Today is the deadline for comments on what can be a huge, precedent setting RMP. The plan is to virtually eliminate the "open" designation, taking 1.2 million acres down to 4600!!! Below are my comments, use them as you see fit. BTW, from talking with Bill Papich at the BLM he said that there are so many comments on this that it has shut down the BLM mailbox dedicated to this, and most of those comments, in fact mountains of them, are the typical GAG duplications repeated a zillion times.

Here's mine:

Farmington RMP and DEIS comments

I would like to direct my comments to one specific area of the RMP, that of OHV use. On page 2-23 of the draft it is pointed out that 43 CFR 8340 provides for OHV use as a legitimate use of public land. OHV designations are divided into three categories, and I would like to address the category “open”. Per the draft on page 2-23 “open” may be designated if there are “no compelling resource protection needs, use conflicts, or public safety issues that would warrant limiting OHV use.”

The preferred alternative for the RMP proposes limiting the open designation to approximately 4600 acres, the present amount of open acreage is in the area of 1.2 million. The alarming reduction of open acreage per the plan will coincide with designating many SMAs that would limit OHV to existing roads and trails. It is my contention that this huge reduction in the open designation is unnecessary, and the designation of SMAs is unnecessary as well, if the BLM wants to spend money wisely it would be better spent on OHV education and a complete scientific study of the FFO.

The draft is full of assumptions about OHVs and their use, but as far as I can tell there is little or no factual information to back these assumptions up. For example, on page 4-14 the draft says: “The primary concern regarding OHV impacts on water resources is the potential for increased runoff and resulting erosion…Other concerns include the potential for small fuel spills from OHVs…” The word potential is used twice, yet no proof is provided that these problems actually exist, and in actuality it is very rare that these things do occur.

On page 4-24: “Due to the large amount of land (over 1.2 million acres) where cross-country OHV travel would be permitted, it is possible that OHV access could affect special status species…” Again, an assumption is made, and the draft proposes virtually eliminating the open designation due to an assumption, not facts. The law provides for species protection on critical habitat, but it does not provide for a mass change in usage designation based upon assumptions and not fact. This reason to eliminate the open designation is invalid, in fact it is illegal.

On page 4-31: “OHV use also occasionally results in direct wildlife mortality, harassment of wildlife, and wildlife abandonment of an area due to human intrusion. The degree of the effect of OHV use on wildlife on FFO land has not been determined…” Again an assumption is being used to eliminate the open designation, an assumption which is not backed up by any facts at all, in fact it even says that there are no facts. There is absolutely no mention of where this assumption came from or how it was arrived at.

On page 4-33: “Open OHV access would continue to generate conflicts between permittees and other land users because it has been shown to result in vandalism of rangeland improvements, cut fences, and harassment of livestock.” This is an out and out lie, there is absolutely no proof that this is so in anything other than isolated cases, the limited number of which provide no basis for elimination of the open designation.

On page 4-36: “Conflicts among OHV users, private property owners, and ranchers arising from unlimited cross-country vehicular access would continue under ongoing OHV policy.” This assumption is virtually identical to the one mentioned above, and it is just that, an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact.

The examples cited above are just representative samples from what I believe to be a very biased draft RMP/EIS. It is apparent that it is the intention of the writers to virtually eliminate the open designation in the FFO. If it is necessary to eliminate the open designation then the reasons must be based in fact, not assumptions. I am sure that there are areas that should be protected from open OHV use, but it is total nonsense to put forth the assumption that the open designation must be virtually eliminated to protect a limited number of acres. If it is the intent of the BLM to protect areas, then these areas must be identified, and the appropriate protections placed on those areas only. I have no idea how many acres in the FFO actually deserve and require protection, but I know it is not 1.2 million acres. Before any change is made to the OHV use designations in the FFO I am requesting that a complete study of FFO lands be made with specific areas that should be protected, and until then there should be absolutely no change in the current OHV management policy in the FFO. To make any changes at this point would be presumptuous, and possibly illegal without the proper scientific backing to justify such a major change.

I am requesting that the FFO continue with its current management policies until a fact based RMP/EIS can be accomplished. This will probably have to be a fairly long term and expensive project, but there is no other way to fairly, and in my opinion legally, to make such a large scale change in policy.

Thank you,

Brad Ullrich
XXXXXXXXXXX
Aztec, NM 87410
(505) XXX-XXXX

Short and to the point, they will be read, not just scanned over.

brad.. where should i send my comments to?? have a link? fax #?


thanks,
nate.

The phone # for the FFO is 505-599-6307, they can tell you how best to send them. If you mail them, they must be postmarked today. I sent mine directly to a guy there because they are having email problems.

RMP Project Mgr.
BLM
FFO
1235 LaPlata Hwy., Suite A
Farminton, NM 87401-8754

September 26, 2002

RMP Project Manager
BLM
FFO
1235 LaPlata Highway, Suite A
Farmington, NM 87401-8754

Subject: Farmington RMP and DEIS comments

FAX#: (505) 599-8998

Please record and consider my comments to the RMP, regarding OHV use.

On page 2-23 of the draft it states that 43 CFR 8340 provides for off-highway-Vehicle (OHV) use as a legitimate use of public land. OHV use is a legitimate use on public lands, including BLM lands.

I understand OHV designations are divided into three categories, and I would like to address the "open" use category. Per the draft on page 2-23 "open" use may be designated if there are "no compelling resource protection needs, use conflicts, or public safety issues that would warrant limiting OHV use." I read no factual record of any conflicts. Please provide a record of significant specific conflicts or issues of concern, and the prior mitigation measures employed to address each issue?

The preferred alternative for the RMP proposes limiting the open designation to approximately 4600 acres, the present amount of open acreage is approximately 1.2 million acres. 4600 acres is less than 0.4 percent of the land under review (this is 0.0038 of the land; a fraction of the total land under consideration). This reduction of open acreage per the plan is alarming and unreasonable, and will coincide with designating many SMAs that limit OHV to existing roads and trails.

It is my contention that this huge reduction in the open designation is unnecessary, and the designation of SMAs as proposed is unnecessary as well. I am concerned that if the BLM intends to spend the public's money wisely it would be better spent on a complete scientific study of the FFO, and OHV education, rather than spending money managing and providing enforcement in the proposed SMA's.

Please record my objection to the draft assumptions about OHV's, and their claimed contribution to concerns, because as far as I can tell there is little or no factual information to back these assumptions up.

For example, on page 4-14 the draft says: "The primary concern regarding OHV impacts on water resources is the potential for increased runoff and resulting erosion…Other concerns include the potential for small fuel spills from OHV's…" The use of the word potential indicates the statement is an assumption. It (the assumption of potential) is used twice as justification for limiting OHV access, and yet no proof is provided that these problems actually exist, or that OHV's contribute to these problems.

I contend that it is very rare that significant impacts from OHV's do occur. Please identify all cases where they were discovered to be a significant contributor to a factual problem? Please identify the current solutions implemented to address these issues, and why they are ineffective in providing cooperative OHV use while addressing habitat protection?

I urge the BLM to research and report on actual OHV impacts before taking any change in travel classification status for any of the areas. I further urge the BLM to review each area for consideration and each road under consideration, for mediation measures that will provide for cooperative OHV use, before closure or redesignation as proposed in this RMP.

On page 4-24 the RMP states: "Due to the large amount of land (over 1.2 million acres) where cross-country OHV travel would be permitted, it is possible that OHV access could affect special status species…." Please clarify this statement for me, if I read this correctly the draft proposes virtually eliminating the open designation due to an assumption, not fact ("it is possible that OHV access could affect special status species").

