Jim,

I have been laid up for several months as my doctors work on correcting an infected knee replacement. One of the projects I have been working on has been to publish the many years worth of articles and documents I have collected related to the Quicksilver National Enduro that the Salinas Ramblers hosted in Clear Creek for over 30 years. http://www.salinasramblersmc.org/Enduro/History/QE%20History.htm   As I was working on this project I could not help but think about all the fun that people have had recreating in Clear Creek, not just in our enduro but the countless weekends and weekdays when we could just go out and ride the trails.

At a recent club meeting I presented this new history feature to our web site and I asked if, should Clear Creek be reopened, the club would be interested in putting on another enduro. The response I received was not only yes, but hell yes, and I was authorized to prepare a Special Recreation Permit Application (attached) for another Quicksilver Enduro in 2013.

I consider myself fortunate to have been able to enjoy Clear Creek and I hope that future generation are also able to. At age 61, I am reasonable fit and healthy, unlike a lot of people my age. I attribute this to the time I have spent at Clear Creek as this is my main form of exercise since my knees gave out and I couldn't run full court basketball any more. Yes, I have been well aware of the asbestos issue for many years, but I did my homework and researched the issue, I talked to scientists from both the private and public sector, and I participated in the EPA asbestos conferences they held in the 1990's. The conclusion I have come to is that the risk of the NOA at Clear Creek is minor compared to other risks I face in my life (for instance, for twenty years I commuted three hours + a day to a high tech job in Silicon Valley). My conclusion was recently substantiated by the study performed by IERF at the behest of the CA OHV Division.

In my written comments on the DEIS I have been very critical of the EPA and their study approach. http://www.salinasramblersmc.org/Tobin/Blog/Ed%20Tobin%20DEIS%20Comments%20v2%2003052010.pdf   It seems to me that the EPA was determined to come up with the worst possible result so they could justify recommending that the area be closed. This is nothing new. They have been at it for since the early 1990s. Fortunately for the recreation community, State Director Ed Hastey had a vision for the State of California BLM land and at one of the meetings I had with him he shared with me that in his vision he saw Clear Creek as the ideal place to promote OHV recreation, in spite of the asbestos and T&E issues. Ed resisted the efforts by EPA Region IX and chose to keep Clear Creek open. Unfortunately the last State Director, Mike Pool, either did not share Ed's vision, or perhaps lacked the spine to stand up to the EPA and the environmental community that has threatened more lawsuits.

Recently I learned that the BLM had allowed Dr. Mark Van Baalen to enter the CCMA and collect soil samples last year so as to prepare a report concerning amphibole asbestos, or the lack thereof. I have traded e-mails with Dr. Van Baalen and received a copy of his initial study results (attached). I did my own soil sampling from the roadbed of R001 and R011 after the County of San Benito reopened the county roads in 2010. I sent the samples to Professor Mickey Gunter at the University of Idaho for analysis. My theory was that the amphiboles found by the EPA were relate to either mining or vehicle activity, in other words they were non-native or as Dr. Van Baalen describes them 'exotic'. Sure enough, the samples taken outside Clear Creek Canyon contained no amphiboles while the samples taken from Clear Creek Road, R001, in Clear Creek Canyon all showed amphibole contamination except for one taken from a bank of soil just off the side of the road by Staging Area 1.

Interestingly, the last sample I took was right outside the new decontamination facility that the BLM spent over $2M on and this sample also showed amphibole contamination. This did not surprise me as it tends to support my theory. I also had noticed in a report that the BLM prepared for OSHA in May of 2008 that air samples taken by workers at the entrance station that is adjacent to the decontamination facility (and well outside the BLM's declared hazardous asbestos area) contained asbestos level similar to those found in air samples taken inside Clear Creek.

The bottom line is that the EPA failed to adequately study the entire management area and instead concentrated their activities in the area with the heaviest historical impacts (comment #3 of my DEIS comments). This appears to be the same conclusion that Dr Van Baalen has come to.

I implore you to reconsider the decision to close Clear Creek and to lift the emergency closure. Aside from the flawed EPA report there is nothing that is compelling the BLM to take the closure action. There have been no asbestos related health issues identified in anyone working, recreating or living in or around the Clear Creek Management Area. The reason for this is, as Dr. Van Baalen indicates in the attached e-mail, chrysotile fibers have a different chemical composition than amphiboles and chrysotile fibers that reach the lungs are quickly dissolved.

I hope this information helps you make the decision to lift the emergency closure. I also hope that the BLM will delay the completion of the EIS while further research can be completed as I believe that additional studies will confirm the conclusions I reached long ago and that were confirmed by the recent IERF study.

Sincerely,

Ed Tobin

Salinas Ramblers Motorcycle Club