Ravalli County Off Road User Association

Transcription

1 May 31,2015 Ravalli County Off Road User Association P.O. Box 72, Hamilton, Montana Objection Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service, Northern Region PO Box 7669 Missoula, MT RE: Objections to the Draft Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) Travel Management Planning Project dated April, The responsible official for this action is Julie King, Supervisor, Bitterroot National Forest. These Objections are submitted by Dan Thompson on behalf of the Ravalli County Off Road User Association (RCORUA) and the Bitterroot Ridgerunners Snowmobile Club (BRR). Mr. Thompson s contact information is: 219 Totem View Victor, MT (406) dkthomps@yahoo.com An alternative contact person for these Objections is: Mike Jeffords (406) The combined dues-paying membership of RCORUA and BRR consists of approximately 750 individuals, most of who reside in Ravalli County. Our members pursue their recreational interests primarily in the Bitterroot and adjacent National Forests. Our members pursue their recreational interests primarily with motorcycles, snowmobiles, or ATVs, the operation of which is enjoyable and facilitates their recreational and aesthetic use of the Forests. In addition, our members also enjoy hunting, fishing, camping, skiing and hiking on public lands, and these interests are furthered, and in some instances heavily dependent upon current vehicle access by motorcycle, snowmobile or ATV. In other words, our members cannot meaningfully enjoy their chosen activities without reasonable access by off-highway vehicles to selected sites. RCORUA and BRR are members of Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association and BRR is a member of the Montana Snowmobile Association. Both Clubs are also members of the Blue Ribbon Coalition. BRR/RCORUA Objections 1

2 RCORUA submitted comments on the DEIS for the subject project on November 8, (FEIS Appendix F, letter #531). BRR submitted comments on the DEIS for the subject project on November 6, 2009 (FEIS Appendix F, letter #508). These documents will be referred to as comments within these Objections. 2 BRR/RCORUA Objections

3 Objection #1; The FEIS does not contain a reasonable range of Alternatives as required. NEPA regulations and other applicable law require the Agency to present a reasonable range of Alternatives in NEPA compliant actions (40 CFR ). This means, among other things, that each Alternative must be compliant with the LRMP that is in effect at the time the action is proposed. An Alternative that is not compliant with the LRMP is by definition not reasonable. In this case, the 1987 BNF Forest Plan is the constraining document for the Travel Management Action. But, as presented in the FEIS, the Preferred Alternative 1 is not compliant with the 1987 Forest-wide Management Objective to Provide for the current mix of dispersed recreation by maintaining about 50 percent of the Forest in wilderness, about 20 percent in semiprimitive motorized recreation and about 30 percent in roaded areas. (1987 LRMP, page II-4). Total Miles Motorized Routes Table 1. SPM Allocation by Alternative 4 ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT3 ALT Miles Motorized Routes in SPM ROS 2 Percent Motorized Routes in SPM ROS 8% 12% 13% 4% Acres Open to Snowmobiles in 234, , ,214 9,113 SPM ROS 3 Percent Acres Open to Snowmobiles in SPM ROS 15% 36% 36% 1% As demonstrated by Table 1, none of the FEIS Alternatives meet the goal of 20% of the Forest (or miles of motorized routes, which is a better measure) available for semiprimitive motorized 1 SPM = semiprimitive motorized setting 2 ROS = recreational opportunity setting 32 No ROS information = recreational is provided opportunity in the setting FEIS for snowmobile ROS. Since most semiprimitive settings occur in IRAs, 3 No information is provided in the FEIS for snowmobile ROS. Since most semiprimitive settings occur in IRAs, WSAs and RWAs, we have used the data from FEIS Table 2-25 as representative of snowmobile ROS acres. 4 Data simplified from Tables 2-24 and 2-25 from the FEIS. We note that the data in Table 2-24 showing acres of ROS by Alternative is incorrect. BRR/RCORUA Objections 3

4 recreation. Even the Motorized Emphasis Alternative 3 does not satisfy the requirements of the 1987 Forest Plan, and the Nonmotorized Emphasis Alternative 4 is outrageously in violation of the 1987 Forest Plan. Thus the Alternatives proposed for this action do not represent valid end members in the reasonable range of Alternatives required by NEPA regulations. Requested Relief: There is little that can be done except to issue a Revised DEIS that offers a reasonable range of Alternatives (40CFR (a)). However, BRR and RCORUA would be satisfied if either a revised (to allow publication of a NVUM) Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 was implemented by the ROD. 4 BRR/RCORUA Objections

5 Objection #2; The Agency has failed to make factual corrections to the FEIS and Draft ROD. ATV Roads vs. ATV Trails Throughout the processes of Scoping and the preparation of the DEIS, RCORUA and BRR have objected to the characterization by the BNF of certain roads as ATV trails. These roads are shown on the 1985 BNF travel map as roads with travel restrictions R-4, R-7, or R-11. These roads are closed yearlong to full-sized vehicles but open seasonally to motorcycles and ATVs. These roads are referred to herein as ATV roads. There are approximately 644 miles of these roads on the BNF. On the database spreadsheets supplied during the comment period for the DEIS these roads were included in the Roads Database as National Forest System Roads but not included in the Trails database. This issue was discussed extensively in RCORUA s DEIS comments, and those comments are included herein by reference. In 2006, with encouragement from the BNF, RCORUA undertook a three-year project to evaluate these ATV roads for their recreational value. The results of these evaluations were: 1) Most of these ATV roads have no recreational value for OHV travel or were not accessible; 2) Some of these ATV roads could have recreational value if connected to other roads and reconstructed as ATV trails; 3) Some of these ATV roads might have recreational value if access restrictions were resolved. The results of this Road Inventory project were transmitted to the BNF with written and verbal annual reports. The point being that the BNF is well aware that these roads, in their current condition, are of very low recreational value to OHV enthusiasts and that use of these roads by OHV enthusiasts is virtually nonexistant. The BNF is also aware that there are currently only 26.5 miles of ATV trails designated for use on the Forest (Draft EA for the Darby Lumber Project, January 2015, Table 3.1-7, page 29). In all of the analysis presented in the DEIS, the BNF arbitrarily and capriciously characterized these 664 miles of OHV roads as trails, which presented information to the public and to decision-makers that was inaccurate and grossly misleading. In response to RCORUA s DEIS comments intended to correct this misinformation, the BNF arbitrarily and capriciously reclassified these roads as coincident routes, added them to the Trails database, removed them from the Roads database, and continued to present to the public information that claimed that there are currently approximately 660 miles of ATV trails on the BNF (FEIS, p ). This in spite of their full awareness that these reclassified roads have little recreational value and that there are only 26.5 miles of ATV trails in the Forest. In the FEIS (p and ), the Agency justifies this manipulation of their databases by claiming that it is required in order to display these routes on the MVUM. Nonsense. They can be displayed on the MVUM as R-4, R-7, or R-11 roads just as they currently are displayed on the BNF Visitor Use Maps and just as all the other roads will be displayed on the MVUM. At the very least, this is a violation of CEQ regulations, specifically 40CFR (4), that requires the Agency to make factual corrections in response to comments, and 40CFR (g) that prevents the Agency from manipulating data to justify a decision that is already made. These misrepresentations potentially represent numerous other violations, including BRR/RCORUA Objections 5

