|
American Sand Association
Review of Cooperative Agreement Between BLM and ICSO (as amended July
2006)
January 22, 2007
By Brian Crain, ASA Board Member
During the ASA BOD
Conference Call on 01/08/07 I, Brian Crain, received an action item to review
and note discrepancies with the Cooperative Agreement between the BLM and ICSO
relating to fee collection and compliance. This report is the product of that action
item.
Overview:
It is my observation that the responsible parties have
failed to meet the objectives described in the Cooperative Agreement. This is
the case for the 2005-2006 season as well as the 2006-2007 season currently in
progress.
The following are two of the
three objectives of the agreement.
From the agreement:
B. Objective.
2. Collection objective – COUNTY
will provide a means to allow all visitors a reasonable way to purchase a
permit, at any time, before a visitor’s arrival or in the dunes to allow
visitors to be compliant with the BLM supplemental fee rule and the COUNTY fee
ordinance. COUNTY’s goal will be 80% of all permit sales to be done off site by
the end of this agreement.
3.
Enforcement Objective – COUNTY will enforce the fee ordinance in order
maintain fee compliance at a minimum level of 80% over the life of the
AGREEMENT. COUNTY and BLM will develop, and agree to, a specific method of how
to measure compliance.
Discussion:
§
In reference to objective two:
o The
County clearly has not provided “a means to allow all visitors a reasonable way
to purchase a permit, at any time, before a visitor’s arrival or in the dunes
to allow visitors to be compliant”.
§
See user feedback, enthusiast bulletin boards, personal
accounts of TRT and ASA BOD members (See
Appendix “A”), etc. for specific incidents. It is evident that a permit is
not always available on site.
§
Failure to implement permit machines is the largest,
though not the only, contributor to not meeting this objective.
§
In reference to objective two – Need clarification of:
o The
BLM “supplemental fee rule”?
§
Is this referring to the “special recreation” permit
fee charged in accordance with the FLREA?
o The
“County fee ordinance”?
§
What ordinance is this referring to? The agreement
refers to ordinance 10.32.010 (Vehicles On Lands Of Another); Is this the
ordinance they are calling the “County Fee Ordinance”?
§
In reference to objective three:
o The
“fee ordinance” is mentioned again.
o What
method was developed and agreed upon to measure compliance?
§
In reference to objective three (continued):
§
What is the current level of compliance and what has
the level of compliance been since this agreement was enacted?
§
How frequently is compliance measured?
After the analysis of the
objectives, I noted many perceived discrepancies with the performance
requirements of the Cooperative Agreement. I have listed the following
questions and discussion points in the order they appear in the agreement.
III.A. Imperial County
Sheriff’s Office agrees to:
- The
county clearly has not performed and provided they are responsible for as
described in Exhibit “B”.
- Said
work has not been completed in an expeditious and timely manner.
Accusations have been made regarding the lawful and professional manner
the work has been completed.
- Has
the COUNTY issued the BLM its share of the fee collection every month no
later than the 14th of each month?
- Have
the accompanying itemized and cumulative reports been delivered to the
BLM no later than the 14th of each month?
- Have
the reports contained the minimum required information including gross
net revenues, quantities and types of permits sold from each site, any
other item that would result in a difference of the entire net amount to
be paid to the BLM each month (credit card transaction costs, etc.)?
- Has
the COUNTY made financial reports in person and in writing at scheduled
TRT meetings and conference calls?
- Has
the BLM notified the COUNTY of each TRT meeting and conference call?
- States
that it is the COUNTY’s decision as to how operations are conducted,
provided they meet the terms and conditions of this agreement.
- Is
the COUNTY the one making the determination to enforce the fee as an
entrance/camping fee?
- Is
the COUNTY responsible for making the decision to use exits as road
blocks to enforce fee compliance?
- The
statement is made in 14.a that “except as provided in III.A.14.b the
COUNTY will retain 30% and the BLM will be reimbursed the remaining 70%.
Paragraph 14.b goes on to describe the 65%/10%/25% plan for third party
vendors, the COUNTY will retain 25%, 10% will be kept by the third party
vendor, and the remaining 65% will be reimbursed to the BLM.
 | This
scenario does not agree with the paragraph following it (III.B.1.a) which
states that 30% represents the maximum dollar amount for which the BLM
will be responsible. Paragraph III.B.1.a should be changed to reference
the 65% reimbursement from third party vendor sales if it is within
regulations and guidelines, otherwise paragraph III.A.14.b needs to be
changed to ensure that the BLM is not responsible for more than 30%. |
III.C. COUNTY and the BLM mutually agree to:
- States
that “subject services shall except as otherwise provided herein be
performed exclusively by their respective Agency”. Does this statement
effectively prohibit the BLM from collecting fees and enforcing fee
compliance?
