Helena Hunters and Anglers Association s Objection of the Blackfoot Travel Plan.

Transcription

1 May 9, 2014 Sent via and U.S. Mail (postage prepaid) Objection Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service, Northern Region P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, MT (406) (fax) Re: Helena Hunters and Anglers Association s Objection of the Blackfoot Travel Plan. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 218, the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) hereby provides this timely objection of the Forest Service s (the Service s) draft Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Blackfoot Travel Plan in the Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena National Forest (hereinafter Blackfoot travel plan or travel plan ). This objection is submitted by WELC on behalf of the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association (hereinafter Helena Hunters ). Helena Hunters members live, work, and recreate on the Helena National Forest and several of the organization s members are intimately familiar with the Blackfoot Travel Planning Area in particular. Helena Hunters membership is made up of professionally trained natural resource managers. They are now or have previously worked in the fields of fish, wildlife, forestry, recreation management, water quality, and environmental assessment. Helena Hunters mission statement is commensurate with stated management objectives for the Helena National Forest: The Helena Hunters and Anglers Association is dedicated to protecting and restoring fish and wildlife to all suitable habitats, and to conserving all natural resources as a public trust, vital to our general welfare. HHAA promotes the highest standards of ethical conduct and sportsmanship, and promotes outdoor hunting and fishing opportunity for all citizens to share equally. 1

2 The following members of Helena Hunters formed the Blackfoot Travel Management Evaluation Committee, and include: Gary Ingman, Steve Platt, Bill Orsello, Charlie McCarthy, Rod Bullis, Thomas Baumeister, Doug Powell, Jim Posewitz, Gayle Joslin and Stan Frasier. Helena Hunters was also one of ten groups that worked with former Helena National Forest Supervisor Kevin Riordan and Lincoln District Ranger Amber Kamps in spring 2011 to develop a conservation alternative, Alternative C, for their use in developing travel management alternatives as part of the Blackfoot Travel Plan draft EIS (DEIS). Alternative C contained the ten groups consensus recommendations for travel management in the Blackfoot Planning Area. In winter 2013, Helena Hunters and individual members of Helena Hunters submitted comments on the Helena National Forest s DEIS. Most recently, Helena Hunters met with Ranger Kamps on April 1, 2013, to review the FEIS and the draft ROD and to ask questions, reiterate their concerns, and discuss the objection process. With this submission, Helena Hunters is now formally objecting to several aspects of the draft ROD and proposed Alternative 4 in the FEIS. The issues raised in this objection were either addressed in Helena Hunter s comments on the DEIS (or individual members of Helena Hunter s comments on the DEIS) or are based on new information contained in the draft ROD and FEIS. The following discussion itemizes Helena Hunters objections, their rationale, and describes Helena Hunters proposed remedies. (1) The 300 foot dispersed vehicle camping allowance. The draft ROD and FEIS authorizes wheeled motorized vehicle travel for dispersed camping or parking associated with dispersed camping within 300 feet of all designated system routes, including roads and trails (unless signed otherwise or specifically closed) as long as: (1) no new permanent routes are created by this activity; (2) no damage to existing vegetation, soil, or water resources occurs; (3) travel off-route does not cross streams, and (4) travel off-route does not traverse riparian or wet areas. According to the Service, authorizing car camping within 300 feet of all designated system routes provides a reasonable level of access for recreational purposes. The FEIS further states that, with the implementation of the criteria for resource protection described in the actions common to all alternatives section of the FEIS, any off-route vehicle impacts resulting from such use would be minimized. The FEIS also concludes that the 300 foot provision would be consistent with the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision, the 2005 Travel Planning Rule (Travel Rule), Executive Order 11644, and the Helena Forest Plan. The FEIS further states that the Helena National Forest would make a commitment to monitoring and enforcement of this provision, in order to ensure routes would not expand in these areas and any problems encountered would be dealt with as they arise. 2

3 Helena Hunters has a number of concerns about the Service s decision to authorize car camping within 300 foot (the length of a football field) off of all designated routes in the analysis area. First, allowing vehicle travel for dispersed camping for up to 300 feet from a designated travel route (roads and trails) will potentially affect a large amount of land and essentially constitutes un-managed motorized recreation in the analysis area. The authorized distance 300 feet on either side of a designated route equals a 600 foot corridor (two football fields in length) for driving off-route (perhaps larger more like 610 feet if the corridor is measured from the edge of the system route instead of the center line). Multiplying this width times the number of motorized roads and trails in the proposed Alternative 4 (352 miles, or 1,858,560 feet) totals 43,560 acres, or 40 square miles of land area that could be negatively impacted by off-route motorized travel. Potentially, up to 11.4 percent of every square mile of forest land containing a motorized route of one mile in length would be opened to off-route motorized travel for dispersed camping purposes. This is a significant action for which resource impacts have not been specifically evaluated in the FEIS (see below). Second, the premise of the 300 foot proposal seems to be that it will not be abused by the public and that no travel route to a camping site will ever be reused. This seems highly unlikely. Unmanaged off-route vehicle use has caused and will continue to cause uncontrolled proliferation of trails resulting from repeated use. Effects of off-route travel by vehicles on soil, water quality, vegetation, heritage and cultural sites, wildlife and the spread of invasive species are well documented in the scientific literature. Soil compaction and erosion contributes to sedimentation of streams, and damaged vegetation may create opportunities for establishment of invasive plant species. Many wildlife species are affected by noise and disturbance associated with vehicles. While the decision states that such use will not be allowed to create permanent routes or to impact vegetation, soil, water resources, and riparian areas, it is reasonable to assume that such impacts will occur. Indeed, the FEIS acknowledges that the Helena National Forest has never conducted a comprehensive survey of this use, but states that cursory monitoring and field checks by various Service resource crews have not resulted in any wide-spread violations or wide-spread resource concerns. Where site-specific issues have arisen, they state they have been able to address them via site-specific area closures or restrictions. Such general statements and anecdotal observations, however, do not constitute a reasonable assurance that the 300 foot provision will not result in significant and irreparable resource damage. Third, the draft ROD states that the highest priority for monitoring will be ensuring that wheeled, motorized vehicle travel within 300 feet of designated system routes is not creating 3

4 any new permanent routes and damaging vegetation, soil, or water resources, or crossing streams, riparian or wet areas. However, it does not state how site-specific problems (which seem likely to occur at some frequency) will be addressed once they are discovered. This could be a huge task for which resources are extremely limited. The Lincoln Ranger District has acknowledged that enforcement of travel plans is difficult and that they do not have the resources to monitor for illegal travel activities (Amber Kamps, April 1, 2014 in comments to Helena Hunters). Surveys of travel restrictions in the Blackfoot Planning Area by Helena Hunters members in have shown a high degree of violations and a readily apparent lack of monitoring and enforcement. This causes Helena Hunters to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the FEIS pertaining to intended comprehensive monitoring and enforcement of the 300 foot provision. Finally, contrary to the Service s statement in the draft ROD and FEIS, a blanket authorization of dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of all system routes is not consistent with the language and spirit of Executive Order 11644, as amended, or the 2005 Travel Planning Rule (and the 2001 Tri-State Decision was merely a one-size-fits all planning level decision that has no bearing on the designation of specific routes or areas for motorized use in the Helena National Forest). The term dispersed vehicle camping refers generally to the ability to drive your motorized vehicle, i.e., OHV, motorcycle, or 4 x4 car, off designated roads and trails and car camp wherever you would like. When authorizing car camping off-road on National Forest lands, the Service explains it has four options: (1) Do not provide for any driving and car camping off-road and restrict all motorized use to designated roads and trails; (2) Individually map each short spur route to a designated, existing car camping site and then include the spur route in the travel system; (3) Issue individual permits authorizing the holder to car camp off-road; or (4) Use the authority in the Travel Rule (36 C.F.R (b)) to authorize limited amounts of car camping off-road within a specific distance of designated routes. Exhibit (Ex. ) A at 14. According to the Service, option (4) is the least preferential option that, if used, should only be applied at the individual route level and not broadly across an entire forest. Id. The language in the Travel Rule authorizing car camping off-road is written narrowly ( limited use, within a specified distance, of certain designated routes, solely for the purpose of ). Id. The Service, therefore, is to apply the off-road car camping provision 4

