Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Moab! YIKES!

  1. #1

    Moab! YIKES!

    BRC analysis to come...
    _________________________
    BLUERIBBON COALITION LAND USE ADVISORY Greetings BRC members,
    New Moab Plan Available
    The BLM's Moab Field Office has released their Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The combined document is available for download at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning.html.
    BLM is taking comment until November 30, 2007. Stay tuned for regular email updates and BRC's thorough analysis of the new plan.
    Ric Foster
    Public Lands Dept. Manager
    BlueRibbon Coalition
    -Bill Morgan
    87 4Runner. Um, modified oh just maybe a leetle bit
    Rising Sun 4x4 Club

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Member #
    7202
    If someone is going to really read and study this entire document could you please list the important points that would be of interest or concern to members of Colorado 4x4.
    Thanks

  3. #3
    no crap...lol
    "as much as i love my scout, the ladies never will.":wtf:


    :flipoff2:rust it's a way of life:flipoff2:

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy1333 View Post
    If someone is going to really read and study this entire document could you please list the important points that would be of interest or concern to members of Colorado 4x4.
    Thanks
    Or you could just read the executive summary.

    http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/bl...%20Summary.pdf
    1993 YJ, 4.0, 103' WB, D44s, ARBs, SOA, SR, 37" Pitbulls, rear disk brakes, Hi-Steer and hydro-assist, sanden OBA, custom cage, tube fenders, boatside rockers, PS comp cuts.
    www.rockfrogs.org

  5. #5
    scottycards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Staring at 11,468,800 pixels
    Member #
    8135
    Images
    17
    Exec Summary is even hard to understand, but option B looks scary as heck, from what I could tell.

    Someone please deciper the lawyer-speak for us regular folks!

  6. #6
    I'm not the BRC, but here's my analysis.

    Four Alternatives for OHV use:

    A - No action alternative, maintains the status quo. Moab is just how you remember it. This is almost never adopted.

    B - "Green" alternative. Mass closures, but without more time looking at a lot of maps I can't tell what trails would be closed.

    C - "Preferred" alternative that the Feds claim is a balance of access and green interests. There are A LOT of closures involved here as well. Same note that I can't tell what trails would be closed.

    D - OHV/Mining alternative. There are still a number of closures here and areas "limited to existing trails." Honestly, I don't see how this is preferable to the "No Action" alternative.

    It's fun to look at the maps on the BLM website:
    http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/....html#Download

    Someone more familiar with where the trails are located might be able to tell which trails could end up closed, if any.
    http://www.tmboffroad.com

  7. #7
    There are also maps defining the "designated routes" for the sections allowing OHV use only on designated routes.

    Without overlaying the 4 (they only have 3 available for download though) maps, I can't tell what significant differences are between them.

    This is where comments would be needed to make sure that road going to your favorite campsite is listed on the map. If it's not listed, it won't be a designated route and you eventually will not be able to drive it.

    But skimming the EIS, I'm surprised by the Preferred Alternative. While it really closes or restricts a lot of areas, it also wants to develop and build new OHV roads/parking at the end of certain trails (and even a BASE jump facility on BLM land, in addition to at least a new bike trail along Poison Spider Mesa.)

  8. #8
    Under the "Preferred" alternative, these ares would be closed to OHV use:

    Bookcliffs

    Cameo Cliffs (managed in a way to make it off limits in the future)

    Hatch Wash Hiking and Backpacking Focus Area inclusive of the area from Goodman Canyon to the confluence of Hatch Wash with Kane Creek Canyon including the lower section of West Coyote Creek (from private land west to confluence with Hatch Wash) and the lower section of Troutwater Canyon. New motorized routes would not be considered.

    Close camping on most roads close to the Colorado River.

    Manage the seldom-used 1.5-mile long route (that spurs left from the Poison Spider Mesa Road) on the intermediate bench between the Colorado River and Poison Spider Mesa for hiking use. If future use levels warrant, develop a return hiking trail loop on the river side of the road bed. Manage the Kane Creek Road to Amasa Back Jeep Road section of the Historic Jackson's Ladder trail as hiking and biking only.

    Negro Bill Canyon between the Sand Flats Recreation Area and the Porcupine Rim Trail. Manage for recreational mechanized use on the main portion of the Porcupine Rim Trail from the junction approximately 1.55 miles east of Little Spring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to Highway 128 (with the exception of the Porcupine Rim Trail to Coffeepot Rock which would be managed for motorized use.)

    Manage the Negro Bill Canyon Trail for hiking use only. Equestrian use of Negro Bill Canon would be prohibited.
    Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain biking opportunities. Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the Negro Bill Canyon WSA.
    No new motorized routes would be considered.

    Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,191 acres) covers the lands below the Golden Spike OHV route inclusive of the Culvert Canyon drainage to the northern rim of Long Canyon exclusive of the main stem of the Day Point Road. Manage the Corona Arch Trail for hiking only.

    Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to four-wheeled vehicles and ATV use for safety purposes.

    Behind the Rocks and Pritchett remain OPEN.

    Potato Salad Hill Climbing Focus Area (41 acres) would be established within the boundary of the fenced areas emphasizing hill climbing events. Parking limitations would be established to limit vehicle group size.

    339,298 acres would be closed to OHV travel.
    1,481,334 acres would be limited to designated routes.
    1,866 acres (White Wash Sand Dunes) would be open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-C).

    Designated Routes:
    3,693 miles motorized routes.
    282 miles for motorcycles (163 miles on inventoried routes and 123 miles on
    inventoried single-track).
    Last edited by Shakey; August 24th, 2007 at 04:33 PM.

  9. #9
    Most of the same, above, is true of the "Green" alternative, but the following closures would be made:

    Expand boundary to include the entire Top of the World area and lands along the Entrada Bluffs Road up to the boundary of the Colorado River SRMA (103,467 acres). No mechanized travel allowed in this area.
    Prohibit camping on the north side of the river along Highway 128.
    Prohibit camping at the Kane Creek Crossing Area.

    Negro Bill Canyon would be restricted to day use only. Equestrian use of Negro Bill Canyon would be prohibited.
    Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain biking opportunities. Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the Negro Bill Canyon WSA.
    No new motorized routes would be considered.
    Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Porcupine Rim Jeep Safari Route.

    The White Wash Sand Dunes and surrounding uplands would be managed to restore their ecological and scenic values and provide an opportunity for ecological interpretation and study. Emphasis would be placed upon protection of the cottonwood trees found in the open dune
    fields, water source protection, stream bank stabilization, and bighorn sheep habitat protection. Motorized travel in the White Wash area (like the rest of the SRMA) would be limited to designated routes.

    Close the Bartlett/Tusher/Courthouse/Ten Mile area to camping.

    Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acres) would be established upstream from the Spring Canyon Bottom Road. No new motorized routes would be considered.

    No "Open" areas would be established under this Alternative.

    Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area: Temporal
    zoning, permitting, and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Pritchett Canyon and Moab Rims. Hunter Canyon Rim Road at the end of the Jeep Safari route is available for mountain bike travel.

    Manage Hidden Valley Trail as non-mechanized only.

    Potato Salad Hill spur route would be closed to motorized travel.

    No competitive OHV events at the Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC, Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC, White Wash Potential ACEC.

    No vehicular travel in Ten Mile Wash from Dripping Springs to the
    Green River.

    Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC closed to mechanized travel.

    437,424 acres would be closed to OHV travel.
    1,475,074 acres would be limited to designated routes.
    0 acres would be open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-B).

    Designated Routes:
    3,328 miles motorized routes.
    122 miles inventoried motorized single-track for motorcycles.
    Last edited by Shakey; August 24th, 2007 at 03:29 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy1333 View Post
    If someone is going to really read and study this entire document could you please list the important points that would be of interest or concern to members of Colorado 4x4.
    Thanks
    The BRC has people on staff to do just that for us. PLEASE pony up and become a member and help them out!!!
    www.staythetrail.org

  11. #11
    I guess I'm confused why I would pay someone to read a document for me?

