As one who makes a living on federal land exchanges
and Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, I was disappointed
in Lynne Bama’s story on land exchanges (HCN,
3/29/99).
Two exchanges which came in for heavy
criticism in the article were the Huckleberry and Plum Creek
exchanges in Washington state. The criticisms stemmed mainly from
the allegations of Janine Blaeloch and her newly formed
“environmental” group, the Western Land Exchange
Project.
But the article failed to mention that
the Huckleberry exchange was supported by the Sierra Club,
Washington Environmental Council, Mountaineers, Mountains to Sounds
Greenway, and almost a dozen other environmental groups, and
resulted in net public gains of 6,000 acres of roadless land, 4,000
acres of uncut forest, 300 acres of ponds, streams and wetlands,
and seven miles of river. When the exchange was challenged in court
(and upheld in a December 1998 federal court ruling), the Sierra
Club felt strongly enough about it to file an amicus brief in its
support.
Likewise, the Plum Creek exchange will
result in many environmental gains sought by mainstream
environmentalists for more than 20 years. Contrary to Blaeloch’s
assertion that the Forest Service is mainly trading old growth for
cut-over Plum Creek land, there will be a net gain of roughly
20,000 acres of roadless land in national forest ownership. That’s
a gain of over 30 square miles.
As for the
Western Land Exchange Project and Janine Blaeloch (whom the paper
calls “a one-woman truth squad’), their solution for acquiring
private checkerboard lands is that the lands are being, and I
quote, “illegally” held by industry, and that Congress should,
therefore, “revest” the lands into public ownership by condemning
and buying them. The House Interior Committee held a hearing on
railroad land revestiture in 1979, and even the most liberal
members in the then Democratic-controlled Congress dismissed the
notion as outlandish. The reality is that checkerboard lands have
been in private ownership for more than a century, and Congress is
not in the habit of condemning land. So let’s get
real.
Blaeloch also told Congress and the Forest
Service last summer that, and I quote, “no old growth or roadless
lands should be transferred from Forest Service ownership.” She
then went on to attack the Forest Service’s “latest fantasy of
growing old growth from clear-cuts.”
That is
fine rhetoric. In a checkerboard landscape where private industry
owns alternating square-mile blocks of land intermingled with
national forest land, it is impossible to consolidate land without
the government trading away some old growth and roadless land. It
is also logical – not a “fantasy’ – that cut-over land can
regenerate and provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat in the
future. So the choice is this: Either trade away some federal lands
to achieve significant net gains in federal old growth and roadless
land ownership, and larger, manageable blocks of solid federal
ownership, or live with the checkerboard
dilemma.
Pragmatic environmentalists realized
many years ago that a permanent checkerboard scenario was
unacceptable. They have helped engineer land exchanges which have
enabled the designation of dozens of wilderness areas, including
the Lee Metcalf and Rattlesnake wilderness areas in Montana, and
the protection of key fish and wildlife habitat all across the
Western landscape.
Having worked as counsel to
the House Interior Committee for 10 years, I also find it ironic to
hear Blaeloch’s group criticize the legislative process as “leaving
citizens in the dust.” What citizens? Without exaggeration, it can
be safely said that many of the biggest gains in wilderness, wild
and scenic rivers, parks and other public-land battles have
occurred precisely because environmental groups rejected deficient
agency recommendations and persuaded Congress to do
better.
Other
thoughts:
Appraisals: The appraisal problems
mentioned by Lynne Bama represent a small minority of cases. In
most cases, private appraisers are selected from a pre-approved
list drawn up by the agencies. The government must then review and
approve all appraisals submitted to them. The review is performed
by professional career appraisers in the agencies, and they have
the final word. I agree with making basic appraisal data available
to the public somewhat earlier in the process, but I doubt it will
change things much. Very few members of the public, or citizen
groups, have the technical training or expertise necessary to
critique an appraisal.
Public Process: All land
exchanges are required by law to be processed in public. This
always includes public notification and opportunity for comment;
reviews and clearances for threatened and endangered species,
cultural and historic resources, wetlands and streams, hazardous
materials; and a public appeal period. For larger exchanges, the
agencies hold formal public meetings and prepare an EA or EIS under
NEPA. To suggest that not enough public information is available is
misleading.
Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Congress desperately needs to beef up spending from the fund
because there are a great many landowners who want to sell to Uncle
Sam. However, most land exchanges arise from situations where
landowners do not want to sell.
Andy
Wiessner
Vail,
Colorado
Andy Wiessner is a
High Country News board member and public lands consultant for
Western Land Group, Inc., of Denver,
Colorado.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Land swaps: the real story.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
