Click for next page ( 52


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 51
3 The Land-Acquisi~cion Process The process of federal land acquisition involves interactions among a variety of participants. Some of the participants federal agencies, Congress, local governments, and landowners-have official decision- making or administrative authority; others such as owners of adjoining properly, and national and local interest groups lack formal authority but might have considerable influence on those who do. This chapter reviews the mandates of the federal agencies Mat acquire land for con- servation purposes and the sources of funding available for acquisition. The chapter then explores who exercises authority and influence in We acquisition process and their powers, responsibilities, and modes of interaction, and analyzes how the process actually works to balance often competing interests. Specific consideration is given to how the process incorporates scientific information relevant to reaching conservation objectives and how it accounts for the interests of various groups. SOURCES OF FUNDING Until 1964, each agency had a distinctive funding source for acquisi- tions. The Forest Service (IJSFS) drew a modest annual appropriation from the Weeks Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) used monies accumulated in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The infrequent National Park Service (NPS) acquisitions were funded by 51

OCR for page 51
_ SElTl~G PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION special congressional appropriation. The Bureau of Land Managment 03LM) had little involvement in land aquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund The availability of fiends for federal land acquisition increased dramat- ically wig Me passage of Me Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a special account in the U.S. Treasury from which Congress annually appropriates money to acquire lands for conservation and recreation by federal and state agencies. Certain federal revenues, including the proceeds of surplus federal property sales, Me federal motorboat fuels tax, and a portion of Outer Continental Shelf leasing receipts, are credited to the EWCF to provide it with a maximum of $900 million annually. None of this money can be spent, however, unless specifically appropriated by Congress. Since Me act's passage, more than $3.2 billion of matching grants from the EWCF have been made to states to enable Rem to plan, ac- quire, or develop qualifying projects. In the same period, more than $3.6 billion has been expended from the EWCF for land acquisition by We Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Appropriations from the EWCF have varied considerably from year to year, from nearly $800 million in 1978 to less than $200 million in 1982. In 1991, EWCF appropriations were $374,943,000. The act specifies that not more Man 60% of Me money appropriated from Me EWCF each year is to be for grants to the states, and the state share has typically been much less Man that amount; in 1982, no EWCF monies were appropriated for state grants. The idea for the kWCF can be traced to a proposal by Stewart Udall in 1961 for a hind for federal land acquisition and to Me Outdoor Recre- ation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC), which was established by Congress in 1958. When its final report was released in 1962, the ORRRC's overall conclusion was that We demand for outdoor recreation had grown dramatically since World War II and was likely to continue to do so, necessitating a major governmental effort to provide the land for such purposes. The ORRRC also noted that although much of the available public recreation land was in the West, much of the nation's

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISIT70N PROCESS 53 population was in the East. The congressional committees that were responsible for We legislation creating the EWCF agreed that "a substan- tial part" of We monies to be devoted to federal acquisitions should go toward ache purchase of privately owned inholdings within the authorized boundaries of national parks, forests, and refuges (U.S. Congress, House, 1963; U.S. Congress, Senate, 1964~. Another aim was to estab- lish publicly significant recreation areas within easy distance of major population centers. National Park Service Throughout its history, the national park system as administered by NPS has been a principal beneficiary of the EWCF. Primarily because of backlogs in We acquisition of inholdings within the park system, Congress has on several occasions increased the authorized ceiling for We EWCF to its present level of $900 million (Glicksman and Coggins, 1984). U.S. Forest Service The USES is another federal beneficiary. Although the ~ 897 law creating He USES made no mention of wildlife or public recreation, Hose have been among He purposes for which national forests have been managed since He agency began operation. Passage of the Multi- ple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 heightened the importance of Hose purposes. The national forest system as a whole is to be managed for multiple uses, but He management of particular areas is likely to emphasize only one or a few uses. That is reflected in the limited au- ~ority conferred by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act for land acquisition using monies from He EWCF: The only areas that may be acquired by the USES using EWCF monies are inholdings within nation- al forest wilderness areas, inholdings within other national forest areas that "are primarily of value for outdoor recreation areas," and areas not to exceed 3,000 acres that are adjacent to an existing national forest boundary and that would compose "an integral part of a forest recre- ational management area."

OCR for page 51
54 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION U.S. fish and Wildlife Service The Bird federal agency for which the EWCF can be tapped for land acquisition is Me USFWS. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) in 1929 gave USFWS (then known as Me Bureau of Biological Surveys) the authority to acquire lands for inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds. The enactment of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act ~ years later provided a special mechanism for funding such acquisi- tions. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 conferred a general grant of authority upon Me USFWS to acquire refuge lands without regard to the inviolate sanctuary provisions of the MBCA and without necessarily being limited to lands of value to migratory birds. The purposes for which lands can be acquired by USFWS using EWCF monies have expanded steadily. Until 1962, the question of whether public recreation was an intended purpose of national wildlife refuges had not been addressed legislatively, although the MBCA since 1929 had empowered USFWS to permit hunting of migratory birds on its refuges. In 1962, Congress passed the Refuge Recreation Act. That act au~or~zed Me secretary of the interior to administer national wildlife refuges or parts Hereof for recreation and "an appropriate incidental or secondary user if it was determined that such use was compatible with the primary purposes for which those areas were established. It also authorized the secretary to acquire lands for recreational development adjacent to wildlife refuges, but stipulated that monies in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund could not be used for that purpose. At the time, however, no other sources of funding were available for acquisi- tions. Two years later, when Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, it authorized USFWS to use EWCF monies to acquire lands for the incidental recreation purposes of the Refuge Recre- ation Act. In 1973, USFWS's land-acquisition authority was expanded signifi- cantly when Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That act authorized the secretary of the interior to acquire lands needed for the conservation of endangered or threatened species. It specifically authorized He use of the EWCF for such purposes and amended the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to reflect that authorization. This amendment was the first authorized use of the EWCF that was not tied explicitly or implicitly to outdoor recreation resources. A similar amendment followed in 1976, when the Land and Water Conservation

OCR for page 51
TFIE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 5S Fund Act was amended to allow USFWS to tap the LWCF for land acquisition of any refuge area authorized by specific act of Congress, as well as refuges to be acquired under the general grant of land-acquisition authority found in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The only limita- tion was that the LWCF could not be used to acquire lands authorized for acquisition under the MBCA. In 1986, the LWCF Act was amended again. The Emergency Wet- lands Resources Act directed the secretary of the interior to establish a plan that specifies the wetlands that should be given priority for federal or state acquisition. In putting together this plan, the secretary is to take into account the value of particular types of wetlands for certain purpos- es, among them wildlife (including threatened or endangered species) and outdoor recreation. The secretary is authorized to acquire wetlands Mat are not acquired under the authority of the MBCA, consistent with Me wetlands conservation plan. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act also amended the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to allow Me use of Me LWCF to acquire priority wetlands. Bureau of Land Management The fourth significant recipient of LWCF monies is BLM. The Fed- eral Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes land acquisition by BLM but does not specify Be source of funds for such acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act does not make explicit mention of BEM, but EWCF monies have been used to acquire land for outdoor recreation by BLM since at least the early 1970s. Authority for the secretary of the interior to acquire land for endangered or Greatened species applies to the national wildlife refuge system, which is administered by USFWS however, the ESA au~or~zes land acquisition by the secretary without specifying whether it may be done only through USFWS or other Department of the Interior agencies, such as BEM. ACQUISITION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES Each federal agency acquires lands in pursuit of its own legislative mandate. Acquisition priorities and strategies are also influenced by

OCR for page 51
56 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION longstanding agency practices. The overriding factor in land acquisition is funding: The administration must identify, priorities among those identified by He four agencies (see Appendix B). The enthusiasm of agencies is tempered by the difficulty in acquiring lands and Me cost of managing lands after acquisition. At minimum, acquiring new lands entails expenditures for boundary maintenance, protection of public safety, and payments to local governments In lieu of taxes that would have been received if the lands were in private owner- ship. Appropriation by Congress of money for acquisition does not necessarily mean that Congress will appropriate funds for management or authorize staff positions. New federal lands sometimes also entail expanded responsibilities for federal agencies. For example, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area gave NPS substantial new responsibilities for providing urban recreation in the Los Angeles region, and the use of the greenline park concept has led to significant demands for land-use planning and coordination with state and local governments. Expanded responsibilities may be costly and can present administrative challenges for which existing agency staff are unprepared. A relatively new complication affecting acquisition is the problem of toxic contamination, which can permanently bar acquisition a parcel of land that poses a health or safety threat due to the presence of toxic substances or other hazards does not meet administration criteria for . . . acquisition. Acquisitions along Be New River in West Virginia illustrate the problems created by Be presence of toxic waste. Some parcels within the New River National River area (administered by NPS) are privately owned. One parcel includes extensive river shoreline and was for sale in 1992; a coal mine waste dump is part of Be parcel. NPS would have liked to purchase the parcel; however, it is precluded from purchasing the waste dump, and Be seller was unwilling to sell less Man Be whole parcel. Land-acquisition authority includes purchase of land in fee, with or without condemnation by eminent domain (i.e., through sales, exchang- es, gifts, bequests, and other means), as well as Be acquisition of lesser interests (easements, rights of way, life estates, etc.~. The four federal ~ However, acquiring inholdings and adjacent parcels to consolidate existing holdings some- times reduces He length of boundaries and, therefore, lowers associated costs.

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51
58 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION ~- ,/ ~3~) 1 ~ . ~ / [ ~- ~, . ~ I ~- a - . 1 Sly' tic .

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS ~9 gressional mandate to the agency. NPS's assignment was to "conserve Me scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of fixture genera- tions~ (16 USC I). The dual objectives of preservation and use have been the source of numerous controversies over national park management. Proponents of various park visions often disagree on how best to protect park resources while providing for recreational use. The national park system now comprises numerous land categories, including national parks, monuments, historic sites, battlefields, and recreation areas. Each individual park unit is created by an act of Con- gress. The author~ing legislation generally confirms Cat We unit is to be managed according to general rules governing the system and defines management goals for He particular unit. Some units' authorizing legis- lation is very specific; others have ambiguous language. Overall conservation objectives expressed in management policies have changed with increased ecological understanding and use demands. Objectives have included prevention of poaching; control of elements of Me ecosystem considered undesirable- e.g., at first fire and predators, Men human activities that prevent fire and predator control; human-use management to prevent resource degradation; exploration of ways to mitigate effects of human activities on parks as well as land outside of parks; and integration of parks into larger, regional land-use manage- ment patterns to sustain regional biological diversity. Overall NPS policy is to maintain natural processes responsible for the continuing evolution of natural ecosystems and to restore elements lost as a result of human activities (Keystone Center, 1991~. Acquisition Acquisition of private lands did not become an important concern of NPS park managers until the 1960s. Before then, most new parks were created from Me public domain or from national forests, or in a few cases, by donation. In 1961, Congress established We Cape Cod Na- tional Seashore and authorized federal money for parkland acquisition from private owners; the 1964 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 61 legislation for individual park units limits methods of acquisition, for example, to donations or exchanges, to maximum acreage, or to less- than-fee interest. The Ebey's Landing National Historic Reserve in Washington, for example, was established by Congress in November 1978 "to preserve and protect a rural community which provides an unbroken historical record from the n~neteenth-century exploration and set~dement in Puget Sound to the present time" (National Parks and Recreation Act of 197S, 16 U.S.C.A. Section 461~. The authority for He acquisition of the proper forbids the use of eminent domain. The reserve is made up of "a scenic island community of farms, woodlands, open space, historical structures, and the historic town of Coupeville. The resources to be protected constitute the historic rural environment of central Whidbey Island," and cover 13,100 acres of land and 4,300 surface acres of salt water. Legislative acquisition strategies also can encourage local zoning. An example of federally encouraged local zoning is found in He Cape Cod National Seashore Act of 1961 (16 U.S.C.A. Section 459b-~), which gives the secretary of He interior the power "to acquire [for He national seashore] by purchase, gift, condemnation, transfer from any Federal agency, exchange or otherwise, the land, waters, and over property, and improvements thereon." But He condemnation powers are con- strained in several ways. Owners whose land is condemned may elect to retain He right of use and occupancy of He property for residential purposes for as long as 25 years. The act also suspends He secretary's authority to acquire improved property (e.g., single-family dwellings) by condemnation if the towns within He seashore have valid zoning laws approved by the secretary and applicable to the property. The Cape Cod Seashore has adopted use guidelines for private properly that direct private owners of improved property to comply wig the act; this formu- la effectively created federal zoning in He form of indirect federal con- tro' over local land-use decisions. Limitations on acquisition authority and criteria for priorities within individual units are reflected in land-protection plans prepared for each NPS unit. Key considerations for establishing land-acquisition criteria are the primary purpose of He park, land price escalation, legislative history, imminent threats, and protection of the park. Current adm~n- istration policy requires land-protection plans to identify, for each pri- vately owned parcel, the least federal interest necessary to achieve the

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 93 a decade or so after passage of EWCF, federal funds from EWCF were matched with state and local funds to provide and develop recreation opportunities, as well as to protect open space. (Receipt of EWCF fiends required that states prepare "Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans".) The state grants portion of the EWCF has declined substantially over the past 15 years (Table 3-~. This is the result of budget constraints at all levels of government, as well as growing congressional interest in shifting the balance of funding toward acquisition of federal lands. And without significant federal fiends to encourage He states to allocate Weir limited funds to acquisition and development of recreation lands, the availability of state and local recreation opportunities is not keeping up with population pressures? especially in urban areas. One result of decreased state funding is a tendency for some states to look to the federal government to provide recreation land and opportuni- ties that would relieve the states of what would otherwise be Heir re- sponsibility. As described by state officials to the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in a hearing on "The Crisis in State and Local Recreation" prior- ities for the use of state EWCF funds are for accessible recreational facilities that do not require travel, rehabilitation and refurbishment of existing resources, for enhancement of the state tourism industry a major employer in many states, and preservation of the rural character of some areas (Travous, 1992~. State officials also pointed out Hat properly placed urban parks are important for connecting the inner city wig coasts and wilderness areas. Lack of funding Trough the EWCF has also led to over funding mechanisms Hat complicate the issue. For example, He National Recre- ational Trails Trust Fund Act, funded by Be gas tax paid by recreational vehicle use, was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transpor- tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-240) and is under He jurisdic- tion of the Deparunent of Transportation. This has the potential to circumvent He recreational-land-planning process and to result in con- flicts with He intent of the LWCF. Native American Tribes The conservation needs of Native Americans have not been consid

OCR for page 51
94 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION ered in the context of the EWCF, because no mechanism has been devel- oped to address the sovereign status of tribes and their role in land conservation. The federal portion of the EWCF is used to acquire pub- lic lands; tribal lands are held in trust by Me federal government but are not classified as public lands. States have been unwilling to address these needs, because tribal territories are not political subdivisions of state governments. Also, because of the sovereign immunity of tribes, it would be difficult for states to enforce legal agreements upon which grants might be conditional. In 1979, the Department of the Interior Task Force on Increasing Participation by Indian Tribes in We EWCF prepared a report and pro- posed legislation amending the EWCF to include tribes. The task force found Tat tribes have outdoor recreation needs for purposes of meeting community conservation needs and for tourist attraction just as state and local governments do (DON, 19791. Tribes are partners in the federal historic preservation program and are eligible to receive grants for historic preservation purposes (NHPA, 16 USC Section 470~. Tribal historic preservation concerns are de- scribed in an NPS report on protecting historic properties and cultural traditions on Indian lands and include some concerns similar to those addressed by the EWCF (NPS, 1990~. Reservation boundaries encom- pass approximately 52.5 million acres of land now held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes and individuals (Cohen, 1982~. This land is 3% of the land base in the United States and has less than ~ % of the nation's cropland, close to I% of the nation's commercial forest land, and approximately 5% of the nation's rangeland. It also includes signifi- cant amounts of U.S. coal and uranium resources and numerous produc- tive of] and gas fields. Native American tribes also occupy important watersheds, particularly in He west and in some of the most pristine areas (e.g., in the areas of Glacier and Yellowstone National parks). The outcome of tribal and state water adjudications could have major effects on what lands can be conserved. Furthermore, with high unem- ployment rates, tribes face great pressure to develop nonrenewable re- sources. The General Allotment Act of 1887 was particularly detrimental to native Americans, because it divided reservation land into small, individ- ual units that could be sold to anyone, disrupting traditional collective landownership practices and use rights and resulting in fragmented land- tenure patterns within many reservations (White and Cronon, 1988;

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 97 NPS, 1990~. This fractionated land-tenure pattern interferes win the ability of tribes to manage their resources for conservation and survival as Native American communities, because the tribes lack many attributes of jurisdiction over lands inside reservation borders. The American Indian Policy Review Commission found We problem with landowner- ship on Indian reservations to be one of the biggest obstacles to future tribal economic and community development. Many tribes are seeking to reacquire lands Aide reservation bound- aries Hat were lost as a result of Be General Allotment Act or through various types of land transactions. For example, on We White Earth Indian Reservation near the headwaters of the Mississippi River, tribal members make up 40% of the population, but only 6% of the acreage is tribally controlled. A community survey was conducted to assess land- use needs and priorities for a land-recovery program. Priorities identi- fied in the survey include land for housing, access to and conservation of wild-rice harvesting and hunting areas, and recreation as well as burial sites and cultural areas. Although White Earth contains several lakefront resorts, few recreational opportunities are available to the Indian inhabitants. The resorts and much of the lakefront properties are owned by nontribal people, many of whom have been identified as will- ing sellers because of the depressed real estate market and land title problems resulting from transactions earlier in this century. Sites and areas of tribal cultural, religious, and economic significance are not confined to reservation boundaries, and tribes have an interest in identification, protection, interpretation, and management of these sites as well as access to them. For native peoples, entire landscapes often have historic, cultural, and religious significance (White and Cronon, 1988), including "whore classes of natural elements such as plants, animals, fish, birds, rocks, and mountains" Mat are incorporated into tribal tradition and help form Me "matrix of spiritual, ceremonial, politi- cat, social, and economic life" (NPS, 1990~. Continued relationships with certain lands and natural resources are key to preservation of cul- tural heritage as a part of contemporary life and to fighting social prob- lems, such as alcohol and drug abuse, Mat afflict some Indian communi- ties (NPS, 1990).

OCR for page 51

OCR for page 51
THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 99 One of He top goals of the "wise-use movement," a coalition Cat in- cludes inholders, is opposition to all use of eminent domain to acquire inholdings. Over opponents fear Be loss of access to federal lands for production of commodities; deterioration of rural cultures; federal inat- tention to maintenance, improvement, and development of existing pub- lic lands before acquiring additional land; regulatory land-use restrictions that might result from nearby public acquisition; and potential benefits to certain interest groups and nonprofit intermediaries. Many opponents find intellectual support in the writings of We new resource economists and political support in groups such as the National Inholders Associa- tion. Acquisition Intermediaries During the past 2 decades, several national nonprofit organizations have assumed a prominent role as intermediaries in U.S. land protection. These entities sometimes serve as land-protection advocates; sometimes, as owners of properties acquired by purchase or donation, they act as enthusiastic sellers. But they also have a role as facilitators of potential transactions. The Land Trust Alliance is a network of approximately 900 state and local land trusts that has a major role in project identification and pro- vides an interim source of financing and public support. The Alliance demonstrates an awareness of local and regional concerns and offers understanding of resources and of potential economic effects on He communities In which the individual trusts operate. Each nonprofit organization has its own criteria for selecting potential land acquisitions. For the American Land Conservancy, the Conserva- tion Fund, and He Trust for Public Land, those criteria largely reflect agency criteria (H. Burgess, ALC, pers. comrn., Feb. 13, 1991; P. Noonan, OF, pars. comm., fan., 1991), because Hose organizations normally resell properties as rapidly as possible to He government. The criteria of The Nature Conservancy ~NC) are especially well developed and distinctive (see Appendix D).

OCR for page 51
100 SEWING PRIORIES FOR [AND rDN.~RVATIoN Scientific Community Scientists have been involved In conservation efforts for many years. Recently, they have become involved increasingly with systematically surveying species or ecosystem and determining whether existing pro- tected areas are adequate to ensure their survival. This technique was pioneered in the 1970s by The Nature Conservancy, which undertook Unnatural heritage inventories" in several states (Hoose, 1981~. Today, inventories are available for most states and are being provided in more detail for counties and other substate areas. Detailed inflation is available on the resources to be found on federal land, after almost 2 decades of planr ing efforts. Scientists are combining this information with the heritage inventories to prepare sophisticated gap analyses that pinpoint species and systems underrepresented in tile federal system. Those gaps become obvious candidates for acquisition (see Chapter 5~. Gap analyses are performed by agency scientists, as well as by acqui- sition advocates. The resulting lists are Me basis for local advocacy of acquisitions as well as for comprehensive proposals such as The Conser- vation Alterr~ve. RATIONAL ANALYSIS AND POLITICS IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS The differences between agency lists and He projects eventually funded by Congress have led some observers to charge that political considerations override criteria Hat might be at least described as sys- tematic, and at best as embodying a certain amount of objectivity, ratio- nality, and science. Stone (1988) observes that "inspired by a vague sense that reason is clean and politics is dirty, Americans yearn to replace politics with rational decisionmak~ng." Yet, "~e enterprise of extricating policy from politics assumes that analysis and politics can be, and are in some essen- tial way, separate and distinctive activities." In fact, politics and analy- sis overlap in many ways. Politics is He expression Trough a variety of governmental processes of group and individual interests. Those interests, in turn, are a compli

OCR for page 51
TTIE LAND A COUISITION PROCESS 101 cased mixture of perceptions, ideology, economic self-interest, and altruism. Among the interests expressed in Me debate over federal land acquisition are ideological judgments regarding the amount of land that should be controlled by government, local and national preferences for the protection of particular resources or ecosystems, relative weights given to resource conservation compared with recreation, preferences for one sort of recreation relative to another (e.g., snowmobiling versus nature photography), interests of owners of adjoining lands (who might benefit or suffer if adjoining land is federally acquired), and fiscal and economic development interests of local communities. Interests ex- pressed in the political process bring to bear vital information; for exam- ple, testimony from landowners can make clear He human costs of a given acquisition, and pressure from urban constituencies can remind policy-makers that there is a demand for urban recreation. Sometimes, political activity even becomes the conduit for scientific information, as has occurred when scientists and acquisition intermediaries inventory natural areas and lobby for Heir protection. It should be noted that judgments and values play a role even among scientists and agency professionals (see Hays, 19871. For example, one scientist may value wetlands more than prairie ecosystems, while another may put relatively more weight on creating a natural area system resil- ient to climate change. A USES land-acquisition committee, weighing the claims of recreation and habitat protection, might make very differ- ent judgments from a USFWS group, even when Heir scientific compe- tence is indistinguishable. Foresta (1987) compared He record of national park acquisition dur- ing the 1970s in Canada, where parks were selected on the basis of a long-term plan prepared by the Canadian administrative agency Parks Canada wig the U.S. system, where Congress had the dominant role. Foresta found that 30 units were added to the U.S. park system, but only 4 were added in Canada. All of He Canadian parks were in re- gions Hat had been wholly unrepresented in the existing park system. hn the U.S., only half were in unrepresented regions. The politically dominated U.S. park selection system has advantages. Foresta points out Hat He system is "likely to be more dynamic and therefore capable of protecting many more areas." The U.S. process was also "likely to encourage a greater inventiveness because it allows a wider range of interests into the decision-making process" thereby

OCR for page 51