Friends of the Bitterroot
PO Box 442
Hamilton, Montana 59840
Julie King, Acting Forest Supervisor
Bitterroot National Forest
1801 North 1st Street
Hamilton, Montana 59840
11/5/09
Re: Comments on the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Management Planning Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Please accept these comments from Friends of the Bitterroot (FOB) regarding the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Management Planning Project (Travel Plan) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Purpose and Need
First and foremost, we reiterate from previous comments, we believe this travel planning process is fundamentally flawed because it fails to defer human recreation ‘wants’ to the vital needs of resident and migrating wildlife. Recreation is a fun pastime, but its impacts can jeopardize wildlife habitat, the lives of individuals or groups of wildlife as well as the very existence of a species. FOB agrees with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP), “[We] are not opposed to responsible motorized use where it does not compromise natural resources and wildlife habitat…” (PF WILD-020) Needs of wildlife should come first and then accommodation of motorized recreation.
The Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) is a very rare and special place due to the presence of world class wildlife species. For example, lynx, wolverine, fisher, mountain goats and grizzly bears are known to occupy or have recently occupied areas in the BNF, especially the Sapphire Range. These species are all adversely affected by motorized recreation. Winter motorized recreation can have an especially adverse impact because of the low energy budget of wildlife and the difficulties of being displaced from limited habitat isolated by deep snow at that time. Viability of these species is dependent on core and connecting wildland habitat. Population levels we see today are directly related to today’s level and quality of core and connected wildland habitat. These species are in decline in the BNF and the larger world because the quantity and quality of wildland is continually being compromised.
The Selway Bitterroot Wilderness offers core habitat for these and other sensitive species. Allan Mountain IRA and the Continental Divide wildlands connect the Salmon Selway ecosystem with the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, and the Sapphire regional corridor connects the Selway Bitterroot and Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide ecosystems. For all of these species the effectiveness of core and connecting habitat is diminished by motorized use.
The Sapphire Crest is an especially critical wildlife corridor. Its south end is part of a hub of corridors. Its wildlife conservation value is at a premium in this age of global warming because of the fact that the Crest runs north-south and has high elevation terrain, offering both migration and refuge from warming habitats. It now supports grizzlies, wolverines, fisher, lynx and mountain goat.
While describing very large negative impacts to certain wildlife species, notably mountain goats and wolverine, the DEIS describes a preferred alternative that would clearly sacrifice these animals for the sake of recreation fun. The history of BNF lack of concern for wildlife impacts from motorized recreation is long and sometimes quite revealing. The DEIS reports the 2003 Sapphire Mountains Snowmobile Trails Map “does not prohibit off trail snowmobile use, but cautions snowmobiles not to run over small tree tops”. (p.3.2-14). There is no mention of wildlife needs. Small trees are common; please look beyond small trees and keep sight of the forest…including especially its rare and imperiled wildlife.
For too long, motorized recreation has nearly been a free-for-all on public forest here in the Bitterroot as elsewhere. Lack of management and enforcement allowed it to become that way. Now, experiencing the difficulties of reining in the high horsepower free-for-all, we hope the BNF sees the wisdom of prudent limits and maintaining strict control. Certain impacts to wildlife can not be undone by simply later removing motorized vehicles after finally noticing those impacts.
Motorized use of a route or area should be made clearly provisional on users treading lightly, following the rules and the ability of the agency to keep up with enforcement and maintenance needs.
We are proponents of the authority provided by Executive Order 11644. “Sec. 9. Special Protection of the Public Lands. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 of this Order, the respective agency head shall, whenever he determines that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands, immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle causing such effects, until such time as he determines that such adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.”
This authority deserves more exercise. We would consider the proposed alternative’s predicted adverse effects from snowmobiling to mountain goats and wolverines to be “considerable” and therefore contrary to the EO.
Wildlife
The wildlife analysis and discussion in the DEIS is notably informative and thoughtful in the issues examined. The analysis and discussion of impacts to elk habitat effectiveness index is especially good. We appreciate the good work.
However, we believe there are blind spots in the analysis and unwise, possibly illegal, compromise of wildlife habitat, wildlife individuals and potentially the viability of certain species that would result from the proposed alternative.
There is also an astigmatism introduced into the wildlife analysis that is due to describing impacts to wildlife only insofar as the impacts are changed by various alternatives. The impacts of motorized recreation to wildlife need to be compared to the impacts of no motorized recreation. The absurdity of choosing change as the reference point instead of sheer impact can be seen in the following:
Implementation of Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 would have a Beneficial Impact on wolverine populations because they would reduce the potential for human disturbance to denning wolverines, and/or reduce the risk of trapping mortality….
Implementation of Alternative 2 would have No Impact to wolverine populations or habitat because it would not change the existing condition.
(DEIS, p. 3.5-25)
Clearly, none of the motorized use authorized in any and all of the alternatives offered would benefit wolverines.
