Covertly fast tracking our forests, 5.1 Million acres in Montana

[katqanna]

A couple days ago this article ran - Critics decry lack of public input on forest proposal

“What just transpired here is that the governor’s office and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation hand-selected a group who got together, with no public notice, and over the course of five phone calls they decided that 5.1 million acres of Montana forests should be opened to logging under weakened and streamlined public input processes and limited environmental impact analysis,” Koehler said. “Over the course of five conference calls, seven people came up with 5.1 million acres of fast-track public lands logging. That’s more than a million acres per conference call.”

Koehler estimates that if Bullock’s nomination is approved as it stands now, between 60-75 percent of all the forested acres outside of designated wilderness in the Kootenai and Lolo National Forests would be prioritized for timber harvests under the categorical exclusion provision, which limits the requirement for rigorous environmental analysis.

This will definitely affect elk - elk, roads, logging

 

[Carnage2011]

Hopefully they do an EIS for the areas that will be logged, but logging can be very beneficial to the environment when done correctly. The highlands and the helena national forest are a prime example of what happens when no logging is done. Those areas are full of beetle kill, dead fall (due to beetle kill), and junk trees that aren't good for anything other than firewood. The canyon creek area has a few private ranches that do some logging, and I've personally seen some great elk in the areas that have been logged. We can't shut down every logging operation just because it might displace a few elk. As long as the proper environmental impact statements are done, I'm all for logging.

 

[Big Fin]

So let me get this straight, the following underlined individuals represented groups who were invited to a panel of very diversified interest groups, and supposedly these underlined folks agreed to a plan that will "rape and pillage the landscapes and watersheds?"

"Members selected for the ad-hoc group included Bruce Farling of Montana Trout Unlimited; Barb Cestero of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition; Sanders County Commissioner Carol Brooker; Julia Altemus of the Montana Wood Products Association; Keith Olson of the Montana Logging Association; and Gary Burnett, of the Blackfoot Challenge and Southwest Crown Collaborative."

I need some help understanding the concern. Is it because Mike Garrity and his Alliance for the Wild Rockies was not invited?

Given Garrity's inability to work in any remote semblance of a collaborative effort, I wouldn't invite him to a Cub Scout popcorn sale. It would all be about him and what he wants, screw the Cub Scouts. Garrity and his actions have earned him the pleasure of being dis-invited when progress is at stake.

This was a process where the Governor nominated the lands to be proposed for logging. Is the case being made that this Democratic Governor, with alliances with many environmental groups, is now selling them out? I doubt it.

If it is because some open meeting law was broken, and I see no proof that such was violated, then that would need to be corrected. I trust the TU guys that they are not going to sell us out on protecting watersheds.

Garrity and fellow anti-anything groups might want to take note of their lack of favor among most any groups seeking progress. You cannot sue, sue, and sue, often with almost no valid reason, other than to fill the cash registers from your donors who pay you to do such things, and not expect even your closer aligned groups to tire of your actions. Eventually, all but your fellow fringe operators tire of the antics and lack of principle to these efforts, such as you see by AWR.

This entire ranting and raving about even the slightest management of forests reminds me somewhat of the wolf issue. Pretty soon, the public gets so fed up that we go to our elected officials and legislatively/Congressionally, override the ridiculous efforts of the fringe operators who are nothing more than "Plaintiffs for hire."

The fact that Garrity was not invited when some reasonable groups were, especially to an ad-hoc committee of diversified interests, makes me laugh more than worry. IMHO, he should not be invited to any meeting, unless it is a conference on how to raise money by litigating technicalities of complex Federal laws.

Maybe I am missing something, and if so, please point out to me what the concern is.

 

[Carnage2011]

^I agree 100% Randy. I don't see any concern here whatsoever. This is a panel of people that are more than capable of making a good decision for the environment and the economy. I'm interested to see what the concern is with this.

 

[Musket Man]

I dont see why it is a concern either. If logging is done properly it is good for the forest. It also helps prevent forest fires.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Seeing as I do a lot of my hunting in the Kootenai and Lolo national forests, I'm glad that they are opening up more logging. I don't like to see more roads, but the deer and elk depend heavily upon new clearcuts for forage and browse.

 

[Mule Deer]

This would help and hurt different things. The deer herd would be helped. I approve

 

[Nameless Range]

I can see why there would be concern here. If our Governor wasn't Bullock, but was some alternative that didn't include committee members that care about wildlife, we might be getting a very different proposal. I am sure then we would be hearing an outcry about the process from hunters. I think the main concern then is not the actual consequences of this specific proposal, but the potential consequences of a Governor being the highest commandment when it comes to forest management priorities with no public input. The latter being what bothers me the most. From Bob Harrington of the DNRC:

"The lands chosen either have serious bug infestations, are at risk of infestation or have hazardous fire conditions threatening residential areas or infrastructure."

This could describe the majority of forested public lands outside of Wilderness Areas in Western MT.

