Flathead Community Working Group

The meetings were conducted in a workshop format, with emphasis on sharing and promoting public understanding of information. The Flathead National Forest was provided requests for information prior to the first three workshops on which they made presentations at the workshop and fielded questions from the participants. In addition, participants submitted questions and comments in writing on cards. Written input from participants provided policy statements to be voted on by participants before being included in the plan and submitted to the Forest Service. The voting was done to provide the Forest Service with the level of support of each statement presented by the public participants.

As a result of the public participation process, the following summarizes the major findings from the public comments. The policy statement with the level of support is attached. Since all meetings were well advertised and made public, the attendance makeup varied from one meeting to the next. A sign in sheet was at the door, but not all people remembered to sign it. An attendance list by meeting is included as well as a master list of all who were involved.

Is anyone listening??? We don’t see this priority in the Action Plan.

The greatest concern of the general public is FIRE. Fire danger, health, safety and loss of the forest as they know it are on the minds of the general public. People who live and work in the Flathead Valley are afraid of losing their lives and their livelihood. Most of the loggers have starved out years ago, but now even the tourism trade is being impacted by the devastating fires every summer. Massive forest fires consume all in their path including our treasured wildlife and their habitats, as well as our sources of human enjoyment, economy and industry.

Caused by neglect (lack of forest management) the forests are in such an unhealthy condition they are loaded up to burn; and burn they will every summer. Fuel build up is of such high density that the fires can not be put out once started. Drought and severe overstocking has impacted the tree stands causing huge kills by bugs and insects because of stress. Trees and underbrush are so thick that significant moisture can not reach the ground. These dead and dying treed areas are so large that they can easily surpass the hundreds of thousands of acres killed by fires. The dead trees are a time bomb waiting for a match or a lightning strike!

The Forest Service needs to be proactive and build fire breaks and reduce fuels in advance. This would allow some generation of economic value from timber to pay for the cost. Just burning the fuel build up is not only extremely dangerous but wasteful and destructive to the environment and health of people. Timber thinning and biomass harvest can help pay for the work that needs to be done now. Money can not be the excuse for doing nothing. The cost of fighting the fires and the loss of property and forests dwarfs the cost of prevention. The path and nature of a forest fire can be predicted from computer models and past experience. ACTION IS NEEDED NOW.

Comment by participant: "People want landscape scale active forest management to restore forest health and promote catastrophic fire resistant forest cover."

Comment by participant: "The majority of the public believes the Forest Service has failed to provide early detection of fire starts and failed to fight fires aggressively using knowledgeable local people who know the terrain and local equipment. The grounding of the entire air tanker fleet at the beginning of a potentially severe fire season rather than working on individual plane or company certification is perceived as another "let burn" agenda driven policy rather than working for solutions that promote: the greatest public benefits over the long term."

The Flathead Community Forest Planning Group attendance ranged from 60 to 80 people per meeting. Many of the people had been involved in small groups who experienced a consensus building processes coordinated by Forest Service personnel or consultants. They unanimously voted that a large public forum was best where they did not feel manipulated or forced to compromise what they believed to be the best course of action.

Process needs to be advertised in such a manner that citizens will understand that they can have input into forest management issues even though they are not an expert.

Process needs to be organized so that every person’s input is considered with no advantage given to the process experts. For example, a minority party or group should not be able to veto components of the final plan. Compromising to please a vocal minority is not acceptable. Alternatively, a minority report is a good way to express the views of the minority without marginalizing the majority.

Combining all of the forests (Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo) into one plan is very unwise given the different climate, resource capabilities, issues, culture, and customs of each area.

Eliminate most of the studies and paper work. Local people, local elected officials and common sense should carry the most weight in making management decisions.

Opinions by the US Fish and wildlife should carry no more weight than any other agency whether it is federal, state, county or city/local jurisdiction. Mitigation of the concerns of USFW should be a factor, but they should not have veto power.

Eliminate management by litigation by changing the necessary laws. Require public support and open peer review for all potential endangered species listings.

Comment by participant: "Until there is change in the grizzly reintroduction plans driven by the

U S Fish and Wildlife Service, we will not see any major changes in the Forest Service Plan. The Endangered Species Act is broken and needs to be gutted and rebuilt and there is a proposal before the US Congress right now that seeks to do just such a correction to the law. We are held hostage by extreme environmentalists who misuse the intent of the ESA for other purposes."

Access Management

Access to the forest is the reason many people live here. Access is a part of the community culture and heritage. Seeing the forest up close and being able to drive to their favorite spots are pleasures that local people have taken for granted for generations. Being locked out of a forest and seeing roads destroyed that they have used for many years is denying freedoms that were once afforded to all Americans and is very sad to local residents. Areas where they could pick berries, obtain fire wood or cut posts are no longer accessible.

Public lands should be available for public recreation. Access should be balanced with the needs of wildlife. This may mean temporary closing of roads, but not permanently closing or obliterating roads. The Forest Service has to recognize the increasing and aging population demands more motorized access, both summer and winter, in the Forest Plan Revision.

Roads are needed in order to manage the forests. Without roads it is very expensive to provide rehabilitation, weed control, thinning, logging, fire control etc.

Comment by participant: "In regard to road obliteration, do you feel in reality that it is beneficial to bring in machinery to tear up the grass, brush, and trees that are already covering the old unused and unmaintained roads and tear out old broken and dirt filled culverts? Isn’t that a huge waste of time and money, let alone creating new and severe erosion? Many of the old logging roads that I’m familiar with can hardly be found now if they haven’t been used."

Comment by participant: "In the Flathead, there are enough areas already closed to motorized use, (Glacier National Park, Great Bear, Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, Jewel Basin, etc.)"

Participants are very concerned by the gated and destroyed roads. The large majority of people drive and do not have the time or health to walk. Most recreation takes place on the roads or a short distance off the road. People want to be able to see the scenery, hunt and fish and need some sort of vehicle to provide access.

Participants agreed that areas may need to be closed at certain times for wildlife needs and are willing to accept temporary closures but disagree with the policy of permanent closures and destruction of roads and trails. Participants believe that the Forest Service spends too much time trying to manage people rather than managing the forest.

Roads can be maintained by the timber industry when timber sales are increased to a sustainable level. This would save the Forest Service money that could be spent on managing the forest.

More areas and trails (including old logging roads) need to be designated and managed specifically for motorcycle and ATV use opportunities. This would reduce the conflict with other users.

Comment by participant: "Spending $7000 per mile to restore a substandard road to current Best Management Practices would produce vastly increased public benefits resulting from economic timber management, recreation opportunities, fire hazard reduction, and fire suppression access than spending the $7000 /mile to obliterate the road which only produces public costs."

Comment by participant: "Forest Service data indicates that 80% of the recreation is "driving for pleasure", so it is in the public interest to provide more road access to the public instead of road closure and obliteration."

Comment by participant: "State and local governments should be consulted and approve public roads to be decommissioned. "

The participants agreed that the private land that is contiguous to National Forest is indeed private land and should be treated as such without taking away property rights. The trust is not there for Forest Service personnel to order the land owners to pursue a certain course of action to mitigate fire danger. Their distrust is based on recent experiences with the inability of the fire crews to control fires and the fact that most fires start on the National Forest. The participants have high regard for local officials and people who have experience with the local forest and believe that there are many options available to mitigate fire danger. In some cases the area could be clear cut while in other cases the underbrush could be removed and the large trees thinned. The participants are willing and ready to do their part to reduce fire danger, but want to have input into the final decision as to how best to reduce the fire danger in their respective areas on both the private and public interface. The majority opinion was to remove underbrush and thin trees to prevent the fire from traveling from crown to crown. They believed that the interface area is of high value for timber production because it is easily maintained and accessible and should be part of the suitable timber base.

