Montana Roadtrip. Tour of to be closed trails

[rideit]

Thanks, that is a great thread. Looks like the national forest around Helena is a good 'close to' 1/2 way point. I'll start a new thread. Good luck up there with all the rest of the crap!

[406]

There is now a webform for comments on the Bitterroot travel plan objections:
https://sites.google.com/site/bitter...8J4e2Df_F2ENLU

Do before 11/19, thanks!

Over 1000 people have submitted comment via the webform letter. And I just sent out an email to 6k addresses with the link. Hopefully get a couple hundred more before the deadline.

https://memberleap.com/action.php?or...MB&laid=211085

[LeeLau]

Over 1000 people have submitted comment via the webform letter. And I just sent out an email to 6k addresses with the link. Hopefully get a couple hundred more before the deadline.

https://memberleap.com/action.php?or...MB&laid=211085

It sounds like 2000 comments will be sent with all the articles. Good job on that and sincerely hope it helps

[406]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

[LeeLau]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

Unfortunately the judge's ruling deferred to the USFS originally holding that the USFS did everything they had to do except consult. Perhaps this will change things? My fear is that as many anti bike will comment as pro bike.

[toast2266]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

I'd have to read back through the court orders, but as I understand it, this isn't a new comment process, this is a new objection process. Which is a lot different. Objections are mostly a way for the public to point out things that the FS did in violation of laws or regulations. The standards for an objection are a lot different than standard FS comments on a project, which is why there were some issues further up thread on people's objections getting rejected for not being formatted correctly.

To put it another way, when the FS accepts comments, it's required to consider those comments in arriving at a decision. Once the decision is made, there's an objection process where people can point out legal flaws in the decision. That's where we're at.

The problem here is that 1) the FS has discretion on pretty much all issues pertaining to bikes, which makes any kind of legal challenge to their decision really difficult, and 2) there already was a legal challenge, so a successful objection would essentially need to find an argument that wasn't already raised in the lawsuit.

I don't mean to shit all over the enthusiasm for protecting these trails, and I'm definitely still submitting an objection. But I'm not holding my breath.

[jono]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

[LeeLau]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

The best party to know those stats themselves are the BBC - ie the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists

[406]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

https://www.facebook.com/bitterrootb...659816918237:0
Is what I linked to and printed as pdf to include.

I also created segments in strava to see if others biked the trail for the few days they were open. But obviously not every mtb'er uses strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/16...ts/43391226546

[evdog]

Done

[jono]

https://www.facebook.com/bitterrootb...659816918237:0
Is what I linked to and printed as pdf to include.

I also created segments in strava to see if others biked the trail for the few days they were open. But obviously not every mtb'er uses strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/16...ts/43391226546

Thanks, that's strong stuff. I'd seen that before but...wow. The pic of the antlers (and the obvious implication) is striking.

[LeeLau]

Thanks to all who submitted comments! Noted trolls Todd MacMahon and others have posted in the Singletracks article so there's that

[LeeLau]

Thanks to everyone who put in a word re Montana Bitterroots. 3100 put in input to the process

[DolphinSki]

Got a letter today from the Regional Forester stating he's going to extend the time for objection review. At the least it means they've gotten a lot more objections than anticipated. The optimist in me hopes it means they're doing a bit of reconsidering.

[jono]

I opened that letter fully expecting it to say "we've rejected your comment due to..." Still feel like the best case scenario is an Alamo, but we'll see. At least people are paying attention this time.

[DolphinSki]

I think that's the big takeaway is that mountain bikers are organizing and becoming active. I think in the past, people just haven't really known what to do personally, or organizations were somewhat isolated. I read somewhere that the Boulder-White Cloud travel plan or whatever it was only received about 170 letters from mountain bikers. Great to see people rallying together for trail access.

[406]

Just got an email that the Custer Gallatin National Forest Draft Plan is available.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/custe...d=fseprd601607

[hick]

Just got an email that the Custer Gallatin National Forest Draft Plan is available.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/custe...d=fseprd601607

Hum, I wonder which alternative they’ll go with? Hard to be optimistic about these travel plans.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[rideit]

That jump from alternative C to Alternative D is absurd.

[livefreerdie]

I'll be digging into the details of the CGNF forest plan this week. Look for an update on SWMMBA's media and I will post here. Nez Perce Clearwater NF is just a month or two behind in the same forest planning process. I don't know much about the biking there, chime in if you have local knowledge.

The Bitterroot NF response to objections on their travel plan will also be released in a week or two.

[toast2266]

That jump from alternative C to Alternative D is absurd.

Just from glancing at that table, it seems like this plan has the usual alternatives. Alternative D looks to be the ultra-wilderness, maximally protective option, while Alternative E is the anti-wilderness, super recreation friendly option.

Neither of those options will get much traction. They just have to include them in there for various legal reasons.

The detailed differences between Alt. B and C will be where the important stuff is.

[panchosdad]

Just from glancing at that table, it seems like this plan has the usual alternatives. Alternative D looks to be the ultra-wilderness, maximally protective option, while Alternative E is the anti-wilderness, super recreation friendly option.

Neither of those options will get much traction. They just have to include them in there for various legal reasons.

The detailed differences between Alt. B and C will be where the important stuff is.

O miles of mechanized trail lost in B, 20 in C. Where those 20 miles are will be crucial. Hopefully not Sheep Creek.

Is there a map?

[Montana Rider]

O miles of mechanized trail lost in B, 20 in C. Where those 20 miles are will be crucial. Hopefully not Sheep Creek.

Is there a map?

Haven't dug into it myself (much) but this seems salient to your (and my!) interests:

2.5.5 Alternative C
Alternative C also represents a mix of recommended wilderness areas, backcountry areas, recreation
emphasis areas, and lands identified as suitable for timber production. The alternative reflects the
Gallatin Forest Partnership proposal for the Gallatin and Madison Mountains. The alternative omits most
mountain biking trails from boundaries of the Lionhead Recommended Wilderness Area in response to
public interest.

[livefreerdie]

Of those 20 miles that could be lost with alt C, 9 are already inaccessible due to private land in Sawtooth region. ~4 miles are the dead end to the admin cabin in Cowboy Heaven (401 Cherry Ck trail stays open). Also the spur to Coffin Lake in Lionhead. The maps are in the file listed as appendices to the DEIS.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/custe...d=fseprd601607

[panchosdad]

LFD, thanks for that. Are you getting the closures from the map or are they listed elsewhere?

Re the maps, it looks like I need to look at both the "Designated Area" maps (p85 and 86 for Alt B/C) and the "Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - Summer" maps to understand the implications for mountain biking. Interesting that the Lionhead RWA is more contiguous in B, but the Recreation Opportunity Map calls the RWA out as Semi-primitive Non Motorized. In C the RWA looks to leave out the Sheep/Watkins corridor, but the RWA is classified Primitive. I take it Semi-Primitive would allow biking, but Primitive would not?

Interesting also that the Gallatin Crest is SemiPrimitive in B, Primitive in C. That seems a potential big win.

This leaves me quite optimistic about the Lionhead, as both B and C look to be acceptable outcomes. D obviously would the end of life as we know it.

Interested to hear what conclusions you guys come up with.