Do you hunt or fish? Care about clean running water? Wildlife? Healthy watersheds? If you do, then it’s important you comment on the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) Darby Lumber Lands (DLL) project.
The BNF just released its DLL Environmental Assessment (EA). The 28,758 acre proposed watershed restoration and motorized recreation project will do lots of great restoration, but much motorized harm. The added motorized route mileage and subsequent traffic will hurt elk, elk habitat, and drive elk onto nearby private lands, denying hunting opportunities. It will further impair Rye and Sleeping Child creeks, and damage fisheries which include endangered bull trout.
To understand the need for watershed restoration, and not more motorized routes, look at DLL history. The old DLL were checkerboarded lands—private inholdings within the BNF. The private parcels were owned by the Darby Lumber Company who logged them unsustainably and built many, many roads which, over time, have deteriorated and caused significant sediment issues in Rye and Sleeping Child creeks.
In 2005, eight sections were officially acquired; more in 2013. But the hard work occurred in the 1990s by an amazingly diverse group of private citizens, organizations, agencies, and politicians. Examples included our County Commissioners, Senators Burns and Baucus, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, BNF, conservationist Doris Milner, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Trout Unlimited, and many others. There was widespread acquisition support. Taking years and enormous commitment, funding was acquired.
What were the critical issues about DLL that galvanized everyone? Elk, water, restoration needs, and maintaining public access by preventing private land development—ensuring continued traditional, non-motorized recreation. These were their priorities and intent. If you sifted through the hundred-odd news articles, official government documents, letters to/from Congressmen, and meeting minutes from the acquisition working group, you’d find no reference to, nor intention for, adding more motorized routes in these degraded, but ecologically important lands.
Fast-forward to the current BNF proposal. It has three components. First, the restoration. It closes, stores, decommissions, and repairs roads to reduce damaging impacts. It removes unneeded or duplicative roads that don’t serve firefighting or timber purposes. Second, it improves wildlife-beneficial aspen stands. Third, it creates an Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) playground by constructing numerous ATV loop routes, at the behest of the local OHV club.
It’s this added motorized component to the project that’s worrisome, counterproductive to rehabilitation goals, and contrary to land purchase intent. It’ll have damaging effects on watersheds, wildlife habitat, elk, and hunting opportunities. It’s an unfortunate part of an otherwise excellent project. It should be dropped. The BNF can choose to remove it—but only if the public speaks up.
The DLL are a poster child for restoration needs. Both creeks—Rye and Sleeping Child—are listed by Montana as officially impaired because of sediment issues. The area’s timber was over-logged and there’s been significant fires. Amazingly, the total open motorized route mileage (roads and trails) increases by 10 miles in BNF’s proposed action, called “Alternative B.” But why up, not down? Because of the proposed new ATV routes— miles of new OHV trail construction and, incredibly, opening up many roads that are currently closed.
The EA states: “Current conditions in Rye Creek support extensive watershed improvement treatments. Including a more extensive motorized route system may contradict the Purpose and Need.”
The motorized impacts discussed in the EA assume a “modest increase in use at best” with the ATV additions, as there’s no “unique natural feature” or “destination.” Problem is, having an ATV playground creates a destination itself. The OHV club promises to promote it; the BNF would likely follow suit. It’s reasonable to predict a significant increase in use, as the case in many other Forest OHV play areas, like Butte. The BNF does no analysis to justify their predicted negligible increase, so the whole EA is a house of cards built on an arbitrary false assumption. Still, the EA is damning.
The project area is home to an important elk herd population. The EA makes a convincing case against the added motorized routes. Studies show elk are equally disturbed by OHVs as full-sized vehicles. Three of five EA criteria used to measure elk impacts and habitat worsen under play area-ridden Alternative B.
The EA states Alternative B will likely lead to increased disturbance and mortality to elk; it’ll drive elk from their summer range onto private lands, reducing hunting opportunities. The negative impacts will be cumulative in nature and will persist.
Years ago as an old man I participated in a BNF Restoration Committee meeting where we proposed a DLL restoration project. At the outset it was restoration, not motorized recreation. I’ve since followed the Committee’s meetings. Proof in the pudding: The Committee is unanimous in restoration objectives. It does not support a single new OHV route. Nor should you. Please comment by February 23.
Stanley Schroeder
Hamilton