[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5697-S5698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2136. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the 
State of Washington; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     i-90 land exchange legislation

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1984, I spoke in this Chamber to 
champion passage of a bill that would dramatically expand the Alpine 
Lakes Wilderness Area. The bill became law, and the wilderness area now 
boasts more than 390,000 acres of alpine and subalpine forests, 450 
miles of trails, more than 500 lakes and countless peaks and pinnacles. 
It offers year-round opportunities for hikers, campers, skiers, 
fishermen, or those who simply want time away from urban life. It is 
arguably one of Washington's favorite recreational sites.
  Today, I introduce legislation that would dramatically enhance the 
value of this recreational and environmental jewel--a bill to complete 
the I-90 Land Exchange between the Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber 
Company. The land exchange would bring up to 60,000 acres of forest 
land adjacent to the wilderness area into public ownership, creating a 
stretch of publicly owned forest from the southern border of the 
wilderness area to I-90.
  Plum Creek would trade up to 60,000 acres of its land on the I-90 
corridor of the Central Cascades for up to 40,000 acres of Forest 
Service land in three different forests. The benefits of the exchange 
are immense. It will place into public hands some of the last large 
blocks of privately owned old growth forest and increase publicly owned 
spotted owl habitat by 22,000 acres. It will bring into public 
ownership 14 miles of Pacific Crest Trail. It would eliminate much of 
the complicated checkerboard land ownership pattern, under which public 
and private entities each owns every other square mile of land. And it 
will fulfill a long-sought priority of Washington's environmental 
community--the public acquisition of prized sites such as Silver Creek, 
Scatter Creek, and Thorp Mountain.
  There is a long history of controversy surrounding these lands. 
Although the land exchange has been under consideration in one form or 
another for more than a decade, this is the closest it has ever come to 
completion.
  Conservationists began pushing for a resolution to the checkerboard 
ownership pattern back in the late 1970's. In 1986, the Forest Service 
and Plum Creek considered an exchange in the Silver Creek basin, the 
heart of the land exchange package under consideration today.
  In 1988, with the support of local environmental groups and Plum 
Creek, a legislative proposal to complete the exchange was brought to 
Congress. When the bill was not considered, the Forest Service and Plum 
Creek launched an attempt to complete the exchange administratively. 
However, the listing of the spotted owl put the project on hold.
  Since that time, some parcels have been acquired using the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, but with such limited federal resources and 
such a vast amount of land, an exchange has proven to be the only way 
to bring a final resolution to the Central Cascades' checkerboard.
  In fact, the Conference Report that accompanied the 1996 fiscal year 
appropriation for the Forest Service stated:

       The managers continue to encourage strongly the use of land 
     exchanges as a way in which to protect important recreational 
     or environmentally significant lands, in lieu of the Federal 
     Government acquiring lands. The managers believe that land 
     exchanges represent a more cost-effective way in which to do 
     business and encourage the Forest Service to give high 
     priority to those exchanges either nearing completion, or 
     where land management decisions are made particularly 
     difficult due to checkerboard ownership.

  In August of 1995, Plum Creek and the Forest Service went back to the 
drawing board, and agreed to initiate the I-90 exchange. By mid-June of 
1996, when Plum Creek signed a 420,000 acre Habitat Conservation Plan, 
Plum Creek and Secretary Glickman entered into a two year agreement to 
finish the exchange. Plum Creek agreed to withhold harvest on most of 
the exchangeable lands worth approximately $200 million during the two-
year period, and although that deadline has now passed, Plum Creek 
agreed to extend it through the end of this year.
  But we're still running out of time. If we fail, we will lose this 
opportunity to maximize the public benefits of this exchange. Neither 
Plum Creek nor the

[[Page S5698]]

