THREE LINKS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · wetlands, park lands, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, prime farm lands,

Three Links Bridge Replacement Project Decision Notice/FONSI

1

THREE LINKS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

USDA Forest Service, Moose Creek Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho

Background

The Forest Service prepared the Three Links Bridge Replacement Environmental Assessment in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and

State laws and regulations. The bridge is located approximately 15 miles from the Race Creek

trailhead on the Selway River Trail #4, within the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness in Township 22

north, Range 11 east, section 22, Idaho County, Idaho.

The Three Links Bridge was constructed in 1964 in order to avoid a hazardous ford during high

water conditions. The Bridge is integral for maintaining yearlong access on Selway River Trail,

an opportunity class 4 trail. The trail is the main access and route used to supply the needs of the

Moose Creek Ranger Station via packstring as well as serving as the primary public access trail

for the western portion of the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness.

The Nez Perce National Forest Engineer determined that the structural rating for the bridge is

low and that the bridge needs to be replaced or access closed across the bridge.

Decision and Rationale

I have decided to implement Alternative 2 actions as described in the Three Links Bridge

Replacement Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed action would utilize a helicopter

and external sling load to transport materials to the site and position the stringers on the existing

abutments. The old bridge would be dismantled and non-treated materials burned on-site.

Treated materials would be backhauled via helicopter or packed out. Removal of the old bridge

and construction of the new bridge would be accomplished using traditional, non-motorized tools

and equipment.

I have chosen to implement Alternative 2 because it best meets the purpose and need for

providing access for future wilderness management, recreation and other administrative uses.

The replacement would maintain yearlong access to the Moose Creek Ranger Station.

Maintenance of a bridge at this site is the minimum requirement necessary for administration and

protection of the wilderness resource as required by Forest Service Manual Direction, the

Wilderness Act of 1964, the Forest Plan and the Selway Bitterroot GMD.

Other Alternatives Considered

The EA consider several additional alternatives that did not include motorized use. These

alternatives included replacing the bridge with native materials, utilizing a packable bridge

design, as well as removing the bridge and establishing a ford. The alternatives were carefully

considered and analyzed during the development of the proposed action and during development

of the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide; however these were not analyzed in detail in the

EA. A rationale for why these alternatives were not carried forward for further analysis is found

on pages 5-7 of the EA.

2

A no action alternative (Alternative 1) was also developed to display the effects and

consequences of actions not taken.

Public Involvement

In August 2005 a public field trip was sponsored to review the bridge site and collaborate on

project design with interested individuals. Nine individuals attended the field trip and provided

input towards development of the proposed action.

On August 17th

, 2009, 445 scoping letters asking for input on the proposal were sent to the Nez

Perce Tribe and all interested individuals, businesses, organizations and agencies. A legal notice

and request for public comment appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on August 18th, 2009.

Comments received from 3 individuals, 4 organizations, and 1 agency were considered in the

analysis. The final proposed action was determined based on public comment.

The EA was sent out to 8 individuals and a legal ad appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on

November 10th, 2010. A total of 4 comments were received at the end of the 30 day comment

period.

Consideration of Issues

The issues addressed in the EA primarily involved potential impacts to wilderness character.

One commenter / organization had concerns that maintaining a bridge at the Three Links Creek

was inconsistent with the Wilderness Act and that a ford would be a better alternative. They also

contended that helicopter use was not the minimum requirement for bridge reconstruction. The

minimum activity was determined after a careful analysis of alternatives in the MRDG. It was

determined that maintenance of a bridge at this site is the minimum requirement necessary for

administration and protection of the wilderness resource as required by Forest Service Manual

Direction, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Forest Plan and the Selway Bitterroot GMD. (MRDG,

pg 10). The effects to wilderness character were disclosed in the EA (pgs. 8-11. A rationale for

why a ford was not considered was addressed in the EA (pgs. 6-7).

Other concerns addressed in the EA were the impacts of treated materials being used for

stringers. The proposed action would not use Penta and instead use an environmentally benign

chemical treatment for stringers. Decking and other bridge materials would use untreated

wood. (EA, pgs7-8 and pgs. 12-15)

I believe the issues and concerns identified throughout the scoping and planning process were

fully addressed during alternative development and analysis.

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments

A summary of the comments that were received for the bridge replacement proposal, and my

response to those comments, is attached to his document as Appendix A. The original comment

letters and all other comments received are included in the project file.

The formal scoping period for this project ended September 16, 2009. Comments that were

received during that time were used to develop the issues and alternatives that were included in


3

the EA, and to ensure that those issues and alternatives were adequately analyzed.

The comment period for the EA ended on December 9, 2010. I considered these comments

when making my Decision, and I find that the selected alternative responds to the issues and

concerns that were brought forward by the public and other agencies.

Finding of No Significant Impact I have determined through the Three Links Bridge Replacement Environmental Assessment that

this is not a major federal action individually or cumulatively that will significantly affect the

quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed.

This determination is based on the analysis of the context and intensity of the environmental

effects, including the following factors:

(1) The analysis considered both beneficial and adverse effects. Beneficial and adverse

direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts discussed in the Environmental

Assessment have been disclosed within the appropriate context and intensity. No

significant effects on the human environment have been identified. There will be no

significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, MIS, or

sensitive species, or other components of the environment (EA, pgs. 8-17).

(2) No significant adverse effects to public health or safety were identified. None are

unusual or unique to this project.

(3) There will be no significant impacts to unique characteristics of the area such as

wetlands, park lands, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, prime farm lands, old growth

forests, range and forest land, minority groups, civil rights or consumers. No effects are

expected to historic properties or cultural resources (EA, pg. 16). There would be no

significant effects to riparian areas, wetlands, and sensitive soil types and areas due to

project design measures (EA, pgs.12-15). The Wild and Scenic River values of the

Selway River would be protected (EA, pgs. 11, 12).

(4) The effects of implementation of this decision are not likely to be highly controversial

and therefore there has been no scientifically backed information that indicates

substantial controversy about the effects disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

(5) Based on similar actions in the area and the resource professionals that worked on this

project, the probable effects of this decision on the human environment, as described in

the EA, are well known and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Activities approved

in this decision notice are routine projects similar to those that have been implemented

under the Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan over the past

23 years.

(6) This action does not establish precedence for future actions with significant effects, nor

does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Activities

approved in this decision notice are routine projects similar to those that have been

implemented under the Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

over the past 23 years.

(7) These actions are not related to other actions that, when combined, will have significant

impacts. This decision is made with consideration of past, present and reasonably

foreseeable future actions on National Forest land within potentially affected areas

4

which could have a cumulative significant effect on the quality of the human

environment. Each resource section effects analysis contained in the Three Links Bridge

Replacement EA discusses cumulative effects; none were found to be significant (EA,

Chapter 3).

(8) The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures,

or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Heritage resource surveys were conducted in compliance with the National Historic

Preservation Act. A technical report which detailed the methods, results, and effects to

cultural resources was submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. Based

on the pre-disturbance survey and record search, the project undertaking will have ―no

effect‖ on any listed or eligible historic cultural resources. The proposed replacement

of the Three Links Bridge will therefore have no effect on historic properties. (EA, pg.

16).

(9) The effects on endangered or threatened species and their habitat are discussed in the

EA Biological Assessment which has been completed for the Bradford Bridge project. It

documents the project would have “no effect” and “no impact” to endangered,

threatened and sensitive species. The project will have ―no effect‖ on ESA listed and

sensitive fish species.

(10) This decision is in compliance with relevant federal, state and local laws, regulations

and requirements designed for the protection of the environment. Effects from this

action meet or exceed state water quality standards through the implementation of design

features and best management practices (EA, pg. 8).

Other Findings

This decision is consistent with the goals, objectives, and direction contained in the 1987 Nez

Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the Endangered

Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act

This decision is in compliance with Executive Order 12989 ―Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations‖. No minority or

low-income populations would be disproportionately affected under either alternative (EA, pg.

15).

Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation this decision may occur on,

but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are

filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th

day following the date of the last

appeal disposition.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunity

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal must be

submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the

Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure their appeal

is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the decision legal notice in the Tribune is

the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date

or timeframe information provided by any other sources.


5

Paper appeals must be submitted to:

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

Or

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 59807

Office hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Electronic appeals must be submitted to:

[email protected]

Faxed appeals must be submitted to:

FAX: (406) 329-3411

In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. An

automated response will confirm you electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals

must be submitted in MS Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text Format (RTF).

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity specific evidence and

rationale, focusing on the decisions, to show why my decision should be reversed. The appeal

must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet

the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14, and include the following information:

The appellant’s name and address, with telephone number, if available;

A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for

electronic mail be filed with the appeal);

When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and

verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;

The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of

the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;

6

The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal

under either 36 CFR215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C;

Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those

changes;

Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the

disagreement;

Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decisions failed to consider the

comments; and

How the appellant believes the decisions specifically violates law, regulation , or policy

If an appeal is received on this project there may be informal resolution meetings and/or

conference calls between the Responsible Official and the appellant. These discussions would

take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal. All such meetings are open

to the public. If you are interested in attending any informal resolution discussions, please

contact the Responsible Official or monitor the following website for postings about current

appeals in the Northern Region of the Forest Service:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/projects/appeal_index.shtml.

Contact Person

For further information concerning this decision, contact Mike Ward, Project Team Leader,

Kooskia Ranger Station, 502 Lowry St, Kooskia, Idaho, 83539, (phone 208-926-6413).

/s/ Rick Brazell

Rick Brazell

Clearwater - Nez Perce National Forest Supervisor ____1/13/2011_______

Date


7

APPENDIX A

Response to Comments

Those who commented on the EA:

Jeff Cook, Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation

Charles and Diana Miller

Dennis Baird

Gary Macfarlane, Wilderness Watch, Friends of the Clearwater, and the Alliance for the

Wild Rockies

Three commentors wrote in support of the selection of Alternative 2.

The following letters were received. Responses are included in the letters.

Comments on Three Links Bridge EA

______________________________________________________________________________

Mike Ward ITL

Lochsa RS

502 Lowry St.

Kooskia, Id, 83539

This letter is in support of Alternative (s) # 2a, 2b 2c, 2d. Replacement of bridge structural

materials with use of helicopter.

1. Given the deterioration and current state of the Three Links Bridge and unsafe condition, if

failure or administrative closure would happen, this would limit the potential use through out a

significant part of the colander year.

Unsafe fording could lead to human and equine death as high water would impede crossing at

these times.

This is one of a few Opportunity Class 4 SBW trails that are widely used by the public and

USFS, both on foot and by equine so the crossing must be secure, safe and available year round.

Winter use may include cross country skiing, and snowshoeing that would use the bridge.

2. Replacement of the bridge with a ford limits the time frame of usage, and poses considerable

danger to life during times of high water. If the bridge were to fail, at any time, it would promote

the possibility of hindering stream flow, increase sedimentation, and erosion if the stream banks.

3. Packable bridges are for short spans such as the one near Big Cr. Dam on the Bitterroot NF,

and not for long spans such as Three Links.

4. A permanent ford would not be a good choice as it limits access during times of high water

and runoff. This may also lead to stream bank erosion and sedimentation, which may have an

adverse impact on fish and invertebrates.

8

5. Helicopters have been use for dam maintenance and reconstruction on the BNF, without major

inconvenience or public danger. Helicopter use in the SBW will cut down on trail wear and tear

as well as, providing minor public inconvenience, and ensures safe delivery of materials to the

job site without endangering the public.

6. Use of treated materials as described, and use of long lasting natural products will insure a

lengthy and serviceable life time of use.

Charles and Diana Miller

926 Orchard Dr.

Hamilton, Mt.

Nov. 12, 2010

Charles and Diana, Thank you for your comments and support on this project. We

appreciate your input and look forward to working with you again in the future. Enjoy

your time spent on the Moose Creek Ranger District.

______________________________________________________________________________

Mike Ward, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Moose Creek Ranger District

831 Selway Rd.

Kooskia, ID 83539

RE: Three Links Bridge Project EA

Dear Mr. Ward:

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation staff reviewed the Three Links Bridge Project

Environment Assessment (EA). The Moose Creek Ranger District is considering replacing the

Three Links Bridge.

We provided comments during the scoping period in August 2009. In our comments, we

requested that the district consider options such as a packable pack bridge.

The EA did a good job explaining why a packable bridge would not work at this site. We also

appreciated seeing the Minimum Requirements Guide in the Appendix.

We encourage the Moose Creek Ranger District to move forward with this project. Rebuilding

the bridge is critical to providing visitor access to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Sincerely,

Jeff Cook, Outdoor Recreation Analyst


9

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Jeff, Thank you for your comments and support. We appreciate our partnership with the

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Your input has been valuable on this and

many other projects. We look forward to working with you again in the future.

______________________________________________________________________________

Dennis, Thank you for your comments and input on this project. Your knowledge of the

10

District and program as well as your wilderness ethic has proven valuable in the

development of this and other projects on the District. We endeavor to maintain the

highest standards in our wilderness and trail management programs. Our preference,

where feasible, is also an in-kind replacement with native materials. The District has

recently gone to great lengths to preserve the wilderness integrity when replacing bridges

on the Selway trail. This situation, however, presents logistical and engineering challenges

that prohibit such an approach, as explained in the EA. Important to note is that once the

material delivery is accomplished, the bridge will be constructed with traditional, non-

motorized tools, in order to further promote traditional skill development.

We appreciate the concern on project administration and agree that a high level of

oversight is necessary. It would be premature at this point to describe exactly how the

project would be implemented, as details are still being developed. Uncertainties with

budget, staffing and personnel changes may change the way the project is ultimately

accomplished (force account, contract, or combination of both; agency aircraft vs. contract,

etc.). Regardless of how the project is implemented, there will be a high level of oversight

present on the project to adapt to the situations you pointed out. A wilderness resource

advisor will be present to ensure that wilderness values are protected during the

implementation of the project.

In additional to being a period of lower use, August was proposed as a potential time as

there is more flexibility with seasonal personnel who would implement the project the

availability of funding is more predictable. The consensus among the team was that the lull

between the river permit season and hunting season would be less intrusive, as well as early

spring, as you pointed out. Again, the details of the project implementation are still being

developed. We welcome your continued interest and would be happy to discuss project

details as they are developed.

______________________________________________________________________________

The following comments were received after the 30 day comment period had ended.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mike Ward December 9, 2010

ID Team Leader

Lochs Ranger Station

502 Lowry Street

Kooskia, ID 83539

RE: THREE LINKS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT EA

SENT VIA EMAIL: [email protected] and via US Mail

Dear Ranger Hudson,

The following comments on the proposed replacement of the Three Links Bridges EA are from

Wilderness Watch Friends of the Clearwater, and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. We have

serious questions and concerns with these proposals and have been involved in this project since


11

its inception. Please refer to our other comments. Rather than repeat those comments, we

append those comments as attachments.

NEPA

The most serious problem with the EA is that it violates NEPA. There is no range of alternatives.

Instead, the EA makes statements, without documentation, to reject other options. Why can’t a

packable bridge design be developed when other bridges have used such designs? What about

relocating the bridge upstream of the current site and look at the pluses and minuses of such a

move? As you should know, there are places where the stream is narrower though it would

require some trail relocation. The analysis of a ford alternative was rejected for specious reasons

(see below).

NEPA does not specify a number of alternatives to be considered. (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)). The

alternatives considered were developed from the public scoping comments. As described in the

MRDG, packable designs, even if available, would necessitate significant trail work to improve

clearance as we discussed on the field trip in 2005. A ford across Three Links Creek,

regardless of location, does not meet the desired conditions in the Forest Plan for an

opportunity class 4 trail during high water conditions. Relocating the bridge including

construction of an entirely new bridge, potentially including abutments, and relocating the trail

is beyond the scope of this analysis.

The EA’s analysis does not meet NEPA’s mandates for quality information. For example, the

stream where the old ford exists--yes, it was once used before a bridge as built-- is not rough and

crossing on small packable rafts—the kind designed for and used by wilderness travelers in

Alaska—rather it is not a steep gradient at that point. We have been there many times and the

EA is just wrong in its analysis.

Requiring or suggesting that public users and agency personnel to use packable rafts to

cross Three Links Creek during high water does not meet the Forest Plan desired

conditions for an opportunity class 4 trail.

Indeed, the entire analysis was done to reach a predetermined decision—use of a helicopter to

replace the bridge. The fact that the bridge was built in 1964 with native materials and a

helicopter was apparently not used in its construction, at least there is no mention of a helicopter

in the EA, should have led to the full exploration of that alternative. While we recognize that the

agency is losing its competence in traditional skills, that loss is contrary to wilderness ethics and

proper stewardship, these skills should be maintained because proper wilderness stewardship

requires that the agency do so.

Replacing the bridge with native materials was carefully considered during development of

the proposed action. The MRDG and EA provide a rationale as to why this alternative was

not carried forward for detailed analysis. The Forest and District in particular have a keen

interest in, and value the importance of maintaining competence in traditional skills. This

is evident in the recently completed replacement of the Dog Creek and Cupboard Creek

pack bridges which used native materials and traditional, non-motorized tools. Where

feasible, this is the preferred alternative. The EA documents why, in this particular

situation, it is not practical to use this approach. Construction of the Three Links Bridge

and dismantling of the old bridge is expected to further develop traditional skills

12

competence as traditional, non-motorized tools will be used.

Helicopter use is not unprecedented in the wilderness. The EA documented helicopter use

for construction of the nearby Three Links suspension bridge over the Selway River in

1976 (EA pg. 6).

Crucial information seems lacking in the EA. How long is this new bridge expected to last?

Will it be longer than the native material bridge that has been in place, according to the EA,

before the Wilderness Act passed? The EA maintains, without any data, that the probability of

injury is high for workers if a bridge design to use native stringers and traditional skills was

selected. Were workers injured when the original bridge was built with native materials and

traditional skills? Why wasn’t the danger associated with helicopter use in a narrow canyon

analyzed?

Duration of the new structure is a function of many variables that are unnecessary for a

decision; however FSM direction is for new bridges to be constructed to attain a lifespan of

40-50 years. Whether or not injuries were sustained during the construction of the original

(1964) bridge is unnecessary information for this decision. The risk analysis factors that

were considered by the Line Officer and Interdisciplinary Team for this decision, as

explained in the EA, were the location and distance to suitable stringer material (located on

steep slopes or river corridor), predictability of felling, limbing and bucking trees using

traditional tools without structural damage (directional felling necessary), weight and

length of stringer material (upwards of 2 tons or more, approximately 43 feet long) and

additional exposure time to crews and public. Helicopter use and associated risks would be

analyzed in a site specific project aviation safety plan prior to project implementation.

Wilderness

The trail standards in the Selway-Bitterroot General Management Direction, referred to in the

EA, are not targets or minimums; rather they are maximums. Only this way can the unique

nature of Wilderness be maintained. In our scoping comments we cited Forest Service Manual

direction regarding the non-degradation principle AND the goal that wilderness character should

improve over time. Suggesting that bridges and structures be maintained to a certain engineering

standard is contrary to the Wilderness Act and the Manual. Such a view is also consistent with

the LAC process. Thus, the claim in the EA that the bridge must meet a certain standard because

of the SBGMD is erroneous and contrary to the Wilderness Act.

The EA specifies that the objective for management of the Selway Trail in an Opportunity

Class 4 area is to provide a trail system that offers a low level of challenge. The presence of

a bridge where the Selway Trail crosses Three Links Creek is necessary to provide a low

level of challenge during high water. No other trail structure is suitable at this location to

meet that objective and therefore is the minimum necessary structure. This conclusion is

consistent with the direction provided by the SBWGMD that states that some bridges are

necessary to meet minimum needs of visitor dispersal and administrative traffic because

there is no safe ford for the majority of the use season, as is the case in this situation. The

EA does not propose to maintain the Three Links Bridge to a certain engineering standard,

but instead asserts that the trail system will be maintained to meet the standard for access

to the area defined in the SBWGMD.


13

The EA analysis turns wilderness character on head. It suggests that wilderness character can

only be maintained by use of helicopters and a bridge. That is absurd. The EA suggests a bridge

is more natural than the no action alternative (page 10) and such a bridge is required to meet

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation (10)! That is also

absurd. Primitive recreation is precisely that—primitive. In any case, the EA is inconsistent as it

also claims the no action alternative would result in more damage from people using the ford.

On one hand, the EA claims access will be cut off from the no-action alternative. On the other

hand, the EA claims that no action will result in damage from the access and people using the

ford. It should also be noted the ford is in a sandy area that has not recovered from [past use so

additional damage is unlikely. This kind of sloppy analysis leads one to believe the agency ahs

not been to the site.

The MRDG and EA suggest that maintenance of a bridge across Three Links Creek is

necessary for the administration of the Wilderness. The EA, pg. 10, references bridge

replacement being more natural in the context that maintenance of a bridge at the site is

more beneficial to the overall wilderness character than to allow the existing bridge to

collapse into the creek. While the EA maintains under the no action alternative that minor

resource damage is likely from user created fords, the greater damage would be caused if

the bridge were to fail and collapse into the creek.

As noted in the NEPA section, the deliberate failure to produce real alternatives including

removal of the old bridge and construction of the ford or the use and design of a bridge with

either native materials or a packable design (or both), perverts the plain meaning of the

Wilderness Act. The conclusion that the wilderness will be no more trammeled by a bridge than

without a ridge, will be more natural with a bridge, and will better meet wilderness character, is

flawed.

Thank you for your comments.

Furthermore, the analysis of wilderness character, recreation and wild and scenic rivers is simply

an analysis of recreation. Recreation is the overriding purpose of the Wilderness Act, according

to this EA. Even then, the EA admits recreation use would continue and it presumably would be

the kind that is real wilderness recreation.

Thank you for your comments

Finally, the MRDG is seriously flawed. This comment already addresses the faulty premise that

the SBGMD somehow requires this bridge be built so it won’t be repeated. The analysis of the

public values of wilderness in the MRDG is equally flawed. Recreation will continue even if no

bridge were at Three Links. The historical use suggests that the bridge and trail are part of the

history. That tortured view has been rejected by the courts in cases dealing with dams in the

Emigrant Wilderness, shelters in the Olympic National Park Wilderness and elsewhere. Simply

put, the historical values are those a bridge would built by helicopter would destroy, self-reliance

and traditional skills. Indeed, the Forest Service used the trail for20 years prior to the

construction of a bridge (the old ford).

The MRDG indicates that for existing recreational use patterns to continue, action is

necessary related to the Three Links Bridge. The section of the MRDG that assesses the

14

effects to the public purposes of Wilderness (section F, page 4 & 5), states that the use of

the Selway Trail is important for continued recreational access to large portions of the

SBW and without action at the Three Links bridge site, access will be significantly reduced.

As is specified in the directions for completion of the MRDG worksheets (available at

www.wilderness.net),

“A management action is consistent with the recreation use public purpose, and may be necessary, if the action

will contribute to providing opportunities for visitors to experience wilderness…

For example, is a proposal to replace an existing trail bridge consistent with the recreation use public

purpose? The recreation use public purpose may include providing access to and within wilderness via a

managed trail system. A trail bridge is a structure (a Section 4 (c) prohibited use) but it may be considered a

necessary structure in wilderness if it is the minimum necessary action to address visitor safety or resource

protection needs that cannot be addressed another way.”

This example is consistent with the MRDG decision to take action at the Three Links

bridge site.

Regarding historical use, the MRDG specifies that access to the SBW via the Selway Trail

is a historical use of the area. Additionally, the National Historic Register listed Moose

Creek Ranger Station is accessed and supplied by the Selway Trail in essentially that same

manner as it has been since its construction in the 1920s, except for a period shortly after

designation as Wilderness when it was accessed primarily by aircraft and use of the

airstrips at Moose Creek Ranger Station for administrative purposes. The historical

integrity of the Moose Creek Ranger Station is maintained by its use in a manner

consistent with the values that led to its National Historic Register listing. Continued use of

the Selway Trail for access to and for supplying the Moose Creek Station by mule string is

consistent with the historical use of the area. The MRDG does not say that the bridge

structure specifically is a part of the history of the SBW.

Summary

The EA and the MRDG are fatally flawed. They do not look at real alternatives to the

construction of a bridge with motorized equipment. They do not show that even if a bridge is

needed (which it wasn’t for many years), it must be brought in by helicopter.

Thank you for your comments

Sincerely,

Gary Macfarlane

Friends of the Clearwater

PO Box 9241

Moscow, ID 83843

Board Member, Wilderness Watch

Board Member, Alliance for the Wild Rockies

http://www.wilderness.net/


15

ATTACHMENTS

September 16, 2007

Joe Hudson, District Ranger

Moose Creek RD, Nez Perce National Forest

831 Selway Road

Kooskia, ID 83539

RE: THREE LINKS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

SENT VIA EMAIL: [email protected], [email protected] and via US Mail

Dear Ranger Hudson,

The following comments on the proposed replacement of the Three Links Bridges and the are

from Wilderness Watch Friends of the Clearwater, and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. We

have serious questions and concerns with these proposals and have been involved in this project

since its inception

Wilderness Character/Purpose

The first sentence of Section 2(a) of the 1964 Act gives the over-arching mandate. The

―purpose‖ is ―to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of

an enduring resource of wilderness‖ through the establishment of ―a National Wilderness

Preservation System‖ and that system ―shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the

American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment

as wilderness and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their

wilderness character . . .‖. (emphasis added). It is instructive that recreation does not appear in

this purpose. Even in the balance of Section 2(a) the words ―use and enjoyment as wilderness‖

refer to all six of the acceptable uses listed in Section 4(b). We address this point later in the

subsection Purpose of Wilderness.

In brief that purpose is to keep some areas unoccupied and unmodified. And this protection is

for present and future generations--for all time--in perpetuity. Congress identified a new

resource--the resource of wilderness.

