Divide Travel Plan

The southern most travel plan on the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest is the Divide Travel Plan, signed in 2016.  HHAA challenged the Big Game Security Amendment that was an appendix to the Travel Plan, resulting in withdrawal of that Amendment by the HLCNF.  That amendment would have eliminated vegetation, as a component of security, for big game.  

The Divide Travel Plan was the policy turning-point at which the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest determined that cover was not a necessary component for big game security. Although many projects over decades were diminishing security, by the time the Divide Travel Plan was released, the Forest realized they were not meeting their obligation to Forest Plan standards for big game security. Big game security was based on a matrix of vegetation cover and road density across the landscape. But rather than release a stand-alone NEPA document to address a change in Forest Plan standards, the Forest attached an amendment to the Divide Travel Plan in an appendix to the EIS, where it did not receive much scrutiny, except from sportsmen and women.Collectively, five organizations challenged the amendment and it was withdrawn by the Forest Service. While the travel plan was adopted, the security amendment was not. The following documents detail the security amendment aspect of the Divide Travel Plan.

• 2016-03 Divide Travel Map
• 2016-12-06 Press.Release.final_Amendment
• 2016-12-02 Letter.USFS.Withdrawal.Elk.Amendment
• 2015-10-17 Change in big game security standard for Helena National Forest worries some hunting advocates – IR Kuglin
• 2015-06-19 OBJECTION DIVIDE FEIS Security Amendment — hhaa-cuctf-asc-mwf
• 2014-09-26 Divide Alt 5 – Big Game Alt B – HHAA CUCTF ASC MWF
• 2014-05-30 Divide Travel Plan DEIS Comments-HHAA
• 2009-01-13 Travel Plan Scoping-Divide-HHAA

To circumvent conservation efforts, the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest re-wrote then adopted a revised Forest Plan in 2021 that removed vegetation as a security component for wildlife. The Forest Service came to rely on “distance from a road” to justify security for wildlife, even if all escape cover had been removed. Even though travel planning is important in controlling road density and location, wildlife never-the-less must also have security “cover” in the form of vegetation adequate to perform the security needs of each species. As administrative processes evolved to facilitate extractive activities, components of the landscape necessary for wildlife security, were progressively eliminated. What remains are areas protected by the Roadless Rule that still provided significant habitat needs in the form of Inventoried Roadless Areas that by default have become critically essential, wildlife habitat. A ground-swell of public support to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule is occurring across Montana as conservation groups host public hearings in the absence of agency solicitation for input.

Blackfoot Travel Plan

Years in the making, HHAA helped shape the Blackfoot Travel Plan that was signed in 2017.

• 2014-05 HHAA Blackfoot Travel Plan Draft ROD Objection 5-14
• 2014-05-04 HHAA-CUCTF 2014 Objection Blackfoot Amendment FEIS
• 2013-3-11 Helena NF Blackfoot TP non-winter DEIS-MFWP comment
• 2011-11-16 Dalton scoping comments HHAA
• 2011-1-5 BlackfootTravelPlan Comment Cover
• 2010-12-27 Blackfoot Scoping comment – Bullis
• 2009-9-30 Blackfoot Travel Scoping comment
• MAP-Land Designations along Continental Divide North