Flathead National Forest Stakeholder Collaboration Forest-Wide Meeting Mapping Management Areas Draft Summary

Transcription

1 Flathead National Forest Stakeholder Collaboration Forest-Wide Meeting Mapping Management Areas Draft Summary May 15, 2014 On Thursday, May 15, 2014, the Flathead National Forest and Meridian Institute convened the final meeting of a four night series to discuss management area (MA) designations across the entire Forest. The goals of the meeting were to review and discuss the suggestions from the previous days meetings, and attempt to meet the full range of stakeholder interests by identifying proposed changes to the suggested MAs by looking across the entire Forest. The participants were provided with a Forest-wide map with the 2006 modified MAs as a base map to work off of. They were also provided with the MA definitions as described in the 2006 modified plan. The participants were reminded that this background information was to serve as a starting point only, and they were encouraged to recommend changes to both the MA designations and definitions. Discussions took place at small tables, with outcomes recorded on a map at each table, as well as additional explanatory notes. Rather than pre-assigning groups, at this meeting the participants chose their own groups, and self-facilitate. The Forest offered facilitators and notetakers, if requested, but encouraged the groups to be self-led. The following summary includes notes that the groups provided with suggestions for possible MA designation changes as well as a summary of the discussion and report-outs that followed the small group discussions. Following the report-outs, as a full group the participants discussed additional proposed MA changes, and other topics related to the overall Forest Planning process. Small Group Discussions and Outcomes Group 1 Group 1 found themselves wandering amongst other tables during the discussion period. However, during their time together, they produced the following two recommendations:

2 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 2 of 9 1. In the North Fork, there was a suggestion to apply a gradation in management, ranging from Front Country in the southern portion of the geographic area to wilderness in the northern portion. Recognizing the potential of this approach, the group suggested that the Forest consider applying a similar approach to other districts (not necessarily in a north-south direction), for example in the Swan Ranger District or with the acquisition lands. 2. Another suggestion involved a potential land trade with the State: in exchange for State lands that border the Glacier View District, the Forest could trade the Island Unit of the Salish Mountains. Group 2 Many of the recommendations from this group are based on areas within the North Fork, as outlined below: 1. The areas south of 316 should be designated as snow and summer backcountry travel instead of what is currently designated. 2. The Whitefish watershed needs to be protected. 3. From Big Creek to Wheeler Creek and south, front country recreation for winter and summer needs to be upgraded. 4. Side roads in the North Fork should be opened for use by ATVs, snow-cats, and bikes. This should include an expanded ATV season, for use in the spring, summer, and early fall, but closed during hunting season.

3 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 3 of 9 5. The recommended wilderness in the North Fork should be recommended as a Wildlife Management Area, designated as MA 3.1a or MA 1.3. The group recognized that while many North Fork residents do not want wilderness, others do. 6. In Hungry Horse, MA 5.2 surrounding Coram should be managed to achieve less forest density for wildlife (i.e., more thinning). 7. Vaulted toilets are needed at Sondreson Meadows. The Pilots Association offered to partner with the Forest to implement these, in exchange for developing an airstrip. Participants also discussed the conditions of the current airstrips on the Flathead, resulting in the following table: Airstrip Condition Notes Moose City OK Byers OK New Kintlh Ranch Not Planes land SAPA (Secrest)? Wurtz Not Planes land Group 3 While the group achieved little to no agreement, individuals in the group proposed the following recommendations: 1. There are opportunities to expand motorized trails; for example, expand Trail #7 south to allow access to South Fork Lost Creek. As a tradeoff, the Forest could close portions of Bunker Creek Road and/or Addison Creek Road. 2. The group would like the Forest to continue having periodic small gatherings among different interest groups over the next few years in order to continue the dialogue on Forest Planning. However, this should not begin until after this summer. 3. The new Forest Plan should not be more restrictive than it currently is (i.e., recreation and

4 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 4 of 9 multiple-use restrictions). If the resulting Plan is proposed to be more restrictive, the current Plan is preferable. However, other group members disagreed, saying that the Plan should not be more restrictive on wildlife either. 4. The Forest should revisit old recreational areas with abandoned trails in order to provide new opportunities near population centers. (Note: There was no agreement on this suggestion.) 5. Because the Forest is currently 50% wilderness, the more primitive areas should be managed at the Forest-level to maintain desired conditions, rather than increasing wilderness areas through a congressional mandate. (Note: There was no agreement.) 6. Additional airstrips may be considered where the proposed site(s) will enhance dispersed recreation opportunities. This can include re-opening closed air strips as well as developing new opportunities; for example, at Sondreson Meadows in the North Fork. 7. The Forest should work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and/or Congress to restrict airplane and helicopter travel over wilderness areas. 8. There was strong opposition to additional wilderness. (Note: Not everyone in the group shared that sentiment.) However, there was openness for more wilderness if there was an opportunity to increase more summer and winter motorized recreation in other parts of the Forest. 9. There was a desire for more mountain bike trails.

