The Montana Department of Resources and Conservation (DNRC), Stillwater Unit, is considering a Timber Sale at the head of Whitefish Lake - and includes the lands we are working to protect through a Public Recreation Use Easement (PRUE). We encourage everyone to send an email or letter requesting more information, a "long" Environmental Analysis (EA, not Checklist EA), and a 2nd opportunity to comment after specific Sale details are presented.
Send comments to:
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Attn: Matt Lufholm, Forest Management Supervisor Stillwater Unit
P.O. Box 164, Olney, MT 59927,
mlufholm@mt.gov, 406-881-2667
DNRC’s Forestry and Trust Lands manages resources and uses on State Trust Lands for the benefit of Common School and other endowed institutions under the direction of the Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board). Management of the State’s trust lands resources mission is to produce revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the land.
The following represents our community conservation and recreation questions regarding DNRC's Taylor to Swift Timber Sale:
Timber Sale will generate revenue for school trusts. How is information presented to show the public the costs associated with the sale, value of timber harvested, and revenue passed on to the school trusts? When is this information available and how is it shared?
Timber sales are a source of revenue, and DNRC is directed by statute to see a consistent amount of timber each year. State goals identify the current annual yield is 60 million board feet and 2023 produced 46 MMBF generating $8.1M in revenue, DNRC Trust Lands Annual Report FY2023. What are the revenue projects for this sale?
The Initial Proposal for this sale estimates 2-3 million board feet – 33% swing is a big range. Can you quantify this into forest impacts per acre? How many trees per acre will be cut, or how many trees per acre will remain? Without a forestry background, it’s hard to understand what this means – please clarify in another way that will allow the public to better understand.
DNRC website shows 2025 timber sales planned totaling ~14 MMBF in timber sales in the Stillwater Unit. Does the Stillwater Unit usually generate 23% of the State’s goal? 14 MMBF equates to ~2800 truckloads; 2-3 MMBF = 600 truckloads. Do all these trucks pass through Whitefish? How does the environmental analysis determine if this impact is reasonable, and how does this compare to other years?
There is an important balance to be accomplished to ensure forest health and economic health. Will 2-3 million board feet of harvest promise to support the economic health of our local timber industry? How will this be addressed in your analysis?
How does the State show the Sale promotes biodiversity? Biodiversity is worth protecting and may conflict with timber values. The public should be provided with more opportunity to comment after the State’s proposal is presented with specifics and details. The area is incredibly special and is an important buffer for the Whitefish community and its viewshed. A checklist environmental analysis (Checklist EA) would not be considered sufficient and a “long” EA should be conducted to provide additional public comment periods.
How does the State show that its interest to meet yield goals is not in conflict with conserving biodiversity? What aspect of the environmental analysis analyzes biodiversity and wildlife resilience?
The proposal states numerous prescriptions including old-growth maintenance treatments. Additional details should be presented to the public for review and public comment when harvest units and specific prescriptions are identified, especially due to the inclusion of old-growth trees. How will this occur? What details will be provided and what additional public comment opportunities will be provided?
Detailed harvest units are shown in the Stillwater’s 2025PreNotice_UpcomingSales report found online but are not shown here. Why? How does the timing of this Initial Proposal Notice fit with the Pre-Notice and Sale planning and how is this information included in the environmental analysis?
Harvest Units delineated overlap with current recreation although IP states an objective to maintain current recreation values. How will you show this objective is upheld? Please provide future opportunity for public input to review plans and proposal. Area is important to current recreation and future recreation and State should prioritize future recreation development opportunities.
How will the Sale plan accommodate the current City proposal for recreation development, public access, and the removal of development rights?
Does the City’s proposal have priority since it was proposed in 2017 and continues to be considered by the State – and the possibility of generating $4-7M in addition to retaining timber rights?
With wildfire season becoming longer and more intense, debate of how best to mitigate fires continues. Does the State believe forest-harvest projects are the answer? What data do you rely on to prove the measures proposed mitigate fires?
Establishment of a shaded fuel break should be planned to ensure the edges of the firebreak are not susceptible to blowdown. Is this a concern? The road is a primary public access route in summer and winter months and blowdowns could cause major impacts on public access and recreation.
This larger landscape is one of few remaining habitats that support grizzly bears, lynx, and wolverines. How will your timber harvest plans ensure a large and intact landscape will remain to support the grizzly bear population?
Conflict and court battles are being challenged today due to differing information regarding how to improve the forest’s “ability to adjust to climate change” and “improve resilience and resistance to insects, disease and fire”. How will climate impacts and carbon emissions be presented in the environmental analysis? What is the State’s position on climate impacts and carbon emissions associated with timber harvests.
It is not easy for the general public to understand the forestry goals and impacts on wildlife, water, and the landscape, and we rely on the environmental review and our local State foresters to provide detailed information to help us to engage. The 'Initial Proposal' does not include details, specifics, or harvest unit maps. Additional information will be developed by the DNRC during the environmental analysis process, which follows the only public comment period. Comment now, ask for details, and request to be included in all future developments!
Send comments to:
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Attn: Matt Lufholm, Forest Management Supervisor Stillwater Unit
P.O. Box 164, Olney, MT 59927,
mlufholm@mt.gov, 406-881-2667
Comments