Missoula Notebook
Tester’s Wilderness Bill: Q & A With Sun Mountain’s Tony Colter
Colter discusses how Tester's bill could affect local logging operations.
By Sutton Stokes, 9-24-09
 |
|
 | |
| "Logs" by Flickr user spi516, used under a Creative Commons license. | |
|
On Tuesday, I wrote about Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The act would protect 600,000 acres of Montana wilderness, but it would also mandate the logging of 10,000 acres per year in Montana’s national forests. Whatever you think of the specific provisions of the bill, the effort to see it passed is notable for bringing together an unusual coalition of conservation groups and timber companies—entities that have traditionally found themselves at odds over wilderness areas and use restrictions. One timber company that has been intimately involved since the beginning of this effort is Sun Mountain Lumber, which operates both a sawmill and a logging shop in Deer Lodge.
Sun Mountain was formed in 2003 when the company’s president, Sherm Anderson, purchased the operation from the Louisiana Pacific company, where he had worked as a logger. The company is family-owned and operated: Both of Anderson’s sons work in the company’s logging operations, Anderson’s son-in-law is the company’s controller, and a daughter-in-law is the purchasing manager.
I was curious about the potential effects of Sen. Tester’s act on businesses like Sun Mountain, so—after touring the sawmill—I interviewed Tony Colter, the company’s plant manager and vice president. He told me that Sun Mountain’s mill and logging operations combined could potentially employ up to 300 people, but times have been tough lately. Today, only 120 people work in the mill and finger-joint plant, and about 50 people work in logging.
Q: Tony, the economic crisis and housing-market crash has had a big impact on timber sales. What kind of reductions have you had to make in your operations?
A: We went from three lines to one in the finger-joint plant almost a year ago, and we had another curtailment last October where we went from two shifts to one in the sawmill.
Q: One of the stated goals of Tester’s bill is to increase employment opportunities in logging and timber processing. If the bill is passed as written, how might it affect your operations and your ability to bring people back to work?
A: Well, it’s really the economy right now that has got us on one shift. We’re hoping to see enough improvement in the economy that we can get back on two shifts by next July. The act, no doubt about it, would free up more timber long term, though, and help us keep those two shifts going. If we had a better timber supply right now, coming from the Forest Service, [that would be] a more affordable supply that would allow us to run two shifts. Right now, a lot of our wood is coming from Idaho, a couple of hundred miles away. Because of those added transportation costs, the only time we can operate those sales really profitably is under the best market conditions. In times like these, if we had some less expensive [supply], we’d be able to run at full capacity.
Q: What is it about the act that would increase the supply of affordable timber?
A: One of the big things about this act, we sat down with Trout Unlimited and the [National] Wildlife Federation and other organizations and tried to resolve a lot of the issues that in the past have led people to oppose timber sales. We’re hoping that the large landscape stewardship approach will make these timber sales less controversial, and because they’re less controversial we’ll see less litigation. We’re hoping that increases the supply.
Q: The act is intended to create new wilderness areas, as well. What’s your personal reaction to that?
A: I’m all for it. I fish and hunt. I do a lot of backpacking. We went on two family trips to wilderness areas this summer. My kids like to do that. I think from a wildlife standpoint, these new areas will help the animals and help provide for clean water. I’m not a very hard sell when it comes to new wilderness areas.
Q: Is there anything you would change about this legislation?
A: In an ideal world, it would have been nice to have some of the opposition on board—the motorized recreation people, people who are just adamantly opposed to any wilderness whatsoever. It would have been nice to have them on board, and it would have been nice to have some of the counties on board who are opposing this. As far as the act itself goes, we’ve worked on that thing for a couple of years now, and I think it’s a pretty good compromise between what we want to see happen in some forests and the land designations that are needed to protect some of these areas.
Q: How did Sun Mountain get involved with this process?
A: It started with a hearing that Senator Burns did about forest planning three years ago. We were there, the [Montana] Wilderness Association was there … and we were all very dissatisfied with the forest planning process. We had all submitted comments on the [Beaverhead-Deer Lodge] forest plan, and none of us liked what the Forest Service was doing in the forest planning process. Actually, it was [the Montana Wilderness Association] that approached us. They came here to Deer Lodge and we sat down and decided that maybe we could come up with some recommendations or a proposal of our own.
Q: You’ve said that in the past, Sun Mountain proposed cutting more sections of National Forest land at once, especially to harvest as much beetle-killed timber as possible during the four-year window in which it can still be processed into lumber. But you said the Forest Service was very resistant, held you to very small packages, and wouldn’t work with you on more comprehensive planning. Giving the Forest Service the benefit of the doubt, why do you think the agency resisted that kind of proposal?
A: I think there are two reasons. They want to avoid controversy, so they lean toward smaller projects, and doing less. The other reason is that there are simply some people within the agency who don’t like logging. It’s bringing those guys along that’s been really tough. I’ll give you a perfect example. Bruce Farling [of Trout Unlimited] and I went to a landowners’ meeting in Wise River ... A whole bunch of ranchers were there … There was a lot of discussion about [the effects of designating new] wilderness on their access and grazing rights, and absolutely nothing about timber. But the ranger came up at the end and said to me, “Tony, you don’t understand. These people just don’t like logging.” And there hadn’t been one comment in the whole meeting about logging. …So there’s definitely a bias there that we’re trying to overcome.
Want more Notebook? Read the rest here. I’m also on Twitter and Facebook, and I write a blog.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
All the alternatives in the new BD plan were certain to kill off whatever timber management infrastructure is left in the working circle, including RY and Sun. No doubt about it. And having no mills means there's no place for fuels to go except on the ground and into the air.
Wanna moderate fire intensity? Forget it.
Wanna use biomass for power instead of smoking things up? Forget it without loggers.
Wanna thin out stands to leave the good stuff and afterburn it? Not without loggers.
Want a budget that does trail maintenance? Not without loggers.
Is'nt there millions of dollars in backlogged restoration work that was supposed to be performed by loggers
Testers bill is the of the smae ilk that mike simpson proposed in his "wilderness bill" a year or two ago.
It's BS and it wont pass
Want wilderness?
Only without Loggers chopping down our last old growth using tax payer money
when you occassionally let a fire burn ina wilderness area it naturally reduces stand density and you will be left with less beetle killed forests. You cant replace nature by trying to cut and burn your way out of the mess you;ve created....enviros did'nt create the mess you and your ilk did
go back to Jon Stokes and the blue ribbon teat
It's available at: http://www.headwatersnews.org/p.ForestJobsAct092809.html
It would certainly be nice if Sen. Tester and supporters of his bill would address these important questions, which have actually been asked (yet ignored) for months.
As Dr. Nie says in his conclusion, "The above questions are not driven by politics. Nor are they asked with the purpose of trying to defeat the Senator's bill or to criticize his courageous entry into Montana wilderness politics. They are meant instead to get the public thinking about the big picture and how the parts are going to fit or not fit together. The stakes are high. If the FJRA becomes law, place-based proposals throughout the West will take a big step forward. The FJRA would be the first one out of the gate, setting precedent for others, and this is reason enough why it must be scrutinized so carefully."
I was on the panel at the Public Land Law Review Conference with Professor Nie last week The entire afternoon was devoted to this subject, with great questions debate and dialogue from all who attended. didnt see mr koehler
Far from trashing the bill Professor Nie raised some constructive suggestions which we discussed at length Professior Nie characterized Senator Tester's bill as "a bold and constructive response to a dysfunctional status quo."
Thanks for offering the excellent interview with Tiny Coulter
But I'm curious, where oh where have I claimed that Dr. Martin Nie is "trashing" the bill? Seems pretty clear that you're just making that up John.
All I have done is shared information with the public about the questions, concerns and opportunities contained in Tester's logging bill from one of the nation's leading public lands policy experts. Seems like some of you folks just hate information and the light of day, John.
But since we have your attention, John, will you (as one of the leaders of the Beaverhead Partnership strategy and strongest supporters of Tester's bill) take the opportunity here in a public forum to make a serious attempt to answer or address the serious public lands policy concerns and questions raised by Dr. Martin Nie in his article?
You see, the basic concerns and questions raised by Dr. Nie have been shared with you and your partners since about 2006, but for some reason you guys just keep thinking you can ignore these serious questions. Thanks...we look forward to your responses.
"Complying with the National Environmental Protection Act is one big unanswered question in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA)."
"Non-timber related restoration goals are also set in the bill, though compared to the treatment mandate, they are not quantified nor prescribed in as much detail. Nor is there any guarantee that the restoration work will be done once the mechanical treatments are accomplished."
"Forest-specific laws already on the books, like the Tongass Timber Reform Act and the Herger-Feinstein (Quincy Library) Act, have engendered more conflict than consensus partly because of how these laws sometimes fail to fit into the preexisting legal/planning framework."
"Before proceeding with a legislated timber mandate, however modest it might be, it makes sense to learn from this and other initiatives and possibly adapt them elsewhere."
"But trading wilderness for a timber harvest mandate is a different beast altogether. The real question here is not whether it is reasonable to require two national forests to mechanically treat 100,000 acres over the next ten years; but rather what those numbers will look like in other states if all of a sudden harvest mandates are politically palatable."
Again, John, we look forward to your responses. Thanks.