U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
|Resource Management Planning|
The BLM Grand Junction Field Office has completed the revision of its Resource Management Plan (RMP) to guide management of about 1 million acres of public land it administers.
The Draft RMP was released in January of 2013. The Draft RMP was made available for a 90-day public comment period (extended to June 24). The BLM received 3,307 written submissions during the comment period, of which 986 were unique submissions, and 2,538 individual substantive comments were identified and considered. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS were released on April 10, 2015 for a 30 day protest period and a 60 day Governor's Consistency review. The BLM received 19 protests and all of the protests on the Proposed RMP were dismissed. The Appproved RMP and Record of Decsions were released on August 24, 2015. A full description of the public involvement in the RMP revision process is included on the Public Involvement page. The BLM deferred implementation level route designation decision on most of the routes in Zone L and on 209 miles of Mesa County's high interest recreation routes (see the Travel Management pages for more information).
The Approved RMP is based upon the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. In the Proposed RMP and Final EIS BLM created a proposed alternative (Alternative B) that was based upon the four alternatives that were anazlyzed in the draft plan and public comments. The proposed RMP and final EIS were released for a 30 day public protest period. Alternative B (the Proposed RMP) used the Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/EIS as its foundation. It carried forward the same theme as the Preferred Alternative found in the Draft RMP/EIS, but also included elementsof the other four alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS. Alternative B sought to allocate limited public land resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resources. Goals and objectives focused on environmental, economic, and social outcomes achieved by strategically addressing demands across the landscape. Management direction under this alternative was broad to accommodate a variety of values and uses. This alternative sought to provide an overall balance between the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural and cultural values, while allowing resource use and development in existing or reasonable locations.