• Jack-it Night: April 2024 RS Meeting Hey Guest: Wed. April 3rd is the next Rising Sun meeting, and you won't want to miss it. We're doing our annual offroad recovery equipment demonstration and trail skills training aka "Jack It Night." Meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. (early) Click here for all the details.

Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
Bennet and Neguse are proposing more Wilderness in Colorado, seems to be about 73,000 acres, and at least 200,000 acres of new protected Federal lands.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_d1a1d61c-2133-11e9-bf41-10604b9ffe60.html

https://www.csindy.com/TheWire/arch...otect-400000-acres-of-public-land-in-colorado

One of them seems to be related to oil and gas development on Thompson Divide north of McClure Pass, in Pitkin, Garfield and Gunnison counties.

http://www.savethompsondivide.org

The Camp Hale part is interesting in that it seeks to create a National Historic "Landscape", which is completely new concept. Not sure what it means and how the 29,000 acres to be managed any differently than it current is.

Haven't found much information yet on OHV impacts nor any mention of it even by advocate groups. One is a motorized vehicle prohibition around Sheep Mountain. Apparently that's about 22,000 acres of roadless managed area, which may mean an expansion of Lizard Head Wilderness or Hermosa Creek SMA. There's a couple of county roads in there near Barlow Lake but not sure otherwise.
 
Last edited:

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
My opinion is they are shortcutting the point of the Wilderness law and going to create a long term mess (like the Minturn water issue with Bolts Ditch Headgate they created in hasty moves back in 1980 that is being changed with the RMNP land swap in the bill) for recreation and users by doing all this hastily without public review and comment like they're supposed to.

Feels like they are shooting for the Moon by rolling every special interest environmental bill that has been introduced but not passed over the past decade into one huge bill. Some of it may have merit but to get the ones that do passed they'll have to bowl over a lot of people and places on ones that don't.
 

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,911
Location
Broomfield
I’ve been following this a little. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what it means for motorized access to surrounding areas.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
COHVCO posted about it. It appears to be bad.


ACTION ALERT THE CORE WILDERNESS PROPOSAL NEEDS YOUR OPPOSITION!
Our Quick Thoughts:
Senator Bennet and Representative Neguse recently proposed the CORE Wilderness Act and it prohibits motorized usage of almost 400,000 acres of public lands. We lose legal trails and riding areas right now and even more long-term expansion opportunities in the future. Many areas proposed to be designated have been previously released for non-wilderness multiple use by Congress. Rather than the strong community support that is being asserted, there is a complete lack of consensus on the CORE Wilderness Act. Our requests on the CORE Wilderness Act component proposals have been very reasonable and have been consistently stonewalled.
The CORE Wilderness Act is simply a combination of two of the usual Wilderness suspects we have been fighting for a decade or more. They are:
1. The old San Juan Wilderness Proposal;
2. The old Continental Divide Wilderness Proposal. CORE also includes the Old Thompson Divide Proposal and a boundary for the Curecanti National Park around Blue Mesa Reservoir. Despite the assertions this is a recreation bill, CORE Wilderness Act does not improve recreation access for most users but rather closes trails, put far more trails at risk in the long term and closes open areas to future usage. This is a Wilderness bill!!
We also would like to recognize Senator Gardner and Congressman Tipton Office’s for resisting the immense pressure being applied regarding this legislation and recognizing the negative impacts to public access to public lands that would result and continuing to work towards a legislative proposal that protects all forms of recreation and multiple usage of these lands.
Quick Summary of the San Juan Wilderness impacts to motorized recreation:
1. The San Juan portion of CORE Wilderness closes approximately 55,000 acres to motorized usage with 32,000 of Wilderness and 23,000 acres of management areas prohibiting motorized usage. No releases or protections for motorized are in the San Juan portion of the CORE Wilderness.
2. The CORE Wilderness closes the Sheep Mtn area outside Telluride to snowmobile usage, which is currently legal and has been under the GMUG management plan since 1983.
3. While the San Juan proposal does not close trails it brings the Wilderness within 50ft of where boundary trails are thought to be. USFS MVUM are simply not accurate for this type of management and we would lose with any inaccuracy in mapping. More room is needed to perform maintenance and reroutes on the trails to keep them open. We have proposed 300 ft buffer and a Congressional protection (similar to National Scenic or National Motorized Recreation Trail) for these trails for years - they have fallen on deaf ears
4. We are unable to determine the exact origin of the 50ft buffer standard but by comparison the US Forest Service recommends a half mile buffer around trails designated under the National Trail System Act. Why is the buffer so much smaller here?
5. Many of the areas now sought to be designated as Wilderness were specifically released by Congress for Non-Wilderness Multiple Use as part of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act. Many of the current Wilderness boundaries were put in the specific location to avoid conflict with trails in the area, and the San Juan Proposal would put the boundaries in the locations Congress already found unacceptable in 1980.
A quick summary of Continental Divide Wilderness impacts to motorized:
1. The Continental Divide portion of CORE Wilderness proposes 43,000 acres of Wilderness and 28,000 acres of management areas that prohibit motorized usage, while claiming to balance this with management of 28,000 acres for motorized (which is already open to motorized). Tough to claim that is a benefit to recreation.
2. The Continental Divide portion of CORE Wilderness closes extensive legal trail networks in the Spraddle Creek and Williams Fork areas that were just supported by travel management planning in 2012.
3. Almost every area proposed to be Wilderness in Continental Divide portion has been identified as a future motorized expansion area. This is simply unacceptable as only 7% of WRNF was suitable and available for snowmobile usage in the 2012 Forest Travel plan. By comparison almost 30% of the WRNF is already Wilderness and sees approximately 3% of all visitation.
4. There is no balance in the Continental Divide as the Ten-mile Recreation area is closed to motorized along with wildlife areas despite the fact that much of these areas have legal motorized access currently.
5. The Camp Hale provisions allowing motorized access to 28,000 acres we already have legal access to is simply insufficient to balance out approximately 400,000 acres of new Wilderness and closures.
6. The “No Name” addition to the Holy Cross Wilderness puts the Holy Cross City trail at risk due to the proximity of the Wilderness impairing the ability to maintain the trail. This is a nationally recognized route
A more detailed analysis of site-specific impacts is available here:
2018 San Juan Wilderness Proposal Comments
http://www.coloradotpa.org/…/san-juan-wilderness-proposal-2/
2018 Continental Divide Wilderness Proposal Comments
http://www.coloradotpa.org/…/continental-divide-recreation…/
A draft of our counter proposal protecting public access to recreational opportunities
http://www.coloradotpa.org/…/conceptual-paper-on-continent…/
Our asks from you is submitting comments around these issues:
1. There is no consensus around the CORE Wilderness Proposal and previous Congressional decisions made by consensus must be honored. Pursuing consensus efforts that ignore previous consensus decisions is difficult to understand. A lot of work is needed to protect all forms of recreation in the CORE Wilderness act. Don’t close the public out of public lands.
2. If we are protecting recreation, why are so many opportunities being lost? Legally designated areas should not be closed. Wider buffers for existing legal trails should be combined with Congressional designations protecting motorized usage of the route when Wilderness is immediately adjacent to the trail.
3. Previous legal determinations regarding the utilization of areas for recreation in the future must be honored rather than having these areas designated as Wilderness.
4. Outstanding commitments made in previous Wilderness bills such as Rollins Pass Road that Congress mandated be reopened in 2002 must be honored. There are also areas we would like to see released and protected for multiple use, such as the North Sand Hills.
Electronic Comments:
John.Whitney@bennet.senate.gov
https://neguse.house.gov/contact
US Postal Service:
Congressman Neguse
1419 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515 US Postal Service:
Senator Bennet
261 Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
One of my emails.


Senator Bennet,

I write as a resident and avid backcountry skier, mountain biker, hiker and 4WD vehicle enthusiast on the Western Slope to request delay of the Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act. There must be time to allow discussion of ways to provide real benefit to our region.

If the purpose of CORE is to protect recreation why then are many opportunities unilaterally lost?

There is no widespread agreement around the CORE Wilderness Proposal. Previous Congressional activity resulted from decades of stakeholder negotiations and must be honored. Efforts that ignore existing agreements and introduce new modifications or proposals must be brought with fresh public involvement so that the full impact may be known.

Several examples are: (1) The Continental Divide language disallows snowmobile use in the Sheep Mountain area that has been in the GMUG travel plan since 1983, (2) imposes impossibly small 50 foot rather than USFS-recommended 1/2 mile buffers on trails and roads, leaving no room for maintenance and mapping errors, (3) ignores the 2012 travel management plan that agreed to allow legal motorized use in the Williams Fork and Spraddle Creek areas and (4) ignores the agreement for Wilderness boundaries originally outlined in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.

Designating Wilderness without evidence supporting eligibility bypasses established USFS or BLM management and with it any opportunity for all user groups to work within the established system of compromise and consensus. Congress must acknowledge and protect existing recreational usage without bias.

Indiscriminately applying Wilderness status locks out forever the majority's access to often historic trails, routes and sites. The current CORE language will have irreversible and unintentional consequence to recreation, preservation and management. It will deeply harm local economies that rely on the groups who most frequently use the open spaces.

Please do not shut the public out of public lands. Most of us want the same thing - the opportunity to share and protect our public lands. Putting up a gate and preventing all use by the majority of citizens does not achieve these goals.

Best Regards,
<contact info>
 
Last edited:

Notyourmomslx450

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
3,203
Location
Westminster

Squishy!

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
2,601
Location
Littleton, CO
Done. We should post this to the RS FaceBook page
 

Mendocino

RS Chapter Eternal
Gone But
Not Forgotten
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
2,466
Location
North Side

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
I sent to both senators and Scott Tipton. Had to go through web forms on all 3, direct email addresses weren't obvious.
 

Stuckinthe80s

Rising Sun Member
Staff member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
2,326
Location
Lakewood, CO
Emails sent.
 

Old40Dog

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
1,806
Location
Far, Far South Side, Cotopaxi, Calirado
Emailed Neguse, Bennet, Gardner & Lamborn asking Gardner & Lamborn to discuss the true negative impact on Colorado citizens.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,951
Location
Grand Junction
A viewpoint on the CORE Act. This is yet another turd where most of us get kicked out and a few influential insiders get picked as winners.

One of the main concerns with respect to 4WD is it places 50 foot easements. This means they can claim it's "protected" in the plan but makes it impossible to maintain the road. So even just one winter's erosion causes something to slide or move the USFS can't fix or move it. Not to mention 50 feet is impossibly tight to allow for mapping errors. If someone notices the road isn't exactly where the MVUM says it is and happens to be within the Wilderness it gets closed.

The proponents of CORE know this.

http://forestpolicypub.com/2019/03/...hearing-from-those-left-out-of-the-consensus/
 

Squishy!

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
2,601
Location
Littleton, CO
Got a reply from Gardner today.

"
Dear Mr. Morgan,

Thank you for contacting me regarding public lands in Colorado. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.
On January 25, 2019, Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) introduced S. 241, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act, which would provide various land designations to approximately 400,000 acres in Colorado. This legislation was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am a member, for further review.
As a fifth-generation Coloradan, I share the pride our state takes in our beautiful public lands and recognize the crucial role they play in our economy. I was happy to have secured several provisions that benefit Colorado public lands, including permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, in the Natural Resources Management Act that President Trump signed into law on March 12, 2019. Successful land management and protection is achieved by brining many stakeholders to the table and I will continue to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to fight for public lands.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you. "
 

Notyourmomslx450

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
3,203
Location
Westminster
Same here.
 
Top