Forgot to post an update here. First and foremost, a big thanks to Jack J. and the U4WDA for their letter asking that Garfield county reconsider paving of historic routes (Burr Trail), it was very well received. Our meeting with BLM State Director Juan Palma went very well, I found he very passionate about his work, the communities their public lands and the situations from both sides. He confirmed they have been in talks with Garfield County about paving projects including the HITR Road. While there is nothing on paper about the HITR paving project he confirmed it has been discussed alongside the Burr Trail and Notom Road projects. He has met with their commissioners and conveyed their interest and need to draw more tourism, the GSENM has become a tourist draw but they want (need?) more year round paved access to those areas to bring money to their county. The BLM is actively working with them to mitigate these issues and identify areas appropriate for more improved tourist areas, ideally without paving but the BLM themselves is not ruling that out. I think Juan was interested in the fact that OHV users want these routes to stay dirt but after explaining the reasoning he was on board. We all laughed at the irony of traveling the HITR Road to celebrate the difficult journey faced by the San Juan Expedition... but doing it so from the window of your diesel pusher motorhome on a 65 mph two lane highway.
Sadly the paperwork was already signed for the Notom Road paving project prior to our meeting with Juan. A dirt road that sees 27 vehicles per day (NPS had counters placed to prove lack of need) is going to be paved, not in its entirety but a good chunk. I have no doubt the remaining portion will come up in the next few years and he confirmed it has been discussed and if money was available it would have happened. While its a minor/no loss for many, I feel its a disturbing trend to pave these historic routes, particularly the HITR Road. I felt it was a great opportunity to voice my opinion on these paving projects and I feel he was very receptive to the motorized communities best interest in them not being pave. SUWA may be planning some form of legal action or protest on the Notom paving, that is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned as my goal was simple to present the case of what I felt was the best interest of the OHV community in these meetings.
One of the greatest 'take homes' from the meeting was a discussion we had about forming a panel group (akin to and including the RAC) to discuss planning on these types of issues at a much larger scale. I.e not as big as a complete RMP but small segments within the RMP, clear as mud? So rather than try and push an RMP through that dictates every single road, every single trail head, every single camping area... you break it down into smaller chunks. Think of the way the 5 Mile Pass Recreation Area is managed as its own entity within the greater Salt Lake Field office of the BLM, Little Sahara Sand Dunes, etc. The BLM may have access to some grant? money to use for this project, they would bring in a 3rd party facilitator to discuss these issues, host meetings, field trips and get down on the ground and discuss them before it becomes law in an RMP. While the logistics seem almost crazy to think of, imagine if this could have happened with the Moab district RMP particularly Coyote Canyon, what if we could have had the OHV, County, City, commerce, tourism and environmentalist groups walk that section of trail before making a decision on the routes. Could it work? SUWA for example didn't comment for or against Coyote Canyon (as I'm told), so would the BLM have felt compelled to close it? What about the Price trails that were closed in the RMP? Given the lack of reaction or call to action from the environmentalist groups would they have suffered their fate if a RAC type group could have discussed them prior? Who knows if/when it will happen or what the outcome will be but I am optimistic to think their are steps being taken to resolve some of these conflicts. Juan mentioned a potential spring trip to the HITR Road for the BLM, County and public interest groups (ie environmental and OHV groups included) to actually go down there and discuss the issues face to face and on the ground. I think that too would serve a beneficial purpose, far more than hearing it on the County Seat
I had a couple of members of another local 4x4 forum tell me they 'lost all respect' for me for trying to 'negotiate with SUWA'. Oh well, it was either I be there to voice what I felt was best for the OHV needs or the meetings would have gone on without me
I wasn't there to negotiate, I was there to express my interest (and the perceived interest in the greater 4x4 community) in not having routes pave. Hate me if you must. Like I told them, I'll sleep just fine tonight
. Now if Jack J. tells me he lost respect for me I would be bummed but in my many talks with U4 BOD members and local 4x4 club owners along with members of the local industry, I felt everyone had the same opinion I have in that 'common ground is common ground' and at a minimum we should have our interests represented in these discussions with State and Federal leaders.
