In earlier decades, most wildlife refuge managers focused more on what happened within their refuge boundaries. In more recent times, managers of wildlife refuges have realized that it is increasingly important to view and manage refuge lands as pieces interwoven in a landscape-level tapestry of conservation. They have recognized that because wildlife ecosystem processes require work at broad landscape levels, the Service must, again, look outward to our neighbors, conservation partners and surrounding communities to achieve our collective goals. The Refuge System must look beyond its borders and think critically about the pressing issues affecting the species and ecosystems it strives to manage.
The number of national wildlife refuges involved in landscape-level conservation coalitions grows every day. The San Joaquin River Partnership, Sandhills Task Force, and Greater Noxubee Wildlife Management Cooperative are coalitions with one or more wildlife refuges at their core. Other projects like Montana’s Blackfoot Challenge, South Carolina’s ACE Basin and New England’s Silvio O. Conte Refuge are famous for their collaborative approaches to conservation, and they have impressive tallies of protected acres to show for their work.
The era is over when the Refuge System could focus only on protecting land and water inside refuge boundaries, and leave to a roll of the dice what happened outside the boundaries. The emerging model focuses on conserving entire landscapes and connecting the stewardship of those landscapes to the livability and sustainability of local communities.
The new model has patterns and themes that, while not evident in every coalition, can certainly be found in most. Each project accomplishes conservation through a broad coalition of partners. Working in such diverse coalitions requires utmost diplomacy and collaboration skills.
Each project is based on a network of core protected areas which are usually complemented with conservation easements overlain on working lands. Each organizes resources and provides workshops to help participants be better land stewards. Some may teach a workshop on how to control invasive plants while at the same time implementing a landscape-level contract to control them. Others might train members of the public how to remove fish passage barriers while at the same time securing one drainage-wide permit to remove dozens of barriers.
Leaders of such projects become masters at finding efficiencies of scale and at directing new issues to the members most capable of handling them. They take advantage of all the tools that diverse partners can bring to the table, and gain efficiency by applying the best tool to the task at hand.
New units of the Refuge System are being designed as cooperatives from the start. The Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area in Kansas will conserve up to 1.1 million acres of tallgrass prairie through voluntary, perpetual conservation easements; 45,000 acres of core areas are already protected there. These easements will further protect habitat for 100 species of grassland birds and 500 species of plants. Importantly, these working landscapes ensure the region’s ranching culture is sustained. A partnership of ranchers, state and federal agencies, and non-government organizations are coordinating the project.
Similarly, the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area is being planned with a broad coalition of partners and land owners to protect 150,000 acres of the Kissimmee River Valley near Orlando, Florida. The proposed conservation area includes 50,000 acres that could be purchased with an additional 100,000 acres protected through easements and agreements. Major goals include improving water quality and providing outdoor recreation, but at the same time protecting habitat for 88 federal and state threatened and endangered species, including the Florida panther, Florida black bear, whooping crane, Everglade snail kite and the Eastern indigo snake. The 150,000-acre project would link to another 690,000 acres of existing conservation lands.
Some long-established wildlife refuges undoubtedly are in landscapes ripe for collaborative coalitions. Funding similar to what is available through the Service’s Partners Program can be vital to starting coalitions and building new relationships. The Service should manage wildlife refuges, where possible, with a partnership approach with adjacent private landowners. State Wildlife Action Plans should inform these efforts. Their effectiveness will be enhanced through coordination with Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
Recommendation: Seek conservation funding for cooperative management projects.
Recommendation: Develop and provide collaboration and diplomacy skills training to employees to increase land management cooperatives among national wildlife refuges, local landowners, and other partners. The training should include educating private landowners on the benefits of conservation.
With the urgent need to both buffer conservation lands and connect them, the Service must place greater emphasis on pursuing the as-yet unrealized potential of Farm Bill programs. The Refuge System can accelerate conservation in priority areas by more strategically partnering with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) to better access, leverage and target Farm Bill dollars. The Farm Bill contains billions of dollars in funding for conservation on private lands – much of it under-utilized. More than a dozen conservation programs fund land protection through conservation easements and long-term rental contracts as well as restoration of forests, wetlands, grasslands, riparian buffers and other wildlife habitats.
Recommendation: Work closely with the USDA to align and prioritize Farm Bill conservation program funding in landscapes with the highest wildlife value.
Recommendation: Educate high-priority landowners adjacent to wildlife refuge boundaries about relevant Farm Bill conservation programs.
Recommendation: Become well versed on Farm Bill programs and opportunities through representation on each of the NRCS State Technical Committees.
Recommendation: Seek out opportunities to partner with other agencies, non-government conservation groups and others to pool resources and leverage Farm Bill dollars in priority wildlife areas.
Comment below and/or move on to next sub-section of Chapter 2 - Ocean and Marine Conserveration
9 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Some of this is very dated, and is related to the bewhiskered recommendation in Chapter 5: (“Recommendation: The Refuge System will find innovative and efficient ways to work with other agencies to establish positive relationships and partnerships.”) The whole section sounds like it came from 1981, not 2011. Is there really anybody left out there who is not engaged with partners, not looking beyond refuge boundaries, and not thinking about landscapes? I hope not. The recommendation “Seek conservation funding for cooperative management projects.” is weak and unnecessary.
The question is how effectively do we utilize USDA programs? If the conservation community, including Service staff, are already fully engaged with these programs, then I agree it is time to move on. If not, then there is still much opportunity.
The USDA Farm Bill has limitations for the Conservation Reserve Program and some of the other programs, and many landowners are skeptical. Landowners will need more than just an annual rent check. They need to know they function as a partner with other landowners in a very much larger context, the landscape model. To make the point, they need to be informed about what their individual contribution is and how it is measured. For instance, what is the measurable value for water quality, nesting and rearing or carbon sequestration. Make the measurable values simple and easy to understand. Develop the concept, pilot a project, then replicate it over and over. This may require that a few USFWS employees become exceptionally knowledgable about USDA programs. A recommendation might mean cross-over training with USDA. Employees of the USFWS might be granted some limited abilities to assist development landowners with applications for USDA programs.
1. Section 3 needs to have a separate chapter dealing with endangered species management, much as it does for invasive species and others.
2. Emphasize the refuges that were established for ES, and hightlight what is being done to help recover the species on NWRS lands.
3. Illustrate how refuges will cooperate and coordinate with others outside refuges to help recover endangered species.
4. Focusing on how the public can help endangered species conservation on public lands can serve to increase use, viability, and relevance of refuges to this highly visible category of species. Americans are extremely interested in endangered species as evidenced by the high amount of hits on the FWS website. This interest can be channeled, in part, to support refuges that manage for ES.
This section is very Farm Bill centric, and I assume there are opportunities not tied to the farm bill, which might be more relevant during our current federal spending cuts….
Also, I second Lew Gorman’s comment. “trust resources’ are loosely discussed in this vision document, but too often in the past refuges have centered around raising ducks. I am hoping we are past that now, but without some dedicated text to how refuges sees their emerging role in protection of all trust resources, the document (and perhaps the vision0 is a bit hollow. How, for instance are migratory birds and bats going to be protected given the desire to build more and more turbines? can we protect air space? For endangered species, how would refuges prioritize their protection considering they are often the canary in the coal mine, and there are so many of them. The further we get behind in endangered species recovery, the more likely it will be that other species within those same ecosystems will require listing and the full protections of the Act.
One of the necessary challenges in working with private landowners will be economics. That need is recognized in the reference to the Flint Hills Legacy area’s ranching culture, however it is not directly addressed in the document. We have to realize that for many landowners that will be the deciding factor in the question of whether or not to participate.
As conservationists we hold dear the view that wild lands have intrinsic value that is worth protecting. I certainly share that view. Everyone does not. I’m guessing that most landowners can’t afford to keep their lands wild or restore native landscapes. Tax breaks help as do incentives like CRP, but we will have to address a desire get a financial return from the land. We may find ourselves in conflict with our own beliefs and policies, particularly with respect to clean energy. To address our climate change goals we need clean energy. Will we accept turbines on or near our land or our partners’ land? What about biomass? Can we allow for-profit harvest? Will that include energy crops? Exotic energy crops? Our historical views of the economics of conservation will be increasingly challenged. Black and white is rapidly turning to gray.
Working Beyond Wildlife Refuge Boundaries has always been a difficult goal to achieve. Please keep working harder to accomplish it. As stated in other sections, refuge staff need training in diplomacy and relationship building.
The USFWS Partners Program is a powerful program, that while not well-funded, provides a much needed niche for many landowners that for many reasons cannot access Farm Bill programs. I encourage the Service and Refuges to seek increased funding for this program. Refuge staff should prioritize working with adjacent private lands to accomplish refuge goals by directing staff and funding to key lands near existing NWRs.
Many areas of the country have important working landscapes that should be maintained, from the Flint Hills of Kansas to the Mississippi Delta. These landscapes provide wildlife habitat in a myriad of ways. I encourage the USFWS to work more closely with USDA and other partners to ensure that the lands are kept working so these habitats can be sustained in perpetuity.
We need to clarify the use of Refuge funds and personnel on non-refuge areas – and/or expand the definition of NWRS authorities outside of our boundaries. Perhaps incorporation of partnership work into laws or policy would be appropriate.
I believe this section (and possibly Ch. 5) should elaborate on the USFWS/NWRS role in developing a strategic, science-based approach to green energy development and transmission line siting, both on and off refuges. With the rising interest in and demand for renewable resources, wind farms, solar arrays, and hydroelectric plants are becoming a development trend; however, these structures, along with their corresponding transmission corridors, may pose threats to the wildlife and habitat entrusted to the USFWS for protection, whether on refuge or not. In order to move forward, the USFWS must conduct or identify the sound scientific research to responsibly construct and site this infrastructure in a way that is compatible with trust resources. Furthermore, the USFWS must engage as a scientific advisor or cooperating agency in the NEPA process for such new development to ensure that promotion of “green” development does not come at the cost of our wildlife.