Booo! on Garfield County - "Deal aimed at paving famous Burr Trail switchbacks"

[anderson750]

They could 'chip seal' Buckhorn, North Fork, Nine Mile, or White Rim and I wouldn't feel any different about it, its a loss for the OHV community.things correctly.

You are aware that Nine Mile is being paved right now?

Which Commissioner was this? I'm still trying to get a hold of several, I'll be sure to report on that discussion. What is Usa-All's position on the paving (er I mean chip seal) on any portion of this route, semantics aside?

I am horrible at remembering names, so I do not recall who it was he talked to. Our position is not any different than it was before. We do not want to see roads like this paved, but like the Nine Mile project, if the county jumps through all the hoops and the project is approved, there is not much that can be done about it short of filing a lawsuit. Mike told the commissioner on the phone that USA-All is in support of counties asserting control of RS2477 rights of way, but we don't want to see them all getting paved.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

You are aware that Nine Mile is being paved right now?

Yes, I submitted comment on the proposal when it popped up in late 2010/late 2011. That was just the start of these trends that have me worried. Butterfield Canyon is done on the SL County side, rumor is that Tooele County is looking at the Middle Canyon side to pave. As I mentioned there has been discussion of paving in American Fork Canyon and given the continued grading and widening of Buckhorn I'd suspect it could fall victim as well.

I am horrible at remembering names, so I do not recall who it was he talked to. Our position is not any different than it was before. We do not want to see roads like this paved, but like the Nine Mile project, if the county jumps through all the hoops and the project is approved, there is not much that can be done about it short of filing a lawsuit.

But when the BLM or FS 'jump through the hoops' and a project to close a route all together is approved there is in fact something that can be done?

Mike told the commissioner on the phone that USA-All is in support of counties asserting control of RS2477 rights of way, but we don't want to see them all getting paved.

I guess we partially agree there, I don't want to see any of them getting paved.

 

[scoutabout]

Seems like we already have a lot of conflicting information. About this and the long term paving plans by various counties. Several sources saying the county wants to pave the length of the road (now or in the future), and one saying otherwise.

 

[anderson750]

A lawsuit can put a hitch in any project......SUWA has proven that.........even if they have no basis for the lawsuit. The fact is, there is not a lot of money to pursue a lawsuit, let alone one that probably would have no merit.

Don't take me wrong, I don't want to see old historic routes paved. I have some pretty strong mixed emotions about the Nine Mile Project. I grew up going up that canyon quite a bit each year to the ranch that was in my moms family and was an active cattle operation until the late 80's. My great grandfather, Preston Nutter was one of the first settlers in that canyon and used it as the base for his cattle operation. It has a lot of historic value to me even though it is not in the family any longer. On the other side of that coin, the economic impacts to our community from the gas field development are needed right now and the road improvements will help facilitate those econimic impacts. Being a small business owner, those economic impacts are vital to our survival.

In regards to the Garfield County project, I don't see any true economic reasons for the county to do this project.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Seems like we already have a lot of conflicting information. About this and the long term paving plans by various counties. Several sources saying the county wants to pave the length of the road (now or in the future), and one saying otherwise.

Undoubtedly there is still a lot of uncertainty and that translates into speculation, some potential unfounded, some likely not only plausible but possible. I can respect the want and need for counties to support their infrastructure, but I can also respect the want and need for Wilderness in actual definition, world peace and global cooling. Support and respect for stance are often divergent and I'm not afraid to make my opinion be heard and entice others to share their opinions. No doubt extreme vantage points on either side will have what they consider compelling arguments, I'm hear to make my argument somewhere in the middle... an approach that I feel has more legs than either polarity or 'party-line' if you will. I don't pledge allegiance to a stance from the 10,000 perceptive, my stances are on a case by case issue and while I may compliment Garfield County on one item it doesn't mean I'm afraid to call them to the table on another. I'm just a random dude from Sandy that likes to spend a bit of time in the expanses of Utah, it might be a single voice but its a voice that otherwise wasn't heard.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...In regards to the Garfield County project, I don't see any true economic reasons for the county to do this project.

Agreed.

 

[Stephen]

You are aware that Nine Mile is being paved right now?

I am horrible at remembering names, so I do not recall who it was he talked to. Our position is not any different than it was before. We do not want to see roads like this paved, but like the Nine Mile project, if the county jumps through all the hoops and the project is approved, there is not much that can be done about it short of filing a lawsuit. Mike told the commissioner on the phone that USA-All is in support of counties asserting control of RS2477 rights of way, but we don't want to see them all getting paved.

When I was on the BOD of USA-All oh so many years ago we had a policy of "No more closed roads!" I even voted to fight a case all the way to the Supreme Court under the assumption that it would stop more roads from being closed to OHV recreation. How is a road being paved any different? While I will admit that the thought of the Burr Trail being paved has the Miata owner in me kinda intrigued (Those switchbacks would be wicked fun), my primary love of 4-wheeling is being damaged. What is the difference between a road being closed and it being paved for those of us who love backcountry travel? Not a whole lot. And I'm not saying that USA-All should start firing off lawsuits at every hint of such a project, but why hasn't USA-All been more proactive at fighting something like the paving of Nine Mile Canyon? I got no action alerts, or urgings to write the county about it. Had there been, perhaps the county wouldn't have jumped through all the hoops to get it to this point. To me, keeping these roads in the condition that they are now is every bit why I support the fight for RS2477 rights! If the counties are going to fight for RS2477 RoW's and then just pave then, f'em! Let the roads get closed. It'd be all the same for me and at least if they're not paved the beautiful areas I like to go to wouldn't be destroyed by Cletus McThrottlehappy and his 19 spawnlings in their 27 foot motorhome and two dozen UTV's!

Not meaning to rag on you, in particular (I had a similar conversation with Brian Hawthorne), but you're here.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

When I was on the BOD of USA-All oh so many years ago we had a policy of "No more closed roads!" I even voted to fight a case all the way to the Supreme Court under the assumption that it would stop more roads from being closed to OHV recreation. How is a road being paved any different? While I will admit that the thought of the Burr Trail being paved has the Miata owner in me kinda intrigued (Those switchbacks would be wicked fun), my primary love of 4-wheeling is being damaged. What is the difference between a road being closed and it being paved for those of us who love backcountry travel? Not a whole lot. And I'm not saying that USA-All should start firing off lawsuits at every hint of such a project, but why hasn't USA-All been more proactive at fighting something like the paving of Nine Mile Canyon? I got no action alerts, or urgings to write the county about it. Had there been, perhaps the county wouldn't have jumped through all the hoops to get it to this point. To me, keeping these roads in the condition that they are now is every bit why I support the fight for RS2477 rights! If the counties are going to fight for RS2477 RoW's and then just pave then, f'em! Let the roads get closed. It'd be all the same for me and at least if they're not paved the beautiful areas I like to go to wouldn't be destroyed by Cletus McThrottlehappy and his 19 spawnlings in their 27 foot motorhome and two dozen UTV's!

Not meaning to rag on you, in particular (I had a similar conversation with Brian Hawthorne), but you're here.

Well said.

I too had this conversation with Brian H as you know, of course he was more interested in checking my pulse by going for my throat I kid, it was fun to discuss with him but I don't think any of us walked away from that conversation with any different stance or intended course of action... even if I am forced to leave Utah

 

[anderson750]

Stephen, don't misconstrue what I am saying right now as being a position being taken by USA-All......it is not.....it is just my personal views on the difference between the Nine Mile Project and Garfield County. The Nine Mile Project was pushed forward by both Carbon County, Duchesne County and the BLM for both economic and conservation purposes. The gas field development of the West Tavaputs was moving forward and dust mitigation was a big part of it. The solution to the problem was asphalt. Like I said above, I don't see any economic reasons for Garfield County to pave the Notom road. Mike was told by the county commissioner he spoke to that there is not any paving plans for the Burr Trail switchbacks.

I understand your and share your passion for "no more closed roads" and don't want to see roads like this paved, but just do not see how you can call a paved road a closed road. Try to argue that one in court.

 

[brokendownyj]

Swenson says and I quote "I have talked with the county twice" they are not paving the trail. they are only chipping what is already there. starting at Wayne County's line. If anyone knows what is going on i'm positive Mike does.

 

[Stephen]

If anyone knows what is going on i'm positive Mike does.

 

[anderson750]

Swenson says and I quote "I have talked with the county twice" they are not paving the trail. they are only chipping what is already there. starting at Wayne County's line. If anyone knows what is going on i'm positive Mike does.

Correct, they are not paving the Burr Trail Switch backs which have been discussed......just chip sealing the Notom road from Wayne County Line to the park boundry.

 

[scoutabout]

Correct, they are not paving the Burr Trail Switch backs which have been discussed

Not today or next week, but that is their intention according to several sources. Both BRC and SUWA have that opinion.

 

[Stephen]

Stephen, don't misconstrue what I am saying right now as being a position being taken by USA-All......it is not.....it is just my personal views on the difference between the Nine Mile Project and Garfield County. The Nine Mile Project was pushed forward by both Carbon County, Duchesne County and the BLM for both economic and conservation purposes. The gas field development of the West Tavaputs was moving forward and dust mitigation was a big part of it. The solution to the problem was asphalt. Like I said above, I don't see any economic reasons for Garfield County to pave the Notom road. Mike was told by the county commissioner he spoke to that there is not any paving plans for the Burr Trail switchbacks.

I understand your and share your passion for "no more closed roads" and don't want to see roads like this paved, but just do not see how you can call a paved road a closed road. Try to argue that one in court.

I see the differences between Nine Mile and the proposed projects in Garfield County. I get that the "solution" was to pave Nine Mile. My issue is were was USA-All on this? There were undoubtably other options than just laying in asphalt that could have been explored and should have been supported by an organization like USA-All who wants to defend OHV recreational access.
I agree that there is no economic reason for Garfield County to pave or "chip-seal" (same damn thing as paving) any part of the Notom Road. So what is USA-All going to do about it? Is USA-All going to rally the troops and fight the county on this? I don't feel relieved that Mike was "told" that the switchbacks won't be paved. What Mike does is look out for himself and grease the skids for his own burgening political/lobbiest career. So what he's "told" means nothing to me. What I want is something in writing from the County saying that they are not going to pave, chip-seal, tarmac or whatever other synonyms they want to use, the road. At all. Can USA-All deliver that? Or when Garfield County goes ahead and paves the road will we get the BRC line of, "Lets give them this one because they saved Devils Racetrack for us." As I stated before, the whole point of the fight for RS2477 RoW's was to keep these roads open for OHV recreation. If the counties want to pave them all, then I would expect that USA-All and other organizations should start fighting the counties on that.

As to your point on arguing that a paved road is the same as a closed road in court, there is no need. What you can argue is that paving the road will degregrate the quality of the landscape, the historical nature and recreational opportunities in the area. More or less, this is the same argument that SUWA and their ilk have been using for years to try and close roads. Twist the wording a bit in our favor and it'll work for us.

Also, I know that you are just expressing your opinion, but as the Treasurer of USA-All, you also represent the organization. And since you are here, you get to play sounding board for those of us wanting to express our frustrations. I hope that you take all of these comments that people have made to the next BOD meeting and convey them.

 

[anderson750]

I see the differences between Nine Mile and the proposed projects in Garfield County. I get that the "solution" was to pave Nine Mile. My issue is were was USA-All on this? There were undoubtably other options than just laying in asphalt that could have been explored and should have been supported by an organization like USA-All who wants to defend OHV recreational access.

With a little research you will see that the county and industry spent 4 years and over 10 million dollars exploring other alternatives to paving the canyon. The only thing that will hold up to the traffic and mitigate the dust problem is asphalt.

I agree that there is no economic reason for Garfield County to pave or "chip-seal" (same damn thing as paving) any part of the Notom Road. So what is USA-All going to do about it? Is USA-All going to rally the troops and fight the county on this?

Right now we are doing the same thing that U4 is doing and right now, that is about all you can do short of filing a lawsuit.

I don't feel relieved that Mike was "told" that the switchbacks won't be paved. What Mike does is look out for himself and grease the skids for his own burgening political/lobbiest career. So what he's "told" means nothing to me. What I want is something in writing from the County saying that they are not going to pave, chip-seal, tarmac or whatever other synonyms they want to use, the road. At all. Can USA-All deliver that?

You are doing a lot of speculating right now on what will happen in the future, and no, USA-All cannot deliver you anything in writing from Garfield County saying that they will not "pave, chip-seal, tarmac or whatever other synonyms they want to use, the road".....nobody can.

As to your point on arguing that a paved road is the same as a closed road in court, there is no need. What you can argue is that paving the road will degregrate the quality of the landscape, the historical nature and recreational opportunities in the area. More or less, this is the same argument that SUWA and their ilk have been using for years to try and close roads. Twist the wording a bit in our favor and it'll work for us.

I don't disagree with this position, just the assertation that paving it is equal to closing it.

Also, I know that you are just expressing your opinion, but as the Treasurer of USA-All, you also represent the organization. And since you are here, you get to play sounding board for those of us wanting to express our frustrations. I hope that you take all of these comments that people have made to the next BOD meeting and convey them.

I am not the treasurer, I am to steal a phrase from Tacoma......the whipping boy. I only want to keep my comments seperate since any action that USA-All takes in regards to Garfield County is a board decision.....not mine. I think you can see what my position is and what I will say at our next board meeting.

 

[Stephen]

Right now we are doing the same thing that U4 is doing and right now, that is about all you can do short of filing a lawsuit.

What U4 is doing is step one. Write a letter in protest. Depending on the response, there are other avenues to explore. A lawsuit would be the last resort, not the only other option.
In addition to a letter from the BOD, both organizations should be mobilizing their members in a letter writing campaign, sending out action alerts, and generally preparing to fight the county to preserve the access for OHV recreation.

You are doing a lot of speculating right now on what will happen in the future, and no, USA-All cannot deliver you anything in writing from Garfield County saying that they will not "pave, chip-seal, tarmac or whatever other synonyms they want to use, the road".....nobody can.

But will you try? I'm not talking a legal binding document, though that would be great. But a simple letter stating something along the lines of, "Garfield County has no intention to pave or otherwise change our current system of maintaining the Notom Road." Something like that is a whole lot more reassuring to me and the rest of the community than, "Hey, Mike was told by some county guy that they ain't gonna pave it." And as USA-All is a pressure group, I would hope that they would apply some pressure to get that result. Maybe I'm asking for the moon, though.

I don't disagree with this position, just the assertation that paving it is equal to closing it.

Road closed = Loss of exsisting OHV recreational opportunities.
Road paved = Loss of exsisting OHV recreational opportunities.

I see no difference. Maybe I'm to black and white. Please explain how paving a road is not the same as closing it to my purpose of using it to recreate with my OHV.

I am not the treasurer, I am to steal a phrase from Tacoma......the whipping boy. I only want to keep my comments seperate since any action that USA-All takes in regards to Garfield County is a board decision.....not mine. I think you can see what my position is and what I will say at our next board meeting.

Your website needs some updating, then. And yes, I see what your position will likely be, and I appriciate that. But again, sounding board.

 

[anderson750]

What U4 is doing is step one. Write a letter in protest. Depending on the response, there are other avenues to explore. A lawsuit would be the last resort, not the only other option.
In addition to a letter from the BOD, both organizations should be mobilizing their members in a letter writing campaign, sending out action alerts, and generally preparing to fight the county to preserve the access for OHV recreation.

Were on the same page. It just seems to be that you are trying to "light" USA-All up over this.

But will you try? I'm not talking a legal binding document, though that would be great. But a simple letter stating something along the lines of, "Garfield County has no intention to pave or otherwise change our current system of maintaining the Notom Road." Something like that is a whole lot more reassuring to me and the rest of the community than, "Hey, Mike was told by some county guy that they ain't gonna pave it." And as USA-All is a pressure group, I would hope that they would apply some pressure to get that result. Maybe I'm asking for the moon, though.

I have worked pretty closely with Carbon County on a few matters outside of USA-All and am good friends with 2 of our County Commissioners. Knowing what I do about how they approach these issues, I cannot see any commission who would produce such a document. If the pressure was significant enough from the community to keep them from chip sealing the Notom Road that would be great, but I still don't think you would ever get them to put something like that in writing. It is political.....straight and simple.

Road closed = Loss of exsisting OHV recreational opportunities.
Road paved = Loss of exsisting OHV recreational opportunities.

I see no difference. Maybe I'm to black and white. Please explain how paving a road is not the same as closing it to my purpose of using it to recreate with my OHV.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this perspective.

Your website needs some updating, then. And yes, I see what your position will likely be, and I appriciate that.

:sick:Yeah...the website. #1 on our list of internal matters to accomplish in 2012. Do you know any web people willing to help with that project?

But again, sounding board.

Its all good!:greg:

 

[Don B]

An interesting perspective from Garfield County.
And no, I absolutely do not agree with their position on this.

Watch it all the way through, gets very interesting starting at 8:58

http://www.youtube.com/v/rxShpgrAm8o?autoplay=1&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&playerapiid=ytplayer

[video=youtube_share;rxShpgrAm8o]http://youtu.be/rxShpgrAm8o[/video]

 

[anderson750]

You are right Don........interesting comments. I have made a couple calls........ . .

 

[scoutabout]

Don, thanks for posting that.

So who's correctly informed?

To say it's all "debunked" or "much ado about nothing" seems inaccurate.