Policy Focus Report • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

M at t h e w M c Kinney, Lynn Scar l e t t, a n d D a n i e l K e mm i s 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 markets, and taxation. Each report is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by combining research findings, case studies, and contributions from scholars in a variety of academic disciplines, and from professional practitioners, local officials, 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 Street Cambridge, 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

M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 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 America’s 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 Conservation 32 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 Toolkit 45 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 and the Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy

M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 1 ......

Executive Summary

he most important land and Since no single entity has the power or water issues facing North America authority to address these types of cross- —including land use patterns, boundary issues, there is a gap in gover- water management, biodiversity nance and a corresponding need to create Tprotection, and climate adaptation—require informal and formal ways to work more new approaches. While most of these chal- effectively across boundaries. Large land- lenges need to be addressed at several scales scape conservation also provides significant simultaneously, ranging from the local to economic and fiscal benefits to rural and the global, it is increasingly imperative to urban communities. Since taking office in address them at the scale of large land- January 2009, President Barack Obama scapes. The territory of these issues often and his administration have made the con- transcends the legal and geographic reach cept of large landscape conservation a com- The Everglades of existing jurisdictions and institutions. ponent, and often a focus, of many natural resource initiatives. In response to increasing activity at the large landscape scale, leaders from the pub- lic, 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 intent of the dialogues was to synthesize what we know about large landscape conservation and to identify the most important needs as we move forward. There is general agreement that the promise of large landscape conservation is its focus on land and water problems at an appropriate geographic scale, regardless of political and jurisdictional boundaries. While it is hard to define precisely what constitutes a large landscape conservation effort, there is a growing consensus that such efforts are multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and multi- stakeholder, and they operate at various geographic scales using a variety of governance arrangements. The common currency in large land- scape conservation is regional collaboration

2 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 3 ......

—the ability to work across boundaries with • Establish a national competitive people and organizations that have diverse grants program to catalyze, enable, interests yet share a common place. While coordinate, and sustain promising there is no single model for large landscape efforts. Facilitate homegrown partner- conservation, a number of key elements are ships, improve coordination among evident in the most successful efforts. Prac- ongoing efforts, and recognize the most titioners apply these elements on a case-by- promising approaches to large landscape case basis to create homegrown processes conservation. and solutions for particular places. • Improve the policy toolkit to achieve With the increasing movement toward large landscape conservation. large landscape conservation, several barri- Strengthen incentive-based tools for ers still must be addressed for this approach landowner conservation and improve to land and water conservation to endure. coordination and participation by federal Barriers include the lack of both scientific and other governmental agencies. information and knowledge about the struc- • Facilitate innovative funding ture and function of large landscape con- opportunities to support large servation initiatives; the lack of capacity landscape conservation. Maximize to organize, achieve, and advocate for large and focus the use of existing federal and landscape conservation goals; the lack of state programs and authorities that can a strategy to facilitate coordination among be implemented quickly and without new fragmented efforts and to foster innovative funding; combine existing funding sources experiments; the lack of policy tools to im- to target large landscape conservation plement large landscape conservation; and projects; require in-kind or matching fragmented financial investments. funds from nonfederal sources to leverage In response to these barriers, participants resources, including local, state, private, in the national policy dialogues, along with and philanthropic foundations; employ many other planners, practitioners, and existing and new incentives, tax policy officials, believe that large landscape credits, purchase programs, conservation can be improved significantly and management agreements to en- by implementing the following recom- courage private lands conservation; and mendations: use some funding for the planning and coordination of strategies to conserve • Gather and share information to watersheds, ecosystems, greenways, improve the science and governance and corridors. of large landscape conservation. Establish a common, coherent database The history of American conservation on the science of large landscapes, and has been marked from the beginning by an develop an annotated atlas of governance inspiring capacity to adapt to new circum- efforts to clarify who is doing what and stances. In the challenging circumstances what needs to be done. of the twenty-first century, the growing • Encourage a network of practitioners emphasis on large landscape conservation to build capacity. Catalyze collabora- promises to be as important and inspiring tion through a network akin to the Land as earlier chapters in the history of conser- Trust Alliance to identify best practices vation, and like them to contribute to the and advocate for policy reforms. strengthening of our democracy.

2 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 3 ......

C h a p t e r 1 Taking Conservation to Scale

Forest stream numbers of conserva- In response to these concerns, people in New Hampshire tionists, policy makers, and from many walks of life are experimenting practitioners agree that the with a variety of approaches that are best most important land and water captured by the term large landscape conserva- issuesG facing North America require new tion. This new paradigm for conservation approaches. Some of these challenges in- is provocative, but can be difficult to define. volve protecting ecosystem integrity and Based on research and a range of examples, connectivity; restoring and protecting water the paradigm encompasses three criteria: resources; providing access for recreational (1) multijurisdictional—the issues being opportunities; sustaining the working farms, addressed cut across political and jurisdic- ranches, and that are critical to local tional boundaries; (2) multipurpose—they economies and cultures, and provide impor- address a mix of related issues, including tant habitat; protecting and inter- but not limited to environment, economy, preting cultural resources as part of our and community; and (3) multistakeholder— national heritage; enhancing economic they include public, private, and non- viability and resilience in rural and urban governmental actors. communities; and adapting to climate While most of these conservation change. challenges need to be addressed at several

4 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 5 ......

geographic scales simultaneously, ranging Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and from the local to the global, it is increasingly John Muir, this stage left a lasting legacy of imperative to address them at the scale of national parks, forests, and monuments, as large landscapes because their territories well as private land trusts. Those conserva- transcend the legal and geographic reach of tion leaders created a system, existing jurisdictions and institutions. Since reserving millions of acres from settlement. no single entity has the power or authority The creation and expansion of the National to address these types of cross-boundary Park System gave even stronger protection concerns alone, there is often a gap in gov- to some of the most magnificent of those ernance and a corresponding need to create landscapes. During the same period, states, informal and formal ways to work more communities, and individuals also used a effectively across boundaries. variety of means, both public and private, to protect special places. H ist o rical P erspecti v 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 of American conservation (Hays 1959; Fox 1981; Nash 1990; Levitt 2005). That history has always been informed and inspired by the landscapes of this continent, from tower- ing mountains to deep canyons, from lush prairies to searing deserts, from “sea to shin- ing sea.” Beginning with the First Nations, people from many backgrounds have been inspired to preserve and protect the natural John Muir and cultural values of these landscapes, while providing satisfying livelihoods and The second major historical stage is creating resilient communities. associated with the environmental move- While Americans have often taken these ment of the 1960s and 1970s, which pro- landscapes for granted and have heedlessly duced an array of important legislation, endangered their related ecosystems, many including the Act and the En- individuals have also periodically stepped up dangered Species Act. In recent decades, to protect them against greed and carelessness a great range of private efforts—from con- in new and creative ways. The earliest con- servation to land trusts and a servation efforts in America are associated variety of habitat enhancement organiza- with people such as John Winthrop, Thomas tions—have helped to preserve countless Jefferson, George Catlin, Henry David treasured ecosystems. Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh, and John Each of these stages arose out of its own Wesley Powell. Building on this foundation, set of compelling historical forces, and each the recent history of American conserva- made its unique contribution to the long- tion can be recounted in two major stages. term public good. The current attention to First came the conservation movement large landscape conservation constitutes a of the late nineteenth and early twentieth third stage in the history of American centuries. Associated with the names of conservation that is still being written.

4 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 5 ......

C u rrent C hallen g es ining a map of emerging megaregions in the This policy focus report explores the nature United States (figure 1). All of these regions, of current environmental and governance no matter how large the metropolitan foot- challenges, examines the promise of large print, include and rely on resources the cities landscape conservation, and highlights the cannot live without—water, food, energy, range of responses emerging throughout wood products, open space, wildlife corridors, North America. It also identifies the barriers and recreational opportunities—sometimes to large-scale conservation and offers a set referred to as ecosystem services. of recommendations for policy, research, Other considerations such as drought action, and financing. and wildfire create a growing need to devel- The issues associated with land use op a capacity to address land use at a more patterns, water management, biodiversity appropriate scale (Stewart, Radeloff, and protection, climate change adaptation, and Hammer 2006). At least in the western United economic and fiscal benefits illustrate the States, much of the rapid growth in recent compelling need for a strategic framework decades has taken place at what is called the to advance policy and action. wildland-urban interface. Most of the wild- lands fall under the jurisdiction of state or Land Use Patterns federal land management agencies, while The case for the large landscape conserva- adjacent land development is usually sub- tion approach is readily apparent by exam- ject to the authority of local governments.

Figure 1 Megaregions Across the United States

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

6 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 7 ......

Wildfires that start on public land often Figure 2 threaten nearby private homes, whose own- Interstate River Compacts in the Western United States ers expect to be protected from the advanc- ing flames. Land management agencies, their budgets already stressed, have to make judgment calls about which fires to suppress Columbia and which ones to leave burning. In the long run only a shared, approach to Belle Fourche development decisions, operating at the land- Yellowstone scape scale and involving local, state, and Snake Klamath national entities, can provide a solution to Bear Niobrara this kind of problem. Big Blue South Platte Republican Water Management Animas- Arkansas Like land use patterns, water does not re- La Plata spect the artificial boundaries that humans Colorado Costilla impose on the landscape. No major river Creek basin in the United States conforms exactly to the contours of a state boundary. As a Rio Grande consequence, water resources administration has been characterized by multijurisdictional Pecos conflicts from the first days of the republic (Kenney 1994). The need to develop the capacity to man- age water at an appropriate scale is height- ened by the fact that many of the most arid Miles regions have been, and are likely to remain, 0 100 200 400 600

the fastest growing parts of the country. Sources: Base map prepared by Dustin Garrick for NSF Project 0451559, Boundary Conflicts, Growing populations mean more pressure Collective Choice Institutions, and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms, Edella Schlager and Tanya Heikkila, principal investigators. Colorado River Basin: Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database on scarce water resources, the even greater (TFDD). Oregon State University (2007). http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu. Columbia River likelihood of conflict, and the need to man- Basin: Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Oregon State University, Department of Geosciences (2004). age those resources at the watershed scale. The expansion of metropolitan regions nisms have been implemented in dozens of throughout North America that are depen- river basins to address the unique challenges dent on the quantity and quality of water posed by interstate water resources (figure 2). often pits upstream and downstream inter- To complement these more formal responses, ests against each other. As the frequency and a different type of political engagement and severity of droughts increase, the tendency problem solving began to emerge in the 1990s of water issues to divide rather than unite (Kenney et al. 2000). Driven by the often com- communities also increases. America’s most peting or conflicting concerns of different endangered rivers likewise require action sets of stakeholders within a given watershed, at the scale of large landscapes. many adversaries began turning to their op- The good news is that substantial histori- ponents to explore mutually satisfactory ways cal momentum is focused in this direction. to manage large-scale watersheds that cut Several types of formal coordinating mecha- across political and jurisdictional boundaries.

6 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 7 ......

Figure 3 Hot Spots for Imperiled Species

Rarity-Weighted Richness Index 0 200 mi

0 200 km Low High

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.

As these efforts proved increasingly Biodiversity Protection promising, they were supported and encour- Wildlife and plant species inhabit geographies aged by various state policies and initiatives, of different sizes and shapes, none of which and were nurtured nationally through the conforms to legal and political jurisdictions. Department of the Interior, the Environ- For many threatened or endangered species, mental Protection Agency, and other federal particularly megafauna and migratory birds, agencies. Restoration projects in the Ever- the range required for viable populations is glades, Chesapeake Bay, ’s Bay very large, and almost always includes parts Delta, the Louisiana Gulf Coast, the lower or all of several adjacent political jurisdictions Rio Grande, New York City drinking (figure 3). watersheds in the Catskills and Delaware Concerns about what we now call biodi- basins, and other areas transcend political versity were present from the earliest stages boundaries, focusing instead on whole of the conservation movement over a cen- watersheds and natural systems (Foster 1994). tury ago, and they bore lasting fruit with the

8 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 9 ......

enactment of the Endangered Species Act to the effects of climate change on land, in 1973. Since then, and especially over the water, and wildlife must occur at the scale past decade or two, there has been a steadily where the impacts are most apparent and growing awareness that the preservation of the solutions most effective, often at the many species depends fundamentally on the local level and, increasingly, across regions. protection of habitat at a more substantial When droughts occur, for example, they scale than had previously been understood affect landscapes that bear little or no rela- or thought possible. tionship to existing political jurisdictions Spatial scale is now considered critical for (figure 4). This simple geographic fact of biodiversity, both to provide essential habitat life becomes much more important when and to protect multiple species. The result- climate change makes drought even more ing expansion and deepening of commit- persistent across some of those areas. Many ment to provide adequate habitat and con- of the other effects of climate change, in- nectivity to preserve these species is clearly cluding shifting patterns of vegetation and a major contributor to the large landscape species composition, and the frequency conservation movement. and intensity of storm events and wildland fire, will likewise manifest themselves region- Climate Change Adaptation ally, regardless of legal and jurisdictional Land use patterns, water management, bio- boundaries. diversity protection, and many other conser- vation issues facing North America are even Economic and Fiscal Benefits more challenging in the face of climate Large landscape conservation provides sig- change. A report by the U.S. Global Change nificant benefits to rural and urban commu- Research Program (2009) concludes that nities in areas near the conserved landscapes current and future impacts of climate change through increased income, employment, are pervasive and wide-ranging, and affect and economic prosperity, and improved the core systems of society—transportation, fiscal balance (American Society of Land- ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastruc- scape Architects 2009). These benefits to ture, water, and energy. Given this scientific human communities flow directly or indi- understanding, the report asserts that it is rectly from services provided by the ecosys- imperative to take action now to adapt to tems present within the conserved lands. changing conditions. Ecosystem services can be categorized Climate change provides one of the most as general services that provide water, food, compelling cases for the need to develop gov- fiber, and energy; regulating services that ernance capacity at the scale of the problems. purify water and air, sequester carbon, regu- Because greenhouse gases pay no attention late climate, decompose waste, pollinate to national boundaries, the individuals, com- crops, and provide pest and disease control; munities, states, and nations affected cannot supporting services such as nutrient cycling, effectively address climate change by reduc- soil formation, photosynthesis, and seed ing carbon emissions unless such efforts dispersal; and cultural services that provide are simultaneously undertaken worldwide. spiritual and intellectual inspiration, recre- Within that global context, specific ational experiences, and aesthetic benefits actions to mitigate climate change can and (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). should occur at national, state, and local Many people move to rural areas to live, levels. At the same time, strategies to adapt work, and conduct business due to quality-

8 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 9 ......

