The Forest Service doesn't think it is legally required to open these discussions to public review. The purpose of these talks, they say, is merely to clarify road easement agreements that provide Plum Creek Timber Co. access to its lands. So long as they aren't expanding those easements or significantly changing their scope, public involvement isn't required by law.
And on this point, they may be right. Nevertheless, their decision not to keep local governments informed of these discussions is inconsiderate at best.
Of the 8 million acres Plum Creek owns, more than 1.2 million acres are located in Montana. For the longest time, the company focused exclusively on managing all its lands for timber, but since 1999 - when it became a real estate investment trust - it has increasingly regarded certain acres with an eye toward development potential.
Before it goes about selling off any of its land in Montana to developers, however, it wants to make sure its forest-road easements can be used for residential roads. And that's what its recent negotiations with the Forest Service have centered on.
It's also what has many local officials, including county commissioners, so concerned. Although the county doesn't have a seat at the table, it could get stuck footing the bill to provide emergency services and infrastructure maintenance to homes located many miles away from any other community.
It makes sense for the Forest Service to negotiate now, when it has only to deal with one entity, rather than thousands
of private landowners. And we don't fault Plum Creek for looking out for its best interests, either. But someone needs to
be looking out for the public's best interests, too.
Even if the county doesn't get to shape the negotiations, it should at least be kept informed.
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey has said that, when he arrives in Montana to meet with local land managers and county officials next week, he will fill them in on the discussions between the Forest Service and Plum Creek and answer any questions. Forest Service initially suggested that this meeting, too, be closed to the public, but county officials insisted on community involvement.
We applaud them for that. These meetings should be open to the public - not because it's legally required, but because it's the right thing to do.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)