From the farm bill,

"Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Secretary shall, if requested by the Governor of the State, designate as part of an insect and disease treatment program 1 or more landscape scale areas, such as subwatersheds (sixth-level hydrologic units, according to the System of Hydrologic Unit Codes of the United States Geological Survey), in at least 1 national forest in each State that is experiencing an insect or disease epidemic."

A 6 digit HUC is a huge piece of country, larger than most individual counties. I agree that we need to fast track logging in certain areas, but, look at the map produced by the DNRC. A fair amount of the logging proposed by the Governor in the Helena National Forest is in Inventoried Roadless Areas. It is beetle-kill, but it is beetle-kill that has been dead for 6 years now. I'm not sure of the commercial worth of dead stands that old, but beetle-kill isn't "wasted" as many claim. For the first time in my hunting life, the age class of mule deer is improving along the continental divide between Lincoln and Basin, and I think it is largely due to the cover provided within, and difficulty of traversing beetle-killed lodgepole. In some ways, it has made the country wilder. In inventoried roadless areas along the divide in the Helena National Forest, of which there are few, I am opposed to logging if only because it is already some of the most heavily roaded and disturbed mountain country in the western third of Montana. We need some wild places in the northern Boulder Batholith, and there just aren't any, and this won't help.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy's got it.

The farm bill included the provision (Thanks to Senator Max Baucus' efforts) that allowed for this, but it had a 60 window for implementation. It took the Fed 30 days to get the rules written so that gave the state about 30 days to pull this together.

I've got no heartache about this.

 

[BigHornRam]

Add Kat to my list in the "This land is your land" thread, Ben.

 

[Nameless Range]

In reference to the OP, the DNRC has put out maps on the National Forest scale of what is under recommendation for "fast track" status. If you are in MT or are familiar with certain areas of MT, you may find it interesting.

The state should be required to put out higher resolution maps of this, if not readily available GIS data. Over 5 million acres deserves better than 50 dpi. Maybe they've yet to get to it. I can't speak to most of the forest areas and not to beat a dead horse, but I can say that there are some areas in the Nevada Mountains, as well as the upper Madison, whose proposals are B.S. and should not be logged - either Inventoried Roadless Areas unrelated to human welfare(like the Tenmile Project), or are previously unlogged and currently unroaded.

The closer I look at these proposals in country I am familiar with the less I like them. This doesn't seem to be well thought out.

 

[katqanna]

Nameless, thanks for the map posting. I did not have the individuals yet, only the giant that you had to keep increasing to zoom in on the counties (busy with these projects and didnt have time to look for the breakdown maps yet-playing hookey just to post). I am not familiar with some of the other counties, but looking at that Paradise Valley checker board under nomination in Park County, that area has been in an elk decline for a decade and this recent partial count/modeling is BS to say it is all the sudden stable (I have been making some calls about this). Last year they stated there would have to be increases of 30-35 % to get it stable.

At any rate, you log those areas and you will further drive the elk to the unlogged private lands. Take a good look at the proposed land just south east of Dailey Lake, on the east side of HWY 89, that is connected to the Dome Mountain WMA, purchased for winter feeding for the elk and deer. The Dome Mountain Ranch might make out well for elk security, but the other side is owned by Frank Rigler and he was one of the ranchers at the working group meeting complaining about elk as it is.

I have heard some hunters from other areas express concern over the big map. One of my concerns, besides the lack of public process, is the categorical exclusion which does not require a NEPA process to take place. That means no environmental review. I have a really good memory, so I dont want to hear any bitching about elk or deer numbers in these proposed priority landscape areas being affected by hunters that dissed my concerns over this issue, trying to make out like I am anti-logging.

 

[Big Fin]

I've hunted near the area that is nominated SE Daily Lake, if I can rely on what is shown on those pitiful maps that DNRC has put out. That area nominated is of hardly any value for any wildlife habitat. In the reference made to elk, the area nominated is not winter ground for elk, nor is it summer ground for elk. It is a little bit of security habitat for any elk that might be foolish enough to be there in general big game season, which is very seldom.

I doubt logging/thinning will cause any displacement of elk that were previously accessible to hunters, given there are almost no elk in that specific area during hunting season. It is very marginal elk ground. Areas to the north are much better.

There is virtually now watershed concern to that area. The streams are dewatered in all but the early season of runoff. I would bet that the benefits of opening some of that area and increasing forage production will do a lot more for ungulates, both summer and winter range, than the disturbance that might occur in the year it would be logged/thinned.

I looked at many of the other Gallatin-Custer maps that show areas I hunt. Most of the nominated areas are very similar; mostly north facing slopes with virtually no summer or winter range benefits to wildlife.

Due to intense fire suppression in many of these areas, the current status of the forest is not at all in a state that one could consider natural, from a historical standpoint. Due to building and subdivision of the public/private interface, the pressure to suppress fires in these areas is intense.

Looking at the areas nominated in the north Bridgers, I see very little negative impact from logging/thinning there, rather a similar situation of opening forests that are poor winter and summer range. No watersheds of significance exist. What impact this will have on the struggling deer herd in the north Bridgers is beyond my pay grade, but I suspect it cannot make it much worse, probably improving such.

I am would be very interested to see some elk studies done as part of this logging/thinning, if the logging/thinning ever gets to happen. It could be very revealing, given what we are learning about the stagnation of our summer ranges and the impacts that could be having on elk herds; specifically calf weights, recovery periods for lactating cows, weakened winter condition, and the impacts predation can have on such compromised animals. Not sure we have enough of a base line as to the existing conditions of elk in these areas, but if we did, it would be very intriguing to see if the changes to elk herd health could be measured as a result of the forage changes.

The areas south of Hebgen Lake are already somewhat roaded due to past logging in the 1980s and 1990s, though some seasonal closures are in place and some of those old logging roads are now obliterated. That logging/thinning will have to be completed in compliance with the GY Grizzly Recovery Plan, meetng the habitat criteria for that area, as it is in the Core Recovery Area.

I am not too concerned about logging/thinning in that area being a net negative to the productivity for wildlife. It will come with some temporary disruption, but I suspect it will be done with Gbears in mind and most the roads will probably be obliterated following what logging may occur.

If anyone can find better maps, please post a link.

I am interested in what some think are better options for these landscapes that are nominated. For the areas I hunt and I am familiar with, I see very little negative impact and what impact may occur will most likely be temporary. I can take some temporary disruption to these places, for a generation of benefits to wildlife. I see the potential for some long-term benefits that far outweigh the temporary disruptions.

If someone has better ideas of how to improve the summer and winter ranges of these areas, and the forest health, when controlled burns are almost off limits due to local concerns or just not feasible due the size of the landscapes and the terrain involved, I think many would be interested in hearing what those options are.

 

[jryoung]

Looks like a couple of areas that I poked around last year in the Pioneers are on the table. Interesting that they highlight the Vipond area of the East Pioneers, when I drove up there there wasn't much for trees, but maybe it's just attributable to crappy maps.

The west side of Bryant Creek is highlighted too, now that area is thick. Curious to see what that does for elk, I know they have a lot of security in there, but I think it comes at a cost of forage so maybe a good balance can be struck.

 

[BigHornRam]

I would be surprised if even 1 million of these 5.1 million acres were opened up to logging/thinning/forest management, through the categorical exclusion process.

The NF's have a priority lists of what acres are in most need of thinning, and those will go first.

Elk eat grass, they don't eat trees. Proper forest management would benefit elk populations. Overstocked forests capture snow in the canopy where much of the moisture goes back into the air, not into the soil. Thinning forests to proper stocking rates on all aspects other than south facing slopes actually adds to the soil moisture.

The sky is not falling Kat.

 

[katqanna]

In reference to that area around the Dome Mountain WMA and surrounding areas that are next to one of the proposed logging sites, this is the map that FWP wildlife biologist, based on 4 years of data produced, in conjunction with the ranchers testimony of known herds. The aqua blue circled areas are around the Dome Mountain WMA. Those two aqua areas with red circled spots - are herds of 500-800 head with the smaller spots being smaller herds. This area was listed as approx 1500 head. Those circled areas and numbers are the wildlife biologists, not mine.

Also, in conversation with JB Klyap of the Dome Mountain Ranch, adjoining the Dome Mountain WMA, there are significant elk herds over there.

BHR, never said the sky was falling, just that this process was fast tracked, bypassed the public process and exempt from NEPA which it should have. And as it pertains to Park County, of concern with the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, which has been in a decade long decline as it is.

 

[shoots-straight]

I glanced at the area posted for fast track in Ravalli County. Most of the lands have been burnt by forest fires,and or Beatle killed areas. Most of the lands are winter range and migratory routes. A very large percentage of the posted land has under went some sort of management already. There is some urban interphase fire prevention work in this proposal. I'm not sure it's a bad thing or not without seeing the details.

 

[HSi-ESi]

The only reason why I get nervous on this topic (and I believe this is Katqanna's main point) - is the 'fast track'. Someone with some power influence is doing an end-around. Call me a conspiracy theorist here, but that's my gut reaction.

If you look at some recent burned areas in the Bitterroot (last 15 years)- there were some lawsuits filed against logging those areas.

https://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR11102.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2001/2001-12-18-06.html

Those are just the top 2 from a Google search (not referencing for content verification, this post isn't meant to become a published journal article, just referencing for proof lawsuits did occur and slowed down / halted logging operations).

Now I'm not saying the proposed areas should or should not be logged. But I would be more in favor of such items if some due-process was followed. I would rather we fast-track the due-process.

I know standing timber is only good for so long - so is there a medium between "fast-track" and "we're going to litigate this issue until the timber is no longer marketable?"