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.