Land Exchange
Autumn 2001
Update
Research, Advocacy, & Outreach for Land Exchange Policy Reform
Selling off Nevada: appeals disrupt huge public land sale
Appeals filed by the Western Land Exchange Project
and other groups have put a temporary stop to
the “disposal” of about 6,500 acres of federal land
in Nevada. An auction held on October 12, 2001
failed to draw bidders when auction attendees
were informed that regional and local activists had
appealed the land sale.
Appellants are hoping to stop the sale and subse-
quent development of arid lands north of Mesquite,
Nevada, northeast of Las Vegas. WLXP was joined in
its appeal by the Tucson-based Center for Biological
Diversity and the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club.
The appeal is pending with the Interior Board of
Land Appeals.
The Lincoln County Land Act (LCLA), passed into
law in 2000, ordered the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment to sell off more than 13,000 acres of federal
land in Lincoln County over a period of five years.
The purpose of the Act was to privatize land in an
area dominated by federal ownership—mainly lands
managed by the BLM—in order to facilitate develop-
ment and generate tax revenues. Five percent of the
sale proceeds would go directly to the State of Nevada
and 10 percent to Lincoln County.
Nevada has the highest percentage of federally-owned
land in the nation (83 percent) and Nevada politi-
cians have been working hard in the last few years
to turn large amounts of land over to the private
sector. But land exchanges have been a dicey proposi-
tion in that state since the 1990s, when a series of
government audits revealed that developers were vir-
tually controlling the Nevada BLM’s land exchange
program and the BLM was letting them walk away
with millions of taxpayer dollars in lost land value.
Western Land Exchange Project
Seattle, Washington
Vol. 5, No. 2
Since then, the Nevada delegation has gained the
blessing of Congress for huge sales of public lands.
Under these laws, lands are appraised to determine
their fair market value (FMV), put up for auction
at not less than FMV, and open to competitive bid-
ding. This process is supposed to do away with the
problems BLM has had obtaining full value for lands
in non-competitive exchanges.
The largest land sale bill so far is the 1998 Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA),
which earmarked for disposal 27,000 acres of BLM
land in and around Las Vegas, long the fastest-grow-
ing metropolitan area in the country. While smaller,
the Lincoln County Land Act may have an even
greater impact, because it would initiate intensive
development in what is now a sparsely populated area
of the state.
In its cursory environmental analysis of the LCLA
land sale, the BLM estimates that development of the
initial 6,500 acres would allow for a 1,360 percent
increase in Lincoln County’s population over twenty
years. Incredibly, the water supply to support this
development has not been identified and will not
be sought out until after the land sales have been
completed—if that occurs.
The environmental assessment ignored the cumula-
tive effects of the project in conjunction with other
projects in the region, including:
• Sale of the additional 6,500-plus acres authorized
for disposal under the LCLA.
• The Mesquite Land Act of 1986, which allowed the
past sale of about 2,700 acres of BLM land to the
City of Mesquite and the future sale of another
10,540 acres.
➥
 —continued from page 1

• Development of a new regional airport to analyze the cumulative impact of the

near Mesquite.
• Future development of a water-cooled
power plant northwest of the LCLA proj-
The Press Room ect area and another to the south.
above projects on water supply and quality,
air quality, and other factors.
Our challenge did dampen bidders’ enthu-
siasm. The BLM was obligated to inform

of our web page, • The Coyote Springs land exchange,

trading 14,000 acres of BLM land to
potential bidders that appeals had been
filed and approved high bids might be
www.westlx.org, a developer in Lincoln County and
nearby Clark County. This exchange
rejected later if the challenges succeeded. It
was also rumored that developers balked
features scores would augment the Nevada-Florida
at the present lack of infrastructure and
water supplies. A morning auction session
Land Exchange of 1988, wherein a pre-
of news articles decessor to the Coyote Springs devel-
drew a high bid of $110,000 for a 112-acre
parcel, but no legitimate bids were placed
on land oper got 42,000 acres of formerly public
land. All told, development is expected
in the afternoon session, where one 4,357-
and one 2009-acre parcel were offered.
exchanges and to accommodate 50,000 homes and 10
golf courses. Our hope is that the challenge lodged
related issues. Among other issues, we are concerned that
against the LCLA sales will force a real analy-
sis of these public land “disposals” and sub-
these developments will have a devastating
sequent development. A closer look might
effect on groundwater, especially in areas
force Nevada’s politicians to rethink their
that are hydrologically connected to the
headlong approach to privatization. Ulti-
Virgin River, which provides habitat for sev-
mately, the most convincing case may be
eral endangered species. Our appeal calls
made by developers’ unwillingness to place
for a full environmental impact statement
bids on the land; sometimes the “invisible
hand” of the market makes the right choice.

