Discussion Topic: Access for Fire Suppression Agreements:

Ø      The recommendations from the Swan Collaborative Group are that the revised forest plan should address or contain the following:

Ø      Identify high fire hazard risk areas (i.e. fire condition classes).Emphasis on 'quick response' to suppress fire.

Ø      Firefighting: suppression and fuels reduction efforts in the private/Forest Service interface areas should be the first priority.

Ø      We must have access to put fires out. Emphasis on leaving existing roads passable (i.e., not removing culverts)and using gate and seasonal closures when necessary.

Ø      In addition to the urban interface areas, focus on fuels reduction efforts in high-risk areas to reduce fire risks and improve forest health.

Ø      Do not include Amendment 19 as direction for grizzly bears in the new Forest Plan and do not include direction on grizzly bears in the new Forest Plan until the bear study is done. Base new direction for grizzly bear management on new technology and studies.

Ø      Culvert blowouts are unacceptable management outcomes, when the use of appropriate technology that still leaves the road usable (e.g., bridges, better designed culverts) can avoid and mitigate effects and allow for multiple-use activities, within certain fish and wildlife constraints.

Ø      Within the Forest Plan, emphasize the urgency to provide programs (e.g., stewardship and inter-agency cooperative programs) for forest health and treatment of fuels in the ·Forest, utilizing removed or thinned (such as dead, down and thinned trees) materials of commercial value to help finance the treatment.

Ø      Make economic use of the removed material coming out of fuel reduction treatments; maximum utilization of all wood fiber (dead and down and thinned trees).

(Editors note: These statements represent a consensus of those at the table when the specific agreement was crafted, but not every person who signed in for all four of our Swan Lake Collaborative Group meetings was there when each agreement was made. Some people dropped out of the meetings over time, (for example on May 24, one person left during the meeting and did not participate in any of the agreements reached at that meeting). In some cases new people attended a meeting and would not have participated in earlier meetings. It would be inaccurate to presume that that total list of attendees for all four of these meetings would have participated in consensus building for each (or any) of the statements below.

Each of the following agreements was made by consensus of those present at the specific meeting at the time the agreement was made. Forest Service participants provided facilitation or information for the meeting, but did not vote in the consensus. Consensus was defined to mean that all members of the public at the meeting at the time the agreement was made could live with the statement. Wording of statements was important to the group and the bulleted statements below are the words they chose.)

First 3 agreements were reached May 24, 2004. The next 6 agreements were reached June 7, 2004.  Other than process agreements (number of meetings, time, place, etc) no consensus agreements relating to input for the revised forest plan were made at the May 5th or May 10th meetings.