The Forest Service seems to shirk its mandates under NEPA and NFMA by analyzing actions only to the degree they change existing conditions. NEPA requires the Forest Service to consider the effects of its actions on the environment. NFMA requires viability of species. If the existing conditions harm wolverines, for example, and Alternative 2 would not change the existing conditions, then Alternative 2 would harm wolverines. How is the public or decision maker to know if NFMA mandates are being met without full NEPA analysis of the impacts?
The success of the US Fish and Wildlife Service goal of recovering a third major breeding population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem relies on wildland connectivity to the Greater Yellowstone population and the Northern Continental Divide population. The most recent documented sightings of grizzly bears on the BNF involved migration along the Sapphire Divide and down the Burnt Fork of the Bitterroot River.
“Wolverine is one of the rarest and least-known mammals in North America.” (DEIS, p. 3.5-24) The Sapphires contain rare prime wolverine denning habitat. According to the DEIS the Blue Joint “still provides suitable year-round habitat and scattered denning habitat for wolverines.” (p.3.5-20). “The Allen Mountain IRA is similar to the Sapphires; both are connected directly to the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness and probably share a small wolverine sub-population with one identified for the Anaconda-Pintler, the Pioneers and the Flint Creek Range.” (DEIS, p.3.5-21) MTFWP says, “Snowmobiles pose a particular threat because of the increasing popularity of “highmarking” in high elevation cirques and drainage heads used by denning female wolverine.” (PF WILD-020) Displacement from denning habitat is especially problematic because den abandonment is very costly to the animal and the location can not be reoccupied with any expectation of security in following years. Trapping is a very significant threat to fisher, lynx and wolverine. The DEIS states, “Lack of snowmobile access dramatically reduces the amount of trapping pressure for these species.” The DEIS discloses, “Squires et al (2007) demonstrated that wolverine populations in small, isolated mountain ranges can be very susceptible to trapping pressure”. Most shocking in the DEIS discussion of preferred Alternative (Alt 1) impacts is the admission, “Since the wolverine population in the Sapphires and other areas on the east side of the valley is likely quite small and relatively isolated from other wolverine populations, loss of litter due to disturbance or several individuals due to trapping could potentially result in extirpation of wolverine from this area.” (p.3.5-22) This would violate NFMA species viability mandates as well as good conscience.
MTFWP (PF WILD-020) identifies two areas of occupied mountain goat habitat in the Sapphires. They say, “Goat populations in both areas have declined dramatically, and we no longer issue any hunting licenses in either.” The letter provides evidence that motorized recreation is the presumptive cause. Scientific research shows vehicle access is linked to population declines. (Joslin, 1985, PF-WILD-046) The MTFWP biologist recommends that snowmobiles not be allowed in these two areas with declining goat herds. (PF-Agency-005). The Bitterroot NF biologist says, “Goat winter range is often much more restricted than goat summer range, and as a consequence goats that are disturbed on winter range may have few options for escape to other suitable habitat.” (DEIS, p.3.5-52) “Mountain goats probably winter in the harshest environment of any big game animal on the forest, and therefore have the least margin for unnecessary energy cost without impacts on survival and reproduction.” (DEIS, p. 3.5-9)
The DEIS describes the situation succinctly, “…the Stony Mountain IRA and the Sapphire WSA, two areas near the Sapphire Crest where human disturbance facilitated by motorized access is suspected of contributing to drastic reductions in goat populations. (p.3.5-51) On a regional level, the DEIS (p.3.5-55) discloses “Mountain goat populations appear to be declining in a number of smaller, isolated ranges where there are few options to relocate if habitat conditions worsen or if human disturbance causes displacement (Koeth, 2008). The evidence is surely clear regarding the cost of snowmobiling to the Sapphire goat herds. We believe moral and legal limits demand every possible effort be made to protect these goats.
We are particularly concerned about the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area (WSA), where the southern goat herd, which is already seriously compromised, as well as denning wolverines are marked by the preferred alternative for probable extirpation by recreational snowmobiling. When recreation becomes ‘wreck creation’ it has gone too far. It would also appear to violate NFMA as well as the MT Wilderness Study Act.
The DEIS list of Significant Issues Pertaining to Winter Motorized Recreation (Table 2-3, p.2-6) does not mention wolverine, lynx, fisher or grizzly bears even though they are known to occupy, now or recently, the project area and are particularly susceptible to motorized impacts in winter.
We are concerned that analysis of impacts to fisher was “dropped from further analysis” by the DEIS. (p.3.5-3). FOB and Defenders of Wildlife are presently petitioning the USFWS to list Northern Rocky Mountain fisher as a Threatened distinct population under the Endangered Species Act. The DEIS states, “Travel planning will not affect fisher habitat…” (p.3.5-4). We believe analysis of impacts to the fisher, a Sensitive species, are overly minimized . If travel planning will affect not-so-sensitive elk habitat it seems reasonable it will affect sensitive fisher habitat. The Bitterroot NF is prime occupied Northern Rockies fisher habitat that deserves a hard look in this NEPA process.
The Bitterroot Forest provides the last remaining stronghold in Montana for the fisher population native to the U.S. Rocky Mountain region. Below is a map from a recent peer-reviewed scientific study to illustrate this point.
Figure excerpted from Vinkey et al. (2006), including the caption below it.
The black triangles mark point locations of fishers found to contain genetic material unique to the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains, the remnants of a native population that have survived two centuries of western settlement, including trapping, logging, and reintroductions of fishers from outside populations.
FIG. 1.—Distribution of control-region haplotypes in Montana. Arrows indicate introduction sites, and associated text indicates number and origin of Martes pennanti released. ▲ = Haplotype 12; О = other haplotypes. Shaded areas on inset map of North America indicate Midwestern states (Minnesota and Wisconsin) and the Canadian province (British Columbia) from which source population samples were obtained (see Appendix I for details); Montana is also shown shaded.
Rather than highlight this unique ecological value of the Bitterroot Forest, the DEIS vastly understates the importance of the Bitterroot Forest to fishers by describing their presence as “Scattered occurrence records mostly in west side canyons” (DEIS, Table 3.5-1, p. 3.5-4).
For the Forest Service to dismiss the effects of the travel plan on fishers because motorized access will be reduced from current conditions is inappropriate and illegal. Failure of the Forest Service to consider the effects of the travel plan alternatives on fishers violates NEPA and NFMA.
The Forest Service assertion that “travel planning will not affect marten habitat” (DEIS, Table 3.5-1, p. 3.5-5) is simply not true. The Forest Service has an obligation to ensure its travel plan decision fulfills NEPA obligations to analyze the effects of its actions, and NFMA obligations to ensure its decision will maintain sufficient habitat for Sensitive and Management Indicator Species.
The DEIS reports, “Some studies indicate that in areas of concentrated snowmobile or other over-snow vehicle use small mammal communities can be reduced or eliminated which can in turn affect predators of small mammals such as weasels and martin.” (p 3.5-8) The much more imperiled resident predators that fit that description, lynx, fisher and wolverine, are not mentioned.
We appreciate the description of lynx habitat on the Bitterroot Forest: “Lynx habitat is generally limited to the higher elevations in the Sapphire Mountains, and to forested areas along streams and in many of the higher basins and north aspects in the Bitterroot Mountains. The many steep, rocky areas in the Bitterroot Mountains are not considered lynx habitat. Consequently, lynx habitat in much of the Bitterroot Mountains is highly fragmented by these steep, rocky areas.” (DEIS, p.3.5-10) Again, the Sapphire Range stands out for its high biological value.
A map of lynx habitat on the Bitterroot Forest is needed for the travel plan EIS. This map would help to illustrate, quantify and analyze the effects of travel plan alternatives on lynx. Also, we would like to see the Forest Service analyze the effects of its travel plan alternatives on lynx “linkage areas” mapped on the Bitterroot Forest (USDA 2007), to ensure these areas are managed to promote lynx connectivity. We disagree with the assertion in the DEIS that forest roads and trails do not harm lynx.
The discussion about elk habitat effectiveness in the DEIS should be on the required reading list for the subject. It is very informative and interesting. We commend the analysis and accommodations made for elk in the DEIS. The use of an EHE index to supplement EHE is a good tool. We understand that elk are bread and butter. We wish the needs and viability of rare and threatened species were accommodated as well as elk.
Regarding EHE calculations the DEIS says, “an open road is any road open to full-sized vehicles during all or part of a year. Roads that are closed to full-sized vehicle use all year are counted as closed roads.” (p.3.5-32) “Road prisms that are closed to full-sized vehicles but open seasonally or year-round to ATVs and/or motorcycles are considered closed for this EHE analysis because technically they are now operating as trails.” (p.3.5-33) In our view, these system roads are roads and it confuses comparisons of alternatives, especially alternative 2, to discount them as trails and not accountable in EHE calculations, only in EHE index calculations, which does not have the same legal requirements.
Though presented as simply reflecting the existing legal situation and therefore not requiring NEPA analysis, the 2005 Visitor Map actually misrepresented governing travel management decisions. Without analysis or disclosure about changes to existing management decisions that were being made, the Travel Map opened to seasonal ATV use hundreds of miles of roads which had, through site-specific NEPA or administrative decisions, been closed yearlong to motorized use (including Travel Map code 4, 7, 11 and 12). Where previous administrative or NEPA decisions show the site specific need to protect watersheds and/or wildlife, both the Travel Map and now the Travel Plan propose to change management without taking a hard look at the land or the existing governing decisions.
EHE analysis should look at the effects of simply enforcing existing governing travel management year-long closures of roads illegitimately opened by the 2005 Travel Map. How much improvement to EHE would result in eliminating use of vehicles <50” on roads closed yearlong to motorized use by governing decisions?
We do not know of any scientifically documented difference in motorized impacts to elk or EHE between full-sized vehicles and ATVs or between motorized use on roads or trails. We appreciate the accuracy where the DEIS, p.3.5-29, says, “This [EHE index] assumes that motorized traffic on trails affects elk similarly to motorized traffic on roads.”
A lack of security cover (canopy closure) is revealed in Table 3.5-8. “This security area analysis shows that none of the Hunting Districts used as surrogate elk herd units comes close to meeting the 30% minimum level recommended by Hillis.” (DEIS, p. 3.5-35) Logging and fire account for loss of security cover in many areas. EHE is a calculation of security area and road density factors. Road closures should be used to mitigate for lack of security area/canopy closure until canopy closure is restored. A Travel Plan alternative that would not require a Forest Plan amendment for EHE should be developed in order to explore such possibilities in providing for improved EHE and disclose what would be necessary to meet the Forest Plan EHE standard.
The discussion about the negative impacts of elk early movement off summer range includes the observation, “Vehicle use in the area has been increasing during the period when elk numbers declined, and it is likely that those two trends are not unrelated.”… “Ironically, increasing road and trail access routes to summer ranges of elk may actually decrease public access to these animals during hunting season as animals respond to early hunting pressure by shifting to winter ranges on privately-owned refuge areas prior to rifle season.”(p.3.5-30) “Motorized routes on ridge tops, especially in alpine and/or elk summer range should be carefully evaluated. In addition to be important seasonal habitat, such areas can also be important movement corridors, and motorized use in these areas has a high probability of displacing wildlife.” (MT Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, PF WILD-020) We note many of the trails proposed as system motorized trails are on ridge tops in elk summer range.
We endorse the MT FWP recommendation to close Trail 205 in Porcupine Creek and Trail 103 in Warm Springs Creek to motorcycles year-round instead of seasonally to provide elk summer range security. We additionally recommend that unauthorized route TR-OHV-164 which follows a high ridge top connecting to Trail 205 and the Porcupine Saddle elk summer range from road 5733 in Waugh Gulch should be closed year-long to motorized use.
Again, we believe all forms of recreation are optional and flexible in location for suitable terrain. Wildlife is far more limited in flexibility, especially in winter. We believe critical wildlife needs should be identified and mapped, then given deference before the dicing and slicing of the recreational landscape begins. WSAs require special consideration in travel planning; there wildlife and wilderness character needs do, by law, outweigh recreational “wants”.
Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment
All alternatives considered require a “project-specific” Forest Plan amendment regarding elk habitat effectiveness (EHE). Using a “project-specific” Forest Plan amendment for the forest-wide Travel Plan rather than doing the analysis and public process for a forest-wide Forest Plan Amendment to EHE standards is not appropriate. It is especially not appropriate for travel planning because travel planning is a major factor in EHE variability. Use of project specific Forest Plan amendments has become routine. (See discussion p.3.5-49) If meeting EHE standards is as irrelevant as indicated that should be substantiated and analyzed in a forest wide Forest Plan Amendment. Part of that analysis should include a hard look at resources that have inadvertently been protected under the umbrella of road density limitation standards such as watershed health, including siltation and increased runoff adding to ECA; soils, including cumulative compaction; and sensitive wildlife other than elk. The environmental consequences of removing the EHE road density standard go way beyond impacts to elk. EHE serves as a surrogate for limiting damage to other resources, even if not declared for that purpose in Forest Plan objectives of EHE standards.
The Proposed Standard (DEIS, p.1-7) says, “The project-specific elk habitat effectiveness standard would read, “Existing elk habitat effectiveness will be maintained or improved within the Travel Planning Project Area.” We believe the preferred alternative would fail this standard once corrections are made to the flawed ‘existing EHE’ analysis. The ‘existing EHE’ should be calculated showing roads with yearlong closures existing prior to the illegitimate 2005 Travel Map as closed. The roads to trails conversion should not be included in Alternative 2, existing conditions, calculations. If governing travel management decisions to close hundreds of miles of road yearlong are recognized Alternative 2 may meet the EHE standard when accurately analyzed. Using the existing legal travel management situation as the baseline will show in comparison all action alternatives probably worsening EHE.
Range of Alternatives
At least one Alternative should be provided that uses the above described prioritization of purpose and need, i.e. motorized recreation wants are secondary to wildlife needs, or as MTFWP puts it, “responsible motorized use where it does not compromise natural resources and wildlife habitat”.
There should be at least one Travel Plan alternative that would not require a ‘project-specific’ Forest Plan amendment for EHE standards. This would help disclose the scope and degree of the EHE issue by clarifying what would be required in travel planning to actually meet the Forest Plan EHE standard. Simply enforcing authorized travel management closures of roads illegitimately opened by the 2005 Travel Map may improve EHE more than any of the alternatives presented.
No Action Alternative:
The DEIS describes the legally required No Action Alternative as an alternative that is developed to “represent the existing condition and provide a baseline against which the effects of implementing the “action” alternatives are compared”. The No Action Alternative means “no action or activity would take place” (p.2-9).
We believe the No Action Alternative presented in the DEIS, Alternative 2, does not meet the requirements. It does not represent existing conditions and it involves decision actions/activity.
The DEIS says, “With the exception of not including the 0.35 miles of “new” road proposed in Alternatives 1 and 3, there would be no effect to the transportation system with the implementation of Alternative 2. There would be no new seasonal use designation with implementation of Alternative 2.” (p.3.1-8) The term “implementation” of “existing conditions” appears to be an oxymoron, and serves to hint that Alternative 2 is not a “no-action” alternative.
