Plum Creek's State Easements Stir Controversy
For months now the secret negotiations between Plum Creek Timber and U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey have raised serious concerns that they will enable the subdivision of Plum Creek's forest lands. Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist, has maintained that the negotiations were merely to "clarify" the easements, which led Missoula County and the WildWest Institute to file Freedom of Information Act requests and U.S. Senator Jon Tester to initiate a General Accounting Office investigation. The worry is that new forest subdivisions will bring with them vastly increased costs for fire, police and emergency services for both state and local taxpayers. Now, it has come to light that the state has recently "restated and amended" dozens of Plum Creek easements across state lands that will likewise enable the subdivision of Plum Creek's lands.
The issue first came to light in late July, when Great Falls Tribune Capitol Bureau Chief John S. Adams obtained several dozen easements between the state and Plum Creek that had been amended to widen the easements from 40 feet, which was used for logging roads, to 60 feet, which is legally required for residential subdivisions. But the story didn't start there, it goes back to the Racicot and Martz administrations and the 1999 change of Plum Creek from primarily a timber-producing company to a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).
Shortly after the transformation, Plum Creek began selling off some of the millions of acres of land granted to its predecessors, the railroads, by the federal government a century and a half ago. It was also right about then when DNRC, under Director Bud Clinch, another former timber lobbyist appointed by Governor Racicot and retained in that position by Governor Martz, began the process of amending the easements. In 2004, in the closing days of the Martz administration, DNRC filed the "amended and re-stated" easements that expanded the rights-of-way. Only one problem - Clinch didn't take the easements to the Land Board, as required, and simply slid them across Governor Martz's desk for her signature then filed them.
Fast forward to 2007, when DNRC's new director, Mary Sexton, brought the easements back before the Land Board for approval. Unfortunately, Sexton portrayed the Board's approval of the easements as merely fixing an administrative error, not as enabling the future subdivision of Plum Creek lands. Moreover, the environmental assessments done on the easements, some of which were more than 10 years old, did not analyze the impacts that would result from subdivision of the forest lands, even though one EA mentioned that subdivision would likely result from the changes.
Yet in her testimony, this is what Sexton told the Board: "This is something we have inherited, it is an amendment and re-statement of an easement and there will be more to come between the state and Plum Creek Timber. These were signed by the Governor in 2003 - 2004 without going to the Land Board. They are old easements which were amended to increase the easement from a 40-foot right-of-way to a 60-foot right-of-way and instead of going through the Land Board, which they should have, they went directly to the Governor. We realized the error and have been working with Plum Creek Timber to rectify the issue."
Consequently, and perhaps because this action in 2007 preceded the concerns over Plum Creek's secret negotiations with Rey, Board members merely voted to approve the easements without discussing the real potential of what the new 60-foot rights-of-way would mean to Montana's future. Continued on page 6
(Plum Creek - Continued from page 5)
Adams' story, from which many of the quotes below were taken, blew the issue open and as Anne Hedges, Program Director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, said: "Clearly something changed, and now they're acting like this is just an administrative matter, that they're just making this consistent with their policies. This is absolutely not an administrative matter."
Hedges' comments were echoed by Arlene Montgomery of Friends of the Wild Swan, who told Adams: "The change of use isn't just the widening of the road. The change of use is anything goes. The state is not going to analyze the effects of each individual project beyond what happens on their land."
DNRC director Mary Sexton disputes the claims that the agency should have analyzed the impacts that subdivision of the Plum Creek lands would cause, however, saying the law which authorized DNRC to enter into reciprocal access easements with other landowners does not require such analysis.
Not so, says Bethanie Walder of Wildlands CPR. "There are at least three places in the (environmental assessment) where I think they could have analyzed the impact of subdivisions, and they didn't." Walder says even the marginal checklist EAs used by the department require analysis of impacts on air and water quality, demands on natural resources and government services. "They argue that there will be no impacts when there will clearly be impacts to air, water and land if they build subdivisions there. They say the project as proposed will have few if any adverse impacts to wildlife. But again, they know this project will involve subdivisions, which could have significant impacts on wildlife."
"Never once did they tell the Land Board why this was important," Hedges said. They just said it was to make it consistent with DNRC policies and goals. I do not believe this Land Board was properly informed about the impacts of the decision it was making when it made that decision. It was made to sound like it was a clerical error that was being fixed instead of what it really is, which is allowing Plum Creek to open up countless acres to subdivisions."
At the August Land Board meeting Governor Schweitzer brought up the Plum Creek easements, but instead of concentrating on the impacts the newly-widened easements would cause, he simply asked Sexton to "discuss how much notice, public activity, etc., have occurred." Sexton told the Board that the public has had opportunities to comment, such as appearing before the Land Board, and that the agency has "to look at interest of public, issues involved, and gain revenue for trust." Schweitzer then pointed out that there was a 1 percent conveyance fee attached to the easements that would produce a "continuous revenue stream" for the state every time the lands changed hands.
Jim Jensen, executive director of MEIC, told the Board that he appreciated the Board's interest that the state would "continue timber-based use of these lands and not to encourage Plum Creek subdivisions." But then he produced the EA on the McGregor Lakes easement and noted that Plum Creek's purpose in asking for these reciprocal agreements was "to develop a subdivision on McGregor Lakes."
"There's no need for 60-foot access for timber purposes," Jensen testified. "Plum Creek wanted the 60 foot width because they want to subdivide. DNRC has engaged in the process of changing from 40 feet to 60 feet easements without discussing these impacts." Jensen then added: "Plum Creek is the largest landowner [in these counties] and, as we all know, the majority of landowners can kill any zoning."
Despite the clear intent and obvious impacts from the restated and amended easements, the Board took no action and, for now at least, the looming problems of the subdivision of Plum Creek's former timber lands continue to hang over the heads of state and county officials - and taxpayers - like the Sword of Damocles.
