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