|
|
Perhaps the most pervasive and intractable threat to the long-term integrity of protected natural areas is incompatible development of adjacent lands. Pressures from nearby urbanization are greatest in settings like Shenandoah National Park, where private lands border 90 percent of the park's 566-kilometer (345-mile) boundary. In 1982, approximately ten percent of the boundary was occupied by residential development; by 1992, this figure had risen to nearly forty percent, transforming the park into an isolated habitat island (Davis 1992). As Shenandoah tries to deal with immediate threats to wildlife habitat and viewsheds from housing construction ringing its boundaries, opposition to potential expansion of the park has grown among neighboring landowners. This antagonism stems from historical fears that the Park Service may condemn private land, and from a more realistic concern regarding the fiscal impact of removing donated or acquired land from the local tax rolls (Fordney 1996).
Public land and resource managers increasingly point to declining ecological conditions within their jurisdictional boundaries: isolation of wildlife habitat and populations, invasion of exotic plants and animals, degradation of historic and cultural sites, and declining air and water quality. To understand the cause and scope of these resource-related problems, the U.S. General Accounting Office conducted a survey of National Park Service superintendents, who reported that 85 percent of parks experience threats from sources outside their boundaries (U.S. General Accounting Office 1994).
Urbanization along the borders of protected areas which is not carefully planned affects natural processes in ways both striking and subtle. Residential subdivisions around natural areas, for example, isolate wildlife habitat and sever migratory and travel corridors, creating fragmented habitat "islands" that are too small to guarantee the long-term maintenance of species diversity. A study examining 14 North American national parks reveals the extent of this trend: post-establishment extirpations occurred in all but the Banff-Jasper-Yoho Park complex in Canada (Newmark 1987). This study confirms what the Leopold Committee, an advisory board which influenced basic park management philosophy, concluded as early as 1962: "Few of the world's parks are large enough to be self-regulatory ecological units" (Leopold et al. 1963). top
Native flora and fauna are also threatened by invasion of exotic plants and animals introduced by nearby development. Competition from introduced plant species, particularly those closely associated with disturbance, often plays a major role in the extinction of native species (Bowers and Turner 1985; Rondeau et al. 1992). The relationship between development and exotic bird species such as the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) is well established: as the number of houses and large turf areas (grass lawns, golf courses, etc.) increases, so does the presence of exotic birds (Mills et al. 1989; Bibles and Mannan 1992). These species may then outcompete and displace native avifauna. Competition with European starlings for nest sites has contributed to the decline of native species throughout the United States (Yoakum et al. 1980). top
The traditional response to protecting nationally significant resources from imminent adjacent development has relied heavily on federal acquisition. In 1988, Manassas National Military Park, for example, acquired a 219-hectare (542-acre) parcel to prevent the development of Stuart's Hill, the site of Robert E. Lee's battlefield headquarters during the second Battle of Manassas. This protection, however, came at great cost. The park acquired the parcel only after the public became outraged by county approval of a 1.2 million square-foot regional mall and 560 residential units, thus costing the public $118 million for land that was purchased for $11 million two years earlier. This price tag was more than twice the amount the National Park Service spent on all other land acquisitions that year (Stone 1989).
In search of new approaches that prevent or resolve cross-boundary controversies, The Conservation Foundation (1985) published a seminal study entitled "National Parks for a New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects." The most promising approach to such challenges, it concluded, is to devise protective measures tailor-made for the unique local circumstances surrounding each park, rather than following a uniform, nation-wide methodology. The report called for creating "diverse cooperative mechanisms involving landowners and local governments in ways that reflect the needs and aspirations of adjacent communities." Lastly, the report recommended that such mechanisms are likely to be more effective if they involve strong local constituencies that recognize the contribution that national parks make to local quality of life. top
Public land management agencies are increasingly adopting this important cross-boundary approach to park protection, encouraging their stewards to "manage along ecological rather than political or administrative boundaries." This broader approach—often referred to as a component of "ecosystem management"—acknowledges the limitations of managing solely within current borders, and instead advocates promoting stewardship across boundaries, thereby "ensur[ing] the sustainable long-term use of natural resources...and prevent[ing] future ecological and economic conflicts from becoming intractable" (U.S. General Accounting Office 1994).
Ecosystem management demands what experts in community-based conservation describe as "a new matrix of expectations and relationships—to include both rights and responsibilities, accountability as well as trust, long-term patience, equitable partnership, flexibility, a more enlightened apportioning of costs and benefits, a vision of nature from which humans are inextricable, and a seamless linkage between conservation efforts and community development" (Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation 1993). To make such lofty goals real, the National Park Service is striving to include the human component in resource protection. The NPS 1988 Management Policies stresses that the key to fulfilling their stewardship obligations depends on working collaboratively with adjacent communities to promote improved communication, planning, and education. top
Already, a number of promising partnerships have formed involving public land managers and adjacent communities across the country. In many cases, what initially appears to be an irreconcilable conflict turns into a productive alliance where the participants strive to achieve common goals. A 1995 University of Michigan study of 105 ecosystem management efforts around the U.S. noted that collaboration among public land managers and neighboring communities was the most commonly reported factor facilitating successful initiatives (Yaffee et al. 1995). This paper features an example of this collaborative approach to reconciling conservation and community development situated at Saguaro National Park on the outskirts of Tucson, Arizona. top
Tucson's Rapid Growth Threatens Saguaro National Park
The two units of Saguaro National Park sit on the east and west sides of the Tucson Basin like mountainous bookends struggling to contain the city's 48 square kilometers (30 miles) of urban sprawl. Named after the majestic saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea), the symbol of the American Southwest, the park protects 36,960 hectares (91,327 acres) of spectacular Sonoran Desert vegetation and the "sky islands" of the Rincon Mountains, including 28,895 hectares (71,400 acres) of legislatively designated wilderness. Although considered the most lush and diverse of North American deserts, the Sonoran Desert receives less than 31 centimeters (12 inches) of rainfall a year. Annual rainfall in Saguaro National Park increases substantially as the Rincon Mountains rise from 665 meters (2,180 feet) to 2,641 meters (8,666 feet), averaging 102 centimeters (40 inches) at elevations above 2,438 meters (8,000 feet). Elevation changes in the park provide for six distinct biotic communities: desert scrub, desert grassland, oak woodland, pine-oak woodland, pine forest, and mixed conifer forest. This heterogeneous landscape is home to common desert dwellers, including javelina (Tayassu tajacu), gila monsters (Heloderma suspectum), western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox), coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Felis rufus), black bears (Ursus americanus), mountain lions (Felis concolor), gila woodpeckers (Melanerpes uropyqialis), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicenis), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Petroglyphs remind visitors to the park that the Hohokam people, part of the Chichimeca culture, once occupied this region. top
When the Rincon Mountain District of Saguaro National Park was established in 1933, it stood as an isolated wilderness situated 19 kilometers (12 miles) from Tucson's urban boundary. Since then, particularly in the past four decades, Tucson has experienced rapid growth averaging 2.8 percent annually, almost twice the national average. The population in Pima County has doubled since 1970, reaching over 700,000 today, and is expected to double again in the next 24 years (Pima Association of Governments 1994). Embracing classic patterns of sunbelt sprawl, this growth has pushed development to the park's very boundaries and redefined it as a suburban wilderness. Unplanned sprawl is also eroding the natural and ecological integrity of the other protected sky island mountains adjacent to the city, including Coronado National Forest, Tucson Mountain Park, and Tortolita Mountain Park.
Since 1985, local officials have approved the construction of six major high-end resort and residential communities in the scenic foothills adjoining the city's pristine mountain backdrop. Ironically, the growing demand for resort, residential, and commercial development in these natural settings is threatening the very reason people are attracted here in the first place. In many cases, the development of property adjacent to park and forest trailheads has eliminated or severely restricted access to popular recreational trails. At the same time, the residents of new subdivisions near large natural areas have created their own paths into the desert and foothills. This not only expands disturbance and impacts, but can also lead to a confusing and destructive mish-mash of intertwined, overlapping and parallel "rogue" trails. top
Development pressure in sensitive natural areas is likely to continue given Tucson's projected rise in population and urbanization over the next few decades, and increased interest and mobility among Americans to flee their congested suburbs and live next to protected lands. As a leading Tucson developer points out, "From a market perspective, land adjoining Saguaro National Park is the closest thing in southern Arizona to ocean-front property."
