Plum Creek Timber Company has submitted a map to the Ravalli County Planning Office outlining its own preferences for future zoning restrictions on its property in the county. The company is seeking residential zoning for all its property with densities ranging from one dwelling per 10, 20 and 40 acres on different sections of its land. Currently most of the company-owned land in the Eight Mile area is off limits to subdivision based on the county’s subdivision regulations which prohibit any subdivision being permitted off a Forest Service Road.

The company is seeking residential zoning at a density of one dwelling per 10 acres on about one square mile of land that it owns adjoining the county line northwest of Florence. On the remainder of its land, about ten and a half square miles located east of Florence in the Eight Mile area, the company is recommending zoning restrictions of one dwelling per 20 acres on about 3 square miles with the remaining seven and a half square miles zoned one dwelling per 40 acres. If its land were fully developed according to its preferred zoning densities it could create around 64 lots on about 640 acres of its property northwest of Florence and another 216 lots on about 6,720 acres in the upper Eight Mile area.

The company’s recommendations came too late to be considered by the Florence Community Planning Committee in the production of zoning maps as part of the countywide zoning process. A majority of the participants in the Florence Community Planning Committee decided not to produce a map for the Florence zoning area. But a map entitled “the minority report” was published as well as another map entitled “Eight Mile landowner variation.” Both those maps indicate a density designation of one dwelling per 80 acres for the Plum Creek Timber Company lands, putting them at odds with the company’s version.

Private negotiations between Plum Creek and the U.S. Forest Service concerning the nature of many of the easements to its land through national forest roads have been in the news lately. USDA Undersecretary Mark Rey recently visited Missoula to address the concerns raised by Missoula County Commissioners and Montana State Senator Jon Tester. The concern expressed by the county commissioners was that road easements traditionally used for logging operations were now being expanded to allow residential traffic. This could potentially have enormous and devastating effects on the county government, they reasoned. They argued, along with Senator Tester, that the negotiations concerning the true nature and extent of the easements should have been public with the county commissioners having a seat at the table.

Tester wrote a letter to Rey on April 11 in which he asked him to “stop hatching a secret, closed-door plan that could alter the landscape of Western Montana without local input.” Tester asked Rey to put the negotiations on hold until the public and the counties involved could be integrated into the decision-making process.

Rey agreed to come to Missoula and address the issue with local county commissioners and showed up for a meeting on April 28.

Rey argued that the discussions were appropriately private because no change in the easements was being contemplated. He said that it was just an attempt to clarify existing contractual terms. The result of those discussions, he told the commissioners, was that the easements do, for the most part, allow the use of the roads by the property holder for any purpose including residential use.

Deputy County Attorney for Missoula County, James McCubbin, who attended the meeting, told the Bitterroot Star in a telephone interview that the county certainly disagrees with Rey’s and Plum Creek’s position on the matter. He said the agency’s current position differs greatly from a longstanding interpretation that the easements were for the purposes of logging and not for residential and commercial development. He noted that Rey had proposed what was called an “easement amendment” and wondered why any amendment would be needed if the agreement was indeed not being altered or re-interpreted.

“It seems disingenuous,” said McCubbin.

McCubbin said that the county’s main objection was at being left out of the loop and denied any role in the process along with other members of the public. He was not optimistic, given Rey’s responses, or lack of responses, to vital questions at the recent meeting, that anything would really change. He said that Missoula County Commissioners, along with other counties in the state, were contemplating filing suit to open the process to the public. In the meantime, though, he said a letter was being composed to send to Rey urging him to hold further meetings that would include the public and the local county governments in the process.

Lands Program Manager/Realty Specialist for the Bitterroot National Forest, Roylene Gaul, said in an interview that the issue of easements to private lands on this forest are not the same as those faced on other national forests in the state. For one thing, the BNF has few private in-holdings compared to many other forests primarily due to an aggressive lands program aimed at consolidation of land holdings. Another reason is that many of the remaining easements are relatively new and as a result have a more detailed and updated description of the easement compared to those that are involved in much of the discussions affecting Missoula County, for example.

As far as Plum Creek Timber Company’s holdings in the Bitterroot Forest go, she said, the associated access easement along Eight Mile Road is quite different. It only dates back to 1986 and was adopted as part of a land exchange designed to consolidate the checker board holdings that the company held primarily in the Eight Mile and Sleeping Child areas. As a result of that land exchange Plum Creek’s holdings were consolidated in the Eight Mile area while the Forest Service acquired their sections in the Sleeping Child area.

That land exchange, according to Gaul, had to go through the public process dictated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and involve public participation. As a result, the public, especially in the Florence area, expressed a strong desire for the Forest Service to maintain ownership of the Eight Mile road so that the public could access that portion of the forest to the east of what would become consolidated under Plum Creek ownership. As a result the accompanying easement was designed to protect public access by leaving ultimate jurisdiction of the road in the hands of the Forest Service. She said that according to Forest Service legal services the Forest retains the underlying jurisdiction and could cancel the easement unilaterally at its discretion.

Gaul also noted that it was Forest Service policy not to maintain its roads for school bus access or even emergency access in winter which would make full time residential development using those roads problematic. She also noted that Ravalli County, in its current subdivision regulations, prohibits allowing any subdivision off a Forest Service road.

Assistant Planner for Ravalli County, Randy Fifrick, clarified this by saying that the current regulations prohibit approving any subdivision accessed off of a road that is not under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or a town.

He also said that the county was interested in the input from any major landowner in the county in the ongoing efforts to form a comprehensive zoning plan. He noted that the Forest Service, in his understanding, had the power to and could at some future date possibly give up its jurisdiction over the road. Or, Plum Creek could reach some agreement with the Forest Service to bring the road up to county standards over a certain stretch, changing the scenario.

Fifrick also stated that the Ravalli County Subdivision Regulations were also subject to change and would inevitably be revised and updated and that would necessarily be done with an eye to being congruent with the final comprehensive zone.

“And that,” he said, “is a work in progress.”

Review finds bull trout still threatened

By Greg Lemon

Bull trout are indeed a threatened species and worthy of protection under the Endangered Species Act, according to a review issued last week by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The finding was the result of a five-year review of the bull trout’s status as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The review began in 2004, five years after the bull trout was listed, at the request of then Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and the Idaho state legislature.

“This status review considered information that has become available since the time of listing and included a rigorous analysis by independent scientists and Fish and Wildlife Service managers,” said Ren Lohoefener, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Region in a press release from April 29. “The health of bull trout populations varies by location but overall, the species in the United States still needs protection.”

In the review, the Fish and Wildlife Service also decided to go forward with a project to split bull trout populations into distinct population segments, said Wade Fredenburg, the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead biologist for the bull trout recovery program in Montana.

When the bull trout was under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, the population was lumped into basically one population segment, though the Fish and Wildlife Service had initially planned for five, Fredenburg said.

Bull trout are actually char and are native in five states: Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Nevada. They like cold and clean water, clean rocky gravel and they prey on small fish. Where some trout, like rainbow or brown trout, can do well in water temperatures between 65 and 70 degrees, bull trout like water temperatures below 60 degrees, Fredenburg said.

One of the main threats to bull trout is connectivity to traditional spawning habitat. Historically, bull trout would migrate from large lakes or rivers to smaller streams to spawn. But development in valleys, like the Bitterroot Valley, has effectively cut off many spawning routes.

However, on many small streams encapsulated by National Forest in western Montana, bull trout populations are in better shape. But the bull trout here are mostly unconnected with migrating fish, which leaves them susceptible to natural disasters, like wildfire, Fredenburg said.

Reviewing the bull trout population segments could take two years, he said.

“We have to go through the exact same process that we used for the listing process,” Fredenburg said.

This means developing documents, holding public hearings and issuing a decision.

For Michael Garrity, executive director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the review of population segments amounts to stalling.

“I think that’s just a tactic to further delay getting a recovery plan in place and recovering bull trout,” Garrity said.

Another piece to the puzzle is though the bull trout have been protected under the Endangered Species Act for nearly 10 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to publish a final recovery plan.

The draft recovery plan was published in 2002. But since then the bull trout issue has been embroiled in lawsuits and the five-year review process.

In 2004, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over their critical habitat designation for bull trout, which didn’t include any habitat in Montana.

A year later, the Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with a court order, designated about 1,100 miles of streams and 32,000 acres of lake in Montana as critical bull trout habitat.

Now, instead of finalizing the recovery plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to spend precious time and money on more analysis, said Arlene Montgomery, with Friends of the Wild Swan.

“They’re kind of doing the same thing over and over again,” Montgomery said. “Instead of moving forward with the recovery plans (to get to the point) where the species don’t need the protection of the Endangered Species Act anymore – that would seem to be the best use of their resources.”

Work on finishing the recovery plan will begin once the distinct population segments are finalized, Fredenburg said.

The final recovery plan will be an important tool when it is done, he said. It will provide some direction for specific problems the bull trout are facing. For instance, the introduction of non-native species has posed problems for the native bull trout.

However, the fact that bull trout are protected under the Endangered Species Act has provided quite a bit of protection, Fredenburg said. The Fish and Wildlife Service must review any project that has federal funding and could impact bull trout habitat.

“Basically because this fish is listed they have to take into account what’s best for the fish,” he said.

Bull trout populations in the Bitterroot River have suffered over the years from lack of connectivity with tributary streams and from low water levels, said Pat Saffel, regional fisheries biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Missoula.

Some rivers in western Montana have healthy bull trout numbers, he said. The Kootenai and Swan Rivers are good examples. Also the Blackfoot River has seen some improvement in bull trout populations since the mid 1990s, though low water levels in the past few years has slowed progress.

The five-year review decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t going to change anything for the state, Saffel said.

“We’re just going to try and protect what we have and get more where we can.”

County schedules first-ever Hazardous Waste Collection Days

By Greg Lemon

Ravalli County is gearing up for its first ever Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days, May 16 and 17.

“We just feel like it’s a real positive thing to do for the county and for our community,” said Lea Jordan, Ravalli County environmental health director.

The collection days will give citizens a chance to get rid of the chemicals or oils or oil-based paints that collected in the corners of their garages, sheds and barns.

The effort to organize the event started last year when Jordan, along with Ravalli County environmental health specialist, Rod Daniel, began working in their current positions.

“Our department talked about taking on some new responsibilities and getting active in addressing issues related to our environment,” Daniel said.

One of the first things they wanted to look at was groundwater protection in the valley, he said.

Daniel applied for a grant through the Environmental Protection Agency to help fund an update to a report about the protection of Hamilton’s drinking water. Added to that grant was a request for money to help fund a hazardous waste collection event, he said.

Initially, there were concerns about attaching the two projects together in one grant, but Daniel and Jordan were persistent about the importance of the hazardous waste collection event.

“I wrote most of the grant and I wrote it in such a way as to stress how important it was to take these chemicals out of harm’s way so they don’t pollute our groundwater,” Daniel said.

Since Ravalli County has never had a way for residents to dispose of household hazardous waste, like solvents, old gas, motor oil and oil-based paints, many people have large collections of these types of products, he said.

If they are dumped or spilled on the ground, the chemicals go into the valley’s aquifer.

“The big thing about the Bitterroot Valley is we have one aquifer and it’s the sole source of our drinking water,” Daniel said.

Ravalli County was awarded the grant, which included $25,000 for a Household Hazardous Waste Collection event.

Daniel then went to the community to drum up more money and support. The response he received was encouraging.

In short order, Daniel raised another $12,000 from citizens, businesses and organizations, including Trout Unlimited.

Part of Trout Unlimited’s mission is to protect habitat and that means protecting water resources, said Bill Bean, with Trout Unlimited, which donated $1,000 toward the effort.

Bean used to live in the Seattle area and remembers how effective hazardous waste collection days were there. He also remembers watching as population around Seattle increased and water quality decreased. He doesn’t want to see that happen here.

Gina Wilson, with Bitter Root Disposal, was also excited to support the project.

Bitter Root Disposal can’t haul hazardous products, Wilson said. That means many people don’t have a place to take them.

“We are only able to take solid waste. That’s what our permit is for,” she said. “This is a wonderful thing for Ravalli County because we have so many residents here with dangerous chemicals in their house they can’t get rid of.”

The Household Hazardous Waste collection event will be held at the north lot of the Ravalli County fairgrounds off Old Corvallis Road.

People with chemicals need to bring them in closed containers, either five-gallon buckets or plastic jugs. It’s important to note, you will not get your container back, Daniel said.

There will also be a small fee for particularly hazardous chemicals like unwanted pesticides, mercury, caustics, poisons, strong acids and chlorinated solvents, he said.

“The big reason we're doing this is to reinforce the fact that there is a cost associated with disposing of these highly toxic materials,” Daniel said. “We are also encouraging people to donate, and we'll have a donation box at the event. Any money left over from the event will go toward a similar hazardous waste collection event next year.”

Missoula County has held a similar event for the past 15 years, he said. In Missoula, the water quality district funds the event. Since Ravalli County doesn’t have a water quality district, other funding sources will have to be found for future events.

Each year, Missoula averages about 17 tons of material during its collection event, Daniel said. He expects to collect about half of the amount of chemicals Missoula County collects each year.

But if Ravalli County residents bring in 10 tons of material, then it’s a sure sign hazardous waste collection events will be needed each year, he said.

Collection begins on May 16 at noon and will run until 6 p.m. It will run all day on Saturday – from 8 to 6. People bringing in chemicals will be able to pull in with their cars and volunteers will unload the chemicals and people will exit through another gate.

Ravalli County is still looking for volunteers to help out with the event. For more information, contact Daniel at the environmental health department, 363-6565.

Two arrested for car chase and shooting

By Michael Howell

Two people are being held in Ravalli County jail in connection with a high speed car chase that ended with shots being fired along Highway 93.

Nathan Forrest Searsdodd, 18, and Angela Marie Beard, 24, were arraigned last Friday before Ravalli County Justice of the Peace Robin Clute on charges of conspiring to commit deliberate homicide, or, in the alternative, attempted deliberate homicide.

According to the affidavit for probable cause, filed by County Attorney George Corn, the incident began near the intersection of Brooks Street and Russell Street in Missoula early Sunday morning, April 27, when a man driving a blue Dodge Neon, later identified as Searsdodd in a photo line-up, began motioning to a man in a car alongside at the stop light to roll down his window.

Neither the man nor his girlfriend who accompanied him recognized Searsdodd or the other passenger in his car, nor could they understand what he was saying, so they drove on. But the Dodge Neon followed them closely, at times tailgating them within inches. The couple drove south with the Neon tailgating them. Then, through the “S” curves north of Lolo the Neon began attempting to sideswipe the man’s vehicle in an apparent attempt to run them off the road.

At this point the man called 911 and reported what was happening, describing the vehicle and reporting its license plate number. The man was put on hold then by Missoula dispatch and then called a friend who lives in Florence and who was also driving back from Missoula. The man’s friend then pulled up behind the Neon and followed both cars. He estimated that the cars were going about 100 miles per hour heading south of Lolo.

After passing through Florence the Neon turned westbound onto Larry Creek Loop. The first car being chased continued traveling south, but the second car stopped and turned around heading back north on Highway 93. Noticing the blue Neon had pulled back onto Highway 93 and was driving up behind him, however, the driver of the second vehicle pulled over to the side of the road.

According to the affidavit, while he was coming to a stop, the blue Neon drove past and he heard two shots; one hit the driver’s door just below the glass. The bullet pierced the outer panel of the door and was trapped in the door frame. The man reported the shooting to 911.

Later that day, on Sunday afternoon, another couple driving in Missoula reported being harassed by a couple, described in similar terms, driving a blue Neon near the same stoplight where the previous incident had occured. They claimed that the occupants of the blue Neon “flashed ‘gang signs’” at them. The blue Neon was located later that evening by Missoula Police parked in front of a home and was subsequently impounded. A search of the vehicle the following day yielded a red bandana, a pair of brass knuckles, and two live “Federal” brand .22 caliber bullets and a spent “Federal” .22 casing on the passenger’s side floor.

Police, on Wednesday, received a call from Angel Wheeler, owner of the vehicle, who lives in California. Angelina Beard is her daughter and sometimes goes by the name Angelina Wheeler. Angel Wheeler reported that she let her daughter use the car, but also suspected that Angelina and Nathan might be using methamphetamine. The affidavit of probable cause also states that Angelina Beard is a “confirmed gang member from the state of California.”

Both she and Searsdodd are each being held on $200,000 bonds in the Ravalli County jail awaiting hearings in Ravalli County District Court. Beard’s is scheduled for May 21 or 22 at 9 a.m. and Searsdodd’s is scheduled for May 23 or 24 at 9 a.m.

At the initial hearing to set bail, attorney David Stenerson from the Public Defender’s office, who represented Searsdodd, pointed to some irregularities that raise some questions about the account of events in the charging documents and said, “The State has made a meth, gun toting, gang situation out of this, but I think the situation will turn out to be different than the charges are right now.”

County aims to use Lost Horse Quarry

By Michael Howell

With barely enough funds raised by an emergency levy and a grant from the state to reconstruct Kootenai Creek bridge and a short timetable to get it accomplished, the county is now reconsidering a controversial proposal that was “indefinitely tabled” earlier this year to mine rip-rap material from the Lost Horse Quarry.

A proposal by the Ravalli County Road and Bridge Department earlier this year to use the Lost Horse Quarry, located on national forest land southwest of Hamilton, to produce aggregate rock for road building at the site was met with stiff resistance by local landowners and recreationists, especially rock climbers. The Road Supervisor’s fiscal analysis of the project was heavily criticized and the Commissioners eventually rejected the proposal. A subsequent proposal to simply gather and screen rip-rap at the quarry was also shot down.

Now, based upon the urgent need for rip-rap in the reconstruction of Kootenai Creek bridge, Road Supervisor David Ohnstad has revived the request. He told the commissioners that the project would require about 860 cubic yards of rip-rap. He said that another half dozen projects around the county also needed rip-rap and that he would like to remove a total of about 1,000 cubic yards of material from the Lost Horse Quarry.

Ohnstad said that no mining or use of explosives would be involved, that it would only involve gathering loose rocks at the site and running them through a screen. He said that work at the quarry stockpiling the material would only last about one week, but that hauling the material out would take place over the summer. It would involve hauling 43 truck and trailer loads for the Kootenai Creek bridge project. He presented a cost estimate for the project that showed a savings of $14,000 compared to the next best alternative of purchasing rock from a private quarry.

With only 48 hours notice a fair number of people nonetheless showed up to question the project. Some neighbors were critical of the cost estimate of the project. Others questioned the safety aspects involving truck traffic on the road, which is very narrow in places. Others wondered if it would lead to even more use in the future if this project were approved. A member of the Bitterroot Climbers Association, formed in response to the previous efforts by the county to mine the quarry, also spoke about the value of the site for recreational purposes. He urged the Forest Service and the County to consider getting their resources from a place that did not have such high recreational value as the Lost Horse Quarry area.

The Quarry belongs to the U.S. Forest Service and representatives at the meeting indicated that the Forest Service was also considering future use of the quarry for its own projects in the area. They indicated a willingness on the part of the agency to provide the rock to the county at no cost. Although some quid pro quo was acknowledged, in this particular case a need for gravel from the county’s gravel pit near Stevensville.

The Commissioners voted 4 to 0, with Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll abstaining, to send a letter of request for use of the quarry to the Forest Service.

Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull said that when he receives the request his agency will analyze it. He said that his main interest in the quarry is for use by the Forest Service for its own purposes, but he was always willing to consider a request from the county. He also said that he had promised the rock climbers and the neighbors living in the area to meet with them at the site before agreeing to the request.

“I am sensitive to their concerns,” said Bull, “and I would like to see if we can mitigate those concerns.”

Commissioner Jim Rokosch noted that the decision to send a letter of request was not the same thing as approving the project. He said that if the Forest Service gave them the green light, the commissioners would then hold a public hearing to decide whether to approve the project and the public would have ample opportunity to weigh in on that decision.

Kootenai Creek bridge reconstruction on the fast track

By Michael Howell

All five of the Ravalli County Commissioners came to Stevensville last week to meet with the homeowners living west of the Kootenai Creek bridge. The bridge washed out in the torrential flooding that occurred in November of 2006. Since that time a temporary bridge, courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service, has served the residents of the area. But that temporary bridge must eventually be returned to the Forest Service.

The estimated cost of the replacement project is $451,000.

The Commissioners approved an emergency levy that raised $120,000 to fund part of the replacement costs and recently landed a grant from the State for the bulk of the remaining costs. But the funds for reconstruction must be spent by November, according to the commissioners, if the county is to get reimbursed by the state through the grant program. But to complete the project on that schedule means that a request for proposals must be issued by the first week in May.

Complicating matters is the fact that the bridge will be out of commission for six weeks during the reconstruction and an alternative route needs to be secured for use during that period. But the commissioners had hit a glitch in securing an alternative route, thus the hastily called meeting with the landowners involved.

In a letter sent out April 21 to affected landowners, the commissioners described the funding situation and the resultant urgency for putting out bids by the first week in May, and the problem they had in securing a temporary alternative route across the creek.

“Despite our best efforts,” the commission wrote, “the owners of potential detour routes are reluctant to grant access based upon a perceived lack of appreciation for past accommodations and upon past or potential neighborhood abuse of detour routes - speeding, excessive dust, debris discarded on the property and the threat of fire from discarded burning materials.”

The commissioners stated in the letter that the decision about an alternative route rested with the landowners involved, and a decision was urgently required. Otherwise, the bridge might be replaced without an alternative route, cutting many off from their homes for up to six weeks, or the bridge might not be replaced at all.

Several of the landowners expressed offense at the tone of the letter and the short time frame in which to consider and establish an alternative route. County commissioners and county officials apologized several times for any offense but attributed the tone to the urgency of having to act so quickly in order to use the state funds.

“That bridge only provides access for 15 to 20 residents, but we are spending almost a half million dollars of county tax money to fix it,” said Road Supervisor David Ohnstad. He urged the landowners to decide on an alternative route within a day or two.

Several possible routes were discussed and in the end one was settled on at the meeting, with the details of the agreement to be worked out afterward.

One part of the project that was not covered by the state funding, according to Commissioner Carlotta Grandstaff, was the rip-rap needed for buttressing the new bridge. That rip-rap would probably have to be provided by the county.

Deadline for streamside setback regs set back

By Michael Howell

The County Commissioners agreed last week to move the target date for production of the first draft of proposed streamside setback regulations from the end of June to around the beginning of October.

The commission acted in response to a request from Ben Hillicoss, chairperson of the subcommittee working on the draft regulations. Hillicoss told the board of commissioners that a first draft had almost been completed by the subcommittee, but had not been forwarded yet to the full committee for review.

“It’s only 13 pages long,” he told the commissioners, “but it’s controversial.”

He said that once it was passed to the full committee for approval it would generate a lot of public interest and probably a lot of turmoil. In a letter submitted to Planning Director Karen Hughes he stated that the planning staff and the legal department were facing a heavy workload caused by the countywide zoning process and a number of large subdivisions. He noted that the Board of County Commissioners had previously identified dealing with proposed subdivisions and the countywide zoning project as top priorities. He also stated that the streamside setback committee could continue working on the draft and do more outreach with the public regarding the proposed regulations.

Commissioner Jim Rokosch stated that he had heard from some other committee members who were not in agreement with any delay and were in favor of the regulations moving forward in the process.

Commissioner Alan Thompson said that he was surprised at the number of subdivisions that the planning department was having to review and he was in favor of a delay.

“I personally feel the planning department has their hands full,” he said.

Planning Director Karen Hughes said that it did not make much difference one way or the other, in her opinion.

“Whether we get it and sit on it, or whether it sits in committee,” she said, “either way we are still looking at adoption of the regulations sometime in March of 2009.”

All of the commissioners except Rokosch agreed to delay the deadline for production of the first draft until October 1.

Copies of the latest draft version, number 4, of the streamside protection regulations is available from the streamside setback subcommittee.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2008 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney