Alberton discusses Legacy Project

Alberton and Mineral County residents met at the Alberton Community Center Thursday night with a representative from the Montana Legacy Project to discuss the effects the conservation effort may have on Mineral County.

More than 20 people packed into the meeting to learn about the project and voice their concerns.

The Montana Legacy Project plans to purchase 320,000 acres of land from the Plum Creek Timber Company so it can be preserved for public use.

The total cost of the project is $510 million. About 42,800 acres of the purchased property lies within the boundaries of Mineral County, mostly in the Fish Creek and Lolo areas. Mineral County is home to the second largest chunk of property in the deal. Missoula County is the largest with 223,400 acres.

Thursday night’s meeting began with an overview of plans for the project and concerns already heard by the Trust for Public Lands and the Nature Conservancy, the two organizations heading up the Montana Legacy Project.

Caroline Byrd, a representative from the Nature Conservancy, said that public comment is essential for the project to operate smoothly.

“You all know this land way better than we do, so your input, ideas and insight are really important to how this project moves forward,” Byrd said.

Byrd said that there are three main goals for the project. The first is to preserve the habitat in the area by keeping it free of developments.

Byrd continued to say that by keeping the land free of private development they also hope to preserve public access to the land.

Their third goal is to keep the land “working landscape” by continuing to allow limited timber harvest on the land.

Part of the project includes a 10-year fiber agreement with Plum Creek in which the Montana Legacy Project has to provide 92 million board feet throughout the first 10 years of the project.

Robert Rassmussen, a representative from the Trust for Public Land, said that after some of the public meetings they have already held they have learned that many people do not want to see this land relegated to the federal government because there is already so much federal property in Mineral County.

The Montana Legacy Project plans to purchase the land from Plum Creek and then sell it back to public owners or private owners with conservation easements attached to the land.

Rassmussen said that because the county doesn’t want more federal land they are looking into options with the Montana Department of Natural Resources as well as the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

He also mentioned the prospect of a community-maintained forest that could be taken care of by the county.

Chris Bryant, the Western Montana Director of Outreach for the Nature Conservancy, said that if the MDNRC ends up with more than six percent of the county’s property, they would actually make a payment in lieu of taxes that would be more than the county brings in for that property already.

Byrd also assured the group that all grazing leases would be maintained throughout the project

Eleanor Danesh asked how they would ensure that Plum Creek paid a fair price for the timber harvested for through the fiber agreement.

Byrd said that as part of the agreement Plum Creek had to pay fair market value for the timber so they would pay whatever the timber was worth at the time of sale. She continued by saying that the fiber supply agreement was a non-negotiable part of the deal to sell the land because Plum Creek had to ensure that they would have timber for their mills.

Danesh said that a large company like Plum Creek could have an effect on the market value of timber and she felt that the harvested timber should be put up for public auction.

Jason Catlado, from the Hole in the Wall Ranch near Fish Creek, asked who was going to maintain the roads while the land is owned by the Montana Legacy Project.

Byrd said that the Montana Legacy Project plans to take care of the property while it is in project ownership but the new owners will be responsible for maintenance once the land is sold off.

She said that the project has no plans to own the property in perpetuity and they could not afford to continually maintain the land which is one of the big reasons they are trying to find other responsible parties to take care of the property.