Forum membership has its advantages....

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oldtime_racer" data-source="post: 1800026" data-attributes="member: 50802">Okay racers- What follows is my comments on the Vulture Mountain Regional Park Proposal. I know it's a long read, but it's important.Send your Comments to <a href="mailto:vulturemtns@blm.gov">vulturemtns@blm.gov</a> But, do not simply cut and paste mine to use as yours. They consider that a form letter and it doesn't do much. I suggest you read each comment of mine, if my comments help you express your thoughts, then type it in your own words and send it in. You can send them individually or all at once. This is huge. The Fees could possibly bring about the end of racing and possibly all OHV in the area of the Vulture Mine. PLEASE do this. We need numbers.TMP= Travel Management PlanRMP= Resource Management PlanR&PP= Recreation and Public Purpose ActMy Comments on the proposed lease of land near the vulture mine to Maricopa County to be used as the Vulture Mountains Regional Park. Apologies if the format is incorrect. Please contact me with any questions pertaining to my comments.At first glance, I’m against this lease. I think the BLM should take a hard look at past park projects the county has been involved with. Some of my concerns are:1. Finishing projects in a timely manner. The White Tanks regional park entered their park system in 1961, and just recently had the electricity supplied to the camp sites. If this park is not going to be completed before opening to the public, then a time line should be created and should have been presented at the public scoping meeting. There are facilities and projects at other parks that seem to be unfinished as well. In some areas, studies were supposed to be done, and were not. If I’m correct, the San Tan regional park was established in 1988. Has the County met their expectations on that agreement? If not, why should we believe they will on this one? The BCC Trailhead area was supposed to be maintained by the county. The area was vandalized and not taken care of. The emphasis, it seems, was placed on double permits for events and trying to help manage the trail system. Double permitting should not be required or allowed. Its borderline illegal, in my opinion, since the county would be charging people to use the public lands. Double Permitting has caused a lot of organizations that used to hold events in those areas to move elsewhere. Also, “not for profit” fundraising events are now subject to fees and permits causing them to move. Schools are charged fees for the buses, etc. All of this leads to lack of participation.2. The Public scoping meeting on July 13th in Wickenburg left a lot to be desired. There was insufficient notification to the public stakeholders. Stakeholders include all people that use the lands. In order to get “Good Out” you need to put “Good In”. Step one of having Good In is having all the right people in the seats. The AZOHVC, and numerous other groups that should be considered Stakeholders were not notified and/or not present. Other things missing from the public scoping meeting include the county’s fee schedule and their written policy for OHV. As well as a time line for the construction of the facilities. I strongly suggest having another meeting, this time keeping in mind that there are a lot of stakeholders in the Phoenix area, and most are employed and have trouble getting to Wickenburg on a Wednesday evening.3. Maricopa County Parks and Recreation has no experience managing OHV. In the other parks they have leased, they have not adhered to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The affected area for this project contains trails designated for OHV and Competitive OHV events. In the past, the County changes the rules to match their existing rules. I believe it was in 2009 I commented that the County needed to change their policy on Motorized Recreation if they were going to create this park. It has not happened yet.4. The contribution of MCDOT to the project raises some concerns as well. They plan to straighten the road near the North Area, which will increase speeds of vehicles, then create turning lanes. I think the turning lanes are very necessary, but I question removing the curve. The safety aspect, or lack thereof, of increasing speeds before the turn concerns me. I realize it’s out of scope for this project, but I’d really like to see the MCDOT maintain that road so the cattle guards do not injure backs and damage suspensions to vehicles and motorcycles.5. Target shooting? In regional parks it is not allowed. The County hopes to manage, or “help manage”, as it was said at the meeting, nearly 70,000 acres in this proposal. Since they have shown they do not adhere to the FLPMA of 1976, what happens to target shooting and hunting? The Policies of the County and those of Federal lands (Public lands) do not match.6. This R&PP should not try to preclude the BLM from creating other areas that can accommodate club use, such as defined in the Wickenburg TMP. One area that is identified as such an area is on Buckshot mine road. The BLM should be able to build new areas on BLM managed (Public) lands in this area. The Cooperative Management Agreement for this project should allow for the building of new areas.7. Because of the County’s limited experience in managing OHV’s and OHV activities, It should be left to the BLM and not R&PP at all.It’s for all these reasons that I strongly oppose this lease. The reasons listed above are substantial and should not be taken lightly. I and many others feel the County simply cannot be trusted with maintaining and building the area for OHV use.In addition to the above concerns, here are my additional concerns for the “Areas”:North Area:1. The “Day Use” area east of Vulture Mine Road needs to have adequate parking with access to the trails. This “Day Use” area could/should be used as dispersed camping, since the trail heads are on that side of the road. If campers are required to camp on the west side of the road, they need to have unpaved roads/trails used to access the trailheads on the east side. Motorized and non-motorized users should not be funneled onto the same trails. This will cause issues with Equestrian and Motorized users. The BLM has made some great strides in keeping the peace between those two groups, and so have the groups themselves.2. There are some trails going to the west of the North Area. Because the RMP and TMP allow for competitive events on the west side of Vulture Mine Road, these access points should allow for signage and/or closure to minimize/prevent interaction between the racers and the public.3. I’ll mention again that straightening the road will increase speeds of vehicles pulling trailers. If there is a turning lane installed, it should be long enough to accommodate several “rigs”.South Area:1. This area is bordered by private land to the west. I suggest pipe fencing like used at other OHV areas to prevent the area from encroaching on the undisturbed areas and the private lands. Not much else is needed, in my opinion, other than access. It should be an alternative to omit this area from the plan altogether. The Vulture Mountains are on the east side of the road. The park doesn’t need to stretch to the west side of the road in any location.2. Competitive events are held in this area. These events have taken place since the 70’s. I raced this course myself back then. These events are permit required events and we should not have to obtain a permit from both BLM and the County. Also, if the County builds facilities (restrooms), then that should no longer be a requirement for the permit. I recommend no facilities at the South area. Dispersed camping only. It’s important to understand the amount of people and vehicles that attend these events. It can easily be in excess of 500 vehicles. There will undoubtedly be fees for these vehicles under the County’s management, so these fees need to be disclosed prior to the lease being issued. We cannot accept “we haven’t gotten that far” as an answer. As it stands now, and under the FLPMA, the BLM charges fees for policing the staging area. It needs to be disclosed if the BLM will continue this activity or if the county will assume it. A lot of time and money went into the EIS, RMP and TMP to ensure the continuation of this competitive event. The County should not be allowed to interfere with it. They should try to enhance it.3. There has been talk for many years about overflow parking areas across the Vulture Mine road. These overflow parking areas can also be used to access trails on that side of the road.4. This area also needs turning lanes and ingress lanes that are long enough to allow multiple vehicles to use the when turning left, and to allow vehicles pulling trailers room to get up to speed when leaving the area.5. This South area is currently used as dispersed camping. It is not widely used throughout the year, but is heavily used during the events. One of the reasons I suggest little, or no, improvements to this area is the lack of fees collected in an area that is not used often. It’s important to note that once fees are being charged, many people that use these areas will move to other places.Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. The biggest concern is the FLPMA not being adhered to. Lands leased from the BLM are supposed to be managed under those guidelines.Thank You,Doug Martin</blockquote>

Verification