    I'm also surprised, on a web forum dedicated solely to 4x4s, that there are individuals seemingly unwilling to read a document that has the potential to close the places they use their 4x4s.

    [But, and the above questions where rhetorical, this is the reason why "access" groups will eventually lose the battle for access to public lands in the West. No one seems to really care, until it's beyond too late.]

    It seems like a lot of information. But print the comparison of the alternatives and at least look at the tables showing what would happen in each area under each alternative. This is the least biased look you will get and you will gain knowledge of the situation at the same time.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakey View Post
    I guess I'm confused why I would pay someone to read a document for me?
    See below . . . most of those types of documents are not easily readable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy1333 View Post
    If someone is going to really read and study this entire document could you please list the important points that would be of interest or concern to members of Colorado 4x4.
    Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by cwkelle View Post
    no crap...lol
    Quote Originally Posted by scottycards View Post
    Exec Summary is even hard to understand, but option B looks scary as heck, from what I could tell.

    Someone please deciper the lawyer-speak for us regular folks!

    And regardless of whether or not you think you're just paying someone to "read a document" for you the BRC busts their ass on our behalf. Least we can do is cough up $20 a year to help them out.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakey View Post
    I guess I'm confused why I would pay someone to read a document for me?

    I'm also surprised, on a web forum dedicated solely to 4x4s, that there are individuals seemingly unwilling to read a document that has the potential to close the places they use their 4x4s.

    [But, and the above questions where rhetorical, this is the reason why "access" groups will eventually lose the battle for access to public lands in the West. No one seems to really care, until it's beyond too late.]

    It seems like a lot of information. But print the comparison of the alternatives and at least look at the tables showing what would happen in each area under each alternative. This is the least biased look you will get and you will gain knowledge of the situation at the same time.
    Don't agree with #1 Because these are the people who understand the fine print and are fighting for OUR rights.

    #2 I totally agree. Most of it outlines other things. Look at the table of contents, scroll down to the recreation sections and read.
    Look at one table in particular.
    Table 4.67. Recreation Activity Participation
    Activity Percentage Participating Percentage as the Main Activity Number of Respondents as Main Activity
    Hiking/Walking/Backpacking 53.3 18.9 220
    Equestrian 1.2 0.9 3
    Bicycling 17.9 13.5 118
    Scenic driving 36.3 10.4 60
    Viewing nature/Wildlife 96.9 9.7 89
    OHV Use/Motorized Trail Use 11.5 6.0 59
    Camping 22.6 2.8 26
    Relaxing 42.4 3.8 24
    Boating 6.9 3.9 27
    I don't know where these #'s came from but look at the number of hikers, bicyclists and nature viewers who responded as opposed to ohv/motorized users, only 59. That's sad. If you want to save your trails, you better respond, you better get your family to respond, your friends to respond, and your clubs to respond.

  14. #14
    Now as far as comments go, I don't see it specifically stated where to send them. Is it here?
    Moab Field Office
    82 East Dogwood
    Moab, Utah 84532
    (435) 259-2100

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
    Now as far as comments go, I don't see it specifically stated where to send them. Is it here?
    Moab Field Office
    82 East Dogwood
    Moab, Utah 84532
    (435) 259-2100
    That's my guess as well from this link: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/..._involved.html

    Looks like one of the meetings is in GJ. I'm heading to Moab that very same weekend, but not sure I can get out of work early enough on Thursday to make it to Junction in time.

  16. #16
    Another way you can help: http://www.sharetrails.org/public_la...?section=Moab2

    I think it's summed up best by the BRC right here:
    Anti recreation groups such as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) have staff to review the environmental analysis to find flaws that will nudge the final decision their way. Indeed, many stakeholders are paying for professional review of these documents in order to protect their interests. The OHV community must do this as well.

  17. #17
    http://www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/Moab/involve.php is what the link to submit comments should be. It is wrong on BML's site. Go figure...

  18. #18
    The way I read it you could submit online or send a letter to the address on Dogwood in Moab?

  19. #19
    And the final button to send the comments goes to a page not found screen. Guess e-mail it is. And I always wonder why comment numbers are so low...

  20. #20
    Comments e-mailed!.
    I believe that Alternative A of the Moab Draft RMP EIS should be adopted. In restricting and reducing trails as per the other alternatives, congestion and use will increase on the existing trails, especially as use will just increase with time. Even if specific user group trails are created, those users will not stick only to those user specific trails, so conflicts will still exist, especially where users wish to create conflicts to further their own agendas. This will also be better for exploration, which is vital to this country and it's economy. Since more trails are open, more users will benefit from increased recreational areas.

  21. #21
    I would suggest going here to see what is happening in the Eldorado NF in California. Then decide that you all need to get active and involved in this.

    Without a big push by the public these agencies will roll over you and close everything. Someone close to these trails needs to make the sacrifice to DRIVE it to completion.

    Reading these things may be boring, but not impossible to understand.

    Git er dun

    Scott Johnston
    Rubicon Trail Foundation

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Breckenridge, CO
    Member #
    7202
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dave View Post
    The BRC has people on staff to do just that for us. PLEASE pony up and become a member and help them out!!!
    Took you advice and went to the Blue Ribbon Coalition website. I made a contribution....even got a free T shirt by joining the "Moab Partnership"

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Member #
    10744
    What should our comments be?

    I'm thinking something about preserving access to our National lands, especially for the handicapped and elderly that need motorized transport... What else?
    President, CO Chapter TTORA
    Check out www.ttora.com, and www.yotatech.com to 'wheel with great Toyota folks!
    1993 Toyota 4Runner with some armor, lockers, dual cases and stuff ...
    Stop with the mods and get on the trail!

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dave View Post
    See below . . . most of those types of documents are not easily readable.

    And regardless of whether or not you think you're just paying someone to "read a document" for you the BRC busts their ass on our behalf. Least we can do is cough up $20 a year to help them out.
    You obviously misunderstood what I stated, and only reinforced my comments. I realize these documents are not easy to read by some. Does that mean you shouldn't even try and should wait for someone to tell you what they say?

    And nowhere did I criticize the BRC or suggest people should not support them.

    I only suggested that people take enough interest to at least attempt to read the document. Bring your knowledge and curiosity to the table and interpret it the way you would interpret it. Sure you will have questions, then read what the BRC, or anyone else, writes and learn something.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
    Comments e-mailed!.
    I believe that Alternative A of the Moab Draft RMP EIS should be adopted.
    Not to criticize your comments, but Alternative A will never be adopted.

    Alternative C will most likely be adopted with some revisions. If I were to comment, I would look at "C" and determine what it is I don't like. I would then tailor my comments in that direction.

    Alternative C really does some cool things that need to be done to cater to the increased use of the area. Like I stated above, it creates at least 2 BASE jump areas, it provides signs and parking lots for OHV, MTBers and hikers, and it keeps areas, like the sand dunes, open to "open" use, meaning you can drive wherever you want.

    But it does some things I would rather not see, like limit areas to "existing" routes.

    The "No Action Alternative" does none of the good things.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ~tc~ View Post
    What should our comments be?

    I'm thinking something about preserving access to our National lands, especially for the handicapped and elderly that need motorized transport... What else?
    Specific comments carry more weight. As per the regulations, all comments are considered, but general comments regarding preserving access to "National lands" will be largely ignored and won't even warrant a footnote in the final EIS.

    You will have to read the document in order to create comments that will not be ignored. Latch onto a specific item that really interests you. For example, Alternative B shuts down the sand dune "play" area as well as Potato Salad Hill. Again, for example, maybe the maps depicting the "existing" routes that will be adopted into the travel management plan have left off a route that you have been using for years. There are countless of these examples in the document.

    But in the end, all comments are useful and the more they have in favor of the OHV community, the better. So if this means you only write one paragraph in favor of or in opposition to one of the alternatives, then good for you and you did your part.

  27. #27
    This is a draft, and from what I remember a big impact of changes to the draft come from scoping, ie citizens putting in their word (duh). Let's definitely try to put some words in.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakey View Post
    Not to criticize your comments, but Alternative A will never be adopted.

    Alternative C will most likely be adopted with some revisions. If I were to comment, I would look at "C" and determine what it is I don't like. I would then tailor my comments in that direction.

    Alternative C really does some cool things that need to be done to cater to the increased use of the area. Like I stated above, it creates at least 2 BASE jump areas, it provides signs and parking lots for OHV, MTBers and hikers, and it keeps areas, like the sand dunes, open to "open" use, meaning you can drive wherever you want.
    The
    But it does some things I would rather not see, like limit areas to "existing" routes.

    The "No Action Alternative" does none of the good things.
    Yeah, A will never pass because too many people give in, getting in line with the rest of the sheep. Base jumping areas, what is the percentage of base jumpers to all other users, about nil. Area or not, base jumpers are going to jump from where ever they want to, legal or not, as that is part of the thrill.
    There is no reason they couldn't have put base jumping, signs and parking lots in A, except they want to trick you into wanting the other options. Have you even looked at the map? There is only one small open area in C as opposed to a LOT of open area in A. No open sand dunes by Behind the Rocks in C, and no open sand dunes towards Monitor & Merimac. It doesn't limit trails to existing routes, it limits them to DESIGNATED routes, almost half of what is currently available if you bother to look.
    Why not comment on A stating you like it better because of more open areas, or whatever as you will loose less making concessions on A than trying to add to C. If I was going to pick one other than A, it would be D as it takes the least away.
    The "No Action Alternative" does none of the good things, but it does none of the bad either. I have no idea why people are so willing to give up trails when we hardly ever can get new ones.
    Last edited by jimfoo; August 27th, 2007 at 08:44 AM.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Member #
    12676
    Quote Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
    Don't agree with #1 Because these are the people who understand the fine print and are fighting for OUR rights.

    #2 I totally agree. Most of it outlines other things. Look at the table of contents, scroll down to the recreation sections and read.
    Look at one table in particular.
    Table 4.67. Recreation Activity Participation
    Activity Percentage Participating Percentage as the Main Activity Number of Respondents as Main Activity
    Hiking/Walking/Backpacking 53.3 18.9 220
    Equestrian 1.2 0.9 3
    Bicycling 17.9 13.5 118
    Scenic driving 36.3 10.4 60
    Viewing nature/Wildlife 96.9 9.7 89
    OHV Use/Motorized Trail Use 11.5 6.0 59
    Camping 22.6 2.8 26
    Relaxing 42.4 3.8 24
    Boating 6.9 3.9 27
    I don't know where these #'s came from but look at the number of hikers, bicyclists and nature viewers who responded as opposed to ohv/motorized users, only 59. That's sad. If you want to save your trails, you better respond, you better get your family to respond, your friends to respond, and your clubs to respond.
    One of the major flaws I've seen with these surveys though is that the survey allows you to list every type of activity you do, but also allows people to omit activities that they don't want to mention. How many hikers use OHV routes to reach their hiking destinations?

