Friends of Spencer demands rec plan

The chasm that exists between the

Friends of Spencer Mountain and the Department of Natural Resources

and Conservation (DNRC) doesn’t seem to be shrinking.

As the proposed timber sale at the

popular hiking and biking area west of Whitefish creeps toward

fruition — it’s slated to happen as early as this summer — the

group feels as if their requests to protect recreational

opportunities in the area are “falling of deaf ears.”

Friends of Spencer held a public

meeting March 7 to voice their frustration and to take public

feedback about the sale. Around 65 people attended the meeting at

Grouse Mountain Lodge, including mountain bikers, hikers, forestry

workers and generally concerned citizens.

The sale on Spencer Mountain calls for

harvesting about 10 million board feet of timber from 1,650 acres.

About 19.5 miles of roads will be used to access the timber,

including 9.5 miles of new roads. The 10 miles of existing roads

will require some reconstruction. The project falls entirely within

state school trust land and is estimated to generate $1.6 million

for Montana schools.

The main area of concern for Friends of

Spencer, as expressed at the meeting by group president Jeff

Gilman, is the lack of a recreational plan showing in detail how

the extensive network of trails currently within the area will be

preserved during the timber sale.

“We’ve been telling them from the

beginning that [having a recreation plan] would make the most

sense, and they seem to not want to hear that,” Gilman said.

“Friends of Spencer is very much in favor of timber management and

a timber cut on Spencer Mountain. The forest out there is not

healthy. We’re not opposed to them doing work. In fact, we

encourage it and think it needs to be done.

“What we want to see is that anything

that is done, is done concurrent with a recreation development

plan. We want to make sure that whatever [DNRC does], it doesn’t

detract from the recreational experience that is already

there.”

DNRC, asserts that, while they’re not

accustomed to recreational planning, “existing recreational uses”

will be maintained as part of the sale’s objectives.

Bob Sandman, area manager for DNRC,

envisions a way to link a recreation plan with an ongoing timber

sale. He says some timber can be harvested in a manner that won’t

affect existing trails, allowing more time for a recreation plan to

be crafted.

“It may not be necessary to argue which

comes first,” Sandman said.

Sandman faces some hurdles in creating

a recreation plan. He notes the challenges of adjusting two

separate timber sales and keeping recreation planning on track so

it can be completed in a reasonable time.

However, he said nearly everyone he’s

talked with about the Spencer timber sale has the same goal — keep

recreation intact while creating revenue for the school trust. He

says there may be some miscommunication going on which he’ll try to

sort through at a stakeholder meeting scheduled for today.

Whitefish Legacy Partners (WLP), the

local conservation group developing land-use strategies for state

land surrounding Whitefish, will be at the meeting to discuss the

group’s recently drafted guidelines for managing these lands. These

guideline recommend leaving more large trees, giving viewsheds a

natural and varied appearance, cleaning up disturbed sites,

minimizing construction of new roads and reducing wildfire

fuels.

Like Friends of Spencer, WLP says it

wants clarity from DNRC about a recreation plan.

“We haven’t heard back from [DNRC] in

any meaningful way,” WLP executive director Diane Conradi said.

“We’d like to see the existing recreation protected. If that

happens in advance, fine. If it happens in conjunction with the

sale, maybe — if they do it right.”

While WLP and Friends of Spencer are

“on the same page” in regards to preserving recreational

opportunities at Spencer, Gilman suggests that WLP’s relationship

with DNRC is a sticky wicket. WLP is the driving force behind the

Whitefish Trail and helped craft the 2004 Whitefish School Trust

Lands Neighborhood Plan. Much of the Whitefish Trail has already

been and will be built on state land, including a section on

Spencer Mountain.

Gilman says he’d like to see WLP use

its clout and take a firmer stance in their requests for a

recreation plan.

“It’s our feeling that the Legacy

Partners have a conflict of interest,” Gilman said. “They’re more

interested in keeping an ongoing relationship with DNRC than they

are with creating a better plan for Spencer.”

“I like what they’re doing [with the

guidelines] and they have a role to play,” he said. “But they have

not been willing to stand up to DNRC to make sure there is a

recreation plan in place. They’re afraid of repercussions from DNRC

because they have to work with them moving forward.”

Marshall Friedman was on the WLP board

until he recently resigned. He appluads the group’s success and

efforts with preseving and creating recreation, but says he left

the board becuase “they aren’t representing what the community

expects to happen at Spencer.” He points to the guidelines WLP

created as weak.

“The amount of new roads will

absolutely devestate Spencer,” Friedman said. “It will be like

hiking through a construction site.”

Friends of Specer is a force in this

issue, Friedman said, and “there’s no question” that the group

represents many people in the community.

Conradi says WLP is doing its best to

make sure recreation is integrated into the timber sale and notes

that the group’s relationship with DNRC is unprecedented.

“It’s a partnership in a capacity we’ve

never had before,” she said. “We’re ready to do the planning. We

want to make sure we’ve got something to work with that’s quality,

and that’s why we made those guidelines.”

Another issue that’s yet to be solved

by either the Friends of Spencer or WLP is how recreation can bring

substantial revenue into the school trust. DNRC has a mandate to

generate funds for the trust on these lands.

Gilman says it’s “pie in the sky” to

think that recreation can match the amount of revenue a timber sale

will bring.

“We’re not going to raise $1.6 million

in recreation fees,” Gilman said. “I think we need to have a

different mentality. This is going to be a legacy we leave our

grandkids. Surely that has a value.”

The group is working on concepts for

how recreation will provide revenue, which may look something like

a season pass or a daily-user fee.

Local mountain biking advocate Pete

Costain suggested at the March 7 public meeting that a study should

be conducted to gauge how much revenue is brought into Whitefish

from recreation on state lands.

“If you look at the environmental

assessment for the timber sale, they talk about peripheral income

in the logging industry that the timber sale will bring to the

community,” he said. “Surely we all recognize that hotels,

restaurants and bike shops will benefit, peripherally, by having

these state lands available.”