Updated Citizens’ Guide now available

WLXP’s Citizens’ Guide to Federal Land Exchanges
is now available in a revised, expanded edition.
Copiously illustrated and footnoted, the Guide
offers land exchange history and policy analysis;
a step-by-step approach to understanding and
dealing with land trade proposals; advice on
dealing with the media; and guidance on filing
appeals, litigating, and even lobbying against
exchange proposals. To order your copy, send
$15.00 (including postage and handling) to
the Western Land Exchange Project, PO
Box 95545, Seattle, WA 98145. To order by
phone, call us at 206.325.3503.

Land Exchange Update 2 Autumn 2001

Three Recent Victories in the Courts
Three significant federal land exchange
cases have been decided since the last edi-
tion of Land Exchange Update. WLXP is
happy to report that the good guys won
all three cases. The first case involved the
Grand Targhee Resort Land Exchange in
Wyoming and the other two cases involved
the Canyon Forest Village exchange in Ari-
zona. Not surprisingly, private parties seek-
ing to develop federal lands near crown
jewel National Parks had proposed both of
the land exchanges.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Reese, No.
01-0176-E-BLW (D.Idaho, Aug. 8, 2001)
Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) and
several other conservation organizations
successfully challenged a Forest Service
decision to exchange 120 acres of federal
land at the base of Grand Targhee
Resort for 400 acres of private land at Squir-
rel Meadows, a Targhee National Forest
inholding between Grand Teton and Yel-
lowstone national parks. Grand Targhee
Resort currently operates under conditions
imposed by a Forest Service Master Devel-
opment Plan (MDP) and wished to acquire
outright the 120 acres for expansion.
Plaintiffs won on a claim brought under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). GYC claimed that the Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared
by the Forest Service violated NEPA because
it improperly analyzed the “no action” alter-
native to the land exchange. (Under NEPA,
agencies are required to develop and ana-
lyze a “no action” alternative when prepar-
ing an EIS, to be used as a baseline against
which the other alternatives can be com-
pared. Here, the Forest Service had pro-
posed trading federal land, so the no action
alternative was retention of the land.) GYC
argued that the agency had overstated
the development that would occur if the
exchange did not take place.
When analyzing the environmental impacts
of maintaining the status quo, the Forest
Service implied that 686 units of on-site
lodging had already been approved under
Land Exchange Update
the MDP. The impacts of 686 on-site lodg-
ing units were then compared with the
impacts from 970 lodging units planned
under the proposed exchange.
The court found that when the agency ana-
lyzed the no action alternative, it had not
reasonably considered constraints the exist-
ing plan had put on lodging development.
At the time the final EIS was released, those
constraints limited the maximum allowable
lodging units to 412. The court agreed with
the plaintiffs that using maximum build-out
numbers rather than the actual constraints
was misleading. That is, the more develop-
ment attributed to the no action alterna-
tive, the less harmful the action alternatives
appeared.
The court has enjoined the exchange until
the Forest Service corrects the inadequacies
of its no action alternative. While the Forest
Service has indicated it will prepare a sup-
plemental EIS, at least for the time being
the Resort will not be expanding its opera-
tions on the edge of the Grand Tetons. This
is good news for Teton County, Idaho resi-