As in so many other western cities grappling with rapid growth, Tucson's expansion has stirred great controversy. In the mid 1980's, Tucsonans were particularly troubled by the "cookie cutter" tract developments stamped over large expanses of previously undisturbed desert uplands and the rapid conversion of tree-lined arroyos to concrete-lined flood control channels. With local elected officials largely supportive of growth and limited funds for public acquisition of significant buffer lands, concerned citizens worked with Saguaro National Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger to develop a regulatory approach that would mitigate the impacts of development adjacent to protected lands. top
The State of Arizona imposed a moratorium on any rezoning within 1.6 kilometers of Saguaro National Park while legislators studied the issue. During this time, a citizen-generated referendum to make this temporary moratorium permanent readily secured sufficient signatures to appear in the next election, but was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. The state eventually passed legislation which eliminated the ability of local jurisdictions to instantaneously approve rezonings by invoking governmental "emergency" powers—a practice which had become routine in Tucson. The arena for continuing this debate then shifted from the state level to the local level.
Sobered by the near loss of local zoning control through referendum and examination by state legislators, Pima County appointed a diverse group of local developers, environmental activists, biologists, realtors and agency officials to prepare a zoning ordinance to encourage more ecologically sensitive development near the protected areas of the Tucson Basin. After nearly two years of investigation, debate, and compromise, their efforts resulted in a proposal that came to be known by its unfortunate acronym, BOZO: the Buffer Overlay Zone Ordinance. BOZO addressed a wide variety of concerns including prohibited and recommended landscape plant species; night lighting and sunlight reflective standards; minimum percentage of open space; riparian habitat protection; and minimum setbacks from the boundaries of the protected natural areas. top
Throughout the community, BOZO was hotly debated. Some argued that it went too far, while others maintained that it failed to secure long-term protection of the integrity and character of the Tucson Basin and its quality of life. Eventually, in June 1988, a paper-tiger version of this ordinance was approved. Rather than providing any meaningful protection for park ecosystems and any certainty for landowners, the compromise on BOZO only heightened the conflict and polarization over development adjacent to sensitive desert lands. Following this effort, a vocal and frustrated anti-growth constituency emerged to challenge new development proposals in the Tucson Basin. top
The Rincon Institute: A New Approach to Conservation Becomes a Reality
Nowhere in the Tucson Basin did the polarized debate over development play out more contentiously than in the review of the Rocking K Ranch, a proposed large-scale resort development sharing an eight-kilometer boundary with the Rincon Mountain District of Saguaro National Park east of Tucson. What resulted, however, was not the usual bitter compromise. Instead, the landowner, national park service officials, local and national conservationists, and the county formed a unique partnership to ensure that the new development integrated a high level of environmental sensitivity with respect to adjacent natural and cultural resources.
In a climate of failed expectations following the BOZO ordinance, prominent Tucson investors and land developers presented the 2,428-hectare (6,000-acre) Rocking K Ranch for rezoning to the Pima County Board of Supervisors. With picketers standing outside closed hearing doors and rumors of a bomb threat, the Rocking K Ranch became the most controversial development proposal in Pima County's history. The proposed plan included a resort and residential development, complete with 21,000-units, four resorts, 243 hectares (600 acres) of commercial space, and three golf courses that would support a new community of over 50,000 in the Rincon Valley. This proposal raised serious concerns, threatening to transform this rural valley into a new suburb of Tucson, and directly compromising the park's ecological and scenic integrity. Surprised by the intensity of the debate sparked by the proposal, the Rocking K Development Company withdrew their initial specific plan from consideration. top
As a native of Tucson, Bill Paleck, new Superintendent of Saguaro National Park, had watched the "Old Pueblo" rapidly become a sprawling urban metropolis with few measures to protect outlying public lands. What he most feared was the prospect of settling for another county-approved development without any long-term environmental safeguards to preserve the park's resources. Among the many resources Superintendent Paleck saw threatened by urbanization were:
Riparian Habitat: Large areas of impervious surfaces (created primarily by roads and parking areas) increase water runoff and invariably lead to the channelization of stream beds. The resultant loss of riparian habitat negatively impacts a majority of the Sonoran Desert's wildlife species, who frequently visit or live in riparian areas during at least part of their life cycles. In addition, a variety of threatened and endangered wildlife species depend on this critical habitat for their survival (Ohmart and Zisner 1993).
Desert Tortoise: Construction of sprawling residential development and its attendant infrastructure often destroys the habitat of the protected desert tortoise (Gopherus latrans). Subsequent disturbance and handling of the survivors by curious residents can stress these reclusive animals, thereby reducing their resistance to disease and illness. People also illegally remove tortoises from the wild to keep as pets. top
Mule Deer: Interruption of, or barriers to, movement along the threads of riparian habitat which issue from the mountain reaches and intertwine on the valley floor can have devastating effects upon mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Deer travel up and down these corridors to access water, forage, and bedding areas during the critical dry period before the arrival of the summer monsoon rains. When they give birth, does use riparian corridors to move to higher elevations away from predators on the valley floor. During periods of great natural stress, blockage of these corridors by fences and harassment from domestic dogs running at large invariably result in lowered fawn survival rates and increased adult mortality.
Scenic and "Night Sky" Views: Architecture that clashes with surrounding landforms and traditional building materials and designs; highly reflective surfaces that glisten and shine distractingly; and exterior lighting that reduces the luster of the natural "night sky" can individually and cumulatively diminish the scenic quality of the Sonoran Desert landscape, which is highly valued by many residents, recreationists and visitors. top
Superintendent Paleck was determined to continue the efforts of his predecessor, and committed himself to making development in the Rincon Valley support a more ecologically benign community. To better understand the potential impacts of the proposed Rocking K Ranch development and the feasibility of alternative land uses, he approached two national conservation organizations with extensive experience in reconciling development and land protection: World Wildlife Fund and amp; The Conservation Foundation (WWF), and the National Parks and amp; Conservation Association (NPCA). These organizations evaluated several factors for Paleck to consider in response to the Rocking K Ranch development proposal: (1) Rocking K's water rights; (2) the property's ownership and financing; (3) metropolitan growth trends and projections for eastern Pima County; (4) the history of development review in Pima County; and (5) the history of judicial review of local land-use decisions. What they concluded was that county approval and successful development of the site was almost inevitable. top
First and foremost, the probability of the Rocking K Ranch's owners (Rocking K) abandoning the project or declaring bankruptcy—a common occurrence in the late 1980's—was remote. In the mid-1970's, experienced investors and land developers had purchased the ranch with the intention of developing an exclusive, high-end resort. Land records revealed that there was no mortgage-backed debt on the property; consequently, Rocking K would not be financially crippled by delays in the development review process, allowing them to view this as a long-term project.
Second, the value of the property had appreciated considerably since acquisition. Rocking K was thus even more inclined to weather delays in developing the ranch since selling it would result in a substantial capital gains tax.
Third, adequate water for the project had already been secured. According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Rocking K Ranch had an adequate supply of on-site groundwater—approximately 5 million cubic meters (4,400 acre-feet) annual supply—for the next 100 years. In addition, Rocking K had obtained water rights to a 4 million cubic meter (3,027 acre-feet) annual supply from the Colorado River through the Central Arizona Project (CAP), providing the development with twice the amount of water needed to supply the projected population. top
Fourth, given population trends, sharp reductions in congressional funding for park acquisition, and pro-growth county land-use ordinances and court rulings, development over the next 25 years in the Rincon Valley appeared imminent. Moreover, no major development proposals in the past two decades in Pima County had been defeated.
Fifth, the option to protect the park's resources through the traditional land acquisition approach appeared infeasible: a large portion of the Rocking K Ranch did not merit national park status and protection; Congress had never appropriated funds to acquire park additions in Arizona; funds appropriated by Congress from the Land and Water Conservation Fund had dropped off precipitously; and the Arizona delegation would not support acquisition without the developer's approval.
Based upon this comprehensive land-use analysis, Superintendent Paleck concluded that the Rocking K Ranch proposal in some form would almost certainly gain local approval. He also reasoned that a successful national campaign to oppose Rocking K would at best result in the type of unplanned development that already characterized lands adjoining the Tucson Mountain District of Saguaro National Park—development that was both ecologically incompatible with park values and fiscally draining for local taxpayers. top
Given these circumstances, WWF and NPCA recommended that the park most likely stood to gain from a cooperative partnership with Rocking K. To ensure protection of the park's desert ecosystems and a high quality visitors' experience, Paleck concluded that a proposed master-planned development with significant environmental measures would be less intrusive and damaging than the incremental, piecemeal subdivision occurring elsewhere in the Tucson Basin. Over the next ten months, the National Park Service worked with Rocking K and a variety of local leaders to craft a mutually acceptable plan that included provisions for the park's protection as an integral element of the development proposal for the Rocking K Ranch.
At the top of Superintendent Paleck's list was ensuring that the site design and planning would not fragment migratory routes and create isolated wildlife habitat islands too small to support biological diversity. He particularly wanted the positive attributes of limiting development to carefully designed clusters to be considered. This planning approach reduces the extent of disturbance, not only of the building footprints themselves, but also of the network of road, water, power and sewer infrastructure required. It reduces the area of impervious surfaces, and can provide opportunities to deal with water runoff in ways that do not lead to stream channelization and riparian habitat degradation. In addition, visual intrusions can be more easily mitigated and the extent and nature of exotic decorative plantings can be substantially reduced. top
To evaluate the regional impacts of the proposed development, Superintendent Paleck recruited the chair of the University of Arizona's department of wildlife biology to map critical habitat and wildlife corridors in the park and on the Rocking K Ranch. Extensive wildlife, vegetation and hydrology studies were conducted and a prime resource area was identified that included about 809 hectares (2,000 acres) on the ranch. These studies revealed that limiting the overall density of the development alone would not provide adequate wildlife habitat protection (Shaw et al. 1992). The development also needed an environmentally sensitive plan that integrated wildlife corridors. Fortunately, the scale of the Rocking K Ranch development could accommodate this type of carefully planned site design.
The National Parks and amp; Conservation Association argued that these wildlife protection measures should be coupled with public acquisition of the critical habitat identified on the Rocking K Ranch. Rocking K Development Company agreed to sell the National Park Service 95 percent of the area that had been identified as prime wildlife habitat. They would not, however, sell the resort site at the edge of this critical area, since its dramatic location was essential for a successful resort project. top
While these site planning provisions were crucial, Superintendent Paleck knew that alone they were insufficient to adequately protect Saguaro's long-term ecological integrity from regional growth pressures. The challenge was how to ensure stewardship of environmental values, not just in the short term, but through a succession of homeowners over the next several decades. This was a particularly relevant concern considering that the transient urban population of Tucson "rolled over" every 7.5 years. Paleck feared merely token commitments from the developer to educate residents about wildlife and ecosystem stewardship.
In one recent Tucson development, for example, initial buyers of lots adjoining critical wildlife habitat received a notebook about wildlife protection and a figurine of a bighorn sheep family for their mantelpiece. These measures were designed to verse the new residents in habitat protection needs. Subsequent homeowners, however, never received further information. With such a cursory and short-term commitment invested in its residents, it was clear that this community's conservation ethic would not be sustained. To prevent this kind of superficial environmental stewardship, Paleck wanted long-term, built-in guarantees from the developer to enhance the development's conservation commitments and to protect park resources. top
With these considerations in mind, the National Park Service, Rocking K Development Company, and conservation leaders proposed to create the Rincon Institute—a new, independent, nonprofit conservation organization whose mission would be to help protect the natural resources of Saguaro National Park and adjoining lands. A diverse board of directors was recruited to ensure that the Rincon Institute incorporated sound policy and science into its activities. To guarantee representation from key actors in this partnership, the Superintendent of Saguaro National Park, the Director of Pima County Parks and Recreation Department, and the President of Rocking K Development Company would serve as board members in a nonvoting and ex officio capacity.
The Rincon Institute would enter into a long-term funding agreement with Rocking K to provide four major conservation priorities:
What distinguished the Rincon Institute from other conservation approaches was its pioneering partnership with the Rocking K Ranch: the development process would generate long-term funds for the Institute's conservation activities. As a condition of local approval, the Rocking K Development Company agreed to impose deed restrictions binding all future homeowners and businesses to financially support the Rincon Institute's conservation programs. The restrictions include nightly surcharges on hotel rooms, occupancy fees on commercial and retail outlets on the site, monthly fees assessed to homeowners, and real estate transfer fees that apply to both initial conveyances and resales. Under this agreement, the nightly surcharge from a proposed 400-room hotel, for example, would generate approximately $50,000 per year (50 cents per guest per night). When fully built out, the development anticipated generating between $200,000 to $300,000 a year for resource conservation adjacent to Saguaro National Park.
After months of negotiations, the National Park Service and Rocking K Development Company finally agreed to the following four key provisions to protect the park's fragile ecosystems. Rocking K Development Company would:
More than a year later, in December 1990, Rocking K Development Company presented its revised proposal to Pima County Supervisors. With supervisors aware of the importance of including these environmental mitigation measures, Pima County approved the new specific plan for the Rocking K Ranch. The reality of the situation was characterized by a supervisor in a public statement: "In the world of real choices, this plan represents a dramatic departure from past practices of unplanned sprawl and spot zoning. Our challenge now is to assure that all future development conforms to these high standards."
Despite these unprecedented elements in a county-approved development plan, public skepticism remained strong. During the year-long approval process, the Rincon Valley Coalition, a citizens group opposed to the Rocking K plan, had staunchly contested any development of the ranch other than .4-hectare (one-acre) and 1.2-hectare (three-acre) lots, refusing to discuss alternatives with Rocking K or Saguaro National Park. Accordingly, the Coalition viewed Paleck as a turncoat and the Rincon Institute as nothing more than a clever ploy to gain development approval without an authentic environmental commitment to the valley.
