PROPOSED STANDARDS and GUIDELINES for PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES in the NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS Curtis Freese Independent Researcher and Writer, Cfreese@Bridgeband.Com

Home , Nature reserve

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Great Plains Studies, Center for Social Sciences

Spring 2010 PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS Curtis Freese Independent Researcher and Writer, [email protected]

Dawn Montanye World Wildlife Fund–US, [email protected]

Steve Forrest Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch Part of the American Studies Commons

Freese, Curtis; Montanye, Dawn; and Forrest, Steve, "PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS" (2010). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 1071. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/1071

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Research 20 (Spring 2010): 71-84 © 2010 Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS

Curtis Freese

Independent Researcher and Writer 516 S. Willson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 [email protected]

Dawn Montanye

Manager of Conservation Economics Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US 202 S. Black Street, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 [email protected]

and

Steve Forrest

Manager of Restoration Science Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US 202 S. Black Street, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 [email protected]

ABSTRACT—More than three-quarters of the land in the Northern Great Plains is privately owned and less than 2% of the region is in public protected areas; therefore, sound private-land management is critical for restoring and conserving the region’s biodiversity. Although considerable progress has been made in recent years in fostering and assembling nature reserves on private lands in various regions of the world, this approach has received little attention in North America, including the Northern Great Plains. We review here recommenda- tions, trends and issues related to private protected areas globally and in Canada and the United States. We then discuss socioeconomic and ecological conditions that deserve particular attention in creating private protected areas, which we prefer to call “private nature reserves,” in the Northern Great Plains. We conclude with proposed standards and guidelines for the establishment and recognition of private nature reserves in the region.

Key Words: biodiversity, guidelines, Northern Great Plains, private nature reserves, protected areas, standards

INTRODUCTION

The Northern Great Plains, spanning some 723,000 Great Plains lies in public protected areas managed pri- square kilometers across five U.S. states and two Ca- marily for biodiversity conservation purposes (Hoekstra nadian provinces, is the continent’s largest grassland et al. 2005). Seventy-six percent of the Northern Great ecoregion and has been identified as an ecoregion of Plains is privately owned land, most of which is in native global importance for conserving biodiversity (Ricketts or seminative habitat. We estimate that 64% of private et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Reflecting the situation for temper- lands in the Northern Great Plains is grazed by livestock ate grasslands globally, less than 2% of the Northern (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002); the remainder is in crops or some other use (housing, parks, golf courses, Manuscript received for review, April 2009; accepted for publication, and so on). Although well-managed livestock operations November 2009. provide valuable benefits to biodiversity conservation,

71 72 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010

Figure 1. Location of Northern Great Plains.

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al. 73 some elements of biodiversity are not well tolerated by THE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK traditional ranching operations (Freilich et al. 2003), for example, herbivores such as bison (Bison bison), elk Private lands managed primarily for biodiversity (Cervus elaphus), and prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovi and related wildlife values exist in various forms on cianus) that may compete for forage (Forrest et al. 2004); every continent except Antarctica, and the number and predators such as wolves (Canis lupus); and natural coverage of such areas are growing rapidly (Mitchell stream flows that are diverted and impounded for feed 2005). The names given to them are diverse: nature production and water management, and degraded due reserve, preserve, game ranch, hunting reserve, private to livestock overuse (Winston et al. 1991; Cook et al. park, conservancy, and so on. A general term used 1996). globally and by the International Union for Conserva- The system of protected public lands in the Northern tion of Nature (IUCN) for such areas is “private pro- Great Plains is typical of the United States insofar as tected area.” these lands do not include many areas of high biodiver- The IUCN has developed the most widely accepted sity value that are on private lands (Scott et al. 2001). and recognized system for classifying protected areas Scott et al. (2001) concluded for the United States that (Dudley 2008). Its definition of a protected area is “any effort to establish a system of nature reserves that “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, captures the full geographical and ecological range dedicated and managed, through legal or other effec- of cover types and species must fully engage the pri- tive means, to achieve the long-term conservation of vate sector.” The same holds true for much of Canada nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural (Altridge 2000). Meanwhile, the convergence of three values” (Dudley 2008:8). The first principle that IUCN factors in the Northern Great Plains—the economic lists for applying this definition is “only those areas challenges facing rangeland owners (Johnson and Rath- where the main objective is conserving nature can be ge 2006), the existing and potential biodiversity values considered protected areas; this can include many ar- of their rangelands (Forrest et al. 2004), and the inter- eas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the est of some landowners in managing for these values case of conflict, nature conservation will be the prior- (Hodur et al. 2004)—makes it timely to address how ity” (Dudley 2008:10). IUCN defines seven categories private protected areas can be fostered, designed, and of protected areas: managed in the Northern Great Plains. Private protected areas may offer one means for landowners to financially Ia—strict nature reserves; benefit from emerging markets for ecosystem services, Ib—wilderness areas; from carbon sequestration and watershed payments to II—national parks; ecotourism, and from ecolabeling of ecosystem prod- III—natural monuments or features; ucts (Freese et al. 2009; Ribaudo et al. 2008). IV— habitat/species management areas; We present a framework and proposed set of stan- V—protected landscapes/seascapes; dards and guidelines for creating private protected areas VI—protected areas with sustainable use of in the Northern Great Plains of the United States and natural resources. Canada, with the dual goal of conserving biodiversity at landscape, ecosystem, species, and genetic levels (Noss Any one of the categories may be privately owned and 1990) and helping landowners choose appropriate strat- managed. Because private ownership, more than pub- egies and actions if they choose to manage primarily lic ownership, raises questions about continuity due for biodiversity and to diversify their revenue streams to changing conditions and/or ownership, the IUCN through payment for ecosystem services and products guidelines state that a central criterion for private land through such management. The standards and guide- to qualify as a protected area is that “such areas should lines should be considered provisional and will require be managed for conservation in perpetuity” (Dudley field testing and feedback from landowners, conserva- 2008:32). tionists, rangeland managers, and others interested in The Fifth Worlds Parks Congress in 2003 crafted the concept. A thorough examination of methods for the following definition of a private protected area as qualifying landowner compliance with such standards part of its action plan to improve and expand biodiver- and guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper, but we sity conservation on private land (Langholz and Krug briefly review options in the last section. 2004:23):

