Deadline approaching for comments on SPRNCA RMP alternatives

Help Ensure Good Stewardship in the SPRNCA RMP

Send Comments to BLM by Wednesday, June 10

The deadline for public comments on the Resource Management Plan alternatives is fast approaching. If you care about good stewardship of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, please take the time to send your comments to the Bureau of Land Management.

You can send your comments via email to David McIntyre, the BLM Planning Team Lead, at dmcintyre@blm.gov (and for good measure cc: TFOWEB_AZ@blm.gov). Or mail a letter with your comments to the BLM postal address:

BLM Tucson Field Office
Attn: David McIntyre
3201 E. Universal Way
Tucson, AZ 85756

You can find the draft RMP alternatives here:

SPRNCA RMP Alternatives Briefing Handout (355 KB)
May 19 Public Meeting Presentation (> 2 MB!)

Here are some points you can make:

  • Alternative D should be clear about its emphasis on non-consumptive recreational uses. Not all recreation is appropriate for an alternative that focuses on leaving nature undisturbed as much as possible.
  • Motorized access should be limited to existing designated roads with other roads limited to administrative access as they are currently managed. Do not increase motor vehicle access with new roads (e.g. a proposed Backcountry By-way) or unrestricted access to existing administrative roads currently used only by BLM staff. Such access would lead to creation of unsanctioned, unplanned “user” trails to the river and to sensitive cultural sites within the SPRNCA. Scaring of sensitive lands in this manner is incompatible with the restoration emphasis in Alternative C.
  • The impact on cultural resources in SPRNCA of potential heavy-handed, large-scale restoration projects in Alternative C could be devastating and irreversible. BLM must ensure that cultural resources are protected according to the enabling legislation and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
  • The proposed “forage reserve allotment” of 38,740 acres in Alternative B is too large. It includes lands that should be managed for Wilderness Characteristics, Visual Resource Management Class I, and areas closed to motorized travel off designated roads. Additional fencing for new grazing allotments would be visually intrusive, while all-terrain vehicle use for grazing management would be inappropriate in such areas and inconsistent with the enabling legislation for the SPRNCA The size of this proposed forage reserve should be reduced by excluding the acreage for such designated areas.
  • The forage reserve allotment is a problematical concept given recent congressional appropriations for BLM. BLM likely will not have sufficient resources to implement the monitoring required for Adaptive Management of grazing to ensure land health and resource objectives are met.
  • Don’t remove existing designations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) from the RMP. Replacing them with informal priority habitat designations loses potentially hard-won formal designations that have legal standing.

Just pick and choose the points that appeal to you and paste them into an email to BLM.

On behalf of the Board of the Friends, thank you for ensuring your voice is heard by BLM when they finalize the RMP alternatives and draft the RMP!