6 NEPA obligations to portray accurate and high quality information, as well as to accurately depict alternatives. Decommissioned Roads The DEIS contains the following factual statement (DEIS, p.3.1-2): At the high point, approximately 3,300 miles of road were part of the Forest s transportation system. Of these, about 600 miles have been decommissioned and are no longer open to any motorized use. Another 460 miles are closed to all motorized use year-round, while an additional 644 miles of roads are closed to full-sized vehicles year round. Consequently, more than half of the roads that were once part of the Forest s transportation system are no longer open to full-sized vehicles. The roads database supplied to RCORUA as part of the DEIS confirms this statement to be factual. The fact that at least half of the roads once available for public travel on the BNF have already been closed is an important piece of information that should be available to the public and to reviewers of the FEIS and Draft ROD. This is particularly important when considering cumulative impacts of the proposed action, the consequences of lost historical opportunity and concentration of uses on the Forest. The FEIS has deleted this discussion and replaced it with the following discussion (FEIS, p ): When the Forest began implanting these mitigations [decommissioning and storage] adequate tracking mechanisms were not in place. Subsequently, many miles of treatment were not recorded. The Bitterroot National Forest began tracking this information in 2004, and later began going back through historic records, and recording the data. Since the current tracking system has been utilized, approximately 134 miles of National Forest System roads have been decommissioned, re-contoured, and permanently removed from the Forest s Transportation System. Once again, the BNF has suppressed information relevant to Travel Planning and have played fast and loose with their road and trail databases to obfuscate and obscure information that does not support their predetermined outcome of the Travel Planning process. It is precisely this sort of activity that is prohibited by 40CFR (g), NEPA, and other applicable law. Requested Relief: All of the data presented in the FEIS and Draft ROD would have to be changed to include a clear distinction between ATV roads and ATV trails. Clear statements that ATV roads offer a low quality of experience for ATV users would need to be made in both the FEIS and ROD as well as specific documentation of the current designation of only 26.5 miles of ATV trails. With respect to road decommissioning and storage, the FEIS and ROD would need to include all of the data, including data on those activities prior to BRR/RCORUA Objections

7 Objection # 3; The BNF has illegally included land management decisions in the Draft ROD and FEIS The TMR does not authorize the Agency to designate areas where motor vehicle use is not allowed. All references to areas in the TMR refer to areas where cross-country travel by motorized vehicles may be permitted, such as sand dunes and beaches (Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, November 9, 2005, p , Col. 1). Restrictions to motorized travel in a Travel Plan must be route specific and may not include area closures either explicitly or implicitly (by closing all roads and trails in an area). Nonmotorized allocations are identified in the 1987 BNF LRMP. A specific Forest Plan Revision must accompany changes to Management Area boundaries, nonmotorized allocations, or existing management prescriptions and practices for Management Areas (Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, p , Col. 3). No such Plan Revisions are included in the Draft ROD and FEIS for RWAs, WSAs, IRAs or any other Management Areas on the BNF. The TMR specifically excludes horses and bicycles from consideration in this Travel Management process (Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, p.68272, Col. 3). The 1987 Forest Plan does not restrict bicycle use anywhere outside Designated Wilderness Areas. A Forest Plan revision would be required to implement those restrictions in the FEIS or Draft ROD. The DROD and FEIS would exclude snowmobile travel on an additional 205,141 acres of land, including the highly valued Six Pack historical use area in the Sapphires. These closures constitute a change in the designations of permitted snowmobile use areas defined in the 1987 LRMP and implemented by that plan for the past 28 years. The TMR is route specific and allows changes only to specific routes and trails when the need for such restrictions can be clearly justified (36 CFR (a)). A Forest Plan Revision would be required prior to implementation of the Draft ROD. Requested Relief: The Agency must prepare and release for public comment a supplemental DEIS as required by 40CFR (a). This supplemental DEIS must either exclude land management decisions or propose appropriate revisions to the 1987 LRMP for the BNF. However, BRR and RCORUA would be satisfied if either Alternative 2 (revised) or Alternative 3 was implemented by the ROD. BRR/RCORUA Objections 7