5 sparingly, on a local or State-wide basis, to avoid undermining the purposes of the [Travel Rule]...and to promote consistency in implementation. 70 Fed. Reg , (emphasis added); see also FSM (2). Broad use of this provision could lead to corridors of cross-country motor vehicle use along many designated roads and trails, with attendant proliferation of unauthorized routes and environmental damage. Ex. A at 14. For this reason, authorizing car camping off-road in certain areas is to be applied with caution and only after carefully considering the impacts at the local, individual route level. 36 C.F.R (a), (b). In the draft ROD and FEIS for the Blackfoot travel plan, the Service chose option (4) but ignored its own directive to narrowly and cautiously apply the provision, choosing instead to authorize car camping off-road within 300 feet of every motorized route in the analysis area subject to some limitations that will be nearly impossible to enforce and monitor. This means individuals in the Blackfoot analysis area can drive their cars, OHVs, and motorcycles off-road and off-trail and car camp wherever they want so long as their motor vehicles are within 300 feet (a football field) of a designated road or trail. In effect, the Service s allowance creates 600 foot-wide corridors open to driving and car camping throughout the Blackfoot analysis area. The off-road car camping allowance, as proposed in the draft ROD and FEIS, is not allowed in some areas (non-motorized section of the CDNST or some roadless areas) but is otherwise not limited to pre-existing access or spur roads, not limited to designated or popular camp sites, and not prohibited or restricted in sensitive areas, including but not limited to secure elk habitat, lynx critical habitat, or some roadless areas. Notably, the Helena National Forest s approach to off-road car camping differs significantly from the approach taken by the neighboring Lewis and Clark National Forest. In the Lewis and Clark National Forest, the Service chose to reduce the 300 foot dispersed vehicle camping prescription to one vehicle (and attached trailer) length in response to a barrage of public comments and concerns about how the Agency s decision in the DEIS would, in effect, create a 600 foot swath down each and every road or trail for vehicles to travel. As explained by one organization: From a management perspective, it will be virtually impossible to prove that someone is not looking for a parking or camping spot. Moreover, this decision will inevitably result in the creation of new roads and trails and result in an enormous amount of natural resource damage. In fact, [the Service s] decision translates into a 600 foot camping/off-road travel corridor for each road and trail in the analysis area. Under any alternative, this decision has the potential to affect over five hundred thousand acres of public land in the analysis area... Other members of the public raised similar concerns and requested that the size of the dispersed vehicle camping prescription be reduced or eliminated. After carefully considering these comments, the land-management implications of the 300 foot rule, and the resource damage issues associated with creating 600 foot swaths open to cross-country travel 5

6 for dispersed vehicle camping, the Service modified the alternatives presented in the draft EIS by shortening the distance from 300 feet to approximately 70 feet (the size of a vehicle and attached trailer). In the Agency s own words: In reaching my decision, I considered the comments on the [draft] EIS, the information contained in the analysis concerning user-created trails, how recreationists use areas to park or turn around, public safety, and the numbers and locations of dispersed camp sites... My decision will reduce the creation of new trails out of dispersed camp sites by prohibiting travel off designated routes to a campsite, while still allowing access to continue to the majority of the existing dispersed campsites. The Helena National Forest should follow the Lewis and Clark s lead and adopt a similar approach, one that allows car camping within a reasonable distance of an open road and, in so doing, reins in natural resource damage. If the Service decides to take a different approach than the Lewis and Clark National Forest and go with option (4) and authorize car camping within a 600 foot corridor along every road and trail in the analysis area, as proposed, then it must first carefully consider the impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of that decision pursuant to NEPA and the Travel Rule on the affected resources, including but not limited to soil quality and productivity (the Service, for example, should collect and analyze soil samples from the impacted area and consult and apply its Region One soil quality standards), native vegetation, special management or resource areas, wilderness characteristics, IRAs (including compliance with the Roadless Rule), cultural and historic properties, big game habitat and security (the Service says in the FEIS that virtually all dead trees within the dispersed vehicle camping corridor will be removed), listed species (grizzlies and lynx, including lynx critical habitat), candidate species (wolverines), and management indicator species (MIS) on the Helena National Forest. To date, no such analysis has occurred. It is not in the DEIS or FEIS. Nor has the Service complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to ensure cultural and historic properties within the 600 foot corridor are inventoried, identified and protected prior to authorizing car camping and off-route driving within the 600 foot corridor. Section 106 of the NHPA is often described as the stop, look, and listen provision. Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Nevada v. USDOI, 608 F.3d 592, 607 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Pursuant to Section 106, the Service is required to take into account the effect of [an] undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 16 U.S.C. 470f. Authorizing car camping off-road within 300 feet of a system route qualifies as an undertaking. The process begins by defining the area of potential effects, which in this case includes the area open to dispersed vehicle camping. 36 C.F.R (d). The Service is 6

