|
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 15
1
Introduction
Established in 1964' the Inane and Water Conservation Fund ~WCF)
is the primary source of federal funds for acquiring land for conserva-
tion. Since 1964, more than $3.6 billion has been spent by federal
agencies to acquire land; another $3.2 billion has been available as
matching Finds for the states to acquire land and to develop recreational
facilities. The purposes for which acquisitions can be made have been
expanded to include other objectives, such as establishment of wildlife
and endangered species habitat. That shift sometimes has strained feder-
al-Iocal partnerships and polarized groups seeking to preserve land for
competing purposes.
Each year, Congress must decide how much should be appropriated
for land acquisition and how the amount should be allocated among the
various federal agencies and Me states. Concern about how EWCF
funds are distributed by federal agencies and how the different agencies
choose acquisitions prompted Congress to ask the National Academy of
Sciences to evaluate the land-acquisition criteria and procedures of Me
four agencies Mat are responsible for the bulk of land acquisition the
Bureau of Land Management (BEM), Me Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Me National Park Service (NPS), and the Forest Service
(IJSFS) and to compare their methods with those of private groups,
such as Me Nature Conservancy. In response, the National Research
Council appointed Me Committee on Scientific and Technical Criteria
for Federal Acquisition of Lands for Conservation in the Board on Envi
15
OCR for page 16
16 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
ronmental Studies and Toxicology. The committee was asked specifical-
ly
· To review criteria and procedures by which BEM, USFWS, NPS,
and USES acquire lands for conservation;
· To assess the historic, public policy, and scientific bases of land-
acquisition criteria and compare them with nongovernmental organiza-
tions;
· To assess the effectiveness of these federal agencies in preserving
natural resources while achieving mandated public policy objectives of
Me agencies;
· To evaluate the extent to which agencies use objective methods,
scientific knowledge, and systematic criteria in making Weir recommen-
dations for acquisition for conservation.
The committee was composed of members with expertise in public
land and wildlife law and policy, national resource economics and man-
agement, land use, sociology, conservation biology, ecology, hydrology,
and watershed management as well as experience with land-acquisition
practices and transactions.
Over the course of its deliberations, the commiKee~heard presentations
from national and regional representatives of the four land-management
agencies, as well as representatives from some nonprofit conservation
organizations and organizations that represent interests affected by land
acquisition, such as the Farm Bureau. The committee also had opportu-
nity to garner perspectives from local communities and governments.
(Appendix A is a list of persons who made presentations to the commit-
tee and participated in discussions of its task.)
The committee evaluated the land-acquisition criteria of BEM,
USFWS, NPS, and USES in Me context of agency missions, the dynam-
ic nature of ecosystems and landscapes, human conservation needs, and
changing social objectives. The committee considered patterns of land-
ownership, the many meanings of conservation, and the relationships
among government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private landown-
ers, diverse populations, and over interested parties that influence the
acquisition process.
This report emphasizes primarily the ecological and biological aspects
of conservation while recognizing the importance of social objectives,
OCR for page 17
_ INTRODUCTION
17
such as cultural and historical preservation and equitable distribution of
recreational opportunities. Priorities among objectives are value judg-
ments beyond Me scope of the committee's charge, but all of the objec-
tives above are recognized by law and are integral components of con-
servation.
LAND-ACQUISITION AGENCIES
The four federal agencies reviewed have separate, somewhat comple-
mentary, missions. All are responsible for managing large areas of
land, most of which is rural; but overall, the lands present a wide range
of conditions and opportunities for meeting biological and human needs.
Land acquisition is one too! used by Congress and the agencies to fulfill
Heir missions. The four agencies are responsible for the following:
· The National Park Service is responsible for managing the national
parks and monuments, as well as cultural and historic sites, constituting
more than 350 units on 76 million acres, the largest part of which is in
Alaska (54 million acres) and the West. These lands have natural,
historic, and scenic features and provide public recreation opportunities.
· The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the national wildlife refuge
system, which has some 89 million acres (approximately 60 million in
Alaska) in 472 units; protects nesting and migration habitat for migrato-
ry birds; provides habitat for endangered and threatened species and for
other wildlife; offers recreational opportunities for the public; and per-
mits other uses of the refuges where compatible with the primary wild-
life purposes.
· The Forest Service manages the national forests and grasslands,
which together account for about 191 million acres of forest and range-
lands throughout the United States. USES lands are available for a wide
range of commodity uses, recreation, and resource protection.
· The Bureau of L`and Management manages the federal resource
lands, about 270 million acres, almost entirely in the I! contiguous
western states and Alaska. Much of those lands is arid and is located in
small, scattered tracts. These lands are used for recreation, commodity
production, and resource protection.
OCR for page 18
18 SEl-l lNG PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Many of the individual units of these federal land systems are solid
parcels of land, but many also have significant gaps in the land base.
And units are created from time to time to meet newly recognized needs.
Land acquisition is used to obtain privately owned land within existing
units as well as to expand the boundaries of federal land systems and to
connect existing systems.
Some federal lands are controlled by agencies other than the four
considered in this report. After the departments of the Interior and
Agriculture, Me Department of Defense controls the third largest amount
of federal land 3.9% (26 million acres) (GSA, 1989~. Federal lands
controlled by agencies other Me BEM, NPS, USES, and USFWS might
have an important part in the management of wildlife and recovery of
Greatened and endangered species. Several colonies of the endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker, for example, are located in federal forests on
military bases in the Soup.
GUIDELINES FOR CRITERIA
To evaluate criteria for land acquisition, some standards are needed
by which the value and utility of criteria can be measured (Fink, 1991~.
Acquisition criteria may appear in an agency's organic law, as in
BEM's Federal Land and Policy Management Act; in general acquisition
statutes, such as the Condemnation Act and the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; in a wide range of
programmatic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and He National Trails System Act; and in a host of
project-specific or unit-by-unit laws-the National Park Service alone is
subject to more than 40 laws of this sort spelling out He practices of
eminent domain.
Land-acquisition criteria also emerge as a result of explicit delibera-
tion within and among He agencies (e.g., the USFWS Land Acquisition
Priority System CLAPS) Application Manual, the USES Land Acquisition
Handbook, and He Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Proce-
dure for Compiling Federal Land Acquisition Priority List); in general
planning documents, such as BEM's Wildlife 2000 and Recreation 2000
documents; as well as in regional planning endeavors, in action-specif~c
impact statements, and in species recovery plans prepared in accordance
with He Endangered Species Act of 1973.
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION
19
Land-acquisition criteria may be detected in the common practices of
agencies. NPS, for example, does not often attempt to acquire partial
interests (e.g., easements or development rights). BLM and USES land
exchanges are constrained by the complexities of land-exchange transac-
tions. Congress itself has certain procedures to bring political consider-
ations into the process and has ultimate control of land-acquisition prior-
ities through the appropriation process. Any number of unspoken rules
and hard-to-identify practices govern contacts between government agen-
cies Hat acquire land and the people who own it.
Comparing such diverse criteria is extremely difficult, because each
participant has different goals and priorities, different sets of statutory
and administrative constraints, a different notion of what constitutes
conservation and lands appropriate for conservation, and different modes
of acquiring them. The criteria themselves are variable, addressing
different small pieces of a large picture.
The most successful acquisition criteria examined by the committee
were constrained and focused by well-understood policy goals. It is one
Ding to look for the best acquisition for a specific purpose, e.g., to
maintain an endangered species, protect cultural artifacts, or provide
hiking or bicycling opportunities. It is quite another to try to achieve
those goals simultaneously through composite criteria intended to deter-
mine the highest priorities among the goals.
A private group, such as The Nature Conservancy, can pursue its
goal of protecting "natural" places without the homogenization of pur-
pose Rat can hobble the acquisition programs of public agencies. Thus,
private groups can be innovative in defining goals and methodologies
(Rousch, 1991) without attempting to satisfy multiple purposes and con-
stituencies. Among federal land-acquisition agencies, the advantages of
singularity of purpose and coherence of aim are found in USFWS Land
Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) criteria (see Chapter 3), which are
an excellent vehicle for identifying migratory bird habitat within the
United States.
Basic Considerations
The committee identified four important considerations that need to be
evaluated in determining appropriateness of criteria.
OCR for page 20
20 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Conservation of sustainability: Criteria should contribute to sustaina-
bility of renewable resource bases within a particular region. Conserva-
tion for sustainability includes the consideration of cultural and biologi-
cal diversity and the processes that renew or perpetuate them. The goal
of sustainability is beyond the capacity of any single program, discipline,
or organization to achieve, but land acquisition can play an important
role that complements other programs.
Fulfillment of agency purpose: Criteria should further Me missions of
the agencies and help to achieve their land-acquisition goals. If the use
of criteria leaves certain agency missions unaccomplished or largely
neglected, the criteria are inadequate.
Clarity: Criteria should lend themselves to ease of administration and
consistency of application. Criteria that are either so complex as to defy
understanding or so subjective as to permit manipulation are unsatisfac-
tory.
Accommodation of variation and change: Any land-acquisition priori-
ty scheme intended to function over time confronts a variety of policy
challenges, including continuity despite changing conservation needs and
values, the capacity to plan for and implement comprehensively while
responding to opportunities, and the need to meet a variety of specific
and often competing goals.
Scientific knowledge, values, and other circumstances change over
time; useful criteria must be flexible enough to respond to these chang-
es. For example, adequate protection of biological diversify has led to
various proposals to restore or protect endangered habitats by assorted
policies, including land acquisition. NPS, USES, USFWS, and BEM all
pursue conservation strategies that rely upon continuous collection of
evidence and ongoing evaluations that give presumptive weight to histor-
ical practices.
Written criteria and land-acquisition policies change in We course of
agency practice and administrations. The missions of Me agencies them-
seIves have been reshaped and modified over time, and land-acquisition
practice often is the subject of rapid-f~re legislative instruction, program
by program, and project by project.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has been modified in re-
sponse to legislation to protect endangered species, establish wildlife
refuges, and protect wetlands. EWCF beneficiaries have changed al
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTIOU
21
so BEM was not an original beneficiary of the EWCF, but it now is a
major recipient. State and local governments have not fared well
throughout tile many changes to the EWCF, although their needs were
considered by the original drafters of the EWCF as being at least as
urgent as those of the federal agencies (Glicksman and Coggins, 19841.
In addition, the lands acquired and public expectations regarding them
change over time. For example, the USES acquired forested land in the
eastern United States for timber management. The land had been cut
over, and during the decades when no harvesting was possible on the
lands, the agency's custodial management was noncontroversial. Peo-
ple's expectations about the land changed to favor hunting, fishing, and
recreation. When the timber was once again of merchantable size, the
timber sales program was not acceptable in some cases to the local
population. Land that had been acquired primarily for timber manage-
ment had become important for other conservation purposes.
The physical and biological environment changes constantly. Suitable
habitat for a species requiring slightly over-aged timber stands will not
meet that criterion forever. And climate change probably will bring
physical and biological changes on large scales and short time frames, as
it did in earlier times.
Changes such as those described above interact with strategies of
acquisition in subtle ways. The most reliable way to achieve permanent
dedication of a parcel of land to a stated purpose is to acquire the entire
pa,rce! and all related interests (a "full-feet' acquisition). But changes in
the behavior of a protected species, for example, or in climate or the
scientific understanding of habitat needs, might warrant protection with
a broader reach.
Planning Versus Opportunity
Formal acquisition criteria permit planned decision-making; nonethe-
less, unanticipated opportunities arise and disappear quickly, and criteria
must be responsive. An acquisition program should adhere to a standard
planning mode} that includes identification of unambiguous goals, speci-
fication of alternatives, and selection of an option that best advances
identified goals.
Planning on federal lands is expressed in a variety of ways, including
OCR for page 22
22 SEl-llNG PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
land-use management plans, land-protection plans, and environmental
Impact statements. Such formal planning and deliberate choice is re-
flected also in the acquisition criteria. Land-acquisition decisions in-
volve a comprehensive search for prospects, careful evaluation of We
costs and benefits associated with serious nominees, weighing of alterna-
tive choices, and selection of the best candidates measured against crite-
ria. But opportunism still has a role in the land-acquisition policies of
a nation Mat was Me reluctant recipient of the Louisiana Purchase and
called the purchase of Alaska "Seward's Folly."