A PPA refers to a land parcel of any size that is: THE UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN FRAMEWORK 1. Predominantly managed for biodiversity conservation; Neither the U.S. nor Canadian government officially 2. Protected with or without formal govern- recognizes private protected areas per se. In the United ment agency recognition; States several federal programs with “reserve” in the 3. And is owned or otherwise secured by indi- name offer financial support and other incentives for viduals, communities, corporations or nongov- private landowners to restore and conserve biodiversity ernmental organizations. (Casey et al. 2006). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice considers private lands it has acquired as wetland, Other experts on private protected areas offer other grassland, and conservation easements to be part of the definitions. For example, Carter et al. (2008:178) defined National Wildlife Refuge System. In the U.S. Department a private protected area as of Agriculture, the Conservation Reserve Program, Con- servation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetland Re- an area of land of conservation importance serve Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and Healthy that is directly under the ownership and/or Forests Reserve Program provide financial support and/or management of a private sector conservation technical assistance for conservation purposes on private enterprise for the purpose of biodiversity con- lands. Most of these programs allow commodity produc- servation. This purpose may be singular (i.e., tion activities, such as livestock grazing and hay harvest- the entire mission of the organization is con- ing and, to be clear, are not designated as “reserves” by servation), or it may be concurrent with other the federal government. More generally, the terms “re- objectives (such as a business venture or other serve” and “preserve” have no apparent distinct meaning social imperative). in practice or under the law in the United States (Forrest 2002). Mitchell (2005:4) proposed that private protected areas are A 2001 survey of state programs found 22 states that have natural-area programs providing official state managed by non-state entities—including recognition of qualifying lands, regardless of ownership private corporations, associations, individu- (Thom et al. 2005), with North Dakota being the only als, and indigenous governments—with legal Northern Great Plains state. Administered by the Parks interest in the land, in whole or in part. The and Recreation Department, North Dakota’s Nature Pre- protected area may be managed for private as serves Act provides for both qualifying public and private well as public benefit, and the managing enti- lands to be “formally dedicated” as “nature preserves.” ties must be accountable to formal standards. The state has thus far dedicated only publicly owned lands or lands owned by a nonprofit organization. The Australian law stipulates that a private protected area Act also allows landowners to “enter into a non-binding must contribute to the overall biodiversity conserva- agreement to protect their land through the Natural Areas tion needs of the country and “must be dedicated for Registry Program” (North Dakota Parks and Recreation the primary purpose of protection and maintenance Department 2009:1). Our review of provincial programs of biological diversity” (Commonwealth of Australia found that only Quebec and Nova Scotia have statutes 1999:5). for recognizing private protected areas (Canadian Legal Many countries have legislation and procedures for Information Institute 2008; Nova Scotia Canada 2008). officially recognizing private protected areas and often These state and provincial programs generally share an provide incentives for landowners via tax incentives emphasis on conserving in perpetuity, through easements and other financial mechanisms (see, for example, Com- or other permanent instruments with the landowners, ar- monwealth of Australia 1999; Chacon 2005; Carter et al. eas of biological importance in a natural or near-natural 2008). Although neither the United States nor Canada condition. has federal laws nor policies for designating or recogniz- State- and provincial-sanctioned private protected ing private protected areas, as described in the next sec- areas are distinct from—but could readily be confused tion several federal programs offer private landowner with—state- and provincial-licensed private game pre- incentives to manage for biodiversity. serves (often called game farms or hunting preserves)

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al. 75 found across the United States and Canada. Each of not always, of greater concern than among publicly the five states and two provinces of the Northern Great owned reserves. Plains permits game farms, although Montana, where they are officially called “alternative livestock ranches,” Profitability stopped issuing licenses for new ones in 2000. Game farms generally have several features in common: they Unless the owner does not need to make a profit from are established for fee-based hunting, the focus is usu- the land, profit motives can potentially compromise ally upland game birds and/or ungulates, often some of biodiversity conservation goals. IUCN Protected Area the game species are non-native, the principal game are Category V, protected seascapes/landscapes, explicitly usually privately owned, and game are often contained provides for sustainable harvest of natural resources and by high fences (e.g., see Meschishnick et al. 2003; Flor- conservation of agrobiodiversity, and Category VI, pro- ida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2010; tected areas with sustainable use of natural resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2008; Or- provides for similar activities on a more limited scale. egon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008). These ar- Based on IUCN’s description, it appears that a cattle eas are distinct from the state- or provincial-sanctioned ranch that modifies rangeland to enhance productivity private protected areas because their primary purpose could qualify for Category V as long as it met other cri- is hunting, no long-term commitment to conservation teria such as maintaining some level of biodiversity in is required, and issuance of the license is not based on perpetuity. An area mostly dedicated to harvesting native conservation value. hay and seeds for commercial use could also fit within The number of land trusts and their landholdings and Category V and possibly Category VI. Similar issues of conservation easements has grown rapidly in both the intensive, profit-driven management may arise if owners United States and Canada during the last two decades want to increase the numbers and (or) access to huntable (Bernstein and Mitchell 2005; Campbell and Rubec 2006). or watchable wildlife and (or) introduce exotic species Land trusts make a large and growing contribution to bio- (Freese 1998; Butler et al. 2005). As we noted, private diversity conservation on private lands in both countries nature reserves offer a potential means for landowners and may be important for acquiring or receiving donated to diversify and increase income through payments for conservation easements for private protected areas in the ecosystem services and products (Ribaudo et al. 2008; Northern Great Plains. Conservation easements generally Freese et al. 2009). focus on protecting land from development, though this may range from protecting farmland from urban sprawl Financial Sustainability to protecting native habitat from farmland development. Although standards for land trusts have been established, As opposed to public protected areas in North there appear to be no written standards or definitions America that can generally depend on long-term— among land trusts, including the largest, The Nature Con- though not necessarily optimal—funding via govern- servancy, for recognizing private protected areas (Land ment appropriations, private nature reserves generally Trust Alliance 2008; The Nature Conservancy 2008). do not have long-term funding secured unless there is a We believe that the term “private protected area” is sizeable endowment in place. This raises concerns about not the best choice for branding and creating public un- the financial sustainability of private nature reserves derstanding of and support for them in the Northern Great and their ability to meet management goals through Plains. While perhaps a single name is not necessary, we changing financial conditions, landowner priorities, and prefer the term “private nature reserve.” The proposed landownership. standards and guidelines provide a working definition of the term. Transparency

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP FACTORS AFFECTING Public institutions and the public lands they manage PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN are generally open to public review and comment, which GREAT PLAINS can be useful to ensure that policies, plans, and budgets meet the needs of protected areas. For a private busi- Private ownership, whether for profit or nonprofit, ness running a private nature reserve, where finding a raises management issues that are generally, but certainly comparative advantage may be important and financial

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln 76 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010 information is often confidential, this type of public over- BIODIVERSITY AND LAND-USE FACTORS sight is more difficult. AFFECTING PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS Long-term Commitment Several features of grassland ecosystems and their use Public and nonprofit protected areas are gener- in the Northern Great Plains, as well as the Great Plains ally considered more secure for the long term because generally, must be considered in the design and manage- ownership will not likely change hands, or if it does, ment of private nature reserves. protection generally conveys with the property. Also, such institutions have enduring legal obligations and Ecological Processes and Scale missions, although these can change. Individual and corporate ownership is more subject to periodic change Considering the scale of two major ecological as owners die or move on to other interests and invest- processes—fire and grazing—that shape grassland ments, with the consequent risk that the new owner ecosystems (Fuhlendorf et al. 2008), grassland private may no longer care to maintain the land as a private nature reserves will often need to be large to play an nature reserve. Although IUCN guidelines call for important role in maintaining these processes and to managing protected areas in perpetuity, permanent avoid conflict with neighboring landowners. Although easements or similar long-term covenants may pose a fire and grazing can be managed at small scales to level of commitment—threshold of risk—that would benefit biodiversity, prairie fires and wild ungulate deter many landowners in the Northern Great Plains herds can move across thousands, hundreds of thou- from starting down the potentially risky financial path sands, or even millions of hectares, and the mosaic to becoming a private nature reserve. Flexibility is of habitats they create (burned vs. unburned, lightly required to meet the goal of a long-term commitment. vs. heavily grazed) often occurs at large spatial and The experience of the Forest Stewardship Council temporal scales. For example, Colorado’s Ranching (FSC), an international nonprofit body that certifies for Wildlife Program, which focuses on ungulate harvested forests according to social and ecological management, requires a minimum of 12,000 contigu- criteria, may be relevant here. Although FSC Principle ous acres (4,856 ha) for eligibility (Colorado Division 1.6 states, “Forest managers shall demonstrate a long- of Wildlife 2008). However, just a few hectares might term commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and adequately preserve a small prairie pothole. Another Criteria,” no conservation easement or similar long- important consideration is the surrounding landscape. term covenant is required, even for “high conserva- A small area adjacent to or in the middle of an existing tion value forests” (Forest Stewardship Council 1996; protected area may be important for achieving seam- Bruce Cabarle, pers. comm. 2008). less management for biodiversity across an entire large landscape or as a corridor for wildlife migration. Public Land Leases Native Species Restoration and Conservation Many ranches in the Northern Great Plains hold grazing leases on public lands, including state and In addition to native ecological processes, another provincial lands, Crown lands, Bureau of Land Manage- important goal for private nature reserves is to restore ment lands, National Grasslands, and National Wildlife and conserve native species. Some native species of Refuge lands. Because these leased public lands often the Great Plains, in particular black-tailed prairie dogs, comprise thousands or tens of thousands of hectares, large ungulates, and large predators, pose challenges to their incorporation into the goals of the private nature meeting this goal because they may represent conflicts reserve that holds the lease could often greatly expand with neighboring landowners or require large areas to and improve the conservation value and manageability maintain viable populations. Native species restoration of the landscape. Close cooperation with public land goals and strategies should consider the size of the pri- agencies, and at times revising public land policies and vate nature reserve, its proximity to other natural land- regulations, therefore will often be important for realiz- scapes with populations of target species, constraints ing the full potential of private nature reserves that hold posed by neighbors, and state and federal regulations public land leases. affecting species translocation and restoration efforts.

