Flathead weighs comments on forest plan
The Daily Inter Lake
Forest Service planners are sifting through an analysis of comments submitted on proposed long-range forest plans for the Flathead, Bitterroot and Lolo national forests.
A special team recently completed and released the "content analysis" report that examined more than 2,000 letters containing 6,000 comments on specific forest-plan issues.
Now, Flathead Forest officials are considering how the proposed forest plan should be changed based on the public comments.
The next version of the forest plan is expected to be released in spring or early summer, followed by a 30-day objection period that could lead to further changes in a final plan.
Rob Carlin, the Flathead Forest's lead planner, said comments received on the Flathead plan before a Sept. 7 deadline last year mostly focus on familiar controversies.
"As we've said earlier, our top three issues are access, access and access," Carlin quipped. "Particularly, inherent conflicts with motorized access."
Those who chimed in on that issue either want to see more motorized access or they want to see less. Differing opinions extend to motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile use on the forest.
The plan proposes 141,243 acres of wilderness, 328,328 acres for timber production and an additional 568,559 acres where timber harvest could occur on the 2.3 million-acre forest.
The wilderness proposal presents a substantial increase over the current plan's recommendation for 98,080 acres. Most of the additional acreage is 60,000 acres of proposed wilderness in the Thompson-Seton and Tuchuck Mountain areas in the North Fork Flathead River drainage.
Carlin said the wilderness proposal has supporters and detractors, and the timber harvest proposal is seen by many commenters as being a significant reduction in the forest's current available "timber base."
The Flathead proposal maps out 328,328 acres that are considered "suitable for timber production." These are areas that would be actively managed to produce commercial timber products. That's a substantial reduction from the 670,000 acres defined as suitable for timber production in the current forest plan.
The proposed areas for timber production, however, do not reflect all areas where timber harvest could occur. An additional 568,559
acres would be "suitable for timber harvest for other purposes."
Those areas would be managed for multiple-use objectives, such as supporting wildlife habitat, reducing fire hazards or improving scenic vistas.
The Flathead Forest projects that "timber production" lands would yield volumes ranging from 186 million to 227 million board-feet of timber per decade. And lands suitable for timber harvest would yield 52 million to 64 million board feet per decade.
Another major issue for many people are the new regulations being used by the Forest Service to develop the long-range plans.
There are concerns that the new plans will not hold the agency accountable for achieving "desired conditions" on the forest because the plans lack standards that must be achieved. There also are complaints that the plans lack comprehensive environmental impact statements to assess the consequences of pursuing desired conditions on the landscape.
But the agency counters that the plans are "strategic" or "visionary" documents. The Forest Service, relying partly on case law, contends that environment impact statements are not necessary for the plans because they do not authorize any forest management activities.
Environmental reviews must be conducted every time the forest plans a project aimed at achieving long-range forest planning goals.
Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com