Sierra Club is requesting comments on the draft Public Land Exchange Policy
-- If you would like to make comments, either send them directly and/or
send them to me and/or the listserve.
Thanks,
Jane Clark
Iowa Chapter Chair
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: COMMENTS DUE BY NO LATER THAN APRIL 20, 2000
*************************************************
Send comments via email to:
[log in to unmask] or mail to Sarah
Clusen, Sierra Club, 85 Second St., Second Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105. Mark your envelope or
add a subject line to your email that identifies
it as "Comments on Public Land Exchange Policy"
*************************************************
Attached is a draft Public Land Exchange POLICY.
It was developed by the Conservation Governance
Committee Land Exchange task force after
consultation with a wide array of groups,
chapters, and RCCs.
Members of the task force are Connie Wilbert
(WY), Nancy Rauch (PA), Chad Hanson(CA), Patrick
Murphy (IL), and Bruce Hamilton (staff).
Most of the draft policy is the consensus of the
task force. However, on the question of how to
deal with trading of environmentally sensitive
lands there were differing opinions on the task
force, the CGC and from the input received from
groups, chapters and RCCs.
Therefore, two alternatives were developed for
this section of the policy. These alternatives
appear in the body of the draft policy as
Alternative A and Alternative B. At the end of
the draft policy there is a brief statement in
support of each alternative.
The Conservation Governance Committee is asking
for your comments on the entire draft policy and
your preference regarding Alternative A or
Alternative B or whether you have some other
alternative policy language to suggest and why.
All comments should be received in San Francisco
by April 20, 2000.
After reviewing your comments, the CGC will
consider amending the draft policy.
The CGC's policy recommendation and a summary
report of the comments received will be forwarded
to POLICY the Board of Directors for its
consideration.
This is presently a scheduled agenda item for the
May 20-21 Board meeting in San Francisco.
The Land Exchange Task Force and the CGC will
also be drafting a set of public land exchange
guidelines to further assist chapters, groups,
and RCCs working on public land exchanges. Once
the policy and guidelines are adopted they will
be circulated to Club leaders and posted on the
Club's WEB site.
Thanks for your participation. We value your
input.
*******************************************
AFTER REVIEWING THE DRAFT POLICY AND ALTERNATIVE
A AND B SUPPORTING STATEMENTS, PLEASE INDICATE
YOUR PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATIVE A OR B (CHOOSE
ONE):
ALTERNATIVE A ______
ALTERNATIVE B ______
NEITHER ALTERNATIVE _____
We are interested in your comments on the entire
policy, not just this choice, and we are also
interested in your reasons and suggested
amendments or substitute language. Thank you.
*************************************************
DRAFT SIERRA CLUB POLICY ON PUBLIC LAND EXCHANGES
The public land of the United States is an
important natural heritage of all Americans.
Public land provides open space, clean water,
important habitat for native plants and animals,
wilderness, wild rivers, a last stronghold for
many endangered ecosystems, and opportunities for
outdoor recreation. Public land should be
retained in public ownership and only traded in
rare circumstances that meet high environmental
standards.
A public land exchange is any transaction other
than a sale that transfers publicly-owned land
(federal, state, county or municipal) from one
owner to another. A public land exchange usually
involves trading public land for private land,
but it can involve trading land between different
land management agencies, such as transferring
state public land to a federal land management
agency in exchange for transferring federally-
managed public land to a state land management
agency. The exchange may involve the surface,
subsurface mineral rights, or both. The exchange
may include a financial payment to equalize the
value of the trade.
The Sierra Club's primary responsibility and role
in public land exchanges is to provide an
environmental watchdog role and to promote the
protection and restoration of biological and
ecological values.
Acquisition of land for public ownership through
purchase rather than exchange is the preferred
approach. Alternatively, the protection of
imperiled land through regulations, protective
easements, deed restrictions, purchasing
development rights and transferring land to a
private land conservancy for preservation are
also preferred alternatives over land exchanges.
To minimize the loss of public land, exchanges
should be the exception, not the rule.
To maximize funds available for land acquisition,
the Sierra Club supports full funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and other
conservation programs.
The highest priority should be given to public
acquisition and preservation of land of high
environmental value. Land traded out of public
ownership should be of low environmental value,
unless higher value land is traded to a party
dedicated to its conservation and the public
interest is protected.
***********************************************
ALTERNATIVE A:
The Sierra Club does not support land exchanges
in which any of the following environmentally-
sensitive lands would be transferred out of
public ownership into the ownership of a logging
corporation, land developer, or similar party who
would degrade the environmental values of the
land:
* old growth forest
* roadless areas 1,000 acres or larger
* critical habitat for species listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act
* designated protected areas (e.g., national and
state parks, wilderness, wild and scenic river
corridors, wildlife refuges, wilderness study
areas, research natural areas, etc.)
* endangered ecosystems, such as vernal pools
(end Alt. A)
************************************************
ALTERNATIVE B:
The Sierra Club should not support land exchanges
in which any of the following environmentally-
sensitive lands would be transferred out of
public ownership into the ownership of a logging
corporation, land developer, or similar party who
would degrade the environmental values of the
land:
* old growth forest
* roadless areas 5,000 acres or larger
* critical habitat for species listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act
* designated protected areas (e.g., national and
state parks, wilderness, wild and scenic river
corridors, wildlife refuges, wilderness study
areas, research natural areas, etc.)
* endangered ecosystems, such as vernal pools
Any Club entity desiring to support a land
exchange that involves a transfer as described
above must secure the approval of the
Conservation Governance Committee or its
designee.
(end Alt. B)
***********************************************
Disputes over land ownership, valid existing
rights or access should be settled prior to
entering into a land exchange.
Cumulative impacts of past and proposed land
exchanges, as well as future uses of land to be
traded out of public ownership, should always be
considered.
Adequate ecological, cultural, recreational and
mineral surveys should precede an exchange.
Any public land exchange involving Native
American land or treaty rights should fully
protect environmental values and respect native
American sovereignty and treaty rights.
Whenever possible, all rights -- including
surface, subsurface and outright public ownership
-- should be obtained to avoid future conflicts
with development.
The land exchange process, and any land acquired
or traded, should be subject to full compliance
with all applicable international, federal,
state, and local environmental laws and
regulations.
All applicable land use restrictions should be
considered prior to appraisals for a proposed
land exchange. Environmental laws, regulations
and court orders often restrict resource
extraction and development activities, whether
the land is publicly or privately owned.
Appraisals should not be based on full extractive
or development potential of land if environmental
restrictions would limit the development
potential.
Any public land exchange should involve a full
and open public participation process. Public
disclosure of appraised values and other critical
information should occur early in the process to
allow adequate opportunity for public review.
Any legislative land exchange, especially those
attached as amendments or riders to other
legislation without a full legislative review
process, should be subject to the same standards
of environmental review and public participation
and disclosure as a non-legislative land
exchange.
To be eligible for Sierra Club support, a
proposed public land exchange must meet the
requirements defined in this policy. The Sierra
Club's Policy on Policies further defines the
specific conditions under which a group, chapter,
or RCC is authorized to adopt a position in
support of a qualified public land exchange and
when the approval of other groups, chapters, RCCs
or a higher Sierra Club entity is needed.
*************************************************
Statement for Alternative A
Alternative A provides stronger protection for
old growth forests, roadless areas, and other
environmentally-sensitive lands. The problem
with Alternative B is that it allows publicly-
owned old growth forests and roadless areas to be
transferred to a logging corporation or land
developer in the course of a land exchange, as
long as some Club leader claims that it's a "good
deal".
This is a very real problem. Just recently, a
couple of Club leaders advocated an exchange in
which 3,365 acres of northern spotted owl habitat
(classic ancient forest) was to be transferred
out of public ownership into the hands of a
notorious multinational logging corporation,
where it would be clearcut. In "exchange", the
logging corporation was to transfer only 906
acres of northern spotted owl habitat to public
ownership--a huge net loss of some of the rarest
and most ecologically-critical forest in the
nation.
This terrible land exchange was touted as a "good
deal" because the public would receive additional
lands in the trade. In reality, these lands were
sparsely-forested, high elevation "hiking
habitat", and areas already heavily logged and
roaded. In essence, rare lower elevation ancient
forest was being sacrificed for higher elevation
recreation areas and scenic views. In a suit
against the exchange brought by grassroots
environmental groups, and a Native American tribe
concerned about the destruction of sacred sites,
the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck
down this bad deal due to serious violations of
federal environmental laws.
Alternative B claims to deal with these sorts of
problems by requiring some yet-to-be-named
national Club entity to approve any land
exchanges involving environmentally-sensitive
lands. That may sound good on the surface, but
appeals to national Sierra Club didn't stop the
horrible exchange described above. We need a
policy that says NO to destruction of roadless
areas and old growth forests, not one that says
"maybe".
Further, Alternative B only includes roadless
areas of more than 5,000 acres in size, despite
the fact that the Club is currently seeking
protection for all roadless areas of 1,000 acres
or more. Alternative A, on the other hand,
protects ALL roadless areas.
The Club's conservation mission will be best
served by redoubling our efforts to protect
imperiled habitat on private lands through
outright purchase and acquisition into public
ownership, rather than supporting the destruction
of one special place in order to save another.
Support Alternative A.
*************************************************
Statement in support of Alternative B
In the ideal land exchange, the government would
trade away relatively low-value, ecologically-
isolated lands that are already clearcut or
mined, and in exchange would receive wilderness
and other prized lands that are threatened with
development. In the real world, however, most
land exchanges are not so easy. Difficult
choices must be made.
Imagine a case where a private developer owns a
2,000-acre block of ancient forest in the heart
of a National Forest wilderness area and has
threatened to log it. All attempts to block the
logging through legal action have failed. The
developer approaches the Forest Service and
offers to trade these lands for 250 acres of
Forest Service lands adjacent to an urban area.
Most of the 250 acres has been logged, but there
is a 5-acre patch of ancient forest on the tract.
The company wants these lands for real estate
development and they are of marginal ecological
value.
Local conservationists have lobbied to exclude
the 5 acres of ancient forest from the trade, but
the developer says the entire deal is off if he
can't get the complete 250-acre tract in the
exchange. The Sierra Club has tried for years to
get the money to buy the 2,000 acres of ancient
forest, but has failed to convince the government
to put up the funds. Local conservationists view
the land exchange as only way to save the
wilderness. They see this exchange as a net gain
for the environment - more land will be preserved
if the exchange goes forward, and an intact
ecosystem will be spared from a devastating
proposed development. Most residents of the
urban area also support the trade.
Alternative A would prohibit the local Sierra
Club Chapter from supporting this exchange
because it involves trading 5 acres of ancient
forest from public ownership to a developer.
Under Alternative B, the Chapter could petition
the Conservation Governance Committee for
permission to support this exchange.
Alternative B provides Club volunteers with
guidance and tools to protect endangered land,
not hard and fast rules that tie their hands.
The second level of review contained in
Alternative B allows the Sierra Club to
coordinate a national policy approach to
controversial land exchanges, while still
preserving the flexibility for local and regional
Club volunteers to craft creative solutions.
Support Alternative B.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