Following county approval, the Rincon Valley Coalition organized a petition drive to force a referendum, hoping to overturn the County's decision by popular vote. As WWF and NPCA had pointed out earlier, Arizona courts tightly enforce technical rules governing the referendum process when used to overturn site-specific zoning decisions. True to tradition, the courts disallowed the petition drive for failing to submit an adequate number of valid signatures. Consequently, the issue never appeared on the ballot as a referendum question. top
Fostering Stewardship at Saguaro National Park and the Rincon Valley
In 1991, its first year, the Rincon Institute initiated a range of conservation activities designed to protect wildlife habitat and to assess the potential impacts of developments on natural resources in Saguaro National Park, the Rocking K, and throughout the Rincon Valley. Most notably, the Institute spearheaded a coalition of organizations that convinced Congress to add nearly 1,619 hectares (4,000 acres) to the Rincon Mountain District of Saguaro National Park. With continued support from these local organizations, the Institute helped add another 1,416 hectares (3,500 acres) to the Tucson Mountain District and redesignate Saguaro National Monument as a National Park in 1994.
By attracting a diverse and professional board of directors from the Tucson community, the Rincon Institute has built a strong constituency among private landowners in the Rincon Valley, federal and state agencies, and a variety of other public and private organizations. Over the past five years, the Rincon Institute has specialized in conservation research, land protection, landowner outreach efforts, and environmental education at Saguaro National Park, the Rincon Valley, and the Tucson Basin. top
Conservation Research and Land Management Program
In partnership with Saguaro National Park, University of Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, and Harris Environmental, Inc., the Rincon Institute completed a two-year inventory of wildlife populations and riparian habitat on the Rocking K Ranch, Saguaro National Park, and the Rincon Valley. Amphibians, small mammals, reptiles, and birds were inventoried as part of a long-term wildlife monitoring effort to assess potential pressures on these populations. The riparian habitat inventories documented data on biotic (streamside vegetation communities) and abiotic (groundwater, streamflow, and channel morphology) components of riparian ecosystems at four permanent study sites along an 13-kilometer (eight-mile) stretch of the Rincon Creek. These inventories will serve as the basis for long-term monitoring of the area's natural resources and increase empirical understanding of how development and urbanization affects protected natural areas as well as how these impacts can be minimized (Briggs et al. 1996).
The Rincon Institute is also responsible for developing a comprehensive restoration plan for the four-kilometer (two-and-a-half-mile) reach of Rincon Creek that winds through the ranch. To help guide these restoration efforts, the Institute evaluated the results of many conservation and rehabilitation efforts throughout Arizona. An early result of this effort was the publication of Riparian Ecosystem Recovery in Arid Lands: Strategies and References (Briggs 1996). This guidebook targets resource managers, biologists, hydrologists, government planners, and concerned citizens interested in developing site-specific recovery plans for damaged riparian areas in the southwestern U.S. and northwestern Mexico.
As part of the Rocking K Ranch's comprehensive land management plan, the Rincon Institute will manage approximately 182 hectares (450 acres) of natural open space and trails within the ranch and coordinate conservation activities and needs with the park. To protect transboundary wildlife corridors, Saguaro National Park will develop the design and construction criteria for the 24-kilometer (15-mile) public trails system within Rocking K in partnership with the developer and Pima County. When the development breaks ground in late 1997 or 1998, the Institute will initiate a plant salvage operation to reduce the impacts of development on biodiversity in the valley and encourage volunteer participation in habitat restoration and maintenance projects. top
Natural Area Protection and Outreach Program
To mitigate the impacts of adjacent development to Saguaro National Park, the Rincon Institute is promoting conservation approaches that include public land acquisition measures as well as expanded private conservation options for landowners.
In 1992, Saguaro National Park and the Institute sponsored a conference at which more than 100 Tucsonans—from builders and developers to environmentalists and government officials—identified collaborative ways to reconcile conservation and development. As a direct result of this conference, the Institute spearheaded the formation of a citizens committee for open space and parks to identify and prioritize critical natural areas in Pima County that should be saved from development. With increasing pressure to develop near protected natural areas, this committee is working with the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee and the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department to coordinate a $31 million bond referendum to acquire the most sensitive and scenic natural areas in the Tucson Basin. Working closely with the County, the Institute also intends to create a mechanism that will offer developers incentives to cluster housing and preserve open space in all new development.
With decreasing funding for public land acquisition, the Institute is also working with landowners in the Rincon Valley and along the adjoining upper Tanque Verde Creek to develop and implement landowner-based strategies to protect this area's desert riparian ecosystems. The Partnership for Riparian Conservation in Northeastern Pima County (PROPIMA) addresses the need to preserve privately-owned riparian habitats in a manner that protects private property rights and promotes citizen stewardship. Thus far, the Institute has helped secure one conservation easement on private property along the Tanque Verde Creek in support of this effort. top
Environmental Education Program
The Institute's environmental education programs emphasize increasing understanding of desert ecosystems while instilling a high level of environmental awareness among participants. Fundamental to these programs is conveying the message that stewardship of the area does not begin or end at park boundaries. Rather, the long-term integrity of the park will depend in large part on the stewardship role of Rincon Valley residents.
Targeting elementary school students, the Institute and teachers in the Vail School District developed a program called Parks as Classrooms to take students out of the classroom and into Saguaro National Park to learn about the habitat needs of wildlife and the importance of conservation in a fragile desert environment. To involve the community in this project, the school district initiated a docent training program for Parks as Classrooms in cooperation with Saguaro National Park and the Institute.
Long-term environmental education plans include building an environmental education center adjacent to Saguaro National Park that will incorporate classrooms, research and exhibit space, and outdoor interpretive trails. This center will provide comprehensive environmental education and natural and cultural history programs geared for residents, guests, employees, and students. In addition, the Institute will develop an education program to help homeowners build environmentally sensitive and energy-efficient designs in the new community. Homeowners will also learn about their rights and responsibilities related to natural resource protection of the development and adjacent park as established in the deed restrictions. top
This innovative blend of conservation and development has attracted support from a range of foundations, individuals, and state and federal conservation agencies. The Institute has secured major project funding from Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Water Protection Fund, ARCO Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Parks Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund. In 1995, the National Park Foundation and the U.S. Department of the Interior awarded Saguaro National Park and the Rincon Institute the prestigious National Park Partnership Leadership Award in recognition of their collaborative programs. top
Reflections on Cross-Boundary Solutions
Win-win solutions are now being crafted across the country to enhance long-term protection of park resources and enrich local quality of life and economic vitality. Independent of formal theories, standard practices, or traditional conventions, developers have established similar nonprofit organizations as integral and permanent conservation elements of new communities bordering protected areas. These organizations are playing an important role addressing local land development and conservation issues while reducing polarization and providing new methods for financing conservation efforts in an era of public funding cutbacks. This unconventional approach to financing conservation has emerged in several diverse markets including Arizona, California, Florida, South Carolina, and Washington.
This emerging trend of forging collaborative solutions that integrate conservation with development will continue to gather momentum as more Americans choose to live adjacent to national parks or other areas with significant natural amenities. As part of this trend, an increasing number of homebuyers are willing to pay a premium for development projects that demonstrate an authentic long-term commitment to environmental quality. To capture this growing market niche, developers are creatively responding with approaches like the Rincon Institute that make this lasting promise to conservation. Moreover, from a market standpoint, protecting these natural assets clearly adds value to their real estate investments, helps earn broad local support, and reduces the need for governmental mandates. top
Organizations like the Rincon Institute invest new communities with a conservation ethic before the first spadeful of soil is turned for construction and long after the developers leave. This model demonstrates some clear advantages over earlier organizational models that own and manage common open space, including a local government authority (such as county or municipal parks or schools), or a homeowners association. These approaches to land protection often meet with initial success. However, as time passes and competing priorities evolve, the commitment to natural open space tends to lose precedence and attention. Schools and parks often must choose between protecting riparian habitat and buying a new roof for the gymnasium. Homeowners associations must choose between spending funds to protect and maintain open space or replacing the community swimming pool pump. The Rincon Institute model, on the other hand, can avoid this difficult reality of choices by vesting responsibility in an independent, nonprofit third party with a secure source of income and a conservation focus. top
As private lands neighboring our wild areas become increasingly urbanized, public land managers are recognizing the importance of solutions that address issues beyond their formal boundaries. In the past, Americans successfully preserved our cherished landscapes by setting aside more parks, forests, refuges, and wilderness areas. Natural resource managers can no longer rely upon isolation and federal laws to protect the integrity of these areas. International and now domestic experience teaches us that this jurisdictional boundary approach to ecosystem management and protection is inadequate to deal with the magnitude and complexity of air, habitat, and water systems, as well as neighboring urban issues of traffic, crime, increased infrastructure costs, water rights, and development controversies. In response to these challenges, federal land managers are working directly with local residents, developers, and county officials to develop conservation strategies that reflect and integrate the diverse needs of protected areas with those of adjacent landowners and communities. Without big picture, landscape level solutions, protected areas will become veritable islands in a rising sea of development. top
Inevitably, we will need to search for new pragmatic and workable paradigms that manage growth in a sustainable manner while protecting local natural resources. The model described in this chapter cannot and should not reconcile all natural resource boundary conflicts. Rather, it represents one strategy among many for minimizing the impacts of development in cases where development bordering a protected area appears inevitable. Most notably, this approach demands a new way of thinking about the role of communities in relation to the natural environment, by placing resource stewardship in the hands of the new community. top
Bibles, Brent, and R. William Mannan. 1992. Impacts of Exotic Cavity-Nesting Birds on Native Cavity-Nesting Birds in Saguaro National Monument. Pages 195-199 in Stone, C.P and E.S. Bellantoni, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Research in Saguaro National Monument. National Park Service, Rincon Institute, and Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ.
