By Mary Alice Murphy
Adam Mendonca, Gila National Forest Supervisor, led the revised Forest Plan exercise, with help from facilitator Heather Bergman.
"The Gila National Forest is operating under the 1986 plan, which was the last major revision," Mendonca said. "The new plan will be a high-level guiding document revising the existing plan. The draft EIS (environmental impact statement) and draft plan are more than 1,000 pages. The comment period ends April 16, 2020."
He said the reason for the Jan. 27 session was to address "key decision points where we have conflicting direction on them, and we need more input."
Mendonca said traditional uses of the forest, such as grazing, timber and firewood harvesting are important. "Restoration is key to a healthy watershed. We have learned that the public doesn't want a lot of developed campgrounds. They appreciate the back country."
He noted the language in the various points have words, such as should, which allows the forest some flexibility. Where the language says required, there is no level of flexibility
The first section of the exercise addressed restoration in the five timber types in the Gila—spruce, mixed conifer with aspen, mixed conifer receiving less moisture, ponderosa pine and pine in more open areas including evergreen oak, and pinyon-juniper. The various types of timber range from montane, which is subalpine, to open grasslands, which can also be montane to semi-desert grasslands.
"We have all these ecosystems in the Gila National Forest," Mendonca said. "Our budget allows us limited capacity for restoration. We have heard from people that we should provide restoration, so we need your input on what vegetation types we should prioritize, what methods and tools we should use and what methods and tools we should use in the wildland urban interface."
The next section addressed new or realigned roads, motorized trails and recreation sites.
Several sections addressed grazing allotments, including new or reconstructed range infrastructure, livestock mineral supplements, adaptive livestock management and vacant livestock grazing allotments.
How and where to acquire private land for the forest was addressed with three options for land adjustments.
Included in the exercise were options for proposed botanical areas and proposed research natural areas.
Options and input were sought on group size limit for designated wilderness areas and group size limit for recommended wilderness areas.
"I am the one who will make the final decision," Mendonca said. "It's the why component on each line that is important."
When it comes to the forest's budget, he said about 50 percent of it is allocated to fighting or monitoring natural fire incidents
Mendonca said the budget for the forest used to be around $18 million and now is $10 million. "We don't compete well with mechanical thinning. We on the Gila National Forest have used naturally ignited fires and managed them. But then there are trade-offs, such as smoke."
He reported during the session that as part of their plan revision, the Gila National Forest would not recommend any Wild and Scenic designations. "We at the Forest Service try to align with state and local laws, which can deviate such as in the management of endangered species. The Gila has a lot of eco-systems with the second highest number of endangered species. The Coronado had the most endangered species."
He said timber sales is a pressing management issue in the revisions. "Such sales may need a road, and private inholdings may need roads and utilities."
Mendonca said the Gila is working with State Preservation on archaeological sites that may be significant.
On the grazing allotments and vacant allotments, the Gila has had discussions to keep some vacant to where they can move cattle that are impacted by fire or wolves or other disturbances or conflicts. Mendonca said that some people want to close them permanently and some permittees waive the allotment back to the Forest Service.
To a question from an attendee, Mendonca said the forest gets about $900,000 to pay staff for the grazing allotments. "Permittees also pay fees and we get about $100,000 annually in revenue from that source. We have 136 allotments in total. My opinion is that if we look at grass banks, we should have a vacant allotment per district."
He said the county's tax base relies on revenue with ties to timber and cattle. "As part of the document, we have to look at the economics piece."
Another attendee suggested, in addition to the NEPA process, that there also be a part for sustainability.
Mendonca said the forest has 26 landholdings on a list, and that's why they are looking at input on how to handle the inholdings.
On the issue of wilderness designation, Mendonca said alternative 1 has no recommended new wilderness designations, and alternative 5 has 58 recommendations totaling 745,286 acres. "Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, we tried to balance the comments and amount of acreage.
"We did not include any recommendations for new wilderness areas," he said. "We plan to manage for restoration."
The site will have a place to submit comments https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=51887. The revised plan project site is found at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51887 Other sites of interest include https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/home/?cid=STELPRD3828671