Flathead Forest planning underway

It has been nearly 20 years since the Forest Service completed a Flathead National Forest Plan revision. Since the last revision in 1986, the rules have changed.

Because rules set forth in 1982 were deemed inadequate and obsolete, a new set of forest planning regulations was adopted in January of 2005. Under the new rules, land management planning will emphasize public input, collaboration, and scientific analysis, instead of bureaucratic rule. In short, the new regulations no longer require environmental impact statements during the planning process. An EA or an EIS is only required for specific project proposals.

Flathead National Forest personnel presented their preferred option during an open house last week. The Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests are also undergoing revisions. A collaborative process was stressed to the audience of 70 in Kalispell and the public at large.

"Collaboration is a big component in the new planning rule," said planning staff officer Rob Carlin in an interview Thursday. "We are not developing alternatives as in the past. We will be working to modify the preferred option. We're trying to get people to a point of agreement--working together and addressing our needs rather than going our separate ways and developing more extreme options."

With groups like Montanans for Multiple Use and Swan View Coalition, consensus may be difficult to achieve.

"Some individuals have been able to compromise their beliefs," Carlin noted. "We are going to try to reach some agreement. It is definitely a give and take situation."

Although philosophically the Swan View Coalition and Montanans for Multiple Use could not disagree on forest management more, both groups say the planning process and its stress on collaboration are farcical.

"It is really doubtful that the agency is going to come up with something that makes everybody happy," Swan View Coalition Chairman Keith Hammer said. "Our bone of contention is that there is just one option. That one alternative leaves many people going 'What's the point, the Forest Service is going to do what it wants.' Collaboration is a veneer--a smoke and mirror thing--rather than real substance. New regulations write the public out of the equation by changing the system. By saying there is only one preferred alternative, there is no comparison process."

"It's all behind-the-scenes. I think the new planning process is very secretive. The public does not have an opportunity to write the alternatives (to the preferred option)," Montanans for Multiple Use Board Member Clarice Ryan said.

Carlin noted that if no consensus can be reached, the forest service will proceed with the plan that best represents the need of the majority of people in the Flathead Valley.

"When you take people to the woods you find a little more commonality between their core values," Carlin said.

Therefore, two daylong field trips have been planned to better acquaint people with the preferred option. The trips are scheduled for July 29 and Aug. 30. What those who attend the field trips will see first hand is that the preferred option demonstrates an array of proposed management areas that identify what uses are suitable in those areas. There are 12 management areas:

•Wilderness, as prescribed by Congress

•Recommended wilderness

•Wild and scenic rivers-eligible or suitable

•Wild and scenic rivers-designated

•Back country

•Special interest areas, having scientific or recreational value

•Research natural areas

•General forest low

•General forest moderate

•General forest high

•Residential forest intermix

•High use developed areas

Of the 2.3 million acres that comprise the Flathead National Forest, 47 percent--or 1,075,291 acres--is designated wilderness land. The preferred option sets aside another 138,785 acres to be considered for wilderness status--too much for MFMU and too little for SVC.

"We are disappointed that there isn't more roadless protection and wilderness designation," Hammer said.

"They already have more wilderness than they know what to do with," Ryan rebutted.

In the preferred option, timber harvest could occur on 866,617 acres, 328,744 of which timber production is one of the management objectives. The remaining

537,873 acres are lands that timber production is not one of the management objectives, but harvest could occur for other multiple-use purposes. In the Flathead National Forest, 1,638,098 acres are land not suitable for timber production.

"From our previous plan, they have reduced suitable timber production by 50 percent," MFMU President Fred Hodgeboom said. "They are practicing do-nothing management and let-it-burn mentality. All I see is the preservation special interest at work here. But I guess that haven't reduced the suitable timber base to zero--yet."

Carlin pointed out one issue within the preferred option has definitely reoccurred for debate.

"We've been saying that the top three issues are 'Access, access and access,'" he said. "We're very sensitive to that."

Grizzly bear management and security are also being closely examined as part of the planning process.

"At first glance they still do not intend to supply grizzly bears with the security that was set out 10 years ago in Amendment 19. Grizzly bears need vast areas of roadless access," Hammer said.

Carlin added that vegetation management and fuels reduction are also a hotbed for debate. According to the Flathead National Forest Desired Conditions draft, "The Flathead NF wants to manage landscape composition and patterns to reduce the risk of undesirable fire, insect and pathogen disturbances."

In Bigfork's neck of the woods, the preferred option changes little, according to Swan Lake District Ranger Steve Brady.

"It isn't a dramatic departure from the old plan," he said. "The bulk of the district operates under the Swan Valley Conservation Agreement." That agreement--made between Plum Creek, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and the Forest Service--created a management plan that limits road density in exchange for some timber harvest and other land uses.

Within the new forest planning rule, there are no prescriptive standards by which the Forest Service must be governed. The question has thus been posed, "How will the Forest Service be held accountable?"

"With guidelines and objectives we can clearly spell that out. Projects will be held to guidelines," Carlin explained.

The collaborative effort continues, and the Flathead National Forest planners hope to release a draft forest plan for 90-day public review in the fall. They also hope to begin final plan implementation in a year.

For more information about the Flathead Forest Plan revision, visit www.fs.fed.us/r1/wmpz. To sign-up for one of the two field trips, call 758-5200.