Public Comments to Swan Valley Regional Draft Plan Discussed

SWAN VALLEY - The members of the Swan Valley Community Council voted to follow SVCC member Henry Westra’s matrix in which he compiled public comments suggesting changes or recommendations to the second Swan Valley Regional Plan Draft. The comments, due on April 10, were then perused by the Council. They discussed and voted for some changes or to keep the original writing to the second draft plan at their meeting May 15.

Westra wrote the specific comments on the matrix in the order of the plan, specifying location and by whom the comments were made. He said only those comments specific to the draft plan were included. He did not include general statements on the plan as a whole.

The council accepted the comment to shorten the introduction to say, “The people of the Swan Valley acknowledge their heritage and rural culture and want to remain in control of their own destiny.” The resident objected to and did not understand the use of “daily customs and culture.” and recommended that it be removed.

The last paragraph of the introduction states that the aging population will not be changing soon unless some kind of economic activity brings its workforce into the valley. It asks the question “would there be a ready workforce with such a small population of working age persons?” It reads that any new business would probably have to bring in their own workers.

The comment deemed it “unnecessary, speculative and editorializes a point of view, stating opinions rather than presenting facts.” The council however, voted to retain it and agreed with council member Lacey McNutt who said that it states reality and makes the dynamics of the valley more easily understood.

The SVCC members voted as well to keep the clause “as a result of the Montana Legacy Project” contained in the Planning Premises section of the introduction. The resident who commented thought it made it seem like the project was the reason for the lack of private land.

The council voted to keep it and agreed with member Kathy Koors who thought the resident wanted the whole story of the history of the valley mentioned and that it is not necessary in this document.

Section 1.0 of the draft plan was addressed by a Lake County resident who wanted the segment to be more regulatory. The resident wrote, “Don’t make recommendations optional by using “should”; if they are optional, people won’t do it.” He suggested action five be rewritten to read, “Ensure that wildlife corridors are preserved” without the addition of “to the extent possible and practical.”

The Council members agreed to keep the section as originally written as the document cannot be regulatory.

Section 1.3 entitled Surface Water Quality drew conflicting comments. One comment stated that Appendix A—Element 1 Natural Resources should be moved to the section on water quality which states regulations in streamside management which include structure and road placement from water bodies, a 310 permit for crossing water and best management practices to reestablish stream banks.

Another stated “Water quality is good, delete everything else.”

The final comment said to remove Appendix A, it is “redundant and regulatory.”

Chair Ken Donovan said that the regulations in Appendix A could change and it won’t be corrected in the document. “Let’s leave regulation information out of it,” he said.

Swan Valley Regional Planning Committee member Diann Ericson said that hopefully the plan will be updated every five years. She also stated that current and potential residents can be informed of the regulations by reading the draft plan.

The Council voted to retain Surface Water Quality as originally written and to delete Appendix A. Koors voted against the motion because she wanted to see Appendix A remain in the draft plan.

Another comment suggesting to delete Forest Communities and Habitat Types in the Natural Resources and Environment Element generated a lengthy discussion. The comment recommended referring to the Flathead National Forest (FNF) Plan instead. The comment disagreed with the term Ecosystem Map as the Swan Valley does not have distinct ecosystems being a small part of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It also cannot be used in land use planning because there is no clear science on where the boundaries of the ecosystems lie.

SVRPC member Dave Johnson reminded those in attendance that the committee had agreed to change ecosystems to forest communities because of an objection then to the term. As a result, the word was changed to forest communities on the map located in the section. The draft plan states that the source of the map and information on the ecosystems is the Upper Swan Valley Landscape Assessment.

Westra asked where the Landscape Assessment came from. Some in attendance thought it came from a partnership of Swan Ecosystems Center, Plum Creek, the U.S. Forest Service and others. SVCC members agreed to table the discussion until their next meeting June 19 after they had more thoroughly researched who was involved with the Swan Valley Landscape Assessment, how accurate it is and if they should reference the FNF plan in the section.

Some in attendance thought that the general information about wildlife habitat should stay in the draft plan for the benefit of present and future landowners. They agreed that it is much easier to reference the draft plan than look at the large Flathead National Forest’s Plan.

“It [wildlife] is what sets the Swan Valley apart from other areas,” said SVRPC member Pat Sinz.

The Council voted to keep the section on Habitat Types as originally written.

The SVCC will begin with 1.4 Bull Trout Habitat Conservation in Element 1 Natural Resources at the next meeting. Visit http://apps.missoulacounty.us/go/svccplan to view the second draft plan and the residents’ comments.

The next Council meeting is June 19 at 7 p.m. It will be held at the Swan Valley Community Hall.