|
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 183
8
The Off ice of
Management and Budget
l
The OMB land acquisition priority procedure (LAPP) (Appendix B) is
a mechanism for combining the requests of the agencies in the Depart-
ment of We Interior and We Department of Agriculture into a single list
for funding that is submitted to the Congress. LAPP places general con-
straints on all acquisitions, for example, the property must be within the
boundaries of an existing federal conservation or recreation unit "if such
boundaries are set by statute," which is customarily the case for National
Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS) acquisitions. Other con-
straints are that the property targeted for acquisition "presents no known
health/safety/liability problems (e.g., hazardous waste contamination,
unsafe structures," and that there is "no indication of opposition from
current owners" to We proposed acquisition, although We criteria state
Nat "condemnations may be necessary in rare instances."
For properties that meet those minimum criteria, LAPP contains a
point system for comparing candidate properties. The highest number
of points (80) are awarded if We proposed acquisition "provides multiple
recreation opportunities . . . and is within a county with a population of
one million or more"; or if "the principal benefit to be derived from the
acquisition is its wetlands characteristics as defined in We Emergency
Wetlands Act of 1986." Fifty points are awarded if We proposed acqui-
sition will interdict an "imminent (within 2-3 years) property develop-
ment that is determined by the regional or State director to be incompati-
ble with the affected unit's au~or~zed purposes." Twenty-five points
are awarded if the proposed acquisition will foreclose a "short-to-medi
~3
OCR for page 184
184 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Uffl term (within 4-8 years) property development" that is judged to be
incompatible with the purpose of the unit. Points also are awarded if the
acquisition satisfies other measures-preservation of the habitat of an
endangered species, 40 points; preservation of a nationally significant
"natural or cultural feature of a type not now represented in any Federal
conservation/recreation unit," 40 points; inclusion of infrastructure that
would make the property accessible to the general public and to elderly
and handicapped citizens, 20 points; use of less-than-fee acquisition
techniques, 10 points; improvement of manageability and efficiency of
a unit, 20 points; and others.
LAPP has some mechanisms to relax the rigidity of Me point system
and incorporate considerations of agency judgment and preference. One
provision, for example, allows an agency's assistant secretary to award
points to Me 20 highest priority projects that former Me agency's mis-
sion.
The Land Acquisition Working Group reviews and modifies the tenta-
tive ranking of land acquisition proposals to consider, among over
things, proposed exceptions to Me minimum criteria and "subjective
factors not taken into account in the scoring process." Examples of
subjective factors are "the role of a given acquisition in a coordinated
Federal/State/Iocal effort to preserve recreation lands; the possible effect
of an acquisition on State, local, or private efforts to offer competing
recreation opportunities; Me prospect that a private conservation group
may desire to purchase the property."
ADEQUACY OF THE LAPP CRITERIA
The LAPP criteria are subject to criticism on several grounds. The
primary difficulties stem from the ambition of the aim and the choice of
He means. The aim is to facilitate comparisons of the acquisition pro-
posals of numerous federal land managers. The means to achieve this is
comparison by a numerical ranking system.
One of the most obvious inadequacies of the LAPP criteria is that
Hey compare acquisition alternatives without regard to He specific
purpose of the acquisition. Although a numerical ranking scheme obvi-
ously facilitates comparisons after the problem of assigning numbers is
overcome, valuation judgments always will be at issue.
OCR for page 185
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 185
The Minimum Criteria
Even the minimum criteria show how difficult it is to develop a single
set of standards for all federal land acquisitions. For example, the
criterion Cat restricts acquisitions to within or contiguous to existing
units diminishes the options of NPS and USES but not of the Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), which theoretically can look for land nation-
wide.~ On the other hand, recent study of land acquisition in the Lake
Tahoe area shows that the simple legislative technique of limiting acqui-
sition programs to defined geographic areas can give the endeavor a
precision and focus that otherwise might be lacking (Fink, 1991~.
Whether the federal government should purchase property contami-
nated with hazardous waste is a difficult decision. But that criterion
excludes consideration of ecosystem restoration and mitigation of haz-
ards on otherwise desirable properties. Indeed, land of this sort is now
for sale at Love Canal. The criterion that specifies a willing seller is
contrary to the condemnation of private property for public purposes
sanctioned in scores of statutes applicable to the public lands.
The LAPP criteria acknowledge the connection between acquisition
and use with a threshold requirement that the cost of infrastructure
necessary to make We property accessible, safe, and usable by the gener-
al public does not exceed 10% of We estimated purchase price. Costs of
management are pertinent to acquisition decisions, although some sites
might merit building a substantial infrastructure, just as some sites might
justifSr mitigating a hazard.
"Acquisitions nationwide are themselves constrained. If USFWS were
instructed by Congress to Maximize the preservation of biological diversity
with its acquisition Finds, the agency conceivably might be tempted to make
strategic purchases of land in Latin America or elsewhere outside of North
America. The acquisition policies Hat established a network of military bases
around the globe obviously were not confined by considerations of domestic
geography. Whether a similar principle will govern the establishment of world-
wide ecological bases is a political question.
OCR for page 186
186 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATON
The Twelve Ranking Criteria
Prevents Imminent Development
This criterion highlights the opportunistic aspects of land acquisition.
Imminence of development usually is a manifestation of several features
(e.g., location, value, size, and control of access) that influence the
value of a particular parcel. The development decision thus might have
important multiplier effects. The Washington Department of Wildlife's
recent purchase of a cattle ranch in the Methow Valley, which a devel-
oper had proposed transforming into a resort, for example, is likely to
influence future development in profound ways (Seattle James' 19911.
A strategy of opportunism gives priority to near-term problems and
diminishes the role of long-term goals and plans. Purchases to head off
imminent development, moreover, tend to be high in local friction and
costs, which can take a toll on acquisition budgets.
Provides Multiple Recreation Opportunities
Close to Population Centers
This criterion is limited and overly simple. It does not purport to
measure the quality of the recreational experience. It provides only an
indication of He possible demand for recreation without considering Be
extent to which this demand is already being met by federal or other
public recreation areas. The important question pertains to the available
supply of recreational opportunities relative to population. As written,
the criterion gives priority for land acquisition to places like King Coun-
ty, Washington which includes Seattle and has a wealth of readily
available opportunities in national forests and state lands-at He expense
of, for example, St. Louis, which is two counties away from He Mark
Twain National Forest and has no over nearby extensive public forests.
Preserves Endangered and
Threatened Species Habitat
This criterion assigns 40 points if He acquisition would preserve He
habitat of an endar~gered species and 30 points if it would preserve He
OCR for page 187
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 187
habitat of a Greatened species. But the aggregate number of points that
can be assigned to a property because of other criteria can exceed 300.
Thus, the endangered species criterion shows particularly well We effect
of disparate acquisition programs serving distinct needs: regardless of
importance, this criterion could not be Me primary motivation for an
acquisition. This is a curious outcome given the strong congressional
commitment to the protection of species in Me Endangered Species Act.
Properties that might be regarded as the highest priorities from the
point of view of endangered species benefits can rank well below other
properties whose value to endangered species is much less but whose
scores are enhanced by extraneous considerations. Thus, if a priority
list of proposed acquisitions for the federal endangered species program
were constructed, it is likely that such a list would be substantially rear-
ranged when it was passed through Me filter of the LAPP criteria.
Moreover, beyond introducing a systematic bias against acquisitions
for certain protected species (e.g., those located far away from major
urban areas), Me criteria also might reward factors inimical to Me con-
servation of certain species. For example, some species, like the piping
plover and Me Chesapeake tiger beetle, depend upon undisturbed beach
habitats. The conservation of those species is likely to depend upon
fairly strict controls on a variety of recreational activities; yet, under the
uniform criteria, more recreational opportunities translate into higher
overall scores. Another example is the desert tortoise, whose conserva-
tion likely depends upon restricting off-road vehicle use. The existing
criteria either systematically hinder the acquisition of land for Hose
species, or encourage the tolerance of incompatible uses as part of the
price of acquisition.
This criterion also suffers from a failure to adapt to rapid change. In
recent tunes, an increasing amount of nonfederal land is being proposed
as critical habitat for Greatened and endangered species-millions of
acres alone for Me spotted owl. When the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund ~WCF) Act was enacted in 1964, neither Congress nor the
federal agencies could foresee Me extent to which Me protection of
Greatened and endangered species habitats would become a major land
management objective of Me 199Os. Future federal acquisition priorities
must recognize ~is, and Me acquisition criteria and Me congressional
appropriations process must be able to respond to this important conser-
vation need.
Insofar as Me value of a proposed acquisition for endangered species
OCR for page 188
188 SEl-llNG PRIORIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
is concerned, this criterion is a crude determination. A property either
is habitat for a threatened or endangered species or it isn't; all endan-
gered species habitat properties receive 40 points, and all threatened
species habit properties receive 30 points. Yet, there are other consider-
ations that could be extremely important in ranking proposed endangered
species acquisitions. For example, an acquisition that helps avert a
conflict over a proposed development might be viewed as a higher prior-
ity than one that does not. An acquisition that encompasses several
endangered species is presumably a higher priority than one that encom-
passes only one. An acquisition within designated critical habitat is
likely more important than one outside critical habitat. An acquisition
of a larger tract or of a critical corridor should be accorded more
weight. Those and other considerations could be used to fine-tune ac-
quisition priorities for the endangered species program, but they are too
detailed to receive any attention in the broad-brush criteria of the LAPP
system.
Preserves a Nationally Significant Natural
or Cultural Feature of a Type
Not Now Represented in Any Federal Unit
This criterion presumes some compilation or list of features necessary
to complete a preservation system. Although work of this sort has been
done by NPS, nothing approaching a consensus (scientific or otherwise
has been reached on the components of such a preservation system. At
the same time, recognition of this criterion shows the tension between
stability and dynamics that attends any attempt to restate acquisition
criteria. Knowledge and values about what is worth preserving change
rapidly, and acquisition practice must be responsive to ~at.
This criterion reflects also He view Mat preservation of nationally sig-
nificant natural and cultural features is a justification for federal acquisi-
tion. The committee generally shares this view, but federal acquisitions
are only part of a complex web of state, federal, local, and private
property holdings. Important features of Be type adverted to in this
criterion might be able to be protected by other means.
OCR for page 189
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 189
Preserves Biologically Valuable
Wetlands or Riparian Habitat
An acquisition can be awarded 80 points for this criterion, double that
of protecting endangered species. Like many of the criteria, the term
wetlands has been given a definition, although considerable discretion is
involved in distinguishing among different types of wetlands.
As with He endangered species criterion, the wetlands criterion shows
how difficult it is to reconcile an acquisition program with a regulatory
program. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for example,
wetlands are protected by law and use restrictions that can be imposed
on private owners without compensation and within a broad range of
conditions. Indeed, the higher the public values of wetlands, the lower
He likelihood Hat payment is required as a formal legal matter under the
takings clause. Among the policy questions presented are whether ac-
quisitions should be deferred until regulation is proven inadequate;
whether acquisition and regulatory programs focus on different kinds of
properties; whether acquisitions achieve goals that regulation cannot; and
whether a high priority (or high point) acquisition program undercuts the
effectiveness of the regulatory program by raising expectations of a buy-
out.
Includes Infrastructure for Access
for the Public and Handicapped People
The assignment of points for improved access is quite plausible.
Acquiring key land parcels and rights-of-way Hat can provide public
access to large areas of otherwise inaccessible federal land is extremely
important. For example, at He request of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BL~M) and USES, He Keystone Center conducted a policy dia-
logue in 1988 on He problems associated wig obtaining public access to
federal land where such access was blocked by adjacent private owner-
ship (Keystone Center, 1989~. That report identifies He confusion,
frustration, and confrontation that often attends barriers to access to the
public lands. It recommends incorporating access needs in the planning
processes of government entities, as well as developing the innovative
and practical means to improve access.
OCR for page 190
190 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Infrastructure presumably is defined elsewhere, but it might include
disparate items, such as highways on He one hand and curb-cuts for
wheelchairs on the other.
Expands Units With Recent
Rapid Growth in Visitor Use
This criterion effectively makes increased visitor use a goal, even
when it might be something to be avoided. It suggests the need for
setting visitor use goals Mat vary considerably from one federal area to
another. The criterion also should reflect the relationship between feder-
al and other public use areas in serving recreation users.
Improves Manageability
and Efficiency of a Unit
Although pertinent to acquisition practice, this criterion suffers from
the same bluntness that permeates the other criteria. The points avail-
able under this criterion do not provide for differentiation between large
projects with sizable administrative savings and small projects Mat pro-
vide few, if any, savings. The ability to identify administrative cost
savings is particularly important when considering land exchanges,
where both parties might be able to reduce Be long-term costs of prop-
erty-line surveys, road development, and other land management expens-
es.