dents, who have overwhelmingly opposed
the GTR land exchange, believing that
expansion will overburden county govern-
ment services and bring the exorbitant real
estate prices and crass commercialization of
Jackson Hole to the west side of the Tetons.
City of Williams v. Dombeck, 151 F.Supp.2d
9 (Dist.D.C. 2001); Sierra Club v. Dombeck,
2001 WL 1049431 (D.Ariz)
Both of these cases were challenges to
the Forest Service’s decision to exchange
land with Canyon Forest Village Inc. (CFV)
near the Grand Canyon. CFV offered to
exchange inholdings it held within Kaibab
National Forest in Arizona for Kaibab land
adjacent to Tusayan, Arizona. CFV planned
to develop a tourist gateway to Grand
Canyon National Park with the land it
acquired.
The Sierra Club and the city of Williams
filed separate challenges to the Forest Ser-
vice’s Record of Decision (ROD) and Final
➥
3 Autumn 2001
EIS. Among the plaintiffs’ claims were that
the ROD and FEIS failed to adequately ana-
lyze the environmental impacts on ground-
water, the impacts of the water delivery
system, and the direct, indirect and cumula-
tive impacts of the development.
In evaluating the exchange, the EIS
acknowledged that water would have to be
imported from the Colorado River, 60 miles
away, to supply the new gateway community.
The EIS identified two possible methods of
transporting the water via pipeline to the
new community, but provided no analysis,
noting that no formal proposal had been
developed. The Forest Service claimed that
NEPA permitted it to phase its environ-
mental analysis and defer evaluation of the
water delivery system until more detailed
information was available.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the admin-
istrative record did not support the deci-
sion that the exchange satisfied the FLPMA
requirement that the exchange serve the
public interest.
Both the D.C. and Arizona District Courts
determined that it would be premature
to rule on the plaintiffs’ FLPMA public
interest claim because a November 2000
local referendum had precluded CFV from
obtaining the zoning necessary for its devel-
opment. Because the exchange might never
take place (the referendum effectively pre-
vented CFV and the agency from transfer-
ring titles to the land for at least one year),
the courts believed it would be a waste
of judicial resources to decide the FLPMA
claim.
Conversely, both courts held that the EIS
was inadequate and sided with the plain-
tiffs. Unlike the FLPMA claims, the NEPA
claims were ripe for review because NEPA
is essentially a procedural statute. NEPA
neither requires nor prohibits any federal
action, it only requires that agencies follow
the regulatory procedures when discussing
the probable significant environmental
impacts of a proposed federal action. Here,
the NEPA claims were derived not from the
land exchange itself, but from the agency’s
failure to adequately analyze it. Therefore,
Land Exchange Update
once the Forest Service issued its FEIS and
ROD, the NEPA claims were ripe for judi-
cial review.
NEPA requires that an EIS discuss all
actions connected to the federal action for
which it is prepared. Both courts found
that the water delivery system was a con-
nected action because the gateway commu-
nity could not be developed without it and
it would not be needed but for the gateway
community development.
The Arizona District Court also held that
the Forest Service improperly tiered the
FEIS and ROD to the National Park
Service’s General Management Plan for
Grand Canyon National Park. With “tier-
ing,” an agency analyzing the environmen-
tal impacts of a specific action can incor-
porate previously developed environmental
analysis from broad programmatic EISs.
The court found that the Plan essentially
failed to analyze or justify the environ-
mental and economic impacts created by
the gateway development and therefore the
Forest Service violated NEPA in tiering to
the Plan.
Finally, the Arizona court held that the
agency failed to consider a reasonable
range of alternatives to the proposed
exchange, in further violation of NEPA.
The court identified several reasonable
alternatives which the Forest Service had
failed to examine: purchase of the private
inholdings; a modified, smaller scale land
exchange; and alternatives that relied on
special use permits to achieve the objectives
of the GMP.
Although the Forest Service could choose
to prepare a supplemental EIS that consid-
ers the shortcomings addressed in the two
cases, it’s unlikely that the agency will do so
absent a substantial change in the minds of
Coconino County voters. Even if the courts
ultimately approve the exchange, CFV could
not develop the property it would acquire
without rezoning. The fact that the Novem-
ber 2000 referendum rejected the rezoning
ordinance by almost a 2-1 margin makes it
unlikely that the CFV Land Exchange will
take place any time soon.
4 Autumn 2001
WLXP and others sue to block mine-expansion deal
Since 1997, the Western Land Exchange
Project and Arizona environmental groups
have been fighting a land deal that would
allow ASARCO to expand a huge open-pit
copper mine onto what is now BLM-man-
aged land. The Ray Mine exchange would
yield the company about 10,000 acres of
public land in exchange for 7,300 acres of
scattered private holdings it has acquired
around the state.
WLXP, the Center for Biological Diversity,
and the Grand Canyon Chapter of the
Sierra Club have filed suit against the
agency in Arizona federal district court.
Roger Flynn and Jeff Parsons of the West-
ern Mining Action Project (WMAP) in
Boulder are representing WLXP and fellow
plaintiffs.
Public lands going to ASARCO would
include 2,500 acres in an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) adjacent
to the White Canyon Wilderness. The exist-
ing mine operation has already affected
the habitat of endangered fish and bird
species. Groundwater pumping has signif-
icantly reduced flows in nearby Mineral
Creek and the Gila and San Pedro rivers.
Also at issue are the agency’s faulty envi-
ronmental analysis and its cavalier assertion
that ASARCO has a “right to mine” on
the public lands adjacent to the existing
Land Exchange Update
pit. BLM claimed that ASARCO had a
right to mine on the government land
around its site regardless of whether the
exchange occurred. Therefore, the agency
“reasoned,” it could either do the exchange
and get something in the deal, or decline
the trade and watch ASARCO mine the hell
out of the site anyway.
But as WMAP pointed out in the complaint,
the BLM’s assumption of ASARCO’s “right
to mine” was completely spurious. The Clin-
ton Administration issued interpretations of
the 1872 Mining Act regulations that have
direct bearing on ASARCO’s rights in the
context of the land exchange proposal.
Claim validity. The previous administration
found that a mining claim is not valid
unless it entails discovery of a valuable
mineral deposit. As amply demonstrated
in the mineral appraisal reports for the
Ray exchange, the “selected” lands that
ASARCO would acquire from the U.S. do
not have sufficient minerals on them to
constitute a “discovery” or, in turn, a valid
claim.
Millsite limitations. Another important
regulatory finding was that lode claims
could not be used for non-extractive uses
such as waste rock disposal, haul roads, or
➥
The Ray Mine stretches for
miles along Arizona’s High-
way 177.
Photo: WLXP.
5 Autumn 2001

other ancillary facilities. Yet according to
the record, only a small fraction of the land
ASARCO would acquire in the trade would
be used for actual mining.
Without a valid claim, ASARCO would have
no right to use the public land unless the
company acquired it.
The Ray exchange is not the first aimed
at assisting mine expansion. The BLM
recently traded 3,700 acres to Phelps
Dodge (PD) for expansion of its unbeliev-
ably huge Morenci Mine in northeast Ari-
zona. In addition, PD has long planned a
trade with the BLM that would allow the
company to re-open an old mine on public
land, getting 17,000 acres in exchange for
3,800 acres. A recent downturn in the
copper market has inspired PD to drasti-
cally cuts its work force and even to shut
down some of its mining operations.
Perhaps ASARCO, too, will find it econom-
ically unfeasible to continue pushing the
Ray Mine exchange as the copper market
falters. If not, one can only hope that a
righteous lawsuit does the trick.
The Red Cliffs Desert Reserve outside St.
George, Utah is intended to protect critical
desert tortoise habitat. It was created largely
through land trades.
Photo: WLXP
Land Exchange Update
We don’t ♥ Jim Hansen
Every year, several land deals go through Con-
gress, spanning the spectrum from the innoc-
uous (rare) to the disgusting (common).
Exchanges and sales of public land are usually
legislated when a project would not hold up
under public scrutiny. Since 1994, the House
has been run by the Republicans, whose disre-
spect for public land is even more shocking
than the Democrats.’
Representative Jim Hansen (R-Utah) is the
consummate land dealer. Hansen doles
out generous favors from the dais of the
House Resources Committee, which he has
chaired since last year.
Even before his chairmanship, the 11-term
congressman successfully passed many bills
that have had a huge impact on public lands
and has held many a good bill hostage to
force passage of legislation he favors.
Hansen sponsored the House bill for the
infamous Snowbasin exchange, a fast-track
deal that bypassed environmental analysis
and citizen input. The exchange allowed
the Snowbasin Ski Area north of Salt Lake
City to acquire and develop over 1,300 acres
of national forest that the Utah delegation
insisted were essential for 2002 Winter
Olympics events. (In the spring of 2000, the
Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee
admitted that the exchange hadn’t been
necessary after all). The site will accom-
modate hotels, a destination resort, golf
courses, and other “amenities.”
The same bill that sanctified the Snowbasin
exchange, the 1996 Omnibus Parks Bill,
also mandated the Sand Hollow land trade.
The Sand Hollow deal was just one of more
than 20 trades proposed or now completed
in St. George, Utah, where private landown-
ers are trading out of undevelopable lands
they hold within a habitat conservation area
(HCA) for the threatened desert tortoise.
Hansen added to the bill a provision that
exempts all land trades in and around
St. George from the normal rules of land
appraisal, which dictate that land values
must take into account the presence of
threatened and endangered species. Vastly
6 Autumn 2001
inflating the private land values, the bill has
resulted in a multi-million dollar windfall
for St. George land dealers.
Then there’s the case of James Doyle,
who in 1990 bought 2,440 acres near St.
George from the State of Utah. Before
Doyle bought the land it was already certain
that the desert tortoise would be listed
under the Endangered Species Act and that
a reserve for the species would include
land in that area. For more than ten years,
Doyle held on to the land while the BLM
attempted to negotiate an exchange with
him. Doyle dug in his heels, disputing the
values the BLM appraisals attached to his
land and claiming to have been victimized
by the ESA and the federal government.
In 2000, Jim Hansen introduced a bill that
would give Doyle a $15 million down pay-
ment for his HCA inholding; ultimately, he
could receive $50 million. The down pay-
ment alone would equal almost four times
Doyle’s original purchase price. Doyle’s
payoff sailed through the House on a per-
functory voice vote, thanks to Hansen. For-
tunately, the Senate has refused to move the
bill and it has languished in that chamber
for a year and a half.
Last year, Hansen oversaw passage of the
Utah West Desert Land Exchange, a hor-
rible deal that traded public land to the
State of Utah in return for State holdings in
the West Desert. The newly-public lands—
which Hansen claimed were threatened by
vacation home development— are adjacent
to (a) the Dugway Proving Grounds, a mili-
tary testing area, (b) the Tooele biological
weapons incinerator, and (c) the MagCorp
chlorine plant, Utah’s second most pollut-
ing factory.
Finally, on a more spiritual note, Hansen
is currently trying to help the Mormon
Church take possession of some public
land. The Church has for years wanted
to acquire a site in central Wyoming
called Martin’s Cove, where a company of
Mormon immigrants died in 1856. The
Church proposed to make a land exchange
with the Bureau of Land Management, but
the BLM did not want to trade away an
historic site and the Church could not
Land Exchange Update
come up with a satisfactory trade. Now the
