Minutes
Gustavus Land Legacy
April 19, 2005
Gustavus Public Library, 4/29/05, 7 p.m.
Present: Hank Lentfer, Nathan Borson, Phoebe Vanselow, Kim Ney, Nat Drumheller, Sean Neilson, Janet Doherty, Rusty Yerxa, Shelly Webb, Don Bryant, Dave Lesh, Rob Bosworth, Mike and Karen Taylor, John Barry, Tania Lewis, Greg Streveler, Ken Klawunder, Richard Sirstad, Sandi Marchbanks, Neil Barten (ADFG) and Paulie Hessing (sp?) (ADFG), Lewis Sharman.
Rob Bosworth from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) introduced himself and Hank Lentfer. TNC hopes to keep Hank involved as local mediator and facilitator. The subject of this meeting is to start a discussion about management of the Gustavus Land Legacy lands held by TNC. He noted that the parcels have different ownership and therefore different management requirements.
Rob recapped the history of this project, from the formation of the Mental Health Lands group of the Gustavus Community Association through the community survey, involvement of TNC, signing of a purchase agreement with the Mental Health Lands trust, and surveying of the land.
Some of the lands were purchased with federal grants that came to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) with approval from the state legislature. TNC ended up providing about $900K, GLL provided about $150-$180K including a $100K grant they obtained). Two USFWS grants for $2 million provided the bulk of the funding. All parcels identified by the community and the Mental Health Trust have been closed and conveyed to the state and/or TNC. The Gustavus Land Legacy (GLL) no longer exists as a legal entity, having completed its mission and disbanded.
Recent developments include that Snyder has approached TNC and is interested in selling his 137 acres adjoining the Dude Creek Critical Habitat Area. Also, other Gustavus residents have approached TNC about conservation easements. TNC is optimistic about having funds available to purchase the Snyder property if the owner is willing to sell for the appraised price.
Management and ownership:
Lands include about 1,000 acres of uplifted lands accreted since the last survey. Future accreted lands will accrue to the upland owner.
Parcels W of section 13 (Dude Creek W and W portion of Good River W) were purchased by FWS grant and must be managed consistent with the purposes of the grant, under a conservation easement. The state (the land owner) has a strong interest in complying with those conditions as they might otherwise be required to pay back the grant funds. National Wetlands Conservation Grant Program. The state as the owner could conceivably decide to pay back the grant and use the land for another purpose but would be difficult with TNC also having a conservation easement.
"Phase 2 lands" -- Central Beach, Glen's Ditch, Rink Creek ended up owned by TNC with a conservation easement owned by the state. "The following activities are prohibited on the property:" [didn't catch all this -- is this in the conservation easement owned by state of AK]. No grazing, dumping, pesticides among other things. Trails are allowable. Rob again stated that TNC's intention has always been and remains to allow public access, including hunting and trapping, to the extent it is consistent with habitat protection.
The Airport E parcel, which is non-coastal, was purchased with private money from TNC and will be managed under the terms of a management plan to be developed with input from the community.
Upper Good River was purchased primarily with money from the local community and Coastal Impact Assessment Program CIAP. It is owned by TNC. There is little or no guidance from the funding sources so this puts it in a similar category as the Airport E parcel as far as legislative or contractual restrictions or requirements for management.
Planning Process
Rob then asked that at this meeting we develop a list of issues that would need to be addressed during the planning process. Rob is also interested in suggestions for the planning process. There was a vision for how the community and TNC might work together, which included a management committee with representatives from the community and TNC. Since then ADFG has also said they want full involvement in management decisions. There are advantages and disadvantages to a big board. Rob made it clear that the ultimate authority for management decisions will rest with the landowners (TNC or ADFG, depending on the parcel -- apparently DNR is the owner but an interagency agreement gives management to ADFG). Neil Barten said that a planning effort for Dude Creek CHA was stymied by cutbacks but should be a state priority and should cover the new state GLL lands as well. Paulie suggested there be one cooperative planning effort that would cover all the GLL lands regardless of ownership. Mike Taylor noted that a plan could adopt different management approaches for different parcels or portions thereof. Interest was also expressed about coordinating with other planning efforts underway -- the City of Gustavus strategic plan and community trails.
There was also discussion about how the land would be managed and how this would be funded. TNC has funded an endowment for management and monitoring of the GLL lands. Rob expressed that he hopes Hank can continue to be a local manager for the GLL lands.
Issues
- Roads, including driveways and private roads.
- Utility corridors, telecommunications
- Trails
- Traditional
- Mechanized
- Motorized
- Trapping (based on earlier discussions, assumed to be an allowed use unless TNC hears differently from the community)
- Camps (permanent hunting camps exist along beach on state land)
- Tree stands and cutting limbs
- Monitoring
- Enforcement
- Signage
- Visitor Center and other developments
- Habitat change/impacts
- Wildlife populations - there can be wonderful habitat that the wildlife cannot use. Indicator species, desired future condition
- Drainage pattern changes
- Access to private property and what happens on easements? What authority does the landowner have?
- Management actions such as insect control
- Invasive species
- Restriction of biocides vs. encroachment of invasive (non-native) plants
- Harvest -- picking flowers, spruce tips, firewood harvest
- Natural change or evolution of the habitat -- consider active management that would preserve current habitat values that would be lost in the natural course of succession.
- Livestock, esp. as relates to invasive species.
- Pets, esp. dogs
- Fire management
- Water rights -- quality and quantity
- Developments in intertidal zone
- Amount of use - to encourage (advertise) or not
- Visitor management - funneling use appropriately
- Commercial use of the land, i.e. guiding
Next Steps
Put these thoughts together in an organized way and begin working through the issues. There was discussion about the need for including a range of interests including methods that might reach those who do not attend meetings.