Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Topics in Conservation Planning — Not Peer Reviewed

Land Corridors in the Southeast USA: Connectivity to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Thomas S. Hoctor, William L. Allen, III, Margaret H. Carr, Paul D. Zwick, Ellen Huntley, Daniel J. Smith, David S. Maehr, Ramesh Buch, and Richard Hilsenbeck

Thomas S. Hoctor Daniel J. Smith University of Florida University of Central Florida GeoPlan Center Department of Biology Gainesville, FL 32611 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL 32816-2368 William L. Allen III The Conservation Fund, Director of Strategic Conservation David S. Maehr 410 Market Street University of Kentucky Suite 360 Department of Forestry Chapel Hill, NC 27516 205 Cooper Bldg. Phone: (919) 967-2223 ext 124 Lexington, KY 40546-0073 Email: [email protected] http://www.conservationfund.org/strategic_conservation Ramesh Buch Alachua County Environmental Protection Department Margaret H. Carr 201 SE 2 Avenue University of Florida Suite 20 GeoPlan Center Gainesville, FL 32601 Gainesville, FL 32611 Richard Hilsenbeck Paul D. Zwick The Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy University of Florida 625 North Adams Street GeoPlan Center Tallahassee, FL 32301 Gainesville, FL 32611

Ellen Huntley The Conservation Trust for Florida, Inc. P.O. Box 134 Micanopy, FL 32667

90 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

INTRODUCTION restoring landscape connectivity are discussed in this article. Protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services is increasingly considered an essential component of Other corridors include built linear infrastructure for national, regional, state, and local planning. Research is maintaining transportation and energy networks such as expanding and being refined on issues such as habitat roads, rail lines, electrical transmission lines, and natural fragmentation and ecosystem integrity, and this is gas or other pipelines. Linear infrastructure development heightening awareness of the links between human is a critical consideration for the protection of regional activities and ecosystem function. Regional conservation landscapes for biodiversity and ecosystem services. planning is an essential approach for addressing these Ecological impacts of roads are well documented, and issues to promote sustainable and healthy natural and strategies for minimizing these impacts such as wildlife human communities. Large-scale research and planning crossing structures are an essential part of conservation is needed to determine how landscape patterns and planning (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Forman et al. processes control ecosystem function and to minimize 2003; Clevenger and Wierzchowski 2006). Other linear land use conflict (Harris 1984; Noss and Cooperrider infrastructure such as transmission lines and pipelines 1994; Forman 1995; Turner et al. 1995; Harris et al. can also negatively impact focal species and ecosystems 1996b; Soulé and Terborgh 1999; Poiani et al. 2000; (Hall et al. 1994). The burgeoning human population in Groves 2003; Hoctor 2003). One term used to promote the southeastern United States, and associated need for this approach is “green infrastructure” described as transportation and energy infrastructure improvements, networks of natural lands, working landscapes and other will increase potential conflicts with ecological networks. open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and One important trend in planning is the development of functions and provide associated benefits to human Geographic Information System (GIS) data and tools for populations (Benedict and McMahon 2006). designing transportation and energy infrastructure that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates environmental impacts. In this article, "land corridors" are discussed as an integral element of regional conservation planning. Land Policies are evolving to facilitate more effective regional corridors most commonly refer to landscape linkages or conservation strategies. For example, state and local conservation corridors that are designed to combat governments are spending more money to acquire impacts of habitat fragmentation (Wilcox and Murphy ecologically-sensitive lands in the face of continuing 1985; Harris and Scheck 1991; Noss 1993; Bennett 1999; development, sprawl, and rising land prices. Recent Anderson and Jenkins 2006). Landscape linkages and changes in federal tax laws related to conservation conservation corridors, when designed and managed easements should promote more protection of privately properly, facilitate connectivity, which maintains listed and owned and managed lands that make very significant other focal species populations (Lambeck 1997) and contributions to conservation. Growth management ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997). policies in states such as Florida are changing to address Interconnected systems of conservation lands are often impacts of sprawl development. Global climate change is called “ecological networks” (Hoctor et al. 2000; Noss spurring new initiatives, such as carbon neutral policies, 2003; Jongman and Pungetti 2004; Clevenger and that will result in additional resources for protecting Wierzchowski 2006). Data, tools, and planning products conservation lands. These and other relevant policies for designing ecological networks are increasing and will and programs that can facilitate regional conservation significantly enhance efforts to achieve sustainable planning to protect land corridors will also be discussed. landscapes. Various regional conservation projects in the southeastern United States focused on protecting and

91 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

CONSERVATION CORRIDOR AND successfully protect viable populations of focal species CONNECTIVITY DEVELOPMENTS and functioning ecosystems. Second, research increasingly identifies conservation corridors and Discussion of the implications of island biogeography connectivity as a critical part of regional strategies for theory for ecosystem conservation began in the 1970s maintaining biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. and led to the development of conservation biology as a discipline in the 1980s (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Wilson and Willis 1975; Soulé 1985). Island The Need for Regional Approaches biogeography developed several predictions from for Effective Conservation empirical data about species diversity on islands affected by island size and distance from mainland sources. The Harris (1984) and Noss (1983) discussed the need for theory had implications for species on continents because regional scale conservation to counter habitat the rapid loss of habitat was resulting in habitat islands fragmentation and ecosystem degradation. Since then, within a “sea” of development. Though the analogy is not conservation biology research has reinforced these early perfect, the discussion about the relevance of island calls for regional approaches, and various conservation biogeography served as an important catalyst for strategies and initiatives are based on these principles increasing awareness of habitat loss and the need for (Harris 1984; Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Forman 1995; more research to develop effective conservation Turner et al. 1995; Harris et al. 1996b; Soulé and strategies (Harris 1984; Shafer 1990; Freemuth 1991; Terborgh 1999; Poiani et al. 2000; Groves 2003; Hoctor Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Hoctor 2003). Sullivan and 2003; Noss 2003; Benedict and McMahon 2006). The Shaffer (1975, p. 13) described the issue well: development of landscape ecology has reinforced these conclusions by clarifying the link between spatial patterns If a chance process of reserve and ecological processes (Forman 1995). Landscape selection continues, it may produce a ecology stresses the importance of spatial context for network . . . in which all but a few controlling ecosystem processes (Harris 1984; Harris et species adapted to urban life become al. 1996a), and that natural resource conservation and extinct. . . .The challenge remains to land use planning must consider the effects of actions integrate the existing distribution of within their largest spatial and temporal perspectives national parks and wilderness areas (Forman 1987). Regional conservation planning attempts with a plan that will ensure the to address these issues by conducting research and functional integrity of the world’s planning at sufficiently large spatial scales to account for ecosystems while land use for human the interactions of competing land uses. Such large-scale purposes increases. planning facilitates effective protection and restoration of landscapes that will conserve biological diversity and Conservation biology has expanded research on habitat ecosystem services (Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Harris fragmentation and other human impacts on biodiversity. et al. 1996b; Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997; Daily The impacts of fragmentation and ecosystem degradation 2000; Groves 2003; Hoctor 2003; Benedict and McMahon have been documented in detail and efforts are 2006). progressing to develop conservation strategies to address these impacts. There are two developments in this For example, landscape and regional approaches are research that are most relevant to land corridors. First, essential for managing and restoring longleaf pine (Pinus the need to work at regional scales is made clear by the palustris) ecosystems, which are critical for biodiversity in scale of habitat fragmentation and human modification of the southeastern United States. Hoctor et al. (2006) the environment combined with the requirements to discussed the importance of connectivity between

92 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 uplands and wetlands within longleaf pine landscapes. sum of its parts.” This principle emphasizes that Furthermore, many species within longleaf pine functionally connected conservation lands are more likely landscapes require functional connections between to protect species populations and ecosystem processes different natural communities to meet their life history than a set of isolated protected areas (Noss and Harris needs including fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern 1986; Harris et al. 1996a; Harris et al. 1996b; Keitt et al. indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), black bear 1997; Noss and Daly 2006). In some landscapes and (Ursus americanus), and various ephemeral pond regions it may still be possible to manage the larger breeding amphibians (Weigl et al. 1989; Moler 1992; landscape matrix (e.g., the dominant land uses) to be Dodd and Cade 1998; Cox and Kautz 2000; Kautz and compatible with protecting connectivity for various focal Cox 2001; Maehr et al. 2001; Hoctor et al. 2006). A species and ecosystem processes. However, in most regional-scale strategy that integrates the principles and regions the level of land conversion and habitat techniques of landscape ecology, conservation biology, fragmentation necessitates consideration of explicit and restoration ecology is required to restore the protected corridors to facilitate connectivity (Harris et al. diversity, ecosystem function, and evolutionary 1996b; Noss and Daly 2006). significance of longleaf pine ecosystems (Hoctor et al. 2006). A conservation corridor can be defined as any explicit spatial area designed, protected, or managed to maintain connectivity for focal species or ecological processes Connectivity Research Developments (Harris and Scheck 1991; Noss 1993; Bennett 1999; Hoctor 2003; Anderson and Jenkins 2006; Noss and Daly Other emerging trends for regional conservation are the 2006). Landscape linkages are large conservation green infrastructure and ecosystem services concepts. corridors containing significant areas of habitat while also Green infrastructure emphasizes the importance of facilitating connectivity between conservation areas networks of natural and semi-natural lands (such as (Harris and Scheck 1991; Noss and Daly 2006). silviculture and agriculture) for providing both ecosystem services and maintaining biodiversity (Benedict and Corridor research is complicated by the difficulty of McMahon 2006). Research by Chan et al. (2006) conducting experiments at relevant landscape and indicates areas important for biodiversity conservation regional scales (Beier and Noss 1998). However, recent may serve as a good surrogate for identifying areas most experimental research and empirical evidence bolsters important for protecting ecosystem services. Green the function of conservation corridors (Dunning et al. infrastructure promotes the critical concept that 1995; Beier and Noss 1998; Bennett 1999; Haddad et al. ecosystem function, biodiversity, and the health of human 2003; Damschen et al. 2006; Noss and Daly 2006). communities are inextricably linked (Benedict and Examples include research at the Savannah River McMahon 2006). Together, the green infrastructure and Ecology Laboratory in South Carolina and black bear in ecosystem service concepts help communicate the Florida. importance of protecting intact natural systems and rural A team of researchers from several universities have lands. developed landscape scale, corridor experiments at the Noss (1992, p. 17) expressed the importance of Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Their results connectivity and the protection of functionally connected strongly support the role of corridors for maintaining reserve networks: “Connectivity is in many respects the biodiversity and facilitating functional ecological opposite of fragmentation. A reserve system with high processes. Haddad et al. (2003) documented increased connectivity is one where individual reserves are movement between connected habitat patches compared functionally united into a whole that is greater than the to isolated patches for various animal and plant species.

