New Lolo National Forest Plan in the works (do NOT turn this political please)

[CrazyCooter]

Yeah so it's complex to say the least. And I don't have all the details despite working there myself lol. None of the employees that are actually a part of the Lolo NF are included in the team that is doing the plan revision to my knowledge. Where all of them are from - I honestly don't know. I think they are formulated from several locations. I know a few of them are from Region 1 (Montana, some of Idaho, some of Wyoming, and some of the Dakota's), some are from the WO (Washington DC), and some are from the local university in Missoula (which it confuses me how they can legally be an official member of the team, but I think those ones are more in facilitating information with public engagement rather than actually dealing with hard data directly). The stated idea behind that was to not further bog down our existing projects by yet another project - which, as an employee I understand because we have a LOT going on. We are supposed to be getting consulted on some things here and there, but thus far nobody on the actual Forest to my knowledge has. Please don't quote me on that though because I don't know all of the intricate details. The forest supervisor is the ultimate authority and decision maker. The plan team will assess all things associated with the plan. Then they will make a recommendation - keeping in mid a forest plan is VERY complex. There are also alternatives that can be choses. So, just as a very small example, it could look something like "vermilion creek area should be designated wilderness because XXXXXXXX". Alternative 1 "only XX portion of vermilion creek area should be designated wilderness....." Alt 2 "no portion of vermilion creek area should be wilderness....."" etc..... This goes for every activity and management action on the entire forest - so again, complex. This is how it works for every action conducted on the forest - we call it the NEPA (national environmental policy act) process. The level of the deciding official (ranger, forest supervisor, regional forester, etc, etc...) all depends on how large or small the project being analyzed, as well as if there is or is not significant risk or negative outcomes to resources (resources includes, timber, wildlife, recreation, etc.etc.etc). If folks knew all of the intricate details of what I actually do as a forester they would be blown away at how detailed and intricate our actions are (I say this in regards to the 'all you do is clearcut' comments). But I digress....

The plan will have many phases, and during the progress there will be what is called "public comment period's". This is a time where the public can actively make a comment of official record in favor, or not in favor of specifics, or offer other suggestions, or express frustration, etc... However, these public comment periods have a tendency to be short, and are very difficult to find. Some of that, in my own personal opinion, is done on purpose. But also being on the official side of having to respond to comments, it is very very time consuming and can be difficult. But again, the forest supervisor has ultimate authority to decide which action to choose. She (in this case) may, depending on a lot of factors, have to consult with her boss to choose an appropriate decision. So, this is why I encourage participation. Typically the squeaky wheel (usually environmentalists) get their way. The more people that speak up, the higher likelihood it is to go in favor of that direction as the supervisor will see that the public holds certain aspects very important to them as a community. But that also doesn't always happen because there are some things outlined by law and policy that must be done with no exception. There is also a bit of, reactive, decision making because of how much private interest groups have been suing the gov all around the nation (usually for timber sales).

A very significant portion of this analysis is done via GIS. GIS is a mapping software we use by Esri... to do everything. It's very powerful and allows us to track, everything basically. There is some 'specialist opinion' that does get into the mix and that is supposed to be unbiased and based on fact's (truth is that does not always happen, and often it is swayed by personal bias). I am no exception - I want more roads, and dedicated 4x4 roads....not less. So that makes things more complicated.

Anyway, but for the plan team to say they didn't know of this fire, which was a HUGE event and took almost 2 entire years of my own time at work and significant time of the crew, I am dumbfounded.... Especially since, well I won't say details, but it got way worse than it needed to be. And of course the local community to that fire is very very upset. I literally have no words for how it can be that they said they were unaware. Maybe they just were not wanting to discuss it (which as an employee makes me even more frustrated). So, sadly, I don't have a good answer for you - and as a civilian, that makes me very upset and concerned that the action that will be chosen will not be the most appropriate and informed action based on what is actually occurring on the ground. But this was the first step (supposedly) in analyzing wilderness areas. So future meetings might reveal more.