Church has asked Congress to force the
BLM to sell them between 500 and 1,500
acres at the site.
In its current draft form, the bill waives the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
in order to sidestep the BLM’s plan for the
area, which specifically earmarks the Mar-
tin’s Cove site for retention in public owner-
ship. The bill would also authorize the first-
ever relinquishment of a federally owned his-
toric site to a public party, conjuring up a
chilling scenario for historic public lands.
The bill has met vociferous opposition in
Wyoming, led by Casper activist Barbara
Dobos and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.
The Casper City Council has sent a letter
of concern to Congress and the Star-Tribune
has editorialized against it.
In a letter to House Resources Committee
members, WLXP pointed to the “strong
odor of nepotism around this bill” comment-
ing that Hansen is himself a Mormon, “but
more to the point, has never hesitated in
the past to make political gifts of our public
lands.” In response, supporters of the sale
have made much of the fact that sponsor
Cubin is not a member of the Church.
She is, however, on the Resources Commit-
tee, and is doubtless gaining points with Much of the red rock
Chairman Hansen. Should Barbara Cubin desert of St. George
ever need a favor—say, to be paid in the has been swallowed by
currency of her own public land deal—she homes, a process aided
is now one step forward. With Jim Hansen, by land trades.
it’s always a good idea to watch for the
other shoe to drop. Photo: WLXP
➥
7 Autumn 2001
 Huckleberry saga ends
The Huckleberry Land Exchange, a trade
between Weyerhaeuser and the Forest Ser-
vice conceived almost twenty years ago, has
been pulled from the wreckage. On Novem-
ber 20th, the Court lifted its injunction
against any activities on the trade lands, and
for all purposes, the trade is now a done
deal. The actual exchange of deeds was com-
pleted in 1998, but a May 1999 decision by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held
the lands in suspension for a year and a half.
The original trade proposal called for the
exchange of about 5,000 acres of Forest
Service land in Washington’s Mt. Baker-Sno-
qualmie National Forest to Weyerhaeuser in
return for about 30,000 acres of the timber
company’s cut-over lands in the central Cas-
cades. Public lands to be traded contained
late-successional and old-growth forest, while
the Weyerhaeuser land consisted mostly of
high-elevation rocks and ice, clearcuts, and
young tree plantations. Public land to be
exchanged was reduced to 4,300 acres after
initial protests. The final configuration gives
Weyerhaeuser about 3,600 acres, with the
U.S. government buying back 700 acres it
already traded the company. Weyerhaeuser
will receive $6 million for those lands.
The Huckleberry Land Exchange inspired
the creation of the Western Land Exchange
Project after director Janine Blaeloch, as a
Photo: WLXP member of Pilchuck Audubon Society (PAS),
Land Exchange Update
began challenging the exchange and found
that it was only one of hundreds of trades
between the government and private entities
deserving closer scrutiny. In 1996, the West-
ern Land Exchange Project became (and
remains) the only public-interest organiza-
tion dedicated solely to monitoring federal
land trades and challenging the policies
underlying these projects.
PAS began its challenge against the Huckle-
berry trade in January 1997 with an adminis-
trative appeal of the project. PAS, the Huckle-
berry Mountain Protection Society, and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe later filed suit in
federal district court. The Sierra Club, which
had facilitated and supported the trade,
signed on as amicus curiae and supported
co-defendants Weyerhaeuser and the Forest
Service by testifying in favor of the exchange.
Plaintiffs lost at the federal district court
level, but appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In
May 1999, the Court of Appeals decided in
favor of Pilchuck et al., issuing a scathing
opinion against the Forest Service’s poor
environmental analysis.
The decision in the case, Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, was an
historic one in the hitherto sparse annals
of land exchange case law. The Appeals
Court agreed with plaintiffs that the Forest
Service had violated the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency had
failed to analyze a reasonable range of alter-
natives for the project, including outright
purchase of the Weyerhaeuser land and the
attachment of deed restrictions to public
land going to the company to lessen the
rate and scope of its logging. It had not
accounted for past and planned land trades
also causing environmental damage. The
Court also agreed with the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe’s claim regarding sections of an
historic aboriginal trail that would be traded
to Weyerhaeuser and subsequently destroyed.
The Forest Service’s proposed “mitigation”
for the Huckleberry Divide Trail’s demise was
to photograph and map it before exchanging
it out of public ownership; the court was not
satisfied with that proposal.
The Court remanded the agency’s decision,
forcing the Forest Service to redo its environ-
