Minutes
Gustavus Land Legacy
February 21, 2001
A conversation with the The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Southeast Alaska Land Trust (SEALTrust):
Gustavus Public Library and SEALTrust office in Juneau via teleconference, 4 p.m. – In attendance (Gustavus): Janene Driscoll, Meadow Brook, Lewis Sharman, Carol Dejka, Kathy Streveler, Chuck Rice, Aimee Youmans, Adrianna Cahill, Greg Streveler, Nathan Borson, Matt Cahill, Paul Barnes, Morgan DeBoer. In Juneau: Randy Hagenstein (TNC), Jim Ferguson (TNC Juneau office), Bruce Baker (SEALTrust board member), Karen Taylor (Gustavus resident) , Jeff Pickett (TNC Development Director), Karl Potts (SEALTrust executive director)
Randy gave an update on current status. Gustavus lands are part of CAMI initiative. [Petersburg?] also has CAMI lands and has asked TNC to hold a two-year option on Petersburg lands pending LWCF funds from Forest Service. TNC Agreed provided that same option can be purchased for Gustavus lands. The deal would be based on one made with Kenai River last year so language was approved before. There is consensus between the Trust Land Office (TLO), TNC, and the Gustavus Land Legacy (GLL) re: package of lands. Need appraisal. Hopes that lands can be nailed down under contract within a month! This will be a no- or very low-cost two-year option, giving us time to put together a funding package.
Meadow: Today and tomorrow we would like to get started on an agreement between GLL and TNC regarding management of Gustavus lands. We have drafted a "management manifesto" as a starting point for discussion.
Randy: From TNC perspective, the uses in the draft management policy are fine, especially given the caveat about curtailing them if they impact wildlife habitat or populations. It will be important to have biological inventory information up front so that we can draft a management plan and monitor its effects. He sees a couple points of sensitivity: Regarding trapping, no problem from biological perspective but there may be a public relations problem given the sensitivities of some of their donors. Mechanized access can also be an issue. It could easily cause habitat damage, so close monitoring will be important. In drafting a management plan, TNC would look for input from community for knowledge about places that are more or less appropriate for this use. Given the right framework, this project can serve as a model of TNC/community cooperative stewardship. Community-based stewardship is a goal of TNC so they are interested in our goals and preferences.
Greg: The proposed management policy is based on language from the legislation establishing the Dude Creek Critical Habitat Area. It is a sound model, one necessitated by the community sentiment at the time. It has not been tested yet, however -- it could be more contentious if a management plan were put in place.
Morgan: With Dude Creek we were concerned about traditional uses. We considered trapping OK, there were only one or two people doing it. There has been a concern about driving around the crane flats and that was dealt with by ADFG.
Jim: Is there a management plan for Dude Creek? Greg: No. Hasn't happened yet. Morgan: Hasn't been necessary -- yet.
Bruce: There are special area regulations that give some non-specific guidance for areas like Dude Creek.
Morgan: Regarding the points of sensitivity, continuing traditional uses is a major selling point for this proposal with the locals.
Janene: Would the legacy lands need to have the same requirements as the Dude Creek lands? Unlike mechanized vehicles, trapping is done by only one or two people and she is concerned about the effects it has on wildlife and other users.
Meadow: The points of sensitivity Randy identified are sensitive within our community as well. Can we discuss them locally and get back to TNC?
Randy: They are issues only if they achieve a high profile. Trapping is a hot-button issue that could turn some against the project. It would be more palatable to discuss "customary and traditional uses" instead of highlighting trapping.
Janene: We might look at the community survey we did to see if trapping was an important value.
Meadow and Chuck: None of the respondents mentioned that it was important to them.
Lewis: TNC's goal appears to be ecological integrity and as mentioned inventory and monitoring will be necessary to assure this. How will it be done and paid for?
Randy: Within TNC, there is a range of effort devoted to this kind of work. In Alaska TNC has not spent a great deal of effort. Could be low-cost ways using local knowledge and biology interns. Overall cost and responsibilities of a preserve program would need to be planned into an overall preserve package. Raise enough money to not only purchase the land, but cover up-front costs (including inventory) and establish an endowment to pay for ongoing management and protection (including monitoring).
Lewis: If there's to be a management plan it needs to define up-front what triggers would drive action such as closing areas to off-road vehicle use.
Randy?: There's a planning methodology called limits of acceptable change that defines future conditions and thresholds at which action should be taken. We can look into using that method in our planning.
Jim Ferguson: On Tongass we have done some work on best management practices. For example, education about dos and don'ts for how to use ATVs.
Meadow: So inventory, monitoring, and best practices would all be rolled into the management plan. Next question: what about accreted lands?
Randy?: Final purchase and settlement agreement with TLO must convey their interest in accreted lands. There is a strong potential for ownership of accreted lands to go with the upland property. This will affect the appraised value. DNR surveyor today said that there are two kinds of accretion -- those that happen through catastrophic events and those that happen slowly (isostatic rebound is the latter). In the latter case, the property line migrates with the accretion (established by case law to date). We will want to get some up-front agreement from state that they would not have objection to those lands becoming part of the platted properties. The formal process will be a quiet title action and we want to assure that DNR will not object to such an action. There is one case in Gustavus where the state did fight the quiet title action and lost most but not all of the land in question.
Randy?: Accretion rights transfer with the property, not the owner. There's a case now to "shake the bushes" and test what DNR will do in the case of accreted lands in the Mendenhall wetlands. Considerations include where surveyor marked partition lines.
Meadow: Do the prices that TLO has put out so far include accreted lands?
Randy: Rough appraisals done so far give a range of values ($2.9 to $3.8 Million) depending partly on how the accreted lands are valued. Bottom line: TNC is aware of the accreted land issue and won't negotiate a deal that doesn't include obtaining TLO's rights to those lands.
Morgan: Don't let the State talk you into paying too much for future accreted lands! The accretion may be slowing down.
Greg: Though we are generally gaining through accretion, there are some parts of Dude Creek West that are eroding with time.
Meadow: Next question - what do you think is TLO's strategy for retaining parts of certain parcels?
Randy: Not sure, haven't had detailed discussions with TLO. The limited appraisal and draft agreement don't address easements. Wild speculation: they are holding out lands that have value for development (such as lodges) and they would like to keep easements to control (possibly exclusive) access for lodge guests. Question: Would such a thing be palatable to the community and TNC? Will need to come up with negotiation points. Next step is for TLO to come up with specific parcel descriptions, and if they include parts that are easement-only, for example, TNC will need rapid input from community. At that point TLO's position will become clear.
Meadow: The community survey results would give some idea of local values by parcel. We can also provide more detailed or current feedback as needed.
Janene: If we purchase easements, how does TLO get exclusive access?
Bruce: Conservation easements can be between land owner and an organization like SEALTrust. They include detailed permitted and prohibited activities based on a clear statement of purpose. Owner continues to own and use the land. No two easements are the same. The easement assures that the conditions will be met in perpetuity. There are costs associated with easements - surveying, site visits, monitoring, appraisal costs. Costs are funded by stewardship endowment. Normally the land owner pays the cost but in special cases where conservation values are high enough, a land trust or other donor may fund these costs and even pay the land owner for the decrease in land value caused by the easement. This would be an incentive to agree to the easement.
Greg: I can easily see TLO agreeing to an easement to protect conservation values but not allowing public use. In such a case we would be paying TLO to protect their own interests better than ours.
Bruce: Such an agreement is possible. Should agree early on whether such a thing will happen or not.
Randy: TNC would much prefer a fee simple agreement to assure that community needs are met. If TLO is insistent about keeping an interest in the land, such negotiations would be conducted with input from the community.
Bruce: Another type of easement would be for a land trust to hold a conservation easement before a parcel is transferred to a local government, for example. This assures that the original management intent is followed.
Meadow: There seems to be inconsistent information coming from TLO as far as what they are willing to sell and for how much.
Randy: TNC and TLO will agree on specific appraisal instructions that will determine the sales price; don't put too much trust in numbers that have been suggested thus far. Before that, there will be clear agreement on exactly which rights are being purchased on exactly which properties.
Meadow: Next question -- is TNC willing to hold title temporarily or permanently?
Randy: Yes they are willing to do either and there would be no problem if it's all private money. If the purchase is funded by a mix of public and private money, there may be constraints. He gave some examples -- for one source the State might have to end up in ownership position.
Bruce: TNC could hold a property just long enough to put an easement on the land before transferring it.
Randy: There would not normally be an easement on a land owned by a conservation organization like TNC (they police themselves). TNC is not generally a long-term owner of property. However, in this case there is not an identifiable conservation unit to which it can be annexed or a logical fee owner such as a local government. They would be open to conveying the lands in the future if that changes (if, for example, Gustavus incorporates). Such a conveyance would be contingent on an easement or other mechanism to assure that the management intent were followed in perpetuity.
Meadow: What about liability?
Randy: TNC would probably require indemnification from GCA. The underlying owner would probably be liable for negligence. In the case of volunteer stewards working on the land they might want to have a volunteer agreement (which would cover them under TNC's volunteer policy).
Meadow: Would TNC consider purchasing other Gustavus lands that have high conservation values?
Randy: Would consider. Would work best as part of a broader plan. Easier to bump up the initial cost than to raise money for a separate project later. Protection of other public and private lands in this area is an excellent goal for SEALTrust.
Janene: Would there be any change in character of land if TNC owned it (more visitors, for example)?
Randy: Relatively little. TNC's dominant use would be a place where they can take very special donors. They are not going to mount a visitor program and lure in cruise ship passengers. They could do donor trips where one day is spent on the lands talking about protection of biological diversity in a context of community stewardship. This would work best in collaboration with local stewards.
Meadow: Respective responsibilities would be spelled out in management agreement?
Randy: Yes. This will be a longer discussion. Most current properties in Alaska are managed through benign neglect. Elsewhere TNC land needs to be actively managed or restored and visitor services may need to be provided, all at considerable expense. But in Alaska the stewardship and management obligations will not be great whoever does the work.
Meadow: Is there generally an "umbrella" agreement with more specific management agreements for each parcel?
Randy: No pre-defined solution. One example: in Palmer, TNC agreed to help inventory and develop management plan for a parcel that was conveyed to the State Park system. General MOU probably would outline what sort of decision-making body would manage the land. He'll send that for us to use as a starting point for discussion. He will also send a sample management plan.
Meadow: As goal for tomorrow, draft MOU and outline of what should be in the management plan.
Randy: OK. Would hope that developing a management plan would be a one-year process. Also need to straighten out financial administration and intended use of funding that GLL is raising. This is a near-term concern.
Lewis: What's the value of parcel-specific management plans?
Meadow: Might want to allow different uses in different areas.
Jim: An overall management plan could still work with area-specific prescriptions. TLMP is an example of this approach.
Randy: Property tax issue: Conservancy owns over 1 million acres. Taxes can be significant financial burden. National office leaves it to state offices to decide how to deal with taxes. There's sensitivity about taking land off the tax rolls. TNC can pay the taxes, seek exemption, or negotiate payments in lieu of taxes or creative bartering. Policy proposal to national TNC board: In areas where taxes are not currently paid, TNC will seek an exemption from future taxes. However, local managers will have flexibility.
Jeff: Think about creative ways for identifying potential donors.
(Prepared by Nathan Borson)