I was hopefull that, in the waning days of Bushco, his attempt to improve mtb access to national parks would leave a bit of a positive legacy (albeit small & insignificant but good for cycling) on what is going to arguably be one of the most blatantly inept corrupt & fraudulent presidencies in American history. I hoped too soon. Last week, posted within a linkdump & email dealio was an email about the issue of Moab & The Canyonlands at Risk. To shed more light on it, and maybe… hopefully get a bit of effort put into the situation from our cycling community it’s posted here now. We collectively care about these places as cyclists, so we ought to be heard. Indeed it is O.K. and equally American, to consume less. Not everything has to be raped and pillaged. If you’re down with that novel concept, maybe use the following form letter (copy it, paste it, print it, sign it, mail it.) to let the BLM know that it matters.
Also, thank Ed for finding the letter, and sending it in to DC.
Just like voting, it might be worth your time.
From: Ed O.
Subject: Found this…Bureau of Land Management
Utah State Office
PO Box 45155
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155 FAX 801.539.4237Re: December 19, 2008 Lease Parcels: 180, 181,182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 196,
197 200, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, and 225
Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 3120.1-3, please accept this letter of protest
regarding the proposed lease sale of the above noted parcels. I
respectfully request that these parcels be withdrawn from the December 19,
2008 sale, for the following reasons:I am a resident of ____________ , ________. I have been to Moab/am planning
to visit Moab, and have specific concerns about BLM’s upcoming oil and gas
lease sale in Utah.Moab’s Recreation Economy Part A: I understand that the recently released
Moab Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes specific reference to the
Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) which includes
both the Porcupine Rim Trail and the Amasa Back Trail. The existence of
this SRMA requires that the following parcels be defered as access to these
parcels will violate the Visual Resource Management Objectives set forth in
the RMP. Further, the loss of these two trails would greatly reduce my
desire to visit Moab. Parcel numbers: 200, 217, 218, 219, 221, and 223Moab’s Recreation Economy Part B: Tusher Canyon and Barlett Wash are both
designated Mountain Bike Areas within the BLM Resource Management Plan and
are closed to motorized travel except on designated routes. Oil and gas
activity in this area will greatly detract from the desirability of these
trails. The RMP does not include a site-specific analysis that addresses
the impacts of oil and gas development included in these lease sale
parcels. The BLM must conduct site-specific analysis before making these
areas available for oil and gas leasing. Parcel numbers: 180, 181,182, 183,
184, 185, 186, 196, and 197Moab Water Quality: I am concerned about the health and safety of both
residents and visitors to Moab if drilling is allowed within the Moab
Aquifer. The RMP specifically states that there will be no exceptions for
oil and gas development within an aquifer. Parcel numbers: 224, 225Parcels contiguous to Arches National Park: Due to the physical constraints
of Moab’s unique topography the only access to these parcels would be
through Arches National Park. Therefore, I request that these parcels be
deferred. Parcel numbers: 217, 218BLM acknowledges that the potential for oil and gas production is low in
these areas, so why allow permanent scars of access roads and development
to tarnish the landscape that provide a high quality of life to residents
of Grand County and that visitors from around the world come to enjoy? A
large portion of the Moab economy will be at risk if these parcels are not
deferred. The BLM has discretionary authority to approve or disapprove
mineral leasing of public lands. We request that the above listed parcels
be withdrawn from the December 19, 2008, lease sale, and that these parcels
not be re-offered in future lease sales.Sincerely,
NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER
November 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Landsnatching is a speciality of the BLM.
I’ve spend too much time in offices of the NRCS (nee Soil Conservation Service)..that’s what they are about in recent years.
Consider the Black Mesa/Kenyata mines deal. Nightmare.
If there is viable petroleum geology in the Canyonlands area, it’s very likey to require steam extraction.
They have too much water up there, right?
They would sell all the peaks on e-bay for mountain top mining if they could.