Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 07 October 2018 07 October 2018

By Mary Alice Murphy

Gila National Forest Supervisor Adam Mendonca opened the meeting and introduced the facilitator Heather Bergman.

"This is a different sort of meeting," Mendonca said. "We are looking for specific input for the ongoing forest plan revision."

Those present were given clickers to choose with yes, no of unsure if the range of alternatives for each item considered included what most concerned them. If not, they were asked to write down what they thought important but was outside the range of alternatives.

Matt Schultz, forest planner for the Gila, said the GNF is in the process of revisiting the plan from 1986. The ongoing process began in 2015, and it continues today. "The nature of forest plans are to develop a plan to reach the desired conditions, which can be diverse. Although it has been amended since the last one completed in 1986, the forest has seen significant changes over the years. We've been having a slew of technical meetings. We are in Phase 2 of the revision. Although we have a variety of opinions, we have discovered quite a bit of common ground. We have only a handful of issues that have different perspectives. Those are the ones we will address this evening."

He noted that when an alternative states "no action," it means the forest will continue using that part of the 1986 plan.

"The forest supervisor will make reasoned choices among the alternatives based on the analyses," Schultz said. "What we are going to be talking about tonight is where there were multiple perspectives. You are to answer whether your perspective is within the range of alternatives. These are contentious issues."

Schultz also explained the language of standards and guidelines. Standards are mandatory; guidelines have restraints, but also allow more flexibility.

"We are looking for things outside the range of alternatives presented this evening," Schultz continued. "We are trying to move toward desired conditions. The preliminary draft plan is still open for comment."

Mendonca said the standards and guidelines can be made at the forest level or even in particular areas of the forest.

A couple of test questions offered the opportunity for participants to determine if they understood the process. One addressed which street became the Big Ditch in downtown Silver City and the second addressed Grant County Sheriff Harvey Whitehill and what future famous outlaw he became the first to arrest. The correct answers were, respectively, Main Street and Billy the Kid.

livestock grazing alternativesLivestock grazing range of alternativesThe first real question addressed livestock grazing. It showed a range from fewer hard rules (standards), more management options (flexibility) through balance of hard rules and management options to more restrictions placed on permittees, with the left-most one (fewer standards) increasing flexibility and the right-most one, more standards being more restrictive.

The question asked: "Is your perspective on this issue represented in the range below?" The choices were Yes, No or Not sure. For No or Not sure answers, Bergman requested those choosing the answers to explain verbally or in writing what they felt had been left out.

A series of questions followed, with clicker input by the participants.

The second question addressed vacant grazing allotments, with ranging, on the left, no vacant allotments and issue permits for vacant allotments through the range to use to increase flexibility and allow current permit holders to use during times of need to the right end of the range to keep them vacant and unused or even remove from grazing and use for wildlife and watershed.

The third question addressed riparian management from the left to keep the use of livestock grazing in riparian areas but use adaptive management and best managements practices to move toward and/or maintain desired conditions to the right-most option of phase out grazing in riparian areas and increase distance buffered from new road construction.

Next was vegetation types to focus restoration efforts on from on the left grasslands and open woodlands (to the exclusion of other types) through a mix of grasslands, woodlands and forest/timberland types to, on the right, forest/timberland (to the exclusion of other types).

Next were restoration tools to use from the left part of the range, which had rely on mechanical methods, limit prescribed fire and herbicide use on noxious, invasive species and resprouting alligator juniper and evergreen oak through using a mixture of mechanical prescribed fire and wildfire to the right end of the range with rely on prescribed fire and wildfire only, exception for mechanical in the wildland urban interface, and herbicide use on noxious, invasive species only.

The question on land adjustments ranged from acquire desirable lands for public access and resource management when available and when possible dispose of isolated, unmanageable lands to lands that support community development to, on the right side of the range, more emphasis would be directed toward land exchanges so that no-net loss of private property value in a county occurred.

The amount of recommended wilderness ranged from, on the left, no new recommended wilderness through some new recommended wilderness taking into consideration other forest uses and restoration needs to on the right side of the range a significant amount of new recommended wilderness.

The last question addressed the amount of botanical areas and ranged from, on the left, no botanical areas through some area in botanical areas for rare plant conservation and education to, on the right, more area in botanical areas for rare plant conservation and education.

Schultz asked if any other topics should be considered for a range of alternatives.

The next steps, according to Schultz, are to reconsider the preliminary range of alternatives, conduct an analysis of the alternatives, release and draft plan and draft environmental impact statement for feedback in 2019 and revise those documents based on feedback.

Beth Ihle, the temporary Silver City District ranger, who will be returning as the permanent ranger in November, said: "You saw the sausage making this evening. You've seen how we work through the process."