With proper management, the forest can provide wood products, economic development, healthy habitat for wildlife, great scenery, clean water, and recreational opportunities while reducing fire danger. Unfortunately the present course of action makes effective management impossible. The draft action plan is even worse with more restrictions, more studies and less forest management, all of which is done while the forest burns.

The vast majority of the participants believe that State and private forests lands are well managed while the current condition of the Flathead National Forest is poor resulting in high fire hazard which threatens communities, public health, natural resources and public treasures. The participants believe that the National Forest is not being managed at all. They see fires every summer, behind gated and destroyed roads. They are seeing declining economic benefit from timber harvest and their recreational benefits curtailed. The environmentalists are advocating zero cut. What used to be an economic benefit to the nation is now a liability. Huge amounts of money are pulled from other needs to put out fires and rehabilitate forests the public can longer enter and enjoy.

Without roads it is not economically possible to provide effective fire suppression or long term sustainable forest fuel management, rehabilitation and restoration, thinning, and insect, disease and weed control. Without money from wood products, there is a constant drain on public money needed for education, self defense, infrastructure, etc. By default the strategy seems to be to lock the forest up and burn it.

Comment by Participant: "Do you (forest service employees) feel that you were forced to make many of your management decisions and policies in the past 2 decades because of environmentalists’ law suits and their judges’ decisions? Or do you feel that the Forest Service has done a good job of managing the National Forests and representing what most people really want? If the appeals and litigation possibilities were curtailed, would your policies be different?"

Endangered Species Recovery

People believe the grizzly bear populations are healthy, sustainable, recovered and not threatened. They want grizzly de-listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The majority of the public believes road closures and obliteration costs to public vastly exceed any benefits to grizzly bears or other wildlife. They want the policies reversed to increase and restore public access in the National Forest where motorized access is possible which is only 25% of the total land area.

There should be public review and checks and balances on "biological opinions" issued by biologists who have no responsibility or accountability for the public costs that result from implementation of these opinions.

Comment of participant: "It doesn’t take a scientist to see that people don’t bother bears or mountain lions or deer or elk, or they wouldn’t be coming into our yards. Deer and elk love the edge of clear cuts, where they can graze and still be close to wooded areas. Deer love to browse on the cut brush in areas that are being logged. So why are roads closed to protect animals; protect them from what?"

Forest products are a by product of good management. Roads are necessary for effective management. None of these can be considered separately. Without good management the high value trees are lost to fire, disease and decay. Without good management, dense small trees and brush inhibit growth and stress resulting in disease and bug kill. If management is conducted properly, the result will be an esthetically pleasing, healthy forest, but one that provides for the wildlife, the watershed, and the environment that we all desire and still yield lumber and other wood products. In essence our forests are capable of financing their own health and sustainability. State and privately owned forest lands provide an example of good forest management. They yield both financial and recreation value to the public.

Management by burning pollutes the air and destroys habitat and nutrients. Effective management techniques should prioritize treatments. Logging high value trees for lumber should be geared to maximize the long term gain. Selective cutting can be used to thin the stands and allow the remaining trees to grow faster. New equipment makes it cost effective to select cut rather than clear cut. Clear cutting should be done only when the stand is diseased or deteriorated to the point that it has lost all or most of the commercial value. Most of the debris that is left can be utilized by bio-mass operations that produce wood products and energy.

Participants believe that forest management and recreation requires roads to be cost effective. Roads provide access. Without forest management, the roadless areas will eventually burn and destroy the habitat of wildlife and the financial and aesthetic values. Participants do not believe that the roads are inherently bad for the environment and wildlife; they believe just the opposite.

Comment from participant: "Roads are essential. Close them periodically if you must, but do not destroy a road or prevent a new one and put the health of our forest at risk."

* Representatives: Verdell Jackson, Rod Bitney, John Brueggeman, Dee Brown, George Everett, Stan Fisher, Rick Maedje, Bernie Olson, Bob Lawson, Doug Mood (Speaker of the House).

Senators: Greg Barkus, Aubyn Curtiss, Bob Depratu, Jerry O’Neil, Bob Keenan (President of the Senate).