What's New
BLM proposes to allow helicopter-supported skiing on CDT in Colorado
We have reviewed and appealed a decision by BLM that would allow heli-skiing operations along several miles of the CDT near Silverton, Colorado. (As defined by BLM, “heli-skiing is a commercial activity that allows a company to ferry skiers to the top of a mountain in a helicopter, and then have a guide lead them down the slopes to be picked up again at the bottom of the hill.”)
Our appeal (pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals), based upon statutory and policy guidance, reflects the Society’s mission (“… to help in the planning, development, and maintenance of the CDT as a silent trail …”) and the nature and purposes of the Trail (“… high-quality scenic, primitive opportunities …”) as stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the Trail published in 2009.
By law, the general rule is that the use of motorized vehicles along any national scenic trail is prohibited. With regard specifically to the CDT, there is an exception where such use “will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and … at the time of designation are allowed by administrative regulations.” We argue that the proposed activities not only substantially interfere (owing to noise, commercial involvement, and potential impacts upon wolverine habitat), but that the activities were certainly not allowed in 1978, the time of Congressional designation of the CDT.
Although BLM may be correct in suggesting that cross-country skiing or snowshoeing along the Trail may be minimal at this time, these activities might become an attractive recreational activity (absent helicopter intrusion) in the future. We distinguish helicopter use from snowmobiling (which may be allowed under a specific provision of the Comprehensive Plan).
BLM policy declares that “the primary National Trail use or uses takes precedence over other discretionary trail uses.” For the CDNST, the primary uses are “high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle stock opportunities” [citing, among others, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing]. These take precedence over discretionary uses which BLM spells out as including snowmobiling, but without reference to heli-skiing. Further, it should be noted that BLM generally “discourages commercial recreation uses along the National Trail.”
Silverton Guides, the Applicant in this case, has provided heli-skiing opportunities on BLM-administered lands in the Silverton region, but at substantial distances from the CDT. They are proposing to exchange certain lands, which would move some of their operations (including multiple landings per day) to locations along and around the Trail. Although we would prefer to have the application denied in its entirety, we indicated that if helicopter use is kept at least a mile west of the Divide (by a prescribed no-fly zone), interference with the nature and purposes of the CDT would be significantly reduced. [Portions of the Trail east of the Divide are in national forest and are not subject to BLM jurisdiction.]
[Feedback]
The Salmon-Challis NF should recognize two-mile segment near Lost Trail Pass where the CDT coincides with the probable route of Lewis and Clark
The Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho has begun its periodic land management revision process with the preparation of an assessment of current conditions.
A notable aspect of the setting is that three national scenic and historic trails -- (Lewis and Clark Nez Perce, and Continental Divide) -- are in close proximity. Indeed, as we pointed out, in one location two trails (L&C as well as CDT) overlap for close to two miles -- along the Continental Divide at Chief Joseph Pass. (The route of the exploring expedition on September 3, 1805 is a matter of great controversy. There is general agreement that the party ascended the North Fork of the Salmon River to or near its confluence with Moose Creek. William Clark's journal then records that the party next climbed northeast, which would lead it to the Continental Divide (Guidebook 2: Big Hole Section 1, mile 0.9). [Other writers argue for routes that climb northwest from the river. Alternatives are reviewed in The Mystery of Lost Trail Pass, James R. Fazio ed. (Great Falls 2000), including "First Travelers on the Continental Divide Trail" by James R. Wolf.]
As we had previously commented to the Bitterroot National Forest, this section "is probably the most memorable historic association of the entire Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ... unlike those cases where the explorers went over a mountain pass from one side to the other, the traverse of Chief Joseph Pass affords an opportunity to follow in their footsteps for a significant distance."
We suggested that the planning process should provide for marking this trail section appropriately, with kiosks or signs noting its significance for the two trails. In addition, we invited the Forest to find other opportunities to recognize this notable landmark -- for example with organized hikes, side trails up to the Triple (Salmon-Bitterroot-Missouri) Divide, or even construction of a new trail following the Expedition route between the North Fork of the Salmon and the Continental Divide.
We will have opportunities to track this issue as the Forest develops its planning documents.