Acquisitions involving opportunistic land exchanges can be almost
entrepreneurial endeavors, partly because land acquisition through ex-
changes presents issues and functions that generally do not conform to
established systems for setting priorities. An illustration of the opportu-
nistic nature of land acquisition is presented by the recent collapse of
savings and loan associations. In short order, the federal bailout law
brought into Me hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and
the Resolution Trust Corporation many valuable properties that included
sensitive wetlands and estuarine areas (Frederick, 19911. Abandoned
railroad rights of way also have provided recent fleeting opportunities
for other uses. Acquisition practice must be responsive to sudden and
unexpected opportunities of this sort.
Nonprofit organizations often have exploited sudden opportunities to
the benefit of the nation. Groups and entities with diverse concerns can
fulfill functions that governments cannot-overcoming financial limita-
tions and red tape, dealing with owners who do not wish to bargain with
governments, responding to sudden crises and fleeting opportunities,
satisfying Me private owners' desires to sell quickly, arranging compli-
cated transactions, and providing services for the agencies that eventual-
ly will manage Me land (Montana Land Reliance/Land Trust Exchanges,
1982).
Acquisition and Alternatives
In public land law, land acquisition includes full-fee purchase and
condemnation by eminent domain; acquisition of lesser interests, such as
easements, rights of way, and life estates; and odler means, such as
sales, exchanges, gifts, and bequests. Beyond ~is, mechanisms used to
manage the federal lands include acquisition, disposition, and numerous
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION
23
use and allocation decisions. It is important to underscore Me essential
continuity and interconnection among those mechanisms. Response to
allocation of resources leads to changing public demands, which can lead
to new acquisition, management, and disposal decisions. Acquisition is
one means to accomplish management goals, and it can be used as an
alternative to other forms of management or as a supplement to regula-
tion. For example, advocates of vigorous enforcement of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act to restrict development in wetlands believe that
acquisition should be used to supplement regulation Slouch, 1988~.
But acquisition is not a substitute for regulatory land-use restrictions.
Circumstances could arise in which an aggressive acquisition strategy
aimed at wetlands or endangered species habitat, for example, could
work against regulation by driving up expectations and demands of
landowners that Weir land be acquired by the government, an expecta-
tion that might never be satisfied in fact. Strategic acquisitions, howev-
er, have art important role to play across We spectrum of management
activity.
Broader experimentation with less-~an-fee acquisitions is warranted
for two reasons in particular: future management aims likely will be
ecosystemwide, and Hey will reach across public and private lands. The
Nature Conservancy underscores the implications of this approach:
As The Nature Conservancy turns to preserving whole landscapes, it will
necessarily pay attention to human needs. For example, neither the Conservan-
cy nor anyone else will be able to buy all the critical land needed to protect the
100 miles of the Sacramento River habitat targeted by the Conservancy's Cali-
fornia office. It will take voluntary agreements with landowners, cooperation
with other nonprofit groups and local land-use regulations. It will take sophisti-
cated coordination win an array of state and federal agencies (Rousch, 1991~.
Indeed, the ability to forge amicable relationships with resident popula-
tions might be We dominant factor for success or defeat of parklands and
preserve initiatives nationally and internationally (West and Brechin,
19911.
The distinction between the rights of public and private landholders is
becoming less obvious. Public and private ownerships are evolving and
converging, with private rights emerging in the public lands, and public
obligations appearing in~the private sector. Private property normally is
OCR for page 24
24 SEINING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
subject to regulatory land-use restrictions to protect public values, while
acquisition policy is shifting from what might be called a perspective of
ouster to one of accommodation.
Much of the legal structure of federal land acquisition is based on
condemnation, classically exemplified by the interstate highway system
and urban renewal programs, which were completed by taking the prop-
erties of millions of Americans. Policy based on condemnation has
many implications, including a low tolerance for inholders and unwilling
sellers; indeed, the popular perception of condemnation proceedings
presumes an unwilling seller versus the government. But condemnation
can be undertaken between a willing seller and the federal government
In a prominent example of accommodation, the committee was advised
Cat NPS has moved gradually from a policy of attempting to remove all
infolders to a policy of removing only those infolders whose uses are
incompatible with management objectives. And a keystone of OMB
acquisition policy is the presence of a willing seller (see Appendix B).