5 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 5 of 9 Group 4 1. In the Swan and South Fork, the area from Bunker Creek to Owl Creek that is adjacent to wilderness should remain recommended wilderness (MA 1.2), because it is in the existing Roadless inventory, and is too steep for other uses. (Note: This is labeled in pink on the map.) 2. On the east side of the Hungry Horse Reservoir, the area from Paint Creek south to Lower Twin should also be changed to recommended wilderness (MA 1.2). 3. The southern part of Skyline should be changed to backcountry (MA 2.2). 4. On the Swan District, the Forest should allow a mountain bike loop on Trail #187. This would involve moving the Jewel Basin boundary to Alpine 7 around Birch Lake. 5. In the North Fork, the area north of Yak (Trail) Creek should remain recommended wilderness (MA 1.2). However, the southern section is still up for debate. 6. The group expressed concerns regarding the recommended wilderness boundaries in the North Fork, particularly the area south of Red Meadow. In order to find a compromise between wilderness and snowmobile access, the group proposed a potential trade-off: the area south of Trail Creek should remain recommended wilderness (MA 1.2) if snowmobiling is allowed in the area south of this boundary to Canyon Creek. This access should be on a rotating basis, following disturbance (natural or man-made) changing between drainages every year/every other year. Management/access would be overseen by a partnership of the Forest Service and citizen groups, to be evaluated on a 3-5 year basis. In addition, before wilderness designation occurs, there should be similar securities/assurances for snowmobiling and recreation; this guarantee could help with stakeholder buy-in among other groups. If this trade-off cannot be achieved, the area should be changed to backcountry (MA 2.2).

6 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 6 of 9 Group 5 The written documentation from the group was limited, although the discussion encompassed many issues. The following two suggestions were provided in the group s notes, but were not discussed during the report-out: 1. The description of the backcountry designation (MA 2.2) needs to be examined. For example, the Alpine 7 trail is used by all recreation users, yet the backcountry designation does not count these uses directly land use (logging) designations not recreation? [Although this was on the group flipchart s this was not brought up during the report-out, and not illustrated on map so it is unclear what it means. Any clarification would be appreciated.] The group provided the following suggestions during the full-group report-out, but they were not documented in the group s notes: 3. The group recommended a Front Country designation or recreational overlay for certain areas of the Forest. Approval for recreational projects could be achieved in concert with the environmental assessments (EA) associated with logging projects. The group generally agreed that the front areas of Tally Lake, the Island Unit, and Crane Mountain are good examples of where this approach would be more or less appropriate. Along the Swan Front, a similar concept may be appropriate; rather than MA 2.2 backcountry, this area may be more suitable as front country. 4. There was a question regarding how to manage motorized use in Roadless areas. It may be more appropriate to manage the areas as MA 3.1 special designation, in order to maintain the current uses. 5. The group discussed the Whitefish Range Partnership proposal, and discussed the pros and cons of the approach. The major concern that the group expressed was regarding the recommended wilderness on the northern end of the North Fork. 6. In the Plan, all designations need to be very explicit on what uses are allowed in what areas. Currently, there are many nonconforming recreational uses, which reflect the vagueness of the current Plan direction. For example, stating that an area is generally non-motorized but is not a good approach.

7 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 7 of 9 Additional Discussion Following the full group report-outs, the participants discussed a variety of topics related to the suggestions from the current meeting, as well as regarding the overall Plan Revision Process. Plan Revision Suggestions and Clarifications The definition of compete caused a lawsuit in the past, and postponed the process because of it, yet the definition has never been clarified. In order to get past the lawsuit, this definition needs to be provided. (Note: This is in relation to whether or not other uses were competing with resources with the Grizzly Bear.) It was clarified that this was the Moose Decision the outcome of litigation on the Moose Fire salvage project which stated that when you have land uses competing with each other, the Grizzly Bear wins. All current projects now address that issue. On a larger scale, it is possible that Amendment 19 has helped to achieve recovered Grizzly populations. The proposed Front Country designation was recognized as an interesting option for areas close to population centers and opportunities for recreation. When asked for elaboration, the following clarifying information emerged: o o o o Front Country would not necessarily be applied as an MA, but rather as an overlay, which allows for other management options (i.e., suitable timber base), but brings a recreation planning focus. This could create recreation opportunities that connect communities in the form of trails, loops, etc., but not necessarily high-intensity (as in MA 6.1). There is a large land-base that is close to communities, so this could be a great opportunity for creating recreation opportunities closer to population centers. This was introduced by the Whitefish Range Partnership, and achieved consensus. However, consensus was not achieved during this collaborative process, so it is unclear how it could be achieved without the collaborative framework. The following areas were recognized as potential areas to implement the concept: Tally Lake, Big Mountain, Whitefish Trail, Whitefish Front, certain areas of Hungry Horse, Coram (linking Martin City to Coram), near West Glacier, Crane Mountain, and other areas that are experiencing high levels of recreation and/or population increases. Other areas may be more difficult to implement, such as the South Fork. When discussing the original concept, the idea was to combine the environmental analysis for multiple projects (i.e., timber sale, watershed protection, and trail building) in order to realize the economic, environmental, and social benefits through a single evaluation. However, it was clarified that combining projects during the NEPA analysis can be problematic because of the cumulative effects of all actions. While this approach may be appropriate for

8 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 8 of 9 certain projects, in other cases, other tools, such as categorical exclusions, may be more effective. Suitable timber and a steady flow for harvest need to be considered throughout the Forest. For example, in MA 5.2, timber harvest could occur during the spring/summer, whereas backcountry (MA 2.2) is harvested mainly in winter. By rotating harvest among the landscape, seasonal restrictions would be limited. However, it was noted that roads are still a limiting factor. During Forest planning, it is necessary to remember that a forest is a dynamic system that changes daily. While there are many values and uses that are important to everyone who has been involved in the process, each use is determined and limited by the vegetation. This includes the effects on recreational uses, values for wildlife, and timber, among others. One participant echoed this sentiment, noting the importance of managing vegetation, and the effects on timber jobs and saw mills. Another participant noted that there are models available for assessing future management options, including the implications of climate change. In the area, the superintendent of Glacier National Park intends to use such models for planning. It was clarified that the Forest is participating in the Crown Management and have identified options for using modeling for the Flathead River Basin, particularly for invasive species and aquatic integrity. Overall Process Feedback One participant recognized the benefits of a diverse and passionate group coming together and working together throughout the process. There has been a lot of useful input throughout the process, and ideally the Forest will use the best information from all sources (including the Whitefish Range Partnership, and the stakeholder collaborative planning process) to produce a win-win solution, ultimately gaining support from other people that have not been involved in the process. The Plan needs to remain at the 30,000 foot level, and cannot be too detailed. Other specific details on trails, roads, timber management, etc., will be addressed through project-level planning and travel management.

9 Forest-Wide Management Area Mapping Meeting Summary May 15, 2014 Page 9 of 9 Appendix A: Public Participant List Rick Anderson Bill Baum - Self/Environmentalist Noah Bodman - Flathead Fat Tires Ronald Buentemeier - Self David Covill - FSA Ron Cron - Crane Mountain Trails Supporters Randy DePaul - Self Penny DePaul - Self David Fischlowitz - Fisch for House Steve Gniadek - Flathead Audubon Dave Hadden - Headwaters Montana, Inc. Chuck Jarecki - Montana Pilots Association Sarah Lundstrum - National Parks Conservation Association Nancy McDowell - Recreation Paul McKenzie - F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. Ronald Normandeau - Recreational Aviation Foundation, Montana Pilots Association Lynn Ogle - North Fork Jason Parke - Society of American Foresters Heidi Pfosch - Front County Equestrian Chester Powell - Whitefish Mountain Resort Steve Settle Dave Skinner - Stumps Unlimited Jamie Slack - J A Slack Inc. James Thramer - Back Country Horsemen William Walker - NFPA & Trail 4 Spencer Weimar - Whitefish Mountain Resort Steve Windbigler