Pinchot focus areas:     |
General purpose
Request for Proposals: Forest Carbon Project Aggregation Model
Project Title:
Forest Carbon Project Aggregation Model
Project Period of Performance: January 01, 2015 – March 01, 2015 Proposal Due Date and Submission Instructions: Submit proposals to Bkittler[at]pinchot.org by 5:00 PM PST on December 15, 2014. Project Summary: The Pinchot Institute for Conservation (the Institute) is seeking a consultant to assist with the development of a forest carbon offset project involving multiple non-industrial private forest landowners in Western Oregon and Western Washington State. Participating landowners will be aggregated under the American Carbon Registry (ACR) Improved Forest Management (IFM) carbon credit methodology for non-federal forests. The specific work being sought under this RFP is for the development of a model for aggregating non-industrial private forest landowners under a single carbon project. For more information download the full Request for Proposals Inside the Institute
Pinchot Institute Opens Western
Regional Office
 The Pinchot Institute for Conservation opened its new
Western Regional Office in June, naming Brian
Kittler as its founding director. Kittler was formerly with
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. “The Western
Regional Office will allow the Pinchot Institute to work
more closely with our federal, state and regional partners
throughout the West to improve the conservation and
sustainable management of forests on both public and
private lands,” said Institute President Al Sample.
“Population growth, energy development, and climate
change are making conservation more difficult than ever
before, and it is all the more important to engage communities
and other stakeholders in developing enduring
solutions to these challenges.”
“New kinds of working relationships will be needed to confront the unprecedented conditions on public lands in the West, especially the federal lands,” said Brian Kittler. “Communities all over the West have a common interest in finding ways to get ahead of wildfires and insect epidemics. New developments in science and policy won’t mean much if we don’t find practical and broadly supported ways to implement these ideas on the ground.” The Western Regional Office will also advance projects focusing on private lands, such as the Institute’s innovative Forest Health-Human Initiative which seeks to provide family forest owners with additional health care assistance in exchange for their commitments to conserve and sustainably manage their woodlands. “New and exciting innovations are emerging at the local level; our objective is to show they can work, and then apply them on other locations across the country,” said Kittler. “The Pinchot Institute has contributed to improving knowledge of important conservation issues, including bioenergy, ecosystem services, climate change, forestry education, and community forestry, said Kent Connaughton, the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester for the US Forest Service. “All are relevant across the United States, but the perspective provided by the Institute has been particularly important in the Pacific Northwest, where a number of these issues are in their infancy, and promise to become dominant in influencing public policy in the future.” Connaughton added, “I particularly appreciate the Institute’s work on stewardship contracting, which has become an influential tool in achieving environmental, community, and economic goals on the national forests in the region; I believe the new office in Portland will only strengthen the Pinchot Institute’s influence and impact on the conservation policy.” Kent Connaughton,Wade Mosby Elected to Pinchot Institute Board of Directors The Pinchot Institute for Conservation has announced the election of Kent Connaughton and Wade Mosby to its board of directors. “Wade and Kent bring exceptional knowledge of forest conservation and management to the Institute, with broad experience in economics and policy matters on both public and private lands,” said board chair Nels Johnson. “Kent and Wade have been bold leaders on emerging issues such as forest certification, bioenergy, and climate change that are both challenges and opportunities for forest landowners and managers.We are pleased to have their innovative leadership to strengthen the Institute’s influence and impact on conservation policy,” said Al Sample, President of the Pinchot Institute. Kent Connaughton served until recently as Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region of the US Forest Service. Connaughton began his 36-year career with the Forest Service at the Pacific Northwest Research Station as a forest economics researcher. He has had assignments as Forest Supervisor on the Lassen National Forest in California and as Deputy Regional Forester in the Pacific Southwest Region. He also served as Associate Deputy Chief for State&Private Forestry in Washington, DC, and as Regional Forester for the Eastern Region. Connaughton holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University, a Master of Forestry degree from Oregon State University, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the Society of American Foresters, and was elected Fellow of that professional society in 1991. Kent and his wife Sue reside in Portland, Oregon. Wade Mosby served most recently as Senior Vice President for Collins Companies, an integrated forest products company headquartered in Portland, Oregon, with certified forestry operations in Oregon, California, and Pennsylvania. His 35-year career in the forest industry includes positions at Kimberly-Clark, Bohemia, and Roseburg Forest Products. Mosby is a founding member of the Forest Stewardship Council, co-founder and director emeritus of Forest Trends, founding director emeritus for the Oregon Natural Step Network, and served on the boards of Sustainable Northwest, American Forest Resource Council, Keep Oregon Green, and Biomass Power Association. Wade and his wife Susan are long-time residents of Portland, Oregon. Fellowship Focuses on Increasing Capacity for Community-Based Conservation Patrick Bixler has been appointed to a postdoctoral research fellowship at the Pinchot Institute, following the recent completion of his Ph.D. in Sociology at Colorado State University. Bixler will continue his research on factors that contribute to increased capacity in community-based conservation, leading to more effective conservation outcomes. His dissertation illustrates that landscape conservation outcomes can be attributed to relationships, flows of information, and resource linkages that constitute conservation networks. His research illustrates this effect through three different problem case studies: invasive species, grizzly bear conservation, and climate adaptation. Throughout each, the analysis highlights key mechanisms that increase capacity for community-based conservation engaged in cross-scale networks to bring information and resources to implement local conservation efforts. His research highlights that conservation outcomes are more likely when there is alignment in the ways that stakeholders “frame” the problem, illustrating the range of uncertainty in the decision-making process in landscapes characterized by change and variability. While at Colorado State, Patrick was twice a Center for Collaborative Conservation Research Fellow, selected for a competitive summer school program for environmental governance in Aas, Norway, and worked closely with Pinchot Institute Senior Fellow, Tony Cheng. Remembering Ed Vandermillen
The Pinchot Institute’s 50th anniversary gave us an opportunity to recognize some of the extraordinary individuals whose vision and leadership helped make the Institute into what it is today. Ed Vandermillen, who passed away on June 3, played a pivotal role as Director of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Studies at Grey Towers 1983–1987, and then again 1988-1990 following an assignment to the US Forest Service office in Washington. In cooperation with Gifford Bryce Pinchot and the Pinchot family, Ed strove to realize the vision of the Pinchot Institute as a catalyst for conservation and a think tank for new ideas designed to resolve the many looming environmental problems facing the country and the world.He believed strongly that the Institute’s work must be “science-based and impartial,” and helped establish the reputation of Grey Towers as a neutral forum at a time when controversies over natural resource conservation and environmental policy were exceptionally contentious. Ed helped craft the vision for the Pinchot Institute that has guided our work, and that will continue to inspire generations to come.
—Al Sample
Greening a Forestry Supply Chain to Mitigate Climate Change: A Case Study from the Rainforests of Ecuador
Peter Pinchot
The EcoMadera community forestry enterprise is a Pinchot Institute pilot project— combined with a for-profit business— testing an innovative strategy for conserving Ecuador’s coastal rainforests. The EcoMadera project was established in 2002, when a group of landowners in a small rainforest community in northwestern Ecuador partnered with a US Peace Corps volunteer, David Smith, and with Pinchot Institute Senior Fellow Peter Pinchot, to create a community forestry enterprise. The goals set by the community members were to conserve the forests that were being lost to persistent illegal logging and conversion to agriculture, and to improve the standard of living of families living within the local watershed. Twelve years later, EcoMadera has grown into a small, but rapidly growing forest products company. It manages forest plantations and native forests, manufactures wood products in a facility located in the community, markets them internationally, and provides full-time employment to 55 community members. This kind of success, relatively rare among community forestry projects in the tropics, is inspiring others to learn more about this approach and apply it in other locations in tropical forests. EcoMadera is now updating its community forestry business model to demonstrate how a project like this can have a greater impact on mitigating climate change. Global Context Debates about climate change focus largely on the role of coal, oil, and natural gas as the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. However, over the last 150 years, forest exploitation and deforestation have been responsible for 30 to 40% of the human-generated carbon emissions contributing to global climate change. This trend is continuing, with tropical deforestation and forest degradation in Latin America, Africa, and Asia still producing roughly 15% of global annual carbon emissions. Temperate forests, having significantly recovered from forest loss in the 19th and early 20th century, are currently acting as carbon sinks, but are predicted to become carbon emitters as the climate continues to get warmer.1 These trends make it clear that reducing forest carbon emissions is essential to our ability to make the transition to a low-carbon economy and to return to a sustainable climate regime. 
An additional 50 years of tropical deforestation, without any further fossil fuel emissions, would put us close to a 2°C increase, the estimated threshold for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. In 2008, recognizing the need to develop an effective strategy to control tropical deforestation, the United Nations established a program for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). During the past six years, 51 tropical nations (including Ecuador, where EcoMadera operates) have partnered with the UN to develop national REDD strategies. A key obstacle to putting REDD into practice has been the failure to create a global carbon market that can provide sufficient funding to support national programs to control deforestation. The UN estimates that it will cost $30 billion a year to reduce deforestation sufficiently to stay within the 2°C limit. In the absence of a global carbon market, no international consensus has emerged to provide this funding. There are several factors that have to be addressed to reduce deforestation in developing countries:
 While waiting for the emergence of REDD carbon markets, EcoMadera has focused on raising the value of community forests through sustainable forestry, on managing native forests and forest plantations, and on local manufacturing of valuable wood products. The Pinchot Institute has played a central role in the evolution of this enterprise, with major support from the MacArthur Foundation, Overbrook Foundation, and Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, and from USAID and private donors. These funds have supported basic studies that are the foundation of sustainable forestry, including conservation planning, taxonomy and silviculture of 300 tree species, low impact timber harvest, and design of innovative wood products that can utilize 60 to 80 largely unknown wood species in products that can drive value back to forest communities. Low Carbon Economy, Green Markets, and Impact Investing The dramatic growth of the green economy, focused on sustainability and on mobilizing “impact investing” —venture capital invested with a commitment to achieving social and environmental outcomes—provides important new opportunities for addressing both climate change and tropical deforestation. Exciting examples include: the California cap and trade program, which is creating the first formal carbon offset market for preventing tropical deforestation; the rise in global investment in renewable energy projects to nearly $300 billion annually; the rapid growth of energy-efficient, low-emission housing design and commercial construction; and growth of impact investment funds to nearly $1 trillion in capital. These trends create an unprecedented business opportunity for community forestry to scale up to the point where it can have a major impact on deforestation and carbon emissions—if we can help community forestry enterprises to access these markets. For decades, the conservation community has supported community forestry projects through multilateral and private foundation funding, and many nations have developed policies friendly to community forestry. These actions have been necessary, but in many cases insufficient to slow deforestation. Why? Because deforestation is driven largely by the opportunity cost of agriculture and other non-forest uses. To reduce deforestation, communities have to connect their forests to markets which will provide returns to landowners that are economically competitive with the most valuable non-forest opportunity.  To become competitive, community
forestry has two options:
1) accessing government incentives
for conservation and 2) establishing a
viable business enterprise that can
drive value back to forests and their
owners. Where opportunity costs are
high (soy beans, cacao, African oil
palm, and even cattle), conservation
incentive programs cannot compete
effectively with agriculture. Thus
EcoMadera believes that, where the
deforestation threat is high, the combination
of a competitive business
venture and government incentives is
the most viable option.
EcoMadera has built its forest product business by accessing two of the green markets described earlier: global wind energy and the US green construction industry. First, we grow balsa tree plantations and manufacture balsa wood laminates which are transformed into the core material for industrial composites used in wind turbine blades. EcoMadera exports to balsa composite markets in Europe, the US, and China. The wind industry demand for balsa is growing rapidly, and EcoMadera is currently raising capital to expand its manufacturing capacity and to establish more balsa plantations. Second, based on the Pinchot Institute’s program of R&D in forestry and wood products, EcoMadera is starting up a second business line in mixed-species hardwood products. Our first product is butcher block countertops. This product has grown out of EcoMadera’s “whole forest design” strategy, which is based on utilizing the harvestable species in the native forest in the relative abundance in which they can be sustainably harvested. We let good silviculture drive our product design, which then drives the maximum value possible back to the forest. The types of wood used will vary according to the mix of species in the latest timber harvest, with 6 to 8 species per countertop, and a balance of colors and textures. We are working with green architects, designers, and contractors to develop the most appealing species mixes, and we are negotiating a contract with a national distributor of countertops. 
The Value of Empowering Local Women as Leaders EcoMadera’s manufacturing facility is run by three female employees from the local community. One manages the entire manufacturing facility, another is production foreman, and a third manages kiln drying—the most technically demanding skill set. Since these highly capable women assumed their new posts a year ago, the manufacturing process has been made more efficient, achieving a 25% increase in wood yield, and employee productivity has been dramatically improved. New Partnerships— A Multiple Benefit Community Forestry Model Despite the progress in establishing a viable community forestry enterprise, EcoMadera is still struggling to control deforestation elsewhere in the 125,000-acre watershed where it operates, settled by 500 colonist families in the late 1970s. Although EcoMadera has become a viable forest products business, until recently, we had not evolved an effective strategy for connecting the families to markets that can compete with agriculture. In the past eight months, EcoMadera has developed a strong partnership with the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment that will allow us to integrate government incentives into a comprehensive set of benefits to landowners. We have developed an memorandum of understanding between EcoMadera and the Ministry with the following conservation strategy:
EcoMadera is now expanding this multiple benefit conservation model, with continued strong support from the MacArthur Foundation, and more recently from the German development agency, GIZ. Just recently the Ministry of Environment has expanded its Socio Bosque incentive program to include all the elements of this model including sustainable forestry and forest restoration. The Ministry plans to work closely with EcoMadera to develop this strategy as a model for community forestry in Ecuador. EcoMadera also recently hosted a visit by the Rainforest Alliance and representatives of Quichua indigenous communities in the Amazon region of Ecuador, who want to partner with EcoMadera and develop a sustainable forestry program. Based on this new landowner model and the expansion of the balsa laminate business and the start up of hardwood countertop manufacturing, EcoMadera is updating its business and market plan. We are also working with social investors to raise capital for continued expansion. More information about EcoMadera and its developing business and market plan can be found at http://www.ecomaderaforest.com. We would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions regarding this project. Peter Pinchot is a Senior Fellow at the Pinchot Institute, and director of the EcoMadera project in Cristóbal Colón, Ecuador. He can be reached at peterpinchot@ecomaderaforest.com. Notes 1 USDA Forest Service. 2012. Future of America’s Forest and Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, DC. 198 pp. 2 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 3 Trumper, K., Bertzky, M., Dickson, B., van der Heijden, G., Jenkins, M., Manning, P. June 2009. The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK. 4 Verbist, B., Van Goidsenhoven, M., Dewulf, R., Muys, B. (2011). Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. KLIMOS working paper 3, KLIMOS, Leuven, Belgium. 5 A. Baccini et al (2012). Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbondensity maps. Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate1354 Published online 29 January 2012 The Nature Conservancy’s Strategies for Climate Change
Chris Topik — Director, Restoring America’s Forests, North American Region, The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is one of the world’s leading conservation organizations, working in 33 nations with a large and dedicated staff in the United States implementing a broad array of conservation work. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. We are now focused on a new global framework that provides a discrete set of strategies to respond to global challenges we all face: conserving critical lands; securing fresh water; restoring our oceans, and reducing the impacts of climate change. As one of the largest private land owners in the United States our land stewards have the opportunity to pioneer many innovative land use practices to help maintain habitats, including forests, so our lands and waters can be more resilient to climate change stresses. In the United States we remain concerned by the likelihood climate change will greatly impact nature, by changing normal stresses that help shape our natural communities, such as fire and disease. We recognize that long term forecasts suggest in a few decades we will see dramatic reductions in the ability of America’s forests to sequester carbon, so it is vital we figure out how to make forests adapt in order to keep forests as major carbon mitigation tool. Sample efforts in the United States include:
Can a Federally-led Partnership Facilitate Regional Change?
Sarah Low — US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station
The Delaware River Watershed, specifically Philadelphia and Chester, Pennsylvania, Camden, New Jersey, and Wilmington, Delaware, was made an Urban Waters Federal Partnership site in June 2011. In developing this Partnership the lead agencies for this site, the USDA Forest Service, NOAA, and Department of Interior National Park Service, decided to convene gatherings of federal agencies, community nonprofit organizations, and local agencies to find out from communities what the pressing issues and needs are. Several themes emerged across the four cities—brownfields, parks/trails/open space, habitat and river restoration, water quality and quantity, and climate resilience. The first four themes are easily connected to existing or possible projects, the kinds of projects that can be delineated on a map, funded, monitored, and completed, but climate resiliency projects are not as easy to identify. 
Phoenix Park also brings together a variety of partners, including the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, a nonprofit that has been planning and monitoring living shorelines throughout the Estuary. A living shoreline will be created at Phoenix Park to reintroduce mussels, which may improve the water quality of the Delaware River for downstream communities that depend on the river for drinking water. If the conversion of one brownfield to a park can carry with it the potential for regional benefits, what could happen if brownfields throughout the watershed were converted to green space? While climate resilience may not be the initial impetus for projects like Phoenix Park, it may be an important outcome. If projects like Phoenix Park were completed throughout the region in a way that compounds benefits at each site, perhaps a strategic approach to climate resilience could come from the act of gathering and sharing. For this reason, the Urban Waters Federal Partnership has been developing Communities of Practice that link Federal agencies with local and regional organizations and agencies. Communities of Practice are not only valuable to their region, but they also offer lessons learned that can be shared with the network of 17 other Urban Waters Federal Partnership sites throughout the country. These Communities of Practice are intended to create real, sustained change that improves peoples’ lives by increasing access to information about existing resources and elevating regional knowledge through the sharing of lessons learned. Climate Change and Conservation — A Fish and a Marsh
Noah Matson — Vice President for Landscape Conservation and Climate Adaptation, Defenders of Wildlife
Climate change is upending conservation. To illustrate, I will tell a story about a fish and a marsh. The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is a unique wildlife refuge—established as much to catalyze conservation throughout the Connecticut River watershed as to protect land. One of the Refuge’s establishing purposes was to restore imperiled Atlantic salmon to the river where they once swam. There are many challenges with this conservation objective, but perhaps the biggest today is climate change. The Connecticut River is in the southern end of the historic range of Atlantic salmon, and this mighty river will become increasingly inhospitable for this cold water fish. The US Fish and Wildlife Service needs to evaluate its basic conservation purposes for this refuge in light of climate change.  Further down the eastern
seaboard, the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge in Maryland was
created in 1933 to protect marshes
important to migrating waterfowl and
other species. Since establishment, a
third of the refuge’s marshland areas
have become open water as a result of
a combination of influences, including
the highly-erosive habits of the invading
nutria (a wetland rodent) population;
subsidence of the land, and sea
level rise. In its now decade-old management
plan, the refuge set out to
restore the marsh to its historic conditions—a bold, expensive,
and perhaps impossible task in light of the rising waters
of the Chesapeake Bay.
But now the Fish and Wildlife Service is working with partners to strategically think through its conservation options given both the experienced and projected impacts of climate change. The refuge is beginning to look at not where the marshes used to be, but where they might be going to make sure the refuge continues to provide this important habitat type. Five to ten years ago, in places like these we often saw managers wrestling with how to deal with the complex impacts of climate change on their own, and often within the context of their own boundaries and jurisdictions. Today that is changing. Last year, the Obama administration released the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy.1 This unprecedented strategy is the product of more than 20 federal and state agencies and tribal organizations making it the first national level intergovernmental climate adaptation plan. It provides a foundation for tackling the complex, large-scale issues of climate change. It recognizes that no single individual, organization, or agency can practice conservation alone, and that we need to work collectively, across large landscapes, in order to address extreme weather events, larger and more intense wild fires, and species on the move. There are now increasing science and technical resources available for wildlife and land managers to tackle climate change. The USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and its associated regional climate science centers are now a $25 million a year venture providing applied adaptation-related science. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,USDA, and other federal and state programs have similar science- driven entities relevant to land and resource management. The foundation has been laid for a more comprehensive and effective response to conservation in an era of climate change. It has taken over a century to build the conservation movement and institutions we have today, and it will take time to adjust to the new reality of an ever-changing climate. We can and we must adapt the way we do conservation if we are to succeed in passing along this world’s incredible biodiversity to the next generation. Notes: 1 National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership. 2012. National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/ Conservation in a Changing World
Peter Howell — Executive Vice President Conservation Capital Programs, Open Space Institute
Climate change poses vexing challenges for the land trust community. Chief among them is the issue of permanence. Land trusts like the Open Space Institute are primarily focused on permanent protection, through the purchase of land and easements. But given climate change, which lands should we protect? And how can we be assured that the lands we protect today will harbor or attract biodiversity tomorrow? How can we deliver on this larger concept of permanence?  Of course, not every land trust is focused on conserving
biodiversity. Many trusts protect lands for recreation,
their aesthetic value, or for water quality and quantity. But
as the climate warms, there is increasing pressure on land
trusts to demonstrate that their work is relevant to climate
adaptation-of both wildlife and humans—and thus is
addressing the major issue of our time.
The good news is that advances in science are illustrating the important role for land protection in facilitating wildlife adaptation to climate change. With support from various foundations and the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Northeast Landscape Conservation Cooperative,my organization is wrestling with understanding and translating a range of cutting edge climate science that can help land trusts determine which are the most important places to protect and why. There is no shortage of information available about climate change. Various organizations, including The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation, have released helpful guides on how to understand and facilitate climate-smart climate adaptation. It’s the subject of many sessions at land trust gatherings, and few land trust practitioners can afford to ignore the evolving science about climate change. New research on terrestrial resilience developed by The Nature Conservancy is helping to identify places where natural communities will thrive well into the future. The idea is to protect those places most likely to harbor a wide variety of natural communities even though the composition and location of those communities will most likely change in ways we cannot predict. In a nutshell, resilience boils down to three things: complexity, connectedness, and geology. The more “complex” a landscape—the more slopes, valleys, cliffs it has—the more species can adapt when change occurs. The more “connected” a landscape—the fewer the roads, buildings, etc.—the more species can move around and access these complex features. Geology plays a critical role, as different geologies and soils support different kinds of plants and animals. Protecting a range of geology types is critical to maintaining the full suite of biodiversity. Indeed, as a community, we have protected a lot of mountain peaks and coastal landscapes.We now need to do a better job of protecting, for example, lower level mountains, limestone valleys, and silt flood plains that could be crucial to facilitating wildlife adaptation to climate change. With funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Open Space Institute is testing the application of this science by providing capital grants to land trusts to protect resilient landscapes in four focus areas of the east, and providing smaller grants to incorporate the science into conservation plans and guide public and private funders. It’s a grand experiment that both requires a new way of thinking about “place” and very practical ground-truthing to make sure the science makes sense. This approach—focusing on the enduring features of the land— provides a complement to the more species-based approach that underlies traditional vulnerability assessments. The latter are used frequently to identify how changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to affect the distribution of species across the landscapes. While predicting such changes can be problematic and the focus on species movements may obscure what’s enduring about certain places, such assessments are an important piece of the puzzle.With the support of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, we’re hoping to utilize these and other science and data to provide decision-makers with the information they need to make better choices about conservation on the ground. In the end, to paraphrase hockey great Wayne Gretzky’s comment about skating and the puck, we will measure our success by whether we can help land trusts to protect the lands where biodiversity will be, not just where it has been. Adapting Conservation to Climate Change: Perspectives from the Field
Will Price
As governments, businesses, and conservation organizations debate what can be done to decelerate emissions of greenhouse gases, they are already mobilizing to deal with the repercussions.More and more, strategies to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem functions take into consideration how conditions and disturbance regimes will change going forward, thinking about where flora and fauna will need to move, or how to identify and secure places that have always proven to harbor biodiversity. In the last few years a number of studies have begun to paint a picture of how ecosystems of North America will be affected by shifting seasons: more droughts in some places and floods in others, higher tides, bigger storms, and many other possibilities. However, climate models are still hard to interpret at the scale at which we must make conservation decisions and investments. Some changes at this point seem certain (like the rising seas) or are already being observed (average annual temperatures). Other changes are harder to predict, in many cases because they rely on complex climatic interactions that do not yet downscale reliably to specific regions—especially when the variable of interest is inherently dynamic (e.g. intensity of storm events). Yet despite these uncertainties many organizations are finding ways to take actions that are needed to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
Among the most influential organizations working on this challenge in North America are the Open Space Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and the US Forest Service, though many others are doing similar thinking and adapting their strategies and actions to a new world. What follows are a few vignettes on how these organizations are coping with the challenges of climate change in the field. Conservation in a Changing World by Peter Howell, Executive Vice President Conservation Capital Programs, Open Space Institute Climate Change and Conservation - A Fish and a Marsh by Noah Matson, Vice President for Landscape Conservation and Climate Adaptation, Defenders of Wildlife Can a Federally-led Partnership Facilitate Regional Change? by Sarah Low, US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station The Nature Conservancy's Strategies for Climate Change by Chris Topik, Director, Restoring America's Forests, North American Region, The Nature Conservancy Will Price is Director of Conservation Programs at the Pinchot Institute in Princeton, NJ. Notes: 1 Sample, V. Alaric. 2012. “Redefining Forest Conservation in the Anthropocene.” Pinchot Letter 16.4 http://www.pinchot.org/doc/420 2 Beecher, Susan. 2014. “Adapting to a Changing Climate: Risks & Opportunities for the Upper Delaware River Region.” http://www.pinchot.org/doc/499 Getting What We Pay for: Payments for Wildlife and Biodiversity Outcomes Under Farm Bill Programs
Susan Culliney and Sara Vickerman
Introduction The recently passed 2014 Farm Bill refined the conservation programs that reward farm and forestland owners for conservation practices. Although the funding pie is smaller, the present need for such programs is greater. The nation faces ongoing challenges that threaten to not only degrade wildlife habitat and water resources, but also diminish the amount of land in forests. Climate change will also introduce challenges, placing water resources and wildlife in jeopardy and in some cases reducing the efficacy of certain conservation practices. In these uncertain times, innovation and efficiency are paramount to achieve desired outcomes with taxpayer investments in conservation. One of the innovations that could potentially optimize the federal investments in farm and forestland conservation is beginning to experiment with “outcome- based” incentives over “practice- based” incentives; if successful this approach could be expanded. Performance-based approaches are not new and the idea is simple: pay landowners (also known as “producers”) for the ecological conditions they create, rather than the practices they follow. In the era of fiscal austerity, such a reform would likely have broad political appeal. 
A Novel Innovation for Public Conservation Programs Many existing Farm Bill programs that pay for ecological benefits do so by rewarding landowners for implementing or adhering to a specific set of practices known, or assumed, to result in biodiversity or wildlife conservation benefits. In a practices program, a producer needs only to follow the pre-determined set of steps. Landowners are paid for successfully implementing these steps and not based on an assessment of whether the steps produced the outcome for which the practice was designed. For example, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service pays landowners to plant trees by streams in order to reduce erosion, stabilize streambanks, filter nutrient runoff, and improve water quality—all being benefits long-proven to result from these kinds of projects. Some projects perform exactly as hoped, but not always to the same degree, even when the prescription is strictly adhered to. Still, simplification by prescription has helped deploy practices across the countryside at large scale.  Some existing practices work well
at achieving environmental outcomes.
For example, restoring riparian vegetation
is a common practice that
results in a variety of benefits to fish
and wildlife, water quality, and to
people more directly by providing
aesthetic and recreational values.
Other practices do not work well at
achieving environmental outcomes.
For example, riparian plantings can
go awry when such practices are
required in an area where trees do
not naturally occur. A program that
pays for this practice expends
resources without achieving meaningful
ecological results, and could
inadvertently cause harm.
Rewarding the actual result instead of the intended result can mean greater accountability for dollars invested. Overall, there is a reciprocal relationship between the certain but rigid approach of using practices and the flexible but necessarily indefinite and risky approach of using outcomes and performance measurement to target conservation programs and to guide the design and implementation of individual conservation projects. Under the 2014 Farm Bill, the US Department of Agriculture may have the administrative flexibility to incorporate biodiversity and wildlife outcomes into its existing practices-based programs, even if only on a limited or experimental basis to begin with. Paying landowners for outcomes, in addition to paying for practices, could result in a greater return for our public investment in Farm Bill conservation programs in the form of greater achievement of biodiversity and wildlife goals. The idea of reframing public investment in conservation towards outcomes requires clear and practical outcomes and measurements. In such an approach, a payable outcome could be a single indication of habitat quality,1 such as the presence of beaver dams; multiple species and habitat characteristics that represent biodiversity collectively;2 or, the outcome measurement could be presented as a tiered system3 or index,4 such as ecological integrity assessments, into which land parcels are placed according to various criteria. There is a tradeoff when selecting payable outcomes, between constructing the perfect detailed system (which is costly and narrowly focused, but perhaps easier to recognize) and general outcomes (which are less costly and have a wider focus, but may prove unwieldy for monitoring and payment purposes). The payment structure should incentivize overall production of tangible outcomes and delivery of ecological benefits. A program aiming to pay for ecological benefits should reward actions that enhance benefits (also known as net gain or ecological lift), as well as actions that maintain lands with existing value (no net loss), and lands that have been restored to provide improved habitat. By strategically coordinating with other sources of conservation support in a given area, Farm Bill programs will enhance their potential for achieving specific outcomes and reaching broader conservation goals. An overall goal in transitioning toward an outcome-based orientation is to reframe public conservation investment to be more strategic rather than opportunistic. Evaluating the Tradeoffs: Performance-based vs. Practice-based There are tradeoffs to favoring either practices or outcomes.5 Outcomes are theoretically more accurate than practices in achieving an environmental goal because the payment is tied as closely as possible to the achievement of the goal itself. Also, the producers themselves will calibrate a project to better suit local conditions, applying their own knowledge to tailor practices to the site, using information only they have. In a similar fashion producers might locate projects in places that have inherently greater ecological value, as these will yield a higher payment. The tradeoff of course is that often high site productivity is as valuable to crops as wildlife, but the farmer or forester would have to make this decision. Conversely, practice-based approaches in many cases allow the landowner to use poorer quality land. For conservation organizations, orienting conservation programs towards outcomes may present opportunities to work more closely with landowners to experiment with the methods to best achieve the stipulated outcome. Overall, an outcomes-based approach places greater responsibility with the producer, as opposed to treating the producer as an implementation instrument, while conveying more flexibility and autonomy to farmers and forestland owners.  As is often the case, greater
responsibility or autonomy means
greater risk. A producer will sacrifice
the certainty of practice payments,
but have more flexibility to consider
their options and diversify their
land’s “products” into environmental
goods as well as traditional crops.
A major challenge to the outcomes-driven
approach is that outcomes
link an individual landowner’s management
actions to ecological benefits
that may only be realized or be
detectible over longer time frames
or broader scales. Outcomes may
also be overly broad and difficult
to explain or costly to measure;
payments for practices are generally
simpler and easier to conceive.
This article does not call for the complete abandonment of practices-based programs. Instead, it is important to recognize that outcomes and practices nurture a close, and at times nearly inextricable, relationship. Measuring the outcome in some capacity, whether overt or unacknowledged, is a critical part of developing a standardized practice. Where a practice successfully achieves a conservation objective, the success arises because the practice leads to the outcome it originally was designed to achieve, even when the desired outcome may have not been clearly stated in a USDA practice description. Where a practice does not achieve the desired conservation goal, the connection to the outcome has failed, and the practice requires further refinement. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, improvement of riparian forest buffer practices took place when better science on the outcomes of practices adjusted standards for buffer width. Where a practice consistently achieves a result, such practices may come very close to being perceived as an outcome itself. For example, the practice of flooding agricultural fields may turn into an outcome, the presence of flooded fields, that itself represents the biodiversity and hydrological integrity of a functioning wetland ecosystem. A narrower but more specific outcome could be presence of waterfowl or shorebirds at the flooded field. The close relationship between practices and outcomes suggests that well-structured conservation programs can benefit from integrating each approach to a certain degree. Practices that refine their methods within the context of a conceptual outcome are more likely to deliver ecological benefits than practices operating without such guidance. A program that pays for straightforward practices, but uses a conceptual outcome to guide those practices, with an added bonus payment for measurable outcomes attained through implementation could be a practicable solution that results in greater assurance in achieving ecological results. Paying a bonus for tangible outcomes allows creativity and experimentation to flourish, and provides greater incentive to holistically incorporate ecological benefits into farm or land production, rather than relegating conservation values to the fringes of the economic venture. Phasing in an outcomes approach to an existing practices program can result in innovation without abandoning the administrative and financial security of practice payments. Introducing this New Approach to Conservation Investment Ideally a carefully selected tangible outcome guiding the implementation of a conservation practice plays a major role in supporting the ecological integrity of its ecosystem. Selection of outcomes to adapt conservation programs can readily borrow from conservation planning which directly links overall ecosystem integrity to local conservation objectives. Refined outcome-based conservation programs could be tiered towards achieving the fish and wildlife conservation goals explicitly articulated in regional or national level conservation frameworks, such as State Wildlife Action Plans, State Forest Resource Assessments and Strategies, and other eco-regional plans. To the extent that these documents represent some level of agreement concerning conservation goals, they add value to Farm Bill programs by providing important ecological and social context. Significant resources were directed towards these conservation plans over the last decade and it makes good sense to consider how the conceptual outcomes articulated in such planning documents can be used to steer, and where necessary refine landowner assistance programs. Ideally, both broad goals and specific local outcomes would be re-evaluated periodically to track effectiveness. The current USDA payment programs authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill should be evaluated to determine whether there is flexibility in their implementation to have a greater focus on outcomes. Applications to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program can be prioritized if they include an outcomes-based approach,6 or if they demonstrate the participation of multiple landowners in the region.7 The Conservation Stewardship Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Healthy Forests Reserve Program are covered programs under the Regional Conservation Partnership Program,8 thereby nesting smaller scale projects within a larger scale approach that could have a greater ecological benefit across the landscape. The three covered programs focus on practices,9 but the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program offer additional funding for experimental pilot projects via the Conservation Innovations Grants and other programs,10 which could conceivably experiment with using outcomes-based payment approaches. Though rulemaking will be needed to clarify some of the relationships between the programs and how bonus payments for outcomes might work, the prospect of using outcomes is clearly expressed in the Regional Program, with favorable language in the covered programs. By paying bonuses for outcomes or for regional conservation, the 2014 Farm Bill is poised to introduce outcomes as a feasible method for rewarding conservation activities, and could ultimately bring enhanced guidance and effectiveness to ecological benefit payment programs. Refining the focus of Farm Bill programs toward environmental outcomes offers a way to connect payments to tangible results on the ground. Early iterations of outcomes-based payments will in all likelihood be imperfect, however, and phasing in outcomes to payments under the Farm Bill should therefore be a gradual and collaborative process. Susan Culliney is an Ecosystem Service Specialist at The Willamette Partnership in Portland, OR. She was awarded a JD with a certificate in environmental law by Lewis & Clark Law School in May 2014. Sara Vickerman is Senior Director, Biodiversity Partnerships at Defenders of Wildlife in Portland, OR. Acknowledgements: This article is modified from a white paper written for Defenders of Wildlife. The Packard Foundation and Walton Family Foundation generously provided funding for the project. The following individuals gave valuable feedback used to improve this paper and offered helpful examples of outcomes in the field: Sam Baraso, Drew Bennett, Bobby Cochran, Sally Duncan, Shauna Ginger, Nancy Gloman, Damon Hess, Kassandra Kelly, Brian Kittler, Esther Lev, Laurie Macdonald, Nicole Maness, Noah Matson, Sara O’Brien, Emily Pindilli, Will Price, Carrie Sanneman, and Bruce Taylor. Notes: 1 See e.g., Astrid Zabel and Karin Holm- Muller, Conservation Performance Payments for Carnivore Conservation in Sweden, 22 Conservation Biology 247 (2008). 2 See e.g., Burghard Wittig, Anne Richter gen. Kemmermann, and Dietmar Zacharias, An indicator species approach for result-oriented subsidies of ecological services in grasslands - A study in Northwestern Germany, 133 Biological Conservation 186-197 (2006). 3 See e.g., Sebastian Klimek, Anne Richter gen. Kemmermann, Horst-Henning Steinmann, Jan Freese, and Johannes Isselstein, Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: A transdisciplinary case-study approach, 141 Biological Conservation 2888-2897 (2008). 4 See e.g., Astrid Zabel & Brian Roe, Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives, 69 Ecological Economics 126-134, at 131, table 2 (2009); Butler, S.J., L. Boccaccio, R.D. Gregory, P. Vorisek, and K. Norris, Quantifying the impact of land-use change to European farmland bird populations, 137 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 348-357 (2010). 5 See also generally, Rob J.F. Burton and G. Schwarz, Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioral change, 30 Land Use Policy 628-641 (2013). 6 See Agricultural Act of 2014, 113 Pub L. 79 (hereinafter “2014 Farm Bill”), Sec. 1271B(d)(4)(E). 7 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 1271B(d)(4)(B). 8 See 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 1271A(1)(B)-(D) (defining “covered program” as including Stewardship Program, Incentives Program, and Forests Program); Sec. 1271B(d)(3)(C) (requiring an application to the Regional Program to include an indication of which covered programs will be used). 9 7 C.F.R. § 1470.24(a);16 U.S.C. § 3839aa(3)(B), 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 2201(1)(C); 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa-2(f); 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 2203(4); 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa-2(g); 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 2203(5); 7 C.F.R. § 625.9(b)(4); 16 U.S.C. § 6573(b). 10 7 C.F.R. § 1470.24(c); 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa-8(a)(2)(E)-(F); 2014 Farm Bill, Sec. 2207(1)(C). Forest Bioenergy and Biodiversity: Commitment to Sustainable Sourcing
Brian Kittler
The US EPA recently proposed a regulatory framework to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from domestic power plants. Critics and supporters alike recognize that this move, as precedent setting as it is for the world’s second largest emitter, will do little to curtail the damaging effects of climate change unless similar actions are taken by other nations across the globe. Recent studies suggest that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than previously expected, and that even reducing global GHG emissions 50 percent by 20501 may still not prevent some of the more dangerous impacts of climate change (IEA, 2010). The role of forests and forest-based bioenergy in climate change mitigation strategies is an intensely debated topic. Wood bioenergy plays a significant role in the national energy strategies of many European nations, and these net biomass importers are looking to North America for their biomass supply. Additionally, pending action by the US EPA relating to the carbon accounting of bioenergy2 could result in increased domestic use of biomass for energy. Mixed into the debate over the climate change mitigation benefits of forest bioenergy is the multitude of other values that forests represent, especially the conservation of native plant and animal species. People are concerned about the effects of increased demand for wood for energy on wildlife habitat and biodiversity at both the local and landscape level. Increased Demand for Biomass: Potential for Additional Pressures on Conservation The majority of activity in the US bioenergy sector is developing in the Southeast, which is also the most biologically diverse region of the country. The high net primary productivity of the region results in high biodiversity and also high forest productivity, making the US South the largest producer of wood and fiber in the world. The forests of the Southeast are also among the most dynamic in the US, with forest cover increasing in areas being retired from agriculture, but being lost in other areas of rapid economic development and suburban expansion. Likewise, the presence of strong forest product markets—as represented by areas harvested and regrown—can be seen in the image below from a recent study of global forest trends (Hansen, 2013). 
Demand for wood and fiber has resulted in private investments that have increased tree cover in the region over the past several decades. The USDA Forest Service estimates that the region could support even higher levels of timber production, up to a 40 percent increase over 2006–2007 levels (Wear & Greis, 2013). Where would such an increase come from? There are nearly 40 million acres of intensively managed pine plantations in the region, most of which are located in the coastal plain, with some also in the Piedmont region. Most of these plantations are on land previously deforested for agriculture, and subsequently replanted to forest by private landowners anticipating a higher return than from agriculture. The growth in new plantation acreage has leveled off in most places, but the USDA Forest Service projects that plantations could increase by as much as 27 million acres by 2050 depending on future market demand (Wear & Greis, 2013). While the future interaction of various land uses and markets is difficult to predict, such an increase in plantation acreage could be expected to come at the expense of mixed hardwood and longleaf pine forests. These forests provide habitat for species and ecological communities not typically found in single-species forest plantations. Wood biomass demand, coupled with existing demand for wood and fiber, add to the concerns over habitat protection.  But there are other forces at work
in the South’s forests that may have a
far greater impact on biodiversity and
wildlife habitat. By 2060, as much
as 23 million acres of forest in the
South could be lost to urbanization
as the region continues to grow
(Wear & Greis, 2013). A relatively
small proportion of the South’s
forests are subject to conservation
easements, or are in some other status
that would protect them from
development. The greatest loss is
expected to occur in areas where
forest product markets are weak and
development pressures are strong.
The economic values associated
with the South’s forests may be a
critical factor in keeping private
lands as forest, and maintaining the
conservation values provided by a
mosaic of native and plantation
forests, in a variety of ages and successional
stages.
Sustainable Sourcing: New Territory for the Wood Bioenergy Industry The number of wood bioenergy facilities in the Southeast continues to increase, in response to demand from both domestic and international markets. While much of their wood biomass supply still comes from plantation thinnings and wood waste, the continued expansion of this industry will begin to significantly increase overall wood demand in the region. The existing forest industry in the Southeast has devoted significant time and resources to understanding environmental concerns, and designing sustainable sourcing and supply chain certification programs to ensure that their operations remain compatible with protecting the region’s conservation values. The wood bioenergy industry now shares this responsibility. Considering how rapidly the wood bioenergy industry is expanding through the construction of entirely new facilities, it is important to recognize that this responsibility begins before a proposed facility is even built. This involves accessing ecological data from state Natural Heritage programs and other sources to become informed about rare, threatened, and endangered species and ecological communities occurring within their projected supply areas. It also involves a genuine and ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders so that important concerns are understood, internalized, and effectively addressed. As leaders from throughout the US forest industry can attest, siting new facilities depends not just on regulatory permits, but also on earning the “social license” to operate. Given the forest land ownership patterns in much of the South, a large wood bioenergy facility will be supplied from hundreds of privately-owned forest tracts, so a sustainable sourcing program will involve working proactively with landowners to promote the conservation of ecological resources. Private forest landowners, especially family woodland owners, consistently mention a desire to conserve and enhance wildlife  habitat and biodiversity as
one of their objectives in managing
their forests sustainably (Butler
2008). However, a large proportion
of these private landowners do not
have a forest management plan to
assist them in managing for these
objectives, often because of the cost
of consulting services needed to
develop such a plan. The traditional
forest products industry has played
an important role in providing outreach,
education, and services to forest
landowners, through tree farm
certification and other landowner
assistance programs (Ellefson, 2004).
The wood bioenergy industry must
be similarly proactive in engaging
forest landowners and the conservation
community in a manner that
reflects the complexity of conservation
issues in the South.
If current trends in renewable energy development continue, wood bioenergy companies will invest billions of dollars in new plants and equipment in the South. To be economically viable, these companies will also need to invest in the sustainable management of the region’s forests. Regional biomass harvesting standards, best-management- practices guidelines, and existing certification programs will all be useful in informing this process. But it will be important for wood bioenergy companies to make their own public commitments to sustainable sourcing programs that recognize the important conservation values of the region’s forests, that specify the standards under which their facilities will and will not accept wood biomass from suppliers, and that verify compliance with these standards at every point in their supply chain. The new EPA-proposed rules for reducing carbon emissions from power plants, and the rules for carbon accounting under the Clean Air Act expected later this year, will sharply focus the public policy debate over the role that wood bioenergy will play in US energy policy and in international markets for wood biomass for energy. Whether that role will be large or small, it will be important for wood bioenergy companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability through credible, verifiable programs providing public assurance that the conservation values of the region’s forests are well understood and adequately protected. Brian Kittler is the Director of the Pinchot Institute Western Regional Office in Portland, OR. 
Notes 1 This recommended target established by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to reduce net global GHG emissions 50 percent by 2050 compared to 2000 levels. 2 See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html. References Butler, Brett J. 2008. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p. Ellefson, P. K. 2004. Regulation of Forestry Practices on Private Land in the United States: Assessment of State Agency Responsibilities and Program Effectiveness. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, College of Natural Resources and Agricultural Experiment Station. Hansen, M. P. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. IEA 2010. International Energy Agency: 2010 Energy Technology Perspectives Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. Paris, France: IEA. Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-178. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 542 p. Biodiversity Conservation and Wildlife Management in the Anthropocene
R. Patrick Bixler
Reconsidering Strategies of the Anthropocene In the Anthropocene epoch, “The Age of Man,” everything on earth is influenced by human actions, either by direct contact such as clearing forests for agriculture or indirectly through climate change or other global system effects. We’ve been thinking, talking, and writing a lot about the Anthropocene at the Pinchot Institute lately because in this new era of planetary change we are being forced to reconsider the contours of forest conservation and management. This includes a new role for humankind: from a species that had to adapt to changes in their natural environment to one that must be a steward of other species as we drive global change. Anthropocene stewardship, now that has an interesting ring to it. But what guides this thinking?  Recently, at a Resilience Alliance1
conference in Montpellier, France,
C.S. (Buzz) Holling2 was reflecting
on his early field studies and his
search for an empirical basis to his
theory of resilience. He recalled
moments and months of uncertain
anticipation as he watched, and
waited. His manuscript, “Resilience
and Stability of Ecological Systems,”
was already written (Holling 1973)
and the postage paid, just waiting
for validation before he mailed it
off to the editors. Finally, the
evidence he was waiting for came and
resilience theory was born. Soon
after publication, hundreds and then
thousands of other researchers studying
other systems provided further
evidence to support the theoretical
model of ecosystem resilience and
regime shifts.
Interestingly, while Buzz was patiently waiting for the appropriate time to mail off his manuscript, the 93rd United States Congress was debating a landmark environmental law that would change the ways that public lands were managed for generations to come. In 1973, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93–205). This act, as amended, recognizes threatened and endangered species of animals and plants, protects habitat of listed species from destruction by federal actions, specifies interagency cooperation, and requires preparation of recovery plans and monitoring of species awaiting listing and those recently recovered. These two ideas—one from a unique blend of systems and ecological science and the other a crowning achievement of the environmental movement—coexisted at precisely the same time. Yet, these are two different ways of viewing the behavior of systems. On the one hand, individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. It has been noted that the rate of species extinction in the Anthropocene will rival all previous mass extinctions, with as many of 30% of all species going extinct over the next four decades and 75% of mammals being extinct in 300 years (Barnowsky et al. 2011). On the other hand, it is not so much the presence or absence of species that matters, but rather the resiliency of a system to sustain a desired structure and function in the face of disturbance and ongoing evolution and change. These two ideas, while not mutually exclusive, derive from different philosophies regarding nature. What does this mean for biodiversity conservation and wildlife management in the Anthropocene? Great strides have been made both globally and domestically in biodiversity conservation and wildlife management since the passage of the Endangered Species Act just over 40 years ago. However, our understanding of what it means to “preserve” and “protect” species and habitat is undergoing a transition in this new epoch. Traditional wildlife and biodiversity conservation strategies have relied heavily on the establishment of reserves and other protected areas to conserve habitat, but as climate changes, optimal habitat zones are shifting to different places on the landscape. This presents a challenge to biodiversity conservation and wildlife management because both plant and animal species are prompted to follow the climate-driven movement of the ecosystems and habitats in which they evolved (Hannah et al. 2002). As Sample (2014) summarizes in the introduction to Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene, ecological communities disassemble as species capable of migrating do so, and those that are not remain behind. Those that can migrate must traverse landscapes that in earlier epochs were not filled with highways, cities, farms, and other manifestations of a rapidly expanding human population that is relatively new on the geologic time scale. Designated parks, refuges, reserves, and other traditional approaches to protecting habitat are still important (Caro et al. 2011), but may be less effective when the species themselves are on the move (Kareiva et al. 2011). This is prompting biologists, resource management professionals, and policymakers to consider new approaches to conservation planning (Anderson and Ferree 2010), and strategies focused on large landscapes—vast areas that stretch from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon, or from the southern Appalachians to Labrador. These immense landscapes encompass cities, towns, and agricultural working lands, as well as a mosaic of public and private forests that are all managed for different purposes and objectives. For these landscape- scale conservation strategies to be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable—and politically possible—new governance models must be developed to facilitate an unprecedented level of communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration (Bixler 2014; Kareiva et al. 2012). 
Multi-stakeholder engagement across public and private boundaries is not only necessary, but increasingly seen as crucial to building resilience and protecting species. Local ecological knowledge must blend with science, and knowledge regarding wildlife and biodiversity must be connected to conservation action. My own understandings and reflections on wildlife management emerge from researching the conservation of mountain caribou in British Columbia and grizzly bears in Montana. These highly migratory and charismatic species illustrate well the complexities of biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene. In the following, I’ll draw on some of the contributions from our esteemed colleagues in “Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene” (Sample and Bixler 2014) and take these issues and ideas to the ground, so to speak, elaborating on my own engagement and research working with communities and wildlife management. Conservation Theory and Policy in the Anthropocene Wilderness, Protected Areas, and Landscape Conservation  Gary Tabor, Anne
Carlson, and Travis Belote
(2014) describe this as large
landscape conservation, a
science-based response to
increasing large-scale habitat
fragmentation and
degradation that advances
the concepts of ecological
integrity, ecological connectivity,
and wildlife corridors.
Large landscape
conservation approaches
have recently been
embraced as a strategy to facilitate
the adaptation of biodiversity to the
impacts of climate change. In one
sense, large landscape conservation is
the evolution of the “beyond parks”
conservation approach (Minteer and
Miller 2011) in which species and
ecological processes cannot be satisfactorily
sustained within most circumscribed
protected landscape
parcels. Corridors and linkages that
can connect habitat across several
degrees of latitude are becoming critically
important to facilitate the emigration
of some plant and animal
species and the immigration of others.
However, this still leaves the
question of whether something can
be done to minimize the emigration
of species from protected area
reserves, and the dismantling of
existing ecological communities.
Some species within a given ecological
community are able to use their
mobility to migrate while others are
left behind, thus disassembling existing
communities of interdependent
species (Schmitz and Trainor 2014).
At the same time, a region will experience the immigration of mobile species from elsewhere, developing species assemblages that may never have existed before. How to regard these “novel ecosystems” is a topic of considerable ongoing debate among conservation biologists. From one perspective, many of these novel ecosystems are highly biologically productive and may also exhibit a high level of species diversity, so they may represent a significant biodiversity resource in themselves. In any case, they are inevitable and will develop with or without biologists’ consent. Anderson and Johnson (2014) illustrate another strategy, resilient sites, that defines biological and geological characteristics that can be resistant to the influence of climate change and hold their ecological communities intact. These sites tend to have highly specific characteristics of geology, soils, and topography. Identifying, mapping, and then protecting a sufficient number of these resilient sites across large landscapes can be an important component in a comprehensive, portfolio approach to biodiversity conservation and wildlife management in the Anthropocene.
Cross-Boundary and
Multi-Stakeholder Conservation
There are significant additional
challenges associated with actually
implementing a cross-boundary conservation
and management strategy
on large landscapes, particularly when
they are predominantly characterized
by private ownership and comprised
of many small tracts. These tracts are
typically managed for objectives as
diverse as the private owners themselves,
who may or may not understand
or share a commitment to
biodiversity conservation. Large landscape
conservation strategies can be
applied to help achieve biodiversity
conservation objectives in regions
characterized by mixed public-private
or predominantly private ownerships.
Joseph McCauley (2014) describes an innovative approach successfully pioneered by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on the Silvio O. Conte  National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
following its designation by special
legislation in 1991. Unlike traditional
wildlife refuges at the time, the Silvio
Conte encompassed large areas of
land that were not directly owned or
managed by the FWS—in fact, the
entire 7.1 million acres in the
Connecticut River watershed, across
four states. The model was motivated
by the understanding that the important
wildlife and aquatic species in this
watershed could never be adequately
protected by the FWS working only
on the agency’s small reserves. It is a
model based on outreach to other
landowners in the region, facilitating
local meetings in which the FWS provided
spatial information about key
habitat they had mapped throughout
the watershed, and about land management
practices that could maintain
or enhance these habitat values.
Landowner actions were voluntary,
not done as a matter of law or regulation, and a large number of landowners
stepped forward to learn more
about how they could protect habitat
values that happened to occur on
their land. Wildlife refuges in other
regions have now adopted this watershed-
based large landscape conservation
model, and the concept is at the
heart of the FWS strategy for wildlife
and fish habitat conservation in
response to climate change. As climate
adaptation strategies such as the
identification and mapping of
‘resilient sites’ are developed, especially
in eastern regions of the US
where forests are primarily in private
ownership, outreach models such as
that developed on the Silvio Conte
Refuge could become critically
important to translating the knowledge
about where resilient sites are
located to actually achieving their
conservation and protection, through
actions that can only be taken
through communication, collaboration,
and cooperation with the individuals
who actually own the land.
Federal Policy Responses
Federal policy around wildlife
management and biodiversity conservation
has tuned in to these trends as
well. In recent years within the US,
various government-led large landscape
responses have come to the
fore. As Tabor et al. (2014) remark
one of the more notable efforts was
the 2008 Western Governors’
Association initiative on crucial
wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors,
initiated in response to large scale
energy planning and development. All
17 western states within the Western
Governors’ Association unanimously
agreed on a shared policy framework
to address the scale and scope of
habitat and wildlife movement areas
across their jurisdictions in the face of
potential conflicts with planned development.
This was a milestone event as
states recognized the need to conserve
their resources at a regional scale
through interstate collaboration.
Soon thereafter, in 2010, the US
Department of the Interior embraced
a new landscape partnership program,
the Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives, which designated 22
large scale cooperative landscape management
areas across the nation and
adjoining transboundary regions in
Canada and Mexico as part of a
department-wide coordinated adaptation
response to climate change. At
the same time, the All Lands Initiative
and the US Forest Service’s
Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program were established
to more effectively address conflicts in
natural resource management planning
and development at large scales.
 More specifically to the point of
wildlife, as Mark Shaffer (2014) discusses,
the federal government
recently undertook a major initiative
to develop the National Fish,Wildlife,
and Plants Climate Adaptation
Strategy (NFWPCAS 2012). In 2009
Congress requested that the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and the Department of the Interior
(DOI) develop a national strategy to
“...assist fish, wildlife, plants, and
related ecological processes in becoming
more resilient, adapting to, and
surviving the impacts of climate
change” (CEQ/USDOI 2009). As
DOI’s wildlife bureau, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) took the
lead in structuring a process to fulfill
this request. Because of the complementary
nature of US wildlife law, the
FWS invited the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and state wildlife agencies to
co-lead the effort. Ultimately, a steering
committee was formed that
included representatives from 15 federal
agencies, five state fish and
wildlife agency directors, and leaders
of two inter-tribal natural resource
commissions.
The NFWPCAS is an unprecedented effort by all levels of government that have authority or responsibility for wildlife in the United States to work together collaboratively to identify what needs be done in the Anthropocene epoch. It was developed by teams of managers, researchers, and policy experts drawn from federal, state, and tribal agencies organized around major ecosystem types. The strategy identifies seven major goals that must be achieved to give wildlife the best chance of surviving the projected impacts of current and anticipated future climate change. Numerous strategies (23) and actions (100+) are identified that are essential for achieving these goals. All of the seven major goals identified in the NFWPCAS are things that the wildlife management community already does (e.g., conserve habitat, manage species and habitats, enhance management capacity, etc.). What will be new, and what the NFWPCAS tries to illustrate, is that these things will need to be done in new ways, or in new places, or at new times, or in new combinations for conservation to be effective. Species stewardship in the Anthropocene must embrace four broad themes discussed in the NFWPCAS:
Local Realities: Where the Rubber Meets the Road  I’m in Ovando, Montana (population
71) about to enter Trixie’s
Antler Saloon for an annual meeting
of local ranchers. They spend a lot of
time engaged in discussions of grizzly
bears and wolves and the management
and conservation of those
once endangered species. By doing
so, this local group has developed
innovative solutions to complex challenges.
I know these ranchers, but
I’m always hesitant to start talking
about landscape conservation, the
Anthropocene, the Endangered
Species Act, resilience, and the like.
Especially over a beer at Trixie’s. The
residents of this part of Montana,
just south of the Bob Marshall
Wilderness, have known endangered
species since long before the adoption
of the eponymous act, and have
learned to live with first the grizzly
bear, and now wolves. When given
opportunities, they’ve been incredibly
innovative in their approaches to
species stewardship.
Grizzly bears don’t recognize the human demarcated boundaries that we as societies have constructed. The political (counties, municipalities), administrative and managerial (USFS, BLM, NPS, etc.), and the institutional boundaries that shape our actions are not recognizable to a grizzly. They move across the landscape in search of suitable habitat in disregard of these boundaries. Interestingly though, by doing so, grizzly bears have served as a social catalyst for networks of actors to communicate with each other across these very same socially constructed boundaries. Here in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana, and beyond, grizzly bear conservation has connected local projects to a broader sense of the landscape. That is, local level action and habitat conservation is linked to landscape-scale science assessment and conservation planning. In many ways, grizzly bears are the iconic North American species for ecological connectivity and connectivity conservation. Grizzlies have become the symbol of ecological connectivity and drivers of the push to think at the landscape scale (Bixler 2014). Grizzly bear habitat corridors that link ‘islands’ have been extensively mapped and are valuable and necessary conservation tools; scientists are increasingly looking to identify land that connects big wild areas, keeping in mind where species are expected to move and persist as the climate changes. Grizzlies once roamed half of North America: from Alaska to Mexico, from California to Kansas, they hunted and foraged a landscape free of fences, highways, and men with guns. The native range of grizzly bears has contracted in the past century and a half because of human-caused mortality, habitat loss, and population fragmentation. In the lower 48 states, 98% of their range has been lost, and grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region have been isolated from northern populations for close to a century. A significant threat to grizzly bear population viability is anthropogenic mortality. One study tracked 388 radio-collared grizzly bears and found that people killed 77–85% of the 99 grizzly bears known or suspected to have died while radio-collared (Wilson et al. 2014). Half of those 99 grizzly bears were killed for being too close to human habitation (while the other half was permitted hunting and legal harvesting). Often, private lands in valley bottoms and foothills adjacent to grizzly bear habitat on public lands are problematic zones, where conflicts or incidents include bears killing livestock, destroying beehives, foraging for garbage close to homes, or, in rare cases, threatening human safety (Wilson et al. 2014). Repeated incidents typically lead to more severe conflict, habituation, and eventually to removal of the bear through trapping, relocation, or killing. As grizzly bears re-expand their range onto private lands (the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks suggests grizzly bear populations have grown at approximately 3 percent per year since population trend monitoring began in 2004), the chances for conflicts or incidents and anthropogenic mortality of grizzlies increase significantly. As discussed earlier, part of biodiversity conservation and wildlife management in the Anthropocene will require not only local stakeholder engagement, but also local innovations. This is precisely what happened in Ovando.  The local community-based conservation
group there, the Blackfoot
Challenge, brought together the rural
landowners, wildlife agencies, and
conservation groups to determine
exactly what the problem was and
how best to address it. Through a
series of meetings like the one I witnessed
at Trixie’s, the Blackfoot
Challenge sussed out as many definitions
of the “problem” as there were
bears in the area. As Wilson et al.
(2014) reflect: some people felt that
there were simply too many bears,
some celebrated new grizzly bear
activity, some defined the problem as
primarily one of risk to human safety,
and some linked the increased grizzly
activity to an erosion of personal
rights and freedoms exacerbated by
the regulatory burdens of the
Endangered Species Act.
Through a process of authentically engaging key stakeholders, which officially began in 2002, the Blackfoot Challenge implemented a participatory GIS program that mapped land use practices, bear attractants, and other relevant features and took that information back to the community to collectively re-frame the problem. Recognizing that the traditional practice of dumping dead livestock carcasses in “bone yards” was attracting bears onto ranches and driving much of the human-grizzly conflict, the Blackfoot Challenge started a carcass removal program. In the past three years, an average of 633 carcasses were removed annually, and the program now engages nearly 80 ranches covering more than 600,000 ha. In the Blackfoot watershed from 2003 to 2009, grizzly bear-human conflicts decreased 93 percent. By clearly and accurately identifying the underlying problem, local people working with state and federal agencies found solutions. And by finding solutions, they are increasing their social connectivity across the landscape, helping other landowners in Alberta,Wyoming, and other places in Montana (Bixler and Taylor 2012), and now conservation practitioners are talking about it in the High Divide region around Salmon, Idaho.
Working Towards Integrating
Science and Local Practices: The
Challenge of Caribou Conservation4
Moving across the International
Boundary of the 49th parallel, mountain
caribou conservation in British
Columbia helps highlight one of the
key lessons learned from grizzly bear
conservation in Montana: that species
conservation and wildlife management
in the Anthropocene must utilize
local knowledge and community
practices. Scientific understanding,
while a critical ingredient, is no longer
independently sufficient to solve these
conservation challenges.
 In the upper Columbia River
Basin, wedged between the Columbia
and Kootenay Mountains, the population
of mountain caribou (the arboreal
lichen feeding ecotype of
woodland caribou known scientifically
as Rangifer tarandus caribou)
has persistently declined in spite of a
robust understanding of the species’
ecological dynamics. In fact, it is one
of the most rigorously documented
examples of the negative effect of
anthropogenic disturbances on the
dynamics of an endangered species.
Since the early 1980s, more than 550
individual caribou have been captured
and fitted with VHF telemetry or
GPS collars (roughly one-third of the
approximately 1600 remaining individuals),
and through this research,
recovery strategies have been developed
based on habitat requirements
for mountain caribou at multiple spatial
scales. Recommendations usually
involve protecting remaining suitable
habitat from logging, implementing
predator control (either lethal or nonlethal),
as well as control of alternate
prey species (achieved mostly by
increasing hunting quotas). However,
populations continue to decline not
from lack of scientific understanding,
but rather an inability to capture
a broad range of stakeholders and
human motivations for engaging
in conservation.
In my time working with communities and groups there, I found that local stakeholders very often constructed a variety of competing narratives to explain the decline of mountain caribou. These narratives reflected the multifaceted nature of relationships between these people, the caribou and the landscape. Moreover, these local explanations illustrate the ways that people combine multiple types of expertise, such as technical information and personal experience. Developing conservation strategies that utilize both types of knowledge systems will be necessary in the Anthropocene. We must develop and deploy multiple and intersecting conservation strategies in the Anthropocene, and providing the decision-making space for local communities to innovate policies and practices is a powerful venue to do so. This is evident in the Blackfoot, but other landscapes such as the upper Columbia, are ripe for similar locally driven solutions to large-scale biodiversity challenges. The Future of Biodiversity Conservation and Wildlife Management in the Anthropocene In many ways, I feel like Buzz Holling must have while he was waiting for his evidence of ecological system “tipping points.” While evidence is mounting, we seem to be waiting to officially send the manuscript off to publish “we are now in the Anthropocene.” It will be necessary to assess all aspects of forest conservation as we transition into this era, wildlife management and biodiversity conservation included. Thinking about biodiversity at a larger spatial scale (i.e. landscapes) can help ensure that the appropriate key species for ecosystem functioning are recruited to local systems after a disturbance or when environmental conditions change. However, as Tabor and his colleagues note, we shouldn’t “throw the Wilderness baby out with the Holocene bathwater.” Present protected areas are important and may be resilient sites that can increase the capacity for species to adapt to changes in the landscape. Current protected areas, however, should be complemented with dynamic reserves and an authentic engagement with stakeholders across a variety of scales, importantly including local communities who live and work in the landscape. Local stakeholders are going to be critical for sustainable conservation success over the long-term, and can drive innovation if we facilitate the appropriate blending of local and scientific knowledge and narrative building. The Anthropocene presents to us an incredible opportunity to break down the boundary between human societies here, and nature over there. Embracing the responsibility of stewarding other species and managing wildlife is a perfect segue into dissolving this nature-culture divide. Hopefully, like Buzz Holling, soon after publication, hundreds and then thousands of other researchers studying other systems will be providing further evidence to rethink biodiversity conservation and wildlife management in the Anthropocene. Patrick Bixler is a Research Fellow at the Pinchot Institute for Conservation in Washington, DC. Notes: 1 http://www.resalliance.org/ 2 Crawford Stanley (Buzz) Holling, is an Emeritus Eminent Scholar and Professor in Ecological Sciences at the University of Florida. Holling was an early pioneer in blending systems thinking with ecology and introduced a number of important concepts, including resilience, the adaptive cycle, and panarchy. 3 This discussion is informed from research in the Blackfoot from 2010 and 2013, published as (1) Bixler and Taylor 2012, and (2) unpublished dissertation, Bixler 2014. 4 This discussion comes from “The Political Ecology of Local Environmental Narratives: Power, Knowledge, and Mountain Caribou Conservation.” Journal of Political Ecology, 20: 273-285. The article can be accessed at: http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_ 20/Bixler.pdf References: Anderson, M.; Johnson, N.; Bearer, S. 2014 [forthcoming]. Maintaining Forest Diversity in a Changing Climate: a Geophysical Approach. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Anderson, M.; Ferree, C. 2010. Conserving the Stage: Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpinnings of Species Diversity. PloS ONE 5(7): e11554. Barnosky, A. D.; Matzke, N.; Tomiya, S. [et al.]. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature. 471: 51-57. Bixler, R. P. 2014. Is There an Heir Apparent to the Crown? A More Informed Understanding of Connectivity and Networked Environmental Governance in the Crown of the Continent. Unpublished Dissertation. Department of Sociology, Colorado State University. Bixler, R. P.; Taylor, P.L. 2012. Toward a Community of Innovation in Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Insights from Open Source Software. Human Organization. 71 (3): 234-243. Bruner, A. G. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science. 291: 125-128. Caro, T.; Charles, G.K.; Clink, D.J. [et al.]. 2014 [forthcoming]. Terrestrial Protected Areas: Threats and Solutions. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Caro, T.; Darwin, J.; Forrester, T. [et al.]. 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene. Conservation Biology. 26(1): 185-188. Hannah, L.; Midgley, G.; Lovejoy, T. [et al.]. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology. 16: 264-268. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4:1-23. Kareiva, P.; Lalasz, R.; Marvier, M. 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Journal 1(2) (Fall 2011). McCauley, J. 2014. National Wildlife Refuges: Portals to Conservation. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Minteer, B.A.; Miller, T.R. 2011. The new conservation debate: Ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities. Biological Conservation. 144(3): 946-947. Rodrigues, A. S.; Andelman, S. J.; Bakarr, M.I. [et al.]. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature. 428: 640-643. Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Sample, V.A. 2014 [forthcoming]. Introduction. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Schmitz, O. J.; Trainor, A.M. 2014 [forthcoming]. Adaptation approaches for conserving ecosystems services and biodiversity in dynamic landscapes caused by climate change. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Shaffer, M. 2014 [forthcoming]. Policy Challenges for Wildlife Management in a Changing Climate. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Tabor, G.; Carlson, A.; T, Belote. 2014 [forthcoming]. Challenges and opportunities for large landscape-scale management in a shifting climate: The importance of nested adaptation responses across geospatial and temporal scales. In Sample, V. Alaric and R. Patrick Bixler (eds.). Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Wilson, S.; Neudecker, G.A.; Jonkel, J.J. 2014. Human-Grizzly Bear Coexistence in the Blackfoot River Watershed, Montana: Getting Ahead of the Conflict Curve. In Clark, Susan G. and Murray B. Rutherford (eds.). 2014. Large Carnivore Conservation: Integrating Science and Policy in the North American West. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Takeaways from the UC-Berkeley Summit on Forest Science Education
By Joseph M. Smith, Managing Editor, The Forestry Source
This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the Forestry Program in the College of Natural Resources at the University of California–Berkeley. As part of its centennial celebration, the college hosted the North American Summit on Forest Science Education May 7–9. The three-day event brought together employers, students, and university faculty from the United States, Canada, and across the globe to produce recommendations on eight themes in forest science and forestry education. Ultimately, summit organizers hope the recommendations will provide input to the forestry accreditation process, help guide the development of university curriculum, and be used to critically evaluate the role of education in forestland stewardship.  “There are a lot of serious challenges and issues, and we’ve brought you all here and given you a venue from which to produce some recommendations on forestry and forest science education—the direction it should take,” said Keith Gilless, dean of Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources, during an address at the start of the summit. “Let’s figure out how to have a renaissance in the field, to produce students in larger numbers, with more diverse demographics that can think broadly and apply knowledge across disciplines and in a variety of cultural contexts. It’s a global environment—we have to figure out how our efforts play into that global environment and the political process.”To produce those recommendations, summit attendees were divided into working groups focused on one of the eight themes—curricula (particularly the relationship among forestry, environmental science, and natural resources management); distance learning and new educational models; professional master’s programs; the role of professional accreditation; employment trends in forestry; forest science in US research universities; opportunities for international programs; and diversifying student demographics. The groups were tasked with developing suggestions and action items that could serve as the basis for ongoing discussions. [View the questions considered by the working groups and their recommendations here.] The goal, said Gilless, was to produce a tangible product that would be of use to the forestry community at large. “We thought, ‘If we’re going to do this, and bring together some real thought leaders that represented the whole North American forestry scene, along with some input from outside the North American context, how would we structure it so that the discussion would have some legs?’ That was where we started thinking make it a working meeting; try and capture these thoughts in a form that would be useful to people in the community afterward,” he said. “Right from the onset, our real hope was to do something like a special issue of the Journal of Forestry, which would capture what were, in essence, white papers on the key issues.” However, before the working groups were convened, attendees heard from Al Sample, president of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and Maureen McDonough, professor of forest sociology and social forestry at Michigan State University, who presented the preliminary results of the institute’s 2014 draft survey, “The Promise and Performance of Forestry Education in the United States: Results of a Survey of Forestry Employers, Graduates, and Educators.” A revision of the institute’s 1998 survey of forestry employers and graduates, which was undertaken to assess how well academic programs were preparing new professionals, the 2014 survey aimed to update and expand the forestry community’s understanding of the strength and weaknesses of current forestry education. It was distributed to a wider population than the 1998 survey (i.e., faculty members as well as employers and students), and included additional questions regarding diversity and new skills. Among the take-home messages of the survey, said McDonough, is the importance of human dimensions skills in the workplace. “Human dimensions and professional skills—our students aren’t getting trained in them. As Steve Bullard said, we’ve known that since 1914 and we keep talking about it, but we’re not doing anything about it,” she said. “The other thing for me is this whole diversity issue. If we’re really going to move forward, at some point we have to get out there and figure out why we’re not connecting with diverse populations.” Sample cited the role the survey’s findings could play in helping educators develop the forestry programs of the future.  “There is a tendency for things like this to just look at a current snapshot. If you look at what the results of this are supposed to be, it’s supposed to be about reviewing and updating curricula and about training students with different competencies going forward, so it has to be much more future focused,” he said. “The comment made [during the question-and-answer session after his presentation] about talking to students when they’re thinking about going into a forestry program or when they’ve just entered is really good, because they are the ones who are really in tune with what they want to do, where the opportunities are in the field, and whether they’re in the environmental sciences, or more on the forestry or natural resources side of things. That’s going to be a much better guide to faculty as they think about [developing programs].”Strategically placed in the summit’s agenda, the presentation of the Pinchot survey’s findings was to provide context for the working-group discussions, each of which had a unique set of questions (see page 5) to address. However, the next morning, when the discussion leaders presented their group’s recommendations, the interconnectedness of the eight themes became apparent. For example, the group focused on professional master’s degree programs discussed the implications and pros and cons of distance learning. The group focused on employment trends discussed the attributes that make forestry distinct from natural resources and other related disciplines. The group focused on international programs discussed the effects of curriculum requirements on opportunities for international study. And the group focused on forest science at research universities discussed the importance of collaborating with related disciplines whose work contributes to the field. Carol Redelsheimer, SAF’s director of science and education and chair of the summit’s working group on accreditation, suggested that these linkages highlighted the need and willingness for collaboration within the forestry education community. “It’s very encouraging to me to know that those linkages are there and that we can all work together to bring positive results,” she said. “People are very engaged and those linkages are real, and I think we’re doing a very good job of challenging ourselves to be honest in our assessment of what we’re doing.” Others, such as Hal Salwasser, chair of the forest science in research institutions group, suggested that the interplay of these themes could help forestry better represent itself to the public. “I think there is a terrific opportunity to begin rebranding what we’re up to by creating a new vocabulary and emphasizing the diversity of things that we do and that we aspire to do,” he said. Although not a stated goal of the summit, it was clear that the idea of “rebranding” forestry, both as a way of attracting a greater number and more diverse population of students to the field, and to keep pace with society’s changing values, was in the air. 
“I think the discipline of forestry is up to figuring out how to stay relevant in a rapidly changing economic and social environment, or we wouldn’t have been willing to call a conference like this together,” said Gilless. Berkeley forestry professor Kevin O’Hara—the man whom Gilless credited with the idea for the summit—agreed, saying that as society changes, so must forestry education. “I think there is a sense of urgency, at least there should be a sense of urgency, that we need to act and adjust things, and to prepare ourselves for the future of forestry. So, what I hope we get out of this are some recommendations for how to adjust curricula or how to organize forestry programs at universities, how to use distance learning. All these key questions are central to how we’re going to move forward.” For more on the North American Summit on Forest Science Education, visit its website: http://ucanr.edu/sites/berkeleysummit. This article first appeared in the June 2014 issue of The Forestry Source, a newspaper published by the Society of American Foresters. It appears here with the editor’s permission. Copyright 2014, The Society of American Foresters - www.eforester.org. Climate, Energy, and Forests: The Need for a Comprehensive Strategy
by V. Alaric Sample
 On June 2, the US EPA released its long-awaited proposed federal regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The actual mechanisms by which these reductions are to be achieved are left to individual states to decide. California and states in the Northeast will move forward more assertively with their existing carbon cap-and-trade programs, and other states may join them. Some states may opt for a carbon tax. Most every state is likely to adopt President Obama’s unofficial national energy policy of an “all of the above” strategy in terms of shifts toward wind energy, solar power, biomass, natural gas, and other reduced-carbon energy sources.Reflecting some of the key findings in the 2014 National Climate Assessment, EPA’s proposed rule notes specifically that “biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission reduction strategies,” perhaps offering a glimpse into the agency’s development of an accounting framework for biogenic carbon emissions, due later this year: The conservation community has always been of two minds about the potential role of wood biomass in the nation’s future energy portfolio. Substituting renewable wood biomass energy for fossil fuels while maintaining the overall volume of carbon stored in forest ecosystems can help achieve significant net reductions in carbon emissions over time. In addition to helping reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, factoring biomass energy into existing sustainable forestry programs can help improve the resiliency of forest ecosystems to the effects of climate change. On private lands, expanding markets for thinned materials and wood waste helps improve the economics of forest conservation in the face of increasing development pressures. On public lands, markets for wood biomass could help offset at least some of the costs of forest restoration and hazardous fuels treatments urgently needed to reduce wildfire risks, or to enable forests to better withstand the increased vulnerability to insects and pathogens that comes with prolonged droughts and temperature stresses.“The plant growth associated with producing many of the biomass-derived fuels can, to varying degrees for different biomass feedstocks, sequester carbon from the atmosphere. For example, America’s forests currently play a critical role in addressing carbon pollution, removing nearly 12 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. As a result, broadly speaking, burning biomass-derived fuels for energy recovery can yield climate benefits as compared to burning conventional fossil fuels . . . Many states have recognized the importance of forests and other lands for climate resilience and mitigation and have developed a variety of different sustainable forestry policies, renewable energy incentives and standards and greenhouse gas accounting procedures. Because of the positive attributes of certain biomass-derived fuels, the EPA also recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission reduction strategies. We anticipate that states likely will consider biomass-derived fuels in energy production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions attributed to the energy sector and include them as part of their plans to meet the emission reduction requirements of this rule and we think it is important to define a clear path for states to do so.”  On the other hand, there are concerns over “too much of a good thing”—new biomass energy facilities that, when added to existing forest industry and other sources of wood demand, begin having unacceptable impacts on wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water, and other essential values and environmental services provided by ecologically-intact forest ecosystems. Limiting the development of any new biomass energy capacity in the US is seen by some as the surest means of avoiding these potential impacts.Since the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007, which established highly ambitious goals for “advanced biofuels” including cellulosic ethanol from wood, the Pinchot Institute has led a series of studies focused on ensuring forest sustainability as the use of wood for energy increases. These studies have carefully examined the implications of using wood biomass for electric power generation here in the US; they have also considered trends in Europe and other regions of the world that import large—and rapidly increasing—quantities of wood pellets derived from US forests. Almost monthly, there are announcements of new wood pellet manufacturing and export facilities to be constructed in the US, many of them with a capacity of 500,000 tons or more annually. Where these planned facilities are located—and where their wood comes from—will have important implications for local forest ecosystems and economies, as well the nation’s climate and energy strategy. The Pinchot Institute remains committed to working with all interests in the development of sustainable sourcing programs that conserve and protect the nation’s forests, even as wood biomass plays an increasing role in climate and energy strategy. American and European interests are both approaching this from their own perspectives—and they are finding more common ground than anyone expected, as described in recent Pinchot Institute reports. Existing regional biomass harvesting guidelines, best management practices (BMPs), and various forest certification programs will all play a role in facilitating a better understanding by all parties for what is at stake, and coming to agreement on an achievable pathway to clearly defined objectives. Ultimately, everyone shares a common goal—improving environmental sustainability in all of its dimensions. This can be achieved only through an intelligent, comprehensive, and good-faith effort by the full range of stakeholders, each of them committed to finding solutions that address society’s parallel needs in mitigating climate change, shifting to renewable energy sources, and sustaining forests for all the other essential values and environmental services they provide. Adapting to a Changing Climate: Risks & Opportunities for the Upper Delaware River Region
 In 2012, the Model Forest Policy Program (MFPP), the Cumberland River Compact, Headwaters Economics, the Common Waters Partnership and the Pinchot Institute for Conservation came together to create a climate adaptation plan for the communities of the Upper Delaware River Region. Development of the plan came about because all parties, led by MFPP, recognized the critical need for local community resilience against the impacts of climate change by protecting forest and water resources. This climate adaptation plan for the Upper Delaware Region of southeastern New York, northeastern Pennsylvania and northwestern New Jersey presents the results of a community team effort, deep and broad information gathering, critical analysis and thoughtful planning. The Common Waters Partnership and Pinchot Institute for Conservation shared the local leadership role to engage with the Climate Solutions University: Forest and Water Strategies program (CSU) and lead their community toward climate resilience with an adaptation plan that addresses their local climate risks and fits their local conditions and culture. This achievement was made possible by the guidance and coaching of the CSU program created by the Model Forest Policy Program in partnership with the Cumberland River Compact and the assistance of Headwaters Economics. The goal of CSU is to empower rural, underserved communities to become leaders in climate resilience using a cost effective distance-learning program. The result of this collaborative effort is a powerful climate adaptation plan that the community can support and implement in coming years. The outcome will be a community that can better withstand impacts of climate upon their natural resources, economy and social structure in the decades to come.Download the report (13MB PDF) Outlook Forum 2014
Natural Resource Management and Accelerating Environmental Change:
Challenges, Opportunities, and Questions
Webinar Summary Following is a brief summary of a recent Outlook Forum focused on important changes taking place in the management of various natural resources, as part of the larger effort to understand, prepare for, and adapt to the effects of climate change. Each year, the Pinchot Institute hosts an Outlook Forum to explore important trends that are likely to influence the course of conservation and sustainable natural resource management over the long term. These Outlook Forums bring together leading scientists and natural resource management practitioners from around the country to highlight important new developments in the field, and provide participants with opportunities to raise questions and identify information needs. Adapting to climate change and other aspects of the “Anthropocene Era” means that important changes are ahead in the way we conserve biodiversity and wildlife habitat, protect water resources, manage wildfire, preserve wilderness, and sustain other important environmental and economic values in forest ecosystems. Researchers and natural resource management practitioners are learning together what will be needed to sustain these values and manage risks in a future that has “no analog” in past experience. At this point there are more questions than answers. In this moderated webinar, natural resource scientists and practitioners highlighted some of the key questions and described possible approaches to addressing them. Participants in the webinar had opportunities to raise questions, offer suggestions, and identify needs for information to facilitate and support their own work in the field. Results of this discussion will factor into the setting of science and policy priorities at the Pinchot Institute and in other research and education institutions. Overarching issues and needs identified during the Outlook Forum include:
Al Sample, President, Pinchot Institute (Download presentation)
Carlos Carroll, Science Advisor to Wilburforce Foundation; Klamath Conservation Research Center (Download presentation)
Stephen Pyne, Professor, Arizona State University; author of Fire in America (Download presentation)
Chris Topik, Director, Restoring America’s Forests, The Nature Conservancy (Download presentation)
Beth Hahn, Wildlife Ecologist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute (Download presentation)
Steve Hamburg, Chief Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
Carlton Owen, President, US Endowment for Forestry & Communities (Download presentation)
Sally Collins, Co-Chair, MegaFlorestais; Rights & Resources Initiative
Peter Pinchot, President, EcoMadera; Director, Milford Experimental Forest (Download presentation)
A Landmark Policy for Restoring Federal Forests: Permanent Authorization of Stewardship Contracting in the Farm Bill
Brian Kittler
The effects of climate change are playing out in the western US before our eyes. California is having its worst drought in recorded history, and it is merely the epicenter of a much broader drought impacting the entire West (Pugh, 2014). In mid- January, with wildfires even burning in what are normally soggy Oregon Coast Range forests this time of year, it appears like the 2014 fire season could very well be longer and more intense than any before. In light of these and related pressures, restoring the resilience in western forests has become a rallying cry for a diverse set of constituencies. A Need for Increased Stewardship of Federal Forests According to the USDA Forest Service as much as 43 percent, some 65—82 million acres, of the National Forest System (NFS) is in need of restoration treatments via mechanical thinning and prescribed burning. Of this stated need, 12.5 million acres require mechanical treatment, essentially removing small diameter trees, as a necessary component of restoring resilience in these fire adapted ecosystems (Forest Service, 2012). In 2011 and 2012 restoration accomplishments via burning and mechanical thinning amounted to about 4.65 million acres per year, equating to an annualized restoration rate of about 6 percent of the total need (Forest Service, 2012). Of this, mechanical treatments remained a small component— 203,350 acres, meaning that mechanical treatments were implemented with an annualized restoration rate of about 1.6 percent of the total need in recent years. 
Accelerating the pace and scope of restoration treatments will require a social license to enhance the capacity of environmental analysis and landscape prioritization required to enable active forest management. Such a strategy is incomplete without significant public-private partnerships with non-profits, state agencies, and others to more effectively leverage resources beyond federal appropriations. Finally, a critical element for the agency will be the effective use of the restoration tools at their disposal to harness a local workforce with capacity to collaboratively design, implement, and monitor holistic restoration projects. Thankfully, stewardship contracting, one of the most powerful restoration tools available to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), was recently given permanent authorization in the 2014 Farm Bill. Having previously operated under a 10-year authorization, what will permanent authorization mean for these agencies? How can stewardship contracting be used to accelerate the pace and scope of restoration? Flexibility of Stewardship Contracting Authorities The authorizing legislation allows the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to use special authorities in projects focused on road and trail maintenance or obliteration, maintenance of soil productivity, habitat and fisheries management, prescribed fires, vegetation removal, watershed restoration, and control of invasive plants. However, the real innovation of stewardship contracting is not as much in what it, as an implementation mechanism is intended to do, but rather how it accomplishes it.
Growing out of early experiments with collaborative forest restoration in the late 1990s, stewardship contracting was introduced as a pilot program from 1999–2002. The program concluded early when 10-year authority was granted in 2003. The 10-year authorization came in part as a response to a particularly virulent fire season that included: the Hayman Fire, which burned 138,577 acres and impacted Denver’s water supply, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, which burned 192,970 acres in Arizona, and the Biscuit Fire that burned nearly half a million acres of forest in southern Oregon (Williams, 2007). Legislators were looking for ways to help, and extending Stewardship Contracting authorities was among the actions they took, independent of whether or not all knowledge gained from the pilot program could be effectively integrated into widespread deployment. Many of the 84 pilot projects were recognized as being highly collaborative in nature, receiving financial and technical assistance from the agency to implement multiparty monitoring of project activities. However, when the pilots ended such resources also ended. Some in retrospect have expressed that ending the pilot program early was a mistake. 
During the 10-year authorization, the Forest Service initiated 1,511 stewardship projects over hundreds of thousands of acres. The BLM awarded 421. Since 2010 the Forest Service has awarded an average of 215 contracts or agreements each year, with stewardship agreements with wildlife conservation NGOs becoming increasingly popular (see Figure 1). The downturn in BLM projects is related to an overall decrease in appropriations for the BLM forestry budget. This trend is indicative of the fact that while the goods for services and retained receipts authorities offer ways to package projects that implement service work with timber receipts, appropriated funding is still very much essential, especially when timber markets are not favorable as is the case for a majority of BLM comprised of Pinyon and Juniper of very low merchantable value. In many instances, less funding means less stewardship. While the number of projects originating in 2013 dropped for the Forest Service as well, the agency accomplished more stewardship contracting acres than it has in any year prior, at just more than 171,000 acres. Since 2011, the annual acres implemented by the Forest Service via stewardship contracts and agreements have increased by approximately 71,000 acres (see Table 1). 
Despite this consistent growth, the level of implementation by the Forest Service in 2013 was still short of a goal it set for itself in 2012 by 129,000 acres. This 129,000 acre figure is itself an amount that is larger than the agency typically implemented during most years during its 10-year authorization (Forest Service, 2013). Is the current scope and pace of restoration forestry going to leave our federal forests in an acceptable condition for future generations living through the Anthropocene? Now that the agencies have permanent authorization will the use of this tool, and the overall rate of restoration treatments increase? Collaborative Community Engagement in Stewardship Contracting Since 2005 the Pinchot Institute has systematically monitored 25 percent of active stewardship contracting projects for the BLM and the Forest Service. Over this time the Institute and its partners have completed more than 100 sets of interviews with agency and non-agency persons involved in BLM stewardship contracts or agreements and more than 340 sets of interviews with agency and non-agency persons involved in Forest Service projects. Some regions have been quicker to adopt stewardship contracting and projects in some regions tend to be more collaborative than others (see Table 3).   Still, on the balance, collaborative processes involving multiple stakeholders and meetings were used in 72 percent of stewardship contracting projects nationwide in 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Pinchot Institute, 2014). Overall, the trend is toward more collaboration on the federal lands. Certainly this is evidenced by the growth of the CFLR program, but it is also the case with many stewardship contracts and agreements. Conclusions The permanent authorization of stewardship contracting in the 2014 Farm Bill may well turn out to be a milepost in a new era of collaborative stewardship of our federal forests. The fiscal efficiencies offered by stewardship contracting, such as the ability to match private funding in stewardship agreements, have grown in popularity, as has the collaborative nature of many stewardship projects. These are clearly elements of stewardship contracting that are deemed attractive across the political spectrum, as was evidenced by a strong push to provide permanent authorization. The Forest Service itself has stressed the importance of stewardship authorities in CFLRP projects (Forest Service, 2013), a program on which the agency is banking much of its future. Achieving permanent authorization is an important moment, but given the gap between current levels of implementation and what is needed, significant challenges to accelerating the pace and scope of restoration remain. A necessary next step is to combine the use of stewardship authorities with adequate levels of funding—both public and private— for planning, implementation, and monitoring. There is also a significant need to provide enhanced training and technical assistance to agency and non-agency collaborators seeking to use stewardship contracting authorities. Despite the stark realities facing the forests of the Anthropocene, there remains hope for transforming century- old landmanagement institutions to be more adaptive, collaborative, and necessarily responsive to the threats of climate change. The creative use of stewardship contracting authorities and a full embrace of the philosophy underpinning collaborative stewardship represent a critical opportunity for such a transformation to occur. Indeed this is not just an opportunity, but rather a responsibility we owe future generations who will inherit our shared legacy—the public lands.   Works Cited Mattor, K.M.D. 2013. Evolving Institutions of Environmental Governance: The Collaborative Implementation of Stewardship Contracts by the USDA Forest Service. Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Pugh, B. (2014, February). US Monthly Drought Outlook. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sample, V.A. and Bixler, R.P. (eds.). 2014 [forthcoming]. Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Williams, G. W. (2007). The Forest Service: Fighting for Public Lands. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Pinchot Institute (2014). The Role of Communities in Stewardship Contracting: FY 2013 Programmatic Monitoring Report to the USDA Forest Service. January 2014. Pinchot Instutute for Conservation. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. (2008). FSH 2409.19 Renewable Resources Handbook, Chapter 60 Stewardship Contracting. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. (2012). Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. (2013). Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Lessons Learned from an Unprecedented Experiment in Collaborative Forest Management
Will Price
Since the creation of the National Forest System, how we manage our forest resources in light of many competing interests has been a flashpoint for debate and controversy. The Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests of northern California are no exception. In the last two decades this landscape, comprising more than 3.1million acres (4,885 mi2), has been the testing ground for a new way of incorporating stakeholder interests and ideas in planning and management. This happened through an Act of Congress, the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 1998 (HFQLG Act), but began well before this time through the efforts of a coalition of local interests who had become frustrated with the conflict dominating management of these forests. The first seeds for the emergence of the Quincy Library Group (named for where they came to regularly meet) were planted by local environmental groups during a period of heavy timber harvesting throughout the California Sierras. The total volume of timber harvested from the Sierra Nevada National Forests in 1988 was 1.29 billion board feet, compared to 183.6 million board feet in 2010 (Charnley and Long 2013). In the mid-1980’s, environmental groups were pressing the USDA Forest Service and the timber industry, through any means possible, to reduce harvesting and to take streamside areas, old-growth, and roadless areas off the timber-base. Their plan, presented to the Forest Service in 1986 by the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness, was considered as a management plan alternative in the Forest Service’s forest planning process, but was subsequently rejected.  Soon afterwards however, timber
harvesting began to decline—slowly
at first, because the anticipated volume
was not there, and quickly as soon as
the Forest Service began to deal with
the recommendations of a report on
the status of the California spotted
owl, or the “CASPO” report (Verner
et. al. 1992). The forthcoming
CASPO guidelines and change in the
White House widened interest in constructive
dialogue and potential collaboration.
So in 1992 a company
forester, a county supervisor, and an
environmentalist first met to discuss
how to ameliorate the conflict, which
had destabilized the community and
escalated hostilities toward leaders of
various interest groups (Gutierrez et.
al. 2014). Through subsequent meetings
the gathering swelled to 30members
who regularly met in the town
library in Quincy, California. They
sought to establish a consensus policy
that would appropriately balance timber
harvesting, forest restoration, and
protection for sensitive species, especially
the California spotted owl. By
the fall of 1993, QLG had adopted its
Community Stability Proposal, which
was presented for consideration to the
Forest Service. The plan included silvicultural
prescriptions intended to
reduce fire susceptibility and severity,
protection priorities (e.g. for streams
and California spotted owls), and a
roadmap they thought could accommodate
prior management guidance
and priorities (e.g. the Scientific
Analysis Team’s guidelines, Small
Business Administration set-asides,
and others).
The proposal was hailed as a cure-all by its supporters and a potential model for locally-driven collaborative management across the West. However, some in the Forest Service and several national environmental groups were skeptical of the proposal, especially worried about the precedent it set for how public land management decisions are made. Their concerns only escalated when, after engaging the Forest Service Chief and Forest Supervisors for the three National Forests, QLG representatives went to Congress (Marston 1997). QLG presented its Community Sustainability Proposal to their elected representatives as a “win-win” solution for management of National Forests. The group won the support of then-Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who led efforts in their respective bodies to gain bipartisan support. After contentious debate, the proposal became the main language of the HFQLG Act of 1998, passing 429 to 1 (Rep. Ron Paul of Texas voted against it). The HFQLG pilot project authorized in the HFQLG Act was to run for five years, from 1999–2004, at which time its success would be evaluated by an Independent Science Panel (ISP). The pilot project was extended in 2003 and again in 2008, and ended on September 30, 2012. The charge established by Congress in the Act was for the ISP to determine “whether, and to what extent, implementation of the pilot project under this section achieved the goals stated in the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal, including improved ecological health and community stability.” The Pinchot Institute convened the ISP, bringing together a group of scientists representing an appropriate range of disciplines necessary to conduct the two-stage review. The first phase occurred in 2008, when the ISP reviewed the Forest Service’s monitoring program. The second review began in October 2012, 16 days following the expiration of the pilot, and was completed in 2013 (Pinchot Institute 2013). The reviews included many types of inquiry, and were by no means limited to the formal documentation of the HFQLG pilot project compiled by the Forest Service in their annual reporting to Congress. Panelists reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, associated source materials, and raw data—provided by many sources from within and outside the agency. Both stages of the review also included extensive consultation with key stakeholders, especially current and former members of QLG, through in-person meetings, phone interviews, and surveys. The final report of the ISP (available at http://www.pinchot.org/qlg) is technical in nature, reflecting the goals established by the QLG and the HFQLG Act, and the panel took great care to avoid attributing reasons for successes and failures when these reasons could not be substantiated. Overall, the ISP identified nine key findings addressing the resourcemanagement issues affected by the pilot project and about which Congress wanted to learn:
In the end, the HFQLG pilot project did not achieve these goals. Harvesting and employment decreased over the period of implementation. The status of the California spotted owl is still uncertain, and more importantly, the pilot’s effects on spotted owls has yet to be determined. Furthermore, over the course of the thirteen years the hard-won truce between local environmental groups and the QLG dissolved. In some way this dissolution happened at the outset, when the “win” represented by the passage of the HFQLG Act, was perceived by some to diminish the need for further engagement and compromise. Challenges to pilot project treatments mounted over the years; and while appeals and litigation involved only a small minority of projects, they reportedly changed the complexion of the planning process.  The feedback given to the
Independent Science Panel suggests
that many factors accounted for
the pilot project’s shortcomings—
involving the actions and attitudes of
all stakeholders involved, including
the Forest Service. The agency
clearly had difficulty meeting the
demands of the pilot, a situation not
helped by frequent changes in leadership
on the three forests (i.e. 11
different Supervisors during the
pilot project). Nevertheless, feedback
from stakeholders and the
Forest Service suggested that there
was greater support for the HFQLG
pilot project in the later years of
implementation. This was partially a
result of new science published in
agency publications (North et al.
2009). This renewed emergence of
support perhaps reinforces the value
of science-based dialogue that was
an essential component of the plan
developed by the Friends of the
Plumas Wilderness, and later the
Community Stability Proposal.
The collaboration that led to the Quincy Library Group’s Community Stability Proposal has been celebrated as a potentially transformative approach for federal lands management. Whereas the HFQLG pilot project originated through an unprecedented type of collaboration, it also represented an unprecedented type and level of federal investment (approximately $300 million over 13 years). Despite these precedents, full implementation was not accomplished in the twice-extended term of the HFQLG Act. The degree to which local economic stability has been accomplished or how the California spotted owl and other species of conservation concern will fare over the long term has not been answered. However, where implemented, the pilot project treatments helped reduce the damaging effects of wildfire. The treatments also produced some much needed local economic stimulus, perhaps muting what was a general decline in employment and the broader economy. What the pilot project was able to accomplish helped demonstrate some of the potential of collaborative engagement. Yet, after more than a decade it cannot be considered the model for how institutions and collaborative partnerships achieve the complex outcomes of promoting forest health and economic stability while maintaining environmental values. Throughout the country there are situations demanding new models of collaboration and management to enable restoration and adaptation to climate change, at a massive pace and scale. The efforts of those who envisioned and influenced the HFQLG pilot project—the Quincy Library Group, companies, scientists, environmental groups, the Forest Service, and others—offer valuable lessons on what can be avoided and what should be emulated across the country in order to meet this challenge. Will Price is Director of Conservation Programs at the Pinchot Institute in Princeton, NJ. He was a member and the coordinator of the HFQLG Independent Science Panel. The views expressed are those of the author and not a formal statement of ISP findings. References Charnley, Susan, and Long, Jonathan. “9.5 Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit” Final Draft 1/9/2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications /reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/psw _sciencesynthesis2013_9_5.pdf. Accessed January 2014. Marston, Ed. 1997. “The Timber Wars Evolve into a Divisive Attempt at Peace.” High Country News. September 29, 1997. http://www.hcn.org/issues/115/3656. Accessed October 2013. North, M., Stine, P.A., O’Hara, K.L., Zielinski, W.J., and Stephens, S.L. 2009 An Ecosystems Management Strategy for Sierra Mixed-Conifer Forests. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 49 p. Pinchot Institute for Conservation, 2013. Independent Science Panel Report: Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. Verner, J., McKelvey, K.S., Noon, B.R., Gutiérrez, R.J., Gould, Jr., G.I., Beck, T.W. 1992. The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of its Current Status. PSW-GTR-133. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA. Preparing for the Mid-term: Nearing Five Years of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
R. Patrick Bixler
America’s forests are undergoing changes unlike any seen before in human history. With each passing year, new precedents are being set for the extent and impacts of wildfires, and floods that often follow. Record areas of forest stands are dead or dying and in need of restoration in order to sustain the vital ecosystem services on which we depend. Moreover, climate change is profoundly shaping forests and actively altering species composition, productivity, availability of goods and services, and disturbance regimes (Vose et al. 2012). Forest conservation in the Anthropocene is going to require institutional arrangements that manage both public and private forests in a more collaborative, flexible, science-based, and adaptive way (Sample and Bixler 2014). Traditional institutional and policy frameworks are challenged by the task at hand. At the beginning of the 20th century our nation implemented the Weeks Act, a visionary law that provided a roadmap to conserve the nation’s forest and water resources. A century later, we look to build on that bold leadership by restoring forests, and the communities that depend on them, through collaborative and adaptive approaches to forest management. The USDA Forest Service, as well as other federal land management agencies, are developing new tools and policy frameworks to enable an ‘all hands’ and ‘all lands’ approach to forest management. In 2010, USDA Secretary Vilsack announced that 10 landscape-scale restoration projects had been funded under the new Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). Established by Congress under Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, this program supports landscape-scale ecological restoration on Forest Service lands to reduce wildland fire management costs, enhance ecological health, and promote the use of small-diameter woody biomass while bolstering collaboration throughout planning and implementation (Schultz et al. 2012). Specifically, the purpose of the Act is to “encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes;” to help achieve these objectives, collaboratives are guaranteed funding for ten years. 