[Feedback]
CDTS calls for changes to Shoshone National Forest travel plan to eliminate unlawful use of ATVs on a section of the Trail south of Togwotee Pass
In 1998, the Forest selected a new route for the Trail south of Togwotee Pass, between Pilot Knob Road [#537] and Road 540 (near Pelham Lake). Up to five miles of new trail might have needed to be constructed (on a location that would facilitate maintenance and best meet the objectives of the CDT). Although this new route was clearly intended to be nonmotorized, the Forest proceeded to construct it and authorize it for ATV users; it was accordingly labeled as motorized trail MT-10 on the 2016 Motor Vehicle Use Map. There appears to be no public record of this segment having been designated as an authorized use, and certainly not motorized use, in accordance with applicable regulations (36 CFR 212.51).
Not only would the current improper use be continued, but it was proposed to widen the trail so as to allow the use of motorized vehicles that are 65 inches (instead of 50 inches) wide. [This is included in the Forest's scoping notice for travel plan revisions. This note summarizes the Society's comments in response to that notice.]
Under provisions of the National Trails System Act, the use of motorized vehicles on CDT trail segments (as opposed to roads) may only be permitted if the use "will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and ... at the time of designation [was] allowed by administrative regulations." The "time of designation" was in 1978, when the CDT was designated by law as a national scenic trail. Motorized use of this nonexistent route was not allowed at that time. Moreover, such use would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, as recognized by the Forest's management plan's statement of desired conditions: "The Trail provides a high quality scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle experience. A variety of compatible non-motorized opportunities are provided. ... Roads and motorized trails are not present except at designated crossings."
Based on these considerations, we concluded, from a legal perspective, that Trail MT-10 should be classified as a nonmotorized trail, renamed accordingly, and removed from the motor vehicle use map; that motorized use of the trail must be prohibited; and the proposal to widen the trail so as to allow the use of motorized vehicles that are 65 inches wide should be stricken.
However, we recommended a different course of action -- to work with the Forest Service as it reviews alternative route locations, selects and plans a nonmotorized trail route in recognition of the nature and purposes of the CDT, and constructs the selected trail and makes it available for hikers' use within a reasonable time frame (say, five years). A scoping notice for this process should be issued before the Forest publishes its decision regarding its travel management plan. If the Forest conscientiously carries out a program consistent with our proposal, we would not insist upon the closure of MT-10 as the relocation effort moves forward (though the proposal to allow vehicles 65 inches wide should be rejected until the relocation of the CDT has been completed).
[Feedback]
We have reviewed and appealed a decision by BLM that would allow heli-skiing operations along several miles of the CDT near Silverton, Colorado. (As defined by BLM, “heli-skiing is a commercial activity that allows a company to ferry skiers to the top of a mountain in a helicopter, and then have a guide lead them down the slopes to be picked up again at the bottom of the hill.”)
Our appeal (pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals), based upon statutory and policy guidance, reflects the Society’s mission (“… to help in the planning, development, and maintenance of the CDT as a silent trail …”) and the nature and purposes of the Trail (“… high-quality scenic, primitive opportunities …”) as stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the Trail published in 2009.
By law, the general rule is that the use of motorized vehicles along any national scenic trail is prohibited. With regard specifically to the CDT, there is an exception where such use “will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and … at the time of designation are allowed by administrative regulations.” We argue that the proposed activities not only substantially interfere (owing to noise, commercial involvement, and potential impacts upon wolverine habitat), but that the activities were certainly not allowed in 1978, the time of Congressional designation of the CDT.
Although BLM may be correct in suggesting that cross-country skiing or snowshoeing along the Trail may be minimal at this time, these activities might become an attractive recreational activity (absent helicopter intrusion) in the future. We distinguish helicopter use from snowmobiling (which may be allowed under a specific provision of the Comprehensive Plan).
BLM policy declares that “the primary National Trail use or uses takes precedence over other discretionary trail uses.” For the CDNST, the primary uses are “high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle stock opportunities” [citing, among others, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing]. These take precedence over discretionary uses which BLM spells out as including snowmobiling, but without reference to heli-skiing. Further, it should be noted that BLM generally “discourages commercial recreation uses along the National Trail.”
Silverton Guides, the Applicant in this case, has provided heli-skiing opportunities on BLM-administered lands in the Silverton region, but at substantial distances from the CDT. They are proposing to exchange certain lands, which would move some of their operations (including multiple landings per day) to locations along and around the Trail. Although we would prefer to have the application denied in its entirety, we indicated that if helicopter use is kept at least a mile west of the Divide (by a prescribed no-fly zone), interference with the nature and purposes of the CDT would be significantly reduced. [Portions of the Trail east of the Divide are in national forest and are not subject to BLM jurisdiction.]
[Feedback]
The Salmon-Challis NF should recognize two-mile segment near Lost Trail Pass where the CDT coincides with the probable route of Lewis and Clark
The Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho has begun its periodic land management revision process with the preparation of an assessment of current conditions.
A notable aspect of the setting is that three national scenic and historic trails -- (Lewis and Clark Nez Perce, and Continental Divide) -- are in close proximity. Indeed, as we pointed out, in one location two trails (L&C as well as CDT) overlap for close to two miles -- along the Continental Divide at Chief Joseph Pass. (The route of the exploring expedition on September 3, 1805 is a matter of great controversy. There is general agreement that the party ascended the North Fork of the Salmon River to or near its confluence with Moose Creek. William Clark's journal then records that the party next climbed northeast, which would lead it to the Continental Divide (Guidebook 2: Big Hole Section 1, mile 0.9). [Other writers argue for routes that climb northwest from the river. Alternatives are reviewed in The Mystery of Lost Trail Pass, James R. Fazio ed. (Great Falls 2000), including "First Travelers on the Continental Divide Trail" by James R. Wolf.]
As we had previously commented to the Bitterroot National Forest, this section "is probably the most memorable historic association of the entire Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ... unlike those cases where the explorers went over a mountain pass from one side to the other, the traverse of Chief Joseph Pass affords an opportunity to follow in their footsteps for a significant distance."
We suggested that the planning process should provide for marking this trail section appropriately, with kiosks or signs noting its significance for the two trails. In addition, we invited the Forest to find other opportunities to recognize this notable landmark -- for example with organized hikes, side trails up to the Triple (Salmon-Bitterroot-Missouri) Divide, or even construction of a new trail following the Expedition route between the North Fork of the Salmon and the Continental Divide.
We will have opportunities to track this issue as the Forest develops its planning documents.
[Feedback]
CDTS calls for changes to Shoshone National Forest travel plan to eliminate unlawful use of ATVs on a section of the Trail south of Togwotee Pass
In 1998, the Forest selected a new route for the Trail south of Togwotee Pass, between Pilot Knob Road [#537] and Road 540 (near Pelham Lake). Up to five miles of new trail might have needed to be constructed (on a location that would facilitate maintenance and best meet the objectives of the CDT). Although this new route was clearly intended to be nonmotorized, the Forest proceeded to construct it and authorize it for ATV users; it was accordingly labeled as motorized trail MT-10 on the 2016 Motor Vehicle Use Map. There appears to be no public record of this segment having been designated as an authorized use, and certainly not motorized use, in accordance with applicable regulations (36 CFR 212.51).
Not only would the current improper use be continued, but it was proposed to widen the trail so as to allow the use of motorized vehicles that are 65 inches (instead of 50 inches) wide. [This is included in the Forest's scoping notice for travel plan revisions. This note summarizes the Society's comments in response to that notice.]
Under provisions of the National Trails System Act, the use of motorized vehicles on CDT trail segments (as opposed to roads) may only be permitted if the use "will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and ... at the time of designation [was] allowed by administrative regulations." The "time of designation" was in 1978, when the CDT was designated by law as a national scenic trail. Motorized use of this nonexistent route was not allowed at that time. Moreover, such use would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, as recognized by the Forest's management plan's statement of desired conditions: "The Trail provides a high quality scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle experience. A variety of compatible non-motorized opportunities are provided. ... Roads and motorized trails are not present except at designated crossings."
Based on these considerations, we concluded, from a legal perspective, that Trail MT-10 should be classified as a nonmotorized trail, renamed accordingly, and removed from the motor vehicle use map; that motorized use of the trail must be prohibited; and the proposal to widen the trail so as to allow the use of motorized vehicles that are 65 inches wide should be stricken.
However, we recommended a different course of action -- to work with the Forest Service as it reviews alternative route locations, selects and plans a nonmotorized trail route in recognition of the nature and purposes of the CDT, and constructs the selected trail and makes it available for hikers' use within a reasonable time frame (say, five years). A scoping notice for this process should be issued before the Forest publishes its decision regarding its travel management plan. If the Forest conscientiously carries out a program consistent with our proposal, we would not insist upon the closure of MT-10 as the relocation effort moves forward (though the proposal to allow vehicles 65 inches wide should be rejected until the relocation of the CDT has been completed).
