Document Actions
Old Growth
State Land Board Approves Controversial Old-Growth Timber Sale
by George Ochenski, February 2008
The Three Creeks timber sale in the Swan River State Forest (located north of the town of Seeley Lake) is one of the largest and most complex timber harvests ever conducted on State-owned land. The sale is being conducted in four phases, and involves old-growth forest that contains sensitive grizzly bear and lynx habitat, and streams that have been designated as critical habitat for bull trout. MEIC and other environmental groups have been working hard to ensure that the significant environmental impacts of the sale are addressed. Unfortunately, despite promises by State Land Board members and the staff of the State Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), those impacts are largely being ignored.
(images by Edith Oberley, Bitterroot and Bergamot)
Some Background
To appreciate the size of the Three Creeks sale, consider that the entire Swan River State Forest contains about 39,000 acres. This sale involves more than one-fourth of the Forest in four phases over a multi-year period, including 1,222 acres of old-growth forest. Nineteen miles of new roads will be built, 13 of which will be permanent. According to DNRC, the “driver” for the project is “addressing insect and disease issues,” which the agency says have severely impacted the Douglas fir, Grand fir, and larch in the Forest.
The controversy began as soon as the environmental impact statement for the sale was released in 2006. It prompted significant concerns from environmental groups about logging the old growth; inconsistencies in the approach to wildlife corridors; the impacts on wildlife (including lynx and grizzly bears), native fisheries, and birds (particularly eagles and pileated woodpeckers); and whether the revenue to be generated justified the impacts.
The Promise Made
The February 2007 meeting of the Land Board brought the timber sale, and those concerned with its impacts, face to face. Opponents of the project questioned the accuracy of DNRC’s cost-benefit analysis, particularly given the then low prices for timber (prices were at a 10-year low, having fallen 50% in the previous two years).
Testimony from MEIC and Friends of the Wild Swan expressed concerns about the inadequate streamside buffer zones, the lack of long-term old-growth plans, and the absence of baseline data for fisheries and wildlife. Arlene Montgomery, of Friends of the Wild Swan, told the Board that when a DNRC official was asked, during a field trip, why the agency decided to double the volume of the sale to 20-26 million board feet (from 10-15 million board feet), he responded by saying that the agency couldn’t meet its timber production target otherwise. MEIC’s Anne Hedges testified that she believed “this timber sale, and others coming in the future, are pitting old-growth and sustainable yield targets against each other, and that sustained yield is winning.”
Following the testimony, State Auditor John Morrison tried to address the issues raised by the opponents with a proposal that would eventually lead to the next aspect of the controversy: “One of the advantages we have here is the three [now four] phases that this project 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—who are brought together before Phase 2 to evaluate how Phase 1 has gone, before Phase 2 comes before this Board.” He also said: “This kind of advisory group would really sink its teeth into this after the results of Phase 1 started to become clear, so they could make recommendations and comments to us as we move into Phase 2.” DNRC’s Forest Management Bureau chief, David Groeschl, said the advisory committee “would make sense.”
Morrison concluded: “I am going to vote in favor of [Phase 1] due to our trust obligation but also with the understanding there is going to be an ongoing dialogue and accountability that the way we do this is going to leave this Forest better than we found it.”
Governor Brian Schweitzer asked if there was a need to modify the motion approving the sale to reflect the conditions presented by Morrison and agreed to by DNRC. In response, DNRC director Mary Sexton said: “We’d be glad to incorporate that on an informal basis and work with you.”
The vote to approve Phase 1 of the sale was unanimous.
The Promise Broken
To make a long story short, DNRC came back to the Land Board ten months later, in December 2007, seeking approval for Phase 2 of the Three Creeks sale. DNRC admitted that it had not formed the advisory group and had not conducted a field tour of the Phase 1 area.
MEIC’s Anne Hedges, speaking for all the groups who had addressed the Board in February, spoke against approving Phase 2, because the promises made in approving Phase 1 were not kept. Hedges quoted 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.” Hedges urged the Board to postpone the Phase 2 sale until there was some opportunity to bring people together to talk about the issues of concern with Phase 1.
In a troubling turn of events, Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch then chastised MEIC and the other groups for not contacting the Board or DNRC regarding the non-existent advisory committee. Hedges replied that “there was an expectation that DNRC was going to bring people together,” adding, “they are the ones who have access to people to get them to a meeting.”
Morrison asked DNRC to commit to “put together a tour,” but added 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.”
The vote to approve Phase 2 of the sale was unanimous.
The Conclusion
Following the Board’s approval of Phase 2, a number of environmental groups (MEIC, Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Audubon, Friends of the Wild Swan, Montana Old Growth Project, and Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club) sent a letter to all the Land Board members, and DNRC director Mary Sexton, noting that the Land Board:
- had reneged on its commitment to have DNRC form and consult with an advisory committee prior to approving Phase 2 of the sale;
- was unwilling to hold DNRC accountable to even the most basic procedural directions given to it by the Board; and
- was wrong to imply that somehow the public was responsible for DNRC’s failure to comply with the Board’s directions on the Phase 1 evaluation process.
The letter concluded: “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 2 from proceeding” and “require DNRC to form and consult with an advisory committee representing diverse interests before proceeding with the Phase 2 sale.”
The Board took no action to halt Phase 2 at its January 2008 meeting. But, ironically, there were no bidders on the Phase 2 timber, despite the fact that it was being offered at the bargain price of $18.75 per ton, compared to the $45.96 per ton paid in Phase 1.
MEIC and the other groups subsequently sent a second letter noting the further decline in the housing market, and the temporary closure of several Montana lumber mills for lack of demand, and requesting that DNRC not be allowed to lower the price any further on the Phase 2 sale. This letter concluded: “It would be inappropriate to further reduce this already reduced bid price. Old-growth timber on State school trust lands should not be sold for rock bottom prices.”
Both Morrison and McGrath have indicated some concern about any further reduction in the price of the sale, but other Land Board members have not commented. In fact, DNRC can reduce the price without Board approval, but it has said that when it re-opens the bidding on Phase 2 it will leave the price at $18.75 per ton.
Contact Land Board members and tell them not to sell Montana old growth at rock-bottom prices (see Read more about the Three Creeks timber >www.meic.org/activists for contact information). Phase 3 of the sale will come before the Land Board in the Summer of 2008.