In fact Alternative 2 would act to override existing, governing travel management decisions within the project area. It would serve to change existing legal travel management status just as the action alternatives would. The DEIS states, “Alternative 2 would designate the system of roads and motorized trails identified on the current Forest Visitor Map and would incorporate past travel management decisions made under other NEPA analyses.” On the face of it, the phrase ‘would designate’ indicates an action is involved. Looking more closely, the change in travel management would quietly open to motorized recreation potentially hundreds of miles of road that were previously closed yearlong to motorized use to protect watershed and/or wildlife resources. (p3.1-2)
The governing administrative or NEPA Decisions should represent the existing conditions of the transportation system because they are the legal status quo. Alternative 2 would act to legitimize the seriously flawed Travel Map and it would do so without full disclosure or analysis. The Travel Plan and the 2005 Visitor Map appear to be arbitrary because they change management without looking at site specific resource conditions that were the basis for existing, governing travel management decisions.
Additionally, it appears some analysis of Alternative 2 presupposes the proposed future Travel Plan Decision to convert roads to trails in its supposed representation of existing conditions. The BNF map titled ‘Alternative 2: Existing Condition, Roads Proposed to be Open as Trails’ clearly demonstrates this issue. Also, some analysis of Alt 2, for example Tables 2-14, 3.6-3 and 3.6-4, appears to presuppose the action of converting roads to trails.
Thus Alternative 2, the supposed No Action Alternative, incorporates two action decisions (designating Travel Map travel management depictions different than existing/governing travel management decisions as well as enacting the roads to trails travel management conversion) without full disclosure or analysis.
Altogether, apparent misrepresentations, failure to accurately disclose existing conditions and covert actions by Alternative 2 render it an improper No Action Alternative and makes it impossible to compare the changes to existing conditions and existing management decisions that would result from the Travel Plan “action” alternatives.
Our preferred alternative
Of the alternatives offered and analyzed we prefer Alternative 4 with amendments. The primary change we would advocate is that motorized vehicles should be restricted to roads, and only when and where motorized use does not compromise wildlife habitat and natural resources. No motorized vehicles should be allowed on roadless wildlands that could be considered for Wilderness designation in the future. Allowing motorized use within roadless wildlands does just what the DEIS warns against, “allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness attributes creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent [Wilderness] legislation.”
The American landscape is unquestionably dominated by motorized use. Road maps of even National Forest lands take on the look of varicose veins. Locally, we are fortunate to live amongst some of America’s few remaining unroaded lands. Much local sustenance we take for granted flows from intact and functioning wildlands, like clean water, bountiful game animals, sensitive wildlife, silence and darkness. Scarcity gives roadless land premium value. The biological importance of these lands is the heart of the matter. The biological potential of roadless land is severely reduced when motors come in. We recommend motorized use be eliminated in our few remaining wildlands - WSAs, IRAs and unroaded areas.
We advocate that any roads that have been closed yearlong to vehicles of any type for the purpose of protecting wildlife and/or watershed resources would need to be visited on the ground and given NEPA analysis before any change is made to governing site specific travel management decisions. These places were deemed to need mitigation of environmental problems exacerbated by motorized use. Those on the ground problems do not go away simply by changing the word ‘road’ to the word ‘trail’ or by arbitrarily deciding there are differences in impacts between sizes of motorized vehicles.
We oppose allowing cross country ATV/motorbike access to dispersed campsites within 300 feet of a motorized route. Such cross country motorized travel should especially not be allowed within 300 feet of a stream. If the stream affected is listed as water impaired (303d list) then such motorized use may exceed legal limits. Soil and water impacts would be increased by the proposed action with very little management control. An issue of chemical pollution of water emerges when allowing overnight, or multiple days parking of vehicles next to streams. Oil, gas, or anti-freeze may be leaking due to lack of maintenance or a hard day’s drive over rough terrain capped by a 300 foot cross-country last leg. Off trail vegetation could make leakage hard to see. DEIS p.3.2-14 discloses there are 30 sites more than 300 feet from a proposed motorized use that would be designated as dispersed campsites. The DEIS states, “Additional field verification of these areas will be required.” We believe they should be field verified before the FEIS in the interest of taking a ‘hard look’ before a decision is made. Access routes to dispersed camps need to be accounted for in the analysis of motorized impacts in the DEIS. Certainly the routes to designated dispersed campsites need to be mapped and included in various analyses such as road density, proximity to streams, etc. Some metric needs to be included to measure the impact of user-choice routes to undesignated dispersed campsites. The potential cumulative impacts from these user-choice, un-engineered motorized routes to dispersed camps which are allowed virtually anywhere within 300 feet of system motorized routes could be significant, especially given they will probably be heading toward water. Automatic closure of this cross country wheeled motorized use after a fire should be part of any decision. The difficulties of reigning in motorized use once the gate is thrown open should be a lesson learned by now. We oppose throwing open the gate to dispersed camps. There are plenty of camps available by walking from vehicles parked aside designated motorized routes. If those get overcrowded then you can revisit the issue and do NEPA on needed additional routes.