Several factors contribute to the shift in strategy. Experience has
shown that the purposes of EWCF acquisitions can be achieved largely
within the framework of a willing seller. Properties acquired for recre-
ation, wildlife habitat, cultural, or scenic protection do not always de-
pend upon eradication of existing uses and removal of occupants. In
some instances, occupant values even reinforce such objectives and can
be an asset rather than a liability.
THE INFORMATION GAP
Determining the ownership of conservation land is difficult. The
committee was unable to find any comprehensive source of information
regarding what privately held lands the federal government considers
desirable to acquire for conservation and what lands it already holds for
conservation. More pertinent, perhaps, is that the committee could not
identify what lands the federal government has acquired for conserva-
tion. Even with the narrowest possible definition lands acquired with
EWCF monies no comprehensive source is available to learn where
lands have been acquired, by which agency, at what cost, and for what
purpose, although such information is available in theory. The multitude
of partial holdings (e.g., conservation easements that restrict land uses),
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION
25
which are difficult to define and map, also obscures basic information
about federal land holdings.
VALUATION CHALLENGES
Any criteria for prescribing priorities for public policy actions are
fraught with difficulties in comparing values, even within constrained
contexts, such as Lose of USFWS LAPS criteria. Comparing values
across the spectrum of resource use and geographical happenstance is
even more difficult.
One common technique to compare incommensurables is quantif~ca-
tion. But even the most robust quantification schemes cannot eliminate
He need for decisions based upon experience, reasoned judgment, intu-
ition, and common sense. Importance of diverse values cannot be ex
pressed in an ordinate arrangement.
Land-acquisition criteria should deal openly and explicitly with differ-
ences in value between the parcels competing in He priority scheme and
convey adequate and meaningful information on value to He interested
public and to Congress. The result of applying the criteria should be an
efficient allocation of limited funds, providing the most gain to the
nation for its investment. The criteria also should achieve widely shared
goals that are anchored firmly in law.
Ultimately, land-acquisition decisions affect many people and organi-
zations, including property owners and local communities. The criteria
used to guide land-acquisition priorities should reflect this and seek to
treat Lose affected interests fairly. The criteria should invite a continu-
ing re-examination of their premises in light of their performance and
He experience gained in Heir use.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The committee focused on technical and scientific criteria for land
acquisition and on the way potential acquisitions are ranked at the na-
tional level. The committee did not view its role as one of evaluating
goals for land acquisition that have been set by Congress or as one of
assessing the validity of the agencies' missions.
OCR for page 26
26 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
The committee reviewed the changing policy framework within which
federal land acquisition takes place. Thus, it considered the effects of
shifting land uses and population change on maintaining biological diver-
sity as well as the social and cultural dimensions encompassed within the
modern understanding of conservation.
This report starts by placing federal land acquisition in a historical
and thematic context (Chapter 21. It describes the extent of the federal
lands, Weir relation to other lands, and the broad purposes of federal
land acquisition.
Chapter 3 examines the organizations and interests that directly affect
and are affected by federal land acquisitions. The missions, land-acqui-
sition programs, and the operations of NPS, BEM, USES, and USFWS
are described. The allocation of land-acquisition funds by Congress is
discussed, as are the roles of various interested parties, including those
who hold private land in or adjacent to the federal lands. The roles of
private groups Mat also protect conservation {ends and assist the federal
agencies in fulfilling their missions are described.
Chapter 4 examines the social dimensions of land acquisition, includ-
ing cultural issues that affect land policy and conservation and human
needs. Chapter 5 addresses biological aspects of conservation and tech-
nical procedures for establishing priorities. Chapter 6 describes the
criteria of nonprofit organizations for land assembly.
Chapter 7 describes the various techniques and tools used in acquiring
land and interests in land, as well as examples that demonstrate Me
complexity of acquisition strategies and transactions. Factors Cat deter-
mine which techniques are most applicable are described. Chapter ~ is
We committee's evaluation of the Office of Management and Budget's
Land Acquisition Priority Procedure.
The final chapter of Me report presents the committee's evaluation
and recommendations. The current process for setting acquisition priori-
ties is evaluated and recommendations are made for increasing the effec-
tiveness of the process for establishing land-acquisition priorities.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
federal land
