Skip to content

The Creation of the Rice Coast: A Global Exchange

By Brenda Barrett April 27, 2016
Slave Dwelling Mansfield Plantation Georgetown SC

Slave Dwelling
Mansfield Plantation Georgetown SC

Plantations line the coast and tidal rivers in the states of Georgia and South Carolina. Today many of these properties are recognized by listing in the national register of historic places or as national historic landmarks as well as being conserved as historic sites and state parks. They preserve the plantation houses, designed landscapes, and, in a few places, the dwellings of enslaved people. And, here and there, one can find a few still active and tended plantation cemeteries. Although the region has been impacted by industrial development and even more so by resorts and second homes, its natural resource values are  recognized: for example, part of the region has been designated as the Carolinian-South Atlantic Biosphere Reserve. There are also significant public and private open space conservation efforts underway including the Ashepoo, Combahee and South Edisto Basin in South Carolina.  Known as the ACE Basin Project this is a multiple stakeholder effort to manage the coastal area and adjacent 100,000 acres as diverse wildlife habitat –  one of the largest undeveloped estuaries on the nation’s east coat.

Cemetery Mansfield Plantation

Cemetery Mansfield Plantation

What is not as evident is how these pieces – the plantations, the wildlife preserves, and coastal waterways- fit together, to tell a powerful story. This is a unique landscape that represents one of the less well known chapters of the “Columbian Exchange”.  A term used to describe the exchange between the “new” and “old” worlds that triggered the dramatic transformation of the culture and environment of the Atlantic World ecosystems. The impact wrought by Europeans are well understood as is the contribution of crops like corn, tomatoes, potatoes and tobacco on Europe. What is not well known is the transfer of indigenous knowledge of rice growing from the west coast of Africa to North America as part of the establishment of plantation slavery. This contribution included crucial technologies such as irrigation and water control and techniques of milling as well as a skilled labor force with centuries of experience.

Diorama Rice Fields  Courtesy of the Rice Museum Georgetown SC

Diorama Rice Fields
Courtesy of the Rice Museum Georgetown SC

This transmission of knowledge of traditional agricultural systems is being increasingly recognized as the meeting point of culture and environment. And the impact of this Atlantic exchange on the southern coast of the United States has left indelible marks on the land. It is estimated that the along the Cooper River alone the amount of earth moved to create the rice fields and canal systems would have filled the great pyramid at Cheops six times. The wealth from rice growing made Charleston and Georgetown some of the richest cities in the new nation and left a legacy of world class architecture.

Former Rice Fields CawCaw Interpretive Center in Charleston County

Former Rice Fields
CawCaw Interpretive Center in Charleston County

After the Civil War the amount of land in rice cultivation gradually dwindled. The enormous labor to maintain the systems of carefully calibrated tidal wetlands made rice production less and less economic viable. Rice growing moved to Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The vast coastal irrigation systems then flooded creating a labyrinth of wetlands – ideal habit for birds and other animals. Many former rice plantations became hunting clubs for wealthy northerners and are now the backbone of the regions conserved lands. The plantation houses and historic districts in Charleston and Georgetown became winter retreats, second homes and  showplaces for newer tourism economy.

But what of the people who helped create this landscape? Overtime many moved north for jobs in an industrializing region. Others stayed, but struggled to maintain their place and cultural traditions on a land that was increasingly changed by development and new economic drivers.  Recently the significance of this community has been recognized with such initiatives as the Gullah Geechee National Cultural Corridor .This is a good start, but what is needed is a full out effort that integrates our understanding of the region’s cultural and natural heritage with the living traditions of today’s descendants. And then places it within the context of transatlantic slave trade, the market in global commodities, and the vast international Atlantic exchange of indigenous knowledge that were the forces behind the creation the cultural landscape of the rice coast.

Plantation House Hampton Plantation State Historic Site McClellandville SC

Plantation House
Hampton Plantation State Historic Site McClellandville SC

Fortunately, there is an effort underway to do just this, the Mission of the Charleston World Heritage Coalition  is to nominate iconic buildings and landscapes representative of the Charleston Lowcountry plantation-driven culture as a UNESCO World Heritage Site . Perhaps at last the whole story will be told.

 

Share

San Antonio Missions: Learning from the World Heritage Experience

By Brenda Barrett February 21, 2016
Mission San Jose San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Credit: Dan Stern

Mission San Jose
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Credit: Dan Stern

On October 17, 2015 dignitaries from around the country gathered to celebrate the inscription of the San Antonio Missions as the 23rd World Heritage Site in the Untied States (US) and the first in Texas. The San Antonio Missions are a group of five frontier mission complexes situated along an over seven mile stretch of the San Antonio River. Inscribed under Work Heritage Criterion ii the missions are described as “ an example of the interweaving of the cultures of the Spanish and the Coahuiltecan and other indigenous peoples, illustrated in a variety of elements, including the integration of the indigenous settlements towards the central plaza, the decorative elements of the churches which combine Catholic symbols with indigenous natural designs, and the post-secularization evidence which remains in several of the missions and illustrates the loyalty to the shared values beyond missionary rule. The substantial remains of the water distribution systems are yet another expression of this interchange between indigenous peoples, missionaries, and colonizers that contributed to a fundamental and permanent change in the cultures and values of those involved.”

Behind the well-deserved World Heritage hoopla and the carefully crafted statement of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, there is more than a decade of hard work. As interested in World Heritage recognition grows in the country and around the globe, what can we learn from the hard won experience of the San Antonio Missions? A few lesson for existing and aspiring World Heritage properties are:

Think long term – While the first official step is gaining a spot on the state parties tentative list; this is preceded by many prerequisites. For example n the US cultural properties must first be designated as a National Historic Landmark. All this takes a good deal of time. The San Antonio Missions were officially proposed for the World Heritage Tentative list in a 2006 Federal Register listing.

Seek Out champions –The International Office of the National Park Service (NPS) manages the development of the tentative list and in partnership the State Department determines, which sites will be proffered to the world body ICOMOS for consideration. There is no question that determined champions are critical. In the case of the missions the number of advocates was along one starting with the nationally respected San Antonio Conservation Societ . Also important were the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park’s  friends groups Los Compadres. Finally, unified political support at the city, county, state and national support was invaluable.

 Gain expert support – Only properties that meet the World Heritage criteria for Outstanding Universal Value can be considered for inscription. The NPS and the park leadership contributed their expertise behind the effort to nominate the missions. They helped convene an experts meeting 2012 to help frame the argument for World Heritage designation. They also hired an professional in preparing the dossier for presentation to the World Heritage Committee.

Anticipate the Management Plan – Just as challenging in many ways as making the case for Outstanding Universal Value is developing a credible management plan for the resource. Particular difficult is to develop a buffer to zone to protect the property. While this might be easier in a discrete historic sites, the missions located in a complex urban and rural with multiple property owners. What made the management plan for the resource credible was all the historic preservation land use controls that had been implemented for the region over the last several decades.

Be prepared to spend money – A World Heritage nomination is a pricey document. While the San Antonio supporter raised several hundred thousand dollars, they estimate that over half a million in in kind services were contributed to the effort. These included a NPS expert staff position In addition, much of lead writer and historian’s time was donated as well a, student interns and untold volunteer hours from the friends group and the Conservation Society helped reduce the costs.

After designation the real work begins! – After a site is listed what is next? In San Antonio a community where tourism is economic development; the promotional opportunities of the designation are very important. However, the community is also using the designation to deepen their connection to the past and the heritage of its diverse citizens. To learn more about ongoing programing on the World Heritage at the missions, visit the excellent San Antonio Missions Word Heritage *Our Heritage web site. 

Many thanks to San Antonio Missions National Historical Park staff Susan Snow who serves as the site’s World Heritage Coordinator and  to Tom Costanos, Volunteer and Partnership Coordinator, both of whom gave generously of their time. All the wise words were from them, any errors are mine!

 

 

 

 

Share

National Academy releases report on Large Landscape Conservation   

By Brenda Barrett January 15, 2016
Yellowstone to Yukon Landscape Credit: Harvey Locke

Yellowstone to Yukon Landscape Credit: Harvey Locke

In November 2015 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report “An Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives”, which concluded that a landscape approach is needed to meet the nation’s conservation challenges and that the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) provide a framework for addressing that need. The NAS undertook the study pursuant to a Congressional directive to evaluate the LCC program.

For those not familiar with the LCCs, the initiative was launched by a Department of Interior Secretarial Order in 2009 specifically to enhance the landscape-level approach to conservation. The intent of the Secretarial Order was to design a cooperative effort to bridge jurisdictional boundaries across agencies within DOI as well as across other federal, state, and tribal agencies and private lands. The LCCs consists of 22 individual, self-directed conservation areas that cover all of the U.S. including islands, and parts of Canada, Mexico and Pacific Islands. A LCC Council composed of federal, state, local, tribal, and nongovernmental organizations manages the network and has adopted an overall strategic plan.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

What were the highlights of the recent NAS evaluation? Most importantly the report identified the need for a landscape approach to resource conservation. The geographic scale and the complex web of management responsibility for natural and cultural resources demand a collaborative approach to conservation. And that this is especially true in a time of scarce resources. The committee concluded that given this national need to work at a landscape scale, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were an appropriate way for the Department of Interior to address this need.

The NAS was also charged with examining other Federal programs with similar goals to assess overlaps and issues of coordination. The report concluded that the LCCs were uniquely positioned to address landscape conservation needs at a national scale, for all natural and cultural resources, in a way that bridges research and management efforts. For those interested in learning more about the range of Federal landscape programs, the report is valuable resource offering a catalog of 20 other federal agency landscape initiatives and providing an in depth analysis of four of them.

Finally, the report stated that after a little more than five years, it is too early to assess the outcomes of the program or to expect to see much in ways of improving the management and conservation of habitat and fish and wildlife species. The evaluation process needs to be improved such that the Network as a whole can measure and demonstrate how they have advanced the goals of the Network and its partners. However, it noted that the LCCs had achieved numerous objectives and milestones, especially related to developing collaborative governance and shared conservation goals.

 The NAS concluded that the LCCs and the LCC Network have the necessary  elements and structure to deliver on the national need for a landscape approach the individual LCCs can point to many early accomplishments, and have made progress toward the LCC Network’s high-level goals related to addressing conservation strategy, developing collaborative conservation, and advancing science for conservation.

The report is an important affirmation that resource conservation must be tackled on a landscape scale. Also of interest to on-the-ground practitioners are the case studies profiling the evaluation and outcomes of some longer running landscape scale initiatives (Chapter 6). These include National Heritage Areas, Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes, Yellowstone to Yukon, and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. The report notes the important lessons to be learned from these programs that have been in existence for much longer period of time than the LCCs. These include such critical components as a unifying theme, strong stakeholder engagement, adaptive management, strategic planning efforts, metrics to aggregate project impacts, leveraging, and a lead agency that provides resources and/or leadership.

 

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine.  The Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.  For more information, visit www.nationalacademies.org.

 

 

Share

The 2016 Federal Budget: How did Large Landscapes Fare?

By Brenda Barrett January 11, 2016

small-logo-lighthouseAfter months of uncertainty, weeks of negotiations and two short-term extensions to keep the government open, Congress passed and the President signed the 2009 page omnibus spending Bill, titled the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. How did federal initiatives that support landscape scale work and fund our natural and cultural conservation program fare?

 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund

Ding, Ding, Ding! Only three dings as Congress limited reauthorization of the now 50-year old fund to just three years. However, the good news is that it is still around and with $450 million allocated for the coming fiscal year much good work can be accomplished at the state and national level. Landscape work was specifically recognized in an appropriations for a number of large scale projects including an appropriation for the Rivers of the Chesapeake. This Collaborative Landscape proposal received $11 million for land conservation in the Chesapeake region and $2 million for supporting a range of public access and conservation efforts along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. It is estimated that this targeted funding will protect 2,100 acres of land in this threatened watershed.

The Historic Preservation Fund

small-logo-bridgeNot quite such good news to kick off the celebration of the fiftieth Anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act. The appropriations bill did not include the reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund, which expired on September 30th. 2015. This means that action on a bill (HR 2817) to reauthorize the fund will have to wait till the New Year. However, there was some good news. Overall the bill funds the HPF at $65.41 million, an increase of $9 million over FY15 enacted levels.

The funding breakdown for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices is as follows: $46.925 million for SHPOs (equal to FY15 enacted levels),
$9.985 million for THPOs ($1 million above FY15 enacted levels),
$8 million in grants to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights Movement and $500,000 in grants for underrepresented communities.

The National Heritage Areas

Generally good news as funding remained level at $19,821 million. Since the program has been without strong administration support, just holding on to a level appropriation has been an annual struggle. In addition the 2016 act extended the funding authorization for three areas and increased the funding authorization caps for four other areas. Overall Congress showed an interest in sustaining the program.

One twist to watch is the transfer of $625,000 funding that in the past went to the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor https://blackstoneheritagecorridor.org   from the national heritage areas program account to the new Blackstone Valley Historic Park. As for now the heritage corridor and the new park are working closely together. The heritage corridor’s level of staffing and on the ground facilities like visitor centers are a boon to a park that is just finding its feet. How will blurring of the lines between what has been traditionally been an external program and a new unit of the national park system work out in the long run? Since this is a year-to-year arrangement, we have to wait and see.

The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

small-logo-archaeologistFive years ago the Department of the Interior launched the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) to better integrate science and management to address climate change and other landscape scale issues through collaborative networks that are grounded in science. As one might imagine congressional funding for this program has been a point of contention. Despite threats to severely reduce or even eliminate the program, the final appropriation for the 2016 budget the LCC was only reduced by $1 million in the Cooperative Landscapes account — from $13,988,000 in FY15 to $12,988,0.  The LCC budget in the Adaptive Science account remains at the FY15 level — $10,517,000. So the final outcome should be seen as a win for the landscape approach to resource management. To learn more about the LCCs read the just released National Academy report A Review of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.  

Overall this is good news considering the current congressional environment. Can we see any patterns in these encouraging outcomes? Well a few:

  • The public sees such programs, particularly the long established ones, as beneficial and conserving the things they care about.
  • Advocacy is an essential part of program survival. High marks go to the coalition to reauthorize the Land and Water program. They have had an impressive ground game and media presence.
  • While not conclusive, positive evaluations of the program such as the recent study on the LCCs and the reports on the National Heritage Areas might have turned the tide on the funding issue.

Readers do you have any other observation? All good ideas welcomed as next year will not be any easier!

PS If you like the posters celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, you can order them at the Preservation 50 web site!  

 

 

Share

Jeju Island Korea Hosts International Experts on Cultural Landscapes

By Brenda Barrett November 20, 2015
The World Heritage listed Seongsan Peak at Sunrise

The World Heritage listed Seongsan Peak at Sunrise

Cultural landscapes are often defined as geographic areas of natural and cultural resources with associated historical, cultural and or aesthetic values. One way to sharpen our focus on the components of a landscape is to experience the combination of these resources through a new lens. Jeju Island is a spectacular place to do this. Often referred to as the Hawaii of Korea, Jeju is a volcanic island 56 miles off the coast of the South Korean mainland. Some of the island’s most outstanding natural features have been designated as the country’s only natural world heritage listing, otherwise known as the Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes (2007).

Traditional Volcanic Rock Walls  Jeju Island

Traditional Volcanic Rock Walls Jeju Island

The island’s cultural landscapes, although not yet listed, are also very distinctive. For centuries residents have carved fields out of the rocky soil creating thousands of kilometers of still extant stonewalls. The underlying basalt was also used for clusters of farmhouses in villages around the island and for massive fortifications to protect it’s shores. The sea has always been an important part of the region’s life. Today, Jeju has been discovered as a tourist destination for the beaches, the natural wonders, and more recently the rural landscape. Over 10 million tourists visit Jeju a year, which for an island with a population of 600,000, places a lot of stress on the limited resource base. A recent initiative strives to spread the visitors around through the development of walking trails known as Olles.  These well maintained trails direct visitors both along the coast and also off the beaten path to scenic overlooks and into traditional villages and agricultural areas through the use of signs.

2015 Annual Meeting of the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes Haenyo Museum Jeju Island

2015 Annual Meeting of the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes
Haenyo Museum Jeju Island

This island of scenic beauty, rich heritage and future opportunities, offered a remarkable setting for the November 2015 Annual Meeting of the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL). A meeting at which the conversation centered around the aesthetics of landscapes, connecting the practice of nature and cultural conservation, and an initiative to advance the understanding and conservation of world rural landscapes . The setting for the gathering could not have been more appropriate–it was held overlooking the water at the Haenyo Museum, a facility dedicated to telling the story of the islands’ famous women divers. The mingling of historical, cultural, and natural resources and memories evoked a powerful sense of place and support for conserving more sites such as this.

international Symposium Re-thinking Lifescape: Linking Landscape to Everyday Life Jeju Stone Park

international Symposium Re-thinking Lifescape: Linking Landscape to Everyday Life
Jeju Stone Park

An international Symposium Re-thinking Lifescape: Linking Landscape to Everyday Life followed on the committee meeting and attracted over 200 participants. While many were from the Pacific Rim countries, there were also presenters from all over the globe. It was particularly encouraging to see so many excellent papers on cultural landscapes by graduate students and young professionals. The symposium was held at the famous Jeju Stone Park on the slopes of the island’s huge shield volcano, Mount Hallasan. Attendees were offered a number of tours of the key sites on the island including two of the world heritage sites: the Manjanggul Lava Tubes and Seongsan Peak. Both events were organized by the hard work of ICOMOS-Korea with special thanks to Professor Jongsang Sung the head of the Korean ISCCL, the many sponsors he attracted for the event, and of course, his hard working students.

Does this sound like an amazing opportunity to learn more about cultural landscapes? For those with an interest in placing cultural landscapes in an international context consider these upcoming events in 2016: The World Conservation Congress (WCC) meeting, and the conference Capability Brown: perception and response in a global context. The WCC will be meeting in Hawaii in early September 2016 where congress planners will consider a range of sessions that explore the connection between cultural and natural resources. In the same month, on the other side of the globe, ICOMOS UK will hold the capability conference in Bath. The conference celebrates the tercentenary of Capability Brown’s (Lancelot Brown) birth with an opportunity to reflect on his work in an international context.

If you are in the United States, or even if you are not, consider joining US ICOMOS. Support our international mission and stay informed about cultural landscape work at a global scope. This topic will be a focus of the organization’s new initiative for 2016 known as the Cultural Landscape Knowledge Exchange.

Finally, US ICOMOS is launching a National Committee on Cultural Landscapes. We plan to have gatherings at selected upcoming conferences to share information and build a community of practitioners. If you are interested in getting on the list, please email me at bbarrett@livinglandscapeobserver.net or our US ICOMOS ISCCL voting member Nora Mitchell at norajmitchell@gmail.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

Mitigation: Now thinking on a Landscape Scale

By Brenda Barrett October 20, 2015
Pennsylvania Landscape Credit: PA DCNR

Pennsylvania Landscape
Credit: PA DCNR

In the world of both nature conservation and historic preservation mitigation has become a hot concept. This is the idea – if a proposed project might have an adverse impact on natural or cultural resources then a series of options should be considered. The first and foremost is always to avoid impacts on a significant resource. The second, if not all impact can be avoided, is to work to minimize such impacts. Finally, if resources will be effected and these impacts cannot be avoided then they should be offset by some kind of ‘compensatory mitigation”. This sometimes can be accomplished by taking special measures at the site of the actual impact. However, increasingly mitigation is being structured in a more complex ways including off-site mitigation in another location or mitigation banks in-lieu of onsite mitigation. A growing trend is to fund regional remediation and/or land conservation using these mitigation strategies.

While on site and even off site mitigation is not new, today it is the scale of the projects being considered that is different.  A vast web of energy projects – pipelines, transmission corridors, wind farms and solar arrays – is being planned to criss-cross the country. For conservation and preservation interests there is general agreement that mitigation for these projects needs to be addressed at the landscape level. However, this brings a host of new challenges.

A recent gathering of the Chesapeake Conservation Partnership highlighted some of them.

  • Do we even know what is important? Documenting what resources will be impacted is essential. Big data mapping such as Landscope Chesapeake  has been making rapid progress, but it also has shown some glaring holes in our information gathering. Without good information, it is hard to make a case for protection or mitigation and it is difficult to set priorities.
  • What about cultural landscapes? All the partners agreed that although many historic landmarks and districts have been identified, remarkably little is known about rural and cultural landscapes. These resources are also intertwined with the concept of scenery, which is not even addressed in most land planning and mapping programs. Finally, in a densely and long populated region like the Chesapeake Watershed, there are real questions of who gets to decide what is cultural significant.
  • How can we assign a value for mitigation purposes? New methodologies will need to be developed to assess both monetary or comparable resource values of impacted areas. For example can the impact a natural resource like a wetland in one place be mitigated by the protection of another property with similar characteristics? This concept is still being tested for nature conservation and has hardly ever been applied to historic, cultural or scenic resources.
  • How could such a program be administered on a landscape basis? Trying to answer this question is one of the goals of the Chesapeake Conservation Partnership  A regional coalition of over 50 diverse organizations engaged in land conservation and related initiatives in the Chesapeake watershed. The partnership has the right players at the table federal and state agencies, local governments, Native American Tribes, and non-profit organizations to start tackling issues of documentation, setting priorities, and ensuring cultural resources get a fair shake. In addition the partnership can speak from a common perspective on what resources need to be conserved and how to expand the financial wherewithal to do so.

This work is still in its early days although the partnership recognizes that they are playing catch up with so many infrastructure projects on the drawing board. But one thing is clear, without a landscape scale perspective, it could not even be imagined.

Many thanks to Chris Miller, President of the Piedmont Environmental Council, Jonathan Doherty, Assistant Superintendent at NPS Chesapeake Bay, Kate Baker, Chesapeake Conservation Partnership Coordinator, Russ Baxter, Virginia Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources, Nikki Rovner, Virginia Associate State Director at The Nature Conservancy, and Joel Dunn, President & CEO of the Chesapeake Conservancy, their hard work  provided much of the backbone of this article.

Share

The National Park Service Brand: Do I have a Franchising Opportunity for You!

By Brenda Barrett September 28, 2015

 

Courtesy of Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area

Courtesy of Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area

Over the last year the George Wright Journal has been running a series of Centennial Essays reflecting varying perspectives on the future of the National Park Service. The most recent piece by Holly Fretwell, a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Montana, offers a different viewpoint on how to address the agency’s difficult financial situation and the public’s desire for more national parks (George Wright Forum Vol. 32 No. 2 2015). Her proposal in a nutshell – what if the NPS were to franchise the NPS brand and offer it to entrepreneurs to run new park sites that were deemed to be of national significance? Then these new units could remain under local governance, but would be given “national park” stature.

As the centennial approaches all things should be on the table. The NPS has proposed a package of anniversary legislative initiatives with a focus on creating a range of new funding streams. The call to action by conservative conservationists, who represent the views of many members of Congress, is quite different. It is their position that the NPS needs to take care what it has and concentrate the nation’s limited dollars on the ‘crown jewels’.

Yet how to deal with both the public’s and politician’s desire for new parks? Her suggestion is to re-imagine the NPS brand as a franchising opportunity. This is not new idea. The Smithsonian has been doing this for years with their Affiliates programAnd going all the way, the once nonprofit National Geographic Society just sold their magazine, books, maps and other media to a consortium headed by 21st Century Fox the Rupert Murdoch controlled company that owns the Fox television network and the Fox news, for $725 million.

Needless to say it is unlikely that the many voices who are committed to ‘America’s Best Idea’ will embrace this approach. The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks and National Parks Traveler have both come out with a spirited defense for an expansionist approach. See for example the editorial The National Park System: Why it should continue to Grow.

Fretwell argues that given the current fiscal climate, Congress is understandably reluctant to allocate the dollars needed to manage existing new park units, let alone funding new additions. And at the same time it is politically popular to keep naming new areas and cut those celebratory ribbons. So to bridge the gap she endorses expanding such existing programs like the Fee Demonstration Project and raising user fees all around. However, her big idea is that the American public needs a new model to manage new national parks in the future – let those constituents who seek national park status create and maintain them. This new model would operate more like a charter school or a franchise. The NPS as franchisor would license the use of the brand and provide general support. The agency would set the parameters for management and approve a business plan. This approach would ensure that new parks would have strong grassroots support. The new areas would be locally governed, enjoy the benefit of a partnership with park professionals and enjoy the  leverage of the NPS brand. Voilà a NPS experience at substantially reduced cost to the taxpayer!

As I read the elements of Fretwell’s franchise model, I was assailed by a sense of creeping familiarity – An approach that offers a way to get under the NPS umbrella, but is not managed by the NPS, one that is launched by strong local support and commitment, and that must follow NPS standards and requires a business plan, but recognizes that one size does not fit all. Wait a minute; don’t we already have something similar in the NPS portfolio? We do, there are 49 of them, and they are called National Heritage Areas.

The irony is that institutionalizing the National Heritage Area idea is stalled in a stand off between the administration (actually multiple administrations going back to 2001) and the very congressional committees who are calling for a more market based approach. Although NHAs incorporate most of the efficiencies touted in Fretwell’s article and have a thirty-year track record, the  NHA program legislation has been held up with claims of a federal overreach and as a federal land grab when nothing could be farther from the truth!

So I ask those like PERC who are proposing that the NPS rethink how they leverage the national park brand to follow their own dictums. Let’s not create something new and shiny. Instead why not polish up the National Heritage Areas model and make it work even better for the next one hundred years.

Share

Reading: The Science of Open Spaces

By Brenda Barrett August 29, 2015

9781597269926 3
My late summer reading list included Charles Curtin’s book The Science of Open Spaces: Theory and Practice for Conserving Large Complex Systems (Island Press 2015). In so many ways this is the book I have been waiting for. As the title promises it tackles working on a landscape scale from the ground up with examples from the US borderlands in New Mexico, to the seacoasts of Maine and then on to Ambesoli National Park in Africa. But Curtin is not just a keen raconteur, he also takes a deep scholarly dive into the theories that underpin this work – chaos, complexity and resilience to name just a few.

Do not be deterred by the term “open spaces”. As he use the phrase to sweeping effect defining its use “to invoke not only the challenge of physical size but also of time, ecology, culture and all elements therein.”

Using his broad ranging experiences, he tries to identify the recurrent patterns in landscape scale project across these different geographies seeking out common strategies and ways to sustain them. He calls out the need to go beyond conventional research in ecology and conservation and understand the social dynamism in which these ecosystem exists.

It would be impossible to summarize the range of theoretical mountains that the book traverses as it pursues a foundational basis for the field of landscape scale conservation. So I have just selected a few paths that resonated for me from my observations in the field of large landscapes such as National Heritage Areas and Pennsylvania’s Conservation Landscapes. These include:

  • The importance of local knowledge as the key to how people relate to their environment. And the crucial role place based actions play in conserving and maintaining large landscapes.
  • The multiple challenges of sustaining support particularly funding support for this work over the long haul.The importance of a third party convener or as he calls it a “backbone organization” in providing unity and focus. Someone who can take both a local and high-level viewpoint, after all he notes “…there are limit to what one neighbor can tell another.
  • The needs for diversity of perspectives to tackle the complexity of landscape conservation to provide a wide range of potential solutions and build a resilient system. What he calls distributed cognition is build on the time-consuming process of collaboration and as he states “…there are not short cuts.”
  • The importance of adaptation and feedback loops to success and the need to look at both ecological and social factors.
  • And most importantly the role of power. Curtin make it clear “In building sustainability and effectively conserving open spaces addressing power relationships in not an issue- it is the issue”

Well I could go on and on, and I have not even tried to summarize the book’s theoretical underpinnings. Just buy the book. Every reader will appreciate the well-presented case studies and for those who have worked in the trenches struggling with landscape scale conservation efforts, I guarantee there will be many aha moments.

 

 

 

 

 

Share

Historic Preservation @Fifty Years: What is Going On?

By Brenda Barrett July 29, 2015
Preservation50 - 1966-2016. Credit: Preservation@50

Preservation50 – 1966-2016. Credit: Preservation@50

Anniversaries are big news. Last year was the 30th anniversary of the National Heritage Areas. This year in 2015 US ICOMOS reached the magical five decades. The Land and Water Conservation Fund will turn 40 in 2016. The much talked about Centennial of the National Park Service is also just over the horizon.

But it is the fiftieth anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that has caught my attention and that of the historic preservation world. Passing the fifty year mark has special significance in a field that sets that number as the marker for determining a resource’s historicity. “Generally, properties eligible for listing in the National Register are at least 50 years old. Properties less than 50 years of age must be exceptionally important to be considered eligible for listing.

The rich irony of the National Historic Preservation program turning fifty and itself becoming historic has not been lost on many observers. So as the count down begins – with events that strike both a celebratory and a more reflective tone. A web site Preservation 50 has been launched as gathering point for information with well-designed posters and other merchandise. Trust the National Trust for Historic Preservation to find a position at the more festive end of the spectrum. The venerable Annual conference titled Past Forward (November 3-6 2015 in Washington DC) is “to begin a year-long celebration of the National Historic Preservation Act’s 50th anniversary with programming that celebrates and honors the past while looking decisively forward toward our next 50 years.”

Preservation 50 1966-2016. Credit: Preservation@50

Preservation 50 1966-2016. Credit: Preservation@50

The National Association of Preservation Commissions has adopted a slogan for their conference with the forced gaiety that usually marks an “over-the-hill” themed birthday party – Hip, Happening Historic Preservation @ 50. However, on a more serious note the organization is also calling for papers on future facing topics: Preservation@50, advocacy, diverse and underrepresented resources, and climate change

Goucher’s Historic Preservation Program is striking a more thoughtful tone with a national forum “A Critical Examination of the next Fifty Years”. The forum will examine predicted changes in America’s population, economy, natural environment, everyday technology, and education at all levels over the next 50 years will affect the theories, policies, and professional practice of historic preservation in the United States at all levels of government and within the private and non-profit sectors. Finally, taking the long view the The Public Historian and History@work teamed up in 2013 to inaugurate a set of conversations over the next three years “to assess the history, impact, and legacy of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.” – See the results here.

I for one am looking forward to these discussions. As in many fields that started as a movement, there gets to be a point where it is time to grow up. Historic Preservation is not alone in this problem; many of my colleagues in the environmental movement are facing the same challenge.

Some of the best ideas I have heard came from a recent talk by Randy Mason, Chair of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation Program at the University of Pennsylvania. He urged practioners to redesign historic preservation. Perhaps even reframing our work not as preservation, but as conservation, design and planning. As a field we should be less dependent on prescriptive polices and not settle for small victories, but take more flexible and expansive approach.

This is music to ears of someone who has been urging a landscape scale vision for historic preservation, conservation and the future of sustainable communities. I look forward to more!

Share

Why is Funding Large Landscape Work so Darn Hard?

By Brenda Barrett July 1, 2015
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is part of the Bureau of Land Management's National Conservation Lands. Photo BLM.

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is part of the Bureau of Land Management’s National Conservation Lands. Photo BLM.

The verdict is in. The major land and water conservation challenges facing the nation require action on a scale that is large and multi-jurisdictional. * The benefits of landscape connectivity are resilient habitats, essential ecosystem services and stronger cultural connections. Such large-scale efforts are the only way to address what have been called wicked problems such as the impact of climate change on species conservation and cultural and natural resources. A strong network of partners is needed to tackle these regional issues and offer efficiencies of scale.

The idea is being put into action. A recent National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation in October of 2014 was a sell out success with over 600 attendees and keynote presenters lining up to speak from every major land managing agency. (Read conference highlights in Expanding Horizons). Federal agencies are rolling out new landscape preservation and mitigation strategies. Nonprofit are seeking candidates for a newly created job category “director of landscape scale management”. Creating new National Heritage Areas is still popular idea with 8 legislative proposals to create new areas introduced in the recent congressional session. Most compelling are the hundred and hundreds of initiatives across the country identified by the Practitioners Network for Large Landscapes.

And yet all of these efforts face the same uphill battle, it is a struggle to gain and sustain funding for large landscape work. Federal programs such as the well regarded Bureau of Land Management’s National Conservation Landscapes that includes 21 national monuments and 16 National Conservation Areas, more than 220 congressionally designated wilderness areas, 2,400 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and nearly 6,000 miles of National Scenic and Historic Trails face Congressional budget cutting or even abolition. Funding for National Heritage Areas has been slashed in half for what seems like the umpteenth year and appropriations for most state heritage area are in the same boat. The new Practitioners network is turning over every leaf seeking dollars to ramp up their work and established landscape conservation networks report ongoing financial challenges. Foundations and donors like start ups and then ask that the work they started become self-sustaining.

Yes, funding is scarce. Federal government dollars for all discretionary programs are shrinking, and states have their own fiscal problem. Funding for charitable causes has diminished in the recent recession. But large landscape initiatives seem to have have been hit particularly hard. Why is this, is it just the availability of dollars? Here are some other possible reasons:

1) The value added by networks is harder to see and claim the credit: Politicians like to dig into shovel ready projects, organizational leaders and agency heads do not feel ownership for landscape scale projects where they are not large and in charge. There is a tendency to back away from the hard work of maintaining partnerships if it is a shared responsibility.

2) In hard times it is back to basics: “We are not talking about Yellowstone, we can’t afford to pay for people to just go to meetings” as I was once told by a not very friendly OMB examiner intent on stripping the National Park Service of what he viewed as superfluous partnership programs. Congress has argued that money for landscape programs would be better invested in repairing infrastructure or staffing individual sites.

3) Landscape scale work has a conservation agenda: The stated reason may be “back to basics”, but the underlying concern can be that these efforts will limit resource extraction, impose historic preservation controls and generally limit somebody’s access to resources.

4) And then there is climate change…

These ideas are interrelated and not easy to disentangle. However, for the growing number of parties who care about the future of landscape thinking and working, we need to start solving this knotty problem.

* McKinney, Matthew, Lynn Scarlett, and Daniel Kemmis. 2010. Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action. Cambridge. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Share

Biosphere Reserves: A Second Chance for the United States?

By Brenda Barrett May 25, 2015
credit: John Bunnel Pinelands Commission

Tibbs Pond, Pineland National Reserve. The Pinelands are one of the United States’ Biosphere Reserves. Credit: John Bunnel Pinelands Commission

Recently their has been a concerted effort to get the United States (US) re-engaged in the Biosphere Reserves program. As many of you may know, the World Network of Biosphere Reserves is part of the UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program and is one of the most important protected area networks globally. Biosphere reserves are areas comprising terrestrial, marine and coastal ecosystems. Each reserve promotes solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use.

Biosphere reserves serve as special places for testing interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and managing changes and interactions between social and ecological systems, including conflict prevention and management of biodiversity.
However, for many years now the biosphere reserve program in the US has been dormant. An initiative to revive the program has been lead primarily by a core group of George Wright Society members who last year they formed a GWS Chapter, called Biosphere Associates, to help advance the cause. Things are approaching a turning point, and this is an exciting time to be involved in this issue.

If you are interested in being part of the effort, or even if you just want to keep up with what’s going on, you are invited to join the Biosphere Associates Chapter. There’s no charge or extra dues to pay. The chapter’s point of contact is Dr. Jennifer Thomsen. She has put together a short newsletter about what happened at GWS2015 that will help you get up to speed.

To join the Biosphere Associates Chapter of GWS, or for more information, contact Jennifer Thomsen (jthomsen at stanford.edu).

Share

Blackstone River Valley: Policy Without Money is just Talk

By Brenda Barrett April 27, 2015
Credit: National Park Service

Map of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. Credit: National Park Service

The Blackstone River Valley has always been a hotbed of innovation from its earliest industrialization to experimentation in protected area management with the creation of the national heritage corridor in 1986. Recently, the conservation possibilities of the region have been re-imagined yet again. In 2014, Congress authorized the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park with a dual purpose to preserve, protect and interpret the industrial heritage as well as its urban, rural and agricultural landscape that provides the overarching context for the region.

Along with individual industrial sites, the park boundaries include the Blackstone Canal and the Blackstone River and its tributaries. The legislation also recognizes the role of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (BRVNHC), which was re-authorized to the year 2021. And to top it off the park legislation permits the National Park Service (NPS) to work outside of the park’s boundaries and enter into agreements with the BRVNHC. This offers an unprecedented opportunity for the NPS to conserve the Blackstone Valley on the landscape level – a living laboratory for NPS’s signature Scaling Up Initiative.
There is also a pressing need for the new park unit and the corridor to work closely together. The proposed 2016 NPS budget, known as the Greenbook, moved $650,00 in funding for the BRVNHC out of the National Heritage Area category and reassigned it to the agency’s operations budget for the new Blackstone River Valley NHP. So is this bad news for the corridor? Not according to Charlene Cutler, corridor’s Executive Director “In broad-brush, the plan for 2016 is for the heritage corridor to develop a cooperative funding agreement with the new park. The corridor will work within the larger landscape on projects that are outside the scope of the national historical park such as community planning, economic development, tourism and education/interpretation about the environment and watershed, as well as historic preservation. This work will be mutually beneficial to the region and to the new national park.”

This is smart thinking, as a former NPS director George Hartzog said “Policy without money is just talk.” At the same time, there are some real concerns that this action diverts scarce dollars from the National Heritage Areas (NHA) program. The 2016 Greenbook already proposes to cut the NHA funding in half from the 2015 appropriation and the $650,000 for the Blackstone Valley would be deducted from that limited pot. It also brushes aside the NHA funding formula that has been painstakingly negotiated over the past several years. Finally, what if park units continue to dip into the NHA funding? Seems a bit unfair considering the NPS overall budget is approaching three billion and the proposal for the NHAs in 2016 is under $10 million.

Credit: NPS

A former textile mill along the Blackstone River in the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. Credit: NPS

On the other hand, some veteran national park observers think that this allocation could be an exciting opportunity to jump-start the planning process for the new park. Unlike many newly created parks that languish for years with no capacity and no money, this park in the Blackstone Valley would have a huge advantage. It would have some dollars and just as important a built-in partnership with BRVNHC, an organization with thirty years of successful community engagement and service delivery. What a great opportunity to take advantage of the wholeness of the valley. Charlene Cutler, for one, is optimistic that this is a win-win for the NHAs along with the parks. “Perhaps national heritage area funding would become less volatile if it was coordinated through park operating budgets in a true heritage area/park partnership.”

In an article last year, Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park Next Step up for Heritage Areas?, the Living Landscape Observer posed a number of questions for the park and the heritage corridor. Looking back these queries are more critical than ever.

  • Will the new national park fashion a management strategy that takes advantage of these sweeping authorities?
  • Will the heritage corridor be made a full partner in preserving and interpreting the larger landscape?
  • Can the permanent presence and sustainable funding of a park unit serve as home base to continue the innovative holistic approach to the Blackstone Valley?

Stay tuned: Only time and hard work will tell if this might be the new model that will put the Blackstone Valley back on the map as one of the most innovative models for landscape conservation in the country.

Share

In the Face of Destruction: World Heritage Matters

By Brenda Barrett March 29, 2015
Credit: Share America

Image from Nimrud, Iraq. Nimrud was listed on the World Heritage Tentative list in 2000. Credit: Share America

From around the globe there has been shock and censure at the destruction of World Heritage sites by ISIS in Iraq and Syria and from the attacks on museums and cultural sites. In strong words, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova characterized these acts as a war crime and a cultural cleansing of humanity’s ancient heritage. The towers of early Arab Kingdoms, Hellenic and Roman remains, monuments from the Assyrian Empire in 13th century BC and a great museum collection have all been targets of these devastating attacks.

The World Heritage Convention is the most universal of international legal instruments based on the idea of shared values and understanding of the common heritage of humankind. As in the dynamiting of the great Buddhas of Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan in 2001, the targeting of heritage sites by ISIS is a rejection of the rich overlapping heritage of the region and of the world. This is a new kind of destruction not incidental to armed conflict, but the destruction of a nation’s heritage as part of the  arsenal of war deployed against our common humanity.

So what can be done? Organizations such as US ICOMOS and the US Committee of the Blue Shield have taken strong position and offered aid. Representative Elliot Engel (NY) has reintroduced HR 1493, a bill to protect and preserve international cultural property at risk due to political instability, armed conflict, and natural or other disasters. Other proposals are to step-up monitoring of the trade in illicit artifacts, which has dramatically increased in the impacted region. It is reported that ISIS is funding operations by the trade in antiquities. International aid is also needed to help support the efforts of archeologists and curators, the monument men and women of the 21st century, currently working in the region.

But one concrete action the heritage community can take right now is to push the United States to resume funding UNESCO. And if that step is just too far for our current Congress, then push to fund the work of the World Heritage Center.

Credit: wikipedia

Hatra World Heritage Site in Iraq inscribed 1985

As Andrew Potts, Executive Director of US/ICOMOS put it, “the sincerity of American rhetoric can no longer be squared with the very real (if inadvertent) sabotage current United States policies are doing to the global response to this massive use of heritage as a tactic of war. Even while deploring these attacks, many Americans are unaware that the United States is currently withholding funding for the World Heritage Center and UNESCO, the very units within the international community designed to help these sites — with devastating impacts on the capacity of both agencies. After three years in which funding for cultural heritage has been held up as a pawn in another geopolitical stalemate, it is critical that Congress immediately restore this funding before a single additional World Heritage site is lost.”

Now more than ever, we need to stand with the international community that supports the universal values of cultural heritage and understanding. We need to show our solidarity with the rest of the signatories to the World Heritage Convention. Read here for the background on why the United States has stopped funding to UNESCO and its World Heritage programs.

Some of the World Heritage sites at risk or lost forever from conflicts in the region:

Aleppo
World Heritage (1986)
Syria

Apamea
World Heritage Tentative List (1999)
Syria

Hatra
World Heritage (1985)
Iraq

Nimrud
World Heritage Tentative List (2000)
Iraq

Share

Large Landscape Conservation Conference: Read all about it!

By Brenda Barrett February 25, 2015
Credit: Wayne Sawchuck

Landscape in the Yukon to Yellowstone, an initiative which was honored at the NWLLC. Credit: Wayne Sawchuck

Just out is Expanding Horizons,  a report on the highlights of the National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation (October 23-24, 2014). Not to be missed is the report’s inspiring foreword by Tony Hiss, a New Yorker staff writer for more than 30 years and now a visiting scholar at New York University.

The scale and depth of the conference, a sell out crowd of over 650 participants with hundreds of presentations, cannot be captured in a report of only 40 pages. However, Expanding Horizons offers an overview of some of the most compelling topics in large landscape conservation. Strategies to tackle the need for ecosystem services, the preservation of cultural heritage and intercultural connections, ways to engage metropolitan regions and of course the overarching issue of climate change. Other hard topics were also addressed like how to sustain the work, evaluate and measure results and reach out to the next generation. Conference Keynote Speakers included a high wattage cast: Secretary of Agriculture Michael Vilsack, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Mike Boots of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Collin O’Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. There is definitely some political and organizational heft behind these big ideas.

Finally, one of the best things about being an online report is that the report is loaded up with links to other sources of information. PowerPoint’s, short video interviews, and links to related web sites are all just a click away. So open Expanding Horizons and begin your own voyage of discovery.

Go Beyond the Covers of the Report

Want to become more conversant in the field of large landscapes and connect to others of the same ilk? Two great sources are highlighted below:

The Practitioners’ Network for Large Landscape Conservation is an alliance of professionals and citizens united in building the capacity and sharing information in the emerging movement. Share your story and stay in touch by registering here.

Sign up for the latest information from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, including free courses and a subscription to the to the quarterly magazine Land Lines. The institute’s mission is to be a leading center for the study of land policy and land-related tax policy throughout the world. It offers publications, web based programing and other educational programs. Check out the latest issue of their magazine, which republishes Tony Hiss’s great piece with gorgeous images.

Share

Preservation Advocacy Scholars Join the Action

By Brenda Barrett February 25, 2015

Each year in March Preservation Action and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices (NCSHPO) sponsor Historic Preservation Advocacy Week. The event brings over 250 preservationists to Washington, DC to promote sound federal preservation policy and programs. But as in many professions bringing in new ideas and engaging the next generation is a challenge.

The Preservation Advocacy Scholars  program was created to help bridge this gap. The selection of scholars is a competitive process and is based the student’s response to issues facing the field today. In 2015 the topics were the future of the National Heritage Area program and how to engage the next generation in preservation advocacy. With support from the Preservation Action Foundation and this year from members of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and the Living Landscape Observer, four Scholars will attend the March 2-5 Preservation Advocacy Week in Washington DC.

The Scholars have a busy week as the invited guests of Preservation Action Foundation at the Historic Preservation Congressional reception and a Congressional breakfast. Scholars will have the opportunity to meet with Members of Congress from their district and put some of their research into action. And of course the Scholars are encouraged to continue advocacy and engagement in historic preservation policy issues at the local and state level. So if you are coming to Washington for the 2015 Preservation Advocacy Week be on the look out for these Scholars and welcome them and their new ideas!

Meet the scholars:

Credit: Preservation Action

Amber Bailey, Preservation Advocacy Scholar. Credit: Preservation Action

 

Amber Bailey, Loyola University Chicago, for her paper 
“National Heritage Areas@ 30.“
Amber Bailey is a public historian committed to using the past to educate and engage her community and adopted hometown of Chicago. Her interest in historic preservation is rooted in her desire to be a steward and advocate for marginalized communities and historic places within them. To this end, she is especially interested in how historic preservation can be used as a tool to revitalize economically depressed areas. Amber received a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Chicago in 2013. In 2014, she began the public history master’s program at Loyola University Chicago.

 

Credit: Preservation Action

Kevin Burkman Preservation Advocacy Scholar. Credit: Preservation Action

Kevin Burkman, Rutgers University,
 for his paper “The American Civil War and the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area: A Stand for Historic Land Preservation.“ Kevin Burkman is currently in his last semester of graduate studies at Rutgers University’s Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, where he has been pursuing a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning, with an emphasis on environmental and physical planning. His academic focus has included independent study projects on the land use and preservation of the battlefield at Gettysburg. It also includes land use and resource issues of the American West, and coastal resiliency and climate change issues, post Super Storm Sandy. Much of his academic research includes geospatital analysis, which he has done professionally for nearly ten years and includes digital mapping and data analysis for wireless communications, state government and local municipalities, and land preservation and outdoor recreation organizations.

Credit: Preservation Action

Katie Rispoli, Preservation Action Scholar. Credit: Preservation Action

 

Katie Rispoli, University of Southern California, for her paper, “Remaining Relevant: Prior Pitfalls and Future Actions to Emphasize Sustainability and Culture in Preservation.“ Katie Rispoli is a graduate student in the Master of Heritage Conservation program in the University of Southern California School of Architecture, and will graduate in May of 2015. She is passionate about environmental health, cultural heritage, and youth education through preservation. Katie works in Preservation in South Los Angeles County as the Director of We Are the Next, a nonprofit organization. When not working or in school, Katie enjoys splitting her time between exploring both the city and the great outdoors.

Credit Preservation Action

Jennifer Robinson, Preservation Advocacy Scholar. Credit: Preservation Action

Jennifer Robinson, University of Pennsylvania
, for her paper “The Next Generation.” Jennifer Robinson is a second-year master’s-degree student in the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design. Her research interests include adaptive reuse of historic structures, particularly for affordable housing, and the relationship between preservation and social equity. She graduated from UC Berkeley with a bachelor’s degree in cultural anthropology in 2013. During the summer of 2014 she interned at the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia. She’s actively involved with the preservation of the Conkling-Armstrong house in North Philadelphia.

 

Share

World Heritage Sites in the United States

By Brenda Barrett January 29, 2015
Credit: National Park Service

Papahanaumokuakea World Heritage Site. Credit: NPS

Quickly now, how many World Heritage Sites are in the United States? Well, there are twenty-two most administered by the National Park Service (NPS). The others are managed by various other interests – states, private foundations, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and an Indian tribe. The United States and Canada jointly nominated two World Heritage Sites: Waterton-Glacier and Wrangell-St.Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek/Kluane. The most recent World Heritage inscription was for Poverty Point in Louisiana, which was voted on in the fall of 2014 in Doha Qatar. For more information on all the U.S. World Heritage Sites visit the National Park Service’s web site.

Why is recognition as a World Heritage site important? The motivations vary from country to country, but include such factors as national pride and of course the economic value of increased attention and tourism. In the past, the U.S. involvement the program has not been touted. A site’s World Heritage status was only recognized in the fine print in a brochure or by a small plaque. However, this is changing. Along with the updated web site on World Heritage, the NPS has recently developed a new travel itinerary for the World Heritage Sites in the United States. The itinerary provides a description of the heritage values of each of the properties and offers information on how to plan your visit. And for younger visitors, they can become a ” World Heritage in the United State  Junior Ranger.

Credit: Susan Guice

The Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point. Photo by Susan Guice, courtesy NPS Office of International Affairs

Today there is growing interest in achieving World Heritage designation for more places in the United States. And we can certainly ask for more, after all, Mexico has 32 sites and even Cuba has 9! So how do properties advance through the process and what sites will be next? Well one way to see what might be coming up is to look at the tentative list, see World Heritage in the United States: The U.S. Tentative List 2008. This report presents the tentative list as of that date and describes the criteria and process for inscription of potential new sites. As for the future, the NPS has announced that it is in the process of developing the next tentative list with a target date of 2016. This is a great opportunity for the public to be engaged in identifying what they think is worthy of World Heritage designation and to build greater knowledge of the program.

And awareness of World Heritage is very important as the program is at a critical juncture in the United States, but that is another story. Read more about this in US World Heritage Program at Risk.  In the meantime many thanks to the NPS for running a great promotional campaign and special Junior Ranger badges to all who support this effort!

Share

National Heritage Areas Receive Holiday and Anniversary Gifts

By Brenda Barrett December 30, 2014
Credit: Laurie Helling

“Snow on the Roof”
American Farmscapes Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, one of 15 NHAs with extended federal funding. Credit: Laurie Helling

Congress wrapped up the 2014 session with two big Christmas tree bills with lots of presents for the National Heritage Areas (NHA). The first was the National Defense Authorization Act, which extended National Park funding for fifteen of the National Heritage Areas. The authorization for funding these NHAs had been set to expire in 2015. The areas are now reauthorized all the way to 2021. Then a couple days later along came the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2015, which increased funding for the program from the administration’s original 2015 request of $9.2 to $20.3 million dollars. This was done with the proviso that at least $300, 000 in base funding be made available to all NHAs with completed management plans. There was the additional directive that the agency not redistribute any of the funds of the “longstanding” NHAs. The legislation also restored the administrative funding for the National Park Service that was not included in the 2014 appropriations bill.

What a a great 30th Anniversary present for the NHAs and even though these were small additions to two big bills, people who care about parks and protected areas should pay close attention. What other park programs have such bi-partisan support? What other programs more than doubled their proposed line item? Food for thought…

Now for the rest of the News:

On the 12th day of December our Congress gave us all!

7 new national parks:

  • Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, RI/MA
  • Tule Springs National Monument, NV
  • Valles Caldera National Preserve, NM
  • WW I Memorial – the redesignation of Pershing Park DC
  • Coltsville National Historical Park, CT
  • Harriet Tubman National Historical Park , NY
  • Manhattan Project National Historical Park, WA/NM/TN
Credit: Blue Ridge National Heritage Area

Christmas at the Biltmore. Credit: Blue Ridge National Heritage Area

8 new studies for potential units

8 boundary adjustments or increased protection

2 new memorials

2 new scenic rivers

14 studies for wild and scenic rivers

1 new commission for a museum of National Women’s History

15 Extended federal funding for 15 Heritage areas

and…..

1 Centennial Coin!

Read more details on these gifts here…

Share

Special Update: Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park next step up for National Heritage Areas?

By Brenda Barrett December 30, 2014
Credit: National Park Service

Map of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Interested in the future of the heritage movement? Concerned that the program has had to invest so much of its political capital on re-authorization and just hanging on to a flat line budget? Then the recent legislation establishing the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park might be one way forward – offering stability and just possibly a new kind of partnership to conserve landscape scale resources.

A little background, the Blackstone Valley National Heritage Corridor has always been a special case. Created in 1986 as the second of a new kind of National Park Service (NPS) designation, the area was the poster child for this new approach to managing a living landscape. However, in recent years the NPS seemed to retreat from this bold strategy. A special resource study for the Blackstone Valley recommended creating a traditional park around a cluster of historic sites – a very reduced footprint indeed! See Blackstone River Valley: Sounding a Retreat from Landscape Scale Work?

So it is very good news that as part of the recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, Congress authorized the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park with some very expansive language.

The park was created with a dual purpose to preserve, protect and interpret the industrial heritage as well as its urban, rural and agricultural landscape that provides the overarching context for the region. Along with individual industrial sites, the park boundaries include the Blackstone Canal and the Blackstone River and its tributaries. The legislation also recognizes the role of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. It authorizes the park to enter into cooperative agreements with the heritage corridor and to offer a range of technical assistance to resources outside the official park boundary.

Credit: NPS

A former textile mill along the Blackstone River in the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. Credit: NPS

The new park along with the re-authorization of the heritage corridor to the year 2021 in the recent Omnibus Budget Bill provides a new opportunity to conserve the Blackstone Valley on a landscape scale. Charlene Perkins Cutler, the executive director of the Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor certainly sees the new designation this way, saying “This gives recognition to the importance of the entire watershed and the heritage corridor as the birthplace of the industrial revolution,”

Many people have worked hard to pass legislation that ensures that the tools for landscape scale work are at the ready. The next three years will be critical. Will the new national park fashion a management plan that takes advantage of these sweeping authorities? Will the heritage corridor be made a full partner in preserving and interpreting the larger landscape? Can the permanent presence and sustainable funding of a park unit serve as home base to continue the innovative holistic approach to the Blackstone Valley? Only time and more hard work will tell if this is the new model for heritage development.

Share

Compare and Contrast: ICOMOS General Assembly and World Parks Conference

By Brenda Barrett November 30, 2014
Photograph Courtesy of Rolf Diamant

Ponte Vecchio in Florence Italy, site of the recent ICOMOS general assembly. Photo by Rolf Diamant.

Last month (November 2014) was a very busy moment for World Heritage. At almost the same time, but half way around the globe, ICOMOS held their 18th triennial General Assembly in Florence Italy and IUCN held their once in a decade gathering the World Parks Congress in Sydney Australia.* A few enterprising individuals managed to make an appearance at both meetings, but as is often the case the forces of culture and the forces of nature were far, far apart.

The IUCN World Parks Congress 2014 was a landmark global forum on protected areas. The Congress shared knowledge and innovation and helped set the agenda for protected area conservation for the decade to come. Building on the theme “Parks, People, Planet: Inspiring Solutions,” the gathering presented, discussed and created original approaches for conservation and development and focused on how to address the gap in the world’s conservation and sustainable development agenda.

The ICOMOS 18th General Assembly had as its theme “Heritage and Landscapes as Human Values.” The conference presented a series of scientific symposiums, re-examined earlier foundation documents, such as the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (known as the Venice Charter) originally adopted in 1964, and the original 1994 Nara Charter was reconsidered with a new document “Nara + 20: On Heritage Practices, Cultural Value, And The Concept Of Authenticity.”

So what was similar about the two meetings? Well, both were gatherings of experts in the field of culture and nature from around the world with the shared mission of how to best conserve our global heritage. At both meetings, there was recognition of the role of sustainable economic development and of people in any conservation paradigm.

 

Photograph Brenda Barrett

Harbor Bridge in Sydney Australia, site of the recent IUCN Word Parks Congress. Photo by Brenda Barrett.

Both had multiple sessions on the importance of traditional knowledge and specifically on traditional ecological knowledge as the basis for balanced and innovative conservation programs. And finally both meetings recognized the central role of landscape as a framework for both cultural and natural resources.

What was different was scale. Over 6,000 attendees, primarily protected area managers, journeyed to Sydney, while the ICOMOS meeting in Florence only drew about 1,000 registrants. Also different was the level of international attention garnered by the two meetings. While the Florence meeting seemed to have good coverage in the Italian press, the World Parks conference garnered an opinion piece on the front page of the editorial section in the Sunday New York Times written by no less a personage than Thomas Friedman. See Stampeding Black Elephants  from the November 23, 2014 edition.

Is it any wonder that ICOMOS is very enthusiastic about the joint initiative with IUCN titled Connecting Practices. This has been established with the stated purpose of providing an opportunity for exploring how to form a more genuinely integrated consideration of natural and cultural heritage under the World Heritage Convention – ‘bridging the divide’ that is often observed between nature and culture.

With so many areas of common interest, the effort should be off to a good start.

* A quick primer on the two organizations: IUCN, short for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, http://www.iucn.org was established in 1948 to create a communication network for environmental conservationists across the globe. ICOMOS, the International Council of Sites and Museums http://www.icomos.org/en/ was founded in 1965 to work for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places. It is a global non-government organization dedicated to promoting the application of theory, methodology, and scientific techniques to the conservation of the architectural and archaeological heritage.

Both organizations have a responsibility in an advisory role to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee (secretariat of UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention) for the evaluation and monitoring of World Heritage Sites.

Share

Reading the Tea Leaves: What can we learn from Australia and Canada?

By Brenda Barrett November 30, 2014

Do the recent midterm elections in the United States signal a change in the nation’s heritage policies? To read the tea leaves, we might look to the fate of parks and heritage conservation programs in Australia and Canada – where conservative governments have recently been in power. In the past, both countries had a track record of innovative heritage programs – developing world class historic sites, new approaches to the recognition of indigenous cultural values and strong interpretation of history and nature. So what has been the impact of the fiscal belt tightening of Prime Minister Tony Abbott of Australia and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada?

Photograph courtesy of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef. Photograph courtesy of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

In Australia, there has been a wholesale retreat by the national government from heritage programs. Heritage professionals bemoan the lack of leadership, dwindling resources (funding and staff) and less rigorous planning and guidance for the conservation of cultural and natural resources. Environmental organizations are concerned about the devolution of planning controls over heritage sites from the national government to the states. This has raised questions about the protection of World Heritage sites such as the Great Barrier Reef. One heritage leader has described the Abbott government’s abandonment of support for the Australian National Heritage List (formerly the Register of the National Estate) in 2007 as “a body blow for the nation’s heritage”.

In Canada the once preeminent cultural and natural resource agency, Parks Canada, struggles under a maintenance backlog estimated by a recent consultant report as $2.77 billion. A continual pattern of budget reductions – in 2014 alone there was a $27 million reduction in operational funding out of a total budget of $650 million – has left parks reeling and struggling to keep the doors open. A decade ago, the agency had a staff of well-respected architects, historians and planners. These services were privatized and then with reduced funding disbanded. Programs such as recognition for National Historic Landmarks have been put on hold indefinitely.

Photograph Brenda Barrett

Prince Edward Island National Park Canada. Photo Brenda Barrett.

Overall not a very happy prospect, but could this happen in the United States (US)? While politically we are close cousins to these two countries, there are some significant differences. For one thing we have a much stronger Federal system. In Australia and Canada their states or provinces always had a more dominant role in heritage conservation and all other government services. For example, in Australia many of the states have their own national park system. The results for heritage have been that wealthy and well-populated areas have been able to pick up the slack and continue heritage programing at the regional level. For poorer, less populated areas like Tasmania and the Yukon not so much.

Another important difference is the US’s long tradition of political advocacy. The National Parks Conservation Association was created one year after the US National Park Service to be a watch dog over park programs. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action and now the Coalition of National Park Retirees play a similar role. While the picture is not uniformly rosy, as the NPS heads towards its centennial in 2016 and the National Historic Preservation Act turns fifty, the future of parks and heritage programs are in a better position than other parts of the world.

The take away from all this is, whether you like your tea with lemon or milk —- it pays to be vigilant.

Share

National Heritage Areas at Thirty: Help tell the Story

By Brenda Barrett November 29, 2014
Credit: Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor

Aqueduct on the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. Photo by Illinois & Michigan Canal NHC

In August of 1984, President Reagan signed the legislation to create a new kind of National Park Service designation – the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. The heritage  corridor or area idea was conceived as a way to cross the culture –nature divide and leap political boundaries with the goal of blending public-private resource conservation, interpretation, and community revitalization. Heritage areas tell stories that are too big, too gritty, too alive, and just plain too expensive to be confined to the boundaries of traditional national park unit. And heritage areas harness grassroots energy to power all this good work. Over and over the National Park Service (NPS) has touted the NHA approach to partnership and community engagement.  Reports such as the now ten year old Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas, and the recent Call to Action call out the program as the future of the park service. Over and over evaluations  of the heritage area program have documented effective management, and the cost efficient resource conservation and recreational development.

This year is the thirtieth anniversary of the National Heritage Area (NHA) program, but don’t celebrate too soon. NHAs across the nation are facing a perilous time. The now 49 National Heritage Areas stretching from Atlantic coast to the state of Alaska are struggling to survive. They have been hammered by shrinking federal budgets, questions about the role of government, and even their right to exist.

