The Three Creeks Debacle:A Call to Arms for Conservationists!

The Three Creeks Project entails one of the largest and most complex timber harvests yet conducted on state forests.  Because it is located in old growth forest, sensitive grizzly bear habitat, and has the potential to impact a number of wildlife and fisheries species, conservationists have been actively involved with the Land Board and DNRC to ensure that compelling conservation issues are adequately addressed.  Unfortunately, despite promises made by Land Board members and DNRC staff, that is not happening. 

Montana Conservation Voters, the Montana Environmental Information Center, Montana Audubon,  Friends of the Wild Swan, Montana Old Growth Project and the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club have jointly signed a strongly-worded letter (Montana Trout Unlimited sent their own letter as well) urging the Land Board to retract their December approval of the second phase of the project until all the conditions of the approval for Phase I have been met.

Background
To appreciate the size of the Three Creeks 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 state-owned forest.  To accomplish this, 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 6-9 million board feet per sale with some small “permit sales” also proposed.  Additionally, the agency proposed treating 1,222 acres of old growth within the project boundaries.

The entire project requires building 19 miles of new road, 13 of which would remain as permanent with 6 miles of temporary road and six old stream crossings to be removed after the project is completed. Riparian buffer zones, visual screening along roads, “reserve islands” left to break up sight distances for grizzly bears, and all the roads closed.   According to DNRC, the “one driver” for the Three Creeks Project is “addressing insect and disease issues” which the agency says has 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. 

Arlene Montgomery, program director for Friends of the Wild Swan, wrote the agency and very specifically questioned the methodologies used to determine old growth, inconsistencies in the approach to wildlife corridors and analysis of the roading and logging impacts on wolves, lynx, grizzly bears, elk, deer and fisheries as well as eagles and pileated woodpeckers.  Montgomery also wrote that “there is no consideration or analysis of illegal motorized use on closed roads or snowmobile use” – both of which are habitual problems in the Swan.

Jane Adams of the Montana Old Growth Project likewise submitted a letter to DNRC critical of the lack of real alternatives within the DEIS as well as questioning whether the real driver behind the project was an attempt to meet the state’s timber harvest goals rather than concerns over insects and disease.  Adams’ vegetation analysis pointed out a number of areas she said contained incomplete information, particularly on old growth.

Clearly, the project was not sitting well with those most familiar with the site and the conservationists wanted their concerns addressed before the project went any further.

February 2007 – The Promise is made
The February meeting of the Land Board brought the project and those concerned with the potential environmental and conservation impacts face to face.

In a long presentation, Dave Groeschl, DNRC’s Forest Managment Bureau Chief, gave the Land Board an in-depth overview of the project and how the agency was trying to address conservation concerns.  He then specifically addressed Phase I, which would harvest 6.8 million board feet of timber from 679 acres of the total 1,884 acres treated, including some 420 acres of old growth.  Groeschl described the agency’s public outreach efforts, saying DNRC had even added an alternative to the final EIS in response to concern over old growth. 

In terms of benefits from the project, Groeschl told the Land Board it would reduce the short and long-term insect and disease issues in the project area; improve vigor and productivity of the areas being treated; reduce sediment to the fisheries by removing old crossings and upgrading existing roads to best management practices standards; promote biodiversity by moving the mixed conifer stands back to “historic conditions”; reduce ladder fuels and fuel loads; improve recreational access to the area; benefit the local economies through generating 252 jobs with estimated wages of up to $10 million; and generate approximately $3.2 million to support K-12 education in Montana.

The proposal was supported in testimony by representatives of the Montana Logging Association, the Montana Wood Products Association, and Pyramid Lumber, all of whom cited the primary concerns of insects, disease, fires, and jobs. 

The opponents to the project included Michael Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies who primarily questioned the accuracy of DNRC’s cost-benefit analysis, particularly given the current low prices for timber which he said was at a 10-year low, having fallen 50% in the last two years.

Arlene Montgomery of Friends of the Wild Swan addressed her comments to the entire EIS, not just Phase I, and re-iterated her concerns that more than 1,200 acres of old growth would be logged in the project under what she called “the untested hypothesis” that active forest management would actually produce old growth habitat in the remaining areas.  Montgomery also testified that there was no plan on the Swan River State Forest for how DNRC would retain old growth on the landscape in the long term, no plan for recruiting old growth, no provision for putting stands on longer rotation so habitat is connected. 

Montgomery then pointed out that the last two timber sales on the Swan River State Forest had 155 foot “no cut” riparian buffer zones and said the proposed sale, with its 25-foot no cut buffer zones meant “DNRC is regressing on this sale and there is now less protection” for the “designated critical bull trout habitat” in South Lost and Soup Creek.   Montgomery also testified that “there is no baseline data for wildlife and that is something we are asking Canada to do with the Kline Mine, but we are not doing here on state land.”

Finally, Montgomery told the Board that the sale basically doubled in volume, from 10-15 million board feet to 20-26 million board feet, after a reallocation of the timber harvest in the state’s sustainable yield level and said during a field tour a DNRC official, Dan Roberson, was asked why the agency was increasing its cutting in old growth responded that the agency couldn’t meet its timber production target for this project without cutting old growth.  Montgomery concluded with: “I think saying the target doesn’t have anything to do with this is a little bit disingenuous on the part of DNRC.”

MEIC’s Anne Hedges told the Board that although MEIC recognized the “important need for cutting timber on school trust lands,” the proposed sale had “fundamental problems,” not the least of which was the definition of old growth which Hedges said “we have been arguing over” since 1998.  Hedges said MEIC supported the State Forest Land Management Plan, which recognized the inherent value of old growth, and she had expected the plan would provide adequate protection for those forests. But now, Hedges told the Board, she believes “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.”

Hedges went on to say DNRC’s response to MEIC’s comments on what “historic conditions” on the landscape should be was “at best unresponsive, at worst it was snide” which Hedges called “troubling.”  Like Montgomery, Hedges testified that the proposal didn’t offer an adequate range of alternatives, which she characterized as “either you choose more roads or you choose more old growth being cut.”  Finally, Hedges told the Board that there was a significant problem with informing the public through DNRC’s website because the data is “very, very difficult to find” and she could “see no reason” why the EIS, DEIS, and Record of Decision could not be posted on the site as soon as they were available in written form, saying “DEQ does it all the time.”

Secretary of State Brad Johnson led off the Board’s response to the testimony saying that “DNRC and their foresters have shown themselves to be consummate professionals and I, for one, as a member of this Board am not going to start second guessing them now.”

State Auditor John Morrison followed and his comments were considerably more focused on the concerns raised by the conservationists.  On the issue of the expanded production target and the increase in old growth harvested, Morrison cited what he called “a critical editorial in the Daily Interlake” that focused on “moving timber targets as opposed to forest management” and referenced the testimony concerning the comments of DNRC’s Roberson on the field tour. Morrison then noted the agency’s change from timber targets to disease and asked: “If you are simply basing this on forest management values and did not have to take into consideration harvest targets, would there be a significant difference in the volume being harvested here and, if so, what would it be?”

DNRC’s Groeschl responded that this project was a “holistic approach” to treating the Three Creeks area and that the agency could no more ignore the sustained yield law than it could the streamside buffer zone law.  He concluded that the project wouldn’t change much “considering what we’re trying to achieve on the landscape.”

Morrison then noted the concern over the size of the riparian buffer zones, asking Groeschl whether there has “been any change in your position about the buffers as you talked with some of the groups that had concern about the harvest over the last few weeks?”  Groeschl said: “We’ve tried to understand the concerns and typically we’ve not heard anything very specific as to why folks feel the vegetative buffers are insufficient.”

Superintendent Linda McCulloch commented on the importance of access to public information while Attorney General Mike McGrath stressed that the sediment control aspects would be particularly important with the pending removal of the Milltown Dam and the increased upstream access for bull trout spawning.

Then Morrison jumped back in with what would eventually become the very nexus of the present controversy, saying: “One of the advantages we have here is the three phases that this project over time is supposed to go through. It has been suggested to me, and it makes sense, and I’ve talked to a couple of other Land Board members, that we have some kind of advisory group consisting of people representing the different view points in the valley that are brought together before Phase II to evaluate how Phase I has gone in these areas and have a face-to-face instead of having just an exchange of paper words so we can get that interaction going and done before Phase II comes before this Land Board. So, I’d like to ask you what you think of that and ask other Land Board members if they agreeable to creating that kind of advisory committee going forward.” (emphasis added)

DNRC’s Groeschl responded that: “we are always open to receiving or having a dialogue about what people’s concerns and issues are and what are some of the possible solutions. This first project, as you know, is before you today, the second and third proposed timber sales would be brought forward sometime in 2008. So between now and 2008 we can meet with different folks and have the advisory committee talk about what some of the issues are and see if we can find some solutions to some of the concerns they may raise. And try to incorporate those into the development of those next two projects. I don’t know if we’ll have a lot of time since this project, if we sell it in early April given the advertisement timeframe, we can’t do anything until after June 15th because of the spring bear restrictions in the sub-unit. The sub-unit comes open in July, so the earliest you’d actually even see some harvest activity would be probably sometime after July 1st. We will be in FY-2008 by then so we won’t maybe see a lot of activity on the ground associated with the first project.” (emphasis added)

Morrison then expanded on his thoughts, saying: “The kind of advisory group I am talking about would really sink its teeth into this after the results of Phase I started to become clear so they could make recommendations and comments to us so we could be best advised as we move into Phase II. I would imagine they wouldn’t get involved until sometime later in this calendar year.”

DNRC’s Groeschl responded.  “That would make sense,” he said. “You can go along and look at what we do know as far as on-the-ground work that has been accomplished and look at what some of the monitoring commitments are, even in the EIS, associated with the riparian areas as far as the crossing being removed in each of the projects, the restoration and rehabilitation work that is going to occur, and the roads that are planned to be built in each of these projects. There are definitely things like that they can look at whether any harvest has occurred in various units. Look at what those effects look like after the harvest.”

In his final comments, Morrison added: “I think that an advisory committee that allows these people to plug in and make sure we are accountable moving forward in the second two phases for the results in the first phase will go a long way. We haven’t identified that as an action item here so we can’t really take it up today, if it becomes necessary in the future to approach it as a formal matter then we can do that. I am going to vote in favor of this due to our trust obligation but also with the understanding there is going to be an on-going dialogue and accountability that the way we do this is going to leave this forest better than we found it.” (emphasis added)

Governor Schweitzer, in his closing comments before the vote asked if there was any need to modify the motion to approve the sale to reflect the conditions brought forth by Morrison and agreed to by DNRC.  In response, Attorney General Mike McGrath said: “I think we can handle the suggestions Mr. Morrison made informally. I don’t sense any resistance from the department.”  In response, DNRC Director Mary Sexton replied:  “We’d be glad to incorporate that on an informal basis and work with you.”

Approval was unanimous.

December 2007 – The promise is broken
DNRC’s Groeschl came before the Board to present what he called “the second of four” proposed Three Creeks Timber Sales.  The second sale would be very similar to the first, Groeschl said, with about 6 million board feet harvested from about 649 acres.  He described the removal of two old bridge crossings, construction of a mile of new road and removal of one road.  Groeschl then apologized for “failing to form a more formal aspect of an advisory group, but the staff talked about how it could get to the intent of what the group was going to do.”  Referencing the February 2007 Minutes, Groeschl noted “it states ‘to have an ongoing dialogue and accountability’ and said it was “so the department asked itself how can it do that within the existing process instead of developing a new process or adding another layer?” and then added: “The department’s intent all along for Three Creeks was to bring some of these groups together and do a field tour of Three Creeks #1.”

But there was no field tour of Three Creeks #1.  The reason, as Groeschl told the Board, was because it wasn’t sold until June and by July the state was in the middle of a bad fire year and Plum Creek, who had bought the sale, didn’t want to cut it because of fire danger.  Some new roads were built, however, and others brought up to standards over the summer, but Groeschl said “there wasn’t a lot to show folks on the ground.”

After receiving testimony in support of the new sale from the Montana Wood Products Association and the Montana Logging Association, the Board heard from MEIC’s Anne Hedges, who said she was also speaking for the other conservation groups who had addressed the Board in February, spoke in opposition to approval for Phase II since the field tour and advisory committee promised by both the Board and DNRC was never fulfilled. 

Saying there was “great value in bringing people together to look at Phase I before Phase II was approved,” Hedges read from the February Minutes, reminded the Board of its promises, and concluded: “There has been no communication on this project since then with the people who stood before the Board last February” and urged the Board to postpone the Phase II sale until there was some opportunity to bring people together and talk about the issues of concern in Phase I. (emphasis added)

Secretary of State Brad Johnson moved approval of Phase II, which was seconded by Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch. 

State Auditor Morrison then asked DNRC’s Groeschl if there had been any communication with the concerned parties, as Hedges stated.  Groeschl responded that there had been some communication, just not on the Three Creeks project but on another nearby timber sale.  Morrison then asked “if there were any plans at this time formally or informally to actively engage these concerned parties to get them out on the ground and see what is happening?”  Groeschl responded that “the plan was to get out on the ground and do a field tour with folks once the department felt it had something to show them and at least have an ongoing dialogue about what they are seeing out there and how some issues could be mitigated.”

Morrison asked when the agency planned to bring the next phase before the Board and Groeschl said DNRC had now broken the sale into 4 units and hoped for Board approval for Unit 3 “in the next couple of months” and Unit 4, which would be similar to Phase II, in “June or July.”

Morrison then asked MEIC’s Hedges for her thoughts and Hedges told him she believed delaying Phase II by a month to give people time to get out on the ground and have a dialogue with the department wouldn’t hurt the harvest schedule, but would generate good will between the agency and the people who were told in February that a field tour would happen before Phase II was offered.

Morrison asked Hedges where the other parties were and Hedges responded that they had received no notice that Phase II would be offered for approval before the Board until Friday and that the other conservation representatives had believed they would have considerably more notice prior to that action. 

What followed was one of the most troubling aspects of the entire debacle, when Superintendent of Public Schools Linda McCulloch stated that she “was very much interested in making sure the public has access to information, and she thinks that is a two-way street.”  MuCulloch then went on to say her concern is why there weren’t communications to either the Board of the DNRC about getting together and having communication” adding: “information access isn’t something to talk about when a person wants more time, but it is ongoing all the time.”  McCulloch then added that she “didn’t feel it is a good example of the interested public’s actions” and wondered “if it is going to be something that occurs in the future again and again?”

MEIC’s Hedges replied that “there was an expectation that DNRC was going to bring people together.”  Answering McCulloch’s question about why the conservationists didn’t call DNRC and ask them why they weren’t conducting the field tours as promised, Hedges said “it’s a function of not thinking DNRC was moving on Phase II,” concluding that the interested parties could have done a better job but “it is the agency’s role that has management of the land and has been given the responsibility to bring people together prior to Phase II.  They are the ones who have access to people to bring them together for a meeting and have those discussions.” 

Morrison then asked DNRC to commit to “put together a tour,” saying he didn’t think there were the votes to delay Phase II.  Then, however, he stated that he “doesn’t entirely agree that the ball is only in the department’s court, it is also in the court of the concerned parties. It is a joint responsibility as time goes on to pursue a collaboration.”  After DNRC’s Groeschl agreed to put together a January field tour, Morrison concluded that it was “a shared initiative and shared burden with the conservation community to pursue this and stay on top of it, to work with the department to get the tour, and to come back to the Land Board and give its impressions so the Board knows what the community thinks.”

The vote to approve the sale was unanimous.

Conclusion
Following the Board’s approval for Phase II, the Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Montana Audubon, Montana Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Wild Swan, and the Montana Old Growth Project, and the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club sent a jointly-signed letter to all the Land Board members and to DNRC Director Mary Sexton.  In it, they noted three major concerns:

1. That the Land Board has reneged on a commitment it made to have DNRC form and consult with an advisory committee prior to considering Phase II of this sale. 
2. That the Land Board has shown that it is unwilling to hold DNRC accountable to even the most basic procedural directions given by the Board. 
3. That at its December 17th meeting, Land Board members implied that somehow the public was responsible for DNRC’s failure to comply with the instructions provided by the Land Board on the process that needed to be followed before Phase II could appear before the Land Board for a vote.

The letter concluded that “it is the duty of the Land Board to follow its own decisions, and hold DNRC accountable to Land Board decisions” and requested that the Board “immediately halt Phase II from proceeding” and “require DNRC to form and consult with an advisory committee representing diverse interests before proceeding with the Phase II sale.”

The nagging question remains, however, and that is “why?”  Why did the Land Board allow Phase II to go forward without honoring the previous commitments?  Why did Land Board members vote to harvest such a significant quantity of old growth when the timber market is so low?  And finally, why did the Board go after the conservation groups instead of DNRC, since it was the agency that didn’t honor the commitments made, not the conservationists?

Perhaps the answer to these questions will never be known.  Or perhaps it is simply politics at work, since everyone on the Board except Auditor Morrison is running for election this year.