8 Autumn 2001
mental impact statement (EIS) to include (1)
an assessment of a wider range of alterna-
tives, (2) an analysis of the impact on lands
traded to Weyerhaeuser, (3) an analysis of the
cumulative effects of past and proposed land
trades in the area, and (4) a proposal for pro-
tecting the Huckleberry Divide Trail in keep-
ing with the requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
In September 2000, the agency released its
new, vastly-improved Supplemental EIS. In
comparison to the old EIS, the new analysis
crystallized the devastating toll the trade
would take on lands in the Green River water-
shed that had been traded to Weyerhaeuser.
It also made much clearer the fact that the
Green has been the sacrifice area of choice
in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie’s land exchange
program, with 17,000 acres of national forest
land in the watershed having been traded to
timber companies since 1984.
Despite the improved analysis, both the West-
ern Land Exchange Project and Pilchuck
Audubon filed appeals with the Forest Ser-
vice on the new decision, largely under
requirements of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act and on the basis of the
damage that would accrue to the Green
River.
Following the appeal, the Muckleshoot Tribe
asked WLXP and PAS not to sue again on the
exchange, as the Tribe had extracted valu-
able concessions from Weyerhaeuser regard-
ing its future practices on land it had
received from the public. In deference to
the Tribe, WLXP and PAS proposed to Wey-
erhaeuser that a settlement be negotiated
in lieu of the groups’ filing suit again. As
arrangements were being made for settle-
ment meetings, Weyerhaeuser suddenly filed
a “SLAPP” (strategic litigation against public
participation) suit against WLXP and PAS,
asking the court to rule that the groups could
not file again.
WLXP and PAS quickly gained the help of
Kristen Boyles of Earthjustice Legal Defense
Fund, Seattle, in defense against the SLAPP
suit, and Weyerhaeuser withdrew its motion
pending settlement negotiations. After a
month of negotiations, Weyerhaeuser was
Land Exchange Update
willing to offer no meaningful settlement
terms to offset or even partially reduce future
damage in the Green River watershed. Faced
with entrenchment and unwilling to agree
to Weyerhaeuser’s paltry offers, WLXP with-
drew from the negotiations. PAS continued
to negotiate.
Despite our passionate opposition to the
Huckleberry land trade, WLXP was not able
to gather the lawyers or the money to take
this project to court again. On November
20, Federal District Court Judge Thomas
Zilly signed a motion lifting the injunction
on the Huckleberry lands. According to the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Pilchuck Audubon
did reach a settlement with Weyerhaeuser
that will produce “a positive for the environ-
ment,” although the terms of the settlement
have not yet been announced.
To the bitter end, we believe the Huckleberry
land exchange was a huge mistake. But
we also believe that—in the wake of the
Muckleshoot decision; the dozen-plus land
exchange audits by government watchdog
agencies; the growing interest among mem-
bers of Congress; the phenomenal expansion
of press coverage of this issue, and the bur-
geoning involvement of grassroots groups
facing land trades in their areas—the federal
land exchange programs will never again
enjoy the obscurity and public ignorance in
which they used to flourish.
Had the Western Land Exchange Project
been around 30 years ago, and had battles
over clearcutting, the spotted owl, herbicides,
and old growth not consumed every ounce of
grassroots energy, perhaps the Huckleberry
exchange would never have gotten past the
dumb-idea stage. If not for the scrappy Pil-
chuck Audubon Society, the battle against
the Huckleberry Land Exchange and the far-
reaching Ninth Circuit decision would likely
not have come about. The legal and political
impacts of that decision will reverberate for
some time, and have no doubt caused a few
bad land trades to wither before their time.
In the meantime, the Green River watershed
is not at peace. In honor of Huckleberry
Mountain and the Green River watershed,
we’ll keep fighting for the sacrifice zones.
9 Autumn 2001
Please send your support!
After six years of blood, sweat and tears, the Western Land Exchange Project
has become widely recognized for its work. Our efforts have provoked movement
toward reform, making the land exchange process more transparent and acces-
sible. The underlying principle behind our work is to protect and uphold statues
and regulation already in place, and to help communities effectively fight bad land
swaps. Working with citizens is one of the most gratifying aspects of our work!
Grassroots citizen activism is a powerful tool that is crucial for our success in
reforming policy. However, continued support from our members and followers
is equally important.
Some of our supporters who receive our mailings are not yet members. If enjoy
reading this insightful newsletter and have not yet joined, please send us your
membership check. We are delighted that you want to receive our newsletter, but
we also need the money to produce it. I hope you will consider giving. We always
appreciate your support!