Section 4(b) says:

“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area

designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of

the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have

been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. ” (emphasis added)

16

This is clear direction for management of the Selway-Bitterroot. The mandate is to administer

all activities so that this Wilderness will remain ―unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as

wilderness‖. It is also clear that this mandate applies to the setting rather than to any particular

use or recreational experience. The wilderness character will not be preserved if one or more

element(s) of character is allowed to degrade. Wilderness character is degraded if structures are

allowed where it is not necessary to meet minimum requirements for management of the area as

wilderness (see below).

The Wilderness Act is explicit in section 4(c):

. . . except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area

for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the

health and safety of persons within the area, there shall be no temporary road, no use of

motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form

of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

(emphasis added)

Purpose is singular in section 4c, and that is crucial to understanding the Act, along with a

historical perspective of the discussions ongoing at the time the Act was debated. The

regulations of the Forest are the result.

Thus, a clear direction is established in law. The benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness

through the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System which is to be

administered to protect its wilderness character for the American people now and in the future is

the singular and overriding purpose for the Wilderness Act.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) explains how the requirements of the Wilderness Act are to be

met. The overriding management philosophy is as follows (FSM 2320.6)

The goal of wilderness management is to identify these influences, define their causes,

remedy them, and close the gap ("A") between the attainable level of purity and the level

that exists on each wilderness ("X").

Thus, it is clear that the goal of wilderness management is to keep and improve the wild

conditions of wilderness.

Thank you for your comments. Wilderness character was carefully considered in the

development of the proposed action. The District has gone to great lengths to ensure the

wilderness integrity is protected throughout implementation of this project. As we

discussed on our field trip in 2005, there are logistical and engineering problems that led to

the development of this proposed action. Effects to wilderness character were analyzed in

the MRDG and disclosed in the EA.

The same section of the Manual further notes:

Where a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other

activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. Economy,

convenience, commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of


17

wilderness.

Preserving wilderness character is paramount and more important than visitor activity

(recreation). The term wilderness character appears three times in the Wilderness Act’s general

provisions (and once in special 4d provisions) . Its importance is evident to anyone familiar with

the Wilderness.

Specifically regarding recreation, the Manual policy states (FSM 2323.12 part 3):

3. Manage for

recreation activities that are dependent on the wilderness environment so that a minimum

of adaptations within wilderness are necessary to accommodate recreation.

We remind you that the FSM 2323.13f allows that you can ―Provide or replace bridges only: 1.

When no other route or crossing is reasonably available.‖ There is an existing ford on Three

Links Creek. While high water early in the season may prevent crossing of Three Links, during

the primary season the water level should be such that the ford is safe. Furthermore lightweight

rafts (5 pounds) previously used in Alaska to ford rivers by backpackers are now becoming

popular here in the lower 48 for a variety of outdoor pursuits.

Addressed in the EA, Purpose and Need (pgs 2-3) and in the MRDG Decision: What is the

minimum activity? (pgs 10-11).

Manual Direction also speaks to wilderness character in terms of challenge. FSM 2320.2 (part 4)

notes:

4. Protect and

perpetuate wilderness character and public values including, but not limited to,

opportunities for scientific study, education, solitude, physical and mental challenge and

stimulation, inspiration, and primitive recreation experiences.

The Forest Service in the past few years adopted a monitoring framework for wilderness

character. That framework shows that the existence of bridges degrades one of the four key

conditions ("undeveloped") used to determine whether the agency is protecting the area's

wilderness character. (see RMRS-GTR-151, April 2005).

Addressed in the EA, Environmental Effects (pgs 8-11) and in the MRDG.

NEPA

A project that authorizes motorized use in wilderness is a significant decision having a major

impact on the environment. As such, an EIS needs to be prepared.

Addressed in EA, Issues Resolution (pg 4)

Furthermore, a directive from the Regional Office regarding Wilderness and CEs (April 28,

1997) notes that:

18

We should start our project analysis thinking at the EA level and go from there. . . In my view,

using a CE for projects in Wilderness will be the exception rather than the rule.

We expect the Forest Service will do, at a minimum, an EA and more likely an EIS on this

project. If a CE can be used to exempt all sorts of generally prohibited activities inside a

designated Wilderness, then the Forest Service could argue that no project ever would need an

EA or EIS.

An EA was prepared for this project

The EIS needs to look at alternatives and seriously consider them. The ford is an alternative that

needs to be fully evaluated for two reasons. First, it was used in the past and functioned well.

The ford was sufficient for wilderness use. Second, the recent availability of lightweight rafts

may make bridges obsolete. This alternative would have the least harm to wilderness character

and not involve motorized or mechanized equipment. Nothing has changed except the

construction of bridges that made the area less wild.

Addressed in EA, Ch 2. Alternatives (pgs 4-8) and in the MRDG.

Indeed, fords may not provide Wilderness users with the most convenient experience. But they

do provide Wilderness users with the most honest Wilderness experience. Wilderness, after all,

is not about convenience. It is, according to the Wilderness Act, an ―area of undeveloped

Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or

human habitation.‖

The use of native structures is another alternative that needs full evaluation. They needn’t be

taken from near the river, but could be skidded over frozen ground in the winter or floated down

like that done for Cupboard Creek. That method has been successfully employed elsewhere.

Motorized equipment would not be needed under this alternative.


We also understand motorized equipment was not used for construction of the much larger

bridge across the Selway a few yards from this bridge. If that huge bridge was constructed

without motorized use, then this bridge can be constructed without motorized use. An alternative

that looks at non-motorized construction must be evaluated. The Forest Service ahs

successfully packed in cleverly-designed bridges that are assembled onsite without motorized

equipment.


Other issues that need to be adequately addressed are the impacts of treated material on the

environment and Wilderness character of the area. Penta is extremely toxic. Its use in

Wilderness should be prohibited. There are listed fish species in the area including steelhead and

bull trout.

Addressed in EA, Proposed Action (pg 7) and in Environmental Effects, Sec D. Fisheries


19

and Hydrology (pgs 12-15).

The old abutments, whether the fords are used where they currently exist, or whether a new

bridge is built, need to be addressed. They may need to be removed and/or restored.

Addressed in EA, Proposed Action (pg 7).

The agency needs to look at the continuing and cumulative impacts of constant use on the

Selway trail such bridges would continue to provide. What are the impacts on wildlife,

wilderness character, and watershed fisheries from current and expected levels of use? Is the

area trammeled by such a course of action? In wilderness, everything is hooked to everything

else. The cumulative impacts of the various alternatives need to be considered.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in the Environmental Effects section

of the EA (pgs 8-17) and in the Description of alternatives section in the MRDG (pgs 5-10).

An analysis of the continued and cumulative impacts of constant use on the Selway Trail is

unnecessary for this decision.

The SBWGMD does not prescribe a bridge a Three Links as the desired condition in the scoping

letter suggests. Such a decision must be reached AFTER an analysis in an EIS and after the

Minimum Requirements Decision Guide. Furthermore, the attachments to the scoping letter

don’t conclude that a helicopter is needed to build a bridge or that a bridge is needed

Addressed in the EA, Desired Conditions (pg 3) in the Issues Resolution (pg 4) and in the

MRDG, Decision (pgs 10-11).

Please keep us updated on any further developments on the proposal. If the Minimum

Requirements Decision Guide has been done, please send a copy of it to each of the addresses

below.

Sincerely,

Gary Macfarlane

Wilderness Watch


PO Box 9175

PO Box 9241

Missoula, MT

20

59807

Moscow, ID 83843

--and for –

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

March 7, 2006

Joe Hudson, District Ranger

Moose Creek RD

Nez Perce National Forest

HC 75, Box 91

Kooskia, ID 83539

RE: THREE LINKS AND CUPBOARD CREEK BRIDGES, APPROACH TO BEAR CREEK

BRIDGE

SENT VIA EMAIL: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Dear Ranger Hudson,

The following comments on the proposed replacement of the Cupboard and Three Links Bridges

and the approach the Bear Creek Bridge are from Friends of the Clearwater, Wilderness Watch,

the Ecology Center and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. We have questions and concerns with

these proposals.

Wilderness Character/Purpose

The first sentence of Section 2(a) of the 1964 Act gives the over-arching mandate. The

―purpose‖ is ―to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of

an enduring resource of wilderness‖ through the establishment of ―a National Wilderness

Preservation System‖ and that system ―shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the


21

American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment

as wilderness and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their

wilderness character . . .‖. (emphasis added). It is instructive that recreation does not appear in

this purpose. Even in the balance of Section 2(a) the words ―use and enjoyment as wilderness‖

refer to all six of the acceptable uses listed in Section 4(b). We address this point later in the

subsection Purpose of Wilderness.

In brief that purpose is to keep some areas unoccupied and unmodified. And this protection is

for present and future generations--for all time--in perpetuity. Congress identified a new

resource--the resource of wilderness.

Section 4(b) says:

“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area

designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of

the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have

been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. ” (emphasis added)

This is clear direction for management of the Selway/Bitterroot. The mandate is to administer all

activities so that this Wilderness will remain ―unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as

wilderness‖. It is also clear that this mandate applies to the setting rather than to any particular

use or recreational experience. The wilderness character will not be preserved if one or more

element(s) of character is allowed to degrade. Wilderness character is degraded if structures

(bridges are allowed where it is not necessary to meet minimum requirements for management

of the area as wilderness (see below).

The Wilderness Act is explicit in section 4(c):

. . . except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area

for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the

health and safety of persons within the area, there shall be no temporary road, no use of

motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form

of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

(emphasis added)

Purpose is singular in section 4c, and that is crucial to understanding the Act, along with a

historical perspective of the discussions ongoing at the time the Act was debated. The

regulations of the Forest are the result. Someone who is unfamiliar with the Wilderness Act and

unfamiliar with wilderness policy issues may erroneously think the use of the singular is

meaningless. It is not. It was done by design.

Section 2(a) of the Wilderness Act is clear. The “purpose” (and it is singular) is ―to secure for

the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of

wilderness‖ through the establishment of ―a National Wilderness Preservation System‖ and that

system ―shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness and so as to

provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character . . ."

(emphasis added)

22

Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act reinforces the importance of preservation of wilderness

character. This section does so because it also lists public purposes or uses (plural) to which

Wilderness Areas are devoted, as long as the purpose of preservation of wilderness character in

perpetuity remains paramount. These are ―recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,

conservation, and historical use.‖

Again, these six items are not the purpose of the Act (we refer you yet again to section 2a), rather

they are the public uses which are compatible with Wilderness designation provided they are

properly managed. That is the message of section 4(b). In fact, preservation of wilderness

character is mentioned twice in that section and, as such, reinforces, emphasizes, and underlines

that primary purpose. The public uses are enumerated to distinguish them from non-conforming

public uses that are allowed under certain circumstances, such as grazing and mining in section

4(d), but to which Wilderness areas are not devoted.

Thus, a clear direction is established in law. The benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness

through the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System which is to be

administered to protect its wilderness character for the American people now and in the future is

the singular and overriding purpose for the Wilderness Act. The six items enumerated

above, are the uses to which wilderness areas are devoted, provided the primary and overriding

purpose is met.

One cannot define recreational or scenic uses as the purpose of the Act. The use of the singular

and then the plural is inconsistent in such an interpretation. If one were to define recreation

and/or scenery as purposes (plural) of the Act, an agency could build tram car lines and hotels

on precipices to allow visitors to see a spectacular site that is difficult to access due to rough

terrain and conclude that is consistent with Wilderness designation because it is ―necessary to

meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Act.‖ The

Wilderness Act intended no such thing as we have clearly shown.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) explains how the requirements of the Wilderness Act are to be

met. The overriding management philosophy is as follows (FSM 2320.6)

The goal of wilderness management is to identify these influences, define their causes,

remedy them, and close the gap ("A") between the attainable level of purity and the level

that exists on each wilderness ("X").

Thus, it is clear that the goal of wilderness management is to keep and improve the wild

conditions of wilderness.

The same section of the Manual further notes:

Where a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other

activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. Economy,

convenience, commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of

wilderness.

Preserving wilderness character is paramount and more important than visitor activity


23

(recreation). The term wilderness character appears three times in the Wilderness Act’s general

provisions (and once in special 4d provisions) . Its importance is evident to anyone familiar with

the Wilderness.

Specifically regarding recreation, the Manual policy states (FSM 2323.12 part 3):

3. Manage for

recreation activities that are dependent on the wilderness environment so that a minimum

of adaptations within wilderness are necessary to accommodate recreation.

We remind you that the FSM 2323.13f allows that you can ―Provide or replace bridges only: 1.

When no other route or crossing is reasonably available.‖ There is an existing ford on Three

Links Creek and one easily accessed on Cupboard Creek. While high water early in the season

may prevent crossing of Three Links, during the primary season the water level should be such

that the ford is safe.

See above

Manual Direction also speak to wilderness character in terms of challenge. FSM 2320.2 (part 4)

notes:

4. Protect and

perpetuate wilderness character and public values including, but not limited to,

opportunities for scientific study, education, solitude, physical and mental challenge and

stimulation, inspiration, and primitive recreation experiences.

The Forest Service recently adopted recently adopted a monitoring framework for wilderness

character. That framework shows that the existence of bridges degrades one of the four key

conditions ("undeveloped") used to determine whether the agency is protecting the area's

wilderness character. (see RMRS-GTR-151, April 2005).

See above

NEPA

The EA needs to look at alternatives and seriously consider them. The fords are alternatives that

need to be fully evaluated. The fords were sufficient for wilderness use some time ago. This

alternative would have the least harm to wilderness character and not involve motorized or

mechanized equipment. Nothing has changed except the construction of bridges that made the

area less wild.

EA, Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail (pgs 5-6)

Indeed, fords may not provide Wilderness users with the most convenient experience. But they

do provide Wilderness users with the most honest Wilderness experience. Wilderness, after all,

is not about convenience. It is, according to the Wilderness Act, an ―area of undeveloped

24

Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or

human habitation.‖

The use of native structures is another alternative that needs full evaluation. They needn’t be

taken from near the river, but could be skidded over frozen ground in the winter. That method

has been successfully employed elsewhere. Motorized equipment would not be needed under

this alternative.

EA, Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail (pgs 5-6)

The old abutments, whether the fords are used where they currently exist, or whether a new

bridge is built, need to be addressed. They may need to be removed and/or restored.

EA, Proposed Action (pg 7-8)

Other issues that need to be adequately addressed are the impacts of treated material on the

environment and Wilderness character of the area. Contrary to what was stated on the field trip,

penta, is extremely toxic. Its use in Wilderness should be prohibited. There are listed fish

species in the area including steelhead and bull trout.

See above

The agency needs to look at the continuing impacts of constant use on the Selway trail such

bridges would continue to provide. What are the impacts on wildlife, wilderness character, and

watershed fisheries from current and expected levels of use. Is the area trammeled by such a

course of action? In wilderness, everything is hooked to everything else. The cumulative

impacts of the various alternatives need to be considered.

See above

With regard to the bridge approach at bear Creek, the EA needs to explain precisely the issue.

We are familiar with this area and did not notice approach problems to the bridge, though it has

been a few years.

As in the case of Three Links and Cupboard Creek, preservation of wilderness character must be

paramount. Is the bridge really needed? What precisely do you mean by problems with the

approaches? Those questions are important and should have been addressed in the scoping letter

so alternatives could be solicited.

Addressed in the MRDG, Decision (pg 10-11)

Please keep us updated on any further developments on the proposal.

Sincerely,

Gary Macfarlane


25

George Nickas

Jeff Juel


Wilderness Watch

the Ecology Center

PO Box 9241

PO Box 9175

314 N. 1st Street

Moscow, ID 83843

Missoula, MT

59807

Missoula, MT

59802

--and for--

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

Documents

THREE LINKS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · wetlands, park lands, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, prime farm lands,