|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Setting Priorities for
Lanc! Conservation
Committee on Scientific and Technical
Criteria for Federal;Acquisition
Of Lands for Conservation
Board on Environmental Studies
And Toxicology
Commission all Life Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
1993
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Are., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard
Or appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures ap-
proved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distin-
guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of
science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted to it by tile Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the
federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure
the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the Nation-
al Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and,
upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.
Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and He National Academy of Engineering in providing services to
the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is adminis-
tered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M.
White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the blational Research Council.
The project was supported by Department of the Interior cooperative agreement no. 0660-9-8001 .
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 92-62644
International Standard Book No. 0-309 04836-2
B057
Copyright 1993 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed In the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Committee on Scientific and Technical
Criteria for Federal Acquisition of
Lands For Conservation
WILLIAM H. RODGERS, JR. tChairmanJ, University of Washington,
Seattle, Wash.
MICHAEL J. BEAN, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
HARRIET BURGESS, American Land Conservancy, San Francisco,
Calif.
SALLY K. FAIRFAX, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
CHARLES C. GETTER, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
PERRY R. HAGENSTEIN, Resource Issues, Inc., Wayland, Mass.
LAWRENCE D. HARRIS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
ROBERT G. MEALY, Duke University, Durham, N. Car.
THOMAS E. LOVEJOY, The Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
JOHN P. MCMAHON, Weyerhaeuser Company, Tacoma, Wash.
DEBRA J. SALAZAR, Western Washington University, Bellingham,
Wash.
WILLIAM W. SHAW, University of Arizona, Tucson, Adz.
NANCY L. STANTON, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo.
MONICA G. TURNER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oal: Ridge,
Tenn.
CATHERINE VANDEMOER, Council of Energy Resource Tribes,
Denver, Colo.
Staff
DAVID POLICANSKY, Program Director
LEE R. PAULSON, Project Director (since July 1992)
SYLVIA S. TOGNETTI, Project Director (until July 1992)
ANNE M. SPRAGUE, Information Specialist
HOLLY WELLS, Senior Project Assistant
Sponsor: U.S. Department of the Interior
...
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology
PAI}L G. RISSER (ChairJ, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
FREDERICK R. ANDERSON, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Washington, D.C.
JOHN C. BAILAR, m, McGill University School of Medicine, Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada
GARRY D. BREWER, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
JOHN CA~NS, JR., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
versity, Blacksburg, Va.
EDWIN H. CLARK, Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, State of Delaware, Dover, Del.
JOHN L. EMMERS ON, Lilly Research Laboratories, Greenfield, Ind.
ROBERT C. FORNEY, Unionville, Pa.
ALFRED G. HUDSON, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pa.
KAI N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
GENE E. LIKENS, The New York Botanical Garden, Milibrook, N.Y.
JANE LUBCHE:NCO, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
DONALD R. MATTISON, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
HAROLD A. MOONEY, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
GORDON ORIANS, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
HANK PARKER, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
GEOFFREY PLACE, Hilton Head, S. Car.
MARGARET M. SEMINARIO, AFL/ClO, Washington, D.C.
I. GLENN SIPES, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
BAILUS WALKER, JR., University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City,
Okla.
WALTER J. EMBER, JR., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
OCR for page R6
Staff
JAMES J. REISA, Director
DAVID J. POLICANSKY, Associate Director and Program Director
for Natural Resources and Applied Ecology
RICHARD D. THOMAS, Associate Director and Program Director for
Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment
LEE R. PAULSON, Program Director for Information Systems and
Statistics
RAYMOND A. WASSEL, Program Director for Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
Vl
OCR for page R7
Commission on Life Sciences
.
BRUCE M. ALBERT S (Chairman), University of California, San
Francisco, Calif.
BRUCE N. AMES, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
J. MICHAEL BISHOP, Hooper Research Foundation, University of
California Medical Center, San Francisco? Calif.
DAVID BOTSTEIN, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stan-
ford, Calif.
hIIClIAEL T. CLEGG, University of California, Riverside, Calif.
GLENN A. CROSBY, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash.
LEROY E. HOOD, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
MARIAN E. KOSHLAND, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
RICHARD E. LENSKI, University of Oxford,Oxford, England
STEVEN P. PAKES, Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, Tex.
EMIL A. PlliZER, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., NutIey, N.~.
MALCOLM C. PIKE, University of Southern California School of
Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
THOMAS D. POLLARD, Johns Hopkins Medical School, Baltimore,
Md.
PAIlL G. RISSER, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
JONATHAN M. SAMET, University of New Mexico School of Med
icine, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
HAROLD M. SCH1\~CK, JR., Armonk, N. Y.
CARLA J. SHATZ, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
SUSAN S. TAYLOR, University of California at San Diego, La JolIa,
Calif.
P. ROY VAGELOS, Merck and Company, Inc., Railway, N.~.
TORSTEN N. WIESEL, Rockefeller University, New York, N.Y
Staff
ALVIN G. LAZEN, Acting Executive Director
· -
vie
-
.
OCR for page R8
Other Recent Reports of
the Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Issues in Risk Assessment (1993)
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas (1993)
Hazardous Materials on the Public Lands (1992)
Dolphins and the Tuna Industry (1992)
Science and the National Parks (1992)
Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology (1992)
Environmental Neurotoxicology (1992)
Animals as Sentinels of Environmental Health Hazards (1991)
Assessment of He U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies
Program, Volumes I-IV (1991-1993)
Human Exposure Assessment for Airborne Pollutants (1991)
Monitoring Human Tissues for Toxic Substances (1991)
Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution
(1991)
Decline of He Sea Turtles (1990)
Tracking Toxic Substances at Industrial Facilities (1990)
Biologic Markers in Pulmonary Toxicology (19893
Biologic Markers in Reproductive Toxicology (1989)
Copies of these reports may be ordered from
the National Academy Press
68009 624-6242
viii
OCR for page R9
Preface
The Committee on Scientific and Technical Criteria for Federal Acqui-
sition of Lands for Conservation was formed under the auspices of the
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Re-
search Council's Commission on Life Sciences. Our charge was to
review Me criteria and procedures under which land is acquired for
conservation by four of the federal land-management agencies the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
The subject is one of great complexity, and we saw disorder wherever
we looked-in the definitions of criteria, procedures, and acquisition; in
the histories, laws, and practices of the agencies; in the role of Congress;
in the elaboration of the details of the acquisition transactions; in the
difficulties of identifying who owns what in a world of partial and over-
lapping entitlements; in the methodologies used to describe, evaluate, and
compare possible acquisitions; and in the mysteries of the social and
natural sciences that stand in the way of firm predictions of whether
acquisition X will achieve goal Y.
The field is so topsy-turvy that many of its most cherished assump-
tions must be set aside. Doubt now assails the scientific assumptions that
conservation goals can be achieved indefinitely by property set-asides in
the form of parks, preserves, and "arks." And questions arise on the
policy front of whether land-acquisition goals can be realized by contin-
ued heavy reliance upon He crude too] of full-fee acquisition.
Land acquisition by government agencies raises a host of sociological,
lox
OCR for page R10
and inevitably political, issues of intense interest to numerous people-
inholders, land-rights groups, acquisitions intermediaries, conservation
organizations, state and local governments, and others. Indeed, the
ultimate question of whether acquisition A should be given a higher
priority than acquisition B is a political issue, because it boils down to
a comparison of incommensurate values. The committee attempted to
steer clear of this political thicket, and focus on description of the com-
plex acquisition systems and on the technical and scientific aspects of the
criteria. Congress makes political choices and exercises a strongly inde-
pendent role in acquisitions, as the committee description shows. The
chapter on the social effects of land acquisition illustrates, however, that
topics of intense political controversy are not immune from illumination
by scientific method.
The recommendations of this report can be described in large measure
under the heading of "making connections" and improving integration.
These include the recommendations to broaden the acquisition analysis
from the single parcel to the landscape context; to link up piecemeal
purchases to longer-term acquisition plans; to widen the scope of the
acquisition techniques; to think in terms of corridors, connections, and
linkages between properties, to identify holdings of other agencies and
gaps in systems of protective ownership; and to sharpen the tools of ac-
quisition to respond to emergent and opportunistic circumstance.
My personal appreciation is extended to the committee members who
undertook the task with collegial enthusiasm and scientific objectivity.
Their collective knowledge and experience cutting across many disci-
plines will be apparent to the readers of the report. The committee was
guided and assisted in indispensable ways by the staff of the National
Research Council. Sylvia Tognetti, project director until July 1992, was
our bulldog, who did many of the basic research, writing, and coordina-
tion activities. David Policansky, program director, provided us guid-
ance, perspective, and He judgmental interventions of the expert on
science policy that he is. Lee Paulson, project director since July 1992,
gave us He substantial editorial assistance that we needed and a welcome
input of energy to carry us over He last hurdles to publication.
~ would like to thank the individuals who made presentations to the
committee and who provided us with statements and data. They include
Henry Diamond, David Gibbons, Chip Collins, Matt Connolly, lack
Walter, Robert I. Smith, David Ford, John Heisenbuttel, Dean Bibles,
Richard Moore, Michael Scott, Jerry Sutherland, Joseph Wrabek, Dale
Crane, Bob Like, Chuck Williams, and Charles Jordan. We are grateful
x
OCR for page R11
also Be several anonymous reviewers of Me report. They made especial-
ly strong contributions in their thar~cless task, and we benefited from
Heir suggestions.
William H. Rodgers, Ir.
Chairman
x'
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Contents
EXE:C=IVlE SUMMARY
Considerations for Criteria, 3
Current Criteria, 5
Conclusions and Recommendations, 9
1 INTRODUCTION
Land Acquisition Agencies, 17
Guidelines for Criteria, ]S
The Information Gap, 26
Valuation Challenges, 26
Report Organization, 27
2 PUBLIC LAND, PRIVATE LAND:
AN OVERVIEW OF OWNERSHIP AND ITS
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Conservation: A Terra of Many Meanings, 29
Public and Private Land Ownership, 39
Disincentives for Conservation, 47
The Role of Land Ownership in Conservation, 48
3 ME LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS
Sources of Funding, 51
Acquisition by Federal Agencies, 55
The Congress, 89
Landowners, 91
. . .
Xt11
15
29
51
OCR for page R14
Other Interested Parties, 92
Rational Analysis and Politics in He Acquisition Process, ·00
4 ASSESSING 10; SOCIAL EFFECTS OF
FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION
Inholders and Federal Land Acquisition, 104
Social Impact Assessment, ·06
STA in Practice: A Bureau of Reclamation Case Study, ·08
Environmental Management and SIA, ]10
STA and Conservation, Ill
5 TO LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS
AND BIOLOGICAL PRESERVES:
A ROLE FOR NATURAL SCIENCES
Fundamental Ecological Challenges, ·13
Over Biological Considerations, 127
Enhancing the Ecological Effectiveness
of the Acquisition Process, 128
Conclusion, 135
6 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 141
Ducks Unlimited, 151
The Nature Conservancy, ·53
7 TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS OF ACQUISITION
Conservation Easements, ·58
Transferable Development Rights, ·6
Dedication, 162
Regulation, 163
Land Exchange, ·66
Land Acquisition Strategies and Transactions, 173
Conclusion, 179
8 THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Adequacy of the LAPP Criteria, ·84
Reflection of Agency Missions and Authorities, 192
XIV
103
113
139
157
183
OCR for page R15
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals, 199
Procedures. 204
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: Presenters and Discussants
APPENDIX B: Procedure for Compiling Federal
Land Acquisition Priority List
APPENDIX C: National Surveys Relevant to
Public Land Use, Protection, and Purchase
APPENDIX D: The Nature Conservancy:
Acquisition Priorities and Preserve Selection and Design
GLOSSARY
xv
197
213
235
237
243
247
261
OCR for page R16
