitigated, no
information is offered on the impact of noise on these sensitive, threatened or endangered species.
The DEIS says that military noise can be expected in the range of 88 decibels at 20 meters (66 feet) increasing to approximately 150 decibels at 100 meters when (105-mm) tank guns are fired. This would exceed the human exterior noise standards of 65, by
23 to 85 decibels. This does not seem to be an acceptable sound level for animals and birds which attempt to avoid even the slightest human contact.
.
The DEIS states, (4.3.1.1), "...implementation of the the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts on the soils due to crushing of rock outcrops, disturbance of desert pavement, compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion in an
area of up to 277,244 acres..." Dust emissions are listed (ES-28) as being mitigated through dust control measures such as regular watering, chemical treatment, and an asphalt chip sealer in primary dust generation areas. It must be asked, from what
source "regular watering" could be provided and how these measures could possibly be used in the desert terrain in which the tank maneuvers would be occuring.
Indeed, the Army acknowledges this in saying, (4.3.1.2 ) ".. no known means exist of mitigating surface soil disturbance and the associated erosion generated by military equipment in the desert environment or controlling sand dune generation where desert
soils have been disturbed..."
Additionally, this surface disturbance by tracked and other vehicles can lead to the displacement or destruction of archeological deposits (4.6). There are 74 prehistoric and 36 historic sites in the proposed action area. A full survey of the area has
not been made, and is not planned. It is highly likely that additional sites do exist and would be at risk of destruction. Although Section 106 consultation is required, it is also listed as subject to availability of NTC funding.
Mitigation cannot depend on availability of future funding. It must be an integral part of an ongoing program. If the funding is not available, neither is a mitigation. So if we are not comfortable with the unmitigated state, we should not accept
"planned" mitigations as reality.
The Bureau of Land Management is committed to a number of positions that are incompatible with the Proposed Action of the Army's Fort Irwin Land Acquisition Proposal. There is inadequate funding to accomplish all of the projects that the BLM acknowledges
need to be done, and hard choices have to be made.
The Army must come to terms with the reality that they are already encroaching upon an environmentally sensitive and extraordinary part of the planet, the Mojave Desert. The military is not immune to the need to find new ways to accomplish its mission
within a reduced funding structure. Proposing actions that commit to significant environmental mitigations when those mitigations are contingent on the availability of future funding is promising nothing.
The BLM must exercise strength of purpose in holding to its mission and recommend No Action as the preferred alternative.
|
|
Copyright, 1997 by Carol Bova
|
|
