Public Comments from Scoping

**Colorado National Monument General Management Plan**

# Public scoping is the initial phase of public involvement to solicit ideas and concerns that should be addressed in the General Management Plan for Colorado National Monument. A newsletter was sent to over 200 individuals, organizations, and agencies at the end of January, 2002. The newsletter included a public response form. Public meetings were held February 5, 6, and 7, 2002, in Glade Park, Fruita, and Grand Junction. A web site containing the newsletter was also established with an opportunity to provide comment. The Federal Register Notice of Intent was published March 13, 2002, and the period for accepting public comments was extended until April 15. The following comments were received at public meetings, from the newsletter and web site response form, and letters.

# 

# Public Meetings 

All meetings were set up in the following format:

6:00 p.m. -- 7:00 p.m. **Open House** -- Informal information and
discussion with NPS staff

7:00 p.m. -- 7:30 p.m. **NPS Presentation**

-   Welcome -- Palma Wilson, Superintendent, Colorado National Monument

-   Overview of GMP - Suzy Stutzman, Planner, NPS Intermountain Region,
    Denver

-   Introduction of team members

7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. **Work Groups**

-   Introduce yourselves to each other

-   Choose a leader and a recorder

-   Brainstorm and record all ideas, issues, concerns, and opportunities
    that should be addressed in the GMP, do not eliminate or ignore
    anyone's ideas at this time. If it helps to identify or communicate
    an idea, feel free to write on the maps provided. Complete this by
    8:00 p.m.

-   Discuss the ideas and choose the top 5 as a group. You may use the
    sticky "dots" provided. Give each member of the group 5 dots. Each
    person can place dots on their top ideas and concerns, and can put
    more than one dot on an issue if they so choose. Circle the 5 items
    with the most dots. Complete this by 8:15 p.m.

-   Following this exercise, as a group identify a vision for what
    Colorado National Monument should be like in 20 years and record.

-   NPS staff is available to help monitor time and answer questions.

8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. **Reporting**

-   Reconvene as one group

-   Leader or other designee from each group report

    -   Top 5 issues and opportunities for GMP

    -   State group's vision for Colorado National Monument

9:00 p.m. **Closeout**

-   Please remember to use your comment form in the newsletter or send a
    letter to the park with your individual ideas, issues, and concerns.

# Meeting 1: Glade Park Community Center, February 5, 2002

Attendance was very light -- 5 people for the open house, and two were
called away on an emergency before the NPS presentation began. Following
the NPS presentation, the three remaining attendees declined to stay for
a group workshop. The following comment was provided by one participant
on a comment form in response to question two -- "What issues and
opportunities do you think need to be addressed in the GMP?"

-   Fire management, interface with private lands and BLM, fuel
    reduction, use of mechanical methods to accomplish fuel reduction,
    use of chain saws and potential conflicts with wilderness proposal.

# Meeting 2: Fruita Community Center, February 6, 2002

Attendance -- 12 people, one work group

Ideas, issues, opportunities, and concerns to be addressed in the GMP,
with number of "votes" or dots for the 5 most important ones (top items
in **bold**)

-   Capital fundraising

-   Active/broad based GIS program

-   Land acquisition?

-   Visitor survey/profile

-   Influence zoning on lands adjacent to CNM

-   New recreational techniques -- appropriate

3.  Opportunities for visitors (accessibility)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Traffic -- Fruita -- Glade Park

-   Pets in park

-   Noxious weeds

2.  Off site visitor contact station -- interagency / partner

3.  Stormwater control

> 1 Preservation of CCC structures and old roads

-   Climbing (technical)

> 2 Trail conditions

-   Access to Rattlesnake Canyon

## Protection of vista

> 2 Protecting bicycle access to roads
>
> 1 Special events / closures
>
> **5 Protection of ecological values**

1 Desert Bighorn Sheep management

-   IGA with Fruita / 340 corridor

1 Fruita waterline leakage and resource challenges, maintenance, use and
continuance?

> 1 Use of CNM as classroom

-   Cooperative research with scientific community, college and HS
    students

-   Safety of visitors in camping facilities / park after hours

-   National park status

> 2 Roads too narrow
>
> 1 Housing encroachment on Redlands

### 4 Access / impact / overuse by people / horses

> 3 Facilities @ trailhead
>
> 2 Outreach to school system
>
> 1 Staffing -- education of / protection issues of staff

-   Safety of volunteer staff (part. weekends)

> 1 Maintenance / improved access where possible of historic district
> structures
>
> 3 More \$ to run park

-   Future buildings should be in same style as historic structures

-   General upkeep issues

-   Coordination with CCNCA

-   Oral history -- contact with local communities, esp. road building

## Continuing update of exhibits - use of diff. technologies to reach non-traditional audiences (incl. video / slide program), reaching disabled, impaired visitors (hearing, sight), reaching "virtual visitors"

-   Control / no control over natural processes ( i.e. landslide /
    rockfalls / floods) are these damages for process?

-   Crpytobiotic soil protection (education)

> 3 Preservation "not a theme park" also applying to surrounding area

-   On-site protection -- targeting audience (visitors) using on-site
    personnel, a presence of enforcement

-   Emergency phone boxes -- mostly on roadway

-   Recycling for visitors

-   Positive, on-going public information about CNM -- presence in
    public

-   Better signs (through Grand Junction to park)

-   Sign on highway directing to visitor center

-   Rename?

-   Low watt informational radio stations

> 3 Overuse
>
> 1 Image of "city park" instead of "national park"

1 Facilities @ limited capacity including water / sewer / phone

> 1 Camping -- more or less?

-   Modernize campsites

> 1 Private sector (instead of in-park) camping

-   Increased partnerships / grants for special projects (trail rehab,
    building, or exhibit)

-   Relationship with CNMA

Main categories of ideas, issues, concerns, and opportunities in Fruita:

-   Protection and preservation

-   Infrastructure

-   Interpretation and media

-   Community relationships

-   Safety

Vision of the Fruita group -- What should Colorado National Monument be
like in 20 years?

-   Preserved and protected in a natural condition -- not degraded for
    special interests -- larger purpose than local

-   Fully funded

-   Adequately staffed

-   Meaningful to broad sector of visiting public

-   Both wilderness and urban

-   Public and Grand Valley understand how special monument is

-   Park is good neighbor

-   Park more sensitive to customer service than agency restrictions

-   Educate people to special and sensitive nature of resources

-   Island of nature in sea of development

# Meeting 3: Grand Junction City Auditorium, February 7, 2002

Attendance -- 15 people, one work group

Ideas, issues, opportunities, and concerns to be addressed in the GMP,
with number of "votes" or dots for the 5 most important ones (top items
in **bold**)

4 Population growth of Grand Junction

2 Population growth around monument boundaries, i.e South Camp Road

2 Plan for Rattlesnake and Mei Canyons, i.e. increasing / decreasing
access

1 More descriptive name for National Monument

> 4 What are we doing with Serpent's Trail? Is it a trail, or a road?
>
> 4 Plan needs to address increase in commuter up to Glade Park
>
> 2 Traffic speed limits more rigorously enforced for safety, i.e.
> bicyclists
>
> 4 Maintenance: Trail, park in general

**12 Park kept as natural as possible, i.e. limit paved areas; maintain
existing trails rather than development of new ones**

-   Need for maintenance of camping areas, trails, monument facilities;
    Live-in campground host?

3.  Need for continued ranger present @ east entrance

2 Cultural and / or interpretive presentations of previous cultures and
inhabitants

1 Little Park Road -- will there be an increase in commuter / commercial
traffic as L.P. seems to be continually improved

4.  Waste containers on trails, i.e. Serpent's Trail

-   Volunteer pickups

-   Refuse company

1 Portapots @ trailheads of major trails of particular importance in
delicate desert environments

-   Increased vandalisms -- increased use and population

6.  **More education of children; greater interaction between schools
    and national monument with desired result being increase in
    knowledge brings decrease in vandalism**

2 20-year concern / opportunity -- tourism increase in 20 years, i.e.
tour buses

-   Consider making road to Glade Park 1-way west to east

-   Air quality and visibility will still be due to increase in
    population

-   Camp facilities -- paying their way?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Do fees need to be increased?

-   Do they need to be upgraded / improved?

-   Could camp grounds be eliminated?

    1.  Keep campgrounds primitive?

> **6 See park service and BLM keep areas as primitive as possible**
>
> **6 Plant and animal inventory by the CO Natural Heritage Program**

-   Buffalo fence -- what is the status?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integration social trails with existent park trails to encourage
    interest and mitigate human erosion

-   Impact of population growth on wildlife i.e. population growth in 20
    years

    1.  Long term plan for events in national monument, i.e. bike races

-   Why did the BLM leave the plan meeting? Maintenance of Rattlesnake
    Canyon Road

Vision of the Grand Junction group -- What should Colorado National
Monument be like in 20 years?

-   Just like it is today or improved

-   1.5 billion years + 20

-   Money to take care of it

**Response to Newsletter #1 (response forms and web)**

1.  **Do you agree with the mission, purpose, and significance
    statements? Why or why not?**

-   Yes, it best describes the reasons for setting aside the block of
    land.

-   I find your purpose, mission, and significance statements to be
    generally on track. However, it seems to me that they do not
    adequately address the human element and how it does and will likely
    affect future management of the Monument. The proximity of the
    Monument to Grand Junction and Interstate Highway 70 certainly
    indicates the pressures of recreation and related activities will
    increase. While the NPS views "preservation" and "protection" as its
    primary purpose and mission, nearly everyone else in the area views
    Colorado Nat'l Monument as their backyard, playground and tourist
    attraction. The GMP must address both the protection of the various
    resources while ensuring appropriate access and facilities are
    provided to meet the various recreational demands.

> The statement on page 3, "*preserves unimpaired the natural and
> cultural resources and values*..." seems a little unrealistic,
> especially with the human demands, uses, and activities within and
> adjacent to the Monument expanding as they are.
>
> The mission Statement, also on page 3, seems to give short shrift to
> the purely recreational uses such as jogging, hiking, biking, running,
> climbing, picnicking, etc., etc.. I suspect that a majority of
> visitors to the Monument are primarily interested in the scenery and
> having fun and only slightly, if at all, interested in
> the..."*extraordinary examples of erosion and geological and
> historical features of great scientific interest...and all other
> natural and cultural resources*...".
>
> The "*significance statements*" seem appropriate in the context of
> justifying inclusion of the Monument within the NPS. I believe,
> however, that there are other significant items such as the many and
> varied external pressures, demands, and activities that are currently
> affecting the monument and its resources. I'm confident that these
> external influences will only intensify in the future. Any plan for
> the future must include these very significant considerations.

-   Yes

-   Yes I do agree, however more emphasis needs to be put on the
    education to protect our National resource. Too many people do not
    have a high regard for keeping the area clean.

-   These statements very accurately state that the unique geological
    features that comprise the monument and are the core reason for
    protection.

-   Yes the mission statement is good. Maybe some increased
    comprehension of archeological resources.

-   Yes. The park's mission and purpose are noble and the significance
    of the park is indisputable.

-   The mission statement is too long and takes a "side track"
    explanation of its creation. It should state (1) what it is, (2)
    contains archeological treasures, (3) how the NPS will strive to
    manage and protect the treasure. The current mission statement
    sounds like an advertisement.

-   Yes

-   Yes, with reservations about the billion and a half years. Also, I
    would recommend putting the word "protection" ahead of the words
    "understanding" and "appreciation" making the point that protection
    is the first work and the other is accommodated to the extent that
    protection allows.

-   Yes -- Preservation and interpretation of the park's geologic
    history is paramount. The current displays and visitor center do a
    great interpretive service. Do you have any type of cooperative
    program that uses Mesa State College geology programs and students
    to assist your research and take advantage of their labors? Also,
    the same question applies to the biology program at MSC. Was
    wondering since I am non-faculty staff at the college I would be
    happy to liaison with the college should you need any help.