This is supposed to be a 3-6 year process to formulate the recommended, chosen, and signed off on new Plan - but at the current rate of progress, it seems to me there is a desire to push it through rather fast. I may sacrifice some weekends to dig into it more as I cannot do so at work for obvious reasons, but still am a stakeholder in the plan as a civilian, and there is supposedly civilian GIS data although I have not seen it yet. Being an employee I have to be careful some lines don't get crossed but a concern I have is what specific dataset they are pulling from to make all of these analyses. That's something I will bring up as a civilian in the next meeting.

Thank you for keeping up on this project. It really helps that you are both local and sort of on the inside having an understanding of how the process works.

Sponsored

 

[Hamandcamo]

Best thread on the forums right now. Take if from an eighth generation Carolinian, they will slowly chip away until your entire state has little to no actual off roading and overlanding. I'm surprised nobody from any overlanding organizations were. I'll submit something when I'm off the clock.

 

[chorky]

!!! IMPORTANT !!!

comment period will be open for 30 days “The comment period will now be open for 30 days, from April 17 through May 16”
This is for the assessment portion of wild as scenic rivers as well as woodland areas.

It would be awesome to have some folks willing to comment. I am very concerned that they will be trying to pretty much close every road.

 

[chorky]

!! IMPORTANT UPDATE !!

Lolo National Forest plan revision

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd993646

Wilderness and wild/scenic rivers
Comment period for the analysis of these items is now open - I believe the open period is for one month.


https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd1097048


There are several documents to review and comment on. There is also an interactive web map (pretty cool). However it does not appear to be fully operational - https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/C...x.html?appid=5b3e7a53ce17497ca6d5262150fd1d54 There is supposed to be the option to comment directly on the map and for it to be interactive, but it doesn’t work. Additionally, the map is not very informative and seems to be lacking some geoprocessing. There are several roads that are of concern to me (and should be for the entire 4x4 community). These roads are either apparently not buffered, have been forgotten, or parts of them were not buffered. The reason - I don’t know because road information is not being displayed as it should be. Those roads are as follows

367 - Graves Vermillion
7609 - West Fork Fishtrap Creek
7676 - Stony Lake
7669 - Four Lakes Creek
7670 - Beatrice Creek
17069 - Parrot
17068 - Bamboo
5583 - Bold Peak
5574 - Big Rock Bass
882 - Chippy Creek
5582 - Little Thompson Peak Rd
886 - Baldy Lookout
7507-2 - Corona McGinnis
18287 - Rodgers Rd
9982 - McGinnis Creek
18286 - Five Flag
7734 - Surveyor Creek
5539-2 - Ed’s Ridge / Garden Pt Jeep Trail

Again, some of these or parts of these are buffered whereas some of them, parts of them, or all of them are not - attention should be paid to investigate and find out why the data being presented is not clear and/or consistent. There are likely other roads of a similar situation.

On page 11 of the Lolo NF Wilderness Process it states: “Regardless of road or other improvements found within them or size, all 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Areas were included in the inventory”. This raises further question and concern of the above roads as some of them are within roadless areas - so it is unclear if these roads will remain open or if those roads will be effectively closed should that area be designated ‘wilderness’. Now I want to make something very clear. This question was posed specifically and directly to the team members and they say directly “we are not closing any road, that is part of the road planning rule”. However, it is also stated that wilderness areas are to not have road access. So, should an area be determined ‘wilderness’ and that area has a road, yes the road is not directly being closed, but it inherently through the process is effectively being closed. I don’t understand why this is being skated around when the fact remains that roads in wilderness areas get closed due to the wilderness rule, unless that road area itself is specifically excluded from the recommended wilderness area - and as in the roads listed above, if they are already unclear, it is surely only going to be more complicated later.

Now one area of particular concern revolves around wildfire. In 2021 there was a huge 38,000 acre or so wildfire near Thompson Falls. Started by accident to my knowledge in somebody’s back yard. A FS induced backburn went bad and the fire exploded - I don’t know the full details that is just what I heard. This is important because it is a rather large area. During previous discussions with the Plan Revision Team, it was mentioned (if I remember correctly) that "wildfire that is human caused is usually excluded from inventory analysis”. It was also said that the Responsible Official has the ability to include various areas with sound reasoning. Now, in this particular situation, on the interactive web map as well as the draft wilderness PDF map, a particular area of this burn is clearly excluded from the rest of the area for analysis. However, the particular area that is excluded from analysis is approximately 0.02% of the entire fire area as a whole. So, this raises concern because it seems incorrect that only a fraction of a percent by area is excluded from 38,000 acres when that entire area was human caused. The reasoning for this area being excluded, yet the rest of the 37,000 acres being included, with both of them being of the same event, and same cause, is very unclear. This rises speculation as to the analysis methods, and what data is actually being used for the analysis and if it is even the correct data.

All that being said, it is pretty cool they are incorporating a web map that is interactive and that the public is (supposed to be) able to comment directly on and get feedback on. Hopefully that gets resolved and working soon because it’s helpful


I highly encourage everyone who enjoys road based access to our public lands to take interest in this, to read and study it, and to engage with the plan team to better understand analysis methods and data being used, provide feedback and opinions, and overall voice your opinion.

If you dont speak up, and public access is taken away, then you have no basis on which to complain later.

All of this information can be found by the webhub linked above, the national USFS interactive visitor map, caltopo, and NIFC maps.

 

[Silverator]

I applaud your efforts, but this is almost like a reoccurring bad dream for me. I didn't read it all though. Too much, and even if I had the time, I cannot support it. I hate to be pessimistic, but in previous Nat Forest and USFS "trail management" issues that I have been party to, the FS underhandedly used end users (mostly dirt bikers when I was paying attention) to discover, log and close trails and lock out land use - all in the guise of "helping" us. This is really well documented - especially in CA. The USFS is all about limiting access and closing trails. I would expect the same here, but I sincerely wish you the best in your efforts. Cheers,

 

[chorky]

I applaud your efforts, but this is almost like a reoccurring bad dream for me. I didn't read it all though. Too much, and even if I had the time, I cannot support it. I hate to be pessimistic, but in previous Nat Forest and USFS "trail management" issues that I have been party to, the FS underhandedly used end users (mostly dirt bikers when I was paying attention) to discover, log and close trails and lock out land use - all in the guise of "helping" us. This is really well documented - especially in CA. The USFS is all about limiting access and closing trails. I would expect the same here, but I sincerely wish you the best in your efforts. Cheers,

the more people who speak up the less likely that will happen. But thus far, at least in my area, nobody of the 4x4 community but me has been speaking up. So. They cant complain if closures do happen.

in my particular district it is filled with hunters, fishermen, families, small businesses relying on wood products, cattle runners, and well rooted and down to earth folks who want to do good things for the forest and our communities. The problem lies in upper management that is usually situated in cities and far and away disconnected from realities of small rural communities. And there are all of the special interest ‘friends of’ groups who lie through their teeth under the guise of ‘protection’ which really means restricting access And/or the ability to manage land to keep it healthy.

But I will again say that those people are the ones making noise. So they get listened to. If a couple hundred people spoke up in favor of access and not closing areas down, then there would be a good chance of that happening. But without that, then the decision makers will think that everybody is ok with particular decisions.

this is why I am trying to provide information. Plus as a disabled vet who probably cant even go hunting anymore, my options for recreation are quickly diminishing. And I know there are more people in a similar situation.

It is crazy to me that despite Ca being Ca there is more legit and dedicated 4x4 routes there than Montana will ever have. I hope you will consider at least commenting on the plan even if its as simple as saying how you enjoy motorized access to public lands and dislike the increasingly amount of closed roads.

 

[Silverator]

the more people who speak up the less likely that will happen. But thus far, at least in my area, nobody of the 4x4 community but me has been speaking up. So. They cant complain if closures do happen.

I can't speak to your particular area or USFS office, but I can say that in the CA forest areas, there were huge amounts of people speaking up, lobbying for trails, etc., and the most that got involved, the more trails were lost. It would have been better that they had never got involved in the public process. This is honesty. It's in their plan. At least in CA.

 

[chorky]

I forgot to post an update. Sorry....

Today is the last day (as in a couple hours) to comment on the wilderness inventory. As is currently, whoever is pulling GIS data, they are NOT pulling the correct data.

I strongly encourage everyone to comment and be part of this process. A big reason why gov. entities continue to restrict more and more access is because people are not speaking up.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd993646

 

[chorky]

Well I have not posted any updates here in a while in part because I was 'informed' by a few different people at work now that I'm not supposed to have an opinion. I dont personally understand how, just because I am an employee, also makes me unable to express a opinion on my personal time, but whatever, when I was in the Army it was removed from me the ability to partake in voting. So can't say I'm surprised.

Anyway - just wanted to put a plug in here in case nobody yet knows, that several hundreds of miles of 'trail' has been closed by the BLM around MOAB with the recent final decision, according to the information I have seen. I will leave my personal opinion out of it because apparently I'm not allowed to have one.

But I will say this, I strongly encourage everyone here, to partake in meetings and management and decisions of your local (and not so local) forests. If we want to continue to have access, you must participate. Otherwise, there is no point to complain later if/when things do get closed.

Blue Ribbon Coalition is the one I personally have followed in regard to MOAB. I am not endorsing them, and I am not a part of them - just to make that perfectly clear.

 

[CrazyCooter]

Well I have not posted any updates here in a while in part because I was 'informed' by a few different people at work now that I'm not supposed to have an opinion. I dont personally understand how, just because I am an employee, also makes me unable to express a opinion on my personal time, but whatever, when I was in the Army it was removed from me the ability to partake in voting. So can't say I'm surprised.

Anyway - just wanted to put a plug in here in case nobody yet knows, that several hundreds of miles of 'trail' has been closed by the BLM around MOAB with the recent final decision, according to the information I have seen. I will leave my personal opinion out of it because apparently I'm not allowed to have one.

But I will say this, I strongly encourage everyone here, to partake in meetings and management and decisions of your local (and not so local) forests. If we want to continue to have access, you must participate. Otherwise, there is no point to complain later if/when things do get closed.

Blue Ribbon Coalition is the one I personally have followed in regard to MOAB. I am not endorsing them, and I am not a part of them - just to make that perfectly clear.

That's the hard thing about working for the man........you shouldn't voice your opinion when working for them since you aren't in an elected position or it can turn into a liability issue when dealing with the public especially if you are a person with any power/authority.

Don't get me wrong....I agree with your opinion and appreciate what you have done, however my wife is in s similar position with the county planning dept and has to also keep her opinion quiet.

 

[chorky]

The Lolo National Forest Plan is soon to be out for comment.

https://missoulian.com/news/local/l...b629e71bd.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE everyone to participate even if you are not impacted directly by the Lolo forest. What happens here can very easily happen to your local forest because they are federal and often times copy each other. Unfortunately I cannot give any additional information.

My personal opinion, access to public lands via motorized access is constantly at threat. Lack of highway legal motorized access discriminates agains disabled peoples (like myself) who otherwise cannot hike 20 miles, or even 10 miles, in a day to see unpopulated areas. If you don't participate now, you have no right to complain later.

 

[chorky]

I have said it before and I will probably say it a few more times, although I am getting exhausted because it seems like nobody, literally nobody, even in this community (where I live) that it will directly affect, gives a $#!&. It baffles me, how many people complain because of laws and things they dont like or agree with, but none of them have the balls to actually do anything about it.

I took a peak at the plan revision this evening, on my personal computer, on my personal time (disclaimer). Comment period is open until the end of the month.

They specifically do not discuss roads - at all. Stating that this is a forest management plan and not a travel plan. Interesting though because roads should in fact be a part of the management plan, seeing as how this is the whole overarching plan of the entire forest. However, a quick look at some of the maps indicate that several currently roaded areas, if converted to IRA or other, will no longer be suitable for roads - and thus closed. And those areas on the map are not identified with roads - so, from my skeptical perspective and history of mistreatment by the government, would assume that there is a hidden and purposeful intent to do this, in order to close vast sections of road without specifically stating it so as not to blatantly appear 'anti-road', but to still achieve their objective Hopefully I am wrong. But in my experience, I would not at all be surprised if this is true.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd993646

What happens in a forest 2,000 miles away from you can and will (eventually) impact the forest in your back yard. It is important to participate in things that matter to you, otherwise you leave the choice up to others who very well may (and likely) have an opposite opinion and lifestyle as yours. If you don't participate, your complaining later is void.

Sponsored