7 then directed to review all existing information on cultural and historic properties within this area (including data on possible yet-to-be identified properties) and seek out additional information from individuals with knowledge of the area, as well as information from local Indian tribes. 36 C.F.R (a). Based on information gathered from this first, initial step, the Service must then take additional steps necessary to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects. 36 C.F.R (b). The Service must make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts. 36 C.F.R (b)(1). To date, no such reasonable and good faith effort to identify cultural and historic properties within the area open for car camping has occurred. In addition, the Service has not carefully considered and applied Executive Order 11644's and the Travel Rule s minimization criteria before authorizing widespread car camping within a 600 foot travel corridor along every route in the analysis area. Executive Order 11644, as amended and strengthened by Executive Order 11989, directs that all areas designated for motorized use on public lands be located to minimize: (1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; (2) harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and (3) conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring lands. These criteria, known as the minimization criteria, require federal agencies to minimize motorized impacts on public lands. Wildlands CPR v. USFS, F.Supp. 2d, 2012 WL at *12-13 (D. Mont. 2012); Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. U.S. Forest Service, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1146 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (same). The word minimize means to reduce (something, especially something unwanted or unpleasant) to the smallest possible amount or degree. THE NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (2001) at It does not mean the Service must eliminate all impacts. Use of the word minimize in Executive Order also does not refer to the total number or overall mileage of routes but to the effects of route and area designations, i.e., the Service must designate areas for motorized use to minimize damage to natural resources and conflicts between uses. Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1073 (D. Idaho 2011) (citing CBD v. BLM, 746 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2009)). The Service s 2005 Travel Rule codifies Executive Order 11644's minimization criteria by directing the Agency to consider, with the objective of minimizing damage to natural resources and conflicts among uses when designating trails and areas for motorized use. 36 C.F.R (b). While the language may differ somewhat (minimize vs. the objective of minimizing ) both Executive Order and the Travel Rule contemplate the same result. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d at 1074; Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, 832 F. Supp. 2d at 1146 (same). 7

8 Both directives, for example, require the Service to document and explain how the minimization criteria were applied in the route designation decisions. Id.; Wildlands CPR, 2012 WL at *14 (same); CBD, 746 F. Supp. 2d at (same). Simply listing the criteria and noting that they were considered is not sufficient to meet this standard. Id. Nor is it sufficient to rely on conclusory statements in the record from the Agency or excel spreadsheets and appendices that merely list various routes and why they were included in the system. See CBD, 746 F. Supp. 2d at Instead, the Service must carefully document and explain how the minimization criteria was applied when making specific route and area designations. Id. No such documentation or explanation is provided in the draft ROD or FEIS regarding the authorization of car camping within a 600 foot wide corridor along nearly every road and trail in the Blackfoot analysis area. In the draft ROD, the Service says it minimizes impacts to resources (and presumably complies with the Executive Order 11644's and Travel Rule s minimization criteria) by complying with all Forest Plan standards and objectives. This may be true, but the Service must still connect the dots and explain how compliance with specific standards in the Forest Plan (especially new amendments) satisfies its legal obligation to minimize impacts and conflicts. This has yet to occur. In fact, nowhere in the FEIS or draft ROD does the Service adequately explain how it considered and applied the minimization criteria when authorizing a 600 foot travel corridor for car camping off of every designated route in the analysis area. As a suggested remedy, Helena Hunters proposes: (1) that the Service attain consistency with the 30 foot parking rule by only allowing parking for car camping within 30 feet of a designated system travel route. This rule would not prohibit non-motorized camping greater distances from roads and motorized trails but would require vehicle parking closer to the established roads, thereby reducing resource impacts associated with cross-country travel and preventing the establishment of numerous new spur roads to dispersed campsites; or (2) restrict all motorized wheeled cross-country travel to designated roads and trails and include well marked and designated dispersed vehicle camping sites in the final Travel Plan and MVUM. (2) Decommissioning and storage of roads. In the draft ROD, the Service is proposing to decommission 212 miles of existing roads. An additional 82 miles of roads are proposed for storage. Helena Hunters supports this aspect of the draft ROD. Details of how roads would be decommissioned (level 4) and stored (level 3-S) are included in the draft ROD. The draft ROD, however, does not include a schedule for implementation. Instead, the public is informed in the draft ROD that an implementation plan will be developed at a later date, after the Travel Plan is finalized. The Service also states that the Travel Plan will outline and set priorities for road and trail treatments, including 8

9 decommissioning or storage, construction, reconstruction, or closure actions, etc that will occur throughout the implementation process. As such, it is not clear what the timeline for developing the implementation plan will be, or how and when actions to store and decommission roads will be implemented on the ground. The discussion of plan sequencing for implementation in the draft ROD only indicates that road closure, storage or decommissioning activities will be implemented carefully so as not to impact road access needs for other ongoing or planned projects. Moreover, District Ranger Kamps told members of Helena Hunters on April 1, 2014, that roads slated for decommissioning and storage would be closed contingent on the availability of funding, which is uncertain. It is our understanding, therefore, that these roads would be managed in a status quo fashion until available funding is obtained which means that motorized uses will continue for an indefinite period. According to District Ranger Kamps, implementation for stored and decommissioned roads will be dependent on funding, capacity, and sequencing. Helena Hunters is deeply concerned that all roads and trails slated for decommissioning have been identified without a schedule for decommissioning, a sequence for decommissioning, or any assurances of funding. As such, these roads and trails may in effect remain open to motorized use for a long period of time, perhaps perpetually. In the wildlife report/be (p. 88), the Service says road storage and decommissioning could exceed 10 years. This possibility and the possibility that storage and decommissioning may never occur (due to lack of funding) undermines all of the Service s assumptions, analyses, and conclusions in the DEIS and FEIS (including all assumptions regarding compliance with access and road density standards for grizzlies, elk, and other species). Moreover, allowing motorized use to continue and possibly expand until such a time as they are physically decommissioned at some unknown date and if funding is available does not demonstrate to the public that the intent is to eventually close the road and trail to all motorized uses. Nor does leaving nearly 300 miles of roads in a limbo status for a potentially very long time support the resource objectives of the travel plan. It also misleads the public in regard to the selected alternative in the FEIS, which is a violation of NEPA. In sum, in the absence of a concrete plan to immediately implement travel management changes on the ground, including decommissioning and storage of roads, there is simply no assurances, let alone reasonable assurances, that the benefits and improvements stated in the FEIS will ever be achieved or that the Service s analysis and assumptions regarding resource impacts in the FEIS are accurate. As a suggested remedy, Helena Hunters requests the Service immediately, upon finalization of the Blackfoot Travel Plan, develop and publish a schedule, timeline and priority list for decommissioning and storing roads. In the meantime, the Service should sign and map all roads as closed now to avoid increasing use and to notify the public of the intent to 9

