RE: Objection to Blackfoot Travel Plan Final EIS and two RODS and Alternative 4

Transcription

1 May 11, 2014 Objection Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service Northern Region PO Box 7669 Missoula MT VIA RE: Objection to Blackfoot Travel Plan Final EIS and two RODS and Alternative 4 Dear Reviewing Officer, I am writing to object to the Blackfoot Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and two associated Records of Decision (draft RODS). I m the lead objector representing the other objectors listed below. We object to Alternative 4 identified in the draft Blackfoot Travel Plan ROD because it results in the loss of the 150 miles of road and trails that were previously available for motorized travel. This is a staggering 30% loss of the public s existing roads and trails that provide motorized opportunities. Alternative 4 will have even more of a negative impact because it closes the Gould-Helmville Trail #467 (the Trail) to all motorized travel on October 15. This will close another 14 miles of motorized trail during rifle hunting season and prevent me, the joining objectors, and the rest the public from using the Gould Helmville Trail to fully enjoy the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area as we can under the existing conditions. We ve expressed our opinions and concerns about the various Alternatives presented by the Forest Service in previous comments and we restate our preference for Alternative 2 and further object to Alternative 4 and the October 15 closure of motorized travel on the Gould- Helmville Trail the following grounds: First, The EIS fails to present the best available evidence that closing the Gould- Helmville Trail on October 15 is necessary for elk security. We ve used the Trail for 38 years from October 15th to December 1st to rifle hunt big game. Currently, motorized use during rifle hunting season comes from the public using their Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) to camp, hunt, and provide prime access to the 49,939 acres inside the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. This limited motorized access on the Gould-Helmville Trail during rifle hunting season is in an area that meets the Elk Cover Security Density Standard and does not have any detrimental effects on wildlife that are worth prohibiting motorized completely. (See Tyson O'Connell to Amber Kamps - Blackfoot Travel Plan Public Comments , attached hereto). There are only two areas in this Forest Region that meet the Forest Service s current Elk Cover 1

2 Security Density Standard and Trail is inside one of these two areas. The Trail traverses a narrow ridge that is covered in dense timber and meets the Elk Cover Density Standard if this Trail can t remain open to motorized travel during rifle hunting season what trail can? By adopting Alternative 4, the Forest Service is ignoring its own Elk Cover Density Standard and making an arbitrary and capricious decision. Second, the EIS ignored our previous comments on how a motorized closure will impact the public s enjoyment of the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. (See Dec. 6, 2009 Letter from Tyson O Connell to Jackie Heinert, pages 1-5 and exhibits attached hereto). The Gould- Helmville Trail is unique because it provides limited motorized use (only OHV under 50 inches are allowed) on a narrow ridge inside the Roadless Area. This Trail allows the public to enjoy motorized travel within a semi-primitive area, but more importantly, it allows users to ride along the trail, park our OHV, and then hike even deeper into the Roadless Area. It s difficult to fathom the ideal setting this creates by looking at the maps provided with the EIS, but it s clearly apparent to anyone who s ever used the Trail, that it provides an ideal setting for the public wishing to avoid the logistical challenges and physical realities of hunting inside a Wilderness Area where all motorized travel is prohibited. I personally have few physical limitations that would prevent me from accessing the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. Last summer, I completed a 15 hour run that traversed three counties and 56 miles from Benchmark to Holland Lake across the heart of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. And when I want a Wilderness hunting experience I utilize the 1,535,992 acres of Wilderness within the Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, and Great Bear Wilderness Areas, which is located just north of the Blackfoot Travel Planning Area. However, there are many times when I want to hunt where motorized access is limited, yet still provides me with the ability to access a semi-primitive, quiet, and wild area. This is exactly what the Gould-Helmville Trail currently provides by creating limited ingress and egress into the Roadless Area. The rest of the objectors on this letter, and the large majority of the public, do not have the physical ability to fully enjoy the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area and hunt more than a few miles from the main trailhead, without motorized access on the Gould-Helmville Trail. My father is 57 years old and he s been camping and elk hunting the Nevada Mountain Area every single year for 38 years (before it was even a designated Roadless area). Today I watched him cry as he held my newborn child and realized he ll no longer be able to continue this hunting tradition with me or his granddaughter. This will alter the bond and traditions our family has built and it will also impact the other families who rely on OHVs to access camping and rifle hunting within the Nevada Mountain Area. The Roadless Rule specifically allows motorized travel within Roadless Areas: Nothing in [the Roadless Rule] as proposed was intended to prohibit the authorized construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of motorized or nonmotorized trails that are classified and managed as trails pursuant to existing statutory and regulatory authority and agency direction. See Fed. Reg. 3251(Jan. 12, 2001). 2

