Nestled in Northwest Montana and along the Idaho border, the Lolo National Forest is a treasure trove of natural beauty, providing exceptional habitat for fish, wildlife, and offering endless opportunities for Montanans to enjoy hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. As we look towards the future, the Proposed Action for the Revised Lolo Forest Plan presents a unique opportunity for us to ensure that this cherished landscape continues to thrive for generations to come.
We urge everyone to review the proposed action and submit comments by 11:59 pm on Monday, April 1 to help shape a forest plan that prioritizes the health and connectivity of our wildlife habitats. With thoughtful input from the public, we can help shape a forest plan that prioritizes the health and connectivity of our wildlife habitats.
The Lolo National Forest Planning Process is a comprehensive effort to update the forest’s management plan, a task undertaken approximately every 15 to 20 years. This process is critical in determining how the forest will be managed to balance ecological, economic, and recreational needs. The existing forest plan, established in 1986, is now outdated and fails to sufficiently address contemporary challenges like climate change, rising recreational demands, and the necessity for habitat connectivity. As the plan is being revised, there are several areas where public input can significantly impact the outcome.
Positive Components of the Plan
Overall, the Forest Service did a great job in developing the Proposed Action. The introduction of Geographic Areas offers a more nuanced understanding of place-based management, where specific resource management activities can be expected and the nature and extent of cumulative impacts. The preservation of Recommended Wilderness areas, particularly the inclusion of the Hoodoo Roadless Area, is a significant step in ensuring the recovery of species such as the grizzly bear and enhancing habitat connectivity. To further enhance habitat connectivity for a wide variety of wildlife species, MWF would like to see an alternative(s) that recommends additional strategically located Roadless Areas for recommended Wilderness designation.
Additionally, the inclusion of the Appendix 11 (Reader’s Guide) is helpful to aid in navigating the planning documents. This tool simplifies the process for the public to engage with the content, allowing for more focused attention on the substance of the plan rather than the search for information.
Areas for Improvement
There are areas where we believe the plan could be strengthened. The omission of the Ninemile Demographic Connectivity Area (DCA) from the proposed action is a concern. This area plays a crucial role in enhancing habitat connectivity for breeding female grizzly bears. Extending the DCA south of I-90 to ensure connectivity to the Hoodoo Roadless Area is a recommendation MWF strongly advocates for.
Furthermore, connectivity should be elevated to a specific issue for the Lolo National Forest. The forest’s role in providing habitat connectivity across western Montana is undeniable. By making connectivity a distinct issue, it would incentivize the Forest Service to create and analyze alternatives that address habitat linkages and connectivity. Connectivity Maps and Management should be included to identify core areas, corridors, and linkage zones for large wide-ranging species like grizzly bears.
Roadless Areas contribute significantly to wildlife habitat by providing habitat security, connectivity, and rare, special and declining habitats such as old growth. As Roadless Areas are evaluated for future resource potential, the Forest Service should consider designating most or all of the existing Inventoried Roadless Areas for land use allocations that can enhance wildlife habitat and connectivity.
The proposed plan’s identification of five management areas requires refinement. The current reduction in the number of management areas may be too extreme, and additional management areas are necessary to better distinguish between differing management strategies and clarify the intent of expected management. Plan Components should ensure species habitat recovery goals, accommodate wildlife security needs, address habitat connectivity at different scales, and manage vegetation to support species of conservation concern and special habitats.
Navigating the Path Ahead
Overall, MWF appreciates many aspects of the Proposed Action, especially the recommended Wilderness areas, the use of Geographic Areas, and the helpful User’s Guide. However, we feel that the plan could be improved by focusing more on connectivity between habitats, using special designations for untouched areas to protect them better, and adding more management areas to clarify how different parts of the forest will be managed. We also suggest customizing the management plan to suit the unique features of each Geographic Area.
Remember to submit your comments by April 1!
