Regional Environmental Planning and the Land Exchange Process
Matt Dadswell and Tom Stewart, Ph.D	© & Author Info

Abstract

Public/private land exchanges are typically designed to consolidate fragmented land holdings that are often arranged in checkerboard patterns of alternating federal, state, and private lands. These patterns are often the result of land allocation and disposal legislation enacted over a century ago. Land exchanges may also be driven by contemporary regional planning approaches that emphasize the large-scale application of conservation and watershed management principles. This paper provides an overview of the land exchange process, reviews recent planning and industry trends promoting land exchanges, briefly describes some recently completed exchange projects, and discusses some of the more significant associated environmental issues.

Introduction

Land exchanges are the exchange of real property between a government agency (federal, state, county, or municipal) and a private individual or corporation. They are voluntary agreements that often involve several years of negotiations and public review before deeds are transferred. Land exchanges with private parties designed to consolidate ownership of public lands have been enacted by the Federal government, largely unnoticed, for decades. More recently, however, perhaps in recognition of the significant scale of some of the ongoing and proposed exchanges, the issue of land exchanges has been placed more firmly on the public activist agenda. Recent land exchanges have also attracted media attention. The Seattle Times, for example, ran a weeklong series of articles in the fall of 1998 (September 27 through October 2) that addressed the land exchange process from various stakeholder perspectives.

This paper provides an overview of the land exchange process and is organized as follows. First, the origins of the existing types of checkerboard land ownership patterns that often drive public/private land exchanges are addressed. A brief discussion of forestland distribution in western Washington is provided to illustrate some of the broader trends. Contemporary land exchange trends are reviewed in the second section. This is followed by a brief introduction to the process itself. The fourth section provides some examples of recent and ongoing land exchanges. The final section discusses some of the more significant environmental issues commonly associated with land exchanges.

Existing Land Ownership Patterns

Federal government land disposal policies during the western expansion and settlement in the 1800s shaped many of the land ownership patterns evident today (Souder and Fairfax, 1996). The federal government used various disposal methods to transfer land from the public domain to the states and private ownership while also retaining very large areas. Disposal methods included the 1863 Homestead Act, the 1878 Timber and Stone Act, railroad grants, such as the Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grants of 1864 and 1870, and statehood land grants. The resulting land ownership pattern is often a checkerboard of alternating federal, state, and private lands, with federal lands usually managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) or the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In many cases, the transfer of public domain land to private ownership did not include the mineral rights, which were retained in the public domain. In some cases when private landowners sold the land they also retained or reserved the mineral rights. As a result, there are vast areas of land in the west where the mineral rights are not connected to ownership of the surface land. Reserved mineral rights add a third dimension to surface land checkerboard ownership patterns.

In western Washington, for example, the Homestead and Timber and Stone Acts made surveyed land available for settlers who were able to purchase lots of up to 160 acres. In the absence of other land transfer mechanisms, resource-based industry, including forest products companies, frequently resorted to bribing "dummy entrymen" to pose as homesteaders, file land claims, and then sell them to the company (Ficken, 1987; White, 1980). These acquisitions contributed to the concentration of land and natural resources in a limited number of hands but their impact was dwarfed by the Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grants of 1864 and 1870. These acts, which conditionally granted public lands to finance construction of a railroad from Lake Superior to the Puget Sound, resulted in a checkerboard of alternating one-mile squares of government and railroad-owned land that varied in width from 40 miles in the states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon) to 80 miles in the territories (North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington) (Ficken, 1987; Schwantes, 1989). Northern Pacific's grant lands in Washington totaled approximately 7.7 million acres, 2 million of which were commercial timberland. Northern Pacific sold 900,000 acres of this timberland to the Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) in 1900. The two firms subsequently owned 46 percent of Washington's standing timber (Mead, 1966). The disposition of land to private interests was paralleled by the passage of the 1891 Forest Reserve Act, which created government-managed forest reserves, the predecessors of the national forests. By 1905 there were three Forest Reserves in Washington State encompassing 7.4 million acres of public lands (Ficken, 1987).

A comparison of forestland ownership patterns with the southern U.S. states and neighboring British Columbia, Canada demonstrates the significance of these processes in shaping the contemporary mosaic of forestland ownership in Washington. The dominant commercial forest land owners in Washington are the Forest Service (31 percent) and the forest products industry (25.9 percent) with the remaining 43.1 percent divided between the State, other public sector owners, and non-industrial private owners (Waggener, 1990). In the southern U.S., 90.7 percent of the region's commercial forest lands are privately owned, with 70 percent owned by non-industrial private owners, such as farmers, institutions, and firms not involved in the wood products industry (Anderson and Olson, 1991; Waggener, 1990). This pattern is almost reversed in British Columbia where 97 percent of commercial forestlands are owned by the Provincial government (Waggener, 1990).

Checkerboard ownership patterns persist in Washington and many other western states. The ownership of alternate sections of land in and adjacent to National Forests, for example, is often divided between the federal government and private landowners with management philosophies alternating by the square mile.

Land Exchange Trends

Two or more parties generally enter into a land exchange when their respective management objectives are constrained by existing land ownership patterns. The federal government often seeks consolidated ownership to reduce management costs and acquire wildlife and fisheries habitat. Private landowners typically seek consolidated ownership to reduce management costs and overcome access restrictions or delays. Land exchanges may be driven by a variety of different public and private objectives but recent regional environmental planning initiatives are an important contemporary influence for both public and private land managers. Private land managers are also under pressure from a changing marketplace that includes significant industry consolidation (Wolfson et al., 1997). This section briefly discusses these issues in turn and provides a short overview of the resulting pressures on public and private land managers.

Regional Environmental Planning and Conservation Approaches

Regional environmental planning and conservation approaches that emphasize the large-scale application of conservation biology and watershed management principles are a significant motivation behind contemporary public/private land exchanges. The contemporary emphasis on "landscape level" habitat conservation and planning approaches reflect a growing dissatisfaction with environmental regulations that have historically promoted a piecemeal approach to species conservation without considering broad habitat needs. Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) that address the effects of specific projects or actions on an individual endangered species at a specific site arguably result in minimal environmental gain while frequently threatening to "shut-down" the activities of land-based industry. These situations lead federal agencies and environmental groups to consider new approaches to dealing with threatened and endangered species.

Election of a Republican Congress in 1994 and subsequent pressures to reform the ESA and CWA added further impetus toward development of a more flexible approach to environmental planning and conservation. Federal agencies, in particular, sought ways to make existing laws more flexible for both the environment and industry. Specifically, development of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under Section 10 of the ESA have become more flexible with the implementation of a "no surprises" policy. All federal agencies and many states, counties, and municipalities have implemented regional planning and conservation approaches. These approaches, often referred to as "landscape level", "ecosystem", or "watershed" management, apply general conservation biology and watershed management principles at a scale of hundreds to thousands of square miles. Emphasis is placed on areas that provide important existing or potential habitat, habitat corridors that connect larger areas of good habitat, and the identification of functional ecological linkages. The intent of such plans is to consolidate habitat and allow the interaction of individuals so that genetic interchange can occur. Habitat consolidation is considered important because many species respond negatively to fragmented or patchy habitat. Environmental changes resulting from "edge effects" in patchy habitats affect an animal's food sources and may allow easier predator access. Broad management approaches attach differing levels of importance to single individuals, mating pairs, or even small populations depending on where they occur in the landscape. Habitat and habitat continuity are generally considered more important than the health of specific individuals, particularly if the individuals are located in an isolated area that is difficult to link to larger areas of habitat.

Numerous regional ecosystem planning initiatives are occurring across the United States including the:

• Northwest Forest Plan for all federally managed forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (California, Oregon, Washington);
• Multi-Species Framework (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) developing a basin-wide fish and wildlife restoration policy;
• Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project dealing with federal forest lands in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California;
• Southern Appalachian Assessment (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama);
• Everglades Restoration Initiative (Florida);
• Great Lakes Initiative (all states and Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes);
• Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Approach Framework (national).

Individual states, counties, and municipalities are employing similar approaches. The San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan is an example of an integrated regional land use and environmental planning approach that may characterize future planning efforts elsewhere. Ongoing initiatives surrounding salmon in the Puget Sound region of Washington provide another example of species-oriented regional planning.

Industrial Concentration and Consolidation

Concentration, consolidation, and increased merger and acquisition activity in land-based industry may also promote land exchanges. Current trends in the forest products industry, for example, include concentration of land holdings into fewer and larger ownerships and a renewed emphasis on core businesses (Bliss et al. 1998; Wolfson et al., 1997). These trends have been matched by increased institutional investment in timberland ownership. Attracted by historically high returns and acceptable risk leverage, institutional investors, such as banks, insurance companies, and pension fund companies, are competing directly with the forest products industry to purchase timberland resources (Bliss et al., 1998; Brinkley et al., 1996). Concentration, consolidation, and external investment trends promote the transfer of property and the elimination of restrictive inholdings, where possible. Based on interviews with numerous company executives and agency managers, Wolfson et al. (1997) observe that land exchanges offer an important "strategic environmental management tool" to meet long-term goals and objectives for both public and private land managers. They also estimate that there is a potential for up to 15,000,000 acres of land to change hands in the west over the next decade.

Resulting Pressures on Public and Private Land Managers

In areas where checkerboard ownership patterns persist, alternating management strategies have contributed to the fragmentation of habitat and subsequently affected species populations. Public land managers are now required to not only manage public lands in their current distribution but to also seek ways of consolidating or improving public ownership patterns. They are required to not only identify and protect good habitat on their current lands, but to also evaluate the landscape to determine which public ownership pattern will provide the greatest habitat continuity, encompass the most vital existing wildlife and fisheries populations, provide the greatest reduction in habitat fragmentation, and consolidate watershed ownership. In situations where the optimal pattern does not exist, they are under increased institutional, scientific, and public pressure to obtain the appropriate ownership.

For private industry, one result of this pressure is that their interspersed private lands receive a higher level of public scrutiny than previously occurred. This, in turn, often results in increased costs, especially where private landowners need to gain access to their lands via public lands. Formerly, relatively straightforward access projects may now take many years of planning, negotiating, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document preparation, and public review which results in delays and high costs. Planning and construction costs can increase five to greater than 20 times compared to previous experience and uncertainty surrounding future planning efforts makes it difficult to budget these costs with any certainty. Delays may also result in significant opportunity costs.

Land Exchange Processes

Land exchanges that offer mutual solutions to restrictive land ownership patterns can happen in two separate ways. The first way is through negotiation with the appropriate federal agency. The second way is by Congressional legislation. The first process occurs under the authorization of existing laws (Weeks Law of 1911; General Exchange Act of 1922 [as amended]; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act [1988]) and typically involves three steps. The first step involves initial negotiations between the exchange partners. Preliminary valuations are done to determine that the exchange is approximately "balanced." Environmental reviews of the exchange lands are also conducted during this period. When agreement is reached the second step or NEPA path begins. In the NEPA procedure issues are identified, alternatives are developed, and the associated environmental analysis is documented in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In simple cases the exchange may be categorically excluded from such documentation. The third step is the final appraisal and land exchange. Here the exchange partners perform final appraisals, negotiate differences in these appraisals, determine the final distribution of lands that will be exchanged, and exchange deeds. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires that all exchanges with the federal government must be equal in value. In circumstances where the private landowner's property has environmental assets in high public demand, the land's value can be high. This may create exchange difficulties because the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition do not allow the valuation of environmental factors. Consequently, such exchanges may need to be expedited by creative agreements or legislative action.

The second process, legislated land exchanges, involves the direct interaction of the exchange partners and a congressional sponsor. In essence, the legislator shepherds a bill authorizing exchange of the identified lands through committee and to a congressional vote. Once the bill is law, the deeds and title can be transferred. Though legislative exchanges may seem easier than the standard procedure, they involve all the components of getting any bill through Congress and still require substantial background work. To get through committee, some level of environmental documentation and particularly a valuation of the lands must be presented. Interest groups (e.g., other federal agencies and environmental, tribal, state, county, and municipal interests) cannot be circumvented and their issues must also be dealt with in order for the bill to move forward. The federal government must also comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Cultural resource surveys must be conducted on the federal lands and the effects of the exchange on any sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (e.g., archaeological sites, historic buildings) must be mitigated. Legislated exchanges may also take several years to complete and are required when exchange parcels are in two states.

Land Exchange Examples

The Forest Service has been involved with 949 land exchanges since 1990, trading 583,489 acres of public land for 799,237 private sector acres. The BLM completes 60 to 70 land exchanges a year, which, on average, involve about 150,000 acres a year (Dombeck and Shea, 1998). Summary information describing seven recently completed and relatively large-scale land exchanges is provided in Table 1. The following paragraphs discuss four of these exchanges in more detail.

Table 1: Recently Completed Land Exchanges

In November 1996, the Forest Supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington issued a Record of Decision approving the Huckleberry Land Exchange, which involved the exchange of 4,698 acres of National Forest lands for 30,155 acres of Weyerhaeuser lands. Weyerhaeuser also offered to donate 1,996 acres to the National Forest including 962 acres for inclusion in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Wolfson et al., 1997). Although there was generally broad support in the environmental community, two lawsuits filed in May 1997 claimed that the exchange violated numerous environmental laws and was not in the public interest. In a ruling issued on December 24, 1997, U.S. District Judge William Dwyer dismissed these lawsuits and noted that there was "substantial evidence" that the exchange was in the public interest. This exchange is fairly unusual for one of this size because it was concluded following negotiation with the Forest Service and did not involve Congressional legislation.

Discussions surrounding the Huckleberry Land Exchange were initiated in 1982 as both parties sought more effective ways to manage their checkerboard holdings in and around the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Similar motivations were behind the recently approved I-90 Land Exchange, which involved the exchange of 16,500 acres of national forest land for more than 62,000 acres of land owned by the Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P. (Plum Creek), mostly in and around the I-90 corridor between North Bend and Cle Elum. Legislation approving the I-90 Land Exchange, sponsored by Senator Slade Gorton, R-Wash. and supported by Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash, was passed by Congress as part of the October 1998 budget bill. Plum Creek sought Congressional approval when it was clear that its two year deadline for completing the exchange administratively would not be met. The final terms of the deal were negotiated privately in the final weeks before the legislation was passed. A 15,000-acre wilderness study area and a 5,500-acre special management were added to the exchange during this period. Plum Creek, recognizing the uncertainty surrounding the land exchange process, has been separately seeking road easements across two national forests. In the event that agreement had not been reached over the trade, the company would have used this access to harvest timber on some of the lands they hoped to exchange.

In the Cedar River Watershed Exchange the City of Seattle sought to acquire lands owned by the Forest Service to complete their ownership of the Cedar River Watershed, which provides 70 percent of the Seattle's drinking water. From 1967 to 1977 the City acquired an inventory of 83 parcels totaling 17,500 acres specifically for exchange with the Forest Service. These parcels, located in four National Forests and a number of different of states, consisted mainly of small inholdings. The exchange, directed by Congress in the 1992 Cedar River Watershed Land Exchange Act, took over three years to complete because of deed complications associated with the old-growth timber on the Forest Service land and encroachments, mineral rights, tenant grazing, and other problems on the parcels acquired by the City. Public debate is presently focused on the City's proposed management plan for the watershed which could allow logging to take place and includes a 50-year HCP to address potential effects on endangered species and their habitat.

The Galena American Land Conservancy Exchange differs from the preceding examples because of its urban nature and the involvement of a third-party broker. Exchange discussions were initiated in 1991 when North Las Vegas expressed interest in acquiring 7,500 acres of BLM land for expansion. The BLM in conjunction with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed on a land exchange with the City to be brokered by the American Land Conservancy. The broker secured options on the scattered private parcels that the three federal agencies were interested in and placed them in an escrow account. The exchange was later reconfigured because the City was unable to find sufficient funds to purchase all the parcels to be exchanged. The final trade, completed in 1994, involved the exchange of 2,200 acres of BLM land for 30,300 privately-owned acres.

Environmental and Social Issues

Most land exchanges between the federal government and private landowners must go through NEPA review, which means a federal EIS, or EA must be prepared. The NEPA procedure requires that significant issues be identified, alternatives be developed that address these issues, and the environmental effects associated with these issues be disclosed to the federal decision maker and the public. The following section briefly reviews some of the more significant environmental and social issues typically associated with land exchanges.

Wildlife

Wildlife issues revolve around habitat and species and the trade-off of existing habitat and individuals for future habitat and populations. Habitat issues relate to quality, location, distribution, and connectivity. What constitutes important habitat varies depending on the region considered, but often includes forests, deserts, shrublands, woodlands, prairie, or coastal zones. Generally, any habitat that has, or has the potential to develop, the original ecological properties associated with the region prior to human development will have environmental value. Old or old-growth forests, riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, and unique habitats, such as cliffs, talus slopes, or caves, are particularly important regardless of the bio-region involved. Despite the regional planning and conservation biology approaches that often drive land exchanges, some level of threatened and endangered species surveys are still needed on federal lands to document the potential effects of a proposed exchange on individual species. Implementing these survey protocols can be costly and time consuming.

Fisheries

Fisheries issues focus on stream and riparian habitat and water quality within a given watershed. In general, fisheries issues are very similar to wildlife issues. A change in ownership may significantly affect habitat protection efforts. Federal management, for example, generally involves wider riparian buffers than those required on state or private lands. As a result, federal ownership involves more continuous stream and riparian habitat and increases the likelihood of maintaining or improving instream fisheries habitat and associated water quality. The upland components of stream riparian areas may also be quality wildlife habitat.

Adjacent Ownership

One of the most difficult issues in a land exchange is dealing with adjacent landowners who will be negatively affected by the land swap. Transferring former federally-managed lands to private ownership may substantially change the land's character and the activities that occur there, especially recreational opportunities. Vail, Colorado, for example, has consistently resisted and blocked land exchanges that would be good for the general public but allow local development that Vail opposes. In the Huckleberry Land Exchange, the small community of Greenwater (population of approximately 100) actively opposed the exchange of unharvested federal lands located behind the community that would subsequently be harvested by Weyerhaeuser.

County Tax Base, Employment, and Local Development

This issue is almost the opposite of the adjacent landowner situation. There is usually antagonism to any increase in federal land ownership or, conversely, any reduction in private land ownership within a given county (see, for example, Westneat, 1998). This antagonism is especially apparent in the western United States. Besides opposition on general principle, such reductions in private land ownership may affect the county tax base and employment potential. Federal payments to local or state governments are usually less than those paid by private industry despite federal programs such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes. This disparity is particularly apparent when taxes on commodity extraction such as timber harvest and mining are considered. In addition, the federal government's tendency to acquire lands for habitat, means that employment associated with the private "working" exchange lands is often lost.

Cultural and Tribal Resources

Federal lands traded to the private sector must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. Compliance means that the federal lands must be surveyed for archaeological and historical sites. If sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places are found, mitigation must take place prior to implementation of the land exchange. For archaeological sites this involves excavation and data recovery in cooperation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. Mitigation for historic sites involves documenting the site's historic properties to the satisfaction of the National Park Service.

Native American Tribal issues are also considered under cultural resources. Native American Tribes usually have greater access and traditional uses of federal lands than adjacent privately-owned lands. As a result, Tribes are typically concerned about proposed land ownership changes. Tribal views of the landscape and short- and long-term management objectives often differ significantly from those of federal agencies. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, for example, opposed the Huckleberry Land Exchange and argued that the Forest Service failed to adequately evaluate the cultural content of the parcels they proposed to exchange with Weyerhaeuser (see Dadswell, 1997). The Muckleshoots also objected to the Huckleberry Land Exchange because they felt they were not adequately consulted on a government-to-government basis. Tribal scoping and negotiation should begin early in the process and a means to address different views must be developed.

Mineral Estates

Mineral estates associated with exchange lands are often complex and may be a significant issue. Mineral estate issues involve both the potential for mineral development on the exchange lands and questions surrounding ownership of subsurface mineral rights. Mining developments, including oil and gas leases, may have a multitude of significant environmental effects and are, as a result, usually subject to intense scrutiny from public agencies, the public, and environmental groups.

Subsurface mineral estates are usually transferred with surface lands. However, in some cases, title to the subsurface mineral rights may not reside with the surface landowner. As public domain lands were transferred to private ownership, mineral rights were dealt with in different ways. Initially, all mineral rights were transferred with the surface lands. Later, as energy minerals, such as coal, oil, and gas, attained higher values, mineral rights were retained by the federal government when lands were transferred. In addition, many large private landowners later disposed of surface lands but retained the mineral rights. As a result of the long series of transfers of land from the public domain to private parties and between private parties, the private exchange partner may have title to all or some of the mineral rights associated with the surface lands. The federal government usually wants to trade only consolidated estates. On the other hand, there are opportunities for private landowners to consolidate their estates in circumstances where they own the surface estate and the federal government has title to the mineral estate.