-   Yes

-   Yes, I think it is key to provide an opportunity for people to
    experience the monuments beauty while actively protecting its
    frailty.

-   Yes. The unique features of the Monument should be preserved and
    managed for the enjoyment and benefit of the citizens of the world
    and the United States.

-   I agree with the park's mission, purpose, and significance
    statements. The geological beauty must be preserved. This must be
    your top priority.

-   I agree with preserving the monument as best you can, but I would
    like to still see people able to access it -- perhaps not by vehicle
    or motorized travel, but by foot!

-   Mission: Very nice, but only the last sentence states a mission, the
    first part is a description.

-   Purpose: The words overprinting the photo are fine.

-   Significance: Add to paragraph 2 that the Triassic -- Cretaceous
    sedimentary rocks hold the remains of former life forms.

2.  **What issues and opportunities do you think need to be addressed in
    the GMP?**

-   I think the GMP needs to address the issues of sharing information
    on CCNCA at the visitors center of the monument. As many people view
    the area as contiguous and do not realize the limits of use in each
    for recreation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Trail maintenance and signing.

-   Fire and fuel management.

-   Organized activities such as the Rim Rock Run and their impact on
    other visitors and resources.

-   Boundary fencing and the impacts on people, wildlife, and livestock.

-   Cross country, off-trail travel

-   Unorganized recreational activities such as hiking, biking,
    climbing, jogging, beer drinking, etc. that are unrelated to the
    purpose and mission of the Monument.

-   Impacts of land uses and activities on non-NPS lands in close
    proximity to the Monument and on the Monument.

-   Management compatibility with the Colorado Canyons National
    Conservation Area.

-   Non-native and T&E plants.

-   Air and scenic quality.

-   Pollution control and expanded visitor sanitation facilities.

-   Closures, barriers, revegetation and restoration aimed at achieving
    the Monuments purpose and mission.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   An issue is the growing population on the border of the CNM and
    protection of the Park.

-   Another issue is the improvement of the trails in the Park to
    protect the resources as well as the safety of the visitors. Many
    trails are now poorly signed.

-   Every visitor that comes to the monument needs to be educated on the
    protection of the monument.

-   This may be a unique opportunity to get the truly unique features of
    Rattlesnake Canyon incorporated into the monument (see below).
    Increasing visitorship (to significantly increase the \$ available
    for maintenance of current facilities, trails, etc.) is imperative
    to upgrading facilities, but [visibility]{.underline} to the public
    and [recognition]{.underline} are critical!!(see below)

-   I gave you my comments at the 2/6/02 meeting in Fruita but thought
    of another on the way home: There should be a "seamless" boundary
    with the Colorado Canyons NCA i.e.: Monument use standards should
    extend as far as possible into the NCA. Thanks for the opportunity
    to provide input -- I really liked the process.

-   Expansion or consolidation with the Colorado Canyons NCA such that
    protection remains the same in the National Park proper and upgraded
    protection in the BLM section.

-   Improve / increase trail system.

-   To get the Colo. Canyons National Conservation area out of the hands
    of the BLM as soon as possible. The BLM is no friend of the land.
    They are only a friend of the rancher.

-   Encroachment. The CNM's significance is diminished by encroaching
    development. The vistas need to be protected by a buffer zone --
    development should not be allowed to obscure the view.

-   Bicycle management and their need to understand common sense that
    motorized vehicles are the primary source of roadway traffic

-   To occasionally initiate events that took place 20-30 years ago in
    the monument, i.e. vehicle traffic, horse and cattle events, etc.

-   The CNM is doing well, but the areas needing the most new initiative
    is the land tenure adjustment and interpretation.

-   Toastmasters and school speech and debate classes could be invited
    to do campfire events. If somebody cuts a tree down you could have
    enviro. stump speeches.

-   The above mentioned potential cooperation (with Mesa State College)
    and the predominance of invasive flora (eg. Salt Cedar) in the
    canyon stream beds. I am curious about habitat enhancement for
    wildlife. I'm sure you attempt this already within budget
    constraints but it needs to be in the GMP.