Figure 4 Trends in End-of-Summer Drought, 1958–2007

Increasing Drought Decreasing Drought

Source: Karl, Melillo, and Peterson (2009, 43). Notes: Trends are measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index in each of 344 U.S. climate divisions. Hatching indicates significant trends.

of-life considerations associated with vices arising from conserved and protected the environmental amenities provided by lands, such as tourism, agriculture, ecosystems, such as clean air and water, and angling, and , direct- active outdoor recreation, and hunting ly contribute both dollars and jobs to local and angling opportunities. Protected pub- and regional economies. Other studies have lic lands, such as designated wilderness, documented the positive effect of protected national parks, and national conservation open space on residential property values. areas, are also an essential component of The closer a property is to open space or large landscape conservation. They provide park land, the higher the premium placed valuable environmental amenities and pro- on its value (de Brun 2007). tect lands that are significant economic as- In addition to these economic benefits, sets for local and regional rural economic large landscape conservation provides exten- development. sive fiscal benefits on both the revenue and An extensive study of the role of protected cost sides of local government budgets. public lands on economic prosperity in the Nearly all of the economic activities noted West concluded that counties hosting or above are taxed in some way, and increased close to protected lands have the fastest eco- property values resulting from conserved nomic growth (Rasker et al. 2004). Econom- lands produce increased reve- ic activities associated with ecosystem ser- nues for local governments.

10 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 11 ......

Conserving natural and working landscapes surges by coastal wetlands, and wastewater also improves the fiscal balance for commu- treatment by freshwater wetlands. nities by concentrating residential develop- A recent study of water suppliers found ment in appropriate locations. Working lands that the extent of cover in their water- and conserved natural landscapes generally sheds affects the water treatment costs (Ernst, generate less revenue than residential prop- Gullick, and Nixon 2004). Data analyzed for erties, but they require very little in the way 27 water suppliers indicated that for every of public infrastructure and services. Many 10 percent increase in forest cover in the fiscal analyses of the costs of providing com- watershed, the treatment and chemical costs munity services indicate that working land- decreased by approximately 20 percent. Due scapes generate more public revenues than to these and other fiscal and economic ben- they receive in the form of public services efits, an increasing number of communities (American Farmland Trust 2006). are including land conservation as part of Ecosystem services maintained through their strategy for providing safe water supplies. conservation of natural landscapes can signi- ficantly improve the fiscal balance. Allow- R ecent P o lic y R esp o nses ing ecosystems to do what would otherwise Policy leaders at regional, state, and national require engineered systems avoids the costs levels, along with representatives of conser- to construct and maintain man-made struc- vation organizations, have initiated a num- tures. Some examples are flood control by ber of new policies and programs over the healthy riparian systems, water purification past several years to address land and water by forest landscapes, mitigation of tidal issues at a large landscape scale. These initia-

Christopher Creek, Arizona

10 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 11 ......

tives broaden the foundation for large land- network of connected ecological systems and scape conservation within the context of historical sites, and public and private lands other activities. and waters that are linked together across The New Governors’ Confer- the nation and the con­tinent. Lived-in land- ence (2009, 10) adopted a regional conser- scapes will be an integral part of these great vation strategy as an “initiative to conserve corridors of conservation.” the region’s diverse landscapes and help Since taking office in January 2009, Presi- ensure that they will remain forever healthy, dent Barack Obama and his administration productive, and accessible to the citizens of have made the concept of large landscape New England and the nation.” In a similar conservation a component, and often a vein, the Western Governors’ Association focus, of many natural resource initiatives. (2008, 3) adopted a Wildlife Corridors Ini- tiative to “identify key wildlife migration • The White Conference on Amer- corridors and crucial wildlife habitats in the ica’s Great Outdoors on April 16, 2010, West and make recommendations on need- addressed the challenges, opportunities, ed policy options and tools for preserving and innovations in current land conserva- those landscapes.” tion. Among other things, the initiative Meanwhile, every state has completed is designed to reconnect Americans of all a comprehensive wildlife action plan as ages to the great outdoors, promote com- charged by Congress in order to be eligible munity-based recreation, build on estab- to receive funds through the Wildlife Con- lished programs and priorities, and use servation and Restoration Program and science-based management to restore the State Wildlife Grants Program. As and protect America’s land and water the product of public-private partnerships, for future generations (Obama 2010). these plans articulate practical measures • Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced to protect and restore important lands and in early March 2010 his intention to create waters, curb invasive species, and address the Collaborative Forest Landscape Res- issues related to habitat corridors and con- toration Advisory Committee authorized nectivity. Many action plans emphasize both by the Omnibus Public Land Manage- the need to inform decisions with the best ment Act of 2009 (U.S. Department of available scientific information and the use Agriculture 2010). The committee will of market-based incentives and collabora- help prioritize the landscape restoration tion (rather than regulation). needs of national forests and adjacent At the national level, former President lands. George W. Bush’s White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation (2005) recom- • Tom Tidwell, chief of the U.S. Forest mended that the Secretary of the Interior Service, directed the agency in November be authorized “to support innovative land- 2009 to produce “landscape conservation scape-level, multiyear projects that place an action plans” to guide its day-to-day emphasis on collaborative approaches to response to climate change (Straub 2009, 1). conservation.” The National Parks Second Century Commission (2009, 16–17), an in- • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (2009, 3) dependent body convened by the National recognized that “Interior bureaus and Parks Conservation Association, recently agencies must work together, and with concluded, “Parks will be key elements in a other federal, state, tribal, and local gov-

12 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 13 ......

ernments, and private landowner part- • The Office of Management and Budget ners, to develop landscape-level strategies issued an executive memorandum in for understanding and responding to cli- August 2009 directing all federal agencies mate change impacts.” To that end, his to develop effective place-based policies Secretarial Order 3289 of September for the FY 2011 budget: “Place-based 2009 calls on Interior bureaus and agen- policies leverage investments by focusing cies to develop a network of collaborative resources in targeted places and drawing landscape conservation , on the compounding effect of well-coor- which are now being established by the dinated action. Effective place-based Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) jointly policies can influence how rural and met- with the National Park Service, Geologi- ropolitan areas develop, how well they cal Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land function as places to live, work, operate Management (BLM), and many other a business, preserve heritage, and more. partners. In addition, the USGS is creating Such policies can also streamline other- regional climate change response centers wise redundant and disconnected to identify key ecosystem changes and programs” (Orszag et al. 2009, 1). provide scientific information to manage- ment agencies with the goal of better pro- To complement these government initia- tecting climate-sensitive ecosystems. The tives, a group of ten national nongovern- BLM also is initiating a set of ecoregional mental conservation organizations released assessments to document and analyze the a proposal in February 2010 to support conditions, trends, and disturbances of large landscape conservation through large landscapes. existing federal programs and authorities (American Rivers et al. 2010). These and • In a speech titled “National Vision for other recent efforts build on a solid foun- America’s Forests,” Secretary of Agricul- dation of regional land use planning, eco- ture Tom Vilsack (2009, 4) declared that system management, and interstate water “the Forest Service must not be viewed as management throughout the United States. an agency concerned only with the fate of our National Forests but must instead S u mmar y be acknowledged for its work in protect- Increasingly, the major land and water is- ing and maintaining all American forests, sues facing North America require concert- including state and private lands. Our ed action at the scale of large, multijuris- shared vision must adopt an all-lands dictional landscapes. Unless these and other approach.” problems are addressed at an appropriate • In testimony before the House Appropri- scale, the scope of the problems will over- ations Subcommittee on Interior, Envi- whelm the capacity of existing communities ronment, and Related Agencies, Nancy and institutions to meet the challenges of H. Sutley (2009, 2), chair of the White a constantly changing environment. Recent House Council on Environmental Quality, attention to these concerns from the Obama pledged to “direct CEQ to help conserve, administration and other policy leaders pro- and where needed, restore, our working vides new hope to the hundreds of local, landscapes and great ecosystems.” state, and regional organizations already in- volved in large-scale conservation activities.

12 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 13 ......

C h a p t e r 2 The Promise of Large Landscape Conservation

Workshop n response to the challenges and oppor- approaches tailored to fit the scope and participants tunities posed by the nation’s most nature of their particular issues. Based on planning for compelling land and water issues, peo- both practical experience and a study of of the ple across the continent are experiment- hundreds of regional initiatives in North ingI with a variety of approaches to achieve America, there appears to be a continuum Continent large landscape conservation. In addition to of approaches—from informal networks, to being multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and more formal partnerships, to regional insti- multistakeholder, these initiatives operate tutions (McKinney and Johnson 2009). This with various governance arrangements and continuum reveals that these approaches at diverse geographic scales. The goal of overlap in some ways and the differences each project is to address issues at a scale among them are often subtle (figure 5). Large that is big enough to surround the problem, landscape conservation initiatives also tend but small enough to tailor the solution to follow a progression from informal to more (Porter and Wallis 2002). formal governance and implementation as people begin to think and act regionally. vA R I AT I o n in G o v ernance The distinction between a network and a The process of achieving large landscape partnership, or a partnership and a regional conservation requires regional collabora- institution, is not always clear, and these tion, and people have invented a variety of categories are intentionally broad. Within

14 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 15 ......

each are various models and approaches and take action, focus on the process of that also range from informal to formal. regional collaboration, rather than the sub- According to Douglas Porter (McKinney stantive policies and plans to deal with and Johnson 2009, 12): specific conservation issues. The distinction here between substance All regional efforts are assemblages of and process is not trivial. There is a funda- cooperating interests and groups, and mental difference between what should be all have established some type of work- done about a particular large landscape and ing arrangement—some more artfully how people who care about such issues should framed than others. The differences determine what ought to happen. The first appear in aspects such as the range of problem is one of substance and the relative issues and concerns that bring them effectiveness of alternative policies and together, the size and complexity of plans. The second is one of process: how to the geographical area they are focused bring together the appropriate people with on, the strength of the structural rela- the best available information to address tionships they have established in which large landscape conservation. to function, the type of official estab- All ten elements are present in every suc- lishment within recognized public or cessful large landscape conservation effort, private organizations, and their method regardless of the style or approach adopted of assuring (or not) a continuing by the practitioners. In each case, however, presence. the elements are managed in a unique way Although there is no single model of col- to create a homegrown set of solutions and laboration for large landscape conservation, institutional arrangements. Successful prac- ten key elements help explain what catalyzes, titioners manage these elements in such a enables, constrains, and sustains such efforts way that the process and set of actions that (box 1). These elements, which can guide emerge are designed and built by those who choices about how to prepare, organize, best know the particular landscape.

Figure 5 Working Across Boundaries: A Continuum of Responses

Networks Partnerships Regional Institutions

informal formal

build relationships coordinate existing create intermediary institutions organizations exchange information

identify common interests negotiate compacts create regulatory agencies

Source: McKinney and Johnson (2009, 12).

14 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 15 ......

To understand what the ten elements are, these key elements in ways that respond to it is also important to distinguish what they the unique set of social, environmental, and are not. They are not habits or skills that economic characteristics within a particular one can acquire or steps to success that landscape. need to be taken in a particular order, but rather integral aspects of every regional col- vA R I AT I o n in S patial S cale laboration and large landscape conservation In some cases, landscape-scale conservation effort. In some cases, the elements might be initiatives are nested within one another at discussed in stages. In others, they may be varying geographical scales, as illustrated woven together intricately, with several ele- in the following examples. This situation ments appearing in close succession. Some accentuates the difficulties in defining what elements (strategy, for example) might not we mean by large landscape conservation, be discussed in a large landscape conserva- yet each case represents its appropriate tion effort at all, although they still influence “problem-shed” that inevitably crosses the process and outcome of the regional geographical borders. collaboration effort. The Blackfoot Challenge is a landowner- Just as the content of each large land- based group that coordinates management scape conservation initiative is different, so of the Blackfoot River, its tributaries, and is the order in which these elements must adjacent public and private lands, covering be addressed. As a public policy matter, the approximately 2,400 square miles in Mon- challenge is how to reinforce and replicate tana (figure 6). It is organized locally and known nationally as a model for preserving

Box 1 the rural character and natural beauty of a Ten Key Elements of Regional Collaboration watershed. Although the charter dates only to 1993, Blackfoot landowners have played 1. Catalyst: the crisis, threat, or opportunity that compels an instrumental stewardship role since the people to think and act regionally. late 1970s in bringing 2. Leadership: the need for different types of leaders to catalyze, legislation, walk-in hunting areas, and recre- enable, and sustain action. ation corridor management to the region. The mission of the Blackfoot Challenge is 3. Representation: the people, organizations, and jurisdictions to coordinate efforts that will enhance, con- needed to achieve the desired outcome. serve, and protect the natural resources and 4. Regional fit: the tension of matching the problem-shed with rural lifestyles of the Blackfoot River Valley people’s interest. for present and future generations. It sup- 5. Governance: the degree of decision-making authority, along ports environmentally responsible resource with mechanisms for funding and dispute resolution. stewardship through cooperation of private 6. Learning: the process of facilitating scientific and public learning. and corporate landowners, federal and state 7. Strategy: the formulation of a vision, goals, and aspirations. land managers, and local government offi- cials. All share a common vision of how the 8. Implementation: a plan to move from vision to action. group operates in the Blackfoot watershed 9. Outcomes: the agreements, policies, programs, and on-the- and believe that conservation success results ground accomplishments achieved. from building trust, maintaining partner- 10. Adaptation: the ongoing process of monitoring, evaluating, ships, and working together. and adapting as needed. The Blackfoot Challenge has produced an impressive list of accomplishments over

16 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 17 ......

Figure 6 Blackfoot River Watershed in Montana

BLM State Trust Plum Creek USFS DFWP Blackfoot Community Project USFWS University & Other Private Institutions

Source: Blackfoot Challenge (2005, 12).

the years, including integrated weed man- Figure 7 agement practices; land protection through Crown of the Continent Ecosystem

conservation easements; restoration of Crown of the streams, riparian areas, and native grass- Continent Ecosystem Protected Area lands; removal of fish passage barriers; Urban Centre and educational outreach about the water- 0 25 50 100 shed. The organization clearly meets the Kilometres criteria for large landscape conservation— multiple jurisdictions, multiple purposes, and multiple stakeholders—and illustrates one way to organize and govern such an initiative, in this case as a nonprofit organi- zation. With respect to the issue of scale, it is large by eastern standards but small by western standards. The Blackfoot Challenge is also a good example of how landscape-scale efforts often nest within one another. The watershed lies within a region know as the Crown of the Continent (figure 7). During the past eight years, a number of 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 of New Jersey). Numerous Crown-wide ini-

tiatives and subregional efforts address issues Source: Crown Managers Partnership (www.rockies.ca/cmp).

16 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 17 ......

in southeast British Columbia, southwest geographic scale than the Blackfoot Alberta, the Rocky Mountain Front, the Challenge and functions with a different Blackfoot-Clearwater watersheds, and model of organization and governance. the Flathead Valley. Scaling up to an even larger level is the Beginning in 2006, the Lincoln Institute Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initia- of Land Policy and the Center for Natural tive (Y2Y), an effort to protect core wildlife Resources and Environmental Policy at The areas and corridors across 500,000 square University of Montana convened a series miles (nearly three times the size of Califor- of roundtables to facilitate communication nia) and spanning the U.S.– border and understanding among these initiatives, (box 2). Y2Y began as a network of biolo- and to explore opportunities to work together. gists and conservationists who were con- The roundtables created an informal, ad cerned about the northward trend of declin- hoc network of networks, representing an- ing wildlife populations and habitats (figure other promising model of large landscape 8). Today, Y2Y continues its networking conservation. The Crown meets the basic function, but programmatically focuses on criteria of what we mean by a large-scale protecting key connectivity areas for wild- landscape, but operates at a much larger life—areas that both currently harbor en- dangered species such as the grizzly bear

Box 2 and face significant threats from habitat loss, International Dimensions of Large Landscape Conservation invasive species, and climate change. While Y2Y focuses on wildlife corridors he U.S. borders with Canada (5,525 miles) and Mexico and connectivity, it works closely with pri- T (1,969 miles) cut across many ecologically cohesive regions. vate landowners, community leaders, and The borders generally start in the East following natural features— others to address a range of issues related to principally rivers—but they soon harden into straight lines. Protect- land use, community and economic prosper- ing these transborder landscapes is not a recent or isolated phe- ity, and wildlife management. In this respect, nomenon. Some areas are home to multiple efforts, such as the Y2Y meets the basic criteria of large land- Great Lakes with three prominent examples: the Ecosystem Char- scape conservation, but operates at a much ter for the Great Lakes, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and different scale than either the Crown or the Great Lakes Information Network. Some landscape-scale efforts Blackfoot Challenge. While it operates as a have existed for decades, including the Waterton–Glacier Interna- nonprofit organization, it relies heavily on part- tional Peace Park (established in 1932) and a number of efforts nerships with diverse stakeholders to achieve on the U.S.–Mexico border to replicate the peace park idea. A its objectives, thus embracing several ways more recent example along the Mexican border is the Colorado to organize and govern a large landscape River Delta project of the Sonoran Institute. conservation initiative.

Structurally, some transboundary initiatives revolve around public T he E ssential R o le land management agencies, but most either include or originate o f C o llab o rati o n within civil society. Other types of collaborations in North America These and other examples suggest that the feature the involvement of sovereign First Nation and Native Ameri- currency of large landscape conservation is can groups, such as the International Sonoran Desert Alliance. regional collaboration. In countless places And, while most initiatives are terrestrial, a few are marine-based across North America, the old warriors of —for example, the Gulf of Council on the Marine Environment economic development and environmen- and the trilateral Baja to Bering Marine Conservation Initiative. tal protection have battled each other to a stand-still for decades, but are now working

18 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 19 ......

Roosevelt (1910, 8) said in his famous “new nationalism” speech: Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us,

Figure 8 Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

Theodore Roosevelt

together to advance individual and collective interests. Some communities ask, for 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 for farms and families? While the interests of the participants are diverse, these collaborative efforts nearly always arise from a common commitment to sustaining communities and landscapes. They also spring from 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 efforts require in the absence of this historically powerful phenom- Yellowstone to Yukon enon of diverse interests finding common Conservation Initiative

ground. Legend From the beginning, the conservation Major Highways of America’s most precious landscapes and Protected Areas ecosystems has also been understood by the Y2Y Ecoregion most visionary conservationists as contribut- 70 0 70 140 210 280 350 Km 50 0 50 100 150 200 Miles ing to the cause of American democracy. The protection of public lands, for example, was never about only the land; it was also, Source: Yellowstone to Yukon: A Blueprint for Wildlife Conservation (2002). (http://www.y2y.net/ crucially, about the public. As Theodore data/1/rec_docs/675_A_Blueprint_for_Wildlife_Conservation_reduced.pdf).

18 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 19 ......

and training them into a better race while healing and preserving large ecosys- to inhabit the land and pass it on. tems creates a significant new political con- Conservation is a great moral issue, text in which conservation and economic for it involves the patriotic duty of action converge. insuring the safety and continuance of Perhaps even more appealing is the pros- the nation. Let me add that the health pect that, in the course of working hard to and vitality of our people are at least discover and claim that common ground, as well worth conserving as their the people who inhabit those ecosystems forests, waters, lands, and minerals, will have contributed to the strengthening and in this great work the national of their civic culture, and to expanding their government must bear a most impor- capacity to address the next set of challeng- tant part. es and realize the next set of opportunities they encounter. At the same time, the roles Large landscape conservation rests on a new of federal, state, and local governments are form of democracy that we term collaborative being refined as they act more as a catalyst, democracy (Kemmis and McKinney 2010). partner, and resource to facilitate home- It seems likely that sustained movement grown conservation of large landscapes. toward landscape-scale conservation can only be achieved by bringing existing (na- S u mmar y tional, state, tribal, and local) and emergent The promise of large landscape conser- (regional, cross-jurisdictional) forms of gov- vation is that it seeks to address land and ernance together in place-specific, highly water problems at an appropriate geog- adaptive ways. This kind of collaboration raphic scale, regardless of political and seems to be emerging organically in response jurisdictional boundaries. While it is diffi- to a number of human and ecological cult to define precisely what constitutes a problems. large landscape conservation effort, there This suggests, further, that the focus on is a growing consensus that such efforts large landscape conservation might well re- are multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and sult in a healing of not only ecosystems, but multistakeholder, and that they operate with also related human systems. As traditionally various governance arrangements at diverse adversarial conservation, community, and geographic scales. The common currency economic interests search for common in large landscape conservation is regional ground, one arena of shared interest is a collaboration—the ability to work across growing recognition that unscarred land- boundaries with people and organizations scapes, clean water, fresh air, and a rich that have diverse interests yet share a biodiversity based on healthy ecosystems common place and purpose. are becoming the best economic engine available to many local communities. The potential of strengthening those economies

20 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 21 ......

c h a p t e r 3 Seven Large Landscapes: A Continuum of Responses

Buffalo in Yellowstone National Park

uring the past two years, parti- conservation, presented from the most in- cipants in the national policy formal to the most formal type. The cases dialogues have identified nearly represent the range of program responses 200 cases that, depending on the emerging throughout North America, in- Dcriteria used, represent examples of large land- cluding the diverse issues that catalyze such scape conservation (Lincoln Institute 2010). efforts and the multiple forms of leadership Taken together they reflect the variations and governance that shape and sustain them. in governance and spatial scale explained in chapter 2, and include policy initiatives, F reed o m t o R o am plans, government programs, and nongov- This nongovernmental organization facilitates a ernment organizations that serve as either broad-based network of organizations and businesses advocates or intermediaries. This prelimi- to protect and enhance wildlife corridors and land- nary inventory also reveals that such efforts scape connectivity in North America. are organized for multiple purposes, from informing and educating people to sharing Summary: Based on the realization that data, planning, decision making, implemen- many conservation groups have worked on tation, monitoring, and evaluating on-the- corridor protection efforts for more than 20 ground outcomes. years, Freedom to Roam is a unique coali- The following seven vignettes illustrate tion of people, businesses, conservation different approaches to large landscape groups, and recreation groups (figure 9).

20 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 21 ......

Its goal is to leverage the lessons and re- Accomplishments: Freedom to Roam was sources of these disparate efforts through a instrumental in helping advance and pass coordinated approach to secure long-term the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) corridor and landscape connectivity. policy framework for wildlife corridor con- The organization’s primary objectives are servation across the West and continues to to raise the awareness and understanding of be closely involved in WGA’s wildlife corri- corridors and connectivity to new constitu- dor initiative. It has also developed a nation- encies and the public in general; engage al campaign to promote and conserve wild- major corporations in the campaign; create life corridors as a solution to habitat frag- a national brand for connectivity projects; mentation and climate change impacts on and support new and ongoing efforts to cre- species. One of Freedom to Roam’s pro- ate local, state, and national policy change. grams is Witness for Wildlife (W4W), which These activities are pursued through a focuses on building grassroots awareness of decentralized organizational structure that the great wildlife corridors in North America. includes a steering team and four working W4W combines citizen science with a Web- groups. based community, wherein participants are encouraged to report, share stories, and Funding: Freedom to Roam was estab- upload data, images, and videos onto a lished with start-up support from Patagonia, W4W Web site. Inc. and the Doris Duke Charitable Foun- dation. Ongoing funding is provided by a Challenges: One of the key challenges steering committee of conservation and facing Freedom to Roam is the lack of a sportsmen groups, government, and corpo- central organizing theme to bring together rations. Freedom to Roam’s annual budget all the existing, disparate, species-specific or is approximately $750,000. geographically defined corridor efforts, and to harness the potentially great conservation Figure 9 values that would be associated with such Freedom to Roam a coordinated effort.

A merica’ s L o n g leaf P ine I nitiati v e This ad hoc public-private partnership creates a more coherent and targeted strategy to restore America’s longleaf pine forests in the southeastern states.

Summary: Longleaf pine forests once cov- ered more than 90 million acres from Vir- ginia to Texas (figure 10). Today, less than 3 percent of that original landscape remains. Although there have been efforts to restore the regional ecosystem in the past, a cadre of conservationists began to meet in 2005 to develop a more focused restoration initiative and build broad-based support. At the same Source: Freedom to Roam (http://freedomtoroam.org). time, longleaf pine conservation efforts were

22 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 23 ......

figure 10 Significant Landscapes for Longleaf Pine Conservation

Onslow NC Sandhills Bight

Lakes

Francis Marion NF

Talladega NF Fort Benning Fort Stewart/Altamaha Eglin Kisatchie NF AFB/Blackwater Osceola Sabine SF/Conecuh NF NF/Okenfenokee NF/Angelina NF Fort DeSoto NF NWR

Big Thicket Appalachicola NF/St. Marks NWR Ocala NF

Source: America’s Longleaf Initiative (www.americaslongleaf.org/resources/maps).

being initiated or expanded by state and ronmental Law Center have provided sig- federal agencies and a host of other organi- nificant support. Federal agency partners zations, including The Nature Conservancy, will be making funding contributions as the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the plan is implemented. the Longleaf Alliance. Meanwhile, an inde- pendent effort by several states and federal Accomplishments: The partners recently agencies in the region identified “restoring completed a longleaf ecosystem conserva- the land of the longleaf pine” as a top con- tion plan that identifies priority actions at servation priority to promote better collabo- a regional scale that add value to the many ration in making resource use decisions. It longleaf conservation efforts currently un- is known as the Southeast Regional Part- derway. Local implementation teams are nership for Planning and Sustainability now being formed to guide and accomplish (SERPPAS). on-the-ground work within Significant Geo- graphic Areas (SGAs) and Significant Geo- Funding: It is difficult to discern the cur- graphic Sites (SGSs). Each team will con- rent level of funding that each partner con- vene multistakeholder groups; develop pri- tributes on an annual basis in staff time and ority actions for restoration; work with resources, but several partners, including the partners to carry out restoration activities; Longleaf Alliance and the Southern Envi- and evaluate projects as they are completed.

22 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 23 ......

