No headline
The view from Thoma Lookout up the North Fork. The area would be recommended wilderness under a new Flathead Forest plan.
From timber interest to environmental groups, a host of objections have been raised on the final draft of the Flathead National Forest plan.
The Forest last week posted the objection letters on its web site last week.
On the timber side, both F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber and the Montana Logging Association objected to language in the plan that limits the projected total sale quantity of timber to about 27 million board feet annually.
That language, they argue, is flawed, because the actual yields could be higher by about 11 million board feet annually if the Forest had additional funding available.
“The unit cost for getting timber to market are going down, allowing more achievement with similar resources. The region regularly issues larger volume targets without additional budget and the targets are being met,” wrote Paul McKenzie, lands and resource manager for Stoltze. “Lastly the timber budget at a national level is the only USFS budget line item other than fire funding that has increased on an annual basis. The message from agency leadership is clear, increase the pace and scale of vegetation management. Writing a forest plan that is based on past budget and capacity without recognizing and allowing for planned and current changes that enable greater productivity without additional resources is short sighted.”
Both McKenzie and the Logging Association claim the Forest should include the higher harvest as a goal in the plan. McKenzie also notes that programs like the Good Neighbor Authority, which allow states to assist with planning and development of timber harvests, make projects more cost effective.
Most the objections, however, were not from organizations, but citizens. Two common concerns were Karuse Basin and the Bunker Creek area.
In the Krause Basin near Bigfork, residents objected to the plan allowing motorized use on some trails and old roads. They claimed that under Amendment 19 of the current forest plan, motorized use was supposed to be phased out.
The Bunker Creek area was also a hot topic. The plan currently calls for some recommended wilderness in Bunker Creek, a remote drainage of the South Fork of the Flathead, but several wanted the recommended wilderness expanded to include nearby Chipmunk Ridge, upper Sullivan Creek and the North Fork of Bunker Creek.
The addition would complement the existing Bob Marshall Wilderness, which is immediately south.
Not everyone wanted more wilderness. The Flathead Snowmobile Association, for example, objected to wilderness recommendations in the North Fork near Whale Creek and Tuchuk Mountain,as well as restrictions in the Swan Valley.
The Flathead Area Mountain Bikers claimed the plan allows for banning mountain bikes across the board in recommended wilderness areas. It argues that mountain biking decisions, under the rule, should be made on a case-by-case basis. In addition, they raise other objections, claiming the use of the term “mechanized transport” is vague and poorly supported.
“While the use stems from the Wilderness Act, the original intent behind the term is highly debatable, and the Forest Service’s application of the term has been inconsistent,” they claimed. “In managing the use of non-motorized bicycles on the forest, the Forest Service should simply refer to them as what they are: bicycles. The continued use of ‘mechanized’ simply confuses the issue since there are numerous forms of transport that are, to some degree or another, mechanized, and that do not appear to be contemplated by the Forest Service’s use of the term.”
Another multiple use group, the Citizens for Balanced Use, claims the Forest isn’t planning for an older population that wants more motorized use, not less.