China Wall opens for the season on June 16th!
BLM Royal George Field Office Camping Plan - Comments Due By Jan 31st
The Politicization of Public Lands.
We need your help in Chaffee County. Specifically, we need you to comment on the BLM's Chaffee County camping plan to stop the local politicization of public lands. You may think, what, a camping plan? Why should I care about a camping plan? And you may even think camping should be restricted in certain areas because you have seen the negative impacts. I share your concerns. I am a local business owner in Chaffee County and a fourth-generation native. I have witnessed camping and recreation explode over the last four decades. Some level of management is needed and appropriate. However, the decision process to determine management should be as objective as possible. A few individuals cannot sabotage public land management.
Therefore, you should care about this seemingly irrelevant camping plan because it's the first step in a process designed to limit all forms of recreation over time. It would be naive to think politicizing public lands hasn't happened for decades at the federal level, but this concept is relatively new at the local level. A republic (which we are) practices democracy to make majority decisions, but natural rights protect the individual. This means a majority vote can't take away the rights of an individual. It's essential to understand this concept because if we were a true democracy as a nation, then 51% of the people all thinking the same way could vote to force the other 49% to follow their rules.
Look at it this way; the entire American Public owns public lands. What if a local group decided to manipulate public land usage by claiming a simple political majority to make the entire American public abide by their desires while on public lands? Would you think that should be allowed? I once heard politics described as the ability to take a selfish desire and turn it into a community need. There is no more explicit example of this than a few local people trying to steer public land rules for everyone.
Think this can't happen locally? Some say the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Process is supposed to limit the ability of a special interest group to force an agenda upon public lands, and NEPA instead mandates Public Land Managers to follow an objective process. You would be correct that NEPA should legitimize a process by limiting bias and giving all public land users a voice in decision-making. However, the politicization of public lands seeks to influence NEPA by finding a simple majority to exploit decisions for public lands. This is directly contradictory to all of us owning public lands and participating in the NEPA process, which informs decisions for public lands.
This issue is front and center in the previously mentioned BLM camping plan in Chaffee County. Comments are now being accepted concerning this plan. The camping plan stems from the group Envision Chaffee County, which was conceived by a few residents, one of whom is a County Commissioner. They formed a group masquerading as a county-led initiative, and they passed a sales tax hike in 2018 to support their mission. This tax hike passed 51% to 49. Yet, this group is being passed off as supported by the entire county. It is pushing the BLM Royal George Field Office to run a project they deem necessary to manage the future of camping in several locations on public land within the county boundaries. In simple terms, this group wants public land users locked out of public lands in favor of county residents who don't like the increased use of public lands within Chaffee County. Are you mad yet?
As a county resident, it's a challenging balancing act to see recreation and recreation-related impacts increase and understand the frustration of county residents and property owners. It's equally frustrating, however, to watch new people move into an area, only to decide that there are too many people here now, and we should limit others from coming here and recreating here. At one time, none of us were residents of this county, so why should a few of us ultimately decide the future for everyone?
It's even more frustrating to realize that a small group can force this type of centralized planning on all public land users. This behavior is risky at best because of the potential bias and fallibility of the group doing the planning. In this case, the planner is Envision Chaffee County, and in their own words, their group was started by six citizens of the county to enact their vision for the future. The arrogance of a few people to use government resources to pass their vision for public lands should alarm everyone. This group's glaring conflict of interest has been swept under the table. Chaffee County has allowed seated commissioner Greg Felt to co-found Envision and serve as Envision Co-Chair while also actively holding office. This is simply mind-boggling. At this point, Envision and Chaffee County are not even trying to hide what they are doing.
This is how the local politicization of public lands looks. Groups within a county get a slight majority to win an election and then push that 'majority' agenda upon everyone. This is particularly concerning when it comes to public land owned by all of us. The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), Central Colorado Mountain Riders (CCMR), and Colorado Offroad Enterprise (CORE) warned of this happening in 2018 when Envision Chaffee County was formed and when the individuals behind Envision put the Tax Initiative to fund Envision on the ballot. We cautioned it would be used as a justification to limit existing and future recreation. We even went so far as to suggest it could be used as a justification to close roads and trails and could compartmentalize the county and dismiss future trail proposals. Our concerns fell on deaf ears, and we were told we were making too much out of nothing. We were told this process wasn't intended to close anything but was necessary to 'Balance' public land use. Well…enter the BLM camping plan, which closes 40% of the roads analyzed for the least restrictive Alternative being considered and 85% of roads analyzed for the most restrictive Alternative under consideration for the project. But, pay no attention to that fact because 'we don't intend to close roads' is what Envision has said openly multiple times. Yet, every time I hear this, it's as if the scene from Star Wars is playing in my head where Obi-Wan Kenobi controls weak minds causing them to say…' These are not the droids you are looking for ''…
The red flags with Envision are everywhere. The very word balance is being manipulated. The Envision project took on a ''Rec in Balance'' mission to balance recreation use within the county. These words are specific jargon chosen as propaganda to advance an agenda. Suppose something is out of balance, then by default. In that case, it needs balancing. By branding your project as the solution to balance the equation, you define the endpoint before starting the ''public,'' and ''objective'' processes used to determine what we (Chaffee County) need to do. Simply put, this project was intended to limit and restrain the growth of recreation (all types) within Chaffee County.
It's one thing to say things need to be balanced, but then you need a catalyst to motivate unknowing people to act favorably on your plan. The Envision Plan's catalyst became wildlife and propping wildlife habitat and big game herds up on a pedestal that creates an impossible scenario to argue against. Envision's own words were this: "Local herds of elk, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat are really taking a hit as human pressure moves them out of high-quality habitat and shrinks the area they need to survive." Some people looked at this on the surface and thought, fantastic; they are balancing recreation use and protecting wildlife. I can get behind that. On the flip side, some of us were highly skeptical and were then branded as not caring about nature and only caring about recreation, which according to Envision, destroys wildlife habitat. See how propaganda works? You create a problem, offer a solution to said problem, control the narrative, and then brand those questioning your narrative as bad people. Envision Chaffee County is a textbook example of this method.
As the above quote shows, Envision tried to use declining big game herd numbers in Chaffee County to justify their group’s intentions. This tactic got people's attention. Just one problem, the Big Game Report put out by CPW showed that for the region encompassing Chaffee County, the herd numbers were at their desired management range, not below. Never mind that Mountain Goats are an invasive species not native to Colorado, and they compete with Big Horn Sheep for habitat. On top of that, the Envision Wildlife Data was peer-reviewed by several biologists and was found to have inaccurate information, and they had misapplied wildlife science for Colorado. We should always be skeptical of groups trying to justify controlling other people out of an urgent need to protect something. It's not that these needs are always false. However, the burden of proof is on those suggesting the rule changes. They are the ones who should thoroughly provide the evidence to support their solutions. Envision has never done this and has taken a hostile, defensive posture whenever their plan was scrutinized. Good plans can survive scrutiny, and when good plans use scrutiny and adjust accordingly, they can become great plans.
Many people have asked Envision Chaffee County tough questions throughout this process. One of those questions was, why are we recreating the NEPA process? Envision responded with; our plan does not replace NEPA. Ok, so what does your plan do then? Our plan informs the NEPA process. And there it is, the real reason for doing this, trying to leverage and steer NEPA. How does ''informing'' NEPA do that, you might say? Well, it's simple, NEPA does not make decisions; it informs a decision. It gives land managers a broad spectrum of information to use when deciding. So, if NEPA doesn't make decisions, how can you inform a process designed to inform land managers for decision making? Right, you can't. Envision seeks to influence the NEPA process used to inform land managers’ decisions, which is unacceptable. Again, NEPA is supposed to guard against that effort. Instead of allowing NEPA to run as required, they don't trust the objective outcome to achieve their desired results. So, they are now trying to lobby NEPA into pushing their agenda.
Chaffee County and Envision have cried, we can do this as a ''Cooperating Agency,'' and we are well within our rights to ask the Forest Service and BLM to act in the interest of Chaffee County. This is primarily true but needs context. There is a regulation that is, in fact, part of NEPA describing a cooperating agency and allowing participation for that agency within the process. Chaffe County has leapfrogged this and started a group (Envision) designed to push the BLM, in this case, into running the projects they want. This may not be unprecedented, as a cooperating agency (A county) will sometimes create an MOU with a land manager, clearly spelling out their relationship and understanding before pushing a project. And then, once the project is initiated, the Land Manger has county employees work with the Land Management ID team to inform the project for specific county details. This is the central issue here; Chaffee County is 100% in the gray area with Envision. The county does not have an MOU with land managers. They also are not participating in the NEPA process as a cooperating agency. They started a ''Community Group'' (Envision) to steer land management decisions within the boundaries of Chaffee County. That is unprecedented and does the exact thing NEPA was set up to mitigate, special interest influence.
Envision Chaffee County is what started the Chaffee County BLM Camping project. This is the first project spurred by their work, and that's why all public land users must make their voices heard. Not only does dispersed camping stand to be severely limited in select areas, but there are also lots of road closures proposed along the way. And concerning is the fact that the BLM and Envision have not even acknowledged a severe problem in Chaffee County that is making camping an attractive option, affordable housing. Many people camp on public lands all summer (against the existing regulations) to live and work here. This is not a good practice, and it does damage to public lands, but it is a reality, and it should be acknowledged if we are ever going to solve the camping problem.
So, what can you do to help? You can send comments to the BLM to inform them you are not satisfied with their draft alternatives for the Camping Project. You should tell them none of the Alternatives are acceptable, and there should be no road closures to manage camping impacts. Tell them they should enforce the existing public land camping regulations and tell them they should consider another alternative to expand dispersed camping in an organized manner to help account for the demand. Tell them the BLM should also broaden their project area because if they close campsites in small sections of Chaffee County, users will undoubtedly make new sites in other locations as a result. Ignoring these issues will not ultimately fix the problem.
The comment deadline is January 31st. Take a few minutes to send them your thoughts. Follow the below link to the project page and the Alternative Maps. You can also make comments on this page. Also, see the link to the Wildlife Peer Review outlining all the issues with the Envision Wildlife Tool.
Marcus Trusty
CORE President/Founder
GMUG Forest Plan Comments
The Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest released its Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) and your input is requested.
This Forest Plan provides a broad vision for the National Forest moving forward and will guide where motorized use is allowed and prohibited. The Forest Plan is similar to a city or county zoning plan on USFS land. The last time the GMUG did a Forest Plan was 38 years ago!
Establishing an accurate summary of current management on the forest has been a persistent problem and is a very concerning starting point for the plan. Generally, this plan is confusing and includes analysis based on inaccurate information.
Below are our generalized thoughts on each alternative, with our conclusion that Alternative C is the best option for motorized recreation. See our initial video published (see below) on September 10th for additional info leading up to this point.
Alternative A is intended to represent the status of the current GMUG Forest Plan, however, it fails to accurately reflect current management. This prevents our ability to address possible impacts proposed in the other alternatives.
Alternative B is ok but fails to recognize the need for future flexibility. One important issue is the designation of 700,000 acres (about 23%) of the forest as wildlife habitat and restricting future road or trail development to 1 mile of trail per square mile of land to ALL recreational users is virtually impossible for actual passage through most Colorado terrain. Additionally, there is highly restrictive zoning that could prevent future route development or adjustments should they become necessary due to natural forces. Bottom line: it takes a large area of the GMUG off the table for future trail development and/or unforeseen management needs.
Alternative D is terrible for motorized recreation and must be opposed. There are too many restrictions. For example, it increases roadless and wilderness areas in the GMUG from the current 50% to 77% (1.5 million acres to 2.3 million acres). This alternative is a nonstarter given the crushing impacts it would have on recreational access.
Alternative C
The TPA, CORE, COTD, and CSA are supporting Alternative C with modifications and will make site-specific recommendations to the US Forest Service.
This is the best alternative for motorized recreation because:
It appears to be the closest thing to current management
Is the most flexible with fewer zoning restrictions
Allows more management of the forest in the event of natural forces (fire, floods, landslides, etc.) and recreation development.
We support Alternative C with the following modifications:
The addition of verbiage from Alternative B protects motorized access to the Continental Divide Trail and areas around the trail.
The addition of specific protection to any route that has already been approved as a motorized route in site-specific Travel Management by the FS. In particular any of these routes that have been proposed to be encompassed by a Primitive or Semi Primitive Non-Motorized ROS category.
Consistency between Wildlife Management Area trail densities and best available science that are based on wildlife population counts published by CPW.
Please read through Alternative C, take a look at the Recreation Settings Storymaps and use this information as a guide to make these points in your own words and submit them to the US Forest Service. Be sure to check for mapping inaccuracies and semi-primitive non-motorized zones which contain existing motorized roads and trails. Remember to tell them the following:
Who you are.
Your experience recreating in GMUG, or your interest in doing so in the future.
The recreational opportunities you seek (e.g. motorcycle singletrack loops, 4x4 trails).
List any discrepancies/inaccuracies you found in their maps.
Your recommendations to them and your support for other comments.
Deadline for Comments - Friday, November, 26th
GMUG Forest Plan Update
This video describes the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison Forest Plan (GMUG) that is now in the Draft Environmental Impact Study phase. Currently we are in the midst of a 90 comment period that opened on August 13th, 2021 and will close November 11th 2021. Beginning September 9th the USFS will hold virtual public meetings that we encourage you to attend to learn more about the plan. The TPA recently provided an update on the subject that can be viewed on the TPA site.
In addition this video discusses a foundational issue with the plans Alternative A, the alternative that represents the current management. For more information on this issue please refer to the following letter submitted on behalf of the organizations (TPA, COHVCO,CSA) to the GMUG pointing out these issues.
**Land Use Alert - Saxon Mountain**
Saxon Mountain needs your help. Clear Creek County Comissioners are considering temporary and/or permanent closure of Saxon Mountain on July 20th @ 0845
Login to the meeting at this link:
If you would like to email your comments, please send them to all three Clear Creek County Commissioners and the Clear Creek County Sheriff.
swood@co.clear-creek.co.us
rwheelock@clearcreekcounty.us
gmarlin@clearcreekcounty.us
ralbers@clearcreeksheriff.us
Express to them you support keeping Saxon Mountain open to offroad use and request they find a long-term solution.
#keeptrailsopen #doyourpart #fireuptheemail #closureisntacceptable
**Land Use Alert** Chaffee County Draft Rec Plan
We need your help in Chaffee County. A citizen planning group, Envision Chaffee County, has produced a Draft Recreation Plan for the Salida and Buena Vista Areas in Central Colorado. Within this plan, we have identified some issues and concerns we would like to share with you.
While it is possible to submit responses through the Envision website, we encourage you to send them directly to the Chaffee County Commissioners, Chaffee County Planning & Zoning, and Cindy Williams, the co-chair of Envision Recreation in Balance. Please copy and paste the following email addresses into your browser.
Commissioner Greg Felt (ERiB Co-Chair)- gfelt@chaffeecounty.org
Commissioner Keith Baker - kbaker@chaffeecounty.org
Commissioner Rusty Granzella - rgranzella@chaffeecounty.org
Planning and Zoning Dan Swallow - dswallow@chaffeecounty.org
Planning and Zoning Jon Roorda - jroorda@chaffeecounty.org,
Planning and Zoning Christie Barton - cbarton@chaffeecounty.org
Cindy Williams (ERiB Co-Chair) - cindy@envisionchaffeecounty.org
Watch the following video and tell them:
1. Who you are, and be sure to mention if you are a Chaffee County resident.
2. What you like to do in Chaffee County.
3. You do not think a 3rd party special interest group like Envision should be developing a plan that insinuates they have decision authority on public land management. Envision should not be implying the Travel Management Planning process mandated by federal law - specifically with Voluntary Seasonal Closures, Recreation development “no go” zones, and identifying areas of critical wildlife habitat in a county Recreation Plan.
That’s it - clean, simple, and to the point. The more input, the better, and this is all you need to say!
The full draft plan is found here.
#beinvolved #doyourpart #volunteer #trailusersunite #keeptrailsopen #beintheknow
**BLM Chaffee County Camping Scoping**
CORE submitted these comments on behalf our members, sponsors and supporters:
Hello BLM Camping and Travel Management Team,
Introduction:
My name is Marcus Trusty. I am the founder/president of Colorado Offroad Enterprise (CORE), based in Buena Vista, CO. CORE is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping all motorized roads and trails open in Central Colorado. CORE currently helps maintain 15 adopted trails in the Central Colorado Region. During 2019, we completed nearly 2,000 volunteer hours through our organization. We have a volunteer agreement with the Royal George Field Office and have helped with the BLM areas in Chaffee County for five years.
I am a third-generation Chaffee County Native and own a local business that has been in operation for 15 years. I have spent a considerable amount of time on BLM-managed land in Chaffee County, participating in all types of recreation, including dispersed camping.
Camping in Central Colorado is a complex activity, one in which people engage for various reasons. In many cases, camping is considered and analyzed as recreation; however, many seasonal employees of the local summer economy live on public lands during the summer months. Public Land camping has become the go-to for cheap housing within proximity to businesses, municipalities, and recreation areas.
A. Introduction and Background:
The project introduction references "high-quality camping experiences." How does the BLM measure high quality concerning camping? For many, camping is the recreational experience sought by users. This experience could include quiet, seclusion, views, and no visual impacts of other campers. However, for many others, camping is the means to different recreational experiences. Many users are camping to have a base in the area to engage in many forms of recreation. In those instances, just having a campsite on public land is desirable and is not measured by the “quality” of that site. In other cases, users are short-term living in camps, which is how trash and human waste has accumulated in a short time.
Why is this project solely focused on a few areas within the Chaffee County Boundaries? Users do not recreate within arbitrary county boundaries, and it's well established that recreation is dynamic and not static. This project takes a more static look at camping within a few areas; however, without including a more regional approach, if the project decision restricts camping in these areas, the decision will merely push camping into other areas within Chaffee County or the Central Colorado region.
B. Purpose and Need:
The first paragraph is clear in articulating the BLM's obligations and standards for entering into this process. Overuse of a resource will include on-ground evidence and scientific facts supporting that overuse. The second paragraph of the Purpose and Need appears to try and support the first paragraph. However, there are several non-scientific statements made that rely on personal accounts without facts or research. The second paragraph refers to 'User Conflict.' Still, it does nothing to explain how this stated conflict is an Interpersonal Conflict, meaning there is a specific and defined on-ground conflict that can be mitigated through management, and presumably, this process. Without specifics, this process could also include Social Values Conflict. Social Values Conflict is not clearly defined and includes negative emotions directed at a user group. Without stating which 'User Conflict' the BLM is referring to, this process could be too heavily influenced by those who do not like camping and think all camping is damaging. That non-scientific bias would produce a plan that does not work as intended.
The last two sentences of the Purpose and Need are likely referring to the Envision Chaffee County Process, and the Chaffee County Recreation Survey results developed from that group. The results from that survey used the exact phrase eluding to decrease in visitor satisfaction related to the increase in dispersed camping. While all survey information derived through that process is important, the BLM should evaluate it in context with all information regarding the local population and visitor statistics. The Envision project had 2,543 complete responses to their non-scientific recreation survey. With a Chaffee County population of 18,507 as of the last census, the survey responses represent 13% of the local population. While it's important to evaluate the concerns of the 13% of people who filled out the survey, many of whom are residents, it's also essential to compare it to the 87% of county residents who did not find enough issues with the quality of their recreation experience to take time to register a response or complaint. To take it a step further, the Envision Process concluded that Four Million recreation users visit Chaffee County each year. Survey responses from 2,543 users, some of which recorded a negative user experience, compared to Four Million visitors are not statistically significant.
How is the BLM accounting for the "stress" associated with finding a campsite? The project's final decision could very likely restrict camping; how would a restriction in camping solve stress related to finding a campsite?
The Purpose and Need are also lacking reference to Short-Term Living. Short-Term Living is taking place on BLM via camping and, in many cases, is taking place in the areas focused on during this process. If this issue is not acknowledged or addressed, the outcome of this process will not be effective. People living on public lands all summer push those who visit Chaffee County for recreation to seek new places to camp. In many circumstances, these short-term campers do not have access to many of the existing campsites because they are occupied by people living in the area for the summer months. This is an unfortunate omission and should be addressed during the process.
C. Area Descriptions:
Shavano Area
This area has become one of the most attractive for short-term living due to the proximity of Salida. Many people are camping in this area to work and recreate in Salida and Southern Chaffee County. The lack of a travel management network for the routes should be the beginning of this process before addressing camping. Additionally, the routes in this area continue for many miles onto National Forest-managed land. If the BLM were to restrict camping in some fashion within the Shavano Area Boundaries, what would stop campers from driving .5 miles farther up the road and recreating these same campsites on The Forest? This real possibility could double the negative impacts by campers creating new sites in undisturbed areas.
The BLM should designate a route network in the Shavano Area and establish existing sites as dispersed camping sites. The camping impacts on the ground are already present, and people are camping here for several desirable reasons. The BLM should not close or restrict camping in this area because these same impacts and sites will pop up in another location.
Burmac/Methodist Area
This area is an example of short-term living in specific conflict with users looking to access the area trails. These specifics include finding places to park for day use, competing for areas to camp overnight, and the possibility of encountering illegal behavior. These issues are examples of Interpersonal Conflict. If the short-term living issues due to the proximity of Salida are not addressed, there will continue to be problems in this area.
Fourmile North
Fourmile North is suffering from three distinct issues, which have led to the current camping concerns.
First, the 2002 Fourmile Travel Management Decision closed numerous full-size vehicle routes to motorized use and converted several others to 50" trails. These actions restricted overnight use of several existing campsites along the closed routes. Since people generally don't camp off their ATV, the decision also rendered the campsites along the converted 50" trails useless. Several additional decisions closing routes or route sections and short spurs in the past 20 years have contributed to restricting the available camping.
Second, as noted, there has been an increase in additional trails and recreational opportunities. This has drawn more people to the area for recreation; many of these people seek overnight options.
Third, this area is frequented by people short-term living during the summer to work in and around Buena Vista.
These three issues, which have all contributed to the Fourmile North camping issues, should be considered by the BLM for this area. All the pre-2002 sites that are no longer accessible to a vehicle have now shown back up on the current allowable routes. The BLM and The Forest have never addressed if many of these sites are new or if they replaced the sites that are no longer accessible. An increase in recreation opportunities has drawn more users, and the proximity to Buena Vista is driving issues. The BLM should thoroughly analyze all three variables before formulating alternatives for Fourmile North. Ideally, more areas like Turtle Rock should be implemented where existing sites are grouped. The BLM should also heed this example where closing routes had unintended consequences and has contributed to the current problem.
Browns Canyon National Monument/Hecla Junction
This area is somewhat of an overflow issue concerning Segment 2 of the BLM/AHRA management area, Hecla Junction. Many of these sites serve river users looking to get away from the business of the Hecla site but are looking for camping proximity to the river access. This area should be considered an extension of the BLM/AHRA Hecla site, and management should follow within the same parameters. Multiple camping-based internet pages recommend this area for river camping access and Browns Canyon National Monument.
Pass Creek
The Pass Creek area should not be on this list according to the Purpose and Need. Pass Creek has five campsites inventoried within the 5,200-acre area, which is does not fit within the stated justification for inclusion into this process found on page 4.
Staff have also identified increased instances of human waste and trash surrounding preferred camping areas as well as conflicts between visitors or other land users. Anecdotally, the staff is also beginning to notice a decrease in visitor satisfaction as vehicle based campsites become unsightly from trash and human waste or are experiencing stress in trying to locate camping opportunities. This all indicates a need to move forward in developing a management framework and strategy for vehicle based dispersed camping in the Shavano area.
The project claims that this area was included because it could be impacted in the future.
Given the proximity to Poncha Springs and other high-valued recreation assets, it is anticipated that use in this area will see increased visitation and camping demand.
How can BLM consider this area for potential future impacts and the future project decision, but has chosen not to expand this camping management project beyond the Chaffee County boundaries? There are several areas under BLM management adjacent to and within Chaffee County that the project decision will most certainly impact.
Miscellaneous Lands
The project lists several additional dispersed camping sights that were documented within Chaffee County at some point. The project does not detail why these sights were registered concerning this project or by whom. The project lists a blanket statement for justification as to why they are included.
Recreation use and camping impacts are relatively limited in these areas but are in close proximity to high valued recreation resources such as the Arkansas River and popular trail systems.
There appears to be an assumption within this language that these sights are new. This would then justify a management implementation to control dispersed camping in these areas. The BLM should attempt to document and understand the history of these sites and why they are used. The two sites north of Buena Vista have been used for decades, and the two sites documented at the entrance to Chinaman Gulch, Carnage Canyon, and the two sights in Bald Mountain Gulch have also been used for several decades. However, in all these instances, new sights have not popped up in these areas. The BLM should understand why and how this project could cause new impacts where none currently exist. This reality is also why this project should not be focused solely on Chaffee County.
*New Sponsor Announcement!*
We are pleased to welcome Park Property Management and Sales to the CORE Sponsor Family!
Park Property Management offers:
Full-Service Property Management in Park County and the Arkansas Valley
They are a local company servicing the Park County and Chaffee County areas since 2004. Fairplay, Alma, Buena Vista, Twin Lakes, Nathrop, Hartsel, Jefferson, and Como. Terry Sandmeier is a licensed Broker and is the Owner of Park Property Management and Sales. We thrive to provide you; honest, reliable, punctual, knowledgeable, professional, property management, and real estate services.
CORE members can enjoy any of our vacation properties with 5% off the nightly rental price.
Find their site here.
Moab Travel Management Area!
We wanted to provide an update regarding the current scoping phase of travel management planning the BLM is doing for the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area North West of Moab. It’s great to see so much energy and enthusiasm around this issue for an area that so many of us know and relate to.
This process is the result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) claiming the BLM failed to follow the correct process 2008 when developing its Travel Management Plan (TMP) across much of southern Utah. SUWA settled and as part of the 2017 settlement agreement the BLM is now revisiting a number of Travel Management Areas (TMA) across the state of which Labyrinth is the third of 12 total TMA’s.
The first revisited TMA was the San Rafael Desert, essentially all the land south of I-70, west of the Green River to Highway 24 and south towards Hanksville. The San Rafael Desert final TMP decision was viewed as acceptable for motorized recreationalists in that it kept two-thirds of the existing routes open, most of which SUWA set out to close. Link to decision here. The second, the San Rafael Swell, which includes trails such as the infamous 5 miles of Hell, Colored Trails, Waterfall and Devil’s Racetrack is also underway with the scoping phase that ended in early March 2021.
Together, Ride with Respect (RwR), The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) have been engaged in this process from the beginning and named as interveners. We have been working diligently providing comments for the previous reviewed TMA’s and will continue to do so as this process moves forward to provide a voice for all motorized recreationalists.
Other thoughts-
The Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges TMA is 330,000 acres and is one of twelve TMA’s which collectively threatens millions of acres.
There are 9 more TMA’s that will be undergoing the same process in the coming months. We hope to get the same enthusiasm for the others but know that groups such as RwR, TPA, COHVCO and others such as Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) are engaged for all motorized recreationalist.
Other TMA’s are not as popular or as well known as the Labyrinth/Gemini zone; they are all valuable motorized routes to our recreation group. And as more and more people find the value in this form of recreation it’s important to protect all designated routes.
This is a scoping process which is the first step in travel management planning and is when the agency seeks to identify public concerns and issues to be analyzed.
Wilderness groups, such as SUWA, want everything closed to motorized use which is unreasonable. We have thousands of acres protected and designated as wilderness.
Less than 1% of the TMA’s are designated routes so essentially 99% of the existing TMA’s are already non-motorized.
In the upcoming TMA’s scoping processes it will be valuable to ensure that all existing routes are included. Any routes that are not on current BLM maps need to be documented in the scoping period.
Motorized groups' position is more reasonable considering we are advocating to, in this case, keep existing opportunities in an area where we continue to lose access. As motorized recreationalist it is imperative that we make our voices heard in the most reasonable and informed way possible.
This threatens Dispersed Camping which is more than just a motorized user issue.
Register a comment Here.
Exclusive Discounts for CORE Members.
Watch the video to find out how to unlock CORE Member Discounts and we are awaiting word on our Travel Management Objections to the PSI.