BigHornRam
Well-known member
Guest Opinion
Fighting road easements will not stop land development
By DALE BOSWORTH and ORVILLE DANIELS
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of controversy recently over the proposed amendment to cost-share road easements between the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek. It is equally unfortunate that the process used to clarify the easements was not made more transparent to the public. The resulting controversy has clouded the facts and doesn’t address the real issue, which is the future use of land owned by Plum Creek.
In 1964, Congress passed the Forest Roads and Trails Act, which allowed the Forest Service and the owners of intermingled private forest lands to build common road systems. The law allowed parties to exchange reciprocal right-of-way easements, and to share the cost of building and maintaining these roads. Thousands of miles of these roads have been built over the last 40 years, and provide vital access for public uses, resource management and fire suppression on public and private lands.
The Forest Service needed the easements to provide public access to national forests beyond the privately held lands. Secondarily, the easements allowed the Forest Service to maintain control over road location and use. Title to company lands extended back to the original railroad land grants of the 1860s, which were not restrictive in the use or disposal of these lands to fund the construction of America’s rail system. The potential for transfer of these lands could have had impacts on future access of public lands if easements had not been obtained.
The current controversy began when Plum Creek and the Forest Service, at various levels, needed to interpret old cost-share easements in light of changing land uses. At issue was whether cost-share roads could only be used for hauling timber, which had been their primary purpose historically, or whether they could be used for other purposes, such as access for residential and commercial development. Plum Creek points out that the 1964 law did not limit the use of cost-share roads for timber hauling only. More to the point, the easements Plum Creek received from the Forest Service were not written to be so limited. Plum Creek also points out that these roads are, and have been, heavily used for recreation and other public access to the national forests. In Missoula County, for example, there are more miles of cost-share roads crossing over Plum Creek lands that provide access to public land than there are similar miles over national forest system land.
The Forest Service and Plum Creek have been criticized for “hatching” this deal in “secret meetings” “behind closed doors.” Such accusations divert the attention from the most important issues. The Forest Service and Plum Creek could have spent a lot of time and money arguing in court over these easements, and assuring that all successors understand their responsibilities. They chose instead to negotiate. Yes, a more transparent public process would have been better, and much of the misunderstanding would have been avoided.
Future use of Plum Creek lands remains a challenge for Missoula County. Plum Creek owns more than half the private lands in Missoula County. How these lands are managed will greatly affect the quality of life of western Montana citizens.
The people of Missoula County and others may have legitimate differences of opinion with Plum Creek. What everyone needs to understand is that the amendment to cost-share road easements cannot stop land development. Plum Creek has deeded access easements to lands in cost-share areas, and has a right to reasonable access to its other lands where there are no existing roads.
Critics want the Forest Service to regulate and limit Plum Creek’s land development. The Forest Service has no authority to do so. Cost-share easements do not cause this development, and they are not a solution to it. By focusing on this false target, opponents to Plum Creek’s land development will ultimately not block road access. What they will do is risk losing substantial public benefits negotiated with Plum Creek for recreation, hunting and public access. It is absolutely essential that future owners of Plum Creek lands understand that they cannot close these roads and eliminate public access or even discourage the public from using them. The negotiations clarify that for future owners.
If Montanans want to regulate land use, as other states do, state laws will need to be changed. The solution to the problem is not through road easements. The solution requires creative thinking and creative problem-solving. Perhaps the time is right for Missoula County and others to build a collaborative group and identify the vast array of possibilities.
Dale Bosworth is a former chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Orville L. Daniels is a former forest supervisor for the Bitterroot and Lolo national forests.
Fighting road easements will not stop land development
By DALE BOSWORTH and ORVILLE DANIELS
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of controversy recently over the proposed amendment to cost-share road easements between the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek. It is equally unfortunate that the process used to clarify the easements was not made more transparent to the public. The resulting controversy has clouded the facts and doesn’t address the real issue, which is the future use of land owned by Plum Creek.
In 1964, Congress passed the Forest Roads and Trails Act, which allowed the Forest Service and the owners of intermingled private forest lands to build common road systems. The law allowed parties to exchange reciprocal right-of-way easements, and to share the cost of building and maintaining these roads. Thousands of miles of these roads have been built over the last 40 years, and provide vital access for public uses, resource management and fire suppression on public and private lands.
The Forest Service needed the easements to provide public access to national forests beyond the privately held lands. Secondarily, the easements allowed the Forest Service to maintain control over road location and use. Title to company lands extended back to the original railroad land grants of the 1860s, which were not restrictive in the use or disposal of these lands to fund the construction of America’s rail system. The potential for transfer of these lands could have had impacts on future access of public lands if easements had not been obtained.
The current controversy began when Plum Creek and the Forest Service, at various levels, needed to interpret old cost-share easements in light of changing land uses. At issue was whether cost-share roads could only be used for hauling timber, which had been their primary purpose historically, or whether they could be used for other purposes, such as access for residential and commercial development. Plum Creek points out that the 1964 law did not limit the use of cost-share roads for timber hauling only. More to the point, the easements Plum Creek received from the Forest Service were not written to be so limited. Plum Creek also points out that these roads are, and have been, heavily used for recreation and other public access to the national forests. In Missoula County, for example, there are more miles of cost-share roads crossing over Plum Creek lands that provide access to public land than there are similar miles over national forest system land.
The Forest Service and Plum Creek have been criticized for “hatching” this deal in “secret meetings” “behind closed doors.” Such accusations divert the attention from the most important issues. The Forest Service and Plum Creek could have spent a lot of time and money arguing in court over these easements, and assuring that all successors understand their responsibilities. They chose instead to negotiate. Yes, a more transparent public process would have been better, and much of the misunderstanding would have been avoided.
Future use of Plum Creek lands remains a challenge for Missoula County. Plum Creek owns more than half the private lands in Missoula County. How these lands are managed will greatly affect the quality of life of western Montana citizens.
The people of Missoula County and others may have legitimate differences of opinion with Plum Creek. What everyone needs to understand is that the amendment to cost-share road easements cannot stop land development. Plum Creek has deeded access easements to lands in cost-share areas, and has a right to reasonable access to its other lands where there are no existing roads.
Critics want the Forest Service to regulate and limit Plum Creek’s land development. The Forest Service has no authority to do so. Cost-share easements do not cause this development, and they are not a solution to it. By focusing on this false target, opponents to Plum Creek’s land development will ultimately not block road access. What they will do is risk losing substantial public benefits negotiated with Plum Creek for recreation, hunting and public access. It is absolutely essential that future owners of Plum Creek lands understand that they cannot close these roads and eliminate public access or even discourage the public from using them. The negotiations clarify that for future owners.
If Montanans want to regulate land use, as other states do, state laws will need to be changed. The solution to the problem is not through road easements. The solution requires creative thinking and creative problem-solving. Perhaps the time is right for Missoula County and others to build a collaborative group and identify the vast array of possibilities.
Dale Bosworth is a former chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Orville L. Daniels is a former forest supervisor for the Bitterroot and Lolo national forests.
