Flathead National Forest Plan Revision
Orientation Meeting Summary
Date: December 5, 2013
Location: Red Lion Hotel, 20 N Main St #150, Kalispell, Montana
Note: this summary is still in draft form. Please contact Rianne BeCraft at rbecraft@merid.org
about any omissions or correction corrections.
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the Orientation Meeting was to provide stakeholders with information about
stakeholder involvement in this phase of the Flathead National Forest (FNF) Management
Plan Revision. Specifically, the meeting:

Provided an overview of the FNF plan revision context and schedule;

Explained policy “sideboards” for the plan revision;

Allowed an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions and request more
reference materials;

Introduce and launch the topical work groups, including an overview of the work
plan, scheduling, and assigning suggested homework.
Over 120 stakeholders attended the Orientation Meeting, and there was an option for
stakeholders to join the meeting remotely via teleconference.
Forest Plan Revision Planning
Joe Krueger, Forest Plan Revision Acting Team Leader for the FNF, presented an overview
of the FNF plan revision context and schedule and elements from the 2006 Modified Draft
Plan that can serve as a starting point for the collaborative to consider in developing
recommendations for a new FNF management plan. FNF staff then reviewed the following
FNF policy sideboards, which are described in detail in the team’s PowerPoint presentation,
which is posted here.
List of Policy Sideboards:
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013


Marsha Moore, FNF Planning Forester
o
Special Designations ( Inventoried Roadless Areas, Research Natural Areas,
Experimental Forests, Wild and Scenic River corridors)
o
Amendment 24- Winter Motorized Recreation
o
Aviation Airstrips
Heidi Trechsel, FNF Vegetation Specialist
o

Amendment 21- Old Growth Forests
Derek Milner, FNF Soil Specialist and FNF Revision Plan Soil Specialist
o

Page 2 of 12
Inland Native Fish Strategy, 1995
Reed Kuennen, FNF Wildlife Specialist
o
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Directions (NRLMD)
o
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation
Strategy (GBCS)
Clarifications and Comments
FNF Management Plan

FNF has been operating under the 1986 plan, and although the plan has not been
revised, it has been amended numerous times.

A Draft FNF Management Plan was developed in 2006, but was not finalized due to
litigation on the national planning rule. The FNF plan revision team has provided
stakeholders with a modified draft of the 2006 plan, which identifies selected sections
of the plan that the collaborative can provide comments on. These are the topics on
which stakeholders are encouraged to focus their discussion and feedback in the
timeframes established but the Forest is willing to consider any and all
recommendations.

The current plan revision process is being conducted under the 2012 National Forest
Planning Rule and the associated proposed directives (which are still being
finalized).

The collaborative process is intended to engage stakeholders in developing
recommendations for the Forest Service to consider for a FNF management plan that
is legally sufficient and based on reasoned decisions.

The budget for the FNF plan revision process is approximately $800,000 per year for
three years.

Forest management activities and projects are continuing during the plan revision
process.

Comment: FNF is showing bias in the 2006 modified draft plan, because the
document suggests that FNF will consider stakeholder recommendations for
increasing the amount of snowmobiling areas (which could be less favorable for
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 3 of 12
grizzly bears), but does not say FNF will consider recommendations for decreasing
or maintaining the same amount of snowmobiling areas.
Response: Amendment 24 established current snowmobiling areas (FNF settled
when they were litigated on that issue) but it is correct to say that it could still be
possible for the FNF to propose fewer areas.

Comment: Disagreement with some of the management guidelines provided in the
modified 2006 draft plan.
Policy Sideboards

FNF will provide stakeholders with information on and a map of designated critical
habitat for bull trout.

FNF strives to use the best available science, and welcomes stakeholder input about
information or sources that might have been missed, or about data that needs
updating.

The Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (GBCS) is considered a FNF
policy sideboard because that Agreement is currently a management sideboard
under the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (GBCS).

Question: The original 2006 Draft Plan did not have the 4.1A category; what was the
rationale for including it in the modified version? A lot of unsuitable timberland
under A1 is now suitable under 4.1A; where did that come from?
Response: The modified Draft Plan added grizzly core area in response to public
concerns regarding the reductions in suitable base.

In 2011, open motorized density requirements changed. This was because the GBCS
criteria were established based on research that suggested grizzly bear recovery
would require the population growth rate and the conditions to support that growth
rate to be maintained as they were in 2011, when the growth rate was at about 3%. In
order to maintain those 2011 conditions and therefore the GBCS requirements, open
road density must also be maintained as it was in 2011.

There is a U.S. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule that allows a state to
petition to refine its Roadless Area boundaries, which Montana has not done. There
was a Flathead County public process which evaluated whether the County should
propose to the governor that Montana submit a petition, and the County decided not
to. The process and criteria for determining Roadless Areas differs by each forest in
the region. Some forests used the existing Roadless Areas in their existing plans,
which they had to do quickly, so they ended up with some roads in Roadless Areas.
The way they determined these Roadless Areas was by digitizing aerial photographs
to determine areas w/ or w/o roads. This process is imperfect as it is often difficult to
detect specific boundaries, including roads. Other forests looked at what areas did
not have existing roads, and determined those areas, including buffers that were
created on a digitized map, to be Roadless Areas. If there are roads in Roadless
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 4 of 12
Areas, it is due to human error. FNF has not closed roads to intentionally create
Roadless Areas.

In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected comments to develop the
Designated Critical Habitat Rule for lynx. Research is currently being done to
distinguish the prime habitat. Results will be published and is expected in early
2014. There is a 2000 lynx habitat map associated with the NRLMD.

There are two municipal watersheds in the FNF, Haskill Basin and Essex Creek,
which are not currently under active management. A buffer is required around
municipal watersheds..

All laws are considered sideboards, including the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act,
which was inquired about in particular.

Comment: Designated critical habitat for bull trout, which cannot be adversely
modified, is a sideboard that was not mentioned.

Comment: Concern expressed regarding the credibility of the science used to create
the current lynx designated critical habitat map.
Stakeholder Collaboration Process
Connie Lewis, Senior Partner from Meridian Institute, presented an overview of the
stakeholder collaboration process timeline, structure, work groups, and e-collaboration.
Connie’s PowerPoint slides are posted here.
Clarifications and Comments

Comment: The Discover the Flathead Facebook page limits multi-way
communication because it does not allow public posts.
Response: A website hosted by Meridian Institute is being provided to allow multiway communication threads in a forum dedicated specifically to the plan revision.

Comment: There may be some better ways to organize the geographic area
discussions.
Response: Four geographical work groups have been proposed for efficiency
purposes. Suggestions for other combinations of areas would be appreciated.

The stakeholder collaboration process, to occur through June 2014, will be focused on
providing input to the FNF about development of a “proposed action” for the Draft
Proposed Plan, which will initiate the formal National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process (scoping, development of alternatives, etc.). The stakeholder
collaboration may also inform the development of a range of alternatives.

The FNF will consider all stakeholder input equally – from both the stakeholder
collaborative process and the NEPA process.
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 5 of 12

The input collected during the collaborative process will be compiled by Meridian
Institute and provided to FNF, the participating stakeholders, and the public in a
summary report.

Work group meetings will usually be held at different times to allow stakeholders
the option of participating in more than one group. Stakeholders expressed concern
that participating in meetings for multiple work groups would be time intensive. It
was noted that there are many other options for participation, including attendance
of combined sessions, conference calls, and online contributions.
Next Steps

Meridian Institute and FNF staff will post the previously provided and newly
requested reference materials and other relevant information on the Meridian-hosted
Plan Revision Website.

Meridian Institute will send the invitation, logistics details, and agenda for the
January 22, 2014 Combined Meeting.