93 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Damschen et al. (2006) found that habitat patches complex and the potential significance of this dispersal for connected by corridors maintained higher native plant maintaining genetic diversity. diversity than isolated patches, that the difference increased over time, and that corridors do not promote Black bear and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) are exotic species. Levey et al. (2005) determined that the two most likely focal species in the Southeast that corridors facilitated seed dispersal by birds. Haddad require large, intact regional landscapes. There are still (1999; 2000) found that, for butterflies, corridors several populations of black bear in North Carolina, South increased dispersal frequency and distance compared to Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama on large isolated patches. Haddad and Baum (1999) found that protected and industrial forest lands in the coastal plain butterflies reached higher densities in patches connected and in the Appalachians (Maehr 1984; Wooding et al. by corridors versus isolated patches, which could 1994; Figure 1). The only Florida panther population increase pollination of butterfly-dependent plant species. occurs in southwest Florida though dispersal of subadult Townsend and Levey (2005) also documented males has occurred into central Florida (Maehr et al. significantly higher pollination by bees and wasps in 2002). The Florida panther recovery plan requires the connected patches than in isolated patches. establishment of two additional, sustainable populations within its historic range. Thatcher et al. (2003) completed Wide-ranging species are frequently the focus of a GIS habitat feasibility analysis for the Florida panther connectivity and corridor research, since these species within the historic range and found potentially suitable require large areas to support viable populations. sites in north Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, and Effective conservation of such species requires regional Louisiana. scale planning, and conservation corridors are an important consideration for maintaining FIGURE 1 Approximate black bear (Ursus americanus) population locations (Maehr 1984; Wooding et al. 1994) in the southeastern functional connectivity between United States on top of the United States Environmental Protection populations (Noss et al. 1996; Harris Agency Region 4 Southeastern Ecological Framework. et al. 1996b). Empirical studies of corridor use by wide-ranging species are also complicated by scale (Beier and Noss 1998), but various studies demonstrate corridor use. Maehr (1990; 1997) showed that the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) used a riparian corridor connecting larger conservation lands in southwest Florida. Beier (1995; 1996) demonstrated corridor use by cougars (Puma concolor) in southern California. More recently, Dixon et al. (2006) demonstrated Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) dispersal between Ocala National Forest and the Osceola National Forest/Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge

94 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

In conclusion, conservation scientists agree that LANDSCAPE AND CONSERVATION CORRIDOR protecting or restoring functional connectivity is an PROJECTS IN THE SOUTHEAST essential issue for conserving biodiversity and functional ecosystems. Crooks and Sanjayan (2006, p. 15) suggest Various projects in the southeastern United States seek that the key question now is: to protect conservation corridors and regional ecological networks. Many of these include Department of Defense What is the most effective pattern of installations as critical components. This section will habitats in landscapes to ensure briefly describe several projects in this region. ecological connectivity for species, communities, and ecological processes? . . . Overall, much of the Florida Ecological Greenways Network current discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of The Florida Ecological Greenways Network (FEGN) is connectivity seems to be less about part of the Florida Greenways Program administered by the pros and cons of corridors as a the Florida Department of Environmental Protection specific conservation tool, than about Office of Greenways and Trails (Figure 2). It is the the challenges associated with product of over twenty years of discussion and analysis purchasing, designing, constructing, for identifying and protecting an ecological reserve restoring, maintaining, and protecting network in Florida (Harris 1985; Noss 1987; Harris and natural levels of connectivity. Atkins 1991). Governor Lawton Chiles appointed the Florida Greenways Commission in 1991 based on

FIGURE 2 The Florida Ecological Greenways Network identified by the University of Florida and administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails.

95 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 recommendations from 1000 Friends of Florida to explore The implementation plan for the Florida Greenways the utility of a statewide greenways system that included Program identifies Critical Linkages within the FEGN both a recreational and an ecological component. The based on ecological significance and threats from Florida Greenways Commission (1994) recommended development (Hoctor et al. 2005). The Florida Ecological the development of a state-adopted program that Greenways Network is now in its implementation phase, protected a system of trails and a functionally connected though updates to the base boundaries and priorities will network of conservation lands protecting Florida's natural occur periodically as land use and other GIS data are and rural landscapes. In 1995, staff at the University of updated. The prioritized FEGN is now used to inform Florida was contracted to develop a GIS decision support Florida's conservation land acquisition program, Florida and delineation process to identify the best opportunities Forever, regarding the location of the most important for an ecological network and a recreational network conservation corridors in the state. Several new Florida (Hoctor et al. 2000). The FEGN represents the ecological Forever projects have been added specifically to protect component of the state greenways system and was critical gaps in the FEGN. The FEGN's Critical Linkages developed using a GIS-based regional landscape are the primary focus of landscape protection initiatives analysis to delineate the best opportunities to protect pursued by Florida government and various partners large, connected landscapes across the state (Hoctor et (Figure 3). All of the most active projects to protect the al. 2000; Hoctor 2003). FEGN include important linkages and buffers for various

FIGURE 3 The prioritized Florida Ecological Greenways Network including the highest priorities, named Critical Linkages.

96 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 military installations including: Eglin Air Force Base, National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Georgia, and will Camp Blanding Military Site, Avon Park Air Force Range, span approximately 200 miles and over 1.5 million acres and Whiting Field Naval Air Station, and the state of of protected lands (Figure 4). It is one of the most Florida and Department of Defense are working together important north-south corridors in the eastern United to protect parts of the FEGN that also have an important States. Furthermore, protection of O2O will also protect role for military training and readiness. The three most the Camp Blanding Military Site from urban and suburban important projects are described briefly here. encroachment associated with the nearby Jacksonville metropolitan area. Partners working on this project include The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Trust Ocala to Osceola / Okefenokee Corridor Project for Florida, Florida Department of Environmental (O2O) Protection, Florida Army National Guard, and Department of Defense. Progress to date includes completion of the O2O is one of the highest priority Critical Linkages in the Pinhook Swamp landscape linkage between Okefenokee FEGN and incorporates the Florida black bear corridor National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest identified by Dixon et al. (2006). This project will protect a through many years of hard work by Larry Harris (1985), network of interconnected conservation lands from the The Nature Conservancy, the State of Florida, the U.S. Ocala National Forest north of Orlando to the Okefenokee Forest Service, and many other partners.

FIGURE 4 The Ocala to Osceola/Okefenokee Corridor Project (O2O). Project partners include The Conservation Trust for Florida (CTF), Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails, University of Florida, The Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida National Guard, Department of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, St. Johns Water Management District, and Suwannee River Water Management District.

97 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Northwest Florida Greenway supports important testing and training missions (U.S. Department of Defense 2006; Figure 5). The Northwest Florida Greenway is a cooperative project started in 2003 between The Nature Conservancy, State These partners are working to accomplish the following of Florida government, the Department of Defense, and objectives (U.S. Department of Defense 2006): other partners to protect a regional 100-mile conservation • Protect one of the nation’s six most biologically corridor and buffer between the Apalachicola National diverse regions; Forest and Eglin Air Force Base. The project goal is to preserve connected habitat despite rapid population • Protect an area that is host to five Air Force and Navy growth and to maintain an important flight path for five installations; U.S. Air Force and Navy installations in the area that

FIGURE 5 The Northwest Florida Greenways project pursued in partnership by the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Florida state government, Department of Defense, and other partners.

98 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

• Prevent uncontrolled incompatible development that lands with an agricultural tradition that are compatible could hinder realistic military training; with biodiversity and ecological connectivity in this region. These ranches are threatened by development spreading • Prevent habitat fragmentation that could threaten south from Orlando and inland from both coasts. Focal biodiversity, and threatened and endangered species species requiring large intact landscapes that will greatly and; benefit from this effort include the Florida black bear, Florida panther, Audubon's caracara (Polyborus plancus • Strengthen the regional economy by sustaining the auduboni), and Florida sandhill crane (Grus canandensis mission capabilities of the military in the region and pratensis). Avon Park Air Force Range and associated enhancing recreation and tourism. conservation lands are a critical part of the corridor and protection of lands around the Range will help minimize Big Cypress National Preserve to Ocala National future development impacts. In addition, it is a likely Forest Landscape Linkage Project destination for natural population re-establishment by black bears that disperse from central Highlands County, This is a critical regional landscape for ensuring a which is the key landscape linkage between the Big functional ecological network from south to north Florida Cypress region in southwest Florida and points north (Figure 6). In addition, this landscape includes vast ranch (Maehr et al. 2004).

FIGURE 6 The Big Cypress National Preserve to Ocala National Forest landscape linkage project. Current project partners include the University of Florida, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Trust for Florida, and University of Kentucky.

99 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Southeastern Ecological Framework Many of these potential applications of the SEF are being integrated into regional scale planning efforts. The The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a Sustainability (SERPPAS – http://www.serppas.org), a cooperative effort between EPA Region 4 and the multi-state, multi-agency partnership, is utilizing the SEF University of Florida that identified priority conservation as a key organizing framework for regional sustainability areas across an eight state region including North issues that cross federal, state, and local geographic and Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, civic borders. Specifically, SERPPAS and its related Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky (Figure 7). The complementary efforts are attempting to identify and framework encourages federal and state cooperation and protect a network of lands that maintain and enhance facilitates coordination to effectively protect and restore ecological values, support working forest and farm landscapes (Carr et al. 2002). The GIS process to landscapes, and maintain military readiness. A pilot effort identify the SEF incorporated various data on in eastern North Carolina is implementing the SERPPAS conservation lands, important wildlife habitat, large vision through a Strategic Lands Inventory that is wetland basins, intact riparian buffers, large forested developing decision support tools that identify areas, and intact coastal lands needed to maintain opportunities to achieve multiple benefits related to green biodiversity, water quality, air quality, flood control, and infrastructure, gray infrastructure, ecosystem services, storm protection. and compatible land use.