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al. 77 Conservancy; Nature The by operated and owned area protected private 24,000-hectare a is Preserve The Nebraska. Preserve, Valley Niobrara grazing, ) Bison bison Bison ( Bison 7. Plate TNC uses bison, cattle, and fire in its grassland management. Photo by Michael Forsberg. Copyright © Michael Forsberg.

Water domestication of bison by private producers and the challenge this poses for conserving the wild bison genome From the largest rivers and lakes to the smallest and ecological role of bison must also be considered ephemeral streams and potholes, people have extensively (Freese et al. 2007; Sanderson et al. 2007). engineered the aquatic habitats of the Great Plains for industrial and agricultural uses (Rabeni 1996). Intensive STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE livestock use of riparian areas, building of stock ponds, NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT the removal of beaver (Castor canadensis), introduction PLAINS of non-native fish, reallocation of water for irrigation, and contaminants from farmland runoff have altered We propose the following standards and guidelines and/or degraded aquatic habitats. Private nature reserves for private nature reserves to ensure that a landowner’s in the Northern Great Plains face a particular challenge contribution to biodiversity conservation goes above in determining goals and methods for restoring natural and beyond the general norms for good ranch stew- hydrologic processes and native habitats and species. ardship. We designed them to clearly distinguish and recognize (and thus potentially reward) a landowner Fencing who has decided to manage his/her land primarily for biodiversity conservation. However, we have also tried Fences for livestock management are a dominant to make them sufficiently flexible to accommodate the feature of the Great Plains landscape. Improper fencing region’s diverse ecological and social conditions and the can deter the movement of and often represents a mortal- landowner’s motivations. ity factor for wildlife such as sage grouse (Centrocercus The need for flexibility is particularly important if spp.), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), elk, and we hope to convince landowners that creating a private bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Oakley 1973; Danvir nature reserve is achievable with acceptable levels of 2002). Fences also detract from the aesthetic experience financial risk. This means that although the bar is high of being in a natural setting. Bison are the only native for fully meeting the requirements of a private nature Northern Great Plains species for which fencing is a key reserve, the guidelines allow landowners time and flex- management tool, particularly because the large majority ibility in making the transition from, most commonly, of herds in North America are privately owned. Unless commodity production to biodiversity conservation. a private nature reserve is very large (hundreds of thou- This transition often entails major changes in land and sands or perhaps millions of hectares), has natural barriers financial management, marketing, and accordingly, to bison movement, or has a cooperative arrangement skills. Thus, we believe it is important to provide a grace with neighboring lands for bison management, some pe- period with some form of provisional private nature rimeter fencing that permits crossing by other wildlife is reserve recognition during the transition. probably needed to keep bison from moving onto adjacent We provide “standards” as stipulations or measures properties and to prevent livestock from roaming into the that a property must meet to qualify as a private nature private nature reserve. reserve and “guidelines” as suggestions for meeting the standards. Livestock Standard 1. A private nature reserve is owned by an Because grazing by wild ungulates historically exert- individual, group of individuals, corporation, or nongov- ed a dominant force in shaping the grassland ecosystems ernmental organization. and biodiversity of the Great Plains (Knopf 1996), and because domestic ungulates (livestock) now graze most Guidelines: Although this may be self-evident, private of the region with negative effects on some components nature reserve designation is aimed at nongovernmental of biodiversity (Freilich et al. 2003), the place and role of lands under fee-simple ownership. wild versus domestic ungulates merits special attention in the guidelines for private nature reserves. In the absence Standard 2. A private nature reserve must have sound of bison as native grazers, national wildlife refuges and and clearly defined goals for restoring and maintaining conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy of- native biodiversity at the landscape, ecosystem, species, ten use cattle as a grazing management tool. Widespread and genetic levels.

