Critical habitat, climate change, "endangered species," polar bears, shiners, suckers, manatees, and how to deal with it all

February 8, 2008

By Julie Kay Smithson, property rights researcher propertyrights@earthlink.net

Most of us are laymen, not experts in the fields of "endangered species," "critical habitat," etc. We do, however, have the ability to read and ponder. We can understand when something is not what it seems. If a species is touted as "endangered," "throughout all or part of its historic range," we must wonder how the experts know what that species' historic range was. Sometimes, though not always, "science," as employed by federal agencies and their partners, can be boiled down to something that more closely resembles justifying one's paycheck.

For example, how can anyone decide what is -- or is not -- "possible habitat"? Speaking for myself, because I might want to live somewhere at some time does not justify setting aside that place (reserving it, so to speak) for the time when I might want to live there. How can U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service use such a phrase to remove people from their homes, businesses, custom and culture -- thereby stealing their property rights -- under such a guise? It was tried here in Ohio 's Darby area, where the Big and Little Darby creeks flow. So what if we have "possible habitat" for the Indiana bat, a specie that USFWS says is "endangered"? The bat's name implies that it is an Indiana species.

The Canada goose is a Canadian specie. We are overrun with this specie and must avoid it on golf courses, farms, restaurant parking lots, airports, etc. Few people that live where these geese have wandered, set up housekeeping and proliferated would buy into any argument that the Canada goose might be "endangered," so USFWS has carefully steered a path around this specie. However, the polar bear -- originally a few wandering brown bears that kept going north from their original territory to satisfy their apparent wanderlust -- does not have the benefit of lots of people keeping an eye on its population. Most of us only know about the polar bear from what is fed to us, courtesy of National Geographic specials and newspaper ramblings that seek to convince us of the imminent danger of extinction. Hogwash and balderdash, folks. A few excellent connections in places like Nunavit (part of northern Canada ) and Alaska -- connections that have experience in polar bears and their habitat -- say that the polar bear is in no such danger. The only danger, they say with candor, is from the U.S. Congress and its "green" influenced lobbyists that seek more and more money in order to "manage" something that needs no management, to "recover" something that does not need recovery. Expeditions of taxpayer-funded "scientists" are planned to invade the polar bear's frozen neighborhoods, trek about and invent "threats" where none exist, and funnel megabucks into these "studies." While it makes for nice "documentaries," how much is fact and how much is fiction remains for the viewer to discern. The polar icepack is not "melting at an alarming rate." Puny timeframes we have for the measuring of temperatures only cover the past century or so. Global weather cyclic patterns take far longer and people's presence is not making a "terrible threat" to polar bears or virtually every other specie. Rain forests, being in the equatorial region of the world, are in the most favorable growing and regrowth area. Anyone visiting Florida for any le ngth of time knows how quickly green things grow. Multiply that by two or more and you get a reasonable picture of vegetation growth in equatorial regions where rainfall is plentiful. "The destruction of the rain forest" is not leaving a path of "devastation." Our own "critical habitat" is being invaded by illegals from all parts of the world, coming here, not to become naturalized citizens, but to attach to the host until the host no longer has the ability to feed the parasite. What do "our" elected officials do about this very real and present threat to the "critical habitat" of Americans? Ask them! It's an election year!

People often buy into such frenetic "gloom and doom," reaching for their checkbooks or credit cards to help "save" this or that. What may be in most need of saving is common sense, which is no longer common.

It is not difficult to deal with those seeking to use false pretense in order to acquire your property rights. You just need to understand their plans and how deceptive language is used. Rationally thinking property owners often try to reason with representatives of federal agencies and their partners (including, but far from limited to, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, etc.). Please do not buy into the jargon. It is an exercise in futility. If you know that a species is not endangered and that, even if it were, "critical habitat" would not help, will stand you in very good stead. Stand your ground! I once asked a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist named Fazio if he'd seen any lily-livered whatnots lately. He suavely assured me that "We're still looking!" The lily-livered whatnot is something I invented in order to see just how credible he was. It does not exist -- and never has. If such schemes can be hatched and carried to fruition, your ability to responsibly utilize your private property will be lost -- along with its value -- and your property will have only one buyer, at pennies on the dollar: The Nature Conservancy or the federal government, both of which work in concert to acquire land and its natural resources. The more subtle means of acquiring your property rights (the value of your property) is through *conservation easements.

"When we make critical habitat designations, we just designate everything as critical, without an analysis of how much habitat an evolutionary significant unit needs." - Donna Darm, the acting NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Regional Administrator for the Northwest, in a 1998 intra-agency memorandum. The NMFS is an agency of the Department of Interior.

Excerpted from my official public comments on the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Draft Land Management Plan, dated March 27, 2006 :

"'Here are reasons why private land is proven to be far better 'habitat' than the 20 percent you currently hold hostage:

"Seventy-five percent of U.S. wildlife live on private land, as do half of all endangered species." Source: http://www.perc.org/pdf/guide_wild.pdf (Page 5 of 14)

Since endangered species, according to this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document, are found "...almost entirely on private land," the push is on to designate such private lands as "critical habitat" and take over the ability to use these private lands. If private lands are clearly the places where endangered species prefer to reside, it is only good sense that the private landowner is better at species care than the federal government agencies that lust to control. Source: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/January/Day-09/i130.htm

"9.9 Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs]: 2. ...If critical habitat for an endangered species is found on private land covered by an HCP, the federal government will have to buy the land if it wants to save the habitat and the species." Source:  http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Peter/petermoyle/publications/chapter9.pdf

If eighty percent of the area in private ownership, and most of the species -- endangered and otherwise -- inhabiting and apparently surviving better on private than 'public' land, why don't you sell the remaining 20 percent to the private landowners and stop trying to manage/control what the private landowners are already doing a far better job of than you? Put in writing a ROFR (Right Of First Refusal) Purchase Option, at current use appraised value and not assignable, for the 20 percent of lands in the area that are currently federally owned and which are covered by the "CC Grasslands Plan." Private landowners can also deal with what recreationists want, and it is very likely more than the "sustained solitude" to which you allude. A buyout of the 'public' land also keeps "the time and costs of management and law enforcement" down, so you won't have to worry about that, either. After, private landowner Ted Turner is acclaimed as an "environmental steward," and he has huge, Electrified Fences to keep his wildlife IN, so he can demand astronomical fees so the moneyed and powerful can come and hunt -- and Mister Turner also keeps captive herds of buffalo that wind up slaughtered and on the menu at his chain of 'Montana Grill' upscale restaurants -- so why not afford the rest of us private landowners the same chance to provide habitat on our lands by buying out all of your holdings? This is a 'win-win' situation for the American taxpayer, the species, et al!

Source: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2006/articles03/my_official_public_comments_on_t.htm '"

Critical habitat – Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rule published in the Federal Register. (DOI/USFWS) – This glossary is intended to give the meaning of key words, but does not necessarily provide a legal definition or thorough description. Legal definitions can be found in the Endangered Species Act, and throughout its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 50 of the CFR is called Wildlife and Fisheries and its shorthand designation is written as: 50 CFR. Title 50 contains the regulations governing all programs of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries. The 50 CFR is subdivided into nearly 700 parts, with each part covering a different general topic. For example, part 17 covers endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Its shorthand designation is written as: 50 CFR 17. Part 17 is further subdivided into sections, with each section covering a different specific topic. For example, section 3 contains definitions and its shorthand designation is written as: 50 CFR 17.3. This is just one of many sections in the 50 CFR that contain definitions. The list of endangered and threatened wildlife is found at 50 CFR 17.11. The corresponding list of endangered and threatened plants is found at 50 CFR 17.12. Revised April 2005 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.pdf

2. Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been formally described in the Federal Register. – Glossary for Endangered Species Act terms. (DOI/USFWS) – Glossary for Endangered Species Act terms. (DOI/USFWS) http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/glossary/ Also: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

Endangered/glossary/

3. A specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. – “What Do You Mean By That? Ever wonder about the meaning of Ecosystem Management (EM) and all the unfamiliar terms associated with it? If so, this is the page for you. We provide you with a dynamic list of EM terms and intend to add terms to it as appropriate and upon request. You can help us with our glossary construction by letting us know what terms you'd like defined. Please submit suggestions to Janie Canton-Thompson jcantonthompson@fs.fed.us or 406-542-4150 (Disclaimer – Definitional terms sometimes vary slightly, depending on who is using them and for what purpose. Terms defined here are intended for the general interest reader and will usually suffice for most EM uses.) – Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project Glossary http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/bemrp_glossary.shtml