Bowers, Janice and Raymond Turner. 1985. A Revised Vascular Flora of Tumamoc Hill, Tucson, Arizona. Madroño. 32:225-52.
Briggs, Mark. 1996. Riparian Ecosystem Recovery in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Briggs, Mark, Lisa Harris, Jim Howe, and William Halvorson. 1996. Using Long-Term Monitoring to Understand How Adjacent Land Development Affects Natural Areas: An Example from Saguaro National Park, Arizona (USA). Natural Areas Journal 16(4):354-361. top
The Conservation Foundation. 1985. National Parks for a New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Davis, Joe. 1992. Personal communication. The Conservation Fund. Washington, DC.
Fordney, Chris. 1996. Boundary Wars. National Parks 70(1-2):24-29.
Leopold, et al. 1963. Wildlife Management in the National Parks. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 28:28-45.
Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation. 1993. A View from Airlie: Community Based Conservation in Perspective. New York, NY, p.6.
Mills, G.S., J.B. Dunning, Jr., and J.M. Bates. 1989. Effects of Urbanization on Breeding Bird Community Structure in Southwestern Desert Habitats. Condor 91:416-428.
Newmark, William D. 1987. A Land-Bridge Island Perspective on Mammalian Extinctions in Western North American Parks. Nature 325:430-432. top
Ohmart, Robert D. and Cindy D. Zisner. 1993. Functions and Values of Riparian Habitat to Wildlife in Arizona: A Literature Review. Submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
Pima Association of Governments. 1994. Community Information Database, Third Edition. Tucson, AZ, p. 9.
Robbins, Jim. 1993. Last Refuge: The Environmental Showdown in Yellowstone and the American West. William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Rondeau, Renee, Thomas Van Devender, Philip Jenkins, C. David Bertelsen, and Rebecca Van Devender. 1992. Extirpated Plant Species of the Tucson Mountains. Pages 141-143 in Stone, C.P and E.S. Bellantoni, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Research in Saguaro National Monument. National Park Service, Rincon Institute, and Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ. top
Shaw, William W., Audrey Goldsmith, and John Schelhas. 1991. Studies of Urbanization and the Wildlife Resources of Saguaro National Monument. Pages 173-180 in Stone, C.P and E.S. Bellantoni, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Research in Saguaro National Monument. National Park Service, Rincon Institute, and Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ.
Stone, Roger. 1989. National Parks and Adjacent Lands. Conservation Foundation Letter, no. 3, Washington, DC, pp.3-4.
Stone, Roger. 1996. Fair Tide: Sailing Toward Long Island's Future. Waterline Books, Great Falls, VA.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1988. Management Policies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, p.14.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More, GAO/RCED-94-59, p.34. top
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach, GAO/RCED-94-111, p.13.
Yaffee, Steve, Ali Phillips, Irene Frentz, Paul Hardy, Susanne Maleki, and Barbara Thorpe. 1995. Ecosystem Management in the U.S.: An Assessment of Current Experience. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Yoakum, J., W.P. Dasmann, H.R. Sanderson, C.M. Nixon, and H.S. Crawford. 1980. Habitat Improvement Techniques. Pages 329-403 in S.D. Schemnitz, ed., Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC.
Adapted from Partnerships Across Park Boundaries: The Rincon Institute and Saguaro National Park by Luther Propst, Bill Paleck, and Liz Rosan, forthcoming.