Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Tony Eeds, post: 1242500, member: 32023"] Issue: BLM states the 'user conflict' issue as a question: How should recreational uses be managed to limit conflicts among recreational users? ([url=http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/BLM/MOAB/Details_Conflict_11.05.07_FINAL.pdf][u]Read BRC's favorite statement on conflict by Art Seaman[/u][/url]) Contrasting the SRMA and Focus Areas with the Travel Plan indicates that Moab BLM's preferred answer is to create "exclusive use zones." Providing opportunity for a non-motorized recreation experience is great, but by imposing a near categorical exclusion of other uses it removes the ability to designate key motorized uses that are needed in a well managed road and trail system. Comment Suggestions: [list]When addressing "user conflict," the Final RMP should avoid "exclusive use zones" where, based on perceived or potential "user conflict," one or more "conflicting uses" is categorically prohibited. [*]Most of the non-motorized focus areas have designated routes open to motorized vehicles within them. If implemented as written in Alternatives B, C and D, many visitors will perceive these focus areas as establishing blanket restrictions on motorized use. The unintended consequences will likely result in increasing, not reducing actual or perceived "user conflict." [*]In order to address the "user conflict" issue, the Final RMP should direct land managers to educate the non-motorized visitors (who may perceive conflict with motorized uses) where they may encounter vehicle traffic in certain areas as well as informing them of areas where they may avoid such encounters. [*]The Final RMP should direct land managers to educate vehicle-assisted visitors of where a road or trail might be shared with non-motorized visitors, and if appropriate, direct slower speeds. [*]The Final RMP should direct land managers to re-route either use so as to avoid sections of roads or trails that are extremely popular with both groups. For example, a hiking trail can be constructed to avoid a section of popular OHV route. Or an equestrian trail may be constructed to avoid a section of popular mountain bike route, etc. _________________________________________________________ Issue: Moab BLM is closing a huge number of dispersed campsites. ([url=http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/BLM/MOAB/Details_Conflict_11.05.07_FINAL.pdf][u]See BRC's details on BLM's proposal[/u][/url]) Because vehicles are not permitted to travel off designated routes - for any reason - the Moab BLM is proposing a "vehicle camping only in designated campsites" in the entire Field Office. Such a restrictive policy would be appropriate for National Parks or National Monuments, but for Public Lands this is truly unheard of. Moab BLM staff argues that the impacts from dispersed camping warrant such restrictions, and claim that their Travel Plan kept open the route to nearly every existing vehicle campsite. They say that most every campsite that did not have a "resource problem" remained open. [url=http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/BLM/MOAB/Details_Camping_11.05.07_FINAL.pdf][u]Our review[/u][/url] says different, and we believe hundreds of campsites currently being used could be closed. Comment Suggestions: [list]Tell the BLM that you oppose the camping policy as outlined in Appendix E. [*]The Final EIS should disclose how many campsites would be closed under each Alternative. [*]Tell the BLM that you support a policy where existing campsites are open unless determined closure was necessary via lawful public planning process. [*]Tell the BLM that it is very important that the Final RMP mandate full public involvement in any establishment and management of "restricted camping areas" or "controlled camping areas." [*]Finally, and perhaps more importantly, check the BLM's maps ([url]http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning/draft_rmp_eia.html[/url]) to see if YOUR favorite campsite will be closed (see if a road is designated right up to the campsite). If you can't tell from BLM's maps, you need to tell them that![/list] ________________________________________________________ Issue: Special Recreation Management Areas There are some "Action Alert" type comments below, but if you have the time we think it would be well worth the effort to review the BLM's proposal and give them your input. Frankly, a lot of what they propose makes a creepy sort of sense. But there are "poison pills" that (unnecessarily) make future management uncertain. In other words, if BLM doesn't write this plan right, SUWA will be litigating them (and us) to death. [url=http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/BLM/MOAB/Details_SRMA_11.05.07_FINAL.pdf][u]Check our info[/u][/url] as well as BLM's proposals. Quick links and page numbers are provided to make it easy. Comment Suggestions: [list]The Travel Plan and the Administrative Setting must be consistent in all SRMAs! [*]All SRMAs with a motorized focus should include direction regarding when and how additional or expanded routes/areas would be provided should there be a need. [*]SRMAs and their "focus areas" should avoid excluding other uses categorically. The Preferred Alternative clearly shows Moab BLM recognizes the importance of providing some motorized routes in non-motorized "zones." [*}The Utah Rims SRMA is necessary to properly manage this popular area. It should have a motorized and mountain bike focus, and include the ability to designate or construct routes should they be needed in the future. In addition, limiting camping to one small designated area, in the RMP, is not wise. The RMP should provide general direction and not limit camping in such a way. [*]The Utah Rims SRMA should extend further southwest to encompass Mel's Loop and beyond. Increased visitation there warrants the more active management of a SRMA. This larger area would also provide enough room for a full-day's motorcycle ride, and the establishment of a mountain bike focus area. [*]Yellowcat is increasingly popular for four wheeling and ATV riding. Designating a SRMA there would utilize the dense network of mine roads that already exist.[/list][/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification: Which ocean is California closest to?