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 197
9
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Committee on Scientific and Technical Criteria for Federal Acquisi-
tion of Lands for Conservation was asked to (~) review Me criteria and
procedures by which the four major federal land management agencies
acquire public lands for conservation purposes; (2) assess the historic,
public policy, and scientific bases for the agencies' land-acquisition
criteria; (3) compare them with those of nongovernmental land conserva-
tion groups; (4) assess the effectiveness of the federal: land-acquisition
programs; and (5) evaluate the extent to which the agencies have objec-
tive methods for ranking potential acquisitions.
The four land management agencies-the National Park Service
(NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (IJSFWS), the Bureau of Land
Management ALMS, and the Forest Service (USES)-have wide-ranging
missions and mandates. Land acquisition is a too! available to each of
Hem but is not the major mission of any of ~em. Except for BEM,
whose authority for acquiring lands is relatively new, each agency has
its own ranking system for land acquisition. Superimposed on, and
developed from, Me agencies' rating systems is an interagency system
for setting acquisition priorities used by Me Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for preparing Me land-acquisition portion of the presi-
dent's annual budget.
The committee found Mat the various approaches used by each agency
to rate potential land acquisitions generally are based on systematic
criteria that reflect Me agencies' basic missions. The missions ~em-
seives, however, are complex, reflecting sometimes conflicting or con
1
197
OCR for page 198
198 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
fusing goals and a long history of federal public land policies. The
committee compared the agencies' criteria with Hose used by nongov-
ernmental land-conservation groups and found that the private groups
typically have straightforward land-acquisition goals and programs. The
committee believes that the agencies can benefit from review and under-
staIlding of the nongovernmental groups' programs, but Me nongovern-
mental criteria are not directly transferable to the federal land-acquisition
programs.
Criteria for federal land-acquisition programs must change from time
to time to keep pace with evolving agency missions. For example, the
rationale for the Land and Water Conservation Fund ~WCF), the main
source of appropriations for federal land acquisitions, has changed since
it was established In 1964. Its focus has evolved over time to include
acquiring land for various conservation purposes. Even We meaning of
conservation has evolved over the years, with changes in scientific un-
derstanding and increasing pressures on the nation's land base.
Wig these changes have come revised understanding of the meaning
of acquisition and of the forces that affect its usefulness as a conserva-
tion tool. The separation of wholly private and wholly public lands has
become less distinct with increasing reliance since the 1960s on regula-
tions and less-than-fee acquisitions to accomplish public objectives. The
committee believes Mat such reliance will increase in the future, because
land is limited, and meeting a range of public and private goals simulta-
neously is becoming increasingly difficult.
Understanding of conservation needs is expanding as scientific knowl-
edge grows. Conservation programs are coming to grips with the recog-
nition of the importance of maintaining biological diversity, Me potential
for changes in global climate, the value of working landscape approach-
es to regional protection, and over environmental variables. Sustaining
natural conditions over some significant landscapes is one approach to
preserving biological diversity. In view of existing landscape patterns
and land uses, a mix of land-acquisition techniques, such as conservation
easements and less-than-fee purchases, will need to be used creatively
and cooperatively across agency lines and wig nonfederal governments
and private landowners.
The committee believes that the conservation objectives of Me federal
government can best be met by continuing the commitment of Me land-
management agencies and OMB to a rational planning approach for
OCR for page 199
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 199
setting land-acquisition priorities
That means defining current federal
lands in relation to conservation needs, Staining what additional
farads or ownership in land would contribute to these needs, and estab-
lishing priorities so Hat land-acquisition appropriations are allocated
efficiently. At Be same time, Be existing process can be improved. The
recommendations Mat follow are intended to improve Be current system
for setting land-acquisition priorities and Be use of various means of
acquiring ownership in conservation lands.
GOALS
Structuring OMB and Agency Criteria
OMB, UPS, Bow, USES, and USES should separate the current
national ranking system for finding acquisition priorities into at
least three categories: outdoor recreation resources, natural re-
sources protection, and cultural heritage protection the three
major purposes offederal law] acquisition. Other categories might
be needed, especially where Congress has designated portions of
the federal lands to protect specific kinds of resources, such as
wilderness areas, we and scenic rivers, and historic and archeo-
logical sites.
Each agency should develop individual criteria to rank its own acquisi-
tionis, because no single set of criteria will work to satisfy fully the
different agency missions. The OM]3 method for setting federal acquisi-
tion priorities among the priorities of individual agencies forces nonaddi-
tive criteria into a single composite ranking. Ibis skews results in favor
of potential land acquisitions that meet some of each purpose and against
acquisitions that would best meet specific purposes. The current ap-
proach also emphasizes certain considerations at the expense of others
and diminishes the agencies' ability to fulfill their legislative charges.
Outdoor recreation and wildlife protection on Be same tract of land
can be incompatible. Yet, the OMB criteria award points for each in a
single ranking system for federal land acquisitions. For example' public
recreation is assigned as many as 80 points in setting priorities, while
protecting endangered and Greatened species is assigned a maximum of
OCR for page 200
200 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
40 points. This favors acquisition of areas that can expect high recre-
ation use as well as have endangered or threatened species. The present
ranking system applies Me same criteria nationwide and across all agen-
cies, despite variance in regional needs and agency missions. A system
that ranks the Civil War Battlefield at Gettysburg against the mission
blue butterfly does not have the flexibility to serve all the purposes
encompassed by the agencies responsible for land acquisition.
Some latitude is possible with the current composite criteria if the
assistant secretaries use their discretionary points (~50 points for the
highest priority tract) to shift the balance in favor of an acquisition when
this is needed to ensure that a specific goal is met. But as long as a
single set of criteria is used to meet all acquisition purposes, Me system
is flawed. The federal agencies, with their varied missions, need more
than a single set of criteria.
One approach would be parallel ranking systems for each major pur-
pose, leaving Congress to decide on Me total amount of appropriations
to allocate to each purpose. Alternatively, Congress could establish
dedicated funds for each major federal acquisition purpose. If Me agen-
cies ranked Heir requests by major purpose, secondary purposes could
be recognized and given some weight, but each acquisition would be
counted toward the main purpose. The report of the President's Com-
mission on Americans Outdoors makes note of similar dedicated funds:
the Wallop-Breaux amendments to aid sport fishing and recreation on
federal lands, the Reclamation Act to support irrigation projects, He
Highway Trust Fund, and He Historic Preservation Fund. Although this
approach might establish a rationale for a ranking scheme, the committee
cautions that bases for dedicated Finds quickly become outdated.
The agencies' missions in relation to land acquisition need to be made
explicit to help clarify the various criteria. Broad categories of shared
agency goals, such as those used in the OMB criteria, hide some impor-
tant distinctions. All four agencies provide outdoor recreation opportu-
n~ties, but some of those provided by USES and BEM are not provided
by NPS or He USFWS. For example, alI-terrain vehicles and motorized
trail bikes, as well as hunting, are permitted on large parts of the nation-
al forests and BEM lands, but usually not in He national parks. The
same sort of distinction applies to wetlands should USFWS acquisition
of prairie potholes to support migratory waterfowl be afforded He same
priority as BEM acquisition in a wild and scenic river corridor to meet
ecosystem management objectives?
OCR for page 201
CONCLUS70NS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 201
Recreational and biological conservation goals can be separated while
recognizing Tat conservation of biotic resources fosters outdoor recre-
ation opportunities. But He two goals are incompatible in some cases
and complementary, or at least nonconflicting, in others. The current
OMB criteria imply dial Key always are complementary.
Acquisition Strategies and Techniques
Agencies should use the widest possible range of land-protection
strategies in formulating acquisition proposals, from public owner-
ship to land-use regulation, alternatives to fee-simple land acquisi-
tion, exchanges, pubZic-private and interagency arrangements,
partnerships, cross-boundary planning, and other techniques.
The federal land base is not used to the fullest extent possible in meeting
goals for which land acquisition is a tool because of a lack of interagen-
cy planning, multiple missions and mandates, and agency behavior Mat
assigns low priority to some missions.
NPS, BEM, USES, and USFWS focus on the lands for which they
are directly responsible and historically have emphasized some parts of
their missions at the expense of others. As a result, opportunities for
meeting broad recreation and resource conservation goals with the cur-
rent mix of federal, state, and private lands often are overlooked, and
expansion of the federal land base is seen as Be only solution. For
example, meeting landscape-level habitat needs of wide-ranging wildlife
species requires attention from all four of the federal agencies. It also
requires consideration of arrangements over than fee-simple land acqui-
sition to connect habitat on lands of different agencies.
Over time, strengthening the incentives for partnerships and other
public-private options as complements to fee-simple acquisition will
require direction from agency leaders and support from Congress.
Another technique worm agency experimentation is reservation of con-
servation interests and reversionary policies in property dispositions,
such as was done wig the reservation of mineral rights in Be late nine-
teenth and early twenties centuries. Conditions of this sort appear in
property dispositions ranging from Be railroad land grants to the Rykers
Act that au~or~zed the flooding of the Hetch-Hetchy Valley in Yosemi-
te. Obviously, property not disposed of need not be repurchased.
OCR for page 202
202 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
The majority of federal land acquisitions today are in-fee purchases.
However, like interest retention, less-~an-fee acquisition techniques
sometimes allow limited dollars to be stretched to fulfill} acquisition
goals. The committee is aware that use of these techniques by the agen-
cies has not always been successful and Hat practical limitations are
associated with less-than-fee acquisitions. Although the committee does
not believe Hat bungee acquisition should be abandoned in favor of less-
than-fee alternatives in all cases, it also does not believe that historical
limitations of less-~an-fee techniques should be accepted as an inescap-
able policy constraint. Vaguely worded less-~an-fee agreements could
be rewritten win specificity, and agreements too short in duration could
be extended into the future. Unenforceable agreements could be made
enforceable by including monetary penalties, using loss-of-property
reversions for violations, or using third-party enforcement techniques.
Most contemporary federal environmental laws invite ~ird-p arty en-
forcement Trough He mechanism of citizen suits. A similar technique
might prove useful in the context of conservation easements. Nongovern-
mental organizations often are important in arranging public-private
cooperation. And nonprofit organizations might be able to negotiate
contractual arrangements for monitoring and training.
Congress and the executive branch should consider measures to re-
move some of He barriers to the more widespread use of land exchange.
Those measures might include, for example
· Completion by USES and BEM of final regulations for implementa-
tion of He Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 1716~;
· Development of regulations and procedures to facilitate and encour-
age three-party exchanges among nonfederal landowners and more Han
one federal agency;
· Improvement in the ability of federal agencies to accomplish ex-
changes Hat cross state lines;
· Strengthening of He training and development of land-exchange
specialists within He federal agencies and assignment of He most experi-
enced individuals to He agencies' top-priority larld-exchange projects;
· Examination of ways to supplement local government or school
district revenues on a one-time basis when Here is a change in federal
landownership;
· Recommendations from USES and BEM for ways in which the
OCR for page 203
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS 203
cumbersome and time-consuming exchange process could be stream-
1~ned.
Landscape and Ecosystem Protection
Larul-acquisition criteria should be expanded to include landscape
pattern analysis, which typically includes land-use and land-cover
data and measures certain factors, such as patch characteristics,
vegetation types, ecological trends, and hydrologic awl socioeco-
nomic interactions with the resources. Land uses in an entire
watershed should be considered in the design of reserves.
Traditional acquisition practice evacuates individual parcels without
considering regional attributes, including biogeographical and landscape
patterns. A complementary approach is needed among the four agen-
cies, as is cooperation to protect ecosystems and habitats that transcend
agency jurisdictional boundaries.
Comparative evaluations of parcels are distorted if they miss the
regional contexts and the ecological dynamics to which the properties are
subject. Usually, acquisitions that provide corridors, connections, and
linkages between similar landscapes and habitats are enhanced in biologi-
cal value. In the same way that a strategically situated piece of property
can provide access to public lands for human users, habitats in proper
configurations can facilitate the persistence, movement, and dispersal of
native biota.
In addition, individual tracts of protected land can be affected by
external factors; for example, agricultural runoff from lands outside the
refuge resulted ~ poisoned waterfowl on the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge.
And if global climate change does occur, it might accelerate migration
of certain species. Future public land acquisitions must be sensitive to
the dynamics of landscape patterns and uses.
One approach for interagency cooperation might be to develop criteria
for land uses in an entire watershed. Such criteria would identify the
sustainability of regional land uses and identify tradeoffs between meet-
ing current needs and maintaining options for the future. An important
consideration for land acquisition is the extent to which a particular
acquisition contributes to maintaining those options. Consideration of
OCR for page 204
204 SEl-llNG PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
land uses throughout a watershed is critical for management of any
aquatic resources, such as wild and scenic rivers and endangered fish
stocks.
Representative Natural Areas
UPS, BUM, USES, and USERS should prepare an overall strategic
plan that identifies laM-acquisinon needs for establishing and
protecting representative natural areas on federal lands that can
provide scientific baselines for judging the effects of human actions
on the natural environment.
The federal land-acquisition process does not adequately address the
need for protecting natural areas as scientifically credible baselines to
measure the effects human use has on resources. Of the four land-man-
agement agencies, USES has been the leader in developing a scientif~cal-
ly credible system; it has established a system of more than 250 natural
research areas in the national forests. That system is about 60% com-
plete. A fills system of research areas should include ecosystems that
are best represented by federally owned areas on lands managed by Me
over three agencies, as well as some areas not in federal ownership.
Standards for determining what areas are in He system and how Hey
should be protected should be consistent among agencies. An interagen-
cy committee, parallel to one in He late 1970s, could help to establish
consistent guidelines and provide a useful mechanism for agreeing on
areas to be included as research natural areas.
The system should represent ecosystems as completely as possible.
Land acquisition needed for such a system of research areas probably is
modest relative to over programs.
PROCEDURES
Planning and Acquisition
The agencies should develop arui use ~ong-term An-acquisition
plans that can be used to identify priorities awl opportunities for
interagency cooperative efforts.
1
OCR for page 205
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 205
The agencies should take into account regional conservation needs as
well as social effects of acquisitions on focal landowners and communi-
ties arid provide a mechanism for public participation. The multiyear
perspective of such plans would enable Congress to judge how well the
agencies fulfill their missions and facilitate effective evaluation of He
cumulative effects of land acquisition.
Overall vision and long-term planning Mat consider cumulative as
well as social effects are needed for Be acquisition of federal land. That
would allow a variety of public-policy and scientific objectives to be
considered (e.g., economic benefits and costs to communities, provision
of corridors, protection of watersheds, and consideration of other avail-
able recreational opportunities in the area). Social impact analysis (SIA)
is an essential too} in successful land-use planning and should be con-
ducted to identify problems in advance and compare alternatives, provide
a mechanism for public participation, record public needs and site-spe-
cific interests, provide baseline measurements for future comparison,
identify poorly understood cumulative effects, review spatially and tem-
porally remote interests, and identify possibilities for mitigation.
Federal acquisitions can have large effects, positive and negative, on
local residents and communities. Some of Be negative effects are lost
tax revenues, disrupted traditional community patterns and dislocated
human activities. Positive effects include increased revenues from tour-
ism, more recreational opportunities, increased adjacent property values,
and protection of the renewable resource base. Although the creation of
a national park and protection of natural resources should not be contin-
gent on creating or preserving employment, STA can be used to identify
the distribution of costs and benefits to minimize the costs and provide
the public with clear and reliable information regarding the implications
of public land policy. A comprehensive checklist of social effects could
be developed to determine the social significance of individual acquisi
tions.
The conservation objectives of many acquisitions often are compatible
with a variety of activities of Be resident population. In many cases,
co-management between federal authorities and the resident population
is a realistic goal; the local residents often have the most to gain by
extending and protecting the renewable resource base. STA also can
reduce costs by identifying problems and comparing alternatives in
advance.
The OMB criteria and Be agency submittals provide an annual agenda
OCR for page 206
206 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
for acquisition, but they appear to start from a set of criteria that are
only pardy related to agency missions. In the effort to get common
criteria across agency lines, much of the sense of individual agency
missions is lost. Furthermore, a multiyear perspective seems to be
lacking, as are signs of a systematic overview of acquisition needs other
than at the field level.
The OMB criteria assign no special weight to congressionally desig-
nated areas, such as wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and nation-
al trails. But agency land-use plans often emphasize congressionally
designated areas. Agency land-use plans vary widely; some have crite-
ria for land acquisition that appear nowhere in the national criteria,
which implies that information from the field is not used at the national
level.
Improving Information for Decision Making
The federal lar~-acquisinorz program for conservation should have
a solid information base as part of a systematic approach to
achieving its goals.
That information base should enable the land-management agencies and
Congress to determine the extent to which conservation needs are being
met and to identify gaps in meeting Pose needs.
Gap analysis entails examining the distribution of key elements of
biological diversity relative to areas now under some type of protective
ownership. A geographic information system (GIS) consists of He com-
puter hardware and software for manipulating spatially distributed data.
GIS is an especially powerful too! for planning and acquisition of con-
servation lands and can be applied in Me shady of environmental pro-
cesses, analysis of trends, and predictions of the results of planning
decisions. The methodologies of gap analysis and GIS are widely used
today in resource planning decisions. They need to be applied to setting
priorities for federal land acquisition.
Information should be assembled for NPS, BEM, USES, and USFWS
in a common GAS. The agencies should continue to refine and expand
their applications of gap analysis and GAS. Data gathering should be
improved, extended, and directed wig a view toward applications in gap
analysis and GIS.
OCR for page 207
- .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 207
Information needed to determine priorities for land acquisition such as
maps of landownership, land use, critical habitats for wildlife and endan-
gered species, natural areas, water availability, and vegetation is scat-
tered among several federal and local agencies and is not in a form that
is readily accessible to decision makers. A long-term view of acquisi-
tion hinges on an inventory of current landholdings defined in relation to
major management objectives and on the identification of areas that
should be acquired in fee or in part. Additional data Mat are incorporat-
~ with increasing frequency in GISs include social science information,
such as human population change and over census data.
The agencies do have inventories of current landholdings, often as
part of their land-use plans. For example, typical USES land-use pearls
show allocation of national forest lands to various major land-use catego-
ries, the agency's ownership in relation to other owners, and lands to be
acquired and lands to be exchanged or overwise disposed of. But they
usually lack an interagency and regional view of land-acquisition needs
and an objective view of what could be accomplished with less-than-fee
acquisitions and interagency land uses. Descriptions in land-use plans of
what could be accomplished Trough acquisitions, for example, of wild-
life corridors that would connect units managed by different agencies,
including state agencies, would be helpful.
A four-agency information base for a conservation land-acquisition
program should be drawn from existing information bases, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, state natural history surveys, state GAS programs,
and Me NPS biosphere reserve program. Such an information base
could be similar to one proposed by Me Conservation Foundation
(1985), which suggested a three-part program for setting priorities for
new national parks:
· First is a register, or nationwide list of natural and cultural resourc-
es, of Sites wormy of special management." That register would not
set priorities, but would identify the universe of resources worthy of
consideration.
· Second, a set of thematic inventories should be undertaken, comb-
ing Me register for sites relevant to a particular opportunity or concern.
For example, an inventory might be done of sites important to floral
biological diversity, sites Greatened by climate change, or corridors
connecting species populations amid fragmented landscapes.
OCR for page 208
208 SE'-llNG PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
· Third, Congress should receive periodic reports evaluating acquisi-
tion opportunities. Such a report, updated every 2 or 3 years, would
include a statement of the federal backlog, a summary of recent purchas-
es, an estimate of backlog costs, and an analysis of the land market.
