Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai...Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide Travel

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

May 2017

Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide Travel Plan

Divide Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forest

Helena Ranger District

Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties, Montana

Responsible Official: William Avey

Forest Supervisor Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forests

2880 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59601

For Information Contact: Heather DeGeest

Helena Ranger District Helena - Lewis and Clark National-Forests

2880 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59601 (406)449-5201

FAX (406)495-1234 E-mail: [email protected]

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil righ ts regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civi l rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(I) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide Travel Plan Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forest

Review of New Circumstances or Information

Divide Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Introduction:

The Divide Travel Plan is on the Helena Ranger District, Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forest within the Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties, Montana. The Divide Travel Plan was analyzed

in the Divide Travel Plan and Forest Programmatic Amendment for Big Game Security Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated April 2015. The FEIS provided the basis for the Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision and the separate Big Game Security Standard 4a Record of Decision both of which I signed on March 1, 2016. The Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision

(hereinafter "Divide Travel Plan Decision") documented the travel plan decision, which selected a

combination of wheeled routes and over-snow areas to designate as open for motorized travel from a range of alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. The Big Game Security Standard 4a Record of

Decision (hereinafter "Amendment Decision") documented the decision to programmatically

amend the Forest Plan Standard 4a with a new Standard 4a for the Divide Travel Plan area.

Purpose:

The purpose of this review is to document analysis and my determination of whether my

withdrawal of the Amendment Decision on December 2, 2016 represents significant new circumstances or information requires the preparation of a supplemental EIS for the Divide Travel Plan Decision in accordance with CEQ regulations 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(l)(ii) .

This review is conducted in accordance with guidance found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15.

The FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 18.1 guides the procedures for determining the applicability of 40 C.F.R. 1502.9 (c)(l)(ii) regulations for the consideration of new information or changed

circumstances as follows:

"If new information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a proposed action come to the attention of the responsible official after a decision has been made and prior to completion of the approved program or project, the responsible official should review the information carefully to determine its importance ... . If, after an interdisciplinary review and consideration of new information within the context of the overall program or project, the responsible official determines that a correction, supplement, or revision to an environmental document is not necessary, implementation should continue.... Document the results of the interdisciplinary review in the appropriate program or project file ."

Relevant CEQ regulation and FSH 1909.15 guidance will be followed "if the responsible official determines that a correction, supplement or revision to an environmental document is necessary".

Page 3


Background

On March 1, 2016 I signed both the Divide Travel Plan Decision and the Amendment Decision. The Amendment Decision changed the existing Helena National Forest Plan Big Game Standard

4(a) to a new standard for elk security for six elk herd units that overlap the Divide Travel Plan planning area. The Amendment Decision explains that the Forest was replacing the existing Forest Plan Standard 4a based on a consideration of new science, local conditions, and other information to more closely align the Forest Plan standard with elk security needs. See the Amendment Decision for the Divide Travel Plan Area within the Record of Decision on pages 8

through 9.

On August 25, 2016, some user groups filed a lawsuit in which they claimed the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act in issuing the Amendment Decision (Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, et al. v. the US Forest Service, Case 9:16-cv-00110-DLC}. On December 2, 2016 I withdrew the Amendment Decision. My rationale for the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision is discussed in my letter

which is attached as Attachment A. In summary, I withdrew the Amendment Decision as the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest is now in the Forest Plan Revision process. The Forest Plan Revision process will allow for further public involvement and will give consideration to whether changes in Forest Plan should be made to Forest Plan standards, including big game Standard 4a.

With my withdrawal of the Amendment Decision, the existing 1986 Helena National Forest Plan Big Game Standard 4(a) remains in place, for future projects inthe six elk herd units that overlap the Divide Travel Plan planning area until when, and if, the Forest Plan Revision process alters the standard. Also, the Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision remains in place and is unaffected by the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision.

Review of Withdrawal of the Amendment Decision

In order to assess whether the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision required a supplemental FEIS for the Divide Travel Plan Decision all resource areas analyzed in the final environmental impact statement were considered. Two steps were undertaken to examine the existing analysis and this review:

1. Each specialist reviewed the FEIS for the Divide Travel Plan and the Divide Travel Plan Decision and determined whether or not the new circumstances/information of the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision was significant, relevant to environmental

concerns and/or had the potential for significant impacts that were not previously disclosed in the FEIS.

2. Each specialist then participated in the documentation of the results which follow.

Review of the FEIS:

The Interdisciplinary Team review of the FEIS analysis found, as follows :

The Divide Travel Plan analysis focused on changes to the existing motorized route system, i.e. closing some roads and trails that are currently open to motorized use and opening some roads and trails for motorized use that are currently closed) . The withdrawal of the Amendment Decision made no changes to Divide Travel Plan motorized decisions. Therefore, the ID team did

Page 4


not feel the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision was significant in terms of the Travel Plan or its impacts to the project area, and no new effects are expected that were not previously analyzed.

