Laserfiche WebLink
t,and Entity White Paper <br />November 30, 1999 <br />such tasks to a"Land Oversight Committee," which would in turn work with contractors <br />to implement defined tasks. <br />The White Paper considers six atternative stcuctures For the Land Entity itself: {]; <br />a Joint Land Program (JLP) formed by existing state and federal agencies; (2) the <br />Nationai Fish and Wildfife Foundatian (NFWF); (3) a new federal public corporation; (4) <br />an existing non-profit corporation; (5) a new non-profit corporation; (fi) a Platte River <br />Land Conservancy formed with Federal/State Participation. The range of alternatives, <br />varying from different governmental and quasi-govemmentai entities to a variety af non- <br />profit organizations, are considered in terms of whether they are likely to meet the <br />demands af the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the entity, while rernaining <br />sufficiently responsive to the Govemance Committee, governmental funding entities and <br />local interests. <br />The issue of lacal representarion is considered through optiens addressing <br />membership in the Governance Committee, in a Land Oversight Committee, if farmed, <br />or on the baard of a nan-profit Land Entity. <br />The decision about how to structure a Land Entity will require accommodation of <br />mul#iple needs and interests. Decisions abaut one question change the advantages and <br />disadvantages of other choices. For example, a strong Land Entity approach may be <br />highly efficient and cffective but may require a more highly defned system of <br />accountability to the Governance Committee. This type of approach may be better suited <br />to a single existing or created non-profit or pub(ic corporation, than to options invotving <br />a group of parties working in concert. An active Gavemance Committee model, on the <br />other hand, may require Iess formal reporting/ accountability and be better suited to <br />muiti-group cooperative structures. <br />In addition to the three major decisions addressed in the body of the white paper, <br />there are several other decisians to be made about how to handle specific land-related <br />tasks. Concerns about how these tasks will be earried out underlie participants' views of <br />the advantages and disadvantages of the Land Entity options available to them. They are: <br />the type of land interests that micht be acquired; land negotiatior -?ntions; land <br />management and restoration options; options for holding land; artil options on dissalution <br />of a Program. These issues are addressed in Appendices S-F by exploring the range of <br />alternatives available to resolve each issue. <br />III. Functivns and Tasks of a Land Program Whieh Could Potentially Be <br />Assigned to a Land Entity <br />Through interviews with the parties to the Caoperative Agreement an ? <br />participating interest groups, and through review of the Cooperative Agreerr and <br />praposed Program, key functions involved in carrying out the land component of a <br />Pragram have been identified and iisted below. Most go beyond carrying out land-related <br />?