Bigfork Eagle op-ed

Comments on the Swan Valley Conservation Plan

After attending the Swan Valley State Land Plan public meeting hosted by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Oct. 20, I offer the following observations:

This multi-faceted plan involving up to 10,880 acres of Plum Creek land is a complex proposed program applying conservation easements, including transferring private property ownership at an estimated cost of 26.7 million tax dollars.

This is in the interests of limiting development and preserving natural environment and wildlife. It is achieved by setting standards and providing oversight by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Trust for Public lands to assure conformance with the Forest Legacy funding program.

This approach apparently has met environmental goals in other locations such as Thompson Fisher Valley where $33 million tax dollars were applied to 140,000 acres in 2003.

We will likely be seeing this type of partnership being applied throughout the country utilizing public funds.

One alternative in the draft Environmental Assessment proposes a 3,680-acre portion of Plum Creek land be assumed as fee-title by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks which does not intend long term ownership.

A larger tract of 7,200 acres would be placed under easement to The Trust for Public Land with title to the land itself being held by Plum Creek.

Eventual disposal of this property would be limited to two sales which likely limits the potential market to a large corporation or a government entity (state, federal or foreign).

Plum Creek would benefit financially from the sale of the easement while maintaining ongoing timber harvest by agreed upon forest practices, before eventually disposing of the land minus development rights.

Thought comes to mind, however, that the land trust itself might be a logical buyer of the larger tract. The representative of The Trust for Public Land gives assurance that his organization is prohibited from buying land.

This is reassuring in light of the Montana State Statute, MS 70-17-111, which states in essence, that if the entity holding a conservation easement becomes owner of the land, the easement contract is extinguished.

In the usual situation dealing with a private property owner, when the non-profit land trust becomes owner of both the development rights and the land itself, it then is at liberty to develop it profitably as it so chooses.

This would allow a land trust to perform building, mining, drilling or possibly resell at a high profit. However, the Plum Creek/Swan Valley contract would restrict in perpetuity the land to forest uses only (with limited exception) and exclude any residential uses.

As with dealings with smaller private property owners, the land owner is held responsible for maintenance costs such as forest fuels reduction, weed control, road management, environmental protections, property taxes and liability insurance, which increases considerably with growing numbers of hunters.

Land trusts have simply paid the current land owner for the opportunity to supervise, monitor, and enforce compliance with contract restrictions and regulations. In essence the land owner has hired a boss who paid for the management job, forever.

The signer needs to be aware of the obligations placed on all future heirs or owners in perpetuity. If the property becomes incapable of paying its own maintenance costs within the confines of restricted uses, such as in the case of a forest fire, the funding must come from other sources or be subject to sale of the property.

The limitations of this Swan Valley land plan reduce potential population increases, thus controlling increased interaction between humans and wildlife. This Swan Lake corridor, known as Deer Alley, is already blessed with an abundance of large mammals. Forest Service grizzly studies show that collared bears are routinely crossing or using roads and highways.

Overgrown forests lacking in grazing land force both game animals and carnivores into open spaces provided by humans. Intermingling with increasing human populations will cause increasing incidents of auto/wildlife collisions. This must be contended with. In other parts of the country, highway fencing is being installed directing animals to overpasses or underpasses. This is costly.

Copies of the draft EA are available at FWP headquarters, 490 N. Meridian, Kalispell and FWP Web site at http://fwp.state.mt.us/publicnotices/. Saturday, November 5, is the deadline for public comment. E-mail gbissell@mt.gov.

Phone comments to FWP Kalispell office: (406) 722-5501.

Clarice Ryan of Bigfork is active in several resource-related organizations, as well as being a member of the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee.