Public finds holes in Lolo Forest draft assessment
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Several locals have concerns about the Lolo National Forest’s initial assessment of its lands, but forest managers say there’s still plenty of time and opportunity for the public to weigh in as the new Forest Management Plan is developed.
After Friday’s release of a 400-page draft assessment of conditions and trends on the Lolo National Forest - the first step in the management plan revision process - Forest Supervisor Carolyn Upton held a public meeting Wednesday to get input on the draft assessment and the management plan process overall.
Many people have attended ranger chats and other meetings since public engagement started in January, but some have wanted to address issues that won’t come up until later in the four-year process. Upton said she didn’t want to appear to be ignoring people’s concerns, so she decided Wednesday’s forum would provide some clarity and a chance for people to address a myriad of issues together.
“This is not a required step in the process,” Upton said. “I wanted an opportunity to touch base with folks and hear how people are feeling about the process. Is there an understanding about us moving together? Do we have a sense of where we are and what’s going on? This is an opportunity for us to regroup and figure out where we are.”
Since announcing in November that the Lolo National Forest would finally embark on revising its management plan in January, Upton has stressed the need for ample public engagement opportunities and transparency.
Part of the preplanning involved the development of an 11-page public engagement and participation strategy. The Public Engagement Strategy outlines the timing of each step in the process and when the Forest Service revision team will take public comment. By the time the final draft is published in Summer 2025, there will have been at least 10 comment periods. A final round of comments would consist of objections to the final draft.
In spite of all that, Upton said she knows people still tend to mistrust the U.S. Forest Service, and recent events haven’t helped allay suspicions.
On Friday, Kurt Steele was removed from his position as Flathead Forest Supervisor after almost a year of public turmoil caused by a lack of transparency regarding his support of a proposed corporate takeover and expansion at Holland Lake Lodge.
At the same time, the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest is late releasing its revised forest management plan, which could end up allowing snowmobiling in areas of the Great Burn Proposed Wilderness, so snowmobilers and wilderness advocates both suspect the final plan will be slanted against their interests.
“These things are out there, things are happening, and it goes to the issues of trust and fear,” Upton said. “People engage in different things because they have a fear of losing something or what could happen. Then there’s the issue of trust - are we building trust?Part of why we’re here is to address that issue of trust and fear and where are we going and do we have time to talk about things. These are hard issues to manage through, it affects us; it affects how we come together.”
Several interests were represented among the 20 people in the University of Montana Education School auditorium and the 15 people listening online, including members of snowmobiling and logging groups, conservation organizations and retired biologists and Forest Service employees. For three hours, most took a turn telling Upton about what they wanted the assessment to include and then thanked Upton for the meeting.
Several were bothered by the fact that the assessment listed only five animal species of conservation concern, while other agencies, such as the Montana Natural Heritage Program lists more than 200 species of concern. The five species are bighorn sheep, fisher, harlequin duck, Idaho giant salamander and western pearlshell.
Pat Sweeney urged the assessment team to refer to the state wildlife action plan, which should come out before the revision process is over, and to consider important invertebrates like the western bumble bee. Others mentioned other species such as the mountain goat, pika, northern bog lemming and Mariposa lily.
“We really should be looking at least 20 years out. The current list we have is pretty short-sighted. I think we need to include more species,” Sweeney said. “There’s so much scientific information about fisheries, about birds, about a lot of things that are becoming threatened because of climate change.”
Upton said she felt the same alarm when she saw only five species listed. The revision team explained to her that a Forest Service species of special concern had different criteria than those of other agencies. For example, they don’t include federally listed species or those being considered for listing because those receive protection under federal law. Plus, the Forest Service cares about all the species in a planned area, Upton said, but species of special concern just get a second look.
Planning leader Amanda Milburn said the list of species of special concern is a living document so it can change even after the final plan is approved.
“Just give us a little bit of time to work through this. And then, we’ll show up with some more opportunities to address these things,” Upton said.
Some were concerned that the assessment emphasized more recreation without acknowledging the toll it can take on the land and wildlife. Retired Forest Service employee Andy Kulla said the assessment should calculate the human carrying capacity of the forest.
“There just seems to be this attitude of ‘come one, come all, there’s room for everybody and we’ll just build or develop to accommodate more people,’” Kulla said. “There seems to be an open-ended invitation without a lot of consideration of what the impact will be.”
Forest Service roads were another point of concern, along with wildlife connectivity. Sweeney said he was disappointed that travel planning wasn’t happening at the same time the management plan was being developed because roads create danger for grizzly bears and wolverines by bringing people into secure habitat.
“Most species are less connected with more roads,” Sweeney said.
Mike Kantor was disappointed that the draft assessment found that old-growth trees occur on only 8% of the forest and there’s been a downward trend since 2008. During the previous Lolo planning process in the mid-1980s, Riley McClellan recommended a minimum of 10% old growth to preserve all the species that depend on old-growth habitat. Kantor also wanted fewer roads because people who drive onto the forest to cut firewood sometimes target large old growth trees.
Tom Partin of the American Forest Resource Council said it is important to the timber industry and counties to keep areas open to timber management. That can also play a part in controlling wildfires that have increased over the past decade, Partin said.
“There are a lot of other groups that have the same interest that we do, that want to protect some of the areas they’re concerned about, and we totally understand that. We obviously want to support what we’re interested in. So we do want to sit down and put out a plan that’s going to be balanced for everyone, especially with respect to our interests to make sure we have a viable forest products industry,” Partin said.
Science was another big topic. For example, some claim that logging is needed to eliminate wildfire risk and to improve carbon storage while some studies show that the logging process is carbon-intensive and unmanaged forests may burn but don’t release as much carbon.
“Use independent science review. When I say independent, I mean the academic science from the circles who don’t necessarily have economic interest but just look at the integrity of the scientific process,” said Jeff Juel, Friends of the Clearwater spokesman. “You can’t look at the science and go one way or the other without a value judgment on truth.”
Upton said she would think about a science review.
“We’re on a timeline. The handbook says you’ve got four years to get it done and we’re on schedule so we’re going to get a revised assessment out. Afterward, if we need to continue on the climate science review discussion, we’ll continue to do that,” Upton said. “I’m having a hard time getting across that doors aren’t being closed. After the comment period, there’s no door closing. If we get a revised assessment, that’s not a shut door - it’s just another step in a very long ongoing process.”
The formal comment period on the draft assessment closes July 8. To see the revision process and draft assessment, follow this link.
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.