western VXers check it out
Thought this might be of interest to some of you out west who utilize roads, trails and ORV areas on public land...
This is from the Blue Ribbon Coalition
http://www.sharetrails.org
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/
===============================================
Action Alert: CRITICAL ACTION ALERT: ISSUE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE ACTION ITEM INCLUDED
Date: November 22, 2004
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dear BRC ACTION ALERT subscriber,
Last month, BRC issued an important ACTION ALERT about a very dangerous and potentially precedent setting Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) in central Utah. In that ALERT, BRC warned recreationists about Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopting the most restrictive recreation management outside a National Park. (see our analysis: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/P...ial_Review.pdf )
This draft plan includes severe group size limits, strict limits on dispersed camping and requires mandatory user fees under certain conditions. On top of those unprecedented restrictions, thousands of miles of roads and trails in Utah's premier recreation destination, the San Rafael Swell, will be closed.
Several members of the OHV community in central Utah contacted us immediately after our ALERT was sent. It seems the BLM had received extensive OHV route data in the form of maps and GIS data early on in the planning process. I am sorry to report that BLM TOTALLY IGNORED THIS DATA!
As a result, virtually all of the OHV routes were left off the OHV route designation maps. If nothing is done, this will result in the COMPLETE CLOSURE OF ENTIRE OHV TRAIL SYSTEMS!
This is an issue of national significance. Both the BLM and the Forest Service are undertaking massive OHV trail designation programs on a nation-wide basis. Incorporating public input regarding route inventory is critical. The manner in which BLM ignored valid and accurate route inventory submitted by the OHV community must not be allowed to become standard operating procedure.
The BLM is updating RMP's all over the West, including popular OHV destinations in Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, California, and Nevada. BLM field offices are watching this draft plan very closely. If not opposed successfully, it may well set a precedent for other areas undergoing planning. It is vitally important that all recreationists, and especially the OHV community, speak out against these radical restrictions.
Please send an email to the Price BLM in Utah today. Use our comment suggestions below to help you.
Thank you in advance for your involvement,
Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
Info on the web:
BLM's website: http://www.pricermp.com
BRC's Initial Review: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/P...ial_Review.pdf
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
A simple email form letter will NOT be effective. BRC is encouraging all of our ACTION ALERT subscribers to contact the BLM via email as soon as possible. Please read our analysis on the website and see our comment suggestions below.
Comments on the DRMP/DEIS will be accepted through November 29, 2004. Written comments should be sent to: Price Field Office RMP Comments, Attention: Floyd Johnson, 125 S. 600 W., Price, Utah, 84501. Comments may be sent via email to:
Floyd Johnson at: comments@pricermp.com
COMMENT SUGGESTIONS:
As always, a short paragraph about yourself, your club and how much you enjoy vehicle access to public lands is a good way to begin.
Comment: I am interested in knowing what BLM intends to do with the Chimney Rock/Summerville Trail System as well as the Arapeen Trail connector routes. I understand the local OHV community submitted detailed route information regarding these trail systems early on in the process. I am very disturbed to learn that these trails do not appear on any of the Maps in the Appendix.
Public input is a critical component of BLM's lawful planning process. I object to the manner in which the OHV community's input is frequently ignored. Please correct this error by publishing a supplemental draft environmental impact statement that discloses which routes will be open under the BLM's preferred alternative.
Additionally, please make note of my strong desire to keep all OHV routes open. At a time when OHV use is increasing in popularity it is unwise to drastically diminish the routes available for our use.
Comment: The BLM in Utah has instructions to designate routes open to OHV use when revising Resource Management Plans, however, the DRMP/DEIS is not clear and concise regarding which roads and trails will be open for OHV use. Various "layers" of management make it almost impossible to understand the travel rules for lands in each SRMA as well as the ERMA. The BLM must correct this error and accurately disclose which roads and trails will be available for OHV use in each alternative.
Comment: The essential role of non-profit recreational clubs in volunteer and OHV grant programs is well documented. The importance of volunteers in successful OHV management is extensively documented in BLM and Forest Service recreation policy and management guidance. Non-profit recreational clubs are often an integral part of "self policing" efforts such as the "Trail Patrol" or "Good Will Rider" programs.
Small to mid sized clubs supply tens of thousands of volunteer man-hours per year. These also serve as "matching funds" for OHV grants, which are growing increasingly important to land managers as recreation budgets decline. BLM's group size limits in all of the alternatives unnecessarily and unfairly subjects small to mid sized non profit recreational activities to the same Special Recreation Permit process required for true for-profit commercial enterprises. Please reconsider the group size limits. I recommend BLM stay with the proven 50 vehicle group size limit.
Comment: Dispersed camping is important to our members and their families. It is impossible to tell how many dispersed campsites each alternative will leave open. Please correct this problem in the Final EIS.
Comment: There is no justification or rationale for the limits on dispersed camping, or the group size limits outlined in Alternatives A through D. I do not support overly restrictive and impossible to understand restrictions on camping and vehicle recreation. I oppose the management "layers" outlined in the draft plan because they impose restrictions that are not warranted, are impossible to understand and difficult to comply with.
