Ochenski 

A welcome change - Plum Creek abandons secretly negotiated easements

We are but a few days into 2009, the new Congress has just been sworn in, President-elect Barack Obama is still two weeks away from taking over the White House, and already change is happening. The great news Montanans received this week was the announcement by Plum Creek Timber Company, the state’s largest private landowner, that it would abandon its ill-advised attempt to finagle new, subdivision-friendly easements across U.S. Forest Service lands.

Most folks in western Montana already know the story of Plum Creek’s secret negotiations with former timber lobbyist and current Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who was given oversight of the nation’s national forests under the Bush administration. The negotiations, which have been on-going for more than two years, were intended to enable Plum Creek to expand its access easements over federal lands from the long-standing purpose of timber harvest to wide-open easements for all lawful purposes.

Huge kudos go to Missoula’s county attorney and elected officials for being the first to voice their concerns that, if the secret easements turned out to be what was suspected, they would enable Plum Creek to subdivide, sell off and develop thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of acres of forested lands, of which Plum Creek owns more than a million acres.

The result of such development would have meant taxpayers would be subsidizing Plum Creek’s development efforts by picking up the additional costs for road maintenance, law enforcement, fire protection and emergency services for the forest land developments. Moreover, the future costs of providing wildfire protection for the additional dwellings would have accrued directly to state and federal agencies already hard hit by fire-fighting costs. As recent studies have revealed, the price for protecting buildings is far higher than the per-acre costs of wildland firefighting.

Congratulations are also in order for Montana’s U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, who didn’t wait for the easements to become effective before launching an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office into the secret negotiations. Tester’s actions, without question, were a significant factor in Plum Creek’s decision. Although the corporation still considers the altered easements in the public’s benefit, Plum Creek CEO Rick Holley wrote in a letter to Missoula County that “given the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward.”

But there are many other likely factors in Plum Creek’s decision. Leading those factors would obviously be the collapse of the housing market and concurrent widespread economic recession, which have severely impacted the pace of development throughout the nation. Until recently Montana’s real estate market dodged the worst of the economic collapse and plenty of speculators were hot to sell Montana to the highest bidders while Montanans watched helplessly as our prime agricultural and forest lands were carved up into subdivisions and sold.

That trend, however, has come to an end—at least temporarily. Already approved subdivisions in the Gallatin, Helena, Missoula and Flathead valleys are languishing, awaiting construction or, in some instances, not even putting in the most rudimentary prep work such as roads and utilities. Meanwhile, even the high-end homes so sought after by already wealthy out-of-staters are in a state of dormancy with few, if any, offers being made—sometimes despite deep discounts in the asking prices.

Not the least of the factors that may have influenced the Plum Creek decision is the proposed massive sell-off of their lands to the federal and state governments under the so-called Legacy Project being promoted by Montana’s other U.S. senator, Max Baucus, and a number of other high-profile politicos and groups within the state. Under that proposal, Plum Creek would receive somewhere around a half-billion dollars in federal, state and private funds, and still be able to log the lands for another decade or so—a pretty sweet deal by any corporate standard.

But if the easement deal angered the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama, that half-billion could easily get derailed—especially considering the significantly more pressing problems facing the nation right now. Given that scenario, it’s not a stretch to figure out that Plum Creek decided a bird almost-in-the-hand, with the Legacy Project, would be worth a lot more than a bird in the bush, with the subdivision and development uncertainties. And of course the idea of fighting local governments as well as Congress and the administration only provided impetus to weigh the potential outcomes and go with the path of least resistance and greater reward.

Finally, being in the timber industry after all, Plum Creek may, in fact, be hoping for a chunk of the pending federal bail-out money as well, and it would be in their corporate interest to smooth out relations with those who will be voting on the billions the federal government plans to spend in the very near future as economic stimulus.

Ironically, Undersecretary Rey, a dedicated servant of corporate interests like most of his fellow Bush appointees, is still hoping for the conclusion of the easement deal before he gets the boot come January 20. Rey was more than ready to sign the papers before leaving office and even this week called Plum Creek’s decision to abandon the effort “not good news for the federal government or the public at large.” Luckily for Montanans—and Americans in general—this is hopefully the last we’ll hear from Rey for many years to come and he can go back to lobbying for the timber industry.

But while the Plum Creek decision is great news for Montanans, it leaves open the question of whether the company will continue to pursue its controversial expanded easements across state trust lands, many of which have already been filed by Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s Department of Natural Resources  and Conservation (DNRC) under Director Mary Sexton. Since Plum Creek decided not to go forward with the easements across federal lands, it would be prudent for Schweitzer to reconsider DNRC’s actions and bring some much-needed change at the state level as well.

Helena’s George Ochenski rattles the cage of the political establishment as a political analyst for the Independent. Contact Ochenski at opinion@missoulanews.com.

Comments (21) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 21

Add a comment | All comments »

Generic user icon

We are lucky that Plum Creek saw the wisdom of not consummating a deal with the Forest Service that would have led to both bad publicity and legal challenges that would very likely have been successful. Missoula County will soon see how reasonable Plum Creek will be when the County Planning Board reviews the proposed Seeley Lake Regional Plan, which was recently transmitted to the Board by the Seeley Lake Community Council. Plum Creek has said that the proposed Plan is unfair and does not allow for as much new residential development as Plum Creek would like. Although the proposed Plan no longer includes earlier language that would have allowed Plum Creek 820 residential units in the area surrounding Placid Lake, the proposed Plan would still allow for enough development to ruin the natural character of the Placid Lake area. I encourage the County Planning Board to keep environmental considerations in mind as it reviews the Plan. I also encourage the County not to be intimated by a threat from Plum Creek that it might exercise its veto power state statutory law gives it over the zoning associated with the Plan. I believe that the veto statute is unlawful for numerous reasons, so that a veto by Plum Creek would not hold up in court.

Posted by Jim Moose on January 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Jim - Couldn't agree with you more. 820 homes around tiny Placid Lake would be a disaster...that whole chain of lakes verges on eutrophic (at best) and adding that many septic systems, lawns, roads and driveways into the surface and groundwater would likely cause significant nutrient loading to the system, ultimately destroying the very resource (the lakes) that Plum Creek would use to sell its lots. One good thing about the economic collapse is that big new subdivisions really aren't popping these days, so maybe, as I wrote, Plum Creek sees that handwriting on the wall and is making its bid to just get the federal and state dollars for lands they still get to log.

Posted by Ochenski on January 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

You got used on this story George. PC pushed this "backing-out" message to pre-empt their major layoff announcement with something they could spin into a positive. If you saw Karl Vick's piece in the Washington Post last week, you'd realize, it doesn't matter if PC backs out, or if Rey backs off. Bush already OK'd their development plans. It is a misnomer, and you, along with Missoulian and Newwest, took it up the gazoo. Well your readers did I guess. Kathy Budinick is smiling somewhere right now. Way to serve as an echo chamber. Excuse my cynicism but this isn't exactly "rattling the cage."

Posted by Poo Dogger on January 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

PDig, this story is ten times more complicated than the Post presents. The national media is concerned with the activities of the Bush administration in its final hours, which is valid. As Montanans, we need to understand the full picture. What Vick neclects to mention is that the administration attempted to validate this effort; they didn't concoct it. Whether or not the existing easements allow Plum Creek to develop the urban-wildland interface was, for good or ill, decided long ago, as a court will intepret in the coming months. By this outcome, the administration ultimately accomplished nothing. I repeat: nothing. I'll say it once more: nothing. Nothing. Everything is back to where it was in 2007, when the easements said what they said. This is an important issue, but it doesn't help Montana to presume that talking heads understand the controversy better than folks that watched the whole thing progress. Could Plum Creek still develop these lands? Certainly. Do the 145 jobs they shed lest week provide ample motivation for making this announcement now? Certainly not. Those jobs in the Flathead cut perhaps 1,000,000 in annual expenditures. The easement backout easily cost them a billion on the spot -- maybe more.

Posted by klemz on January 9, 2009 at 1:19 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

"Unfortunately, these steps are necessary to match supply with the eroding demand for our wood products." - Rick Holley, Plum Creek president and chief executive officer (in the Plum Creek press release). "Eroding demand for our products" isn't exactly the language any corporate executive wants to use about their industry; however, finally the timber industry is being straight and honest with the public, which is a good thing. Remember, as recently as a few months ago (and certainly over the past five years as many of us warned of the dire economic consequences of over-consumption and over-development) the timber industry and their supporters were still telling us that they needed more trees from national forests to solve their problems. That was never the case during this emerging economic crisis and it certainly isn't the case when you consider that Plum Creek is the largest private land own in Montana (and the nation) and has unlimited access to their own timber lands. Hopefully, elected officials and the public will now better understand the true and honest scope of the situation facing the timber industry so that we can better move forward with solutions. I've said all along that solutions not based on reality really don't get us anywhere and certainly don't help workers or communities get on the right track for a clean, green and sustainable future.

Posted by Matthew Koehler on January 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Most Popular

  • Feeling abandoned

    Mine Program among Obama's proposed "savings"

    If Abandoned Mine money is diverted to other uses, cash-strapped states will be forced to pass their polluted mine sites on to future generations, just as they were irresponsibly passed on to us.

    (Ochenski)  

    read more »

  • Cut off

    Accessibility issues raise questions at AmVets

    Tess Raunig claims the popular gay bar discriminates against people with disabilities. The owner says he's done nothing wrong, and adds, "We're not a gay bar."

    (Up Front)   Jan 28, 2010

    read more »

  • Growing Up Fast

    Nearly five years after Montanans voted to legalize medical marijuana, patients and caregivers say it’s high time state law provided them better access to their medicine

    Duke Martin rolled up to the mercantile in a gold 1979 Chevy pickup.

    (Features)   Apr 9, 2009

    read more »

Recent Comments

  • Re: Feeling abandoned

    • AI V said: "If we all had to pay for the war then the war…

    • on February 8, 2010
  • Re: Feeling abandoned

    • I think that if we all had to pay for the war then the war…

    • on February 8, 2010
  • Re: Feeling abandoned

    • They are the suckers who keep voting for Republicans. Duh? Rush Limbaugh driven undereducated morons.

    • on February 7, 2010
  • Re: Feeling abandoned

    • opps...typos

      "This would be a regressive tax"...

      "This, as the saying goes, is…

    • on February 7, 2010
  • Re: Feeling abandoned

    • And once again, AI V is presenting a conservative agenda usually associated with the Republican…

    • on February 7, 2010

Latest in Briefs

  • Viewfinder

    • Jul 2, 2009
  • Bipartisan boost

    Single-payer finds support from both sides of the aisle
    • Jul 2, 2009
  • Bugged out

    Community battles beetles by burning trees
    • Jul 2, 2009
  • More»

© 2010 Missoula News | Powered by Foundation