Laserfiche WebLink
]...and Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 <br />federal governments and by other participants in the Coaperative Agreement which are <br />likety to be important in the decision-making process. <br />The White Paper examines several options for struc#uring the land component of <br />the Program and representing party and stakeholder rnterests. Each is a different <br />approach to how a I,and Entiry will share responsibilities with the Governance <br />Committee and interac# with local interests. In addition, the White Paper presents <br />organizational optians for the Land Entity that would cxrry out tasks wiihin the chosen <br />Program structure. The Land Entity could be an existing organization, a Program <br />committee, a new organization, a group of arganizations or some combination of <br />governmental, quasi-governmental and non-profit organizations worlcing in concert. The <br />White Paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each option for the Program <br />structure and Land Entity organization, but makes no recommendaiions to the <br />Governance Cammittee. A series of appendices looks at other decisions that remain to <br />be made. Some uf these issues need resolved to move from a structure to a detailed <br />arganization - such as represen#ation in entity governance. Other issues underlie how the <br />participants view the Land Entity as working for them, and may affect the management <br />structures and entities that participants find acceptable. Such issues include the types of <br />]and interests to be managed by the Land Entity and #he dispasition of interests in land in <br />the event of Program failure. In each area discussed, the intent of this report is to identify <br />aptions and their practical and legal implications to heip frame discussions and <br />negotiations, not ta render opinions. <br />II. Executive Summary <br />This white paper sets out a range of options available to answer three yuestions <br />about how the land component af the proposed Program should be managed: (1) What <br />will be the delegation of authority from the Gaverning Committee to the Land Entity? <br />(2) What structure can carry out the functions to be assigned? and (3) VJhile the Land <br />Entity must be respvnsive and accountahle to the federal and state signatories, to what <br />degree will the interests of local communities and Iandowners where projects will be <br />taking place be taken inta account? The paper considers alternative solutions to these <br />and other questions, but makes no recommendations. <br />The paper explores patential relationships between the Gavernance Cammittee <br />and Land Entity by examining three passible scenarios in the range of available options. <br />In the first, the Governance Committee would delegate all major activities and decision- <br />making to a strong and carefully cra8ed Land Entity, which is designed to accommodate, <br />either directly, ar through its cantractors, all tasks related to land protection, restoration <br />and management. The Governance Cammittee's role would he one of oversight and <br />management through control of funding and the budget process. At the other end of the <br />spectrum, the Governance Committee could retain a high degree of involvement and <br />control over aIl activities related to land protection, maraagement and restoration, either <br />acting itself to approve all plans, transactions and negotiating strategies, or assigning <br />?