PDA

View Full Version : Kanab Field Office Comments (ends 1/10/08)


DaveInDenver
01-03-2008, 09:17 AM
This one is a full Draft EIS/RMP, not just some slight of hand to designate land as a 'WSA' or 'Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics'. Comments ends in a week, so do a quick read and fire off something! I have not had the time to fully read this one, so I'm flying blind to a large extent. I hate sappy generic emails, but that's gonna have to do.

Blue Ribbon Page:
http://www.sharetrails.org/public_lands/?section=Kanab

Kanab planning web page:
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/kanab/planning.html

Draft RMP/EIS:
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/kanab/planning/draft_rmp_eis.html

Red_Chili
01-03-2008, 10:20 AM
My comments. Before you get too impressed with the content, realize that I am quoting the science in the DEIS (which is well structured BTW) to support my points. In other words, liberal copy/paste. :lmao: With the requisite rewording of course. Send your comments in to UT_Kanab_Comments@blm.gov

Dear BLM Representative-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Kanab DEIS.

I truly appreciate the need to preserve our public lands and to conserve them with
regards to wildlife, erosion, and water quality. Our 4x4 club is a responsible
club, meaning we adopt roads and trails and rehabilitate wetlands - we have been
featured in local news outlets for some of the projects we have funded and completed
with volunteer labor and significant donations. Our annual Cruise Moab event, a
success for over ten years, and a valuable responsible use experience for hundreds
of 4x4 recreationists, generates significant funds which we then turn around and
donate to land use causes. We put our money where our mouth is, in other words.

Proper signage, sustainable trail routing, maps, and on the ground education via
interpretive markers and printed materials are the best means of keeping access
open to ALL recreationists while minimizing impact. Please contact us for assistance
in this regard; we stand ready to serve.

Review of Alternatives:
We generally support the preferred alternative B, except for OHV management. Alternative
B could be greatly improved by incorporating the OHV management standards in Alternative D.

Alternative OHV Management Summary:
Alternative B (Preferred)
Manage OHV use according to open, closed, or limited (seasonally and/or spatially) area and route designations as follows:
– Approximately 1,100 acres open to cross-country OHV use
– 28,900 acres closed to OHV use
– 524,000 acres of limited OHV use, with 1,385 miles of designated routes, 2 miles of routes closed seasonally, and 118 miles of closed routes.

Alternative D
Manage OHV use according to open, closed, or limited (seasonally and/or spatially) area and route designations as follows:
– Approximately 1,100 acres open to cross-country OHV use; in addition, ephemeral washes throughout the decision area would be open.
– 27,600 acres closed to OHV use.
– 525,300 acres of limited OHV use, with 1,462 miles of designated routes, 2 miles of routes closed seasonally, and 41 miles of closed routes.

Discussion of Alternatives B and D, and Statement of Values:
Rising Sun 4x4 Club generally does not support open, cross-country travel for OHVs.
The possibilities for abuse in fragile terrain are too great, which will cause our
preferred mode of recreation to be threatened in the future, and degrade the recreation
experience for our group and other recreation groups, not to mention multipying
environmental impacts.

We are also concerned about poorly managed resource extraction. As described in
the DEIS, Alternative D would be less restrictive on oil and gas exploration and
development activities compared to Alternative B and Alternative C, but more restrictive
than Alternative A (no action). We support careful management of extractive industry
on public lands, from a recreational and environmental perspective.

The differences in OHV management are not dramatic between the two alternatives.
Yet, Alternative D recognizes that in certain areas and types of terrain, cross
country travel presents a unique recreation alternative that does not impact soils
that are already naturally disturbed. Driving or riding (using motorcycle or ATVs)
in ephemeral washes is a unique desert travel experience that should be preserved,
especially since its impact is minimal to nonexistent in soils already naturally
disturbed. This preserves the 'open travel' experience in a sustainable
fashion.

The OHV management policy in Alternative D would create zero increase in emissions
from existing conditions according to the DEIS. It protects fragile soils from
damage by not allowing cross-country OHV use and incorporating erosion control measures
in fragile soil areas. Under the OHV policy of Alternative D, impacts on soils
from cross-country OHV use would nearly be eliminated compared to Alternative A
because the number of acres open to OHV use would be reduced to only 1,100 acres,
mainly in areas with naturally disturbed soils such as sand dunes and ephemeral
washes. Instead of cross-country OHV use, OHV use would be limited to 1,464 miles
of designated routes on 525,300 acres (95%), indirectly protecting nearby soils
from increased erosion by focusing impacts on compacted surfaces. Closing 27,600
acres (5%) to OHV use likely would reduce any OHV-related soil impacts in these
areas. This represents a significant improvement in OHV management, and a sharp
reduction in impacts, while preserving as much cross country travel as possible
while remaining responsible.

Also under Alternative D OHV management, impacts on water resources from cross-country
OHV use would nearly be eliminated compared to current conditions because the number
of acres open to OHV use would be only 1,100 acres, mainly in areas with naturally
disturbed soils such as sand dunes and ephemeral washes. Instead of open cross-country
OHV use, OHV use would be limited to 1,464 miles of designated routes on 525,300
acres (95%). OHV use on designated routes would maintain existing vegetation and
soil resources by focusing impacts on existing linear disturbances that have already
been affected. Closing 27,600 acres (5%) to OHV use would eliminate OHV-related
water impacts in these areas. This policy is an improvement over existing conditions
while retaining as many OHV recreation options as possible.

We would stress that the BLM should involve OHV groups in reviewing routes slated
for closure to determine if remediation steps can be taken using volunteer labor
and donations to restore highly impacted areas. To reduce OHV access at a time
when demand is increasing will also increase per-mile impacts on remaining areas,
and reduce the recreation experience in them. Please do not reduce OHV access when
other choices are available.

Our Position:
For these reasons we support Alternative B (modified), utilizing the more liberal
OHV management policies of Alternative D, which still dramatically improve the quality
of OHV management in the area. The BLM should involve OHV groups in reviewing routes
slated for closure to determine if remediation steps can be taken using volunteer
labor and donations to restore highly impacted areas. Please modify Alternative
B to include these changes.

Conclusion:
Rising Sun 4x4 Club has worked hard to develop an excellent relationship with the
BLM and has been
very responsible with our “Cruise Moab” permit that we have had over the last 11
years. On every club run, we compete to see who can pick up the most trash, and
we report trail conditions - and volunteer to address them - with local land managers.
We stop and talk to people we see ignoring the rules and find for the most part,
it is because they were not aware of the rules. If we see an illegal user-created
route while we are on an approved route, we will stop and try to block it off and
then report it to the local land manager.

Why do we do all of this? Access to these precious lands is prized by us and we
feel it is key to set the example and work with the BLM and USFS to ensure the trails
are being used responsibly. It is not someone else problem to police, but all who
enjoy these national treasures. Motorized access is the only means most of us have
at our disposal to see them.

Please do not reduce motorized access at a time when demand is increasing. Doing
so will only increase the per-mile impact on remaining OHV-legal wild lands, turning
them into 'throw-away' areas, degrading the recreation experience, and ironically
teaching people that these areas do not matter - worsening the existing land use
problems.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to contact me about keeping these trails
open for responsible off road use.

Thank You,

Bill Morgan
Rising Sun 4X4 club of Colorado
Land Use Coordinator
[address]

cruiseroutfit
01-08-2008, 11:51 AM
Sorry we didn't get this over here sooner, we now have our PR dude (username U4WDA) activated on the Rising Sun Forum so you will get info like this in advance :cool: Look forward to more info in the coming months, the Monticallo and Richfield RMP's are underway, Monticello is particularly important as it contains the Hotel Rock and Arch Canyon trails as run during Cruise Moab, under the "green" alternative Arch Canyon would be lost -Kurt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/SethBowers/U4WDA-Logo-Small-Horz.jpg

YOU NEED TO COMMENT ON THIS... NOW!


What: The Kanab BLM District is revising their Resource Management Plan (RMP), this plan will dictate the future of motorized recreation on all BLM lands in the greater Kanab area. The Kanab BLM office has developed four alternatives, each with varying components such as the amount of trails it closes to motorized use. The U4WDA has worked closely with our local member club the Canyon Country 4x4 Club to make sure our voice is heard, make sure your voice is too!

When: Comments are due by January 10th, 2008. If your mailing them, send them a couple of days early.

Why: If we don't, existing access to countless historic trails could be lost, they are slated for closure under several alternatives of the new RMP. Additionally the BLM has determined portions of land having "Wilderness Characteristics", many of which are part of SUWA's Redrock Wilderness Act before Congress. We need to fight this here. Don't let them push this into the RMP. These areas could become "fake" Wilderness, despite the fact they currently have existing and open roads right through them. Access to these areas would be lost forever!

How can you help: Take 20-30 minutes of your time and follow these steps.

Step 1: Read through the U4WDA Official Comment regarding the Kanab RMP here:
http://www.u4wda.org/documents/U4WDA.Kanab.Official.pdf

Step 2: Read through these suggested talking/comment points here:
http://www.u4wda.org/documents/U4WDA.Kanab.RMP.Talking.Points.pdf

Step 3: Write your comment! Include personal experiences in the area, future plans, but be sure to reference the talking points in Step 2. Be polite, descriptive, and most of all informed.

Your done!

Mail or email your comments here:

Mail:
Bureau of Land Management
Kanab Field Office
RMP Comments
318 North 100 East
Kanab, UT 84741

Email:
UT_Kanab_Comments@blm.gov


FAQ:

Q: Why don't you just list the email address to submit comments?
A: Comments need to be substantive! Simple comments like, "please keep the roads open" or "I support OHV recreation" are worthless and will be discarded. Take a few minutes to read through the information provided, and then submit your own comments.

Q: Why don't we use an automated "letter writer" or an online form letter to submit comments?
A: Automatically generated comments & form letters are worthless! These comments are counted as ONE comment even if 10,000 people send in the email. The comments need to be personal, unique, and informed.

Q: Isn't this a little late notice?
A: Information about the RMP has been available for months all over the Internet, in U4 publications, and on numerous online forums. But it's not too late! Submit your comments today!


PLEASE ACT NOW!


For more information & questions:
Feel free to contact me: Kurt Williams - kurt@u4wda.org

Red_Chili
01-08-2008, 03:53 PM
Didn't take long for the Wilderness Society to settle their crosshairs on this one. Note how they present the existence of 4x4 routes in this area:
2. TAKE ACTION

Keep Utah Wilderness Wild

If you've ever visited Kanab, Utah, you'll recall the stunning
view of brilliantly-hued Vermilion Cliffs that rise behind the
town. Not far away are undulating waves of salmon-pink sand
dunes and towering ponderosa pines, as well as ecologically
diverse riparian areas like the Paria River, the East Fork of
the Virgin River, Kanab Creek and other lush desert oases.

This region is managed by the BLM, but the lands belong to all
Americans, near or far.

In the past two decades, off-road vehicle use in this area has
increased dramatically, along with damage to wildlife habitat
and wilderness. Yet people seeking quiet recreation here
outnumber ORV users 4-1. That makes it even more of a concern
that the BLM would propose a management plan that would allow
thousands of miles of ORV trails to carve up the area's
wilderness.

We can and should speak for our land, our wilderness and our
wildlife. Please click below to tell the BLM to to protect the
Kanab District's wild places:
then they give a link to a letter generator.

Gee, the BLM is going to make thousands of miles of off-road vehicle trails in wilderness. Consider how that would make your blood boil if you value wild lands but do not use an OHV to enjoy them.

Never mind that these routes have been in existence for a great deal of time, and what they are really wanting to do is shut them down. They don't even like the preferred alternative, which is a bit harsh from our perspective. But they do not present it like that to their membership do they?

And nonmotorized recreationists outnumber OHV users 4:1? That becomes implausible if you even look at a map of the area, and where it is, for pities sake. You ain't gettin' there without a vehicle.

Write your letters, folks.

cruiseroutfit
01-08-2008, 05:42 PM
...And nonmotorized recreationists outnumber OHV users 4:1? That becomes implausible if you even look at a map of the area, and where it is, for pities sake. You ain't gettin' there without a vehicle...

Table 3-26 is VERY flawed, for numerous reasons. Their own reports says "critical user information was NOT available", so they basically guessed. Much of the info was likely taken from "Guest Logs" at various trailheads, well, guess who is more likely to sign in, a backpacker hiking the trail, or a 4x4 user driving by. You guessed it...

In addition, the forumula they used for "user days" was a bit skewed too.

Rest assured I think we have really covered this RMP. Our local club affiliate (the CC4x4 Club) worked with the local OHV clubs and submitted alot of info. I spoke in depth with several of the "on the ground" rangers at the SLC comment meeting, they were optimistic.

Thanks for your interest and effort guys! :beer:

PS, great comment Dave! :cool:

Romer
01-08-2008, 08:04 PM
Letter Sent.

Thanks Kurt for the information, it was very helpful.

cruiseroutfit
01-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Letter Sent.

Thanks Kurt for the information, it was very helpful.

Glad it was :cool: