SWAN VALLEY – More than 100 concerned citizens attended the Swan Valley Community Council (SVCC) special meeting Sept. 14 to discuss and gather more information on the Flathead National Forest (FNF) Draft Forest Plan. US Forest Service representatives from the Revision Team including team leader Joe Krueger presented the four proposed Alternatives A, B, C and D.
Swan Valley resident, Swan Valley Fire Service Area board member and Swan Valley Emergency Services (SVES) volunteer Jimmy Boyd spoke about the safety concerns he sees with the plans and presented two alternate actions for the USFS to consider. The public was encouraged to write formal comments on the draft plan due Oct. 3.
The current FNF Forest Plan was adopted in 1986. It has been amended 27 times in the last 30 years to attempt to keep it current. Many of these amendments are due to litigation and the USFS mission to maintaining multiple use and services to the public across 2.4 million acres of the FNF.
One example Krueger gave for why the plan needs updating was the FNF feels they have met the recovery strategy for the grizzly bear. The conservation strategy outlined in the Forest Plan Amendment 19 would require the FNF to decommission 530 more miles of roads.
“There are still people that think we should do that and are advocating that under the No Action Alternative A,” said Krueger. “The bear population is meeting all the criteria that we established so we don’t think we need to do that. There are things we need to keep doing and keep doing well to sustain the bear population but decommissioning roads is not one of them for the grizzly bear population. In order to move to delisting, we need adequate regulatory measures in forest plans.”
The FNF Forest Plan Revision Team started with the assessment, identifying the existing conditions on the forest, the trends and what is going on in the land. Open Houses were held along with field trips that involved the public talking about what is known about the existing trends and things the public values.
In May, 2016, the draft forest plan amendments and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were released beginning the formal comment period for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The draft EIS analyses the environmental, social and economic effects of the different alternatives.
Krueger briefly summarized the four alternatives that represent the range of possible management actions (MA) under NEPA. Alternative A is no action and the baseline for the other alternatives since it is essentially the 1986 plan. Alternative B was the proposed action released in March 2015. Alternative C comparatively has more recommended wilderness and less intensive management while Alterative D has no recommended wilderness and more intensive timber management where available.
Krueger said that the roadless rule dictates a lot of the management options on the FNF. There are 600,000 acres in designated roadless. Outside of wilderness, the roadless rule excludes roads and timber harvest, even though old roads may exist. The Backcountry MA was used to reflect inventoried roadless. It does not preclude treatment but would have to use a helicopter or temporary roads.
“You can’t put [Backcountry] into the General Forest [MA] because that would be lying to the public. We are not going to get timber products out of it. That’s what we use general forest for,” said Krueger.
Krueger highlighted that in Alternative C the Recommended Wilderness MA motorized and mechanized uses are excluded to preserve the wilderness qualities. In Alternative B, existing motorized and mechanized use would be allowed to continue if wilderness qualities can still be maintained.
Heidi Treschsel, vegetation specialist on the Revision Team, explained that the Recommended Wilderness MA on the Swan Front is the same area that is currently in the Recommended Wilderness MA from the 1986 plan. The boundary basically follows the inventoried roadless designation and has never been logged. No roads currently exist in the area and the old Plum Creek land that is roaded is not included. Krueger said the only new recommended wilderness is around Elk Creek as an addition to the Missions in Alternative C.
Boyd expressed concern on behalf of Swan Valley Emergency Services (SVES). He feels that the FNF is not on the same page as the community in regards to public safety.
“It seems like when you are dealing with a complex issue, the more management strategies you have on the table the better off you are. You might need to use a combination as a forest manager,” said Boyd. “Wilderness areas worry a lot of people because of this hands-off approach.”
Boyd brought up concern from an economic and cultural standpoint that of the 2.4 million acres on the FNF, there are less than 750,000 acres for timber harvest allowed in Alternatives B, C and D.
“It doesn’t take much for a mill to look at these sustainable yield numbers and say OK we can calculate Flathead National Forest, we can calculate Lolo National Forest, do we want to stay in business,” said Boyd. “That’s scary from a cultural stand point.”
Boyd showed a map of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) with the recommended wilderness overlaid. His concern is where the WUI overlaps the recommended wilderness; they will not be allowed to do any fuels treatments to mitigate hazardous fuels using mechanical tools. With the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan 2013 Revision, the USFS agreed to 10 percent fuels reduction over the next 10 years in those areas recommended to an MA that does not allow mechanical treatment.
FNF Forest Fire Management Officer Rick Connell explained that two years ago the state of Montana changed the WUI definition and how it was mapped. Wherever the existing WUI boundary crossed a property line, that whole property became included in the WUI. When applied to the FNF, if any of the land was in the WUI boundary it extended the WUI to include the full section, 640 acres. That is why the recommended wilderness now overlaps with the WUI designation versus when it was originally drawn much lower down the hill on the Swan Face.
Connell also said that he didn’t think the FNF would be able to mitigate 10 percent of the fuels that high on the Swan Face in the next 10 years. He was not aware that they agreed to treat 10 percent of the fuels.
While Boyd acknowledged that prescribed fire can be a good fuels mitigation tool, however it is dependent on weather and other factors to be effective. Community members added that there are a lot of older people in the valley with breathing problems and either letting fires burn in the wilderness and/or lighting prescribed fires makes it very difficult for their health.
SVES Medical Chief Dan Maloughney expressed his concern with the plan from a safety standpoint. Over the last 10 years, responders have had to go behind locked gates 20 times to rescue people who were injured. By further restricting access to areas, it will extend the response time.
“There is nothing in the plan that addresses public safety,” said Maloughney. “We are responsible from the top of the Missions to the top of the Swans. I don’t see how we are going to get in in time to save a life.”
SVCC Chair Ken Donovan agreed, “For the people that live here, this is our home. Safety is number one. . . I think number two would probably be our habitat. We cherish what we have here and we definitely want to protect it.”
Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss added, “I think the people’s biggest fear is living in this valley with one way in and one way out. If [the Swan Face] ends up being treated as wilderness, people are at risk.”
Thompson Falls Senator Jennifer Fielder responded to the safety concern presented by the community. “Safety is not the jurisdiction of the US Forest Services [and is not a priority because it is not included in NEPA and the federal law that they work with]. Safety is the jurisdiction of the State of Montana and its subdivisions. That is why you don’t see safety as a major factor in these plans.”
Connell said that fire is fought in the wilderness if it is not the right place, the right time or for the right reason. They fight 50 percent of the wildfires in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Less than 10 percent of the fires in the wilderness get bigger than 100 acres and most never get bigger than 1,000 acres. Fire managers take into account not only public safety but firefighter safety when choosing whether to fight a fire.
“Fire will sooner or later come visit your landscape,” said Connell. “We are trying to get fire appropriately on the landscape. It comes down to where we are in the season and what is the risk [of letting the fire burn or putting it out].”
Boyd feels that only a certain group of people has showed up to the table corrupting the original intent of the NEPA.
“It’s become an industry for special interest groups,” said Boyd. “I felt like in the NEPA it was designed to preserve the culture and the history of an area, from the lifestyles to handicap access. There are just so many issues that the district is really not addressing.”
Boyd proposed two additional alternatives. First, put more area into the General Forest MA, allowing more management tools should the need arise. He called this Alternative E.
“The main point is you could [do what needs to be done]. The management area description allows you to use mechanical thinning or harvesting processes [instead of only being able to use prescribed fire],” said Boyd.
The second alternative called ER was Alternative E with enhanced fire mitigation and recreational opportunities.
“I felt like the Forest Service did a good job describing the MAs but there were a few missing links,” said Boyd. First, he said, is that the conversation of motorized and non-motorized was specific to the backcountry. Backcountry, he said, should be an overlay in general forest, not a different MA. He feels fuels mitigation should be the priority for the General Forest MA.
Along with the General Forest MA, Boyd felt that enough tools were on the table in the Recreation MA. He proposed a Dispersed Recreation MA that would allow for prescribed burning, thinning and timber harvest to be used for vegetation management. The goal would be to preserve the area for recreation and wildlife.
“The philosophy behind it would be to try to minimize the areas of single or restricted use. The direction would not be to restrict, restrict, restrict. It would be how do we maximize the area of multiple use,” said Boyd. “And in the areas that are restricted, managers would be able to actively and soundly manage the forest. It is all about leaving management tools on the table.”
Boyd pointed out that the Mission Mountains Wilderness is currently 78,000 acres. Alternative A, B and C all recommend more than 98,000 acres with Alternative C recommending 506,919 acres as recommended wilderness. Alternative D recommends zero acres of new wilderness.
“To me it helped give me a scale of how much new wilderness area we are taking when you compare it to the 78,000 of the Mission Mountains Wilderness,” said Boyd.
Many in the room agreed that even though the Swan Face had been recommended wilderness in the 1986 plan, recommending it again “feels like creep” and it should be “rolled back up to the peaks.” Questions were asked why the Forest Service would give up their rights to manage the land under a wilderness designation and what benefit it has to take the management tools off the table.
“Some people don’t trust the Forest Service,” said Krueger. “That wilderness designation provides a higher level of protection. That gives them a permanent designation and we [the Forest Service] have to, by the Wilderness Act, protect those values.”
Commissioner Curtiss commented that the Swan Valley and Missoula County was not mentioned for timber harvest. She also recommended recognizing the 30,188 acres that became a part of the FNF through the Montana Legacy Project. In her comments she will include a few lodges and schools that were missing from the plan’s historical inventory.
Another resident pointed out that Missoula County was not included in the social, cultural and economic impacts of the plan. Krueger said that the reason Missoula County was left out was because it is so much larger than the four other counties; it would mask the impacts of the other counties.
Krueger recommended writing letters addressing safety, wilderness designations and the other concerns to the FNF and making comments before the Oct. 3 deadline. However, also include how the plan should be changed, including recommending a different MA, understanding and accounting for the limitations imposed.
Treschsel emphasized that the final preferred alternative in the final forest plan will be a blend of the alternatives presented. Anyone who comments on the plan and gets their name on record will have standing and can object to the proposed decision. FNF Forest Supervisor Chip Weber will make the final decision on the plan.
Documents and maps are available online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr. Electronic comments may be submitted to http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46286. Please send written comments to Flathead National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Attn: Forest Plan Revision, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901.
Reader Comments(0)