• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

ACT NOW! Missouri Breaks National Monument Airstrips

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
Mike Sidders and Chuck Jarecki of the Recreational Aviation Foundation have forwarded me an urgent request for comments to the BLM on keeping the Missouri Breaks airstrips open. If you are in the area and can attend one of the meetings on the montapilots.org website below that is awesome, if not, be sure to register your desire to save this resource by sending a note to the BLM.

http://www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org

If you wonder why you should do it, read this great article by Mike Sidders that was in the Pilot Getaways magazine here:
http://sparky.supercub.org/photopost/data/500/64-65_Columns_MJ05-1.pdf

Thanks for acting on this important opportunity to keep these strips open!

sj
 
OK Folks...this is really quite easy. Go to the RAF link at www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org and you can click on the link to send a note to Monument Manager, Gary Slagel.

This is a real "win" for aviation since Mr. Slagel has proposed to include 6 airstrips within the Resource Management Plan. You don't need to write a letter with complaints, but a thank you note to Mr. Slagel would be appropriate saying you support the preferred alternative "F."

It has been a several year negotiation with the BLM and this is one time where a government agency has been relatively willing to sit down and discuss our needs.

You may never have the opportunity to visit the Upper Missouri Breaks, (although I hope you do!) but we really need support from the entire pilot community...especially the recreational pilots as typically represented in this forum.

Please post a note on this thread that you took the time to write and support this crucial effort.
 
It took me about 4 minutes to compose a letter, and to put it in the mail. I always believe that a letter makes a stronger statement than an email, since it takes more effort.

After flying through a big chunk of Montana while back and forth to Idaho this year, I can attest that this is a great place to fly and any efforts to help preserve are privilege to do so are well worth a few minutes time and a stamp.

sj
 
Will be in the mail tomorrow Mike.
Thanks for your efforts and nice article.
Mark
 
This is a bit of a duplicate response.

I live in the breaks and have worked with Gary Slagel over the years. This is a great opportunity for supercub owners to keep perfect back country opportunities alive.

We are just finishing a 120 X120 hangar and strip improvements here in Winifred (9S7) on the edge of the Missouri River Breaks National Monument. When completed, we will open it with a party, you are all invited. Hopefully we will be able to fly to these backcountry break strips.

Over the last two week I have helped several cub pilots with fuel while they fly in and out of these strips on Bighorn sheep hunts...it is that sort of habitat.

PLEASE RESPOND.....

Mike, I'm on it. Ralph
 
Thanks Mike for a great article and Ralph for bringing it to our attention. Letters and emails will go out. Good point about a snail mail letter Steve.

Ralph - in regards to fly-ins see my suggestion here.
 
Chuck Jarecki, the main person who has worked on this tremendous effort sent me the following this morning. It is a little longer read than you might want, but it will help educate you on the reasons we are going about this the way we are.

(Chuck writes:)

As you know the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument was established on January 17, 2001. The overall management duties were directed to the Bureau of Land Management, and they were charged with developing and implementing a Resource Management Plan (RMP). The BLM staff began to assemble inventory data on the Monument and detail the current management practices. Not only was a RMP to be developed but also an environmental impact statement (EIS). By June 2001, a BLM State Director’s Interim Guidance for managing the Monument was released.

On April 24, 2002, the Notice of Intent to prepare the RMP/EIS was printed in the Federal Register. By July the BLM was ready to host a series of open houses in Central Montana whereby citizens could view illustrated exhibits and talk with BLM planners. I attended the one in Big Sandy and was the first pilot to raise the issue with the BLM transportation planner (Craig Whitehead) that their maps do not show the airstrips and that airstrips should be part of the transportation plan.

I alerted members of the MPA Recreational Airstrip Committee and other leaders of MPA that we need pilots to attend these meetings and make their concerns heard. As a result there were concerned pilots at every meeting and the BLM certainly took notice of their presence.

The BLM requested comments from the public to gather input as to where the RMP should go. They received over 5000 letters and e-mails, most of which were form letters or e-mails from environmental groups. Aviators submitted 42 written, individual comments. At this time the environmental groups did not know there were airstrips in the Monument, so there were no negative comments about airstrips. From public comments the BLM drafted a white paper on general management goals.

