Article Tools
The Three Creeks sale near Swan Lake has been controversial from the start since it is located in old growth forest, sensitive grizzly bear and lynx habitat, designated bull trout critical habitat, and has the potential to impact a number of other species. To appreciate the size of the project, consider first that the entire Swan River State Forest contains between 38,000 and 39,000 acres. Of that, this single project encompasses about 10,383 acres—or slightly more than one-fourth of the whole darn thing. The DNRC proposed harvesting 1,884 total acres in three large sales over a period of three to four years with an expected yield of between six to nine million board feet per sale. Some smaller “permit sales” are also part of the mix. Additionally, the agency proposed cutting 1,222 acres of old growth.
According to DNRC’s testimony before the Land Board, the “one driver” for the Three Creeks Project is “addressing insect and disease issues” which the agency says have severely impacted the Douglas fir, grand fir, and larch within the project area. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the project was begun in 2004 with scoping requests and released to the public for comment in 2006. The analysis immediately drew significant concern from a number of conservation groups intimately familiar with the on-the-ground conditions in the Swan River State Forest.
The Land Board took up the proposal at its February 2007 meeting and conservationists presented extensive testimony outlining their concerns, including the depressed price for timber, the lack of an old growth recruitment plan, and questioning why the project had almost doubled in size from the original plan.
Arlene Montgomery, representing Friends of the Wild Swan, testified that during a preliminary field tour, she had asked DNRC’s Dan Roberson why the planned old growth harvest had increased, and he responded that the agency couldn’t meet its timber production target for this project without cutting old growth. Rather succinctly, Anne Hedges of the Montana Environmental Information Center told the Board she believed, “This timber sale and the ones coming in the future are pitting old growth and sustainable yield targets against each other…and sustained yield won.”
To his credit, State Auditor John Morrison took the lead in addressing the environmental concerns and asked DNRC to convene an advisory group that would tour the Phase One site, which included 420 acres of old growth. As Morrison put it: “The kind of advisory group I am talking about would really sink its teeth into this after the results of Phase One started to become clear so they could make recommendations and comments to us so we could be best advised as we move into Phase Two.” Governor Schweitzer asked DNRC Director Mary Sexton if there was any problem with taking the actions suggested by Morrison and Sexton replied: “We’d be glad to incorporate that on an informal basis and work with you.”
Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.
DNRC sold the timber to Plum Creek, but the company decided not to harvest it early in the year and by mid-summer the fire danger was so extreme it was too dangerous to attempt. The promised advisory committee was never implemented since, as DNRC tells it, there was nothing to see.
Things started to go really wrong at the December 2007 Land Board meeting when DNRC sought approval for Phase Two. Representing the groups that had initially raised concerns over the project, MEIC’s Anne Hedges asked the Board to postpone approval of Phase Two until the on-the-ground field tour and the opportunity for review and suggestions—as per Morrison’s plan—had been accomplished. The Board, however, comprised of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Morrison, Attorney General Mike McGrath, Secretary of State Brad Johnson, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch voted unanimously to approve Phase Two.
Following the Board’s approval, the Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Montana Audubon, Montana Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Wild Swan, the Montana Old Growth Project, and the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club sent a jointly-signed letter to Land Board members and DNRC Director Mary Sexton noting their major concerns and noting that “the Land Board reneged on its commitment to have DNRC form and consult with an advisory committee prior to considering Phase Two of this sale” and refused to “hold DNRC accountable to even the most basic procedural directions given by the Board.” Once again, they requested that Phase Two be postponed until the prior commitments were met.
This week the January meeting of the Land Board came and went without a peep from Board members about the Three Creeks project.
Considering it’s an election year, that four of the five Land Board members are once again running for office, and that lumber prices are as low as they’ve been in a decade, one might justifiably wonder what’s the rush to sell off our state’s remaining old growth forests? Perhaps even more puzzling to political observers is what these candidates feel they have to gain by blowing off their promises to some of the key constituent groups that helped put them in office—and who may well hold them accountable.
Helena’s George Ochenski rattles the cage of the political establishment as a political analyst for the Independent. Contact Ochenski at opinion@missoulanews.com.
Showing 1-5 of 26
Add a comment | All comments »
With all due respect to my old friend George, he missed the mark on this action by the DNRC and the Land Board. There must be adherence to the timeframe set by the FEIS because of the small window of opportunity for harvest caused by grizzly bears. Logging can only be conducted at certain times of the year and for a limited number of years. Therein lies the dilemma, along with spring breakup when loggers do not log, with delaying the needed work. The Three Creeks is NOT one giant sale - it is broken into parts in order to perform the needed disease control, bridge repair, relocation of roads away from streams, and a number of other enhancements the area will receive through active forest management. The bigger picture should be what the forest will look like when the projects are finished and over the course of several years. Please be reminded we have to break eggs to make an omelet but the finished product is wonderful. The same holds true of the Three Creek sales - the outcome for the forest and the wildlife will be of the most benefit to all if the projects proceed as set out in the FEIS. The Land Board's actions have been correct and they should be applauded not villified for doing the right thing.
I don't know about Ellen's reference to breaking eggs, but this column is about breaking promises -- namely, the promises made by both the Land Board and DNRC to form an advisory group and to tour the Phase 1 harvest site before Phase 2 was approved. That didn't happen and it's a matter or record, not opinion. What Ellen really misses, however, is the economic argument. Why sell our state's valuable old growth timber when the lumber market is at its lowest point in a decade? I mean, even the timber mills are admitting there is little economic incentive for them to sell their products at this time and hence, are shutting down and hoping for an upturn in both demand and price. The Land Board is constitutionally mandated to get fair market value on ALL Trust lands resources, timber included. In that regard, there is no justification for rushing forward with this sale at bargain basement prices.
Ellen Engstedt claims, "Please be reminded we have to break eggs to make an omelet but the finished product is wonderful." That sure sounds nice Ellen - even sounds pretty tasty - but here are the facts about the Swan River timber sale. Of the 1,884 acres to be logged, about 1,221 acres are currently classified as old-growth forest. Ellen, haven't we already cut down enough of our old-growth forests on public lands here in Montana? When will enough be enough? The project calls for construction of 19 miles of brand new roads. Ellen, doesn't Montana already have enough miles of roads in our public forests? I see just on Forest Service land in Montana we have 32, 000 miles of roads and a $660 million backlog of routine maintenance. Why should we build another 19 miles of new roads just so the logging industry can log in old-growth forests? The state also claims that of this 1,221 acres of public old-growth forest to be logged, 564 acres of old-growth will no longer meet old-growth forest requirements after the logging is finished. Again, Ellen, haven't we already cut down enough of our old-growth forests on public lands here in Montana? When will enough be enough? Enough trees will be cut from this massive Swan River timber sale to fill 4,740 log trucked, which lined up end-to-end on the highway would stretch for nearly 40 miles. Here's a final question for you Ellen: When will your industry ever be satisfied? When will you stand up and say, "We pledge to not log old-growth forests or build new roads?"
It would seem those so interested in the establishment of an advisory committee could have picked up the phone and inquired of DNRC when a meeting was to occur. I have done this many times over the years and always got action. The DNRC can defend itself but it was my understanding that when work was done on phase one they would call folks together. Nothing had happened because Plum Creek could not, by contract, start until the 15th of June and the fires started in the area the lst of July and continued into the fall. In order to stick to the timeframe in the FEIS, the second phase was to be before the Land Board in December. Yes, prices are low right now for certain timber commodities. At times in the past, oil and gas prices have been low. However, it is incumbent upon the DNRC to continue to manage the lands and the commodities for the trust. Overall, commodity prices and production even out over a period of time. The industries used to help manage state trust lands through the bid process go with the highs and lows of the markets. And, "fair market value" of timber is lower than it was a couple years ago and is lower than it will be in a year or two when the market levels out again. Trees continue to grow and bugs continue to eat them. It makes no economic sense to allow the resource to enjoy the same deterioration that is happening on federal land. Sustainable forest management is the goal of the agency and that needs to occur on an on-going basis which, in the long run, will benefit the trust and Montana's school children the most.
One last attempt.... the DNRC rules dictate state forest trust land management for biodiversity, roads, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife species, weeds, and economics. Roads would be improved for PUBLIC access by some bridge removal, some road removal, some road reconstruction, 13 miles of new road, and 6 miles of temporary roads. All of this would be done by the purchasers as part of the contracts. Weed control and replanting of trees and grass would also occur. In addition to the stumpage revenue received by the trust, the purchasers are required to pay fees to the Forest Improvement Program whereby the funds are used for acquiring access - like for the public - reforestation, and, yes, maintenance of roads. Montana has literally millions of acres of forest land without roads. A few well-placed, maintained new roads on public land for public access will harm nothing and will enhance the ability to fight fires in the overstocked federal forests AND allow the public to recreate. What's wrong with that??
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (26) RSS