Notes for Smith Shields Public Meeting & Field Trip

Transcription

1 Notes for Smith Shields Public Meeting & Field Trip July 27 & 29, 2016; Livingston, MT and Project Area These notes are intended to capture the broader topics, issues and concerns discussed at the public information meeting (July 27 th ) and field trip (July 29 th ). While more site-specific discussions may have occurred for some topics, such detail is not necessary for the purposes of capturing the overall outcomes of this public information meeting and field trip. These more site-specific, detailed issues/concerns will be captured during the collaborative process to develop and implement the Smith Shields project. Attendees Public Meeting: Approximately 35 people were in attendance from various organizations/agencies and local communities Field Trip: Approximately 20 people from the public were in attendance, mostly from the local community (see Figure 1) Forest Service employees attending: Mary Erickson, Custer Gallatin Forest Supervisor; Alex Sienkiewicz, District Ranger; Tera Little, Project Team Leader; Jeff Shearer, Hydrologist/Fisheries; Andy Kies, Veg/Silviculturist; Diane Probasco, Wildlife Biologist; Hilary Rigby, GIS Specialist; Jane Ruchman, Landscape Architect; Ashley Sites & Phil Knaub, Fire/Fuels Specialists; Andy Kehler, Range/Weeds Specialist Figure 1: During the field trip, members of the public and Forest Service employees discuss hazardous fuel loads on National Forest System lands adjacent to private property (Stop 2) Topics Covered How the 2014 Farm Bill Amended the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and why the Smith Shields project area was designated as part of a national insect and disease treatment program Overview of potential project area Overview of potential collaborative process Potential treatment opportunities and treatment types o There was a breakout session at the end of the public meeting to discuss ideas/concerns with interdisciplinary team members (specialists) working to develop the project. Specialists included fire/fuels, vegetation/silviculture, wildlife and hydro/fisheries. These discussions were used to help identify stops for the public field trip that would be most helpful for generating dialogue around opportunities/concerns. Page 1 of 5

2 Issues/Concerns/Feedback from Public Participants Road system Several participants that live in the potential project area expressed a need to address the condition of NFS Road 991, which is a major ingress/egress route. There is concern for public safety in the event they need to evacuate due to a wildfire. The road is heavily rutted and some people indicated they could not get low-clearance vehicles through some stretches of the road. Recreation/Trails There is potential to use some ATV trails as haul routes or to conduct other management activities. So far, no concerns have been expressed about the potential to use these trails for project implementation activities. Scenery/Aesthetics The Forest Service was candid with those participating that most of the potential treatment opportunities (units) would likely utilize a regeneration harvest based on insect and disease issues and heavy surface fuel loadings. Many participants were familiar with the conditions described and recognized the need for such treatment. So far, no concerns have been expressed regarding impacts to scenery/aesthetics if the Forest Service moves forward with the potential units and treatment types. Fire Hazard Most of the participants living in the project area recognize the build-up of hazardous fuels occurring in some areas and expressed interest in seeing this issue addressed. Three additional treatment areas were identified near private property boundaries to address the fire hazard concern. The team is adding one of those areas (near Unit 19), which participants indicated was the highest priority of the three areas. The other two areas have access issues. They will either require access through private property or will need extensive temporary road built. The team is not currently adding those areas to the list of potential units given these limitations. Noxious Weeds There was some concern over the potential to increase the presence of noxious weeds in the project area during implementation activities. Bull thistle is prevalent throughout the project area. Pre and post-activity weed treatments will likely be needed and there were questions about how much it would cost to do this treatment. Insect & Disease/Forest Health Some participants were familiar with the symptoms of insect/disease and declining forest health; however, most participants were focused on the fire hazard concerns being generated by the declining stand health (i.e. increased surface fuels from falling trees). Project Implementation Some participants wanted to know how units approved in the decision would be packaged for timber sales or other contract work. There was also interest expressed in post and pole products and firewood gathering opportunities. No one Figure 2: During the public field trip (Stop 1), District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz discusses outcomes of a regeneration harvest accomplished as part of the Smith Creek Hazardous Fuels Reduction project Page 2 of 5

