5 replies [Last post]
elkkill06's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fruita Colorado
Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 1946
Colorado BLM and there plans

The BLM has held a couple of meetings in the area of Mesa County to let the "public" know of there plans, but were not letting anyone put in public input. Here is there plan.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/grand_juncti...

Here are a couple emails from a gentleman that went to the one in Grand Junction. I personally did not go, because I did not know it was happening until after the fact.

I just wanted everyone to know that even John Justman noted that they had 9-10 armed law enforcement at the GJ BLM meeting tonight and he did not like that. Intimidating the public you might say.

I showed up at 6pm and it got interesting. They would not answer some basic questions and voices were raised a couple times. Dave Grossman GVTA (who was raising his voice at me that I could not ask questions) and I were asked to leave at one point but since he was the one yelling, he just walked away. I was told they are not there to answer questions, they are there to tell us how to make a comment.

The first thing I noticed is they had 30 fact sheets of information regarding the RMP on the tables. I noticed that they were not providing the information disclosed on Page M-13/M-14 (attached) of the RMP, the information which discloses the road closures in miles. This should have been the first flyer handed to everyone as they walked in the door and they were not even providing it! When I asked the BLM personnel where the information was, he said it was a good idea and they might have it at the next meeting. Might!

During the presentation Ms. Bailey kept referring to everything in miles but they disclose things on paper in “acres of designated routes”- no one knows what they are talking about. The fact sheet flyer that they did provide regarding road closures is attached. It just discloses motorized access in acres of designated routes. In the preferred alternative “B” it indicates we are going to have 768,800 acres of designated routes, sounds good-no one really knows what that means, but they do not disclose that nearly half of that acreage is “Administrative Routes”. In fact nowhere in the RMP does it disclose how many acres of motorized access is going to be Administrative Routes”.

The residents of Mesa County do not understand what’s going on because they are being handed mis-information. When I brought up the 2100 miles of road closures the crowd asked the BLM presenter if this was accurate and she would not answer the question. I left the room in disgust.

This is the third public meeting, I apologize for not going sooner but Debeque and Collbran got this same information.

During the presentation Michelle Bailey indicated that this RMP is the result of the public comments received in 2008/09. I think we need to FOIA those documents, because my guess is the residents of Mesa County never asked to close 67% of the road access. Ultimately by asking enough the BLM is going to half to disclose how many miles of roads are going to be closed to the general public.

Thanks for your help, we are going to need it.

Brandon Siegfried

PhotosOnly BLM fact sheet concerning road access at open house.jpg Download AllAttachmentsM13, M14.pdf Download AllDelete Reply Reply All Forward Move Spam Actions Next Previous

I wanted to comment on a couple other things regarding the RMP and last night’s GJ meeting.

1. All the Fact Sheets that were handed out last night have now renamed Alternative B as “Balanced”. They are removing the “Preferred” title that has always been used for RMP’s when discussing Alternative B. The RMP online and in the CD, the Alternative “B” is always title “Preferred”. Balance sure has a “fair” undertone to it though.

2. The BLM told us last night at the presentation that the “Preferred” or Balanced Alternative B (which closes about 2100 miles of routes) is the result of public comments collected in 2008/09. I can’t believe that is accurate and I’m going to submit a FOIA today for the comments as I was told last night they would be glad to provide the comments. They are also telling everyone that if they don’t like something they just need to submit a comment and we can keep it open. I don’t believe that either, as they will not disclose how many comments are needed to keep a route open.

3. A friend of mine that was at the meeting last night, was told by BLM officials that routes were voted on by BLM staff on whether to keep them open or close them. That’s scary if it happened, where was the pubic if this voting was actually done?

4. The BLM wants us to focus on specific routes and not worry about the totality of Alternatives B-D. We live here, we should start with the overall picture first and then start to analyze specific routes.

5. Since the BLM will not answer questions in a public group setting I’m going to ask our County Commissioners to encourage a Public Town Hall meeting with the BLM. The BLM should be willing to answer our questions in a public forum. This is what we expect from politicians and the BLM does work for us. Additionally, we need a another round of pubic open houses, the RMP was just released and its 1500 or more pages, the public needs to have a chance to read this Congressional like document. Additionally, we need pages M-13 and M-14 (total miles closed) as a factsheet and proper disclosure of the Administrative routes in terms of “acres of designated routes” as discussed in my email last night.

