Information about the Champion Lands Deal

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY


JOINT MEETING WITH HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY CHAMPION LAND SALE JANUARY 2 1,1999




MEMBERS PRESENT: Senators: Ready,Canns, MacDonald, Riehle, Chard, Spaulding Representatives: Sullivan, Hyde, Angell, Jordan, Smith, Nuovo, Schaefer, Darrow, Quaid, Pike, Zuckerman




HOUSE FISH AND WILDLIFE MEMBERS PRESENT: Helm, Johnson, Sheltra, Brown, Randall




HOUSE INSTITUTIONS MEMBERS PRESENT: Wood, Emmons, Blanchard (Note: There were other Members from this committee present but unintelligible on tape)




WITNESSES and AFFILIATIONS: Gus Seelig- VHCB


Conrad Motyka, Commissioner, FPR


Darby Bradley- Vermont Land Trust


Carl Powden- Vermont Land Trust


Nancy Bell- The Conservation Fund


John Roe- The Nature Conservancy


Ron Regan,- Commissioner, Vt. FW


Tony Leger- USFWS


Dan Leahy- USFWS
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 1


SEN. READY: Connie, were your going to join Gus?

Gus Seelig, Dir.
Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund Board
Conrad Motyka, Commissioner
Forests, Parks and Recreation

For the record, I’m Gus Seeling. I’m director of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.

MR. MOTYKA: I’m Conrad Motyka, Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation.

MR. SEELING: And in addition, I’m sure there are a number of people in the room you’ll hear from today, but with us, to help explain the transaction also are Nancy Bell with the Conservation Fund, Carl Powden, and Darby Bradley, with the Vermont Land Trust, and Tony Leger, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I’m going to just try to give you a very brief overview. I’ve got some notes I’ll pass out to you along with some maps to help orient you. I think Nancy will have a larger map that will be able to be used. I’m very pleased to be here toady. This is a very exciting opportunity, I think, for the state for the state of Vermont and certainly for the board. What’s on the table is a request from the Governor that the legislature appropriate $4.5 million to the Housing and Conservation Board, which we then in turn would grant to the Conservation Fund of Vermont Land Trust and the Agency of Natural Resources as part of the acquisition of the Champion Lands. A bit of background - the Champion Lands were put on the market a little over a year ago, and were subject to a bidding process that Nancy will explain in a few minutes. The Vermont deal was actually part of a three-state deal that Conservation Fund, which is based on Arlington Virginia, is a national non profit that the state has worked with in the past, put together a comprehensive three-state deal as was the requirement for the bidding. We could not have done this in-state by ourselves, and I think we’re very grateful that the Conservation Fund was willing to step to the plate and take on this endeavor. It would not have the great potential for success that it has without them. A moment about the Housing and Conservation Board for some of you who are not as familiar with us. We are the state’s grant-making arm for affordable housing and conservation projects. We’ve been around for about ii years. We have been involved with many natural resource projects as well as the conservation of agricultural land and have been, as Representative Emmons said, been in front of the Institutions Committee in the past, as well as in front of the appropriations committees. This is as a matter of importance reflected in both the resource that these lands and the scale of it. Just the size of it alone gives it a number of possibilities. We’re excited about it because we see this as an opportunity as a matter of community for the state of Vermont as a whole, but also for the region in the Northeast Kingdom to really have something of value happen. In terms of the resources that are at stake here, we are talking about 133,289 acres of land. The land contains about 400 miles of VAST trails. That’s about 10 percent of all the
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 2


VAST trails in the state of Vermont. There are 26 natural heritage sites, 10,000 acres of prime deer wintering habitat, the Yellow Bog, Ferdinand Bog, Molly Bady Bog, 30 miles of Nulhegan River and its tributaries, 11 miles of Paul Stream, 3 miles of Moose River, 15 lakes and ponds. So is an immense amount available here. There is a long tradition of public use on this property. It is part of the culture of the Northeast Kingdom, and I think the culture of Vermont that the uses of this land both for recreation, hunting, fishing as well as timbering are very important to the identity of this region of the state. It’s the intention of the Governor and the Board to assure continued public access to the property through our participation. That means that at the end of the transaction, we will co-hold a public access easement. There will also be a sustainable forestry easement, which Commissioner Motyka can address and others can address in a bit more detail. The basis vision of the deal requires about 48,000 acres to go into ultimately public ownership. A little bit more than half of that is targeted toward ownership by the Federal Fish, and Wildlife Service and about 22,000 or so acres is slated for ownership by the state of Vermont through the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The money that you’re being asked to appropriate will be matched dollar per dollar by the Richard King Nolan Foundation. Their intention and interest is in having the state take ownership of some of the property, but they do require a state match. The land beyond its timber value is also an important recreation resources, evidenced by the VAST Trail network. That’s very important to the community of Island Pond, but there are other recreation benefits. There are about a dozen bicycle companies that conduct tours that go through the land. Let me say a little bit about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, because I know the notion of federal ownership has been a concern for some folks, and I’ll try to say just a few things. First, they had identified as part of the mission of a Conti Refuge some of these lands as very important to their general mission. Second, the Conservation will talk more about their process in deciding to participate, but economically, their participation is critical to the transaction. The good news is, I think, the Conti Refuge was set up by Congress to be an experimental more flexible program, and we’ve had several meetings with the service, and they’ve demonstrated to my mind, a great deal of willingness to be flexible on a number of issues, including what happens to the camps and the camp leases, and I think they will be a good partner to us. I think there is also a high degree of ecological sensitivity to the lands that are targeted for their ownership and for state ownership. With that, I guess I’m going to turn it over to Connie to talk about a couple of things.

MR. MOTYKA: Thank you, the two issues I’d like to address first is the concept of working forest as it would apply to this property and actually what’s happening both in Vermont and nationally. I’d like to start by saying there would be a difference between what we might call sustainable timber management and the profession was called sustained yield, that basically talked about sustained flow of wood products for the purposes of the ownership, and those are often associated with land owners that also own mills. So that they looked at their timber resources and looked at a consistent even flow so that they could bank on a certain amount of wood coming into their mills on a regular basis over time. The new concept that’s happened both in forest industry and in government as well as other private sectors is sustained forest
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 3


management. The American Forests and Pulp Association has their own initiative, that’s called Sustained Forestry Initiative. Sustained forests in that context does not look just to timber, but looks at the impacts of those lands from the point of protecting wetlands, wildlife habitats, recreation resources and that sort of thing. When we talk about working forests and the construction of the kinds of easements and the public uses on the lands in this deal, we would look at it from sustained forest management. The state in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy over the last year has been through a detailed evaluation of the ecological resources and the Paul Stream in the Nulhegan Basin area. And as Gus explained, it’s clearly probably the most rich large bile diverse section of forestland in the state. Very much fitting into the concept of sustained forest management, looking over those resources over time. The easements that are being worked out as it would apply to the 85 some odd thousand acres of land that would remain in private forest ownership would have an easement on them in the context of the sustained forest management approach to it. So we’d be looking at other public values of those lands and to and structure the easements so that there would be a financial return to the landowner but also a perpetuating of those important resources for the people of the state. That applies even to a stronger degree in those lands that would be under ownership either by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the state of Vermont, and it will be so because the concentration of those higher values lie within those lands that we identified for public ownership. So the management of those lands would require a much higher level of stewardship for those other resources, and that’s the way the management would take place on those lands. We’ve been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the last few weeks to really look at the commonalities of approach that we would have in the management of those resources and we’re really getting very close to having those pretty well understood. The other area that I’d like to address a little bit, and this is going to be a little bit confusing, and we’re not quite there, is the issue of taxes on these lands. It’s important, I think, to look at it from a historical perspective in order to talk about what will happen as a result of this purchase. In the past — well, let me start by saying many of the lands that are contained in this project fall within the unorganized towns in that corner of the state. And the unorganized towns, by and large, there are no residents, and therefore, very little if any demands for public services such as police protection or road maintenance or those sort of things. The balance of the lands lie in small towns that are intertwined around the unorganized towns and gores. Champion, because there were such a large landowner, in effect, worked out a tax payment agreement working with the board of supervisors who are appointed people who represent the interests of the unorganized towns and gores and as a body, in effect, by Vermont law operate as a town. A tax payment was agreed upon between Champion and the board of supervisors that did not necessarily reflect the value of the land. As a matter of fact, it was not based on appraisals but on an agreement. The lands are largely undervalued under current market conditions. So that what they were paying on per acre basis in the unorganized towns and gores approximated some about 45 cents an acre. That’s considerably lower than what would be made for payments if those were appraised lands. The revenues from that went through the board of supervisors representatives from adjacent towns, and part of the agreement that some of the money collected from the unorganized towns would
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 4


be used to supplement tax payments to the adjacent towns where Champion also owned lands. So to try to take that as a starting point and put it into the current situation is going to take some work, and that’s why we’re not quite done with it. Under both Act 60 and statutes relating to federal and state ownership, those lands would be appraised, which would be a basis for how the tax payments would be constructed. That appraisal work is nearly complete, so that’s an important facet in how we would work with Property Valuation and Review here in Vermont as well as how the federal agency would look at their determination.

SEN. READY: Connie, once the lands are appraised, will they be in use value?

MR. MOTYKA: Champion in the past never enrolled those lands in use value, for the various economic reason. The tax payments they were making was lower than what they would be paying under Current Use under the old system. So they never even enrolled the lands because it would be an economic disadvantage to them. With the appraisal, it’s our expectation that all these lands, the private lands, would go into Current Use. So there will be an impact there that will be considered when we evaluate it against the requirements of Act 60.

SEN. READY: I think it’s going to be important for the municipalities to understand that that as their grand list drops that they will attract, at least on the school side, the aid, and may actually — I don’t know the figures — but the may actually be in a better position. The real issue will be as the grand list drops, what is the state’s portion through the education fund. So I think that the issue lies here more, or as much, as it does with the municipalities, because all they will have is the municipal piece. Is that accurate?

MR. MOTYKA: That’s accurate. We’re also looking at that analysis. You’re absolutely correct, though.

SEN. READY: I’m concerned that we have an effort for the selectmen and towns people to understand that, that we are not proposing that there be burden on the municipal level.

MR. MOTYKA: It’s the administration’s intent that working the legislature that we will not have that kind of negative impact on the local communities, but as you say, our expectations between the appraised value going up and the combination of payments on the various ownerships that the local communities should not really see the change, and may be indeed that some of them go up. But that analysis is obviously quite complex. Under the federal ownership, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a different formula. Their formula is based on three quarters of one percent of the appraised value at the time of purchase with a reappraisal obligation, I think, at five-year intervals.

-----: That’s correct.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 5

MR. MOTYKA: As Act 60, or as Act 60 applies for the state ownership, wherein it depends on the amount of appropriation put into the education aid formula, the federal payments are dependent upon congressional appropriation toward the formula used for federal lands. So they are, as we are, dependent upon the level of appropriations made fitting into the formula. In recent years, congress has not made full payments for federal ownership under the formula but has a range of between of I think around 68 to 72 percent, and then once again, at three quarters of one percent of the appraised value. But even at that level, it’s our expectation that the actual tax payments for the federal ownership portion of the land would be equal or greater to what Champion was making. So as I said, we’re not quite there. It’s rather complex. Deb Brighton, who many of you know, is working with the Conservation Fund and the Land Trust and working through this process. A key piece which Nancy Bell will share with you today is a pretty good map of where the lands are because key to it is the acreage and the location of the land in order for Deb to complete her work, because there’s a different application, obviously, where it’s in the unorganized towns or in the organized towns. But all that work, hopefully, within two weeks we’ll have that worked out, but it has been rather complicated. There are a lot of moving pieces. But standing back, the administration is really looking to try and have it so there’s not that kind of impact on the communities in the long range.

SEN. READY: Could I just ask a couple of quick questions. I had a chance to go up and spend a couple of days there, and one of the things that people were asking was about trapping on state and federal lands. Commissioner, have you given (interrupted)

COMM. MOTYKA: If I get too far out, Commissioner Reagan is here. He can help me a little bit, but on the state-owned portion of the land and on those private lands that will be held with an easement, trapping will be allowed consistent with state law. On the federal ownership, trapping has a different kind of approach. Hunting and fishing are allowed on the federal ownership in a refuge system. Trapping is allowed for management purposes. That’s a little bit different, and what that really means is that if the populations are such that management through trapping is the right approach and the correct approach for the management of those populations, then trapping is provided for that purpose. The way the deal is constructed at the moment is that we’re looking to have the Conservation Fund retain trapping rights for a year while the transactions take place so that there will be no change for the first year, and then during that period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the state would develop a fur bearer plan for trapping within the public parts of the transaction, and we would work together and get public (inaudible) and look at the management issues. The one other piece that would allow (interrupted)

SEN. READY: Is that including the federal land?

COMM. MOTYKA: That would include the federal land. They would incorporate that into their furbearer with the federal ownership piece of this transaction.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 6

SEN. READY: And is there ability to have public involvement in developing that plan?

COMM. MOTYKA: Yes, there is. One other piece on the trapping that might be informational, Champion did allow permit trapping on their lands while it was in their ownership, but it was not on all species. For example, they did not allow it for fisher cat. And there is some logic to that. My short explanation for this, and I don’t mean to be cute, but fisher are a natural predator of porcupines. Porcupines are a problem for trees, and therefore, they didn’t want trap out the fisher. But they did allow it for other furbearers. But it was 15 permits for all of their lands, is the way they had that structured.

SEN. READY: Well, I just want to say I see that there are some folks here from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and also some from Senator Leahy’s Office - that maybe that’s something we need to work on. I know the legislature’s going to want to have some assurance that those traditional uses are going to be in place, and I think the more we can do, the better off we’re going to be.

COMM. MOTYKA: Right.

SEN. READY: Can I just ask quickly about, Commissioner, as your department or any other department being working on the issue of the camps and how that’s going to go?

COMM. MOTYKA: Yes, we have. We’re trying to have a consistent policy for the public ownership on the camps from a historical perspective both federal agencies and state agencies try over time to have private camps removed or permits terminated once lands go into public ownership. The reason for that, and that’s historical both here in Vermont as well as in federal acquisitions, is that public lands are for public uses. And to have an exclusive private use within those lands is not something that’s consistent with state or federal appropriations for all the people. However, both the state and federal agencies are very sensitive to that federal use. Where we are at the moment is looking toward a consistent policy of having those camps be available for that private use for a period of up to 50 years. And that is very consistent with what was done in the large federal acquisition in recent years in the Nulhegan Basin and approximate the liberal kind of applications that the state has used on individual cases over time. So that’s where we are at the moment, looking at a very consistent approach to that. There would be a renewal period within it, but ultimately, at 50 years that private use would be terminated. There may be a few camps that for some reason or another that want to, the individuals may want to relocate them on private lands, and that’s fine, and so it might be a staggered kind of thing over time, but I think that’s gives a lot of assurance to the camp owners that the opportunity that they’ve had forever is probably more assurance that they’ve had than with previous owners,
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 7


which was a five-year renewal clause with annual payment. This gives them a much longer horizon than they’ve had then when it was in private ownership.

SEN. MCDONALD: I’m a little confused. If land is sold to private individual and there are covenants on it which, would the forest management (inaudible).

COMM. MOTYKA: Forests, we call it working forests, but it’s in the concept of forest sustainability.

SEN. MCDONALD: Who is responsible for maintaining that. There is some stewardship involved, I would assume.

MR SEELIG: The easement will be held by the Vermont Land Trust with some sort of executory or co-holding interest by the state through the Housing and Conservation Board. The Vermont Land Trust operates with us on many other things through a memorandum of understanding as the primary steward of the easement, and they have primary responsibility for any issues that might come up under the easement. So they will have the primary responsibility for that.

SEN. MCDONALD: So if I’m buying timber and I want to log it or whatever, then I (inaudible) your agency or under this is the way it would work.

MR. SEELIG: The private landowner or landowners, however many there may be, will be dealing with the Vermont Land Trust primarily in terms of the stewardship of that easement.

SEN. MCDONALD: So they’re not responsible for that in terms what monetary — I wouldn’t be responsible if bought the land, I wouldn’t be responsible for that stewardship. It would be your agency.

MR. SEELIG: Well, what it would mean is the private landowner would practice forestry but consistent with conditions of sustainable forest easement.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay.

: Connie, you mentioned the taxes. Do you know what the taxes were on this piece of property that they had negotiated - 45 or 50 cents an acre?

COMM. MOTYKA: I don’t know what the total tax deal was, but I know on the unorganized towns it was in that 45 to 50 cents an acre range, but I don’t know the total number, nor do I know the number with East Haven or Bloomfield or Island Pond.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 8

------: And how soon do you think you might have a number if this land was put into Current Use? What that impact would be on the state say on Current Use?

COMM. MOTYKA: Well, huddled on this yesterday, and we’re hoping in about two weeks. It’s fairly complicated, and Deb is working with us. It’s going to take a little bit.

SEN. READY: Julius.

SEN. CANNS: Yes, I would like to know will we know the prohibitions that are going to be placed on this property before we get to buy it, people that live in the area are very concerned with that, and usually the state and federal are notorious for putting prohibitions, and when you upgrade some land, such as the Nulhegan Basin, there is a request, and I have seen it, to upgrade it. And I want to know if this is going to chase people out. Is it going to mean that if they find a cockeyed frog, we can’t go near it or a pansy. I want to know what we’re going to do before we buy it, and is that possible?

COMM. MOTYKA: To some extent, it will, and in another, it’s really a jurisdiction beyond our agency. The conditions on the — I have to put it in the context of the allowable uses because it’s an approach that we use and it’s one that I think is more flexible than the other one. For example, snowmobiling will be allowed, hunting will be allowed fishing will be allowed, trapping will be allowed under the kind of context I spoke about earlier. The traditional uses of people going up there and using the roads for biking or whatever they do. All the public access will be allowed. The prohibitive uses, the only one that we’re moving toward right now, and we have totally sorted it out, ATVs are an issue. Champion had the same issue with ATVs. How we exactly structure that I’m not quite there, but it’s not going to be one we’re going to be promoting, that’s for sure. They do too much damage to the resource. So I think from the standpoint of, when some of us were with Senate Institutions yesterday — I know you had to leave a little early — we’ll be sharing the easements kind of which include the allowed uses. So you will be provided what we have as we structure this. The second question relative to the reclassification of the Nulhegan is a petition before the Water Resources Board for reclassification that was brought forward by the Vermont Natural Resources Council. I’m not sure exactly where that is in the process. Someone else might be able to help me, but I think they did have pre hearing on it or have scheduled a pre hearing in it that the first event, I understand, before the Water Resources Board is sometime in April. So that process is going on independent of the land transaction we’re trying to structure. It was actually filed — it may have even been filed before the Conservation Fund took ownership or took a contract. So it was totally independent of our action and is before that body and not ours. We’re proceeding independently of that.

SEN READY: It’s been put on hold.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 9



SEN. CANNS: Okay, we would like, I’m sure, to know all of the conditions before we are asked to voted on this and say we’re going to give $4.5 million, and as I mentioned yesterday, it’s like tying a pig in a poke. I wouldn’t buy it, and you wouldn’t unless we knew all the conditions.

----- : (Inaudible) and David and then Henry.

-----: I was just wondering if this is a little premature, but I’m trying to discern approximately if you’ve decided where the 85,000 acres (interrupted)
COMM. MOTYKA: Maybe we could defer that question until Nancy Bell comes who

has a larger map and could help us.

Fine. Thank you.

REP. ZUCKERMAN: Within the potential state-owned land and federal-owned land, that combination, you’re sort of implying, from what I understand, that (inaudible) traffic, bike traffic, I don’t know if there’s horse traffic out there, snowmobile trails, that will all be maintained exactly the way it is. Will some of it be developed more so as a state park? Will some of it be maybe cut back a little in terms of less use from some of those different types of vehicles of travel relating to the ecosystem, the health of the ecosystem, which you sort of 48,000 acres of ecologically rich land stated for public ownership. How would we be managing that in relation to its ecological health?

COMM. MOTYKA: Certainly, we’re not that specific, but because we haven’t gotten to that level. That’s a lot of detail work. But let me say that the lands that will go into public ownership have been identified for public ownership first and foremost because of the concentration of their high rich ecological values. So that becomes then their premiere purpose of public ownership. Other uses within that would then be looked as against that premiere use. It may, indeed, mean that certain roads and trails would have to be relocated if they negatively impacted that premiere use. But that level of detail will go through a much more detailed assessment and a much more detailed planning process than we’re prepared to do today, but I think the general answer is there won’t be an expansion of those uses. There won’t be an expansion of roads. There is an incredible network of existing roads up there that have been built over the years by both Champion and their predecessor, and those roads that provide access to the private camps and that sort of thing, those accesses would obviously continue under those arrangements, but those that had a serious impact on a very important ecological site might have to be relocated. So it will be a softer touch than an expansion.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 10

REP. ZUCKERMAN: Just to follow up in terms of the roads again, you said many have been built over a long period of time. I assume this land’s been logged for hundreds of years. Some roads maybe existed 75 years ago and have grown back in. How are those designated, whether there’s still a road there that could be reopened up as road or not. As you said, there is a very extensive network, but also in relation to state management. Will it be on sort of a state forest kind of idea or a state park where there might be some buildings built to promote recreational activity and that sort of thing at this point?

COMM. MOTYKA: We are envisioning that the lands that would go under state ownership would be a wildlife management area, because the principal, the professionals that would be heavily involved in the management of these lands are in the Fish and Wildlife Department, both in the Heritage Program as well as wildlife and fisheries biologists. We envision it going onto their jurisdiction. What was the other part of your question?

REP. ZUCKERMAN: If Buildings or potential state park type stuff.

COMM. MOTYKA: We don’t envision that kind of use here. I think it would be a much more primitive kind of experience than it would be a developed park system.

REP. ZUCKERMAN: Okay.

SEN. READY: Mark and then (inaudible).

SEN. MCDONALD: I’m concerned about the 50 years lease and I really became more concerned about that when I did the math and realized that we owned our house for 51 years. And my colleague here said that their fruit trees 30 years old are just coming into doing what they’re supposed to do. So I don’t understand the urgency of telling people that they have to give up their homes or camps in order to make this work.

COMM. MOTYKA: Once again, just from our experience on in state ownership where we’ve acquired lands with camps, as I said, that has been sort of the liberal end of arrangements we’ve made with private land owners who’ve had lease lands. But once again, it’s in the context of a private exclusion within public ownership. Not all of them the same. Some of them have only been five years, frankly, and negotiated with the camp owner to a satisfactory conclusion. We approached from both a public and federal ownership to try and have a very consistent approach so that a camp owner on one side of a pond didn’t face some different thing that what would occur if you were on the other side of the pond, and then the other statement that I made earlier was that that’s far more assurance than those camp owners have ever had before. And we haven’t had a lot of discussion with them, obviously, but I’m sure that’s going to occur.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 11



SEN. MCDONALD:
conservative end?
I get confused often between liberal and conservative so what’s the
COMM. MOTYKA: The conservative end is terminated upon public ownership. As soon as public ownership to camp, you have either a year or something to remove the camp or take it out.

SEN. MCDONALD:

COMM. MOTYKA:
confusing.

SEN. MCDONALD:

SEN. READY:
That’s the conservative end?

The approach of what we’re doing. I know this is a little


It makes me a liberal, I guess.

Henrietta, Mike and Bruce.

REP. JORDAN: My question also has to do with the lease, and I’m not sure I know the number of leases we’re talking about. How many leaseholders are involved in this?

COMM. MOTYKA:
Somewhere between 150 and 200.
REP. JORDAN: In terms of the cost of these places, the rent that the leaseholders pay, can you give me an idea of what those are currently and what they’re expected to be after the land passes to public ownership?

COMM. MOTYKA: It’s my understanding, and this a little anecdotal because I have seen the numbers, but I believe they are about $700 a year.

REP. JORDAN:

COMM. MOTYKA:
own the land.
For about how big are the camps?

It’s basically just a footprint on which the camp sits, and they don’t

REP. JORDAN: And after the land passes into public ownership, will there be any opportunity for other citizens who aren’t part of this exclusive club of current leaseholders to obtain leases?

COMM. MOTYKA: That’s certainly a thought that’s been considered. But the first and foremost issue was trying to deal with the current owners to give them some assurances that their longstanding tradition. For some of the camps, that probably wouldn’t be consistent with the public values. For others, it may be, but I think that’s something that will evolve over time over
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 12

that 50-year period and we’ll really have to evaluate that. That’s not a pressing issue for us, but it’s certainly one we’re thinking about.

REP. JORDAN: It just strikes me in terms of the public land or public uses and public goods that if there are leases that are made available to some of the citizens in Vermont, that there should be opportunities for other citizens to participate in that, either that or we embark on a course of terminating all the leases within a reasonable period of time. And I’m certainly sensitive to the issues raised by Senator McDonald and others about traditional uses, but it does strike me that this is, you know, a significant investment of public funds by all the citizens in Vermont in a resource that needs to benefit all the citizens of Vermont and be a benefit to all of them. So I certainly support your goal of moving in that direction.

SEN. READY: Mike and then Bruce.

-----: I heard the numbers floating around before the initial purchase, but we’re talking about management, that extensive road network out there that needs to be maintained. What sort of ongoing expenses is the state going to acquire that we’ve got to put out year after year to maintain this property and oversee this property. Have you thought yet?

COMM. MOTYKA: We’ve had some discussion about it. Certainly one is the tax obligation that we will have through PILOT and the impact on the state aid to education. So that’s there, and it will be part of that analysis. So you’ll have that number. The management costs, we certainly don’t have that level of detail. The first one that I think is going to be, the first important large one that we’re going to have to deal with is that all associated with the resale of the lands to state and federal and private. And the boundary and survey work and title work and that sort of stuff, which is a big first one-time. We’re working on that one now. Long term management costs I think it’ll depend on our approach to management. The one that I think is going to take some time to do — it will take a fairly organized effort is detailed inventory of those lands. There is work that has been done in conjunction with the sale, obviously, but to a level that we could within that timeframe and it’s such a vast amount of land that we certainly don’t have the kind of detailed information we would need to do with the appropriate management of those lands. It may take us several years to do that. We’ll have to phase that in with either existing staff or others. My department, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Department as an agency initiative that the Governor is supporting, has an enhancement for our agency. Lands (inaudible) with a focus on inventory and planning. Part of that the legislature sustains. The Governor’s initiative will help us toward that end with this large acquisition. So we’re trying to build it in as our knowledge base exists right now. The road issue, currently, the legislature provides for a certain amount of road maintenance money for public lands, because we already have a network of 300 miles on state ownerships throughout the state. We set priorities for annual maintenance of those programs through that. We’d incorporate that in as we knew more about the cost on the road. If warranted, we would try and seek an appropriation high enough to
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 13

address those additional lands. Those lands that would be in private ownership, obviously, would be in the responsibility of the private owners. Those in the federal ownership would be the responsibility of the federal owners. We’re focusing more on the state obligation, but we are addressing it and trying to build it, including part of the initiative in this year’s budget appropriation.

So will we hear some real numbers sometime soon?

COMM. MOTYKA: I think that the first key is part of what Nancy will share with you on the cost. The first big cost I anticipate is the survey cost. We’ll need to do that because where the public ownership against private ownership, we need to have a clear demarcation of where the property lines are so we avoid mistakes, and that will be the first one. It depends on how those lines sort out. It could be as high as $300,000.
SEN. READY: Bruce.

REP. HYDE: Connie, if I add up all these players in the purchase comes to $3,300 or $3,800 or 8,0001 don’t know whether I’m doing the math wrong or not, I’m just wondering when this transaction takes place and then gets resold to private citizens, what will happen? Will there actually be title limitations in there built into the resale?

COMM. MOTYKA: Correct. It will be easement that, as Gus explains, there will be easements held by the land trust and the Housing and Conservation Board. The use of those lands will have to be consistent with those easement conditions, which means public access, which means no subdivision. You know, those kinds of things will be involved as part of the deed.

REP. HYDE: The Housing and Conservation Trust Board will set up the restrictions on that land when it gets transferred to other parties?

COMM. MOPTYKA: The $4.5 million that’s being sought from the legislature, what its purpose is is to purchase the easements on the private portion of the transaction. That’s the purpose of the $4.5 million.

REP. HYDE: On all 133,000 acres?

COMM. MOTYKA: Well, on the private portion of the land. The Melon(?) Grant would actually be used for a grant of the 22 odd thousand acres of land, it would go into fee simple state ownership.

REP. HYDE: How does the math work out there?
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 14
COMM. MOTYKA: I can defer that to Gus or Nancy or somebody.
REP .HYDE: Okay.

SEN. READY: Phil?

MR. SEELIG: What is this on this map? What are the natural area locations? (Inaudible).

: John Roe led a team, John is with the Nature Conservancy, and I think he’s in the room, led a team of about 30 scientists that worked on where the ecologically significant sites were. Some of them had been previously identified, and there’s a whole variety of them, and I am not a scientist to try and answer that question. But there are probably other folks in the room that would do better at that. John do you want to or Nancy, if you want to do that.

SEN. READY: Well, wait a minute. Why don’t you guys finish your testimony, and then we’ll get some other people.
COMM. MOTYKA: I think we’re set unless (interrupted)

-----: Senator Maynard had a question.

SEN. MAYNARD: Thank you for taking my question, because I should be in another committee right now. One of my constituents contacted me about using surplus to do one kind of capital expenses and said, watch out, history shows that whenever you spend 20 percent of that in maintenance costs. My questions pertain only to roads, bridges, culverts. I hear there are two hundred miles of them. Fire and rescue could be very important in this area, and my question to you is in anticipation of maintenance only on the roads, bridges, culverts, have you given any estimates of what that maintenance would be?

COMM. MOTYKA: We have not done that kind of detailed assessments. I knew the Champion foresters and had some knowledge of the money they spent on their road system. It was several hundred thousand dollars a year probably on a normal year, but a large portion of that land will not be on state ownership. It will be on private ownership and not the responsibility of the state. And then another portion will be on federal ownership. So it’s not going to be that number, obviously. It will be what our obligation is as a state. I don’t have that kind of detail beyond that, though, because I just don’t have it. Under our normal forest highway system, of which we some 300 miles of road already on various portions of land, we’re probably spending on an average year somewhere between a dollar and $1.50 a mile.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 15
SEN. MAYNARD: Thank you.

SEN. READY: Okay, great. Representative Starr.

REP. STARR: We’ve heard a lot about the cost side, maintaining the roads and all this. Are we going to sell some timber off this land, and if we are, how much might we generate in revenues?

COMM. MOTYKA: The timber management on the public ownership is going to be a secondary use. It will be really used for purposes of enhancing the primary purpose of the public ownership. Habitat protection or enhancement, protection or improvement of natural sites, those kinds of things. Without the detailed plan, we don’t know what it is, but timber management on the public ownership is not going to be a primary use, but rather a use consistent with the other public values. Much of the land that will go into state ownership, the current conditions are not an immediately available vast amount of timber. There is timber there, but some of these lands were part of the important softwood lands for both Champion and their predecessor, and they were also hit hard by the budworm back in the l960s. Much of the softwood component has been reduced in those lands, so we don’t see a very active timber management program in the public ownership or the state ownership portion of these lands for quit some time.

MR. SEELIG: Let me just take one other take on the question of cost, and I know that this is different in the focus of maintenance, but Paul Hannon who is the director of conservation on my staff was talking with someone from New York State a couple of weeks ago about a camp they have and taking about what does it cost to lease, and they said, well, we used to lease 7000 acres for a few hundred dollars a year, but he price went up, so we need to lease less now. What do you do today? 3000 acres. What’s the cost? $30,000 a year. One of the potentials here for this land with a different buyer is the loss of public access and the loss of all the benefits to the state of Vermont and to this region if what was ultimately developed, or allotted private funding preserves, and I think that as you consider all these questions, and they are very important questions, but that is one of the things that has gotten the Governor very interested in maintaining the traditional uses and public access to this land and, I think, is the key to why we think that the state’s participation at the level recommended by the Governor as part of a much larger transaction really does have a huge amount of value to all of us, and I’ll stop there.

SEN. READY: One last thing for the Commissioner. Commissioner, I’ve heard from some people that there’s a concern about whether the easements will in fact allow profitable private ownership. Can you speak to that issue at all? In other words, will they be too restrictive that at the point at which the forest does come back that it will actually be attractive to be managed under private ownership?
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 16



COMM. MOTYKA: Some of this, I think, is best deferred to Darby. I will share with you my most recent experience. WE are moving toward a final purchase of lands in Eden and Hyde Park called Green River Reservoir Lands. There was concern by citizens in the community that we did not address a working forest component on that. The lands have been harvested rather heavily for the last ten years. I sent out a request for proposals from private investors to look at that. I frankly, did not expect any response. I got three legitimate bids within about three weeks. We’re not pursuing that, because it’s not the desire of the sellers, but my most recent experiences, and they were fairly restrictive easements, because the purpose of the Green River purchase is really habitat protection and intensive recreation so that we had rather stringent conditions on timber management, and we made that knowledge available to the investors, and we still received some bids, so I think they are there, but I think Darby can speak to it more from his experience from the land trust.

SEN. READY: Just one last thing. On the snowmobiling, will that snowmobiling continue on the state and federal lands?

COMM. MOTYKA: Yes, although there are a few trails that might have to be located over time, but the system will remain.

SEN. READY: Thank you both. Chairman Wood has also joined us. I also wanted to recognize Senator Spaulding and Senator Ide.

REP. WOOD: I appreciate having the chance to come to this hearing. (Inaudible) I, for one, have some real concerns about some of the statements, and I take great offense to the thought that private ownership which made this country which is the basis of our economy maybe (inaudible). I think we should consider that there are private people out there (inaudible) if you have a timber business that is big, and I think we should do all we can to protect that industry and make it grow. I don’t see anything wrong with private ownership. It’s what this country is all about.

SEN. READY: I don’t think any of us see anything wrong with it.

: If Current Use is for land which is primarily the forestry practice under a forest management plan, is that inconsistent with the primary use of it and the secondary use (inaudible). In other words, were these landowners be able to have Current Use?

MR. SEELIG: Yes, and we would expect them to be. The way the easements would be constructed would be consistent with the kind of requirements that are necessary for enrollment of forestland program of Current Use.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 17


REP. STARR: I come from the southern part of the state, and I might add that I’ve seen more public access shut down due to the fact that the U.S. Forest Service in the state has purchased property than I ever have when it’s public, when the land is public, and I wanted to mention that, but I can’t say the state has (inaudible), the Forest Service is well-known for taking all our access roads.

SEN. READY: Thank you both for all your work on this.

MR. SEELING: Thank you.

REP. STARR: Thank you.

SEN. READY: Darby, do you want your team to come up? However you want to do it? You can all come up together if you want to.

DARBY BRADLEY: We’re going to have Nancy Bell from the Conservation Fund lead
off, but for the record, it’s Darby Bradley with the Vermont Land Trust, Carl Powden with the
Vermont Land Trust, Nancy Bell with the Conservation Fund and John Broe with the Vermont
Nature Conservancy.

Nancy Bell
Conservation Fund
Senator Ready, Representative Sullivan, thank you for the opportunity End of side one of tape one.

MS. BELL: With our perspectives describing the properties and the process by which they would dispose of the properties. It wasn’t until late in the spring that that perspective was forthcoming and the Conservation Funds wanted perspective buyers who went into a process that was confidential, and this is important in that we didn’t know and weren’t able to really talk about this publicly until the beginning of December of 1998. So just in terms of bringing you a very large project on very short notice, it’s with our apologies and just given the process that we were involved in, we didn’t really have any other choice. And the map that’s before you today has been a work in progress over the last few months. That process was a bidding process with Champion. It was a two-part process. We qualified within the first bid, which was at the end of July and went into the second bid with several other competitors. And within the open market and the industrial bid process, we prevailed, and at the end of November found out that we were the high bidder. We then went into negotiating a contract with them, and as you know, made the announcement on December 9. Since then, We’ve been working very hard with a variety of partners, and the partnerships actually started to take shape during the years we doing the bid
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 18


process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a party that also requested the perspectives from Champion. They were interested in this property concurrently with us, and we realized that they did not go through the complete process, did not go into the second round, and we had identified them as a possible partner early on because of their interest in this property. The state of Vermont had a great deal of interest in the property. The natural resources and traditional values have been important to the state over the last ten years, and it has been an honor. They certainly have been in conversation with Champion indicating their interest in the property that was for sale or at least in pieces of it because of the high natural resource value. So as we got into this, we are looking partnerships that would give us some assurity that we would be able to come up with the capital to actually make the purchase. Champion wanted to keep all three states in a package. It was under 144,000 acres in New York State, 133,000 in Vermont and 18,600 in New Hampshire. The state of New York was very much up front on this. They have been in communication with Champion, and we’re actually looking at a partnership, an organization that would bring a timber partner to the table. The state of New York has been retaining its 10,000 acres to go into private ownership, and then the remaining 30,000 plus acres will be in New State ownership to protect recreational (inaudible) values. The state of Vermont, they obviously couldn’t come in as an up front bidder on this. Certainly have indicated to the Conservation Fund right along that if we were to prevail, they would like participation, primary interest being assured public access and protecting the natural resource values. So this progressed and we go to the final bid. We had a handful of partners that we were assured of cooperation and collaboration and participation with. And that included the state of Vermont, whatever manner they could. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Richard (inaudible) Foundation, the Freeman Foundation and that gave us enough assurance that we were able to go forward with the bid and build a contract with purchase and sales agreement. So how we got to the proposed final disposition of the properties was through a process that the state initiated. They made a request, I think it was in November of 1997, after these properties went on the market, they made a request of the Natural Conservancy to put together a team to review the lands and really look at the natural resource values and indicate what might be the best manner of protection of those values. And John Broe, of the Nature Conservancy is here, and I think it would be an opportunity for him to tell you a bit about how that process proceeded. It was designated the Champion Lands Review Team, and the group that was put together was extraordinary group of 30 plus individuals from the state and federal governments, the state’s best private ecologists and biologists, people from the forest management schools and other states from (inaudible). So that process was really driven the disposition of these lands. So if that’s okay, I’d like John to speak a little bit about that, and then I’ll go back into the configuration.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 18


process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a party that also requested the perspectives from Champion. They were interested in this property concurrently with us, and we realized that they did not go through the complete process, did not go into the second round, and we had identified them as a possible partner early on because of their interest in this property. The state of Vermont had a great deal of interest in the property. The natural resources and traditional values have been important to the state over the last ten years, and it has been an honor. They certainly have been in conversation with Champion indicating their interest in the property that was for sale or at least in pieces of it because of the high natural resource value. So as we got into this, we are looking partnerships that would give us some assurity that we would be able to come up with the capital to actually make the purchase. Champion wanted to keep all three states in a package. It was under 144,000 acres in New York State, 133,000 in Vermont and 18,600 in New Hampshire. The state of New York was very much up front on this. They have been in communication with Champion, and we’re actually looking at a partnership, an organization that would bring a timber partner to the table. The state of New York has been retaining its 10,000 acres to go into private ownership, and then the remaining 30,000 plus acres will be in New State ownership to protect recreational (inaudible) values. The state of Vermont, they obviously couldn’t come in as an up front bidder on this. Certainly have indicated to the Conservation Fund right along that if we were to prevail, they would like participation, primary interest being assured public access and protecting the natural resource values. So this progressed and we go to the final bid. We had a handful of partners that we were assured of cooperation and collaboration and participation with. And that included the state of Vermont, whatever manner they could. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Richard (inaudible) Foundation, the Freeman Foundation and that gave us enough assurance that we were able to go forward with the bid and build a contract with purchase and sales agreement. So how we got to the proposed final disposition of the properties was through a process that the state initiated. They made a request, I think it was in November of 1997, after these properties went on the market, they made a request of the Natural Conservancy to put together a team to review the lands and really look at the natural resource values and indicate what might be the best manner of protection of those values. And John Broe, of the Nature Conservancy is here, and I think it would be an opportunity for him to tell you a bit about how that process proceeded. It was designated the Champion Lands Review Team, and the group that was put together was extraordinary group of 30 plus individuals from the state and federal governments, the state’s best private ecologists and biologists, people from the forest management schools and other states from (inaudible). So that process was really driven the disposition of these lands. So if that’s okay, I’d like John to speak a little bit about that, and then I’ll go back into the configuration.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 19


John Broe
Nature Conservancy

The request of the Natural Conservancy was really focus on how to efficiently make sure that the natural resource values, which have long been know on this property in generalities for decades, basically, could be efficiently protected within this overall transaction. And our charge was only to look at the ecological aspects of that, and it’s basically two-step process. The first, as Nancy explained, started a year ago, and that, I think it’s safe to say, had many local layers of looking at the natural heritage sites being probably being the tool that we’re most used to at the current time, as well as the (inaudible) resources that are usually associated with fish and wildlife interests. Those are pretty well known, and people have documented condition size, etc. of those resources. And they were mapped, and then we also used the University of Vermont’s, they came and their school of natural resources to map a lot of other attributes of the property, everything from basically as much as we could all the aspects of the property that might affect the natural resources. We also took a look at the context in which this property lay in the whole region so that where is other public land, what was happening in New Hampshire and how does this region of the state differ from other regions of the state. There is a lot of scientific work that is trying to analyze the state based on what is called bi-fiscal regions. The net result was a design that is different from what you see, but what we were trying to do is say, here is where the resources are. The heritage dots that are on maps, how to put together sort of water sheds that function as (inaudible) ecosystems. How to make efficient management of those resources so that you’re not managing little isolated pockets of things. We came up with basically that the swath of resources is, as you see in this map, sort of cutting diagonally across the properties. It allows in New Hampshire a tie in with the most natural landscape in New Hampshire there, so that you’re tying the Green and the White Mountains together. It creates a north and south connection to the existing public lands. You collect through that design most of the heritage sites of the private owners not burdened with trying to manage more of the natural value rather than timber values. You’d have much of the recreation resources, but that was not one of the charges of the group. And then the second process, which Nancy will go into more, was taking the first set of recommendations, which is the lines, the swath was still identified as the primary resources, tying to balance those with other interests, and then the group reassembled and through some computer modeling as well as just professional expertise felt that that the boundaries that you see here basically capture the essence of the region as biological resources, captured all of the natural heritage sites of significance, as well as all of the resources associated with fish and willdlife, game species and things like that. So you’ve really got the core of the property in these two. The Nulhegan Basin, which is where people often focus on them. The scubings(?) which don’t show up on the map as well, but of ponds that are scattered around the bottom part of that. And I’ll let Nancy go from there.

MS. BELL: I believe you have a map that Steve gave to you with his testimony that identifies the natural heritage sites and the lakes and ponds. And if you will look at that
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 20


beside the map that I just gave you, it will give you some idea of where we got the land configuration. The compoderance of ecological value fall at what is the waist of the hourglass, kind of a north and south of Route 105, that would look at the overlays of those two maps. If you look at them side by side, you’ll see the northern half, there’s a great deal of natural resource sites, looking at right at what would be wetlands north of Route 105 and then south, there is a patchwork of natural heritage sites and lakes and ponds. When we put this together and looking at the private ownership and what would be best managed for timber under private ownership to both conserve the ecological values and other private owners desires for timber management and getting income from timberlands, it really made the most sense for identify these lands for public ownership and then make sure that the private timber owner was not bound under the extremely restrictive easements that would have had to have been on these properties. So the map that you hold, the lands to the north of Route 105 bounded by the green line, would be anticipated federal ownership, and t the south with the red boundary would anticipated state ownership. And just to get a little further though on this, when you’re looking at landscape level, both the working landscape and the conservation of landscape, it’s often worthy to look at the corridors and what lands connect to what other lands that then give you the complete landscape level picture of the conservation and the use of these properties, that if you start in the west corner of your map, the spot slated wildlife management area and you move down through what are John Hancock properties, the Hancock easement into the Champion Lands down to what would be federal ownership into state ownership and then going further south through the lands that would remain in the timber management with the conservation easement and then get down into the Victory state holdings, you start to create a landscape level design of lands not fragmented that under the combination public and private ownerships, management for timber under the private ownerships and the considerations that we have for recreation and ecological values, it really gives us a picture and a footprint of very large magnitude that’s of great importance not only for the ecological goals here but for the economical goals as well. It really is a mix that fits both. In terms of this land configuration, the Conservation Fund has public access, recreational values, as well as economic development as part of its mission, in conjunction with environmental conservation, and it’s very important to us to assure that the public access and traditional uses were maintained as well as a very large component working forests, which is so important to the Northeast Kingdom. And as a point, when we’re getting into, and Carl and Darby will speak to this more than I will, because we’re getting into the land configuration, the 85,000 acres that would remain in private ownership under conservation easement would be not only under a timber stewardship or timber management, but would also guarantee public access for the traditional uses of hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, snowmobiling and the road network on the lands would be open as designated by the private owner. For your information, I don’t believe there are any town roads on Champion Lands. We’re dealing with all private roads. Champion has had a policy to give access to the public over these roads. They do (inaudible) roads. They close off roads that they’re not using or they also limit public use on roads where there is timber management going on. So our perception is this has been a free reign in access here. In fact, Champion has improved in their use of roads to cut down on maintenance costs and to utilize and
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 21