In terms of the Divide Travel Plan and its compliance with existing Forest Plan Standard 4a (Forest Plan pp. 11/17-18), the standard requires that an aggressive road management program be implemented to maintain or improve big game security. Further, existing Forest Plan Standard 4a is based on maintaining or improving big game security as measured by the relationship between cover and open road density. The Divide Travel Plan Decision does not affect cover. Specifically, the Divide Travel Plan Decision concerns only road management and road management is being implemented to at least maintain big game habitat capability and hunting opportunity, as measured by the relationship between hiding cover and open road densities.

The Divide Travel Plan Decision implements an aggressive road management program on the Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forest. Prior to the Divide Travel Plan Decision, the condition of three of the six elk herd units in the Divide Travel Plan area did not meet existing Standard 4a. However, the Divide Travel Plan Decision moved the elk herd units closer to the standard by reducing open road density within five of the six elk herd units and maintaining the existing open road density in one of the elk herd units. As a result the Divide Travel Plan decision, two elk herd units remain above Standard 4a but the Divide Travel Plan moved the elk herd units closer to the standard. Table 1 below shows the effect of the Divide Travel Plan decision in relation to Standard 4a.

Table 1: Comparison of Elk Herd Units within the D1v1de Travel Plan Area (condensed version of Table 108 from the FEIS)

Open Road Density (mi/mi2) Full Consistency with Standard 4a?

Elk Herd Unit Hiding Cover Existing Existing

Condition Condition Prior to Divide Decision Prior to Divide Decision

Travel Plan Travel Plan (Alt. 1) (Alt. 1)

Little Prickly Pear-Ophir 61% 1.5 1.1 No Yes Creek

*Greenhorn 41% 1.4 0 .9 No No

Mountain Little Blackfoot

65% 1.1 0.8 Yes Yes - Spotted Dog

Jericho Mtn 73% 1.3 1.1 Yes Yes

Black Mtn -Brooklyn 57% 0.8 0.8 Yes Yes Bridge **Quartz Crk 57% 1.1 1.0 No No

*Greenhorn EHU remains out of compliance with Standard 4a after the Divide Travel Plan Decision because the Forest simply does not have sufficient jurisdiction on roads or closure discretion to meet the existing standard.

Page 5


** Quartz Creek EHU remains out of compliance with Standard 4a with implementation of the Divide Travel Plan as travel planning had already been completed in a majority of that herd unit so that even with extensive closures in the Divide Travel Plan there is no alternative that would be able to meet the standard.

In summary, under the travel plan decision open road densities will decrease, security and intermittent refuge will increase. The withdrawal of the Amendment Decision will have no effect on the number of open/closed routes made by the Divide Travel Plan Decision. Four out of six herd units will meet Standard 4a; two remain below Forest Plan thresholds but both herd units move towards these thresholds due to decreases in open road density during the hunting season.

Review of the Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision:

In a number of locations the Divide Travel Plan Decision discusses the Amendment Decision. The discussions of the Amendment Decision in the Divide Travel Plan Decision are no longer pertinent. However, my rationale for adopting the Divide Travel Plan Decision is not affected by this change. This is because the Amendment Decision was a separate decision from the Divide Travel Plan Decision. The Divide Travel Plan Decision is not contingent on the Amendment Decision because (1) hiding cover will not be affected and (2) open road densities decrease during the hunting season thereby meeting the intent of Standard 4a.

Findings

The Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists reviewed the FEIS, the associated analysis for their resource and the Divide Travel Plan Decision in light of the withdrawal of the Amendment Decision. The Interdisciplinary Team finds that the withdrawal ofthe Amendment Decision did not create the potential for significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed fully in the final environmental impact statement and the Divide Travel Plan Decision remains unchanged. Therefore no additional analysis will be necessary and no changes will be made to the previous analysis.

Future projects on the Helena - Lewis and Clark National Forest will still need to meet the standards of the 1986 Helena Forest Plan, unless and until a change is made in the standard during the Forest Plan Revision process. This includes meeting existing Forest Plan Standard 4a. Consequently, I have determined that the existing environmental analysis as documented in the FEIS is adequate to support my original March 1, 2016 Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision and that a supplement to the FEIS is not necessary.

Page6


Conclusion

Upon reviewing the information presented in this Review of New Circumstances or Information regarding the 2016 Divide Travel Plan Record of Decision and how it relates to the withdrawal of the 2016 Big Game Security Record of Decision, I have determined that the Divide Travel Plan project environmental analysis and documentation does not need to be corrected,

p le

Erin Fryer Interdiscipli Leader Helena- Lewis and Clark National Forests

William Avey Responsible Official Forest Supervisor Helena- Lewis and Clark National Forests

Date

Page?

Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai...Review of New Circumstances or Information - Divide Travel

Documents