|   If you like mountainbiking in Fruita... | screampint
Oct 18, 2003 8:41 AM | | ...then you need to act now. The biking there is being seriously threatened right now, and if enough of us write letters, we can stop this from happening. This isn't one of those "it's too big of an issue for me and I can't make a difference" kind of a campaign. If even a hundred of us write letters, it's going to seriously shake things up. So PLEASE take a minute and protect biking in Fruita. See my alert below and PASS THIS ON!
ALERT***** ALERT ****ALERT****ALERT
Your help is needed to protect the NORTH FRUITA DESERT
On September 29th, the Bureau of Land Management released a management plan for the North Fruita Desert, the area around what is known to recreationists as the "18 Road area".
THE FUTURE OF NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION IN FRUITA IS BEING THREATENED!
The North Fruita Plan is bad! Here's why:
1.The North Fruita Desert Plan opens up over 90% of the North Fruita area to motorized use, leaving only about 10% set aside for non-motorized recreation and conservation.
2. All of the washes and drainages in the North Fruita planning area are open to motorized use, which means that parts of the non-motorized area are actually OPEN to motorized use.
3. Several of the alternatives feature a motorized trail that runs directly through proposed Hunter Canyon Wilderness.
4. The plan promotes the construction of a motorized loop system in the desert, which will essentially makes the N. Fruita desert a destination area for motor vehicles
5. The plan recognizes that the North Fruita desert is home to threatened species and is critical wintering area for deer, but includes little protections for them.
6. The plan allows for shooting anywhere in the resource area, not designated to specific areas
This means quality opportunities for biking, hiking, horseback riding and wildlife viewing in N Fruita could be lost.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
The Bureau of Land Management NEEDS to hear that citizens are not happy with the North Fruita Plan. You can-
1. Attend the public meeting about the North Fruita Plan in Grand
Junction, on Oct 23rd and voice your concerns.
2. Write a letter to the Bureau of Land Management about the plan.
3. Call your local BLM representative.
4. Send an email to your BLM representative.
TALKING POINTS FOR PUBLIC MEETING, LETTERS and EMAIL MESSAGES:
-Use the points listed on the front side of this alert for reasons why you are not happy with the North Fruita Desert plan
-Tell them why the North Fruita Desert is important to you, experiences you have had there etc. This is really important and helps for credibility!!!
-Ask for a plan that:
1. Keeps motorized use on designated trails, out of washes and drainages, and out of the non-motorized area.
2. Keeps all motorized use out of proposed Hunter Canyon Wilderness.
3. Prioritizes protection of the area's natural values and resources.
4. Includes designated shooting areas for the safety of everyone using the N Fruita Desert.
5. Provides for a fair balance of local recreational needs and does not seek to turn North Fruita into a National motorized playground.
NORTH FRUITA PUBLIC MEETING:
Thursday, Oct 23 at 6pm
Grand Junction BLM office
2815 H Rd
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Please attend, and have your talking points ready for the public comment period.
LETTERS must be submitted by Nov 7th!!
Send letters to:
Grand Junction BLM office
2815 H Rd
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Please also send a copy to:
James Cooper
Bureau of Land Management
Grand Junction BLM office
2815 H Rd
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Clare Bastable
Colorado Mountain Club
Grand Junction Field Office
1000 N 9th St #29
Grand Junction, CO 81506
EMAILS must be submitted by Nov 7th!! (They give more weight to actual letters than they do to emails, so if you can write a letter, that would really help. If not, at least send an email!)
Send email messages to: james_cooper@co.blm.gov
Please also send a copy to: bastac@cmc.org |
| this alert makes no sense | cm
Oct 24, 2003 9:06 AM | | I've been a big IMBA supporter for years but this make NO SENSE. The trails will be destroyed if you happen to see a couple people riding motorcycles on them? This action alert does nothing but try to divide groups of responsible trail users - groups of people who should (and often do) work together to keep trails in good shape, used correctly and open so people can enjoy them. I've shared plenty of trails with dirt bikes and fail to see what the crisis is - these proposed changes include improving/maintaining trails, better facilities, camping sites and supervision... this is bad how?? |
| The difference is in the EA... | Ken in KC.
Oct 27, 2003 3:10 PM | | These particualr trails are composed of high desert soils. They will turn to a sandy wash and ultimately become impassable by any means, other than a motorized vehicle, should these specific trails become open for motorized vehicles.
In fact, there are visual examples of motorized vehicle use within a few short miles of the 18 Road trails.
Please don't misunderstand, I too have shared the trails with motorized vehicles. The soil conditions in this particular area don't lend themselves to shared use. Especially when you consider that Rabbit Valley (a multi-use trails area) is just down the road.
Ken |
| re: If you like mountainbiking in Fruita... | IMBA Lies
Oct 31, 2003 11:03 AM | | I'm convinced that IMBA's Alert, and perhaps more importantly, their refusal to correct the mis-information contained therein will work to the detriment of further development and management of mechanized trail systems. Allow me to explain.
Troy Rarick, owner of Over The Edge Sports in Fruita, developed the mountain bike trail system at issue in the NFDMP illegally. Rarick further flaunted law and BLM regulations by marketing and promoting the illegal trail system. Additionally, the trail system was extensively marked with non-standard trail signage (a sore spot with me because Utah BLM regularly removes any non-standard trail markers put up by OHV users). The BLM is now rewarding Rarick's illegal actions by including the trail system into the NFDMP.
Can you imagine what IMBA's response would have been if a ATV dealer had developed an illegal ATV trail system, then proceeded to promote and market the system in order to benefit the dealership?
IMBA compounded and elevated the controversy by issuing and subsequently defending an alert that was clearly designed to foment intolerance among trail users, and contained several errors in fact. OHV users are not going to stand by and be disparaged in such a manner. Primarily as a result of IMBA's alert, agency officials have been made aware of the facts regarding these issues. IMBA's unwise course of action, even more than Raricks flaunting of the law, has focused the attention of land managers to any further mountain bike trail system development as well as non-standard trail signage and map creation.
I want to make certain you understand the full extent of the errors contained in IMBA's alert. Please forgive the length of the review below. I believe it is important for you to get a clear picture of just how far "off trail" IMBA has ridden.
IMBA's Alert stated:
· Tell the BLM, in your own words, how increased motorized vehicle use would affect the north Fruita desert visitor experience.
· Of the 76,000 total acres under consideration, the North Fruita Desert Plan designates more than 90 percent open to motorized use, leaving only 10 percent as a designated non motorized zone.
Under the existing management plan (pursuant to the 1987 RMP), motorized and mechanized travel in the entire North Fruita Desert area is currently designated "limited to existing roads and trails", except for a small 400 acre "open" (where cross-country off-trail use is permitted) area just east of 18 Road.
As you are aware from reading the Draft Plan and the analysis, the new plan would close one area to motorized and mechanized use, providing for a "primitive" recreational opportunity. The new plan also addresses mountain biker's desire for an exclusive recreational experience by establishing a "bicycle emphasis" area and excluding motorized use. Outside the "non-motorized / non-mechanized" and "bicycle emphasis" areas, all vehicles will be further limited to designated trails (or the "encourage, allow, prohibit" management paradigm, whichever is to be determined in the final plan). All trails and roads designated for OHV use are also open to bicycles. All single track trails will be closed to ATVs.
So in reality, the Draft Plan does not "open" anything to motorized vehicles, but instead, contains significant closures. One can reasonably conclude that either IMBA officials have not read the Draft Plan and related Environmental Analysis, or their purpose is one other than to educate and inform their members.
Furthermore...
IMBA's use of the term "Open" is misleading. This reminds me of the "oftenwrong" alerts from Wilderness Advocacy Groups in Utah. As you know, terms are very important when talking about public lands planning, and "open" has a specific meaning with respect to travel management, which is: cross-country travel is permitted. There are only 400 acres in the area which are actually "Open" (that's about 1/2 of 1% -- not 90%!). This area was established pursuant the 1987 RMP. This area was designated Open primarily to facilitate the management of an existing motocross track and "play area" adjacent to local community. This area is also adjacent to a landfill that was used up until the late 1960's.
IMBA's Alert states:
· The BLM estimates approximately 36,000 people recreate in the area per year. Of these visitors, 25,000 are mountain bikers. The number of motorized users is negligible. IMBA believes a new management plan should reflect current and future desired use patterns, and designate more of the total area as a non-motorized zone.
A bit of nitpicking here...
You probably noticed on page 3 of the Draft Plan, the BLM states: "it is estimated that some 20,000 riders a year use the trails" (referring to mountain bike trails in 2002). BLM estimates annual recreational use in the area "is estimated to be about 50,000 visits" (Draft Plan, page 4). Also, the Draft Plan (page 3) states that "OHV riding and mountain biking are predominant uses".
As a grass-roots activist, I understand IMBA's desire to make it seem like a greater percentage of the recreationists are mountain bikers. However, IMBA's alert crosses the credulity line. Instead of simply taking issue with BLM's figures, they chose to deliberately misrepresent BLM's estimate. Compounding this, IMBA uses the word "negligible" to describe OHV use. That's not only false, it begs the question: if OHV use is "negligible" what's all the fuss about?
IMBA's Alert states:
· The North Fruita Desert is a sensitive ecosystem with a variety of flora and fauna, and is home to threatened species. It's also an area with a dense network of trails. IMBA believes the environmental impacts of motorized vehicles on this ecosystem will be significant. To limit this impact, more of the total area should be designated as a non-motorized zone.
I understand the IMBA is on record stating that motorized use causes significant impacts to various resources. I'm wondering what "IMBA believes" regarding the impacts caused by the deliberate creation, promotion and marketing of an extensive trail system contrary to federal law and regulation and without ANY environmental analysis. What does "IMBA believe" about the impacts associated with parking and dispersed camping when illegal trail systems are used for organized recreational events?
Look, I admit to a bit of bitterness about this because I remember the area before Rarick decided to use it for the exclusive benefit his mountain bike store. I apologize if I've said anything inappropriate, however, IMBA's alert implies that mountain bike trails cause no problems for threatened species and ecosystems. The fact is, if there is a documented need for the NFDMP it is primarily because of the unmanaged dispersed camping associated with the increase in mountain bike use.
Furthermore....
The BLM properly addresses threatened and sensitive species (see page 18 of the EA) in the new plan. It is true that some of those species may be impacted by human activity, not just motorized activity. The BLM has inventoried ". locations of known rare animals/plants/plant communities" and "these areas are to be avoided by all trails and recreation facilities."
You may also have noticed this in the EA: "The level of human activity in the area may have already eliminated nesting by the BLM sensitive species, Ferruginous Hawk, from the area. Existing routes pass within a quarter mile of all three of the historic nest sites. However, the bike trail passing two nest sites would be rerouted." Interesting, don't you think?
Piling on....
IMBA crosses yet another line with the reference to "dense network of trails". A cursory review of the maps clearly show the highest trail density occurs in the "bicycle emphasis" area, where Rarick illegally created his trail system. Begging another question: If IMBA is really concerned about trail density, shouldn't they be talking about closing trails in the "bicycle emphasis" area?
We understand, however, that resource and species protection is much more complex than simply closing areas to motorized vehicles or setting arbitrary trail or road density standards. We think BLM has properly addressed these important concerns.
IMBA's Alert states:
· Fruita, Colorado is one of the most popular mountain bicycling destination areas in the world. Mountain bike tourism has given a significant boost to the economy of Fruita in the past decade. According to the Grand Junction Visitor and Convention Bureau, the Fruita Fat Tire Festival alone pumps $1.5 million into the local economy annually. The continuing availability of high-quality mountain biking will assure that those economic benefits continue.
Did you happen to notice something missing from BLM's analysis? I did. BLM did a really good job of incorporating a socioeconomic analysis of mountain bike use, but they seem to have forgotten something. Mountain bike recreation isn't the only recreational use that benefits the economy of the adjacent communities! I assure you, the OHV community will be working to correct this glaring omission from BLM's socioeconomic analysis.
IMBA's Alert states:
· The plan contains inconsistent language. Specifically, the plan contradicts itself in regards to access to washes and drainages within the non-motorized zone. IMBA believes all washes and drainages in the non-motorized zone should be closed to motorized vehicles. Furthermore, the environmental impact of motorized vehicles in washes and drainages, even in designated motorized areas, needs further examination.
IMBA's alert is correct about the inconsistent language, but it is also misleading. The consensus of the Ad Hoc committee is that washes should be considered trails, and should represent the specific limitations related the overlying management proscription. So, where a wash is in an area that allows motorized use, it's a multiple use trail (also available to mountain bikes). Where a wash is in the "bicycle emphasis" area, it's open to mountain bikes and closed to motorized vehicles. Where a wash is in the non motorized/non mechanized area, its closed to motorized and mechanized vehicles.
BLMers have indicated to me that the inconsistent language was a mistake and will be corrected in the Final Plan.
IMBA's alert states:
· The plan proposes construction of designated motorized "sacrifice zone" that allows cross-country travel. The Grand Junction area already has motorized "sacrifice zones" and these have proven difficult to manage. IMBA is concerned a new motorized "sacrifice zone" would prove detrimental to the area's ecosystem and other recreational visitors. IMBA questions the need for a new motorized "sacrifice zone," considering this resource already exists in the Grand Valley.
Can we nominate the author for some sort of recognition here? Perhaps an award for using the most hot button and offensive words in one sentence? ;-)
Aside from the offensive language, IMBA's statement is incorrect. The Draft Plan does not "propose" the "construction" of any "new" motorized "sacrifice zone" allowing "cross-country travel".
The 400 acre "Open" area was designated by the 1987 RMP and is shown on the 1996 Resource Area Map. As I stated before, this area was designated "Open" primarily to facilitate the management of an motocross track and "play area" adjacent to local community. This area is popular with Fruita's youth. It fills the need for an appropriate place to hone their skills close to town. This area adjacent to a former landfill, well away from the "bicycle emphasis", and non-motorized staging areas. There are no resource concerns thus it is perfectly appropriate for an "Open" designation. Additionally, BLM has properly addressed resource concerns in the Draft Plan by providing for fencing to keep OHV cross-country use contained.
Furthermore...
OHV users aren't the only people who enjoy hillcimbing. See: http://www.petefagerlin.com/images/FFTF/2/hill.jpg
In conclusion,
I am at a loss to understand IMBA's motivation with this alert. BLM has formulated a plan that:
1) rewards Rarick's illegal trail creation by creating a "bicycle emphasis" area
2) further improves the already high quality mountain biking opportunities
3) contains significant closures to motorized use
4) has the support of the Ad Hoc committee (the "Friends" alternative has even been officially approved by BLM's Resource Advisory Council)
5) provides for mitigation of resource impacts caused by increased recreational use of all types
6) provides for a 'primitive' recreation area for people who desire a non-motorized and non-mechanized recreational experience
and IMBA is complaining??
It is truly unfortunate that IMBA has chosen this course of action. This should have been an opportunity to join with all public lands stakeholders in order to pro-actively address identified resource issues. Instead, IMBA has deliberately chose to foment intolerance among public land visitors. |
| Hey dipshit. | Pete.
Nov 1, 2003 10:15 PM | | "OHV users aren't the only people who enjoy hillcimbing. See: http://www.petefagerlin.com/images/FFTF/2/hill.jpg"
That's not a mountain biking trail that is being driven on.
Here's what happens to narrwow mountain biking trails after the motos get done, in Fruita:
Once the impacts of motos magically become the same as hikers/cyclists, you might have a leg to stand on.
Until then, you're just flailing about. |
| |