Challenges: The central challenge for of the Recovery Implementation Program, America’s Longleaf Pine Initiative is mov- the federal government will contribute an ing from plan development to implementa- estimated $157 million to the effort, while tion and evaluation. Implementation of the the states will provide an equivalent contri- plan relies on voluntary collaborative efforts bution through a combination of funds among many partners. Establishing an effec- and other resources. tive network for communication, sharing opportunities, managing issues, solving Accomplishments: Participants devel- problems, and consistently tracking accom- oped a Recovery Implementation Plan from plishments is proving to be a challenge. One 1997 to 2007 with the aim of satisfying the specific need is to inventory and map exist- requirements of the Endangered Species ing longleaf pine restoration efforts in order Act while accommodating other water users to prioritize and target available resources. in the basin. The Secretary of the Interior Several partners have already developed the and the governors of Colorado, Nebraska, internal strategies and additional capacities and Wyoming formally adopted the plan that will help them carry out specific com- and it was launched in early 2007. The ponents of the ecosystem conservation plan. PRRIP, which coordinates the implemen- tation, currently has a 12-person staff, P latte R i v er R ec o v ery including engineers, biologists, ecologists, I mplementati o n P r o g ram specialists, and administrative A negotiated agreement creates a formal partnership support. and plan to manage a multistate river basin and One goal of the implementation program associated endangered species. is to protect, restore, and maintain 10,000 acres of habitat by 2019, with a long-term Summary: After several years of negotia- objective of acquiring 29,000 acres. Habitat tion, the states of Colorado, Nebraska, and will be acquired through either purchase or Wyoming, and the U.S. Department of the cooperative arrangements where designated Interior signed the Platte River Cooperative lands could be managed by other entities, Agreement in July 1997 (figure 11). The such as environmental organizations, utili- agreement is based on the belief that a ties, and irrigation districts. To date, a total basin-wide, cooperative effort is the best of 6,125 acres have been secured. The pro- approach to help resolve endangered species gram also established an Independent Sci- issues of the whooping crane, piping plover, ence Advisory Committee (ISAC) to review interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon, while the program’s adaptive management plan. allowing various water uses to continue. A The ISAC completed its review of the plan 10-member governance committee devel- in 2010, and a number of new adaptive oped the Recovery Implementation Plan, management research projects have been which is now implemented through the initiated based on its recommendations. Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP). Challenges: The basic barrier or obstacle is to satisfy competing interests during im- Funding: Funding for the implementation plementation of the plan. Through joint program is shared equally between the fed- fact-finding and adaptive management, eral government and the states of Colorado, participants are seeking ways to meet the Nebraska, and Wyoming. Over the course environmental and species protection goals

24 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 25 ......

Figure 11 Platte River Basin

nebraska n g Wyomi

North Platte River Basin

South Platte River Basin Central Platte Wyoming River Basin nebraska Nebraska c olorado Big Bend Reach Critical Habitat Area Colorado

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

articulated in the plan while simultaneously The Heritage Corridor includes 24 cities attending to the competing interests of states and towns along the 46-mile valley. Although and individual water users. the corridor is federally designated, the gov- ernment does not have regulatory powers or B lackst o ne R i v er vA L L E y own any lands within it. Instead, the National N ati o nal H erita g e Park Service works with agencies and orga- C o rrid o r nizations at all levels to uphold a unified Congressional legislation implements a grassroots vision for the region that includes historic effort to protect the natural and cultural heritage preservation, unveiling the Blackstone story of a special place to visitors and residents, improving the eco- logical health of the land and water resources Summary: After years of grassroots efforts that have been impacted by industrializa- by local leaders and communities, Congress tion, developing recreational opportunities, created the Blackstone River Valley National and implementing heritage-based economic Heritage Corridor in 1986 to preserve the development strategies. region’s industrial history (figure 12). Known as the birthplace of the American industrial Funding: Funding varies from year to revolution, the valley remains a dynamic year and includes a variety of sources. From working landscape of hilltop farms and in- 1987 to 2004, the commission that oversees dustrial villages. Water-powered textile mills the corridor received $23,658,600 from the proliferated up and down the river, utilizing National Park Service (an average of over its 430-foot drop in elevation to support mills $1.3 million per year). Almost the entire from Worcester, Massachusetts to Providence, amount required a 1:1 match, which was Rhode Island. provided by local and regional sources.

24 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 25 ......

Figure 12 Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

New England

ME VT

NH Worcester Blackstone MA Valley CT Leicester RI

Grafton

Millbury Upton

Northbridge Hopedale Sutton

Massachusetts Mendon

Uxbridge Millville Douglas Blackstone

Burrillville Woonsocket

North Smithfield Cumberland

Connecticut Smithfield Central Falls Glocester Lincoln

Pawtucket East Rhode Island Providence Providence

Source: Tuxill and Mitchell (2005, 4).

26 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 27 ......

Accomplishments: The commission has state, tribal, and local organizations, Con- sponsored or participated in over 400 proj- gress established the South Florida Eco- ects throughout the corridor and has entered system Restoration Task Force in the Water into nearly 300 agreements with 100 differ- Resources Development Act (WRDA) of ent partners to carry out its management 1996. The task force articulated its overall plan. The commission has also successfully goals as restoration, preservation, and pro- leveraged its significant funding and partner- tection of the Everglades ecosystem while ships, realizing an estimated $500 million in providing for other water-related needs direct and indirect benefits toward its goals of the region, including water supply and for the corridor since its inception. flood protection. The single largest effort of this complex Challenges: The Blackstone River Valley intergovernmental restoration is the Com- National Heritage Corridor faces the chal- prehensive Everglades Restoration Plan lenge of sustaining momentum into the fu- (CERP), which Congress approved in the ture—nurturing existing relationships and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. partnerships, securing more diverse and on- The plan has been described as the world’s going sources of funding, providing collab- largest ecosystem restoration effort, and is orative leadership, and adapting to new expected to take at least 30 years to com- needs and circumstances. plete. It includes restoring more natural flows of water and improving water quality within C o mprehensi v e E v er g lades the remaining natural areas while maintain- R est o rati o n P lan ing or enhancing existing levels of flood Various leaders establish an intergovernmental protection and water supply. effort to coordinate and implement the nation’s most ambitious ecosystem restoration initiative. Funding: From fiscal years 1999 through 2011, the federal government has contri- Summary: The Florida Everglades is an buted $3.6 billion, and Florida contributed 18,000-square-mile region of subtropical up- $10.9 billion, for a total of $14.5 billion for lands, wetlands, and coral reefs that extends the restoration. This amount includes both from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south CERP and non-CERP projects and pro- of Orlando through Florida Bay and the grams. Florida’s contribution includes reefs southwest of the Florida Keys (figure significant funding for land conservation 13). Early land developers viewed the region and water quality programs that are the as worthless swamplands, and by the late exclusive responsibility of the state. 1800s efforts were under way to reclaim them for productive uses. In the 1900s the Accomplishments: A report by the State of Florida and the federal government National Research Council (NRC) in 2008 constructed a number of projects to reduce applauded the agencies for developing solid flooding and provide water supply for agri- scientific information and establishing the culture and urban uses. As a result of these necessary foundations to implement adap- projects, half of the original ecosystem has tive management. The State of Florida has been lost, and the natural flow of water and acquired more than 200,000 acres of land, water quality have been significantly altered. about half of the total CERP target. The Recognizing the need for intergovern- task force has helped increase interagency mental collaboration among multiple federal, and intergovernmental coordination. The

26 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 27 ......

Figure 13 which they see as emphasizing development The Florida Everglades interests concerned about maintaining water supplies over environmental water needs.

L as C iene g as N ati o nal C o nser vati o n A rea Congress directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to look to the land management goals of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP).

Summary: Sonoita Valley, just 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona, is a vast, high desert basin of oak-studded hills and rolling grasslands fed by Cienega Creek (figure 14). The valley forms an important wildlife cor- ridor connecting the Sonoran desert regions of the Southwest and northern Mexico, but Source: Provided by Nanciann Regalado, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001). it is split nearly evenly between public and private land , and traditionally Everglades restoration programs have im- supported ranching and mining. Recently proved water management practices by the rediscovered as a recreation destination, the Army Corps of Engineers and the South valley is now feeling the effects of Tucson’s Florida Water Management District. Since regional growth. In the late 1960s, developers 2008, several substantive milestones have purchased the 50,000-acre Empire Ranch, been achieved, including commencement alerting Sonoita residents that the open of work to raise a portion of the Tamiami spaces they prized might soon be engulfed Trail to enable more water to flow south by the rapidly expanding Tucson metro- into the Everglades National Park and the politan area. start of work on the C-111 spreader canal. In the late 1980s, the BLM acquired 35,000 acres of the former ranch in exchange Challenges: The NRC also concluded, for scattered federal lands nearer Phoenix. however, that agency implementation of The BLM subsequently began developing CERP to date has been mostly program- a management plan for its holdings in the matic. The NRC and other analysts have valley, but the agency’s traditional planning noted that (1) the condition of the Ever- process gained little local support. In 1995, glades ecosystem is declining; (2) the CERP the agency changed its approach and started is entangled in procedural matters involving to engage local stakeholders more directly. federal approval of projects and lacks con- Later that year, federal, state, and local gov- sistent infusions of financial support from ernment officials, along with stakeholders the federal government; and (3) without representing diverse viewpoints, agreed to rapid implementation of the projects with form the Sonoita Valley Planning Partner- the greatest potential for Everglades restora- ship (SVPP) to promote community-based tion, the opportunity for meaningful resto- public land management. ration may be permanently lost. Other crit- At the request of SVPP, Congress created ics fault an unbalanced stakeholder process, the Las Cienegas National Conservation

28 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 29 ......

Area, which includes 42,000 acres (66 square Challenges: During negotiations over the miles) of public land. The federal legislation bill, Congress and the Arizona State Land in 2000 established the Sonoita Valley Acqui- Department removed the area between I-10 sition Planning District to facilitate future and the wilderness area from consideration acquisition of important conservation lands under the SVPP program, thus creating a on an additional 100,000 acres (156 square gap in coverage. The area, known as the miles) of public, private, county, and state trust land. It also specifies management pro- Figure 14 visions pertaining to grazing, military air- Las Cienegas National Conservation Area space, access to state and private lands, motorized vehicles, and hunting. One of the most unique features of 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 full consider- ation to the management alternative pre- ferred by the Sonoita Valley Planning Part- nership, as it applies to Federal lands or lands with conservation easements” (Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 2000).

Funding: The SVPP is a voluntary partner- ship. Partners contribute time and resources, but no comprehensive accounting of SVPP’s financial capacity is available. In 2007, the SVPP and the Cienega Corridor Conserva- tion Council, a complementary organization at the northern end of the watershed, created the Cienega Watershed Partnership. Its func- tion is to administer and support the two voluntary partnerships and to seek resources for the priority work of both groups.

Accomplishments: The BLM adopted a resource management plan in 2003 con- sistent with the goals and objectives of the SVPP. Additionally, the SVPP has partnered with the BLM and The Nature Conservancy to develop a monitoring and adaptive man- agement plan for the National Conservation Area. Participants continue to be involved in complementary land use and conser- vation efforts. Source: Bodner (2009, 5).

28 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 29 ......

Shoreline at Lake Tahoe, Nevada

Cienega Corridor, is important for cultural, support in Washington, DC, primarily economic, and biological values. Ongoing because much of the land in the basin efforts to protect the Cienega Corridor was already privately owned and had been show promise, but commentators are quick developed or logged. Conservationists con- to point out that there are no guarantees. tinued lobbying for environmental protec- Implementing the adopted plan also seems tion as logging and ranching waned, and to be a challenge. Funding staff and moni- ski resorts and casinos expanded. The de- toring work also remain pressing needs, and bate came to a climax in the late 1960s after the SVPP is currently exploring new organi- two decades of rapid growth. The governors zational structures that allow it to be self- and lawmakers in California and Nevada sustaining and play a more active role in approved a bistate compact that created a helping the BLM implement the plan. regional planning agency to oversee devel- opment at Lake Tahoe. In 1969, Congress Tah o e R e g i o nal P lannin g ratified the agreement and created the A g enc y Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). This bistate compact creates the nation’s first interstate land use authority to govern development Funding: In 2009, TRPA’s budget was ap- and maintain environmental quality within the proximately $11 million, with funding from 500-square-mile Lake Tahoe Basin. the states of California and Nevada, various grants, and impact, development, and en- Summary: More than 100 years ago, vironmental fees. conservationists voiced concern about the impacts of tourism, ranching, and logging Accomplishments: Following a rocky on the Lake Tahoe environment (figure 15). start that threatened the viability of TRPA’s Their idea to make Lake Tahoe a national regional planning approach, California and forest or national park did not gain wide Nevada officials adopted a series of amend-

30 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 31 ......

ments to the compact in 1980, laying the Figure 15 groundwork for a more scientifically rigor- Lake Tahoe Region ous, participatory planning process. One of the most significant changes was the cre- ation of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities (ETCC) around nine basinwide values: scenic, recreational, water quality, air quality, noise, wildlife, soil conservation, fisheries, and vegetation issues. ETCC also had a mandate that progress be made toward meeting these carrying capacities. Another change was to increase the size

and diversity of TRPA’s board. Washoe County A period of robust planning and stake- Carson County holder involvement during the 1990s helped Lake Tahoe the agency make positive progress. In the mid-1990s, public and private partners Douglas County launched the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP), and some $1.4 billion has Placer County been spent since then on EIP projects. The El Dorado County California Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, which autho- Nevada rized the federal share of the EIP, could be updated in the summer of 2010 to help leverage another $2.5 billion in EIP projects over the next 10 years. TRPA is often up- held as a model for regional planning and governance that is scientifically grounded, participatory, and adaptive. Legend TRPA Jurisdiction Challenges: TRPA’s central challenge is Counties to make continued progress toward the ETCC Water Bodies Major Roads in the face of changing circumstances, in- Minor Roads cluding future and proposed development; Plan Area Statements fiscal constraints brought about by shrinking Commercial/Public Service state budgets in California and Nevada, as Conservation well as uncertainty in federal funding; evolv- Recreation ing relationships with local stakeholders; and Residential changes in the environment brought about Tourist by climate change.

1:185,000 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (www.trpa.org).

