1. First of all, I strongly support aggregating the State DNR lands in the trade with Plum Creek. I do have 

 some concern with the Woodchuck parcel in that it borders 200 and has great access for future resale. Is it possible 

 to put an easement on the Woodchuck piece that does not allow it to be subdivided? Other than that, I support 

 trading out of the State DNRC lands to Plum Creek. The land to be received by Plum Creek near the game range is 

 an excellent trade. 



2. The trade of State DNRC lands to the FWP I'm a little worried about. The portion of the Dreyer ranch to be 

 traded is also a critical link for wildlife providing a corridor from the Bob Marshall to the Clear Water River. Now 

 this link may have the chance to be broken. The times 1 have walked in this area, I've always crossed paths with elk 



and other wildlife. This property is located next to the county road, has a good road system and has power all 



the things that make it nice to developers or the people not from Montana buying up these ranches. If the State 

 DNRC gets this property, how will the citizens of Montana be assured that this property will not be involved in 

 another trade or sold? WTiy can't the Dreyer property be placed under an easement and or be traded with a 

 restriction of record or protective covenants that don't allow building or subdividing? Could this land be included in 

 the $20000 conservation easement? 



3.) Aside from all the different resources considered in the report, it's difficult to compare all the different 



factors and weight them equally. Such as, how does problems with noxious weeds be more of factor than 

 recreational and access. The real foundation of the exchange is out lined in the land exchange criteria in 1.3.2. It 

 seems that there is a focus on value and I can understand this. With value being such an important factor, I question 

 some of the ways in which this was reported. 



First, I can understand why all the DNRC property to be traded to PCT was considered as separate pieces of land. 

 But why were the PCT and other state land valued in all those parcels? Doesn't the smaller sizes create higher 

 values? Is this really considering the properties to be exchanged? 



Second, it appears every parcel of land was valued by taking the timber volume and reducing it to 1 .5 mbf/acre to 

 come up with an excess timber value. As a past forester, not all stands can be treated equally and not all can be 

 harvested exactly to 1 .5 mbf/acre. Where did 1 .5 MBF come from and why wasn't there any excess timber given to 

 the FWP land? Is the stumpage value an indication of today's timber prices and will it be adjusted to the current 

 lows? 



As an indication, DNRC 4 has a volume of 17.8 MBF with a reported 16.3 MBF of excess timber. This is removing 

 92% of the timber on this property - - this would not be done and it appears to result in an overstated value of over 

 $4000 per acre. This is also true on the DNRC land to be traded to FWP in that almost 80% of the timber would be 

 logged as shown on DNRC2. There is no excess timber in ¥WP\ with 2.2 mbf but there was for PCT 4&5 with 2.1 

 mbf - why? 



Besides PCT, what timber buyer would be interested in going in and logging .6 mbf as shown on PCT 4&5- would 

 this really be done? 1 think this gets back to considering the blocks of land as small parcels and taking all timber but 

 leaving 1.5 mbf 



Was a review of the forestry cruise report and its recommendations as well as the land appraisal completed by a 

 person not with Plum Creek or the state? If it was not, is not this part of the process? 



In summary, I think the exchange is a good idea and will work to protect the BCWMA. Of the three alternatives I 

 support D but altered to protect the FWP property to be traded to the MT DNRC. I also think some of the timber 

 and value issues need to be further worked on. 





Thank you for letting me comment on this exchange 



D.F. Petersen 

 Missoula County 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environnnental Impact Statement 14 



