SUMMARY OF THE FLATHEAD FOREST PLAN
The draft forest plan has some
big surprises even for those of us who have come to expect the FS to
continue to move towards the extreme positions of radical
environmentalists.
Wilderness
66,811 Acres of
New Wilderness in the North Fork
Wilderness
designation is what FNF will recommend for these areas and wilderness is
how they will manage it until Congress acts. Wilderness means no
motorized, no mechanized (mountain bikes), no timber harvest and little
if any fire repression.
The Forest
Service Survey on the Flathead in 2000 revealed that only 1.58% of ALL
visitors to FNF went into wilderness areas.
WILDERNESS ACRES INCLUDING
RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS WOULD NOW TOTAL 1,161,443 OR 49.5% OF THE LAND
AREA OF FLATHEAD NF
Roadless
or Backcountry
319,542 ACRES
ARE SET ASIDE AS UNROADED BACKCOUNTRY.
Semi-primitive
non-motorized acreage has been greatly increased from 255,777
acres in the old plan. Backcountry areas are declared "not suitable
for motorized travel". In this category 194,541 acres are suitable
for timber harvest but only if harvesting accomplishes some other
non-harvest goal. It is not likely that much of this will be harvested
since it will have to be done with helicopters or from the few existing
roads alongside these areas.
After adding
the other roadless lands inMA 1.2, MA 3.1, and MA 3.2, the total of all
roadless acres OUTSIDE of designated wilderness is
484,534 acres.
NO ROADS, NO
HARVEST, VERY RESTRICTED MOTORIZED RECREATION. SOUNDS LIKE THE CLINTON
ROADLESS RULE.
Total Roadless
Acreage
Adding the total of:
Wilderness - MA
1.1
= 1,020,200
Recommended
Wilderness - MA 1.2 = 141,243
Backcountry - MA
2.2
= 319,542
Jewel Basin - MA
3.1
= 15,000
Research Natural
Areas -MA 3.2 =
8,523
TOTAL ROADLESS
=1,505,508
ROADS AND MOST
MOTORIZED USE WILL BE BANNED FROM 64% OF THE FLATHEAD N.F. FOR THE
DURATION OF THIS FOREST PLAN
BY USING SPECIAL
DESIGNATIONS FOREST MANAGERS CAN IMPLEMENT THERE OWN ROADLESS RULE
Wild
& Scenic Rivers
The Draft Plan
includes a proliferation of Wild and Scenic River recommendations for creeks
that lack "outstandingly remarkable attributes" as required by the
law to qualify for classification. "The streams were once used by Indians
as travel routes." is the only justification we heard from the Forest
Service. How many streams were not used by Indians? We doubt that is what
Congress had in mind when the law was written.
THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS PLAN
MORE THAN DOUBLE THE LAND SET ASIDE FOR THIS PURPOSE.
Wildlife
Corridors
Scientific
Basis
We are disappointed
with the lack of science used in formulating the Draft Plan. There was
practically no analysis of monitoring data from the past 20 years to identify
what needs to be done in the decade ahead. Even the science they do claim to
use as a basis for this plan is tainted. Two of the sources they list,
NatureServe and Montana Heritage Program are projects of The Nature
Conservancy.
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF
SCIENTIFIC BASIS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN PRIMARILY RESPONDS TO A SOCIAL
AGENDA TO REDUCE HUMAN USE IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.
Programmatic
or Site Specific
Although this is
supposed to be a non-specific, programmatic visioning plan it refers to
guidelines that are contained in separate documents called Flathead
National Forest Reference Guides that seem to be very site-specific,
detailed and compulsory. The Over-the-Snow Vehicle Use and Management
guideline is taken from Amendment 24 of the old plan and simply included
in the new plan. The current plan (snowmobile litigation travel agreement) has
never been through a completed NEPA review, although the FNF says they intend
to complete a Record of Decision before the Final Plan.
Access
FNF plans to
decommission 100 to 500 miles of road.
FNF will continue to
abide by the road density standards of Amendment 19 but will apply them
project by project.
They acknowledge the
increased demand for recreational use but they have no goal or objective to
meet that demand.
FNF plans to maintain
and keep open more miles of trail than miles of road.
Most of those trail
miles are non- motorized.
They have no plan to address these
imbalances.
Recreation
Timber
FNF classifies the
land as:
-
Unsuitable
for timber harvest
-
Unsuitable
for timber production but suitable for timber harvest
Suitable for
timber production
The Revised timber
suitability classification found 988,000 acres on the Flathead NF available
and suitable for timber harvest. Timber harvest and timber production mean
different things to the FS.
TIMBER
PRODUCTION The Draft Plan proposes only about 1/3 of the acres
mentioned above as suitable for timber production (328,328 acres) . Not only
is the timber base greatly reduced from the current plan, the planned harvest
is reduced by about 50% to 23 to 29 MMBF per year. But even those
numbers are incorrect because the conversion factor from cubic feet to board
feet that was used to derive them was based on trees over 22" in
diameter. It is extremely unlikely that FNF will harvest very trees that
size. Siviculturist and retired FNF forest planner, Fred Hodgeboom
estimates that the real projected harvest will be in the 18MMBF
range.
IN THE TEN YEARS FROM
1988 TO 1997 FNF HARVESTED 475 MMBF.
TIMBER
HARVEST The Draft Plan proposes over 568,559 acres of potentially
suitable timberlands as "unsuitable for timber production" but
"suitable for harvest". It is clear that the harvest ceiling of
only 5.8 MMBF/year from these lands is so insignificant that
insect, disease, wind and wildfire will determine the future of most of
the forest outside the Wilderness as well as inside.
Timber inventory
data indicates the average acre in the current suitable timber base grows
about 180 BF/acre/year. FNF plans to harvest a maximum of 88 BF/acre/year
on the "production" lands and only 11.6 BF/acre/year on the
"harvest" lands for a total of 42 BF/acre/year on all of the
"suitable" lands and ZERO BF on the remaining 58% of
"unsuitable" and "unavailable" FNF lands.
The whole pie
equals Total Annual Growth on FNF of 59.9 MMCF
Fire
The emphasis on Fire
Planning is all on using fire as a management tool. Other than safety concerns
no emphasis is placed on putting the fire out. "Minimum impact
suppression tactics should be used within RCAs. (streamside zones)"
This guideline will hamper fire fighting.
There are no desired
future conditions specified in regard to fire detection or suppression. As
discussed under timber above, the only outcome of the Draft Forest Plan
revision is acceleration in the rate of timber mortality, catastrophic fires,
firefighting costs, and more risk to watersheds, public health and safety, and
private property.
HERE ARE THE EXPECTED
RESULTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT AND TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN THIS PLAN
|
WANT
TO GO FOR A HIKE? |
THIRSTY?? |
 
|
This hiking
trail was burned over in the Moose Fire in 2000 |
This picture
was taken from Blankenship Bridge looking at the junction of the North
Fork & Middle Fork of the Flathead.
It was taken
on July 1, 2004 right after a heavy downpour over the burnt areas of
the Wedge/Roberts fires
|
Monitoring
and Flexibility
The new plan should
give the Forest Service more flexibility to manage. This would be a good
thing IF they manage for multiple use and IF their decisions are based on
good science rather than a preservationist environmental agenda.
The new regulations
require more monitoring and adjusting to meet the objectives. This could
also be a good thing if properly handled.
Some new changes have been included in the just
released Draft Plan:
·
2800 acres have been added to the new proposed wilderness in
the North Fork.
·
8000 acres have been removed from Backcountry designation.
A good part of that went to wilderness.
·
General Forest was increased by 6200 acres.
|
