White Paper: Option for Land Protection Component

Home Browse Search

Land Entity Wtute Paper November 30, 1999 addition, Appendices B through F present options for other choices to be made that may shape the Land Entity, They include altemative types of land protection transactions, options for conducting land protectian negotiations, land management structure options, optians for holding the interests in land, and options an dissolution of a Program. A. Overall Structure for Managing the Program's Land Companent Wnile it is clear that the Govemance Committee will need to create an implementing arm (Land Entity) ta carry out portions of the land camponent of the Program, a major unanswered question is how responsibilities and decisian-making (or discretion) will be shared between the Land Entity ar?d the Governance Committee. All of the options discussed in this paper assume that ultimate decision-making authority will continue to lie with a Gavernance Committee consisting of gavernment and stakehalder representatives. As a practical matter, not all decisions can rise to the level of Govemance Committee votes; some level of discretion witl need to be given to the entity or entities carrying out Program tasks. The Govemance Cornmittee has options ranging from assigning broad tasks with substantial discrefion to a relatively strang Land Entity, to reiaining substantial involvement in and c4ntrol over a more narrowly defined Land Entity with much more limited discretion in its actions. The three options presented are examples in a spectrum of options. The allocation ofresponsibiiities arnong committees and entities could be adjusted to create many ather variations. 1. Strong, Independent Lartd Entity The Governance Committee could create a strong, independent Land Entity with substantial of discretion or decision-malcing authority as set forth in a charter or contract. Under this option, after the initial approval of criterialguid.elines for habitat selection, protection, restoration and management, the Governance Cammittee would oversee the Land Entity primarily through the budget/funding and general aversight process. Information and recommendations from ather Program committees would be refened ta the Land Entity to incorporate into iis adaptive management of Program Iands, as appropriate. The Land Entity, under the direction of its Board of Directurs ar Trustees, would negotiate deals, carry out transactions, deveiop detailed restoration and managemeni plans for individual parcels, modify them consistent with adaptive management results, coardinate activities among Program lands, coordinate activities with neighbors, and implement restoration and management plans. Some (or mast) of these tasks could be carried out through contracts between the Land Entity and appropriate parties. The Land Entity could also hold the interests in land acquired for the Pragram. Although the Land Entity would need ta satisfy the Gavernance Committee to obtain budget approval and funding, it would otherwise determine how to carry out respansibilities articulated in its bylaws, mist instrument or eharter. How much real independence the Land Entity would 11