Roads closed to full sized vehicles but open to vehicles <50”
All alternatives in the Travel Plan propose to legitimize the illegitimate Bitterroot National Forest’s Visitor Map (2005) which changed management restrictions for Forest roads without a NEPA process, full disclosure or analysis. The Travel Plan likewise does not offer analysis or disclosure of the changes made by the Travel Map. These changes remain arbitrary, without rationale or scientific substantiation.
The DEIS states, “Alternative 2 would designate the system of roads and motorized trails identified on the current Forest Visitor Map and would incorporate past travel management decisions made under other NEPA analyses.” The 2005 Travel Map does not represent existing conditions as Alternative 2, the “no-action” alternative is required to do.
What are the governing decisions prior to the changes made by the 2005 Travel Map? The BNF maintains a database that notifies managers (and the public) of the current legal restriction for each Forest road, and why that restriction was chosen. The Forest Service admitted that it had to search through project-level NEPA decisions to find the governing NEPA documents for each road and that for many of the roads it does not know what the governing NEPA document is. The Forest Service’s lack of a road management database raises red flags. It is impossible to determine if the Forest Service is enforcing the promises it made in previous NEPA processes and administrative decisions regarding road management if there is no record of which NEPA document or decision governs each road. It is impossible for the public and the courts to determine if the Forest Service is managing the roads with the appropriate restrictions mandated by those “unknown” decision documents. Without knowledge of the governing NEPA documents, it is likewise impossible to determine what the scientific justification is for current road management prescriptions. This lack of accountability leads to public mistrust, as well as the potential for management choices that violate legal guarantees made in NEPA processes. Creation and maintenance of such a data base should be provided in this Travel Plan. (Rebecca Smith legal review)
Table 3.1-1, p.3.1-2, is titled Status of Roads in the Analysis Area. It reports 660 miles of roads open to “highway legal vehicles” – seasonally. Table 3.1-2 is titled “Categories of Seasonal Road Restrictions* [per 2005 Travel Map] It discloses the resource protection purposes for restrictions of R-4, R-6, R-7 and R-11, etc roads but does not disclose how many miles of the total 660 miles falls into each category. The FEIS should furnish this missing information.
The 1988 Lairdon Gulch Timber Sale Decision Notice and Findings says, “New system roads in the vicinity of Cold Spring Hill would be closed to public use year-round, except for temporary openings during dry periods to allow fuelwood gathering. Page 29 indicates, and the attached maps show, roads 13216 and 13217 are “new roads” built by the project on Cold Spring Hill. The 2005 Travel Map changed this decision and shows these as code 4 roads, open seasonally to vehicles <50”.
The 1993 Buck- Little Boulder EA shows Road 74239 “closed yearlong to all motorized vehicles” on Table II-1 of the ROD. The 2005 Travel Map changed this decision and opened it seasonally to ATVs.
Another example where a clear NEPA decision is overridden in the Travel Map without disclosure or analysis of potential impacts is road #1392. It is about 6-7 miles long and appears to be in an area of sensitive soils on the BNF Sensitive Soils Map. It is in the Sleeping Child drainage, which, at 23.9 miles, has the second most impaired stream miles in the Bitterroot (DEIS, p.3.6-11). “The White Stallion Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) noted that road #1392 was constructed/authorized under the Upper Sleeping Child EA in 1983 (White Stallion FEIS at App. A-3). The White Stallion FEIS shows that road #1392 (also called “the burn road”) is closed and that closure means closed to all vehicles from June 15 through November 30, and open only to snowmobiles from December 1 through June 14 (White Stallion FEIS at II-10 – II-11; IV-21; III-7). (Rebecca Smith, Legal Issues Relevant to Current Off-road Vehicle Management on the Bitterroot National Forest, 2007) In spite of the clear language about closure to all vehicles June 15 to Nov 30, the 2005 Travel Map shows it to be a #4 road open seasonally to vehicles<50”, closed only Oct 15 to Dec 1, to protect soil and watersheds or wildlife.
These examples show that the Forest Service changed management prescription when it published the 2005 Travel Map but it did not accompany that change in management status with a NEPA process. A bigger issue is that because so many NEPA and administrative road management prescriptions are unaccounted for there is the potential that the 2005 Visitor Map changed the management prescription for many other roads, without the mandatory NEPA process.
We believe Travel Map Code 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 or other roads that are presently closed to full size vehicles should be given site specific NEPA evaluation before being converted to trails or opened as roads to ATV/motorbike use. There is no science to support any travel management distinction between vehicles <50” and vehicles >50” regarding impacts to watersheds or wildlife. These roads have clearly been red flagged as problem spots and were purposely closed to motorized use for resource protection.
The Travel Plan proposes to legitimize the illegitimate changes made by the 2005Travel Map. This violates NEPA.
We believe there is no scientifically supportable distinction between “full-sized vehicles” and “vehicles <50” in their impacts to wildlife and watersheds/erosion. Future scientific research may well show vehicles <50” to have even greater impacts to erosion due to greater torque and tread, not to mention thrill factor, and greater impacts to wildlife due to visibility of human profile and greater noise levels. Roads that are closed yearlong or seasonally to ‘full-size vehicles’ to protect wildlife or watersheds should also be closed to vehicles <50” for the same reasons and seasons. The DEIS is correct where it “assumes that motorized traffic on trails affects elk similarly to motorized traffic on roads.” (p.3.5-29) Any differentiation in impacts to these resources between off-road vehicle use and full-size vehicle use appears to be arbitrary and not supported by any scientific studies.
The history of evading proper NEPA process on this issue seems to continue in Travel Planning also by incorporating a decision to convert certain closed roads to motorized “trails”, without full disclosure that a decision that overrides a governing decision is being made and without necessary NEPA analysis of impacts of that decision.
In some places the DEIS seems to consider these roads to be ‘motorized trails’. This is especially problematic where the DEIS describes Alternative 2, supposedly the existing condition (see above). In any case the Travel Plan “roads” conversion to “motorized trails” needs to be recognized as a decision overriding certain governing NEPA travel management decisions in the project area and therefore needing the hard look of site specific NEPA analysis. Simply changing names and administrative categories does not address the need for analysis of real potential impacts on various resource and economic factors resulting from opening the route to motorized use.
The DEIS parenthetically discloses a decision to convert “roads” to motorized “trails” on p.3.2-12, “Of the approximately 1,068 miles of trail outside wilderness (this includes system trails and roads open to[sic] as trails). Also as a footnote to Table 3.1-7 on p.3.1-7, notes [MVUM] Codes 7 and 8 are ML 1 roads closed yearlong to full sized vehicles but open to wheeled ATVs 50” or less in width. These routes will be placed on the National Forest Trail System and managed as trails”. How many miles of roads are to be converted? The description of the “Affected Environment” presupposes a ‘roads to trails’ conversion as though a NEPA analysis has already been made. Has a NEPA analysis already been made? If so, please disclose information about that decision and analysis of impacts to watersheds, to wildlife and to economics (maintenance costs, etc) entailed in that decision. Such analysis needs to be incorporated in the Travel Plan NEPA process. The DEIS discussion about changes Alt 1 would make to “existing conditions” (Alt 2) does not clearly disclose the roads to trails conversion. (p.3.1-6 to 3.1-8)
Roads to trails conversion is not simply a change in definition. It is a travel management decision that carries impacts such as trail specifications and maintenance needs that can result in ground impacts.
The BNF appears to have opened up a large amount of ML 1 roads to ORV use without NEPA and without changing the maintenance level designations. In doing so, the BNF created an existing system that is in violation of NEPA and Forest Service Directives. In order to have an existing system in line with the current Forest Service handbook, the BNF should list all ML 1 roads as closed to vehicular traffic.
Wilderness Characteristics
We commend the discussion of impacts to wilderness characteristics in the DEIS. It communicates a level of sophistication in analysis and discussion we have not been seeing.
We believe the definitions of wilderness characteristics (DEIS, p.3.3-3) are fundamentally flawed by not appropriately or adequately recognizing the needs and rights of wildlife and effective wildland habitat. The definitions are written primarily for protection of human perceptions, values and use, not wildlife biological needs.
Table 2-16, p.2-20, 21, seems to show the existing condition (Alternative 2) to be that wilderness characteristics are declining on motorized routes in WSAs and IRAs. We agree. It is refreshing to see such clear disclosure. We would like to see this deterioration of wilderness characteristics in WSAs and IRAs stopped by prohibiting motorized recreation in these areas.
Table 2-16 identifies miles of motorized routes as the measurement indicator for motorized impacts to IRAs and WSAs. Level of use is critical cumulative effects data to indicate motorized recreation impacts on wilderness characteristics. Traffic volume is influenced by travel management (DEIS, p.3.1-1). It may be adequate to measure some impacts by the mile, like soil compaction, but the impacts to wilderness characteristics as well as to wildlife vary a lot due to position on the landscape and level of use. A mile of motorized route can be armored to minimize erosion impacts from repeated use, but there is no way to armor for repeated, cumulative impacts to wilderness characteristics (not to mention wildlife). Each vehicle passing by pretty much completely interrupts certain wilderness characteristics in a wide swath of commotion, possibly for a long time (especially ridge top routes).
Regarding snowmobile use, the DEIS states, “Multiple use of both motorized and non-motorized use on the same acres eliminate most opportunities for solitude.” (p.3.2-38) Regarding vehicles <50”, the DEIS describes motorized impacts to opportunity for solitude as extending about a half mile on each side of the trail. (p.3.2-3) “By definition, quiet trails and the opportunity for solitude would not occur in this setting during the time of year the trail was open to motorized travel.” (DEIS, p. 3.2-3) Thus each mile of wheeled motorized use impacts one square mile of area. Snowmobile areas would eliminate at least one wilderness characteristic, opportunities for solitude, within the entire area plus a ring of snowmobile noise for at least half a mile in the usually quiet cold air during the winter.
“The remoteness of the area would be less during the winter due to the presence of motorized use.” (DEIS, p.3.2-43)
“Impacts to natural integrity are generally slight, with the exception of impacts to landscape (wildlife habitat) connectivity and security, where impacts could be much greater.” (DEIS, p.3.2-43) That much greater impact to wildlife habitat connectivity and security, marginalized as an exception, is the crux of our concern. We believe natural integrity takes a big blow from motorized recreation. The cumulative effects of increased levels of use is especially problematic to the maintenance of this wilderness characteristic.
The recent Federal District Court ruling on Gallatin NF travel planning in Hyalite-Porcupine WSA underscores what we have been claiming for years: levels of use need to be analyzed, monitored and managed.
Simply ‘zoning’ motorized use does not address the issue of cumulative impacts in the area within and around the motorized zone. Limits on level of use need to be acknowledged before resource degradation demands it, especially with the rare and chronically diminishing wildlands/ wilderness characteristics resource. Managing levels of motorized use in WSAs is particularly important to meeting the mandates of the WSA Act to maintain 1977 levels of wilderness characteristics. It appears impermissible to essentially eliminate the opportunity for solitude, diminish remoteness, and sacrifice natural integrity or other wilderness characteristics through the winter or summer in a WSA or part of a WSA. Monitoring levels of motorized use in WSAs and IRAs should be incorporated as a priority action item in the Travel Plan. Managing motorized use to follow the WSA’s level of use mandates would benefit from a good baseline assessment on level of use in developing the Travel Plan.
The effects of grooming snowmobile routes adjacent or nearby WSA boundaries on increased level of snowmobile use within the WSAs should be analyzed to get a clear idea of impacts to wilderness characteristics.
The most efficient way to monitor and manage level of motorized use within the WSAs is to require a permit, without fee.
Allowing motorized or mechanized use within WSAs and IRAs does just what the DEIS warns against, “allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness attributes creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent [Wilderness] legislation.”
Soils
The DEIS, p.3.8-1) states, “The National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 authorizes the Forest Service to establish and maintain a network of roads and trails on National Forest System Lands. Implicit in this legal direction is Forest Service authority to withdraw lands from vegetation production and related soil productivity on National Forest for dedication to road and trail corridors for transportation and access uses.” Withdrawing the land from production may be authorized, withdrawing it from accounting for cumulative impacts does not necessarily follow. In order to understand cumulative effects to soils it is important to know the total acreage of BNF land that is withdrawn from soil productivity standards due to dedication to the transportation system.
Another reason that information about total acres of land withdrawn for transportation is needed is because, “analysis of soil resources provide background information for better understanding watershed impacts from roads and trails on the Bitterroot National Forest” (DEIS, p.3.8-1) The compacted surface of roads and trails significantly adds to ECA analysis considerations of increased runoff, and reduced stream-bank stability, as well as consideration of lowering low flows. Forest wide cumulative watershed impacts analysis needs to consider the total acres of compacted land dedicated to the transportation system
According to a BNF sensitive soils map the majority of the mile and a half length of the unauthorized route, TR-OHV-164 on sec 7 & 8, crosses highly erosive soil or high compaction potential ash cap soils. Soil resource damage and high trail maintenance costs are expectable. The DEIS, p.3.2-13 states, “All new trail segments, and unauthorized trail conversion to system trail, was subject to review…” This segment of user created OHV trail was apparently not included in the Soils Review of User Built OHV Trails (PF SOILS-003) so the DEIS does not disclose existing conditions or necessary trail reconstruction or maintenance needs. Since this route is problematic for reasons of impacts to elk on summer range (see wildlife above) as well as crossing sensitive soils for most of its length, this user made route should be closed to motorized use.
Water
We believe, in the interest of watershed protection, including mitigation of soil impacts, it is essential to set limits of use on ATV/motorbike routes. Use levels should reflect maintenance budget levels as the two are intimately connected. Watersheds should not be sacrificed when maintenance budgets are low.
We believe those roads that, by governing decisions prior to the 2005 Travel Map, were closed to motorized use seasonally or yearlong for the purpose of watershed protection need to be analyzed for watershed impacts prior to changing or reversing those governing travel management closures. The roads in question were red-flagged as problems by previous governing management decisions. To simply throw them open for motorized use, of whatever type of vehicle, without a hard look seems to violate NEPA and APA requirements. These roads need to be visited and evaluated to see if things have changed since the prevailing travel management motorized closure was put in place. ATVs could have an even greater impact to watersheds/erosion due to greater power ratio, higher torque, gnarlier tread, more thrills per hour and more miles per hour than full sized vehicles. Many miles of such roads, opened to motorized use by fiat are in water quality limited watersheds impaired by sediment (303d list). Sleeping Child drainage is one example of an impaired watershed that would be significantly impacted by the stealth decision to open roads that were closed.
Additional Comments
We hereby incorporate by reference the comments of the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition, of which we are a member organization.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Jim Miller, President