RESPONSE #8 



Thank you for your comments on the DEIS. We regret our oversight in failing to mail the DEIS and 

 related correspondence to the addresses you provided earlier We recognize the fact that you expected 

 to receive direct mailings informing you of your opportunities to participate in this decision making 

 process. We will correct the statement on page 1-17 of the DEIS to reflect the DNRC response was not 

 written in your case. In view of our failure to add the correct addresses to our mailing list, we are grateful 

 that you became aware of the project status as soon as you did. We are pleased to benefit from your 

 input on this proposal, and to include it in the public record in the FEIS. We offer responses to your 

 specific comments where appropriate, as follows. 



1) The Woodchuck parcel (Sec 18 T14N-R14W) proposed for exchange has legal public access. The 

 Plum Creek lands proposed for acquisition also have legal public access. The access issue is a 

 matter of quality. Legal public access to the Woodchuck parcel is by foot and necessitates parking on 

 the shoulder of a curvy segment of Hwy 200. The main access road through this parcel is on Plum 

 Creek property and is gated at Hwy 200. DNRC does not have access rights on this roadway. Land 

 Board criteria #7 specifically notes the benefits of public access as providing an opportunity for 

 competitive bidding. Without better road access we feel that many of the advantages of competitive 

 bidding as expressed in criteria #7 would be minimal. To date we have not experienced competitive 

 bidding for non-timber related uses of this tract 



The lands identified for acquisition from Plum Creek were in part selected due to potential for adverse 

 effects to recreational access if sold. These effects would not be confined to the lands themselves, 

 as is the case with section 18, but would extend to adjacent property owned by DNRC (Sec 36 T16N- 

 R14W). The Woodchuck parcel itself has both positive and negative traits. There is a flat area of 

 approximately 10 acres adjacent to HWY 200 that has some potential for residential/commercial 

 development. The remainder of the state ownership (approximately 310 acres) has no unusual 

 development potential. The shape of the ownership topography and road network is not well suited to 

 efficient timber management or to dispersed recreational use. Rather than a block of land we have 

 three fingers of land that are 1/4 mile wide. Some consideration was given to subdividing the state 

 tract to exclude the highway frontage from the exchange. This action would necessitate compliance 

 with subdivision laws and was considered not to be practical. DNRC feels that we have disclosed the 

 potential impacts to public access associated with trading this parcel. However, the description of 

 access opportunities that was presented in Chapter 3.3 of the DEIS does not support the suggestion 

 that "the State of Montana cannot replicate the direct access now afforded to the Woodchuck parcel 

 in the implementation of any of the alternatives proposed in this exchange. " In fact, the public will 

 gain assurance of highly valued access opportunities on the BCWMA as a direct result of the 

 proposed exchange. 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 34 