The Living Landscape Observer (LLO) follows the large landscape movement and in our opinion NHAs are some of the most innovative regional initiatives out there. Yet with the future of the program at risk, it is time to try and tackle some of the difficult political and programmatic questions. For example,  with so many National Heritage Areas across the country and Congress proposing to designate more, why is the sustainability of this program at risk? With such intense interest in landscape scale work and collaborative approaches to conservation and community engagement, what can be learned from NHAs? Who are the partners that have similar mission and can help support the program? How can the heritage areas be repositioned to further the National Park Service’s stewardship role in the 21st century?

With all these glowing reports and the NPS Centennial of the National Park Service right around the corner in 2016, this is the right time to have a critical dialogue on the past, present, and future of the NHA idea. So as our contribution to the thirtieth anniversary, NHA@30, we plan to:

  • Post articles in the LLO newsletter every month starting this January through December 2014 on the foundations of the program and the issues facing heritage areas today
  • Produce a short history of the NHA program – available on the LLO web site in June 2014.
  • Provide a current conditions assessment on the program – available on the LLO web site July 2014.
  • Conduct surveys, hold meetings, and have discussions on the future of NHAs with diverse partners and interested parties.
  • Publish our insights and recommendations on NHAs in December 2014.
  • Seek to engage young scholars in the field of landscape scale resource conservation by asking for their essays and contributions.

Help us tell the Whole Story: We are seeking opinion pieces, comments, and stories on NHAs…so join us in the discussion about the program’s future. Contact us with your ideas!

bbarrett@livinglandscapeobserver.net or emahoney@livinglandcapeobserver.net

Share

Anne of Green Gables – A Novel inspires Landscape Conservation

By Brenda Barrett November 4, 2014
credit: (BB no attribution needed)

Anne of Green Gables Heritage Center

“It was November–the month of crimson sunsets, parting birds, deep, sad hymns of the sea, passionate wind-songs in the pines.” – L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables

Anne of Green Gables (1908) the old fashion, but beloved children’s novel attracts a worldwide audience to the book’s setting Canadian Maritime Province of Prince Edward Island (PEI). The book has sold more than 50 million copies and has been translated into 47 languages. It is extremely popular in Japan attracting thousands of tourists to PEI from that country alone. Parks Canada owns and manages the Green Gables Heritage Place, the nineteenth century farmstead that was the inspiration for many of the settings in the original book. Charlottetown, the capitol of PEI, also has wide offerings of Anne experiences – tours, gift shops, teahouses and a long running musical.

The reason people flock to PEI to find Anne of Green Gables is not hard to fathom. Lucy Maud Montgomery, the author of the book and many other young adult stories, not only tells heartwarming tales of her character’s everyday experiences, but was also a gifted nature writer. Her young heroines animate the rural landscape and nearby seashore with imagination and imagery. Readers make a pilgrimage to the Green Gables site, to walk in the places depicted in her novels as Lover’s Lane, the Haunted Woods and the Balsam Hollow. True confessions: I am one of those Ann of Green Gable fans along with many other woman of my generation. It was charming to venture through these modest, but evocative landscapes.

credit: (BB no attribution needed)

Northern Coast Prince Edward Island

While much of PEI still retains its agricultural and small town character, the Cavendish Landscape, as the area around the Green Gable site is known, is the most threatened by over development. The historic site is surrounded by a Stanley Thompson designed golf course golf course, which were often a feature in the creation of early Canadian National Parks. Later development includes a small-scale amusement park with water slide, restaurants, tourist cabins and more.

Fortunately in 1994 the L.M. Montgomery Land Trust  was established with the mission of preserving 400 acres of the scenic agricultural and coastal region on the north shore of the Cavendish Landscape. To date over half of the land identified as significant has been conserved and will continue in its original agricultural use. Local community members have been instrumental in leading this effort to retain this culturally significant resource. The preserved land links together the Prince Edward Island National Park and the Green Gables Heritage Center the coast and the agricultural interior on the north shore of PEI. Anne fans of today and tomorrow should thank them for their hard work!

credit: (BB no attribution needed)

Lovers Lane Anne of Green Gables Heritage Center

“The woods call to us with a hundred voices, but the sea has one only — a mighty voice that drowns our souls in its majestic music. The woods are human, but the sea is of the company of the archangels.”
― L.M. Montgomery, Anne’s House of Dreams

Share

National Conference Celebrates Innovative Large Landscapes Programs

By Brenda Barrett November 4, 2014
(BB no need to credit)

Happy 30th Anniversary National Heritage Areas at the National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation.

The National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation October 23-24 was a sold out success. Almost 600 leaders and practitioners gathered to develop strategies for addressing the nation’s significant land and water challenges on a landscape scale. The conference also took the opportunity to celebrate the anniversaries of two of the more ground-breaking large landscape projects – National Heritage Areas and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.

These landmark efforts blazed the trail – demonstrating that large landscape conservation is possible with collaboration, hard work and big dreams.

Steve Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, recognized the two anniversary milestones – 30 years the for National Heritage Area program and 20 for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. He offered both his “congratulations and sincere thanks to those leaders who have shown us that it is possible to make the visions that inspire our work a reality on the ground.”

The national workshop also featured keynotes from high-powered conservation leaders such as Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Mike Boots of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Collin O’Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. Presenters shared research and insights that show how large landscape efforts are an integral part of our response to challenges such as wildlife habitat degradation, threats to water quality and quantity, losses of working farms and forests, and limited public access to urban, rural, and wild open spaces.

“Large landscape conservation initiatives are actually working to provide solutions for some of our nation’s most complex environmental challenges, while at the same time enhancing economic prosperity and energy security,” said James Levitt, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy fellow and NWLLC co-chair.

Share

NHA@30 Week: National Park Service Celebrates Thirty Years of Partnership

By Brenda Barrett November 4, 2014
Credit: Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor

Aqueduct on the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. Credit: Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor

In partnership with the National Park Service, National Heritage Areas across the country launched a one week media campaign blitz from August 24-30, 2014 using the hashtag #HeritageArea30. A mixture of creative posts, tweets, blogs, and articles celebrated the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor and 30 years of National Heritage Areas.

National Heritage Areas, National Park Units, National Park Service Regional Offices, local partners, and national partners – National Park Foundation, National Park Conservation Association, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation all participated in the media campaign. The results were impressive!

• #HeritageArea30 tweets reached 106,680 people

• The Facebook site @HHPreservItNPS reached 27,639 people on up from 4,807 the previous week.

• HeritageArea30 press releases were distributed by National Heritage Areas and news sources throughout the country from California to Colorado, Kansas to Pennsylvania.

• Heritage areas, including Kenai Mountain and National Coal, hosted events in honor of 30 years of National Heritage Areas

The National Park Service looks forward to building upon this communications effort in 2016 when the agency celebrates its Centennial.

Share

Long Landscapes: How Big is Big Enough?

By Brenda Barrett September 29, 2014
Credit: 5W Infographics for Smithsonian Magazine

Long Landscapes in North America. Credit: 5W Infographics for Smithsonian Magazine

The conservation movement has embraced the idea of preserving large landscapes as the only way to provide the necessary resilience and protection for the world’s ecosystems challenged by climate change and the impacts of global development. But how large a landscape is large enough? One of the most world’s most eminent scientists, the evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson, has an opinion on this. In a recent interview with Tony Hiss writing for Smithsonian Magazine, he said “It’s been in my mind for years,” … “that people haven’t been thinking big enough—even conservationists. Half Earth is the goal, but it’s how we get there, and whether we can come up with a system of wild landscapes we can hang on to.”

Read the entire piece here.

This is not a completely new idea. The organization Nature Needs Half is committed to protecting and connecting half of the earth’s land and water based on the best science and commonsense, and is a vision for a new relationship between people and nature. One of the featured large landscapes on the Nature Needs Half’s web site is the Yellowstone to Yukon  or as it sometimes known Y to Y. Marking its twentieth anniversary this year, the Y to Y initiative envisions an interconnected system of wild lands and waters stretching from Yellowstone to Yukon, harmonizing the needs of people with those of nature. The Y2Y region traverses two countries, five American states, two Canadian provinces, two Canadian territories, the reservation or traditional lands of over 30 Native governments, and a number of government land agencies. To carryout its work the Y to Y works with five sub regional landscape collaborative including the Crown of the Continent.

Tony Hiss describes his vision of what is big enough in to conserve natural resources in North America. Bigger than the Y to Y corridor, but scaled down from half the earth. He calls these places long landscapes, a permanent network of protected and interconnected wild landscapes that would offer resiliency in the face of changing climates. For example, such huge corridors would allow southern species to move north in the face of global warming and western species to move east to escape drought conditions.

So how do we make this happen? As the work on the Y to Y corridor and its five sub regional landscapes show us, many of the pieces of the puzzle are out there just waiting to be assembled. A good place to start is with the many organizations and agencies that are already working hard to conserve their little piece of the continent. The upcoming National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation in Washington D.C. is a great opportunity to inspire these practioners to work local and think global (or at least think about 50% of the globe).

Share