Forumjournal Fall 2010 | Vol

ForumJournal fall 2010 | Vol. 25 No. 1

Bridging Land Conservation and Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.PreservationNation.org) is a non-profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history—and the important moments of everyday life—took place, the National Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, eight regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of America’s stories. Contents fall 2010 | Vol. 25 No. 1

Introduction Stephanie Meeks ...... 5

Collaborating to Save Whole Places Wendy Nicholas ...... 7

Lessons from Land Conservation Valerie Talmage ...... 11

Our Moment to Build a Cultural Conservation Legacy Mary Pope M . Hutson...... 18

Combining Preservation and Conservation Values: Six Illustrative Examples Thompson M . Mayes and Ross M . Bradford ...... 24

Land Conservation and Historic Preservation: A Natural Partnership in the Southwest Andy Laurenzi ...... 27

“Whole Place Preservation”: The Ashley River Region and the Watson Hill Campaign Emily c . Pack ...... 33

Make No Little Plans: Community Planning for Whole Places Roberta Lane ...... 42

ForumJournal

National Trust Forum

VALECIA CRISAFULLI Acting Vice President, Programs Elizabeth Byrd Wood Editor Kerri Rubman Assistant Editor wendy nicholas Guest Editor roberta lane Guest Editor nicole vann Associate Director, Forum

National Trust For Historic Preservation

stephanie K. meeks President David J. Brown Executive Vice President and Chief Preservation Officer Tabitha Almquist Chief of Staff Greg Coble Chief Financial Officer David Cooper Chief Development Officer Paul Edmondson Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel terry richey Chief Marketing Officer

Forum Journal, a Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, (ISSN 1536-1012) (USPS Publication Number 001-715) is published quarterly by the Center for Preservation Leadership at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 as a benefit of National Trust Forum membership. Forum members also receive 12 issues of Forum News, and six issues of Preservation magazine. Annual dues are $115. Periodicals paid at Washington, D.C. Postmaster: Send address changes to National Trust Forum, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Copyright ©2010 National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Printed in the United States. Of the total amount of base dues, $6.00 is for a subscription for Preservation magazine for one year. Support for the National Trust is provided by membership dues; endowment funds; individual, corporate, and foundation contributions; and grants from state and federal agencies. National Trust Forum Journal is a forum in which to express opinions, encourage debate, and convey information of importance and of general interest to Forum members of the National Trust. Inclusion of material or product references does not constitute an endorsement by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is concerned about the responsible stewardship of the environment and has published this journal on Chorus Art Silk paper which is 50% recycled with 25% post consumer fiber. It is manufactured with non-polluting, wind generated energy and is FSC certified and supported by the Rainforest Alliance.

Introduction

stephanie k . meeks

n this issue of Forum Journal, we by sprawl, we joined others in an intense explore the intersection between pres- national campaign and blocked the massive ervation and conservation, and how new development. the two movements can work together In the case of Drayton Hall, our work Ito protect “whole places” nationwide. lined up very directly with the work of the As preservation leaders, many of you land conservation community. Often this have come face to face with the reality is the case, but even when it is not, there is that preserving a place often means saving almost always a natural synergy between the not only a building but also the natural work of preservationists and conservationists. environment surrounding it. I have seen this first hand in my own As you will read in this issue, we grap- life, having spent 18 years at The Nature pled with this recently at the National Conservancy before coming to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in a very Trust. I am often struck by the commonali- dramatic way in South Carolina there is almost always a natural synergy between when a com- the work of preservationists and conservationists. pany proposed a 6,600-acre mega-development (consist- ties between the two movements. Both are ing of new housing, a hotel, and a golf built on a keen appreciation for the fragility complex) on the Ashley River Road near of our heritage, be it natural or man-made, Drayton Hall, a National Trust Historic and a strong desire to preserve the unique Site. Drayton Hall is part of a historic and irreplaceable. Both movements are com- area that also includes the Ashley River mitted to sustainable solutions and focused Road (a National Scenic Highway), the on helping communities take action to Ashley River (a state scenic river), and preserve what matters to them. National Register sites Middleton Place And fortunately, both are full of people and Magnolia Plantation and Gardens. who recognize the power of a mutually To prevent the historic and natural con- beneficial partnership. Through the years, text of Drayton Hall and these other sig- the National Trust has collaborated with the nificant places from being overwhelmed conservation community to lobby for favor- able federal policy, address threats to tax

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, stewards of incentives for conservation and preservation Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in Virginia, found easements, advocate for public land protec- it essential to purchase the mountain behind it tions, and save special places across the to adequately preserve and present Jefferson’s home as he experienced it. See page 35. country. Most recently, we provided input Photo courtesy of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to the federal agencies behind the America’s

ForumJournal fall 2010 5 In a long but successful campaign to prevent inappropriate development near Drayton Hall, a National Trust Historic Site in South Carolina, the National Trust joined a coalition that a included a regional conservation organization. The battle highlighted the natural synergy that often exists between preservation and conservation interests.

photo Courtesy of Carol Highsmith

Great Outdoors Initiative, which aims which offers a host of success stories from to find new ways to connect people with around the country, as well as practical the natural and cultural heritage in our tips on Whole Place preservation. parks and outdoor spaces. I hope you’ll take a minute to visit the Our challenge going forward is to website, and then consider inviting your expand these partnerships and uncover local land conservation colleagues out for new ways of working with the conserva- lunch—or even better, for a visit to your tion community on projects in which favorite historic site. Investing in the rela- our objectives align. As leaders of the tionship now could pay dividends down preservation movement, you are in a the line. Chances are you will find an unique position to head up this effort. To able partner, and maybe even a kindred help, we have created a new Preservation- spirit as well. FJ Nation.org landing page (www.preserva- Stephanie k. Meeks is the president of the tionnation.org/issues/land-conservation) National Trust for Historic Preservation.

6 fall 2010 ForumJournal Collaborating to Save Whole Places wendy nicholas

ou might wonder what the Islands. To my eyes, it has always been one of National Trust for Historic the most breathtaking cultural landscapes in Preservation is doing publishing all of America. a Forum Journal issue on land Over the generations, the family had Yconservation topics. We care about historic amassed about 800 acres of land. Most of that places and the important sense of place land is now preserved through conservation and special character that they impart to easements, agricultural preservation restric- communities. We certainly care about—and tions, or as an Audubon Society sanctuary. fight for—historic buildings. But historic The house, however, was not protected. buildings stand in a larger context, and Yet it was one of the earliest houses in the preservation goals are well served if we area, the setting for the lives, stories, and focus on protecting the settings and larger events of generations, including visits by John cultural landscapes as well as the structures. Jay Audubon and General George Patton. I Let me share the story of what kick- imagine that it never occurred to the family as started our efforts in recent years to reach it protected the land that anyone might demol- out to land conservation leaders and to ish the house. But that is what happened. work to build bridges between them and The newcomers who bought the prop- historic preservationists. A few years ago, erty in 2004 snubbed local pleas to retain the National Trust’s Northeast Office was the house, waited out a six-month demoli- involved in a campaign to save a 1740s tion delay, and then proceeded to wipe it off farmhouse on Massachusetts’ South Coast. the landscape. The community has lost one It had been built, expanded, and historic buildings stand in a larger context, lived in for 250 and preservation goals are well served if we focus on years by succes- protecting the settings and larger cultural landscapes sive generations of as well as the structures. one of the region’s founding families. The house was the focal of its great treasures, and that landscape, point of an exquisitely beautiful landscape, now without its focal point, is no longer all which included barns and some small that it was. To add insult to injury, the same outbuildings, the intact family cemetery, scenario played out less than a mile away a and stone walls framing the fields. Lovely year later. meadows rolled down to the marshes, tidal I imagine you too have witnessed similar salt pond, sand dunes, and beach with tragedies, where the history-laden, beloved stunning views across Buzzards Bay toward structure—typically the focal point in a Martha’s Vineyard and the Elizabeth landscape—is destroyed despite the open

ForumJournal fall 2010 7 space around it being protected. Or, and have organized educational sessions where a historic building is protected and on key topics at conferences. restored but the land surrounding it is The National Trust collaborated with sold off for development. the Land Trust Alliance in its publication of The Conservation Easement Hand- COMMON GOALS AND VALUES book (1988, Revised 2005), and wrote Unfortunately, unlike in England where the chapter on easements for historic land and building preservation activities buildings and culturally significant prop- are united in one conservation move- erties for the 2005 revision. ment, we are bifurcated here in the U.S. The National Trust was also closely Those concerned with buildings and involved with the development of the Land landscapes work independently of each Trust Standards and Practices, including other, and consequently our two move- the revisions of those standards in 2004. ments are missing opportunities to truly Building upon the Standards and Prac- preserve whole communities, to achieve tices, the National Trust, in consultation comprehensive conservation. with the Land Trust Alliance, developed Yet historic preservation and land the Preservation booklet Best Practices conservation share many common goals for Preservation Organizations Involved and common values. The National Trust in Easement and Land Stewardship. This urges: “Saving Places that Matter.” The publication translates the Land Trust Stan- Land Trust Alliance tagline reads, “Con- dards and Practices into a benchmark for serving Places You Love.” We work in historic preservation organizations. different ways with different tools, but we have much to learn from and contribute ADDING TO OUR TOOL BELTS to one another’s success. It is time for each We’ve discovered real differences in the of us—whether historic preservationist or way historic preservationists and land con- land conservationist—to venture out of servationists work to protect properties. our respective arenas and work together In preservationists’ tool belts are fed- to save whole places. eral, state, and local regulatory protections that are useful to We’ve discovered real differences in the way conservationists’ historic preservationists and land conservationists goals. Land trusts work to protect properties. typically are not aware of these Over the last several years, the powerful tools, but need to be. As an National Trust has worked with the example of their value, River Fields, Inc., Land Trust Alliance and others to a land trust in Louisville, Ky., discov- engage our respective members in learn- ered that the National Register listing of ing about the tools and approaches properties it protects along the Ohio River each has to offer. We’ve held “listening provided a significant advantage in its sub- sessions” to discuss opportunities and sequent fight to prevent a utility company challenges for working together for from siting new electricity transmission whole place preservation. We have col- lines through the corridor. River Fields lected stories, case studies, and models, could tap federal Sections 106 and 4(f)

8 fall 2010 ForumJournal A historic house in Dartmouth, Mass., surrounded by protected lands was demolished when the property changed hands, diminishing a cultural landscape that helped define the area.

