Page 14 - Flathead Beacon // 6.1.16

Flathead National Forest Proposes New Management Blueprint Updated forest plan identi es possible increases to wilderness, timber production and recreation opportunities
BY DILLON TABISH OF THE BEACON
Setting the stage for more than 2,000 pages of scienti c research, new guide- lines and contentious proposals, the cover of the modi ed management plan for the Flathead National Forest cites a symbolic quote.
“Where con icting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.”
Indeed, the well-known saying by Gif- ford Pinchot, the rst chief of the U.S. Forest Service, remains as relevant as the day it was written in 1905, and its merits are being put to the test as the agency unrolls the historic makeover of its sweeping management plan for the 2.4 million acre tract of federal land in Northwest Montana, where a rapidly growing population is placing increas- ing pressure on the wild interior.
After nearly three years of pub- lic meetings and analysis, the agency released the draft version of its revised forest plan on May 27, unveiling a pro- posed blueprint for everything within the Flathead National Forest, from rec- reational opportunities to designated wilderness, timber production, wildlife and habitat.
The agency has developed four alter- natives within the plan that include vary- ing degrees of priorities.
For example, three of the four alterna- tives identify 98,000 to 506,919 acres of recommended wilderness while a fourth alternative proposes no additional rec- ommended wilderness.
One alternative emphasizes a more active management approach through timber harvest and other mechanical means, identifying up to 22 percent of the forest as suitable for timber production.
Another alternative puts a heavy emphasis on adding more backcountry and non-motorized recreation opportu- nities, while all of the alternatives iden- tify added options for so-called front- country recreation.
The proposals identify seven threat- ened or endangered species and 32 spe- cies of conservation concern, including 25 plant species, six terrestrials and one aquatic.
Forest Service o cials have not selected a preferred alternative and are opening the massive long-term steering document to public comment. The pub- lic scoping period will last 120 days and close Sept. 26.
“We very much see value in each of the alternatives stated. That’s really true. We’re in a listening mode,” Flathead National Forest Supervisor Chip Weber said in an interview last week.
Unique to this forest plan, the agency has included a management strategy for grizzly bears in the Northern Continental
BEACON FILE PHOTOS
Divide Ecosystem, a 9,600-square-mile area spanning Northwest Montana and including the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Lolo and Kootenai national forests. The strategy would guide habitat manage- ment for grizzlies in the event they are removed from the list of threatened spe- cies under the Endangered Species Act, a proposal that is likely to emerge in the coming years.
Forest o cials will host an informa- tional meeting at the Flathead National Forest O ce, 650 Wolfpack Way, in Kalispell on June 20 from 2-6 p.m.
Joe Krueger, project leader and for- est planner, led a core team of 10 peo- ple with a wide range of backgrounds, including an economist and a social sci- entist, to craft the revised forest plan, which is being fully updated for the rst time since 1986. The process of updating the plan and developing the grizzly bear management amendment has cost $2.4 million to date, according to the Forest Service.
The plan’s importance cannot be understated — it lays out the long-term guidelines for supervising the 10th larg- est national forest in the U.S.
“The Crown of the Continent is one of the most intact ecosystems in the world. Our plan is designed to sustain that eco- logic function,” Weber said.
Weber said the plan is designed to allow the agency to manage the forest to be resilient in the face of several fac- tors, including a growing population and climate change, while also providing for
social and economic sustainability. Weber said the plan is also designed to be exible and allow the agency to respond to social and ecological changes, while also “re ecting the best available
science.”
A year ago, the agency released the
initial draft revision and received over 20,000 comments. The forest plan team reviewed the comments and tweaked several aspects of the plan and desig- nated the four alternatives, Krueger said.
“Some of those comments really helped us make that proposed action bet- ter,” Krueger said.
Krueger emphasized that the com- ment period is not a voting process; instead the agency wants constructive input.
“We want to have some informed com- ments so we can narrow that choice,” Krueger said. “This has been a complex e ort. It’s taken a regional e ort to get the analysis completed. I’ve done a lot of environmental impact statements in my 28-year career and this has challenged me more than any of them.”
During last year’s scoping period, a large portion of people expressed support for frontcountry recreation opportuni- ties, such as mountain biking and hiking trails relatively close to the valley oor. Each of the alternatives includes varying degrees of new frontcountry opportuni- ties and propose a range of “focused rec- reation areas” from roughly 30,000 acres up to 61,000 acres.
“We’re trying to have a balanced plan
that provides on this landscape opportu- nities for all of those uses in a way that is sustainable both economically and eco- logically,” Weber said.
If grizzlies are delisted, the Forest Ser- vice could allow new uses, such as log- ging, in previously protected areas but would have to maintain standards that were in place around 2011, when a base- line for the “healthy” grizzly population was established, Krueger said.
“If people think it’s a dramatic relax- ation of grizzly bear standards, that’s not true,” he said.
The alternatives identify a range of timber suitability, from 13 percent to 22 percent of the forest, and approximately 22 million to 29 million board feet pro- jected to be available annually.
In preparing for a complex issue such as climate change, the agency is seek- ing to “build resiliency” in the forest, whether it’s helping protect cold water habitat that is vital for bull trout or add- ing bu er zones to protect sensitive areas.
The plan is designed to have a robust monitoring strategy that allows the agency to respond if certain ecological standards dwindle, Weber said.
“We have the most intact ecosystem you’re going to nd anywhere,” he said. “We have to continue to protect that.”
The Forest Service plans to have a nal plan with a record of decision pub- lished next spring.
dtabish@ atheadbeacon.com
14
JUNE 1, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM