Laserfiche WebLink
Land Entity White Paper <br />November 30, 1999 <br />that involves the land continuing to serve the government's pwpose. Thus, it might be possible, <br />with DOI approval, to transfer Land Entity interests in land (along with the Land Entity's federal <br />funding conditians) to a state or consecvation group, or another entity able to assure the federal <br />govemment that the lands would be appropriately managed for habitat. With DOI approval, it <br />would also be possible that a Land Entity could be formed to retain Program interests in land to <br />benefit endangered species, even if the Program failed. <br />d Constraints on Creation o, f a New Entity <br />Where creation af a new Land Entity is one option contemplated, there is an additional <br />potentiai constraint on federal participation. Under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 9701, federal agencies cannot <br />create a carporation to carry out their functians. This statute has been interpreted very strictly. <br />Because DOI wiII be a signatory to any agreement that creates a Program, and will assign <br />members to the Gavernance Committee, it could be viewed as helping to create any new Land <br />Entity. Arguments can, however, logically be maude that a new entity with some or ali of these <br />characteristics would not have been created by an agency to #ake vver federal functians: {1} no <br />federal board metnbers; (Z) broader corporate missian and functions than just Pragram tasks <br />(e.g., ho}ding interests in wetlands for mitigation banking as well as halding interests in Progxam <br />iands); (3) carrying out a few narrow Program tasks raiher than serving as a strong, independent <br />Land Entity; and (4) competing with other new or existing entities for selection to cazry out <br />Pragram tasks. There is little case law to indicate where the cannection between the federal <br />government and "creation" of a new entity become too tenuous to be an issue. Thus, any new <br />entity is potentially subject to challenge in court. If a new entity is desired, DOT will need to <br />agree that, for reasons such as those listed above, it does not believe it is creating a corporatian <br />to carry out its functions, ar Congress wiil need to authorize the Land Entity by Iegislation. <br />Selecting an existing organization as Land Entity would, of course, pose no problems. <br />e Corrstrnints of the ESA <br />The Cooperative Agreement and proposed Program have taken great care not to <br />compromise the obligation ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine and from time to <br />time to confirm that the Progtam is serving as a reasonable and prudent alternative and avoiding <br />jeopardy to the Program's target species. The Govemance Committee does not have the <br />authority to override FWS, and thus it cannet delegate that authority or contract it away. A Land <br />Entity with bytaws or a charter that attempted to override FWS's authority could not be funded. <br />, f: Carrstraents on Federal Employees Panicipating in a Non-Profit <br />Conflict of interest regulations generally do not allow federal officials and employees to <br />participate in a non-profit entity in a way that furthers that entity's f nancial interest. On its face, <br />the braad sweep of the regulativn would prohibit participating in most board decisions of a land <br />entity. There is a waiver provision, however, which DOI attorneys suggest would be generally <br />availahle in this type of situation. So federal emplayees almast certainly could participate in any <br />A- 5