Guidelines: Conservation goals for a private nature and extent to which cultivated land can be restored reserve must be established that are consistent with to native cover, or a highly engineered stream or restoring and maintaining native biodiversity to the watershed restored to natural flows and habitat extent practical and in accordance with recognized conditions, are greatly affected by the difficulty conservation priorities for the area. Specific goals will and expense of such restoration. depend on the location, size, biodiversity, ecological • Native species: All species native to the area but condition, and surrounding-lands context, and will currently absent should be on a checklist for pos- require initial baseline information gathering and sible restoration in the private nature reserve, analysis for the land, the land’s biodiversity, and major while recognizing that restoration of some species factors influencing both. For example, a private nature may be impractical because the private nature re- reserve might focus on addressing specific biodiversity serve is too small or governmental restrictions or targets, such as conservation of an imperiled species other constraints prevent it. Private nature reserves or rare habitat, if those targets are underrepresented should give priority to restoring and maintain- in the landscape context. Goals should be established ing keystone and ecologically dominant species with advice from and in consultation with experts, rel- such as prairie dogs and bison. In the case of a evant federal, state, tribal, and local natural resource threatened or endangered species, if the reserve is agencies, university extension offices, state Natural within a federally designated or otherwise suitable Resources Conservation Service offices, neighbors, recovery area, and if appropriate habitat exists or and other pertinent stakeholders. Occasionally goals could be restored, one goal should be to contribute should be adjusted as new information becomes avail- to the recovery of that species (barring clear barri- able. ers to doing so). Another goal of the private nature reserve should be to maintain the natural genetic Thus, a private nature reserve should be support- diversity of species residing there by not artificially ive of and must articulate its goals in the context of selecting for desired traits (e.g., trophy antlers) regional and national conservation priorities. Depend- through breeding, culling, the incidental effects of ing on size, location, and other factors, private nature selective harvesting (e.g., for trophy animals) on reserves should set the goal of restoring and maintain- the genome (see review by Allendorf et al. 2008), ing the following four, interconnected components of or other means. This is not to say that trophy hunt- biodiversity: ing cannot occur, but one must be cognizant of and manage hunting to avoid such incidental genetic • Ecological processes: Key ecological processes effects. Non-native species of plants and animals such as fire, natural grazing patterns, preda- should not be introduced, and non-native species tion, and natural hydrologic conditions should be should be eliminated or controlled where practi- restored and maintained to the extent possible. cal, legal, and important for conserving native Exceptions may include development of artificial biodiversity. water where wildlife has no access to it because of • Evolutionary processes: Evolutionary processes artificial barriers to movement, even if this creates are maintained by allowing native species and their some impact to natural hydrologic conditions. In genetic diversity to undergo natural selection as this example, a manager of a private nature reserve they interact with ecological processes and native would strive to look for a solution that ameliorated habitats. This criterion requires that hunted popu- the impact by, say, developing groundwater in pref- lations, including bison, be managed to allow for a erence to impounding surface water. Permitting natural population structure of age and sex classes the natural movement and migration of wildlife so that, for example, males compete for reproduc- across, into, and out of the reserve is important tive success. for ecological processes as well as for conserving migratory species and the phenomenon of migra- Some private nature reserves may establish goals tion itself. Thus fencing should be minimized and to protect an area in as natural a state as possible with wildlife-friendly. little or no management intervention. Other private na- • Native habitats: All native habitats should be re- ture reserves, addressing degraded or small areas, may stored and maintained, recognizing that the speed need to manage intensively to restore and maintain a

