Lolo Forest prepares to release draft plan alternatives
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) The Lolo National Forest won’t release its draft forest plan analysis until summer, but employees have revealed four issues that are foundational to the plan.
On Monday evening at the University of Montana, Lolo National Forest supervisor Ben Johnson and his employees gave an update to around 60 people on the progress of the Lolo Forest Plan revision that’s been in the works since 2023. After adjusting to last year’s change in administrations and government shutdowns, the revision team is preparing to unveil the draft environmental impact statement this summer - Johnson said he’s pushing for June but the team said it will more likely be July.
Planner Stacy Allen said the team used around 1,370 comments received during the 60-day scoping period in 2024 to develop four main issues that they’re using to develop the plan alternatives. Those issues are active forest management, sustainable recreation, habitat connectivity and recommended wilderness.
Alternative A will be the no-action alternative where the plan published in 1986 would not change. Alternative C will emphasize wilderness values, connectivity, secluded wildlife habitat and non-motorized recreation. Alternative E would allow the most logging and prescribed burning and both motorized and non-motorized recreation. Alternative D appears to be the mid-point between C and E where logging and burning would occur mainly in the wildland-urban interface and allow both motorized and non-motorized recreation but would provide for wilderness and backcountry values.
Allen said Alternative B would be the Lolo Forest’s proposed action but that isn’t yet known.
“Public comments on the (draft environmental impact statement) will be used to identify the preferred alternative for the final. And it will include elements from one or more of the alternatives so it’s not like one of these is what’s going to be selected to be the preferred. It’s going to be looking at what’s working the best in the different alternatives,” Allen said.
One of the topics raised by members of the audience is the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the Forest Service Roadless Rule issued in 2001. A majority of Westerners oppose rescinding the rule, based on public comments on the proposal and recent polls.
Allen said the revision team is tracking the proposal, and Alternatives D and E would not have inventoried roadless areas. Jim Burchfield of the Lolo Restoration Committee said he hoped the revision team could expand the alternatives more to keep roadless areas on the Lolo National Forest.
“This is the first I’ve heard that if the roadless decision goes through - and the odds are it will - that only alternatives D and E will take that into account. I think that sets up a false dichotomy that you can’t have (forest) protection and (management) activity in zones that require it at the same time,” Burchfield said. “There needs to be an acknowledgement that there are areas where we don’t need roads, that we need to protect cold water and biodiversity by not actively engaging in some areas.”
Others were concerned with the Trump administration’s cuts in Forest Service personnel and intolerance for any mention of climate change. Allen said the revision team was operating under the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule, which requires forest plans to be science-based, so they have to consider climate change.
Allen said the team considers several characteristics including ecological, economic and cultural when analyzing alternatives. Patty Ames of the Flathead-Bitterroot-Lolo Citizen Task Force questioned whether best-available science gave priority to ecological factors compared to social sciences or economics. Johnson said it depended on the topic. Claudia Narcisco was concerned that it appeared that habitat is only a consideration when looking at connectivity.
Allen said it was difficult to explain some things when the audience didn’t have the EIS to look at. However, there will be two other virtual meetings that explain how the team will allocate land - draw lines on a map - under the different alternatives and how it identifies habitat for connectivity. Then there are several meetings planned for more explanation once the draft EIS is released.
“It’s tough to answer without the documents being out. I want you to bring the questions up again at the workshops once the documents are out,” Johnson said.
Contact Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.