Stakeholders are asked to review the reference materials. Any requests for
additional information can be e-mailed to Rianne BeCraft (Meridian Institute)
rbecraft@merid.org.
Information Requests

US Forest Service 2012 directives

Amendment 19

Amendment 24

Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy

All maps to be posted on Meridian/FNF Sites

Existing 2006 FNF Plan

Information on designated bull trout critical habitat

Definitions, including “old growth” and “compete.”
Maps

Potential Vegetation Types

Existing vegetation (VMap)

New map of Lynx critical habitat that will be published in January with the
environmental assessment (Reed); also 2000 map of Lynx critical habitat

Map of designated bull trout critical habitat

Grizzly Bear Security Core

Wildland Urban Interface

Inventoried Roadless Areas
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013

Current Suitable Timber lands (Suitable MAs)

Wilderness

Existing Forest Roads

Recent Fires (1984 to present)

Geographic Areas

Land ownership, including differentiation of legacy lands

Rivers, lakes, streams

Management Areas 2006 Proposed Plan Preferred Option
Page 6 of 12
Topical Work Group Organizing Sessions
The purpose of the Topical Work Group Organizing Sessions was to orient stakeholders to
the work plan for involvement in each of the topical work groups. Specifically, the sessions:

Reviewed the goals, expectations, and schedule for the work groups;

Identified information needs and homework assignments for each group; and

Provided opportunities for stakeholders to ask clarifying questions of FNF topic
specialists.
Work Plan Overview
Connie Lewis and Diana Portner, of Meridian Institute, reviewed the proposed work plan
for each of the work groups. Both groups will utilize the FNF Modified 2006 Draft Plan as a
starting point in their discussions, and for providing input about the following topics in
sequence:

Forest-wide Desired Conditions (general conditions applied to topics)

Objectives (details applied to the above forest-wide desired conditions)

Geographic Area Desired Conditions (site-specific conditions applied to topics)
The two work groups are: 1) Habitat, Vegetation, and Disturbance; and 2) Recreation,
Access, and Recommended Wilderness.
Work Group Expectations
Participants were reminded that regular attendance at work group meetings will be helpful
in the on-going discussions; however, the work groups will have flexible membership. The
work group facilitators ensured participants that membership in one work group does not
preclude participation in the other work group. All meetings will include options to attend
via tele-conference. Other than the combined sessions, meetings and calls will be scheduled
at alternate times to allow for participation in multiple groups. To ensure proper preparation
for each meeting, work group members will be requested to complete “homework”
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 7 of 12
assignments between meetings. In addition to in-person meeting participation, stakeholders
will have multiple opportunities for engagement, including conference calls and online
discussion forums.
Meridian Institute staff will document all input, including areas of concurrence where there
are multiple views. Work group members are encouraged to think creatively and search for
win-win solutions.
Schedule
The number of stakeholder meetings was based on FNF and Meridian Institute
capacity, as well as on the need to balance opportunities for participation with not
wanting to over-burden stakeholders. The tentative schedule of upcoming meetings
is as follows:

Wed., January 22 Combined Meeting: This meeting will focus on forest-wide desired
conditions and objectives, with time allotted for work groups to meet separately and
then report back to the full group. It was pointed out that there is a public Island
Unit meeting on this date, which some people participating in the collaborative
process will be attending. Joe will look into whether that meeting can be moved.

Topical Work Group Conference Calls (Times TBD): The purpose of these calls will
be to finalize input about desired conditions and objectives.



o
Tues., February 4: Habitat, Vegetation, and Disturbance
o
Thurs., February 6: Recreation, Access, and Recommended Wilderness
Topical Work Group Meetings: At these meetings, the groups will discuss desired
conditions for geographic areas.
o
Wed., February 19: Habitat, Vegetation, and Disturbance
o
Thurs., February 20: Recreation, Access, and Recommended Wilderness
Topical Work Group Conference Calls (Times TBD): During these calls, the groups
will finalize input about geographic area desired conditions.
o
Tues., March 4: Habitat, Vegetation, and Disturbance
o
Thurs., March 6: Recreation, Access, and Recommended Wilderness
Wed., March 19 Combined Meeting: The beginning of this meeting will serve as a
time for the topical work groups to summarize their discussion about forest-wide
desired conditions and objectives, and geographic area desired conditions, before
transitioning to break-out groups that are organized by forest districts (tentatively
four groups with some districts combined).
Habitat, Vegetation, and Disturbance Work Group
Diana Portner, Meridian Institute Mediator and Program Associate, facilitated the Habitat,
Vegetation, and Disturbance work group. In addition to the information provided above on
the work plan overview, ground rules, and schedule, she reviewed the topics to be covered
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 8 of 12
in the group, and allowed opportunities for the stakeholders to ask clarifying questions of
the FNF Topic Specialists in the room.
Topics
The group will cover terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, threatened and endangered species,
species of conservation concern/species of public interest, vegetation management,
disturbance, including invasive species, fire, insects and disease, and forest products, which
are detailed in the following sections of the Modified 2006 Draft Plan:

Soils, Watersheds, and Aquatic Ecosystems

Vegetative Composition, Size Class, and Structure

Fire and Fuel Management

Air Quality

Wildlife and Plant Species Diversity

Forest Products
The group recognized fire, wildlife, and water quality as topics that will likely require the
most discussion time due to their interrelated and complex nature.
Discussion

The Work Group members would like to be able to review the forest assessment
before they conclude input on desired conditions. FNF staff will provide a briefing
on the assessment findings on the relevant topics when the assessment is completed.
In the meantime, FNF can provide the framework of the assessment, which follows
the topics outlined in the 2012 National Forest Planning Rule.

It was recognized that desired conditions are about what people want to be able to
do and experience on the forest and do not necessarily require a great deal of
quantitative data for informed discussion. The assessment will likely be more
important to inform input on the objectives.

FNF staff clarified that the Revised Plan will include ecosystem services, which had
not been required as a consideration in previous plans.

Work group members expressed interest in the economic impacts of proposed plan
components. FNF staff clarified that economic analysis will be conducted as part of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Questions were also raised regarding
how this process relates to economic analysis of roads to be included in the
Transportation Analysis.

The group expressed the need for clear definitions. In many cases, there are
definitions that can be utilized from the 2012 National Planning Rule and other
documents. However, in other cases, the Work Group may need to determine their
own interpretation.

It was clarified that the deliverables of this group will be input about desired
conditions and objectives. The level of detail is flexible; however, the FNF clarified
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 9 of 12
that they are expecting more qualitative input for desired conditions. If quantitative
values are suggested, it will be helpful to provide the rationale behind the values.

Dick Hutto of University of Montana was mentioned as a potential resource for
discussing fire and fuels management from a wildlife perspective.

The US Geologic Survey is a resource regarding expected effects of climate change on
the FNF.
Next Steps
Homework
Before the next meeting, Work Group participants were requested to review the Background
and Distinctive Roles and Contributions and the Forest-Wide Desired Conditions for the six
work group topics on pages 4-16 in Chapter 1 of the FNF Plan Revision Reference Materials,
and to be prepared to comment on possible edits and additions.
Information Requests

Glossary of Definitions: Specifically this will include old growth, forest health,
habitat, resilience, ecosystem, and terms from the 2012 National Planning Rule.

Framework for the Existing Conditions Assessment: This will help organize
discussions and development of desired conditions to be more in line with the way
that the forest plan will be structured, which will be different than the 2006 modified
draft plan.

Existing Conditions Assessment Information: Preliminary information is available on
the website now. Specialists will provide additional information, such as
descriptions, tables, and maps, as available. When the final document is complete, it
will be posted online and a hard copy will be available for reference during
meetings.

Maps/XML Files: Most files are available on the FNF website. FNF will make specific
maps available for the groups (see Orientation Meeting information needs for a list of
maps).

2012 National Planning Rule: A hard copy will be made available at meetings for
reference. Additional copies will be printed as requested.

USGS Climate Change Information: This information will be interpreted at the
‘layperson level’ and written to include take-home messages and possible
management implications.

Hard Copies: A single printed copy of all posted materials will be made available for
reference at the meetings.

2006 Draft Forest Plan: This refers to the draft plan before modification. This is
currently on the FNF website.
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 10 of 12

Examples of Desired Conditions: In addition to the desired conditions listed in the
reference materials, examples from other forest plans (i.e., Kootenai NF) will also be
provided.

