Setting Priorities for Land Conservation (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
8 The Office of Management and Budget
8 The Office of Management and Budget
Pages 183-196
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 183... ...
Other constraints 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)
|
From page 184... ...
One provision, for example, allows an agency's assistant secretary to award points to Me 20 highest priority projects that former Me agency's mission. The Land Acquisition Working Group reviews and modifies the tentative 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.
|
From page 185... ...
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 general public does not exceed 10% of We estimated purchase price.
|
From page 186... ...
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 County, 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.
|
From page 187... ...
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 rearranged when it was passed through Me filter of the LAPP criteria.
|
From page 188... ...
This criterion reflects also He view Mat preservation of nationally significant natural and cultural features is a justification for federal acquisition. The committee generally shares this view, but federal acquisitions are only part of a complex web of state, federal, local, and private property holdings.
|
From page 189... ...
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 Management (BL~M)
|
From page 190... ...
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 property-line surveys, road development, and other land management expenses. Results in Federal Savings in Acquisition Costs Through the Use of Land Exchanges, Donations, or Other Alternatives Alternatives to acquisition must be considered.
|
From page 191... ...
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.
|
From page 192... ...
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.
|
From page 193... ...
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.
|
From page 194... ...
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.
|
From page 195... ...
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.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.