allow public use of the roads where it’s most appropriate. Regarding the leases, we do recognize that this is an important piece of tradition in the Northeast Kingdom. I believe the book Deer Camp was written about this area, and certainly includes a lot of the camps that are Champion Land. That being said, there was no guarantee beyond a five-year renewable (inaudible) the five-year lease that the lessees have with Champion, and on New York State lands, the leases are being sunset after five years. That is their conservative aspect of dealing with lessees that, and I believe it’s within the private lands, as well. This is not only on the state-owned properties, but this is part of the state easement on those lands. The camps in New York State’s 144,000 acres will not be leased beyond five years. So there really was no guarantee beyond their five-years leases, and in fact, even in public ownership, that’s all they normally get five years. So we’re dealing with (inaudible) in comparison in extremely liberal possibility here with lifetime of lessee not to exceed 50 years. Another question that came up to Commissioner Motyka was the uses. Whether there would be buildings built and whether this would go to more like a state park use. And I think one thing to look at is that in all of the Northeast Kingdom brochures, the chambers of commerce and the recreational brochures tout the Northeast Kingdom as a place of wildlands and wilderness. And without saying specifically these are Champion International lands, that’s what it is, and the public has enjoyed those benefits of the wilder lands as have the recreational businesses associated with the biking, hiking, water sports and certainly snowmobiling. The use of the public lands, and again, this gets back to the question to Commissioner Motyka about building buildings, there are two other state parks that are very close. Private State Park is very close to this property in Island Pond, and the Maidstone State Park is adjacent to it. Both of those have camping opportunities in both facilities, so this would add a huge area of land adjacent to those facilities where there could be camping, but it wouldn’t be within the footprint of the really ecologically sensitive areas. Again, the state, federal and private configuration came out of science-based information that we have, the ecological values and the assurance that they would fund the (inaudible) partners that would going to put money on the table to go forward, and in terms of our having all the details that comes out of the process being within the confidentiality requirements of Champion and getting to a place now of where we’re getting additional information, as we get that information we’ll give it to you. These maps are still to be finessed in terms of exact boundaries when you’re dealing with something of this scale, looking at exactly where the boundaries would go in terms surveying, the ease of surveys and the amounts of acreages in each town may vary in acreage a bit as we get down to really getting more specific details of the mapping, but now that we have this map, and this has just been worked out in cooperation with the state, and the copy (inaudible) for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the possible configuration if it’s what works to the greatest extent for all of the interests that have been raised. And as we go forward in what will be a much more open and public process now, as required by both the state and federal agencies, we will be able to fine tune maps and we will also be getting the acreages now in terms of town by town, public ownership and be able to put that into the task that’s to get you some more real numbers regarding property taxes and what their impacts would be on the towns. I guess that’s all I have. I’ll be happy to take questions, and I would encourage you, I know that the U.S. Fish and
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 22

Wildlife Service is signed up to speak, but I would also encourage you to have Commissioner Reagan as part of that as well. Any questions?

Carl Powden, Manager
Vermont Land Trust

Thank you for having me. For the record, my name is Carl Powden with the Vermont Land Trust, and my primary responsibility today is to talk about the private lands and conservations easements on the forestland. Before doing that though, one qualifier on the map, there are, as Nancy said, it was just created. These are not all of the lands that Champion owns. There are about 4,200 acres of land that was transferred from Champion to their realty division, and so divides, particularly up around April Lake, right around Maidstone, a stand-alone piece down in Granby, and I’m not sure what else, are shown here as part of this transaction, but will in fact not be. They are very minor adjustments to this map. Ijust want to make sure that you’re clear about that. Manadnock Mountain is on here as well.
SEN. READY: Are those going to undergo real estate bond>

MR. POWDEN: No one knows. Champion has said that they will be putting those on the market perhaps beginning this summer. The Conservation Fund tried very hard to have them included in this arrangement, and they were not. But with that qualifier then, I’d like to get on and talk about conservation easements. And maybe by starting by saying that really the reason I enjoy at VLT, and I think the reason for the nationwide explosion of land trusts is the acknowledgment that private lands provide a multitude of public benefits and that there are non regulatory ways which those benefits can be secured without forcing public ownership and that’s the interesting nature of our work, and I think a real strength in what we do. And this project is a perfect example of how the various legal tools and mechanisms can come to play not only in protecting the public values associated with recreation and having that protection but also in securing an important portion of timber base for continued jobs in timber related industries. Vermont Land Trust, most of our work, frankly, involves the use of conservation easements. As I said, it’s a non-regulatory approach for securing public values. Our transactions always involve a willing seller and a willing buyer. That willing seller may be so willing, in fact, that choose to donate conservation easements to us. Easements and restricted land after the placing of an easement on that land is tested daily in the marketplace. And at this point, we not only have a number of farm sales that prove that people can continue to operate in an economically viable manner with an easement on their property, but we also have a number of forest land parcels in this same situation. In talking about the development of the easement model that we use at Vermont Land Trust at this time, this has been developed over a four-year period, not only by people at Vermont Land Trust, but also including the Nature Conservancy, state agency folks, people in the four states of the Northern Forest Region, both biologists, foresters, timber industry representatives and other land conservation organizations. We are continually open to
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 23


(inaudible) and improvements in this both to serve the landowner and the conservation organization well. I might add that this easement document is informed on regular basis by the negotiations that occur with actual landowners that are timberland investors and have every interest in being sure that they will continue to operate in a viable manner in the future. And if we weren’t being successful in the marketplace, we wouldn’t be employed today, probably, proposing this manner of doing business. But the truth is that this is tested in the marketplace. We have very knowledgeable buyers who are not only buying property that have easement on them, but also approaching us and asking us to be involved in transactions that they would like to be involved with. This is a very significant development, one that is relatively recent. But Commissioner Motyka mentioned that in a fairly quick time, they’ve received three bids on the Green River property. We’ve already received numerous inquiries from potential buyers who are very knowledgeable not only about the timber industry but also about the track record of Vermont Land Trust and our interpretations of easements. There is some concerned expressed from time to time about easements and just how probable is it that someone will be able to operate economically, and I’ve just heard purposes of information since I think the state is now a little more familiar with conservation easements on farm land than they are on forest land. We state as our primary purpose in this conservation easement that it is to conserve productive forest resources and encourage the long term professional management of those resources and to facilitate the economically sustainable production of forest resources without compromising surface water quality, seeing that this is public wildlife habitat with recreational and other conservational values. To me there is no uncertain terms about the primary purposes here. It’s intended for forest management in a responsible manner goes on to express a desire for law notations to maximize the opportunity for production of maple sap and/or sustained owner time of high quality saw laws, while maintaining a healthy and biologically diverse forest. It’s the high quality saw laws that have the greatest significance to Vermont’s timber industry. Other products will always be produced in any responsibly managed forests and those other products benefit all of us as well. But by encouraging production of saw laws, we believe we are also getting other public and biological values associated with that. And again, this has been reviewed numerous times by numerous industry people, and work on increasing demand for our participation in projects. A recent purchase occurred where we had worked with a landowner on a 900-acre piece in northern Vermont. A conservation easement was placed on that property. That property has since changed hands, so it’s the second sale of property. We weren’t the ones negotiating with the new owner. That owner is a very sophisticated timberland buyer, and that purchase (inaudible) that they’re making within the state was the 19,000 acres owned by International Paper in southern and central Vermont. So I don’t think these are rookies. I don’t think they’re ill informed. These are people who know their business and know that the goals of our easements are consistent with their management goals. As far as how we perform our role of monitoring easements, and doing the stewardship work down the road, we have a forester on staff. It wouldn’t surprise me, although my boss sits here, that as the number of acres we hold easements on forest land uses, we may well need another forester on staff in the very near future. But we’ve designed our process to be consistent with Current Use plan. So we require a ten-year
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 24


management plan. Approval standards are consistent with Current Use for the aspects that are dealt with in Current Use, which are specifically timber management issues. In addition to that, we ask for wildlife considerations. If there are any significant plans for animal habitats, those would need to be addressed, archeological sites and so forth, But, for the most part, and after careful work back and for with a number of consulting foresters, we are confident that our process is very consistent with Current Use and that it is highly probable that if you can have your plan approved through the Current Use process, you will also be approved through ours. Specifically to the Champion easement, this would involve the 85,000 acres approximately 85,000 acres that are outside the lands anticipated to be in state and federal ownership. The
85,000 acres all of it would be subject to an easement that’s secured public access for traditional uses that have already been mentioned, hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, hiking snow shoeing, and it gets to be a long list. In addition to that, I think we will need to identify particular roads which are available for motorized access, but as Connie mentioned, that’s a very detailed inventory, a very detailed process of considering the importance of those roads and also the economic burden associated with keeping those roads open rather than shutting them down because the management plan says that for a period of let’s say 15 years, you don’t intend to be back in a certain area. We don’t want to cause a landowner to have to incur those costs if we can’t justify them. There would really be two types of easements. One are that would be more restrictive and where there is a acknowledgement that while timber harvesting would occur, by diversity considerations, especially water quality considerations, would be have to be given tremendous consideration. Those lands which we right now estimate about 15,000 acres would be to the north and west of what is anticipated to be federal ownership. The remaining 70,000 acres, right now anyway, we think would have an easement on them that in addition to addressing public access would following our standard easement process. We haven’t completed the process of developing an easement. It will be done with the review and approval of the Housing and Conservation Board, and we’re certainly going to be looking to yet another portion of the Conservation Fund’s (inaudible), what occurred in New York, where approximately 110 acres of land will be going into private ownership. The private owner has already been identified, and there is an easement that the private owner has agreed to. That document isn’t public yet, but we’re anxious to look at it because it is dealing with many of the same issues as we will need to deal with here. The last thing I have in mind is marketability, and I’ll just make it a short one. We’re getting called regularly. We’ve identified a number of people who have expressed a very clear interest in buying the property. The folks we are currently talking with and that are expressing interest are expressing interesting the private lands in their entirety with full knowledge of the direction we are headed on the easement.

SEN. READY: Can I ask one thing? I know it’s difficult when you put something on free market to decide who buys it, but I guess one of the questions that came up — I don’t know who it was — asked about the roads. Do you ever wonder whether the new owner will have ability to maintain those roads like the financial ability and the inclination?
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 25

MR. POWDEN: The roads are actually a tremendous asset to whoever the private buyer might be, and in recognizing that, there is a very sound financial reason for wanting to shut down some roads rather than leave them open for (inaudible) animosities and so forth. It is financially more sound and ecologically more sound often to put culverts on small spur roads if you don’t intend to be in there operating for timber harvesting purposes for a period of time. Other roads are connecting to other lands, are critical, you’re going be using them on a regular basis. They are getting people to their camps or whatever, those roads are likely to continue to stay open and it’s in their best interest to maintain them.

SEN. READY: I guess given the condition of the marketable amount of timber that’s left on there, I guess are people saying 10, 20, 30 years before there’s really any financial ability there? I guess my concern is will the owner be able in the absence of income except from the camps be in a position to maintain them?

MR. POWDEN: I think on a property this size, there’s no way to represent with a blanket statement what the income might or might not be. There are portions of the property that have been heavily harvested, and it’s not likely that there will be any meaningful income from timber resources in the very near future. There are other portions of the property that are still fairly well stocked, could be responsibly managed and activities approved through our easement, and that would be great. There are other portions of the property that, quite frankly, because they were opened up a fair amount earlier on and a combination of the ice damage of this last year, there’s very well established regeneration underneath and over story either has damaged tops from the ice storm or it’s in (inaudible) and isn’t really adding any volume, one of the most sound things to do from a timber perspective is to take that over story off and let the under story get (inaudible). So there will certainly be timber continuing to come off the property.

SEN. READY: Julius, go ahead.

SEN. CANNS: Well, probably the question that should be addressed to you, Darby. When the Governor called at my home late one evening explained what was going to happen, and you called thereafter to try to interpret the problems I had with it. I still have those problems. I don’t know the numbers. As you say, they’re not crunched yet, so I’m in the dark, and I have another question that has bothered me for a long time. Housing Conservation and Trust Fund has become real estate extraordinaire in the state of Vermont and is taking a lot of private property off the market to deal with it through the state. And sometime ago, I was asked to speak at the Inn in Morrisville to the agents of the state. I asked them the question then, where do you stop? Some hadn’t even thought about it. Every agency owns a lot of land, and we want to justify the reason for paying all this money for this land, and you probably can. How much does the state really need? Where does it stop? The schools have a lot. Forests and Parks have a lot. Fish and Game have a lot. And I think probably the legislature ought to look at this. How
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 26


much land are we going to keep in our inventory and remove it from the private enterprise? Thank you.

SEN. READY: Let him answer, and then you can go, Nancy.

MR. BRADLEY: I’m (inaudible), and I’m going to try to pick up questions that have been asked and perhaps not answered fully. I want to say for the record, Carl, that when there are more foresters on staff than lawyers, then I will feel we have done our job. But on the issue of how much is enough, I think that’s a fair issue that is (inaudible) for the legislature, certainly a fair issue for the towns. I make a distinction between outright public ownership and conservation easements. Others do not, but for example, last summer we had our annual meeting in Fairfield, a strong farm community where we have done a dozen projects or so in the last year, and although there are many, that’s not even a quarter of the farms in the town. And the farm community turned out on mass for that, and they viewed it not as taking lands out of production but in terms — the sale of development rights on these farms — in terms of really strengthening agriculture in that community, strengthening it by allowing young farmers to acquire farms, by creating opportunities to sell the non performing asset, which is the development rights and which they didn’t want to use as development rights and giving that capital to build new barns, add land, that sort of thing. So I think they saw it very much as tied to economic enterprises and the goals of that particular community and I think m assumption is that there will be a day where we have done enough both in terms of easement and outright acquisition. I think that that day will become clear to public demands. But we try to work in concert with local communities, not to work contrary to their goals in terms of development and economic enterprise and also conservation, and I think we’re going to have to do that over time. And I also think that although this area is sort of new in the forest products, particularly large projects, that we will make those linkages and build those alliances that we have with the farm community in the forest products industry. An example of this is that if you purchase a large piece of forest land for production, and I’m thinking of several companies that we have worked with, and your intention is really to manage it for production long term and it’s not your intention to at some point down the road convert it to some other kind of use, then you could look at these easements and the participation of the Housing Conservation Board and the Vermont Land Trust, there’s a lot of private money that goes into these transactions, as an advantage because it allows you to get in, purchase that property at a lower price if the Land Trust or the state is buying the conservation easement, and that has a certain value, development value than you are able to purchase that land for at its productive value, and the land is still going to produce the same amount of timber and the return on your investment is going to look better because you got in 75 cents instead of $1.00 or whatever the number is. But let me come back to Champion directly. There are really three goals (interrupted)

SEN. READY: Darby, I’m sorry, Nancy did you want to, did you want to have a
comment?
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 27
REP. SHELTRA I just had a question.

SEN. READY: Go ahead.

REP. SHELTRA: Rep. Sheltra, House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources and Carl, you keep mentioning water quality. I think most of us in the state of Vermont are concerned about that, but we also know that the VNRC has requested, and I guess they’ve pulled back the request sine (inaudible) is purchasing the property, to have the water in (inaudible) classified as A or outstanding water supply. Yesterday in our committee w~ heard from the secretary of Natural Resources that the federal government’s going to give the state $730,000 this year, and it seems to be an ongoing project, to with water sheds in the state of Vermont and add three or more individuals to the state employee roles for that purpose, plus we heard that they want to purchase easements along two banks on agricultural lands or else buy the land from those individuals that own that property. With all of this happening in the state of Vermont and possibly changes in the categories in the water shed areas and possibly the Nulhegan, what affect would that have upon those private entities that want to purchase the land from you? Would they still be interested in doing so?

MR. BRADLEY: Is it okay if I hand this to (inaudible).

REP. SHELTRA: Yes.

-----: Thank you Representative. One of the items I wanted to touch on was this position to classify the Nulhegan Watershed as outstanding resources waters. And I can tell you we had some concerns about that, sat down with VNRC and the other petitioners to try to understand what the impact of that other designation ORW designation would be, and at the same time, they to understand what the impact of the conservation easements would be, and so we, at our request, and with their agreement, there was a pre hearing conference that was scheduled, I think, this week, that was put off for ten weeks so that more of the details could be understood on both sides of the question. I have also asked them, the VNRC to prepare a letter in writing stating what from the petitioners’ viewpoint an ORW designation would have on logging, camp use and snowmobiling. What happens here that we are able to carry out the intent of continuing forest management on the 85,000. It’s very important to the economy of the area and will be increasing important over the years. WE also want to see the camp uses continue. We also want to see snowmobiling. I hope over the next ten weeks or so we will have that letter. Well, sooner than that, we will share that with others. We will share with them what the easements language will be and I think both sides will make an assessment of what their position is about all I can say at this point.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 28


REP. CROSS: I’m Mark Cross from Castleton. I represent Castleton, Fair Haven and West Haven. My family has owned property in this state for seven generations. We have taken care of our land. We have farmed it. We have managed the forest. We didn’t (inaudible) people to come in and tell us how to do it. I believe Vermonters are smart enough to handle their own land in their own way, and I would like to see the banks and financial institutions get together instead of the state buying this, this be sold to the private individual, not huge companies, but small, like you and I and everybody else~. One of the problems that I see in this thing is large amount of land came on the market. Who can afford it; very few people. I think we need to take a long, long look at this land crap; I call it, and stop and take time and think about it. Vermont is going to be here for generations. It’s not going to go away tomorrow. We don’t need to jump into these things in a hurry. Take your time. Really consider it. I think Vermont is a great place to live, and that’s why I’m here. My family’s been here, and I hope that this committee will take time and not let government people take over the land in the state of Vermont. Thank you.

MR. BRADLEY: I certainly think that this legislature should take time, but I also have to say that your time is limited. I think all of us would wish that there were more options than are available to us. We have talked about this. It would be wonderful to give people in the Northeast Kingdom and throughout Vermont opportunities to own portions of this land, because I think to some extent, we’ve suffered from the fact that the decisions about this land have been made by away and by far away. But Champion had decided to sell, decided to sell 300,000 acres all together. The total purchase price for the three states was $76.2 million, and only those that would come with that kind of offer were going to be in the game. Now there were a number of other bidders. I don’t fear potential massive development on this property. I don’t fear a lot more harvesting and clear-cutting in the short-term, because I think a lot of that has already occurred, but the public access is what has been most (inaudible) here. Consider yourself a private buyer just having spent $26 million on this property and you’re looking for revenues and you maybe are an investment manager and you have shareholders that you’ve got to return on investment. Where are you going to get it from? There’s a little bit of lease income, perhaps. There’s a little bit of timber income, but it isn’t going to barely cover your annual caring costs and it isn’t going to return anything in your $26 million investment. I think the logical place, and this was already starting to happen in New York, is to either sell or lease exclusive rights at a significant price. Now I may be wrong on this. There are other possibilities, but this was one, and a real one, and I don’t think we should take the chance. Let met say a few things about the public access easements. These will be perpetual. They will run with the land. They’ll be binding on future owners. The Housing Conservation Board will hold this probably together with the Vermont Land Trust. Our thinking is that there will be general access, pedestrian access throughout the property, with the possible exception of the areas around the camps, an acre or so, but the hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, that would occur throughout the property. In addition, that there would be defined quarters for motorized and mechanical uses, snowmobiles, there are a lot of existing trails, maybe mountain bikes, maybe
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
I-louse Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 29

access for disabled persons. There would be defined quarters and probably defined managers of the quarters. One of the reasons that the snowmobile system has worked so well is that the snowmobile clubs have organized and worked with landowners to make sure that if problem develop, if there are fences that are broken or vandalism or trash, the club takes care of it, and I think that’s a tradition that has been very strong and one that people want to see encouraged, and if trails are moved, they would be moved in discussions with the local clubs. The Conservation Fund has owned about 4700 acres in Island Pond, known as MacCulla Pond property for the last four years. I’ve talked with the snowmobilers up there. They’ve had excellent relations. I also understand they’ve had good relations with the leaseholders, camp holders on MacCulla Pond and hunters and that. We want to keep those excellent relations continuing in the future on the other lands. Let me touch a minute on finance, and I guess (interrupted)

SEN. READY: (Inaudible), did you want to

----- : Find out about the natural herd locations and what’s being entailed in order to use it. Do you have to, under the lease?

MR. BRADLEY: Under the leases?

-----: I’m trying to find out first what they are and what they used to be (inaudible) lease.

: I happen to be able to tell you all 26 sites, what they are. Some of them, I can pick out some of the bigger ones. Ferdinand Bog is a large wetland complexity. It includes, I think, three different types of natural communities and a deeryard. Yellow Bog’s to the north of Nulhegan, and there are several others there that are also exemplary. That would be these that have statewide as well as regionwide significance in terms of quality. There are also sites that are some individual species that I’m not going to remember the names of. There are some plants, some animals. These, with I think the exception of one overall forest on the east mountain, most of those will end up with one to two public ownerships, and therefore, they’re being managed by the public entities with a lease. It doesn’t enter into the lease (inaudible) if you’re talking about the camps that sit on some of the ponds, in most cases, those sit back from the ponds that are probably having very little effect, and we won’t know until much finer detail whether there a few camps that might have to be minorly relocated or something, but right now, in the camps that have been there for a long time, these resources are still there. We expect that the affect will be relatively minor and in the overall decision of how camps are managed on a larger scale with the issues around the heritage sites will resolve themselves within that context with maybe very few exceptions. And frankly, I can’t speak to that because no one has analyzed, we don’t even know what the location of every camp is in relation to every heritage site.

SEN. READY: I can give you the species.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 30



: Darby, just let me ask one question just to clarify, I’m concerned, as Representative Sheltra is, about water quality surface and the riparian zones on either side of the stream banks, and I wondering if that was part of your negotiations or easement protection and you said you were going to get a response on the easements within a couple of weeks?

: We can share with you the easements that were recently finalized and put on the former Boise Cascade plans, and they require, as a general matter, performance with the AMP’s acceptable management practices, and there’s an AMP that relates to harvesting within the riparian zone of a stream. You’ll also see from that easement that there are special areas that can be identified, would be identified in the easement, so as Dennis Pond, in that particular case, and there was a no harvesting within a certain area of the wetland, winter harvesting in another zone because of this special need protection for that particular area. So that’s how we would plan it. If there’s a heritage site or that (inaudible) on East Mountain that we would identify those specifically and include some special provisions that general relates to the APM’s protection of water quality that way. We’ve had a lot of challenges I this, and Nancy spoke that it was not until about six weeks ago that we could even talk about this project publicly. We wanted lots of people to have some input before decisions were finalized, but there have been a lot questions, a lot different issues, a lot of people who are interested in these issues and so we put together as of — the best information we have today, question an answer piece for this committee and for the general public, I will hand out copies, and there are plenty of copies that can be distributed. We tried, you’ll see, to go through timber harvesting questions, lease questions, property tax questions, and I’ve got plenty of copies. We’ll make them generally available. And we’re also going to, you’ll see on the back page, put it on our web site and update it as new information. For example, the property tax information, until we had developed a map and calculated acreage and Deb Brighton couldn’t do her thing, as soon as we have that, we’ll not only deliver it to you and send it to the towns, we will put it on the web site so it’s generally available, and I think I’ll quit at this point and take any questions. We do want to get to Fish and Wildlife.

SEN. READY: I think what we’re going to do right now is ask our own commissioner as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife people to join us, because they’ve come a long way to do so. And I hope you folks, there are some other hands up. I don’t want the hearing end without giving these people a chance to talk, so I’m going to ask you to stay and make sure that every person’s questions are answered. Will that be possible?

MR. BRADLEY: Yes.

SEN. READY: Because I see some random hands. I want to recognize everyone, but I also want to get the witnesses on. So commissioner, do you want to join us?
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 31


Ron Reagan, Commissioner
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

First of all, I’m Ronald Regan. I’m the commissioner designee from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. To my right is Tony Leger, who is in charge of (inaudible) for the northeastern part of the country on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And to his right is Mr. Dan Leahy, who is in the realty division for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this region. I will begin with some general comments about my department’s involvement and interest in this. I think the appropriate place for me to begin is first of all to remind you that our department’s primary mission is conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources for the people of the state of Vermont.

End of side two of tape one

COMM. REGAN: that might come under our ownership as well as those lands that will be managed by other partners. So I think in general that you will find that the kinds of things that we are interested in achieving on behalf of the state of Vermont are highly compatible and consistent with the mission and objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I’ll let them attest to that on their own in a few minutes. But in particular, as this unfolds, we will be working to address resident wildlife species management issues. Most notably, deer and bear and moose are the species that come to mind. We’ll also be working together to address state listed and threatened and endangered species of which there are several involved in the Nulhegan Basin. And we’ll also be working cooperatively to address the migratory species, the many different birds, for instance, that inhabit the area, and in the case of migratory birds, it is actually the federal government that has the trust responsibility for them. WE have traditionally had a good partnership, and I have been telling people in recent weeks that 90 percent plus of the time the state of Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do in fact walk hand in hand on many of these issues. And so from the standpoint of possible partners and trying to achieve our conservation mission, I think the Service offers a very good fit and is one that we’re looking forward to working with. The Service is also very much interested in addressing our concerns about human uses of these areas. As I mentioned earlier, we’re not only conserved about conservation issues, but also wildlife dependent recreation, and we have talked at length with the Service about hunting, fishing and trapping issues. On the state ownership that we’re contemplating taking, we don’t envision in practice or use. The Service will talk about what they can offer, but in general, they will be seeking to meet our needs and our requirements to the highest extent possible, given the federal mandates that they operate under. Just a couple of final comments in the interest of time, if in fact, this becomes a wildlife management area, the 22,000 acres or so, it will not be a park, per Se. It will be managed, first and foremost, for wildlife and wildlife related issues, and it will be managed secondarily for wildlife dependent recreation. It is possible that there have been some public uses up there that may be incompatible our conservation goals or with promoting
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 32


wildlife dependent recreation. I’m not aware of those right now, but certainly things such as dispersed cross-country skiing, hiking, mountain biking, non motorized mountain biking on gravel roads and so forth are all anticipated to be compatible with the way in which we currently manage about 100,000 acres in the state of Vermont. And I’ll close my comments there.

SEN. READY: Thank you.

Tony Leger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Thank you, Ron. Again, my name is Tony Leger. I’m the assistant regional director for refuges and wildlife resources in the northeast region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That means that I’m responsible for policy, staffing, funding, acquisition, and those types of things on national wildlife refuges from Maine to Virginia. I’m pleased to be here today to answer any questions regarding potential Fish and Wildlife Service ownership and management as part of the national refuge system and this area in cooperative with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and I’ve learned this morning, specifically Commissioner Regan’s Agency. I’d like to give just a little tiny bit of background on the Conti Refuge. I’m sure you’re probably pretty familiar with it. I’m not going to spend a lot of time and bore you. Conti Refuge is all about partnerships. On of the reasons we’re here today is that our mission in accordance with the law establishing the Conti National Wildlife Refuge and frankly, our mission in the Fish Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve fish and wildlife habitats for the benefit of people. A lot of times folks don’t realize how important that part of our mission is. We do this for the benefit of people. And that includes significant amounts of public use. The Conti Refuge Act is very specific in this area as well. It calls for the conservation protection and enhancement of the natural diversity and abundance of plants, fish and wildlife species within the are, within the Connecticut River Watershed and very specifically to provide opportunities for research, education and fish and wildlife oriented recreation and access to the extent that that’s compatible with our wildlife first mission. One of the things that’s happened since the Conti Refuge EIS was approved a couple of years ago is the passage of an over arching wall governing the entire National Wildlife Refuge system. The refuge system is in all 50 states, is over 500 units and the law which was passed in 1997 is called the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This law is extremely important to what we are here to talk about today because it did several things. One is it reestablished our wildlife first mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It called for the orderly growth of the system in areas where there are nationally significant wildlife resources. The Conti EIS identified the Nulhegan and Paul Stream area as such an area that had nationally significant wildlife habitat and resources. In addition, the Refuge Improvement Act established what we call loosely the big six public uses. For the first time, the refuge system has a mandate to facilitate certain uses, and interestingly enough, those uses are very much like the uses that you’ve heard about this morning on refuges, and those uses including, but are not limited to, but these are the big six, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 33


interpretation, environmental education and photography. As Ron mentioned, we are very much looking to work cooperatively with the state in the management of this area, and we think there are several benefits that could occur from a Fish and Wildlife Service and state of Vermont cooperative effort in this area. There would be some potential economic benefits from National Wildlife Refuge System designation becomes somewhat of a tourist destination. I’m not talking about 5 million people. I’m talking about a place where people now know because of the designation there could be increased bird watching (inaudible) bird seasons, when we might attract additional people to the area, and there would be economic benefits from that. There are reports on the economic benefits of public lands, especially the wildlife refuge system, and we’ve found that some communities in the country are achieving major benefits from having refuges there. One other thing — I won’t take much more time with my statement because I know there are a lot of questions. Management, apparently, there’s a perception that by having portions of this land become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System that it would be locked up and not either managed or have public use on it. If there are places on this property, and I know there are some, that have such significant resources that public needs to be excluded as Ron mentioned, we’ll work with the state and talk about what we need to do to protect those areas. However, the vast majority of this area is likely to be actively managed, and that would include some level of timber harvest. At the (inaudible) National Wildlife Refuge in northern Maine, we harvest commercially for the benefit of Woodcock. I understand Woodcock is the species that uses this area. They require a certain age class of forests. It is likely that we would continue forest management of four particular species. I have other statements here, but I think what I’ll do is end there because I know there are specific questions. I’ll just say that we are pleased to be here with the state, and I’m willing to answer any questions you have.

That list of six again.

MR. LEGER: Yes, the big six are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, interpretation, environmental education and photography.

----: Thank you.

MR. LEGER: Let met just address trapping for second, because I know it’s a big issue. Trapping is not one of the six uses that I mentioned, but the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System has recognized for many years that for all our existence, that healthy wildlife populations are the result of active management. This is something we share very firmly with the state of Vermont. We would anticipate writing a furbearer management plan for this area, and we would anticipate that there would be harvest of furbearers. I understand there are 15 trappers that use this area, while I can’t say that there will be exactly 15 trappers that will continue to use the area, I would anticipate furbearer harvest. I would anticipate trapping opportunities in the area.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 34


SEN. READY: It would be my own opinion that you won’t have those roads for long if you don’t have the roads up by the bogs. Would it be your intention to keep those roads?

MR. LEGER: I don’t know which roads we’re talking about.

SEN. READY: Well, the roads through the bogs that are up (interrupted)

MR. LEGER: I think our intention, as stated earlier, is to work with the state and with the Fund through the transfer to identify those roadways or roads that would remain open for public access, both for the camps and for recreational uses. Clearly, I imagine beaver our big issue in here. I don’t know, but clearly, if you don’t control beaver, you lose roads, and we know that very clearly, and I would expect that we would be controlling beaver through the use of trappers very significantly.

We need clear-cut permits in Vermont.

SEN. READY: Okay, let’s let the last witness go, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can.

Dan Leahy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Good morning. I’m Dan Leahy. As stated earlier, I’m with the Fish and Wildlife Service or Realty Office in Region 5. Again, I work on land acquisition projects from Maine to Virginia, and right now my role on this project is one of project manager. So I’m really the point person in our office for the Champion Lands transaction. I have nothing else to say here today, but would be happy to answer questions. Thank you.

SEN. READY: Questions or comments from the committee. David.

REP. ZUCKERMAN: Well, this is somewhat related to (inaudible) discussion, actually, it’s (inaudible) Representative Sheltra and Connie Motyka, if possible. If it’s not open to general questions for everybody, but do you know how many logging jobs or logging milling sort of industry jobs, is that the net increase or net decrease in the last 25 years? Let’s just ask questions of the witnesses first.

REP. JORDAN: I have just a comment for these witnesses and the ones that preceded them how very grateful I am to all of you for all of the hard work you’ve done to put this thing together. I think you’re offering all of us in this room an opportunity to participate in the ownership of what truly will be jewel in Vermont’s crown of protected natural treasures, and I think you’ve done it in a way that really balances a lot of important interests, conservation
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 35


interests, conservation interests, commercial interests, and Ijust want to say thank you because I think this is phenomenal, and it truly would not have happened without the willingness of a lot of different programs to come to the table to work together.

SEN. READY: Yes, sir.

REP. RANDALL I’m Neal Randall, and I’m from Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife Committee. I find this equally outrageous. I attended the Sylvia Conti hearings when they were held. We were assured that this was not a land purchasing deal. They had no regulatory powers. Now we find them purchasing land. We find them regulating, and I think it’s an outrage. I have a lot of questions for everybody, but the bottom line, and I don’t know who wants to answer this, if we are told that the state does not put in $4.5 million that the Vermonters will be banished on this land forever. They come in here with the scare tactics, and if we don’t allow the International Trust Funds and the state to hold all this land that we won’t have anything. Then we’re told it’s a done deal. Is it a done deal or not. What happens if we do not approve this $4.5 million?

SEN. READY: Gus, do you want to try that?

MR. SEELIG: Well, I’m not going to try it by myself. My understanding is that Conservation Fund will proceed and their contract with Champion, and then when they consider how they’re going to resell this land, we will not be at the table to talk about the issues that we talked with you about this morning around public access, sustainable forestry and so forth. And they will need to make decisions without that as part of the equation. (Inaudible) as I said earlier, and I don’t mean it as a scare tactic, I think that there are real experiences out there in the marketplace. I think Connie knows about that. One of the potential uses is private recreation that the public will not continue to have access to. I can’t guarantee that will happen, but it’s really happening not very far from Vermont, and that’s one of the things I think we need to weigh in this.

SEN. READY: Thank you. Yes.

: Where is this $4.5 million coming from? Whose pocket? Where is it generated from? Private banks? Taxpayers dollars? Where is this money coming from and how many of these taxpayers will, in fact, use this land, really use it? I’m in the fire wear business. I probably know as much about it as anybody in this room as about logging, forestry, farming and so forth because I’ve done it all, every day all day. Where is this money coming from to pay for this and the public can ride over it with a snowmobile but they cannot own it? I find that absolutely outrageous, just as Neal says.

SEN. READY: Thank you. Any other questions? Nancy.

Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 36



REP. SHELTRA: Again, Representative Sheltra from Fish and Wildlife. Thank you, madam chairman. A couple of questions - my sportsmen in my district, and I have a lot of sportsmen, are very concerned that this land’s being sold to the federal government. Because we’re hearing President Clinton and Vice President Gore talking about the land that they’re going to be done buying in Vermont and northern states and New England states. First of all, I’d like to know if you have any opportunities to purchase any more land in the state of Vermont in the near future. Also, are your purchasing any of the land in this large 296,000 acre purchase by the Conservation Land Trust, are you purchasing any more in any of the other states that are included in this purchase? And on the endangered species level, if you in fact, because this land is going to (inaudible) state land, do you find that there are endangered species that you, I believe, probably — I’m not too in touch with federal law — I just know state law. If you have an endangered species, you’re saying this endangered species needs so many acres to live in. And would you be able to regulate how the state land is used if there’s an endangered species on the federal land that is, in fact, adjoining our state property?

MR. LEAHY: I want to start with the first question, which was I thought, were we intending to buy any other land in the total Champion Land deal. I believe we are not involved in New York at all, and I have no knowledge of intentions, I don’t know what’s happening in New Hampshire yet. Lands that we may become a partner in and may purchase as part of this will he, any involvement that we have will be share with the public, and there will be opportunities for public comment. And that is one of the things that I neglected to say. And I appreciate your brining that up, because it won’t be like if we decided to do something in New York even thought we’re not going to do it, we would be talking with people and sharing with them those plans. In regards to endangered species management, the states have the responsibilities under the federal Endangered Species Act already, and I’ll let Ron speak to that, but it’s not my understanding that the way we administer the Endangered Species Act at this time is necessarily for us to impose restrictions on the state land. I think what we would do is talk to the state Fish and Game Agency and try to work out an understanding of how those species would be managed. There might have been another question in there, but I don’t recall President Clinton’s all the legacy.

SEN. READY: No, never mind that.

MR. LEAHY: You know, that’s a proposal. It’s hard for me to comment on that. You know, people make proposals every year. If that actually passes Congress, I guess, then we’ll have an idea of what involvement we might have. I don’t know if it’s geared toward the forest service, at this point. I have not seen the details on that proposal.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 37

REP. ZUCKERMAN: I have a question for Commissioner Motyka and Carl’s comment. Do you know over the last 20 or 30 years what the sort of net job situation in regards to the forest industry in the Northeast Kingdom has been, logging, milling, trucking. Has there been generally an increase in economy or a decrease in economy?

COMM. MOTYKA: I think all that would be anecdotal. I think the most important thing that’s happened over the last 20 or 30 years in the Northeast Kingdom is the revolution in technology.

REP. ZUCKERMAN: I really actually specifically would like to know the answer to that question if I could know that.

COMM. MOTYKA: The reason I say the revolution in technology, I think there are probably actually less people actually working in the woods because of the revolution in technology. Even from the time of the skidder to the shear and the whole tree harvester, bigger machines, fewer people in the woods. That’s kind of general kind of thing. Level of activity of logging as a general trend in the Northeast Kingdom I think has been higher in the last decade or two. Much of that related to two factors. One is the Spruce-Pine River Pact of the late 60s which really had a lot of activity relative to salvage operations of the softwoods. But bigger than that, I think, is that the forest itself has matured and there’s a lot more (inaudible) wood than there was 20 or 30 years ago. So I think more general logging, bigger equipment, maybe fewer people because machines have been replacing the people in some cases. Champion specifically, on their lands, I don’t know how many people are working those lands. It’s been very busy for the last couple of years, I know that, and Darby mentioned earlier and we know because of Act 15 relative to the (inaudible) program for large clear cuts. We have a lot permits for a relationship with Champion over the last couple of years because they had significant damage by the ice storm last January. And so they’ve been doing a lot of cutting of salvage operations in relation to the ice storm. That’s as good as I can be.

REP. ZUCKERMAN: My curiosity stems in large part agreement many land owners and average Vermonters own land in the Northeast Kingdom. Probably have managed their land quite sustain ably, in fact, in many ways more environmentally and live more environmentally sound than many of in urban areas do on a day-to-day basis. And I don’t want to see that get disrupted at all either. On the other hand, my worry is large landowners who are not attached or connected to the day to day living of people in this area may not have that same philosophy, and where this can be a benefit is that if much of this land, two-thirds of this land is creating a perpetual sustainable logging way, we can maintain that way of living. Whereas if this is not done in this way, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this country and in the world who have the cash to buy this land if they so chose. There are people who do it in the west all the time, and say, this is a beautiful area. I want to buy it. It’s mine. In many ways, that land is probably more conserved environmentally which you’d think I’d be all opposing that being
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21. 1999— Joint Meeting
Page 38

bought in this way. And this land could very easily be purchased and made private. A little airstrip brought in. One-hour flight from New York. I’ve got my own 8,000-acre piece of land.

SEN. READY: Thank you, David. Jim.

: I just have a question, something of interest. I think this is such a large parcel of land, I wonder if we have a map available - I spoke with Darby earlier - of overlays of how much land has been taken out of private ownership and is owned by the federal government, the state government, municipalities, land trusts. I think it would be a very interesting number to see how much land in whole the state of Vermont is out of private ownership. And I’ve done some quick calculations, and I know I haven’t even added in municipal, and I ‘m coming up with about 36 percent already.

SEN. READY: Okay, Darby.

MR. BRADLEY: I’d be glad to bring the map up. There was the GIS mapping that was done. It doesn’t show the Current Use lands, and if your figure includes Current Use lands, it may be up in that area, but in terms of lands either owned by a public entity or a non profit entity in fee or conservation easement on private lands, I think the number if you assumed Champion were happening, it would be around 18 percent.

I did include Current Use in my calculations.

SEN. READY: Well, Darby, could you give us a number that’s just, that doesn’t include private ownership. Private ownership is different than public ownership What’s the total number of lands in public ownership?

MR. BRADLEY: Outright public ownership, it’s probably in the order of 12 or 13 percent, and the balance would be easement, privately owned easement lands.

-----: Is the percentage of acreages in area, or is a percentage of what we usually measure property in as value?

MR. BRADLEY: Oh, it’s acreage. I’m going off the top, but I’d be glad to give your figures that we have. I’ll bring up that map. I have to come up tomorrow; I’ll bring up that map and show you. It hasn’t gone through the verification process, so I know there are some errors on it, but I’ll share what we have.

You don’t have a grand list comparison.

MR. BRADLEY: No, I don’t
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 39

SEN. READY: Henrietta.

REP. JORDAN: I guess a point of information for members of the committee and members of the audience, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources in July, 1988, produced a draft land conservation plan for the state of Vermont. It’s on the ANR web site, and according to that plan, about 85 percent of Vermont lands are in private ownership.

SEN. READY: Yes, sir.

: Are you classifying private land as part of the right of ways that have been bought or rights to sell your property to development. That’s not included in that 15 percent or whatever. So when we add that in, then we are a lot larger by ownership, really what I call, to me, is private ownership. So I think we really have to look at that carefully.

That’s a difference between acreage migrate.

SEN. READY: That’s a good point. Other questions or comments? Go ahead, Julius.

SEN. CANNS: To the gentlemen federal government. I thank you for explaining to us some of the possibilities here with the federal government. Well, I’d like to thank the gentleman that came from the federal government. Of course, I’ve had a lot of experience with him on the Sylvia (?) Conti purchase and what they had as rights and what no longer will be rights or what they’re going to let us do if we probably go beg for it. We followed these public hearings, which I hope you folks will have, and we went as far as New Hampshire and very late at night and we found that a lot of people objected to the Sylvia(?) Conti altogether and felt these lands should remain in private ownership without any — Sylvia Conti (inaudible), which happened down in the lower states down in Massachusetts, basically. In the final analysis, the reports were made back to Washington, which happened once before in White River, that the people in this area were enthused and very, very delighted over the fact that Sylvia Conti(?) was becoming a real thing. And we were watching these reports on television with unbelieving eyes because the opposition was tremendous. And I hope that this won’t happen in this particular situation, that you will have public hearings and that the true will bear its way out. Thank you.

SEN. READY: I just want to say that the Vice Chair makes an excellent point about the need to public process, and I would just like to add my view of what my committee would hopefully do once we got a chance to have some discussion. I know that there are a number of members here that are frustrated that they didn’t get to make a full statement about their views. I hope that my committee will allow me to schedule a time so that any member, House or Senate, can come in and offer their full views to the committee on the record on the




Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
House Fish, Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee
House Institutions Committee
January 21, 1999 — Joint Meeting
Page 40


issue. I think it’s really important that everybody gets heard. We’d also be happy to hear from any other groups, business groups. I realize that today wasn’t the day for that. We will hear in detail from the business groups, environmental groups and individuals that would like to come. We are trying to figure out what the process would be for a public hearing up in the Northeast Kingdom. I have attended one that was held by many of the parties that have put together the deal. We would like to have some kind of a public hearing that will involve the legislative executive branches, and we’ll let everybody know what that process would be. We will also collect the materials that people have asked for today, maps and other kinds of materials and make those available to any member in the House or the Senate. And finally, if there are members that would like to go up and visit the lands, if you would let us know, we will try to set that up so that you can go up there either with somebody from one of the groups that’s working with it or we’ll work with Gus Seelig from the Housing Conservation Board. Also, VAST has offered to take people up there. Maybe you could even get out on a snowmachine or maybe if you want to get out on some snowshoes. So if there are members that want to get out on the land, get up and see where it is, let us know that and we will try and set those up. We want to have a really full public process and hear everybody’s thinking on this process.

-----: And the same goes for the House. We will be asking for input from members, and we’re certainly willing to hear from everybody. And I want to thank everybody for participating. This was very informative for me, and I believer for both committees. Thank you.