Photo by Clark Shoettle regulations to bolster its campaign to keep to protect the historic buildings on the the landscape intact. Sections 106 and 4(f) property—and they certainly can. More are stronger protections than easements often than not, however, they do not. under Kentucky law, and River Fields now Thus, as in my story from Massachusetts’ regularly pursues National Register listing South Coast, the land is protected but the for the properties it acquires. buildings and other important man-made Preservationists can guide land trusts aspects of the landscape are not. in using national, state, and local historic To similarly protect the man-made designations to achieve their goals of sav- features of a property, land trusts need ing places people love. Preservationists can to partner with a qualified entity to hold help land trusts plug into the power of his- a preservation easement. But the truth tory to attract and motivate more people to is that if and when land trusts do look help land trusts succeed with their projects. around for a preservation organization Preservationists can also help land with which to collaborate on a compre- trusts figure out what to do with the build- hensive easement, they are oftentimes at ings on the land they acquire. Land trusts a total loss to find one. So their conserva- tend not to have experience in building tion transactions omit consideration of the management, nor do they typically have buildings and so miss the opportunity to the stomachs for it. They benefit from protect them also. As preservation organi- preservationists’ help in identifying re-use zations, we need to expand our use of the strategies and funding sources; from their easement tool by committing to estab- connections to preservation-minded buy- lishing strong easement programs in as ers; and from their ability and willing- much of the country as possible. Although ness to take preservation restrictions or organizations should be conscious of the easements on the buildings, while the land responsibility of holding easements. trust handles the conservation easements. We’ve learned also that land trusts Land trusts, on the other hand, regu- use surveys to set their conservation pri- larly employ tools that could be put to orities far more commonly and actively much better use by preservationists. than preservationists do. Conservation The easement, or conservation restric- interests collaborating with preservation, is the land trust’s most often-used tionists will often ask, “Where’s your protection tool. Conservation easement survey?” “What are your priorities for documents sometimes include provisions protection?” It’s hard to prioritize if you

ForumJournal fall 2010 9 describes how the American conservation and preservation movements developed along different paths. But, she says, in the face of current threats, this is “Our Moment to Build a Cultural Conserva- tion Legacy” by bringing both movements together as a cohesive force. River Fields, Inc., a land trust in Louisville, Ky. Together, we’ve learned that archeol- discovered that the National Register listing ogy offers preservation tools—such as the of properties it protects along the Ohio River provided a significant advantage in its subsequent federal laws requiring archeological inves- fight to prevent a utility company from siting new tigation prior to federally funded projects electricity transmission lines through the corridor. proceeding—that land conservationists Photo courtesy of river fields, inc. are finding especially valuable. Andy don’t know what you’ve got. It’s hard to Laurenzi, resource protection specialist tell decision-makers and activists what’s for the Center for Desert Archaeology, most important to protect without a discusses how his organization teams up good inventory and assessment. The with conservationists in his article “Land preservation movement needs to redouble Conservation and Historic Preservation: A efforts to complete (and bring into the Natural Partnership in the Southwest.” 21st century) state and community sur- Along the way, we’ve uncovered truly veys—and then use them to set priorities inspiring stories of conservationists, preser- for permanent protection. vationists, and historic site stewards working together to protect comprehensively ADVANCING COLLABORATION some pretty special places. One notable In short, we’ve concluded that historic success story is described by Drayton Hall’s preservationists and land conservationists Ashley River Region coordinator Emily C. each have knowledge and tools that can Pack in “‘Whole Place Preservation’: The really benefit the other. We simply need to Ashley River Region and the Watson Hill spend time getting to know one another Campaign.” Read about others in “Com- and looking out for opportunities to col- bining Preservation and Conservation Val- laborate. The goal of this issue of Forum ues: Six Illustrative Examples” by Thomp- Journal is to help preservation and conser- son M. Mayes and Ross M. Bradford. vation practitioners make the connection Finally, Roberta Lane, senior program and to inspire much more collaboration. officer and regional attorney with the Preserve Rhode Island’s executive National Trust for Historic Preservation, director Valerie Talmage shares “Lessons writes about ways that land trusts and from Land Conservation,” having spent preservation groups are participating in the 15 years leading land conservation work community planning process to achieve in New England. She suggests “Ten Ways their goals. for Preservationists to Be More Effective,” We hope that this journal issue will help including by adopting some of the conser- to spread these ideas and continue all these vationists’ strategies. positive developments. FJ Mary Pope Hutson, executive vice Wendy Nicholas is the director of the National president of the Land Trust Alliance, Trust for Historic Preservation’s Northeast Office.

10 fall 2010 ForumJournal Lessons for Land Conservation

valerie talmage

eople who are engaged in tected. Similarly, a preservation project historic preservation and land will end with no thought to the perma- conservation share similar nent protection of the land. Sometimes goals. Both preservationists preservationists and conservationists may Pand conservationists sign on to “pro- even independently work to protect the tect community character,” “improve same piece of real estate without know- quality of life,” “preserve heritage,” ing the others’ interests and actions. and “keep important places for future The information silos are reinforced generations.” The natural and cultural by years of training in specialized fields resources that preservationists and con- with little overlap—say, architectural servationists care about often occupy the history and rare plant biology. The biol- same ground—yet preservationists Preservationists and conservationists have and conserva- each developed specialized expertise—and that tionists tend to specialization results in a tendency to operate inside work in parallel. their separate information silos. Although there are inspiring examples of preservationists ogist is as unlikely to be able to “see” and conservationists working together a building as old or significant as is the to save special places, these instances architectural historian able to “see” a seem to be the exceptions and not the weed as a species of concern. Only a rule. Improving the likelihood that rare individual can, with equal expertise, preservationists and conservationists identify an endangered species, recog- will unite for comprehensive community nize the character-defining features of a preservation will give both groups a historic house, and identify a stone as a better chance of achieving their overlap- Native American tool. Also rare is the ping goals. individual who understands the difference between a National Register and a SEPARATE SILOS local historic district and who can also Preservationists and conservationists explain the tax advantages and require- have each developed specialized exper- ments of a bargain sale of a conservation tise—and that specialization results in a easement. Developing mastery of either tendency to operate inside their separate preservation or conservation requires information silos. Frequently a successful significant investment in learning subject conservation project will conclude but matter, processes, and programs along leave historic features on the land unpro- with developing networks to support

ForumJournal fall 2010 11 In traditional farms, like this one in Westport, Mass., the history and significance of the buildings and land are inextricably linked.

Photo courtesy Preserve Rhode Island

success. Commanding expertise in both differences in approach have a profound fields is not common. effect on shaping the programs and Ironically, the world doesn’t sort activities of each specialty: natural and cultural resources into neat categories. At least in New England, find- 1 . Relationships with Owners: The ing a parcel of land that does not contain conservation community knows that traces of human use and settlement is its success lies in reaching voluntary rare indeed. If we are to protect the char- agreements with owners—negotiating acter of the communities where we work, with owners to sell or donate conser- live, and play, a combined approach vation land or easements. Therefore, to preserving both natural and historic conservationists build relationships with resources is mandatory. owners and hone skills in negotiation. Land conservation groups consciously DIFFERENT DRUMMERS distance themselves from regulatory Preservationists and conservationists oversight and advocacy, keeping avenues both work to save places that matter to to talk with landowners open and uncol- communities, but they use different tools ored by advocacy positions. In contrast, and strategies. They even evaluate suc- preservationists are accustomed to advo- cess in different ways. Four fundamental cating for and relying on governmental

continues on page 16

12 fall 2010 ForumJournal Ten Ways for Preservationists to Be More Effective

When preservationists and conservationists work within their separate arenas, the historic landscape is not fully protected. Too many instances of demolition of significant historic properties in otherwise protected landscapes testify to the dire results of this approach. Working harder within an information silo will not solve the problem—preservationists would be doomed to looking out from inside their box, wondering why those other people weren’t doing a better job of protecting all the heritage assets at stake. Working smarter and understanding what it takes to get out of our preservation box has great potential for achieving success in saving the whole places that we care about. Here are ten ways to climb out of our box and into greater alignment and engagement with conservation interests.

1 . Build Capacity: Build the capacity of statewide and local preservation organizations to participate in conservation real estate transactions, to hold easements, to negotiate with property owners, and to collaborate with land trusts. Preservation organizations need both more boots on the ground and the wherewithal to take on a broader range of programs and activities.

2 . Risk Capital: Establish more (and more robust) preservation revolving funds. Revolving funds are pools of capital that are used to temporarily acquire historic properties that can then be turned over to more permanent stewards. If preservation revolving funds were available to work alongside those of conservation groups, sharing the risk, then preservationists would have “skin in the game.” Such participation not only assures a seat at a table, but has the wonderful effect of focusing attention and action to the opportunity and task. When money is at stake, a new level of seriousness enters the preservationist’s evaluation of risk and reward.

3 . Adjust Our Attitude: Learn how not to be the “preservation police.” Adding value to a project is different from regulating actions. Working with

Coggeshall Farm, Bristol, R.I.

Photo by George Pare

ForumJournal fall 2010 13 property owners for mutual gains would engage the many proud owners of historic properties in the preservation movement in a new and more satisfying relationship—inviting owners to be a part of the solution. If preservationists were known for being creative, entrepreneurial, flexible, and friendly, imagine how outcomes might differ. Developing a new paradigm with owners of historic property could have a profound impact on preservation success.

4 . Broaden Outreach: Seek out partnerships and collaborations with land conservation groups. Move beyond the preservation silo and expand methods and outcomes. Preservationists can infiltrate land trusts and call for help on threatened properties in cases where there is synergy.

5 . Be Strategic: Adopt a strategic approach by articulating what is most important to protect and then determining the means best suited to accomplish the goals. Many land trusts develop a priority list of properties to work on, cho- sen to accomplish their strategic goals. Preservationists are reluctant to commit in such a strategic way. The exercise of preservation organizations answering the question “What are the top properties to preserve in our geographic area?” might spark interesting conversations about what difference the organization is trying to make in its community. When the top priorities are articulated, then action plans can be envisioned, including assessing how owners of historic properties might be brought into the effort.

6 . Reform Tax Policy: Work to make relatively small but significant changes to existing federal tax policy and improve the functionality of incentives to permanently protect historic properties. For instance, change the requirement that a historic property be a “certified historic structure” to that it be “determined eligible for the Block Island, Rhode Island. National Register.” This substitution Photo courtesy Preserve Rhode Island would continue the intended indepen- dent guarantee of historic significance (to make certain the tax subsidy is in the public interest), but with a whole lot less bureaucracy. Another welcome change would be to address the difficulties of appraising preservation easements and the IRS’s challenges to deductions for easement donations. Perhaps give the owner/ taxpayer the choice of a modest fixed deduction instead of the complicated and sometimes unfathomable property-specific appraisal. A modest fixed deduction could alleviate owners’ concerns of triggering an IRS audit. Finally, many states

14 Fall 2010 ForumJournal have created tax incentives for donations of land for conservation purposes—but few state tax incentive programs exist for donations of historic properties for preservation purposes. Such state tax incentives, even modest ones, could have a great impact on prompting donations.

7 . Support Stewardship: Devise a program, through insurance or a pooled endowment, so that small preservation organizations can take on easements. Small organizations need assurance that they can defend preservation easements and back up the preservation promise in a way that doesn’t bankrupt their organizations. Historic home, Rhode Island. An obstacle to preservation organiza- Photo courtesy Preserve Rhode Island tions taking on real estate transactions that involve easements and other perpetual obligations is stewarding these real property interests forever. Building an endowment in sufficient size to match these perpetual obligations, including any legal defense, is daunting for small preservation organizations. National help to devise an appropriate and affordable insurance product, or to build a pooled defense fund, seem like practical ways to allow small organizations to enter the world of easement transactions.

8 . Develop an Acquisition Strategy: Be strategic about deciding when and how the risk of acquisition is worth the preservation reward. Organizations that pass over acquisition as a tool to protect historic properties because of the risks and costs involved are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In particular, the short- term acquisition of threatened properties that can then go to more permanent stewards is a familiar preservation tool, as is the acquisition of easements. Expanding the use of these tools so they are more common would amplify preservation success.

9 . Seek More Funding: Work to increase funding at all levels for both land conservation and preservation! Preservation, in particular, would benefit from federal, state, and local policy focused on developing more funding.

10 . Engage New Leadership: Capitalize on the voluntary commitment of the owners of America’s heritage assets to expand the preservation movement. The nonprofit leaders of preservation across the country—the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the statewide and local preservation organizations— can position themselves to use the passion and enthusiasm of the thousands of owners of historic places to join in protecting places that matter.

ForumJournal Fall 2010 15 continued from page 12 control of owners’ actions to protect state, and local public dollars. Many historic properties—through, for exam- conservation initiatives include a public ple, historic district design guidelines vote to approve funds—convincing vot- or Section 106 reviews. Preservationists ers to raise their taxes to save a special advocate for governmental regulation place. Conservationists have become as a systematic approach to minimize proficient at managing campaigns to harm to historic properties. get “Yes” votes for conservation funding. Because of their reliance on public 2 .A cquisition Practices: Some pres- funds, conservationists tend to be clear ervationists avoid acquisition because communicators regarding the pub- of the risks and costs associated with lic interest served by their work. Both ownership. Most preservation organi- conservation and preservation organizations look to others to acquire and zations rely on philanthropic support, rehabilitate property, offering techni- but such support is more widely avail- cal assistance in preservation matters able in larger amounts for conservation but rarely getting directly involved in organizations and projects. ownership. Acquisition is not allowed as a part of federal and many state pres- 4 .Measures of Success: Preserva- ervation grant programs. The handful tionists count success as the rehabili- of preservation revolving funds that do tation of historic properties, keeping use acquisition as a tool contrasts to the properties in productive use and on the more than 2,000 land trusts in America tax roles. Success also means minimiz- that own land and interests in land. ing harm to historic properties, such as providing If those of us in the preservation movement adopt for archeologi- some of conservation’s best practices and work cal data recov- collaboratively with conservation partners, we will be ery or requiring more effective in saving buildings along with land. developers to adopt an alterna- Conservationists use acquisition (in fee tive that avoids or minimizes adverse or through easements) as the primary impacts to historic properties. Con- method to protect important places. servationists evaluate success by the permanent protection of places, either 3 . Funding Strategies: The major- through fee ownership by a conserva- ity of historic preservation activities tion organization or through a perma- are privately funded. Homeowners and nent conservation easement. commercial redevelopers fund most preservation projects from their own BEST OF BOTH WORLDS resources. Public funds that may subsi- In short, preservation and land conser- dize a project are derived from (scarce) vation specialists have each invested in federal and state programs and from accumulating expertise within their very tax incentives for qualifying projects. In different approaches to accomplishing contrast, most conservation projects are strikingly similar goals. If the best prac- primarily supported through federal, tices from each discipline were com-

16 fall 2010 ForumJournal Preserve Rhode Island is working with land conservation groups on Block Island to develop a preservation easement program that complements the great land conservation work that is ongoing. A voluntary preservation easement program could be a winning strategy for protecting cultural landscapes on the island like this one.

Photo courtesy Preserve Rhode Island

bined to work in tandem, the capacity of tool kit to save the places that matter organizations to save places that matter everywhere. FJ to communities would increase. A united effort would likely have a bigger impact Valerie Talmage is the executive director of Preserve Rhode Island. She is the former on protecting the natural and cultural executive director of the Massachusetts His- assets of communities across America. torical Commission and Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer. After 15 years of Preservationists can learn a lot from public administration, her career transitioned conservationists. If those of us in the to land conservation projects, working as a preservation movement adopt some of land protection specialist for The Trustees of Reservations. In 1997 Talmage became the conservation’s best practices and work director of projects for the New England Office collaboratively with conservation part- of the Trust for Public Land, overseeing a port- folio of conservation real estate transactions. ners, we will be more effective in saving In 2007 Talmage joined Preserve Rhode Island, buildings along with land. In addition, the statewide preservation organization that itself stewards five historic sites while leading we’ll become better preservationists too, the state’s efforts to encourage Rhode Island- with expanded skills and an expanded ers to protect special places.

ForumJournal fall 2010 17 Our Moment to Build a Cultural Conservation Legacy

Mary Pope M . Hutson

s a native-born Charlestonian, CHARLESTON’S CONSERVATION I see incremental changes and AND PRESERVATION ROOTS pressure points mounting in the Over the last 75 years, leadership by key historic district and the coastal individuals and two renowned pres- Alands there that cause a conservation prac- ervation groups—Historic Charleston titioner like me to pause. Even those who Foundation and the Preservation Society are not actively concerned about changes of Charleston—have resulted in victo- to historic districts and landscapes prob- ries, preserving the built environment ably worry and ask, what can be done? of Charleston and defeating large-scale Countless visitors and architectural changes on the peninsula and its environs. historians have deemed Charleston a The conservation movement in South “national treasure,” and the natural integ- Carolina has evolved in half the time with rity of the significant watersheds found strong leadership and collaborations that in the early settlements of the Carolinas are a national model for conservation. make the ecological importance of the Through unique partnerships, a common coast equally significant. mission, and a focus on key geographic Yet I see numerous challenges facing areas, the leadership of private landown- Charleston and its surrounding areas. ers and conservation groups has been very strategic in achiev- The challenges for Charleston and its coastline ing the shared goal are emblematic of the issues that many preservation of protecting the and conservation groups are dealing with today. natural heritage of South Carolina. Steadily there are flaws appearing within Working together, The Nature Conser- and around the gem designated as the first vancy, Ducks Unlimited, The Conserva- historic district in America in 1931. These tion Fund, Trust for Public Land, and 20 fractures are testing the true intentions local land trusts have protected more than of leadership within the preservation and 500,000 acres in South Carolina to date. conservation organizations established to Notable examples include the protec- protect this city and the area around it. tion of 200,000 acres (of the identified This place with so much history and 350,000 acres) of the Ashepoo, Combahee natural habitat faces pressures from all and South Edisto (ACE) Basin—one of the sides. “Change is inevitable” people largest undeveloped estuaries on the east say, but at what cost to the cultural and coast of the United States. The ACE model environmental context of one of America’s is now being emulated across America by great historic cities? many other conservation partnerships.

18 fall 2010 ForumJournal The individual landowners deserve so carefully designated may be compro- enormous recognition for their com- mised as state and local budgets wane and mitment, and as a result of their efforts, their administrators look for tax revenue generations have protected their land and from the last great source—the land. the cultural heritage that also exists in the Also, the gambling interests are back context of the land. from their defeat in 1994 for another Charleston and its environs offer a assault on the city, with dockside gambling strong story of place: a tapestry of heritage interests approaching North Charleston. woven in the built and natural environment Neighborhood groups, the South and inextricably tied together. These places Carolina Coastal Conservation League, live and breathe an integrated conservation preservation groups, the Committee to and preservation ethic that is a model for Save the City, and many leading citizens the nation. With a state citizenry committed are engaging community members and to both, strong institutional and individual urging them to action like never before to leadership exist to advance conservation deal with these latest concerns. Letters to and preservation visions in South Carolina. the editor, public meetings, petitions, and meetings with city and state officials are CURRENT THREATS making an impact. But current threats present preservation Charleston is unique, yes, but it is a and conservation leaders in the city and microcosm of what is going on in other outlying areas with the greatest chal- parts the country, deserving our immediate lenges in decades. attention. The challenges for Charleston In the historic district, “the walled and its coastline—to retain the identity and city” is once again walled, but this time the cultural legacy of the built and natural with condos touting “the best views in environments—are emblematic of the town,” not with wooden palisades to issues that many preservation and conser- fortify the city from outsiders as it was in vation groups are dealing with today. 1703. It’s all about providing buyers with a private, unobstructed view of the harbor COMMON GOALS, DIFFERENT PATHS and the tax revenue such development The professionals involved in historic supposedly generates. preservation, land conservation, and smart The latest challenge is a dramatic growth today share a focus on protecting increase in cruise ships docking near the community character and the aspects of the historic district, with few restrictions or environment, natural and man-made, that requirements to comply with regulations are critical to quality of life. These profes- that other businesses must adhere to sionals work to protect historic, scenic, and throughout the year. natural habitat from adverse development. In the outlying areas of Charleston, Although conservation and preservation new development patterns also threaten interests work in different ways, they have to isolate protected areas. The rural sea similar purposes for the public. islands are endangered as well, threatened But over the decades, the land conser- with expressways that would make it vation and historic preservation move- easier and faster to get to and from town. ments have become highly specialized The heritage areas and corridors that were and have moved away from the context

ForumJournal fall 2010 19 A traditional cabin, more than 100 years old, rests on protected land owned by Philip and Charlotte Hanes and conserved with a conservation easement by the New River Land Trust and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, both located in Blacksburg.

Photo by Jerry Moles of a century ago. Historic preservation front, and even historic sites. Boston’s groups focus now almost entirely on the population swelled by tens of thousands, built environment, and land conservation and living conditions were deplorable. groups on the natural environment. Yet Against this backdrop of industrializa- originally “conservation” included both the tion, very little had been done to set aside built and the natural environment. open space for Boston’s urban population, Charles Eliot, a young landscape archi- especially when compared to the extent tect then practicing in Boston in the 1890s, of open space that had been set aside in proposed the establishment of what would London and Paris. become The Trustees of Reservations, the Eliot believed that country parks would first private nonprofit conservation organi- provide fresh air, scenic beauty, and oppor- zation of its kind in the country. tunities for quiet repose—antidotes to the By the end of the 19th century, con- ills of urban life. With this conviction in servationists had successfully protected mind, Eliot wrote a letter to the New Eng- many of the natural wonders of the land periodical Garden and Forest propos- American West, but the dense urban ing the formation of a new organization. regions of the East had received relatively While country parks were central to little attention. Boston had become the Eliot’s vision, he argued for the immediate nation’s fourth largest manufactur- preservation of “special bits of scenery” still ing center. Ironworks, glass factories, remaining “within ten miles of the State foundries, hundreds of industrial plants, House which possess uncommon beauty large and small, sprang up everywhere, and more than usual refreshing power.” As consuming farmland, countryside, river an example, he mentioned Waverly Oaks,

20 fall 2010 ForumJournal a steep hill in Belmont “set with a group Reservations “for the purposes of acquir- of mighty oaks,” as well as what is today ing, holding, maintaining and opening Rocky Narrows in Sherborn, the oldest to the public…beautiful and historic property of The Trustees of Reservations. places…within the Commonwealth.” To protect these places, Eliot pro- Today The Trustees of Reservations is posed the creation of a unique statewide one of the most successful and effective nonprofit organization—a corporation conservation groups in America. It has governed by a board of volunteer trustees become a model for future conservation who would be empowered by the state leg- organizations at the national, regional, islature to hold land free of taxes for the and state levels. public to enjoy “just as a Public Library Professional specialization, the interests holds books and an Art Museum holds and backgrounds of charismatic individu- pictures.” Eliot enlisted a distinguished als, and the missions of leading nonprofit group of citizens to support his proposal. groups all had an effect on the American In a circular called The Preservation of conservation movement evolving in paral- Beautiful and Historical Places, the group lel with the preservation movement. They laid down the special reasons why “places each developed their own vocabulary, of historical interest or remarkable beauty political base, sources of funding and should be withdrawn from private owner- training which reinforced the differentia- ship, preserved from harm, and opened to tion. But now we are realizing that we the public.” They asserted that: can’t have the one without the other and ZZ “the existing means of securing and that land conservation and historic preser- preserving public reservations are not suf- vation are inextricably linked. ficiently effective,” ZZ “lovers of nature will rally to endow WORKING TOWARD A CULTURAL the Trustees with the care of their favorite CONSERVATION LEGACY scenes, precisely as the lovers of Art have Over the next 50 years, with 100 mil- so liberally endowed the Art Museums,” lion more people living in America, the ZZ the organization “will be able to act for challenge is ours to reenergize and create a the benefit of the whole people, and with- deep and enduring collaboration between out regard to the principal cause of the the land conservation and historic pres- ineffectiveness of present methods, namely ervation groups in America. Through the local jealousies felt by townships Although conservation and preservation and the parts of interests work in different ways, they have similar townships towards purposes for the public. each other,” and ZZ the Commonwealth “can no longer deeper partnerships, organizations will afford to refrain from applying to the reach a broader audience and achieve preservation of her remarkable greater relevance for the citizenry of this places every method which experience in country who care deeply about protecting other fields has approved.” a community’s character and quality of In the spring of 1891, the legislature life, but who may not necessarily identify voted to establish The Trustees of Public1 themselves as historic preservationists

ForumJournal fall 2010 21 or land conservationists. These stronger movement to protect our cultural conser- coalitions, once built, will translate into vation legacy. This is our moment in time an advocacy voice that will help ensure to articulate the value of this heritage, that we leave a cultural conservation built and natural, and the relevancy of legacy that protects and honors the full our work. Our voices and missions must significance of American places. resonate in every community of America. These are tough times for those Building bridges between the preserva- concerned about such things. Funding tion and conservation communities must be sources for land conservation and historic our focus over the next decade. In order to preservation at state and federal levels are make a greater “Case for Place,” we must frozen or in decline. become a cohesive force of well-trained and Cultural conservation is not high on eager stewards by initiating a campaign to: the list of public concerns. In this highly ZZ Create a national vision for a compre- mobile society, more and more people are hensive cultural conservation legacy. losing appreciation for or allegiance to spe- ZZ Build capacity of land conservation and cial places in America. The preoccupation historic preservation organizations by of many teens and adults with electronic cross-training practitioners to understand devices leads to what author Richard Louv the value of historic and natural resources. calls “nature deficit disorder,” distanc- Expand toolkits and training—in universi- ing them from the natural wonders and ties, in our organizations, and in state and historic places that surround them. local government—to meet the needs of All the while, political decision-makers this evolving collaborative effort. are questioning whether our nonprofit ZZ Establish networks, state by state, so that groups are worthy of the public trust, as groups can work together on common decision-makers in Congress, the Internal challenges to the built and natural attri- Revenue Service, and other agencies ques- butes that are part of the same context. tion the viability of our two movements, ZZ Craft a national message—a hopeful and increase scrutiny of organizations’ and message spread by community and property owners’ conservation transactions. local champions. ZZ Support a Typically, conservationists and preservationists national forum usually only talk to each other when there is a crisis, for the exchange but it is evident that this must change. of information on common threats, Meanwhile the predators are circling: and best practices and strategies for government decision-makers at the local, addressing them. state, and federal levels searching for bud- ZZ Educate and influence government lead- get cuts and revenue sources; real estate ers at the federal, state, and local levels. developers and property owners solely ZZ Attract broad public support through- concerned with making money. out the country, encouraging citizens and Our cultural legacy is tenuous at best if communities to place greater value on we continue to follow this same path. our cultural legacy. Some 65 percent of Therefore, there is no doubt that the America’s land is still privately held, and time is now to call for strengthening the the work of conservation today rests in the

22 fall 2010 ForumJournal hands of countless private interests who joint strategy or vision for the future that can be engaged to care about what our is compelling. Language and initiatives landscapes and communities will look like that celebrate a cultural conservation in the next century. legacy one place at a time can be shared more widely, to help develop and expand HOW TO START a national movement. Typically, conservationists and preserva- Every community in America has tionists usually only talk to each other the leaders who can build the collabora- when there is a crisis, but it is evident that tions, but it must start and happen at the this must change. We need to make the local level. “Case for Place,” working together in a Will this lead us down the right path new spirit of cooperation. for preserving, together, our diverse cul- In my estimation, this can happen best tural legacy for future generations? one place at a time. Practitioners should Time will tell. FJ look at the current movements and Mary Pope M. Hutson is executive vice presi- leadership in their own regions, examine dent of the Land Trust Alliance. the evolution of the protection of each of 1 The word “Public” was dropped from the legal name in 1954 to avoid confusion with publicly that region’s cultural assets, then devise a (e.g. government) owned land.

the Land Trust Alliance

Land trusts are nonprofit organizations that work with private landowners to vol- untarily conserve forests, farms, parks, and other cherished places that enrich our lives. Local, regional, and national land trusts have conserved more than 37 million acres of important natural areas and working lands in every state—more land than in all of the national parks in the lower 48 states. Founded in 1982, the Land Trust Alliance leads and serves nearly 1,700 land trusts (local, regional, and national conservation organizations), with their more than 6,000 staff, 90,000 volunteers, and 2 million financial supporters. The Alliance’s mission is to save the places people love by strengthening land conservation across America. We do this by focusing on three strategic goals: accelerating the pace, improving the quality, and ensuring the permanence of conservation. By building highly effective and well- governed land trusts that protect lands with the highest conservation values and ensure their protection in perpetuity, we can preserve healthy human and natural communities, clean air and water, beautiful vistas, recreation areas, and working lands. The Alliance has a 20-member Board of Directors and a staff of 50. We also rely on a strong volunteer force, made up of an education faculty of more than 300 conservation experts as well as pro bono law firms and a national network of experts on conservation defense.

ForumJournal fall 2010 23 Combining Preservation and Conservation Values: Six Illustrative Examples

Thompson M . Mayes and Ross M . Bradford

istoric preservation organiza- several organizations that embody the tions can and do protect farm- idea that conservation and preservation land, open space, and natural are the same concept—flip sides of the resources. Land trusts preserve same coin. Working together, conserva- Hhistoric buildings and cultural landscapes. tion and preservation organizations can Preservation and conservation organiza- dramatically increase community support, tions work cooperatively to protect places access to resources, and the protection of that combine both natural and historic places that embody multiple values—and values. The examples that follow highlight lead to the protection of the whole place.

Preserving Natural and Historic Landscapes and Sites in Tennessee The mission of the Land Trust for Tennessee (LTT), recipient of a National Trust Honor Award in 2010, is to preserve the unique character of Tennessee’s natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations. Among its projects is stewarding the historic Glen Leven home and its surrounding 65 acres in Nashville, bequeathed to LTT. LTT is currently developing programs and seeking partnerships related to open space conservation, sustainable agriculture, and historic preservation for the property. LTT collaborated with the Capitol Grille restaurant at the Hermitage Hotel to grow heirloom vegetables on the historic estate, including butterstick zucchini, zephyr squash, French breakfast radishes, and Cherokee purple tomatoes. As indicated on LTT’s website, www.landtrusttn.org, the hotel is committed to gardening naturally and promoting sustainability. In other projects, LTT seeks to protect historic farm properties and cultural landscapes, such as the Beaman Park to Bells Bend Corridor near Nashville, an intact historic rural and agricultural landscape that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a rural historic and archeological district.

Saving a Rural Historic Community in Maine Known as the Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village, this highly intact Shaker community faced uncertainty about its future due to reduced farm revenues, rising taxes and maintenance costs, and pressure from suburban sprawl. Working in partnership, a group of private charities and public agencies formed a coalition and developed a strategy to save Sabbathday Lake including fundraising to purchase an easement from the Shakers that would permanently protect the community’s cultural, historic, and natural resources. The Trust for Public Land, Maine Preservation, the Royal River Conservation Trust, the New England Forestry

24 fall 2010 ForumJournal Foundation, Friends of the Shakers, the State of Maine, and the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service succeeded in their efforts, protecting more than 1,700 acres of wildlife habitat, walking and cross-country skiing trails, agricultural lands, and productive wood- lands along with multiple historic buildings. Endowments were also established to ensure the permanent Photo courtesy of Maine Preservation, Inc. stewardship of the property.

Preservation, Conservation, and Open Space Advocates Work Together to Protect Oatlands Plantation Oatlands Plantation, a National Trust Historic Site in Leesburg, Va., includes approximately 261 acres. An additional surrounding 385 acres are protected by open space easements. In a collaborative effort among the Piedmont Environmen- tal Council, Oatlands, Inc., and the Jamestown Compact, an adjacent threatened parcel was acquired through a bargain sale and protected by an easement held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. A coalition of preservation and conservation organizations continued to fight to protect the context of Oatlands, including engaging legal action when necessary to ensure that adjacent development complies with regulatory requirements, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preser- vation Act. The collaborative efforts implicitly recognize the importance of the site for historic, cultural, agricultural, and open space values.

Protecting Agricultural and Natural Areas Near Danville, Ky . An easement held by the National Trust protects multiple preservation, conservation, and agricultural values. Individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and a contributing property to the Harrodsburg Pike Rural Historic District, Cambus-Kenneth Farm also includes important Kentucky bluegrass agricultural land and remnants of a Kentucky woodland savannah. The easement Photo courtesy of National Trust for Historic Preservation requires the maintenance of historically significant buildings and the farmland, while protecting the savannah remnant from potentially damaging agricultural practices. Consisting of approximately 550 acres, the property, which cannot be subdivided, serves as a barrier against encroaching sprawl from Danville.

ForumJournal fall 2010 25 Photo courtesy of National Trust for Historic Preservation

Combined Efforts by Two Organizations Protect Buildings and Land in Damariscotta, Maine Patricia Geiringer, the owner of the Jones property, donated an easement to the Damariscotta Lake Watershed Association (DLWA) in 1995, primarily to protect the conservation values of the 86 acres of land, but also incorporating basic protections for the historic buildings. Ms. Geiringer subsequently donated the property to the National Trust, which worked with the DLWA to strengthen the easement’s protections for historic buildings, and to incorporate an additional 3-acre parcel that extended the property’s boundary to a nearby river. The easement is now jointly held and enforced by the DLWA and the National Trust.