3 questioned the need for restoration work to occur but did want to know how it would be done and how soon it could start once a decision is signed. Potential collaborative process There did not seem to be a lot of apprehension over the potential collaborative process presented (timeline, types of meetings etc.). Participants communicated a desire to see a map that shows units being carried forward in the NEPA analysis process and what types of treatments will be proposed for them. There was expressed interest in having another public meeting in the month of August to discuss this map and next steps in developing/analyzing the project. It was also clear that a larger meeting space was needed and that participants would appreciate the meeting being held in Wilsall if possible (closer to the project area and where most of the participants live). Field Trip General Overview Attendees caravanned to the project area, first meeting up in Livingston, then Wilsall at the Hwy 89 and Smith Creek Junction, then at the Smith Creek and Shields River road junction, and finally at the first stop (located near the Smith Creek community area often referred to as The 80s [reference to acreage/size]). A safety briefing was conducted, everyone introduced themselves and there was a review of the agenda. Four stops were on the agenda, with the potential for dropping the last stop if the trip was running behind. There was a final stop at 1pm at the Smith Creek/Shields River road junction to discuss winter parking issues for those who wished to participate; however, the potential need for road work or development of a parking area will not be included as proposed activities for the Smith Shields project. The following notes capture discussion topics that occurred at each stop (except the final stop to discuss the winter parking issues). The purpose of the field trip was for everyone to get an idea of the existing conditions in the project area, demonstrate what areas could look like after treatment and provide another opportunity for those participating in the collaborative process to get to know more about each other. Stop 1 District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz showed the group a regeneration harvest unit that had been treated as part of the Smith Creek Hazardous Fuels Reduction project (see Figure 2). The objective of this treatment was to promote aspen regeneration, create a fuel break adjacent to the Smith Creek community, and improve forage opportunities for big game. There were questions and discussion on how quickly vegetation regenerated (grasses and trees), whether cattle had affected the regeneration rate and how grazing permits are managed in the project area, how to reduce the impact of noxious weeds pre and post-treatment and Figure 3: Clumps of mixed conifer leave trees were left in a regeneration harvest treatment accomplished as part of the Smith Creek Hazardous Fuel Reduction project (Stop 1). Two downed trees can be seen in this photo. Page 3 of 5

4 costs associated with these efforts, why clumps of mixed-conifer trees were retained and how well this worked (many trees already falling down due to frequent wind events in the project area; see Figure 3). Stop 2 Figure 4: Mortality is evident (brown needles) in trees left after hazardous fuel reduction work that included thinning of trees and piling and burning slash (Stop 2; near Unit 19) The group then headed uphill into Unit 19 and into an area identified during the public meeting as being in high need of hazardous fuel reduction work. This area has evidence of root and stem diseases (downed trees that have snapped off at the base) (see Figure 5), western spruce budworm (heavy defoliation in spruce and Douglas-fir trees) and past mountain pine beetle mortality and current dwarf mistletoe infestation in lodgepole pine. These factors are contributing to a decline in stand health, which is resulting in increased surface fuels. This area of Forest Service land is located adjacent to private property, where some landowners have already taken steps to reduce the hazardous fuels on their properties. This area was identified in the 2015 Crazy Mountains Smith Creek Community Assessment (conducted by FireWise) as an area where additional hazardous fuel reduction work should occur on Forest Service lands. There was also discussion as to how the Forest Service could provide for firewood gathering opportunities as one way for reducing fuel loads in this area, especially given its proximity to the Smith Creek community and their use of wood burning stoves as a heat source. Members of the public had questions for Ranger Sienkiewicz regarding thinning and burning work completed as part of the Smith Creek Hazardous Fuels Reduction project (see Figure 1). Many of the remaining trees suffered mortality (see Figure 4). It is believed that pile burning contributed to the majority of this mortality. Piles may have been too big and placed too close to remaining trees. There was discussion on how treatments could be designed differently for the Smith Shields project to avoid a similar outcome. Most participants, however, were pleased with the work the Forest Service had done to reduce fuels in this area. Figure 5: Members of the public and Forest Service employees discuss forest health conditions and hazardous fuels on Forest Service lands adjacent to private property (Stop 2, near Unit 19) Page 4 of 5

5 Stop 3 At this point the group was running behind schedule so it was decided that Stop 3 would be the last stop for the Smith Shields portion of the field trip. The group headed over to the Shields River side of the project to visit potential units on the Sunlight Creek road (Units 8 [north edge] and 9). Ranger Sienkiewicz left the group so he could visit another part of the project area with a private land owner who had concerns about how land surveys would be conducted to ensure Forest Service personnel or contractors did not trespass onto their land when conducting project implementation activities. Amongst the larger group (see Figure 6), there was a lot of discussion around the Custer Gallatin National Forest s capacity to implement treatments once a Figure 6: Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson (front, center) and County Commissioners Bill Wallace (blue shirt, right) and Marty Malone (white hat, right) participate in discussions on Forest Service capacity and needs to support local industries and economies (Stop 3) decision was signed, how quickly work could begin, what units would be priority for treatment, what units could be included as part of a timber sale, ability for local industry and contactors to do the work, and what other contract tools (such as service or stewardship contracts) could be used to accomplish treatment on units that do not generate high timber volume as a by-product of necessary restoration work. Public participants indicated they had concerns the project would be litigated and work would not be accomplished. The Forest Service encouraged their continued participation in the collaborative process to help identify and work through concerns earlier rather than later. If participants in the collaborative process hear of concerns from others who choose not to participate collaboratively, they were encouraged to bring these to the attention of Forest Service specialists working to develop and analyze the project. As discussions for the Smith Shields project wrapped up, public participants indicated their interest in seeing a map that identified proposed treatments for each unit. They would like a copy as soon as possible and then another public meeting to discuss the proposed treatments. The Forest Service assured them getting that map out would be a priority and that another public meeting would be planned for August Figure 7: Crazy Mountain Range, location of the Smith Shields project Page 5 of 5