Hazardous Materials

The lands to be exchanged to the federal government must be examined in accordance with Section 120(h) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Contaminated sites cannot be transferred to federal ownership.

Conclusion

Public land managers are under increased institutional, scientific, and public pressure to obtain patterns of land ownership that provide habitat continuity, consolidate watershed ownership, and meet other environmental objectives. Land exchanges can provide an opportunity to respond to these pressures. Public land managers may also be directed by Congress to undertake specific land exchanges. This was the case, for example, with the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which directed the BLM to acquire 300,000 acres of "school" lands owned by the State Lands Commission of California.

Private land managers enter into the land exchange process to increase the value of their land assets. The increase in value may result because the exchange minimizes regulatory constraints on the land itself or because it eliminates the need to get access permits through adjacent federal lands. Value is generally achieved from the resulting certainty of timelines and the direct control of operations. In some cases, land exchanges may allow competing objectives between two parties to be creatively transformed into an advantageous result for both the public and the private landowner. In situations where land managers are developing HCPs to integrate their operations and ESA compliance, land exchanges can provide an opportunity to swap out of critical habitat. For example, a timber company that is managing only second growth will likely be much less constrained in managing for old-growth dependent species. Understanding the land exchange process with the federal government provides private land managers with another tool to manage their land base.

Land and real estate management is also becoming more complex. Recent increases in mergers and acquisitions, especially in the timber, railroad, utility, and real estate development industries, have left many companies with a widely dispersed land base that must be evaluated for maximum financial benefit within their new management direction. Some lands will be considered excess or inappropriate while others will be considered critical for this new corporate direction. Real estate managers, however, may not be familiar with the regional or local planning efforts that affect the use and value of these lands. Investigating and understanding ecosystem planning are important aspects of land and real estate management because of the constraints and opportunities this planning provides.

Land exchange opportunities may also exist on small scales. Many of the broad planning trends outlined above for federal agencies are also occurring at more subregional and local levels. The same issues and approaches are being applied by state resource agencies, regional park planners, and city park planners. Greenbelts as wildlife and recreation corridors are being considered in all regions of the country and are also integrated into the broader regional planning efforts.

References

Anderson, H..M. and Olson, J.T. 1991. Federal forests and the economic base of the Pacific Northwest. A study of regional transitions. The Wilderness Society. Washington, D.C.

Bliss, J.C., Sisock, M.L., and Birch, T.W. 1998. Ownership matters: forestland concentration in rural Alabama. Society and Natural Resources. 11: 401-410

Brinkley, C.S., Raper, C.F., and Washburn, C.L. 1996. Institutional ownership of U.S. timberland. History, rationale and implications for forest management. Journal of Forestry. (September): 21-28.

Dadswell, M. 1997. "The forest for the trees": nature, history, and the Huckleberry Land Exchange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, September. Spokane, Washington.

Dombeck, M. and Shea, P. 1998. Forest service trades preparing for the future. Seattle Times, October 8: B5

Ficken, R.E. 1987. The forested land. A history of lumbering in western Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Mead, W. 1966. Competition and oligopsony in the douglas fir lumber industry. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Schwantes, C.A. 1989. The Pacific Northwest. An interpretive history. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Souder, J.A. and Fairfax, S.K. 1996. State Trust lands: history, management, and sustainable use. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Waggener, T.R. 1991. Forests, timber, trade. Emerging Canadian and U.S. relations under the Free Trade Agreement. University of Maine Press, Orono, Maine.

Westneat, D. 1998. Property-rights proponent backing Park Service into pricey land swap. Seattle Times, November 33: A1.

White, R. 1980. Land use, environment, and social change. The shaping of Island County, Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Wolfson, A., Hachmeister, L., and Stewart, T. 1997. Land exchanges as a strategic environmental management tool. Paper presented at the 1997 Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Environmental Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November.

Matt Dadswell
Environmental Planner
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
10900 NE 8^th Street, Suite 1300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-4405
Tel: (425) 688-3715
mdadswell@fwenc.com

Tom Stewart, Ph.D.
Consulting Scientist
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
3947 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95834-1957
Tel: (916) 928-4802
tstewart@fwenc.com