Travel planning, the management of roads and trails and public access into public land, is among the most challenging issues that public-land managers face. Typically, four-wheel-drive enthusiasts, mountain-bike riders, hikers, hunters, horsemen/women, pleasure drivers, landowners, motorbikers and outfitters have distinct opinions about public-land travel and its impacts on their opportunities.          

As a result, land managers strive to find better ways to involve the public, design suitable alternatives and make multiple-use decisions that resolve or prevent resource issues.

Where to Start?

Nearly two years ago, the Bureau of Land Management Lewistown Field Office in Montana was beginning a travel plan for the Judith and North and South Moccasin mountains.           

The Judith and North Moccasins are relatively small mountain ranges with some public access and a variety of road-and-trail combinations across public lands.  BLM has implemented some earlier travel-management recommendations in these mountains from previous planning documents.  As is common with public land that is close to a community, recreational use and conflicts are increasing in these two mountain ranges.

There is no public access into the public lands in the South Moccasin Mountains. Private property surrounds this small mountain range. And while a few landowners may allow access by permission to some individuals, the public has no guaranteed access to the public lands found in the center of these mountains. 

Under these circumstances, designing an equitable travel plan seemed equivalent to putting together a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle without knowing what the finished image would look like. 

Subgroup Forms

The Lewistown Field Office was determined to involve the public at the very onset. Public involvement requires extra time in the planning process but usually provides better decisions in which the public and management share a sense of ownership.

In July 2006, the Lewistown Field Office approached the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council about assuming an integral role in this planning effort. The council is an official federal advisory committee of citizens reflecting various interests and users of public lands. They recommended forming a subgroup to study the project in detail and then working toward creating a set of travel-plan recommendations for the RAC to consider.

Terry Selph would chair the subgroup with assistance from Ron Moody and Glenn Terry. All three men were RAC members and regular contributors to many RAC discussions and recommendations.          

The Lewistown Field Office would support the subgroup by providing accurate maps, inventory data, a description of current management and revised maps as necessary. It would also provide at least one BLM staffer or manager at each subgroup meeting or fieldtrip. As an extra assist, the Lewistown Field Office awarded a contract for a facilitator to track the information and discussions the subgroup would generate.

Forming a subgroup is not an easy task. But by spring 2007, Selph, Moody and Terry secured a diverse group of citizens willing to give of their time and abilities. Motorized and non-motorized interests, hikers, mountain bikers, hunters, horseback enthusiasts, grazing permittees, other agency representatives and landowners ventured into the world of consensus-based resource planning.

Gathering Information

Through most of 2007, the subgroup hosted multiple fieldtrips and work meetings (all open to the public).  Together, they worked their way through a complex maze of existing roads, trails, uses, conflicts, resource needs, current management guidance and potential opportunities.

Rod Sanders, a recreation planner in the Lewistown Field Office, and/or Willy Frank, an associate Lewistown field manager, accompanied the subgroup on its fieldtrips and attended each meeting. They advised the group about existing management guidelines and answered a gamut of questions from subgroup members.   

Through the course of these fieldtrips and meetings, the subgroup jelled as their mutual trust and confidence increased. Members contributed considerable amounts of time, energy and cooperation to the project.

Through the winter of 2007, the subgroup met several times to review the information they had gathered and to continue refining a set of inclusive travel recommendations.

Central Montana RAC Endorses Subgroup’s Recommendation          

In January 2008, Selph brought the subgroup’s recommendations before the RAC. RAC members asked questions about how the recommendation package would represent the various public interests. They also asked how BLM could add additional information from the public to the process. Satisfied with responses to those concerns, the council unanimously thanked subgroup members for their dedication, accepted their recommendation package, and conveyed it intact to BLM.

 By conveying this travel package to BLM with no further study or revision, the RAC gave a pretty strong endorsement of the subgroup’s efforts.

A Satisfying Product

This past March, BLM hosted an open house in Lewistown to discuss the subgroup’s recommendation package, answer questions, and accept additional comments from the public. The open house would be another measure of how the court of public opinion would view the subgroup’s travel-recommendation package.       

Some of those attending had worked previously with the subgroup. Several wanted to offer their comments late in the process. And a couple of folks were attending because they suspected that the travel package did not address their interests.

Frank and Sanders presented information on the resource issues, the subgroup’s efforts, and their recommended travel-plan package. Afterward, they invited those in attendance to review maps of the recommended travel plan and talk with resource specialists. By the end of the night, without exception, attendees were impressed with the subgroup’s product and amazed by the amount of work subgroup members invested. They were also satisfied that their interest had been involved and encouraged by BLM’s willingness to open this process to the public.          

All in all, the subgroup, the RAC, BLM and the public seem comfortable that this complex puzzle came together quite nicely. As a result, BLM now has a proposed alternative for travel planning in the Judith-Moccasin Mountains that addresses the issues and needs and represents and provides something for all interests. And most important, it is a true product of the public that BLM serves.