timberlands and real estate

Missoula County Asks Mark Rey to Halt Plum Creek Talks


By Matthew Frank, 5-08-08

 
  Click the image for a PDF of the letter Missoula County Commissioners sent Wednesday to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey.

Wednesday the Missoula County Commissioners sent a letter to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey asking him to drop consideration of the forest road easement amendment until the documents proposed for amendment have been identified and made available to the public.

The commissioners wrote: “...the failure to identify, review, and properly reference the easements to be amended will make the proposed Easement Amendment legally void, and the process leading up to your expected approval fatally flawed.”

Rey, overseer of the Forest Service, said during a meeting last week with officials from western Montana that he would not make the paperwork available and invited a lawsuit, which appears imminent.

At the crux of the controversy is the 1964 Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) that set the framework for how reciprocal access between public and private lands is negotiated. The question is whether FRTA authorizes Plum Creek road access only for resource extraction, or whether it encompasses road uses for residential and commercial development. It’s an important distinction for Plum Creek, the largest private landowner in the country that’s aggressively pursuing real estate as its timber business follows industry-wide declines.

In the letter (click here to download a PDF), the commissioners said the amendment is problematic because it may interfere with forest plan revision processes for numerous national forests, including the Bitterroot, Lolo, Flathead and Kootenai.

They also argue that the amendment should trigger National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act processes because it’s a “federal action.”

And the commissioners proposed changing the easements amendment’s language to, among a number of other suggestions, make it consistent with the standard format for all cost-share and non-cost-share road easements that expressly exclude “the right to use the road for access to developments used for short or long-term residential purposes...”

Stay tuned for Rey’s response.



Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

NEW WEST FEATURES                                                                 More>>

Advertisement

Comments

By Hal Herring, 5-08-08
By alex, 5-09-08
By Mustafa, 2-21-12

Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email info@newwest.net to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest.Net.

Your Comment

Name

Email

Remember my name and email address.

Notify me of follow-up comments.

 

Marketplace