3 The Gould-Helmville Trail is unique because it traverse an area that meets the Forest Service s Elk Cover Density Standard and offers the public the opportunity very limited motorized access into a semi-primitive Roadless Area. There is not another Trail within the Blackfoot Travel Planning Area that provides this access, and it s rare that the Forest Service has an opportunity to preserve such a valuable public hunting opportunity. The Forest Service should strive to create this kind of recreational opportunity, rather than destroy it. For the reasons in this objections and for all of the reasons previously included in our comments, we object to Alternative 4 and prefer Alternative 2 in the Blackfoot Travel Plan. Sincerely, Tyson O Connell Lead Objector 131 W Florence Missoula, MT Toconn87@yahoo.com Additional Objectors: Bob O Connell Seth O Connell Shane O Connell Rick O Connell Janna Lundquist Dan Nichols Colleen Nichols Nate Eitzmann Curt Cochran Marc Parriman William Parriman Mike Berry Debbie Peterson 3

4 5/13/2014 Non-Motorized Ranger Roundup This article is a continuation of last week s Ranger Roundup which discussed comments received from those interested in motorized opportunities in the Blackfoot non-winter Travel Planning area. This week s focus will be on the non-motorized input received. One major area commented on, and recommended for non-motorized use was the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) #440. The CDNST was established nationally in 1977, and begins on the Mexico border and runs to the Canadian border. On the Lincoln Ranger District, the CDNST skirts the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area from the south and continues north until accessing the Scapegoat Wilderness, a total of 68 miles on the Lincoln Ranger District. The Forest Service 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan states, The nature and purposes of the CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor. We received letters stating that in order to maintain the functionality of the CDNST as a wildlife movement corridor; road density should be kept as low as possible in this portion of the planning area. Some sections of the trail are currently located on motorized roads and some sections of trail are currently motorized trails. The Forest Service, through the Blackfoot Travel Plan process will need to address all of the above. Many hunters wrote to encourage non-motorized hunting and angling opportunities. There were also studies provided to us showing that elk react negatively to ATVs and evidence that elk on public lands may be displaced to private lands to avoid motorized situations. The area that raised the most comments to remain non-motorized was the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. Since the Helmville-Gould Trail #467, a motorized trail, traverses this area it is one we will be carefully examining in the Travel Plan. One option mentioned would be to reroute the Helmville-Gould Trail outside the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. Many commenters raised the issue that user created roads and trails have not gone through the required law and policy processes that protect the environment. The Lincoln Ranger District is also responsible for sticking to the rules, someone noted. Some commenters said that the Forest Service is appearing to sanction user-created routes which sets a bad example and may encourage motorized users to create more roads and play areas. Instead of creating new routes it was suggested that old logging roads and mining roads could be used, especially in areas where motorized users would like to see new trails. Along these lines, it was brought up that monitoring and enforcement should be intensified. As you can see from the two articles I ve written on the comments we ve received, public comments vary widely with many diverse opinions being voiced. All comments are read and incorporated into the Blackfoot Travel Plan, becoming part of the public record for this project. Comments are very valuable as they shape the outcome of the project, how issues are resolved, and how solutions are applied.

5 If you missed last week s BVD article on motorized travel comments, let us know and we will provide a copy. If you are interested in the document sent out to the public in September 2009 with an update to the Blackfoot Travel Plan, the following website will take you to it As always, comments are welcome and you may visit us or call the Lincoln Ranger District at (406)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 Exhibit 7 United States Forest Service Jackie Heinert Lincoln Ranger District 1569 Hwy 200 Lincoln, MT RE: Blackfoot Travel Plan Gould-Hemville Trail #467 Dear Ms. Heinert, Please consider me an Additional Supporter of the December 6, 2009 letter you received from Tyson R. O Connell concerning motorized travel on the Gould Hemville Trail #467. Sincerely,

28 December 6, 2009 United States Forest Service Jackie Heinert Lincoln Ranger District 1569 Hwy 200 Lincoln, MT RE: Blackfoot Travel Plan Gould-Hemville Trail #467 Dear Ms. Heinert, I. Introduction We are writing this letter in response to your November 13, which contained the Non-Motorized Ranger Roundup document ( NMRR ) that was dated December 1, (Attached at Exhibit 1). The NMRR focused on the non-motorized input received concerning the Blackfoot Travel Plan. The NMRR also welcomed additional comments and we would like this letter to be included as an additional comment. This letter will concentrate on the motorized travel allowed by the Blackfoot Travel Plan. Specifically, this letter will focus on motorized travel on the Gould-Hemville Trail #467. II. History of Gould-Hemville Trail #467 Before addressing the comments made in the NMRR, a brief history of the Gould- Hemville Trail #467 is necessary. On August 30, 1989, the Nevada Mountain semiprimitive and primitive nonmotorized recreation area was closed to all motorized travel. See Order, Ernest R. Nunn, Forest Supervisor (Aug. 30, 1989)(Attached as Exhibit 2). This decision closed road #296 and trails (405, 487, 467, 440 and 466). See Exhibit 2. On March 21, 1990, after a proper administrative process, this order was rescinded. See Rescinding Order, Ernest R. Nunn, Forest Supervisor (March 31, 1990)(Attached as Exhibit 2). On October 10, 1990 a Decision Memo was issued that redefined the border of the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. According to this Decision Memo, the Gould- Hemville Trail #467 and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail #440 were open to motorized travel because they created the border of the Roadless Area. See Decision Memo Nevada Mtn. Area Closure, Thomas J. Liebsher, District Ranger (Oct. 9, 1990)(Attached as Exhibit 3). This Decision Memo was incorporated into another Order that again closed the area to motorized travel but specifically left Trail #467 open to motorized travel. See Order, Ernest R. Nunn, Forest Supervisor (Nov. 26, 1

29 1990)(Attached as Exhibit 3). On June 1, 1991, the Forest Service issued a Special Restriction Order that solidified the intent of the 1990 Decision Memo and 1990 Order and opened the Gould-Hemville Trail #467 to yearlong travel by motorized vehicles 48 or less in width. See Special Restriction Order, Ernest R. Nunn, Forest Supervisor (June 1, 1991)(Attached as Exhibit 4). Currently, the Helena National Forest Map shows that the majority of the Gould Hemville Trail #467 lies within an inventoried roadless area where road construction is allowed. Most of Trail #467 runs along the border of the Nevada Mountain Roadless area where new road construction is prohibited. See Helena National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas ( see also Exhibit 3 and Environmental Impact Statement Helena National Forest (April, 1986)(attached as Exhibit 6) (for more detailed maps showing the inventoried roadless area where road construction is allowed as 49,939 acres and the 12,000 acre section where road construction is prohibited which is currently closed to all motorized travel). Even if these maps are no longer accurate and the entire 49,939 acres is now considered inventoried roadless area where road construction is prohibited, the Gould-Hemville Trail #467 should remain open to motorized travel because the Forest Service has already classified it as a trail that is open to motorized travel. Therefore, it is unaffected by the Roadless Rule which is discussed in the following section. III. The Roadless Rule On January 12, 2001, the Roadless Rule ( the Rule ) was signed into law. See Fed. Reg. 3244, (Jan. 12, 2001)(Attached as Exhibit 5). The Rule prohibits road construction in inventoried roadless areas unless necessary to protect public safety, respond to a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA ) action, satisfy a reserved access right, etc. 36 C.F.R (2001). The Rule also prohibits timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas, except in a limited number of circumstances. 36 C.F.R. at The Rule defines a road as [a] motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated as a trail. 36 C.F.R. at The Rule does not specifically define trail, but the legislative comment published in the same Federal Register says A trail is established for travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle, and can be over or under, 50 inches wide. Fed. Reg. 3244, 3251 (Jan. 12, 2001). The Federal Register also says, Nothing in [the Rule] as proposed was intended to prohibit the authorized construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of motorized or nonmotorized trails that are classified and managed as trails pursuant to existing statutory and regulatory authority and agency direction. See Fed. Reg. 3244, 3251(Jan. 12, 2001) Before the Roadless Rule was passed, the Forest Service appeared to support the Rule, but as the process to pass the rule unfolded, the Forest Service Council, representing 14,000 staffers (half the agency s total), made it clear they opposed the rule. The Forest Service Council claimed the Rule was centralized planning a one plan fits all 2

30 prescription and lumps 54 million acres together that are obviously quite different, both in physical aspects and social/cultural dimensions [that] totally bypassed scientific analysis. See Ltr. from Forest Service Council s Committee Chair, Art Johnson (March 2000). Despite the Forest Service s protest, the Rule was eventually passed on January 12, Since it was passed, Roadless Rule has been challenged in a number of federal courts. Groups originally challenged the rule claiming it violated the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) rulemaking requirements. The Rule was enjoined by a federal court on May 10, 2001, but has continued bouncing around courts for nearly a decade. In 2005, the Rule was repealed outright and replaced with a rule that invited a state by state approach to managing roadless areas. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2005 rule and reinstated the 2001 rule. California v. USDA, 07:15613 (Aug. 5, 2009). Because Montana lies within the Ninth Circuit, the 2001 rule appears to apply to the Helena National Forest at this time. The Roadless Rule was never intended to prohibit all motorized travel. Rather, it was an attempt at a collaborative effort to protect roadless areas from timber projects and further road construction. It has been successful at accomplishing this goal, as only seven miles of roads have been built and only 535 acres of trees have been logged in roadless areas since Although the Rule is still subject to legal battles and may ultimately need to be amended to allow the Forest Service more flexibility in dealing with current bark beetle outbreaks that are spreading throughout the roadless areas, for the time being, the Forest Service must comply with Rule and implement purpose of the Rule. This does not include closing all motorized trails in roadless areas. IV. The Multiple Sustained Yield Act In 1960, the Multiple Sustained Yield Act ( MUSYA ) became law. 16. U.S.C (June 12, 1960). MUSYA declares that the purposes of the national forest include outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, fish and wildlife. 16. U.S.C. at 528. Multiple use means [t]he management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people [including] harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources. 16 U.S.C at 531. MUSYA requires the Forest Service to consider outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, fish and wildlife when making agency decisions about the management of national forests. In our situation, because the Roadless Rule essentially eliminates timber harvest in the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area, this requires the Forest Service to consider the other five factors. The Forest Service can accomplish a balance of all of these factors by keeping Trail #467 open to motorized travel, while keeping other trails in the area (Trails #405, #440, and a portion of #487) closed motorized travel. This will 3

31 allow fish and wildlife to thrive, without impacting the range or watershed values of the area, and still provide outdoor recreation in a semi-primitive setting with very limited motorized travel V. Discussion of Issues Presented in NMRR The NMRR mentioned that special attention will be paid to the Gould-Hemville Trail #467 because it traverses the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. It also says that one option would be to re-route Trail #467 outside the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. This is a very logical suggestion if it concerns the 12,000 acre roadless area where all motorized travel is currently prohibited. See Exhibit 3. This is a logical solution because the trail currently runs along a ridge that serves as the Northern border of the 12,000 acre Nevada Mountain Roadless Area where all motorized travel is prohibited. Therefore, it would be fairly simple to reroute any sections of the trail that infringe on this Area because there are very few, if any, and the trail would only have to be moved a short distance to remedy the problem. However, this suggestion does not make sense if the Forest Service is considering rerouting Trail #467 around the entire 49,939 acres of inventoried roadless area because this would involving rerouting the trail a great distance from the top of the ridge to the bottom of Poorman Gulch, where there a road already runs along the border of the area and along the edge of Poorman Creek. As explained in the sections above, neither of these options is necessary because the Forest Service has classified Trail #467 as a motorized trail that can remain open to motorized travel and still comply with the Roadless Rule. The NMRR also mentioned that there are studies that show elk react negatively to ATVs and evidence that elk on public lands may be displaced to private lands to avoid motorized situations. We agree that these are valid issues and that deserve considerations. However, these are not major issues in the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area because there are currently only two trails open to motorized travel in the entire 49,939 acre area. These trails, Trail #467 and Trail # 487, see only seasonal, motorized use. See Exhibit 3. Further, the largest piece of private property in the area is the 12,900 acre Grady Ranch and a conservation easement allows free public hunting in perpetuity on the property. FWP Seeks Conservation Easements to Complete Grady Agreement ( artivle_778). Therefore, most elk that are theoretically displaced by ATV travel would still be accessible to the public. We say, theoretically displaced, because any elk that is actually disturbed by ATV travel on Trail #467, can simply retreat into the rugged country on either side of Trail of #467 without traveling the multiple miles it would take for them to reach private land. In fact, this is what the elk do, as we can attest from the data we have collected during many years of following elk tracks that cross Trail #467. This is why we support the continued closure of the majority trails within the Nevada Mountain Roadless Area. 4

32 The NMRR also discusses the concern about user created trails. This is another issue, that while very important, does not apply to Trail #467 because this is an authorized trail that has already gone through the administrative review process and been classified as open to motorized travel. The NMRR says someone noted, The Lincoln Ranger District is also responsible for sticking to the rules, which is precisely why the Lincoln Ranger District should respect the previous administrative process decision that designated Trail #467 open to motorized travel. Further, as mentioned above, the Roadless Rule does not prohibit the authorized construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of motorized or nonmotorized trails that are classified and managed as trails pursuant to existing statutory and regulatory authority and agency direction. See Fed. Reg. 3244, 3251(Jan. 12, 2001). Therefore, the Forest Service must keep Trail #467 open to motorized travel in order to follow the rules. VI. Conclusion The Gould-Hemville Trail #467 should remain open to motorized travel. The Trail provides the public with valuable access to primitive areas where all other motorized travel is prohibited. Trail #467 has already been subjected to the administrative process and the Forest Service has already determined that it should remain open to motorized travel. The Roadless Rule was not a wilderness bill. It does not prohibit all motorized travel, but rather allows for motorized on travel on trails that are classified and managed as motorized trails by the Forest Service. Although the Forest Service claims the Roadless Rule took much of its local forest management powers away, the Forest Service still has the power to implement forest plans that allow motorized travel in roadless areas. While the Roadless Rule may have drastically reduced the power local ranger districts have over the roadless areas they manage, it did not take all power away from them, and the Lincoln Ranger District can and should keep the Gould-Hemville Trail #467 open to motorized travel. Sincerely, **Please See Exhibit 7 for Additional Supporters of this letter Signed: Tyson R. O Connell Tyson R. O Connell 131 W Florence Missoula, MT toconn87@yahoo.com

33 From: Tyson Radley O'Connell To: "Kamps, Amber -FS" Cc: Bob O'Connell Seth O'Connell "Tompkins, Jaime - FS" <jtompkins@fs.fed.us>; "McGlothlin, Deborah -FS" <dmcglothlin@fs.fed.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, :45 AM Subject: Re: Blackfoot Travel Plan - Public Comments Amber, I talked with other users of the Gould-Helmville Trail and the alternative you mentioned below "that keeps U-417 as non-motorized and 440/467 and 487 as motorized. Because 417 gets so little use, I question the benefit of adding it to our trail system and the cost of managing it over time as a single track or non-motorized." is a is a real world solution makes a lot of sense and is a compromise that balances the preferences of both the motorized uses and non-motorized users. I know you are in a difficult position because you have to balance the needs of the motorized crowd with needs of the non-motorized crowd and neither one of the groups wants to compromise. The current planning process for the Blackfoot Travel Plan is no different with Alternative 2 being more tailored for the user supporting more motorized use and Alternative 3 tailored for the users supporting fewer motorized use. In a case like this, it is likely that neither group will be happy even if you choose between these alternatives because the motorized supporters will claim that Alternative 2 could have even more motorized use (because it closes 90 miles of roads) and the nonmotorized supporters will claim that Alternative 3 doesn't go enough because it still leaves too many roads and trails open to motorized travel. I can't speak to every aspect of the Blackfoot Travel Plan, because many of the proposed changes under Alternatives 2 and 3 are nothing more than lines on a map and affect areas that I am not familiar with. However, I am intimately familiar with the Gould- Helmville Trail 467, as my family and friends have spent thousands of hours enjoying the trail and the opportunities that it provides. The Gould-Helmville Trail 467 is unique because it allows users to access a roadless area with an OHV and then offers endless non-motorized opportunities within the the tens of thousands of acres of rugged land within the roadless area. Keeping the Gould-Helmville Trail 467 open to limited motorized use while closing Trail 417 would enhance the Nevada Mountain System while saving the Forest Service money and resources. Over this last weekend I read a story in the Helena Independent Record available about the Blackfoot Travel Plan and noticed the quote below. While ATVs and dirt bikes are popular and there are many miles of roads open to them, we need to remember that most folks go to the woods seeking the peace and quiet of nature, said Gary Ingman, a board member of the Helena Hunters and Anglers. "The Helena National Forest should do all they can to maintain and expand high quality opportunities to hunt, fish and enjoy our roadless areas like Nevada Mountain. It s the right thing to do for the future of recreation, wildlife, water quality and fisheries." See (

34 I agree with Mr. Ingman that the Forest Service should do all they can to maintain high quality opportunities to hunt, fish and enjoy our roadless areas like Nevada Mountain, but I know from actual experience that the Forest Service can accomplish this goal by leaving The Gould-Hemville Trail 467 open to motorized use while limiting the motorized use on Trail 417. I also know from actual experience that many users such as my grandfather who hunted the Nevada Roadless Area into his seventies, my uncle who is over 60, and my father and his many closest hunting partners (all nearing 60 years of age), would not be able to enjoy the Nevada Roadless Area without the limited motorized access that the Gould-Helmville Trail 467 provides. This does not mean that forest users can "road hunt" Trail 467 because the trail travels through dense timber, and this dense cover discourages many hunters from hunting this area because the dense cover and steep slopes make the hunting challenging. However, to the persistent hunter who is willing to leave their OHV on Trail 467 and trek into the miles of dark timber that surround trail, there are wonderful hunting opportunities and leaving Trail 467 open to motorized travel will increases the number forest users that can access these opportunities. Further, Trail 467 should remain open to motorized travel for vehicles under 50" wide because both Nevada Mountain and Poorman Creek comply with the Forest Service's old and new elk density standards due heavily forested areas and lack of open meadows in these areas, so there is no reason to close down the trail all motorized travel. I also want to clarify that I don't think that the portion of Trail 440 that is currently closed to motorized travel (that traverses the Continental Divided Trail to Nevada Mountain) should be open to motorized travel, but only the portion of Trail 440 (if any) that is needed to access Trail 467 the Gould Helmville Trail. I think the portion of Trail 440 that is currently closed should remain closed to motorized travel. Now that the notice has been posted in the Federal Register, please add my comment to the public comments. Also, can you please confirm that the comments I originally submitted during the 2009 comment period are also part of the public record. Thank you. Best, Tyson Radley O'Connell toconn87@yahoo.com