Results in Federal Savings
in Acquisition Costs Through
the Use of Land Exchanges,
Donations, or Other Alternatives
Alternatives to acquisition must be considered. Particularly for large
projects and during an era of constrained federal budgets, the ability to
accomplish high-priority acquisitions without using appropriated funds
OCR for page 191
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BU=ET 191
should be encouraged, so that EWCF monies can be used most effective
ly.
Land exchanges could help reduce Me perception in many western
states Mat the percentage of federal land ownership is too high and
increasing, to Me long-term detriment of the local property-tax base and
economy. Federal acquisition of land for conservation purposes In Lose
areas might be accomplished more easily if citizens and governments
were aware Hat over federal Iands were being made available to Be
private sector or to a state agency.
Nonetheless, it is very difficult to manipulate a point system to ensure
Mat a high-priority, noncash acquisition opportunity ranlcs above an
identical opportunity Cat requires We use of EWCF appropriations. An
acquisition of Cat sort is not necessarily superior; exchanges and dona-
tions are quite complex. Furthermore, the criterion is based on percent
savings in acquisition cost rawer Can a more relevar~t absolute dollar
savings.
Involves Federal Acquisition of Less
Than Full-Fee Title to the Property
Federal acquisition practice has not fully exploited Be opportunities
for less-~an-fee acquisition. But this important proposition is buried in
an evaluation system Cat gives a slight mark-up (10 points) to acquisi-
tions that use a less-~an-fee approach. The criterion also does not
account for Be quality of the lands acquired. Insistence upon less-than-
fee analyses would be better placed in Be procedures of the individual
agencies rather than in the document that sets acquisition priorities.
Involves Significant Nonfederal Partnership
The purpose of this criterion is not clear. If the purpose is to obtain
financial support from others, points should be awarded in relation to the
proportion of costs borne by the partners. The current allocation of 5
points for each partner effectively means that points are awarded for
adding complexity to the arrangement.
OCR for page 192
192 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Ranks 20 Highest Priority Projects
According to Agency Mission
Although the criteria give weight to individual agency priority rank-
ings, agency priorities with special criteria Hat differ from He priorities
of He administration often are reversed. For example, in fiscal year
1991, the highest ranking USFWS project under He LAPP criteria was
ranked 32nd on the agency priority list.
REFLECTION OF AGENCY
MISSIONS AND Al)"IHORITIES
For purposes of illustration, the L`APP criteria are discussed below as
they relate to He missions and land acquisition authorities of a single
agency USES. USES has aquisition authority under EWCF, the Na-
tional Trails Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. Purposes of land acquisition under those
authorities include land that provides access to national forests over
nonfederal lands. Other acts establishing specific units, such as national
recreation areas, might have additional land acquisition authority.
Parts of the national forests serve specific purposes, and Congress has
provided specific land acquisition authority in addition to the general
authority of the Weeks Law and He broad outdoor recreation acquisition
authority of He L~WCF Act. The criteria for setting acquisition priori-
ties, ~us, must serve an array of purposes and uses, some of which
deserve greater priority in land acquisition than others, despite the even
treatment apparently assigned by the Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield
Act.
For purposes of this analysis, He committee divided He LAPP crite-
ria into four groups:
· Protection criteria (e.g., prevents imminent development, preserves
endangered and threatened species, preserves natural or cultural features
not now in any federal area, preserves biologically valuable wetlands or
riparian areas)
· Recreation criteria (provides multiple recreation opportunities close
to population centers; expands units with recent rapid growth in visitor
use)
OCR for page 193
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 193
· Administranve criteria (includes infrastructure for access by public
and handicapped people; improves manageability)
· Cost criteria beads to federal cost savings through land exchanges
and donations; involves federal acquisition of less than full-fee title;
involves significant nonfederal partnership)
Protection and Recreation Criteria
The protection and recreation criteria are related to, but not entirely
coincident wig, the statutory missions for the national forests. They fad!
to address timber, grazing, watershed protection, and mining uses of He
national forests, although this might be appropriate at Be present time in
view of the increased attention being assigned to wildlife and ecosystem
concerns relative to over conservation purposes. The criteria also fad!
to address the specifics of the several statutes Mat designate areas of the
national forests as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national trails, and
over areas, which should have special attention in land acquisition
programs.
The protection and recreation criteria also fad] to address ecosystem-
management concerns on the national forests, especially those related to
avoiding forest fragmentation. Those are important in He context of
protecting endangered species in forested areas, such as the northern
spotted owl, but do not receive attention in the criteria.
The protection criteria in one group and the recreation criteria in
another reflect the dichotomy in objectives Cat were to be met by the
EWCF. That poses problems of the sort mentioned above, whereby
protection of endangered species could be assigned low priority overall
because one criterion does not combine well with any of He recreation-
related criteria and might well be wholly at odds wig them.
The recreation criteria do not fit recreation on He national forests
well. Priority is given to opportunities for multiple kinds of recreation
in counties wig populations of ~ million or more. This could give
acquisition priority to counties that already have a wealth of recreational
opportunities at the expense of counties that do not.
OCR for page 194
194 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Administrative Criteria
These criteria do not relate to conservation goals but are concerned
with how conservation goals are met. The criterion for fair access is
related mainly to recreation. Assigning the same weight (20 points) to
existing infrastructure to make He area accessible to Be handicapped
and to making the area accessible to the general public is generally
inappropriate for the national forests, although it might be appropriate in
some cases. Infrastructure for providing access to the national forests
for the general public usually means high-cost roads; access for the
handicapped might mean trails modified to allow wheelchairs, which are
usually much less costly than roads. Thus, an area with good roads
might be given a lower rating for acquisition because it does not have
handicapped access, although access could be provided later at costs
much below Lose for building basic road access.
The criterion Mat gives priority to units with rapidly growing visitor
use also does not fit the national forests very well. Most of the national
forests support extensive recreation. It is unlikely Mat such recreation
will be limited by the area of land available. It is more likely to be
limited by restrictions on supporting facilities, such as parking areas and
campgrounds. This criterion appears more relevant to national recre-
ation areas in urban areas (e.g., Gateway NRA) than to national forests.
Manageability could have some relevance to meeting conservation
goals. It could be used to give weight to acquiring inholdings, which
are common on the national forests and pose administrative and cost
problems. Where such inholdings are relevant to meeting conservation
goals, they presumably would be assigned priority under the protection
criteria. The day-to~ay problems of maintaining land lines, controlling
use, and providing access suggest that this criterion deserves attention.
It should not, however, be thought of in the same way as those criteria
that are related to conservation goals.
Cost Criteria
These criteria are aimed at getting the largest area or greatest value of
land for whatever amount is spent. They account for a total of 50 of the
maximum of 420 points that could be awarded, exclusive of the 150
OCR for page 195
OFUCEOF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 195
points for use by the assistant secretary. Presumably, the expected
acquisition costs against which savings are measured are based on fair
market value. The committee is not so concerned with the weight as-
signed to cost savings (50 points), but with the applicability of the mech-
anisms that are considered Hess than full-fee title and partnerships)
relative to the conservation goals that are to be met.
Botkin (1990) suggests three categories of natural areas that should be
maintained: no-action wilderness, which is needed as a baseline for
science; preagricultural wilderness, in which the goal is to maintain the
appearance of the landscape as first viewed by explorers; and conserva-
tion areas set aside to conserve biological diversity. The latter two
categories generally would require active, sometimes intensive, manage-
ment to meet the specific goals for which the areas were maintained.
The inclusion of criteria for less than full-fee title acquisitions and
partnership in the criteria suggest substantially more important consider-
ations than costs that should be addressed.
Conclusions
As applied to the national forests, the criteria are imprecise and over-
ly simple. They do not address the real tensions between recreation and
protection as the two major goals of the EWCF or the conflicts between
imperatives, such as endangered species protection, priorities for com-
pleting congressionally designated areas, systems (e.g., wilderness), and
other less-absolute objectives. They mix criteria for protection and
recreation goals with administrative and cost criteria. And they miss Me
great variety of conditions in the national forests: solid blocks versus
fragmented parcels, spectacular versus ordinary landscapes, isolated
versus well-traveled lands, and economically useful lands versus rock
and ice~Selds.
The scheme ranks potential areas In and around the national forests
win points assigned for the various goals and over factors without any
precision. And none may be necessary. The agencies' claims that
Congress accepts their rankings for at least 70% of Me acquisitions
might reflect the agencies' knowledge of what will and what will not be
acceptable in Congress more Can it does the efficacy of the ranking
system.
OCR for page 196
Representative terms from entire chapter:
national forests