Inventories identifying private lands that might be subject to full-fee
or partial acquisition by the federal government are a sensitive issue.
The committee notes, however, that problems posed by such inventories
appear to have been addressed In agency land-use plans that identify
specific areas of private lands as desirable for federal acquisition. If a
systematic approach to setting priorities for federal conservation land
acquisition is to be accomplished, it is clear that some private lands must
be identified and information collected on their suitability for meeting
specific needs. The committee believes that the experience of agencies
identifying such lands in land-use plans can be used to guide collection
of information necessary for useful inventories for further land acquisi-
tion without interfering with the privacy of landowners.
The major advances for identifying gaps in protected lands and the
quality of public and private lands deserve to be recognized. Those new
methodologies, however, are heavily dependent on Me adequacy of
existing data and maps for such basic questions as ownership, invento-
ries, population trends, distribution of species, and so on. The need for
information systems to support land- and resource-management decisions
is not con~ned to the federal program. State-agency data bases are
notoriously incomplete, scattered, Incompatible, arid inaccessible.
Funding
For long-term planning and consistent adherence to a set of crite-
ria the [WCF needs adequate and predictable funding.
Funding for We LWCF has fluctuated dramatically; for example, appro-
priations in 1978 were approximately $800 million; in 1982, less clan
$200 million; and in 1991, approximately $375 million. Appropriations
to the states have been variable as well, but generally have been much
less than the maximum of 60% allowed by the tWCF Act; in 1982, the
states received only 2% of the total appropriations. Such variation
makes planning for land acquisition difficult. National planning should
OCR for page 209
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 209
be attentive to local planning. National criteria should be tied to criteria
used in local land-use plans and should give weight to congressionally
designated areas. Funding must take account of those factors.
Emergency Acquisitions
Congress should consider mechanisms, such as providing discre-
~zona~y tWCF funding for dealing with emergencies and une~cpect-
ed opportunities.
Discretionary funding would allow the secretaries of the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to take advantage of
unexpected opportunities or respond to unwelcome threats to resources.
During the several years normally consumed by the process of identi-
fying lands for acquisition, planning, and Study, conditions can change;
e.g., prices often rise and qualities fall. In addition, sudden events
(such as development threats and purchase opportunities) are common in
tile course of land acquisition. Parcels that were unavailable might
become available because of Tic delinquency, foreclosure, or dead.
Parcels might come under imminent Great of development when He tared
is sold. In cases such as Lose, the lack of discretionary funding can
mean Cat an agency is unable to acquire Be property.
The tension between carefully considered and opportunistic actions is
a stumbling block in Me development of comprehensive acquisition
criteria. The rise of nonprofit organizations and Me active role Con-
gress takes is evidence of ~at. The objections to emergency acquisi-
tions, such as unaccountable and ad hoc actions, can be met by requiring
stringent after-the-fact explanation and accounting.
Monitoring Acquisitions and Re evaluating Criteria
Acquisitions should be monitored periodically to determine if the
purposes for acquisition have been realized!. Criteria also should
be periodically re-evaluated in light of changes in holdings, climate
and biological resources, demographics, scientific knowledge, and
policy and political values.
OCR for page 210
210 SE1771NG PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Acquisitions new to be monitored to assess Weir effectiveness in achiev-
ing goals within the context of agency missions. In a sense, USES and
BEM already do this in weir periodic revisions of land-use plans; land-
use plans are reviewed and revised every 10 to 15 years. Criteria for
acquisitions should be reviewed in light of we agencies' changing mis-
SiOIlS.
State and Local Issues
Precise criteria should be developed to meet national outdoor
recreation and conservation needs irz setting federal land-acquisi-
tion priorities. UPS, BUM, USES, and USERS should consider the
needs and resources of state, local government, and Indian tribal
lands in federal land-use plans, as wed as the role of state and
local governments in providing outdoor recreation, especially as
these are defined in statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation
plans.
The potential role for state and local government lands in providing
outdoor recreation is given too little attention in sewing priorities for
federal land acquisition. The conservation needs of Indian tribes have
not been addressed by federal or state programs.
In passing We EWCF Act, Congress assigned an important role to
state and local governments in providing opportunities for public outdoor
recreation. As much as 60% of we annual appropriations can be grant-
ed to the states for land acquisition and development of recreation areas
In recent years, a much lower proportion usually has gone to the states
in part because administration budgets have not asked for more.
The committee found Mat NPS, BLM, USES, and USFWS acquisition
programs pay little attention to nonfederal outdoor recreation oppormni-
ties on over lands. One result is Mat recreation is emphasized in feder-
al land-acquisition priorities even in areas where such opportunities
might be provided on state and local lands. This skews the federal land-
acquisition priorities against over reasons for acquisition, such as pro-
tection of wildlife and endangered species.
Full funding of the state grant portion of the EWCF appropriations
would relieve the pressure on federal agencies to provide recreation
OCR for page 211
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 211
opportunities to meet local needs. Yet more is required Man a simple
expansion of entitlements. The program should be merit- and goal-
driven. Development of a clear set of recreation guidelines to meet
national recreation needs would focus federal land acquisitions on high-
priority national needs.
Incentives for Private Landowners
Because conservation land needs cannot be satisfied through public
land-acquisinon programs alone, efforts should be made to develop
partnerships Art other mechanisms of cooperation with private
landowners to achieve goals that have been realized to date pri-
marily through acquisition.
Even the largest nature reserves, if left alone, probably will suffer major
distaffs of species in a few hundred or a few thousand years. Size
demands are greater if the reserve is located in a disturbance-prone
environment or if it is intended to accommodate migrations of protected
species.
By any measure, future conservation needs of the nation will ou~cpace
any efforts by federal land buyers to satisfy those needs with traditional
acquisition practices. NPS, BEM, USES, and USFWS have recorded
impressive backlogs of properties that satisfy acquisition criteria but
await funding; current acquisition practice makes only small dents in the
formal specifications of acquisition needs. On top of this, Me under-
s~zed nature of many biological preserves and the space essential for
effective wildlife conservation underscore the futility of relying on sim-
ply spending more federal dollars to create habitats of sufficient size.
The recommendation above is a natural outgrowth of the recognition
that any successful campaign to protect biological diversity cannot be
constrained by traditional demarcations between public and private prop-
erties. Historically, land managers respond to incentives. Less-~an-fee
acquisitions are one useful technique for extending habitat protection,
and the committee cannot say what other forms of incentives might be
useful. But a nation that has paid farmers not to grow pigs may yet find
the will to pay them to grow owls, eagles, or hedgerows.
OCR for page 212
212 SE7-llNG PRIORIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
Acquisition Intermediaries
NPS, BUM, USES, and USHERS should continue to take advantage
of the ability of nonprofit organizations to act swiftly to secure
properties until an agency can acquire them. Federal acquisition
przontzes should guide the process, and the transactions should be
in accordance with federal guidelines that control dealing untie
nonprofit organizations.
The amount of land acquired by He federal government Trough the
participation of nonprofit organizations is small compared with the total
amount of land acquired. But the nonprofit organizations do play an
important role in the acquisition of critical tracts; Hey provide agencies
with important flexibility in certain situations and can be key when
timing or flexibility is essential. As early as 1970, the Public Land Law
Review Commission recommended that the federal agencies use alterna-
tive acquisition techniques to combat the price escalation of lands re-
quired for federal programs.
The federal agencies have developed guidelines for transactions wig
nonprofit conservation organizations that emphasize the need to ensure
that federal priorities guide federal acquisitions. The guidelines establish
procedures governing disclosure and reimbursement to nonprofit organi-
zations when they sell land to the government. They make clear also
Hat He nonprofit organizations do not act as agents of the government
and Hat the agencies and the Congress decide whether to buy specific
tracts. The committee believes that the guidelines provide a useful
framework for He relationships between the agencies and the land-acqui-
sition intermediaries.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
federal land