6. When I showed BLM personnel this 2001 quote from former BLM Realty Estate specialist, John Lancelot- “But if we can find documentation, we’ll HELP support RS-2477 claims” the BLM would not answer why they will no longer consider RS 2477. They just looked at me and smiled, one employee indicated it’s not a part of NEPA. I answered with, how can you guys ignore the laws that are in place?

Regards.

Brandon

I personally am very tired of the government trying to shut us out of "OUR" public lands and closing roads, that many are 50-70 years old (some even older), that should never be or never have been closed in the first place.

BoneCollector's picture
Offline
Location: Ohio woods
Joined: 02/01/2011
Posts: 275
Thanks for informing

Thanks for informing everyone. I hope to get out to Co this year or next. I'll keep an eye on this. Government at it's best. :(

SGM
SGM's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Canon City, Colorado
Joined: 08/13/2011
Posts: 893
This sounds like a bunch of

This sounds like a bunch of garbage to me. A public meeting is to answer questions not tell us what they plan to do. Very fishy to me and makes me wonder what they are really planning to do with our public land!

970TBONE's picture
Offline
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Joined: 04/01/2010
Posts: 82
Can you say Agenda 21. If

Can you say Agenda 21. If your not familiar look it up it's scarry and very real. I'm not into conspiracy theories and there is no conspiracy here they are making these changes slowly and right infront of us and they normaly get the publics support by using terms like conservation easments, wilderness areas, sustainable development, smart growth, Eco friendly, climate change, ect. WAKE UP AMERICA!

elkkill06's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fruita Colorado
Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 1946
More correspondance between Brandon and the BLM

From: Brandon Siegfried ;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' ;
Subject: The BLM Must have a Preferred Alternative, they can't change the name to "Balanced" per the NEPA Regs
Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 5:17:46 AM

Friends, I hope you all enjoyed the super bowl.

I had a friend do some research on NEPA, as I mentioned in my email after the GJ BLM Open House on Thursday I noticed the BLM was changing the Title of Alternative B “Preferred”, to Alternative B “Balanced” on all of the fact sheets and in their presentation. This is clearly designed to confuse the public into thinking the BLM does not have a “preferred alternative” as indicated throughout the 2000 page Resource Management Plan (RMP) and as required by NEPA regs. Keep in mind many folks attending these public open houses are not going to read the RMP. They are simply going to collect a handful of fact sheets on what interests them.

This is being done to suggest they don’t have a preference but per NEPA regulations they must disclose their Preferred Alternative at this point. On page 50 of the NEPA Doc you will find this link. “ (see Question 1b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981)”. It leads to this web BLM web page

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/webguide/40_most_asked_qu...

It BLM web page states the following:

4a. Agency's Preferred Alternative. What is the "agency's preferred alternative"?

A. The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally preferable alternative," although in some cases one alternative may be both. It is identified so that agencies and the public can understand the lead agency's orientation.

4b. Does the "preferred alternative" have to be identified in the Draft EIS and the Final EIS or just in the Final EIS?

A. Section 1502.14(e) requires the section of the EIS on alternatives to "identify the agency's preferred alternative if one or more exists, in the draft statement, and identify such alternative in the final statement. This means that if the agency has a preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, that alternative must be labeled or identified as such in the Draft EIS.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is part of the RMP so they are one and the same. The entire draft RMP document states that Alternative B is the Preferred alternative, but they are re-titling the fact sheets for the meetings. See NEPA doc attached, particularly pages 42-60 regarding the term Proposed Action. (i.e. Alternative B). The term “Balanced Alternative” does not exist in the NEPA process and was made up by this office to sound more acceptable.

I also attached John Potters analysis of miles closed by the RMP, you will see on the first page his total miles closed in “Alt B Preferred” is 2,102 miles and for “Alt C” its 2,747 miles closed. That’s pretty much right where my numbers were. Thanks for doing that John!

