University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and
Social Sciences
Great Plains Studies, Center for
Spring 2010
PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
FOR PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE
NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
Curtis Freese
Independent Researcher and Writer, [email protected]
Dawn Montanye
World Wildlife Fund–US, [email protected]
Steve Forrest
Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch
Part of the American Studies Commons
Freese, Curtis; Montanye, Dawn; and Forrest, Steve, "PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE NATURE
RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS" (2010). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 1071.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/1071
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Great Plains Research 20 (Spring 2010): 71-84
© 2010 Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE
NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
Curtis Freese
Independent Researcher and Writer
516 S. Willson Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
[email protected]
Dawn Montanye
Manager of Conservation Economics
Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US
202 S. Black Street, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
[email protected]
and
Steve Forrest
Manager of Restoration Science
Northern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund–US
202 S. Black Street, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
[email protected]
ABSTRACT—More than three-quarters of the land in the Northern Great Plains is privately owned and less
than 2% of the region is in public protected areas; therefore, sound private-land management is critical for restoring and conserving the region’s biodiversity. Although considerable progress has been made in recent years
in fostering and assembling nature reserves on private lands in various regions of the world, this approach has
received little attention in North America, including the Northern Great Plains. We review here recommendations, trends and issues related to private protected areas globally and in Canada and the United States. We then
discuss socioeconomic and ecological conditions that deserve particular attention in creating private protected
areas, which we prefer to call “private nature reserves,” in the Northern Great Plains. We conclude with proposed
standards and guidelines for the establishment and recognition of private nature reserves in the region.
Key Words: biodiversity, guidelines, Northern Great Plains, private nature reserves, protected areas, standards
INTRODUCTION
The Northern Great Plains, spanning some 723,000
square kilometers across five U.S. states and two Canadian provinces, is the continent’s largest grassland
ecoregion and has been identified as an ecoregion of
global importance for conserving biodiversity (Ricketts
et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Reflecting the situation for temperate grasslands globally, less than 2% of the Northern
Great Plains lies in public protected areas managed primarily for biodiversity conservation purposes (Hoekstra
et al. 2005). Seventy-six percent of the Northern Great
Plains is privately owned land, most of which is in native
or seminative habitat. We estimate that 64% of private
lands in the Northern Great Plains is grazed by livestock
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002); the remainder is
in crops or some other use (housing, parks, golf courses,
and so on). Although well-managed livestock operations
provide valuable benefits to biodiversity conservation,
Manuscript received for review, April 2009; accepted for publication,
November 2009.
71
72
Figure 1. Location of Northern Great Plains.
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
some elements of biodiversity are not well tolerated by
traditional ranching operations (Freilich et al. 2003),
for example, herbivores such as bison (Bison bison), elk
(Cervus elaphus), and prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovi­
cianus) that may compete for forage (Forrest et al. 2004);
predators such as wolves (Canis lupus); and natural
stream flows that are diverted and impounded for feed
production and water management, and degraded due
to livestock overuse (Winston et al. 1991; Cook et al.
1996).
The system of protected public lands in the Northern
Great Plains is typical of the United States insofar as
these lands do not include many areas of high biodiversity value that are on private lands (Scott et al. 2001).
Scott et al. (2001) concluded for the United States that
“any effort to establish a system of nature reserves that
captures the full geographical and ecological range
of cover types and species must fully engage the private sector.” The same holds true for much of Canada
(Altridge 2000). Meanwhile, the convergence of three
factors in the Northern Great Plains—the economic
challenges facing rangeland owners (Johnson and Rathge 2006), the existing and potential biodiversity values
of their rangelands (Forrest et al. 2004), and the interest of some landowners in managing for these values
(Hodur et al. 2004)—makes it timely to address how
private protected areas can be fostered, designed, and
managed in the Northern Great Plains. Private protected
areas may offer one means for landowners to financially
benefit from emerging markets for ecosystem services,
from carbon sequestration and watershed payments to
ecotourism, and from ecolabeling of ecosystem products (Freese et al. 2009; Ribaudo et al. 2008).
We present a framework and proposed set of standards and guidelines for creating private protected areas
in the Northern Great Plains of the United States and
Canada, with the dual goal of conserving biodiversity at
landscape, ecosystem, species, and genetic levels (Noss
1990) and helping landowners choose appropriate strategies and actions if they choose to manage primarily
for biodiversity and to diversify their revenue streams
through payment for ecosystem services and products
through such management. The standards and guidelines should be considered provisional and will require
field testing and feedback from landowners, conservationists, rangeland managers, and others interested in
the concept. A thorough examination of methods for
qualifying landowner compliance with such standards
and guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper, but we
briefly review options in the last section.
73
THE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK
Private lands managed primarily for biodiversity
and related wildlife values exist in various forms on
every continent except Antarctica, and the number and
coverage of such areas are growing rapidly (Mitchell
2005). The names given to them are diverse: nature
reserve, preserve, game ranch, hunting reserve, private
park, conservancy, and so on. A general term used
globally and by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for such areas is “private protected area.”
The IUCN has developed the most widely accepted
and recognized system for classifying protected areas
(Dudley 2008). Its definition of a protected area is
“a clearly defined geographical space, recognized,
dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of
nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural
values” (Dudley 2008:8). The first principle that IUCN
lists for applying this definition is “only those areas
where the main objective is conserving nature can be
considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the
case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority” (Dudley 2008:10). IUCN defines seven categories
of protected areas:
Ia—strict nature reserves;
Ib—wilderness areas;
II—national parks;
III—natural monuments or features;
IV— habitat/species management areas;
V—protected landscapes/seascapes;
VI—protected areas with sustainable use of
natural resources.
Any one of the categories may be privately owned and
managed. Because private ownership, more than public ownership, raises questions about continuity due
to changing conditions and/or ownership, the IUCN
guidelines state that a central criterion for private land
to qualify as a protected area is that “such areas should
be managed for conservation in perpetuity” (Dudley
2008:32).
The Fifth Worlds Parks Congress in 2003 crafted
the following definition of a private protected area as
part of its action plan to improve and expand biodiversity conservation on private land (Langholz and Krug
2004:23):
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
74
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
A PPA refers to a land parcel of any size that is:
1. Predominantly managed for biodiversity
conservation;
2. Protected with or without formal government agency recognition;
3. And is owned or otherwise secured by individuals, communities, corporations or nongovernmental organizations.
Other experts on private protected areas offer other
definitions. For example, Carter et al. (2008:178) defined
a private protected area as
an area of land of conservation importance
that is directly under the ownership and/or
management of a private sector conservation
enterprise for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. This purpose may be singular (i.e.,
the entire mission of the organization is conservation), or it may be concurrent with other
objectives (such as a business venture or other
social imperative).
Mitchell (2005:4) proposed that private protected areas are
managed by non-state entities—including
private corporations, associations, individuals, and indigenous governments—with legal
interest in the land, in whole or in part. The
protected area may be managed for private as
well as public benefit, and the managing entities must be accountable to formal standards.
Australian law stipulates that a private protected area
must contribute to the overall biodiversity conservation needs of the country and “must be dedicated for
the primary purpose of protection and maintenance
of biological diversity” (Commonwealth of Australia
1999:5).
Many countries have legislation and procedures for
officially recognizing private protected areas and often
provide incentives for landowners via tax incentives
and other financial mechanisms (see, for example, Commonwealth of Australia 1999; Chacon 2005; Carter et al.
2008). Although neither the United States nor Canada
has federal laws nor policies for designating or recognizing private protected areas, as described in the next section several federal programs offer private landowner
incentives to manage for biodiversity.
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN
FRAMEWORK
Neither the U.S. nor Canadian government officially
recognizes private protected areas per se. In the United
States several federal programs with “reserve” in the
name offer financial support and other incentives for
private landowners to restore and conserve biodiversity
(Casey et al. 2006). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers private lands it has acquired as wetland,
grassland, and conservation easements to be part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, the Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetland Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and Healthy
Forests Reserve Program provide financial support and/or
technical assistance for conservation purposes on private
lands. Most of these programs allow commodity production activities, such as livestock grazing and hay harvesting and, to be clear, are not designated as “reserves” by
the federal government. More generally, the terms “reserve” and “preserve” have no apparent distinct meaning
in practice or under the law in the United States (Forrest
2002).
A 2001 survey of state programs found 22 states
that have natural-area programs providing official state
recognition of qualifying lands, regardless of ownership
(Thom et al. 2005), with North Dakota being the only
Northern Great Plains state. Administered by the Parks
and Recreation Department, North Dakota’s Nature Preserves Act provides for both qualifying public and private
lands to be “formally dedicated” as “nature preserves.”
The state has thus far dedicated only publicly owned
lands or lands owned by a nonprofit organization. The
Act also allows landowners to “enter into a non-binding
agreement to protect their land through the Natural Areas
Registry Program” (North Dakota Parks and Recreation
Department 2009:1). Our review of provincial programs
found that only Quebec and Nova Scotia have statutes
for recognizing private protected areas (Canadian Legal
Information Institute 2008; Nova Scotia Canada 2008).
These state and provincial programs generally share an
emphasis on conserving in perpetuity, through easements
or other permanent instruments with the landowners, areas of biological importance in a natural or near-natural
condition.
State- and provincial-sanctioned private protected
areas are distinct from—but could readily be confused
with—state- and provincial-licensed private game preserves (often called game farms or hunting preserves)
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
found across the United States and Canada. Each of
the five states and two provinces of the Northern Great
Plains permits game farms, although Montana, where
they are officially called “alternative livestock ranches,”
stopped issuing licenses for new ones in 2000. Game
farms generally have several features in common: they
are established for fee-based hunting, the focus is usually upland game birds and/or ungulates, often some of
the game species are non-native, the principal game are
usually privately owned, and game are often contained
by high fences (e.g., see Meschishnick et al. 2003; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2010;
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2008; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008). These areas are distinct from the state- or provincial-sanctioned
private protected areas because their primary purpose
is hunting, no long-term commitment to conservation
is required, and issuance of the license is not based on
conservation value.
The number of land trusts and their landholdings and
conservation easements has grown rapidly in both the
United States and Canada during the last two decades
(Bernstein and Mitchell 2005; Campbell and Rubec 2006).
Land trusts make a large and growing contribution to biodiversity conservation on private lands in both countries
and may be important for acquiring or receiving donated
conservation easements for private protected areas in the
Northern Great Plains. Conservation easements generally
focus on protecting land from development, though this
may range from protecting farmland from urban sprawl
to protecting native habitat from farmland development.
Although standards for land trusts have been established,
there appear to be no written standards or definitions
among land trusts, including the largest, The Nature Conservancy, for recognizing private protected areas (Land
Trust Alliance 2008; The Nature Conservancy 2008).
We believe that the term “private protected area” is
not the best choice for branding and creating public understanding of and support for them in the Northern Great
Plains. While perhaps a single name is not necessary, we
prefer the term “private nature reserve.” The proposed
standards and guidelines provide a working definition of
the term.
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP FACTORS AFFECTING
PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN
GREAT PLAINS
Private ownership, whether for profit or nonprofit,
raises management issues that are generally, but certainly
75
not always, of greater concern than among publicly
owned reserves.
Profitability
Unless the owner does not need to make a profit from
the land, profit motives can potentially compromise
biodiversity conservation goals. IUCN Protected Area
Category V, protected seascapes/landscapes, explicitly
provides for sustainable harvest of natural resources and
conservation of agrobiodiversity, and Category VI, protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources,
provides for similar activities on a more limited scale.
Based on IUCN’s description, it appears that a cattle
ranch that modifies rangeland to enhance productivity
could qualify for Category V as long as it met other criteria such as maintaining some level of biodiversity in
perpetuity. An area mostly dedicated to harvesting native
hay and seeds for commercial use could also fit within
Category V and possibly Category VI. Similar issues of
intensive, profit-driven management may arise if owners
want to increase the numbers and (or) access to huntable
or watchable wildlife and (or) introduce exotic species
(Freese 1998; Butler et al. 2005). As we noted, private
nature reserves offer a potential means for landowners
to diversify and increase income through payments for
ecosystem services and products (Ribaudo et al. 2008;
Freese et al. 2009).
Financial Sustainability
As opposed to public protected areas in North
America that can generally depend on long-term—
though not necessarily optimal—funding via government appropriations, private nature reserves generally
do not have long-term funding secured unless there is a
sizeable endowment in place. This raises concerns about
the financial sustainability of private nature reserves
and their ability to meet management goals through
changing financial conditions, landowner priorities, and
land­ownership.
Transparency
Public institutions and the public lands they manage
are generally open to public review and comment, which
can be useful to ensure that policies, plans, and budgets
meet the needs of protected areas. For a private business running a private nature reserve, where finding a
comparative advantage may be important and financial
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
76
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
information is often confidential, this type of public oversight is more difficult.
BIODIVERSITY AND LAND-USE FACTORS
AFFECTING PRIVATE NATURE RESERVES IN THE
NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
Long-term Commitment
Public and nonprofit protected areas are generally considered more secure for the long term because
ownership will not likely change hands, or if it does,
protection generally conveys with the property. Also,
such institutions have enduring legal obligations and
missions, although these can change. Individual and
corporate ownership is more subject to periodic change
as owners die or move on to other interests and investments, with the consequent risk that the new owner
may no longer care to maintain the land as a private
nature reserve. Although IUCN guidelines call for
managing protected areas in perpetuity, permanent
easements or similar long-term covenants may pose a
level of commitment—threshold of risk—that would
deter many landowners in the Northern Great Plains
from starting down the potentially risky financial path
to becoming a private nature reserve. Flexibility is
required to meet the goal of a long-term commitment.
The experience of the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC), an international nonprofit body that certifies
harvested forests according to social and ecological
criteria, may be relevant here. Although FSC Principle
1.6 states, “Forest managers shall demonstrate a longterm commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and
Criteria,” no conservation easement or similar longterm covenant is required, even for “high conservation value forests” (Forest Stewardship Council 1996;
Bruce Cabarle, pers. comm. 2008).
Several features of grassland ecosystems and their use
in the Northern Great Plains, as well as the Great Plains
generally, must be considered in the design and management of private nature reserves.
Ecological Processes and Scale
Considering the scale of two major ecological
processes—fire and grazing—that shape grassland
ecosystems (Fuhlendorf et al. 2008), grassland private
nature reserves will often need to be large to play an
important role in maintaining these processes and to
avoid conflict with neighboring landowners. Although
fire and grazing can be managed at small scales to
benefit biodiversity, prairie fires and wild ungulate
herds can move across thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of hectares, and the mosaic
of habitats they create (burned vs. unburned, lightly
vs. heavily grazed) often occurs at large spatial and
temporal scales. For example, Colorado’s Ranching
for Wildlife Program, which focuses on ungulate
management, requires a minimum of 12,000 contiguous acres (4,856 ha) for eligibility (Colorado Division
of Wildlife 2008). However, just a few hectares might
adequately preserve a small prairie pothole. Another
important consideration is the surrounding landscape.
A small area adjacent to or in the middle of an existing
protected area may be important for achieving seamless management for biodiversity across an entire large
landscape or as a corridor for wildlife migration.
Public Land Leases
Many ranches in the Northern Great Plains hold
grazing leases on public lands, including state and
provincial lands, Crown lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, National Grasslands, and National Wildlife
Refuge lands. Because these leased public lands often
comprise thousands or tens of thousands of hectares,
their incorporation into the goals of the private nature
reserve that holds the lease could often greatly expand
and improve the conservation value and manageability
of the landscape. Close cooperation with public land
agencies, and at times revising public land policies and
regulations, therefore will often be important for realizing the full potential of private nature reserves that hold
public land leases.
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Native Species Restoration and Conservation
In addition to native ecological processes, another
important goal for private nature reserves is to restore
and conserve native species. Some native species of
the Great Plains, in particular black-tailed prairie dogs,
large ungulates, and large predators, pose challenges to
meeting this goal because they may represent conflicts
with neighboring landowners or require large areas to
maintain viable populations. Native species restoration
goals and strategies should consider the size of the private nature reserve, its proximity to other natural landscapes with populations of target species, constraints
posed by neighbors, and state and federal regulations
affecting species translocation and restoration efforts.
Plate 7. Bison (Bison bison) grazing, Niobrara Valley Preserve, Nebraska. The Preserve is a 24,000-hectare private protected area owned and operated by The Nature Conservancy;
TNC uses bison, cattle, and fire in its grassland management. Photo by Michael Forsberg. Copyright © Michael Forsberg.
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
77
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
78
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
Water
From the largest rivers and lakes to the smallest
ephemeral streams and potholes, people have extensively
engineered the aquatic habitats of the Great Plains for
industrial and agricultural uses (Rabeni 1996). Intensive
livestock use of riparian areas, building of stock ponds,
the removal of beaver (Castor canadensis), introduction
of non-native fish, reallocation of water for irrigation,
and contaminants from farmland runoff have altered
and/or degraded aquatic habitats. Private nature reserves
in the Northern Great Plains face a particular challenge
in determining goals and methods for restoring natural
hydrologic processes and native habitats and species.
Fencing
Fences for livestock management are a dominant
feature of the Great Plains landscape. Improper fencing
can deter the movement of and often represents a mortality factor for wildlife such as sage grouse (Centrocercus
spp.), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), elk, and
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Oakley 1973; Danvir
2002). Fences also detract from the aesthetic experience
of being in a natural setting. Bison are the only native
Northern Great Plains species for which fencing is a key
management tool, particularly because the large majority
of herds in North America are privately owned. Unless
a private nature reserve is very large (hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of hectares), has natural barriers
to bison movement, or has a cooperative arrangement
with neighboring lands for bison management, some perimeter fencing that permits crossing by other wildlife is
probably needed to keep bison from moving onto adjacent
properties and to prevent livestock from roaming into the
private nature reserve.
Livestock
Because grazing by wild ungulates historically exerted a dominant force in shaping the grassland ecosystems
and biodiversity of the Great Plains (Knopf 1996), and
because domestic ungulates (livestock) now graze most
of the region with negative effects on some components
of biodiversity (Freilich et al. 2003), the place and role of
wild versus domestic ungulates merits special attention in
the guidelines for private nature reserves. In the absence
of bison as native grazers, national wildlife refuges and
conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy often use cattle as a grazing management tool. Widespread
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
domestication of bison by private producers and the challenge this poses for conserving the wild bison genome
and ecological role of bison must also be considered
(Freese et al. 2007; Sanderson et al. 2007).
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRIVATE
NATURE RESERVES IN THE NORTHERN GREAT
PLAINS
We propose the following standards and guidelines
for private nature reserves to ensure that a landowner’s
contribution to biodiversity conservation goes above
and beyond the general norms for good ranch stewardship. We designed them to clearly distinguish and
recognize (and thus potentially reward) a landowner
who has decided to manage his/her land primarily for
biodiversity conservation. However, we have also tried
to make them sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
region’s diverse ecological and social conditions and the
landowner’s motivations.
The need for flexibility is particularly important if
we hope to convince landowners that creating a private
nature reserve is achievable with acceptable levels of
financial risk. This means that although the bar is high
for fully meeting the requirements of a private nature
reserve, the guidelines allow landowners time and flexibility in making the transition from, most commonly,
commodity production to biodiversity conservation.
This transition often entails major changes in land and
financial management, marketing, and accordingly,
skills. Thus, we believe it is important to provide a grace
period with some form of provisional private nature
reserve recognition during the transition.
We provide “standards” as stipulations or measures
that a property must meet to qualify as a private nature
reserve and “guidelines” as suggestions for meeting the
standards.
Standard 1. A private nature reserve is owned by an
individual, group of individuals, corporation, or nongovernmental organization.
Guidelines: Although this may be self-evident, private
nature reserve designation is aimed at nongovernmental
lands under fee-simple ownership.
Standard 2. A private nature reserve must have sound
and clearly defined goals for restoring and maintaining
native biodiversity at the landscape, ecosystem, species,
and genetic levels.
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
Guidelines: Conservation goals for a private nature
reserve must be established that are consistent with
restoring and maintaining native biodiversity to the
extent practical and in accordance with recognized
conservation priorities for the area. Specific goals will
depend on the location, size, biodiversity, ecological
condition, and surrounding-lands context, and will
require initial baseline information gathering and
analysis for the land, the land’s biodiversity, and major
factors influencing both. For example, a private nature
reserve might focus on addressing specific biodiversity
targets, such as conservation of an imperiled species
or rare habitat, if those targets are underrepresented
in the landscape context. Goals should be established
with advice from and in consultation with experts, relevant federal, state, tribal, and local natural resource
agencies, university extension offices, state Natural
Resources Conservation Service offices, neighbors,
and other pertinent stakeholders. Occasionally goals
should be adjusted as new information becomes available.
•
Thus, a private nature reserve should be supportive of and must articulate its goals in the context of
regional and national conservation priorities. Depending on size, location, and other factors, private nature
reserves should set the goal of restoring and maintaining the following four, interconnected components of
biodiversity:
•
•
Ecological processes: Key ecological processes
such as fire, natural grazing patterns, predation, and natural hydrologic conditions should be
restored and maintained to the extent possible.
Exceptions may include development of artificial
water where wildlife has no access to it because of
artificial barriers to movement, even if this creates
some impact to natural hydrologic conditions. In
this example, a manager of a private nature reserve
would strive to look for a solution that ameliorated
the impact by, say, developing groundwater in preference to impounding surface water. Permitting
the natural movement and migration of wildlife
across, into, and out of the reserve is important
for ecological processes as well as for conserving
migratory species and the phenomenon of migration itself. Thus fencing should be minimized and
wildlife-friendly.
Native habitats: All native habitats should be restored and maintained, recognizing that the speed
•
79
and extent to which cultivated land can be restored
to native cover, or a highly engineered stream or
watershed restored to natural flows and habitat
conditions, are greatly affected by the difficulty
and expense of such restoration.
Native species: All species native to the area but
currently absent should be on a checklist for possible restoration in the private nature reserve,
while recognizing that restoration of some species
may be impractical because the private nature reserve is too small or governmental restrictions or
other constraints prevent it. Private nature reserves
should give priority to restoring and maintaining keystone and ecologically dominant species
such as prairie dogs and bison. In the case of a
threatened or endangered species, if the reserve is
within a federally designated or otherwise suitable
recovery area, and if appropriate habitat exists or
could be restored, one goal should be to contribute
to the recovery of that species (barring clear barriers to doing so). Another goal of the private nature
reserve should be to maintain the natural genetic
diversity of species residing there by not artificially
selecting for desired traits (e.g., trophy antlers)
through breeding, culling, the incidental effects of
selective harvesting (e.g., for trophy animals) on
the genome (see review by Allendorf et al. 2008),
or other means. This is not to say that trophy hunting cannot occur, but one must be cognizant of and
manage hunting to avoid such incidental genetic
effects. Non-native species of plants and animals
should not be introduced, and non-native species
should be eliminated or controlled where practical, legal, and important for conserving native
biodiversity.
Evolutionary processes: Evolutionary processes
are maintained by allowing native species and their
genetic diversity to undergo natural selection as
they interact with ecological processes and native
habitats. This criterion requires that hunted populations, including bison, be managed to allow for a
natural population structure of age and sex classes
so that, for example, males compete for reproductive success.
Some private nature reserves may establish goals
to protect an area in as natural a state as possible with
little or no management intervention. Other private nature reserves, addressing degraded or small areas, may
need to manage intensively to restore and maintain a
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
80
semblance of the native ecosystem. Others may focus
on the recovery of a threatened or endangered species,
which may require intensive management interventions
such as habitat manipulation or the control of a predator
that preys on the target species. Some may manage for
bird watchers and hikers, others may focus on wildlife
for hunting, and still others may have as a minor goal
the sustainable harvest of native plant products (seeds,
hay, medicinal plants). Different management goals may
require distinct and somewhat different management
regimes for the land and how people use it. Lands that
have been highly degraded ecologically can also qualify
as private nature reserves so long as the long-term goal
is to restore native biodiversity and management is making progress toward that goal.
There is no definitive minimum size for a private
nature reserve in the Northern Great Plains. As noted
earlier, protection of a small prairie pothole or a vital but
small habitat corridor could meet our proposed standards
and guidelines. The appropriate size should be judged on
a case-by-case basis, depending on the reserve’s conservation purpose and landscape context.
Further work is needed to better understand how this
standard applies to commercial production of plants and
animals, both native and non-native, simultaneously
occurring within the private nature reserve. In general,
we believe there is room for commercial production
of native plants (e.g., native hay and plant seeds) and
animals (e.g., bison) as long as biodiversity management
has primacy in management decisions (see Standard 3).
Non-native plants should be grown only for demonstration, research, or educational purposes and on a very
small percentage of the reserve’s area. If restoring native grazers is not possible, domestic livestock may be
used as a grazing management tool; any commercial
production of livestock must be a subsidiary goal. However, unless there are compelling reasons, a goal of the
reserve should be to eventually restore native herbivores
in preference to introduced non-native livestock.
Standard 3. When conflicts arise between biodiversity
conservation goals and other goals of the reserve, biodiversity conservation has primacy in land management
decisions.
Guidelines: Other goals, including financial profitability, will often be important and in fact crucial for
the success of many private nature reserves and thus will
influence planning and management. Ideally, private
nature reserves will not need to sacrifice profitability
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
to reach biodiversity conservation goals, and we see
the creation of private nature reserves as potentially
diversifying landowner revenues, making a landowner
operation more financially viable. Some areas may
have historical, archeological, paleontological, or other
scientific significance or important cultural values that
should be preserved and incorporated into the reserve’s
goals. However, significant curtailment of biodiversity
conservation goals or management should not occur in
an effort to meet other goals. “Significant” is open to a
wide range of interpretation, but we suggest that private
nature reserves avoid (1) impairing native ecological
processes; (2) eliminating or greatly reducing native
habitats and species in numbers or extent; and (3) reducing or manipulating genetic diversity.
In general, the combination of this standard and
Standard 2 includes IUCN protected areas Categories I
through IV and VI, but will exclude Category V, which
often includes landscapes with towns, agriculture, and
natural features that are valued for their traditional
land-use practices and other long-standing cultural features as well as for their natural attributes.
Standard 4. Landowners must demonstrate their intention that the land be managed as a private nature reserve
by them and any subsequest owner over the long term,
preferably in perpetuity.
Guidelines: Although a conservation easement or
similar covenant on the land often represents the best way
of demonstrating long-term commitment, sound legal,
financial, or management reasons may exist for delaying
or never placing an easement that would fully meet these
standards and guidelines on the property. Moreover, a
legally binding long-term commitment may be overly
onerous in the early stages of reserve development and, if
mandatory from the outset, may deter landowners from
attempting to develop a private nature reserve. More
work is needed to determine the best ways to address this
standard.
Any conservation easement or other legal covenant
should require maintaining the land in native vegetation
and managing the land to restore and maintain biodiversity. Easements, however, will not typically require that
all components of biodiversity be restored and managed.
For example, many easements acquired by government
and nonprofit agencies allow grazing by domestic livestock. Thus, an easement or other contractual guarantee
for protecting the land is generally not sufficient by itself
for meeting private nature reserve conditions.
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
81
TABLE 1
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT
Elements of Evaluation
Assessment of:
Context: Where are we now?
Importance, legal status, threats, and stakeholders
Planning: Where do we want to be?
Reserve goals, design and planning
Inputs: What do we need?
Resources needed to carry out management
Processes: How do we go about it?
The way in which management is conducted
Outputs: What were the results?
Changes in infrastructure, management, policies, etc.
Achievements: How well are we meeting our
conservation goals?
Biodiversity conservation results as measured against short, mid- and long-term
goals.
Sources: Hockings et al. 2006; World Wildlife Fund and World Bank 2007)
Standard 5. Universal ethical standards must be observed, including the basic principles of respect for human rights and fairness and the humane treatment of
wildlife.
Guidelines: Workers, neighbors, and visitors deserve
fair treatment without discrimination based on race, color, or creed. Wildlife management and use should follow
humane standards provided by federal, state, provincial,
and tribal laws and regulations.
Standard 6. A sound planning process must lead to a
management plan that establishes clear objectives and
strategies for meeting the biodiversity goals of the reserve, and the plan must be effectively implemented.
Guidelines: Creating an effective nature reserve
requires, in addition to owning the land and signing an
agreement dedicating it to conservation, that the land be
well managed. The World Wildlife Fund, the World Bank,
and IUCN proposed major criteria for assessing management effectiveness (Table 1). Confidence in a reserve being
able to meet its conservation goals requires attaining some
minimum level of performance for each of these criteria.
Standard 7. There should be progress toward meeting
biodiversity conservation goals and maintaining past
achievements.
Guidelines: This is the bottom line for gauging a reserve’s conservation success. This standard requires that
private nature reserves employ metrics and a monitoring
system to assess how well biodiversity conservation goals
are being met. For example, reserve managers should be
able to answer the following questions: How much progress has been made toward:
•
•
•
Restoring or maintaining the population of a
threatened or endangered species?
Restoring the natural flow of a stream?
Eliminating or controlling an invasive non-native
plant?
Few, if any, private nature reserves will begin with
an intact ecosystem that already meets long-term biodiversity conservation goals. For most, decades of management and testing new approaches, with successes
and progress interrupted by occasional setbacks, will be
required before they can meet some of the more ambitious
conservation goals. Measureable progress is fundamental
to the standards.
DISCUSSION
Private nature reserves can play a central role in restoring and conserving biodiversity, both globally and
within the Northern Great Plains. Many regions of the
world have experienced a surge in private nature reserves
in recent decades, often with supportive governmental
policies. However, the United States and Canada have
made little progress, in either the creation of private
nature reserves or developing supportive state, tribal,
provincial, and federal policies, particularly within the
Northern Great Plains.
Landowners in the Northern Great Plains show increasing interest in managing lands for biodiversity values as a
means to diversify their economic base and for cultural
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
82
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
and aesthetic reasons (Freese et al. 2009). Private nature
reserves could offer a new form of land management and
business development for some landowners, but standards
and guidelines appropriate for landowners’ circumstances
and the ecological conditions of the Northern Great Plains
are lacking. We propose such standards and guidelines as a
way to stimulate more discussion and analysis about ways
to foster private nature reserves as a biodiversity conservation tool for the Northern Great Plains.
Private nature reserve standards and guidelines,
whether at the national level or regionally in the Northern Great Plains, could eventually be incorporated into a
system for recognizing and certifying private nature reserves. The question of how a certification system might
be structured and governed is complex and deserves
thorough review. The Forest Stewardship Council (1996)
and organic standards in the United States and Canada
offer examples of approaches to certification by nonprofit
and government agencies, respectively. Whatever form it
takes, a certification system must provide market-based
and/or psychological incentives for landowner investment
in and compliance with standards and guidelines that
ensure that private nature reserves meet biodiversity conservation goals. With 76% of the Northern Great Plains in
private ownership, this and other new methods for fostering private-sector investment in prairie conservation are
much needed.
REFERENCES
Allendorf, F.W., P.R. England, G. Luikart, P.A. Ritchie,
and N. Ryman. 2008. Genetic effects of harvest on
wild animal populations. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 23:327-37.
Altridge, J. 2000. Canadian biodiversity and law. In Biodiver­
sity in Canada: Ecology, Ideas, and Action, ed. S. Bocking, 297-326. Broadview Press, Peterborough, ON.
Bernstein, J., and B.A. Mitchell. 2005. Land trusts, private reserves and conservation easements in the
United States. Parks 15:48-60.
Butler, M.J., A.P. Teascher, W.B. Ballard, and B.K.
McGee. 2005. Commentary: Wildlife ranching in
North America—arguments, issues, and perspectives. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:381-89.
Campbell, L., and C.D.A. Rubec. 2006. Land Trusts in
Conservation: Building Momentum for the Future.
Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ottawa.
Canadian Legal Information Institute. 2008. An Act
Respecting Nature Reserves on Private Land,
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/r-26.2/20030530/
whole.html (accessed October 2008).
Carter, E., W.M. Adams, and J. Hutton. 2008. Review:
Private protected areas: management regimes, tenure arrangements and protected area categorization
in East Africa. Oryx 42:177-86.
Casey, F., S. Vickerman, C. Hummon, and B. Taylor.
2006. Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: An
Ecological and Economic Assessment. Defenders of
Wildlife, Washington, DC.
Chacon, C.M. 2005. Fostering conservation of key priority sites and rural development in Central America:
The role of private protected areas. Parks 15:39-47.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Ranching for
Wildlife, http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/PrivateLandProgram/RanchingForWildlife/ (accessed
October 2008).
Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. Australian Guide­
lines for Establishing the National Reserve System.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Cook, B.J., R.C. Ehrhart, P.L. Hansen, T. Parker, and B.
Thompson. 1996. Riparian and Wetland Ecologi­
cal Health, Evaluation of Selected Streams on the
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Riparian and Wetland Research Program, Montana Forest
and Conservation Experiment Station, School of
Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula.
Danvir, R.E. 2002. Sage Grouse Ecology and Manage­
ment in Northern Utah Sagebrush-Steppe, a Deseret
Land and Livestock Wildlife Research Report,
Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and the Foundation for Quality Resource Management, Woodruff,
UT. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WY/Sage%20
Grouse/Ecology%20of%20Northern%20Utah%20
sage%20grouse.pdf (accessed October 2009).
Dudley, N., ed. 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected
Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland,
Switzer­land.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
2010. http://www.myfwe.com/License/Index.htm
(accessed January 2010).
Forrest, S.C. 2002. Creating new opportunities for ecosystem restoration on public lands: An analysis
of the potential for BLM lands. Public Land and
Resources Law Review 23:21-75.
Forrest, S.C., H. Strand, W.H. Haskins, C. Freese, J.
Proctor, and E. Dinerstein. 2004. Ocean of Grass:
A Conservation Assessment for the Northern Great
Plains. Northern Plains Conservation Network and
Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Private Nature Reserves • Curtis Freese et al.
Northern Great Plains Ecoregion, World Wildlife
Fund–US, Bozeman, MT.
Freese, C.H. 1998. Wild Species as Commodities: Man­
aging Markets and Ecosystems for Sustainability.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Freese, C.H., K.E. Aune, D.P. Boyd, J.N. Derr, S.C. Forrest, C. Cormack Gates, P.J. Gogan, S.M. Grassel,
N.D. Halbert, K. Kunkel, and K.H. Redford. 2007.
Second chance for the plains bison. Biological Con­
servation 136:175-84.
Freese, C., D. Montanye, and K. Dabrowska. 2009. New Di­
rections for the Prairie Economy: Connecting Conser­
vation and Rural Development in the Northern Great
Plains. World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, MT.
Freilich, J.E., J.M. Emlen, J.J. Duda, D.C. Freeman, and
P.J. Cafaro. 2003. Ecological effects of ranching: A
six-point critique. BioScience 53:759-65.
Forest Stewardship Council. 1996. FSC International
Standard: FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest
Stewardship, FSC-STD01-001 (Version 4-0) EN,
Bonn, Germany. http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/
web-data/public/document_center/international_
FSC_policies/standards/FSC_STD_01_001_V4_0_
EN_FSC_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf (accessed
October 2008).
Fuhlendorf, S.D., D.M. Engle, J. Kerby, and R. Hamilton. 2008. Pyric herbivory: Rewilding landscapes
through recoupling of fire and grazing. Conserva­
tion Biology 23:588-98.
Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley,
and J. Courrau. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A
Framework for Assessing Management Effective­
ness of Protected Areas, 2nd ed. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C.
Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: Global
disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology
Letters 8:23-29.
Hodur, N.M., D.A. Bangsund, and F.L. Leistritz. 2004.
Characteristics of Nature-based Tourism Enter­
prises in North Dakota—Summary. Agribusiness
and Applied Economics Report No. 537-S. Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND.
Johnson, K.M., and R.W. Rathge. 2006. Agricultural
dependence and changing population in the Great
Plains. In Population Change and Rural Society, ed.
W.A. Kandel and D.L. Brown, 197-217. Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
83
Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In Prairie
Conservation, ed. F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf,
135-48. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Langholz, J.A., and W. Krug. 2004. New forms of biodiversity governance: Non-state actors and the private
protected area action plan. Journal of International
Wildlife Law and Policy 7:9-29.
Land Trust Alliance. 2008. Do You Remember? http://
www.landtrustalliance.org/conserve (accessed November 2008).
Meschishnick, G.A., K. Riger, and A. Hehiel. 2003. Game
Farm Regulation: Saskatchewan, Alberta, Mani­
toba, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. Centre for
Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2008.
Permits, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/permits/index.
html (accessed October 2008).
Mitchell, B. 2005. Editorial. Parks 15:1-5.
Nature Conservancy, The. 2008. Where We Work: North
America (and the state chapter descriptions therein),
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/ (accessed November 2008).
North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2009.
North Dakota’s Natural Heritage, http://www.
parkrec.nd.gov/nature/heritage/index.html (accessed October 12, 2009).
Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-64.
Nova Scotia Canada. 2008. Environment, http://www.
gov.ns.ca /nse /protectedareas/naturereserves.asp
(accessed October 2008).
Oakley, C. 1973. The effects of livestock fencing on antelope. Wyoming Wildlife 37:26-29.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Hunting
in Oregon, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ (accessed
October 2008).
Rabeni, C.F. 1996. Prairie legacies: Fish and aquatic
resources. In Prairie Conservation: Preserving
North America’s Most Endangered Ecosystem, ed.
F.B. Samson and F.L. Knopf, 111-24. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Ribaudo, M., L. Hansen, D. Hellerstein, and C. Greene.
2008. The use of markets to create private investment in environmental stewardship. Economic Research Report No. (ERR-64), September 2008, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, and C.J.
Loucks. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
84
America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Sanderson, E.W., K.H. Redford, B. Weber, K. Aune, D.
Baldes, J. Berger, D. Carter, C. Curtin, J. Derr, S.
Dobrott, E. Fearn, C. Fleener, S. Forrest, C. Gerlach, C.C. Gates, J. Gross, P. Gogan, S. Grassel, J.A.
Hilty, M. Jensen, K. Kunkel, D. Lammers, R. List,
K. Minkowski, T. Olson, C. Pague, P.B. Robertson,
and B. Stephenson. 2007. The ecological future of
the North American Bison: Conceiving long-term,
large-scale conservation of wildlife. Conservation
Biology 22:252-66.
Scott, M.J., F.W. Davis, R.G. McGhie, R.G. Wright, C.
Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they
capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11:999-1007.
© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
Thom, R., A. Linsenbardt, K. Kramer, and R. Schuller.
2005. Status of state natural area programs. Natural
Areas Association, http://www.naturalarea.org/SSNAP05.aspx?p=home.asp (accessed October 2009).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service. 2002. Census of Agriculture,
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Create_Census_
US_CNTY.jsp (accessed September 2009).
Winston, M.R., Taylor, C.M., and J. Pigg, 1991. Upstream
extirpation of four minnow species due to damming
of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 120:98-105.
World Wildlife Fund and the World Bank. 2007. Manage­
ment Effectiveness Tracking Tool: Reporting Prog­
ress at Protected Area Sites, 2nd ed. World Wildlife
Fund, Gland, Switzerland.