How does the delay affect the RMP Process?

·         The Colorado River Valley and Kremmling Field Offices have continued to follow the process outlined in earlier public scoping meetings.  Meetings scheduled with Cooperating Agencies and RAC Subgroups were postponed until an acceptable preliminary draft of the major chapters could be made available for their review.  The delay will not affect the originally planned blocks of time provided for public participation and comments following release of the Draft RMP. All future public meetings will be posted on this website as soon as they are scheduled.  A revised RMP schedule has been submitted by the RMP Contractor and is undergoing review. This schedule will be posted as soon as it is approved by the field offices.

Why are the Kremmling Field Office and Glenwood Springs Field Office revising their Resource Management Plans?

·         The Kremmling Field Office (KFO) and Colorado River Valley (CRVFO) Field Office, Colorado Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are developing a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for all the federal surface and mineral estate managed by BLM within each field office boundary (see “Map” menu). As part of the RMP revision process, the field offices are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of the plan’s decisions. The lands within the field offices are currently being managed according to the 1984 Kremmling RMP and the 1984 Glenwood Springs RMP.

·         RMP revisions are necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or changes in circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan or a major portion of the plan no longer serve as a useful guide for management. There is a need to revise the RMPs based upon a number of new issues such as increased recreation demand and use and rapidly expanding urban interface areas; and new policy issues such as new guidance on recreation and comprehensive travel management and transportation. 

What decisions will the BLM be making as part of the revision process?

·         Decisions in RMPs guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Decisions contained in RMPs are called land use plan decisions. These broad-scale decisions guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land use plan decisions fall into two categories:

                        (1) Desired outcomes (goals and objectives)

                        (2) Management actions and allowable uses to achieve outcomes

·         The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), Appendix C (see “BLM Planning & NEPA Guidance Documents” menu), provides program-specific guidance for land use plan and implementation decisions. During the RMP preparation, each program is required to address the land use plan decision guidance contained in Appendix C. In most programs, implementation decisions are not made during the RMP revision. However, the guidance for Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management requires the BLM to make implementation decisions to the extent practical (i.e. completing a defined travel management network).

·         Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of decisions require site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. Thus, for recreation and travel management, the field offices are making both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions as part of this revision effort. [Note: to learn more about the recreation and travel management planning process, see “Travel Management Planning Process” menu.]

Who has been involved in this process to date and how can you still get involved?

• Formal public scoping began in April 2007, when a total of seven meetings/open houses were held throughout the CRVFO and KFO combined planning areas.  The meetings featured informal one-on-one discussions by BLM managers and resource specialists with local community members. Attendees at these meetings were introduced to the RMP process and asked for written comments and concerns that could be used by the field offices in the identification and development of planning issues.  About this time the field offices also sent letters to various federal, state, and local agencies, inviting their participation in a more formal collaborative role in the RMP process as Cooperating Agencies.  The Northwest Resource Advisory Council has also assisted the joint planning effort through formation of a subgroup taskforce for each field office tasked with reviewing and commenting on the range of proposed alternatives. Other public outreach and feedback efforts to date have included: a series of community assessments, involving various local community members; informal interviews with visitors at various recreation sites; and a series of travel management planning workshops.  Throughout the late summer of 2009 and the spring of 2010, the field offices have scheduled and met with the Tribal Councils for the Northern Arapaho, Eastern Shoshone, Southern Ute and Northern Ute Tribes to discuss the RMP, the RMP Process, the schedule, and how the tribes could get involved. A preliminary meeting was recently held with representatives from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.  For more scoping information and references, click on Documents and then click on RMP Revision Documents in the Menu at the upper right of this web page.
• There is still ample opportunity to review, participate in public meetings, and provide comments during the 90 day public review and comment period following publication and release of the Draft RMP tentatively scheduled for the winter of 2010/2011.  To get involved and have your name added to the RMP mailing list contact Dennis Gale, Kremmling RMP Project Manager at (970) 724-3003, Dennis_Gale@blm.gov; or John Russell, Glenwood Springs RMP Project Manager at (970) 876-9025, John_Russell@blm.gov