Forest Service has the financial resources to continue endlessly this 
process. No one can reasonably expect Plum Creek to have the patience 
to continue on with this arduous and difficult process indefinitely.
  If the I-90 Land Exchange is not completed by year's end, the 
exchange will begin to fall apart under the weight of an endless 
appeals process and litigation battles that could go well into the next 
century. And it's not reasonable to expect Plum Creek to sustain 
operations on the exchangeable lands through the indefinite and 
uncertain appeals process.
  To put it bluntly, if the exchange is appealed, this current 
opportunity will be lost forever and we won't have another chance to 
acquire such a large block of some of Washington's premier forest land.
  That's why I am introducing this bill. We need to keep all options 
open for finishing the land exchange on time. I understand that both 
Plum Creek and the Forest Service are still committed to the 
administrative process, and that's important. With the introduction of 
this bill and companion legislation in the House by Congressman Doc 
Hastings, we now have two options for finishing this land exchange on 
time and getting the most value out of the trade.
  Ultimately, public support or public opposition will determine the 
outcome of the exchange, regardless of how it is completed. Passing a 
bill though Congress and earning the President's signature demands 
public support.
  The building blocks are in place. In March, Washington State Governor 
Gary Locke wrote to President Clinton urging completion of the exchange 
by the end of the year. The State Legislature unanimously passed a 
resolution in support of the exchange. Recreational enthusiasts see the 
long-term value of bringing these lands into public ownership. 
Environmentalists recognize the value of blocking up these lands to 
create a habitat corridor for wildlife and to protect some of the last 
large blocks of privately owned old growth forest. And major newspapers 
have endorsed it.
  Earlier this spring, the Seattle P-I described the dire consequences 
if this land swap was not completed this year. The PI-'s editorial 
stated: ``None of the land exchanges is apt to satisfy everyone 
involved. But if the lands are not consolidated, however imperfectly, 
it will be next to impossible to preserve them effectively for salmon 
or wildlife habitat. And that's a real lose-lose.''
  Under the administrative process, however, it only takes one voice of 
opposition to file an appeal and kill the proposal for good.
  The lands package outlined in this bill is not final as discussions 
and negotiations continue back in Washington state. I appreciate that 
all parties are at the table working towards a lands package that 
everyone can support, and I know from experience that these discussions 
take time and patience.
  Mr. President, let me emphasize once more that the legislation I am 
introducing today is only a placeholder. It represents a starting 
point--albeit an excellent one--to achieve a consensus-based end 
product. I encourage the parties now at the table to continue their 
efforts and to expedite the completion of this large and vital 
exchange.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Close land trade or everyone loses

       The parties to the Plum Creek timberland swap need to 
     conclude their negotiations and get on with the next such 
     trade.
       The company, the Forest Service and environmentalists have 
     spent more than two years negotiating a land swap in the 
     Cascades that involves 100,000 acres now scattered in 
     unmanageable public and private checkerboard ownership. The 
     Sierra Club in particular gets high marks for taking a 
     leadership role in making a priority of consolidation of 
     checkerboard forest lands in this state.
       But company officials now say that if the deal isn't closed 
     by the end of the year, it's off. They have 20 percent of 
     their harvestable timber base in this state tied up in the 
     swap.
       They also say they may go to Congress to get the deal 
     immunized from lawsuits. That could poison environmental 
     groups' enthusiasm for such trades in the future.
       Conservationists and other groups are accusing the firm of 
     high-handed tactics. They also complain that the deal doesn't 
     give them all they want.
       Not many such deals do. But this one leaves nearly 
     everybody who wants something from Plum Creek better off than 
     if the deal falls through and the company makes good on its 
     threat to start logging the stands conservationists want to 
     preserve.
       If the deal doesn't go through, the company plans to build 
     logging roads in 53 different areas. If it does, that number 
     will be reduced to eight.
       None of the land exchanges is apt to satisfy everyone 
     involved. But if the lands are not consolidated, however 
     imperfectly, it will be next to impossible to preserve them 
     effectively for salmon or wildlife habitat.
       And that's a real lose-lose.
                                 ______