Helena-Lewis Clark National Forest has decided to withdraw a controversial change in elk security requirements in the Divide area near Helena that sportsmen’s groups argued in a lawsuit could have negatively impacted big-game habitat.The Divide Area west of Helena includes about 155,480 acres of public land located in Lewis and Clark and Powell counties.

In March, the Forest Service removed the Big Game 4a standard.

That standard required secure areas for elk and other big game species on public lands by ensuring sufficient vegetative hiding cover and low open road densities during fall hunting season. The more vegetative hiding cover, the more open road density was allowed during the fall hunting season. The less hiding cover, the less road density allowed.

It was replaced with a new security standard that said big-game security could be achieved without any trees, said Matthew Bishop, attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center (WELA).

“Under the new standard, you could have a big-game security area without any trees so long as it was a certain distance from a road,” Bishop said.

Removing the tree cover portion of the standard prompted a lawsuit by WELA representing the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, Clancy-Unionville Citizens Task Force and Anaconda Sportsmen’s Club.

Forests are having a hard time meeting the 4a standard, in some cases because of the amount of dead trees, Bishop said.

But that should not have resulted in removing the standard all together, he said.

Removing the Big Game 4a standard for the Divide region was achieved by a forest plan amendment tied to a new travel plan for that area, said Kathy Bushnell, a forest spokeswoman.

The travel plan decision stands, but the forest withdrew the big game security amendment decision Friday.

“The elk security standard and how we manage for elk security will now be addressed in the forest plan revision process,” Bushnell said.

A draft new forest plan for Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest is now out for public comment.

Wildlife management standards and goals will be incorporated into that overall plan, Bushnell said.

“What they’re agreeing to do is take another look at big game review in the forest plan revision which we think makes sense,” Bishop said.

Bishop is now working with the Forest Service attorney on a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit, he said.

The proposed forest plan for Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest would manage elk security in a way that provides more hunting opportunities on public land, said Bill Avey, supervisor of the forest.

Properly defining and managing for big game habitat will be a key issue for the Forest Service during the upcoming Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest plan revision process, said Gayle Joslin of Helena Hunters and Anglers.

“Hunting organizations look forward to working with the Forest Service to conserve the priceless wildlife habitat found on our national forests,” Joslin said in a statement.

The coalition of Montana sportsmen’s groups that sued the Forest Service commended the agency for reinstating the so-called Big Game Standard 4a for the Divide area, which they said provides important habitat for big game and the threatened Canada lynx.

It also is considered a key movement corridor or linkage zone for native carnivores including grizzly bears.

Standard 4a includes a hiding cover component and other protections important to big game species as well as other sensitive species.

“We’re pleased that the Forest Service listened to our concerns and recognizes the importance of maintaining habitat security for healthy elk herds and ample hunting opportunity,” Dave Stalling, MWF Western field representative, said in a statement. “This is good news for elk and good news for those of us who hunt elk.”

John Sullivan III, chairman of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said blanket application of the 4a standard is difficult for forests.

“We acknowledge that,” Sullivan said. “But they abandoned any elk security requirement. The only way the public can hold the forest accountable is if they have an elk security standard.”

The Forest Service approach conflicted with the best available science and was developed with inadequate consideration of its impacts and of possible alternatives, according to the lawsuit.