In early December 2002, the BLM hosted a three-day workshop in Lewistown. The participants were representing all interest groups that wanted a say in the Monument Plan. BLM’s idea was to get everyone together and try to come up with a collaborative planning process that would not be so contentious. I represented MPA at this session. There was such a strong difference of opinion between the interest groups that nothing came of it. However, it gave me a chance to meet many of the key players and build some support for airstrips. It also allowed me to see what we were going to have to deal with on the anti-airplane side.

Meanwhile, there is another organization that provides advice to the BLM. This is the Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). They are local people appointed at the Washington, DC, level. There are 15 members representing three interest areas: Government, Business and Land Users, and Environmental. They can only make recommendations to the BLM by consensus. I have attended several of these meeting as an observer and developed a good relationship with the pro-aviation members. I could also listen to the arguments of the anti-aviation folks. When the anti people would try to get a motion passed against aviation, the allies I nurtured would vote it down.

Then, in July of 2003 the BLM hosted another series of workshops to gather more public opinion in a forum type setting. I attended the workshops in Great Falls, Big Sandy and Fort Benton. Needless to say, by this time the environmental groups were ready to take a swing at aviation, especially at Great Falls and Billings. There were pilots at all the meetings and the BLM was once again aware of their strong presence.

By January 2004, the BLM was ready with a rough draft of a preferred alternative. This included the six airstrips that are in the present Alternative F. This was presented to the RAC at a meeting in Fort Benton, which I attended. Needless to say the environmental faction of the RAC was incensed that these six airstrips were even considered as part of a proposed preferred alternative. At a later RAC meeting in Lewistown (which I attended), a member from local government addressed the committee saying that until recently he had been opposed to the airstrips. Then he happened to visit with a friend who is a pilot and his mind was changed. He made a motion to support two airstrips, one on each side of the river. The motion had a passing vote, but the environmental reps voted against it so there was no consensus, thus no recommendation to the BLM.

Meanwhile, during this whole planning process the BLM planning staff was having their own internal planning sessions in Lewistown. These were open to the public but there was to be no discussion between the BLM staff and observers. The agenda was put out ahead of time, and whenever aviation was to be discussed, someone from MPA was there. I attended a couple and so did Dan Prill, J.C. and Jim Lewis.

All this time the BLM was assembling data for the EIS. This all took time, and we are now to this point.

The BLM has taken a bold position to support six airstrips when there will be strong opposition against them by the well organized, well financed environmental groups. But they must feel that their support for airstrips is a defensible one. They see MPA as a unified group of dedicated individuals who are polite and not inflammatory. That impression needs to be maintained.

Those of us that have been involved with this whole planning process feel that the best way for pilots to comment is from a unified position. That is why the “Call to Action” document was written the way it was. If different pilots go off on different tangents we are going to be screwed. The environmental groups are not going to have different content comments coming into the BLM where one member supports on thing and another member supports something else. We learned from the Ming Bar issue that we have to be united.
 
The poop hit the fan today....we are really going to need some help with letters from this community.

Two environmental groups started a newspaper barrage today against the Missouri River Breaks airstrips. "There is no justification for allowing some of the wildest and remote country in the Great Plains to be assaulted by hot air balloons, planes, helicopters, and ultralights as contemplated by the proposed airstrips"

These strips have been here for 50 years, use is minimal, this is pure BS.

Please take a few minutes to write in support of keeping the airstrips open!!

Ralph
 
Thanks for keeping tabs on things there Ralph. We knew it was inevitable as soon as the Resource Management Plan was released. If you and others want to see their efforts go to www.missouribreaks.org Could you let me know which newspaper is publishing these so we can get a letter to the editor in also? Probably the Fergus County one.

Thanks
 
It's also worthy of note that the same proposal also closes some 150 miles of the Missouri River to seaplane access, even though there is no record of substantial use or abuse, and even though the Missouri is without doubt a navigable waterway.

Add this to your comments as well. We've been trying to get the Seaplane Pilots Association to take some action on this, but they don't consider it to be a priority.

MTV
 
I agree with TJ. I'm surprised that you guys are happy that they're "only" closing a couple of airstrips and shutting down 150 miles of river. That's a losing attitude if there ever was one!

I will post my comments to the BLM this weekend when I get a chance....
 
Christina Young said:
I agree with TJ. I'm surprised that you guys are happy that they're "only" closing a couple of airstrips and shutting down 150 miles of river. That's a losing attitude if there ever was one!

I will post my comments to the BLM this weekend when I get a chance....

Thanks for the input Christina.

I don't think we are "happy" that they are "only" closing four airstrips. What we are satisfied with is that they are not proposing closing "all' of the airstrips. We see environmental organizations more and more aggressive with each new plan on Federal and State lands because they have absolutely nothing to lose and anything they change is a gain for them. There are literally thousands of comments against airstrips and less than 50 in favor. We have been dealing with this specific project for over four years. The risk we run when we don't compromise a little, is to lose all of the airstrips. None are currently recognized on the charts and this will accomplish official recognition of six airstrips. I guess what I am getting at is this: instead of a letter complaining about what we don't get, why not send a letter encouraging the planners for actually recognizing aviation as a legitimate recreational pursuit? When in recent history have we seen airstrips ADDED to a chart?

As far as Mike Vivion's note regarding seaplane use, I think it is a separate issue and should be dealt with by the Seaplane Pilots Association. He has correctly stated that the SPA was encouraged to get into the act and they never made the time or didn't care enough to do anything. Including the seaplane issue in your letter to the BLM is discouraged at this time.

Thanks
 
Well, don't abandon the seaplane issue just yet, por favor. A number of us are trying to fire up the SPA to consider this an issue. We haven't given up yet.

The two issues are both related to restricing aircraft use. One is on land, airstrips, specifically. The other is water, on a long stretch of NAVIGABLE WATERWAY. Look up the definition of navigable, please. There is a very specific legal definition regarding navigability and rivers.

Note that motorboats are still to be permitted on this stretch of river, but not seaplanes. Duh.

BLM has permitted the stock growers to graze this part of the world down to an absolute nub for a century, but now they're worried about a couple of seaplane operations a year?

Sorry, I sincerely request that EVERYONE include in their comments a demand that this stretch of river remain open to seaplane operations.

Thanks,

MTV
 
I spend a huge amount of time on that river. I live close and know the Monument reach well. I'm also familiar with the political dangers of giving up rights/privileges which may never be recovered. That said, there are just a few places I believe landing seaplanes is a possibility on the Monument portion of the Missouri River. Politically, there is just no chance of getting permission to land them in the white-cliff area. Motor boats are severely restricted (down stream only...no wake June - Sept). The river is frozen for several other months. In many of the other areas it is braided, loaded with large cottonwood trees, and shallow. The lower end might have a few weeks of possibilities during high water...but there the BLM is proposing to remove all motorboat access. Any proposed use of seaplanes would have to include what areas, at what times of years. It is also fairly late in the hearing process which has gone on for the last 4 years. In my opinion, the proposed preferred alternative is reasonable and would urge us to support. If there is to be a proposal for seaplanes....it needs to get out there YESTERDAY!! Until that happens....please support the preferred alternative. Supercub pilots would love using these strips! Ralph
 
Mike Vivion has made a couple of good points regarding seaplane use within the Monument. If you are going to comment on seaplane use, please take the time to educate yourself by downloading the entire plan from the BLM website.

Mike is right that since most of the river is currently being used by motor boats and all of it is considered "navigable," it should be open to seaplanes. I am not saying that seaplanes should be ignored, they just need to be commented on in a different context.

When making comments, please keep airstrips and seaplane use as separate issues. Don't just lump them together with an "all or nothing" attitude. Thank the BLM for the six airstrips as proposed and then ask that they further consider seaplane use. If you are a seaplane pilot, mention that there are very few options for seaplanes over a very long stretch of the nation. Also, point out that like land-planes, once a seaplane has landed, it is pulled up on shore so that the occupants can enjoy the Monument. The noise signature of a seaplane is of significantly shorter duration than a boat which has motored for many miles. Also, since seaplane use is proposed to be restricted to the first three miles out of Fort Benton, mention that you feel this would present more of a safety concern since they are also limiting PWC use to the same stretch of river. Note that simultaneous PWC and aircraft use are incompatible in a safety sense.
 
Back
Top