I think the question is what…

I think the question is what are you replacing the land taken with. Priority probably agriculture and hydrology. So does the land replacing the land taken serve same function as that taken? SAR probably waste of time there and should accept losses; however critical thought about what is needed to sustain environment for people. Many times conservation areas designated are more or less useless to people unless find something didn’t know about (typically money value) then redesignation to another equal or more area that is worthless economically at time. So we know about these type decisions. So you should do hydrology both places and also sustainability to future needs. Hydrology function affects clean water and potential impacts of climate change (e.g., flooding). Land use particularly availability of agricultural land affects sustainability. Understanding the impacts of the swap in functional sustainability terms means more than just a straight quantity of area swap. Not all lands are the same so need to know this and significance. Context and scale often missing in rationale although this is most important for critical thinking. Remember context and scale. Reality is what hits you when you’re wrong. Good luck and do your best not to mess up. I truly don’t trust you but hey can always hope lol.