Locals Hope to Trim Timberland Sale

A cool $1.6 million can buy you a nice piece of land here -- 160 acres bordering the Bob Marshall Wilderness, in the shadow of towering Rocky Mountain peaks. But it might not buy many friends among the locals.

From loggers to environmentalists, it seems few of Swan River Valley’s 800 residents are happy with plans by Plum Creek Timber Co. to sell about 20,000 of its 80,000 acres in the Swan River Valley of northwestern Montana.

It is part of a companywide plan to sell off expensive timberland as residential property, then use the cash to buy less scenic but cheaper timberland elsewhere.

“We think it’s a horrible precedent to take some of the most highly productive timberland in Montana out of production, remove that from the timber economy and put it into real estate development,” Melanie Parker said. “We’re not talking about any ordinary place or any ordinary forest land in western Montana.”

Parker and her husband, Tom, are among local residents who hope to raise enough money to outbid wealthy out-of-staters for the prized parcels as they come on the market.

They want to see the property put in a community trust, which would ensure that it remains open to wildlife, as well as hunters, fishermen and other sportsmen, while also allowing some logging. Maybe more important, it would prevent the building of dozens of new homes for the wealthy.

Plum Creek intends to sell about half the 20,000 acres in parcels of 160 acres each. The parcels would be sold as high-end residential property after the company harvested the most valuable trees. Plum Creek hopes to sell the remaining 10,000 acres to the Forest Service, although so far the agency has said it does not have the money.

Jerry Sorensen, Plum Creek’s land use manager for the Rocky Mountains, said he doesn’t understand why area residents oppose the land sale. It would only increase private residential property in Swan Valley from 7% to 9%, he said. In addition, if the Forest Service buys the rest, it would increase the amount of publicly owned land in the valley.

“In my judgment, it’s not that significant of a change,” Sorensen said, noting that the vast majority of the land in the valley remains publicly owned.

Choice land in pristine areas such as Swan Valley is worth more as real estate than as timberland. Plum Creek recognizes that. The company has ramped up real estate sales in recent years, selling high-value home sites and using the cash to buy cheaper forest land elsewhere.

It is seeking an average of $10,000 an acre for its Swan Valley land.

Opponents, however, point to potential problems if the Swan Valley land becomes dotted with new homes.

The valley is home to grizzly bears that crisscross the forest. Visitors are just as likely to run into an elk as a lumberjack while taking dirt roads to the grocery store.

Conservationists assert that the 200,000-acre Swan Valley is among the most important natural areas in Montana, featuring a diversity of plant and animal life found nowhere else in the state.

But that, and a number of beautiful rivers, streams and lakes with majestic views, also make it a valuable place to build a multimillion-dollar vacation home.

Locals fear land that Plum Creek has kept open for public access will be bought by people who will close it to hunters and sportsmen. They also worry that Plum Creek will harvest all the best trees first, leaving only small, stunted trees palatable only to buyers unfamiliar with the forest.

Logger Max Greenough said he believes that the current Plum Creek sale won’t be the last. He said the company, which is among the largest landholders in the United States with about 8 million acres in 19 states, has been cutting so many trees in recent years that much of its land won’t be ready to harvest again for about another century.

“They’re in the rape-and-run mode,” Greenough said. “They’re just getting these sections; they’re just taking everything that’ll make a log off of them and then selling the land.”

Greenough may actually profit if the land is sold as residential property: His wife is a real estate agent. In addition, new landowners often need logging done on their land before they can build a home.

Still, Greenough opposes the land sale.

“I live here because of the type of country it is. There’s not that many people,” he said. The thought of a valley that could be adding subdivisions and new neighbors, “that ain’t the type of country I want to live in.”

So far, the land has been selling nearly as fast as Plum Creek has offered it for sale. Three of four 160-acre parcels that were put on the market in May sold within a month, Sorensen said. But Sorensen said the company isn’t going to ditch all of its land in Swan Valley, one of the state’s better timber regions.

“It remains a very important timber area for us. It grows timber well,” Sorensen said.

But selling Swan Valley land for timber property elsewhere makes economic sense.

Plum Creek was able to buy 900,000 acres of Maine’s forest land for $180 million a few years ago. If it gets its asking price in Swan Valley, 20,000 acres of land it has already logged could go for $200 million.

Such land sales are not unique to Swan Valley or Montana. Land sales in Maine have worried conservationists, and Plum Creek is offering land for sale in Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia. It says land in other states may be sold too.

Bruce Farling, executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited, said the company’s actions disprove its attempts to promote itself as the environmentally sensitive timber company. He noted that under a disputed agreement with the government, Plum Creek is allowed some dispensation from the Endangered Species Act in Swan Valley as long as it follows a list of self-imposed environmental logging restrictions.

In return for that agreement, he said, if Plum Creek sells land, it should sell at a discount to conservation groups or the Forest Service.

“If you’re going to get this 30-year permit to harm these fish, get out of these lawsuits, they ought to give something up,” he said.

Sorensen dismisses the argument.

“It’s a business decision,” he said. “We have a responsibility to manage our assets for profit.”