Public-Private Partnership Protects Land and Buildings at Montpelier This cabin, on a portion of Mont- pelier, James Madison’s home in Orange County, Va., was built by one of James Madison’s freed slaves, George Gilmore. The total Montpe- lier property includes approximately

Photo by Kenneth M. Wyner/The Montpelier Foundation 2,700 acres, 1,900 acres of which are outside the historic core (the area including the residence of James Madison). More than 700 acres—including the Gilmore Cabin—were permanently protected by easements created through a unique public-private partnership between the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Montpelier Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. An additional 200 acres—a National Natural Landmark old-growth forest—is protected by an easement held by The Nature Conservancy. FJ

Thompson M. Mayes is deputy general counsel and Ross M. Bradford is associate general counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

26 fall 2010 ForumJournal Land Conservation and Historic Preservation: A Natural Partnership in the Southwest

Andy Laurenzi

n the early 1990s, I worked for The maps of the entire lower valley show- Nature Conservancy in Arizona, ing where Center staff had surveyed and spearheading the state chapter’s land what they had found. I was immediately conservation work and helping launch struck by the parallel between our work Ia landscape-level land conservation proj- to inventory and evaluate natural habitats ect in the San Pedro River watershed. We at a landscape level and the approach brought together state and local partners the Center was taking to understand to identify priority wetland and riparian archeology at a basin-wide scale. We (bank side) habitats along the river and quickly recognized that there was much to explore ways of better protecting and to be gained from our two organizations managing these important areas. working together more closely—and thus One afternoon, Bill Doelle, CEO and began a collaboration that has continued president of the Center for Desert Archae- for 15 years. ology, headquartered in Tucson, called Today, as a result of a Partners in to ask if he could visit to discuss some of the Field grant from the National Trust the archeological work his organization for Historic Preservation, I am now was doing along the river. In particular, working as the resource protection spe- he hoped to glean any insights we might cialist for the Center for Desert Archae- have about working with landowners ology, meeting with Conservancy staff and ranching and farming organizations, from a different place around the table to including the valley’s Natural Resource discuss the cultural resources of the San Conservation Districts. A week later Pedro River basin and our mutual goals in our conference room, Bill presented and objectives.

A PRODUCTIVE COLLABORATION It is important to recognize that for many land trusts, preservation of historic resources is not a mission element. Although they may share preservationists’ values for protecting the places of our shared past, most land trusts are strapped for time and money to accomplish

William Doelle, CEO and president of the Center for Desert Archaeology, examines a Patayan petroglyph found along Gila River.

Photo by Henry Wallace

ForumJournal fall 2010 27 mission-related objectives. Preservationists habitat but outstanding cultural resources. may have an open door, but we also have Discussions with The Nature Conservancy a responsibility to walk through that door helped the Center develop a conserva- with resources—the time, expertise, and tion easement document that effectively money needed to help protect natural and addresses the additional issues that cultural places. preservation of archeological resources In the San Pedro Valley, where the entails (since they are nonrenewable and Center for Desert Archaeology has worked not subject to restoration if damaged). The the longest, collaboration with The Nature Center paid close attention to templates Conservancy has taken many paths. The provided by The Nature Conservancy and Center has greatly benefited from The the Land Trust Alliance. This easement Nature Conservancy’s experience in work- now protects three archeological sites, ing directly with landowners and from including a late Classic period pueblo dat- its technical land protection expertise. In ing back to the 15th century. With a few turn, the Center has provided The Nature revisions, this template continues to serve Conservancy with technical expertise for as the Center’s model for conservation Section 106 compliance, which has enabled easement donations. the Conservancy to meet its obligations The Center also adds considerable for various state and federal land acquisi- firepower toward securing federal fund- tion and stewardship grants. Applying an ing for land acquisition that may be diffi- understanding of Section 106, the Center cult to justify solely on the basis of natu- has assisted the Conservancy in designing ral area values. In particular is a 130-acre conservation Preservationists may have an open door, but easement acquired we also have a responsibility to walk through that by the Bureau of door with resources—the time, expertise, and money Land Management needed to help protect natural and cultural places. (BLM) in the San Pedro River basin conservation strategies that accomplish its that limits development to protect an mission while better protecting cultural important prehistoric Native American resources. These strategies include riparian village adjacent to a priority land conser- pasture design for grazing management, vation area. The significance of the site, delineating areas to burn as part of a which the Center was able to highlight, prescribed fire plan, and, in some instances, encouraged the BLM to make acquisition identifying areas to acquire as part of land of this conservation easement a priority, protection projects. using funding that was available for land In 2002, encouraged by the conser- acquisition. The Center also assisted the vation vision in the San Pedro Valley BLM by identifying sections of the prop- promoted by The Nature Conservancy erty where future development might be and Bureau of Land Management, local allowed that avoid the prehistoric village landowners approached the Center for features, and by providing recommenda- Desert Archaeology to ask about donating tions on the specific terms in the ease- a conservation easement over their land ment that pertain to the archeological which did not include high quality wildlife resource values.

28 fall 2010 ForumJournal What is an archeological conservation easement?

Ownership of a piece of property may best be described as a “bundle of rights.” These rights include the right to occupy, use, lease, sell, and develop the land. A conservation easement involves the exchange of one or more of these rights from the landowner The Bureau of Land Management holds a conservation easement protecting 130 acres of a prehistoric Sobaipuri to someone who does not Indian site along the San Pedro River. hold title to the property Photo by Henry Wallace (“the holder”). The conservation easement grants to the holder certain rights regarding the use of property for specified conservation purposes while the title to the land and all other uses of the property remain with the private property owner. The easement is a legally binding covenant that is publicly recorded and runs with the property deed for a specified time or in perpetuity. It gives the holder the responsibility to monitor and enforce the property use restrictions imposed by the easement for as long as it is designed to run. An easement does not grant ownership nor does it absolve the property owner from traditional landowner responsibilities, such as for property tax, upkeep, maintenance, or improvements. Easement deeds are recorded with the county recorder’s office to ensure that future owners of the property are also bound to the terms of the easement agreement.

An archeological conservation easement is designed to provide the holder of the conservation easement the right to restrict certain activities on the private land, such as commercial development or residential subdivisions that are likely to compromise the long-term conservation of the cultural resources found on the property. An archeological site can include a historic or pre-historic structure, site, or place that has cultural significance. The easement holder in turn makes a commitment to monitor and protect the resources forever. Protection is achieved through regular and open communication with the landowner and annual visits to the property to ensure compliance with the easement restrictions. In rare instances steps may need to be taken to enforce the restrictions in the event of a violation.

ForumJournal fall 2010 29 Similarly, in 2004 the Center assisted (and landowner, in the case of conserva- the Southeast Arizona Land Trust (now the tion easements) so that extra care can be Arizona Land and Water Trust) in securing taken to avoid inadvertent harm. Together federal funding from the Farm and Ranch with these individuals, we explore ways to Lands Protection program, which is admin- better steward these resources to avoid or istered by the Natural Resources Conserva- manage damage caused by vandals, loot- tion Service. The funding grant enabled ers, or unauthorized vehicle use. the land trust to acquire a 2,300-acre conservation easement. The Center pro- MORE PARTNERSHIPS vided a National Register Determination The Center’s work with environmental of Eligibility for a prehistoric pueblo site advocates also extends beyond the land with more than 100 rooms located on the trust community to advocacy-oriented ranch property. Ancestral Puebloan people organizations seeking to promote greater who had migrated from the Colorado protection of public lands. The Center’s Plateau area into southeastern Arizona work has been greatly enhanced by the had occupied the site for 150 years. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s eligibility determination contributed to the Public Lands Initiative and the Trust team grant’s overall competitiveness nationally based in its Mountains/Plains office and at for funding within the Farmland Protection its Washington, D.C., headquarters. This Program. It also led to specific easement team advocates for increased protection provisions that will help to ensure long- of historic and prehistoric resources on term protection of the site and appropriate lands managed by the Bureau of Land research use. Management, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Today the Center continues to meet and National Park Service. The team’s regularly with The Nature Conservancy combined expertise helps inform our on- and other area land trusts in Arizona and the-ground work in the Southwest. New Mexico. We inform them about the During the past year, the Center has cultural resources they own or monitor as participated in a coalition spearheaded an easement holder; we share information by the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, on protection priorities; and we explore The Wilderness Society, and the Sonoran avenues for collaboration involving fund- Institute. The group is advocating for an ing. Much of the job of preserving archeo- expansive public lands conservation initiative involving more On many national forests and BLM areas, vehicles than one million traveling off-road cause the most significant damage acres of predomi- to historic and prehistoric sites. nantly BLM land in western Mari- logical sites is accomplished once they pass copa County. The group seeks congres- into the ownership of land trusts such as sional action to designate new Wilderness The Nature Conservancy or the Arizona and National Conservation Areas, which Land and Water Trust, either as a preserve will provide a clear mandate to protect or when protected by a conservation ease- natural and cultural resources. The Center ment. Our job is to ensure that the cultural has helped to identify specific areas to resources are known to the land manager include in the proposal based on signifi-

30 fall 2010 ForumJournal Sonoran Desert Heritage project supporters visit trincheras (terraced hills) acheological site in Gila Bend Mountains.

Photo by Andy Laurenzi cant cultural resources. Our participation agency land managers reduce the conflicts helps ensure that the rich array of cultural that can occur on lands open to multiple uses. resource values are recognized, to comple- These conflicts are most apparent when ment the ecological, scenic, and wilderness decisions are made regarding vehicular resource values that the other coalition travel. What roads should remain open, members seek to protect. what kinds of vehicles should be allowed Noteworthy cultural resources in the on these roads, whether vehicles should be area include one of the most significant con- allowed off-road, and whether certain areas centrations of petroglyphs in the Southwest; should be closed to all vehicular use—these large Hohokam village sites with platform decisions arouse a great deal of controversy mounds, ballcourts, and adobe pueblos; among user groups, environmental advo- mysterious hillside and hilltop ruins that cates, and local communities. On many may have had multiple purposes related to national forests and BLM areas, vehicles defense, habitation, and ritual; the historic traveling off-road cause the most significant trail corridor of the Juan Bautista de Anza damage to historic and prehistoric sites. National Historic Trail; and other historic Once again, we have found common ground trail segments such as the Butterfield Stage with several environmental advocates in and the route of the Mormon Battalion led developing recommendations to BLM and by General Crooke. While these areas are USFS units which have initiated travel “protected” by virtue of their being located management planning. Together we have on public land, other legitimate uses of advocated for off-road travel restrictions and public land and easy access facilitated by road closures that promote more responsible vehicular travel can compromise these his- travel management on our public lands. toric resources. Congressional designations Together with environmental advocates, that provide clear conservation intent help we form a stronger voice for protection-

ForumJournal fall 2010 31 oriented policies. This summer—through 15 years suggests that they may be one a joint funding effort involving the of our most important constituencies. National Trust, the Center, The Wilder- And this constituency is pre-disposed ness Society, and the Center for Biological to our preservation mission, because its Diversity—we have been able to put a core mission also speaks to protecting team of archeologists in the field on the America’s sense of place. Tonto National Forest. The team is assess- The preservation community will ing the condition of nearly 100 prehistoric be well served by helping to define that sites, most of which are large, masonry sense of place so that it includes the built and adobe pueblo ruins. This information and natural environment, as well as the will guide our recommendations on Forest associated ancient and recent past. People Service land management decisions and are what define a landscape, whether in a assist the Forest Service in its management scientific sense or a cultural sense. People of Priority Heritage Assets. and their place in that landscape become defining elements of a sense of place. One BUILDING ON SHARED VALUES without the other draws a distinction AND PURPOSE that runs the risk of creating a barrier— As the few examples I’ve given here dem- and that would serve us poorly in the onstrate, there are ample opportunities long run. Preservation and conservation for collaboration between the preserva- interests must work together to confront tion and conservation communities. As the challenges that people throughout with much of our preservation work, time have faced: using our natural world effective collaboration is, in essence, to live, work, and play in a manner that about building and maintaining relation- maintains its beauty, vitality, diversity, and ships. Although preservation organiza- cultural legacy far into the future. FJ

tions such as the Center may not have Andy Laurenzi is the resource protection viewed land trusts as a key audience specialist for the Center for Desert Archaeol- ogy in partnership with the National Trust for for our work, the success of the land Historic Preservation through the Partners in trust movement in the U.S. over the last the Field program.

the Center for Desert Archaeology

The Center for Desert Archaeology envisions a society in which the places of the past are valued as the foundations for a vibrant future. The Center works to preserve the places of our shared past. It achieves this mission by researching questions of broad interest, enabling people to learn about the past through creative and varied means, including promoting an ethic of preservation to the public and professionals, and acting to ensure long-term protection of our cultural heritage. The Center is a private 501(c)3 nonprofit organization based in Tucson, Ariz., working throughout the American Southwest and Northwest Mexico.

32 fall 2010 ForumJournal “Whole Place Preservation”: The Ashley River Region and the Watson Hill Campaign

Emily c . Pack

eorge McDaniel, executive to 18th-century African American settle- director of Drayton Hall (a ments to Civil War fortifications. National Trust Historic Site), Concerns about development pressures will never forget the day in and lack of coordinated regional plan- Gthe spring of 2005 when he got the call ning in the area led the National Trust for from Bo and Mickey Barry, two longtime Historic Preservation to include the Ashley residents of the Ashley River Region and River Historic District on its list of 11 Most good friends to Drayton Hall. Mickey Endangered Historic Places in 1995. Charles tearfully explained that the couple had Duell, president of Middleton Place Founda- agreed to sell their family property on the tion, declared,” It’s not just one thing, it’s Ashley River in Charleston, S.C., only to everything in combination that makes this learn from the local newspaper that the place a national treasure—and that’s why people who purchased it were develop- we have to preserve it.” ers who intended to use it to annex from North Charleston to a large tract of unde- A REGIONAL THREAT EMERGES veloped timberland on the other side of The sale of the Barry property was just one the Barry property. Mickey exclaimed that aspect of a potentially catastrophic threat she and her husband were now the “Judas to the region. At stake was Watson Hill, a Iscariots of the Ashley River Region.” 6,600-acre, 10-square-mile tract of timber- To understand the Barrys’ emotional lands located in Dorchester County, S.C., phone call, one must know something just north of Charleston County. Histori- about the historic region and what this cally rural, Dorchester had become one of threat of development would mean. A the fastest growing counties in the state and National Register Historic District, the its residents were deeply split over issues Ashley River Region is a 13-mile corridor of suburban growth and private property northwest of Charleston that is bound by rights. Watson Hill had been sold by the the Ashley River, a State Scenic River, timber company MeadWestvaco to an out- and Ashley River Road. Amidst this still- of-state developer who proposed to build forested landscape are Drayton Hall, estab- 5,000 homes, a hotel, a golf course, and a lished as a plantation circa 1738 and now commercial center there. The plan would a National Historic Landmark; Middleton have required construction of a four-lane Place, a National Historic Landmark; and expressway paralleling the historic Ashley the 17th-century Magnolia Plantation and River Road, likely to trigger further subur- Gardens, all of which border the Ashley ban sprawl and a massive increase in traffic. River. Archeological sites trace the region’s Since Dorchester County prohibited the history from Native American habitation type of density that the Watson Hill own-

ForumJournal fall 2010 33 ers wanted, the developers approached have to look far to find willing and able the Barrys and attempted to buy their partners right in their own backyard. land in order to annex through to the property from North Charleston, whose “WHOLE PLACE PRESERVATION” leaders had promised the developers PUT TO THE TEST the higher density their development What follows is a close look at a situation required. Having discovered the devel- that historic sites across the country have opers’ true intentions and identity, the faced for decades. As suburban sprawl Barrys courageously backed out of the continues its march across our landscape, contract, feeling they had signed it under historic sites have been forced to look false pretenses. Realizing that the Barrys beyond their gates to confront the roads, were the linchpin in the developers’ plans strip malls, and housing developments and that a costly lawsuit might prove too that continue to creep out of our urban much for them, the National Trust for centers. Thinking of our historic and cul- Historic Preservation and Drayton Hall tural resources within the context of their partnered with the Historic Charleston communities and recognizing how sites are Foundation, Middleton Place, and the affected by their surroundings is the con- Coastal Conservation League to indem- cept behind “Whole Place Preservation.” nify the Barrys’ legal costs up to one In Drayton Hall’s case, McDaniel, a million dollars. longtime educator, knew that preserving Once the Barrys were comfortable the plantation’s context to support place- with the indemnification agreement, based learning was critical to Drayton McDaniel and others knew that they Hall’s survival long term, and that the needed to look beyond traditional part- Watson Hill development was a major nerships if they wanted to fight this behe- threat to the site’s ability to engage its moth and preserve the context of Drayton visitors. “When people visit Drayton Hall, Hall. Fortunately for the preservationists they learn about our site’s history through in the Ashley River region, they didn’t verbal and written clues, obviously. But perhaps most importantly, they learn through the message that the site itself conveys. If we had jet skis zipping by on AshleyAshley RiveRiverr the banks of the river and high-rise hotels in the distance, our visitors’ learning Watson Hill would be impaired, and their connection to the site would be diminished.” The same is true for visitors at most any Ashley River historic site across the country, and that’s Road why historic sites need to put Whole Place Drayton Hall Preservation front and center.

An aerial view of the Ashley River Region shows existing housing and commercial development east of Drayton Hall as well as the proposed Watson Hill development site.

Photo courtesy of Drayton Hall

34 fall 2010 ForumJournal Monticello Preserves Its Viewshed

Many other battles are being fought across America in an effort to achieve Whole Place Preservation. One notable example of partners allied for viewshed protection occurred at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home in Virginia (the only home in America on UNES- CO’s World Heritage list). In 2008 the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns and operates Monticello, signed an agreement with the Piedmont Environmental Council to preserve as open space, in perpetuity, 150 acres on Montalto, the neighboring mountain The Thomas Jefferson Foundation purchased the nearby mountain, Montalto, to safeguard the scenic that rises 410 feet above Monticello. and historic nature of the views from Monticello.

There are no more important views to Photo courtesy of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation preserve from Monticello than those up to Montalto, Jefferson’s “high mountain.”

When the mountaintop first came on the market at $20 million in 2003, there weren’t many interested parties and the threat seemed minimal. When the price dropped to $15 million a year later and there were reports of strong interest in the development community, the Foundation decided that it had to act, and bought the mountain for the full purchase price, thus incurring debt and necessitating the immediate launch of a capital campaign. The president and CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Leslie Greene Bowman, recalls the campaign to save the viewshed of the site as the “high-water mark of the Foundation’s ongoing efforts to safeguard the historic and scenic nature of the views from Monticello.” In this instance, Bowman explains, protecting land once owned by Jefferson was clearly in line with Monticello’s mission. “Land stewardship is a typically Jeffersonian concept. In our case, acquiring Montalto was a very natural extension for us of the work we were already doing at Monticello. This campaign underscored our ongoing commitment to the preservation of context of this highly significant site.”

Now Jefferson’s “high mountain” is used by the Foundation for events and interpretation and will forever be preserved. Guests of the site at last year’s Heritage Harvest Festival, held atop the mountain, marveled at the sublime view down the mountain to the home and truly understood the role the mountain played in preserving the authenticity of the site.

ForumJournal fall 2010 35 36 fall 2010 ForumJournal PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, the ACE Basin would have been jeopar- AND COMMUNITY INTERESTS dized. It was essential that environmental CONVERGE and habitat conservation groups joined For the first time on the state level, one forces with historic preservation advo- proposed development endangered sev- cates to secure the Ashley River. This is eral nationally recognized historic sites clearly a model for large-scale landscape- and some of the most important wildlife level protection here and elsewhere.” habitat in the South Carolina Lowcoun- try. While the most obvious partnerships SHARED CONCERNS LAUNCH were between the three major historic A GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN sites that lined the Ashley River Road, Whole Place Preservation, by its very a regional conservation group, the definition, must involve partnerships, Coastal Conservation League, proved as preservationists look outward to find to be one of the most important allies in nontraditional allies. Far too often, histo- the fight. The threat pushed the preser- rians think saving important landmarks vationists and conservationists beyond or stopping development within a site’s their traditional partnerships and onto viewshed should be reason enough for new ground, proving to each group the the public to heed a call to action. For- necessity of the other. tunately in some cases it is, but in many Dana Beach, the director of the situations the preservation argument Coastal Conservation League (CCL), had alone isn’t sufficient to start a genuine spent years working in the Ashley River grassroots movement. Looking beyond Region with landowners and develop- preservation in its purest form and ers, helping people make conservation- tying it in to real-world concerns such minded decisions about their prop- The threat pushed the preservationists and erty. Beach had conservationists beyond their traditional partnerships poured resources and onto new ground, proving to each group the into the area and necessity of the other. wasn’t going to let one developer threaten the progress as increased traffic, higher taxes, school that had been made in the fragile region. overcrowding, and loss of quality of life Beyond the development itself, Beach can bring people into the fray who have and his group were worried about its never allied with preservationists before. larger impact on the region, also referred In the case of Drayton Hall, this intersec- to as the “ACE Basin,” named after the tion of interests proved to be the founda- Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto Rivers. tion on which the campaign was built. Beach says, “Had Watson Hill come to Drayton Hall and CCL knew that pass, more than two decades of private most residents would oppose Watson and public conservation investment in Hill if these allies could prove that the development would hurt residents where The thick forests that surround Drayton it counted most—their pocketbooks. So Hall contrast sharply with nearby housing developments. the partners hired University of South photo by Brad Nettles, courtesy of Post and Courier Carolina economists who produced an

ForumJournal fall 2010 37 Petroglyph National Monument Connects With Community

While not every battle ends in a victory, even losses can provide lessons. An example of this is recounted by Diane Souder, chief of interpretation and outreach for Petroglyph National Monument. A National Park owned cooperatively by the City of Albuquerque, the State of New Mexico, and the National Park Service, the site battled constantly against unmanaged growth as residential areas illegally encroached on its lands. In 1996 a special appropriations bill went through Congress, removing 8.5 acres of land from the park’s boundary to allow for a four- to six-lane freeway.

“The issue was incredibly divi- sive,” says Souder. “Homebuilders wanted to open up more lands for development, some local residents wanted shorter commutes After losing 8.5 acres of land at the Petroglyph to the other side of the river, and National Monument to allow for a new freeway, others wanted to protect the Park Service employees have stepped up efforts to educate residents about the importance of traditional cultural landscape and stewardship to protect the Petroglyph and other monument resources. Because National Monuments.

Photo by George McDaniel the issue was precedent-setting for all National Park sites, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Tribal Councils, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and others worked to stop the road, but lost the battle after seven years.

“In the face of defeat, the Park Service set out to heal the community’s wounds. Before the road issue, our employees were advised not to wear their uniforms out in public. Now they go to schools, business openings, and Indian festivals, and are an integral part of the community. During the sum- mers, they knock on every door in the surrounding neighborhoods as part of our new urban outreach. We also use the incident in our interpretation and educational programs, teaching the concept of stewardship so that when children grow up they will help protect the natural and cultural resources of the Petroglyph and other National Parks and monuments.”

38 fall 2010 ForumJournal economic assessment showing that the development would mean higher taxes for everyone in the county. After the results of the study were published, taxpayers associations jumped on the bandwagon to help protect their con- stituents. Neighborhood associations that had little contact with their historic- site neighbors joined forces, and a true grassroots campaign was born. Once the community was on board with the anti–Watson Hill agenda, Dray- Extensive media outreach was critical to winning ton Hall, CCL, the Historic Charleston supporters for the grassroots campaign to Foundation, Middleton Place, Magnolia protect the Ashley River Region. Here George McDaniel, director of Drayton Hall, speaks at a Plantation & Gardens, Summerville press conference. Preservation Society, and others embarked Photo courtesy of Drayton Hall upon a full-fledged grassroots campaign involving print and broadcast media, THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE public hearings, and local rallies. Know- OF POLITICAL SUPPORT ing that the pockets of the developers The lesson here was clear to the allies in ran much deeper than those of the local the Ashley River Region: politics count. nonprofits who were footing the bill for Despite having “right” on one’s side, if the campaign, the allies decided that their you don’t have the votes on the decision- movement had to be more strategic than making council, you lose. Winning politi- simply a negative campaign against this cal support required long-term political specific development. They needed to be engagement, an education campaign to taking steps to protect the Ashley River inform the public about alternatives to Historic District in its entirety and in suburban sprawl and costs of unmanaged perpetuity. That meant a comprehensive growth, and efforts by nonprofit preserva- ordinance that would limit the density of tion organizations to build and sustain a development while also providing guide- constituency for historic preservation. lines on buffers and different uses along the historic corridor. A SURPRISING TURN OF EVENTS After more than three years of conten- Finally, in January of 2009, the partners tious public meetings the ordinance was in this fight got some shocking news. The passed, to the consternation of the devel- developers of Watson Hill were bankrupt opers and others who saw the immense and the bank was moving ahead to fore- forests of the region as the perfect place close on the property. That meant a public for new high-density development. The auction, and perhaps a new and even more ordinance limited density on the Wat- determined developer. With this newest twist son Hill site to 825 units for the 3,300 in the case, the allies took immediate action acres of available uplands (the rest being and contacted MeadWestvaco, the previ- wetlands), which was a far cry from the ous owner of Watson Hill. The company 5,000 homes originally proposed. had since stopped selling its property in the

ForumJournal fall 2010 39 Drayton Hall and its partners were able to gain widespread support after producing a study that showed that the proposed development would mean higher taxes for everyone in the county.

Photo by George McDaniel

Lowcountry and instead embarked upon a plan should include preservation of the new venture to show shareholders increased region, so that when issues like this arose, revenues: It had decided that its bottom line our response to them would be a clear part would be better served by keeping its large of our strategy for the site. Instead of ask- property holdings and developing them. ing, ‘Is the Watson Hill issue something we MeadWestvaco joined forces with local con- need to respond to?’ we made clear to our servationists and worked to develop a mas- staff that this issue was going to become ter plan for its 70,000-acre property called a top priority, and an ‘all hands on deck’ “East Edisto”—land that happened to be priority at that.” adjacent to Watson Hill. After the Watson Added to this was Drayton Hall’s status Hill developers went bankrupt, MeadWest- as a National Trust for Historic Preserva- vaco announced plans to buy back Watson tion Site. National Trust staff helped the Hill and fold it into East Edisto. Drayton Hall team articulate the campaign vision, mission, and goals that were necessary LESSONS LEARNED to forge common bonds with stakehold- Looking back on the entire saga, McDaniel ers, guide the disparate groups, anticipate and the other partners in the fight realized obstacles, and mobilize accordingly. Historic that this case study could serve as a valu- sites that may not have the distinct advantage able model for nonprofits and historic sites of being part of a national organization can across the country, to guide them in address- still benefit by working to develop strategic ing similar issues in their own communities. partnerships with local and regional groups McDaniel says that one of the most that can provide needed expertise and important characteristics of the team at resources to strengthen their planning and Drayton Hall was its ability to act quickly advocacy efforts. in response to the Watson Hill threat. “We Although Drayton Hall took a lead- felt strongly that [Drayton Hall’s] strategic ership role, the four-year campaign

40 fall 2010 ForumJournal evolved and developed along the way, now abated, actually has been a blessing and Drayton Hall had to alter its role in disguise for our site, and has helped accordingly. “Although we jumped into us forge a new path forward while many the fray immediately,” says McDaniel, sites around the country are struggling “we quickly realized the importance of to remain relevant. We established a adjusting our role as specific instances meaningful place for ourselves within called for different competencies. This the community and developed relation- campaign necessitated a multi-leader, ships with other organizations that are multi-pronged approach, and we were invaluable as we move into Drayton changing tack every week. That strategy Hall’s next chapter.” allowed for a number of different voices This case study provides a striking to be heard and for a grassroots cam- model for how historic sites can pursue paign to emerge. As in life, Watson Hill Whole Place Preservation. It shows the demanded that we be willing to lead, and importance and the imperative for his- also be willing to follow.” toric sites to look beyond their property Although this drawn-out campaign boundaries and to engage their local com- was a drain on the nonprofit’s bud- munities. Win or lose, context-sensitive get, the team at Drayton Hall came to preservation can generate new thinking understand its profound and enduring and discussion within the preservation importance: Its value became clear as community on how sites can maintain Drayton Hall came to be recognized as a their relevance in the face of declining leader in the community. With one highly admissions, federal budget cuts, and a publicized campaign, Drayton Hall was depressed economy. “Drayton Hall was able to change the common misconcep- seen as a bit of a renegade a few decades tion that preservationists are focused back with the battles we chose to fight,” solely on the past. The larger public With one highly publicized campaign, Drayton saw Drayton Hall Hall was able to change the common misconception helping to negoti- that preservationists are focused solely on the past. ate decisions for the community based on the future of the McDaniel says. “But our examples have region, and the site was able to connect become more and more mainstream, and to constituencies that had previously I see sites across the country engaging been regarded as outside of the purview their communities and negotiating their of a house museum. Today, a greater future like never before. Context-sensitive number of stakeholders now view the preservation must become a fundamen- historic site within the larger context tal part of the mainstream preservation of their community and the region, not movement as we negotiate the role of separate and apart from it. these sites in the 21st-century.” FJ “Drayton Hall realized that conserva- Emily c. Pack is the Ashley River Region tion interests and preservation interests coordinator at Drayton Hall. Taking a Whole are not mutually exclusive; in fact, in Place Preservation approach, she works for many cases they’re inseparable,” McDan- the preservation and conservation of Drayton Hall and its environs as well as the entire iel recounts. “The Watson Hill threat, Ashley River Region.

ForumJournal fall 2010 41 Make No Little Plans: Community Planning for Whole Places

Roberta Lane

reservationists spend a lot of time Community planning is one of the best talking about silos. Occasionally and simplest ways for people to embark on we’re speaking literally, about understanding and caring for places more the latest fight to save the grain comprehensively. Community planning Pstorage facilities that are sentinels of our takes many forms, but all emphasize a countryside. But as often as not, we’re collaborative approach, public input, big puzzling over proverbial silos, and how thinking, and a long view. The process, at best to break out of them to connect with its best, asks a community to take owner- people with similar interests. Preservation ship of its future, and to reconcile conflict- combines so many disciplines, and we’re ing or competing priorities. striving to have an influence in all differ- People love places wholly, and are losing ent spheres. We all know there is untapped them quickly. Threats such as unmanaged potential for creativity and new efficiencies sprawl and climate change are indiscriminate in this diversity, if we talk, plan, and work and will affect all the elements that make together more routinely. Because we also places special. If we’re focused narrowly on know how difficult it is to achieve that (and shoring a farmstead’s towering outbuilding, because we lack a new metaphor), we keep but we’re not working in concert with those working our way out of those silos. who are trying to keep that same farm in The idea that preservation and conserva- productive use, or with the group that wants tion should be in closer league is not new. to save the habitat and watercourse just In some places—including most places beyond the fields, we all lose. abroad—it’s standard practice to save places Through community planning, preser- comprehensively, coordinating protection vationists can join the public and our con- of significant historic, cultural, natural, and servation counterparts in celebrating and social values to nurture more sustainable safeguarding whole places. Many around and livable communities. In more limited the country are rising to this challenge with forms and instances, comprehensive protec- profound results. tion does have a foothold in this country, most obviously as the basis of our national Putting the “Comprehensive” parks and many state parks systems. in Comprehensive Planning But just as preservation contends with The comprehensive plan is the backbone of fragmentation within the field, it is still com- community land-use planning, setting forth mon for the natural resource conservation policy and a roadmap toward the local- realm to be very disconnected from historic ity’s vision of its future. Many states now preservation in the U.S. Significant resources require or provide incentives for munici- of all sorts are lost through this gap. palities to develop and regularly update

42 fall 2010 ForumJournal a comprehensive plan. Clearly, some prehensive plan process, without regard communities are far better than others in for section structures and titles. When their process and product, and without a advocates and community leaders work commitment to implementation, the plan past defined asset types, and talk instead alone will not get communities on the about whole places of value, they can build right track. Thoughtful outreach, broad enthusiasm for a unified vision of commu- public participation, and open collabora- nity livability and character that is much tion are the hallmarks of a plan that’s more inspiring than asking stakeholders truly comprehensive, and these elements to engage in any one aspect of resource are especially crucial for ensuring that protection for its own sake. resource protection provisions of a plan have meaning and lasting influence. True Collaboration It would be reasonable to expect that For community plan provisions to be effec- comprehensive planning would be built tive, the groups developing the sections on on both comprehensive collaboration natural and cultural resources need to have and a comprehensive view of place that real diversity of experience and commitment includes cultural, natural, and social to the process, they need access to expertise values. Those that rest on this assumption in best practices, and they need to involve the are taking a big risk, though. Unless the public and get input and buy-in specifically work has been done to sensitize a commu- on resource protection goals. nity to the importance and vulnerability A meeting of conservation and preserva- of natural and cultural resources, the plan tion minds in this context invites ambitious may de-emphasize resource protection—a solutions. If a need for resource surveys or major missed opportunity. inventories is identified on both sides, the That said, such plans typically do groups can consider whether a cooperative include sections on natural resource project makes sense. If both realize that fund- conservation or the environment, often ing will be needed for voluntary protection of combined with discussions of parks and/ the most significant and vulnerable resources or open space. In some cases the treatment of each type, they are already situated to of cultural resources, heritage, or neighbor- work together on a potent funding concept hood preservation is included in Community planning is one of the best and that same sec- simplest ways for people to embark on understanding tion. Sometimes it and caring for places more comprehensively. occupies its own section; sometimes it’s left out entirely. with broad appeal. And if, as is commonly A community character section may be true, both heritage and natural values are included to capture a range of issues that threatened by unmanaged growth, they can includes historic and cultural resources. work together to help the community iden- In any event, because they are work- tify appropriate land-use planning solutions ing to minimize the same threats, and to that achieve multiple protection goals.1 save treasured places, it makes sense for The rewards of this approach are exempli- conservationists and preservationists to be fied in theSonoran Desert Conservation in synch at some level through the com- Plan, produced by Pima County, Ariz.,

ForumJournal fall 2010 43 which includes Tucson. By the late 1990s aspirations for their plan. When this works, there was increasing concern about how a planning project with humble origins— to deal with intense growth pressure in a maybe launched to comply with a state region of treasured history, cultural richness, requirement, or to update an obsolete zoning and highly significant and sensitive natural map—becomes a process that uncovers and resources. The County proceeded to convene realizes a shared, cohesive vision for sustain- a large group of experts and embarked on ing quality of life in a place over time. years of public education and participation An example of this kind of transcendent meetings, ultimately producing an award- plan was created by Routt County, Colo. winning plan that grounded its land-use The county is defined in part by the Yampa recommendations on an in-depth, systematic Valley, and includes the city of Steamboat study of conservation and cultural preserva- Springs and several other historic towns, set tion needs. Among the many fruits of the among ranches, vast public lands, and moun- plan, in 2004 a bond issue of $175 million tain ridges. By the 1990s, rapid growth was was overwhelmingly approved by voters, consuming open space around the county for use in implementing the acquisition faster than ever before, affecting delicate recommendations of the plan, which include natural systems. New housing, roads, and open space, land conservation, and cultural sprawling commercial development were heritage targets.2 creeping in and diluting the rural character and farming heritage of the countryside. Collaboration at All Stages In 2007 the county government embarked When thinking broadly about natural, on a planning process, Routt County Vision cultural, and social values, there are some 2030, with the explicit goal of discovering key stages in comprehensive planning that and sustaining the values at the county’s can make all the difference: 1) at the outset, “heart and soul.” Supported by the Orton in setting the stage for community character Family Foundation, Vision 2030 aimed high, and resource protection to be understood and used new community visioning technolo- and fairly considered in the course of the gies and polling techniques to draw out resi- process; 2) during the public participation dents’ hopes for the future, grounded in their specific experiences, Communities have to gather and analyze all challenges, and joys kinds of information to properly develop and realize of living in the place. their community visions, captured in a variety of By focusing plans and reports beyond the comprehensive plan. intently on the values about which stake- phases, while talking to the community holders felt most strongly, including collecting about resource values, threats, and protect- memories and impressions of life in Yampa ion tools; and 3) in ensuring that resource pro- Valley, the county government ended up with tection goals are integrated with one another a plan that has strong emphasis on conserving and with the rest of the plan, both during the interwoven elements that make up com- development and finalization of the plan. munity character. While the plan includes a Preservationists and conservationists section on agricultural and open space issues, working together early in the process are one on heritage, and another on sustainabil- uniquely able to help raise a community’s ity, it captures the commonalities among these

44 fall 2010 ForumJournal The Land Trust for Tennessee worked with area residents to survey and assess both natural and historic resources in the Duck River region. The resulting report is guiding area land-use planning efforts.

Image courtesy of the Land Trust for Tennessee elements, too, as in a prominent recom- communities’ most sensitive and signifi- mendation in the sustainability section that cant sites as whole places. prioritizes reuse of historic and existing built elements to conserve resources.3 Beyond Comprehensive Plans: Building collaboration on resource pro- Developing Data and Details tection also comes in handy once the com- Communities have to gather and ana- munity is implementing a comprehensive lyze all kinds of information to properly plan. It’s a disappointing reality that local develop and realize their community decision-makers sometimes ignore policies visions, captured in a variety of plans and laid out in comprehensive plans, failing to reports beyond the comprehensive plan. support the community values articulated These range from broad-based regional in the plans and undermining the public’s studies down to plans that address in faith in its leadership and in planning as detail the treatment of specific places, a tool. It’s in the interest of everyone who such as preservation plans for individual supports a comprehensive planning pro- districts or sites. cess that the plan be upheld once adopted. Regardless of the scope of the plan, there When conservationists and preservationists can be benefits to taking a holistic approach have built a strong coalition in the course to protecting a place. One reason historic of planning, they can provide a much preservationists and land conservationists more powerful and united voice against might consider working together on these divergence from the plan down the line. plans is that we have analogous approaches Whether they are building a case to to understanding the resources of concern get resource protection included in the in a given area. The land conservation comprehensive plan at all, working to movement has put great emphasis, in recent ensure that the included sections have years, on pursuing strategic protection of vision and depth, or pushing for the plan the most sensitive and critical land areas, to be put into action, advocates for both which starts with surveying and mapping land and historic places will be more those places. Preservationists too, of course, effective when they stand together for the start with survey work, but in some places

ForumJournal fall 2010 45 we have some catching up to do before we public consideration of whole places. The will be able to put our own GIS-based local Duck River region is replete with historic map layers of historic resources into the farmsteads, country churches, and a vital mix along with GIS-based data of our land ecosystem. Around every bend, it’s clear that conservation counterparts. the land was shaped by history, and history In Jefferson County, W.Va., the Con- by the land. servation Fund and Freshwater Institute Rather than leave out an important part worked with the county planning com- of the region’s story, the land trust worked mission and community members through with area residents to survey and assess both 2008 to generate a Green Infrastructure natural and historic resources, and then Assessment, including mapping and priori- develop options for protecting them. Sup- tizing the most valued natural and cultural ported in part by a grant from the Tennessee heritage resources throughout the county. Historical Commission, the project’s 2005 The process allowed the public to partici- findings and recommendations have guided pate in and understand the survey work, subsequent protection work of the land trust, and gave leaders an integrated picture of as well as area land-use planning efforts.5 the county’s greatest gems.4 Meanwhile, on the shore of the Hudson River in New York, rapid development Leading the Planning Charge threatened to erode the historic character By leading community planning efforts, of a nationally significant landscape. The nonprofit advocacy organizations can have American victory in the Revolutionary War a profound impact on the future of the hinged on the defeat of General Burgoyne communities they serve. The Land Trust for at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. With the Tennessee launched the Duck River High- intact battlefield landscape and surrounding lands Project to facilitate a far-reaching historic and scenic resources under threat,

When rapid development along the shores of the Hudson River in New York threatened historic landscapes associated with the 1777 Battle of Saratoga, Saratoga P.L.A.N. developed a strategy to protect historic and scenic sites in the region, such at the home of American General Philip Schuyler, pictured here.

Courtesy of Saratoga P.L.A.N. (Preserving Land and Nature)

46 fall 2010 ForumJournal Saratoga P.L.A.N. (Preserving Land and Board of Supervisors in 2000, and with Nature) reached out to promote coordina- involvement of the Ho-chunk Nation, tion among the many concerned com- area municipal leaders, preservationists, munity groups arrayed along the length of conservationists, and a wide range of com- the Old Saratoga corridor. munity members, the Badger Reuse Plan The Old Saratoga on the Hudson was produced, and the Sauk Prairie Conser- project focused on waterfront revitaliza- vation Alliance created.7 Just this summer, tion, viewshed and farmland protection, transfer began in accordance with the plan, and creation of parks and trails to ensure as 2,000 acres were acquired for conserva- public access to the area. With funding tion as a state park. from the state and from the American Dorothea Dix State Hospital sits on Battlefield Protection Program, Sara- a campus of more than 300 acres in toga P.L.A.N. inventoried the significant Raleigh, N.C. With the hospital closing historic and scenic sites in the region and at the end of 2010, a grassroots effort to developed a preservation plan for protect- save the property has united those keenly ing them and their landscape context.6 interested in the reuse of the historic hospital structures with conservationists and Planning for Places parks advocates focused on turning its in the Balance grounds into an urban oasis. To mobilize When the fate of an important place is the community and block concepts that uncertain, and there’s a fair amount of would allow private development on time in which to act, advocates can move much of the campus, the Friends of the toward a big save by organizing a com- Dorothea Dix Park worked with a cross- munity planning effort. In many cases, section of groups to produce a plan that the planning process provides the perfect would preserve the whole campus as a framework for building a coalition, raising park, a plan that has become the rallying public awareness of the threat, and involv- cry for the coalition of advocates. ing the community in developing alternatives. The scope of the project should Planning for the Nation’s Best embrace all the elements of the place that Our National Heritage Areas provide one inspire the community’s regard. of our most successful models for address- A coordinated approach can help ing whole places through community small communities turn large and com- planning. The management planning pro- plex resource challenges into remarkable cess that begins after a National Heritage opportunities. The Badger Army Ammuni- Area is authorized can really be viewed tion Plant in Sauk County, in south-central as community planning for natural and Wisconsin, was opened in 1942 and now cultural resources, writ large. To develop occupies more than 7,000 acres in this its management plan, each National rural prairie region. When the U.S. Army Heritage Area is charged with doing announced plans to close the facility and public outreach and gathering input, using transfer ownership, community members resource surveys to understand the assets, rose to the challenge of finding a use for and formulating a plan to educate the some of its resources which would benefit public and to promote the area’s tourism the public. Authorized by the Sauk County and recreation sites.

ForumJournal fall 2010 47 A 180-mile stretch through Pennsylva- nia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Vir- ginia contains one of the country’s richest concentrations of nationally significant and deeply compelling scenic, historic, and natural places. Known as the Journey Through Hallowed Ground for the area’s historic battlefields and solemn sites, it is also one of the fastest-growing parts of the country. As Journey Through Hallowed Ground includes rich threats to and losses of this historic land- concentrations of scenic, historic, and natural scape have dogged the region, a partner- places, including Gettysburg Battlefield shown here. Proposals for everything from electricity ship among localities, grassroots groups, transmissions corridors to a casino continue preservation and conservation agencies and to pose threats to the historic context of this organizations, and many others grew to National Heritage Area. raise awareness of the area as a cohesive Photo by Byrd Wood heritage tourism destination, as well as an talking about places in the same way people endangered place. actually see them, we are able to connect The corridor was listed by the National with others on a new level. And not inciden- Trust for Historic Preservation as one of tally, in planning with conservationists, we’re America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic learning from one another about precious Places in 2005. Yet its future is uncertain, resources and the tools and approaches as proposals are made in the area for needed to protect them. FJ everything from an electricity transmission Roberta Lane is the senior program officer corridor to a casino. In 2008, though, the and regional attorney in the National Trust’s corridor was designated a National Heri- Northeast Office. tage Area, giving rise to a management plan 1 Some of the planning mechanisms that appear in comprehensive plan recommendations allow process that, at last, asked communities to communities to advance planning priorities very help envision the future of the place in its affirmatively. Tools such as Transfer of Develop- ment Rights (TDR) programs and growth bound- remarkable entirety, including conservation aries are highly valuable, but also complex, and preservation strategies.8 and they can have unintended consequences if they’re developed without adequate care and foresight. Unless these types of programs are designed with protection of historic and natural Conclusion resources in mind, they could negatively affect Both preservationists and conservationists are them. An established working relationship between preservation and conservation interests working to understand, promote, and protect means they can work together to ensure that irreplaceable assets, for a livable, sustainable programs like these direct growth in ways that will generally benefit both heritage and natural world. We’re also contending with the same values, rather than burdening either. threats. With common goals and common 2 Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, 2004. 3 Routt County Vision 2030, March 2009. obstacles, we’re smarter and more successful 4 Jefferson County Green Infrastructure Assess- when we plan together. ment, 2008. By viewing places as whole systems and 5 Duck River Highlands Project, Land Trust for Ten- nessee, 2005. addressing threats more effectively, these 6 Old Saratoga on the Hudson Waterfront Revital- planning efforts do more to reinforce growth ization Plan, 2007. management, heritage tourism, and economic 7 Badger Reuse Plan, 2000. 8 The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage revitalization goals, as well. Because we’re Area Corridor Management Plan, 2008.

48 fall 2010 ForumJournal

periodicals Postage Paid Washington, DC

1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.PreservationNation.org

Return Postage Guaranteed Address Correction Requested

Scituate, Rhode Island.

Photo by Richard Prull