MuleyHunter
New member
- Dec 28, 2012
- 27
The BLM has held a couple of meetings in the area of Mesa County to let the "public" know of there plans, but were not letting anyone put in public input. Here is there plan.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... an_508.pdf
Here are a couple emails from a gentleman that went to the one in GrandJunction. I personally did not go, because I did not know it was happening until after the fact.
I just wanted everyone to know that even John Justman noted that they had 9-10 armed law enforcement at the GJ BLM meeting tonight and he did not like that. Intimidating the public you might say.
I showed up at 6pm and it got interesting. They would not answer some basic questions and voices were raised a couple times. Dave Grossman GVTA (who was raising his voice at me that I could not ask questions) and I were asked to leave at one point but since he was the one yelling, he just walked away. I was told they are not there to answer questions, they are there to tell us how to make a comment.
The first thing I noticed is they had 30 fact sheets of information regarding the RMP on the tables. I noticed that they were not providing the information disclosed on Page M-13/M-14 (attached) of the RMP, the information which discloses the road closures in miles. This should have been the first flyer handed to everyone as they walked in the door and they were not even providing it! When I asked the BLM personnel where the information was, he said it was a good idea and they might have it at the next meeting. Might!
During the presentation Ms. Bailey kept referring to everything in miles but they disclose things on paper in acres of designated routes- no one knows what they are talking about. The fact sheet flyer that they did provide regarding road closures is attached. It just discloses motorized access in acres of designated routes. In the preferred alternative B it indicates we are going to have 768,800 acres of designated routes, sounds good-no one really knows what that means, but they do not disclose that nearly half of that acreage is Administrative Routes. In fact nowhere in the RMP does it disclose how many acres of motorized access is going to be Administrative Routes.
The residents of Mesa County do not understand whats going on because they are being handed mis-information. When I brought up the 2100 miles of road closures the crowd asked the BLM presenter if this was accurate and she would not answer the question. I left the room in disgust.
This is the third public meeting, I apologize for not going sooner but Debeque and Collbran got this same information.
During the presentation Michelle Bailey indicated that this RMP is the result of the public comments received in 2008/09. I think we need to FOIA those documents, because my guess is the residents of Mesa County never asked to close 67% of the road access. Ultimately by asking enough the BLM is going to half to disclose how many miles of roads are going to be closed to the general public.
Thanks for your help, we are going to need it.
Brandon Siegfried
PhotosOnly BLM fact sheet concerning road access at open house.jpg Download AllAttachmentsM13, M14.pdf Download AllDelete Reply Reply All Forward Move Spam Actions Next Previous
I wanted to comment on a couple other things regarding the RMP and last nights GJ meeting.
1. All the Fact Sheets that were handed out last night have now renamed Alternative B as Balanced. They are removing the Preferred title that has always been used for RMPs when discussing Alternative B. The RMP online and in the CD, the Alternative B is always title Preferred. Balance sure has a fair undertone to it though.
2. The BLM told us last night at the presentation that the Preferred or Balanced Alternative B (which closes about 2100 miles of routes) is the result of public comments collected in 2008/09. I cant believe that is accurate and Im going to submit a FOIA today for the comments as I was told last night they would be glad to provide the comments. They are also telling everyone that if they dont like something they just need to submit a comment and wecan keep it open. I dont believe that either, as they will not disclose how many comments are needed to keep a route open.
3. A friend of mine that was at the meeting last night, was told by BLM officials that routes were voted on by BLM staff on whether to keep them open or close them. Thats scary if it happened, where was the pubic if this voting was actually done?
4. The BLM wants us to focus on specific routes and not worry about the totality of Alternatives B-D. We live here, we should start with the overall picture first and then start to analyze specific routes.
5. Since the BLM will not answer questions in a public group setting Im going to ask our County Commissioners to encourage a Public Town Hall meeting with the BLM. The BLM should be willing to answer our questions in a public forum. This is what we expect from politicians and the BLM does work for us. Additionally, we need a another round of pubic open houses, the RMP was just released and its 1500 or more pages, the public needs to have a chance to read this Congressional like document. Additionally, we need pages M-13 and M-14 (total miles closed) as a factsheet and proper disclosure of the Administrative routes in terms of acres of designated routes as discussed in my email last night.
6. When I showed BLM personnel this 2001 quote from former BLM Realty Estate specialist, John Lancelot- But if we can find documentation, well HELP support RS-2477 claims the BLM would not answer why they will no longer consider RS 2477. They just looked at me and smiled, one employee indicated its not a part of NEPA. I answered with, how can you guys ignore the laws that are in place?
Regards.
Brandon
I personally am very tired of the government trying to shut us out of "OUR" public lands and closing roads, that many are 50-70 years old (some even older), that should never be or never have been closed in the first place.
They are holding a meeting in Gateway, Colorado tonight and another in Fruita, Colorado Thursday evening from 4:30 pm-7:30 pm.
From:Brandon Siegfried <brandons@bresnan.net>;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' <brandons@bresnan.net>;
Subject: The BLM Must have a Preferred Alternative, they can't change the name to "Balanced" per the NEPA Regs
Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 5:17:46 AM
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... an_508.pdf
Here are a couple emails from a gentleman that went to the one in GrandJunction. I personally did not go, because I did not know it was happening until after the fact.
I just wanted everyone to know that even John Justman noted that they had 9-10 armed law enforcement at the GJ BLM meeting tonight and he did not like that. Intimidating the public you might say.
I showed up at 6pm and it got interesting. They would not answer some basic questions and voices were raised a couple times. Dave Grossman GVTA (who was raising his voice at me that I could not ask questions) and I were asked to leave at one point but since he was the one yelling, he just walked away. I was told they are not there to answer questions, they are there to tell us how to make a comment.
The first thing I noticed is they had 30 fact sheets of information regarding the RMP on the tables. I noticed that they were not providing the information disclosed on Page M-13/M-14 (attached) of the RMP, the information which discloses the road closures in miles. This should have been the first flyer handed to everyone as they walked in the door and they were not even providing it! When I asked the BLM personnel where the information was, he said it was a good idea and they might have it at the next meeting. Might!
During the presentation Ms. Bailey kept referring to everything in miles but they disclose things on paper in acres of designated routes- no one knows what they are talking about. The fact sheet flyer that they did provide regarding road closures is attached. It just discloses motorized access in acres of designated routes. In the preferred alternative B it indicates we are going to have 768,800 acres of designated routes, sounds good-no one really knows what that means, but they do not disclose that nearly half of that acreage is Administrative Routes. In fact nowhere in the RMP does it disclose how many acres of motorized access is going to be Administrative Routes.
The residents of Mesa County do not understand whats going on because they are being handed mis-information. When I brought up the 2100 miles of road closures the crowd asked the BLM presenter if this was accurate and she would not answer the question. I left the room in disgust.
This is the third public meeting, I apologize for not going sooner but Debeque and Collbran got this same information.
During the presentation Michelle Bailey indicated that this RMP is the result of the public comments received in 2008/09. I think we need to FOIA those documents, because my guess is the residents of Mesa County never asked to close 67% of the road access. Ultimately by asking enough the BLM is going to half to disclose how many miles of roads are going to be closed to the general public.
Thanks for your help, we are going to need it.
Brandon Siegfried
PhotosOnly BLM fact sheet concerning road access at open house.jpg Download AllAttachmentsM13, M14.pdf Download AllDelete Reply Reply All Forward Move Spam Actions Next Previous
I wanted to comment on a couple other things regarding the RMP and last nights GJ meeting.
1. All the Fact Sheets that were handed out last night have now renamed Alternative B as Balanced. They are removing the Preferred title that has always been used for RMPs when discussing Alternative B. The RMP online and in the CD, the Alternative B is always title Preferred. Balance sure has a fair undertone to it though.
2. The BLM told us last night at the presentation that the Preferred or Balanced Alternative B (which closes about 2100 miles of routes) is the result of public comments collected in 2008/09. I cant believe that is accurate and Im going to submit a FOIA today for the comments as I was told last night they would be glad to provide the comments. They are also telling everyone that if they dont like something they just need to submit a comment and wecan keep it open. I dont believe that either, as they will not disclose how many comments are needed to keep a route open.
3. A friend of mine that was at the meeting last night, was told by BLM officials that routes were voted on by BLM staff on whether to keep them open or close them. Thats scary if it happened, where was the pubic if this voting was actually done?
4. The BLM wants us to focus on specific routes and not worry about the totality of Alternatives B-D. We live here, we should start with the overall picture first and then start to analyze specific routes.