III.C. COUNTY and the BLM mutually agree to:
(cont.)
- States,
“COUNTY and BLM each represent that the services provided herein shall be
performed in a professional and lawful manner”.
§
Is it within the law to enforce a “special recreation
permit” fee as an entrance fee or a camping fee?
§
Within the current fee enforcement tactics, how would
one legally enter the ISDRA for camping or non-motorized recreation not covered
by “special recreation” within the FLREA?
- States,
“Except as otherwise provided herein, COUNTY represents and warrants that
it shall supply all of the tools, equipment and other supplies required to
perform the services under this Agreement in a professional manner.
§
There is no clause in the agreement that gives the
COUNTY a grace period for procurement and implementation of credit card
machines, permit dispensers, conix boxes, etc. The COUNTY has clearly failed to
supply all of the tools, equipment and other supplies required to perform the
services under this agreement.
§
There is no clause or stipulation for the BLM to
provide the COUNTY with computers, vehicles, or additional storage facilities
other than those outlined in III.C.11 and in Exhibit B of this Agreement.
- This
refers to a COUNTY ordinance entitled “Vehicles on lands of another”. The
BLM acknowledges the ordinance and authorizes the COUNTY to enforce the
ordinance at the ISDRA. This ordinance was amended in September of 2005
after the cooperative agreement was in place. I see the amendment and
enforcement as mismanagement and misconduct on behalf of the COUNTY. The
ordinance states, “No person shall operate or park a motor vehicle on real
property owned or occupied by another without having and displaying
written permission or a permit from the owner of such lands…” The next
chapter of the ordinance goes on to state the exemptions for the
prohibition. The last statement in the exemptions states, “Notwithstanding
the above, this chapter shall apply to locations with respect to which the
county has entered into a cooperative agreement under the FLREA…”. That in
effect exempts the public lands from exemption and includes the ISDRA into
the prohibited lands of the ordinance.
- Are
the BLM and COUNTY meeting monthly, at a minimum, as stipulated by the
agreement?
| Are
the COUNTY and BLM coordinating sales staffing schedules, compliance work
assignments, and how fees will be collected and enforced at Mammoth and
Ogilby areas? |
| Are
the COUNTY and BLM reviewing and evaluating the previous month’s activity
and adjusting actions as needed? |
IX. Deliverables and
reports
The AR (Neil Hamada) was to
receive a copy of the annual performance report within 90 days after the end of
the fiscal year, 12 December 2006 is 90 days after the end of the fiscal year
§
Was the report received by Neil Hamada on or before 29
December 2006?
XIII. Additional
Special Terms, Conditions and Exhibits
D. DEFAULT & TERMINATION
1.
The COUNTY has failed to perform provisions and conditions
under this Agreement.
§
Has the BLM given written notice to COUNTY of such
default?
E.
ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
1.
Are county workers other than ICSO employees eligible to work
in for or in conjunction with S.R.P.E.T.?
5.
States, “Finally, the parties hereby agree that the COUNTY may
without written authorization allow the Local State OHV Coalition to assist
COUNTY with its responsibilities of fee collection and compliance under this
Agreement…”.
§
Who comprises the Local State OHV Coalition? They are
mentioned again later in Exhibit “B” as supplemental assistance on holiday
weekends. Is the statement in XIII.E.5 authorizing the COUNTY to direct
supplemental assistance (SDSO, ICSO, etc. typically on overtime) force to
handle the COUNTY responsibilities of fee collection and enforcement?
G. NOTICES
1.
Lists the contact information of ICSO Sheriff as Attn: SRPED
Manager. This conflicts with other points in the agreement that label the
program as SRPET as opposed to SRPED.
Exhibit “B” of the agreement
is the Scope of Work or “SoW”. The SoW does not contain numbers for paragraphs,
merely bullets. I have listed the following questions and discussion points in
the order they appear in the SoW. It may benefit the reader to have a copy of
the Cooperative Agreement available to reference while reviewing this document.
Special Recreation
Permit Enforcement Team Personnel & TECHNOLOGY
 | “COUNTY
shall for purposes of this project purchase ten (10) automated permit
dispensing machines…”. The COUNTY has clearly failed to meet the
obligation set forth in this requirement of the SoW. |
| “During
the New Years weekend…” The COUNTY has clearly failed to meet the
obligation set forth in this requirement of the SoW. |
Duties and
Responsibilities
| “COUNTY
will: Provide collection staff as needed… At a minimum, COUNTY will staff
as follows: (see Exhibit B) The Scheduling will be compatible to the
visitation patterns”. The COUNTY has subjectively failed to meet the
obligation set forth in this requirement of the SoW. |
| Are
the minimum on site staffing hours adhered to and are they available? |
| The
scheduling would be more compatible with the visitation patterns if there
were staff on hand Friday evening during the season. This is not
currently the case. |
| “Direct
division operations to meet stated goals and objectives efficiently and
effectively”. The COUNTY has clearly failed to meet the obligation set
forth in this requirement of the SoW by not meeting stated goals and
objectives. |
| “Use
best reasonable efforts to assure the efficient and effective allocation
and use of resources”. The COUNTY has subjectively failed to meet the
obligation set forth in this requirement of the SoW by not acquiring and
installing the permit machines in a timely manner and by not making
permits easily and readily available to all visitors. |
| “Enforcement
of the collection on non-commercial special recreation permits per FLREA…
within the permit-required areas of the ISDRA”. The COUNTY is ENFORCING
an entry/camping fee scenario. The ISDRA does not legally fall within the
constraints of an entry/camping fee. |
| The
COUNTY has clearly failed to meet the obligations set forth in this
requirement of the SoW relating to permit dispensing machines within the
ISDRA by not acquiring and installing the permit machines. |
| “COUNTY
shall post a twenty four (24) hour telephone hotline number at the
Cahuilla Ranger Station and other fee collection sites to answer
questions, and public complaints and have a voice mail recording system
capable of recording a high volume of calls. All messages will be
answered within two business days. The phone number will be posted on the
COUNTY website and on each machine, at a minimum”. The COUNTY has failed
to meet the obligations set forth in this requirement of the SoW. At the
time of this report the only phone number listed on the COUNTY website is
a 1-800 number for permit sales. There is no mention of how or where to
answer questions and complaints. |
| “County
shall install and or maintains a minimum of seven… Signs shall be
developed and placed in such a manner as to provide the ISDRA visitors reasonable
direction as to where to purchase a permit”. |
 | Are
there a minimum of seven signs? |
| Do
the signs provide visitors reasonable direction as to where to purchase
a permit? |
Training
| “All
assigned S.R.P.E.T. field personnel will be trained… and/or COUNTY shall
retain the services of a subcontractor… prior to October 1, 2006” |
| Was
this completed on or before the October 1, 2006 deadline as stipulated in
the SoW? |
| “All
assigned S.R.P.E.T. field personnel will attend and complete… prior to
October 1, 2006” |
| Was
this completed on or before the October 1, 2006 deadline as stipulated in
the SoW? |
Enforcement Procedures
| Commencing
S.R.P.E.T. personnel will provide permit compliance patrols… and issue a
COUNTY ENFORCEMENT citation …” |
| Is
this referring to the COUNTY ordinance “Vehicles On Lands of Another”
previously mentioned in this report? |
| Why
are federal regulations not enforced for federal fee compliance? |
Availability For
Purchase
| “Install
and maintain the permit dispensers…”. The COUNTY has clearly failed to
meet the obligation set forth in this requirement of the SoW by not
meeting stated goals and objectives. |
Machine Specifications
| Do
the permit dispensers meet all of the requirements of the SoW? |
| “Permit
dispensers shall issue paper vouchers in instances where the visitor does
not have exact change… vouchers may be redeemed by mailing it to the
COUNTY or submitting the same to an authorized permit distributor” |
| Are
the third party vendors required to accept the vouchers and refund cash to
visitors? |
Exhibit “C”
Machine Locations
| The
COUNTY has clearly failed to meet the obligation set forth in this
requirement of the Agreement by not acquiring and implementing the permit
dispensers. |
Please submit any questions,
comments, or concerns regarding this report to Brian Crain. mailto:brcrain@adelphia.net
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian R. Crain
APPENDIX “A”
Appendix “A” contains user
feedback regarding the effectiveness of the ISDRA fee collection process. This
feedback represents comments received from a broad cross section of ISDRA
visitors.
Refer to the following web
links to view user feedback and current discussion on a three-part survey
regarding compliance, enforcement, and the fee collection process.
Level
of Permit/Fee Compliance survey at GlamisDunes.com
(Part
1) Level of Permit/Fee Compliance survey at AmericanSandAssociation.org
(Part
2) Level of Permit/Fee Compliance survey at AmericanSandAssociation.org
(Part
3) Level of Permit/Fee Compliance survey at AmericanSandAssociation.org
COMMENT #1
As far as my experience at new
years is concerned we saw a couple of BLM folks going around the campground (Roadrunner)
checking the status of passes. They were recording the information on the
sheets that were sent to the TRT after the last holiday. The time that we went
to Brawley (12/23) there were ICSO people at the entrance to Gecko road and
they were checking passes. I was with someone that had the weekly pass and they
went as far as checking the date that was punched on the pass. These other
people that I camped with were there for two weeks and the ICSO person in the
ranger allowed them to purchase two passes so they would not have to come back
at the start of the second week.
I did
not see any other ICSO people checking the vehicles in the campground. When we
left on New Years Eve they were checking passes on the road at the ranger
station and at the entrance to cement flats. Don't know how they can increase
compliance without giving more tickets. That seems to get peoples attention.
COMMENT
#2
FYI:
our group camped on the west east side of the canal, directly off the road. We
were there for 7 days and although we did see BLM drive down the canal road a
few times nobody stopped and check camping passes.
COMMENT
#3
I went out to Gordon's for one day on
Friday Dec. 28. I drove the Jeep out there, instead of trailering it, and was
not even given a 2nd look coming in or going out. There was an ICSO
deputy standing at he entrance to DBF and he was checking motorhomes and
trucks w/trailers. I saw about 5 LEO's between Duner's Diner and
the entrance to DBF, 2 of them had people stopped and a 3rd was just
pulling someone over. After that I saw only 1 other LEO.
My son went to Butterecup on 3 different days (once
in the Jeep and the other 2 times in the Suburban) between 12/23 and
12/27. He was checked for a pass each time at the entrance by the camp
host.
I believe it would be accurate to say that the
enforcement of pass compliance is occurring mainly, if not exclusively, at the
entrance points of the ISDRA. This was an issue last year and despite
requests by the TRT, nothing has changed. This tactic results
in the visitors to the ISDRA being charged an entrance fee, not a use fee,
which under the FLREA the ISDRA does not qualify.
In addition to this type of enforcement
equating to an entrance fee, it also causes extreme traffic congestion and
hazards. Due to the check point, traffic across the
Coachella Canal Bridge gets so backed up on
both sides that crossing can take a very long time.
COMMENT #4
My observations re fee collection over the News
Years Holliday were limited. However what I saw was not good. I camped
east of the RR tracks and north of 78 along with at least 100 other
individuals. Never saw a ICSO fee collection person. Is this within the
fee collection boundary? In any event we have many ISDRA visitors getting a
free ride.
COMMENT #5
At Buttercup it was the same hit and miss system as
last year. I arrived by 11 am Calif. time on Wed., no ICSO showed up at
the entrance to sell or check for permits that day. The camping area was
packed already but some people were going home and others were coming in all
afternoon. Thursday was the same as Wed. with people coming to camp and
people leaving for home and no ICSO checking for permits or selling
permits. The only place to buy permits was from vendors. Many
people on their own buy permits from them but many people that camp on the west
end don't because there is no vendors down there at Midway and west of the
Plank Rd. ICSO showed up sometime Friday but left at 6 or 7 that night.
People were coming in for the weekend all night. I was camping with a
large group with many people that I was meeting for the first time. There
was at least two in the group that I know didn't have permits and left
before 9 am Sunday morning to avoid buying them. It sounded as they knew
the routine of the ICSO and had avoided buying a permit before. There
could have been more in the group that didn't buy a permit but I don't have
knowledge of what the situation was of everyone. We left at 11 am Calif.
time on Monday and ICSO was set up but nobody was checking people
leaving. On Sunday I went over to Gordon's Well vending area to collect
Raffle prizes for the cleanup. At Buttercup they were there but didn't
have anyone checking as we left about 11:30 Calif. time. They were
checking for permits at Gordon's but when we returned about 4 pm to
Buttercup there was nobody checking for permits. We didn't have anyone
come by our camp and check for permits that I saw and if they did come by
and I didn't see them. They didn't write any tickets or leave any notices
to the people in our camp that didn't have permits.
COMMENT #5 (continued)
We have been told by the ICSO that they have to pay
overtime to the people working the check points and selling permits.
They totally rely on the vendor to sell passes on all the days other than
Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In this area it doesn't make sense to
pay overtime to people to sell permits when the vendors are there. It would
be more affective to have their people doing compliance checks and have them
there when people are coming and going. There was as many people coming
and going all the other days between Christmas and New Years as
Friday, Sat. and Sunday. We have gone over with them before that this is
the traffic pattern for this time of year. I don't think compliance at
Ogilby and Dune Vista was as good as Buttercup. I heard they did come by
once at Ogilby but when you have new people coming in everyday, one visit isn't
enough.
COMMENT #6
On MLK weekend at Roadrunner Campground we observed
an ICSO vehicle driving around the loop apparently checking for passes. The
driver slowed to observe passes visible from within the ICSO vehicle. When they
reached our campsite we spoke with the two ICSO staff members. We asked if they
were citing for no passes. We were told that was confidential information. We
asked if they had gotten out of the vehicle to check for passes in vehicles not
visible from the paved road. They had not and we noted the vehicle make a
second pass through the camp area and stop with the emergency lights on to talk
with the folks camped in an area not easily visible from the paved road. The
practice of checking for passes from within the ICSO vehicle is frequently
observed throughout ISDRA. This is not conducive to achieving high compliance.
COMMENT #7
We entered the ISDRA on the Wash Road on the New
Years weekend. The fee compliance staff was on duty. After stopping two
vehicles without passes they continued to wave the remaining vehicles through
with out checking for passes.
COMMENT #8
Traveled in and out of the Gordon’s Well area
several times during the Martin Luther King weekend. The fee collection staff
was standing on the Canal Bridge checking everyone throughout their shift. The
wind was miserable however they were there all day.
COMMENT #9
At Buttercup the permit folks did not get out of
their trailer or invite us in to buy a pass. They just pointed to the BLM
vendor located nearby. Does the BLM vendor get a commission? If so that’s great
when the ICSO staff is not on duty. Why is ICSO passing up on direct sales when
they have staff on duty?
COMMENT 10
Hi, we are ASA members and
have some remarks and questions for you. On Wednesday the 8th of November our
group arrived at the dunes (Ogliby) for our winter trip (we are all
retired). We saw no one available to buy permits from for the camping
fees they now charge and which we understand the Sheriff/Deputies now collect from
us. We were visited by a deputy on Friday the 10th, he noted that all of
our group had military tags on, told us they in fact did now collect the fees
when we asked who we should pay. He then said, "Have a nice Veteran's
Day" and left without charging us. We went to Gordon's Well to the Duner's
Diner on Sunday and still there was no one around to collect fees. We
stayed the next week until Saturday the
18th. No one ever came back to our camp
(Ogilby Road then in the road before
the train tracks BUT not in as far as the big communications tower). All but 1
couple left on Saturday morning by 8:30. When our last couple left about
10:30, they were stopped at the highway just as you come out from camp. They
had an RV towing a
trailer and the wife drives their pickup truck (they are both 100%
disabled military retirees so they like to have a vehicle in case of medical
issues). They were directed
either pay a fine or buy tags for the camping they had done the
week before.
They were charged $25 for the RV and $25 for the other vehicle. A deputy
was present with another woman who said she worked for the ASA collecting
camping fees. They were both very uncurteous to these folks and would not
offer any info
as to why they were not collecting fees upon our entrance; also the fact that a
deputy came into our camp and then left without telling us we needed to pay a
fee, nor were there any persons around to sell us permits. Please look
into
this as we are 30 year duners and always park at the Ogilby road in. They
did keep saying that they were charging them for the dumpsters and toilets they
used. There are no such amenities at the Ogilby campground up that dirt
road. We pack it in and pack it out and also clean up the dunes while we are
there. We often ride our buggys over to Competition hill and pick up all
the trash left by the weekend locals and take it to the dumpsters. Where can we
buy yearly permits so this does not happen again? It is now a fiasco to
go to the dunes after 30 great years of riding. Officers need to be more
helpful and courteous in collecting these fees. Also, they need to be
available at the entrance of Ogilby Road as most of us DO NOT have
a vehicle to ride over to Gordon Wells to buy permits there. Can we buy
them for next year (2007) on line? Please see that this complaint gets to
the right people.
|
