Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

7/31/2019 Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

1/56

Large Landscape Conservation:A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

Policy Focus Report Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

M at t h e w M cK i n n e y, L y n n S c a r L e t t , a n d d a n i e L K e M M i S


2/56

Large Landscape Conservation:A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

Matthew McKinney, Lynn Scarlett, and Daniel Kemmis

Policy Focus Report Series

The policy focus report series is published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

to address timely public policy issues relating to land use, land markets, and property

taxation. Each report is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by

combining research ndings, case studies, and contributions from scholars in a

variety of academic disciplines, and from professional practitioners, local ofcials,

and citizens in diverse communities.

About this Report

In response to increasing activity at the large landscape scale, leaders from the public,

private, and nongovernmental sectors participated in two national policy dialogues and many

other informal discussions in 2009. Convened by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the

Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy at The University of Montana, the

dialogue participants sought to synthesize what we know about large landscape conservation

and to identify the most important needs as we move forward. They also generated a list

of nearly 200 examples of large landscape conservation that are posted, along with other

background information, on the Regional Collaboration subcenter of the Lincoln Institute

Web site at www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/regional-collaboration.

Copyright 2010 by Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

All rights reserved.

113 Brattle StreetCambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA

Phone: 617-661-3016 x127 or 800-526-3873

Fax: 617-661-7235 or 800-526-3944

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.lincolninst.edu

ISBN 978-1-55844-210-8

Policy Focus Report/Code PF026


3/56

M c K i n n e y, s c a r l e t t , a n d K e M M i s l a r g e l a n d s c a p e c o n s e r v at i o n 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

2 Executive Summary

4 Chapter 1: Taking Conservation to Scale

5 Historical Perspective

6 Current Challenges

11 Recent Policy Responses

13 Summary

14 Chapter 2: The Promise of Large Landscape Conservation

14 Variation in Governance

16 Variation in Spatial Scale

18 The Essential Role of Collaboration

20 Summary

21 Chapter 3: Seven Large Landscapes: A Continuum of Responses

21 Freedom to Roam

22 Americas Longleaf Pine Initiative

24 Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

25 Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

27 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

28 Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

30 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

32 Chapter 4: Barriers to Large Landscape Conservation32 Lack of Information

33 Lack of Capacity

33 Lack of a Coordinated Strategy

34 Lack of Appropriate Policy Tools

36 Fragmented Financial Investments

37 Summary of Barriers

38 Chapter 5: Recommendations for a Strategic Framework

38 Gather and Share Information

39 Encourage a Network of Practitioners

40 Establish a National Competitive Grants Program

42 Improve the Policy Toolkit45 Facilitate Innovative Funding Opportunities

47 Summary of Recommendations

48 References & Resources

51 Acknowledgments

52 Participants in the National Policy Dialogues

53 About the Authors

53 About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy andthe Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy


4/56

2 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r t l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Summary

Since no single entity has the power or

authority to address these types o cross-

boundary issues, there is a gap in gover-

nance and a corresponding need to create

inormal and ormal ways to work more

eectively across boundaries. Large land-

scape conservation also provides signifcant

economic and fscal benefts to rural and

urban communities. Since taking ofce in

January 2009, President Barack Obama

and his administration have made the con-cept o large landscape conservation a com-

ponent, and oten a ocus, o many natural

resource initiatives.

In response to increasing activity at the

large landscape scale, leaders rom the pub-

lic, private, and nongovernmental sectors

participated in two national policy dialogues

and many other inormal discussions in

2009. Convened by the Lincoln Institute

o Land Policy and the Center or Natural

Resources and Environmental Policy at The

University o Montana, the intent o the

dialogues was to synthesize what we know

about large landscape conservation and to

identiy the most important needs as we

move orward.

There is general agreement that the

promise o large landscape conservation is

its ocus on land and water problems at an

appropriate geographic scale, regardless o

political and jurisdictional boundaries. While

it is hard to defne precisely what constitutes

a large landscape conservation eort, there

is a growing consensus that such eorts are

multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and multi-

stakeholder, and they operate at various

geographic scales using a variety o

governance arrangements.

The common currency in large land-

scape conservation is regional collaboration

The most important land and

water issues acing North America

including land use patterns,

water management, biodiversity

protection, and climate adaptationrequire

new approaches. While most o these chal-

lenges need to be addressed at several scales

simultaneously, ranging rom the local to

the global, it is increasingly imperative to

address them at the scale o large land-

scapes. The territory o these issues otentranscends the legal and geographic reach

o existing jurisdictions and institutions.The Florida Everglades


5/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the ability to work across boundaries with

people and organizations that have diverse

interests yet share a common place. While

there is no single model or large landscapeconservation, a number o key elements are

evident in the most successul eorts. Prac-

titioners apply these elements on a case-by-

case basis to create homegrown processes

and solutions or particular places.

With the increasing movement toward

large landscape conservation, several barri-

ers still must be addressed or this approach

to land and water conservation to endure.

Barriers include the lack o both scientifc

inormation and knowledge about the struc-

ture and unction o large landscape con-

servation initiatives; the lack o capacity

to organize, achieve, and advocate or large

landscape conservation goals; the lack o

a strategy to acilitate coordination among

ragmented eorts and to oster innovative

experiments; the lack o policy tools to im-

plement large landscape conservation; and

ragmented fnancial investments.

In response to these barriers, participants

in the national policy dialogues, along with

many other planners, practitioners, and

policy ofcials, believe that large landscape

conservation can be improved signifcantly

by implementing the ollowing recom-

mendations:

Gather and share information to

improve the science and governance

of large landscape conservation.

Establish a common, coherent database

on the science o large landscapes, and

develop an annotated atlas o governance

eorts to clariy who is doing what and

what needs to be done.

Encourage a network of practitioners

to build capacity. Catalyze collabora-

tion through a network akin to the Land

Trust Alliance to identiy best practices

and advocate or policy reorms.

Establish a national competitive

grants program to catalyze, enable,

coordinate, and sustain promising

efforts.Facilitate homegrown partner-ships, improve coordination among

ongoing eorts, and recognize the most

promising approaches to large landscape

conservation.

Improve the policy toolkit to achieve

large landscape conservation.

Strengthen incentive-based tools or

landowner conservation and improve

coordination and participation by ederal

and other governmental agencies.

Facilitate innovative funding

opportunities to support large

landscape conservation.Maximize

and ocus the use o existing ederal and

state programs and authorities that can

be implemented quickly and without new

unding; combine existing unding sources

to target large landscape conservation

projects; require in-kind or matching

unds rom nonederal sources to leverage

resources, including local, state, private,

and philanthropic oundations; employ

existing and new tax incentives, tax

credits, easement purchase programs,

and management agreements to en-

courage private lands conservation; and

use some unding or the planning and

coordination o strategies to conserve

watersheds, ecosystems, greenways,

and corridors.

The history o American conservation

has been marked rom the beginning by an

inspiring capacity to adapt to new circum-

stances. In the challenging circumstances

o the twenty-frst century, the growing

emphasis on large landscape conservation

promises to be as important and inspiring

as earlier chapters in the history o conser-

vation, and like them to contribute to the

strengthening o our democracy.


6/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 1

Taking Conservation to Scale

In response to these concerns, people

rom many walks o lie are experimenting

with a variety o approaches that are best

captured by the term large landscape conserva-

tion. This new paradigm or conservation

is provocative, but can be difcult to defne.

Based on research and a range o examples,

the paradigm encompasses three criteria:

(1) multijurisdictionalthe issues being

addressed cut across political and jurisdic-

tional boundaries; (2) multipurposethey

address a mix o related issues, including

but not limited to environment, economy,

and community; and (3) multistakeholder

they include public, private, and non-

governmental actors.

While most o these conservation

challenges need to be addressed at several

Growing numbers o conserva-

tionists, policy makers, and

practitioners agree that the

most important land and water

issues acing North America require new

approaches. Some o these challenges in-

volve protecting ecosystem integrity and

connectivity; restoring and protecting water

resources; providing access or recreational

opportunities; sustaining the working arms,

ranches, and orests that are critical to local

economies and cultures, and provide impor-

tant wildlie habitat; protecting and inter-

preting cultural resources as part o our

national heritage; enhancing economic

viability and resilience in rural and urban

communities; and adapting to climate

change.

Forest stream

in New Hampshire


7/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

geographic scales simultaneously, ranging

rom the local to the global, it is increasingly

imperative to address them at the scale o

large landscapes because their territoriestranscend the legal and geographic reach o

existing jurisdictions and institutions. Since

no single entity has the power or authority

to address these types o cross-boundary

concerns alone, there is oten a gap in gov-

ernance and a corresponding need to create

inormal and ormal ways to work more

eectively across boundaries.

H IS T R IC AL PER S PEC T I E

One way to understand the increasing in-

terest in large landscape conservation is to

see it as a distinct new stage in the history

o American conservation (Hays 1959; Fox

1981; Nash 1990; Levitt 2005). That history

has always been inormed and inspired by

the landscapes o this continent, rom tower-

ing mountains to deep canyons, rom lush

prairies to searing deserts, rom sea to shin-

ing sea. Beginning with the First Nations,

people rom many backgrounds have been

inspired to preserve and protect the natural

and cultural values o these landscapes,

while providing satisying livelihoods and

creating resilient communities.

While Americans have oten taken these

landscapes or granted and have heedlessly

endangered their related ecosystems, many

individuals have also periodically stepped up

to protect them against greed and carelessness

in new and creative ways. The earliest con-

servation eorts in America are associated

with people such as John Winthrop, Thomas

Jeerson, George Catlin, Henry David

Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh, and John

Wesley Powell. Building on this oundation,

the recent history o American conserva-

tion can be recounted in two major stages.

First came the conservation movement

o the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. Associated with the names o

Theodore Roosevelt, Giord Pinchot, and

John Muir, this stage let a lasting legacy o

national parks, orests, and monuments, as

well as private land trusts. Those conserva-tion leaders created a public land system,

reserving millions o acres rom settlement.

The creation and expansion o the National

Park System gave even stronger protection

to some o the most magnifcent o those

landscapes. During the same period, states,

communities, and individuals also used a

variety o means, both public and private,

to protect special places.

The second major historical stage is

associated with the environmental move-

ment o the 1960s and 1970s, which pro-

duced an array o important legislation,

including the Wilderness Act and the En-

dangered Species Act. In recent decades,

a great range o private eortsrom con-

servation easements to land trusts and a

variety o habitat enhancement organiza-

tionshave helped to preserve countless

treasured ecosystems.

Each o these stages arose out o its own

set o compelling historical orces, and each

made its unique contribution to the long-

term public good. The current attention to

large landscape conservation constitutes a

third stage in the history o American

conservation that is still being written.

John Muir


8/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C R R EN T C H AL L EN ES

This policy ocus report explores the nature

o current environmental and governance

challenges, examines the promise o largelandscape conservation, and highlights the

range o responses emerging throughout

North America. It also identifes the barriers

to large-scale conservation and oers a set

o recommendations or policy, research,

action, and fnancing.

The issues associated with land use

patterns, water management, biodiversity

protection, climate change adaptation, and

economic and fscal benefts illustrate the

compelling need or a strategic rameworkto advance policy and action.

Land Use Patterns

The case or the large landscape conserva-

tion approach is readily apparent by exam-

ining a map o emerging megaregions in the

United States (fgure 1). All o these regions,

no matter how large the metropolitan oot-

print, include and rely on resources the citiescannot live withoutwater, ood, energy,

wood products, open space, wildlie corridors,

and recreational opportunitiessometimes

reerred to as ecosystem services.

Other considerations such as drought

and wildfre create a growing need to devel-

op a capacity to address land use at a more

appropriate scale (Stewart, Radelo, and

Hammer 2006). At least in the western United

States, much o the rapid growth in recent

decades has taken place at what is called the

wildland-urban interace. Most o the wild-

lands all under the jurisdiction o state or

ederal land management agencies, while

adjacent land development is usually sub-

ject to the authority o local governments.

Source: Regional Plan Association, New York (www.rpa.org).

Fiur 1

Megaregions Across the nited States


9/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 100 200 400 600

Miles

Colorado

Columbia

Pecos

CostillaCreek

ArkansasAnimas-La Plata

Niobrara

Snake

Klamath

Belle Fourche

Republican

Yellowstone

RioGrande

SouthPlatte

Bear

Big Blue

Wildfres that start on public land oten

threaten nearby private homes, whose own-

ers expect to be protected rom the advanc-

ing ames. Land management agencies,their budgets already stressed, have to make

judgment calls about which fres to suppress

and which ones to leave burning. In the long

run only a shared, cooperative approach to

development decisions, operating at the land-

scape scale and involving local, state, and

national entities, can provide a solution to

this kind o problem.

Water Management

Like land use patterns, water does not re-

spect the artifcial boundaries that humans

impose on the landscape. No major river

basin in the United States conorms exactly

to the contours o a state boundary. As a

consequence, water resources administration

has been characterized by multijurisdictional

conicts rom the frst days o the republic

(Kenney 1994).

The need to develop the capacity to man-

age water at an appropriate scale is height-

ened by the act that many o the most arid

regions have been, and are likely to remain,

the astest growing parts o the country.

Growing populations mean more pressure

on scarce water resources, the even greater

likelihood o conict, and the need to man-

age those resources at the watershed scale.

The expansion o metropolitan regions

throughout North America that are depen-

dent on the quantity and quality o water

oten pits upstream and downstream inter-

ests against each other. As the requency and

severity o droughts increase, the tendency

o water issues to divide rather than unite

communities also increases. Americas most

endangered rivers likewise require action

at the scale o large landscapes.

The good news is that substantial histori-

cal momentum is ocused in this direction.

Several types o ormal coordinating mecha-

nisms have been implemented in dozens o

river basins to address the unique challenges

posed by interstate water resources (fgure 2).

To complement these more ormal responses,

a dierent type o political engagement and

problem solving began to emerge in the 1990s

(Kenney et al. 2000). Driven by the oten com-

peting or conicting concerns o dierent

sets o stakeholders within a given watershed,

many adversaries began turning to their op-

ponents to explore mutually satisactory ways

to manage large-scale watersheds that cut

across political and jurisdictional boundaries.

Sources: Base map prepared by Dustin Garrick for NSF Project 0451559, Boundary Conicts,

Collective Choice Institutions, and Conict Resolution Mechanisms, Edella Schlager and Tanya

Heikkila, principal investigators. Colorado River Basin: Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database

(TFDD). Oregon State University (2007). http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu. Columbia River

Basin: Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Oregon State University, Department

of Geosciences (2004).

Fiur 2

Interstate River Compacts in the Western nited States


10/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As these eorts proved increasingly

promising, they were supported and encour-

aged by various state policies and initiatives,

and were nurtured nationally through the

Department o the Interior, the Environ-

mental Protection Agency, and other ederalagencies. Restoration projects in the Ever-

glades, Chesapeake Bay, Caliornias Bay

Delta, the Louisiana Gul Coast, the lower

Rio Grande, New York City drinking

watersheds in the Catskills and Delaware

basins, and other areas transcend political

boundaries, ocusing instead on whole

watersheds and natural systems (Foster 1994).