-   Protection of the landforms and natural flora, fauna and wildlife
    needs to be the highest priority. Need to continue limiting motor
    vehicle access. Educational programs are also essential.

-   The needs and wants of the local community should be factored into
    the management plan of the Monument. I was distressed when the
    superintendent denied access to the promoters of the marathon.
    Events like these with cooperation of facilities like the Monument
    give local residents that you too are part of the community and are
    enthusiastic participants in events that promote the well-being of
    the community. The Monument and its employees should not be
    insulated from the community.

-   Even though some may say GJ is a relative small town I do not think
    so. The presence of the COLM is a welcomed addition to our community
    for its ease of access and the \"wildness\" it imparts to me. There
    are many opportunities to \"leave the city behind\" in this park. To
    me a major issue is the interface between the private land and the
    Monument. I am worried that the cats and dogs are adversely
    affecting the balance of the parks natural ecosystems. Also the
    unimpaired access to the park through the private land may cause a
    problem in the future. If one lives next to the park one should take
    responsibility to maintain its purpose, mission, and significance.

-   Protect boundary next to valley! The area where all the development
    is should have been set aside as a buffer zone.

-   Vehicle travel -- I think the Rim Rock Drive should be closed. The
    Little Park road should be the access for Glade Park.

-   CNM is primarily a drive to the rim and looks [down]{.underline}
    into the canyons, like Bryce and Grand Canyon. So maintenance of the
    road, turn outs, and view spots and trails is paramount.

3.  **What is your vision for Colorado National Monument in 20 years?**

-   Maintain the natural wonders. Possibly add some opportunities for
    recreation -- xxx trail well marked, mt. biking trail leading to BLM
    -- Black Ridge Road. Upgrade facilities of campground desperately
    needed.

-   I'd like to see Colorado Nat'l Monument achieving the mission and
    purpose outlined in Newsletter #1 while concurrently managing and to
    the extent possible accommodating the increased demands for "just
    plain old recreation."

-   I see CNM as an urban park with year round educational programs for
    residents of the area as well as the summer visitors.

-   I would like to see it preserved as it is today.

-   Better recognition -- higher visibility: PARK status. None of my
    friends outside of Colorado know anything about the monument and
    don't even know what a monument is, even people from the front range
    don't know. To [significantly]{.underline} increase visitorship, we
    need to become a nat'l [PARK]{.underline}. My friends know what a
    [PARK]{.underline} is and would visit!!! We should get the Black
    Ridge (Rattlesnake) canyons incorporated into Colo. Nat'l.
    [PARK]{.underline}! What will it take to accomplish this and I will
    work hard to make it happen -- call it [Colorado Canyons National
    PARK.]{.underline}

-   Actually, we hope there is not a lot of change so far as
    "development" is concerned. Maybe upgrade the Visitors Center and
    campground, maybe add a small second campground in the southern part
    of the park.

-   To take in all of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area
    and become a National Park.

-   To be preserved in the same quaint state that it is today without a
    move to modernization.

-   If you can [keep]{.underline} the Monument [the]{.underline} same as
    it is now for the next 20 years, you'll be doing great.

-   The property around Fruita Reservoir SW of Hwy 340, and now outside
    the park boundary, would be inside the boundary. The private land at
    the mouth of No Thoroughfare Canyon (100 acres) would be NPS land as
    would most of the 240 acres in Section 32 (TIS, RIW).

-   The continuance of its current level of preservation and
    interpretation. A high level of cooperation, if possible, with the
    college and local schools to take advantage of their interest and
    labor and develop their appreciation for our local natural history.
    A well enhanced natural habitat for wild fauna done in cooperation
    with BLM, etc. on adjacent lands.

-   Better maintenance on trails -- better signs. Possibility an "adopt
    a trail" program for volunteers - and / or trail "hosts" (not all
    volunteers want to work in the VC all of the time)

-   I would like to see it remain pristine with limited trails. The
    scenic drive can continue to provide access to visitors. Camping
    should remain limited to its current size.

-   Preservation of the unique features both biological and geological
    that endow the Monument. Participation with the community in
    education and events like marathons and bike rallies(Tour of the
    Moon. Road closure for a few hours on one day pays dividends with
    the community

-   They say the Grand Valley is increasing in population. Even so my
    vision for COLM is that it will remain unchanged from what it is
    today. There will undoubtedly be more visitors, but hope there are
    procedures in place that minimize their impacts. You may have to
    limit access to specific areas because of over use. Do not be afraid
    to do this. The preservation of the park is paramount.

-   To keep it in as good as shape as possible. I'm worried about it
    being so close to Grand Junction and its out of control growth.
    These impacts should be mitigated if possible.

-   More interpretive signs at road stops.

-   A paved road up to "TV-radio tower hill" for the view.

4.  **Additional comments or concerns**

-   Add handicap facility for scenic area. Recycle increase trash
    collection at Devil's Kitchen picnic area. Provide water spigot at
    Devil's Kitchen picnic area.

-   Are there opportunities to share staffing, management
    responsibilities, etc. between CNM and CCNCA? Please get your web
    page back on line.

-   I would like to see more programs for school children as well as
    more walks and talks for the summer visitors. In spring and fall a
    ranger led trip once a week to Rattlesnake Canyon would be a great
    addition to the program.

-   The General Management Plan is a good step in the right direction.

-   Please keep our name on the mailing list.

-   Keep up the good work. I'm very impressed by the staff's commitment
    to the ideals of the park.

-   Partnerships are important and a yearly meeting to hear of ideas,
    complaints, is important process to GMP. This meeting should be
    structured with the idea to learn, react, and not just have them
    waste everybody's time and make a few feel good.

-   Many people are willing to sacrifice a lot of liberty to protect
    resources, but an excessive use of the words "don't" and "no" will
    surely backfire efforts to promote the appreciation of nature. The
    outdoors becomes alien, the place that is incompatible with people,
    terrain that is pretty maybe but could be put to more human-friendly
    uses. So emphasize information that will lead people to do the right
    thing, over the "no, because I said so" type signs. You probably
    think you already do this, but a "Sign Design" workshop or tour with
    people interested in this issue might reveal otherwise.

-   I'm sure you are attempting and succeeding in many of these areas
    already. I would like to be kept informed and on your mailing list
    since I use SNM trails frequently and would be happy to assist you
    in any way. I think the SNM staff and NPS nationally do a great job
    with limited resources. Thanks.

-   Can much improve our trailhead signs -- both in location and
    content.

-   I\'d like to see the Rimrock Run continue as it is low impact and
    brings eco-healthy visitors to the valley.

-   I hope there are not plans to widen or create new roads within the
    monument. If anything needs to be changed I hope you start first by
    limiting access and then as a last resort work on the road system.
    An aside from all the above. My friend, ..., and I would like to
    start a list of the lower vascular plants found in the monument. We
    are both botanists working at Mesa State and are interested in
    mosses, liverworts, and lichens. Would you be interested in this
    sort of work and if so how would we get started.

-   That a protocol be in place for allowing professional study of the
    monument's geological, biological, paleontological, and cultural
    resources -- hopefully coupled with public education.

**Other Letters**

City of Fruita, January 29, 2002

[Subject: Scoping Meeting -- Resource Management Plan]{.underline}

[Colorado National Monument]{.underline}

Here are some issues for consideration as you prepare the Resource

Management Plan for the Colorado National Monument.

[1. Fruita---Colorado National Monument Gateway City:]{.underline}

Fruita is proud to be the gateway community for the Colorado National

Monument. We have cooperated since the founding of the Monument as

partners in the protection of this wonderful resource. We have offered
to

allow the BLM to use the historic railcar which is City property at
Dinosaur

Journey as a temporary visitor center and perhaps this could also be
used

by the Park Service as well. Long range, we have envisioned a combined

Federal/State/City Visitor Center adjacent to Dinosaur Journey on city

owned land. As your gateway community we look forward to joint tourist

informational centers, brochures and web pages.

