Forest Service to limit snowmobile access

The United States Forest Service’s new proposed travel management plan for the Ten Lakes area in north Lincoln County has raised the ire of local recreation enthusiasts.

Under the new proposal, over-snow motorized use of the area will be restricted to less than half of the current area available from December 1 until March 31, and to less than 10 percent of current use between April 1 and May 31.

Scott Mattheis, a member of the Ten Lakes Snowmobile Club, said the restrictions are abusive and unnecessary.

“These are unwarranted restrictions placed upon snowmobile use in the Wilderness Study Area and the Ten Lakes area,” he said.

The project area comprises 64,177 acres located north and east of Eureka and includes, but is not limited to, the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, which was set aside by Congress in the 1977 Montana Wilderness Study Act. The act created the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area and required the Forest Service to maintain the area in its 1977 condition pending a congressional decision about permanent wilderness status. The decision was expected by 1984, but more than 30 years later the fate of the area sits in limbo.

The Montana Wilderness Association filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service in 1996, alleging the agency had failed to preserve the area in its 1977 condition. On May 22, 2001, United States Federal District Judge Donald Molloy ruled in the association’s favor, saying regardless of the lack of follow-up action by Congress, the act’s intent was clear.

“[The Forest Service] is prohibited from taking any action in any Montana Wildnerness Study Area that diminishes the wilderness character of the area as it existed in 1977 or that diminishes the area’s potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System,” Molloy wrote.

Bryan Donner, the Forest Service District Ranger for Fortine and Rexford districts, is the official responsible for the proposal. He said the recreational-use restrictions included in the plan are aimed at limiting conflict between recreation users and grizzly bears in the area.

“It’s based upon our grizzly bear management goals,” he said. “We’ve identified areas where bears are likely to be and restricted travel likely to impact emerging bears and cubs.”

Mattheis disagrees with Donner’s rationale for the decision.

“There is zero recorded conflict between grizzly bears and snowmobiles,” he said. “That’s not just in this area, but throughout the state. I don’t want to throw other recreation folks under the bus, because I like to hike, fly fish and do all the summer activities, too, but there’s much more conflict between humans and bears in these activities than with snowmobiles.”

Another point of contention is with how the process was handled. 

Donner said the Forest Service engaged in a long-term collaboration with stakeholders in the area before making the decision.

“We went through a very protracted and involved collaboration process with our user group and other interested individuals, it was about a two-year process,” he said.

The collaboration, however, was part of a larger discussion for the Galton project. According to the Proposed Action document, the Forest Supervisor decided to split the Ten Lakes travel management component into its own action.

“While some of this proposal was included in the scoping package for the Galton projet, the Forest Supervisor decided that travel management merits its own analysis and has split it from the previous project. Thus, we have chosen to re-scope the proposed action for this area as Ten Lakes Travel Management. During prior efforts for the Galton project, a great deal of valuable information was gained from the public. This information has been and will continue to be used along with the information gained during analysis of Ten Lakes Travel Management.”

Mattheis said the split proposal was just another example of the Forest Service ignoring the public’s input.

“Our collaborative effort has never been recognized by the United States Forest Service,” he said. “I feel that’s because it came out different from what they wanted, so they tossed it out and decided to start over. They’re just trying to wear us down, make us not want to be involved so we don’t disagree with them.”

Ten Lakes Snowmobile Club president Jim Voyles agreed with Mattheis.

“The proposal was bad then, and it’s worse now,” he said.

Voyles said he thinks the Forest Services’s goals with the new proposal are more insidious than just restricting use. He said the agency is trying to shut down snowmobiling throughout the entire area, and is using this proposal to incite another lawsuit from environmental groups.

“The Forest Service has been sued for overuse in the Wilderness Study Area and were threatened to be sued again,” he said. “This plan closes off the stuff outside the Wilderness Study Area, which forces snowmobiles into the protected area. That will result in another lawsuit to shut down the Wilderness Study Area to snowmobilers, and with the restrictions in place there will be nowhere for us to go. That’s the only reason for them to confine us to the Wilderness Study Area, to get a judge to order us out of there.”

Predicting the actions of federal judges is never an easy task, however.

In his 2001 ruling, Molloy also defended the use of the area by motorized recreation, such as snowmobiles.

“Congress required that the Forest Service ensure continuing opportunities for enjoyment of the study areas by use of motorized vehicles, as well as continued opportunities for enjoyment of the study areas’ wilderness character,” he wrote.

Mattheis said the current level of use is no greater than that of 1977, at least as far as snowmobiles are concerned. He said that no hard data is available, but with a county economy and population in steep decline, it’s just not logical that use is higher now than it was in 1977. He said the lack of solid data is even more reason to reject the proposed travel and use restrictions.

“We’re tired of restrictions being placed upon recreation based upon maybes, probablies, and likelies instead of using facts or science,” he said.

The 30-day public comment period on the proposed action opened April 15. At the conclusion of that period, the Forest Service will address the comments and prepare a draft Environmental Assessment, the release of which will trigger a 90-day objection period.

Participation in the objection period is limited to those who comment during the initial 30-day period, and will not include those who commented during the public phase of the Galton project.

“Involvement in the previous process does not grant standing in this proposal,” Donner said.

Mattheis, Voyles and Troy Snowmobile Club president Jerry Wandler all said they intend to be involved in the process.

“We’re all snowmobilers and we’re concerned about the direction they are taking, we need to make sure it’s something we can live with,” Wandler said. “We’re going to try to do what’s right throughout the Kootenai.”

Mattheis was more direct.

“They’ve taken the jobs out of the forest, now they’re closing it for recreation,” he said.