Action Alerts

Tips on Effective Commenting

You need to know how the Forest Service responds to comments in order to get the most out of their review of your remarks. If you are going to take the time to comment, you want it to count.

Of course, we need you to advocate for Recommended Wilderness in the Yaak but along with that, comment on a roadless area or forest health issue that you are passionate about. Tell the Forest Service how you use the forest and why certain areas deserve permanent protection, whether it involves wildlife concerns, or your use of an area for backpacking adventures, hunting excursions or berry-picking. Then relate how these values compare to the preferred alternative B or if they are better represented in alternative C.

Substantive comments provide factual information, professional opinion, or informed judgment that is relevant to the action being proposed. Substantive comments are specific, comparative, or solution-oriented. A substantive comment provides the reasons why and goes beyond just expressing an opinion. Comments such as, "The preferred alternative looks good/bad", is not substantive. The agency wants to know why the proposed action looks good/bad, "The preferred alternative looks good/bad because it…"

Comments are considered on basis of content not quantity. This is why YVFC is not simply sending out a pre-messaged post card for folks to send in – they would all simply be counted as one comment.

Sample Letter – CLICK HERE

YVFC does not support the land management area designations in the preferred alternative B, nor do we fully support Alternative C. We want permanent protection for all of the last roadless lands in the Yaak with the exception of a few areas collaboratively agreed upon with the multiple-use community. These agreements were a part of the Three Rivers Challenge (TRC) and are also included in the pending Forest Jobs and Recreation Act legislation. We ask the USFS to honor all of the land management areas and boundaries designated in TRC, including Roderick, Northwest Peaks, Buckhorn, and Mt. Henry. (click here to view map) We understand that perhaps not all of our supporters share this opinion and will simply support Alternative C. We appreciate and respect this viewpoint. However, outside of the agreements made in TRC there are still some missing components from Alternative B & C (read on).

Recommended Wilderness

- The YVFC would like to see the entirety of the Roderick IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area) be recommended Wilderness and not how it’s mapped in Alternative B or C. The alternatives contain a "buffer" along the edges of Roderick IRA for boundary distinction purposes. In today’s world of GIS technology there is no reason to exclude these 6,157 acres from the recommended Wilderness designation. We also ask the USFS to honor the Backcountry (5a) area, as designated in TRC, located along the northern boundary of Roderick. This backcountry area extends to Burnt Dutch and is currently mapped as General Forest (MA 6) in all of the alternatives. - Beyond the areas addressed in TRC, the YVFC strongly advocates recommended Wilderness designation for:

- Gold Hill West IRA – not included in Alt. B
- Saddle IRA – not included in Alt. B
- Grizzly IRA – not included in Alt. B or C
- Zulu IRA (Westside) – not included in Alt. B or C

These areas ranked highest in the Planning Team’s own Wilderness evaluation.
- Lastly, Gold Hill IRA (not to be confused with Gold Hill West IRA) is listed in the General Forest MA 6 in all of the alternatives. Tell the USFS to move the Gold Hill IRA into Backcountry 5a status.

Vegetative Management in the Draft Plan

Although extremely broad in its approach and vague in some of its language, the Forest Plan as it relates to Vegetative management is extremely encouraging. The Agency is focused on an eco-system management approach, which means managing for forest resiliency in all actions. We also support the trend to increase Old Growth and a larger tree size class forest wide. However, there are some specific aspects that need to be addressed:

-Advocate for clear language in Backcountry MAs (IRAs) that would prohibit salvage sales - no matter if they from an insect or wildfire disturbance. -Treatments in old growth areas that are designed to enhance old growth characteristics and resiliency should be limited to dry-site old growth stands only and highly monitored.
-One of the keys to eco-system based management is allowing for adaptive management and the only way you can adapt is if there are strict monitoring protocols in place and fully funded.

Wildlife Habitat

We support the importance placed on habitat restoration in the Draft Plan, which calls for 15,740 acres per year of "active restoration" (this includes the use of prescribed fire as a tool). This approach is encouraging and welcomed, improving foraging conditions across the Kootenai. But the Plan is lacking in permanent habitat security for a variety of terrestrial species, including big game.

- Tell the USFS to adopt the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Park’s management habitat strategies found in the Final Elk Management Plan (2005) pg.70: "Maintain about 90,000 acres of roadless elk security areas in the Northwest Peaks, Buckhorn Ridge, Grizzly Peak, Roderick, and Gold Hill areas, which also provide roadless elk hunting recreation."
- Connectivity is reflected in the Draft Plan. However, the guideline relating to it (FW-GDL-WL-13) is not specific. We need guidelines that offer land managers direction to prioritize and map connectivity for a host of species across the Kootenai and into adjacent forests.

Watershed and Aquatic Resources

YVFC is supportive of the broad outlined goals for watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic resources in the Plan with the emphasis being placed on watershed restoration. This is a welcomed approach due to the fact that trends indicate that native aquatic species are in decline. However, we question the agency’s direction to prioritize restoration needs by, "more commodity-based resource decisions, such as restoration associated with timber harvest activities" (DEIS, pg.132). Tell the Forest Service that restoration goals should be prioritized and driven by watersheds that are in need and are already functioning at a high-risk to ecosystem function and process. We would also like to see road decommissioning be given a greater focus in the plan to restore ecosystems impacted by previous road building and timber practices.

Non-native Invasive Plants

Invasive plants are generically included under the Vegetation topic, but are not listed separately as one of the seven "major issues" addressed by the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan DEIS does little to address how to mitigate weeds beyond referencing the 2007 Weeds FEIS which, “places the emphasis on an aerial and ground weed control operation” (DEIS, pg. 116). A stronger Forest Objective than that of FW-OBJ-VEG-02 is needed for noxious weeds and invasive plant species – one that incorporates an increased monitoring program, along with one that heightens the priority of mitigating weeds on the forest.

Where To Submit Your Comments

You have until April 5th, 2012 to submit comments on the Draft Forest Plan. The Forest Service recommends using one of the methods below (listed in order of preference):

* Email: KNFplanrevision@fs.fed.us using one of the following formats – directly in the body of the e-mail, word document preferred format (.doc or .docx), (.pdf), (.rtf), (.txt), or (.html).

* Postal Mail (written comments):
Kootenai National Forest
Forest Plan Revision
31374 US Highway 2
Libby, MT 59923

* Fax: (406) 283-7709