10 decommission, store, or close these roads. All roads and trails identified for decommissioning, storage, and closure should be immediately ordered closed to motorized use yearlong. (3) The preferred alternative. Helena Hunters objects to the Service s decision to choose Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative in the draft ROD. Helena Hunters finds Alternative 3 to be superior to Alternative 4 with regard to environmental protections, including watershed health and water quality, fisheries, soil integrity, native vegetation, wildlife populations, and fair chase hunting opportunities. Indeed, Alternative 3 goes furthest in moving the planning area towards compliance with the existing Forest Plan standards and with the NCDE Access Management Guidelines for grizzly bear security and habitat within the recovery zone. Alternative 3 is also superior with regard to elk security needs that meet the intent of the current Forest Plan and better supports management direction applicable to big game security based on the best available science. By contrast, Alternative 4 does not ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards for lynx (the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction), elk security, grizzlies, or ensure the viability of MIS species as required by the National Forest Management Act. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) asserted in their review comments on the draft EIS that their specific recommendations regarding amending the Big Game Standard 4(a) followed directly from the implementation of Alternative 3 in the draft EIS. Their rationale which was stated in their comment letter of April 22, 2013, was that Alternative 3 represents a more complete application of the Hillis Paradigm than other alternatives. The Service s decision to choose Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative in the draft ROD, therefore, runs contrary to this qualifier and would appear to negate MFWP s support for the Big Game Standard Amendment as currently proposed. As a suggested remedy, Helena Hunters strongly encourages adoption of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The travel plan should also adopt a policy that all roads and trails are closed to motorized use unless they are posted (and mapped) as open to motorized use. We think this will be more practical from an enforcement standpoint and consistent with the 2005 Travel Rule. See 36 C.F.R (routes and areas closed unless designated open). The District Ranger, Ms. Kamps, said they needed to post roads closed in the grizzly recovery area north of HW 200 due to regulations so this practice would not work there. But the Service can still post closure details at specific locations (e.g. grizzly requirements or seasonal closure dates) while still adopting a policy of closed unless posed open. The other alternative leaving everything open unless specifically posted with restrictions just begs and encourages vandals to tear down signs so they can t be called illegal. 10

11 (4) The Helmville-Gould Trail #467. Under the Service s proposed Alternative 4 in the draft ROD, the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 would be managed as a motorized trail open for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width for the period from July 1 to October 14. The October 15 closure represents a change from the current situation, which allows motorized use year-round. The Helmville-Gould Trail #467 would also be improved and some relocation of the trail and reconstruction of the trail will occur in order to address layout sustainability, water drainage, user safety, and Forest Service OHV trail standards. This action will lengthen the total trail route by approximately 1 mile and will provide continuous OHV access along its length. Additionally, the Service has determined that a programmatic amendment to the Helena Forest Plan is needed to allow motorized use of this trail because portions of the trail are located within a designated R-1 non-motorized area (Nevada Mountain Roadless Area). Helena Hunters has a number of concerns, which were raised by Helena Hunters and members of Helena Hunters in commenting on the DEIS, regarding the Service s proposal to continue motorized use of this trail, the proposed reconstruction work, and the proposed forest plan amendment to allow motorized use in a non-motorized area, the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. First, an accurate portrayal of the Helmville-Gould Trail s history and the significance of the Service s preferred alternative (to authorize and reconstruct the trail for motorized use) and proposed Forest Plan amendment is missing from the DEIS, FEIS, and draft ROD. The Helmville-Gould Trail was originally designated for non-motorized use in the 1986 Helena Forest Plan following extensive input by area users over at least a four-year period. This fact is well documented. See Ex. C (documenting history of trail). The Service s closure of the trail was not implemented until 1989, at which time the decision was appealed by a group of motorized users. Id. The appeal was upheld due to an unrelated technicality (the trail closure by the then Forest Supervisor, Ernie Nunn, was not properly public noticed). The decision to close the trail was subsequently reversed and the trail was reopened to OHV motorized use. Id. Conservationists appealed this decision on several grounds, including the location of the trail within an R-1 non-motorized area. See id. The appeals (Forest Supervisor and Regional Supervisor levels) were denied, partly on the basis that the Service assumed the trail was along the perimeter/boundary of the R-1 area and that there was discretion allowed for managing the trail for motorized use. Id. We now know, however, that this is inaccurate. In the FEIS and draft ROD, the Service now acknowledges that the trail is, in fact, within an R-1 non-motorized area and requires an amendment to the Forest Plan to make the motorized use legal. It is therefore important for the Service to acknowledge that the present 11

12 motorized use on the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 is illegal and should be closed to motorized use until a new Helena National Forest Plan is developed and the issue can be revisited. Second, there have been and continue to be ongoing impacts to forest resources including soil, vegetation, wildlife, water quality, wilderness values, weeds, and illegal off-route intrusions into the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area associated with motorized management of the Helmville-Gould Trail #467. These impacts must be carefully considered and analyzed by the Service. Impacts from motorized use on the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 were observed firsthand by members of Helena Hunters and discussed with Ranger Kamps during a public tour of the trail hosted by the Lincoln Ranger District several years ago. The Service says it intends to address some of these issues through trail enhancements, reconstruction and lengthening. However, we doubt that the motorized trail improvements can address all of these impacts and certainly would have little impact on enforceability of off-route travel within the R-1 designated area. Motorized intrusions from the trail into the roadless area were documented in 2013 and 2014 by Helena Hunter members and reported to the Service. Monitoring and enforcement of the current travel plan has not occurred and we remain skeptical that this will be improved upon under the authority of a new travel plan. The Nevada Mountain Roadless Area, which is dissected by the Helmville-Gould Trail #467, is a special place. It is the largest roadless area remaining in the Helena National Forest along the Continental Divide, which is a critical movement corridor or linkage zone for native wildlife. The area is unique in that is it largely accessible by several points around its periphery which can be driven to under most conditions but still provides high quality wilderness hunting and hiking experiences for those willing to walk a short distance. See Ex. D. Contained within this area are the two highest peaks to be found along some 50 miles of the Continental Divide: Nevada Mountain and Black Mountain. From these 8,000 foot vantage points the mountains of the Lincoln-Scapegoat, Mission, Flint Creek and Elkhorn ranges are dramatically visible. This panorama is difficult to achieve elsewhere and is certainly of great value to those using the Continental Divide trail. Ex. D. The Nevada Creek watershed presently provides high quality water necessary for the survival of native bull trout which spawn in the creek. This area also consists of prime wildlife habitat, supports one of the largest elk herds in the Helena National Forest, and is heavily used wolverine, grizzly, and lynx habitat (including critical habitat for lynx). Recent research by contract wildlife biologist Steve Gehman documented that this area is regularly occupied by a high density population of lynx and that it represents a wolverine hotspot, supporting a relatively high density of wolverines. See Ex. B (Carnivore Surveys in the Ogden Mountain to Nevada Creek Region, Selected Data Summaries and Conclusions). Some, but not all, of this information is cited in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Mr. Gehman s DNA sampling and camera station monitoring provided evidence of at least 10 individual lynx, and at least eight wolverines, including two reproductively active females, that continuously used the 12

13 Nevada Mountain area over the last four years. Mr. Gehman also obtained photographic evidence of five grizzly bears, including a lone adult in Nevada Creek in 2012 and a female with three yearling cubs in the Dalton Mountain to Ogden Mountain area in These findings suggest that the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area and Helmville-Gould Trail #467 are within a biologically rich and important roadless area utilized by grizzlies, wolverines, elk, and lynx. Authorizing and expanding motorized use and taking steps to improve and reconstruct the trail, therefore, may have significant and serious effects on these species and the biological integrity of area. Indeed, the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 is located in core habitat for wolverines (currently proposed for listing, final decision by August 4, 2014) and in designated critical habitat for threatened Canada lynx. See 74 Fed. Reg (February 25, 2009). This means the area is deemed essential to the survival and recovery of lynx in the contiguous United States. Improving the trail and authorizing OHV use will only invite increased use of and impact to this sensitive and important area for lynx and wolverine. The Helmville-Gould Trail #467 is also located in occupied and important grizzly bear habitat, including a biological activity center (BAC), within the Blackfoot LA grizzly bear distribution zone. According to the Service, grizzlies within this area may be at higher risk of mortality than bears residing within the NCDE Recovery Zone due to increased route densities and other human activities. See Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears Inside the NCDE and in the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone, Helena National Forest, p. 11. Authorizing, expanding, and improving motorized use in this area is contrary to the NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategies Agreement, which is intended to limit miles of open routes in roadless habitats such as the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. The Service s plan for the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 is also contrary to: (1) the management directives in the Helena Forest Plan (Appendix E) pertaining to grizzly management outside recovery areas; and (2) the directive to minimize man-caused mortality by ensuring route densities do not exceed 0.55 miles per square mile. The value of this area for species like grizzlies, wolverines, lynx, and elk, as well as the value of the area as a linkage zone or movement corridor for wildlife, will be compromised by continuing or expanded motorized use of Trail #467 and especially improvements and reconstruction of the trail, as proposed in the draft ROD. The Service, however, has yet to carefully consider and analyze what the impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) may be. Nor has the Service: (1) consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on how the proposal for the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 may affect grizzlies, lynx, or lynx critical habitat; (2) conferenced with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on impacts to wolverine (proposed for listing); or (3) taken steps to ensure such use is consistent with Forest Plan standards for elk, grizzlies, wolverine, or lynx, including the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. Third, proposed improvements to the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 will severely undermine if not gut any and all proposals to designate the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area 13

14 wilderness. Opportunities for solitude and a more primitive recreational experience will be lost along with the wilderness values of the area. The Nevada Mountain Roadless Area has been included in past wilderness legislation and wilderness designation has been vocally supported by a large number of people and interest groups, including the Lewis and Clark County Commission. Next year, the Helena National Forest will revise its Forest Plan and, as part of this process, consider the suitability of the IRA for wilderness designation. Without question, reconstructing and improving the trail for motorized use, and possibly increased use of the trail for motorized purposes resulting from the improvements, will compromise the potential for future wilderness designation of this special place the largest unprotected roadless area within the Helena National Forest. It also conflicts with the letter and spirit of the Roadless Rule, 36 C.F.R. 294; 66 Fed. Reg (January 12, 2001). Finally, for all the reasons stated above, any amendment to the Helena National Forest Plan to authorize, expand, and improve motorized use within the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area (an R-1 non-motorized area) would be significant and thus, under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), would require an EIS and full-blown analysis of impacts. See 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(4). According to the Forest Service Manual (FSM) , the types of nonsignificant changes to Forest Plans include: (1) Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. (2) Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. (3) Minor changes in standards and guidelines. (4) Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription. FSM explains that the types of changes that are significant and thus require a comprehensive EIS include: (1) Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected.(2) Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. 14

15 As explained above, the Service s decision to authorize and expand motorized use on the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 and take steps to improve and reconstruct the trail in the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area - the largest in the Helena National Forest is not a minor change. On the contrary, such action will significantly alter the long-term goals and objectives for managing the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area for native and threatened species (grizzlies, lynx, and wolverine) and likely jeopardize the area s suitability for eventual wilderness designation. Such action will significantly alter how the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area (and other roadless areas) are managed and will likely impact and influence how the Helena National Forest manages habitat for threatened species and wilderness quality lands into the future. This is a significant change to the Helena Forest Plan. As a suggested remedy, the Service should: (1) acknowledge that motorized management of the Helmville-Gould Trail #467 has been illegal since the Helena Forest Plan was signed into effect in 1986; (2) take this opportunity to close (and not improve) the trail to motorized use pending development of a new Forest Plan and careful analysis of impacts; and (3) drop the proposed programmatic amendment to the Forest plan which would authorize motorized use within the designated R-1 management area. Helena Hunters also urges adoption of Alternative 3 of the FEIS, which would manage the trail as non-motorized as was intended in the Forest Plan. Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider the issues and concerns raised in this objection. If you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues, please do not hesitate to contact Helena Hunters (Gary Ingman) or me at the number below. Sincerely, /s/ Matthew Bishop Matthew Bishop Western Environmental Law Center 103 Reeder s Alley Helena, MT (406) (tel.) (406) (fax) bishop@westernlaw.org 15

16 On behalf of: Helena Hunters and Anglers Association Contact: Gary Ingman 219 Vawter Street Helena, MT (406)