Biodiversity Protection

Wildlie and plant species inhabit geographies

o dierent sizes and shapes, none o which

conorms to legal and political jurisdictions.

For many threatened or endangered species,

particularly megaauna and migratory birds,the range required or viable populations is

very large, and almost always includes parts

or all o several adjacent political jurisdictions

(fgure 3).

Concerns about what we now call biodi-

versity were present rom the earliest stages

o the conservation movement over a cen-

tury ago, and they bore lasting ruit with the

Source: NatureServe and its Natural Heritage member programs (July 2008). Produced by National Geographic Maps and

NatureServe (December 2008).

Note: The Rarity-Weighted Richness (RWR) analysis of critically imperiled and imperiled species shows hot spots that represent con-

centrations of limited-range species and highlights locations with species composition different from adjacent areas. By combining

overall species richness and the relative rarity of the species, the RWR analysis points to locations that are essentially irreplaceable,

thus presenting conservation opportunities found in few other places.

Fiur 3

Hot Spots for Imperiled Species

Rarity-WeightedRichness Index

Low High

0 200 mi

0 200 km


11/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

enactment o the Endangered Species Act

in 1973. Since then, and especially over the

past decade or two, there has been a steadily

growing awareness that the preservation omany species depends undamentally on the

protection o habitat at a more substantial

scale than had previously been understood

or thought possible.

Spatial scale is now considered critical or

biodiversity, both to provide essential habitat

and to protect multiple species. The result-

ing expansion and deepening o commit-

ment to provide adequate habitat and con-

nectivity to preserve these species is clearly

a major contributor to the large landscape

conservation movement.

Climate Change Adaptation

Land use patterns, water management, bio-

diversity protection, and many other conser-

vation issues acing North America are even

more challenging in the ace o climate

change. A report by the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (2009) concludes that

current and uture impacts o climate change

are pervasive and wide-ranging, and aect

the core systems o societytransportation,

ecosystems, agriculture, business, inrastruc-

ture, water, and energy. Given this scientifc

understanding, the report asserts that it is

imperative to take action now to adapt to

changing conditions.

Climate change provides one o the most

compelling cases or the need to develop gov-

ernance capacity at the scale o the problems.

Because greenhouse gases pay no attention

to national boundaries, the individuals, com-

munities, states, and nations aected cannot

eectively address climate change by reduc-

ing carbon emissions unless such eorts

are simultaneously undertaken worldwide.

Within that global context, specifc

actions to mitigate climate change can and

should occur at national, state, and local

levels. At the same time, strategies to adapt

to the eects o climate change on land,

water, and wildlie must occur at the scale

where the impacts are most apparent and

the solutions most eective, oten at thelocal level and, increasingly, across regions.

When droughts occur, or example, they

aect landscapes that bear little or no rela-

tionship to existing political jurisdictions

(fgure 4). This simple geographic act o

lie becomes much more important when

climate change makes drought even more

persistent across some o those areas. Many

o the other eects o climate change, in-

cluding shiting patterns o vegetation and

species composition, and the requency

and intensity o storm events and wildland

fre, will likewise maniest themselves region-

ally, regardless o legal and jurisdictional

boundaries.

Economic and Fiscal Benets

Large landscape conservation provides sig-

nifcant benefts to rural and urban commu-

nities in areas near the conserved landscapes

through increased income, employment,

and economic prosperity, and improved

fscal balance (American Society o Land-

scape Architects 2009). These benefts to

human communities ow directly or indi-

rectly rom services provided by the ecosys-

tems present within the conserved lands.

Ecosystem services can be categorized

as general services that provide water, ood,

fber, and energy; regulating services that

puriy water and air, sequester carbon, regu-

late climate, decompose waste, pollinate

crops, and provide pest and disease control;

supporting services such as nutrient cycling,

soil ormation, photosynthesis, and seed

dispersal; and cultural services that provide

spiritual and intellectual inspiration, recre-

ational experiences, and aesthetic benefts

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

Many people move to rural areas to live,

work, and conduct business due to quality-


12/56


13/56

M c K i n n e y , s c a r l e t t , a n d K e M M i s l a r g e l a n d s c a p e c o n s e r v at i o n 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conserving natural and working landscapes

also improves the fscal balance or commu-

nities by concentrating residential develop-

ment in appropriate locations. Working landsand conserved natural landscapes generally

generate less revenue than residential prop-

erties, but they require very little in the way

o public inrastructure and services. Many

fscal analyses o the costs o providing com-

munity services indicate that working land-

scapes generate more public revenues than

they receive in the orm o public services

(American Farmland Trust 2006).

Ecosystem services maintained through

conservation o natural landscapes can signi-

fcantly improve the fscal balance. Allow-

ing ecosystems to do what would otherwise

require engineered systems avoids the costs

to construct and maintain man-made struc-

tures. Some examples are ood control by

healthy riparian systems, water purifcation

by orest landscapes, mitigation o tidal

surges by coastal wetlands, and wastewater

treatment by reshwater wetlands.

A recent study o water suppliers ound

that the extent o orest cover in their water-sheds aects the water treatment costs (Ernst,

Gullick, and Nixon 2004). Data analyzed or

27 water suppliers indicated that or every

10 percent increase in orest cover in the

watershed, the treatment and chemical costs

decreased by approximately 20 percent. Due

to these and other fscal and economic ben-

efts, an increasing number o communities

are including land conservation as part o

their strategy or providing sae water supplies.

R EC EN T P L IC R ES P N S ES

Policy leaders at regional, state, and national

levels, along with representatives o conser-

vation organizations, have initiated a num-

ber o new policies and programs over the

past several years to address land and water

issues at a large landscape scale. These initia-

Christopher

Creek, Arizona


14/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

tives broaden the oundation or large land-

scape conservation within the context o

other activities.

The New England Governors Coner-ence (2009, 10) adopted a regional conser-

vation strategy as an initiative to conserve

the regions diverse landscapes and help

ensure that they will remain orever healthy,

productive, and accessible to the citizens o

New England and the nation. In a similar

vein, the Western Governors Association

(2008, 3) adopted a Wildlie Corridors Ini-

tiative to identiy key wildlie migration

corridors and crucial wildlie habitats in the

West and make recommendations on need-

ed policy options and tools or preserving

those landscapes.

Meanwhile, every state has completed

a comprehensive wildlie action plan as

charged by Congress in order to be eligible

to receive unds through the Wildlie Con-

servation and Restoration Program and

the State Wildlie Grants Program. As

the product o public-private partnerships,

these plans articulate practical measures

to protect and restore important lands and

waters, curb invasive species, and address

issues related to habitat corridors and con-

nectivity. Many action plans emphasize both

the need to inorm decisions with the best

available scientifc inormation and the use

o market-based incentives and collabora-

tion (rather than regulation).

At the national level, ormer President

George W. Bushs White House Conerence

on Cooperative Conservation (2005) recom-

mended that the Secretary o the Interior

be authorized to support innovative land-

scape-level, multiyear projects that place an

emphasis on collaborative approaches to

conservation. The National Parks Second

Century Commission (2009, 1617), an in-

dependent body convened by the National

Parks Conservation Association, recently

concluded, Parks will be key elements in a

network o connected ecological systems and

historical sites, and public and private lands

and waters that are linked together across

the nation and the continent. Lived-in land-scapes will be an integral part o these great

corridors o conservation.

Since taking ofce in January 2009, Presi-

dent Barack Obama and his administration

have made the concept o large landscape

conservation a component, and oten a

ocus, o many natural resource initiatives.

The White House Conerence on Amer-

icas Great Outdoors on April 16, 2010,

addressed the challenges, opportunities,and innovations in current land conserva-

tion. Among other things, the initiative

is designed to reconnect Americans o all

ages to the great outdoors, promote com-

munity-based recreation, build on estab-

lished programs and priorities, and use

science-based management to restore

and protect Americas land and water

or uture generations (Obama 2010).

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announcedin early March 2010 his intention to create

the Collaborative Forest Landscape Res-

toration Advisory Committee authorized

by the Omnibus Public Land Manage-

ment Act o 2009 (U.S. Department o

Agriculture 2010). The committee will

help prioritize the landscape restoration

needs o national orests and adjacent

lands.

Tom Tidwell, chie o the U.S. ForestService, directed the agency in November

2009 to produce landscape conservation

action plans to guide its day-to-day

response to climate change (Straub 2009, 1).

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (2009, 3)

recognized that Interior bureaus and

agencies must work together, and with

other ederal, state, tribal, and local gov-


15/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ernments, and private landowner part-

ners, to develop landscape-level strategies

or understanding and responding to cli-

mate change impacts. To that end, hisSecretarial Order 3289 o September

2009 calls on Interior bureaus and agen-

cies to develop a network o collaborative

landscape conservation cooperatives,

which are now being established by the

Fish and Wildlie Service (FWS) jointly

with the National Park Service, Geologi-

cal Survey (USGS), Bureau o Land

Management (BLM), and many other

partners. In addition, the USGS is creating

regional climate change response centers

to identiy key ecosystem changes and

provide scientifc inormation to manage-

ment agencies with the goal o better pro-

tecting climate-sensitive ecosystems. The

BLM also is initiating a set o ecoregional

assessments to document and analyze the

conditions, trends, and disturbances o

large landscapes.

In a speech titled National Vision or

Americas Forests, Secretary o Agricul-ture Tom Vilsack (2009, 4) declared that

the Forest Service must not be viewed as

an agency concerned only with the ate

o our National Forests but must instead

be acknowledged or its work in protect-

ing and maintaining all American orests,

including state and private lands. Our

shared vision must adopt an all-lands

approach.

In testimony beore the House Appropri-

ations Subcommittee on Interior, Envi-

ronment, and Related Agencies, Nancy

H. Sutley (2009, 2), chair o the White

House Council on Environmental Quality,

pledged to direct CEQ to help conserve,

and where needed, restore, our working

landscapes and great ecosystems.

The Ofce o Management and Budget

issued an executive memorandum in

August 2009 directing all ederal agencies

to develop eective place-based policiesor the FY 2011 budget: Place-based

policies leverage investments by ocusing

resources in targeted places and drawing

on the compounding eect o well-coor-

dinated action. Eective place-based

policies can inuence how rural and met-

ropolitan areas develop, how well they

unction as places to live, work, operate

a business, preserve heritage, and more.

Such policies can also streamline other-

wise redundant and disconnected

programs (Orszag et al. 2009, 1).

To complement these government initia-

tives, a group o ten national nongovern-

mental conservation organizations released

a proposal in February 2010 to support

large landscape conservation through

existing ederal programs and authorities

(American Rivers et al. 2010). These and

other recent eorts build on a solid oun-

dation o regional land use planning, eco-

system management, and interstate water

management throughout the United States.

SMMAR

Increasingly, the major land and water is-

sues acing North America require concert-

ed action at the scale o large, multijuris-

dictional landscapes. Unless these and other

problems are addressed at an appropriate

scale, the scope o the problems will over-

whelm the capacity o existing communities

and institutions to meet the challenges o

a constantly changing environment. Recent

attention to these concerns rom the Obama

administration and other policy leaders pro-

vides new hope to the hundreds o local,

state, and regional organizations already in-

volved in large-scale conservation activities.


16/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 2

The Promise of Large LandscapeConservation

In response to the challenges and oppor-

tunities posed by the nations most

compelling land and water issues, peo-

ple across the continent are experiment-

ing with a variety o approaches to achieve

large landscape conservation. In addition to

being multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and

multistakeholder, these initiatives operate

with various governance arrangements and

at diverse geographic scales. The goal o

each project is to address issues at a scalethat is big enough to surround the problem,

but small enough to tailor the solution

(Porter and Wallis 2002).

ARIAT IN IN ERNANCE

The process o achieving large landscape

conservation requires regional collabora-

tion, and people have invented a variety o

approaches tailored to ft the scope and

nature o their particular issues. Based on

both practical experience and a study o

hundreds o regional initiatives in North

America, there appears to be a continuum

o approachesrom inormal networks, to

more ormal partnerships, to regional insti-

tutions (McKinney and Johnson 2009). This

continuum reveals that these approaches

overlap in some ways and the dierences

among them are oten subtle (fgure 5). Largelandscape conservation initiatives also tend

to ollow a progression rom inormal to more

ormal governance and implementation as

people begin to think and act regionally.

The distinction between a network and a

partnership, or a partnership and a regional

institution, is not always clear, and these

categories are intentionally broad. Within

Workshop

participants

planning for

the Crown

of the

Continent


17/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

each are various models and approaches

that also range rom inormal to ormal.

According to Douglas Porter (McKinney

and Johnson 2009, 12):

All regional eorts are assemblages o

cooperating interests and groups, and

all have established some type o work-

ing arrangementsome more artully

ramed than others. The dierences

appear in aspects such as the range o

issues and concerns that bring them

together, the size and complexity o

the geographical area they are ocused

on, the strength o the structural rela-tionships they have established in which

to unction, the type o ofcial estab-

lishment within recognized public or

private organizations, and their method

o assuring (or not) a continuing

presence.

Although there is no single model o col-

laboration or large landscape conservation,

ten key elements help explain what catalyzes,

enables, constrains, and sustains such eorts

(box 1). These elements, which can guidechoices about how to prepare, organize,

and take action, ocus on the process o

regional collaboration, rather than the sub-

stantive policies and plans to deal with

specifc conservation issues.The distinction here between substance

and process is not trivial. There is a unda-

mental dierence between what should be

done about a particular large landscape and

how people who care about such issues should

determine what ought to happen. The frst

problem is one o substance and the relative

eectiveness o alternative policies and

plans. The second is one o process: how to

bring together the appropriate people with

the best available inormation to address

large landscape conservation.

All ten elements are present in every suc-

cessul large landscape conservation eort,

regardless o the style or approach adopted

by the practitioners. In each case, however,

the elements are managed in a unique way

to create a homegrown set o solutions and

institutional arrangements. Successul prac-

titioners manage these elements in such a

way that the process and set o actions that

emerge are designed and built by those who

best know the particular landscape.

Source: McKinney and Johnson (2009, 12).

Fiur 5

Working Across Boundaries: A Continuum of Responses

Networks Partnerships Regional

Institutions

build relationships coordinate existing create intermediary

institutions organizations

exchange information

identify common interests negotiate compacts create regulatory

agencies

informal formal


18/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To understand what the ten elements are,

it is also important to distinguish what they

are not. They are not habits or skills that

one can acquire or steps to success thatneed to be taken in a particular order, but

rather integral aspects o every regional col-

laboration and large landscape conservation

eort. In some cases, the elements might be

discussed in stages. In others, they may be

woven together intricately, with several ele-

ments appearing in close succession. Some

elements (strategy, or example) might not

be discussed in a large landscape conserva-

tion eort at all, although they still inuence

the process and outcome o the regional

collaboration eort.

Just as the content o each large land-

scape conservation initiative is dierent, so

is the order in which these elements must

be addressed. As a public policy matter, the

challenge is how to reinorce and replicate

these key elements in ways that respond to

the unique set o social, environmental, and

economic characteristics within a particular

landscape.

ARIAT IN IN SPAT IAL SCA LE

In some cases, landscape-scale conservation

initiatives are nested within one another at

varying geographical scales, as illustrated

in the ollowing examples. This situation

accentuates the difculties in defning what

we mean by large landscape conservation,

yet each case represents its appropriate

problem-shed that inevitably crosses

geographical borders.

The Blackoot Challenge is a landowner-

based group that coordinates management

o the Blackoot River, its tributaries, and

adjacent public and private lands, covering

approximately 2,400 square miles in Mon-

tana (fgure 6). It is organized locally and

known nationally as a model or preserving

the rural character and natural beauty o a

watershed. Although the charter dates only

to 1993, Blackoot landowners have played

an instrumental stewardship role since the

late 1970s in bringing conservation easement

legislation, walk-in hunting areas, and recre-

ation corridor management to the region.

The mission o the Blackoot Challenge is

to coordinate eorts that will enhance, con-

serve, and protect the natural resources and

rural liestyles o the Blackoot River Valley

or present and uture generations. It sup-

ports environmentally responsible resource

stewardship through cooperation o private

and corporate landowners, ederal and state

land managers, and local government of-

cials. All share a common vision o how the

group operates in the Blackoot watershed

and believe that conservation success results

rom building trust, maintaining partner-

ships, and working together.

The Blackoot Challenge has produced

an impressive list o accomplishments over

Box 1

Ten Key Elements of Regional Collaboration

1. Catalyst: the crisis, threat, or opportunity that compels

people to think and act regionally.

2. Leadership: the need for different types of leaders to catalyze,

enable, and sustain action.

3. Representation: the people, organizations, and jurisdictions

needed to achieve the desired outcome.

4. Regional t: the tension of matching the problem-shed with

peoples interest.

5. overnance: the degree of decision-making authority, along

with mechanisms for funding and dispute resolution.

6. Learning: the process of facilitating scientic and public learning.

7. Strategy: the formulation of a vision, goals, and aspirations.

8. Implementation: a plan to move from vision to action.

9. utcomes: the agreements, policies, programs, and on-the-

ground accomplishments achieved.

10. Adaptation: the ongoing process of monitoring, evaluating,

and adapting as needed.


19/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crown of theContinent Ecosystem

Protected Area

Urban Centre

0 25 50 100

Kilometres

the years, including integrated weed man-

agement practices; land protection through

conservation easements; restoration o

streams, riparian areas, and native grass-

lands; removal o fsh passage barriers;

and educational outreach about the water-

shed. The organization clearly meets the

criteria or large landscape conservationmultiple jurisdictions, multiple purposes,

and multiple stakeholdersand illustrates

one way to organize and govern such an

initiative, in this case as a nonproft organi-

zation. With respect to the issue o scale,

it is large by eastern standards but small

by western standards.

The Blackoot Challenge is also a good

example o how landscape-scale eorts oten

nest within one another. The watershed lies

within a region know as the Crown o theContinent (fgure 7). During the past eight

years, a number o independent and com-

plementary initiatives have emerged to pro-

mote conservation and community steward-

ship in this remarkable landscape that covers

18,000 square miles (about twice the size

o New Jersey). Numerous Crown-wide ini-

tiatives and subregional eorts address issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Source: Blackfoot Challenge (2005, 12).

Fiur 6

Blackfoot River Watershed in Montana

BLMUSFS

USFWS

State Trust

DFWP

University &Institutions

Plum CreekBlackfoot Community Project

Other Private

Fiur 7

Crown of the Continent Ecosystem

Source: Crown Managers Partnership (www.rockies.ca/cmp).


20/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box 2

International Dimensions of Large Landscape Conservation

The U.S. borders with Canada (5,525 miles) and Mexico

(1,969 miles) cut across many ecologically cohesive regions.

The borders generally start in the East following natural features

principally riversbut they soon harden into straight lines. Protect-

ing these transborder landscapes is not a recent or isolated phe-

nomenon. Some areas are home to multiple efforts, such as the

Great Lakes with three prominent examples: the Ecosystem Char-

ter for the Great Lakes, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and

Great Lakes Information Network. Some landscape-scale efforts

have existed for decades, including the WatertonGlacier Interna-

tional Peace Park (established in 1932) and a number of efforts

on the U.S.Mexico border to replicate the peace park idea. A

more recent example along the Mexican border is the Colorado

River Delta project of the Sonoran Institute.

Structurally, some transboundary initiatives revolve around public

land management agencies, but most either include or originate

within civil society. Other types of collaborations in North America

feature the involvement of sovereign First Nation and Native Ameri-

can groups, such as the International Sonoran Desert Alliance.

And, while most initiatives are terrestrial, a few are marine-based

for example, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

and the trilateral Baja to Bering Marine Conservation Initiative.

geographic scale than the Blackoot

Challenge and unctions with a dierent

model o organization and governance.

Scaling up to an even larger level is theYellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initia-

tive (Y2Y), an eort to protect core wildlie

areas and corridors across 500,000 square

miles (nearly three times the size o Calior-

nia) and spanning the U.S.Canada border

(box 2). Y2Y began as a network o biolo-

gists and conservationists who were con-

cerned about the northward trend o declin-

ing wildlie populations and habitats (fgure

8). Today, Y2Y continues its networking

unction, but programmatically ocuses on

protecting key connectivity areas or wild-

lieareas that both currently harbor en-

dangered species such as the grizzly bear

and ace signifcant threats rom habitat loss,

invasive species, and climate change.

While Y2Y ocuses on wildlie corridors

and connectivity, it works closely with pri-

vate landowners, community leaders, and

others to address a range o issues related to

land use, community and economic prosper-

ity, and wildlie management. In this respect,

Y2Y meets the basic criteria o large land-

scape conservation, but operates at a much

dierent scale than either the Crown or the

Blackoot Challenge. While it operates as a

nonproft organization, it relies heavily on part-

nerships with diverse stakeholders to achieve

its objectives, thus embracing several ways

to organize and govern a large landscape

conservation initiative.

TH E ES S EN T IAL R L E

F CLLABRAT IN

These and other examples suggest that the

currency o large landscape conservation is

regional collaboration. In countless places

across North America, the old warriors o

economic development and environmen-

tal protection have battled each other to a

stand-still or decades, but are now working

in southeast British Columbia, southwest

Alberta, the Rocky Mountain Front, the

Blackoot-Clearwater watersheds, and

the Flathead Valley.Beginning in 2006, the Lincoln Institute

o Land Policy and the Center or Natural

Resources and Environmental Policy at The

University o Montana convened a series

o roundtables to acilitate communication

and understanding among these initiatives,

and to explore opportunities to work together.

The roundtables created an inormal, ad

hoc network o networks, representing an-

other promising model o large landscape

conservation. The Crown meets the basic

criteria o what we mean by a large-scale

landscape, but operates at a much larger


21/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

together to advance individual and collective

interests. Some communities ask, or exam-

ple, whether it might be possible to protect

key grizzly habitat while keeping some saw-

mills in operation. Might there be a way to

keep the salmon running while providing

water or arms and amilies?

While the interests o the participants

are diverse, these collaborative eorts nearly

always arise rom a common commitment

to sustaining communities and landscapes.

They also spring rom a perspective that

existing legal and institutional mechanisms

need to be supplemented with more respon-

sive, homegrown, public decision-making

processes. It would be next to impossible

to mobilize the political will that most large

landscape conservation eorts require in the

absence o this historically powerul phenom-

enon o diverse interests fnding common

ground.

From the beginning, the conservation

o Americas most precious landscapes and

ecosystems has also been understood by the

most visionary conservationists as contribut-

ing to the cause o American democracy.

The protection o public lands, or example,

was never about only the land; it was also,

crucially, about the public. As Theodore

Roosevelt (1910, 8) said in his amous

new nationalism speech:

O all the questions which can comebeore this nation, short o the actual

preservation o its existence in a great

war, there is none which compares in

importance with the great central task

o leaving this land even a better land

or our descendants than it is or us,

Source: Yellowstone to Yukon: A Blueprint for Wildlife Conservation (2002). (http://www.y2y.net/

data/1/rec_docs/675_A_Blueprint_for_Wildlife_Conservation_reduced.pdf).

Fiur 8

ellowstone to ukon Conservation Initiative

Yellowstone to YukonConservation Initiative

LEGEND

Major Highways

Protected Areas

Y2Y Ecoregion

70 0 70 140 210 280 350

50 0 50 100 150 200

Km

Miles

Theodore Roosevelt


22/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and training them into a better race

to inhabit the land and pass it on.

Conservation is a great moral issue,

or it involves the patriotic duty oinsuring the saety and continuance o

the nation. Let me add that the health

and vitality o our people are at least

as well worth conserving as their

orests, waters, lands, and minerals,

and in this great work the national

government must bear a most impor-

tant part.

Large landscape conservation rests on a new

orm o democracy that we term collaborativedemocracy (Kemmis and McKinney 2010).

It seems likely that sustained movement

toward landscape-scale conservation can

only be achieved by bringing existing (na-

tional, state, tribal, and local) and emergent

(regional, cross-jurisdictional) orms o gov-

ernance together in place-specifc, highly

adaptive ways. This kind o collaboration

seems to be emerging organically in response

to a number o human and ecological

problems.This suggests, urther, that the ocus on

large landscape conservation might well re-

sult in a healing o not only ecosystems, but

also related human systems. As traditionally

adversarial conservation, community, and

economic interests search or common

ground, one arena o shared interest is a

growing recognition that unscarred land-

scapes, clean water, resh air, and a rich

biodiversity based on healthy ecosystems

are becoming the best economic engineavailable to many local communities. The

potential o strengthening those economies

while healing and preserving large ecosys-

tems creates a signifcant new political con-

text in which conservation and economic

action converge.Perhaps even more appealing is the pros-

pect that, in the course o working hard to

discover and claim that common ground,

the people who inhabit those ecosystems

will have contributed to the strengthening

o their civic culture, and to expanding their

capacity to address the next set o challeng-

es and realize the next set o opportunities

they encounter. At the same time, the roles

o ederal, state, and local governments are

being refned as they act more as a catalyst,

partner, and resource to acilitate home-

grown conservation o large landscapes.

SMMAR

The promise o large landscape conser-

vation is that it seeks to address land and

water problems at an appropriate geog-

raphic scale, regardless o political and

jurisdictional boundaries. While it is dif-

cult to defne precisely what constitutes a

large landscape conservation eort, there

is a growing consensus that such eorts

are multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and

multistakeholder, and that they operate with

various governance arrangements at diverse

geographic scales. The common currency

in large landscape conservation is regional

collaborationthe ability to work across

boundaries with people and organizations

that have diverse interests yet share a

common place and purpose.


23/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 3

Seven Large Landscapes:A Continuum of Responses

During the past two years, parti-

cipants in the national policy

dialogues have identifed nearly

200 cases that, depending on the

criteria used, represent examples o large land-

scape conservation (Lincoln Institute 2010).

Taken together they reect the variations

in governance and spatial scale explained

in chapter 2, and include policy initiatives,

plans, government programs, and nongov-

ernment organizations that serve as either

advocates or intermediaries. This prelimi-

nary inventory also reveals that such eorts

are organized or multiple purposes, rom

inorming and educating people to sharing

data, planning, decision making, implemen-

tation, monitoring, and evaluating on-the-

ground outcomes.

The ollowing seven vignettes illustrate

dierent approaches to large landscape

conservation, presented rom the most in-ormal to the most ormal type. The cases

represent the range o program responses

emerging throughout North America, in-

cluding the diverse issues that catalyze such

eorts and the multiple orms o leadership

and governance that shape and sustain them.

FR EED M T R AM

This nongovernmental organization facilitates a

broad-based network of organizations and businesses

to protect and enhance wildlife corridors and land-

scape connectivity in North America.

SMMAR: Based on the realization that

many conservation groups have worked on

corridor protection eorts or more than 20

years, Freedom to Roam is a unique coali-

tion o people, businesses, conservation

groups, and recreation groups (fgure 9).

Buffalo in ellowstone

National Park


24/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Its goal is to leverage the lessons and re-

sources o these disparate eorts through a

coordinated approach to secure long-term

corridor and landscape connectivity.The organizations primary objectives are

to raise the awareness and understanding o

corridors and connectivity to new constitu-

encies and the public in general; engage

major corporations in the campaign; create

a national brand or connectivity projects;

and support new and ongoing eorts to cre-

ate local, state, and national policy change.

These activities are pursued through a

decentralized organizational structure that

includes a steering team and our working

groups.

FNDIN:Freedom to Roam was estab-

lished with start-up support rom Patagonia,

Inc. and the Doris Duke Charitable Foun-

dation. Ongoing unding is provided by a

steering committee o conservation and

sportsmen groups, government, and corpo-

rations. Freedom to Roams annual budget

is approximately $750,000.

ACCMPLISHMENTS: Freedom to Roam was

instrumental in helping advance and pass

the Western Governors Association (WGA)

policy ramework or wildlie corridor con-servation across the West and continues to

be closely involved in WGAs wildlie corri-

dor initiative. It has also developed a nation-

al campaign to promote and conserve wild-

lie corridors as a solution to habitat rag-

mentation and climate change impacts on

species. One o Freedom to Roams pro-

grams is Witness or Wildlie (W4W), which

ocuses on building grassroots awareness o

the great wildlie corridors in North America.

W4W combines citizen science with a Web-

based community, wherein participants are

encouraged to report, share stories, and

upload data, images, and videos onto a

W4W Web site.

CHALLENES: One o the key challenges

acing Freedom to Roam is the lack o a

central organizing theme to bring together

all the existing, disparate, species-specifc or

geographically defned corridor eorts, and

to harness the potentially great conservation

values that would be associated with such

a coordinated eort.

AM ER IC AS L N L EAF P IN E

IN IT IAT I E

This ad hoc public-private partnership creates a

more coherent and targeted strategy to restore Americas

longleaf pine forests in the southeastern states.

SMMAR: Longlea pine orests once cov-

ered more than 90 million acres rom Vir-

ginia to Texas (fgure 10). Today, less than 3

percent o that original landscape remains.

Although there have been eorts to restore

the regional ecosystem in the past, a cadre

o conservationists began to meet in 2005 to

develop a more ocused restoration initiative

and build broad-based support. At the same

time, longlea pine conservation eorts were

Fiur 9

Freedom to Roam

Source: Freedom to Roam (http://freedomtoroam.org).


25/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SabineNF/Angelina NF

Kisatchie NFFort

Big Thicket

Ocala NF

Fort BenningTalladega NF

EglinAFB/BlackwaterSF/Conecuh NF

Osceola

NF/OkenfenokeeNWR

AppalachicolaNF/St.Marks NWR

DeSoto NF

FortStewart/Altamaha

FrancisMarion NF

Lakes

OnslowBightNC Sandhills

ronmental Law Center have provided sig-

nifcant support. Federal agency partners

will be making unding contributions as

the plan is implemented.

ACCMPLISHMENTS: The partners recently

completed a longlea ecosystem conserva-

tion plan that identifes priority actions at

a regional scale that add value to the many

longlea conservation eorts currently un-

derway. Local implementation teams arenow being ormed to guide and accomplish

on-the-ground work within Signifcant Geo-

graphic Areas (SGAs) and Signifcant Geo-

graphic Sites (SGSs). Each team will con-

vene multistakeholder groups; develop pri-

ority actions or restoration; work with

partners to carry out restoration activities;

and evaluate projects as they are completed.

being initiated or expanded by state and

ederal agencies and a host o other organi-

zations, including The Nature Conservancy,

the National Wild Turkey Federation, and

the Longlea Alliance. Meanwhile, an inde-

pendent eort by several states and ederal

agencies in the region identifed restoring

the land o the longlea pine as a top con-

servation priority to promote better collabo-

ration in making resource use decisions. It

is known as the Southeast Regional Part-nership or Planning and Sustainability

(SERPPAS).

FNDIN: It is difcult to discern the cur-

rent level o unding that each partner con-

tributes on an annual basis in sta time and

resources, but several partners, including the

Longlea Alliance and the Southern Envi-

Fiur 10

Signicant Landscapes for Longleaf Pine Conservation

Source: Americas Longleaf Initiative (www.americaslongleaf.org/resources/maps).


26/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHALLENES: The central challenge or

Americas Longlea Pine Initiative is mov-

ing rom plan development to implementa-

tion and evaluation. Implementation o theplan relies on voluntary collaborative eorts

among many partners. Establishing an eec-

tive network or communication, sharing

opportunities, managing issues, solving

problems, and consistently tracking accom-

plishments is proving to be a challenge. One

specifc need is to inventory and map exist-

ing longlea pine restoration eorts in order

to prioritize and target available resources.

Several partners have already developed the

internal strategies and additional capacities

that will help them carry out specifc com-

ponents o the ecosystem conservation plan.

PLATTE R IER RECER

IMPLEMENTAT IN PRRAM

A negotiated agreement creates a formal partnership

and plan to manage a multistate river basin and

associated endangered species.

SMMAR: Ater several years o negotia-

tion, the states o Colorado, Nebraska, and

Wyoming, and the U.S. Department o the

Interior signed the Platte River Cooperative

Agreement in July 1997 (fgure 11). The

agreement is based on the belie that a

basin-wide, cooperative eort is the best

approach to help resolve endangered species

issues o the whooping crane, piping plover,

interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon, while

allowing various water uses to continue. A

10-member governance committee devel-

oped the Recovery Implementation Plan,

which is now implemented through the

Platte River Recovery Implementation

Program (PRRIP).

FNDIN: Funding or the implementation

program is shared equally between the ed-

eral government and the states o Colorado,

Nebraska, and Wyoming. Over the course

o the Recovery Implementation Program,

the ederal government will contribute an

estimated $157 million to the eort, while

the states will provide an equivalent contri-bution through a combination o unds

and other resources.

ACCMPLISHMENTS: Participants devel-

oped a Recovery Implementation Plan rom

1997 to 2007 with the aim o satisying the

requirements o the Endangered Species

Act while accommodating other water users

in the basin.The Secretary o the Interior

and the governors o Colorado, Nebraska,

and Wyoming ormally adopted the plan

and it was launched in early 2007. The

PRRIP, which coordinates the implemen-

tation, currently has a 12-person sta,

including engineers, biologists, ecologists,

real estate specialists, and administrative

support.

One goal o the implementation program

is to protect, restore, and maintain 10,000

acres o habitat by 2019, with a long-term

objective o acquiring 29,000 acres. Habitat

will be acquired through either purchase or

cooperative arrangements where designated

lands could be managed by other entities,

such as environmental organizations, utili-

ties, and irrigation districts. To date, a total

o 6,125 acres have been secured. The pro-

gram also established an Independent Sci-

ence Advisory Committee (ISAC) to review

the programs adaptive management plan.

The ISAC completed its review o the plan

in 2010, and a number o new adaptive

management research projects have been

initiated based on its recommendations.

CHALLENES: The basic barrier or obstacle

is to satisy competing interests during im-

plementation o the plan. Through joint

act-fnding and adaptive management,

participants are seeking ways to meet the

environmental and species protection goals


27/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

articulated in the plan while simultaneously

attending to the competing interests o states

and individual water users.

B L AC KS T N E R I ER AL L E

NAT INAL HER ITAE

C R R ID R

Congressional legislation implements a grassroots

effort to protect the natural and cultural heritage

of a special place

SMMAR: Ater years o grassroots eorts

by local leaders and communities, Congress

created the Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor in 1986 to preserve the

regions industrial history (fgure 12). Known

as the birthplace o the American industrial

revolution, the valley remains a dynamic

working landscape o hilltop arms and in-

dustrial villages. Water-powered textile mills

prolierated up and down the river, utilizing

its 430-oot drop in elevation to support mills

rom Worcester, Massachusetts to Providence,

Rhode Island.

The Heritage Corridor includes 24 cities

and towns along the 46-mile valley. Although

the corridor is ederally designated, the gov-

ernment does not have regulatory powers or

own any lands within it. Instead, the National

Park Service works with agencies and orga-

nizations at all levels to uphold a unifed

vision or the region that includes historic

preservation, unveiling the Blackstone story

to visitors and residents, improving the eco-

logical health o the land and water resources

that have been impacted by industrializa-

tion, developing recreational opportunities,

and implementing heritage-based economic

development strategies.

FNDIN: Funding varies rom year to

year and includes a variety o sources. From

1987 to 2004, the commission that oversees

the corridor received $23,658,600 rom the

National Park Service (an average o over

$1.3 million per year). Almost the entire

amount required a 1:1 match, which was

provided by local and regional sources.

Source: Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (http://platteriverprogram.org).

Fiur 11

Platte River Basin

Wyon

Cooo

N

North PlatteRiver Basin

South PlatteRiver Basin Central Platte

River Basin

WyomiNg

Colorado

Big Bend ReachCritical Habitat Area

Nebraska

Nebraska


28/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fiur 12

Blackstone River alley National Heritage Corridor

Source: Tuxill and Mitchell (2005, 4).

New ngland

M

VT

NH

MA

CTri

bctonVy

Woct

lct

gton

Upton

Hop

mnon

mv

buv

Nothsthf

sthf

lncon

Povnc

etPovnc

Pwtuct

bcton

Woonoct

Cun

muy

sutton

dou

Noth

CntF

goct

Ux

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Rhode Island


29/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ACCMPLISHMENTS: The commission has

sponsored or participated in over 400 proj-

ects throughout the corridor and has entered

into nearly 300 agreements with 100 dier-ent partners to carry out its management

plan. The commission has also successully

leveraged its signifcant unding and partner-

ships, realizing an estimated $500 million in

direct and indirect benefts toward its goals

or the corridor since its inception.

CHALLENES: The Blackstone River Valley

National Heritage Corridor aces the chal-

lenge o sustaining momentum into the u-

turenurturing existing relationships and

partnerships, securing more diverse and on-

going sources o unding, providing collab-

orative leadership, and adapting to new

needs and circumstances.

C M PR EH EN S I E E ER L AD ES

R ES T R AT I N PL AN

Various leaders establish an intergovernmental

effort to coordinate and implement the nations most

ambitious ecosystem restoration initiative.

SMMAR: The Florida Everglades is an

18,000-square-mile region o subtropical up-

lands, wetlands, and coral rees that extends

rom the Kissimmee Chain o Lakes south

o Orlando through Florida Bay and the

rees southwest o the Florida Keys (fgure

13). Early land developers viewed the region

as worthless swamplands, and by the late

1800s eorts were under way to reclaim

them or productive uses. In the 1900s the

State o Florida and the ederal government

constructed a number o projects to reduce

ooding and provide water supply or agri-

culture and urban uses. As a result o these

projects, hal o the original ecosystem has

been lost, and the natural ow o water and

water quality have been signifcantly altered.

Recognizing the need or intergovern-

mental collaboration among multiple ederal,

state, tribal, and local organizations, Con-

gress established the South Florida Eco-

system Restoration Task Force in the Water

Resources Development Act (WRDA) o1996. The task orce articulated its overall

goals as restoration, preservation, and pro-

tection o the Everglades ecosystem while

providing or other water-related needs

o the region, including water supply and

ood protection.

The single largest eort o this complex

intergovernmental restoration is the Com-

prehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

(CERP), which Congress approved in the

Water Resources Development Act o 2000.

The plan has been described as the worlds

largest ecosystem restoration eort, and is

expected to take at least 30 years to com-

plete. It includes restoring more natural ows

o water and improving water quality within

the remaining natural areas while maintain-

ing or enhancing existing levels o ood

protection and water supply.

FNDIN: From fscal years 1999 through

2011, the ederal government has contri-

buted $3.6 billion, and Florida contributed

$10.9 billion, or a total o $14.5 billion or

the restoration. This amount includes both

CERP and non-CERP projects and pro-

grams. Floridas contribution includes

signifcant unding or land conservation

and water quality programs that are the

exclusive responsibility o the state.

ACCMPLISHMENTS: A report by the

National Research Council (NRC) in 2008

applauded the agencies or developing solid

scientifc inormation and establishing the

necessary oundations to implement adap-

tive management. The State o Florida has

acquired more than 200,000 acres o land,

about hal o the total CERP target. The

task orce has helped increase interagency

and intergovernmental coordination. The


30/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Everglades restoration programs have im-

proved water management practices by the

Army Corps o Engineers and the South

Florida Water Management District. Since

2008, several substantive milestones have

been achieved, including commencement

o work to raise a portion o the Tamiami

Trail to enable more water to ow south

into the Everglades National Park and the

start o work on the C-111 spreader canal.

CHALLENES: The NRC also concluded,

however, that agency implementation o

CERP to date has been mostly program-

matic. The NRC and other analysts have

noted that (1) the condition o the Ever-

glades ecosystem is declining; (2) the CERP

is entangled in procedural matters involving

ederal approval o projects and lacks con-

sistent inusions o fnancial support rom

the ederal government; and (3) without

rapid implementation o the projects with

the greatest potential or Everglades restora-

tion, the opportunity or meaningul resto-

ration may be permanently lost. Other crit-

ics ault an unbalanced stakeholder process,

which they see as emphasizing development

interests concerned about maintaining water

supplies over environmental water needs.

L AS C IEN E AS N AT I N AL

CNSERAT IN AREA

Congress directs the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) to look to the land management goals of the

Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP).

SMMAR: Sonoita Valley, just 50 miles

southeast o Tucson, Arizona, is a vast, high

desert basin o oak-studded hills and rolling

grasslands ed by Cienega Creek (fgure 14).

The valley orms an important wildlie cor-

ridor connecting the Sonoran desert regions

o the Southwest and northern Mexico, but

it is split nearly evenly between public and

private land ownership, and traditionally

supported ranching and mining. Recently

rediscovered as a recreation destination, the

valley is now eeling the eects o Tucsons

regional growth. In the late 1960s, developers

purchased the 50,000-acre Empire Ranch,

alerting Sonoita residents that the open

spaces they prized might soon be enguled

by the rapidly expanding Tucson metro-

politan area.

In the late 1980s, the BLM acquired

35,000 acres o the ormer ranch in exchange

or scattered ederal lands nearer Phoenix.

The BLM subsequently began developing

a management plan or its holdings in the

valley, but the agencys traditional planning

process gained little local support. In 1995,

the agency changed its approach and started

to engage local stakeholders more directly.

Later that year, ederal, state, and local gov-

ernment ofcials, along with stakeholders

representing diverse viewpoints, agreed to

orm the Sonoita Valley Planning Partner-

ship (SVPP) to promote community-based

public land management.

At the request o SVPP, Congress created

the Las Cienegas National Conservation

Fiur 13

The Florida Everglades

Source: Provided by Nanciann Regalado, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001).


31/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area, which includes 42,000 acres (66 square

miles) o public land. The ederal legislation

in 2000 established the Sonoita Valley Acqui-

sition Planning District to acilitate utureacquisition o important conservation lands

on an additional 100,000 acres (156 square

miles) o public, private, county, and state

trust land. It also specifes management pro-

visions pertaining to grazing, military air-

space, access to state and private lands,

motorized vehicles, and hunting.

One o the most unique eatures o the

legislation is its requirement that the BLM

develop a management plan in accordance

with the resource goals and objectives devel-

oped through the Sonoita Valley Planning

Partnership process . . . giving ull consider-

ation to the management alternative pre-

erred by the Sonoita Valley Planning Part-

nership, as it applies to Federal lands or lands

with conservation easements (Las Cienegas

National Conservation Area 2000).

FNDIN: The SVPP is a voluntary partner-

ship. Partners contribute time and resources,

but no comprehensive accounting o SVPPs

fnancial capacity is available. In 2007, the

SVPP and the Cienega Corridor Conserva-

tion Council, a complementary organization

at the northern end o the watershed, created

the Cienega Watershed Partnership. Its unc-

tion is to administer and support the two

voluntary partnerships and to seek resources

or the priority work o both groups.

ACCMPLISHMENTS: The BLM adopted

a resource management plan in 2003 con-

sistent with the goals and objectives o the

SVPP. Additionally, the SVPP has partnered

with the BLM and The Nature Conservancy

to develop a monitoring and adaptive man-

agement plan or the National Conservation

Area. Participants continue to be involved

in complementary land use and conser-

vation eorts.

Fiur 14

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

CHALLENES: During negotiations over the

bill, Congress and the Arizona State Land

Department removed the area between I-10

and the wilderness area rom considerationunder the SVPP program, thus creating a

gap in coverage. The area, known as the

Source: Bodner (2009, 5).


32/56


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cienega Corridor, is important or cultural,

economic, and biological values. Ongoing

eorts to protect the Cienega Corridor

show promise, but commentators are quick

to point out that there are no guarantees.

Implementing the adopted plan also seems

to be a challenge. Funding sta and moni-

toring work also remain pressing needs, and

the SVPP is currently exploring new organi-

zational structures that allow it to be sel-

sustaining and play a more active role in

helping the BLM implement the plan.

TAH E R E I N AL PL AN N IN

A EN C

This bistate compact creates the nations rst

interstate land use authority to govern development

and maintain environmental quality within the

500-square-mile Lake Tahoe Basin.

SMMAR: More than 100 years ago,

conservationists voiced concern about the

impacts o tourism, ranching, and logging

on the Lake Tahoe environment (fgure 15).

Their idea to make Lake Tahoe a national

orest or national park did not gain wide

support in Washington, DC, primarily

Documents

Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action