Public Interest Key Factor In Land Exchange Determinations

Your National Forest land ownership patterns in the western United States were largely unplanned.

They result from the railroad land grants that created checkerboard patterns, plus the settlers-era homestead acts and the federal mining law. In many cases, under both private and public ownership, there are fragmented tracts of land that can be difficult to access and manage .

Land survey boundaries often are not suited for on-the-ground management and commonly, land adjustments are proposed to attain a more manageable situation for conservation, agriculture, timber, recreation or community expansion needs.

Threatened and endangered species habitats do not know land ownership boundaries.

My experience on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest is that land exchange has proved to be invaluable and can be the only authority to address these needs.

What does in the public interest mean when evaluating a land exchange proposal?

To answer that, I would say that each proposal must be weighed in its entirety and on its own merits.

Some of the questions we ask are:

How does this contribute to forest conservation and to long-term management of public and private lands?

What are the adverse effects of the anticipated private use?

Are there liabilities on the lands to be acquired?

Is there public support and is this being responsive to our neighbors?

Two common examples of what can be in the public interest are the blocking up of key habitat areas for grizzly bears and saving management costs by reducing the need for boundary surveys and access grants. Often, public comment will revise the ultimate decision, such as removal of the Bond Creek Glades parcel in our current Potlatch exchange.

Other key facets of public interest include the following: Once a decision is made to proceed, the financial interest of the public needs to be accounted for, the public should have access to the process and all resource decisions and trade-offs should be evaluated and consciously made.

An example of this would be the Upper Priest Lake ancient cedar grove. I was well aware of the price originally paid for the property and that excess profits were to be gained. In order to be sure my decision would meet the financial tests and public interest tests, the property was appraised by two separate, highly accredited and respected private appraisers. This work was then intensively reviewed by highly qualified Forest Service personnel. In this case, after weighing the entire situation and considering the substantive public comment, I felt it was in the public interest to consummate the transaction and preserve the ecosystem to which the property was integral.

The use of third-party facilitators on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest has become controversial. I think the main reason third-party facilitators have become so active is economics. Land exchanges are very expensive and can be difficult to accomplish, creating the market to have professionals who will bundle the interests of a group of landowners and achieve an economy of scale that allows proposals to become more cost-efficient.

There are two key points to keep in mind in third-party transactions: any profit to the facilitator is paid by the private parties in the transaction; and no transaction will occur without a Forest Service decision to proceed.

Most land exchanges receive predominantly positive public comment.

Most exchanges also receive comments calling for specific parcels to be retained under national forest management. Often in those comments, the exchange is not viewed as a whole. The individual has some narrower issue, such as the fact that the parcel to be exchanged borders his property and so he wants the parcel to remain national forest. In our deliberation of public interest, these desires are weighed along with the interests of the larger national public.

Where do we go from here? The Forest Service has created a national land adjustment oversight team to review exchange proposals at the initial proposed stages and again prior to consummation. Our experience is that this team is comprised of highly qualified individuals and so far, review of Idaho Panhandle National Forest proposals has been very positive. This forest will continue to do land exchanges that contribute to being a good neighbor, conserving necessary habitats and providing for recreation needs.

We will continue to involve the public in our decision making and, hopefully, make good decisions that when viewed in their entirety, pass any test of being in the public interest.