Flathead National Forest withdrew an ambitious landscape restoration plan for the Swan Valley last week, prompting concerns that the U.S. Forest Service is shutting the public out of decision-making processes.

First proposed in 2018, the Mid-Swan Landscape Restoration and Wildland Urban Interface Project spanned nearly 175,000 acres in the Swan Lake Ranger District of Flathead National Forest. The plan would have authorized up to 40,627 acres of commercial timber harvest and 77,772 of non-commercial forest treatments over the course of 15 years. 

Flathead National Forest published a draft decision notice for the project in September 2021, preemptively approving the first half of the 15-year plan, but a final decision notice never followed. The draft decision was instead withdrawn more than four years later, on April 17. 

Deputy Forest Supervisor Tami MacKenzie said the initiative ran into major hurdles when crews surveyed some of the proposed units and found large discrepancies between preliminary data gathered by remote-sensing technology and on-the-ground conditions. The available timber volume production had been overestimated by more than 50% and more than half of the treatments proposed in the 2021 draft decision notice could not be implemented. 

The project was scrapped in favor of several smaller forestry projects, which MacKenzie said would be introduced over the next five years. 

“By withdrawing the Mid-Swan Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, and analyzing it on a smaller watershed level, we are speeding up the process in which we can successfully move forward with treating high priority fuels reduction and timber production areas of the landscape to protect communities, infrastructure, and contribute to the local economy,” she said. 

Keith Hammer, chair of Swan View Coalition, sees the revised management approach as a double-edged sword. He thought the Mid-Swan Landscape Project lacked sufficient detail and included too many timber cuts, but he was able to voice those concerns through several public comment and objection periods. 

He doubts he will have the same opportunities to review the upcoming projects. 

In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated more than 112 million acres, amounting of 59% of all national forestlands, under an Emergency Situation Determination. Forestry projects that address lands under the Emergency Situation Determination are not subject to a public objection process. 

In the same order, the Department of Agriculture urged forest officials to use emergency authorities to sidestep the typical review requirements required under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Historic Preservation Act, and to expediate contracting and permitting. 

“It’s a whole different world under this administration,” said Hammer. “They basically gutted public participation.” 

Most of the projects reviewed by Flathead National Forest in the past year have used the Emergency Situation Determination, alongside other longstanding categorical exclusions that aim to expediate planning processes for projects in wildfire-prone areas. Hammer suspects similar tactics will be used to quickly clear upcoming projects in the Swan Valley. 

“The proof in the pudding will be when they push out their first timber sale,” he said on April 20. 

The next day, Flathead National Forest posted a notice for the Piper Creek Project, which includes 1,415 acres of commercial timber treatments and 892 acres of non-commercial treatments between the Swan River and the Mission Mountains Wilderness.  

The project will be reviewed under the emergency action determination and two other categorical exclusions, according to a Notice of Proposed Action published April 21. Officials also plan to analyze whether the project qualifies for a third categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. If granted, the agency will not be required to publish and gather comment on an environmental impact statement.  

“The public has essentially been dealt out of the whole process and left to wonder why fuels reduction and logging activities that required an environmental impact statement under [the Mid-Swan Landscape Project] all of a sudden require nothing but a rush job and a few documents stuffed into a project file,” said Hammer. 

The public is invited to comment on the Piper Creek Project through May 5. Comments can be submitted through the project’s online landing page or emailed to [email protected] with “Piper Creek Project” in the subject line.