Glacier Loon Project and Alternatives A, B, C and D Summary

As stated in the Forest Service documents, the purpose and need of the Glacier Loon project is as follows:

HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION  Reduce the associated risk of high-severity landscape wildfire risk within the Wild land Urban Interface (WUI) as identified in the Seeley Swan Fire Plan.  Provide for a safer environment for the public and firefighters should a wildfire occur within the proposed treatment areas.  Increase the probability of stopping wildfires on NFS lands before they burn onto private lands.

IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH  Improve and/or maintain the general health, resiliency, and sustainability of forested stands.  Reduce the risk of insect epidemics and severe disease infestations within the project area.

PROVIDE WOOD PRODUCTS FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES  Provide forest products to the local timber industry – contributing to short-term forest products and providing for long-term sustainability of timber on NFS lands.

In summary,the project would result in timber sales that are expected to be sold in 2012. Harvest activities are anticipated to be completed within a 3-year time frame. The Glacier Loon Subunit, where the Glacier Loon Project is proposed, is “Active” from 2012 through 2014, and becomes “Inactive” again in 2015. If contract extensions result in sale activities extending beyond 2014 in the Glacier-Loon Subunit, into the time period when the grizzly bear subunit is Inactive, then standards and guidelines for an Inactive grizzly bear subunit would be followed, as per the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (SVGBCA). All roads used would be managed consistent with the requirements of the SVGBCA.

Post-harvest activities, such as burning and planting, should be completed 1 year following harvest activities. Reforestation activities would be completed no more than 5 years after logging is completed in each unit. Other non-ground disturbing management activities would be completed by 2019.

As described in the documents, the Forest Service did not consider in detail two alternatives that some public commenters suggested: an expansion of the project to include additional areas of work, and doing the work without building any temporary roads. Neither of these was considered feasible in the current project and economic climate.

Based on the public comments provided in 2011, the Forest Service developed several project alternatives (numbered A, B, C and D) which responded primarily to three key issues of concern expressed by commenters: scenic values, water quality and wildlife security. Of key concern to Lindbergh Lake residents was the planned work in four areas located on the west side of the lake (see the Project Mapsposted on the HOA website.). These areas are identified as areas 84, 85, 86 and 87. As shown on the maps, these areas are located between Sandy Beach and the rope swing on the west shore of the lake. Work in this area would be highly visible from the east (cabin) side of the lake.

The summaries below are provided for HOA members’ use in understanding the project’s impacts and hopefully reaching a consensus position for the HOA.These summaries focus on the potential impacts to Lindbergh Lake. As illustrated on the project maps, the Glacier Loon project would also address a number of areas to the west and north of the lake. ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Alternative A is the “No Action” alternative. This means that no part of the Glacier Loon Project occurs. None of the areas proposed for fuels reduction or etc. throughout the entire project area, including the west shore of Lindbergh Lake, would be disturbed. ThisAlternative does not mean the area would be preserved or remain undisturbed. Recreation, public firewood gathering, fire suppression, and normal road maintenance would continue and there would be no change to the management designation for the area. This Alternative also does not change the management designation of the areas on the west shore of the lake, as Alternatives C and D do.

Alternative A is proposed mostly as a basis for understanding the proposed project’s impacts. It would probably require significant public pressure for Alternative A to be implemented, but it should be taken seriously as a viable option.

ALTERNATIVE B – ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT

The Proposed Action (Alternative B) proposes to reduce fuels and restore forest health on 2102 acres using a combination of commercial and non-commercial harvest treatments, remove approximately 10.5 million board feet of forest products, reforest harvest units by planting trees on 400 acres, and construct 11.5 miles of temporary road to access treatment units. This work would occur throughout the project area, including areas 84 through 87 adjacent to the lake. Alternative B is essentially the same as the project proposed in 2011.

The work would have significant visible impacts to the lake. See the Visual Maps for the Forest Services’ depiction of the potential scenic impacts to the lake. However, as indicated above, the work is proposed in these areas to help improve forest health, primarily because trees in these areas are affected by one or more pests or diseases.

Alternative B, along with all the Alternatives other than A (No Action), will include a variety of Best Management Practices designed to reduce impacts to fish and wildlife, endangered and threatened plants and animals, soils, water quality, etc.

ALTERNATIVE C – PROJECT MODIFIED TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS TO LINDBERGH LAKE

Alternative C proposes to reduce fuels and restore forest health on 1909 acres, remove approximately 9.0 million board feet of forest products, reforest harvest units by planting trees on 340 acres, and construct 7.4 miles of temporary road, and application of Best Management Practices on 34.7 miles of existing specified road. Harvest activities would be implemented using hand and tractor logging systems during the summer and winter seasons:

Alternative C was developed to respond to public comments on the project’s impact on Scenic Values, primarily related to comments from the property owners on the Lindbergh Lake and to concern for water quality due to potential sedimentation. To address these concerns, treatment units were modified by shape, reduced in acreage, or dropped. Proposed temporary roads were shortened, re-located, or dropped. In addition, an increased number of roads were proposed for decommissioning. The proposed work in areas 84 through 87 was eliminated. Alternative C still includes significant work in areas along and near the Lookout Road, out of sight of the lake.

In addition to eliminating the work in areas 84 through 87, Alternative C includes changing Management Area (MA) for a portion of the Glacier Loon Project Area along Lindbergh Lake, including the highly visible portions of the project area from the lakeshore to the slope break totaling approximately 221 acres. Management Area designations basically say how a portion of forest will be managed. The proposal would change 213 acres from MA 15, which consists of timberlands where timber management with roads is economical and feasible as currently assigned, to MA 5, which consists of roaded timberlands in areas of high scenic value. The other 8 acres would be changed from MA 15C, timberlands with emphasis on white-tailed deer summer range, to MA 5. This change would generally result in less silvicultural activities occurring, as scheduling of timber harvest within MA 5 would be primarily limited to those treatments that maintain or enhance the scenic quality of the area. Timber harvest designed as such would typically be less frequent and at a lower intensity. Designation as MA5 does not eliminate the ability of the Forest Service to propose or perform future work in these areas beyond the horizon of the Glacier Loon project; but it significantly limits what could be done, since the intent of MA5 designation is to “Maintain a pleasing natural appearinglandscape in which management activitiesare not evident.”

ALTERNATIVE D – ALTERNATIVE C PLUS ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ADDRESS WILDLIFE CONCERNS

Alternative D was developed to address concerns about wildlife security. Alternative D proposes to reduce fuels and restore forest health on 1150 acres, remove approximately 6.70 million board feet of forest products, reforest harvest units by planting trees on 290 acres, and construct 5.8 miles of temporary road. Harvest activities would be implemented using hand and tractor logging systems during the summer and winter seasons.

Alternative D was developed to respond to Issue #2, Wildlife Security. Wildlife security, retention of hiding cover and habitat connectivity, riparian habitat protection, and retention of recruitment of old growth habitat and lynx forage were the focal points for the development of this alternative. To address these concerns, some units in Alternative B were retained, modified, or dropped. Proposed road management in Alternative D is also different; there has been a decrease in the amount of temporary road construction and an increase in the amount of road decommissioning as compared to Alternative B. With the reduction in the amount of temporary road construction, longer skidding distances would occur with this alternative. Alternative D proposes the treatment of stands that would not continue to provide wildlife habitat in the short-term (5-10 year) without management intervention. Forested stands that would likely continue to provide habitat for longer than 5-10 years, without management intervention, were deferred from treatment at this time, in order to maintain hiding cover, connectivity of habitat, and wildlife security.

Like Alternative C, Alternative D does not include any work in areas 84 through 87 on the west shore of Lindbergh Lake; and also changes the management designation for these areas to MA5. Alternative D does incorporate some changes to the extent and types of work done along the Lookout Road.