It’s a long, long way from Hamilton to Atlanta, Georgia–some 2200 miles. Yet there’s even more than 2200 miles of motorized routes proposed to be open in the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) preferred Travel Plan alternative.
This just released monumental document was 8-9 years in the making and received 540 comments. It’s a result of years of public participation, exhaustive analysis, and even legal review.
The recreation opportunities for all kinds of forest visitors—horsemen, hikers, hunters, mt bikers, motorcycle and ATV riders—are nearly limitless. The Plan has something for everyone, but no one gets everything. You might say it “…represents the best balance of the need to provide a variety of recreation opportunities, both motorized and non-motorized, on the Forest while minimizing adverse impacts to the environment.” Actually BNF Supervisor Julie King said that in the draft Record of Decision. And I tend to agree with her, though the Plan has weaknesses and things I don’t like for sure.
The preferred Alternative 1 (modified) certainly isn’t the best travel plan if wildlife, water, solitude, or hunting is your priority. That would have been the environmental alternative 4, which was rejected by the BNF. No one can honestly argue that environmentalists got what they wanted. Heck, Fish Wildlife and Parks wanted fewer motorized trails and roads than found in Alternative 1, in order to provide more wildlife security and hunting opportunities.
The Plan writes off 2 enormous, ecologically rich roadless areas—the Sleeping Child and Allan Mountain—as sacrificial motorized recreation zones. The Plan allows a 600 foot wheeled motorized “swath” along roads and trails for dispersed camping—a recipe for abuse, laziness, and resource damage.
Many motorized users are upset that the Plan reduces their motorized route mileage on the Bitterroot by some 13%, leaving a piddling Hamilton to Atlanta distance to ride. Not too shabby, but look at what they’ve gained since the 2005 Travel Map was released: Some 550 miles of formerly closed roads were unilaterally opened, without environmental analysis, to OHVs and added to ATV seasonal trail system. Indeed, over the last 10 years routes open to ATVs have exploded, and will expand further under the BNF’s proposed ATV play area construction project east of Darby.
Many would say the Plan is still out-of-whack and biased towards motorized users. Yes, it does create more opportunities for quiet users in the Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs). But when you look at the Bitterroot’s most recent visitor use data from September 2008, you’d find the ratio of visitors who hike compared to OHV riders, is 25:1. As a primary activity the data is even more lopsided, 40:1 hiking versus OHV use. So really folks, isn’t 2238 motorized miles enough?
Our new Travel Plan is obligated to be compliant with laws and regulations. It also needs to be consistent with our current Forest Plan. The preferred Alternative achieves this by providing recreational balance and making changes to better protect wildlife, fisheries, water, and soils. It reduces potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. It helps to maintain Wilderness character in WSAs and RWAs as mandated by the Bitterroot’s Forest Plan and the Montana WSA law of 1977.
I’m a mountain biker. Love it. Ride about 1000 miles/year of single and double track trails, plus logging roads. My wife and I have logged some 14,000 miles of self-contained mt bike touring in the Rockies and Canada. In the balanced, preferred Alternative 1 mt bikes won’t be allowed in WSAs and RWAs, in order to maintain their Wilderness character (bicycles aren’t allowed in Wilderness). This’ll cut my options, including routes I access from my home, but I can still get 1000 miles/year and never have to duplicate my route. That’s OK because given the immense opportunities we all have, can’t we afford to give some to improve wildlife security, natural resources, and solitude; to be consistent with our Forest Plan and laws, and to maintain Wilderness character?
It’s not about comparing potential erosion damage between user groups. We know the science says ATVs cause the most and mt bikes cause less than horses. It’s also not about mountain biking’s popularity—it’s on par with OHV riding. Hiking exceeds bicycling on the BNF by 25:1. Mountain biking is a great activity and there’ll continue to be boundless opportunities on our Forest, just a bit less.
Forest travel management is much more than different user groups vying for maximal recreation opportunities. It’s about wildlife, clean water, healthy fisheries, and functioning ecosystems. There’ll be less motorized and biking opportunities in WSAs and RWAs, but in balance it’s a decent plan that doesn’t favor any group—whether you’re an environmentalist, mountain biker, snowmobiler, off-roader; or an elk, bull trout, or wolverine.
Van P. Keele
Hamilton