SWAN VALLEY - Members of the Swan Valley community reviewed the proposed Flathead National Forest (FNF) Draft Plan and expressed concern about the Management Actions proposed on the Swan Lake Ranger District (SLRD).
Resident, Swan Valley Fire Service Area board member and Swan Valley Emergency Services (SVES) volunteer Jimmy Boyd said SVES is concerned the proposed plan would limit their ability to provide for the safety of the community in regard to wildfire suppression. They would like to see the draft plan coordinate with the local plans that are already adopted including the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan 2013 revision.
The purpose of the FNF draft plan is to provide for long-term sustainability of ecosystems and desired ecosystem services. The draft forest plan describes the Forest’s distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape and details forest-wide, management area and geographic area desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines. The revised forest plan identifies suitable uses of National Forest System lands and estimates of the planned timber sale quantity for the Forest.
The draft revised plan identifies management areas (MA) with prescribed management actions with three different alternatives, Alternatives B, C and D.
For example, in Alterative B and C the Swan Face is included in the recommended Wilderness MA. Alterative B included 50,847 acres and C including 99,919 acres in this designation. Alterative D recommends the Swan Face be included in the backcountry non-motorized year round MA including more than 50,000 acres in this designation (page 120 of the Draft Plan).
Recommended wilderness lands are lands that have the potential to become designated as official wilderness through legislation. They are characterized by a natural environment where ecological processes such as natural succession, wildfire, avalanches, insects and disease function with limited amount of human influence. Recommended wilderness is not suitable for timber production, road construction or reconstruction and timber harvest and thinning is not allowed.
While the backcountry designation does allow low levels of timber harvesting for multiple-use proposes including salvage logging and to achieve desired vegetation conditions, it does not allow for mechanical treatment. It states, “The desired vegetation conditions are achieved primarily through use of fire (prescribed and wildfire) and to a lesser extent through other methods (e.g. salvage harvest, white bark pine thinning).
Some of the other MAs recommended in the SLRD include General Forest Low, Medium and High. Each of these areas allow for varying levels of management activities including timber harvest and thinning using mechanical means. Depending on the Alterative B, C, or D, 40 – 47 percent of the area in the SLRD is recommended for these management areas.
“We want to make sure that the Flathead National Forest is working in coordination with the local plans that are already adopted including the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan (SSFP) 2013 revision. It seems peculiar that in this whole entire plan fuels mitigation and public safety are not really addressed,” said Boyd. “The Seeley-Swan Fire Plan maps out a risk assessment for the wildland urban interface (WUI) and hazardous fuels model. The concern is that the proposed management actions in the FNF plan do not represent the best interests of the public safety of the Swan Valley community.”
Boyd gave the example that wilderness and backcountry MAs do not allow for human forestry management or use of mechanical tools for fuels mitigation. The SSFP encourages fuels mitigation in the high hazardous fuel areas.
“What we don’t want to see is the areas with high hazardous fuels have an MA with a hands-off approach that could potentially become dangerous for the community. We would like to see options left open so these areas can be managed from a fuels reduction standpoint and not be closed minded in a blanked restricted area,” said Boyd. “[In the wilderness] they don’t consider a fire a fire until it comes out of the wilderness. To bring the wilderness down [the Swan Face] means that a fire is burning and burning and you aren’t even staging for it. To bring it closer to the community is very dangerous.”
Boyd prefers some of the general forest and focused recreation areas MAs because the management tools, such as mechanical harvest, are not as limited as they are in the backcountry and recommended wilderness designation.
“We [SVES] are of the opinion that we need to give future generations the ability to make management decisions based on the ‘at time’ needs,” said Boyd. “We need to make sure we leave management tools on the table as an option.”
While the number one issue for the SVES is public safety, members of the community have expressed other issues with the proposed plan regarding the economic impact of deteriorating recreational opportunities, the visual impact for the community should fires be allowed to burn on the Swan Face and the abandonment of the culture and history of the Swan Valley.
“The public should educate themselves on the goals of the various MA’s and draw their own conclusions,” said Boyd.
To facilitate information gathering, the Swan Valley Community Council is hosting a meeting Sept. 7 to help educate the community, send in their own letters and comments and possibility join together in an alternative option. The alternative option that is being drafted will suggest a change from recommended wilderness or backcountry MA to the general forest MA. The hazardous fuels present and recommended fuels mitigation strategies in the SSFP would dictate whether the area is designated in the general forest low, med, high MA.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service Forester of the Swan Unit and SSFP committee member Allen Branine will give a presentation overlaying the SSFP maps with maps of the alternatives proposed by the draft plan.
“The fire service area believes it is important to maintain active, management buffer zones to the wildland urban interface,” said Boyd. “We strongly suggest the MA maintain multiple management strategies. There is really no reason to jeopardize the communities’ safety. From a community standpoint [bringing the wilderness boundary down the Swan Front] just doesn’t make sense.”
Reader Comments(0)