Stefanie Sekich,
Program Coordinator

We would like to thank the following members and supporters who have
recently made contributions to the Western Land Exchange Project.
Jim & Linda Brousseau John Horning
Alan & Myra Erwin Keith Kopischke
Beth Fries & Darren Van Pelt Lewis & Alice Kramer
Beth Rodgers Marianne Dugan
Bruce Gaynor Marion Kayler
Charles Couper Mark Zyniecki
Charles Hancock Matt Frandsen
Chris Schimmoeller Michael Shurgot
Chris Vondrasek Mike Maloney
Chuck and Kelley Pezeshki Paul Swetik
Dan and Shari Peterson Rachael Paschal-Osborn & John Osborn
Dave and Corey Jacobs (in memory of Rosemary Blalock)
Edgar & Lorrayne Mills Richard Spudich
George & Leanna Peterson Steve Doyle
George Caine Suzanne Artemieff
Jan Naragon Thomas Cecil
Jennifer & Abraham Presburger Thomas Riggins
Jeri Smith-Fornara William Weber

Land Exchange Update 10 Autumn 2001

We would also like to extend our deep gratitude to the
following foundations that have supported our work.
Christopher Krupp
Burning Foundation
Colymbus Foundation
joins WLXP staff
In September, we wel-
Flintridge Foundation comed Chris Krupp as our
Fund for Wild Nature first staff attorney. Chris
Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation is a graduate of the Uni-
Maki Foundation versity of Washington Law
New-Land Foundation School and first worked
Norcross Wildlife Foundation with us in the summer of
Patagonia Foundation 2000, when he completed
Rockefeller Family Fund a comprehensive review of
Seattle Foundation land exchange case law.
Shared Earth Foundation Chris was born and raised
Strong Foundation for Environmental Values in Wisconsin. He earned
True North a Bachelor of Arts degree
Weeden Foundation in Economics at Lawrence
Wilburforce Foundation University. After coming
west five years ago, he
Land Exchange Update became a huge fan of
public lands and devel-
The Land Exchange Update is published by
oped an interest in their
the Western Land Exchange Project, a non-
protection. At law school, Chris earned a
profit charitable organization conducting
certificate in Environmental Law along with
research, outreach, and advocacy for the
his J.D. and also has an interest in Indian
reform of federal land exchange policy.
Law. He helped found GreenLaw, an orga-
Western Land Exchange Project nization bringing together law students and
grassroots organizations, and volunteered
P.O. Box 95545
Seattle, WA 98145-2545 as a legal observer during Seattle’s WTO
phone 206.325.3503; fax 206.325.3515 protests.
www.westlx.org Chris’ knowledge of land exchange case law
makes him one of a few experts in the field
Board of Directors and we know his work will help push law
Rachael Paschal, President, Spokane, WA and policy in the right direction. We are
Dr. Charles Pezeshki, Secretary, Moscow, ID privileged to work with him.
Betsy Gaines, Bozeman, MT
Marianne Dugan, Eugene, OR
Sandy Lonsdale, Bend, OR
Rebecca Rundquist, New Haven, CT
Erik Ryberg heads to school
WLXP policy analyst Erik Ryberg recently
Staff left WLXP to attend law school at the Uni-
Janine Blaeloch, Director, versity of Idaho, where he has received a
blaeloch@westlx.org full scholarship. Erik helped WLXP develop
Stefanie Sekich, Program Coordinator, a tracking system and database of land
sekich@westlx.org trades across the West; filed administrative
appeals on numerous land exchanges; and
Christopher Krupp, Staff Attorney, worked diligently through the Freedom of
krupp@westlx.org Information Act to open up the files on
Newsletter Design/Production land trades and keep them open. We miss
his company, his smarts, and his unfaltering
Sheila Hoffman commitment to public lands.
www.newslettersandmore.net
Land Exchange Update 11 Autumn 2001
 Western Land Exchange Project
PO Box 95545
Seattle, WA 98145-2545

✂
Keeping Public Lands Out of Corporate Hands
Please help support our work for public lands by completing this form
and returning it with your tax-deductible membership/donation to the
Western Land Exchange Project
PO Box 95545
Seattle, WA 98145-2545

Name: ____________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________

City:___________________________________ State: _____________ Zip:___________

Phone: ________________________________ Fax:_______________________________

Email: ____________________________________________________________________

Affiliations:________________________________________________________________

❑ regular $35 ❑ student/optional low rate $20

❑ contributing $125 ❑ Public Lands Advocate $500+