Changing timber land into subdivisions

Plum Creek looking at access but has no definite plans for land north of Whitefish Lake

By RICHARD HANNERS / Whitefish Pilot

The development of private forest land at the north end of Whitefish Lake into residential, non-timber producing lands could conflict with local efforts to conserve state lands for wildlife and recreation.

Plum Creek, the largest private landowner in the U.S., including 1.3 million acres in Montana, recently announced plans to sell as much as 2.5 million acres of its land for residential and business development.

The company's holdings north of Whitefish Lake are adjacent to lands protected by the Whitefish Area Trust Land Neighborhood Plan, a conservation plan encompassing more than 13,000 acres of school trust lands surrounding Whitefish.

The plan, which the Whitefish City Council adopted as an amendment to its master plan in June 2005, seeks to protect natural resource values while maintaining a revenue stream for schools through conservation easements.

The 2,930-acre Swift Creek Subarea of the neighborhood plan "has some of the highest wildlife and natural values" among the subareas, the plan states. It contains winter range for elk, mule deer and whitetails, and a portion of it falls within the federal grizzly bear recovery zone.

Swift Creek, which supports bull trout and cutthroat trout, and Lazy Creek are tributaries at the head of Whitefish Lake. To the north of the subarea are large-lot residential properties interspersed with Plum Creek timber holdings.

The Swift Creek subarea also sees heavy recreational use, including mountain biking, hiking and cross-country skiing. The A Trail Runs Through It recreational trail will cross the subarea as it eventually circles Whitefish Lake.

The neighborhood plan calls for continuing current management of the Swift Creek subarea for timber and recreation, but to "engage" the community at the north end of Whitefish Lake "in the protection of the open-land qualities" of the area. Limited development would be allowed, with up to six home sites on 1,065 acres located within half a mile of the area's southern boundary line.

At a Whitefish Chamber of Commerce brown bag luncheon on April 9, Plum Creek's director of community affairs, Jim Lehner, said the company had no immediate plans for developing its holdings at the north end of Whitefish Lake.

That was the standard response the company gives for any long-range plans where its timber lands will be sold for residential use, he noted, but Lehner confirmed that the company was working with the state to "clean up" access issues off Upper Whitefish Lake Road for timber harvesting.

"We will engage the public when we have definitive plans," he said.

Lehner also confirmed that land Plum Creek sells for residential development almost always ceases to be used for timber harvesting.

Mary Sexton, director of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, confirmed to the Pilot that Plum Creek had applied for "reciprocal access" for its lands north of Whitefish Lake.

No specific project was described, she said, and the application was part of a 10-year-long "give and take" process.

Sexton noted that a project granting access across school trust lands for a residential development would have to go through a public NEPA process. In addition, DNRC could require a "conveyance fee" — 1 percent of the sale price of the residential development. That money would go to Montana schools.

Also last week, Sen. Jon Tester took a stand on Plum Creek's statewide residential development plans. In an April 11 letter to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, Tester criticized what he called "a secret, closed-door plan" between the Forest Service and Plum Creek "that could alter the landscape of Western Montana without local input."

Tester said he was concerned about lost access for hunters and fishermen and increased housing density in the wildland interface "leaving local and county governments with higher firefighting costs, fragmented habitat and increased road maintenance and infrastructure costs.";”