Closures with Grand Junction BLM Office

[psychoneurosis]

Just wanted to let everyone know the Grand Junction office of the BLM has put out a resource/travel plan for their office- most of the riding is summer but there is some winter riding as well. Simply no analysis of why they think summer recreational issues are good for winter closures

Here is a link to the Plan

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/grand_junction_field/Draft_RMP/Draft_rmp_eis_v1.Par.35918.File.dat/ExecSumm_DRMP_508.pdf

They propose to close about 60% of the existing routes - here are the maps

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/gjfo/rmp/rmp/DRMP_Travel_Management_Maps.html

There are some upcoming meetings on the Plan-

February 5 - Gateway Community Center, 42700 Hwy 141, Gateway, CO

February 7 - Fruita Civic Center, 325 Aspen Ave, Fruita, CO

Comment Deadline
On or before April 25, 2013

Issues

1. There is no analysis of any winter closures but they are made anyway

2. Plan proposes to close about 60% of routes on the office

3. They have made closures of routes easy since they say all recreation contributes $10.17 to the economy- simply wrong

4. Need to oppose any recommended Wilderness areas - they found 11 eligible but only 2 of 11 are recommended - sure the enviros will be pushing for more

It is a really bad plan and BLM needs to hear that from the users!!

 

[cateye5312]

Yeah the comment in the local paper from the enviros were that they 'were very disappointed' with the lack of wilderness designations included in the plan. If you enjoy your right to ride keep fighting every one of these closures, whether it be summer or winter riding. The enviros are not going away and will only continue to push for more and more closures.
This proposal plans to close 2,100 miles of trails. Granted, there are some that need to be closed because they are causing problems, i.e, major erosion, very dangerous, etc. but my understanding is this plan doesn't address common sense reasons for closure it just closes them.

 

[03RMK800]

There doesn't seem to be an answer to the basic question of "why". BLM should manage the problem areas -- high use, misuse, etc instead of attacking all the public use. If I have my figures correct, one plan closes 4200!!!!! miles of road by designating it "administrative"-- in other words, they don't have the need, the money or the gumption to do what they really want--close and destroy the roads.

Miles of road is not the only measure. Once you start figuring the number of square miles that will never be used, its clear that these are to be defacto wilderness. Instead of access on two sides of ridge, with roads a couple miles apart, it will be many miles between roads; hence no use.
As noted above, enviros are whining about the lack of designated wilderness. It don't matter-- if you can't get there, the result is the same.

 

[psychoneurosis]

There doesn't seem to be an answer to the basic question of "why". BLM should manage the problem areas -- high use, misuse, etc instead of attacking all the public use. If I have my figures correct, one plan closes 4200!!!!! miles of road by designating it "administrative"-- in other words, they don't have the need, the money or the gumption to do what they really want--close and destroy the roads.

Miles of road is not the only measure. Once you start figuring the number of square miles that will never be used, its clear that these are to be defacto wilderness. Instead of access on two sides of ridge, with roads a couple miles apart, it will be many miles between roads; hence no use.
As noted above, enviros are whining about the lack of designated wilderness. It don't matter-- if you can't get there, the result is the same.

Think you hit one of the major problems with the RMP- there is simply no analysis. the whole thing talks in circles, especially when addressing recreation. Hard to meaningfully comment on a proposal that does not exist