Fire Data: This includes information regarding recent fires, such acres burned by
geographic area.
Recreation, Access, and Recommended Wilderness Work Group
Connie Lewis, Senior Partner, facilitated the Recreation, Access, and Recommended
Wilderness work group. In addition to the work plan and scheduling information provided
above, she also reviewed the topics to be covered in the group, and allowed opportunities
for the stakeholders to ask clarifying questions of the FNF Topic Specialists in the room.
Topics
The group will cover recreation, access, scenery, recommended and existing wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, and special designations, including Inventoried Roadless Areas,
research natural areas, and experimental forests ,which are detailed in the following sections
of the Modified 2006 Draft Plan:

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Designated Wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Access and Travel Management
Discussion

FNF staff encouraged stakeholders to keep their recommendations within the
guidelines listed in the 2006 modified draft plan, which are based on legal and
statuary sideboards that restrict opportunities for change. A thorough
understanding of the guidelines will help stakeholders recognize how much
opportunity, if any, there is for certain aspects of the plan to be changed. However,
FNF staff explained that if stakeholders disagree with certain aspects of the
guidelines, they can provide comment to the Forest.

Comment: Concern about the challenges associated with making educated
recommendations to FNF due to informational gaps in existing science.
Response: This collaborative stakeholder process is meant to be based on high-level
stakeholder interests. A more thorough in-depth process will follow during the
NEPA process.

Comment: Concern about a lack of consistency regarding what types of discussions
and recommendations are considered too site specific for the purposes of this
collaborative process, and what level of specificity would be helpful at different
phases in the process, e.g., specific aviation strips have been referenced while
discussion on particular mountain biking trails has been deferred.
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 11 of 12

If there is a large number of participants in this Work Group (e.g. over 25 people), it
may be split up into smaller subgroups to make discussions, work, and conference
calls more productive.

If stakeholders have questions regarding reference materials between meetings, they
are encouraged to first use the e-collaboration tools (e.g., the Meridian Institute
website forums) to ask for help from and/or collaborate with other stakeholders.
Meridian Institute and FNF staff will be monitoring conversations on the website
forums to the best of their ability and will provide help when needed. If further
assistance is needed, stakeholders can contact Connie Lewis (connielewis@merid.org)
who will forward questions to FNF staff if she is unable to answer them.

Meetings and conference calls will be documented by note-taking and written
summaries. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to review and make suggestions
for incorporation into the summaries.

Stakeholders will first focus on forest-wide desired conditions for FNF, which are at
the 30,000 ft. level, then on objectives, which are more specific.

FNF still has to conduct a site specific analysis before designating any area for
particular land use.

The 2006 recommended wilderness is not included in the 2006 modified draft plan
because FNF will complete a new evaluation based on the process outlined by the
2012 National Planning Rule directives.

Research has not been conducted on whether or not existing designated wilderness
has had positive or negative impacts per se, although there is monitoring data
available.

The wild and scenic corridor plan will be developed after the forest plan revision.

Comment: Consider holding in-person Work Group meetings 5-9pm on weekdays.
Next Steps
Homework
Before the next meeting, Work Group participants were requested to review the Background
and Distinctive Roles and Contributions and the Forest-Wide Desired Conditions for the
four work group topics, and to be prepared to comment on possible edits and additions.
These are found on pages 16-41 in Chapter 1 of the FNF Plan Revision Reference Materials.
Information Requests

Amendment 19

Amendment 24

Monitoring data related to designated wilderness

Definitions of “recommended,” “proposed,” and “designated wilderness” and the
new term “proposed wilderness”
FNF Orientation Meeting Summary • December 19, 2013
Page 12 of 12

Definition of “old growth”

Recreational Opportunities Spectrum

Overall forest use data and age group specific data

National Recreational Use Monitoring Data

John Weaver’s monograph for Wildlife Conservation Society (here:
http://www.headwatersmontana.com/node/24)

State Trails Plan

Commercial recreation information, including location, numbers, and what proposal
are coming in and from where

Economic information on recreation in the area

Basic info on forest fire-fighting options and suppression tactics

Statistics on the applications for special event permits

Whitefish Collaborative document (may be more useful for geographical work
groups)