[Feedback]
Forest Service withdraws decision approving mountain bike use on Cochetopa segment
The Forest Service worked for several years on a proposal to relocate the route in Colorado's Cochetopa Hills from its current roaded setting to an improved 32-mile nonmotorized trail closer to the Continental Divide. We were pleased by its plans it originally announced, which specified that the new trail would be available for foot and horseback use only. But mountain bike advocates, who campaigned to have the section opened to mechanized travel, succeeded in persuading the Forest Service to do so. In response to objections to the Forest Service decision, the Society as well as several other organizations and individuals filed formal appeals. After receiving comments, the Forest Service withdrew its decision, without explanation, leaving future development uncertain.
Since a relocated nonmechanized route between Lujan Pass and the La Garita Wilderness should provide a more scenic and primitive experience, we can only hope that the project will not remain dormant, but will still be an active item on the Forest Service's agenda. We will continue to urge the Forest Service to manage the trail as it was conceived and established (as a simple facility for the hiker and horseman).
During the review period for this project, CDTS focused its attention on the issues of mountain bike use and access to water. Our comments included a suggestion that mountain bikers might be accommodated by the development of a bikers' loop route from Cochetopa Pass to Cochetopa Creek (the current CDNST), with a high-elevation return that would include about four miles along the Continental Divide but would be entirely separate from the relocated CDNST. We would welcome a resolution along these lines. [Recent development: the Forest Service has initiated consultation with interested user groups, including CDTS, on future action. We will continue to seek an outcome that, while allowing some mountain bike use, will respect the nature and purposes of the route, in the light of its legislative history, as a national scenic trail.]
[The north end of the reroute is a couple of miles north of Colorado Highway 114, at Lujan Pass (guidebook Cochetopa 3:21.4; Brown 246.2) and the south end is near the confluence of Nutras Creek with Cochetopa Creek (guidebook Cochetopa 5: 3.8; Brown 220.2), about 3 or 4 miles downstream from Eddiesville.]
(The withdrawn decision notice and other Forest Service documents related to this project can be found here.)
[Feedback]
BLM's latest plans in Rawlins area still inadequate
The Rawlins Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, which failed to consider impacts on the CDNST when it approved the development of a 1000 wind-turbine energy development south of Rawlins, is now proposing to allow excessive development in the area north of Rawlins as well. In so doing, they fail to observe new guidelines issued by BLM that are designed to assure that national scenic trails (such as the Continental Divide Trail) are managed with sensitivity to their nature and purposes. The Society has submitted comments that call for BLM to protect the scenic resources within the viewshed of the Trail. This will be an important test of the Bureau's resolve to observe the policies that it proclaims; we trust that it will do so. [As of May 2017, the BLM review is still ongoing.]
[Feedback]
Blackfoot Travel Plan proposal would allow mountain bike use on all portions of the CDT, including outstanding scenic section adjancent to the Scapegoat Wilderness
[Update] The final decision adopts the proposal of CDTS and other organizations to allow only hiking and equestrian (not bicycle) use of the Trail between Lewis and Clark Pass and the Scapegoat Wilderness boundary.
The Helena National Forest has published a travel plan that defines authorized uses for sections of the CDT between the Scapegoat Wilderness and Nevada Mountain. One very positive aspect of the plan is its prohibition of motorized use between Flesher Pass and Stemple Pass. A second very good prescription, as set out in its previously proposed plan, would have closed the CDT to mountain bike use between the Scapegoat Wilderness and Rogers Pass. To our surprise and disappointment, however, the Forest’s final plan would allow bicycles on this segment.
CDTS filed a formal objection, on the grounds that bicycle use in this outstanding scenic area substantially interferes with the nature and purposes of the Trail (which means that it would violate the National Trails System Act). We also claimed that such an authorization would be arbitrary and capricious in light of the Forest’s own explicit recognition that “closing the portal trails [which provide access to the Scapegoat Wilderness] to mountain bikers would reduce conflict among user groups and minimize wilderness trespass from wheeled non-motorized recreationists.” The plan would implement this policy by prohibiting bicycles on several portal trails – in fact all of them except the CDT. As we pointed out, if this trail is to be treated differently from other portal trails, it surely calls for greater sensitivity to the hiker and horseman in view of the objectives of the Trails Act.
The Society and other concerned parties participated in a conference call with the Forest Supervisor regarding commenters' objections. Based upon the discussions, we are optimistic that the final decision will allow only foot and stock use between Lewis and Clark Pass (seven miles north of Rogers Pass) and the Wilderness boundary.
[Feedback]
[What's New Archives] [Home]