The SEF is a spatial database of FIGURE 7 The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 important ecological areas useful Southeastern Ecological Framework delineated by the University of for many purposes such as: 1) the Florida. development of mitigation banks and sites that provide connectivity to larger intact wetland systems, 2) buffering protected wildlife or natural areas such as wildlife refuges, national parks, state and local parks and private wilderness areas, 3) planning future road right- of-ways to minimize impacts on existing natural areas, 4) watershed protection, 5) prioritization for areas in conservation through wetland reserve or conservation reserve programs, 6) identifying areas for reforestation of riparian zones, 7) integration of local greenspace protection with the larger regional picture, and 8) reserve design and planning for biodiversity conservation.

100 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

TRENDS IN LAND USE AND ROAD AND UTILITY and Beck 2000). Again, however, predictions for CORRIDORS continued population increases in the entire Southeast suggest that the demand for new urban land will continue. Rapid human population growth throughout much of the southeastern United States is a major threat to protection of large, intact landscapes and conservation corridors. Pressure for New Road Infrastructure: Human dependence on automobile transportation The Florida Example typically creates great pressure to increase road infrastructure (e.g., new roads and widened roads) as Florida's existing highway system fragments and population increases. Roads are a major threat to otherwise impacts conservation lands and other areas of conservation corridors because of isolation and roadkill ecological significance, and the Florida Department of impacts to many species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Transportation has adopted a Florida Intrastate Highway Forman et al. 2003), and reducing these impacts is a System plan that will increase ecological impacts. A major challenge for protecting and restoring ecosystem major component of the plan is widening most east-west connectivity (Hoctor 2003; Clevenger and Wierzchowski state highways from two lanes to four or six lanes. In 2006). Human population growth also creates increased 2002, Florida adopted legislation reducing the energy demand which results in greater need for energy requirements to justify new toll roads and broadening the delivery through linear infrastructure, such as electrical powers of the Florida Turnpike Authority. Most recently, transmission lines and gas pipelines. Linear energy the Florida Department of Transportation unveiled a set of infrastructure can impact areas important for listed proposed new highway study areas across the state, species, wetlands, and existing conservation lands. named Future Corridors. Many of these projects could severely impact biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation (Hoctor 2003). Population Growth and Sprawl in the Southeast Now that good information about lands important for The conversion rate of pristine and agricultural land to conservation exists, alterations should be possible to urban use in the Southeast is alarming. Recent analyses avoid ecological impacts while meeting transportation and studies of urban growth patterns in Florida indicate needs. Furthermore, an integrated statewide assessment the conversion of undeveloped land for urban use is of transportation projects and green infrastructure would tracking population increases. That is, as population significantly enhance efforts to avoid, minimize, and doubles, the area in urban land use also doubles (Carr mitigate impacts. System-wide planning should also and Zwick 2007). In some areas of Florida it appears per ensure that sufficient funding is available for ecological capita land consumption is actually declining, but mitigation including many more wildlife crossing considered for the state as a whole it appears to be structures across highways. roughly tracking population growth (Kolankiewicz and

Beck 2000). The factor then driving sprawl in Florida is population growth, and it is not predicted to abate any time soon (Zwick and Carr 2006). Indications are that the sources of sprawl for the rest of the Southeast are somewhat different from Florida. In some areas it appears per capita land consumption is on the rise, and this coupled with population increase, is driving the conversion of rural lands to urban lands (Kolankiewicz

101 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Transportation Infrastructure Issues in the • during early morning and late evening hours

Southeast and United States • within spring and fall months

Road impacts are a primary issue in efforts to protect • lower severity crashes ecological connectivity represented by the Southeastern • evenly distributed among younger and medium aged Ecological Framework (SEF). Although there are some drivers significant roadless areas that were identified and incorporated into the SEF, the Southeast is covered by a • in locations with high wildlife populations dense road system. Approximately 150,000 kilometers of • with deer roads cross the SEF and 79% of the SEF is within 1 kilometer of a road (Carr et al. 2002). Also, 70% of the • in sections of roadway near forested cover and SEF has a road density greater than 1 mile per square drainages mile, which is considered to be an important threshold for • on dry straight roadways the potential to support species sensitive to road impacts including black bear and other wide-ranging species The current increasing number of WVCs is likely a (Thiel 1985; Pelton 1986; Van Dyke et al. 1986; Mech et function of new highway construction and increased traffic al. 1988; Noss 1992; Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Carr et volumes and speeds relative to wildlife population al. 2002). There is a need to retrofit the existing road distribution and abundance (Messmer and West 2000; system to minimize habitat fragmentation and other Putman et al. 2004; Huijser et al. 2007). Efforts to retrofit ecological impacts associated with roads if ecological transportation infrastructure to reduce WVCs are connectivity and integrity are to be restored. Federal discussed below in this article. agencies and state governments should work together to use existing funding sources and develop new ones to support planning and retrofitting that will increase the Trends in Utility Corridor Development compatibility of transportation infrastructure with Human population growth translates into increased ecological connectivity (Smith 1999; Carr et al. 2002; energy needs and increased infrastructure to supply that Hoctor 2003; Clevenger and Wierzchowski 2006). Given energy. One important example of these trends is the the current rise in fuel costs, there is a good opportunity growing need for electrical transmission lines. An article to better coordinate planning that increases transportation in Transmission & Distribution World in February 2005 efficiency while avoiding additional impacts to biodiversity details the development of new transmission line siting and ecosystem function. tools in Georgia (http://tdworld.com/mag/ Wildlife vehicle collisions (WVCs) are also an increasingly power_gisbased_linesiting_methodology). Georgia's important transportation and conservation issue. Since population in the 1990s grew by 26% while the energy 1980 the total annual WVCs are increasing by about demand grew by 46%, which resulted in the need for 6,800 per year. The availability of consistent and detailed more transmission line corridors. However, suitable land wildlife vehicle collision (WVC) data are limited. for transmission line corridors is increasingly difficult to locate due to conflicts with both expanding developed However, based on the reported crashes for large land and stronger requirements to avoid impacts to animals, WVCs have some specific attributes. WVCs are environmentally sensitive features including wetlands and more commonly or typically: listed species habitat. In a recent report the Georgia

• on rural, two-lane, low flow, high speed roadways

102 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Transmission Corporation and Electric Power Research ecoregional plans vary based on available data, analytical Institute (2006, p.1-1) discussed the growing dilemma: capabilities, and evolving guidelines. Data and tools used include GIS land cover and land use data, locations of In fast-growing states like Georgia, focal species and natural communities, species habitat demand for electricity is outpacing modeling and population viability assessments, and rapid population growth, placing ecological and landscape integrity GIS indices. Resulting pressure on electric utilities to build maps show the location of sites needed to effectively more electric transmission power conserve biodiversity in each ecoregion. Therefore, lines. In 2004, for instance, Georgia’s these plans are an important consideration for all regional utilities built more than 100 new miles conservation and corridor planning projects. of transmission lines and Georgia Transmission Corporation is currently investing more than $100 million Federal Gap Analysis annually in construction. With more construction comes more public The federal Gap Analysis project identifies biodiversity scrutiny on a range of issues, hotspots that are not protected, or are under-protected, in including the decisions made when existing systems of conservation lands. This has been determining locations for new electric accomplished by developing potential habitat maps for all transmission lines. vertebrates (and sometimes selected invertebrates) and then combining these maps to determine areas of high species richness (Scott et al. 1993). The Gap Analysis AVAILABLE DATA AND TOOLS FOR REGIONAL program started state-by-state in the 1990s. However, CONSERVATION AND CORRIDOR PLANNING multi-state regional Gap Analysis recently began for the southwestern, northwestern, and southeastern United Advances in conservation science have resulted in the States using improved land cover data and more development of increasingly sophisticated data and sophisticated habitat modeling (See http:// planning tools relevant for identifying conservation gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt). The Southeastern corridors and other areas of ecological significance at Gap Analysis project is creating detailed land cover data local to regional scales. This section will briefly discuss for the region as a base for species habitat modeling. some of the data, tools, and planning products relevant to The land cover classification and habitat modeling is regional conservation planning and protection of being done in seven mapping zones in Virginia, Kentucky, connectivity in the Southeast and other regions. North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. The Gap Analysis Conference in September 2007 in Asheville, North TNC Ecoregional Plans Carolina featured the Southeast Gap Analysis project (http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/). Though habitat The Nature Conservancy has developed conservation modeling developed through Gap Analysis can be plans for every ecoregion in the United States and many coarser than habitat analysis done at smaller scales for other ecoregions globally. Ecoregional planning identifies specific project areas, Gap Analysis data can help identify all areas necessary to conserve viable populations of all potential focal species habitat and potential conservation focal species, all natural communities, and functional or corridors in regional conservation planning study areas. restorable landscapes within each ecoregion (Groves et al. 2002; Groves 2003). Methods for developing

103 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Other EPA Regional Data the identification of regional and local corridors for conserving focal species and ecosystems. Like the EPA Southeastern Ecological Framework in EPA Region 4, other EPA Regions have completed, or are working on, regional assessments of “critical Reserve Design Software: Spexan/Marxan ecosystems”. Hoctor et al. (2004a) detailed EPA regional ecosystem assessments and made recommendations for Spexan and the most recent iteration, Marxan, is a future enhancements. Other EPA regional critical reserve design program developed in Australia that uses ecosystem assessment examples include the Region 5 an iterative algorithm to identify the most efficient set of Critical Ecosystems Assessment Model (CrEAM) and the sites for achieving specified conservation goals (Ball Region 6 GIS Screening Tool (GISST). Therefore, EPA 2000; Ball and Possingham 2000). This software is data are another potential source of information for typically used to make sure that all elements of regional conservation and corridor planning. biodiversity (or other natural resource features) are adequately represented in existing and proposed conservation lands. It is increasingly used to address State Wildlife Action Plans conservation goals for both biodiversity and ecosystem services (Ardron et al. 2002; Kelley et al. 2002; Noss et State Wildlife Action Plans were required by the federal al. 2002; Leslie et al. 2003; Oetting and Knight 2003; government for states to receive federal funds through Chan et al. 2006). However, one of the primary the State Wildlife Grants program (http:// weaknesses of these algorithms is an inability to www.wildlifeactionplans.org/). They outline strategies for incorporate spatial and viability considerations such as conserving wildlife in each state. Plans vary in scope and the importance of connectivity or location of corridors methods, but all plans must provide key elements such (Briers 2002; Cabeza 2003; Hoctor et al. 2004a; Noss as: information on the distribution and abundance of and Daly 2006). Nonetheless, Spexan/Marxan is an wildlife species; descriptions of locations and relative objective means for assessing biodiversity representation condition of key habitats and community types; in regional conservation plans, and it can be combined descriptions of problems which may adversely affect key with efforts to assess viability and delineate spatial species or their habitats; priority research and surveys; design, including corridors and buffers, necessary to and descriptions of conservation actions and monitoring. protect viable ecological networks. Other plan elements include coordinating with federal, state and local agencies and incorporating public participation. Priority species and areas for conservation Least Cost Path Analysis within state wildlife plans may be important targets for protection of conservation corridors, with the additional Least Cost Path Analysis (LCP) is a raster-based benefit of a built in mechanism for receiving federal funds optimization function that seeks the best route between a to achieve protection. In Florida, the next proposed step source and a destination. It has been applied to various of the State Wildlife Action Plan is a “Conservation projects to identify the best potential corridors for various Blueprint,” which would use the best available GIS data focal species based on the biology and behavior of the and other information in regional planning and mapping species and related factors such as land use and road workshops. Regional maps would add detail to state densities (Hoctor 2003; Larkin et al. 2004; Beier et al. priorities and help guide wildlife conservation action at 2006; Carroll 2006; Kautz et al. 2006; Theobold 2006). multiple scales. One proposed element of these plans is Although LCP has limitations such as questions about species movement behavior in real landscapes versus

104 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 the LCP's cumulative path optimization, LCP is a Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and potentially useful tool for identifying corridor options Communities Book between conservation lands (Hoctor 2003; Carroll 2006; Theobold 2006). The expanding use of GPS technology Benedict and McMahon (2006) describe the significance in tracking radio-collared study animals will likely provide of green infrastructure and the process and options for the foundation for testing and refining LCP modeling for identifying and protecting it. Benedict and McMahon landscape-scale conservation planning in the future. (2006, p. 1) define green infrastructure as, “an interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and Spatially Explicit Population Models functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.” Green Spatially Explicit Population Models (SEPMs) can assess infrastructure is a conceptual advance in environmental the significance of connectivity options to maintain viable planning because it explicitly links the integrity of natural populations of focal species. Although there are several systems with the health and well being of human SEPM software options, including VORTEX and RAMAS communities. Benedict and McMahon (2006) emphasize GIS (Lacy 1993; Akçakaya et al. 2004), PATCH software the importance of ecosystem services and their linkage has been most recently used to identify important with protecting biodiversity. The book also covers land corridors and other priority conservation actions for protection tools, ecological network implementation various wide-ranging species (Carroll et al. 2001; Carroll strategies, and efforts to build support for green et al. 2002; Carroll et al. 2003; Carroll et al. 2004; Carroll infrastructure. 2006; Noss and Daly 2006). SEPMs are data and time intensive but are an important tool for addressing population viability in the design of ecological networks. Smart Land-Use Analysis: The LUCIS Model Land Use Identification Strategy NatureServe Vista Margaret Carr and Paul Zwick, from the University of Florida, recently completed a book on using ESRI’s Vista is software created by NatureServe, the association ArcGIS software to analyze regional scale land use and of state and other natural heritage programs, which assess potential trade-offs regarding different packages focal species and natural community development and conservation strategies. Their methods occurrence data in a decision support process (http:// take full advantage of the geographic analysis capabilities www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/overview.jsp). It of ArcGIS to determine regional suitabilities for urban/ can be used to evaluate different protection and suburban development, agriculture, and conservation of development scenarios to determine impacts on focal biodiversity and ecosystem services. After developing species and natural communities. Natural heritage data these suitability maps, they recommend a conflict are critical for regional conservation planning, and this analysis strategy to determine which areas important for software can serve as a means for incorporating these agriculture or conservation may be most threatened by data in corridor and ecological network projects. development. From their conflict analysis it is possible to develop alternative future land use scenarios to test different land use policies. These methods include the use of population projections, variable gross urban densities, mass transit alternatives and conservation

105 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 schemes to fully explore the implications of future growth can minimize the impacts on natural resources. In and minimize the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem cooperation with 1000 Friends of Florida, a growth services (Carr and Zwick 2007). management advocacy group, Zwick and Carr (2006) have developed a statewide example of spatial growth projections for Florida (Figure 8). They are now Developments in Growth, Transportation, and conducting more detailed regional analyses that are Utility Corridor Planning proposed to be completed for every Florida region. These regional models will look more specifically at Human population growth, accelerated land use different development and conservation scenarios while conversion, and increasing demand for expanded working with local governments and stakeholders. transportation and energy infrastructure are critical trends that heavily influence opportunities FIGURE 8 Potential future urban development in 2060 in a growth to protect conservation corridors projection model conducted by Paul Zwick and Margaret Carr from the and ecological networks. Planning University of Florida for 1000 Friends of Florida. The brick red tools and initiatives that closely represents all potential urban, suburban, commercial, and industrial integrate development and lands in 2060. It is important to note that this scenario assumes no additional conservation land protection beyond the existing conservation planning at regional conservation lands shown in green (from 1000 Friends of Florida 2006 scales are essential for and Zwick and Carr 2006). understanding potential trade-offs and to develop planning strategies that will avoid and minimize ecological impacts and maximize protection of critical ecosystems. In this section we discuss several examples of developing planning tools to assess and minimize the impacts of conversion to urban and suburban land use, transportation projects, and energy utility corridors.

Growth Projection Modeling

Growth projection modeling identifies the areas most likely to be converted to development. Such modeling can be used to support the analysis of alternative futures (or scenarios) to demonstrate how different densities and patterns of growth

106 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Florida Department of Transportation Efficient Georgia Transmission Corporation 2006). The project Transportation Decision Making team developed a new GIS Siting Model with a more objective, quantifiable, and consistent methodology that In response to the "Environmental Streamlining" minimizes environmental and social impacts while also legislation passed by Congress as part of the meeting engineering requirements. The model is also Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Florida more transparent than past methods and therefore better Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been working suited for public review. with partners to develop and implement a more efficient transportation planning and environmental review process (http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/). These efforts led to the Trends in Wildlife Crossing Technology to development of the Efficient Transportation Decision Mitigate Impacts of Transportation Infrastructure Making (ETDM) process. It is intended to improve transportation decision-making in a way that protects The Western Transportation Institute, Road Ecology human and natural environments. The approach includes Program is currently conducting a National Wildlife active participation of federal, state, and local agencies, Vehicle Collision Study for the Federal Highway and the public early in the planning process. Agencies Administration. This study addresses issues associated can identify avoidance and mitigation opportunities and with wildlife vehicle collisions (WVCs). Included in this prescribe technical studies to be accomplished by FDOT study is a summary of methods designed to reduce if the project proceeds. The Environmental Screening WVCs and increase habitat connectivity and permeability Tool (EST) provides an essential foundation to the ETDM. of roads for wildlife. These methods are divided into four The EST is an internet-accessible application that major categories, 1) mitigation efforts that attempt to provides tools to input and update information about influence driver behavior, 2) mitigation efforts that seek to transportation projects, perform standardized analyses, influence animal behavior or population size with no or gather and report comments about potential project minimal structures on or over the road or in the right-of- effects, and provide information to the public. This way, 3) mitigation efforts that seek to physically separate significant improvement in transportation impact animals from the roadway, and 4) mitigation measures assessment should vastly improve efforts to minimize the that seek to provide crossing opportunities for wildlife impact of new transportation infrastructure important (Huijser et al. 2007). ecological areas, and could serve as a model for other Crossing opportunities for wildlife include: safe crossing states. opportunities such as gaps in fences and wildlife underpasses and overpasses, escape opportunities from EPRI-GTC Overhead Electric Transmission Line the right-of-way such as jump-outs or escape ramps and one-way gates, mitigation for fence ends such as Siting Methodology boulders between fences and roadways, animal detection In response to increasing energy demand coupled with systems, and gaps caused by access roads such as heightened public scrutiny, the Georgia Transmission gates and cattle or wildlife guards (Huijser et al. 2007). Corporation (GTC) developed a new transmission line The number of wildlife crossing structures continues to corridor selection methodology in cooperation with the increase and is extremely important for mitigating the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and a panel of impacts of roads on connectivity (Forman et al. 2003; GIS, scientific, and planning experts from universities and Clevenger Wierzchowski 2006). other entities (Electric Power Research Institute and

107 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Comprehensive Mitigation Planning for Co-location of Linear Development and Transportation Infrastructure Conservation Corridors

