**Summary of Public Comments**

Colorado National Monument

Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

**Executive Summary**

The Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(DGMP/EIS) was available for review from April 26, 2003 through June 30,
2004. A post card was sent to more than 675 individuals, agencies, and
organizations prior to the release of the draft document to determine if
they were interested in receiving a paper plan, a CD-rom, or viewing it
on the web. More than 110 copies were mailed, and copies were available
at local libraries and on-line. Press releases and post cards to the
entire mailing list announced the availability of the plan and public
meetings. Three meetings were held June 15 -- 17, 2004 in the vicinity
of the monument. Consultations were held with two federal and one state
agency during the same time period. A total of seven written responses
were received, and total attendance at the meetings was 27 people.

In summarizing the overall public reaction to the DGMP/EIS, the
relatively light response despite widespread availability of the
document is assumed to indicate a low level of controversy. Among the
total of 36 respondents (27 people at meetings, seven letters, and two
additional agency consultations), only five stated a specific preference
for an alternative. A total of four respondents (including the City of
Fruita, Mesa County, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) support
Alternative B, one individual supports Alternative C. The major topics
brought up include bicycle -- motor vehicle conflicts on Rim Rock Drive,
rapid urbanization, trails (their use, connection, and impacts), fences,
boundary adjustments, the transition zones, and dogs.

[Bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts.]{.underline} There was general
acknowledgement that multiple use of Rim Rock Drive will continue, and
support for an educational effort to share the road to reduce conflicts.
Most of the concerns remain on the eastern segment, and the City of
Fruita and one individual support physically modifying Rim Rock Drive to
accommodate a bike lane.

[Rapid urbanization.]{.underline} Mesa County, the City of Fruita, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all noted the problems that rapid
urbanization poses to the management of the monument, and cited support
for Alternative B as the best direction to address the future. The three
organizations offered continuing support, particularly for cooperative
planning efforts to protect natural, cultural, and scenic resources and
visitor opportunities in and around the monument.

[Trails.]{.underline} The BLM, the City of Fruita, and few individuals
expressed support for improved trail connections and loops. Local people
want to be involved in the more detailed planning of trails, and a
volunteer organization offered to help with trail work. However, the
EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife requested some additional impact analysis, additional
mitigation, and a commitment to monitoring. No respondent opposed the
improvements, but cautious planning and monitoring was advised to ensure
there is no damage to natural and cultural resources.

[Fences.]{.underline} Neighboring residents in the Redlands area support
the continuation of a boundary fence between the monument and private
property, although disputes remain about its exact location. The
Division of Wildlife has a general preference that fences be removed
(such as livestock fences no longer needed on the upper boundaries), but
where they need to remain make changes or replace them with
wildlife-friendly designs.

[Boundary adjustments.]{.underline} There was support for the proposed
boundary adjustments by the City of Fruita and one individual, and
support of at least one of the proposed parcels by BLM. A few other
minor adjustments were suggested by an individual.

[Transition zones.]{.underline} Two individuals expressed concern about
the proposed management zones that transition to the NCA or to other BLM
lands -- either that they are unnecessary or could compromise resource
protection on NPS lands.

[Dogs.]{.underline} Two individuals want existing no dog (in
backcountry) rules enforced. Two individuals expressed concern that
allowing dogs in one part of the monument but not other parts would
create additional enforcement problems, and one of these was against
allowing dogs in the proposed transition zone. The BLM indicated it had
modified the NCA Resource Management Plan to require dogs to be leashed
on trails connecting to the monument where dogs are proposed to be
allowed.

[Miscellaneous.]{.underline}

-   One individual preferred to see NPS keep funds that are given to the
    county as payment in lieu of taxes

-   One individual inquired about climbing regulations, and the Division
    of Wildlife suggested monitoring for Peregrine falcons, especially
    in the vicinity of climbing activities.

-   The City of Fruita supports an interagency visitor center in Fruita.

**Comprehensive Summary**

**Public Meetings**

-   Bulleted statements are comments from the public (Notes in
    parenthesis indicate NPS response or discussion that followed)

[Glade Park: Glade Park Community Center]{.underline}

June 15, 2001

Attendance: 16

-   Any plans for bike paths? (No, will not fit with historic character
    of road and would cause too many environmental impacts)

-   Have you considered bikes on the west end only? (Yes, but dismissed
    because court ordered right-of-way also applies to bicycles)

-   Number of homes in Glade Park increasing, traffic will increase.

-   Who maintains this road? (NPS)

-   Does the park use magnesium chloride? (No)

-   Some people commute by bicycle, so the road should not be closed to
    bikes.

-   Continue ongoing education on both sides -- motorized vehicles and
    bicycles

-   Time -- try to get bicycles to come at times outside of known
    commuter traffic

-   Dogs -- explain issue (more people are coming with dogs, there are
    dog/wildlife problems)

-   Fence with BLM -- will this plan take it down? (Could be an option
    on land adjoining NCA if grazing leases are no longer present. No
    money to do it.)

-   Lower Liberty Cap trail head -- educate people about no dogs allowed
    in park through homeowners associations, newsletter

-   Trails -- what is being proposed (Referred to maps for location --
    mostly in lower "bench" area, trails would be identified more
    systematically, some unofficial routes would become designated
    trails, better delineation, shown on maps, create loops and walks
    that are not all steep elevation gain)

-   Volunteer trail crews would be willing to help improve trails.

-   Trails at the urban interface -- local people should have input, be
    involved like the BLM did for the NCA.

-   Build trails in an environmentally sound manner.

[Fruita: Fruita Community Center]{.underline}

June 16, 2004

Attendance: 1

-   Payment in lieu of taxes -- it's crazy for money to go from the
    federal government to go to the county, then the county gives no
    services to the NPS. Would rather see the money stay in the park.
    (Money for payment in lieu of taxes comes from general fund, not NPS
    budget for Colorado National Monument.)

-   Prefer Alternative C -- prefer some of the specifics, and that it
    protects the monument.

-   Explain the difference between a National Park and a National
    Monument. (National monuments are established by a Presidential
    proclamation, national parks are established by Congress. Generally,
    a national monument has one unusual or unique value that set it
    aside, while national parks are larger and have more diverse
    resources.)

[Grand Junction: Redlands United Methodist Church -- Grand
Junction]{.underline}

June 17, 2004

Attendance: 10

-   With the preferred plan, would there be confusion regarding dogs if
    one area it was OK and other areas it was not? (The road identifies
    a clear boundary, but there could be some confusion)

-   What are the incentives to follow the dog rules? (There is a fine)

-   What would NPS do about dog waste? (Put up bag stations and waste
    receptacles)

-   Dogs affect adjacent property owners, especially vicious dogs
    running free. (Please call and report, ranger will come)

-   Need more signage and education at Echo Canyon and Old Gordons Trail

-   Loop trails -- where would they be? (Primarily in below the bench in
    the urban interface zone)

-   Interagency visitor center -- what agencies would be involved? (NPS,
    BLM, USFS, DOW, State Welcome Center, Dinosaur Museum, City of
    Fruita)

-   Climbing -- any limits? (A few sensitive areas are currently closed
    to climbing -- will watch for impacts, may need to develop a
    climbing management plan which would include public involvement to
    manage activity and protect resources.)

-   Commercial outfitters -- are they allowed? (There are NPS policies
    that they must be determined to be necessary and appropriate, and
    then get a permit.)

-   Bicycling -- bicyclists and motorists can be discourteous. Glade
    park traffic will continue to grow.

-   East of the DS road there was some widening in the '90's. It is
    actually hazardous to the bicyclists because of the variability.
    Make minor widening more consistent. (Curves were widened in the
    early 1990's for large commercial vehicles.

-   Buffalo fence -- will it stay? (No plans to replace soon -- if must
    be relocated or replaced, it would be replaced with a
    wildlife-friendly fence.)

-   Survey and buffalo fence -- some places the fence extends two feet
    onto private property.

-   Buffalo fence keep unwanted people out of private property.

-   Fence protects hikers from neighborhood dogs.

-   Problem -- busloads of teachers and kids in the spring hike along
    the boundary fence and taunt neighborhood dogs. (Report problems to
    the rangers.)

**Consultations**

[Bureau of Land Management.]{.underline} A meeting was held in Grand
Junction with staff of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area
on August 17, 2004. They presented some changes between their draft and
final plan for the conservation area that reflect NPS comments and
complement the NPS plan. On trails that connect with the monument
transition zone, where the NPS proposes to allow dogs on leash, they
will also require that dogs be on leash. They are interested in the
connections of the tails in that area. BLM is receptive to the proposed
boundary adjustment transferring an 80-acre parcel of BLM land near
Liberty Cap trail head and a 40-acre parcel near Monument trail head to
NPS. They added more information about BLM and NPS collaboration during
our planning processes to their final plan.

[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.]{.underline} A meeting was held with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 16, 2004, in Grand Junction
to discuss the plan and EIS. We discussed separating threatened and
endangered (T & E) species from the discussion of sensitive species in
the final document, and using standardized Section 7 language for the T
& E species. We agreed to include a general biological evaluation for
the Uinta Basin hookless cactus and the bald eagle, but also agreed that
the plan is not likely to affect either. The USFS provided some links to
additional information regarding the Gunnison sage grouse, and want to
see the NPS continue to monitor for Peregrine falcons.

[Colorado Division of Wildlife.]{.underline} A meeting was held with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) in Grand Junction on August 18,
2004. We discussed fencing -- their general preference is to remove
fencing. Deer gates and gaps at washes help, and if the NPS replaces
fencing it should be a wildlife-friendly design. We discussed whether
increasing use and introducing dogs on trails in the Black Ridge area
would affect populations of desert bighorn sheep. The DOW suggested that
the NPS do some monitoring, use trail registries, and use their "Desert
Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, Black Ridge Herd Unit Revision, March
1997" (copy provided). If indicated, the NPS could install signs,
educate visitors, re-route trails, or close trails seasonally. NPS asked
about impacts to wildlife from more trail use proposed on the bench (not
a concern to DOW) and Wedding Canyon (not a problem if the trail is a
long ways from the wash). DOW suggested monitoring peregrine falcons,
especially near rock climbing areas. DOW is interested in people having
opportunities to view wildlife, including peregrines and bighorn sheep.

**Written Responses**

A total of seven written responses, all letters (no web or e-mail) were
received -- two from federal agencies, 2 from local governmental
agencies, and three from individuals. Four letters state support of
Alternative B (3 agencies, 1 individual). The other three do not state a
preference for an alternative, but comment on specific aspects of the
plan.

[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.]{.underline} Their only
environmental concern is the impacts to riparian areas that are
described in the Preferred Alternative B. The draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) does not quantify those impacts to adequately evaluate
the magnitude and importance of those impacts or the potential
effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. They recommend additional
mitigation measures be investigated. The EPA found it difficult to
understand the differences between Alternatives B and C. While they
respect the NPS selection of Alternative B as the NPS preferred
alternative to address the overall purpose and need for the GMP, the EPA
believes that Alternative C should be identified as the "environmentally
preferred alternative." They cite the definition given for the
environmentally preferred alternative in the "40 Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations." The EPA also recommends that the
final describes necessary and appropriate monitoring. Based on the
procedures EPA uses to evaluate potential effects of proposed actions
and the adequacy of information, they listed the preferred Alternative B
as category EC-2 -- environmental concerns with insufficient
information. There will need to be changes to mitigation and information
in the final EIS. They listed Alternative C as category LO, lack of
objections.

[U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.]{.underline} They provided a letter to
follow-up on our meeting held June 16, 2004, listed above. The USFWS
indicated that preferred Alternative B addresses the issues surrounding
rapid urbanization in a manner that serves the best interest of the
public and the natural and cultural resources of the monument. The USFWS
agrees that the draft general management plan addresses the issue of
listed species. They offered assistance with reviewing other documents,
such as the fire management plan. After the meeting, they discussed the
listed *Sclerocactus glaucus* (Uinta Basin hookless cactus) with staff
and do not believe this particular plant occurs within the monument's
management area.

[City of Fruita, Colorado.]{.underline} The City of Fruita supports
Alternative B, the preferred alternative. Fruita wants to continue its
relationship to the NPS as a gateway community to the monument, and also
want to continue to seek coordination of planning and land use with the
NPS. They cited a number of plans that have been adopted or are underway
that recognize the importance of buffer zones, trail connections, an
attractive entrance to the monument, and intergovernmental cooperation.
Fruita supports trail linkages to the monument, including the Old Dugway
trail. Fruita continues to have interest in the Old Fruita water line,
but no final use has been determined.

