Time For Action

[BigHornRam]

Everyone who hunts and recreates around Plum Creek Timber lands and the like, the time is now to get involved. If you want continued access to these lands and the public lands behind them, the time is now. If you want to preserve critical habitat from development, the time is now. Find a good org that is working on these issues, or start your own, but get involved.

Plum Creek considers Whitefish project
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian



WHITEFISH - For the past eight years, Jim Lehner has been Plum Creek Timber Co.'s frontman in northern Maine, spokesman for a massive - and a massively controversial - real estate development there.

On Wednesday, however, Lehner found himself in Whitefish, where his company now appears to be eyeing real estate development at the headwaters of Whitefish Lake.

“We don't know,” Lehner said when asked about the future of Lazy and Swift creeks, which spill off the Whitefish Range to feed the lake. “It's an area that we see does have potential for development, but right now, today, we don't have any plans.”


But according to John Grassy, spokesman for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Plum Creek already has approached his agency to talk about gaining residential access to that site.

Lehner said his Wednesday meeting with Whitefish business leaders and urban planners was an effort to “begin a two-way dialogue.” He began his career not far from here, 33 years ago, as a Plum Creek forester in the Seeley Lake area. Since then, Lehner has worked as far west as Idaho and as far east as Maine.

While in Maine, he was the lead pitchman for the company's controversial Moosehead Lake project. The largest development in Maine's history, it would convert vast swaths of timberland into residential lots, commercial space and even two full-blown lake resorts, rezoning in the process more than 400,000 acres of that state's famous North Woods.

The final project proposal now has been submitted for review, and Lehner has taken a new post as Plum Creek's first-ever national director of community affairs, with a desk at the company's Columbia Falls headquarters.

Previously, the company had indicated it would invest in a Montana public relations campaign to provide a company perspective (last year, lawmakers sought unsuccessfully to change tax laws thought advantageous to Plum Creek) and to better connect with the communities around which it cuts timber and sells forest real estate.

Such sales, in fact, have now come to account for

50 percent of Plum Creek revenue, and Lehner bought news Wednesday of the company's “changing business model.”

His role, he said, is to gather community feedback and to address concerns as Plum Creek continues to shift from timber toward residential development. Since 1999, the company has been organized as a real estate investment trust.

And increasingly, community leaders have expressed concerns about timber availability, recreational access, firefighting bills and public infrastructure costs related to residential neighborhoods carved out of Plum Creek forests.

Lehner, who said his job is to engage locals in “big-picture” talks as well as to serve as point man on specific projects, discussed his company's commitment to “sustainable forestry,” as well as its interest in reducing fire hazards, even as it sells home lots in urban fringe areas.

He talked about Plum Creek's 8 million acres nationwide - more than a million in Montana and nearly a million in Maine - and touted the company's $81 million paid annually here in payroll and benefits.

Lehner also discussed real estate sales - “probably the most controversial thing we do” - stressing that about 70 percent of all sales are for conservation, rather than development. Still, he said, “we do have certain lands that have a higher value than growing trees,” and those “higher-and-better-use lands” are ripe for home sites.

Plum Creek still “grows trees and sells logs,” Lehner said, and has no interest in getting out of that business any time soon. Neither does the company plan to cut off the historically free public access to its forests.

“Our goal,” he said, “is to maintain a strong presence in Montana.”

But the fact is, Lehner said, housing starts are down, and that means less demand for lumber, “and that does affect our bottom line.”

It also makes real estate sales far more attractive, as timberlands are worth as much as 10 times more as subdivisions than as working forests.

But as to the specifics - particularly those company lands perched there in Whitefish Lake's headwaters - Lehner offered no news. His company will not, he said, provide Montanans a map of what lands might be for sale in the near future. And he did not bring up the Whitefish lands at all, but rather responded only when prompted by a concerned audience.

“In some areas, we do know where we're going to sell land,” he said. “In other areas, we don't.”

And anyway, plans can change as markets shift. Or as public opinion swings.

The lands above Whitefish Lake have proved important to sensitive species - such as grizzly bears - as well as to big game, and are a favorite among local hunters and anglers. In fact, representatives from the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks were on hand to hear what Lehner had to say.

Which wasn't much, beyond a recognition that those high-profile acres above the lake have, in his words, “potential for development.”

But, he repeated, the company has no firm plans for development there.

That despite his presence in Whitefish now, rather than in Maine, and also despite Plum Creek's continuing discussions with DNRC, where the company has recently come calling to negotiate access to the Whitefish acres, across state lands.

Lehner, however, instead focused on the broader marketplace realities facing this company in transition, noting that “the land value is becoming higher throughout the United States for residential properties.”

There is, he said, “real opportunity there.”

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@

 

[shoots-straight]

So what's your mater plan Mr. Baiter?

 

[BigHornRam]

Plum Creek says they want to work with Montanan's. Let's hold them to their word. It's easier to get legal access through their properties now, then once they've sold it to some California or East Coast non-hunter. For every high end high dollar subdivision they want to put in, make them sell large tracks at a discount for public use and conservation.

We can't stop what's going to happen, but we certainly can help shape it. It's going to take a lot of work, and a fair amount of cash to make a difference in the next 30 years. The clocks ticking

 

[shoots-straight]

We can't stop what's going to happen, but we certainly can help shape it. It's going to take a lot of work, and a fair amount of cash to make a difference in the next 30 years. The clocks ticking

All this pressure, I don't know if I'm up for it. Ok I'm better now. Will bring it up at some meetings in the near future.

 

[BigHornRam]

Senator Tester Get's Involved

Tester concerned with Plum Creek plans
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian



KALISPELL - Months of closed-door talks between the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Co. have some Montana leaders worried the company is quietly paving the way toward wholesale conversion of forest land into residential real estate.

The Forest Service, however, insists the private negotiations have served only to “clarify” decades-old road easements, and do not create any new access rights.

“But you can't get anywhere without a driveway,” said Aaron Murphy, “and it does appear that the reason they're doing this is to open opportunities for residential development.”


Murphy, a spokesman for Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said the senator has fired a letter to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, asking that the access negotiations stop until local stakeholders can be included. That letter, Murphy said, was prompted by concerns initially raised by county governments, among others.

All three Missoula County commissioners signed a letter to Tester earlier this month, saying they had caught wind of talks between Plum Creek and the Forest Service aimed at amending long-standing road easements.

Since the 1960s, the Forest Service has engaged in reciprocal agreements with adjacent landowners, hammering out shared use and maintenance obligations for forest roads that crisscross property lines. Many have long assumed those agreements to allow only “limited” access - the right to haul logs, for instance, but not to develop real estate.

In their letter, the commissioners wrote “it appears that the Forest Service is now considering amending those agreements to allow residential use of the roads for private land development, without consultation with local governing bodies.”

That's a problem for counties, because subdivision of timberland means more taxpayer costs, in terms of providing services to far-flung neighborhoods. It also means more firefighting costs, as homes pepper the woodsy “wildland-urban interface,” and less access for hunters, anglers and recreationists - not to mention less working forest supplying logs to sawmills.

Missoula County's commissioners said they were “extremely concerned” that easements to haul timber might be amended to allow residential development without any public input.

Tester responded by writing a letter to Rey late last week, asking that “all negotiations on this agreement cease until there is an adequate process for the public and interested parties to be fully involved in this matter.”

The senator also asked for a copy of the new easement plan and requested an assessment of taxpayer costs related to the agreement.

Rey, however, insists the concerns are baseless. In a six-page summary of the new agreement, Rey noted that negotiations began in the fall of 2006.

The intent: to answer whether existing forest road easements “permitted the use of the roads for accessing residential and commercial development,” in addition to historic timber uses.

The Forest Service was interested in opening talks, Rey said in an interview Tuesday, because as Plum Creek moves to sell its lands his agency wants assurances that the old road maintenance agreements will be upheld by future landowners.

And Plum Creek was interested because the company wants clear right of access across Forest Service lands.

“Not everyone agreed on the meaning of the original easement language,” said company spokeswoman Kathy Budinick. “The easements were not clear, so we got together and made them clear.”

She bristles at the notion of “closed-door meetings,” saying that although the public wasn't included, the decisions were reviewed by officials up and down the federal chain of command.

The negotiations, Rey said, in no way expand the company's rights. Plum Creek, he said, has always enjoyed full access, whatever the land use. (That is a considerably broader interpretation than is held by many, including Tester.)

According to Rey, the new agreement merely confirms Plum Creek's existing “right to future subdivision and development of lands,” guaranteeing “access for subdivision, sale and development.”

That, Rey said, is nothing new. If it were new, he noted, the public would have been involved.

The newly “clarified” agreement also ensures public roads will remain open to the public; establishes a shared program for paying maintenance costs; ensures that future landowners will abide by those rules, as well as by “fire-wise” covenants; and requires Plum Creek or subsequent landowners to pay for upgrades to rough forest roads.

“This is just an update to an existing bilateral agreement,” Rey said, and as such does not require public involvement.

“Everyone who needed to be involved was involved,” Budinick agreed.

“But,” wrote Missoula County commissioners, “the significance of Plum Creek's ownership in Montana - over 1.2 million acres - and the development that could happen on those lands in concert with Forest Service assistance reinforces the need for an open public process with local government at the table.”

Too much is at stake, they wrote, and as Murphy said, “you can't get anywhere without a driveway.”

The continuing debate underscores an increasing interest in Plum Creek's plans in general, and in the arcane business of easements in particular.

Last winter, the Forest Service granted the company an easement west of Whitefish, a move some are now threatening to challenge in the courts. And at the state level, “the whole issue fits into a much bigger picture of reciprocal access.”

So said Mary Sexton, director of Montana's Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Like the Forest Service, her department shares forest roads with Plum Creek, and has entered into reciprocal easement agreements with the company.

Historically, she said, the two-way access was for logging, but now the company wants broader access - driveways, to be specific - and that initiates a full public review by her office.

The state, likewise, wants broader access across company lands - for logging, but also for public recreation, among other uses.

“We're very public about that process,” Sexton said.

Throughout western Montana, Plum Creek is asking for enhanced residential access, Sexton said. Up around Seeley Lake. In the Swan Valley. Up the Blackfoot, and out near Potomac. North of Missoula, and out on the Clearwater State Forest. Along Placid Lake. Around Whitefish.

“Their whole real estate program depends on where they can get solid access,” Sexton said. “Getting legal easements is the critical key.”

Which is exactly why county commissioners and U.S. senators are suddenly so interested in the banalities of real estate easement law. The road easement is the hinge upon which much of the future forest swings.

Plum Creek, Murphy said, owns 1.2 million acres in Montana, about 8 million acres nationwide, and is the country's largest private landowner. The company has identified some 2 million of those acres for possible sale (estimated value $5.7 billion), but won't say exactly which acres those are. Another million acres soon could be added to the “for-sale” list, according to Plum Creek's 2007 annual report.

That same report shows the company's real estate revenue tripling over the past five years, to more than $330 million annually. Some lots sold for more than $10,000 per acre, surely meeting the company's stated goal of “determining the highest value of an acre of land then capturing that value - that's what we do!”

As to what the Forest Service will do, in light of Tester's letter - “I've read it, and we'll respond,” Rey said.

And he, for one, has a suggestion for what local governments should do - because the road easements, he said, cannot be made surrogates for solid local planning.

“The better discussion to be having,” Rey said, “is a discussion of local zoning. If the state or county or city don't want something to happen, they should just execute their land-use or zoning authority.”

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at [email protected].

 

[BigHornRam]

Latest Update

Rey to discuss Plum Creek talks
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian



KALISPELL - Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey is coming to Montana, where he will answer questions about controversial closed-door talks between the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Co.

According to Rey, those talks merely “clarified” shared forest-road easements that date back several decades.

But critics - including many Montana county commissioners - worry the easement negotiations could pave the way for extensive real estate sales in what is now working timberland.


“I would like to be out there within the month,” Rey said Wednesday, adding that his goal is to “answer questions, talk through the issues and provide information.”

He'll meet with state land managers, he said, as well as with interested county officials, to explain the results of the agency's talks with Plum Creek.

Plum Creek is the country's largest private landowner, with 8 million acres nationwide and 1.2 million acres in Montana. Some 2 million of those acres - with value estimated at $5.7 billion - are targeted for sale in coming years, although the company will not say which acres those are.

In 1999, the company restructured as a Real Estate Investment Trust, and since then land sales have become increasingly important to its bottom line - with real estate revenue tripling over the past five years, to more than $330 million annually.

Earlier this month, the Missoula County commissioners wrote a letter to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., saying they had heard of the ongoing road-easement negotiations and were worried the talks might lead to increased subdivision in the forest fringe.

Since the 1960s, the Forest Service has engaged in reciprocal agreements with adjacent landowners, hammering out shared use and maintenance obligations for forest roads that crisscross property lines.

Many have long assumed those agreements to allow only “limited” access - the right to haul logs, for instance, but not to develop real estate.

In their letter, the commissioners wrote “it appears that the Forest Service is now considering amending those agreements to allow residential use of the roads for private land development, without consultation with local governing bodies.”

And that raised red flags, because far-flung subdivisions can cost taxpayers dollars in terms of delivering public services and fighting wildfires in new neighborhoods. Also, the conversion of forest land for residential use can block access for hunters, anglers and recreationists, and can impact the timber milling industry.

Tester, in response to the Missoula County commissioners' letter, penned one of his own, asking that “all negotiations on this agreement cease until there is an adequate process for the public and interested parties to be fully involved in this matter.”

And that is exactly what appears to have happened.

According to Rey, the negotiations were properly private because they did not, in fact, expand the scope of the existing easements. Instead, he said, the new agreement only clarifies what has been in effect all along - and that is wide-open easements for all purposes, real estate development included.

The Forest Service, Rey said, was motivated to the table by a desire to ensure that the old road-maintenance agreements would be honored by new landowners as Plum Creek sells its properties.

And the company, he said, wanted a crystal-clear articulation of exactly what road easement rights it held.

The talks, Rey said, resulted in no real changes, and so did not demand public participation.

But Joe Brenneman, a commissioner in Flathead County, wonders why it required 18 months of high-level negotiations to make no real changes. He suspects the “clarified” agreement represents some pretty big changes, and in that he's not alone.

That the parties negotiated so long to make no changes, Tester said, “implies it's a little more complicated than Mr. Rey's trying to make it appear.”

In fact, Rey's sudden willingness to visit Montana - which came on the same day Plum Creek contacted Brenneman with a request to meet and discuss the matter - “suggests they may be involved in something pretty substantial here,” Brenneman said.

Tester said that if that's the case, “then negotiating without any public input, in secrecy, was a damn poor way of setting policy. The people of Montana have a lot at stake, and they need to be involved.”

How involved, however, remains to be seen.

The senator left a Wednesday meeting with Rey confident that county commissioners and state officials would now have the chance to submit their comments on the draft easement agreement.

Rey, however, said that is not the case. Instead, he said, the Montana meetings “will be, as an initial matter, an intergovernmental discussion.”

In other words, he'll provide only “a basic information exchange,” explaining the arrangement that has been reached. Depending upon the results of those meetings, the draft policy could be reopened for revision, “but we're not that far yet,” Rey said.

Currently, the draft is considered complete, but has not yet been executed.

And that, Tester said, is good news.

“It's not a done deal yet,” the senator said. “There's still some room for discussion.”

The time and place for that discussion, Rey said, has not yet been set, but he expects to be in Montana within the next several weeks.

And Brenneman, for one, expects to be there.

“The entire focus of our effort,” the commissioner said, “has been to make this a public forum to discuss the implications of developing forest land as real estate. I would love to have Mark Rey and Plum Creek come and explain what it is that's going on, because what they've been up to is going to have a huge impact on the rest of us.”

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@

missoulian.com.