Along with the new National Forest System land management planning rule, the CFLRP is part of a longer-term shift in National Forest policy that has increasingly emphasized large-scale, collaborative, and adaptive planning. The CFLRP is one experiment in the emerging suite of new governance approaches that attempt to implement management activities in ways that are more flexible and adaptive, less hierarchical, and emphasize the role of collaboration and communities in setting goals and objectives on multiple-use landscapes. The CFLRP is aligned with these goals and objectives by promoting management that:
  The CFLRP legislation is somewhat unique in that it requires both the funding and implementation of multi-party monitoring for ecological, social, and economic outcomes of each individually awarded CFLR project. This authorization requires reporting broader and more detailed information than typical reports detailing amount of timber cut or acres burned. The policy objective of the legislation and subsequent intention of the robust multi-party monitoring is to contribute to knowledge generation and learning, promote trust among stakeholders, reduce uncertainty regarding landscape-scale and long-term effects of restoration, and support adaptive management frameworks that facilitate changes in project planning and implementation. Multi-party monitoring provides information critical to the adaptive management feedback loop, improving projects as they evolve and assuring accountability of projects to all stakeholders. The Pinchot Institute has long been an advocate and practitioner of multi-party monitoring, with a rich history of evaluating the program design and implementation of stewardship contracting. Since 2003, multi-party monitoring has provided valuable and constructive feedback to help agencies and local communities develop joint action plans, analyze how well the plans are working, and provide insight on how to modify behavior and management practices for better results. The promise of the CFLR program is to take the insights and lessons learned through collaborative and multi-party monitoring of stewardship contracting, and apply it to a broader spectrum of adaptive forest management objectives and tools. Using monitoring to enact adaptive management in the CFLRPs includes explicit recognition of learning as a management objective, systematic observations of resource conditions and subsequent analysis and interpretation, and adjusting future management based on new information. This implies that the multi-party monitoring is an important precursor to multi-party learning. Groups that have completed collaborative planning and monitoring are frustrated when lessons learned are not captured and used to inform ongoing work, or the project planning process does not facilitate incorporation of new information generated through monitoring (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2013). Organizational and social learning emphasize information sharing and meaningful collaboration across organizations, and among people with different experiences, helping collaborative groups avoid positional debates and circular discussions. Multi-party social learning is a critical aspect to the ‘back-loop’ of adaptive management: using what is learned to adjust future management, seeking to reduce uncertainty and improve management by monitoring programs and projects and comparing results to management objectives. This learning is at once both within collaboratives and between collaboratives, as informal and professional networks contribute to horizontal information transfer among local groups and vertical information transfer between local groups and policymakers. Across the individual CFLR projects, monitoring strategies are driven by a desire to measure the effectiveness of treatments to meet ecological and socioeconomic objectives, create and sustain social license to conduct restoration, and resolve key uncertainties at the landscape scale. Management approaches that integrate these monitoring strategies and anticipate and respond to change by guiding development and adaptation of forest ecosystem structures and functions will be more likely to sustain desired ecosystem services and values across large landscapes and multiple decades. One key dimension of the CFLR efforts is the directed focus to the landscape scale, and it is at this scale that preparing for and being resilient to wildfire occurs. Collaborative Landscape Restoration and Wildfire It is pretty well received now that fire in the landscape is a natural phenomenon, supporting both ecological processes and in many cases cultural practices (Pyne 2012). However, the social impact of wildfires makes them disastrous, further magnified by demographic changes and exurban residential development in the wildland-urban interface. The solutions to wildfire management and mitigation are not just engineered or environmental, but are often social and include a role and responsibility for collaborative community work in mitigating risk.Wildfire preparedness is advocated as an important means by which communities can reduce vulnerability and increase resilience to wildfire, minimizing the consequences of the hazard and increasing the ability of people to cope with, recover from, and adapt to wildfire. In this regard, CFLRPs are fostering the capacity and skills for hazardous fuels treatments that can provide protection for communities and affect the size, spread, and severity of wildfires. Many CFLRPs, especially in the West, are engaging with thinning and prescribed fire to achieve landscape-scale forest restoration. Hazardous fuels reduction near communities has become a high priority for many collaboratives, reducing the potential for mega-fire near outlying residential areas. Ideally, entire communities would be “fire adapted,” where fire should be able to pass through communities without causing extensive damage. To achieve this, however, requires implementing forest treatments that are grounded in scientific research, and doing so in a context that allows for collaborative planning, joint fact-finding, and continued monitoring. Disagreements about fire management needs and practices are not always resolved through technical analyses and rational planning processes, but require mutual understanding of different worldviews and political realities. This is the promise of the CFLRPs—collaboratively solving and learning from these complex problems of forest restoration with the intent to help us better understand and direct the course of wildfire, as well as prepare for and adapt to other changes in the Anthropocene. Opportunities and Challenges Ahead  The CFLR program has been a
catalyst and an arena for stakeholders
to have difficult forest management
conversations, and we can now
observe many places where divisive
and adversarial tactics have given
way to communities actively working
together to improve the health
and resilience of forest ecosystems.
Restoration activities once considered
off limits are now on top of the
agenda in many collaboratives.
These collaboratives have not only
created a space for dialogue in situations
where scientific and social
uncertainty is high, but have also
created sufficient social connectivity
and capacity to undertake ambitious
restoration projects.
However, with increased understanding of the role of climate change as a factor behind widespread insect- and disease-related tree mortality and subsequent catastrophic wildfires, a subtle shift in thinking is taking place—the CFLR program may be too short-term and nearsighted in its focus to prepare for and adapt to economic, social, and climatic changes upon us. Many of these collaborative efforts remain separate initiatives, only loosely affiliated under the common brand of CFLR. The potential for wheel reinvention is high, but the opportunity for deliberate transformative learning is real as well. The Forest Service has held a few webinars to share lessons learned and discuss monitoring activities, but these are preliminary efforts and much more is needed. There is limited communication between these groups, although they have similar objectives and face similar challenges. For the Forest Service, these groups collectively represent an emerging community of practice and a political constituency, as well as a model of institutional and policy innovation that is adaptive and responsive to challenging and diverse contexts. In addition to assessing the successes and challenges from a programmatic level, there is a broader need for CFLR projects to exchange information, strategies, and ideas. Social learning in the CFLRPs is the key to remaining adaptive and addressing complexity and uncertainty inherent in natural resource management today, and is the backbone to the collective action and reflection that is needed to improve forest conservation in the Anthropocene. Knowledge transfer and exchange helps collaborative adaptive management move beyond incremental, project-level change to incorporate learning into policy and professional practice. A common theme in the CFLRP is that restoration should be science-based, yet science-based forest ecosystem management remains a construct that few collaborative groups have realized and integrated into the collaborative decision-making process. The opportunity, and the challenge, moving forward will be to use science-based practices to accomplish goals while ensuring collaboration. By striving toward these ends, the CFLRP is a way to bring people together and build a long-term partnership between the Forest Service, communities, and the forests that we all care about. Patrick Bixler is a Research Fellow with the Pinchot Institute in Washington, DC. References: Pinchot Institute for Conservation, 2013. Independent Science Panel Report: Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. http://www.pinchot.org/qlg Pyne, S. 2012. Fire: Nature and Culture. London, UK: Reaktion Books Ltd. Sample, V.A. and Bixler, R.P. (eds.). 2014 [forthcoming]. Forest Conservation and Management in the Anthropocene. General Technical Report. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. [Conference presentations and other information available at: http://www.pinchot.org/2013_forest_conservation_symposium]. Schultz, C., Jedd, T., Beam. 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: A History and Overview of the First Projects. Journal of Forestry, 110 (7): 381-391. Schwedler, J., McCarthy, L., Murphy, D., and Young, J. 2013. People Restoring America’s Forests: 2012 Report on the Collaborative Forest Landscape Program. Online only at www.nature.org/CFLR. Vose, J., Peterson, D., and Patel- Weynand, T. (eds). 2012. Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosytems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. General Technical Report PNWGTR- 870. Portland, Oregon: US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 265 pp. Wilderness and Conservation Strategy in the Anthropocene
Travis Belote, Greg Aplet, Anne Carlson, and Peter McKinley
This September will mark the 50th anniversary of President Johnson signing the Wilderness Act. In its half century, the Act has provided the US Congress authority to establish more than 109 million acres of land “where earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” These designated lands form the National Wilderness Preservation System, managed to retain its “primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation.” Management intervention is discouraged, providing conservation science opportunities to study uncontrolled nature, while offering people the chance to recreate in nature with minimal distraction from modern technology. As conservation science has developed, wilderness designation has repeatedly been shown to effectively protect wildlife, clean water, and imperiled species from human impacts. Recently, however, a host of threats, including climate change, invasive species, and atmospheric pollution have transcended wilderness and park boundaries and now threaten the biodiversity and ecological processes we value in nature. Humans have altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere, shuffled species around the globe by breaking once impenetrable dispersal barriers, and disrupted fire’s role as nature’s sculptor of landscapes. Given these compounding and synergistic impacts as well as the predicted exacerbating effects of climate change, some conservation scientists have begun to question the appropriateness of wilderness in such a profoundly altered world. The challenge before us now is that wilderness conservation inherently values nature operating without human control—“untrammeled by man” in the words of the Wilderness Act—but increasingly, many of the things that we value in wilderness are under threat from external forces that bring human impacts well inside the boundary lines of wilderness and other protective reserves drawn on maps. This situation raises a host of questions. What do we do if protecting nature—or at least nature’s parts —requires intervening to fend off the effects of climate change, invasive species, atmospheric pollution, and decades of fire suppression? Do we value “untrammeled” nature more than we value the diversity of native species and the processes they maintain? Will human-caused climate change impacts be more destructive than management interventions undertaken to assist the maintenance of nature’s parts and processes? Do we have to let go of the idea of wilderness and pursue the control of nature everywhere? Do we have to make a choice? 
Scientists at The Wilderness Society and elsewhere have been wrestling with these questions concerning the role and relevance of wilderness in the Anthropocene. We are fully aware that these tradeoffs may present themselves as climate regimes shift, exotic species invade, genetic diversity is lost, and chemical compounds are transported and deposited hundreds of miles and across “protected area” boundaries. We are also aware of the many proposals to intervene in wilderness to sustain its ecological character at the expense of untrammeled conditions. In such cases, we believe that management should aim to correct historical damage to ecosystem integrity without long-term intervention. It should leave wilderness better able to sustain its component parts and processes than it would have been without intervention, but it should not seek to hold ecosystems static or to perpetually manage ecological processes. For example, invasive species management and control in wilderness may be justified if the detrimental impacts to native species and ecosystems are well understood, impacts to wilderness character are severe, and the control measure is likely to be effective in the long run. Temporary interventions or ‘trammeling’ in the form of restoration may be further justified, given the likely expansion of many invasive species under climate change. In every case, though, impacts to wilderness character must be carefully scrutinized and the tradeoffs well understood. Reversing the human-caused impacts of decades of fire exclusion in wilderness is more philosophically complex. Theoretical ecologists and fire managers alike speculate that we may be outside of the domain where fire can be returned to its natural role in forests without some prior mechanical thinning or highly controlled prescribed fire. This hypothesis suggests that returning fire to forests without first reducing fuels through tree removal would cause fires to burn hotter and bigger resulting in both the loss of large old-growth trees and a homogenous burned landscape lacking the capacity to regenerate a new forest. Ecologists and managers point to the Hayman Fire in Colorado, the Las Conchas Fire in New Mexico, and numerous other large fires of the past decade to support these hypotheses. Yet there are also newly emerging case studies where the return of lightning-ignited fires burning in wilderness suggests that forests and their relationships with fire have not shifted to some new fragile domain where ecological character is at risk, especially if fires are allowed to burn under less-than-extreme conditions. These examples of ‘latent resilience’ speak to the possibility that fire exclusion has not altered every acre of every once-fire-dependent forest in the West. In some cases, large patches of severe fires are actually needed to sustain important species’ habitats. It is possible that our theoretical predictions and expert knowledge that create conceptual frames to guide policy and management don’t always have everything quite right. As challenging as they are, invasive species and fire exclusion represent reasonably tractable problems, as their effects are relatively well studied, and intervention may be seen as a onetime, “corrective” action. How, though, should we respond to pressures, like climate change, that are irreversible and whose effects are largely unknown? If we allow nature to respond to changes in climate without intervening, we would maintain the untrammeled nature of wilderness and its role as a barometer against which to judge management elsewhere, but a hands-off approach may in some cases jeopardize the very species and populations we hope to preserve. On the other hand, ecological dynamics under climate change and the appropriate management response to a highly uncertain future make it very unclear exactly what to do.How should managers respond to such uncertainty? 
By our analysis, no single approach is capable of addressing all concerns. Instead, a diversity of approaches is necessary. Conservation scientists at The Wilderness Society and elsewhere are increasingly concluding that the soundest course to the future will require a portfolio of wilderness strategies:
 Lands best suited for a “restoration
zone” are those whose specified
purpose is to sustain existing or historical
ecosystems. Non-wilderness
national parks, monuments, wildlife
refuges, and other lands set aside
specifically to sustain scenery, natural
and historic objects, and wildlife are
especially appropriate for inclusion in
this zone. Such lands may have been
degraded by past management, such
as logging, fire exclusion, overgrazing,
or the construction of dams and
roads, but can be restored to high
ecological integrity through management
and maintained through intervention,
even if it is “swimming
against the tide” of climate change.
While the concept of “historical range
of variability” as a guiding concept for
ecosystem restoration and management
is increasingly called into question,
the range of conditions that
sustained species and ecosystems
through the Holocene is the only
well-tested model of ecosystem
dynamics that has sustained the biodiversity
that we hope to conserve
into the future.
We acknowledge the possibility that historical conditions may prove an insufficient guide to sustaining some species and ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. An “innovation zone” may therefore be warranted in some lands that have already undergone substantial change or where the future impacts of climate change may severely disrupt the flow of ecosystem goods and services upon which society depends. On these lands, ecosystem services may be sustained by manipulating natural conditions to be more resilient to an altered climate by favoring some species or structures over those that dominated historically; managers may also decide to help facilitate transition to a future state in some areas where regime shifts appear inevitable. In contrast to the heavy-handed approach of the innovation zone, we propose that “observation zones” will continue to be an important strategy in the Anthropocene. Species and ecosystems in wilderness and other lands in an observation zone would be allowed to change on their own as climate regimes shift. In reality, budget deficits and operational constraints will limit how much land can realistically be treated under restoration or innovation strategies. Observation will be the default strategy on vast areas of the landscape; it only makes sense to allocate that zone thoughtfully and intentionally to maximize its benefits. In the current discourse over whether wilderness (and other protective designations) is a viable conservation strategy in an era of shifting climate, we tend to hear two poles of distinct perspectives: either “The climate is changing; wilderness no longer makes any sense,” or “The climate is changing; the only adaptive response should be more wilderness.”We believe wisdom lies somewhere in between. More wilderness will be needed to improve connectivity among existing reserves and to expand the benefits wilderness areas provide into the Anthropocene. But, we also believe that wilderness cannot be relied upon as the only adaptation strategy. As we work to wildland reserves, we must also be working to accelerate bona fide ecological restoration and identify interventions that anticipate and prepare nature for changes in climate in those parts of the landscape allocated to innovation. Whatever we do and however we respond to ongoing changes to nature that define the Anthropocene, a Hippocratic Oath to land management and conservation should be considered: first, do no harm. Bad decisions of the past, conducted with good intentions, have led to some natural resource disasters. We once thought putting out fires, planting soil-stabilizing exotic plants, and eliminating predators were means of protecting nature without much consideration for unintended consequences to ecological communities. The humility of the Hippocratic Oath should always be on our minds. Despite fifty years of separation in time and the emergence of challenges unforeseen by the authors of the Wilderness Act, The Wilderness Society believes the idea of wilderness to be as relevant today as in 1964. Wilderness has proven itself to be a successful conservation strategy that should not be abandoned, especially given the uncertainty of the future, and wilderness provides an operational scientific control against which to judge the effectiveness of active conservation actions elsewhere. Perhaps most important though, wilderness will remain a practice and statement of humility, an acknowledgement that perhaps we don’t have all the answers—a stance that appears all the more relevant in the face of such an uncertain future. Travis Belote, Greg Aplet, Anne Carlson, and Peter McKinley are respectively: Research Ecologist, Senior Science Director, Climate Associate, and Climate Adaptation Ecologist with The Wilderness Society. 
|
|
|