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln 80 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010 semblance of the native ecosystem. Others may focus to reach biodiversity conservation goals, and we see on the recovery of a threatened or endangered species, the creation of private nature reserves as potentially which may require intensive management interventions diversifying landowner revenues, making a landowner such as habitat manipulation or the control of a predator operation more financially viable. Some areas may that preys on the target species. Some may manage for have historical, archeological, paleontological, or other bird watchers and hikers, others may focus on wildlife scientific significance or important cultural values that for hunting, and still others may have as a minor goal should be preserved and incorporated into the reserve’s the sustainable harvest of native plant products (seeds, goals. However, significant curtailment of biodiversity hay, medicinal plants). Different management goals may conservation goals or management should not occur in require distinct and somewhat different management an effort to meet other goals. “Significant” is open to a regimes for the land and how people use it. Lands that wide range of interpretation, but we suggest that private have been highly degraded ecologically can also qualify nature reserves avoid (1) impairing native ecological as private nature reserves so long as the long-term goal processes; (2) eliminating or greatly reducing native is to restore native biodiversity and management is mak- habitats and species in numbers or extent; and (3) reducing progress toward that goal. ing or manipulating genetic diversity. There is no definitive minimum size for a private In general, the combination of this standard and nature reserve in the Northern Great Plains. As noted Standard 2 includes IUCN protected areas Categories I earlier, protection of a small prairie pothole or a vital but through IV and VI, but will exclude Category V, which small habitat corridor could meet our proposed standards often includes landscapes with towns, agriculture, and and guidelines. The appropriate size should be judged on natural features that are valued for their traditional a case-by-case basis, depending on the reserve’s conser- land-use practices and other long-standing cultural fea- vation purpose and landscape context. tures as well as for their natural attributes. Further work is needed to better understand how this standard applies to commercial production of plants and Standard 4. Landowners must demonstrate their inten- animals, both native and non-native, simultaneously tion that the land be managed as a private nature reserve occurring within the private nature reserve. In general, by them and any subsequest owner over the long term, we believe there is room for commercial production preferably in perpetuity. of native plants (e.g., native hay and plant seeds) and animals (e.g., bison) as long as biodiversity management Guidelines: Although a conservation easement or has primacy in management decisions (see Standard 3). similar covenant on the land often represents the best way Non-native plants should be grown only for demonstra- of demonstrating long-term commitment, sound legal, tion, research, or educational purposes and on a very financial, or management reasons may exist for delaying small percentage of the reserve’s area. If restoring na- or never placing an easement that would fully meet these tive grazers is not possible, domestic livestock may be standards and guidelines on the property. Moreover, a used as a grazing management tool; any commercial legally binding long-term commitment may be overly production of livestock must be a subsidiary goal. How- onerous in the early stages of reserve development and, if ever, unless there are compelling reasons, a goal of the mandatory from the outset, may deter landowners from reserve should be to eventually restore native herbivores attempting to develop a private nature reserve. More in preference to introduced non-native livestock. work is needed to determine the best ways to address this standard. Standard 3. When conflicts arise between biodiversity Any conservation easement or other legal covenant conservation goals and other goals of the reserve, bio- should require maintaining the land in native vegetation diversity conservation has primacy in land management and managing the land to restore and maintain biodiver- decisions. sity. Easements, however, will not typically require that all components of biodiversity be restored and managed. Guidelines: Other goals, including financial profit- For example, many easements acquired by government ability, will often be important and in fact crucial for and nonprofit agencies allow grazing by domestic live- the success of many private nature reserves and thus will stock. Thus, an easement or other contractual guarantee influence planning and management. Ideally, private for protecting the land is generally not sufficient by itself nature reserves will not need to sacrifice profitability for meeting private nature reserve conditions.

TABLE 1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

Elements of Evaluation Assessment of: Context: Where are we now? Importance, legal status, threats, and stakeholders Planning: Where do we want to be? Reserve goals, design and planning Inputs: What do we need? Resources needed to carry out management Processes: How do we go about it? The way in which management is conducted Outputs: What were the results? Changes in infrastructure, management, policies, etc. Achievements: How well are we meeting our Biodiversity conservation results as measured against short, mid- and long-term conservation goals? goals. Sources: Hockings et al. 2006; World Wildlife Fund and World Bank 2007)

Standard 5. Universal ethical standards must be ob- able to answer the following questions: How much prog- served, including the basic principles of respect for hu- ress has been made toward: man rights and fairness and the humane treatment of wildlife. • Restoring or maintaining the population of a threatened or endangered species? Guidelines: Workers, neighbors, and visitors deserve • Restoring the natural flow of a stream? fair treatment without discrimination based on race, col- • Eliminating or controlling an invasive non-native or, or creed. Wildlife management and use should follow plant? humane standards provided by federal, state, provincial, and tribal laws and regulations. Few, if any, private nature reserves will begin with an intact ecosystem that already meets long-term bio- Standard 6. A sound planning process must lead to a diversity conservation goals. For most, decades of man- management plan that establishes clear objectives and agement and testing new approaches, with successes strategies for meeting the biodiversity goals of the re- and progress interrupted by occasional setbacks, will be serve, and the plan must be effectively implemented. required before they can meet some of the more ambitious Guidelines: Creating an effective nature reserve conservation goals. Measureable progress is fundamental requires, in addition to owning the land and signing an to the standards. agreement dedicating it to conservation, that the land be well managed. The World Wildlife Fund, the World Bank, DISCUSSION and IUCN proposed major criteria for assessing management effectiveness (Table 1). Confidence in a reserve being Private nature reserves can play a central role in re- able to meet its conservation goals requires attaining some storing and conserving biodiversity, both globally and minimum level of performance for each of these criteria. within the Northern Great Plains. Many regions of the world have experienced a surge in private nature reserves Standard 7. There should be progress toward meeting in recent decades, often with supportive governmental biodiversity conservation goals and maintaining past policies. However, the United States and Canada have achievements. made little progress, in either the creation of private nature reserves or developing supportive state, tribal, Guidelines: This is the bottom line for gauging a re- provincial, and federal policies, particularly within the serve’s conservation success. This standard requires that Northern Great Plains. private nature reserves employ metrics and a monitoring Landowners in the Northern Great Plains show increas- system to assess how well biodiversity conservation goals ing interest in managing lands for biodiversity values as a are being met. For example, reserve managers should be means to diversify their economic base and for cultural

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln 82 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010 and aesthetic reasons (Freese et al. 2009). Private nature http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/r-26.2/20030530/ reserves could offer a new form of land management and whole.html (accessed October 2008). business development for some landowners, but standards Carter, E., W.M. Adams, and J. Hutton. 2008. Review: and guidelines appropriate for landowners’ circumstances Private protected areas: management regimes, ten- and the ecological conditions of the Northern Great Plains ure arrangements and protected area categorization are lacking. We propose such standards and guidelines as a in East Africa. Oryx 42:177-86. way to stimulate more discussion and analysis about ways Casey, F., S. Vickerman, C. Hummon, and B. Taylor. to foster private nature reserves as a biodiversity conserva- 2006. Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: An tion tool for the Northern Great Plains. Ecological and Economic Assessment. Defenders of Private nature reserve standards and guidelines, Wildlife, Washington, DC. whether at the national level or regionally in the North- Chacon, C.M. 2005. Fostering conservation of key prior- ern Great Plains, could eventually be incorporated into a ity sites and rural development in Central America: system for recognizing and certifying private nature re- The role of private protected areas. Parks 15:39-47. serves. The question of how a certification system might Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Ranching for be structured and governed is complex and deserves Wildlife, http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Pri- thorough review. The Forest Stewardship Council (1996) vateLandProgram/RanchingForWildlife/ (accessed and organic standards in the United States and Canada October 2008). offer examples of approaches to certification by nonprofit Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. Australian Guide and government agencies, respectively. Whatever form it lines for Establishing the National Reserve System. takes, a certification system must provide market-based Environment Australia, Canberra. and/or psychological incentives for landowner investment Cook, B.J., R.C. Ehrhart, P.L. Hansen, T. Parker, and B. in and compliance with standards and guidelines that Thompson. 1996. Riparian and Wetland Ecologi ensure that private nature reserves meet biodiversity con- cal Health, Evaluation of Selected Streams on the servation goals. With 76% of the Northern Great Plains in Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Ripar- private ownership, this and other new methods for foster- ian and Wetland Research Program, Montana Forest ing private-sector investment in prairie conservation are and Conservation Experiment Station, School of much needed. Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula. Danvir, R.E. 2002. Sage Grouse Ecology and Manage REFERENCES ment in Northern Utah Sagebrush-Steppe, a Deseret Land and Livestock Wildlife Research Report, Allendorf, F.W., P.R. England, G. Luikart, P.A. Ritchie, Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and the Founda- and N. Ryman. 2008. Genetic effects of harvest on tion for Quality Resource Management, Woodruff, wild animal populations. Trends in Ecology and UT. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WY/Sage%20 Evolution 23:327-37. Grouse/Ecology%20of%20Northern%20Utah%20 Altridge, J. 2000. Canadian biodiversity and law. In Biodiver sage%20grouse.pdf (accessed October 2009). sity in Canada: Ecology, Ideas, and Action, ed. S. Bock- Dudley, N., ed. 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected ing, 297-326. Broadview Press, Peterborough, ON. Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Bernstein, J., and B.A. Mitchell. 2005. Land trusts, pri- Switzerland. vate reserves and conservation easements in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. United States. Parks 15:48-60. 2010. http://www.myfwe.com/License/Index.htm Butler, M.J., A.P. Teascher, W.B. Ballard, and B.K. (accessed January 2010). McGee. 2005. Commentary: Wildlife ranching in Forrest, S.C. 2002. Creating new opportunities for eco- North America—arguments, issues, and perspec- system restoration on public lands: An analysis tives. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:381-89. of the potential for BLM lands. Public Land and Campbell, L., and C.D.A. Rubec. 2006. Land Trusts in Resources Law Review 23:21-75. Conservation: Building Momentum for the Future. Forrest, S.C., H. Strand, W.H. Haskins, C. Freese, J. Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ottawa. Proctor, and E. Dinerstein. 2004. Ocean of Grass: Canadian Legal Information Institute. 2008. An Act A Conservation Assessment for the Northern Great Respecting Nature Reserves on Private Land, Plains. Northern Plains Conservation Network and

Northern Great Plains Ecoregion, World Wildlife Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In Prairie Fund–US, Bozeman, MT. Conservation, ed. F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf, Freese, C.H. 1998. Wild Species as Commodities: Man 135-48. Island Press, Washington, DC. aging Markets and Ecosystems for Sustainability. Langholz, J.A., and W. Krug. 2004. New forms of biodi- Island Press, Washington, DC. versity governance: Non-state actors and the private Freese, C.H., K.E. Aune, D.P. Boyd, J.N. Derr, S.C. For- protected area action plan. Journal of International rest, C. Cormack Gates, P.J. Gogan, S.M. Grassel, Wildlife Law and Policy 7:9-29. N.D. Halbert, K. Kunkel, and K.H. Redford. 2007. Land Trust Alliance. 2008. Do You Remember? http:// Second chance for the plains bison. Biological Con www.landtrustalliance.org/conserve (accessed No- servation 136:175-84. vember 2008). Freese, C., D. Montanye, and K. Dabrowska. 2009. New Di Meschishnick, G.A., K. Riger, and A. Hehiel. 2003. Game rections for the Prairie Economy: Connecting Conser Farm Regulation: Saskatchewan, Alberta, Mani vation and Rural Development in the Northern Great toba, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. Centre for Plains. World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, MT. Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, Freilich, J.E., J.M. Emlen, J.J. Duda, D.C. Freeman, and University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. P.J. Cafaro. 2003. Ecological effects of ranching: A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2008. six-point critique. BioScience 53:759-65. Permits, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/permits/index. Forest Stewardship Council. 1996. FSC International html (accessed October 2008). Standard: FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Mitchell, B. 2005. Editorial. Parks 15:1-5. Stewardship, FSC-STD01-001 (Version 4-0) EN, Nature Conservancy, The. 2008. Where We Work: North Bonn, Germany. http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/ America (and the state chapter descriptions therein), web-data/public/document_center/international_ http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northameri- FSC_policies/standards/FSC_STD_01_001_V4_0_ ca/ (accessed November 2008). EN_FSC_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf (accessed North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2009. October 2008). North Dakota’s Natural Heritage, http://www. Fuhlendorf, S.D., D.M. Engle, J. Kerby, and R. Hamil- parkrec.nd.gov/nature/heritage/index.html (ac- ton. 2008. Pyric herbivory: Rewilding landscapes cessed October 12, 2009). through recoupling of fire and grazing. Conserva Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hi- tion Biology 23:588-98. erarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-64. Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley, Nova Scotia Canada. 2008. Environment, http://www. and J. Courrau. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A gov.ns.ca/nse/protectedareas/naturereserves.asp Framework for Assessing Management Effective (accessed October 2008). ness of Protected Areas, 2nd ed. IUCN, Gland, Oakley, C. 1973. The effects of livestock fencing on ante- Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. lope. Wyoming Wildlife 37:26-29. Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Hunting Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: Global in Oregon, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ (accessed disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology October 2008). Letters 8:23-29. Rabeni, C.F. 1996. Prairie legacies: Fish and aquatic Hodur, N.M., D.A. Bangsund, and F.L. Leistritz. 2004. resources. In Prairie Conservation: Preserving Characteristics of Nature-based Tourism Enter North America’s Most Endangered Ecosystem, ed. prises in North Dakota—Summary. Agribusiness F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf, 111-24. Island Press, and Applied Economics Report No. 537-S. Agri- Washington, DC. cultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State Ribaudo, M., L. Hansen, D. Hellerstein, and C. Greene. University, Fargo, ND. 2008. The use of markets to create private invest- Johnson, K.M., and R.W. Rathge. 2006. Agricultural ment in environmental stewardship. Economic Re- dependence and changing population in the Great search Report No. (ERR-64), September 2008, U.S. Plains. In Population Change and Rural Society, ed. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. W.A. Kandel and D.L. Brown, 197-217. Springer, Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, and C.J. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Loucks. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North

America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Thom, R., A. Linsenbardt, K. Kramer, and R. Schuller. Washington, DC. 2005. Status of state natural area programs. Natural Sanderson, E.W., K.H. Redford, B. Weber, K. Aune, D. Areas Association, http://www.naturalarea.org/SS- Baldes, J. Berger, D. Carter, C. Curtin, J. Derr, S. NAP05.aspx?p=home.asp (accessed October 2009). Dobrott, E. Fearn, C. Fleener, S. Forrest, C. Ger- U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural lach, C.C. Gates, J. Gross, P. Gogan, S. Grassel, J.A. Statistics Service. 2002. Census of Agriculture, Hilty, M. Jensen, K. Kunkel, D. Lammers, R. List, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Create_Census_ K. Minkowski, T. Olson, C. Pague, P.B. Robertson, US_CNTY.jsp (accessed September 2009). and B. Stephenson. 2007. The ecological future of Winston, M.R., Taylor, C.M., and J. Pigg, 1991. Upstream the North American Bison: Conceiving long-term, extirpation of four minnow species due to damming large-scale conservation of wildlife. Conservation of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American Biology 22:252-66. Fisheries Society 120:98-105. Scott, M.J., F.W. Davis, R.G. McGhie, R.G. Wright, C. World Wildlife Fund and the World Bank. 2007. Manage Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they ment Effectiveness Tracking Tool: Reporting Prog capture the full range of America’s biological diver- ress at Protected Area Sites, 2nd ed. World Wildlife sity? Ecological Applications 11:999-1007. Fund, Gland, Switzerland.