Sandpoint criticizes possible watershed land swap

SANDPOINT — The city is raising objections to a proposed Bureau of Land Management property swap that could put areas of the Little Sand Creek watershed in the hands of private developers and logging companies.

According to BLM documents, the plan would exchange 11,000 acres of private land in southern Idaho for a number of BLM properties scattered throughout north and central Idaho, including several parcels within the Little Sand Creek Watershed.

Under the proposal, the watershed lands would be traded to Arizona-based developers M3 Companies, which currently owns thousands of acres of undeveloped land in southern Idaho. Once the trade is completed, M3 would immediately sell the watershed land to the Idaho Forest Group, a Coeur d’Alene-based timber company made up of former timber giants Riley Creek Lumber and Bennett Forest Industries.

Mayor Gretchen Hellar drafted a letter to BLM Director Bob Abbey Monday adamantly opposing the trade. Among a host of other reasons, Hellar objects to the plan because of its potential to harm the city’s water quality.

“Increased private land ownership may result in logging practices and development that would increase erosion and hazardous materials into the Sandpoint area drinking water supply,” the letter reads.

Sandpoint Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk echoed many of Hellar’s concerns and said trading any land within the watershed could be disastrous for the city.

“It’s very likely that our treatment process wouldn’t be able to filter out the hazardous materials,” he said. “We would have to go to a different treatment process, which would be very expensive — in the millions. It could be very expensive for the city of Sandpoint.”

Councilwoman Helen Newton has been involved with Sandpoint government for decades and said the city has always fought to keep watershed property out of private hands. She said if BLM does not want to keep the land, it should give the city a chance to purchase it.

 “Since I’ve been with the city, anytime a parcel of land became available in the watershed, the city moved mountains to get it — to protect our watershed — and I think we should continue to do that,” she said.

Before any trade can be completed, the land in question would need a full environmental analysis and a public review of the trade would need to be implemented, according to BLM documents.

Van Dyk received an e-mail Tuesday from Inland Forest Management, a forestry consulting firm, suggesting BLM did not intend to include the watershed lands in the proposal, but that claim could not be verified.