8 Objection # 4; The Draft ROD and FEIS have not incorporated the differences between user conflicts and conflicts of uses In their scoping and DEIS comments, BRR and RCORUA have repeatedly and persistently insisted that there is a significant difference between the phrase user conflicts and conflicts of uses. The DEIS used the phrase conflicts between users. Our comments suggested that the phrase conflicts of uses as used in the TMR does not permit consideration of idealogical, philosophical, or personal preference as a conflict of uses. BRR and RCORUA scoping and DEIS comments are included herein by reference. In response to our comments, the Agency replaced user conflicts with conflicts of uses in the Draft ROD and FEIS, but continued to allow ideological, philosophical, and personal preferences as an excuse to close roads and trails to motorized travel. The changes between the DEIS and the FEIS appears to have been done with a word search and replace without any accommodation whatsoever of the actual changes that the phrase change implies. We continue to insist that the TMR allows only physical quantifiable conflicts or incompatibilities to be considered as a conflict of uses. These conflicts usually involve safety considerations or physical incompatibilities. For example, use by classic cross-country skiers on groomed routes is incompatible with snowmobiles because snowmobiles damage the tracks that are set for that type of skiing. But skate skiing and snowmobile uses are not in conflict, since they both require the same types of groomed surfaces. Resolving real or claimed ideological, philosophical, or personal conflicts (as practiced in the Draft ROD and FEIS) has consequences that were never intended by the TMR. Consideration of these emotional issues is not quantifiable; it places the entire burden of resolving real or claimed philosophical or emotional assertions of conflict on motorized visitors; it enables, encourages and promotes intolerant attitudes and behaviors; and it enables vocal wilderness advocates to adopt conflict as a surrogate claim. As an example of how consideration of user conflicts can result in outrageous outcomes, consider the following. The Draft ROD and FEIS propose to close the Sapphire WSA in part to resolve user conflicts between snowmobiles and backcountry skiers. But the Sapphire WSA is so remote and difficult to get to that skiers can only access these areas with the aid of a snowmobile. You can t have a conflict with someone who isn t there unless you allow philosophical or ideological convictions to be a conflict. The TMR, we believe, is clear on this issue. The Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, page 68266, Col. 2 states uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over another. The TMR never intended to allow emotional or philosophical issues as an excuse to provide preferential treatment for nonmotorized activities on Forest lands at the expense of motorized visitors. Nowhere does the Forest sufficiently present data or analysis to justify any conclusion to limit motorized use as a result of alleged conflict. Where the agency strikes a reasoned balance, particularly involving continued allowance of some aspect of long-existing historical use, the 8 BRR/RCORUA Objections

9 courts have consistently upheld the agency s choice, even against strident preservationist claims of conflict. See, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 765 F.3d 1264, 1275 (10 th Cir. 2014); The Pryors Coalition v. Weldon, 803 F.Supp.2d 1184 (D.Mont. 2011), aff d, 551 Fed.Appx.426 (9 th Cir. 2014); Wild Wilderness v. Allen, 12 F.Supp.3d 1309 (D.Or. 2014). The Biodiversity decision seems particularly insightful here, where the Albany Trail traversed an Inventoried Roadless Area which anti-access advocates predictably sought to imbue with quasi-wilderness status. The weight of authority cuts against a decision to restrict access. The Forest has not created a sufficient record to restrict access here based on unsupported allegations of conflict. Requested Relief: The Agency must revise the DEIS to exclude the consideration of ideological, philosophical, or personal preferences as a conflict of uses for the purpose of designating a system of motorized routes on the BNF. Any restrictions on access must be based on meaningful presentation and discussion of data or analysis that demonstrates something more than bare allegations or arbitrary assignment of conflict. The revised DEIS must be re-issued for public comment. However, BRR and RCORUA would be satisfied if either Alternative 2 (revised) or Alternative 3 was implemented by the ROD. BRR/RCORUA Objections 9

10 Objection #5; The BNF Purpose and Need reflects an illegal and undocumented intent to provide additional non-motorized areas. BRR and RCORUA have persistent complaints with respect to the stated objective in the Draft ROD and FEIS to Provide areas for nonmotorized recreation experiences. (FEIS, Table 1-5, pages 1-6 and 1-7) 1. The Agency fails to make a rational connection between the need for more nonmotorized areas and factual data. Indeed, the FEIS ignores, obfuscates or fails to meaningfully include data and factual information to the contrary. 2. The TMR specifically enjoins the Agency from making such non-motorized allocations. 3. The TMR is route specific and does not allow the designation of non-motorized areas. (See Issue #3) 4. The TMR does not allow consideration of ideological, philosophical or personal preferences to be considered as a conflict to be resolved by this action. (See Issue #4) BRR and RCORUA have persistently voiced our concerns on this issue in our Scoping and DEIS comments, included herein by reference. Only items 1 and 2 will be considered here, since items 3 and 4, while relevant to the issue, are discussed elsewhere in our Objection. The Agency Fails to Establish the need for more Quiet Use Areas: Designated Wilderness Areas in the BNF are established for the exclusive benefit of non-motorized visitors. But the Draft ROD and FEIS specifically exclude Designated Wilderness Areas from the project area claiming to do so is beyond the scope of the project (FEIS, p 1-2). We claim that by asserting that there is a need for additional opportunities for non-motorized visitors, the Agency must include Designated Wilderness into the scope of the project. How else can the Agency determine how well the need for quiet experiences are currently being met? It is not rational to claim that there is a need for more non-motorized allocations while at the same time excluding consideration of enormous areas that are already available to those visitors. By our count, there are currently (Alternative 2 in the FEIS) 743,000 acres of the BNF designated for the exclusive use of quiet visitors, and 891 miles of non-motorized trails (62% of all available trails) (BNF System Trail Access Guide, April 2005). This is factual information that is relevant to the analysis because the BNF has made it relevant by claiming there is a need for more quiet use opportunities. Nowhere in the Draft ROD or FEIS are these data made available to the public or to decision makers. This is especially important information that should be included in tables summarizing the comparative impacts of Alternatives and in summary tables. By excluding Designated Wilderness Areas from the project analysis area, omitting relevant factual data and selectively presenting partial and misleading information, the Agency has failed to meet its obligations under NEPA and applicable law for full, transparent and unbiased disclosure. What proportion of all non-motorized visitors are quiet users (i.e. unwilling to share trails with motorized visitors)? This is a critically relevant question, since the answer to this question would establish the need for more or fewer trails allocated for use by visitors who have no personal tolerance for the presence, sound, or smell associated with motorized vehicles. The Draft ROD and FEIS make no attempt to address this question. The Draft ROD and FEIS do, however, fail to present and incorporate data and analysis that there are relatively few visitors 10 BRR/RCORUA Objections

11 who are intolerant to encounters with motor vehicles. Designated Wilderness areas are abundant and convenient in the BNF. Half of the BNF is Designated Wilderness, and visitors for whom an encounter with a motor vehicle ruins their experience have a choice to go there. But Wilderness visitation rates are exceptionally low. The 2007 NVUM estimates that 5% of all BNF visitors visit Wilderness Areas; the 2012 NVUM estimate that 22% of all BNF visitors choose to visit Wilderness Areas. These estimates are erratic and subject to wide statistical uncertainty, but an estimate of Wilderness visitation rates in the BNF of about 10% is not unreasonable and represents an upper bound on the number of non-motorized visitors who have low tolerance for sharing trails with motorized visitors. These Wilderness visitation rates are nowhere revealed or discussed in the Draft ROD and FEIS, representing another instance of bias by omission on the part of the BNF. While the FEIS mentions the uncommonly high satisfaction rates revealed by the NVUM reports (FEIS, p ), they fail to draw any conclusions or implement the outcomes implied by the fact that only a tiny handful of Forest visitors complained about their experience on the BNF. Surely, if a visit by a non-motorized individual had his or her experience ruined by the presence, sound, or smell of an encounter with a motorized vehicle, they would have said so during the NVUM exit interview. We conclude that the BNF has failed to support their claim that there is a need for more nonmotorized opportunities and that they have ignored, suppressed and failed to act on factual evidence to the contrary. Requested Relief: The need for more quiet space permeates the DEIS as well as the Draft ROD and FEIS. It is difficult to imagine how this flawed assumption can be corrected without the publication of a revised DEIS. However, BRR and RCORUA would be satisfied if either Alternative 2 (revised) or Alternative 3 was implemented by the ROD. BRR/RCORUA Objections 11

12 Objection #6; The Draft ROD and FEIS impose illegal prohibitions in WSAs The Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 directs the Agency to manage these WSAs to maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. In that Act, Congress directed the Agency to perform evaluations of these WSAs and make a recommendation to Congress no later than Congress then gave itself three years to act on those recommendations a requirement that Congress never satisfied. Subsequent court decisions have directed the Agency to manage WSAs to maintain their wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the NWPS as it existed in The Draft ROD has chosen to close the Sapphire and Blue Joint WSAs to all motorized and mechanized travel. This is not compliant with the Act and cannot be rationally connected to any facts that have been found or are reasonably implied from the lengthy record for these WSAs. This decision is not even compliant with Region 1 directives that state [ATVs] and motor bikes may be allowed on roads that had jeep use in 1977 (two tracks) and Mountain bikes may be allowed on trails that had established motor-bike use in 1977 (FEIS, p ). Most of the trails currently in use in the Sapphire WSA were jeep trails in 1977 the result of road building during the 1961 Sleeping Child Fire. This decision is not even consistent with the BNF s own evaluations. In 2006, the BNF and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF issued a joint report in which they evaluated changes to the wilderness characteristics in the Sapphire WSA ( Sapphire Wilderness Study Area Wilderness Characteristics Assessment, May, 2006). This study concluded there was not any reduction in wilderness characteristics or potential for inclusion of the Sapphire WSA into the NWPS since In the FEIS, Table documents little change in motorized opportunities in the Blue Joint WSA and Table shows a reduction in motorized routes in the Sapphire WSA since The FEIS and Draft ROD seem to fixate on the agency s inability to prove a negative as the justification for eliminating historical access to WSAs. This discussion focuses on the shortcomings of actual use data for 1977 and/or the difficulty enforcing prescriptions that would restore approximations of such use levels. This entire discussion seems intended to track judicial guidance from the Gallatin Forest litigation. See, generally, Montana Wilderness Assoc. v. McAllister, 658 F.Supp.2d 1249 (D. Mont. 2009), aff d, 666 F.3d 549 (9 th Cir. 2011). However, the BNF s discussion fails to properly apply or understand the context of the Gallatin decisions. The Gallatin involved preservationist challenge to what the agency admitted was use that exceeded 1977 levels. The agency might have taken a number of tacks in defending such use as maintaining wilderness character. Actual use data became symbolic of that inquiry, but the point is that a reasoned agency determination that wilderness character has not deteriorated beyond 1977 levels will comply with the Act. In other words, nothing in the Gallatin decisions, or any court decision, says that the agency is required to document actual use levels, or other aspects of 1977 use such as locations, technology, or group sizes, in addressing the relevant question of whether presently authorized use will diminish wilderness 12 BRR/RCORUA Objections

13 character when compared to 1977 wilderness character. The BNF has created an artificially high bar for itself, and uses the failure to hit that standard as an excuse for eliminating all motorized/mechanized use from WSAs. This approach violates the law. When the facts that all of the Sapphire WSA and part of the Blue Joint WSA were unsuitable for inclusion in the NWPS in 1977 and they have not further been degraded since that time are considered, the decision to close them in the Draft ROD appears to be extraordinarily arbitrary and capricious. The Agency s Draft ROD would effectively create defacto wilderness in areas that they themselves have identified to be unsuitable for wilderness designation. The consideration and USFS interpretation of the MWSA must address the unique factual history of each WSA. The Gallatin litigation thus provides limited guidance to the BNF, particularly given the record demonstrating the lack of wilderness character in the BNF WSAs. Requested Relief: The Draft ROD must be revised to be consistent with the MWSA Act and regional guidance. Implementation of a revised Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would render this issue moot. BRR/RCORUA Objections 13

14 Issue #7; Provisions in the Draft ROD to close RWAs to motorized and mechanized travel violate the 1964 Wilderness Act and are not consistent with the current BNF Forest Plan The 1964 Wilderness Act reserves the exclusive authority to create Wilderness Area designations to the Congress of the United States. The decision of the Draft ROD to close all RWAs to motorized and mechanized travel, for all practical purposes, creates areas that will be managed just as though Congress had designated them as Wilderness. These defacto Wilderness Areas usurp Congressional authority and are not permitted. The 1987 LRMP is the controlling document for Travel Planning. The 1987 Forest Plan establishes management prescriptions for RWAs: Continue current uses which do not detract from wilderness values. Transitory uses such as chainsaws, trailbikes and snowmobiles are appropriate if permitted by the Forest s Travel Plan. (1987 BNF Forest Plan, p. III-41) This prescription introduces the concept of transitory uses, i.e. uses that do not leave a lasting impact and will go away if Congress should ever designate the RWA as wilderness. Transitory uses do not reduce the potential of an RWA to be included in the NWPS. This prescription prohibits non-transitory uses or activities such as logging or road and trail construction that do leave a lasting impact and would reduce the potential for an RWA to be included in the NWPS if Congress should decide to do so. Transitory uses in an RWA such as motor vehicle travel might impact some wilderness characteristics such as opportunity for solitude but would be fully restored when and if Congress officially designates the RWA as wilderness. Just as there are transitory uses, there are transitory wilderness characteristics. For example, the opportunity for solitude might be reduced by increases in the frequency of motorized travel on established trails, but those impacts are transitory in the sense that they will be fully restored when motorized travel is prohibited by Congress designation of the RWA as wilderness. It is important to note that such transitory impacts are not limited to some dichotomous treatment of use as motorized/nonmotorized. Limitations on nonmotorized use are common in the NWPS, such as on campsite locations, equipment requirements/prohibitions, and numeric limits on daily user entries in some units. The intent of the 1987 BNF to permit continued transitory uses even though some impacts to transitory wilderness characteristics may result is evidenced by the management prescriptions for WSAs that have been practiced for the past 28 years. The Draft ROD institutes management prescriptions that are not compliant with the 1987 BNF Forest Plan either in word or practice. The record is not sufficiently developed or available at this time to determine the extent to which a tainted culture within Region 1 has driven the elimination of motorized/mechanized use from recommended wilderness. We are aware of the litigation challenging the Clearwater Travel Plan, and wish to note that many of the themes stated in the Clearwater complaint seem present, if not intensified, in the BNF Draft ROD. There is no rational connection to tangible data or other evidence demonstrating reductions to wilderness suitability. Assuming such connection(s) could be documented, an additional prerequisite to limiting historical uses would be to demonstrate a causal connection between the use(s) to be prohibited and the impacts. None of this is found in the record. Instead, any explanation is permeated by 14 BRR/RCORUA Objections

15 philosophical, and illegal, emphasis of factors such as enhancing the Congressional ability to make Wilderness designations, or avoiding the growth or perpetuation of a constituency that will oppose Wilderness designation. The documents strongly imply a philosophical choice by agency decisionmakers to create Wilderness. The Draft ROD is not consistent in its claims that increased visitor use damages wilderness characteristics. Use levels have increased throughout the Forest since the publication of the 1987 BNF forest plan, including in Designated Wilderness Areas (FEIS, p ). The Agency is also charged with preserving wilderness characteristics in Designated Wilderness Areas, but does not propose to close them to nonmotorized visitors to prevent the inevitable impacts to those characteristics. Once again, we observe the Agency selectively applying logic that benefits nonmotorized visitors at the expense of motorized visitors. Requested Relief: The Draft ROD must continue to implement existing management prescriptions for RWAs on the Bitterroot National Forest as prescribed and practiced by the 1987 BNF LRMP for the past 28 years. Only Alternative 2 (revised) or Alternative 3 satisfy those requirements. CONCLUSION: The Draft ROD and FEIS reflect fundamental flaws. These flaws can only be rectified through adoption of Alternative 2 (revised) or Alternative 3. BRR and RCORUA consider these alternatives to be far from ideal, but palatable. We appreciate the investment of time and personnel in this process, and the difficulty of producing an MVUM in the current culture. On the other hand, the Draft ROD reflects aggressive and largely unprecedented efforts to cast nearly every choice decidedly against motorized and mechanized uses. If the agency persists in backing our organizations into the figurative corner reflected by the Draft ROD we will have little choice but to exercise all available options to challenge or counteract such a decision. Respectfully Submitted, Dan Thompson RCORUA Road and Trail Coordinator BRR Treasurer BRR/RCORUA Objections 15