Archives for : Government overreach

The BLM’s Shocking Plan to Shut Down 140 Million Acres

closed

The internal Department of the Interior document titled “Treasured Landscapes”, was not meant to be released for public consumption. The House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, however, obtained and published the 2009 draft in an effort to create public awareness of the shocking plan within the BLM and other government agencies to confiscate hundreds of millions of acres across the country through the creation of national monuments, national parks, wilderness areas and other protected zones.

The Introduction of this “discussion paper” details a 21st Century plan to “finalize appropriate conservation designations” of areas in the United States equivalent to the size of Wyoming and Colorado combined, overcoming “jurisdictional boundaries” (read state and private property rights) to create “a modern landscape-level management system…” In other words, the BLM, in concert with other agencies such as the National Park Service and Forest Service, plans to shut off roughly 1/10 of open American lands to human activity.

The “Treasured Landscapes” plan is being implemented by the current administration, as seen in a number of “Presidential declarations” which have, by executive order, created several new national monuments and protected areas without public comment or Congressional action. It gets worse.

Read the entire text of the internal document here: 

Friends of the Colorado National Monument has fought to keep a local treasure, a fixture of our daily lives, from undergoing a bureaucratic metamorphosis into a restrictive and risky national park. As plans of federal government agencies are revealed, it becomes clear that they view human beings as a problem to be solved, and not as citizens to be served.

Please read and share this chilling document with everyone you know.

 

Proponents in a Panic?

This blatant lie appeared in a recent edition of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel–note the time-traveling date!

You Said It, June 8, 2016

Mark Udall and Scott Tipton have essentially wiped the slate clean of comments on renaming Colorado National Monument. There’s a new comment period through June. Please e-mail or call in again. The most recent proposal is to name it Rim Rock Canyons National Park. Share your voice.

The comment period has ALWAYS been through June 30, and the comments have not been “wiped clean.” This makes one wonder whether or not the publisher of the local newspaper is behind the push for national park status! Hmmm…

And…

The National Park Service, lead by Madison, Wisconsin native Lisa Eckert, has suddenly reversed its plan to prohibit the residents of Glade Park from using the only safe route to their homes, Monument Road, for hauling fuel, fertilizer and other necessities.

Park hits brakes on propane haul ban

Lisa_Eckert

LISA ECKERT: Colorado National Monument superintendent says she’ll hold meetings
 on the matter


A pending ban on the transportation of propane and other hazardous materials on the east end of Rim Rock Drive was lifted Monday, soon after the two federal legislators considering redesignation of Colorado National Monument as a national park questioned the measure.

Superintendent Lisa Eckert rescinded the ban, citing concerns over the process by which she announced the ban. A new round of meetings with residents is to be announced soon, Eckert said.

“I understand clearly that there are concerns by some about the process that led to our decision,” Eckert said in a statement.

Many Glade Park residents at a public meeting June 16 said they became aware only this month that Eckert had instituted a ban on hazardous materials effective July 1. Eckert soon after extended the effective date of the ban to Aug. 1.

Most, if not all, the residences and ranches on Glade Park are heated with propane that is delivered up the east end of the monument. Diesel and gasoline also are delivered via that route.

Trucks hauling fuel and other hazardous substances should use Little Park Road instead, Eckert said in the original announcement. Read more here

And…

The Mesa County Board of Commissioners provided a copy of a past letter written in 2011 stating that the protective provisions in draft legislation were absolutely essential for their support. Since those provisions are opposed by several national parks lobbying organizations, the National Park Service, and Senator Mark Udall himself, it is possible that the current Board of Mesa County Commissioners may completely withdraw any support for national park status. Stay tuned.

National Park Service: Good Neighbor or Bully?

The unilateral decision by the Superintendent of the Colorado National Monument, Lisa Eckert, to ban what she calls ‘hazardous materials’ loads from using Monument Road to reach the ranching community of Glade Park, has stirred up a hornet’s nest of indignation–and for good reason. More than 100 residents of Glade Park crowded into the town’s small Community Center along with 2 Mesa County Commissioners and members of the county’s planning board. Following a short presentation on the Glade Park Plan, the focus of the meeting quickly turned to the unfriendly, and some would say hostile, decision by the National Park Service (NPS)  to ban cargo such as propane, fertilizer, and other essentials from entering the Colorado National Monument. (Please refer to the previous article)

One county commissioner had a copy of a letter dated June 14, printed on official National Park Service letterhead from Eckert that was supposedly delivered to all the residents of Glade Park. None of the residents present at the community meeting recognized the letter announcing the decision to prohibit “hazardous cargo” on the Monument effective August 1, 2014. The letter also contained references to “listening sessions” held by the NPS to field “concerns” about safety on Monument Road. Except for a meeting last March, no one could recall an actual process where Eckert or her fellow rangers received significant public input about the decision. Below is a copy of Eckert’s letter:

The thing most troubling to the residents of Glade Park is the utter disregard for their lives and livelihoods. The National Park Service acting unilaterally to impose a harmful rule without input from locals is, in the words of one county commissioner, “unacceptable.” Park Service representatives at the Glade Park meeting promised to revisit the issue and convey the residents’ concerns to Lisa Eckert, who conveniently was not present. This story is certainly not over. Monument Road has been litigated in the past, and may again be litigated if the NPS fails to reverse its groundless new policy. Mesa County Commissioners and the ranchers of Glade Park have, in the past, counted on the NPS to maintain a “cooperative relationship” with all players, but not unlike other federal agencies in other states, they are looking less like a good neighbor, and more like the bully next door.

Lisa Eckert, the Superintendent of the Colorado National Monument who seeks to ban fuel haulers from Monument Road can be reached at  (970) 858-3617 ext. 300

National Park Service Director Unilaterally Bans Fuel Haulers in Monument

CO-poi-colorado-national-monument-af

With little public input from the people of the ranching community or Glade Park and without consulting with the Board of Commissioners in Mesa County, the National Park Service (NPS) Director at the Colorado National Monument (CNM), Lisa Eckert, announced that vehicles containing “hazardous” cargo would be banned from using the route they have used for decades.

The road in question is Monument Road, which joins the road to Glade Park just a few miles inside the boundaries of the CNM. Ranchers and other residents of Glade Park, a rural community situated on the plateau above the Colorado National Monument, use Monument Road to haul goods, equipment, hay, fertilizer, livestock, fuel, and other necessities, to and from their operations. Eckert seeks to prohibit all these materials, whether or not they present a danger to traffic on the Monument and despite the fact that there have been no reports of ‘hazardous materials’ being released into the environment due to an accident on the road.

A Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article by Gary Harmon, dated June 14, details the unilateral decision made by the National Park Service:

Trucks hauling propane or other fuels to Glade Park no longer will be allowed to deliver to their customers via Monument Road as of Aug. 1, the National Park Service told residents.

Monument Road is being ruled out as a route for Glade Park deliveries because of safety concerns that were aired in listening sessions with Glade Park and other residents, Colorado National Monument Superintendent Lisa Eckert said.

This decision deals a blow to the residents of Glade Park, most of whom use propane for heating and require shipments of gasoline and other fuels for their farming equipment. Ranchers and farmers depend on the easy access that Monument Road provides from the Grand Valley to Glade Park at the top of the Monument. The only alternative route is Little Park Road to the east of Monument Road which is longer, more difficult to navigate, and must pass through neighborhoods on several narrow, unimproved byways. Little Park Road presents many obstacles to those hauling goods to Glade Park, and increases the likelihood of future accidents.

This action by the NPS was taken without regard for the personal and property rights of the citizens living adjacent to protected lands. Harmon’s article goes on to illustrate this “bad neighbor” attitude with the words of one Glade Park resident:

“The notice comes as two federal lawmakers are considering legislation to redesignate Colorado National Monument as a national park and it undermines promises that nothing about the monument would change,” Glade Park resident Lynn Grose said.

Grose sat on a committee that in 2011 and 2012 studied the pros and cons of park status.

“We were promised over and over that there would be no change,” Grose said. “Now they’re making changes without even a national-park designation.”

This development makes national park designation more problematic because it provides a real-time example of government overreach, however the NPS must deal with the precedent which established permanent access to Monument Road for vehicles traveling to glade Park. Litigated in 1986, Wilkenson vs. Department of the Interior, was the landmark lawsuit brought against the NPS by some residents of Glade Park to establish access through the Monument via Monument Road. The National Park Service was rebuffed by the United States District Court in the final decision which gave ranchers and residents, regardless of what they might be hauling, full, free, and permanent access to Monument Road as the main route to and from their homes and work in Glade Park. Attempts by the NPS to levy fees for use of the road, as well as ban commercial traffic, were rejected by the court. The decision on behalf of Glade Park residents was unequivocal:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that a public right of way exists in that portion of Rim Rock Drive extending from the East entrance of the Colorado National Monument to the Glade Park Cut-Off, and across the Glade Park Cut-Off, connecting the DS Road in Glade Park with the Monument Road to Highway 340, and the use of that road for the purpose of continuous travel through the Monument is a non-recreational use for which no entrance fee may lawfully be charged, and the defendants are enjoined from charging any such fee or otherwise preventing such non-recreational use of the roadways. The Clerk shall enter judgment, accordingly, and the plaintiffs are awarded their costs upon the filing of a bill of costs within 10 days from the entry of judgment.

The latest decision by the National Park Service is clearly unlawful, and ultimately damaging to the hoped-for redesignation of the Colorado National Monument to a national park. It’s unlikely that this is the end of the ongoing saga of the battle for Monument Road, now waged for decades by the National Park Service against residents of Glade Park, over what is in essence, a lifeline sustaining a small ranching community on the outskirts of the Colorado National Monument.

 

If You Like Your Monument, Can You Keep Your Monument?

 

 

“Only a change of Name” is the title of the song and dance routine proponents of national park status have used to try to sell their risky deal. The attempt to impose a new national park upon–and possibly beyond– where the Colorado National Monument now exists, recalls the “Lie of the Year” when the President promised, “If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare.” Though the creation of a new national park is initially a congressional function, the distrust of government from the top down, is causing many to pause and wonder, despite the appeasing intonations of proponents, “If we like our Monument, can we keep our Monument?”

It’s a fair question, not just because distrust of Washington politicians and bureaucrats is at a fever pitch, but because the line that “it’s just a name change” sounds too simple–too good to be true. And it is. Besides the mere change of name to “Rim Rock Canyons National Park” and the signage, marketing materials, and other perfunctory matters that come with the change of a title, the rules of the game change as well. National Monument vs National Park is not a matter of prestige or reverence, it is a matter of greater powers given to the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Environmental Protection Agency over the very air we breathe in Western Colorado, and the human activities that might affect what is in that air.

Despite cries of “prestige” and “tourist dollars” those of us who seek to preserve the Colorado National Monument realize that the change in status from Monument to Park is a change from protection to restriction. In the words of Senator Mark Udall, the proposed draft version of the bill that would create Rim Rock Canyons National Park is “unprecedented.” Why? Because the conditions upon which it has received support from local interests and organizations have never accompanied the creation of a national park in modern times. It’s unprecedented because national parks NEVER have the measure of local input that is in the draft legislation crafted by appointees under the direction of Mark Udall and Scott Tipton. It’s unprecedented because it simply doesn’t happen. “Just a name change” never happens. With national park status come new rules, new restrictions, and new powers to the National Park Service, BLM, EPA and other federal agencies.

Promises that protective caveats in the draft legislation will remain unchanged are laughable. There are no other national parks in western states that have Class II Air Quality standards. There are no other national parks in western states governed by a local advisory board. There are no other national parks is western states that don’t have, or plan to create, buffer zones.

Our local treasure is at risk if legislation is introduced. Now is the time to stop this bad idea in its tracks. Protective conditions in the draft legislation are unprecedented–which is a fancy way of saying “it just doesn’t happen.” Along with the name change will come federal control, Class I Air Quality Standards, and buffer zones where they can be created. It will be an ongoing fight for our lands and lifestyles in Western Colorado. The answer to the question, “if we like our Monument, can we keep our monument?” is a resounding “NO!”

 

Does National Park Status Endanger Water Rights on Glade Park?

National Park Service Photo Great Sand Dunes

National Park Service Photo
Great Sand Dunes

One of Colorado’s newer protected areas-turned-national park, the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, was created with water rights as a foremost justification for the change from national monument to national park. Originally designated as a national monument in 1932, with the help of then United States Congressman Scott McInnis, Great Sand Dunes was re-named a national park in 2004. Located in a remote region 35 miles northeast of Alamosa, Great Sand Dunes sits atop an aquifer long coveted by the Front Range and targeted by proposals to export waters to thirsty communities to the east. In December of 2004, following its redesignation to a park in September of the same year, the National Park Service, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, filed an application for all rights to the water within the aquifer and seasonal runoff that feeds into it.  As a result:

*Following a short trial, during which the court heard testimony from experts in hydrogeology, herpetology, and wetlands ecology, the judge signed the decree entitling the National Park Service to an absolute water right to appropriate in-place all unappropriated groundwater in the unconfined aquifer beneath the park.

*From Park Science Magazine

The water rights story of Great Sand Dunes National Park remains uncontroversial, despite the fact that little has changed, including visitation and tourist dollars, since its redesignation in 2004. There are however, a number of observations in its history that should lend caution to proponents of national park status who claim that “water rights will not be at issue” regarding the Colorado National Monument.  Those observations include:

  • Great Sand Dunes is 35 miles from the nearest town and has no agricultural operations within its immediate vicinity.
  • The National Park Service applied for water rights AFTER it became a national park. This fact invalidates proponents’ arguments that legislation redesignating CNM as a national park fixes all the protective provisions upon which its acceptance is predicated.
  • The National Park Service was given “an absolute water right” within the new park.

Colorado National Monument has no permanent bodies of water within its boundaries, but it is crossed by season washes and streams that travel downhill toward the Grand Valley. But–and it is a significant but–the CNM is immediately adjacent to the highly-developed towns of Grand Junction and Fruita, as well as the agricultural town of Glade Park rising above its canyons to the southwest. Glade Park and the plateau where it is located has several large bodies of water, such as the 3 Thompson Reservoirs, and numerous reservoirs near Pinion Mesa. Given that the NPS applied for water rights in Great Sand Dunes AFTER its redesignation it is not outside the realm of possibility that at some point, given the right circumstances, they could also attempt to exert power over the reservoirs and creeks immediately outside the new national park.

The Secretary of the Interior and Department of the Interior–which oversees the National Park Service–for the past several years has attempted to lay claim over several western waterways OUTSIDE of national parks, designating them as National Blueways.  The House Resources Committee penned a letter to Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewel, demanding clarity about the “National Blueways” initiative since it appeared that water rights to the entire 18 million acre White River Watershed had been assumed by the DOI, which unilaterally designated it a National Blueway.

Unlike any other national park in the West, the CNM is literally surrounded by human development. Glade Park is an agricultural town with farms, cattle ranches, livestock, and horse operations. Its water resources serve the residents of Glade Park and Fruita, and provide recreational opportunities during the warm months of the year. History tells us that the National Park Service can, and has, applied for water rights after the creation of a national park. Current events tell us that the Department of the Interior is laying claim to American waterways outside national parks, without the consent of the people of the states. The promise that “water rights won’t be an issue” with national park status, is just as empty as the potholes on top of the Colorado National Monument during the heat of summer.