Whitefish planners present environmental goals for 2040 growth policy; public raises wildfire, water and wildlife concerns

Whitefish planning staff on Dec. 19 presented the draft environmental section of the Whitefish 2040 growth policy, outlining retained policies and new objectives on air and water quality, wildlife protection and climate change integration. Alan Tiefenbach, the city’s long‑range planner, told the Community Development Board the environmental chapter will be delivered in three parts and incorporates guidance from state law and multiple local agencies.

Tiefenbach said the draft follows the Montana Land Use Planning Act’s requirement for inventories, maps and descriptions of natural resources and for documenting threats to soil, surface water, groundwater, wildlife and wildlife corridors. He described retained items from the existing growth policy (shown in the draft as “yellow”) and new policies addressing dust from unpaved roads, open burning, vehicle emissions and anti‑idling rules. On population assumptions, Tiefenbach said the draft uses a range of growth scenarios and currently shows an overall growth rate of about 1.9% after increasing the assumed share of seasonal rentals from 25% to 30%.

On water, he said the city has adopted a critical‑area water quality ordinance, steep‑slope standards, shoreline buffers, and updated floodplain and stormwater controls since the 2007 plan. He credited research and monitoring from the Whitefish Lake Institute and noted improvements including a new wastewater and water treatment plant. The draft recommends continuing Flathead County air monitoring and identifying pollution sources, and it proposes incentives to encourage sewer hookups where appropriate.

The draft adds a standalone wildlife section that calls for working with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Fish, Wildlife & Parks to develop guidelines for development near habitats, to identify and protect wildlife corridors and to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Tiefenbach said the draft discourages six‑foot solid fencing that blocks wildlife movement, recommends animal‑resistant garbage containers and supports a fruit‑gleaning program. Board members asked for a more explicit deer management objective to address chronic wasting disease; Tiefenbach agreed to add language specific to deer and CWD.

On climate change, staff integrated the city’s existing Climate Action Plan into the growth policy and listed recommended practices (electrification, support for public transit, green building measures, EV‑ready standards, mapping green infrastructure and a heat‑island reduction plan). He also described a planned solar farm adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant being developed in partnership with Flathead Electric; staff said planning and some grant funding are in place but the facility is not yet built.

Several members of the public spoke. Rebecca Norton of 530 Scott Avenue said the fruit‑gleaning program is popular but noted Fish, Wildlife & Parks has urged removal of fruit trees on city property because fruit can attract deer and may increase risk of chronic wasting disease transmission. Richard Hillner raised technical edits and urged stronger wording on some policies, pressing for wildfire impacts to be addressed across elements, calling attention to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) site and requesting more stormwater and discharge sampling. Nathan Dugan, who identified himself as a volunteer on climate work, urged that climate‑smart development practices include explicit zoning items (setbacks, heights, densities). Cameron Dexter of Citizens For A Better Flathead recommended clearer PCB background material in the draft and additional reference to regional watershed restoration plans and stronger wetland buffers in light of recent federal changes affecting Clean Water Act coverage.

Board members and staff agreed the current one‑hour work session is not sufficient for detailed review. The board directed staff to collect and publish written public comments (already posted on the city website under public comment), to bring agency summaries where possible, and to continue the environment section discussion at the board’s January meeting with the expectation of dedicating more time and possibly scheduling additional work sessions.

Procedural actions taken during the regular meeting following the work session included unanimous approval of the Oct. 17 minutes and postponement of a scheduled appeal hearing because the full board is required to hear that matter.

The board plans to resume detailed review of the growth policy’s environment and natural‑resource sections in January when more members are expected to be present; staff will update the draft to reflect requested clarifications and additional objectives (including an explicit deer management objective and ant‑idling language) before the next hearing.