30 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 31 ......

c h a p t e r 4 Barriers to Large Landscape Conservation

New England espite the increasing recognition always clear who is doing what within a stone wall of the need to approach many particular region or across the country as a land and water issues at the scale whole. In addition, the results or outcomes of large landscapes and a grow- of these efforts often are not well-document- ingD number of place-based initiatives through- ed to show how they are building knowledge out North America, several barriers and chal- and relationships, shaping and implementing lenges must be addressed if this movement policies and programs, or improving on-the- is to reach its full potential. The five types ground conditions of natural and cultural of barriers described below have been iden- resources and local economies. In short, there tified by participants in our national policy is no comprehensive inventory of existing dialogues and reinforced in many work- and emerging large landscape conservation shops and research reports in recent years efforts and their effectiveness. (Western Consensus Council 2001; Foster Likewise, the lack of scientific information 2002; McKinney, Fitch, and Harmon 2002). and databases on the conditions, trends, and disturbances within large landscapes makes L ack o f I nf o rmati o n it difficult to set priorities, identify gaps in Policy makers and conservation leaders terms of what is being done and what should have responded to a number of emerging be done, and explore opportunities to link large landscape opportunities, but it is not existing and emerging efforts.

32 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 33 ......

All of this baseline knowledge is critical L ack o f a C o o rdinated to facilitate the advancement of well-designed S trate g y and well-managed large landscape conserva- A third major challenge limiting large land- tion initiatives. Clarifying the nature and scape conservation is the lack of an explicit scope of these projects, including both scien- strategy to facilitate coordination among tific and governance factors, will also help fragmented efforts and to promote and sup- frame this important body of work in terms port a variety of innovations and experi- that will resonate with policy makers and the ments. Policy makers at all levels are becom- people who inhabit these places (Metz and ing more interested in conservation at the Weigel 2009). scale of large landscapes, but most of the emerging policy responses are still situated L ack o f C apacit y within separate legal and institutional Another factor limiting the short- and long- “silos” created in the past. term effectiveness of large landscape conser- Parallel efforts exist within the federal vation is the lack of capacity, which plays departments of the Interior and Agricul- out in two distinct ways (Center for Natural ture, for example. Even within Interior, the Resources and Environmental Policy and Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land the Lincoln Institute 2009). First, there is a Management, and Geological Survey are need to improve the capacity of individuals all pursuing different initiatives according to and organizations to work across boundaries different spatial and administrative bound- at the scale of large landscapes. aries and overlapping objectives (figures 16 Regional practitioners have consistently and 17). While there may be good reasons expressed an interest in acquiring additional for the variety of current programs, this information, skills, tools, and resources; new era of large landscape conservation learning from one another; and expanding requires a more integrated approach. contacts and interaction with government A key challenge in this context is to inte- agencies, universities, foundations, and non- grate the resources and expertise of federal government organizations. A related need agencies in coordination with state and local (or opportunity) is to further develop and land use and other planning processes and refine metrics for measuring the progress of with the energy, enthusiasm, and actions of large landscape conservation, which in turn grassroots efforts. The goal here, at least in will help clarify what is and is not working part, is to test the proposition that more can and why, and how to replicate best practices. be accomplished by encouraging federal Second, as more and more regions agencies and other entities to focus collabor- organize to advance the objectives of large atively on a common set of large landscapes. landscape conservation, it is critical to bring A related need is an explicit strategy to various constituencies together to exchange promote and support a variety of experi- ideas, identify lessons learned, and clarify ments and innovations, recognizing that best practices. Such efforts will help to there is no single model for large landscape develop a community of practice that can conservation. The challenges are to harness advise local, state, and federal government the vision and activism of emerging efforts officials, and advocate for policies to pro- and combine them with the resources and mote and support large landscape conser- responsibilities of federal, state, and local vation projects. governments. This is easier said than done given that bureaucracies thrive on

32 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 33 ......

Figure 16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Papahãnaumokuãkea Marine National Monument Wake Island Guam Hawaii Johnston Atoll Micronesia Marshall Islands Howland Island Jarvis Island

Samoa

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 6. Great Northern 12. Peninsular Florida 18. Arctic 1. Appalachian 7. Great Plains 13. Plains and Prairie Potholes 19. Northwestern Interior Forest 2. California 8. Gulf Coast Prairie 14. South Atlantic 20. Western Alaska 3. Desert 9. Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks 15. Southern Rockies 21. Pacific Islands 4. Eastern Tailgrass Prairie and Big Rivers 10. North Atlantic 16. Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Unclassified 5. Great Basin 11. North Pacific 17. Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/science/SHC/pdf/DOI_LCC_All_031910[1].pdf).

standardized approaches and tend to resist also support conservation on public and pri- challenges to the status quo. vate lands. However, these federal and state policies were not designed to facilitate large L ack o f A ppr o priate landscape conservation projects in which P o lic y T o o ls multiple agencies must team with other The nation’s major environmental laws and public and private partners and landowners policies, including the Endangered Species to pursue shared conservation goals. Act, National Environmental Policy Act Furthermore, many government agencies (NEPA), National Wildlife Refuge Act, and have developed tools and regulations within Clean Water Act, have created strong foun- the context of their traditional statutes to dations for conservation through environ- facilitate multispecies protections, collabora- mental planning, regulation, and public tion in the NEPA process to identify pre- lands acquisition and protection (Coggins et ferred management alternatives, and other al. 2007). Other laws and policies have es- measures consistent with landscape-scale tablished grant programs to enhance private conservation. As currently employed, how- stewardship, particularly conservation grant ever, these tools have limited applicability provisions of the Farm Bill and some Interi- and often are not appropriate to promote or Department programs. Some state laws and assist large-scale conservation efforts.

34 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 35 ......

As demonstrated earlier, large landscape nonprofit organizations, academic institu- conservation requires and relies upon part- tions, and other nonfederal entities. It is also nerships. Among the policy constraints faced not clear whether and to what extent federal by some federal agencies is the lack of clar- agencies can expend federal funds to sup- ity on the use of cooperative agreements port partnership activities, including land through which agencies can partner with restoration and conservation projects.

Figure 17 Bureau of Land Management Ecoregional Assessment Workplan

North Slope Seward Peninsula

N 2010 Assessments BLM Lands

0 20 40 80 120 160 200 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 Miles CEC Level 3 Ecoregions Miles

Source: Provided by Patrick Mahoney, Geospatial Program Analyst and Presidential Management Fellow, and Kit Muller, Strategic Planner, Bureau of Land Management (2010). Note: This assessment workplan is subject to Congressional and Department of the Interior direction and discussions with potential partners.

34 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 35 ......

Another barrier is determining which and Atmospheric Administration, through its types of federal relationships with other en- estuaries program, also provide conservation tities constitute contracting relationships for funding. As in the policy arena, however, the purchase of goods and services subject these programs generally were not designed to federal acquisition regulations, and which to support large, multijurisdictional conser- types constitute partnerships to advance a vation initiatives. public purpose. The distinction is impor- Current federal conservation budgeting tant since most contracts must be allocated has several features that limit its application through competitive bidding processes that and effectiveness for large landscape con- are not designed to facilitate the types of servation. ongoing conservation partnerships associ- • Most funding for landscape-scale con- ated with many landscape-scale initiatives. servation and restoration efforts remains within annual budgets and appropriations, F ra g mented F inancial thus limiting the potential for multiyear, I n v estments integrated, and sequenced project plan- Most large landscape conservation initiatives ning and implementation. rely on a medley of public and private fund- • Many large programs must involve multi- ing, and over the past two decades diverse ple federal (and nonfederal) agencies. public funding sources have emerged to However, budgeting typically occurs with- support these efforts. The Department of in bureaus that miss opportunities for Agriculture provides billions of dollars in coordinating and integrating priorities annual conservation funding through multi- through cross-cut budgeting. Several ple grant programs, some of which support exceptions that might serve as models for large landscape conservation initiatives. The the future are the CALFED Bay-Delta Department of the Interior, Environmental Program and restoration funding in the Protection Agency, and National Oceanic Everglades and Klamath Basin regions.

Sacramento and the Sacramento River estuary, California

36 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 37 ......

• The Land and Water Conservation Fund other federal, state, philanthropic, and (LWCF) focuses on specific projects and private funding sources, but several fac- land acquisition, rather than strategies tors limit the full potential of these op- to promote and support large landscape portunities. First, matching fund require- conservation partnerships. ments by potential partners sometimes • The Army Corps of Engineers budgeting exceed their capacity to meet the match. for restoration projects has generally been Second, there is little coordination undertaken within the context of the among grant programs to better leverage Water Resources Development Act, plac- funds to focus on the highest priorities. ing these efforts in competition with more Third, while agencies are improving the traditional infrastructure projects and re- use of performance criteria for grant quiring them to use cost-benefit processes allocation, their application remains ill-suited to evaluating restoration benefits. inconsistent. • Funding levels for cross-agency restora- • Creation of new funding sources can tion budgets are not commensurate with occur through both authorizing legisla- actual project and program authorizations tion and the annual appropriations pro- and needs, and these gaps will grow as the cess. However, creation of new sources of effects of climate change unfold. They mandatory spending not subject to annu- are already apparent for large projects al appropriations often requires identi- such as the Bay-Delta, Chesapeake Bay, fication of offsets equivalent to the and the Everglades, as well as in spending proposed spending. programs such as LWCF, which is autho- rized at $900 million annually but has sel- S u mmar y o f B arriers dom been funded above several hundred Large landscape conservation is attracting million dollars per year (with a few annu- increasing interest in both the public and al exceptions) over the past 20 years. private sectors, but numerous barriers must • Some agencies face limitations on their be addressed for this approach to land and authority to expend funds on lands other water conservation to endure: than those under their direct jurisdiction, • the lack of scientific information about or to pool agency resources into a com- large landscapes and their governing mon restoration fund dedicated to a structures; specific, cross-jurisdictional restoration • the lack of capacity to organize, achieve, initiative. and advocate for large landscape conser- • Available funding typically has a targeted vation goals; focus, such as for habitat conservation • the lack of a strategy to coordinate planning or wetlands restoration. Few fragmented efforts and foster innovative programs are available to support general experiments; governance, planning, and monitoring of • the lack of appropriate policy tools to landscape-scale efforts or multiple project implement large landscape conservation; elements that transcend individual pro- and gram purposes. • fragmented financial investments, • Federal agencies use both grants and especially at the federal level. challenge cost-share programs to fund conservation partnerships and leverage

36 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 37 ......

c h a p t e r 5 Recommendations for a Strategic Framework

Identifying options eeping in mind recent federal, There is currently no single body of for large landscape regional, and local policy initia- scientific information on the state of large conservation tives and the significant barriers landscapes, although the Bureau of Land to implementing large land- Management (BLM) is in the process of Kscape conservation projects, participants launching a scientific assessment of the con- in our national policy dialogues discussed ditions, trends, disturbances, and treatments a variety of ideas to help create a robust for selected ecoregions, regardless of jurisdic- strategic framework. This report summar- tional authority. This effort will embrace both izes the suggestions into five sets of recom- terrestrial and aquatic resources, and should mendations. produce data that can be used by many large landscape conservation initiatives. Gather and Share Information The long-term goal should be to encourage The first steps in developing a long-term various agencies within the federal govern- strategic framework for large landscape con- ment to work together in building and main- servation are to (1) create a common and taining these scientific assessments. For ex- coherent scientific database; and (2) prepare ample, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) an annotated atlas to identify existing initia- science centers, the Fish and Wildlife Service tives, priorities, and gaps. (FWS) landscape conservation cooperatives,

38 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 39 ......

and the Forest Service’s recently announced The development of an atlas provides “all lands” initiative could contribute to this several practical tools. First, it creates an critically important task. inventory of who is doing what, as well as An annotated atlas of large landscape a current picture of outstanding needs and conservation initiatives could be modeled interests. Second, it provides information to after the National River Restoration Science government officials, foundations, and others Synthesis of the National Biological Informa- about where they might invest scarce re- tion Infrastructure. The first step in devel- sources. Third, it builds on what people are oping such an atlas is to inventory existing already doing and provides a useful way to efforts, including policy initiatives, plans, link bottom-up approaches to top-down government programs, and nongovernmen- interests, resources, and priorities. Finally, tal organizations that serve as either advo- it creates a database to help users probe cates or intermediaries. Over the past two deeper questions about this emerging form years, the dialogue participants have gener- of collaborative governance: How do these ated a list of nearly 200 examples of large groups make and implement decisions? landscape conservation. The final set of How do these initiatives endure over time? criteria to determine what is or is not a What types of governing structures have qualifying initiative needs to be confirmed been created to sustain the initiative and through this mapping exercise. enable it to adapt to inevitable changes? The chosen initiatives should also be The combination of scientific informa- placed on a single map of both existing and tion, knowledge about who is doing what, emerging efforts, realizing that changes may and identification of conservation priorities be needed as future funding and other re- and gaps is critical to facilitate the advance- sources are made available. The next step ment of well-designed and well-managed is to synthesize existing maps that prioritize large landscape conservation initiatives. which landscapes need to be protected for This should be viewed as an ongoing task, different purposes. A wide range of non- and both the scientific database and the profit conservation groups already have atlas should be updated regularly. compiled some information for this purpose, such as American Rivers, Landscope Ameri- Encourage a Network ca, The Nature Conservancy, the Conserva- of practitioners tion Fund, and the Sierra Club. In addition, Given the decentralized nature of large state and tribal wildlife management plans landscape conservation initiatives across can supplement the plethora of recent North America, it would be extremely valu- federal initiatives. able to create a network to bring them all Once the atlas has been completed, it together. Assuming the recommendation will be possible to analyze the information to map large landscape initiatives is imple- and address two key questions: Where are mented, the resulting atlas will provide a the gaps between current large landscape solid foundation for creating such a network initiatives and large landscapes that should to support the following objectives. be a priority focus of conservation? Where • Build awareness and understanding of are there opportunities to link one or more the diversity of approaches to catalyze, existing initiatives to leverage resources enable, and sustain large landscape and accomplish more on-the-ground conservation initiatives. conservation?

38 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 39 ......

• Understand and refine the key elements test these ideas. The forum might also include of success. government agency officials, foundation offi- • Develop skills and acquire tools, includ- cers, and scholars from appropriate colleges, ing the capacity to identify leaders; con- universities, and professional associations as vene diverse people across political and guests to inform and invigorate its work. jurisdictional boundaries; mobilize and engage private landowners and the busi- Establish a National ness community; formulate and assess Competitive Grants future scenarios; and monitor and Program evaluate progress. Participants in the national policy dialogues • Share stories and learn from one another. agreed that the most effective way to achieve • Document and evaluate what is or is large landscape conservation is through not working and why. homegrown approaches that meet local, • Promote innovation. regional, and national goals and aspirations. • Examine alternative governance Federal and state agencies have resources, arrangements. knowledge, and the capacity to help coor- • Secure the necessary financial resources. dinate such efforts, and they are already • Link theory, practice, and policy through responsible for lands and water bodies that dialogue and deliberation. often become the focus of large landscape • Interact with other practitioners, govern- conservation. Linking homegrown efforts ment agencies, universities, foundations, to broader state and federal capacities will and nongovernmental organizations. likely generate the most effective action • Strengthen linkages among initiatives to on the ground. provide the building blocks for coordina- To facilitate such partnerships, a competi- tion and integration of these separate tive grants program could promote and sup- conservation efforts. port a diversity of experiments in large land- scape conservation. The program should These resources or services could be provid- recognize that there is no single best ap- ed in a variety of ways, such as workshops, proach to working at this spatial scale, and conferences, publications, Web sites, and that success is based on harnessing the ener- online social networking. Other suggestions gy, synergy, and enthusiasm of citizens, are to create a “Placebook”—the equivalent agencies, tribes, businesses, nongovernmen- of Facebook—for large landscape conserva- tal organizations, and communities within tion, or to establish an organization akin to particular regions. The program would the Land Trust Alliance. The primary ob- support the following objectives. jective of such a network or alliance is to • Facilitate an interconnected network of improve large landscape conservation proj- metropolitan and urban parks and green- ects by providing some or all of the resources ways; cultural and historical landmarks; and services identified above. A secondary important rivers, watersheds, and estuar- objective is to build a national constituency ies; working landscapes; and large areas to advocate for large landscape conserva- of mostly undeveloped public and tion into the future. private land. A leadership forum for 25 or 30 key • Encourage projects across a range of leaders from both established and emerging administrative and spatial scales that rep- large landscape conservation initiatives could resent diverse ecosystems,

40 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 41 ......

patterns (urban, rural, working, and wild), and models of governance. • Require cross-sector and cross-jurisdic- tional collaboration, thereby empowering all elements of American society—gov- ernment at all levels and tribal, business, local community, nonprofit, and scientific sectors. • Embrace and encourage both citizen- driven and agency-initiated projects. • Improve coordination among federal agencies and local, state, tribal, and fed- eral governments by encouraging all of them to actively seek ways to achieve their objectives and to identify and remove reg- ulatory or other obstacles to large land- scape conservation efforts. • Encourage coordination with state and local tional capacity to work across boundaries— Ranchland in Montana land use planning and decision making. including a commitment of matching funds • Provide federal matching funds and other (or in-kind services) from local, state, and incentives to support large landscape tribal governments, private businesses, non- conservation initiatives and to build the governmental organizations, and the philan- capacity of regional coalitions to parti- thropic community. Finally, the assessment cipate in this national program. should articulate a plan to measure prog- • Require monitoring and evaluation of ress, adapt strategies as appropriate, and both processes and outcomes. sustain the enterprise over time. • Ensure broad dissemination of the The commission would review, evaluate, results and lessons learned. and select the most promising efforts ac- cording to five criteria: creativity and novel- For example, a commission representing ty in conception; strategic and ecological diverse perspectives could be established, significance; measurable effectiveness; trans- perhaps within the National Fish and Wild- ferability across jurisdictions; and an ability life Foundation or a similar existing organi- to endure over time. The selected projects zation, to guide the selection, recognition, or partnerships would prepare a conserva- support, and monitoring of experiments tion strategy consistent with their initial as- or pilot projects involved in the competition. sessment and would be eligible for federal Each applicant would complete a strategic matching grants or other investments such assessment to document its needs, interests, as Farm Bill landowner cost-share and re- objectives, and current practices relative to serve programs, environmental restoration six key issues: biological diversity, ecosystem funds, or transportation improvement funds. services, economic vitality, community These partnerships would also qualify for resilience, amenities, and climate change certain types of regulatory flexibility under mitigation and adaptation. appropriate conditions, such as using water- The assessment would also demonstrate shed-based water quality permits and regional the applicant’s civic, political, and organiza- mitigation strategies; employing program-

40 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 41 ......

matic environmental assessments; or in- I mpr o v e the P o lic y T o o lkit creasing coordination with federal agencies A number of federal policy tools could through a federal consistency clause similar strengthen the incentives and capacity to to the Coastal Zone Management Act. initiate, enable, and sustain large landscape This competitive grants program is not conservation. Some of these tools currently and should not be a federal mandate; nor exist and could be refined. In other cases, should it be a proposal to consolidate federal new legal authorities or regulations may be agencies or their planning functions. It does required. These recommendations fall into not connote any new regulatory authority, two categories. duplicate existing initiatives, or promote one best way of undertaking the challenge of Incentive-based Tools for large landscape conservation. Rather, it en- Landowner Conservation courages a distinctly entrepreneurial frame- The participation of private landowners is work that emphasizes innovation, collab- essential, since large landscape conservation oration, and flexibility among diverse initiatives often include both public and pri- sectors of society. vate lands, but this may be difficult for sever- This type of program will require some al reasons. First, their engagement typically federal funding, such as a set-aside fund to requires investments in time and resources, directly support or reimburse large land- which may be limited. Second, privately scape conservation partners for the devel- held lands that could usefully serve conser- opment or maintenance of administrative vation purposes are often dispersed and services, governance activities, and dissemi- fragmented, suggesting the need to assemble nation of information necessary for the multiple blocks of contiguous, high-priority implementation of a national competition. conservation lands. Third, federal laws cur- This funding could be provided over a start- rently constrain the ability of federal agen- up period of some specified timeframe for cies to engage in some types of conservation a particular project. partnerships by limiting the conditions un- The U.S. departments of Agriculture, der which they can operate and share proj- Interior, Commerce, Defense, Energy, ect funding. The following federal policy Labor, Housing and Urban Development, tools could strengthen incentives to encour- and Transportation, as well as the Environ- age private landowners to become involved mental Protection Agency and the Council in large-scale conservation. on Environmental Quality, should all be involved, given their respective duties and Broaden the Use of Conservation Banking. responsibilities for land, water, and com- Under the Endangered Species Act, current munities (including jobs and infrastructure). policies developed by the Fish and Wildlife One way to implement this recommenda- Service (FWS) provide for the creation of tion is to appoint staff from various agencies conservation banks. This tool presents op- to serve as liaisons within designated large portunities for environmental entrepreneurs landscapes to coordinate across agencies to conserve and enhance habitat to serve as and governments, and in Washington, DC, mitigation for infrastructure, development, to coordinate budgets and so on. and other projects that affect threatened and endangered species. Conservation banks create a context for assembling larger pro- tected areas than typically result from indi-

42 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 43 ......

vidual on-site mitigations associated with land development projects. Under current Fish and Wildlife Service rules, conservation banks must contain natu- ral resource values that are ecologically suit- able with regard to topographic features, habitat quality, compatibility of existing and future land use activities surrounding the bank, species use of the area, or any other relevant factors necessary to mitigate speci- fied listed species. The bank must be con- served and operated or managed in perpetu- ity through a conservation easement held by a sponsor responsible for enforcing the terms of the easement, and can be used to offset impacts occurring elsewhere to the same re- source values on nonconservation bank lands. Spatial scale requirements for conserva- as priorities. Such support could include Migrating snow geese tion banks and an interagency review team technical assistance, such as biological and in the Platte River Valley structure may be adaptable to large land- habitat assessments, inventories, project of central Nebraska scape conservation efforts to create funding coordination, monitoring, mapping, grant opportunities, enhance cross-agency coor- writing, and habitat restoration expertise. dination, and provide a potential model for cross-jurisdictional governance. Conserva- Clarify Federal Authority for Cost-sharing tion banks, as currently applied, provide Arrangements. Large landscape conserva- habitat for threatened and endangered spe- tion could benefit from clear federal agency cies. However, the tool could potentially be authority to negotiate and enter into coop- adapted to broader circumstances, including, erative arrangements with any state or local for example, source water protection, energy government, tribe, public or private agency, development mitigation, and other environ- organization, institution, corporation, indi- mental goals that benefit from a landscape- vidual, or other entity to carry out public- scale focus. private cost-sharing for conservation activi- ties. These agreements could include func- Utilize Existing Federal Grant Programs. tions and responsibilities relating to habitat The Department of the Interior currently improvements on public or private lands. funds coastal and at-risk species conservation Under current Interior Department pro- initiatives through its Coastal Program, Part- grams, the federal share for a project does ners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and other not exceed 50 percent and is provided on grants. Other departments and agencies have a matching basis. similar grant programs to support conserva- tion partnerships that target public, private, Amend Tax Codes. Some Department of tribal, and other lands and waters, and sup- Agriculture conservation grant program port consortia of individuals, groups, or funds are not taxable, and similar provisions agencies who agree to work on habitat res- under the Internal Revenue Code could be toration or protection strategies identified amended to include all cooperative assis-

42 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 43 ......

The FWS joint ventures partnership model for migratory bird conservation, for example, offers a framework that could be adapted to other conservation goals within a landscape-scale conservation setting by developing partnerships among federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies with nonprofit organizations and private individual to identify priorities for land acquisition and conservation on both public and private lands. Another opportunity is the Market Environmental Registry that provides a mul- ticredit environmental registry to facilitate ecosystem market development. The Chesa- peake Bay restoration effort and the Willa- mette Partnership in Oregon are using this registry to develop multicredit ecosystem re- gional programs. Federal and other support Chesapeake Bay tance programs that conserve threatened for this kind of metrics development could Bridge-Tunnel viewed or endangered species, or protect or restore provide a basis for monitoring and evalu- from Virginia sensitive habitat. In addition, the incentives ating performance of large landscape for private landowners to participate in conservation. large landscape conservation efforts would be improved by allowing tax credits for con- Facilitate Multiagency and Public-Private servation easements to supplement similar Coordination. Federal lands often anchor credits already authorized for fee simple conservation partnerships that transcend conservation transactions. the boundaries of an individual agency, but some agencies have limited authority to con- Tools to Strengthen Federal tribute funding or other types of assistance to Participation other federal, state, local, public or private A second set of measures could improve agencies, nonprofit organizations, private the ability of federal agencies to engage in individuals or tribes to carry out activities homegrown, multistakeholder, large land- that directly contribute to achieving con- scape conservation initiatives and improve servation or natural resource goals. Clear the effectiveness of these partnerships. authorization for federal agencies to engage in resource management, conservation, Identify Top Priorities and Set Common or restoration activities on nonfederally Performance Metrics. Among the activities owned lands could facilitate landscape- that federal agencies can undertake are the scale conservation initiatives. use of state and tribal wildlife action plans Where initiatives include private lands, to help identify priorities and focus invest- conservation activities would be conducted ments through state comprehensive conser- only with the permission of the landowner. vation plans as required under the FWS Use of agency funds could be required to State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program. clearly and directly benefit the federal land

44 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 45 ......

management unit or other federal environ- associated with large-scale conservation mental responsibility by contributing to their and restoration. programmatic and performance goals. For example, the Forest Service and the Develop Guidelines to Integrate Bureau of Land Management pioneered Consensus-based Recommendations into the use of Service First authorities in which NEPA Processes. Where large landscape they co-located their offices and undertook conservation includes federal lands, proce- some joint planning and management. This dures for developing and evaluating actions policy could be extended to other federal under the National Environmental Policy land and resource management agencies to Act (NEPA) could facilitate interagency and facilitate large landscape conservation. In public-private conservation. For example, other cases, federal agencies may need the Department of the Interior developed authority to provide assistance to nongovern- administrative rules to clarify how to incor- mental organizations to advance the mission porate consensus-based management options of a federal agency and its management units into NEPA documents for public review. (such as a park, refuge, or national forest). The Council on Environmental Quality or As noted earlier, agencies also need clear individual agencies might consider develop- authority to enter into cooperative agree- ing similar guidelines as a tool to foster large ments with nonfederal partners, provide landscape conservation partnerships, keep- funding for public purposes, and distinguish ing in mind potential constraints imposed such agreements from traditional federal by the Federal Advisory Committee Act acquisition of goods and services through and other laws and rules (Bates 2006). competitive contracting procedures. Facilitate inn o vati v e Authorize Federal Agencies to Issue F u ndin g o P P o rt u nities Combined Permits. At a landscape scale, Many federal grants and other programs some activities may require Clean Water Act provide conservation funding, but current or other permits. One way to facilitate large practices limit opportunities to encourage landscape conservation would be to provide large landscape conservation. Key challenges a means to combine permits to achieve wa- include how to better coordinate funding ter quality or other goals on a watershed or across programs and agencies to focus on ecosystem basis. shared priorities; sustain multiyear funding For example, in the Tualatin Basin in for projects with phases and sequenced im- Oregon, water managers worked with the plementation steps; better ensure program Environmental Protection Agency to com- effectiveness by allocating funds based on bine four wastewater treatment permits and performance criteria; and use funding to one stormwater permit into a single permit- create incentives for conservation. Direction ting action. In the Menominee Watershed in from the Office of Management and Bud- Wisconsin, multiple stormwater districts get, the Congress, or individual departments within and among six watersheds in the Mil- could prioritize many existing funds to pro- waukee metropolitan region collaborated to vide more focus and greater funding for establish a group permit that covers eight landscape-scale conservation. entities. While both of these examples occur- It is imperative to develop and implement red in urban areas, the clustering concept innovative public-private funding arrange- could be applied to permitting requirements ments to improve the effectiveness and

44 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 45 ......

sustainability of large landscape conserva- Provide Multiyear, Multiagency Funding tion. While such initiatives may warrant ad- Commitments. Large landscape conserva- ditional sources of funding, the following tion often requires a multiyear sequence principles should help garner political sup- of projects and sustained actions to achieve port at local, state, and federal levels, as well restoration and conservation goals. More- as within the philanthropic and private sec- over, conservation responsibilities are often tors (box 3). These principles should also distributed among multiple agencies. Annu- inform and govern the competitive grants al, individual agency funding currently con- program described earlier. strains the capacity to coordinate, plan, and To implement these principles, policy execute phased project components. makers and others should focus their atten- tion on both the structure and sources of Transition the Land and Water Conservation funding. Some of the most promising op- Fund to a Mandatory Fund. Authorized in tions to better align federal budgets with the 1964, LWCF has both stateside and federal objectives of large landscape conservation components with a combined authorized are summarized here. Many current federal funding level of $900 million derived from funding sources that could directly facilitate oil and gas proceeds from federal resources. conservation goals are described in the Actual combined funding has often ranged Resources section of this report. from $120 to $250 million, and has occa- sionally fallen below this range. The state-

Box 3 side funds are typically used for projects that Principles of Innovative Funding for benefit recreation and have included land Large Landscape Conservation acquisition and local recreation project de- velopment. The federal funds are generally • Maximize and focus the use of existing federal used for easements and fee simple land and state programs and authorities that can acquisition. be implemented with little delay and without Two actions could make these funds bet- additional funding. ter suited to advancing landscape-scale con- • Combine existing funding sources to target servation: (1) a mechanism for full (manda- large landscape conservation projects. tory) funding to provide more resources for • Provide federal funds through a competitive conservation; and (2) a competitive set-aside matching grants program for pilot projects. for landscape-scale conservation, including • Require in-kind or matching funds from non- capacity building and governance. Transi- federal sources to leverage resources, including tioning this fund to a mandatory account local, state, private, and philanthropic foun- would ensure that the original intentions dations. of the Congress would be achieved more consistently, and it could designate that a • Employ existing and new tax incentives, tax portion of the federal funds support large credits, easement purchase programs, and man- landscape conservation programs. agement agreements to encourage private lands conservation. Reform the Conservation Spending Category. • Use some funding for the planning and coor- Congress created this spending category dination of strategies to conserve whole water- in 2001 to support a number of federal and sheds, ecosystems, greenways, and corridors. state land conservation and natural resource protection programs (including the LWCF,

46 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 47 ......

Sunset in the Florida Everglades

state wildlife grants, and the North American A separate restoration budget would make Wetlands Conservation Fund), and has sub- these projects more transparent and provide sequently added other programs to this a means of dedicating targeted annual and category. One option would be to propose multiyear amounts for restoration projects, that this combined spending category be especially those related to large landscapes. set at a particular level, with appropriations language specifying that some percentage S u mmar y o f be applied toward large landscape conser- R ec o mmendati o ns vation initiatives. Large landscape conservation can be im- This change could be legally complicated, proved significantly by establishing a coher- since some of the grant programs under this ent database on the science of large land- spending category have specified funding scapes; mapping existing and emerging purposes. However, to support large land- governance efforts; creating a network for scape conservation, agencies may need to practitioners to build capacity; establishing take a closer look at this category to deter- a competitive grants program to promote, mine whether it could provide a basis from coordinate, and support promising efforts; which to identify dedicated funding for providing the necessary policy tools and large landscapes. incentives to achieve large landscape conser- vation projects; and facilitating innovative Reorganize the Army Corps of Engineers funding arrangements. Implementing these Budget. Generally, restoration projects and recommendations will take a sustained, col- traditional Corps infrastructure projects are laborative effort among all levels of govern- evaluated and prioritized within a single re- ment, philanthropic foundations, academic view process. Yet these two types of projects institutions, and the hundreds of entrepre- are fundamentally different, potentially war- neurs who are achieving multiple conserva- ranting different review and ranking criteria. tion objectives for large-scale landscapes.

46 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 47 ......

r e f e r e n c e s & R e s o u r c e s

R eferences Foster, C.H.W. 1994. Managing resources as whole Metz, D., and L. Weigel. 2009. The language systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, of conservation in 2009: How to communicate American Farmland Trust. 2006. Cost of com- John F. Kennedy School of Government. effectively with voters to build support for con- munity services factsheet. Washington, DC. servation. Public Opinion Strategies (November 13). ———. 2002. Conference summary: Eastern confer- American Rivers, Clean Water Action, De- ence on environmental regionalism. Cambridge, MA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. fenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Wash- Species Coalition, Environment America, ington, DC: Island Press. Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton Fox, S. 1981. John Muir and his legacy: The Ameri- League, Land Trust Alliance, National Parks can conservation movement. Boston: Little Brown. National Parks Second Century Commission. Conservation Association, National Wildlife 2009. Advancing the national park idea. Washing- Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the gospel ton, DC: National Parks Conservation Club, Trust for Public Land, The Wilderness of efficiency: The progressive conservation movement, Association. Society, and World Wildlife Fund. 2010. Pro- 1890–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard gram proposal from conservation and envi- University Press. National Research Council. 2008. Progress ronmental organizations: A landscape-scale toward restoring the Everglades: The second biennial conservation initiative for the U.S. (February 1). Karl, T.R. and Melillo, J.M. and Peterson, review. Washington, DC: National Academies T.C., eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in Press. American Society of Landscape Architects. the United States: A state of knowledge report from the 2009. The case for sustainable landscapes. Washing- U.S. Global Change Research Program. New York: Nash, R.F. 1990. American environmentalism: ton, DC: The Sustainable Sites Initiative. Cambridge University Press. Readings in conservation history. New York: www.sustainablesites.org McGraw-Hill. Kemmis, D., and M. McKinney. 2010. Collabo- Bates, S. 2006. The legal framework for cooperative ration and the ecology of democracy. Essay prepared New England Governors’ Conference, Inc. conservation. Policy Report # 1. Missoula: The for the Kettering Foundation and the Society 2009. Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission University of Montana, Center for Natural for Conservation Biology. on Land Conservation. www.negc.org Resources and Environmental Policy. www. cnrep.org Kenney, D.S. 1994. Coordination mechanisms Obama, Barack. 2010. Presidential Memoran- for the control of interstate water resources: A synthesis dum: America’s Great Outdoors (April 16). Blackfoot Challenge. 2005. The Blackfoot and review of the literature. Washington, DC: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential- watershed state of the basin report 2005: Understand- Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental memorandum-americas-great-outdoors ing our natural resources and rural lifestyle. Ovando, Relations. MT. www.blackfootchallenge.org/am/publish/ Orszag, P.R., M. Barnes, A. Carrion, and L. article_154.php Kenney, D.S., et al. 2000. The new watershed Summers. 2009. Developing effective place-based source book: A directory and review of watershed policies for the FY 2011 budget. Memorandum for Bodner, G. 2009. Grasses of Las Cienegas National initiatives in the western United States. Boulder: The the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Conservation Area. Tucson, AZ: The Nature University of Colorado, Natural Resources Washington, DC: Office of Management and Conservancy in Arizona. Law Center. Budget. Center for Natural Resources and Environ- Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Porter, D.R. and A.D. Wallis. 2002. Exploring mental Policy and Lincoln Institute of Land 2000. 16 US Code, 1, CXXVI, ad hoc regionalism. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Policy. 2009. Toward a national alliance on landscape 460000-5(a)(3). Institute of Land Policy. conservation. www.cnrep.org/projects/landscape_ conservation Levitt, J. 2005. From Walden to Wall Street: Rasker, R., B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, Frontiers of conservation finance. Washington, DC: and R. Carter. 2004. Prosperity in the 21st century Coggins, G.C., C.F. Wilkinson, J.D. Leshy, Island Press and Cambridge, MA: Lincoln west: The role of protected public lands. Tucson, AZ: and R.L. Fischman. 2007. Federal public land and Institute of Land Policy. Sonoran Institute. http://sonoraninstitute.org/ resources law, 6th edition. New York: Foundation library/recoreading/doc_download/575-prosperity- Press. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2010. in-the-21st-century-west-high-resolution.html Regional collaboration subcenter. www.lincoln de Brun, C., ed. 2007. The economic benefits of inst.edu/subcenters/regional-collaboration Roosevelt, T. 1910. The new nationalism. Osawato- land conservation. San Francisco: The Trust for mie, Kansas (August 31). www.theodore-roosevelt. Public Land. McKinney, M., C. Fitch, and W. Harmon. com/trspeeches.html 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory Ernst, C., Gullick, R., and Nixon, K. 2004. and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Salazar, K. 2009. Addressing the impacts of Protecting the source: Conserving forests to Review 23: 101–191. climate change on America’s water, land, and protect water. American Water Works Asso- other natural and cultural resources. Secretarial ciation. Opflow 30(5). McKinney, M., and S. Johnson. 2009. Working Order No. 3289. Washington, DC: Department across boundaries: People, nature, and regions. Cam- of the Interior (September 14). bridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

48 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 49 ......

Stewart, S.I., V.C. Radeloff, and R.B. Hammer. R es o u rces North American Wetlands Conservation Fund 2006. The wildland-urban interface in the Department of the Interior United States. The Public and Wildland Fire Large Landscape Examples www.doi.gov/partnerships/wetlands.html Management: Social Science Findings for Manage- ment. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Freedom to Roam Open Space Conservation Northern Research Station, General Technical www.freedomtoroam.org Forest Service Report NRS-1. www.fs.fed.us/openspace America’s Longleaf Pine Initiative Service First Straub, N. 2009. Forest Service dramatically www.americaslongleaf.org Forest Service reshaping plans in response to warming. www.fs.fed.us/servicefirst E&E New, (November 30). Platte River Recovery Implementation Program www.platteriverprogram.org Southeastern Ecological Network Sutley, N.H. 2009. Statement before the Committee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Environmental Protection Agency on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environ- www.nps.gov/archive/blac/home.htm www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa ment, and Related Agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives (March 19). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan US Global Change Research Program www.evergladesplan.org www.usgcrp.gov Tuxill, J. L., and N.J. Mitchell. 2005. Reflect- ing on the past, looking to the future: Sustain- Las Cienegas National Conservation Area US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution ability study report. A technical assistance www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ www.ecr.gov report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River ncarea/lascienegas.html Valley National Heritage Corridor Commis- sion. Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Tahoe Regional Planning Agency State and Regional Programs Institute. www.trpa.org New England Governors’ Conference www.negc.org U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. USDA Federal Government announces formation of collaborative forest Policy Consensus Initiative landscape restoration advisory committee. Departments and Programs www.policyconsensus.org Washington, DC: USDA Office of Commu- nications (March 9). Army Corps of Engineers State Wildlife Action Plans www.usace.army.mil www.wildlifeactionplans.org U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Bureau of Land Management Western Governors’ Association Washington, DC. www.blm.gov www.westgov.org

Vilsack, T. 2009. Transcript of Secretary of Climate Strategy Department of the Interior Agriculture, Tom Vilsack’s speech national vision for Foundations www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/strategy America’s forests. Seattle, WA (August 14). Conservation Lands Foundation Collaborative Forest Landscape www.ourconservationlegacy.org Western Consensus Council. 2001. Regionalism Restoration Program in the West: A working session with practitioners. Forest Service Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Salt Lake City, UT (December 6–7). www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml www.ddcf.org

Western Governors’ Association. 2008. Geological Survey The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Wildlife corridors initiative. www.westgov.org www.usgs.gov www.hewlett.org

White House Conference on Cooperative Land and Water Conservation Fund Kresge Foundation Conservation. 2005. www.cooperativeconservation.org www.nps.gov/lwcf www.kresge.org

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Fish and Wildlife Service www.nfwf.org www.fws.gov/science/shc/index.html National Forest Foundation National Landscape Conservation System www.nationalforests.org Bureau of Land Management www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ National Park Foundation NLCS.html www.nationalpark.org National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration www.noaa.gov Nongovernmental Organizations

National Park Service Alliance of National Heritage Areas www.nps.gov www.nationalheritagearea.com

National River Restoration Science Synthesis America 2050 National Biological Information Infrastructure www.america2050.org http://nrrss.nbii.gov

48 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 49 ......

American Farmland Trust S elected F ederal Department of Agriculture www.farmland.org F u ndin g S o u rces www.usda.gov American Rivers The nation’s largest conservation programs www.amrivers.org The following current conservation funding are authorized in the Food, Conservation, and sources could be used, with some implementa- Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) and operated American Society of Landscape Architects tion refinements, to facilitate large landscape by the Department of Agriculture, including www.asla.org conservation initiatives. both the Natural Resource Conservation Ser- vice (NRCS) and the Forest Service. The 2008 Center for Large Landscape Conservation Department of the Interior www.climateconservation.org Farm Bill includes a total of $733 million over www.doi.gov five years for the Farm and Ranch Lands Pro- tection Program, reestablishes the Grasslands Conservation Fund Challenge Cost-Share Funds: Amounts range from Reserve Program with an acreage goal of 1.22 www.conservationfund.org $10 to $20 million per land management bu- million acres, the Wetlands Reserve Program, reau per year (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service, National Parks Conservation Association and a Healthy Forests Reserve Program; and Bureau of Land Management). These funds www.npca.org extends the tax incentive for conservation are flexible, but projects must encourage part- easement donations. nerships that conserve, protect, and enhance Land Trust Alliance Conservation program funds within the www.lta.org fish, wildlife, and plants for the continuing 2008 Farm Bill for the purchase of easements benefit of the American people. Landscope America on working lands are over a billion dollars over www.landscope.org Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: a five-year period. Other related funding pro- This fund includes four grant programs (Recov- grams include, for example, the Wildlife Habitat Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ery Land Acquisition, Conservation, Habitat Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship Regional Collaboration Subcenter Conservation Planning Land Acquisition, and Program, and Environmental Quality Incen- www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/regional-collaboration Habitat Conservation Planning) and typically tives Program. These are not, strictly speaking, receives $80 to $90 million annually. considered grant programs. They provide fund- Northeast-Midwest Institute ing for approved eligible partners who enter www.nemw.org Landowner Incentive Grants and Private Stewardship into multiyear agreements with the NRCS to Grants: Both programs were launched under “help enhance conservation outcomes on agri- Northern Arizona University the Bush administration, but were not sus- Beier Lab of Conservation Biology cultural lands and private nonindustrial forest tained. Similar programs could be developed & Wildlife Ecology lands.” These programs also include provisions www.corridordesign.org and funded at the $40 to $50 million level of for multistate partner proposals that may lend their predecessor programs. themselves to supporting large landscape Private Landowner Network Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife conservation. www.privatelandownernetwork.org/grantprograms Program: These two programs, funded jointly Other funding within this department includes the Forest Legacy Program and the Sierra Club at around $60 to $65 million, could be directed www.sierraclub.org in part to landscape-scale conservation part- Wetlands Reserve Program. USDA’s State For- nerships for capacity building, governance, estry Grants Program offers a possible model Society for Conservation Biology and new initiatives. of competitively allocated, performance-focused, landscape-scale funding that could provide a North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants: model for shifting Interior and other programs The Nature Conservancy These grants, funded at around $50 million, in this direction. www.nature.org are currently used for land acquisition as well as restoration, management, and enhancement Environmental Protection Agency University of Michigan of wetland ecosystems and other habitat that www.epa.gov School of Natural Resources and Environment benefits migratory birds and other fish and Ecosystem Management Initiative wildlife species. Some flexibility in these grants The U.S. EPA has some funding for water- www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt could be directed to landscape-scale initiatives. shed initiatives that could be relevant in a large landscape conservation context, including a University of Minnesota Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson Jon Foley Institute of the Environment Targeted Watersheds Grant Program and a funds): This is a sizeable funding source at over http://environment.umn.edu/gli/index.html National Estuary Program that funds wetland $200 million per year. Participation is limited protection under the Clean Water Act state University of Wisconsin to state fish and wildlife agencies, but funding revolving fund and other estuary enhance- Monica Rurner Laboratory can be used for land acquisition, planning, ment funds. http://landscape.zoology.wisc.edu outreach, research, surveys and inventories, EPA also manages grant and loan programs coordination, habitat management, and other that can support land acquisition to protect purposes. With some modification, some per- water supplies, though they have infrequently centage of these funds could be used for com- been used for these purposes. The Clean Water petitively allocated funds to support large land- Act’s State Revolving Fund offers loans for scape, perhaps with states as the lead agency. water quality improvements that have general- ly funded wastewater treatment infrastructure. These funds (over $1 billion, combined with another $4.7 billion in state monies) can be

50 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 51 ......

used to implement nonpoint source man- A ckn owled g ments agement plans and develop and implement estuary plans. The authors recognize and thank many individuals and organizations for Under the Safe Act, State their contributions to this policy focus report. To start, we appreciate the Revolving Fund loans (pegged in 2003 at $787 investment and leadership provided by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, million in grants and $1.3 billion in loans) help fund public water system infrastructure. particularly Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and chair of the Department A third of these monies can be used for invest- of Planning and Urban Form. The Institute’s long-term commitment to build- ment in water source protection that includes ing and sharing knowledge on large landscape conservation has provided land acquisition. Of this amount, 15 percent a focal point for conservation leaders throughout North America. can support voluntary and incentive-based We also greatly appreciate the input and advice of all the participants in measures. These programs could contribute to support large landscape conservation projects, the national policy dialogues. These dialogues, and the countless conversa- though priority setting to target areas would tions before, during, and after the formal meetings, provide the foundation for require working with states that largely man- this report. The ideas and recommendations offered here have also benefited age the allocation of these funds. from the review and input of several people in the Obama administration and For example, the Ohio Water Restoration various philanthropic foundations. Sponsorship Program provides significant loan rate reductions for wastewater treatment proj- We thank Joe Marlow of the Sonoran Institute and Charlie Chester of ects if the recipient uses a portion of the sav- Brandeis University for their contributions to this report. We also acknowledge ings to invest in watershed protection and res- the time and effort of those who reviewed the case studies presented in toration directly or contributes to a land trust, chapter 3: park district or other watershed protection effort. New Jersey’s Green Acres Program • Freedom to Roam: Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation; allocated funds under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to give three times the weight • America’s Longleaf Pine Initiative: Lorie Fenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife to projects with a water supply protection Service; John Dondero, U.S. Forest Service; and Lark Hayes, Southern benefit through land conservation. Environmental Law Center; • Platte River Recovery Implementation Program: Bridget Barron and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jerry Kenny, Headwaters, Inc.; www.noaa.gov • Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor: Michael Creasey, Through its estuaries program, NOAA funds National Park Service; a number of conservation initiatives in its • Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Nanciann Regalado, Coastal and Natural Resource Management U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; category. Some of these grants fund scientific research, such as the National Sea Grant Pro- • Las Cienegas National Conservation Area: Karen Simms, Bureau gram and National Undersea Research Pro- of Land Management; and gram. Other programs, such as NOAA’s Com- munity-Based Restoration Program, generally • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Joanne Marchetta and Dennis Oliver, fund restoration partnerships. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Cross-agency Funding Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to our colleagues Shawn Johnson, Peter Another possibility is to evaluate how to take a Pollock, and Ann LeRoyer. Individually and collectively, they spent countless combined percentage of several key programs hours researching, reviewing, editing, and ultimately improving this policy and designate them for an interagency land- scape-scale grant program. The National Fish focus report. and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant pro- gram, managed by the private, nonprofit orga- nization established by the Congress, supports public-private partnerships in natural resource management, habitat protection and restora- tion, and conservation policy. NFWF programs are flexible, match federal funds with other donations, and may be tailored to pool funds from multiple agencies for large landscape conservation.

50 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y M c Kinney, scarlett, and Ke mm i s ● large landscape conservation 51 ......

Participants in the N ati o nal P o lic y D ial o g u es

Anne Archie, US Forest Service, Durham, NH Bryan Arroyo, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC Dan Ashe, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC Robert Bendick, The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC Evan Berger, MLA for Livingstone-Macleod, Fort Macleod, Alberta, Canada Armando Carbonell, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA Alice Chamberlin, Two Countries, One Forest, Warner, NH Nina Chambers, Sonoran Institute, Bozeman, MT Charlie Chester, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA Lisa Cloutier, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA Michael Creasey, Lowell National Historical Park, Lowell, MA Michael Donahue, Water Resources and Environmental Services, URS Corporation, Farmington Hills, MI Michael Eaton, Resources Legacy Fund, Sacramento, CA Kevin Essington, The Nature Conservancy, Providence, RI Gloria Flora, Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, Helena, MT Racene Friede, Glacier Country Regional Tourism Commission, Missoula, MT Steve Frisch, Sierra Business Council, Truckee, CA Andrea Gerlak, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Shawn Johnson, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy, Helena, MT Robert Keiter, University of Utah College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT Rick Kendall, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Daniel Laven, Conservation Study Institute, National Park Service, Woodstock, VT Judith Layzer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA James Levitt, Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, Waverley, MA Timothy Male, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC James Melonas, US Forest Service, Washington, DC Nora Mitchell, Conservation Study Institute, National Park Service, Woodstock, VT Mary Mitsos, National Forest Foundation, Missoula, MT Rich Moy, Crown Manager’s Partnership, Helena, MT Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC Garry Oye, National Park Service, Washington, DC Dan Perlman, Environmental Studies Program, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA Peter Pollock, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Boulder, CO Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ Mary Sexton, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena, MT Mark Shaffer, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, New York, NY John Singlaub, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Stateline, NV Ted Smith, Kendall Foundation, Boston, MA Tarissa Spoonhunter, Blackfeet Tribe/Blackfeet Nation, Browning, MT Fritz Steiner, School of Architecture, University of Texas, Austin, TX John Swett, Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Plan, Boulder City, NV John Thorson, Administrative Law Judge (ret.), Plains, MT Petra Todorovich, Regional Plan Association, New York, NY Julia Wondolleck, University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources & Environment, Ann Arbor, MI

o T H E R A d v is o rs and R e v iewers

Robert Bonnie, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Mike Boots, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC Jeff Lerner, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, New York, NY Joe Marlow, Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ Rob Pirani, Regional Plan Association, New York, NY Will Shafroth, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation, Bozeman, MT

52 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y A b o u t the A u th o rs Matthew McKinney is director of the Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP) at The University of Montana, where his work focuses on collaboration and conflict resolution. He is also an adjunct pro- Ordering Information fessor at The University of Montana’s School of Law; chair of the university’s To download a free copy of this report or Natural Resource Conflict Resolution Program; senior partner with the to order copies of the printed report, visit Consensus Building Institute; director of the Lincoln Institute–CNREP joint www.lincolninst.edu and search by author or title. venture partnership; and a member of several professional associations. For additional information on discounted prices for bookstores, multiple-copy orders, Lynn Scarlett is an independent environmental consultant working on issues and shipping and handling costs, send your pertaining to climate change, ecosystem services, water, and landscape- inquiry to [email protected]. scale conservation. From 2005 to January 2009 she served as deputy secre- tary and chief operating officer of the U.S. Department of the Interior, a post she took on after four years as the department’s assistant secretary for poli- Production Credits cy, management, and budget. She served as acting secretary of the depart- ment for two months in 2006. She chaired the department’s Cooperative P roject M anager & E ditor Conservation Working Group and the Climate Change Task Force. She is a Ann LeRoyer fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and author of numer- D esign & P roduction ous publications on incentive-based environmental policies. DG Communications/NonprofitDesign.com P rinting Daniel Kemmis is a private consultant, working primarily in the natural re- Recycled Paper Printing, Boston source and philanthropy arenas. He is a senior fellow of the Center for Natu- ral Resources and Environmental Policy, and an associate of the Charles F.

Kettering Foundation. He is a former mayor of Missoula, Montana, and a for- 92% mer speaker and minority leader of the Montana House of Representatives. He serves on the board of directors of Philanthropy Northwest and the Mis- Cert no. SCS-COC-001366 soula Redevelopment Agency, and previously served as a director and senior fellow at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West. He is the immediate past chair of the board of the Northwest Area Foundation and serves on the Public Photographs Policy Committee of the Council on Foundations. iStockphoto.com: cover, 4, 21, 30, 32, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47 ab o u t the L inc o ln I nstit u te o f L and P o lic y Thinkstock.com: 2, 19 www.lincolninst.edu W. E. Dassonville: 5 Ann LeRoyer: 11 Lincoln Institute is a private operating foundation whose mission is to Daisy Patterson: 14, 38 improve the quality of public debate and decisions in the areas of land policy and land-related taxation in the United States and around the world. The Institute’s goals are to integrate theory and practice to better shape land policy and to provide a nonpartisan forum for discussion of the multi- disciplinary forces that influence public policy. The Institute seeks to inform decision making through education, research, demonstration projects, and the dissemination of information through publications, our Web site, and other media. Lincoln Institute programs bring together scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy advisers, and involved citizens in a collegial learning environment.

A b o u t the C enter f o r N at u ral R es o u rces and E n v ir o nmental P o lic y www.cnrep.org 113 Brattle Street The Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy is an applied Cambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA research and education center based at The University of Montana. It informs and invigorates public policy through research, education, and collaborative Phone: 617-661-3016 x127 or problem solving. We believe that the most effective way to address natural 800-LAND-USE (800-526-3873) resource and environmental issues is through public processes that are well Fax: 617-661-7235 or informed and provide meaningful opportunities for all interested citizens, 800-LAND-944 (800-526-3944) stakeholders, and decision makers to participate. To this end, we specialize in both process and substance. Our staff and senior fellows are recognized Web: www.lincolninst.edu experts in facilitation, mediation, collaboration, and conflict resolution. They Email: [email protected] are also well-known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land use planning, and transboundary resource management. 52 policy focus report ● L i n c o l n I nstitute of L a n d P o l i c y Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action

The most important land and water issues facing North America—including land use patterns, water manage- ment, biodiversity protection, and climate adaptation—require something more than business as usual. While most of these challenges need to be addressed at several scales simultaneously, ranging from the local to the global, it is imperative to address them at the scale of large landscapes because the territory of these issues transcends the legal and geographic reach of existing jurisdictions and institutions. Large landscape conservation provides significant economic and fiscal benefits to rural and urban commu- nities. Since taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama and his administration have made the concept of large landscape conservation a component, and often a focus, of many natural resource initiatives. Leaders from the public, private, and nongovernmental sectors have participated in two national policy dialogues and many other informal discussions to synthesize what we know about large landscape conservation and to identify the most important needs as we move forward. The dialogue participants, along with many other planners, practitioners, and policy officials, believe the following recommendations can help to advance successful large landscape conservation initiatives:

• gather and share information to improve the science and governance of large landscape conservation. Establish a common, coherent scientific database, and develop an annotated atlas of governance efforts to clarify who is doing what and what needs to be done.

• Encourage a network of practitioners to build capacity. Catalyze collaboration through a network akin to the Land Trust Alliance to identify best practices and advocate for policy reforms.

• Establish a national competitive grants program to catalyze, enable, coordinate, and sustain promising efforts. Facilitate homegrown partnerships, improve coordination among ongoing efforts, and recognize the most promising approaches to large landscape conservation.

• Improve the policy toolkit to achieve large landscape conservation. Strengthen incentive-based tools for landowner conservation and improve coordination and participation by federal agencies.

• Facilitate innovative funding opportunities to support large landscape conservation. Maximize and focus the use of existing federal and state programs and authorities that can be implemented quickly and without significant new funding.

ISBN 978-1-55844-210-8

ISBN 978-1-55844-210-8 Policy Focus Report/Code PF026