RESPONSE #5: 



Question #1: 



We acknowledge that the Woodchuck parcel has potential for development because Highway 200 

 borders it on the east Due to its relatively low value for wildlife and limited available funds, FWP would 

 not purchase a conservation easement on this parcel, nor have other entities expressed interest in 

 purchasing a conservation lease or easement. 



Question #2: 



You are certainly correct that the portion of the old Dreyer Ranch proposed for exchange to DNRC is part 

 of an important migration corridor for the BCWMA elk population. As you may be aware, this is why FWP 

 first purchased the property from the Dreyer family in 1989. It is FWP's intention that this migration 

 corridor remain available and suitable for elk to use, and that reasonable hunting opportunities be 

 maintained in this area. (Currently, this area is part of Hunting District 282, where elk and deer hunting 

 during the general rifle season is by permit-only.) We believe that this can be accomplished with the 

 Dreyer lands in DNRC ownership, under DNRC's traditional approach to forest and recreation 

 management in this area. The key is to ensure that this "traditional approach" is not abandoned in the 

 future to such an extent that elk migration and hunting opportunities are lost. Alternative D includes the 

 Dreyer lands in the Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) that would prevent development on 

 these lands for its 10-year duration. (It is this CMA for which FWP would pay DNRC $20, 000 per year) 

 The Dreyer property will also be considered for inclusion in a future conservation easement, but an 

 analysis of such a proposal is beyond the scope of this FEIS, and will be subject to a future MEPA 

 process if proposed. FWP and DNRC would have other alternatives to protect the elk migration patterns 

 across the Dreyer lands after they are transferred to DNRC ownership, such as renewal/re-negotiation of 

 the CMA after the first 10 years, or some other leasing or licensing arrangement. The motivation for the 

 proposed exchange between FWP and DNRC is that the elk population can least tolerate a future 

 development of lands that DNRC currently holds in the heart of the winter range. Thus, the exchange of 

 these critical winter habitats to FWP improves the long-term security of the winter range. In the unlikely 

 event that a worst-case development scenario were to occur on the Dreyer lands under DNRC ownership 

 20 years from now, the loss of elk migration habitat in that location could be mitigated. FWP and DNRC 

 intend to cooperate to prevent such an occurrence, while fairly compensating state trust beneficiaries. 



Question #3; 



Q. 3, para. 2 



Regarding site size, the tracts were selected (combined) in the Appraisal Report based on their best 

 marketing techniques. Most of the DNRC tracts were separate tracts of land except for DNRC- 1 

 consisting of two 40 acre tracts that were valued as one parcel and 2DNRC-1 that consisted of two 40 

 acres tracts considered as one parcel. With both DNRC-1 and 2DNRC-1, the non-contiguous tracts are 

 located in the same section. With regards to the PCT property, each tract was valued based on its 

 individual marketing. PCT-1 is a 622-acre parcel of land valued as a single parcel. PCT-2 is a 463-acre 

 parcel valued as one tract. PCT-3 is a 151.8-acre parcel located in Section 18, valued as one tract. 

 PCT-4 totaling 356 acres and PCT-5 totaling 80 acres were valued as a single parcel. PCT-6 is a self 

 standing 640-acre parcel, however, this was best marketed with PCT-7, a 160-acre parcel, for a total of 

 800 acres. PCT-8 is in Section 35, totaling 469 acres, while PCT-9 is a 40-acre tract in a second 

 separate section. It was recommended that these tracts be marketed together as a 509-acre parcel. The 

 DNRC tracts consisted of 80 acres, 80 acres, 120 acres, 80 acres, 318.68 acres, 309.96 acres, 640 

 acres, 480 acres and 640 acres. Although size is a function in the valuation of the property, the appraiser 

 felt that the tracts were overall evenly balanced, not creating a bias for either side. 



Q. 3,' para. 3 



Regarding the comment that "not all stands can be treated equally and not all can be harvested exactly to 

 1.5 MBF per acre, " the leave volume was based on market data evidence of other timbered sites based 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 15 



