The swap proposal, which was put forth by the Cooley Ranch Company (CRC), wouldtrade 34 acres of Cooley land, which has already been grazed, along thenorthern boundary of the Lake Sonoma Project for 172 nearby perimeter acreswith a view of the lake, that are now managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.It would result in a net loss of 138 acres of parkland, largely in the WildlifeManagement Area.

Writing on behalf of the California Field O<ce, Audubon State Director DanTaylor told the Corps, "This proposed exchange is so clearly harmful to theenvironment and to the overall public interest, and so clearly designed tobenefit a single company, that it raises serious questions about the Departmentof the Army's ... motivations for even proposing it."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is the fourth time CRChas proposed the trade, having been turned down by the Corps' Sacramentodistrict o<ce in 1987, 1989, and 1990. The Chronicle reports that a"memo by a Sacramento district Corps attorney characterized any furtherexpensive sta[[currency]] time and work on the 1990 proposal as `possiblefraud, abuse and waste.'" So this time, CRC went directly to Washington, hiringa D.C. law firm to press its case. On April 30, Deputy General Counsel Earl R.Stockdale in the Pentagon issued an opinion "saying that regulations wouldallow the swap, contrary to the Sacramento district's earlier interpretations."And in June, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul W. Johnson directedthe district o<ce to proceed with the deal.

Cooley's argument for the trade is that the Corps agreed in 1971 to fence outCRC's grazing land, part of a land acquisition agreement for Warm Springs Damand Lake Sonoma. About 3,330 feet of the fencing remains to be installed alonga steeper section of the property, at an estimated cost to the Corps of$50,000. Cooley maintains that the Corps would save money by accepting thetrade, which would place the property boundary along an existing fence line.

There's much more to this issue than we can go into here. An obvious question,however, is the relative values of the properties that are being traded--apoint upon which proponents and opponents, of course, disagree. Cooleymaintains that the Corps needn't even weigh the cost of replacing the lostwildlife management land (which was required as mitigation for the adverseimpacts of the dam), since at most, "the net loss would equal only about 1.7percent of the total Corps' wildlife management area." In any case, he says,the Corps could convert some of the remaining 9,000 acres to wildlifemanagement.

Another key question is whether the move has significant environmentale[[currency]]ects and would require a full Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). If so, the estimated $250,000 cost of the EIS would more thano[[currency]]set any conceivable financial benefit to the Corps and eliminatethe only possible justification for the trade. The Corps' own DraftEnvironmental Assessment, prepared by sta[[currency]] of its Sacramentoo<ce, notes numerous e[[currency]]ects that would justify preparation of theEIS. Environmental groups opposing the trade agree.

The Corps now is also planning to auction o[[currency]] Kelly Road, whichextends from the Annapolis Road, north and east of Sea Ranch to Lake Sonoma.Many local residents feel the County should take it over, whileenvironmentalists believe the auction could have environmentale[[currency]]ects and should be considered together with the land-swap in asingle EIS, as their impact would be cumulative.

Local, state, and national Audubon groups hope that with the aid of our electedo<cials the Lake Sonoma deal can be stopped. If it goes through it will be awindfall for one at the expense of the public.

If you would like notification of scheduled public hearings regarding thisdeal, call Martha Bentley at 545-5501. -JSB