There are so many errors in the RMP, Factsheets (see attached), and the maps, our pubic is being completely miss-informed. The BLM should be forced to go back and fix the errors and we should start this entire process over! Don’t forget they don’t have a fact sheet with the total miles closed for any routes! We are either dealing with deceit or incompetence.

If someone know the state director of the BLM please forward them this email!

Brandon Siegfried

From: Brandon Siegfried ;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' ;
Subject: BLM agrees to provide better Factsheets and maps tonight.
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 8:47:57 PM

Friends,

I was planning on setting up a display next door to tonight’s open house in Gateway. In fact I was just printing off information when I received this email from the BLM. Confronting the BLM at the open house in Grand Junction was perhaps not the best avenue but combined with my email requests may have helped. Regardless of the information presented at the last two open houses, I do not plan on causing a stir. I’m just glad the visitors can see accurate map shading and better factsheets.

After the public open houses are completed we will be working to put together public forums to answer questions in a crowd setting. The BLM will not answer questions during their open house presentations so we will hope they consider a discussion put together by other groups or Mesa County, if it can be arranged.

Please read the email below, my questions are in the email below that.

FYI—see the cc list below, thanks to friend we were able to email the state and national directors of the BLM with our questions.

Regards.

Brandon

From: Ewing, Collin [mailto:cewing@blm.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:48 PM
To: Brandon Siegfried
Cc: Stevens, Kathryn A; Pipkin, Christopher; hhankins@blm.gov; jmehlhof@blm.gov; mastouff@blm.gov; mpool@blm.gov; bhudgens@blm.gov; Christopher Joyner
Subject: Re: Questions on GJ RMP

Hi Brandon,

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. The 2008/09 document was before the Dominguez Escalante NCA was designated by congress and removed from the Grand Junction Planning Area. I believe the 378 miles are now in the DENCA area and will be addressed by that ongoing RMP development.

2. Thanks for pointing that out. It would certainly be helpful to show the current Open area. I will see if we can get that on the maps for the Open houses this week.

3. This information was available at the first 3 Open houses. We brought copies of Appendix M for the public to take, and the Fact Sheet tells which page this info can be found on. However it has become clear that we should also have this info attached to a fact sheet. We will bring a new fact sheet to the Open houses this week that includes this information and clarifies some other things.

4. It is very difficult to summarize all of the information from the RMP onto single page fact sheets. We are attempting to inform the public about the alternatives being considered. The area allocations on the Travel management fact sheet very important, because they influence the route designations (can't have an open route in a closed area), however I can see how folks might misinterpret it as you said. Hopefully the new sheet helps.

5. Alternative B is the preferred Alternative. I believe it is clearly labelled as such in most of the materials. It is also our best first attempt at balancing resource uses and protections. We'll edit that fact sheet to clarify.

6. At a glance, it looks like your numbers came from the Draft RMP.

The goal of the open houses is to get the public interested and help them understand what is in the document so they can complete a thorough review and comment effectively. These comments are crucial to the success of this planning effort. I think we are accomplishing that goal, and learning along the way. We are open to holding additional open houses if there is enough interest. We'll re-assess after we finish the open houses this week.

thanks

Collin Ewing

Planning and Environmental Coordinator

BLM Grand Junction Field Office

970-244-3027

c. 970-685-9876

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Brandon Siegfried wrote:

Collin and other BLM personnel, hi. I have some more concerns with the data the BLM is sharing with the public and would appreciate some clarification. This is just a few of many issues observed.

1. In the email below you indicated there are 3,322 miles of routes in the RMP, however, the attached “3700 miles” BLM document from the public comment period in 2008/2009 reveals there are 3700 miles of routes? Where did the 378 miles of routes go?

2. I was reviewing the four Zone L (North of GJ Airport) Alternative Maps. This is probably the zone that will see the most miles of closures and most serious reductions to the Intensive use OHV areas. In Alt B “Preferred” and Alt D the maps have clearly depicted (pink shaded area) that show the Intensive use area and their reduced boundaries from the current status. However, Alternative A (no change/current status) does not show the current size of the intensive use areas with any pink shading???, there are two intensive use areas in the attached current Grand Junction Travel Map (GJTM Map). Why is it that the GJ BLM is not showing the public the size of the current Intensive use areas depicted on the attached map? How is the public suppose to visualize during our open houses the fact that their main OHV area is being reduced by 60-70% and the smaller of the two OHV area is no longer available?

3. Will you be providing the miles of route closures data revealed in pages M-13 and M-14 of Appendix M in the DRMP at the next open house in Gateway? You did not supply this information at the first 3 open houses. I spoke with several BLM personnel about the gross oversight at the Grand Junction Open House. Please let me know because if you are not going to be handing it out, I will.

4. I’ve attached the only factsheet at the Grand Junction Open House that revealed anything about route access and closures. It completely miss-informs the public on so many levels from discussing access in acres to not revealing how much access is admin routes (closed to public) and other designations. At quick the glance the public would actually think it is limited to 768,800 acres of access, which is completely false. Let me know if you are going to clarify this fact sheet at the next open house? If not I will have the information available for the public. The only time acres of access should be discussed is when you are discussing cross country travel and Intensive Use areas. Those are the only time that the public has access to all the acres being discussed.

5. NEPA regulation requires that you have a “preferred” alternative at this juncture based on the earlier processes. The attached Factsheet is changing the name of Alternative “B” to Balanced, whereas the entire 2000 page DRMP calls it the Alternative B “Preferred” . How is this possible?

6. A third party has verified my road closure numbers, they are attached.

These are just a few of the errors identified at this time. It is my opinion and many others, that there is so much missing data and misinformation in this Draft RMP; factsheets, maps, as well as NEPA regulation issues that the Grand Junction BLM should take this opportunity to fix the errors and oversights and redo the Open Houses. This way the public is provided accurate information and able to make an informed decision.

Best Regards.

Brandon Siegfried

From: Ewing, Collin [mailto:cewing@blm.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:05 PM
To: brandons@bresnan.net
Cc: Bailey, Michelle
Subject: Re: Questions on GJ RMP

Hi Brandon,

Michelle and I discussed your questions. They are below with our answers (in red).

Also when you were in the office the other day you requested a hardcopy. As we discussed, due to cost and emerging BLM policy concerning sustainable business practices, we were only able to print a limited number of hardcopies. Policy and regulation require us to provide hard copies to particular entities such as cooperating agencies, the Resource Advisory Council, libraries, other DOI offices. Following this distribution, we will make the remaining hardcopies available for distribution with a focus on those individuals without the ability to read or process electronic documents. A list will be compiled of those entities or persons requesting hardcopies, and will be prioritized after we are sure that all of the required entities have adequate copies for their review. Please get me your mailing address and I will add you to the list of requests.

Q&A:

Ms. Bailey, hi. Yesterday, Collin Ewing called me back and indicated he was forwarding my questions onto you as he did not know the answers to my questions. I would definitely appreciate a timely response to ensure I’m sharing accurate info. with the public. I also think based on population densities the BLM should consider several meetings in Grand Junction / Clifton areas and one of them should be on a Saturday. We are Open to holding additional open houses on specific topics (such as travel management) if there is enough public interest following the scheduled Open Houses. We always give at least 2 weeks notice before a meeting.

Below, all questions are directed toward Alternative “B” (Preferred).

1. What is the definition of an acre of designated route/s? Most folks speak mileage when discussing routes so I need the specific definition or the page in the RMP that it is defined. If a road is 40 ft wide and 1 mile long, the area the road encompasses is 4.8 acres.

We do not talk about acres of designated routes in the DRMP. We have three basic area allocations in Chapter 2: open to cross country travel; limited to designated routes and closed. Those allocations are represented in acres in Chapter 2 while specific route designations are represented in miles in Appendix M. This information can be found in Chapter 2 of the RMP under Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management or Appendix M, Travel Management Plan.

2. How many miles of motorized routes currently exists in the Grand Junction RMP area? This should include all forms of motorized travel regardless of current access issues, such as private land blocking access to blm lands.

We currently have 3,322 mile of routes that being analyzed through the Draft Travel Management Plan in the DEIS.

3. Alternative “A” is titled (NO ACTION), however many of the Zone Maps have significant changes in Alternative “A”. Example: Zone “O” map reveals nearly 70% of the current motorized access will be closed under Alternative “A”. Please define what NO ACTION means and if the BLM plans on amending this title as to not mislead the public?

I don't believe the figure of 70% can be found the in the DRMP, but in alternative A (current situation), 2,969 miles of routes would be undesignated (p. M-14) which is approx. 90% of the existing routes. The remaining routes in Alternative A were designated through separate travel management plans that amended the 1987 RMP such as the Bangs Plan.

4. In regards to route designations, please provide a detail definition of the term “Administrative Use/permitted use only”? Collin was not sure who would all be allowed to use these routes.

a. If a BLM licensed outfitter has a outfitting lease in an area, will the outfitter be able to drive motorized vehicles on the “Administrative Use” routes in his permitted area?

This would be determined on a case by case basis and specifically addressed in the permit.

b. If a private land owner has a private motorized route that connects to an “administrative use” route, will the non-permitted private land owner be able to drive motorized vehicles on the road?

Only if that land owner has special permission granted by the BLM. Examples could include a right-of-way, range permit or special recreation permit. Designations apply to everyone.

5. Please define “Mechanized Travel” or refer to the page in the RMP that does.

Volume 2 pg. Glossary-17 - Mechanical Transport. Any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts.

thanks for your interest,

Collin Ewing
Planning and Environmental Coordinator
BLM Grand Junction Field Office
970-244-3027
c. 970-685-9876

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bailey, Michelle wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Brandon Siegfried
> wrote:
>>
>> Ms. Bailey, hi. Yesterday, Collin Ewing called me back and indicated he
>> was forwarding my questions onto you as he did not know the answers to my
>> questions. I would definitely appreciate a timely response to ensure I’m
>> sharing accurate info. with the public. I also think based on population
>> densities the BLM should consider several meetings in Grand Junction /
>> Clifton areas and one of them should be on a Saturday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Below, all questions are directed toward Alternative “B” (Preferred).
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. What is the definition of an acre of designated route/s? Most
>> folks speak mileage when discussing routes so I need the specific definition
>> or the page in the RMP that it is defined. If a road is 40 ft wide and 1
>> mile long, the area the road encompasses is 4.8 acres.
>>
>> If I understand your question, we do not talk about acres of designated
>> routes. We have three basic area allocations: open to cross country
>> travel; limited to designated routes and closed. Those allocations are
>> represented in acres while specific route designations are represented in
>> miles. This information can be found in Chapter 2 of the RMP under
>> Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management or Appendix M, Travel
>> Management Plan.
>>
>> 2. How many miles of motorized routes currently exists in the Grand
>> Junction RMP area? This should include all forms of motorized travel
>> regardless of current access issues, such as private land blocking access to
>> blm lands.
>>
>> We currently have 3,283 mile of routes that being analyzed through the
>> RMP.
>>
>> 3. Alternative “A” is titled (NO ACTION), however many of the Zone
>> Maps have significant changes in Alternative “A”. Example: Zone “O” map
>> reveals nearly 70% of the current motorized access will be closed under
>> Alternative “A”. Please define what NO ACTION means and if the BLM plans
>> on amending this title as to not mislead the public?
>>
>> I am not sure where you get the figure of 70%, but in alternative A
>> (current situation), roughly 2,969 miles of routes are undesignated which is
>> 90% of the existing routes. The routes shown as designated in in
>> Alternative A were completed through seperate travel management plans that
>> amended the 1987 RMP.
>>
>> 4. In regards to route designations, please provide a detail
>> definition of the term “Administrative Use/permitted use only”? Collin was
>> not sure who would all be allowed to use these routes.
>>
>> a. If a BLM licensed outfitter has a outfitting lease in an area,
>> will the outfitter be able to drive motorized vehicles on the
>> “Administrative Use” routes in his permitted area?
>
> This would be determined on a case by case basis and specifically
> addressed in the permit.
>>
>> b. If a private land owner has a private motorized route that
>> connects to an “administrative use” route, will the non-permitted private
>> land owner be able to drive motorized vehicles on the road?
>>
>> Only if that land owner has special permission granted by the BLM.
>> Examples would be a right-of-way, range permit or special recreation permit.
>> Designations apply to everyone.
>>
>> 5. Please define “Mechanized Travel” or refer to the page in the RMP
>> that does.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Communication Log regarding these 5 questions.
>>
>> 1-15-13- Talked with Collin Ewing at BLM Office and left messages later
>> that day.
>>
>> 1-16-13- Collin called me and indicated he forwarded my messages to
>> Michelle Bailey.
>>
>> 1-17-13, emailed initial 5 questions to Ms. Bailey.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards and thank you for your timely response.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brandon Siegfried
>>
>> Grand Junction, CO
>>
>> 970-241-3708
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michelle Bailey
> Assistant Field Manager
> Grand Junction Field Office, BLM
> 2815 H Road
> Grand Junction, CO 81506
> (970) 244-3047

elkkill06's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fruita Colorado
Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 1946
And more

From: Brandon Siegfried ;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' ;
Subject: Financial impacts to economy by COHVCO are attached
Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 4:56:57 PM

Friends, Sit down before reading this attachment. It’s that good and the great thing is your ATV Permit monies went to good use by COHVCO!

If you want to receive more of the COHVCO alerts I was told to sign up for their statewide group, its only $20 per year. Supporting organizations like them and the Colorado Mule Deer Association and any other group that is helping is critical right now. Kudos to Denny Behrens and the Mule Deer Association for considering to host a hunter forum, I’ll let you know the details. I’ve asked the CPW to do this as well and I’m still waiting to hear a response. I getting all the Zone maps thanks a good friend and they are the large scale variety like we’ve seen at the misinformation public forums by the BLM. (couldn’t resist)

If someone has a good relationship with the DU, Turkey Federation, SCI or Elk Foundation we want their support, I know Terry Sweet is on the BLM Advisory Board.

We need to let the out of state hunters know that the BLM no longer welcomes them or considers them relevant to our local economy. I got a call from a friend in Oklahoma last night, he said hunters there want to know what is going as some have hunted the Western Slope for decades. If you know of any one out of state that hunts or politicians, get them the details. My Oklahoma friend is a retired GJ Fire Department, disabled now, and relies on the these roads to hunt and camp as he cannot hike for miles in Western Colorado anymore!

Another update on road closure stats. I did the math on Alternative C (Page M-13/M-14) of RMP). Alternative “A” represents about 2100 miles of road closures. Alternative “C” is even worse, it proposes closing 2700 miles of the 3300 we currently enjoy. It is safe to say that the BLM is attempting/considering closing 2100 to 2700 miles of routes. 2700 miles closed, represents a 82% closure rate. My number indicate “A” is 67% closure rate.

If someone has different math, please let me know. The BLM meeting schedule is attached to the document only two left. I also welcome the supporters who wanted more information yesterday at the Mesa County Republican meeting. Kudos to John Justman for discussing the RMP impacts in front our local leaders and our State Representatives. I had an outstanding one on one with one of our State House Representatives.

Keep up the good work.

Brandon Siegfried

You need to attend Grand Junction Field Office RMP public meetings to voice your opposition to closure of 60% of routes by Resource Plan!!!
These could be the only opportunity you are going to have to see large format travel maps addressing closures, which in some areas are far in excess of 60%. Stop by anytime between 4:30-7:30 p.m. at the following locations:

• January 29; Collbran Auditorium, 102 Main St., Collbran, CO,
• January 30; DeBeque Community Center, 381 Minter Ave., DeBeque, CO
• January 31; Clarion Inn, 755 Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, CO
• February 5; Gateway Community Center, 42700 Hwy 141, Gateway, CO
• February 7; Fruita Civic Center, 325 Aspen Ave, Fruita, CO

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 - Grand Junction RMP concludes that an average user spends $10.17 per day on recreation...... that number simply defies logic
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 dollars 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

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
box stand planstcencore2506009/28/2008 21:05 pm
Change of plans!GooseHunter Jr704/23/2011 22:58 pm
Plans for this big weekendnumbnutz407/04/2010 09:44 am
Fall Hunting PlansWishIWasHunting1008/23/2011 21:37 pm
what to do when your hunting plans fall through?ndemiter1505/09/2011 21:29 pm