4. Habitat designated as critical for a particular species under the Endangered Species Act, including areas on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. – (DOI/NPS) Majority of definitions is adapted from “A Park and Recreation Professionals' Glossary,” California Department of Parks and Recreation Planning Division, January 1, 2003; other definitions from California State Law, CEQ (NEPA), and Santa Barbara County. Draft Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study & Environmental Assessment http://www.nps.gov/pwro/gaviota/g aviota_draft_report_232-234.pdf

5. Defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the Federal Endangered Species Act as: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations for protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Glossary http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/navajo/pdfs/deis_glossary.pdf

6. An area occupied by a threatened or endangered species “on which are found those physical and biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection” (16 USC 1532 (5)(A)(I)1988). Unoccupied by suitable habitat for the threatened or endangered species is not automatically included unless such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). – McGregor Range Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces ( New Mexico ) Field Office, January 2005. http://www.nm.blm.gov/lcfo/mcgregor/docs/Draft%20RMPA_EIS_01_05_low.pdf (DOI/BLM) Glossary (Pages 259-268 of 282)

7. Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is defined as (1) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a federally listed species on which are found physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a listed species, when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. – The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/ Chapter 9 Glossary http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/Chapter_9.htm

8. Any air, land, or water area (excluding existing synthetic structures or settlements that are not necessary to the survival and recovery of a listed species) and constituents thereof that the Fish and Wildlife Service has designated as essential to the survival and recovery of an endangered or threatened species or a distinct segment of its population. – Glossary of References and Terms, Section B, Terms, Air Force Instruction 32-7064, July 22, 1994, Civil Engineering, Integrated Natural Resources Management http://www.afrpa.hq.af.mil/handbook/basis/guidance/afi/af327064.htm

9. Areas formally designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or endangered species. – Daniel Boone National Forest Glossary of Terms http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/r8/boone/documents/planning/revplan/glossary.pdf (Page 3 of 18 pages; 158.92 KB)

10. An Endangered Species Act term that denotes a specified geographic area that is occupied by a federally-listed species and on which the physical and biological features are found that are essential to the conservation and recovery of that species and that may require special management or protection. – Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts, Volume II [of 3 Volumes, plus maps] End Pages http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/deis/files/vol%202/chapter%205/WOPR_DEIS_Glossary.pdf – 385 / 1 of 12 pages or Pages 387/857 – 396/866, if viewing the CD; 1.34 MB. Entire document’s Table of Contents: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/deis/

Critical Habitat (Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species) – Habitat of federally listed threatened or endangered species where those physical and biological features essential to conservation of the species are found and which may require special management considerations or protection. This habitat may currently be occupied or determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be essential for areas outside the species’ current range. – Appendix H (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource Management Plans and Associated Oil and Gas Leasing Decisions) http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/final/pdf_feis/Appendix_H.pdf

Critical habitat designated – The specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to conserve the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such areas are essential to conserve the species. – DOI/USFWS http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/Oklahoma/Documents/USFWS%20OKESFO%20FEDERAL

LY%20LISTED%20SPECIES%20COUNTY%208-8-2006%20CMO.doc

*Conservation easement – Instrument of property ownership in which specified rights to property development are separated from landownership, usually to preclude any substantial change in the current use of the land. A conservation easement allows a landowner to continue to own and use his or her land and to sell it. However, the allowable uses of the land are permanently limited in order to protect its conservation values. – (DOI/NPS) Majority of definitions adapted from “A Park and Recreation Professionals' Glossary,” California Department of Parks and Recreation Planning Division, January 1, 2003; other definitions from California State Law, CEQ (NEPA), and Santa Barbara County Draft Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study & Environmental Assessment http://www.nps.gov/pwro/gaviota/gaviota_draft_report_232-234.pdf

2. A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation and management rights to a party in perpetuity. – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Glossary of Planning Terms http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/gloss1.htm

3. A legally binding restriction on allowable uses impos ed upon a parcel of land in exchange for a tax break to the landowner. Conservation easements prevent development of a parcel, restricting its used to agriculture, habitat for wildlife, or hiking and other nondestructive forms of recreation. DOI/USFWS http://www.fws.gov/midwest/FoxRiverNEPA/documents/AppendixA.pdf