5. Since the BLM will not answer questions in a public group setting Im going to ask our County Commissioners to encourage a Public Town Hall meeting with the BLM. The BLM should be willing to answer our questions in a public forum. This is what we expect from politicians and the BLM does work for us. Additionally, we need a another round of pubic open houses, the RMP was just released and its 1500 or more pages, the public needs to have a chance to read this Congressional like document. Additionally, we need pages M-13 and M-14 (total miles closed) as a factsheet and proper disclosure of the Administrative routes in terms of acres of designated routes as discussed in my email last night.
6. When I showed BLM personnel this 2001 quote from former BLM Realty Estate specialist, John Lancelot- But if we can find documentation, well HELP support RS-2477 claims the BLM would not answer why they will no longer consider RS 2477. They just looked at me and smiled, one employee indicated its not a part of NEPA. I answered with, how can you guys ignore the laws that are in place?
Regards.
Brandon
I personally am very tired of the government trying to shut us out of "OUR" public lands and closing roads, that many are 50-70 years old (some even older), that should never be or never have been closed in the first place.
They are holding a meeting in Gateway, Colorado tonight and another in Fruita, Colorado Thursday evening from 4:30 pm-7:30 pm.
From:Brandon Siegfried <brandons@bresnan.net>;
To: 'Brandon Siegfried' <brandons@bresnan.net>;
Subject: The BLM Must have a Preferred Alternative, they can't change the name to "Balanced" per the NEPA Regs
Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 5:17:46 AM
Friends, I hope you all enjoyed the super bowl. I had a friend do some research on NEPA, as I mentioned in my email after the GJ BLM Open House on Thursday I noticed the BLM was changing the Title of Alternative B Preferred, to Alternative B Balanced on all of the fact sheets and in their presentation. This is clearly designed to confuse the public into thinking the BLM does not have a preferred alternative as indicated throughout the 2000 page Resource Management Plan (RMP) and as required by NEPA regs. Keep in mind many folks attending these public open houses are not going to read the RMP. They are simply going to collect a handful of fact sheets on what interests them. This is being done to suggest they dont have a preference but per NEPA regulations they must disclose their Preferred Alternative at this point. On page 50 of the NEPA Doc you will find this link. (see Question 1b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). It leads to this web BLM web page http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/webguide/40_most_asked_questions/questions_1-10.html#1b It BLM web page states the following: [font=]4a. [/font][font=]What is the "agency's preferred alternative"?[/font] [font=]A. [/font][font=]The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally preferable alternative," although in some cases one alternative may be both. It is identified so that agencies and the public can understand the lead agency's orientation.[/font] [font=]4b. [/font][font=]Does the[/font]"preferred alternative"have to be identified in the Draft EIS and the Final EIS or just in the Final EIS? [font=]A. [/font][font=]Section 1502.14(e) requires the section of the EIS on alternatives to "identify the agency's preferred alternative if one or more exists, in the draft statement, and identify such alternative in the final statement. This means that if the agency has a preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, that alternative must be labeled or identified as such in the Draft EIS. [/font] [font=]The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is part of the RMP so they are one and the same. The entire draft RMP document states that Alternative B is the Preferred alternative, but they are re-titling the fact sheets for the meetings. S[/font][font=]ee NEPA doc attached, particularly pages 42-60 regarding the term Proposed Action. (i.e. Alternative B). The term Balanced Alternative does not exist in the NEPA process and was made up by this office to sound more acceptable.[/font] [font=]I also attached John Potters analysis of miles closed by the RMP, you will see on the first page his total miles closed in Alt B Preferred is 2,102 miles and for Alt C its 2,747 miles closed. Thats pretty much right where my numbers were. Thanks for doing that John![/font] [font=]There are so many errors in the RMP, Factsheets (see attached), and the maps, our pubic is being completely miss-informed. The BLM should be forced to go back and fix the errors and we should start this entire process over! Dont forget they dont have a fact sheet with the total miles closed for any routes! We are either dealing with deceit or incompetence. [/font] [font=]If someone know the state director of the BLM please forward them this email![/font] [font=]Brandon Siegfried[/font] [font=]From:Brandon Siegfried <brandons@bresnan.net>; To: 'Brandon Siegfried' <brandons@bresnan.net>; Subject: BLM agrees to provide better Factsheets and maps tonight. Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 8:47:57 PM [/font]
|