Existing law provides for species protection on critical habitat, but it does not provide for a mass change in usage designation based upon assumption and not fact. I contend this reason to eliminate the open designation is invalid, and I urge the BLM to research if it is an illegal action. Please identify the "special status species" and the areas of concern where these species are subject to recorded impacts from an "open" use designation?

Pages 4-31 of the RMP states: "OHV use also occasionally results in direct wildlife mortality, harassment of wildlife, and wildlife abandonment of an area due to human intrusion. The degree of the effect of OHV use on wildlife on FFO land has not been determined…" These two statements contradict each other, what is the correct statement? There is absolutely no mention of where these assumptions came from, or how they are referenced, or why an undetermined impact is relevant to the RMP. Please, enter into the record that a biased assumption regarding OHV use is included in the existing document without any basis of fact.

I object to these assumptions being used to eliminate the open designation, assumptions that are not backed up by credible footnote references. In fact, if I read this correctly, it even acknowledges that there are zero legitimate "determined" facts to lend credibility to the statement regarding wildlife mortality directly due to OHV's. Please confirm if OHV presence is a significant contributor to wildlife mortality, or insignificant, and where these issues are documented as significant and present in the FFO?

On page 4-33 of the RMP it states: "Open OHV access would continue to generate conflicts between permittees and other land users because it has been shown to result in vandalism of rangeland improvements, cut fences, and harassment of livestock." I do not agree with the logic of these assumptions, or the statement as written.

Access does not generate conflict; user opinion regarding exclusive use to an area generates conflict. Access does not result in vandalism; a lack of agency enforcement provides the opportunity for vandalism. The only designation that provides for the greatest opportunity of use without regulatory conflict (between users and the agency or users and the various and private land in-holders) is an "open" use designation. There is absolutely no proof that use conflicts are significant, and the reports provide no basis for elimination of the open designation due to perceived use conflict. Please identify all conflicts between the current use designation, open use, and the actual use currently experienced in the FFO?

Pages 4-36 state: "Conflicts among OHV users, private property owners, and ranchers arising from unlimited cross-country vehicular access would continue under ongoing OHV policy." Where is the record of existing conflict? This assumption is virtually identical to the one mentioned above, and it is just that, an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact. I read no record of use designation conflict, and I read no need for changes from an "open" classification due to identified use conflict (only undocumented assumption of "user" conflict).

The record should make it clear that the BLM guidelines for management acknowledge that user conflicts are a consequence of human nature, not an environment condition that can be used to alter management prescription under the multiple use mandates for the agency. "Use" conflicts are different from "user" conflicts and I believe the inclusion of undocumented "user" conflict, as an issue, is inappropriate for RMP consideration.

The examples cited above are representative samples of a very biased draft RMP/EIS. It is apparent that the writers of the RMP intend to mislead and employ opinion to virtually eliminate the existing open designation in the FFO. Statements of opinion, and conclusions resolved from these opinions, must be removed from the RPM.

Reduction of the current land managed under an "open" designation and consideration for any change in designation, must be based in fact, not assumption. The RMP must be revised to remove any consideration based on "potential" conflicts and assumptions of potential impacts to the area.

If it is the intent of the BLM to protect sensitive habitat areas, then these areas must be identified, and the appropriate protections placed specifically on these identified areas. This should not be a blanket redesignation of the entire FFO, and the RMP should be revised to address the specific areas of concern.

Please identify how many acres in the FFO actually deserve and require additional protection, and why?

Please identify the protections required to mediate the concern, and list the new protections proposed for implementation that are not already allowed under the current management guidelines?

Before any change is made to the current use designation in the FFO I request that a complete study of FFO lands be made identifying specific areas that should be protected.

I request that the FFO continue with the current management prescription, until a fact based RMP/EIS is produced that identifies specific areas of concern. I believe the BLM can do a better job of identifying the issues of concern, and mitigation of the issues of concern, and I request that this RMP be rejected for lack of credibility and a lack of legitimate direction for cooperative multiple-use management.

Thank you,

BTT