Friends of Spencer demands rec plan
The chasm that exists between the
Friends of Spencer Mountain and the Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC) doesn’t seem to be shrinking.
As the proposed timber sale at the
popular hiking and biking area west of Whitefish creeps toward
fruition — it’s slated to happen as early as this summer — the
group feels as if their requests to protect recreational
opportunities in the area are “falling of deaf ears.”
Friends of Spencer held a public
meeting March 7 to voice their frustration and to take public
feedback about the sale. Around 65 people attended the meeting at
Grouse Mountain Lodge, including mountain bikers, hikers, forestry
workers and generally concerned citizens.
The sale on Spencer Mountain calls for
harvesting about 10 million board feet of timber from 1,650 acres.
About 19.5 miles of roads will be used to access the timber,
including 9.5 miles of new roads. The 10 miles of existing roads
will require some reconstruction. The project falls entirely within
state school trust land and is estimated to generate $1.6 million
for Montana schools.
The main area of concern for Friends of
Spencer, as expressed at the meeting by group president Jeff
Gilman, is the lack of a recreational plan showing in detail how
the extensive network of trails currently within the area will be
preserved during the timber sale.
“We’ve been telling them from the
beginning that [having a recreation plan] would make the most
sense, and they seem to not want to hear that,” Gilman said.
“Friends of Spencer is very much in favor of timber management and
a timber cut on Spencer Mountain. The forest out there is not
healthy. We’re not opposed to them doing work. In fact, we
encourage it and think it needs to be done.
“What we want to see is that anything
that is done, is done concurrent with a recreation development
plan. We want to make sure that whatever [DNRC does], it doesn’t
detract from the recreational experience that is already
there.”
DNRC, asserts that, while they’re not
accustomed to recreational planning, “existing recreational uses”
will be maintained as part of the sale’s objectives.
Bob Sandman, area manager for DNRC,
envisions a way to link a recreation plan with an ongoing timber
sale. He says some timber can be harvested in a manner that won’t
affect existing trails, allowing more time for a recreation plan to
be crafted.
“It may not be necessary to argue which
comes first,” Sandman said.
Sandman faces some hurdles in creating
a recreation plan. He notes the challenges of adjusting two
separate timber sales and keeping recreation planning on track so
it can be completed in a reasonable time.
However, he said nearly everyone he’s
talked with about the Spencer timber sale has the same goal — keep
recreation intact while creating revenue for the school trust. He
says there may be some miscommunication going on which he’ll try to
sort through at a stakeholder meeting scheduled for today.
Whitefish Legacy Partners (WLP), the
local conservation group developing land-use strategies for state
land surrounding Whitefish, will be at the meeting to discuss the
group’s recently drafted guidelines for managing these lands. These
guideline recommend leaving more large trees, giving viewsheds a
natural and varied appearance, cleaning up disturbed sites,
minimizing construction of new roads and reducing wildfire
fuels.
Like Friends of Spencer, WLP says it
wants clarity from DNRC about a recreation plan.
“We haven’t heard back from [DNRC] in
any meaningful way,” WLP executive director Diane Conradi said.
“We’d like to see the existing recreation protected. If that
happens in advance, fine. If it happens in conjunction with the
sale, maybe — if they do it right.”
While WLP and Friends of Spencer are
“on the same page” in regards to preserving recreational
opportunities at Spencer, Gilman suggests that WLP’s relationship
with DNRC is a sticky wicket. WLP is the driving force behind the
Whitefish Trail and helped craft the 2004 Whitefish School Trust
Lands Neighborhood Plan. Much of the Whitefish Trail has already
been and will be built on state land, including a section on
Spencer Mountain.
Gilman says he’d like to see WLP use
its clout and take a firmer stance in their requests for a
recreation plan.
“It’s our feeling that the Legacy
Partners have a conflict of interest,” Gilman said. “They’re more
interested in keeping an ongoing relationship with DNRC than they
are with creating a better plan for Spencer.”
“I like what they’re doing [with the
guidelines] and they have a role to play,” he said. “But they have
not been willing to stand up to DNRC to make sure there is a
recreation plan in place. They’re afraid of repercussions from DNRC
because they have to work with them moving forward.”
Marshall Friedman was on the WLP board
until he recently resigned. He appluads the group’s success and
efforts with preseving and creating recreation, but says he left
the board becuase “they aren’t representing what the community
expects to happen at Spencer.” He points to the guidelines WLP
created as weak.
“The amount of new roads will
absolutely devestate Spencer,” Friedman said. “It will be like
hiking through a construction site.”
Friends of Specer is a force in this
issue, Friedman said, and “there’s no question” that the group
represents many people in the community.
Conradi says WLP is doing its best to
make sure recreation is integrated into the timber sale and notes
that the group’s relationship with DNRC is unprecedented.
“It’s a partnership in a capacity we’ve
never had before,” she said. “We’re ready to do the planning. We
want to make sure we’ve got something to work with that’s quality,
and that’s why we made those guidelines.”
Another issue that’s yet to be solved
by either the Friends of Spencer or WLP is how recreation can bring
substantial revenue into the school trust. DNRC has a mandate to
generate funds for the trust on these lands.
Gilman says it’s “pie in the sky” to
think that recreation can match the amount of revenue a timber sale
will bring.
“We’re not going to raise $1.6 million
in recreation fees,” Gilman said. “I think we need to have a
different mentality. This is going to be a legacy we leave our
grandkids. Surely that has a value.”
The group is working on concepts for
how recreation will provide revenue, which may look something like
a season pass or a daily-user fee.
Local mountain biking advocate Pete
Costain suggested at the March 7 public meeting that a study should
be conducted to gauge how much revenue is brought into Whitefish
from recreation on state lands.
“If you look at the environmental
assessment for the timber sale, they talk about peripheral income
in the logging industry that the timber sale will bring to the
community,” he said. “Surely we all recognize that hotels,
restaurants and bike shops will benefit, peripherally, by having
these state lands available.”