4. (a) A conservation easement is a legally binding covenant between current and future property owners and an organization such as the conservancy, which preserves significant natural areas (i.e. stream valleys, farmland, woodland, wildlife habitat, unique plant communities) and special natural features of the p roperty by restricting selected uses. A conservation easement allows a property owner to retain ownership of his property, including the ability to pass the property on to his heirs or sell the property, while still providing for the site’s protection. It assures that future use of a property will be consistent with conservation purposes through specific clauses in the easement document. The property remains in private ownership and does not need to be opened to the public. (Pages 1 and 4) (b) A conservation easement is a method of protecting and preserving significant natural areas, (i.e., stream valleys, farmland, woodland, wildlife habitat, unique plant communities, etc.) and special natural features of the property by restricting selected uses. (Page 2) (c) A legally binding agreement between a property owner and an organization such as a conservancy, which protects natural resource values of the property, by restricting selected uses. The property remains in private ownership and does not need to be opened to the public. Tax benefits may apply to the donor. – The Heritage Conservancy http://conserveland.org/lpr/download/6734/landowner_guide.pdf See also Easement.

5. A legal mechanism whereby a landowner retains ownership of his/her land, but grants some right(s) to the land to a "holder " that is defined as a charitable organization declared exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. §501 (c) (3). The Code of Virginia, Virginia Conservation Easements Act, § 10.1-1900, authorizes these private, non-profit entities, such as land trusts, to hold easements when the entity has a primary purpose to retain or protect natural or open space, agricultural, forestal, recreational, or open space use; protect natural resources; maintain or enhance air or water quality; preserve historic, architectural or archaeological resources. [The Virginia Conservation Easement Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 10.1-1009 through -1016 (Michie 1998)]. – Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2003 Edition Glossary, Amended through June 20, 2005 . The Glossary contains an alphabetical listing defining terms as they are used in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. These terms are not intended to be the same definitions as used in the County's Zoning Ordinance. Rather, they are intended only to explain terms used in the Plan. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/glossary/planglossary.pdf (Page 3 of 16 pages; 112 KB)

6. Conservation easements are one of the most effective tools available for the permanent conservation of private lands as open space. Their use has successfully protected millions of acres of land nationally while keeping it in private hands and generating significant public benefits. A conservation easement is a restriction placed on a piece of property to protect its associated resources. The easement is either voluntarily donated or sold by the landowner and constitutes a legally binding agreement that limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place on the land in perpetuity while the land remains in pr ivate hands. The NRICH program [Natural Resource Incentives for Critical Habitat ( Minnesota )] encourages the donation of conservation easements by providing financial incentives to the landowner for easement costs relating to surveys, title work, appraisals, practice implementation and other related costs. – Hennepin County , Minnesota http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/portal/site/HCInternet/menuitem.3f94db53874f9b6f68ce1e

10b1466498/?vgnextoid=80d4c95fa29fc010VgnVCM1000000f094689RCRD

Alienated Land – Land of one ownership [that is] enclosed within [the] boundaries of another ownership. Often refers to land in private ownership within the boundaries of public land. – National Grassland Plan ( USDA Forest Service)

http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/draft/plan/pdf_plan_draft/Dakota_Prairie_Plan/Appendices/appendix_g.pdf See also: Inholding.

Inholding – An inholding is a parcel of land in a unit of the National Park System that was authorized before July 1959 or fiscal year 1960. The National Park Service pursues, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the acquisition of inholdings, an opportunity-purchase program by acquiring interests in inholdings offered for sale by landowners. The Service will seek to acquire inholdings by condemnation only when necessary to prevent land use that would damage resources that the unit was established to protect. Such condemnation action or the purchase of an inholding for an amount that exceeds $150,000 and/or the appraised value must be cleared by the appropriate House and Senate Committees. Costs related to the acquisition of lands by exchange are incurred for title and appraisals, required surveys and clearances, and equalization payments when necessary. Need: As of September 30, 1998 , there were approximately 2,281 tracts in 32 units identified as inholding areas, totaling 29,013 acres with an estimated value of approximately $255 million. The funds requested will be used, (1) to acquire inholdings, and (2) to cover costs (other than land acquisition administration costs) for title, appraisal, surveys and equalization payments required for exchanges in those areas for which acquisition funds are not otherwise available. – Justification of Program and Performance. Activity: Federal Land Acquisition, National Park Service http://home.nps.gov/applications/budget/land_and_state/laaq-nar.pdf (Page 7 of 42 pages)

Other references to the way the National Park Service deals with inholdings:

1. Montezuma Castle National Monument http://www.nps.gov/archive/moca/protas/chap6.htm

2. Outdoor Recreation / Socioeconomic Environment – Volume 2 – Draft Heritage Study and Environmental Assessment [excerpt]: Tennessee has recognized the following priority issues related to public recreation areas: identifying and mitigating threats to natural resources that adversely affect the quality of recreation, increasing the delivery and quality of recreation services at the local level, and increasing federal, state, and local government funding for recreation. The state Conservation Strategic Plan focuses on the first of these issues, saying that "Emphasis will he placed upon securing adequate boundary control for existing Department lands including the consideration of high priority inholding and buffer land acquisition." http://www.cr.nps.gov/delta/volume2/outdoor.htm

3. Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley ( Connecticut ) IV. Vision Statement and Goal (excerpt): G. Recreation Goal number 1 (of 9). Pursue active land acquisition programs, emphasizing key inholding in existing management areas and access to streams and water bodies. ... V. Detailed Strategies A. Land Use. Although the Corridor includes the entire area of twenty-five towns, the land use vision is to protect those key landscape features that make the region unique or attractive to residents and tourists alike, and to minimize those elements that have a visually or environmentally degrading impact. Thus, emphasis necessarily must be placed on landscape that is significant, identifiable and amenable to be protected, enhanced, or controlled through available programs and management techniques. Key examples include: 1. Traditional New England Villages. Often labeled “ Hill Towns ” or Colonial Villages .” With their white churches and old homes often clustered around a green, these villages within towns are popularly perceived as a key symbol of the New England landscape. Appropriate protection tools include historic districts, development control in areas abutting them, and zoning and/or acquisition. ...6. ...b. Natural segments (those reaches of rivers outside developed areas and characterized by forested or agricultural land) Regulation can include existing inland wetland controls that protect floodplain areas, perhaps also including provision of a buffer belt. Sample buffer guidelines could include adjoining area with a +15% slope, maintenance of a 50 foot vegetated belt where presently existing, no septic fields within 100 feet of inland wetland, a minimum 100 foot river frontage for new lots, etc. Selective acquisition to protect scenic areas or where public access is deemed appropriate also should be utilized. Primary emphasis must be placed on the two major streams in the region, the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers . In addition, a large number of attractive secondary streams also deserve attention, including the Willimantic, Fenton, Natchaug, Mt. Hope , French, Five Mile, Yantic, Pachaug, and Moosup Rivers plus the two Little rivers and some major brooks such as Bigelow Brook. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nhc/quinebaug.htm

4. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History (Chapter 3) Perpetuating Tradition: The National Parks under Stephen T. Mather, 1916-1929 (continued) (excerpt) Indeed, from the first, the Service made acquisition of private lands a high priority. Consolidation of all lands within park boundaries would allow control over development in the parks. To reduce the threat of inappropriate development, the Park Service continually sought to acquire inholdings, accepting them as direct donations, purchasing them, or swapping them for federal lands elsewhere. [68] The 1918 Lane Letter declared that privately owned lands "seriously hamper the administration of these reservations" and advocated their elimination. Thos e in "important scenic areas" had the highest priority for acquisition. But for nearly a decade Congress failed to appropriate funds for buying inholdings, thereby forcing the Service to rely on private donations for such purchases. Mather himself contributed substantially to land acquisition in Sequoia and other parks, such as Yosemite and Glacier. Under the Service's prodding, Congress in 1927 and 1928 began to make regular appropriations for inholding purchases, but with the requirement that these funds be matched by private donations. In 1929, shortly after Mather's resignation, Director Albright predicted that reliance on private funds would not be satisfactory because potential donors felt that acquisition of park lands was the government's responsibility. Although Mather had secured some congressional funding, the inholdings remained, in Albright's words, one of the Service's "greatest problems"-a threat to the parks' integrity, and a "distinct menace to good administration and future development." [69] Albright's remarks foreshadowed a long, still-ongoing struggle to control inholdings. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sellars/chap3c.htm

5. Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS – Affected Environment (continued) (excerpt) Proposed Protection Methods – Proposed protection methods for the nonfederal areas within the park include long- and short-term strategies. Short-term protection strategies include land-use regulation at Wawona. Section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act allows federal agencies to enter cooperative agreements with states and local governments in the administration of a river segment. While no incorporated cities exist within the corridor and no local zoning guidelines have been issued by the Secretary, it is the intent of the National Park Service to work with Mariposa County during the development of any future zoning ordinances to ensure that such zoning is consistent with the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Under all alternatives, the National Park Service would continue to assist, advise, and cooperate with Mariposa County or its political subdivisions, private landowners, private organizations, and individuals to protect and manage private lands along the Merced River and to protect ORVs where nonfederal lands are within the river corridor. Land-use regulation will provide the primary protection at Wawona, along with opportunity purchases and land exchanges. Private property within the river corridor is not zoned under any of the alternatives of the Merced River Plan. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands and interests in lands within the authorized boundaries of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River under Section 6(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and to use condemnation to acquire easements on lands within the corridor when necessary. The vast majority of lands within the river corridor are owned in fee title by the United States , and the National Park Service has no intention of acquiring additional lands in fee title by condemnation under authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, it is the intent of the National Park Service to work cooperatively with private landowners whenever possible within the corridor to ensure that ORVs of the river segment are protected and enhanced. Yosemite National Park is identified as an inholding area, and there is no acquisition ceiling for the park. Priorities include acquisition of tracts in Wawona within the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, and undeveloped land adjacent to open public areas. http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/mrp/2000/html/mrpch3a.html

6. Joshua Tree National Park [excerpt] Organizations like the Wildlands Conservancy and the National Park Land Trust have stepped in to help the park acquire inholding properties from willing sellers. Through their efforts, thousand s of acres of private lands have been added to the park, ensuring both their permanent protection and public access. The National Parks and Conservation Association has worked to raise public awareness of national park issues at Joshua Tree and elsewhere throughout the California Desert . http://www.nps.gov/parkoftheweek/jotr.htm Source of this information: Google search results: 1-102 English pages from nps.gov for acquisition OR acquire "inholding" with Safesearch on.

7. Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a national forest or national grassland that are owned by some other agency, organization or individual. See also Alienated and Alienated Land . – Appendix H (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource Management Plans and Associated Oil and Gas Leasing Decisions) http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/final/pdf_feis/Appendix_H.pdf

8. Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national refuge. http://pacific.fws.gov/planning/LPOccp/v2.pdf

9. A parcel of land in other ownership (State, private, other Federal agency) surrounded by National Forest System land. – USDA Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) "Source documents for these definitions include: proposed Road Policy, proposed Planning Regulations, Interim Roads Rule Environmental Assessment, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Planning Guide." http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/glossary.shtml

10. Land belonging to one landowner that occurs within a block of land belonging to another. For example, small parcels of private land that occur inside National Forest. – The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/ Chapter 9 Glossary http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/Chapter_9.htm NBII – The National Biological Information Infrastructure. Also spelled “in holding.”

Related: Bear Pond (B-P880) – Until very recently, Bear Pond (27 acres) was a private in-holding [inholding] within the Moose River Plains. Now public access is possible, but this water offers nothing of angling interest. The ALSC did the first study of this shallow pond in 1984. They caught no fish. A 1998 DEC netting effort had the same result. Most of Bear Pond is under [less than] three feet deep, but one deep hole reaches 11 feet. Muck comprises much of its substrate. The dark, sterile water of this pond had a pH of 5.1 and an ANC of 12 :eq/l in 1998. Bog vegetation and wetlands surround half the shoreline. The lack of fish life in this relatively low elevation pond suggests it either winter kills or may experience episodically high acid pulses. Bear Pond has a flushing rate of 11 times/year, making it ineligible for liming. A former logging road, now heavily overgrown, provides hiking access. This 4.5 mile trail begins off the main road to the west of Mount Tom , wraps around the north end of the mou ntain (where the pond is located) then follows Benedict Brook downstream back to the main road near Sumner Stream . Bear Pond will be managed to preserve its fishless aquatic community for its intrinsic value. Management Class: Other. – Excerpted from Appendix 5, Individual Pond Descriptions, Page 260/32 of 126, Wild Forest Guidelines for Management and Use, Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP), Moose River Plains Wild Forest Proposed Final UMP (Unit Management Plan) – October 2006 http://www.apa.state.ny.us/State_Land/UMPs/MooseRiverWF/MRWFpfumpE.pdf (Page 260/32 of 126 pages; 574 KB) See also Alienated Land. 

My website, open 24/7, offers a vast amount of research: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org  

"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." - George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.  

(Permission to post from the author.)