Jump to content

GMUG draft plan to be released in 1 week, 8/13


BOAB

Recommended Posts

Email today:

Hello again friends and neighbors,

At long last!

After years of all our work and input, the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests will publish the draft revised forest plan and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on Friday August 13th, 

2021. This will initiate a formal 90-day comment period that will conclude on November 11th, 2021. All materials for the draft revised forest plan and DEIS will be published at the Forest Plan webpage:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/DraftForestPlan

Stay tuned for more announcements on an upcoming series of virtual webinar and open house events. This is a great opportunity to learn more about the plan, ask questions and engage with Forest Service staff.

See you on the trail!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Comments due by this Friday.  Heres what CORE says:

The CORE Mission: To keep trails open through action adoption, stewardship, education, collaboration and to involve multiple user groups to accomplish this goal. 

GMUG Forest Plan Update Comment Extension!

The GMUG Forest Plan Update Comment period has been extended until November 26th (Black Friday). If you haven't had a chance to send in your comments yet, please take a few minutes and review the information in this email, watch the video and make a comment. 

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 at the bottom of this email 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 routes).

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

Watch our newest video and gather info for your comments!

Register a Comment!

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you ride Taylor Park?  Sargents?  Uncompahgre?  Over by Crested Butte?  Anywhere in GMUG which spans 3M acres?

I know, its Thanksgiving.  Turkey is nowhere near ready, get your comments on this ready while it cooks!

Heres some more info on what to say....and doing so by end of day tomorrow (Black Friday) preserves you ability to object when something we don't like is part of the forthcoming plan:

https://www.coloradotpa.org/2021/10/27/gmug-details-tpa-endorses-alternative-c/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna see a map?  Zoom in, poke around. To see what the other alternatives change, click their tabs. Mostly the changes are in land classifications such as wilderness. You can see why TPA talks about flexibility for the future.

https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1985b6f7be1744f7a55e5a9bb4300245

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmac1 said:

Do you ride Taylor Park?  Sargents?  Uncompahgre?  Over by Crested Butte?  Anywhere in GMUG which spans 3M acres?

I know, its Thanksgiving.  Turkey is nowhere near ready, get your comments on this ready while it cooks!

Heres some more info on what to say....and doing so by end of day tomorrow (Black Friday) preserves you ability to object when something we don't like is part of the forthcoming plan:

https://www.coloradotpa.org/2021/10/27/gmug-details-tpa-endorses-alternative-c/

I put my comments awhile ago, the link says the comment period ended on November 12th? 

 

EDIT Nevermind it says they extended it to the 26th sorry 

Edited by Lord Dogmeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Dogmeat said:

I put my comments awhile ago, the link says the comment period ended on November 12th? 

 

EDIT Nevermind it says they extended it to the 26th sorry 

No worries!  Good on ya for commenting!  I've found a few issues with the maps...one ST is coded as non-motorized!  And some roads are missing!!  This is how we lose stuff!  There should be an 'errors and omissions' provision or something whereby accidental mistakes don't become the law. Who can examine every road listed in 3M acres!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dmac1 said:

No worries!  Good on ya for commenting!  I've found a few issues with the maps...one ST is coded as non-motorized!  And some roads are missing!!  This is how we lose stuff!  There should be an 'errors and omissions' provision or something whereby accidental mistakes don't become the law. Who can examine every road listed in 3M acres!  

Can you post up which ST trails you caught them trying to designate as non-motorized? I'm not above submitting additional comments about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lord Dogmeat said:

Can you post up which ST trails you caught them trying to designate as non-motorized? I'm not above submitting additional comments about that. 

Its a little known one.  Will PM ya to keep info out of the hands of the enemy

Edit - I actually found 4 sections of trails. TPA knows. PM me if someone wants info for comments due today. If I don't recognize your name, no reply will be forthcoming

Edited by dmac1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...