The Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument planning process has been underway for more
than four years. As in any planning process, the result
can be a mixture of good, bad, and ugly proposals
and the recently released Draft Resource Management
Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is no exception. Monument Manager, Gary Slagel, speaking
of public involvement has said, “Keep us honest!”
As major stakeholders in the management of our resources,
our Monument, MWF is asking that the hunting and fishing
public do just that. This article is a brief overview
of the good, bad, and ugly elements of the BLM Preferred
Alternative-F within the Draft RMP and EIS.
Not just next year or the year following
or even 5-years from now, but the final RMP will guide
resource management within the Monument for decades
to come. Montanans are urging the BLM to develop a
final plan that ensures future generations can enjoy
this wildlife rich and historic landscape. At the
same time, a smart, common-sense conservation plan
will preserve the integrity and promise of the Monument,
including unparalleled, unfragmented scenery and wildlife
habitat, outstanding hunting and fishing opportunities,
sustainable wildlife diversity, cultural and historical
artifacts, wildlife viewing, solitude, and unique
recreational opportunities.
Montana hunters, anglers and floaters
have a long, impressive history of valuing and protecting
the land and river corridor that makes up the Upper
Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Together,
we can help shape a plan for the Monument so that
it reaches its full potential as an as economic, recreational,
and cultural asset for all Montanans while ensuring
its wildlife and ecological values.
The Draft RMP and EIS reveals that
the BLM has incorporated suggestions from public comments
but there appears to be many that have been overlooked
in Preferred (management) Alternative F. Instead of
attempting to avoid conflicts with all users, the
preferred alternative can and should be designed to
fully protect all that the Monument has to offer,
especially the extraordinary wildlife diversity.
The
Good
The BLM plans to pursue land exchanges
with Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC),
trading out sections of state school trust lands that
are within the monument, to provide for consistent
and continuous landscape management.
The BLM will not provide grazing permits
for domesticated sheep and goats within 15 miles of
the world-class Bighorn sheep herds in the monument,
minimizing disease problems that have decimated other
wild sheep populations in the past.
A “pack it in – pack it
out” garbage policy will be enforced.
Non-motorized, wheeled game carts will
be allowed in the Monument outside Wilderness Study
Areas. Roads closed for administrative purposes will
be open under the preferred alternative during the
hunting season for game-retrieval from 10 AM to 2PM,
with no off-road travel allowed.
Any roads designated as open will be
open to all motorized means; no special trails are
designated specifically as OHV/ORV trails.
No commercial facilities will be allowed
within the Monument. A Visitor’s Center has
been established on the border of the Monument in
Fort Benton.
The BLM will coordinate with US Army
Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation and other
government entities to secure the release of water
from upstream sources to establish more natural flow
conditions.
Under the preferred alternative land
use and travel restrictions for areas around critical
Sage grouse areas follow the Montana Sage Grouse Management
and Conservation Plan, and supplemental livestock
winter feeding will not be allowed on Sage grouse
crucial winter habitat and around leks that have been
occupied within the last 10-years.
The
Bad
The Preferred Alternative F restricts
outfitting to the 14 outfitters currently operating,
which is a good beginning, but continues to allow
for Special Resource Permits for outfitters where
the public doesn’t enjoy equitable land access.
This exclusive use constitutes or basically establishes
private hunting grounds within OUR Monument, de- facto
privatization and inappropriate commercialization
of our public lands and big game. MWF believes that
exclusive access to and use of public lands by a licensed
outfitter should preclude said outfitter from a public
operational permit. MWF believes that outfitting operations
that harvest public fish and wildlife or use public
lands and waters must not interfere with the ability
of the average citizen to enjoy these resources on
equal footing with paying clients.
Despite a positive stated intention
to pursue appropriate public access to the Monument,
roads identified within Preferred Alternative F that
originate on private land will continue to be considered
as open roads into the Monument for exclusive use.
All roads that originate on private lands are currently
informal, undesignated roads. MWF believes the roads
with no public access should be considered closed
unless designated open for specific, legitimate administrative
uses. These roads could be used contrary to public
benefit creating private or commercial access opportunities
and private hunting areas.
Although the scientific community has
documented negative impacts to the health of Bighorn
sheep from effects of low-flying aircraft, six airstrips
would be allowed to remain open: two for year-round
use and four for seasonal use. Backcountry pilots
maintain that the herds have grown despite the use
of these airstrips since the 60s, but what will happen
when that use doubles, triples or more? The Preferred
Alternative provides for some seasonal restrictions,
but MWF believes that the cumulative impacts of all
users, especially aircraft, will eventually stress
this nationally acclaimed wild sheep herd and that
the proposed protective measures are inadequate.
The
Ugly
Some of the plan starts with good,
solid principles offering proactive measures but then
strays from those positive values with vague statements.
Unfortunately, it includes many “should”
and “may” instead of “will”
and “must”, weakening what could otherwise
be solid protective measures for our wildlife resources.
The BLM states the desire to keep weed-free
areas in their current condition but doesn’t
require weed-free hay for horses and other livestock.
Fortunately, they do require certified weed-free seed
for restoring areas affected by wildfire.
There are some pretty fair protective
stipulations for disturbance in occupied Bighorn sheep
and Sage grouse winter, nesting and dance grounds.
However, some of these details offer factors that
weaken the protection. For instance, new surface disturbances
will only be disallowed during Bighorn sheep wintering
or lambing “if such activity harms bighorn lamb
survival”. It also disallows activities only
if they cause Bald eagles to abandon nests. The point
being, that if surface disturbances harm wildlife
propagation the preferred alternative is reactive
and pushes agencies into a restoration mode instead
of protective. MWF believes the plan should provide
for the protection empirically in no uncertain terms.
Some of the greatest controversy will
come over the proposed travel plan. While hunters,
anglers and outdoor enthusiasts want access to the
Monument, the preferred alternative proposes nearly
75 percent of the lands within the Monument to be
about a half-mile from a designated road. Sportsmen
and sportswomen recognize that too many roads cause
habitat fragmentation to the detriment of wildlife.
A more balanced road system must be considered. The
use of motorized watercraft as proposed within the
travel plan is also problematic. One ‘Wild and
Scenic’ segment of the Missouri River which
has had seasonal motorized restrictions would be open
to unlimited motorized use from Sept. 15 to June 15.
What
YOU Can Do
MWF believes that the management plan
needs to show a total dedication to this national
treasure that preserves and conserves the cultural,
historic, and wildlife values. This is not saying
that it should be a de facto wilderness. We have come
a long way, and made some good progress but in its
“preferred” form, the Draft RMP still
lacks adequate conservation measures. The wildlife
“objects”, as identified in the Monument
Proclamation will not be protected to the fullest
if the Draft RMP Preferred Alternative F is adopted.
Hunter/angler input is vital to modifying and instituting
long-term management prescriptions that exercise a
vision to fully protect the Monument for the future.
Hunters and anglers should not only be submitting
written comments but also attending one of the BLM
public meetings and voicing their concerns with the
attending court reporter.
Hunters and anglers should also be calling
for greater engagement by our state wildlife management
authority, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. One method
by which this could occur is the establishment of
a formal Monument Interagency Wildlife Management
Council that would stay abreast of issues and adopt
new strategies for the “adaptive management
plan” as referred to within the Draft RMP.
The public comment period ends January
26, 2006.
For more information call 406-538-1900
or access the RMP by following the links on the MWF
website at, www.montanawildlife.com
and or log-on directly at http://www.mt.blm.gov/ldo/um/rmpdocs/MonumentRMP.htm.
You can submit your comments electronically
to monumentrmp@blm.gov
or send them to:
