You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   Plum over, for a forest development deal
The GOAT Blog

Plum over, for a forest development deal

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Jodi Peterson | Jan 07, 2009 05:17 PM

At least one last-minute Bush rule change won't be happening, not because the administration thought better of it, but because the company involved decided to back off in the face of bad publicity. Last May, we reported on an under-the-table deal that Plum Creek Timber Company, which owns 1.2 million acres of forest in Montana, had made with the Forest Service. The agreement would have potentially opened thousands of acres of former timber land to development, by amending old forest road easements in Montana to allow the company to use them for commercial and residential access:


The amendment would also provide a template for similar Forest Service road easements across the nation. Critics note that the proposal has gone forward without county involvement, without public comment, and without study of the possible environmental impacts of granting blanket residential access over hundreds of miles of forest roads. "This was all done behind closed doors," says Jean Curtiss, Missoula County commissioner. "But it's affecting all of us. Let's talk about what's the best thing for us as a whole, not just for Plum Creek."

Mark Rey, the Undersecretary of Agriculture who brokered the negotiations, had vowed to pass the amendments before leaving office. But the public outcry was deafening. County governments were furious, since they'd effectively been cut out of a decision that could result in hundreds of new homes scattered throughout the woods -- which would create a huge burden for new infrastructure and services. The Government Accountability Office investigated and declared that the agreement might well be illegal. But Rey pressed on, until the company sent a letter Monday saying that it would no longer pursue changing the easements. According to, Plum Creek's president, Rick Holley, wrote: “Although we continue to believe that the easement amendment would be beneficial to the general public, given the the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward with the amendment.”

Chalk one up for the free market -- although the feds didn't seem to care what the public thought of this deal, at least companies still respond to bad press.



Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. The death of backpacking? | Younger people don’t seem interested in this out...
  2. Why I am a Tea Party member |
  3. The privatization of public campground management | All the info you need to decide whether you love o...
  4. Efficiency lessons from Germany |
  5. The Latest: Interior commits to restoring bison on select lands | The “odd ungulate out” gets a tentative win.
  1. The death of backpacking? | Younger people don’t seem interested in this out...
  2. A graceful gazelle becomes a pest | Inrroducing an African gazelle called the oryx for...
  3. What's killing the Yukon's salmon? | An ecological mystery in Alaska has scientists and...
  4. Plains sense | Ten years after Frank and Deborah Popper first pro...
  5. North Dakota wrestles with radioactive oilfield waste | Regulators look at raising the limit for radiation...
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone