Yet another massive amount of Montana alpine and subalpinetrails are slated for closure this time in the Bitterroot Valley near Hamilton, Montana. This is different than the other Montana trail closures slated for the Helena area.
The US Forest Service was previously limiting the people who could comment to only those who commented before. Now new comments will be accepted but only in a very particular form. Article on this from a local paper (requires a one answer to a survey to read)
Lance Pysher climbing to Rooster – Kent Lake
Synopsis:
In the Bitterroot valley close to Hamilton Montana, two sides who both enjoy the outdoors have clashed with lawsuits ensuing to each press their own views.
On one side mountainbikers and motorized users local to the Valley have a broad view feeling that they should be allowed to recreate on federal lands. On the other side Wilderness groups from outside the valley have a more restrictive view asserting that hiking, skiing and horseback is the only way that should be allowed.
Mountain-bikers and motorized have won a reprieve. It was short-lived lasting less than a month (Wilderness groups are tenacious litigants and fundraise lawyers). In the spirit of cooperation and goodwill to all [sarcasm] the Wilderness movement obtained a trail closure order banning bikes and motos from a good chunk of Forest Service lands. The trail closure requires the Forest Service to “consult” with all user groups. This is the consultation process.
Hanging out at Kent Lake. While on foot you are pure and compatible with wilderness
Consultation process and response
The response criteria is highly technical and follows a rigid form. From the article above – “objections can only be filed on the 62.4 miles of trail closed to bicycles under the updated travel plan in the two WSAs. No other aspects of the travel plan are subject to the objection process.”
If you comment generally about mountain-bikers as good trail maintenance stewards, or responsible users, or the general unfairness of the process your comments may be rejected. You must comment on specifics of the Bitterroot Travel Plan or the Forest Service’s very bureaucratic “Reasons of Decisions” (pages 24 – 25 cover mountain-biking).
My sample email is designed to fit that form. Form response if your submission is accepted attached here
Fill in your own address and contact info
Email to: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us
Subject Line: Bitterroot Travel Plan Objection
Razorback Ridge in the now-closed Blue Joint WSA
1) objector’s name, address, phone number, and organization represented, if any;
See signature below for Objector
Lee Lau
[Street]
[City], [Postal/ZIP]
[Phone]
2) title of project on which the objections are being submitted along with the name of the national forest;
Bitterroot National Forest – Travel Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (hereinafter “Bitterroot Travel Plan”)
- Plan at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=21183
- Record of Decision (hereinafter “ROD”) specifically at pgs 24 and 25 https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/39018_FSPLT3_3043255.pdf
3) a description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; and
– Objections addressed to : specifically pages 24-25 of the Bitterroot Travel Plan
The objector believes the Bitterroot Plan is objectionable because
- it restricts mountainbiking in the areas designated in the Bitterroot Plan even though mountainbiking was an activity undertaken in the areas known as the Sapphire and Blue Joint Wilderness Study Areas (“WSAs”) before those WSAs areas were ever considered for designation as WSA. The ROD finding that “mountain biking was not likely occurring in either the Sapphire or Blue Joint WSAs in 1977” is not correct.
- The ROD finding that mountain-biking is not compatible with “social and ecological characteristics to preserve wilderness character” cannot be justified on objective criteria; whether environmental, natural or social impact. It is not the Forest Services’ job to impose their subjective values into a land management process
- The ROD cites that a consideration of wilderness character must consider “the opportunities for solitude it offered”. Anecdotal data from user groups indicates that useage of the Sapphire or Blue Joint WSAs is of a manageable nature such that users have ample opportunities to use the areas in relative solitude. The Forest Service has Zero data of user counts for mountain-biking in the Sapphire or Blue Joint WSAs and therefore cannot draw objective conclusions.
The objector believes his objection could be resolved by amending the Bitterroot Plan and the ROD to allow mountain-biking in the Sapphire and Blue Joint WSAs
4) objector’s signature below
-- ------------------- [add signature]