Fruita included some very specific comments on the draft GMP/EIS. They
are very interested in the proposed interagency visitor center, and want
to see it located in Fruita, specifically suggesting that it would be an
expansion of the interim center that has already been established there.
Where there are references to working with the NPS working with local
governments and intergovernmental cooperation, they would like to see
Fruita specifically cited. Under visitor opportunities, Fruita suggests
that where there is adequate space on Rim Rock Drive, four-foot paved
shoulders are added to both sides of the road to provide for the safe
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The City of Fruita endorses the proposed
boundary adjustments in the neighborhood of "Question Mark Hill" on
State Highway 340 for possible future usage as a Monument Canyon
trailhead parking lot and to protect the rock outcropping. They suggest
that additional buffering should be sought through the dedication of
conservation easements along the monument border in conjunction with the
Mesa Land Trust, the City of Fruita and Mesa County.

[Mesa County, Colorado]{.underline}

Mesa county supports Alternative B (preferred) as it provides managers
of the monument with the widest possible range of tools and alternatives
necessary to implement a meaningful integrated resource management plan.
They noted that many challenges to management will come from the urban
interface along the "front" of the Monument where urban land uses and
their associated impacts will continue to increase (non-native,
undesirable plants, uncontrolled pets, light pollution, loss of wildlife
habitat adjacent to the monument, etc). Mesa County stated that "the
quality of life in Mesa County is enhanced by the scenic backdrop of the
Monument and the direct and indirect economic contribution that tourism
provides. Alternative B provides the greatest opportunity to enhance the
tourist opportunity experience while protecting the Monument's natural
resources." Mesa County cited their Memorandum of Understanding of 1999
with the NPS and that the county looks forward to continuing positive
working partnerships with the Monument.

[Individual letter 1]{.underline}

-   Primary distinctions between Alternatives B and C seems to be the
    road corridor.

-   Completely agree with Alternative B multiple use concept for the Rim
    Rock Drive road corridor.

-   Concerned that the transition zone between the NCA might result over
    time in more significant impacts consistent with those usually found
    on BLM lands

-   Recommend that if Alternative B is chosen, it should be amended to
    include standards to measure impacts in the transition zone to
    ensure protection.

[Individual letter 2]{.underline}

-   Applaud the proposed boundary adjustments identified in Appendix C.

-   Believe the GMP should also consider adjusting the boundary to
    include two other NPS tracts that may have been excluded from the
    boundary by the 1959 Presidential proclamation.

-   The creation of special zones in areas adjacent to the NCA or other
    BLM lands is not necessary to enhance backcountry visitor flow,
    improve resource and property protections, or to promote cooperation
    between agencies or with neighbors.

-   The draft proposal to allow leashed dogs in the
    "Primitive/Transition to NCA" zone is particularly undesirable.
    There are plenty of other places in the NCA to hike with dogs, dogs
    could disrupt wildlife, having differing rules in different parts of
    the monument may complicate enforcement of rules, and dogs have long
    been considered a non-conforming use in Colorado National Monument's
    backcountry.

[Individual letter 3]{.underline}

-   Comments are limited to the bicycle and commuter conflicts on the
    eastern segment of Rim Rock Drive.

-   Agree with GMP analysis that bicycle use and commuter traffic is
    expected to increase, that resident traffic is often frustrated with
    bicycles and slow tourists, and with no action accidents would be
    likely to increase.

-   An education program of "share the road" under Alternative B would
    have incremental, rather than significant results.

-   Believes best solution is to separate bicycles by either time or
    space.

-   Time zones as suggested in Alternative C could be effective.

-   Offered detailed assessment of roadway proposing three alternatives
    to physically modify the eastern segment of Rim Rock Drive (included
    advice from a civil engineer and photographs). One is to re-stripe
    existing pavement to include a 3-foot bike lane on already widened
    curves and tangents, providing safe pull-outs for bikers. The second
    is to widen the most feasible tangents and curves (requiring a
    little cut and fill) to create a 3-foot bike lane for part of the
    route. The third alternative is to add a continuous 3- foot bike
    lane from the east entrance to the Glade Park cutoff. The respondent
    recognized the need to address Section 106 of the Historic
    Preservation Act to accomplish physical modification of the historic
    roadway.

**Contacted For Consultation (No Response)**

Specific letters inviting consultation on the DGMP/EIS were sent to the
Colorado Historical Society regarding Section 106 consultation, and to
the Northern Ute, Southern Ute, and Ute Mountain Ute tribes. Follow-up
phone calls were made with the tribes to attempt to set up meetings.
There has been no response from these groups at this time. Efforts to
further tribal consultation will continue.