The Conservation Fund, in partnership with Maryland Co-location of transportation and utility infrastructure is an Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and obvious potential means for minimizing environmental Wildlife Service, is working with the Maryland State impacts. However, it may also be possible to co-locate Highway Administration on a green infrastructure linear development and conservation corridors in cases approach to identifying stewardship and compensatory where other opportunities to protect or restore ecological mitigation opportunities for the construction of the US connectivity are not feasible. Though not common, there Highway 301 bypass around Waldorf, Maryland. Priority are some examples of such co-location. One example projects to restore streams, purchase conservation from Australia is the maintenance or restoration of forest easements, and other strategies will be determined corridors along roadways for various focal species in through an intensive GIS, field study, and work group lands largely converted to agriculture or other human process that builds on and updates Maryland’s statewide uses (Straker 1998). In addition, if sufficiently wide and green infrastructure assessment (Weber and Wolf 2000) strategically located, utility corridors could help provide and utilizes optimization techniques to maximize connectivity for some focal species between conservation conservation benefits. Similar approaches could be areas (Hall et al. 1994). utilized in the Southeast by refining the SEF for local scale use. POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO FACILITATE There is a clear need to retrofit the existing road system PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION CORRIDORS to minimize habitat fragmentation and other ecological impacts if ecological connectivity and integrity are to be Policy is changing in several ways in an attempt to keep restored (Carr et al. 2002; Forman et al. 2003; Clevenger pace with human population growth, land use conversion, and Wierzchowski 2006). The Florida Department of and increasing land prices. One trend in the Southeast Transportation has made significant progress to address and the United States as a whole is expanding land existing impacts and to avoid future conflicts (Foster and acquisition programs (including conservation easements) Humphrey 1992; Roof and Wooding 1996; Smith 1999). at the local, state, and federal levels. A strong majority of However, the Florida Department of Transportation's Americans support greenspace protection. Conservation planned budget for road infrastructure improvements easements were debated recently in Congress and the between 2001-2020 is $108 billion (Hoctor 2003). If just result is better provisions that make easements more 5% of that budget were devoted to environmental attractive for private landowners. Other incentives for mitigation, it would be sufficient to build many new wildlife protecting additional lands include a growing market for crossing structures and protect large areas of habitat to carbon credits and carbon-neutral policies, which can mitigate transportation impacts on biodiversity. Across result in significant forest restoration and protection. the Southeast, transportation agencies need to work Growth management planning is an essential part of closely with the appropriate government agencies and efforts to effectively manage rapid population growth to NGOs to integrate wildlife crossing structures and other reduce sprawl, public infrastructure costs, and forms of mitigation into transportation planning. environmental impacts. Florida has a long history of growth management and recent updates such as the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas program embody efforts to improve growth management to protect large, intact

108 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 landscapes. Florida state government has also instituted 2.3 million acres that have been protected since 1990 the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, which (The Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy 2006). is reviewing relevant trends and data to develop recommendations to help achieve a sustainable future. The Environmental Law Institute (2006) examined the effectiveness of 28 state open space conservation programs for protecting biodiversity. An important issue Expanding Conservation Land Acquisition faced by state programs is balancing the pressing need to Programs acquire land as quickly and efficiently as possible with the need to be strategic in acquiring land that maximizes Conservation land acquisition and protection programs protection of biodiversity and ecosystem functions. State are increasingly popular in the United States at the local, Wildlife Action Plans provide a science-based blueprint to regional, and state levels. Voters are frequently prioritize conservation actions (ELI 2006). State open approving financing measures to fund land conservation space conservation programs also need to seek programs. The Trust for Public Land maintains a website opportunities for leveraging conservation dollars by called LandVote that tracks these measures and funding building partnerships with other organizations and levels across the nation (http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm? programs with similar missions. ELI (2006, p. 2) content_item_id=15266&folder_id=2607). Most of the concluded: states and various municipalities and counties in the southeastern United States have passed land The 28 programs included in ELI’s conservation acquisition funding measures (Figure 9, study together contribute an annual page 39). Since 1988, $44 billion dollars of conservation average of more than $700 million in acquisition funds have been approved nationwide by 21 states to land protection for the voters in local, regional, and state initiatives. purpose of biodiversity and wildlife conservation. Clearly, states are Rising land prices are an important concern for investing in the conservation of open conservation land acquisition programs. In Florida, state space to protect wildlife habitat and government has spent approximately $300 million per biodiversity. If they are equipped with year on conservation lands since 1990 through the sufficient information and resources, Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever land acquisition they can be well-positioned to make programs. Florida local governments have raised an calculated land protection decisions additional $9.8 billion for open space protection since and to maximize the conservation 1988 (TPL LandVote 2007). However, the average sale benefits that result from each dollar price of lands bought for conservation has increased from spent. $1,500 to $3,500 per acre since 1990, and, therefore, these state and local programs have lost 2/3 of their At the federal level the Department of Defense has buying power in the last 17 years. Land prices are also become the most important source of conservation land increasing at a faster rate in urbanizing counties (Ramesh acquisition dollars through DOD’s Range Enhancement Buch, personal communication). In response, a coalition and Protection Initiative (REPI) as well as the Army of conservation organizations is working on a campaign Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) Program. DOD to increase funding to at least $600 million and up to $1 acquisition funding now exceeds that of the federal share billion per year through 2020. The goal of this Florida of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Forever successor program campaign is to protect at LWCF program provides matching grants to state and least 2 million more acres in addition to the approximately local governments for the acquisition of public

109 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

FIGURE 9 Potential future urban development in 2060 in a growth projection model conducted by Paul Zwick and Margaret Carr from the University of Florida for 1000 Friends of Florida. The brick red represents all potential urban, suburban, commercial, and industrial lands in 2060. It is important to note that this scenario assumes no additional conservation land protection beyond the existing conservation lands shown in green (from 1000 Friends of Florida 2006 and Zwick and Carr 2006).

110 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 conservation lands. Though the LWCF funding was Conservation Tax Credit Programs improving in the recent past (it peaked at almost $1 billion in 2001), it has again fallen precipitously ($346 million in Some southeastern states employ Conservation Tax 2006) (Vincent 2006). More importantly, the LWCF falls Credit programs that are designed to support protection significantly short of providing the financial support of important conservation areas. North Carolina has a tax needed based on the demand for land conservation and credit program that allows individuals and corporations to escalating conversion to suburban and urban land uses. receive income tax credits when real property is donated to a qualified entity for conservation purposes (http:// www.enr.state.nc.us/conservationtaxcredit/). In 2006, Conservation Easements Georgia passed a similar conservation tax credit program for donations of real property for conservation The federal rules for conservation easements were purposes. Qualified donations include either fee simple changed in 2006 to increase the financial incentives for donations or conservation easements (http:// private landowners, and the hope is that the 2008 US www.gadnr.org/documents/conservation_tax_credit.html). Farm Bill that proposes to extend these incentives will be Though these measures provide important incentives for passed. The incentives are: protecting conservation lands, they are not strategic in terms of directing more resources to the highest priority • A conservation agreement donor to deduct up to 50% areas (Will Allen, personal communication). of their adjusted gross income in any year;

• Qualifying farmers and ranchers to deduct up to 100% of their adjusted gross income; and Federally-listed Species Habitat Conservation and Management Programs • Donors to take deductions for their contribution over as many as 16 years (Conservation Trust for Florida; The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a number of also see the Land Trust Alliance web site for more programs to provide private landowners options and information: http://www.lta.org/publicpolicy/ incentives to protect and manage federally listed species tax_incentives_qa.htm) habitat. Programs include conservation banking, Conservation easements are an extremely valuable tool Candidate Conservation Agreements, the Private Stewardship Program, Safe Harbor Agreements, and for conservation land protection because they require less money than fee-simple acquisition, the land remains on Habitat Conservation Plans (http://www.fws.gov/ tax rolls, and the owner provides most or all of the land endangered/landowner/index.html). Although these programs have various deficiencies (Noss et al. 1997), management. The primary obstacles for easements are: 1) resistance to use of public funds to protect private they do provide some flexibility and additional resources to maintain and restore functional habitat for federally lands that are typically not accessible to the public; and 2) monitoring requirements can be complicated, time listed species on private lands. consuming, and difficult to enforce.

Private Landowner Habitat and Forest Management Programs

Private landowners may voluntarily participate in state and federal administered programs that foster conservation. These programs help landowners protect

111 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 wetlands and wildlife habitat and foster farm and forest the WRP and WHIP to protect grasslands on private productivity. The programs in turn provide incentive property. payments and technical assistance to landowners (Demers et al. 2003). The programs described here and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), others may be researched at the Environmental part of the Department of Interior (DOI), offers technical Protection Agency (EPA) online Catalog of Federal and financial assistance for a wide variety of partners to Funding Sources for Watershed Protection restore wildlife habitat on private lands. USFWS provides (www.epa.gov/watershedfunding). habitat-planning guidance and cost-share assistance on projects enrolled in the USDA Wetland Reserve Program The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other conservation programs. part of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), offers programs to assist landowners with The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) conservation goals. The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program that helps farmers and ranchers (WRP) is another USDA/NRCS voluntary program keep their land in agriculture. It is managed by the U.S. designed to restore and protect wetlands on private Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources property. Private landowners may qualify for financial Conservation Service (NRCS). The program provides incentives to enhance wetlands in turn for retiring matching funds to state, tribal, or local governments and marginal agricultural land. WRP offers three options of non-governmental organizations with existing farm and permanent easements, 30-year easements and ranch land protection programs to purchase conservation restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum of 10- easements. FRPP is reauthorized in the Farm Security year period. Under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (USDA 2007). Program (WHIP), NRCS provides landowners with up to The Forest Legacy Program has protected 1,145,586 75 percent costshare funds to develop habitat for upland acres as of February 2006 (http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/ and wetland wildlife, endangered species, fisheries, and programs/loa/flp_projects.shtml). A program of the USDA other wildlife. Landowners work with NRCS to develop a Division of Forestry, the Forest Legacy Program provides 5 to 10-year wildlife habitat development plan in an alternative to selling timberland for development. It consultation with the local conservation district. The plan provides assistance in private, voluntary conservation describes the landowner’s goals for improving wildlife using grants to enrolled states to purchase conservation habitat, includes a list of practices and a schedule for easements or fee simple acquisition on environmentally installing them, and details the steps necessary to important forest lands that are threatened with conversion maintain the habitat for the life of the agreement. The to non-forest uses. Conservation easements are given plan may or may not be part of a larger conservation plan higher priority than fee-simple acquisition, and the that addresses other resource needs, such as water purchase of development or full fee rights can be quality and soil erosion. WHIP is a voluntary program that accomplished with up to 75% federal funds and at least encourages creation of high quality wildlife habitats that 25% coming from private, state or local sources. Forest support wildlife populations of National, State, Tribal, and Legacy has funded 242 projects that protect a total of local significance. Through WHIP, the Natural Resources 1,567,224 acres nationally. Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance to landowners and others to develop upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their property. The Grassland Reserve Program is a third USDA/NRCS voluntary program that works similarly to

112 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Neutral carbonneutral.htm). The expansion of carbon neutral Programs programs could provide very significant funding for land conservation. Therefore, an important goal is to create Global climate change is spurring various initiatives that partnerships between organizations pursuing carbon could have a significant impact on land conservation. neutrality and those identifying and protecting strategic Carbon sequestration is the process of long-term carbon conservation lands. storage to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and potentially reduce the severity of global climate change. Already, the evolving carbon emissions credit market is Growth Management resulting in the restoration and protection of southeastern Growth management is an essential complement to land forest lands to provide carbon sequestration. For acquisition and easement programs. A variety of example, in Louisiana, the Entergy corporation is working incentives and disincentives can be used to avoid sprawl with various partners to meet their carbon sequestration and direct growth away from areas with the highest commitment while also restoring listed species habitat conservation and environmental values including (http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2005/r05-041.html). conservation corridors. With $15.7 million, Entergy has acquired approximately 11,000 acres and reforested over 8,000 acres around the Although Florida has a long history of growth Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge to restore habitat management efforts through various laws and programs and create corridors for the federally listed Louisiana starting in the 1970s, growth management remains a black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus). problematic issue with less than significant impacts made on the pace or pattern of development (Nicolas and Entergy is also working with the Conservation Fund and Steiner 2000; Hoctor 2003). Collectively, all of the future the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and reforest land use plans adopted by local governments (including land to create the new Red River National Wildlife Refuge counties and cities) would allow anywhere from 50 to 90 in Louisiana (http://www.conservationfund.org/node/414). million people, which is approximately 3 to 6 times larger The Conservation Fund is also working with many other than the current population (Nicolas and Steiner 2000; private and public partners on two other carbon Hoctor 2003). Effective growth management should sequestration initiatives to protect and restore forest land: direct development away from environmentally sensitive the Obion Creek Wildlife Management Area in Kentucky areas whenever possible (Soulé 1991). The protection of and the PowerTree Carbon Company, which is a areas important for biodiversity, fiber production, and partnership seeking to reforest lands in the lower agriculture should be key components of comprehensive Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Overall, The Conservation plans. In addition, good comprehensive plans would limit Fund and partners have already restored 20,000 acres sprawl, which would give land acquisition efforts more and planted more than 6 million trees (http:// time to protect critical areas for conservation. Finally, www.conservationfund.org/node/546). good planning is needed to buffer protected conservation Another emerging initiative is Carbon Neutral programs lands, where intensive development is separated from (See http://www.conservationfund.org/gozero). As part of reserves by rural lands including silviculture, agriculture, a large group of universities developing carbon neutral and other uses more compatible with conservation programs, the University of Florida is discussing using objectives (Harris 1984; Noss and Harris 1986; Soulé either donated or purchased lands that have other 1991; Hoctor 2003). Prescribed fire management is also important conservation values as carbon sequestration a critical issue throughout the southeastern coastal plain banks (http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/ and growth management should ensure that development

113 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 is located and designed to minimize interference with • establish a place where the “best community-building prescribed burns (Harris et al. 1996a; Gordon et al. 1997; ideas” can be studied and shared for the benefit of all Macie and Hermansen 2002; Maehr and Larkin 2004). Floridians.

Florida government continues to modify growth The Century Commission is working on various initiatives management to seek improved performance. A recent to accomplish its mission (http:// addition to Florida law is the Rural Lands Stewardship www.centurycommission.org/home.asp). One of the first Areas program (RLSA). The program goal is to use a initiatives is the development of the Critical Lands/Waters Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) concept to Identification Project (CLIP). The goal for CLIP is to promote the protection of large, rural landscapes. identify areas of statewide priority for protecting Development credits are determined by the value of land biodiversity and ecosystem services using the best being protected in sending areas and are then transferred available GIS data and tools. CLIP is still under to receiving areas where development occurs. Rules development but will likely become an important decision currently require that a minimum of 10,000 acres be support tool for guiding the development of available to plan the sending and receiving process, recommendations for the Century Commission and future which can either be in a single land ownership or conservation land acquisition and growth management composed of multiple ownerships. RLSA agreements decisions. Proposed next steps include comparing CLIP then must be incorporated into amended county to development projects and proposed transportation comprehensive plans. Although the RLSA program is projects to determine how to maximize compatibility and promising, it is relatively new, and early indications are policy priorities for guiding Florida's future growth. CLIP that the program could facilitate large-scale development will also be combined with the Florida Fish and Wildlife in rural landscapes where development otherwise might Conservation Commission's Conservation Blueprint not occur for many years, if ever. Potential beneficial initiative to coordinate and integrate their similar goals changes to the law would include the requirement of and maximize synergy. receiving areas to be located within or near current urban areas in order to reduce sprawl and fragmentation effects upon rural landscapes. For an operating example of the CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES AND RLSA program see this Collier County website: CHALLENGES FOR PROTECTING http://209.247.187.111/Index.aspx?page=1515. CONSERVATION CORRIDORS IN THE SOUTHEAST

Florida Century Commission: Planning for Probably the most important, obvious trend emerging Sustainability regarding land corridors is the importance of regional scale, integrated planning. There are many processes The Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida was and land uses occurring in regional landscapes that are created by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and will: impacting biodiversity, ecological integrity, and sustainability. In support, scientific research over the last • envision Florida’s future by looking out 25 and 50 three decades shows that the process linkages between years, various ecosystems and land uses are strong, and that • make recommendations to the Governor and effectively conserving biodiversity requires working at Legislature regarding how they should address the large spatial scales. However, impacts to ecosystem impacts of population growth, and services and biodiversity are occurring at all scales from local to global. To be effective, conservation planning

114 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122 strategies must successfully integrate planning at multiple strategies for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem scales AND link the importance of conservation to all processes that remain viable and functional. other elements of planning including economic, Reconciling the predominance of local planning and the transportation, energy, national security, etc. The need to need to include the public, private land owners, and all protect conservation corridors for biodiversity and stakeholders with the imperative for regional-scale ecosystem services must be linked to the need for analysis and planning is an essential issue facing environmentally sound economic development and conservation planning. Policy analysis that informs human health (Grifo and Rosenthal 1997). It will be very practitioners on the best methods for ensuring important for ecological decision making to be placed in a successful collaboration across jurisdictional levels “multiple benefits” planning framework to provide including local, regional, state, and federal, while economic incentives for ecological system and service effectively including the public and stakeholders is a key protection. For example, The Conservation Fund is research need. One requirement is to firmly establish working with multiple partners in the Southeast to protect the necessity of ecosystem sustainability for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services using an integrated healthy ecosystems and human communities at all planning process that considers: scales of planning and decision-making (Meffe and Carroll 1997; Hoctor et al. 2004b). • Economic / “Gray Infrastructure”, The opportunities for protecting conservation corridors • Conservation / “Green Infrastructure”, are many. Science continues to expand our knowledge • Ecological Services, about ecosystem processes and the importance and characteristics of functional connectivity. Geographic • Energy, and Information Systems has led to the development of • National Security / Compatible Land Use many existing plans and data that can be very useful to regional conservation projects. There are also a variety The green infrastructure concept is therefore extremely of sophisticated and increasingly easy to use analytical relevant. It is a planning framework that links protection and decision support tools for conducting planning at all of biodiversity and conservation corridors with protection scales. Public policy also continues to evolve to more of lands that provide ecosystem services and other thoroughly incorporate ecological sustainability into related benefits to human communities (Benedict and planning. The public increasingly supports the McMahon 2006). The connection between protection of protection of greenspace, and, overall, budgets for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human values will protecting conservation lands are expanding. be essential in continued efforts to protect conservation Conservation easement policy has recently changed to corridors in the Southeast. make them more financially attractive to private One of the most important challenges for such an landowners, and various incentive and subsidy approach is the successful collaboration and effective programs exist to restore and manage wetlands, integration of planning at multiple scales (Hoctor et al. forests, and other habitats on private lands. Growth 2004b). One of the most important obstacles to management has not been very effective but continues regional conservation planning in the United States is a to evolve to address human population growth and strong bias towards local land use decision-making. sprawl. Finally, institutions are responding to the threat Research has made clear that regional-scale planning is of climate change in ways that will significantly enhance required to understand how ecosystems and ecological available resources for restoring ecosystems and processes fit together and to develop effective ecological connectivity.

115 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

An important challenge is the difference between various non-governmental organizations need to work planning for protecting conservation corridors versus together to inform the public about this crisis to generate more traditional conservation land protection. In the an effective increase in land conservation budgets from past, governments and private organizations had the federal to local levels. The impacts of global climate flexibility to work with various willing landowners across change on biodiversity and ecosystem function is regions to protect lands important for biodiversity and greatly exacerbated by the high levels of habitat natural resources. However, protecting connectivity fragmentation in most regions. Climate change is frequently results in significant spatial constraints where occurring rapidly in an evolutionary context, and species there are many less options because there are only a have much less opportunity to functionally respond few opportunities to restore or protect functional because of diminished landscape connectivity and corridors. In Florida, a relevant issue is increased habitat gradients (Lovejoy and Hannah 2004). development pressure along major roads within Therefore, the final question is, “Can conservation conservation corridor projects, which has led to planning effectively keep up in a rapidly changing discussion about whether such lands should be world?” One answer is that regional conservation protected first so that they do not become obstacles planning that is well integrated with other planning before the rest of the project can be completed. Though scales and emphasizes the interconnectedness and it makes sense to prefer to work with large private interdependence of nature and human communities has landowners to increase efficiency and reduce costs the best chance of doing so. (Morrison and Reynolds 2006), conservation corridors may require working with many small private landowners to protect connectivity. Therefore, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cooperation with local governments and local land The authors want to thank the U.S. Department of trusts, and the use of various conservation tools and Defense for funding the development of this article as part incentives such as easements and habitat management of the SERPPAS effort. programs, must be fully explored. Protecting conservation corridors will also require full consideration of trade-offs regarding various options for protecting connectivity in terms of spatial locations, land use and land management policies, and the various economic alternatives for protecting land (Morrison and Reynolds 2006).

Rapid human population growth combined with global climate change is by far the biggest challenge facing conservation corridors protection. The pace of habitat loss and fragmentation requires that planners work quickly without complete information about location of priority ecological areas and policy options, and some options for protecting connectivity may disappear before we have time to safeguard them. Rapid human population growth also drives up land prices, which is straining land conservation acquisition budgets, and buying power has been decreasing. Governments and

116 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

LITERATURE CITED Briers, R. A. 2002. Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biological Conservation 103:77-83.

1000 Friends of Florida. 2006. Florida 2060: Not a pretty Cabeza, M. 2003. Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve picture? 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecology Letters 6:665-672. Akçakaya, R., M. Burgman, O. Kindvall, C. Wood, P. Sjögren- Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M.McCarthy, editors. 2004. Species Carr, M. H., T. S. Hoctor, C. Goodison, P. D. Zwick, et al. 2002. conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Southeastern Ecological Framework, U.S. Environmental Press. Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta.

Anderson, A. and C. N. Jenkins. 2006. Applying nature's design: Carr, M. H. and P. D. Zwick. 2007. Smart land-use analysis: the corridors as a strategy for biodiversity conservation. Columbia LUCIS model land use identification strategy. ESRI Press, University Press, New York. Redlands, California.

Ardron, J. A., J. Lash, and D. Haggarty. 2002. Modelling a Carroll, C. 2006. Linking connectivity to viability: insights from network of marine protected areas for the central coast of British spatially explicit population models of large carnivores. Pages Columbia. Version 3.1. Sointula, BC, Canada: Living Oceans 369-389 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity Society (available online as of April 2004 at http:// conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. www.livingoceans.org/index.shtml). Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, and P. C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as Ball, I. R. 2000. Mathematical applications for conservation focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain ecology: the dynamics of tree hollows and the design of nature region. Ecological Applications 11:961-980. reserves [dissertation]. Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide. Carroll, C., M. K. Phillips, N. H. Schumaker, and D. W. Smith. 2002. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration success: Ball, I. R., and H. Possingham. 2000. Marxan (v1.8.2): Marine planning a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. Townsville, spatial models. Conservation Biology 17:536-548. Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (available online as of April 2004 at http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/ Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, P. C. Paquet, and N. H. Schumaker. marxan.htm). 2003. Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented Applications 13:1773-1789. habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, P. C. Paquet, and N. H. Schumaker. Beier, P. 1996. Metapopulation models, tenacious tracking, and 2004. Extinction debt of protected areas in developing cougar conservation. Pages 293-324 in D.R. McCullough, landscapes. Conservation Biology 18:1110-1120. editor. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. 2007. Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. Retrieved March 2007 Beier, P., and R. F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide from http://www.centurycommission.org/home.asp. connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241-1252. Chan, K. M. A., M. R. Shaw, D. R. Cameron, E. C. Underwood, Beier, P., K. L. Penrod, C. Luke, W. D. Spencer, and C. and G. C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem Cabanero. 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages: restoring services. PLoS Biology 4(11): e379. DOI: 10.1371/ connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the journal.pbio.0040379 USA. Pages 555-586 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Clevenger, A. P. and J. Wierzchowski. 2006. Maintaining and Cambridge, UK. restoring connectivity in landscapes fragmented by roads. Pages 502-535 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Benedict, M. A. and E. T. McMahon. 2006. Green infrastructure: Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, linking landscapes and communities. Island Press, Washington, Cambridge, UK. D.C. Collier County Florida. 2007. Rural Land Stewardship Area Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the landscape: the role of (RLSA) Overlay Program. Retrieved March 2007 from corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, http://209.247.187.111/Index.aspx?page=1515. Switzerland.

117 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Florida Department of Transportation. 2007. Efficient Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Transportation Decision Making. Retrieved March 2007 from Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/. world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. Florida Greenways Commission. 1994. Report to the Governor: creating a statewide greenways system: for people . . . for Cox, J., and R. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare wildlife . . . for Florida. Florida Department of Environmental and imperiled wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Forman, R. T. T. 1987. The ethics of isolation, the spread of disturbance, and landscape ecology. Pages 213-229 in M. G. Crooks, K. R. and M. Sanjayan. 2006. Connectivity Turner, editor. Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. conservation: maintaining connections for nature. Pages 1-19 Springer-Verlag, New York. in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Damschen, E. I., N. M. Haddad, J. L. Orrock, J. J. Tewksbury, Cambridge, UK. and D. J. Levey. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313:1284-1286. Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, and J. Bissonette, editors. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Daily, G. C. 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services? Washington, D.C. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Foster, M. L., and S. F. Humphrey. 1992. Use of highway underpassess by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Daily, G. C., 2000. Management objectives for the protection of Society Bulletin 23:95-100. ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy 3 (6):333-339. Freemuth, J. C. 1991. Islands under siege: national parks and the politics of external threats. University Press of Kansas, Demers, Main, and Hostetler. 2003. Improving, Restoring, and Lawrence. Managing Natural Resources on Rural Properties in Florida: Sources of Financial Assistance. Retrieved April 2008 from Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Georgia http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW218. Conservation Tax Credit Program. Retrieved April 2008 from http://glcp.georgia.gov/000/channel_modifieddate/0,2096,82613 Dillon, B. 2005. GIS-based line-siting methodology. 131_96091185,00.html. Transmission & Distribution World, February 1, 2005. Retrieved March 2007 from http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/ Gordon, D. R., L. Provencher, and J. L. Hardesty. 1997. power_gisbased_linesiting_methodology/. Measurement scales and ecosystem management. Pages 262- 273 in S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Dixon, J. D., M. K. Oli, M. C. Wooten, T. H. Eason, J. W. Likens, editors. The ecological basis of conservation: McCown, and D. Paetkau. 2006. Effectiveness of a regional heterogeneity, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Chapman and Hall, corridor in connecting two Florida black bear populations. New York. Conservation Biology 20:155-162. Grifo, F. and J. Rosenthal, editors. 1997. Biodiversity and Dodd, C. K. Jr., C. K. and B. S. Cade. 1997. Movement patterns human health. Island Press, Wahsington, D.C. and the conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 12:331-339. Groves, C. R. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner's guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Dunning, J. B., Jr., J. R. Borgella, K. Clements, and G. K. Meffe. Washington, D.C. 1995. Patch isolation, corridor effects, and colonization by a resident sparrow in a managed pine woodland. Conservation Groves, C. R., D. B. Jensen, L. L. Valutis, K. H. Redford, M. L. Biology 9:542–550. Shaffer, J. M. Scott, J. F. Baumgartner, J. V. Higgins, M. W. Beck, and M. G. Anderson. 2002. Planning for biodiversity Environmental Law Institute. 2006. The nature of open space conservation: putting conservation science into practice. programs: linking land protection and biodiversity conservation. BioScience 52:499-512. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. Haddad, N. M. 1999. Corridor and distance effects on EPRI-GTC Overhead Electric Transmission Line Siting interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Methodology. 2006. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and Georgia Ecological Applications 9:612-622. Transmission Corporation, Tucker, GA: 1013080.

118 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Haddad, N. M. 2000. Corridor length and patch colonization by Hoctor, T., G. Lewis, and M. Marsik. 2004a. Protecting Critical a butterfly, Junonia coenia. Conservation Biology 14:738-745. Ecosystems: Current EPA Regional Activities and Future Agency Opportunities. Final Report. U.S. Environmental Haddad, N. M. and K. Baum. 1999. An experimental test of Protection Agency, Office of Policy and Economic Innovation, corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecological Applications Washington, D.C. 9:623-633. Hoctor, Thomas S., M. Carr, P. Zwick, and D. S. Maehr. 2004b. Haddad, N. M., D. R. Bowne, A. Cunningham, B. Danielson, D. Identification and realization of a Florida Ecological Network: the Levey, S. Sargent, and T. Spira. 2003. Corridor use by diverse Florida Statewide Greenways Project and its political context. taxa. Ecology 84:609-615. Pages 222-250 in R. H. G. Jongman and G. Pungetti, editors. Ecological networks and greenways: concept, design, Hall, P. M., L. D. Harris, and T. S. Hoctor. 1994. Integrating implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation with right-of-way/ greenway corridors. Pages 195-229 in K.G. Hay, editor. Hoctor, T., M. Carr, and J. Teisinger. 2005. Reprioritization of Greenways, wildlife and natural pipeline corridors. The the Florida Ecological Greenways Network based on the New Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA. Base Boundaries Adopted in 2004. Final Report. Office of Greenways and Trails, Florida Department of Environmental Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography Protection. Tallahassee. theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hoctor, T. S., L. D. Harris, R. F. Noss, and K. A. Whitney. 2006. Spatial ecology and restoration of the longleaf pine evosystem. Harris, L. D. 1985. Conservation corridors: a highway system for In S. Jose, E. Jokela and D. Miller, editors. Longleaf pine wildlife. ENFO Report 85-5, Florida Conservation Foundation, ecosystems: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer- Winter Park, Florida. Verlag, New York.

Harris, L. D., and K. Atkins. 1991. Faunal movement corridors Huijser, M., McGowen, P., Fuller, J., Hardy, A., Kociolek, A., in Florida. Pages 117-134 in W.E. Hudson, editor. Landscape Clevenger, T., Smith D., and Ament R. 2007. Wildlife Vehicle linkages and biodiversity. Island Press. Defenders of Wildlife, Collisions Study. Draft Project Report. Prepared for Federal Washington, D.C. Highway Administration. March 2007.

Harris, L. D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to Jongman, R. H. G. and G. Pungetti, editors. 2004. Ecological applications: the dispersal corridor approach to the conservation Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design, Implementation. of biological diversity. Pages 189-220 in D.A. Saunders and R. Cambridge University Press. J. Hobbs, editors. Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Kautz, R. S., and J. A. Cox. 2001. Strategic habitats for Australia. biodiversity conservation in Florida. Conservation Biology 15:55- 77. Harris, L. D., T. S. Hoctor, and S. E. Gergel. 1996a. Landscape processes and their significance to biodiversity conservation. Kautz, R., Kawula, R., Hoctor, T., Comiskey, J., Jansen, D., Pages 319-347 in O.E. Rhodes Jr., K. Chesser, and M.H. Smith, Jennings, D., Kasbohm, J., Mazzotti, F., McBride, R., editors. Population dynamics in ecological space and time. The Richardson, L., and Root, K. 2006. How much is enough? University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130:118-133. Harris, L. D., T. S. Hoctor, D. Maehr, and J. Sanderson. 1996b. The role of networks and corridors in enhancing the value and Keitt, T.H., D.L. Urban, and B.T. Milne. 1997. Detecting critical protection of parks and equivalent areas. Pages 173-198 in scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology [online] R.G. Wright, editor. National parks and protected areas: their 1(1): 4. Available from the Internet. URL: http:// role in environmental areas. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4/ Massachusetts. Kelley, C., J. Garson, A. Aggarwal, and S. Sarkar. 2002. Place Hoctor. T. S. 2003. Regional landscape analysis and reserve prioritization for biodiversity reserve network design: a design to conserve Florida’s biodiversity. Ph.D. dissertation. comparison of SITES and ResNet software packages for University of Florida, Gainesville. coverage and efficiency. Diversity and Distributions 8:297-306.

Hoctor, T. S., M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck 2000. Weighing sprawl factors in reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the large U.S. cities. available at www.sprawlcity.org. Florida ecological network. Conservation Biology 14:984-1000. Lacy, R. C. 1993. Vortex: a computer simulation model for population viability analysis. Wildlife Research 20:45-65..

119 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for Maehr, D.S., and J.L. Larkin. 2004. Prescribed burns and large nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849-856. carnivores in south Florida: can fire be too much of a good thing? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Land Trust Alliance. 2007. Questions and answers about the Resources Conference 69:369-383. new tax incentive. Retrieved March 2007 from http:// www.lta.org/publicpolicy/tax_incentives_qa.htm. Maehr, D. S., J. N. Layne, T. S. Hoctor, and M. A. Orlando. 2004. Status of the black bear in south-central Florida. Florida Larkin, J. L., D. S. Maehr, T. S. Hoctor, M. A. Orlando, and K. Field Naturalist 32:85-101. Whitney. 2004. Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Animal Conservation Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf 7:23-34. distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87. Leslie, H., M. Ruckelshaus, I. R. Ball, S. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of Meffe, G. K., C. R. Carroll, and contributors. 1997. Principles of marine reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13:S185- conservation biology. 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, S198. Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Levey, D. J., B. M. Bolker, J. J. Tewksbury, S. Sargent, and N. Messmer, T. A. and B. West, editors. 2000. Wildlife and M. Haddad. 2005. Effects of landscape corridors on seed highways: seeking solutions to an ecological and socio- dispersal by birds. Science 309:146-148. economic dilemma. 7th Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Lovejoy, T. E. and L. Hannah, editors. 2004. Climate change and biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, Moler, P. 1992. Eastern indigo snake. Pages 181-186 in P. Connecticut. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, volume III: amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island Gainesville. biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Morrison, S. A. and M. D. Reynolds. 2006. Where to draw the line: integrating feasibility into connectivity planning. Pages Macie, E. A., and L. A. Hermansen, editors. 2002. Human 536-554 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity influences on forest ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. interface assessment. General Technical Report SRS-55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Vista. Retrieved March 2008 Station, Asheville, North Carolina. from http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/ overview.jsp. Maehr, D. S. 1984. Distribution of black bears in eastern North America. Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Management and Nicolas, J. C., R. L. Steiner. 2000. Growth Management and Research 7:74. Smart Growth in Florida. Wake Forest Law Review 35(3):645- 670. Maehr, D. S. 1990. The Florida panther and private lands. Conservation Biology 4:167-170. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2007. North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Maehr, D. S. 1997. The comparative ecology of bobcat, black Program. Retrieved March 2007 from http:// bear, and Florida panther in south Florida. Bulletin of the Florida www.enr.state.nc.us/conservationtaxcredit/. Museum of Natural History 40:1-176. Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain Maehr, D. S., T. S. Hoctor, L. J. Quinn, and J. S. Smith. 2001. diversity. BioScience 33:700-706. Black bear habitat management guidelines for Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Noss, R. F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented Florida. landscapes. Natural Areas Journal 7:2-13.

Maehr , D. S., E. D. Land , D. B. Shindle, O. L. Bass , T. S. Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: land conservation Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue):10-25. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. Noss, R. F. 1993. Wildlife Corridors. Pages 43-68 in D. S. Smith and P.C. Hellmund, editors. Ecology of Greenways. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

120 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

Noss, R. F. 2003. A checklist for wildlands network designs. Shafer, C. L. 1990. Nature reserves: island theory and Conservation Biology 17:1270-1275. conservation practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Noss, R. F., and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Smith D. J., 1999. Highway-wildlife relationships (Development Management 10:299-309. of a decision-based wildlife underpass road project prioritization model on GIS with statewide application). Technical report, Noss, R.F., and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C. Soulé, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology?: a new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of Noss, R. F., H. B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. C. perturbed species, communities, and ecocystems. BioScience Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation 35:727-734. in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949-963. Soulé, M. E. 1991. Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: Noss, R. F., M. A. O'Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The guidelines for conserving wildlife in an urban landscape. Journal science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under of the American Planning Association 57:313-323. the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Soulé, M. E., and J. Terborgh, editors. 1999. Continental Noss, R. F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C. vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16:895-908. Southeast Gap Analysis Project. 2007. Southeast Gap Analysis Project. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/ Noss, R. F. and K. M. Daly. 2006. Incorporating connectivity into segap/. broad-scale conservation planning. Pages 587-619 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation. Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2007. Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability. Retrieved March 2007 from http:// Oetting, J. and Knight, A., 2003. F-TRAC: Florida Forever tool www.serppas.org/. for efficient resource acquisition and conservation. model documentation and project evaluation. Florida Natural Areas Stannard, P. 2003. UF launches first major university effort at Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. becoming carbon neutral. Retrieved March 2007 from http:// www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/carbonneutral.htm. Pelton, M. R. 1986. Habitat needs of black bears in the East. Pages 49-53 in D.L. Kulhavy and R.N. Conner, editors. Straker, A. 1998. Management of roads as biolinks and habitat Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A zones in Australia. Pages 181-188. in G. Evink, D. Ziegler, and Management Challenge. Stephen F. Austin State University, J. Berry, editors. Proceeding of the International Conference on Nacagodoches, TX. Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Poiani, K. A., B. D. Richter, M. G. Anderson, and H. E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional Sullivan, A. L., and M. L. Shaffer. 1975. Biogeography of the sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133-146. megazoo: biogeographic studies suggest organizing principles for a future system of wildlands. Science 189:13-17. Putman, R. J., J. Langbein, and B. W. Staines. 2004. Deer and road traffic accidents: A review of mitigation measures: costs Teaming with Wildlife Coalition. 2007. State wildlife action plans. and cost-effectiveness. Report for the Deer Commission for Retrieved March 2008 from http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/. Scotland, Contract RP23A, UK. Thatcher, C. A., F. T. van Manen, and J. D. Clark. 2003. Habitat Roof, J., and J. Wooding. 1996. Evaluation of SR 46 wildlife assessment to identify potential sites for Florida panther crossing. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, reintroduction in the Southeast. University of Tennessee and U.S. Biological Service, Technical report 54, Gainesville, U.S. Geological Survey, Knoxville, TN. Final report to U.S. Fish Florida. and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. F. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. The Conservation Fund. 2008. Go Zero: carbon zero calculator. Groves, J. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards, J. Retrieved March, 2008 from http://www.conservationfund.org/ Ulliman, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic gozero. approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1-41.

121 Hoctor, et al. / Journal of Conservation Planning Vol 4 (2008) 90 — 122

The Conservation Fund. 2008. Carbon Sequestration Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Catalog Retrieved March, 2008 from http://www.conservationfund.org/ of federal funding sources for watershed protection. Retrieved node/546. March 2007 from www.epa.gov/watershedfunding.

The Conservation Fund. 2008. Red River National Wildlife United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Private Refuge. Retrieved March, 2007 from http:// landowners, states, and the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved www.conservationfund.org/node/414. March 2007 from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowner/ index.html. The Conservation Trust for Florida. 2006. New Federal Law Gives Better Tax Break for Conservation Agreements to Save United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Entergy, Farms and Other Rural Lands. The Conservation Trust for Louisiana partners celebrate 2,900-acre addition to Tensas Florida, Micanopy, Florida. River Refuge using innovative conservation tool. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2005/r05- The Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. 2006. 041.html. Protecting wild Florida: preserving the best and last wilderness of Florida, forever. The Florida Chapter of The Nature United States Geological Survey. 2007. Gap Analysis. Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved March 2007 from http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/ server.pt. The Trust for Public Land. 2007. LandVote™ Database. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm? Van Dyke, G. M., R.H. Brocke, H. G. Shaw, B. A. Ackerman, T. content_item_id=15266&folder_id=2607. H. Hemker, and F. G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf Management 50:95-102. habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113:404-407. Vincent, C. H. 2006. Land and water conservation fund: overview, funding history, and current issues. CRS Report for Theobold, D. M. 2006. Exploring functional connectivity of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of landscapes using landscape networks. Pages 416-444 in K. R. Congress, Washington, D.C. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Weber, T. and J. Wolf. 2000. Maryland’s green infrastructure- using landscape assessment tools to identify a regional Townsend, P. A. and D. J. Levey. 2005. An experimental test of conservation strategy. Environmental Monitoring and whether habitat corridors affect pollen transfer. Ecology 86:466- Assessment 63: 265- 277. 475. Weigl, P. D., M. A. Steele, L. J. Sherman, J. C. Ha, and T. L. Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological Sharpe. 1989. The ecology of the fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) in effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. North Carolina: implications for survival in the southeast. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. Wilcox, B. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: Turner, M. G., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O'Neill. 1995. the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist Ecological dynamics at broad scales: ecosystems and 125:879-887. landscapes. BioScience Supplement:S29-S35. Wilson, E. O., and E. O. Willis. 1975. Applied biogeography. United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Natural Pages 522-534 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond, editors. Resource Conservation Service Protection Florida’s Farm and Ecology and evolution of communities. Belknap Press of Ranch Lands: How Can You Help? Retrieved March, 2008 from Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/FL/news/publications/ frppbrochure_fl07.pdf Wooding, J. B., J. A. Cox, and M. R. Pelton. 1994. Distribution of black bears in the southeastern coastal plain. Proceedings of United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2007. the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish Forest Legacy Program funded and completed projects. and Wildlife Agencies 48:270-275. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/ programs/loa/flp_projects.shtml. Zwick, P. D. and M. H. Carr, 2006. Florida 2060, A population distribution scenario for the state of Florida. Report to 1000 United States Department of Defense. 2006. Report to Friends of Florida, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Congress on Sustainable Ranges. United States Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

122