[2. Land Use Planning]{.underline}

Our newly adopted Community Plan 2020 states,

> The City of Fruita has had a good working relationship with the
>
> Colorado National Monument and considers itself the gateway city to
>
> the Monument. The City of Fruita will continue to seek coordination
>
> of planning and land use with the Colorado National Monument and

will work with the National Park Service to sign an intergovernmental
agreement. (P.20)

We anticipate **future subdivisions** adjacent to the Monument. We will
look

for access corridors and trail head opportunities as well as buffer
strips as

the development gets closer to the Monument. As a matter of course we

send copies of subdivision and other development proposals within 1,000

feet of the Monument to the Monument for review.

The Monument borders on the **Cooperative Planning Agreement Area, an**

intergovernmental agreement signed by the City of Fruita, Grand
Junction.

and Mesa County which creates a \"buffer strip\" of community separator

between Fruita and Grand Junction. Within this area (roughly between the

18.5 Road line and the 20 Road line adjacent to the Monument boundaries)

the cities have agreed not to annex nor to extend sewer service. The
zoning

is to conform to the Countywide Land Use Plan\'s land use designations.

We were awarded a Governor\'s Smart Growth award for **a Transfer of**

**Development Rights** study and plan which would allow property owners

within this area to transfer their development rights into Fruita. this
study is

complete in draft form and will be the subject of public hearings in the
next

few months. We are also a participant in the **Purchase of Development**

**Rights** program with Mesa County and the other municipalities in the
valley

in which development rights are purchased from property owners in the

buffer strip in exchange for conservation easements.

[3. Old Fruita Water Line]{.underline}

The old Fruita water line crosses the Colorado National Monument and

proceeds down to the old Fruita Water Tanks at State Highway 340. This

line was constructed before the founding of the Monument and brought

water from Glade Park and Pinyon Mesa to Fruita. The water line also

served the Monument visitor center and campground. This water line is

currently used by the Glade Park Water Users Association and no final
use

of the line has been determined. The line has been the topic of
extensive

correspondence between the Monument and the City. One of the issues has

been the leakage of water from the line into the canyons of the Monument

Another is the repair of the line and whether this would require an

Environmental Assessment.

[4. Highway 340 Corridor]{.underline}

Fruita adopted the Highway 340 Corridor Plan in 1994 which emphasizes

creating an attractive entrance to the Monument. Since the Plan\'s
adoption,

we have adopted zoning regulations that require southwestern design

standards for buildings built along the 340 Tourist Commercial Corridor

other features of the zone include low signage, landscaping and trails.
The

Colorado River State Park at Fruita was also the result of this plan and

future planning studies.

Fruita is an active participant in the Redlands Transportation Study.

[5. Paleontological Resources/management]{.underline}

Fruita owns the Dinosaur Journey Museum and surrounding parking lot

which are leased to the Museum of Western Colorado. Fruita cooperatively

manages the Dinosaur Hill paleo area with the BLM and the Museum of

Western Colorado. We are a cooperating partner in Dinosaur Diamond

Scenic Byway which links communities with paleo sites and museums in

western Colorado and Eastern Utah in a cooperative tourism marketing and

interpretive program. We look forward to continuing to protect and
interpret

these resources.

[6. Trails]{.underline}

The Fruita Traffic Calming, Bicycle Pedestrian Plan (adopted 1999) calls
for

trail linkages to the Monument from Fruita including the Old Dugway
Trail

which connects Dinosaur Hill to the top of the Monument.

[7. Adopted plans]{.underline}:

We have adopted plans which affect the Colorado National Monument and

will provide you with copies of these plans:

Fruita Community Plan 2020 (adopted 2001)

Fruita/Kokopelli Greenway Plan (adopted 1997)

> Fruita\|Mesa County Greenway Business Park Plan (adopted 2001)

Fruita Traffic Calming, Bicycle, Pedestrian Plan (adopted 1999)

The SH 340 Corridor Conceptual Development Plan (adopted 1994)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Resource Management

Plan for the Colorado National Monument