U.S. Vision: Development Within National Forests.

[diamond hitch]

The bonding issue was for many years lack of competent professionals working for the state. Much of that was related to the really crappy wages paid plus political influence. I recommended at one time that the state auditor hire one of the many consulting firms to systematically review bond levels for adequacy. Nice thought but wasn't received well at the state. Companies were willing to foot the bill. Then we started seeing over-bonding followed by mismanagement of the funds. There is no connection between the plan the bond was calculated on and what the DEQ actually contracts to be done in the field. At one point the DEQ returned $22M of exploration bond money to Pegasus just prior to to admitting inadequate bonding for Pegasus. It has been an evolution of technology that took a while to catch up through the 90s. I have seen levels of stupidity within state government followed be stupid responses of companies.

We have seen a complete disapperance of the historic bonding paths. Most of reclamation funds last time I looked were cash.

There are documented 8,600 known mineral properties in Montana (mostly in 14 rural poor counties). In my career the most I ever saw operate was 54. When I retired I think the number was 33 plus a bunch of hobby gold miners. The sad part was that the the areas that complained the most about mining (Missoula, Bozeman) had little to no mineral or mining potential. Most of the minerals exist in southwest Montana. Stratabound copper is in Sanders and Lincoln counties - don"t confuse this with big copper pit type targets as there is little or no potential for acid rock drainage because of lack of pyrite. Most of this type has very little soil signature.

Like many things here the issues are complex and must be looked at by the each. Broad generalities followed by emotion, politics and ignorance rarely gets us to solutions.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

In terms of the mining aspects of this plan , how do we ensure private insurance companies bond and guarantee reclamation and pay for potential environmental disasters?

Privatization of profits from public trust resources and allowing the taxpayer to bear the risk and costs of disasters that bankrupt the parent company is a crock in my opinion.

If the risk is too great for private insurance to bear the cost of cleanup on any project it shouldn’t get mined.

Gerald,

I don't believe it is even possible to operate a mine in the US without a reclamation bond. My experience is almost entirely related to coal and coal and hardrock are not always the same in regards to regulations but this would be a State and OSM reg. Self bonding is going away in most States. Particularly the west. Not sure if MT still allows and Wyo has largely gone away from the practice. The past messes that States like MT still deal with are largely not an issue today. I am sure there are still issues but my experience has been that the reclamation bond a company is required to have just to obtain a permit is almost always 50% greater than what actual reclamation would cost. Additionally, most products are required to pay a fee on every ton, oz or lb sold that goes into an Abandoned Mine Lands fund. AML funds are intended to be used to clean up past messes. There is some good cleanup work done with AML funds. Also some questionable uses. AML fees are a good thing to help fix prior sins.

Dependent on commodity, Surety companies are making bonds more expensive or getting out of them entirely. Coal mine bond is getting harder to obtain every year. That being said we are required to demonstrate proof of fully bonded status every year.

 

[diamond hitch]

Back to timber, I started working summers for the Forest Service in 69. That was near the start of the megachange. At that time, I believe there was an overall policy of sustainable yield at the district level. At the change and the beginning of the massive harvesting I think I heard that they changed the policy to sustainable yield at the regional level. After that I went to Interior and was no longer privey to policy of the boys in green.

So much land was cut in such a short period coupled with logging by the timber division of the Anaconda company it is a miracle that any merchantable timber is left in Sanders co. The remainder of the Anaconda ground eventually became Plum Creek and when they got done a jackrabbit would have to pack a lunch to cross a lot of it.

 

[BuzzH]

Back to timber, I started working summers for the Forest Service in 69. That was near the start of the megachange. At that time, I believe there was an overall policy of sustainable yield at the district level. At the change and the beginning of the massive harvesting I think I heard that they changed the policy to sustainable yield at the regional level. After that I went to Interior and was no longer privey to policy of the boys in green.

So much land was cut in such a short period coupled with logging by the timber division of the Anaconda company it is a miracle that any merchantable timber is left in Sanders co. The remainder of the Anaconda ground eventually became Plum Creek and when they got done a jackrabbit would have to pack a lunch to cross a lot of it.

A lot of the Anaconda ground was bought by Champion who then sold to Plum Creek...and those land holdings took a pretty good punch from all 3.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So... a relevant question in light of sustainable harvest quotas, economics, and modernization of mills. Even with new plans will mills be able to open up and provide jobs?
And, will a speedier permitting process trigger more lawsuits?

 

[BuzzH]

So... a relevant question in light of sustainable harvest quotas, economics, and modernization of mills. Even with new plans will mills be able to open up and provide jobs?
And, will a speedier permitting process trigger more lawsuits?

Doubtful...IMO on the first question. I think best case, it keeps the handful of remaining mills open for a while.

Don't know on the second question.

 

[mtmuley]

http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2018/02/great-northwest-log-haul-1988.html This popped into my head while reading. The end of the mill in Darby. mtmuley

 

[shoots-straight]

So what killed logging in Montana Gerald? And when did you get here? mtmuley

So I really hate to get involved in this discussion because it's really mute point now, BUT being the 5th generation Rooter that I am, and having lived this night mare I'll bite. Don't hold me to exact numbers as time has a tendency to stretch things out like numbers.

When I was a wee lad during my tender years there were around 34 mills servicing people in the Bitterroot Valley. There were several right in Hamilton, and one actually still in tact where people park and play ball south of the fairgrounds. Those mills in the Root consumed something like 34 million board feet of timber a year, this came mostly from the Bitterroot National forest system. A thing called Mechanization occurred at an accelerated rate to compete with each other as fast as possible. The winner was the Mill site at Bonner. This mill originated by Marcus Daly and finished up by Stimpson who auctioned off the equipment. At one time this mill was housed in a building just under 200,000 sq.ft. I believe at the height of production this mill could go through aprox a million bd ft of timber a day. It ran three shifts to do this. That's 365 million bd ft of timber a year, so look now to see what we produce or are capable of producing.

This one mill consumed about what Montana was able to produce as a state. Other mills also mechanized like Darby Lumber where the Darby check station sits during hunting season. They couldn't get enough lumber to sustain them. A great example of this was the Great North American Log Haul that got all the truckers and mills together to send trucks loaded with logs as a political stunt. These trucks came from all over the North west through Hamilton for a good part of the day. What got my attention wasn't the fact that the mills needed more lands available for logging but the FACT that all these lumber would only run the Darby lumber mill for 3 weeks and then they were out again.

So we had mills that could churn out a product in days, that the market took weeks to utilize, followed by low prices because of world market competition
dictating finished product pricing.

I saw the very best elk country roaded, and logged during this period. We have more elk but by far fewer large bulls. It takes security cover to grow large bulls and old age is a must.

In a nut shell, the market, and mechanization are both equal to blame as far as I could tell. The Government getting involved to subsidize timber production in below cost sales didn't help either.

Clearcuts IMO were a lot of the Forest Service trying a thing called "Reforestation" where they went in and clear cut thousands of acres of undesirable trees, rowed them up and bunt them. They then came in and replanted the desired tree for commercial use which was mostly a Ponderer pine here.

The terraced lands in low elevation seemed to do well, but the high elevation clearcuts ended up growing weed trees and are now getting to be fire problems.

I refer to Buzz on any edits he might feel he needs to add.

 

[mtmuley]

shoots, you including log yards in the 34 mills number? mtmuley

 

[diamond hitch]

I was doing habitat typing in that period and there was a general suposition that P-pine was the most desirable and would grow anywhere. WRONG! The high elevations grew lodgepole and white fir nomatter what you planted. It Was after that that an understanding of habitat types and intermediate and climax species started to be developed.

I agree with Buzz. I am not sure an adequate supply of saw logs remain in the forests. They have been cutting off the ranches for the last 20 years. I had heard that the mill in Deerlodge was going to Idaho to find logs. They just finished a salvage sale around my property. It was Forest Service land, administered by the Mt. DNRC. I heard they felt there was less chance of them getting sued by the enviros. The limiting factor was they couldn't build any roads to access any of the dead lodgepole stands. Hence the stands next to the road are well managed - the remote stuff - not so much.

 

[BigHornRam]

Early on mistakes were made when sourcing seeds for replanting harvested and burned acres. A lot of early Bitterroot clear cuts were replanted with Black Hills ponderosa. We have since learned from these mistakes.

CdA nursery grows saplings to order for Forest Service

Over a three-year period, wildfires charred 50,000 acres of the Custer National Forest in South Dakota. In some 1,000-acre tracts, not a single ponderosa pine tree remained to cast new seeds, and the seeds in the soil had burned up. Natural regeneration “would have taken 100 or more years,” said...

www.spokesman.com

 

[BuzzH]

Here's a pretty good chronology of what happened in Montana with the timber industry:

Timber legacy offers few lessons for industry future

If you want to visualize Missoula's timber history, ride a bike.

missoulian.com

As shoots-straight eluded to, lots of market problems, lots of corporate problems, profits in front of sustainability, liquidation of timber assets, mechanization/technology, and just the fact that Montana trees don't grow all that fast.

My Dad started working for AMC at the Bonner mill in about 1967, was one of the people who got the ax when US-plywood-Champion bought it in 1972. He went to work for White Pine Sash company in Missoula next, worked there until that mill closed, and ironically enough, back to Stimson at Bonner for the last several years working there until it closed in 2007. Long twisting path that the timber industry has taken in Montana...and, IMO, is never going to come close to what it was. I would guess that the 10 or so remaining mills will likely dwindle even further, always be a handful around, but that's about where things are going to stay for a long time.

Dad and I talked last night on the phone about all this stuff...recalling things like remembering when Champion had its own log trucks, logging camps, etc. at the mouth of Twin Creeks, etc. That all changed and everything went to gypo operations largely even before Champion sold.

I remember when Gold Creek, Belmont, Blanchard Creek, Twin Creeks went through the private land timber liquidation process...S.O.B did they cut the trees, and fast...80's and early 90's the Blackfoot took a whoopin'.

 

[BigHornRam]

Near the Blackfoot check station and just above the Bonner mill. Back in the real old days before we had roads and logging trucks.

 

[Irrelevant]

Totally not related to MT but here locally the County has started to buy key, controversial pieces of private timber as they come on the market to prevent them from becoming ranchettes. They have the Commissioners on board with actually funding XXX amount of cutting a year (always at a cost) in the hopes that it, 1. maintains open space for public enjoyment, 2. reduces wildfire risk, 3. provides better wildlife habitat, and 4. may eventually spur a small local timber mill (there have at least been talks). They're calling them community forests, and the management plans are guided by the nearest communities.

I see this as "a" path forward that keeps CBD out of it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Near the Blackfoot check station and just above the Bonner mill. Back in the real old days before we had roads and logging trucks.
View attachment 143704

Wow! The image smacks of unsustainable kaching, kaching$.

 

[BigHornRam]

Wow! The image smacks of unsustainable kaching, kaching$.

All done with crosscut saws and axes. Employed a lot of 5th generation Montanans ancestors.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with harvesting a renewable resource is managing the people who have a hard time balancing what’s right for the resource with their desire to turn that resource into a financial commodity.

I can see some parallels to MT elk management of today.

 

[Wildabeest]

As shoots-straight eluded to, lots of market problems, lots of corporate problems, profits in front of sustainability, liquidation of timber assets, mechanization/technology, and just the fact that Montana trees don't grow all that fast.

You mean it’s more complicated than just blaming it all on the environmentalists? And just when I thought @azelkhntr had it all figured out for us, you bust my bubble with facts.

 

[BuzzH]

You mean it’s more complicated than just blaming it all on the environmentalists? And just when I thought @azelkhntr had it all figured out for us, you bust my bubble with facts.

Yeah, just a bit.

If you want to read a book that will explain it better and bring the problems with Montana's natural resource economic (many are still present today) problems...Montana: An uncommon Land, by K. Ross Toole...

He explains in great detail the "rape and run" economics that dominated a lot of natural resource development in Montana.

I'm a bit biased since he was pro small business, strong union supporter, and a big fan of political ethics...all of which are as Uncommon as the title of his book.

 

[BigHornRam]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with harvesting a renewable resource is managing the people who have a hard time balancing what’s right for the resource with their desire to turn that resource into a financial commodity.

I can see some parallels to MT elk management of today.

This area was basically one big clearcut 100 years ago and was then gifted to UM. It's now managed as a multiple use area and is a fine place to visit and even hunt.

University of Montana forest becomes magnet for Nordic skiers

The Missoula Nordic Ski Club started grooming trails at Lubrecht about a decade ago. In that time, the University of Montana-owned forest has become a magnet for cross-country skiers.

missoulian.com

This paragraph is relevant to the topic. The USFS could benefit from some new less bureaucratic "vision".

"A former Olympic Nordic ski coach, Gaskill explained that the forest offers the right mix of conditions for cross-country skiing: varied terrain, already-built roads and trails, an easier decision-making process than the U.S. Forest Service’s and, of course, plenty of snow."