National Forest office is updating the Forest Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (1 Viewer)

[patrickk]

I just got this from Trails Offroad:


What You Need to Know

This fall, our National Forest office is updating the Forest Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG). Due to a land underestimation, 700,000 acres of forest land is at risk of not being accounted for. With this land being unaccounted for, we could lose miles and miles of offroad trails. We can stop this before it's too late by participating in the public meetings linked below. Ask the critical questions: How is our available motorized acreage accounted for? Is our information up-to-date?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd945844.pdf

Has anyone dialed into these? What can we even do if we dial in? @SAS

-Patrick

 

[1000Taco0001]

I just got this from Trails Offroad:


What You Need to Know

This fall, our National Forest office is updating the Forest Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG). Due to a land underestimation, 700,000 acres of forest land is at risk of not being accounted for. With this land being unaccounted for, we could lose miles and miles of offroad trails. We can stop this before it's too late by participating in the public meetings linked below. Ask the critical questions: How is our available motorized acreage accounted for? Is our information up-to-date?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd945844.pdf

Has anyone dialed into these? What can we even do if we dial in? @SAS

-Patrick

So how in the heck do you “lose” or “not account for” 700,000 acres? … and who was fired for doing so?

… wait, it was in accounted for because they lost my paperwork. I actually own 600,000 acres of it. Whew… now that this issue is resolved no worries.

Seriously though, I was trying to find information on how the process works where the Forrest Service would err so bad in calculating that 700,000 acres are at risk… Is there some info I can read up on it? Links?

 

[patrickk]

I haven't been able to find much myself...

Was hoping Tracy might know more.

 

[SAS]

Here is a good overview and explanation:

 

[1000Taco0001]

Hmmm, Well if they are off by 24% then in that video Option C would be closest. (and it would still lower the amount of semi primitive motorized. (assuming that is where all of the issue existed). It would make C a semi no-change option. However, from the numbers it would look like a huge add and would likely create a budget issue. Did anyone attend any of the earlier meetings?

 

[SAS]

I'm late to post this...but found out a few days ago that the COMMENTS date has been EXTENDED to November 26.

I recommend reading the two posts (September 10, and November 2) and/or watching the videos posted by Marcus/CORE on his webpage:

News — CORE

News

www.keeptrailsopen.com

To make it SUPER EASY to comment, Marcus has a link (button) below the November 2 news post [blue oval says "MAKE YOUR COMMENTS TODAY"}