    As a avid outdoors man, I do participate in many of the categories and my response would not help the OHV category gain traction in the final results (other than the fact that I would choose it as my primary activity). I have no desire to see 4WD routes routes closed because this limits the areas I can access in other modes of transportation too. I also mountain bike, hike, camp, relax and I suppose view nature/wildlife through my landscape photography. In addition, the OHV category gets hit again because it is split from scenic driving, meaning that people who drive OHV routes, might count themselves as Scenic Drivers first rather than OHV drivers. Also considering EJS draws thousands of participants, to only have 59 respondants for the Moab BLM district survey is absurd. It means that the BLM is either not making the survey known, or manipulating the responses to favor a particular outcome.
    Last edited by mrladewig; August 27th, 2007 at 10:29 AM.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
    Yeah, A will never pass because too many people give in, getting in line with the rest of the sheep. Base jumping areas, what is the percentage of base jumpers to all other users, about nil. Area or not, base jumpers are going to jump from where ever they want to, legal or not, as that is part of the thrill.
    There is no reason they couldn't have put base jumping, signs and parking lots in A, except they want to trick you into wanting the other options. Have you even looked at the map? There is only one small open area in C as opposed to a LOT of open area in A. No open sand dunes by Behind the Rocks in C, and no open sand dunes towards Monitor & Merimac. It doesn't limit trails to existing routes, it limits them to DESIGNATED routes, almost half of what is currently available if you bother to look.
    Why not comment on A stating you like it better because of more open areas, or whatever as you will loose less making concessions on A than trying to add to C. If I was going to pick one other than A, it would be D as it takes the least away.
    The "No Action Alternative" does none of the good things, but it does none of the bad either. I have no idea why people are so willing to give up trails when we hardly ever can get new ones.
    I feel this attitude is out of touch with reality.

    The BLM is mandated, by federal law, to revise its land use plans. The current plan was created in the 1980s. It is completely unrealistic to expect them to adopt Alternative A which sticks them with the old plan. Changes need to be made to ensure the area sustains the ever increasing users.

    And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I discount your conspiracy theory that the BLM is trying to "trick" anyone. "A" is a NO-ACTION alternative. By definition, the BLM could not include any of the "good" things in "A." They could include NOTHING in A.

    I looked at all of the maps and read the entire DEIS. I could be wrong, but it appears that "C" leaves the dune play area open near Behind the Rocks.

    It's my opinion that a comment in favor of "A" is counterproductive, but clearly everyone is free to comment as they see fit.

    My suggestion is to comment assuming one of the other alternatives will be adopted, but modified. What is it you don't like about them and how would you like to see them modified? Constructive comments such as that are very useful.

    And feel free to bash me all you want. Clearly, I "give in and get in line with the rest of the sheep" and have no clue what I am talking about

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Broomfield/ Westminster, CO
    Member #
    15
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
    Yeah, A will never pass because too many people give in, getting in line with the rest of the sheep. Base jumping areas, what is the percentage of base jumpers to all other users, about nil. Area or not, base jumpers are going to jump from where ever they want to, legal or not, as that is part of the thrill.
    There is no reason they couldn't have put base jumping, signs and parking lots in A, except they want to trick you into wanting the other options. Have you even looked at the map? There is only one small open area in C as opposed to a LOT of open area in A. No open sand dunes by Behind the Rocks in C, and no open sand dunes towards Monitor & Merimac. It doesn't limit trails to existing routes, it limits them to DESIGNATED routes, almost half of what is currently available if you bother to look.
    Why not comment on A stating you like it better because of more open areas, or whatever as you will loose less making concessions on A than trying to add to C. If I was going to pick one other than A, it would be D as it takes the least away.
    The "No Action Alternative" does none of the good things, but it does none of the bad either. I have no idea why people are so willing to give up trails when we hardly ever can get new ones.
    While I agree with you on multiple levels; the simple reality is OHV enthusiasts are not activists when regarding the majority. On the flip side, hikers, climbers and to a lesser extent mtn bikers are; and we already know about how active the greenies are. When faced with that reality, you can either hope that the OHV users (majority not being part of internet forums) all opf a sudden wake up and start being active in land use issues; or you realize that you have to minimize your losses as best as possible. Unfortunately I gave up on the wake up option a few years ago, so to me the realistic side of me says to look at what is achievable and try to get a bit more than I think will be reality. For me that also is option C, hopefully with a few changes.

