2) Outstanding public benefits In ttiis exctiange are related to the elk herd that winters on the BCWMA, 

 which along with associated populations of other wildlife Is enjoyed by the public across a land area 

 of some 500,000 acres in spring-summer-fall. Conversely, the Woodchuck parcel has no 

 outstanding features as intended in the Land Board's sixth land exchange criterion. While the 

 Woodchuck parcel was classified as recreational property for the purposes of land appraisal, the part 

 of the parcel that is easiest developed is the area nearest to the Highway. This part of the parcel 

 probably would be classified as commercial. The characteristics of this part of the parcel of being In a 

 canyon (limited light, high noise potential) and potential dangerous highway turnoff (due Icy condition 

 in the winter and poor site lines) reduces this potential for development. It Is located approximately 1 

 1/2 miles from the Blackfoot River and the river cannot be seen or heard from this parcel. The direct 

 access to this parcel Is located in the Woodchuck canyon off of Highway 200. As noted in issue #1 

 DNRC currently has no legal road access off of Hwy 200 to the Woodchuck parcel that would 

 facilitate cabin site or other development Any recreational development in the remaining portion of 

 the parcel would require an easement from PCT or to build an extensive road system. Both of these 

 would reduce the revenue from development. 



3) This tract's revenue production as of today is only from grazing and the recreational use license. The 

 estimated average annual revenue from grazing from this section is $0.51 per acre ($157. 6 per year 

 divide by 310 acres). Recreational income should be about the same as for lands to be acquired on 

 the BCWMA. This tract is open for recreation and so are all the PCT lands to be acquired on the 

 BCWMA. The Woodchuck tract does not have outstanding recreational features that would draw 

 many recreationists to this parcel. The land exchange includes the creation of a management 

 agreement with DFWP on the BCWMA. The average revenue related to this agreement on the 

 BCWMA is approximately $3.26 per acre per year This includes the rights for grazing, outfitting and 

 non-development rights. For current revenue producing activities the acquired land on the BCWMA is 

 clearly the winner Future revenues from timber sales should be a wash. The State completed a 

 timber sale on the Woodchuck parcel approximately 4 years ago. The State will make approximately 

 the same revenue from harvesting timber from this parcel or from the PCT land acquired in this trade 

 in the future. Future revenue from development is hard to estimate. This proposal ensures that 

 DNRC will receive increased income from FWP in consideration of potential development values, 

 whereas the potential for future development income from the Woodchuck parcel must be viewed as 

 speculative until realized. In addition, DNRC and FWP will be working In the coming year to negotiate 

 a conservation easement for PCT acquired lands in the BCWMA and existing DNRC land within the 

 BCWMA. The potential income to the trust would probably be in the range of $100 to $300 per acre 

 for development rights. We feel the potential for revenue from lands in the BCWMA is substantially 

 higher than that of the Woodchuck parcel. 



4) You have accurately noted that the Woodchuck parcel is wildlife habitat as described in the DEIS. 

 However, FWP and DNRC do not concur with your suggestion that the wildlife values on this property 

 are "worthy of preservation and/or protection. " As described in the DEIS, the Woodchuck parcel itself 

 is already fragmented in terms of the habitat it provides, and the landscape in which it is situated is 

 seriously compromised with little practical opportunity for substantive habitat improvement in the 

 foreseeable future. We do not mean to Imply that the wildlife and wildlife habitat that persist in this 

 area are expendable, and we would encourage future landowners to begin the process of habitat 

 restoration on these lands in the future. However, FWP and DNRC have limited funds and authority 

 at their disposal for acquihng and managing an interest in land as a means of preserving and 

 protecting wildlife habitat. This proposed land exchange is an example of the manner in which the 

 state must therefore work proactively in arranging its pattern of limited land ownership across the 

 landscape for maximum advantage to wildlife. Existing and potential values for wildlife production on 

 the Woodchuck parcel do not justify a priority for the State to invest limited resources in owning and 

 managing an interest in this land to preserve and protect its comparatively unremarkable wildlife 

 values. 



(End of public comments.) 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 35 



