Help Save Moab Trails!

What’s going on?

Ride with Respect, Trails Preservation Alliance, and Colorado Off Road Enterprise urge you to weigh in so we don't lose out!

Read the following alert and watch the video below!

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Moab Field Office has released a Draft Environmental Assessment (The Proposal) for its Travel Management Plan (TMP) covering all motorized routes between Moab and Green River, Utah that could close 40% of what is currently open to motorized use. Proposed closures include all of Dead Cow Loop (The Tubes), parts of Enduro Loop, Brian's Trail (top of White Wash), Gold Bar Rim, Golden Spike, Rusty Nail, Tenmile Canyon, Hey Joe Canyon, Hell Roaring Canyon, Mineral Canyon, Tusher Wash, and the route between Monitor and Merrimac buttes to name a few!

The Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges planning area is surrounded by national parks, wilderness study areas, and the new Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness just across the Green River. Within the planning area, the 2008 TMP inventoried ~1,900 miles of routes and closed ~800 miles of them, leaving ~1,100 miles open today, which the Draft TMP calls Alternative A. Volunteers (including local groups Ride with Respect, Moab Friends For Wheelin’, and Red Rock 4-Wheelers) have spent tens-of-thousands of hours implementing and refining the 2008 TMP in this area. A 2017 settlement agreement requires the BLM to revisit the 2008 TMP in this area, and expressly allows the BLM to add routes, but the agency has chosen not to consider adding even a single mile of route in The Proposal despite that motorized use of the area has roughly doubled since 2008. 

It is widely agreed that the BLM should extend the comment deadline because some of its maps were inaccurate at the outset of The Proposal, but the following figures are accurate within a few miles:

  • Alternative A would leave open 1,057 miles to all uses and 71 miles to ATVs and/or motorcycles. 

  • Alternative B would close 438 miles and place new restrictions on another 13 miles.

  • Alternative C would close 168 miles and place new restrictions on another 50 miles.

  • Alternative D would close 53 miles and place new restrictions on another 30 miles.

It’s worth noting some closures proposed in Alternative D are reasonable, but others have current and future value to leave open despite the appearance of low use. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), which seeks to vastly expand wilderness designation that prohibits all mechanized travel, proclaims “It is vital that the BLM hear overwhelming public support for Alternative B,” an alternative developed at the request of all Grand County commissioners. Therefore it’s vital that the BLM hear our overwhelming OPPOSITION to Alternative B as it (and even parts of Alternative C) would devastate motorized recreation and offer no significant benefit to non-motorized recreation or natural resources.

How to comment effectively.

To comment substantively on The Proposal, include these points in your own words.

Tell the BLM about yourself:

  • Who you are, where you’re from, what activities you enjoy in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges planning area, and how much money you spend locally when visiting (dining, recreational equipment, hotels, fuel, etc).

  • Emphasize if you are a multi-use recreationist. Include all the activities you enjoy in the area, and what characteristics you look for in a route. 

Examples: floating Labyrinth Canyon by raft or canoe, riding your dirt bike on Dead Cow, 4WD on Hey Joe, mountain bike on the Magnificent Seven.

  • The variety of benefits that the area’s motorized routes provide to you. (exercise, thrill seeking, skill building, family time, connection with nature, etc.). 

  • That you support the comments submitted by local, state, and national groups (RwR, CORE, TPA etc).

Then ask the BLM to:

  • Support Alternative A.  In 2008 the TMP closed over 40% of inventoried routes plus around 200 miles of non-inventoried routes, thereby balancing motorized recreation with non-motorized recreation and natural resources. This is especially worth noting given the significant amount of non-motorized opportunities that surround this planning area.

  • Recognize that the State of Utah is increasing its support of trail work, education, and law enforcement in the planning area.  The new DNR Division of Outdoor Recreation is hiring staff to do more trail work and enforcement patrols specifically in southeast Utah. Further, Utah’s new Off-Road Vehicle Safety Education Act will require (a) all OHV operators to complete an education course, (b) all ATVs to display license plates for easier identification, and (c) vehicle operators who are convicted of going off-trail to repair their damage through community service. With these additional resources, the BLM will be able to effectively implement alternative A and resolve any issues with the status quo.

  • Take an educational approach to reduce recreation conflicts.  Separating trail uses is appropriate to some degree, but additional closures should be thoughtfully evaluated. The BLM should promote education and trail etiquette efforts before resorting to hundreds of miles of closures, especially considering the recent surge in users who are new to backcountry trails. In addition, the promotion of tolerance among diverse recreationists will help alleviate user conflicts.

  • Protect wildlife by gaining full compliance with the current TMP. Wildlife enhances all recreational experiences. To effectively improve wildlife habitat, the BLM should focus on the enforcement of existing closures rather than expanding closures and adding to the burden of implementing and enforcing them. 

  • Fully value the economic contribution of motorized trail use.  The Proposal lacks evidence for its assumption that all types of visitors spend similar amounts of money to recreate in the area. Research demonstrates that most motorized trail users spend far more than other recreationists. For example, rental OHVs average $300 per day plus a tax rate of over 18% in Moab while most non-motorized gear rental is under $100 per day, plus a tax rate of under 9%.

  • Recognize that closing motorized trails would decrease positive impacts to the local economy and increase negative impacts to natural resources.  The Proposal lacks a basis for its assertion that only 7,348 visitor days (20 people per day) would be lost annually if Alternative B were chosen. In fact Alternative B and even some routes in Alternative C would result in either (a) far more visitor days lost, (b) far more traffic on the remaining routes which would make them less sustainable, or (c) far more use off of designated routes which would disorganize travel patterns and increase negative impacts.

Finally, make route-specific comments on your favorite trails that are proposed to be closed.  You can see all the routes over aerial imagery or topographic base maps by going to the BLM’s ePlanning site, clicking on “Maps,” and going to the section “Interactive Map.” You can see if it would be closed permanently, closed seasonally, or left open year-round in each alternative by going to the section “Static Map.” Determine the route number (e.g. D1944) to state it in your comments, and use it to look at the BLM’s route report (although it’d require downloading all 650MB of route reports).

To comment online or get more information on The Proposal:

Comment Now!

If commenting online fails, email the comments with the subject line “Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management” to:

blm_ut_mb_comments@blm.gov

To comment by postal mail:

Bureau of Land Management 

Attn: Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management

82 East Dogwood

Moab, UT 84532

Comments are due on October 21, 2022 so speak up for motorized opportunities today!


Moab BLM is Seeking Input on Three Camping Plans

What's going on?

The BLM Moab Field Office (MFO) released Draft Environmental Assessments for dispersed camping in three areas; Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges, Utah Rims/Sunshine Wall, and Two Rivers. Here is the BLM Press Release.

The MFO plans to limit camping to designated campsites, but they won't let the public review and comment on which sites will be designated open or closed unless you urge them to take this step. The "Labyrinth Rims / Gemini Bridges" planning area extends from Moab northwest through Dubinky Well to Tenmile Point Road, including many of the region's best motorized trails and campsites. The "Utah Rims" planning area extends from the Colorado border (edge of Rabbit Valley) to the Westwater Put-In Road, and contains a high concentration of trails (especially singletrack) and campsites. The "Two Rivers" planning area has several campsites accessible by vehicle, but most are accessed by boat along the Dolores and Colorado rivers upstream from Dewey Bridge. View the map of the planning areas.

Make your comments!

Points to include in your comments:

  • The plans should show the location of all existing campsites and whether they would be designated open or closed so that the public can comment on specific sites.

  • The plans should designate a wide range of high-quality campsites near motorized trail networks that is sufficient to support projected visitation.

  • Designating a high quality and quantity of sites will be critical to preventing the displacement of camping to the surrounding areas.

  • The planning areas should be expanded to cover the likely direction of camping proliferation. Specifically: 

    • Expand the Labyrinth Rims / Gemini Bridges area north to the outskirts of Green River (bounded by the Blue Hills to the east).

    • Expand the Utah Rims area southwest to the outskirts of Cisco (bounded by Interstate 70 to the north).

  • In the meantime, separately approve the other three proposed measures to reduce camping impacts (requiring a portable toilet, fire pan, and BYO firewood), plus more minimum-impact education could be done without delay.

Your perspective:
Sharing your personal experience in your comments will give substance to the content you share and support your perspective!

  • Who you are.

  • Where you live.

  • What you look for when selecting a dispersed campsite (e.g. views, proximity to motorized trails, or solitude from other campers).

  • What you get out of the experience (e.g. connection with family or natural surroundings).

  • What you contribute (e.g. spending on supplies in nearby towns).

Where to make comments

General Comments (all three)

To make general comments on all three planning areas, go here, and click on the “Participate Now” option. Be sure to state that your comments apply to all three.

Two Rivers
If your comments pertain only to Two Rivers, go to the site for Two Rivers.

Labyrinth Rims
If your comments pertain only to Labyrinth Rims, go to the site for Labyrinth Rims.

Utah Rims
If your comments pertain only to Utah Rims, go to the site for Utah Rims.

By Mail
Moab Field Office, Attention: Camping Proposals
82 East Dogwood
Moab, UT 84532.

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:

  1. Who you are.

  2. Your experience recreating in GMUG, or your interest in doing so in the future.

  3. The recreational opportunities you seek (e.g. motorcycle singletrack loops, 4x4 trails).

  4. List any discrepancies/inaccuracies you found in their maps.

  5. 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:

https://zoom.us/j/167562115

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