    We all can think of this as a warmup for Colorado as the forest service and BLM are already in the same process here.
    -Ben
    74 Bronco garage queen - currently a zero emission vehicle
    my commuter vehicle spews "global warming" gas CO2 & CH4 - dang bicycles :D

  32. #32
    Now while they are trying to reduce user group conflicts, how many conflicts have any of you ever had? For me, AFAIK it's zero. I have however on many occasions run into people in trouble, mostly mountain bikers, who have run out of water long ago, are lost, or are in need of medical attention. If we weren't out there on the same trails, they would be screwed. But no one ever takes this into account.

    Slightly off topic, at least as far as Moab, but how many have seen this?
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jerry Abboud
    Subject: Coconino Proposed Action

    This is beyond outrageous. This Arizona Forest is proposing to limit true motorized recreation (no we don't count improved roads) to levels of absurdity. This is what Gary Wilkinson of handlebar Cycle has stated after reviewing the proposal:

    "With more than 1.8 million acres in the Coconino National forest it is unimaginable that the plan calls for less than thirty miles of trails and roads to be designated for motorized vehicles."

    I have attached Gary's letter as a model for comments that should go in ASAP. This kind of decision has no upside; it will force more recreation into CO that can he handled, stop Coloradans from enjoying an AZ riding experience and completely ignore the public need. The implementation of the Rule and than absolute lack of any coordinated effort from the Chief to the Regions is killing this growing sport. Collective bad decisions without coordination have not only massive unintended consequences they are directly violating the public trust.

    It does not take an astute NEPA planner or a graduate from the Wharton School of Business to understand that even though this is an ongoing process, closing as much as 75% of routes already open means the cost of reviewing them in the future makes it all but impossible for reestablishing routes. It is beyond my comprehension that we are told money for NEPA keeps user created routes from consideration "at this time and" on the other hand the agency closes thousand of miles of roads and trails ALREADY OPEN UNDER PAST AUTHORITIES so they can rush to implementation on an arbitrary date. I have listened to anti-access groups carp about cumulative impacts and unintended consequences for 20 years. Is there one soul in the USDA Sorest Service who has made the connection that theories like these can be exported to other concepts and applied to more than just the physical resource? When will the FS wake up and apply them to the benefits to human beings and the social sustainability of motorized roads and trails?

    Consider letting a rec staffer who knows the needs of all recreationists have half the stature of an "ologist". The FS has created an institutional filtering system that provides for filtering motorized recreation through a fine mesh filter and other recreation through a gas line. After all, Bosworth stated "unmanaged" motorized recreation posed a threat, not managed recreation. Too bad the agency didn't spend enough time on defining managed as something other than closure.

    To those in the FS who have tried to be fair and equitable, my continued thanks. To our friends in Region 2, thanks. This is not an indictment; it is intended to point out the nightmare that getting the Rule implemented in 2 more years is posing, certainly in the context of any leadership from D.C. But if you do not rise up against this problem, the credibility of the agency will be suspect and you will merely encourage the behavior you seek to eliminate.

    The first link is to the Coconino proposal and the second link is intended to drive motorized recreationists to seek psychiatric help in light of the proposal.

    Jerry Abboud.

    Executive Director
    COHVCO

  33. #33
    This issue is confusing so I thought I'd research it and try to help the rest of us who aren't up for reading a huge document. I hope this helps!

    Main BLM page: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/...t_rmp_eia.html
    "Executive Summary" (10 pages) that goes over the whole thing at a high level: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/bl...%20Summary.pdf
    BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) page that sums it up nicely: http://www.sharetrails.org/public_la...ion=MoabUpdate
    How to help: http://www.sharetrails.org/public_la...?section=Moab2

    The way I see it, I can either read the 1000-page document and form my comments and send them off, or I can pay $10 per month to the BRC to have their lawyers do it instead. As much as I'd like to do the work myself, I know I don't have the time or inclination to read and do the research necessary to provide comments. However, I do have $10 per month to pay someone else to do it.

    You can choose to donate money instead, which is tax deductable (the $10 per month membership is not tax deductable). If you do the membership you even get a t-shirt.

    I finally signed up.
    2010 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 4" lift, 37s
    Queen Lunatic #6
    TrailDamage.com Founder

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •