Colorado-BLM seeks comments on Grand Junction draft RMP
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Any local intel we can utilize for a meaningful comment? I'd be absolutely pumped to send one on behalf of ExpeditionUtah
- Location
- Riverton, UT
Thanks for posting Shane. This is being circulated to U4 members and hopefully some of the U4 guys down in Moab will be able to respond.
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
Yesterday was a day full of meetings. I have been going over the maps, and going to meetings now for two weeks. I have to tell you it does not look good over here.
The basics of an RMP is the BLM comes up with 4 alternatives. A, which is no change, B which is the "Perfered Alternative", C is conservative based, and D recreation based.
The difference in A and B for us, is a reduction of, LOSS of, almost 70 % of our existing trails and roads. COHVCO and Blue Ribbon are work well with the Grand Mesa Jeep CLub at this point, and we are working through the over 2000 pages, 100s of maps, and 90 days to come up with a response.
http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/Public-Land-Access-189122311.html
http://www.kjct8.com/news/video/Cou...ction/-/163112/18347034/-/p6nlul/-/index.html
Here is an early response from COHVCo,
COHVCO Concerns
1. Plan is disorganized and overly complex. Attempt to mask the facial lack of analysis on many issues- there is simply no analysis of travel management issues in the Grand Junction area- the Travel Management appendix is copies of national BLM guidance rather than actual analysis.
2. It is very difficult to determine the Plan is closing 60% of motorized routes despite double motorized demand levels in comparison to non-motorized - plan anticipates this relationship will remain steady
• Difficult to leverage existing partnerships which already provide significant resources and volunteer hours
3. Tragically undervalues recreation. GJFO Plan says all recreation generate $7.2 million in total spending - 90 full-time equivalent jobs by 2029.
Comparative research for recreation
• COHVCO- motorized recreational provides over $141 million in spending to the GJFO planning area and 214 jobs directly related to motorized rec. every year as follows:
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife found hunting and fishing in Mesa and Garfield Counties resulted in $130,520,000 annually and accounts for 1392 jobs
• Paiute Trail system in Utah provides over $38 million to local economies and directly created 150 jobs
• Hatfield & McCoy trail system contributed over $10 million and 150 jobs to communities adjacent to the trail system.
4. Closures do not fit anticipated usage - plan estimates motorized demand is and will remain twice that of non-motorized demand - does not make sense to close 60% of the motorized opportunity
5. Wilderness Study Areas - all are made non-motorized in violation of BLM planning requirements - motorized usage is a grandfathered usage on several WSAs and must be preserved. Congress never designated them Wilderness
6. Recommended Wilderness - analyzes an additional 30k acres to motorized -- simply no analysis of how they were found to be suitable for recommendation as areas immediately developed are highly developed such as state highway 141 - really will impact solitude opportunities
7. A lack of public access for hunting and fishing is identified as a management issue in the Grand Junction area by Colorado Parks and Wildlife - this is never addressed and blanket closures are adopted allegedly to benefit Wildlife
8. State Planning documents - State plans that must be addressed in federal planning acknowledging significant contributions of recreation are not acknowledged.
9. Law Enforcement concerns are not warranted - plan should target effective implementation- LEO pilot from FS/BLM/CPW finds only 1.5% of users are committing a resource related violation
10. User conflicts must be analyzed more - no discussion of basis for conflict- closures can increase conflict if the basis of the conflict is not properly understood
11. Closes lynx habitat areas to motorized recreation despite lynx standards permitting motorized access to these areas
The basics of an RMP is the BLM comes up with 4 alternatives. A, which is no change, B which is the "Perfered Alternative", C is conservative based, and D recreation based.
The difference in A and B for us, is a reduction of, LOSS of, almost 70 % of our existing trails and roads. COHVCO and Blue Ribbon are work well with the Grand Mesa Jeep CLub at this point, and we are working through the over 2000 pages, 100s of maps, and 90 days to come up with a response.
http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/Public-Land-Access-189122311.html
http://www.kjct8.com/news/video/Cou...ction/-/163112/18347034/-/p6nlul/-/index.html
Here is an early response from COHVCo,
COHVCO Concerns
1. Plan is disorganized and overly complex. Attempt to mask the facial lack of analysis on many issues- there is simply no analysis of travel management issues in the Grand Junction area- the Travel Management appendix is copies of national BLM guidance rather than actual analysis.
2. It is very difficult to determine the Plan is closing 60% of motorized routes despite double motorized demand levels in comparison to non-motorized - plan anticipates this relationship will remain steady
• Difficult to leverage existing partnerships which already provide significant resources and volunteer hours
3. Tragically undervalues recreation. GJFO Plan says all recreation generate $7.2 million in total spending - 90 full-time equivalent jobs by 2029.
Comparative research for recreation
• COHVCO- motorized recreational provides over $141 million in spending to the GJFO planning area and 214 jobs directly related to motorized rec. every year as follows:
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife found hunting and fishing in Mesa and Garfield Counties resulted in $130,520,000 annually and accounts for 1392 jobs
• Paiute Trail system in Utah provides over $38 million to local economies and directly created 150 jobs
• Hatfield & McCoy trail system contributed over $10 million and 150 jobs to communities adjacent to the trail system.
4. Closures do not fit anticipated usage - plan estimates motorized demand is and will remain twice that of non-motorized demand - does not make sense to close 60% of the motorized opportunity
5. Wilderness Study Areas - all are made non-motorized in violation of BLM planning requirements - motorized usage is a grandfathered usage on several WSAs and must be preserved. Congress never designated them Wilderness
6. Recommended Wilderness - analyzes an additional 30k acres to motorized -- simply no analysis of how they were found to be suitable for recommendation as areas immediately developed are highly developed such as state highway 141 - really will impact solitude opportunities
7. A lack of public access for hunting and fishing is identified as a management issue in the Grand Junction area by Colorado Parks and Wildlife - this is never addressed and blanket closures are adopted allegedly to benefit Wildlife
8. State Planning documents - State plans that must be addressed in federal planning acknowledging significant contributions of recreation are not acknowledged.
9. Law Enforcement concerns are not warranted - plan should target effective implementation- LEO pilot from FS/BLM/CPW finds only 1.5% of users are committing a resource related violation
10. User conflicts must be analyzed more - no discussion of basis for conflict- closures can increase conflict if the basis of the conflict is not properly understood
11. Closes lynx habitat areas to motorized recreation despite lynx standards permitting motorized access to these areas
- Location
- Bountiful, land of rocks
Thanks for that information Jeff. I'll compose some comments and get something in that sounds like I'm informed now. 
When does the period end?
When does the period end?This is not good to hear. Closing 70% of existing routes is the Preferred Alternative? Don't let them get away with it. We got hosed in many areas here in UT. This RMP is sounding worse. If they get away with this, it sets a precedent for many other regions. Just as ours did.
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
The middle of April. But with over 2000 written pages, and around 100 maps, it is going to take some time to get through. I am already hoping for an extension.Thanks for that information Jeff. I'll compose some comments and get something in that sounds like I'm informed now.
Last edited:
- Location
- Orange County, CA
When you get through it all, can you please highlight points for us to respond with and/or about?
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
x2
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
Yes, the jeep club has purchased a full set of maps, and we have the 3 books of appendixs, and our first meeting with those is Monday. I will have bullet points and great info for all of you as soon as I can. Thank you in advance for the comments you will make, and we will need desperatly.
I will advertise the crap out of it here on RME and social media. Let us know. We're on your side.
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
I think it is better to involve more people, just in case one of those people comes up with the perfect idea that makes good things happen.
After going to two of the map meetings so far, just looking at a few of the maps so far, and speaking for about 7 hours to different BLM employees, I have gathered some pretty good information.
Our best chance for recovering some of our stolen trails, is writting good comments. Not the number of comments, (although different comments,on different roads, trails, and areas, will be helpful), but well written comments that argue the point of why a trail needs to be kept open.
The process the BLM sat down with, was a room full of BLM employees, and they talked amongst themself which roads were to be left open. If the arguement was dead heat, 50/50, no winner, the road was closed.
As you read through the RMP information, you will see that it states "Each alternative stands alone as a potential direction of resource progams based on the development of specific goals, objectives, and magement actions." However, when asked about A, I was told it was only there to meet the NEPA requirements. I was told it will not work as an alternative, because of the new directives. NEPA says," This alternative meets the requirements of the NEPA, that a no-action alternative be considered."
Alternative B is the "preferred", (by the BLM), alternative, which as a blend of the other 2 alternatives, C and D. C is ecoligically based, and establishes more special designation areas. D is leans towards recreation, but is generally a "resource use" based alternative.
I had a discussion with the person who is charge of going through the comments when the process is done. I told him that he knew what was going on, and I knew what was going on, but I felt the general public does'nt understand the process. He had nearly 200 people come through the room at the GJ meeting. Many of them see choices a,b,c,and ,d , and think this is a multiple choice quiz. They comment, " I like A the best" and go home thinking they have done their part. Those comments will be thrown out, as not offering a constructive comment. The BLM is not doing a good job in explaining what it will take from the general public to correct our loss of roads, and trails.
While I am on this subject, I feel like this is an assault on our way of life. I am seeing a trend these days from our Government officials. Many of the roads will be closed to the public, but kept open for government officials, and special permit holders. So they are not closing the road to everyone, just the public. So at least someone will enjoy the use of the road, just not us. Be sure and factor in the numbers for closed roads, by adding those closed to the public, and those closed to everyone. I was told, many of the closed roads were closed because they were a spur that did not go anywhere. However many of the roads that were closed to the public but kept as administrative roads were closed because they went somewhere, (like a stock pond, well pad, etc.).
But let me get to the facts of the matter. We will need to comment. The comment should question the accuracy of information in the EIS, or EA. (these are Environmental Impact, and Environmental Assessment), or,
Question the methodology for the EA.
The comments may bring in new information, not considered, or present a new alternative.
The best we can hope for is comment to change or alter, or combine parts of alternatives.
So if you are going to take the time to make a comment, please make your comment count. Otherwise you are wasting your time, and our opportunity to make a difference.
I'll post more as I learn more. There are two more public meetings, then the Jeep club will hold it's own meetings with the maps, and all the information.
After going to two of the map meetings so far, just looking at a few of the maps so far, and speaking for about 7 hours to different BLM employees, I have gathered some pretty good information.
Our best chance for recovering some of our stolen trails, is writting good comments. Not the number of comments, (although different comments,on different roads, trails, and areas, will be helpful), but well written comments that argue the point of why a trail needs to be kept open.
The process the BLM sat down with, was a room full of BLM employees, and they talked amongst themself which roads were to be left open. If the arguement was dead heat, 50/50, no winner, the road was closed.
As you read through the RMP information, you will see that it states "Each alternative stands alone as a potential direction of resource progams based on the development of specific goals, objectives, and magement actions." However, when asked about A, I was told it was only there to meet the NEPA requirements. I was told it will not work as an alternative, because of the new directives. NEPA says," This alternative meets the requirements of the NEPA, that a no-action alternative be considered."
Alternative B is the "preferred", (by the BLM), alternative, which as a blend of the other 2 alternatives, C and D. C is ecoligically based, and establishes more special designation areas. D is leans towards recreation, but is generally a "resource use" based alternative.
I had a discussion with the person who is charge of going through the comments when the process is done. I told him that he knew what was going on, and I knew what was going on, but I felt the general public does'nt understand the process. He had nearly 200 people come through the room at the GJ meeting. Many of them see choices a,b,c,and ,d , and think this is a multiple choice quiz. They comment, " I like A the best" and go home thinking they have done their part. Those comments will be thrown out, as not offering a constructive comment. The BLM is not doing a good job in explaining what it will take from the general public to correct our loss of roads, and trails.
While I am on this subject, I feel like this is an assault on our way of life. I am seeing a trend these days from our Government officials. Many of the roads will be closed to the public, but kept open for government officials, and special permit holders. So they are not closing the road to everyone, just the public. So at least someone will enjoy the use of the road, just not us. Be sure and factor in the numbers for closed roads, by adding those closed to the public, and those closed to everyone. I was told, many of the closed roads were closed because they were a spur that did not go anywhere. However many of the roads that were closed to the public but kept as administrative roads were closed because they went somewhere, (like a stock pond, well pad, etc.).
But let me get to the facts of the matter. We will need to comment. The comment should question the accuracy of information in the EIS, or EA. (these are Environmental Impact, and Environmental Assessment), or,
Question the methodology for the EA.
The comments may bring in new information, not considered, or present a new alternative.
The best we can hope for is comment to change or alter, or combine parts of alternatives.
So if you are going to take the time to make a comment, please make your comment count. Otherwise you are wasting your time, and our opportunity to make a difference.
I'll post more as I learn more. There are two more public meetings, then the Jeep club will hold it's own meetings with the maps, and all the information.
ttora4runner
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Again
Posted this up on some of the other forums that I'm on.
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
I had a conversation with a friend last night. We noted that when we were trying to get new trails open, we put in for 10 in hopes of getting 3 or 4. It is quite possible that now the shoe is on the other foot. It could be that the BLM has slated to close to the public, nearly 70 percent of the existing trails, figuring that the public will comment on most of them, and of the ones we comment on, some were what they would call "borderline closures" anyway. So we may save 20 percent, and get a 50 percent closure. And in the end, somehow we end up happy about the 50 percent of trails we saved. We forget all about the 50 percent of trails we lost.
It is easier to take a loss, if you put up a good fight.
It is easier to take a loss, if you put up a good fight.
sixstringsteve
Well-Known Member
- Location
- UT
Excellent info everyone.
Just thinking out loud here...
I wonder of there would be value in having a bunch of us go out and take pictures on these trails with our friends and families. Then we could include these pictures with our letters. Then we could write About how much we enjoyed the area, seeing nature, and making memories with friends and family. We could mention how excited we are.to go back to co and see more and contribute to their economy. Then talk about what a great loss it would be to us. If the pictures focused on us being.in nature and enjoying nature more than flexing out or rolling, then it'd be pretty hard to argue that closing the trails is in everyone's best interest. I think if most blm Employees went on a run with us, they'd understand us more. I remember when we had gary (slc balm employee) out at the quarterly training day he was excites and intrigued by our sport. It really opened his eyes that there were groups of responsible recreators.
I'd be willing to take a weekend trip to co and take pics, Assuming there are trails that aren't covered in snow.
Just thinking out loud here...
I wonder of there would be value in having a bunch of us go out and take pictures on these trails with our friends and families. Then we could include these pictures with our letters. Then we could write About how much we enjoyed the area, seeing nature, and making memories with friends and family. We could mention how excited we are.to go back to co and see more and contribute to their economy. Then talk about what a great loss it would be to us. If the pictures focused on us being.in nature and enjoying nature more than flexing out or rolling, then it'd be pretty hard to argue that closing the trails is in everyone's best interest. I think if most blm Employees went on a run with us, they'd understand us more. I remember when we had gary (slc balm employee) out at the quarterly training day he was excites and intrigued by our sport. It really opened his eyes that there were groups of responsible recreators.
I'd be willing to take a weekend trip to co and take pics, Assuming there are trails that aren't covered in snow.
Badbuggy
rock star
- Location
- Fruita, Co
Including pictures, is a great idea. The Jeep Club has alot of those pictures from over the years. Right now, most of the trails are muddy or still covered with snow. It may be misleading on the numbers of trail closures. Many are roads we seldom use. However, exploration is an aspect of the sport we don't push as much as we should. Going down a road you have never been on is a valid part of the benifit of wheeling.
sixstringsteve
Well-Known Member
- Location
- UT
I think you'd be surprised how many people do "expedition" or "exploration" type trips. Greg and ttora4runner have a ton of scenic backcountrt trip reports from basic dirt roads in co. I wonder how big the "expedition" (or whatever you want to call it) scene is in co. It's quite active here in utah.
ttora4runner
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Again
Randy aka IntrepidXJ (expeditionportal and expeditionutah) has a number of trail photo's as well since he lives in that area: http://adventr.co/2013/01/monument-inversion/
- Location
- Grand Junction, CO
I'm watching this and find this RMP extremely alarming, IMO the 'preferred' option B will end outdoor recreation in Western Colorado as we know it. I know most of you guys don't live here, but I choose to move here for the opportunities to recreate! I do need to get more involved with the Jeep Club and talk more with Jeff about a plan of attack for this RMP.
Comment Deadline is On or before April 25, 2013!
For any others that are in the area and want to attend the remaining RMP informational meeting, here is the schedule-
February 5 - Gateway Community Center, 42700 Hwy 141,Gateway, CO
February 7 - Fruita Civic Center, 325 Aspen Ave, Fruita, CO
Jeff, keep me posted as to how I can help. Shane already said we will support you & the Jeep Club with everything we have on RME.
Comment Deadline is On or before April 25, 2013!
For any others that are in the area and want to attend the remaining RMP informational meeting, here is the schedule-
February 5 - Gateway Community Center, 42700 Hwy 141,Gateway, CO
February 7 - Fruita Civic Center, 325 Aspen Ave, Fruita, CO
Jeff, keep me posted as to how I can help. Shane already said we will support you & the Jeep Club with everything we have on RME.