BLM's plan for Western Colorado

[elkkill06]

http://www.biggamehunt.net/forum/colorado-blm-and-there-plans

 

[elks96]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-13 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]Thanks for posting. Wish we had a little more traffic on this topic. As a hunter, jeeper etc. in Western Co the current RMP proposals, the current recreation managers in the area all seem stacked against public use... It sucks that people are not aware of the current environment and that no one really realizes where this is headed right now. The BLM bend over to the horse people all the time it is time they pay attention to other users.

Please message me with any and all information you can. I live in Garfield County, but am a member of Grand Mesa Jeep Club and I am going to share your information out with them as well...

I fully agree that we do not need to be closing roads that are over 50 years old...


http://gmjc.org/

 

[ColoradoOak]

The link that probably should have been provided in the original post is below. I would encourage those with an interest to actually read the document and make your own decisions regarding how you feel about the proposed RMP. General comments like "you are closing too many roads" hold little weight. Comments need to be specific, and address the exact routes that you are concerned about. The proposed travel management plan and all of the associated maps can be found in the RMP Documents section at the following link.

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/gjfo/rmp/rmp.html

 

[elks96]

Good point there Oak... I also must admit that the RMPs are huge and 4 different ones with different maps etc are hard to figure out...

 

[LuckyHntr]

This needs to be fought in principle! These are our lands and the BLM will pick and choose and you will never know how much is gone over time. I see many road and trails closed, everywhere I go, and this is their goal. How successful has anyone been getting access reopened???

I disagree that one person needs to pick one area that they care about. How will I know in the future what area I will want to explore?? Why do we have to choose? Really? We are all in this together!

Also, read carefully! Some areas will be 'left open' but only to local land owners are utility companies, BLM officials or others who they designate. So, the total acreage being shut down is much larger than stated.

I see so many road and trails closed, this is their goal. Some of their maps are also totally inaccurate, the trails do not exist.

One reason given, for closing a trail because it is to 'rough'. Can you believe that?

Let your county commissioners know, no more closures. I think they are attempting to funnel people into certain areas that they can then more closely control you and regulate you.

Let any local elected official know. The BLM can be stopped and Utah has had some success!

Size of government and their control over us is a basic issue here.

 

[jd332001]

has anyone left their comments on this topic. I would like to see what others have emailed in. I am too busy with an office move now and taking care of my 4 young children to make it to any meetings. I cant make it to the meetings but feel very strong about it. Not to sound like a lazy ass buuuuuut I am!!!!! It is pretty dang cumbersum to look over all the alternatives as I have tried. Can someone give me a form reply in sort and I can change a little myself and send in.

Thanks in advance.

Josh

 

[elkkill06]

More corrispondance between Brandon and the BLM.....

From: Brandon Siegfried <[email protected]>;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' <[email protected]>;
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/pl...0_most_asked_questions/questions_1-10.html#1b



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 <[email protected]>;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' <[email protected]>;
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:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:48 PM
To: Brandon Siegfried
Cc: Stevens, Kathryn A; Pipkin, Christopher; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Brandon Siegfried <[email protected]>
> 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