1.1.
. 4E.“

21. .
v

 

.. . .7 Suhauwn ,
3...... 5;

 

km... .. 4.... . z
. x (.5% ”8?... . fnfififiafi»)51mfl : ,, . .
fl . .3! . - _.

, . ééfigefiim 3?

. Si...

IV . I. Vt

17!?!339

z [N \(3

Illmlill‘il'fillllilllWillimull

3 1293 01820 0232

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

CROSSING BOUNDARIES IN LAND MANAGEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF THE BROOKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE VISION

presented by

Rebecca J. Romsdahl

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

M. S . degree in Resource Development

£4

Major professor

Date 7/1/99

 

0-7639 V MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE lN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m acumen-mu

CROSSING BOUNDARIES IN LAND MANAGEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF THE BROOKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE VISION

By

Rebecca J. Romsdahl

AA THESIS .
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
- for the degree of
MAst OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1999

ABSTRACT

CROSSING BOUNDARIES IN LAND MANAGEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF THE BROOKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE VISION

By
RebeccaJ. Romsdahl

In recognizing that human relationships with land use are constantly changing, this
study seeks to understand an emerging strategy in land management. The practice of
traditional land management done by specific people for specific areas of land has
produced many serious problems, such as land fragmentation from suburban expansion.
However, as more people realize that individual and group actions do not always remain
on specific properties, land management strategies are slowly adapting to encompass
more landowners in voluntary partnerships that can cross all kinds of boundaries,
including those less tangible boundaries of social and ecological natures.

The observed case is a township in western Michigan that is applying this new land
management strategy to its landscape. Through observations, interviews, and a mail
survey, 76 individuals took part in the study. Although no statistically significant
relationships were indicated by the SPSS computer program analysis, several important
conclusions can be shown from the interviews and observations. With the formation of
partnerships and the proactive stand that has been taken through this cross-boundary
management strategy, there is great potential for prevention, or control of, some suburban
expansion issues. However, creating the right incentives for vohmtary participation
presents a significant challenge for adopting cross-boundary strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has been a great learning experience for me. I would first like to thank The
Nature Conservancy and the Huron-Manistee National Forest for helping me locate the
Brooks Township Land Use Vision project, and I want to express great thanks to Dale
Black for welcoming me into the project and helping me throughout my study. My
thanks also go to the residents of Brooks Township who welcomed me into their homes,
showed me the beautiful diversity of their township, and participated in my research
Secondly, I want to express my dearest thanks to Mick Beltz for all his support through
the time consuming process of developing and completing a Master’s thesis and
especially for proof-reading the entire paper. Finally, I want to express sincerest thanks
to Professor Torn Edens for his guidance and assistance in my Master’s research and

throughout my graduate career at Michigan State.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................. - ......................................... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction

'-Background .......................................................... 1
BrooksTownship...............................' ...................... 2
TheProblem .................................. I ....................... 6
StructureoftheStudy .................................................. 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review
The Changing Perspectives in Land Management

Utilitarian Conservation ............................................. 9
The National Forest Service: The H uron-Manistee National Forest .......... 12
The Nature Conservancy .......... ‘ .................................. 16
Development Pressures and Problems Leading to the Shifi Toward Crossing

Boundaries ....................................................... 20
Ecosystem Management ............................................ 26
Partnerships and Crossing Boundaries ................................ 29
Human Relationships with Land Use .................................. 32
Encouragement and Incentives ....................................... 34
Conclusion ....................................................... 39

Chapter 3: Methodology and Analysis

Qualitative Research ................................................... 41
Limitations .......................................................... 42
Gaining Access and Background ......................................... 42
Data Collection ....................................................... 44
Analysis Procedures ................................................... 46

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

The Land and the Vision .......... ' ..................................... 49
The Threat .......................................................... 56
The People ......................................................... 63
The Partners ........................................................ 68

iv

Implications for Conservation and Management Policy ....................... 71
Limitations to the Study ............................................... 72

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Challenges Ahead in Crossing Boundaries ................................. 75
Recommendations for Future Study ..................................... 79
Concluding Thoughts ................................................. 81
Appendixes
Survey Cover Letter ................................................... 83
Survey Questionnaire .................................................. 84
Summary of Survey and Interview Responses .............................. 90
Selected Interview Notes ............................................... 98
Bibliography .......................................................... 123

Figure l:
I Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5: .
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:

LIST or FIGURES

State of Michigan Map .......................................... 50
Lakes, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands in Brooks Township .............. 53
Brooks Township Landcover 1830's and 1997‘. . ...................... 54
Why Own Land in Brooks Township ............................... 58
Development Threats ............................................ 59
Future Development Threat and Vision Participation ................... 60
Most Valued Characteristics ...................................... 65
Length of Land Ownership Impact on Vision Participation .............. 66

Brooks Township Zoning Map .................................... 73

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Background

Human relationships with land have been evolving and changing constantly
throughout time. From the ancient movements of nomadic people through the
development of settled agriculture, to our modern urban areas, humans have been
influencing their environment as much as they have been influenced by it. In more recent
times, we have often become concerned with trends and situations that many people
concluded were problems significant enough to warrant extreme changes in American
relationships with land and its use. These changes run throughout our history from the
colonial myth of Imlimited natural resources and the age of their unlimited exploitation,
into the era of the conservation movement and‘its influence on the emergence of land
management and planning. Our relationships with land continue to, change and each new
concern influences how we manage these relationships. Recent influences have prompted
. the emergence of new land management strategies that hold the potential for alleviating
some of our most pressing land use concerns, including the trend in suburban expansion

Across the US, increases in land conversion, poor land-use planning, and the sprawl
of urban development are threatening many ecosystems and their wildlife. Once large,
continuous habitat areas are now fiagrnented into small patches of woodlots, parks, and
refuges, with further development encroaching on many sides. As Darren Bender argues:

Human activities, such as forest clear-cutting or the expansions of agricultural land,
have exacerbated the natmal fragmentation of landscapes. For many organisms, new
habitat patches are interspersed in an unfamiliar and hostile environment. (Bender et.
a1. 1998, p. 517)

The break-up of large tracts of continuous habitat into smaller units interspersed with
human development creates a patchwork of land units with many boundaries which
exacerbate land management concerns. Ecosystem health becomes more difficult to

maintain as more hormdaries are created in a region; Each landowner has his or her own
relationship with the land and makes choices based on that relationship. However,
because more people are realizing that individual actionsdo not always remain on
individual properties, land management strategies are slowly adapting to encompass more
landowners in collaborative partnerships that can cross all kinds of boundaries, including
those less tangible boundaries of social and ecological natures. This study is an
exmnination of one project which is using these efforts in crossing social, political, and

ecological bormdaries to promote greater efforts in conservation and land management.

Brooks Township

Amid the soft, fresh hues of spring green foliage that line the highwayon either side, I
caughtaglimpse ofafarmhouse here andthere. Thetreeswerejustbeginningtobudall
along the rolling hillsides and I began to better understand why this area of Michigan has
for so long been called 'the gateway to the north country' by its residents (Brooks
Township Land Use Vision, 1999, p. 5). I was just twenty minutes outside of the last
remnants of the Grand Rapids city limits and it already seemed hours behind me. The
landscape I entered was impressive in its seeming simplicity; the boundaries of small
‘ towns blended quickly with the quiet rural atmosphere which is surrounded by thickets
of young trees interspersed with lakes, meadows, farm fields, and old marshes, and
traversed by winding streams. However, the neon orange Detour sign on the road in front
of me was only the first indication that this area was not as quiet as it first appeared

The ten minute detom' took me arormd a section of highway 37 that is receiving a face
lifl of resurfacing. I had heard rumors that this obstacle would soon arise on the route
between Grand Rapids and my destination of Brooks Township. The two-lane highway,
that I traveled, has seen a significant increase in daily use in the past 10-15 years. That is .
the time frame in which I was told this area north of Grand Rapids Ind become a series of

bedroom communities for the growing metro region As the former residents move their

families further away from the boundaries of the city limits, the very characteristics of the
crowded urban areas which they are attempting to escape seem to follow at their heels.
The road repairs brought on by the increase in commuter traffic is only a first hint of the
impacts of suburbm expansion on these small communities and their natural resources
(Brooks Township Land Use Vision, 1999). Like the blurred bormdaries between the old
small communities and their surroundings, the national trend in suburban commrmity
growth is rapidly crossing many forms of political and social boundaries.

As I entered the decreased speed zone of the small commercial district, I passed the
inconspicuous sign that announced I had crossed another boundary and reached my
destination. Brooks Township is a muque area in Newaygo county, Michigan and its
development of a unique vision project for land use is another indication that the quiet
rinal character of this landscape has more complexity than its first impression suggests.
This community has a long history of natural resource enjoyment and its residents have
thrived on the high quality of life built into the landscape.

Brooks Township's natural resources and recreational opportimities are a draw for
outdoors enthusiasts, a weekend and summer retreat (both secondary homes and
vacations), and an attraction for new permanent residents seeking rural living.
Because [these are so attractive] to many people, residents are concerned about the
impacts on the natural qualities that make this place special. (Brooks Township Land
Use Vision, 1999, p. 5)

The primary expression used in the local government to describe the community concern
on this issue is that Brooks Township wants to "control the development before it
controls us." From this starting point, the Brook Township Land Use Vision was
developed. The goal of the Vision project is to identify various means through which the
township can manage its expected community growth and protect its natural resources at
the same time (Brooks Township Land Use Vision, 1999, p. 3). The significance of the
Vision is that it is the product of a series of partnerships that crossed notable political,

social, and ecological boundaries, but what is more surprising is that the people involved
in the project did not intend to be trailblazers; in addition, this township is in a unique
location for the discussion of boundaries. Brooks Township is encompassed, but also
broken up, by State and National Forest boundaries. Many of the social, political, and
ecological bormdaries involve the Manistee National Forest as a primary land owner,
economic stakeholder, and political influence in the township.

The Manistee National Forest (MNF), managed by the United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, is the westem portion of the Huron-Manistee National Forest
(HMNF) system and covers approximately five-hundred-thousand acres of Michigan's
northern lower peninsula, including all of Brooks Township (HMNF Forests’ Plan
Amendment No. 22, 1993, p. I-5). The constant processes of social and ecological change
present in this region of the state necessitate adaptive land management strategies for
public lands in order to meet the changing needs of the human communities and the Forest
- ecosystems. In addition, the public land ownership in the region is so pervasive, that
most of the policy and management changes have the potential to impact htmdreds of
communities and their residents. Because of this integral relationship, partnerships, like
the one between Brooks Township and the MNF, could have wide reaching influence in
their potential to change how humans relate to land and its use in the region Many uses
that occur on private lands, which include hunting, residential (second) homes, commercial
and industrial development, and agriculture, are also present within the MNF because of
private inholdings. These islands of private property within the public domain ofthe
National Forest have the effect of creating land fragmentation as human-land use
relationships and management strategies vary from owner to owner.

A 1992 study, conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), determined that one of Michigan's greatest environmental concerns was the
lack of integrated land use planning. In addition, a growing realization that the MDNR,
the MNF, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) often manage lands in the same

ecosystems and even share some boundaries, led to the formation of a collaborative
planning team which led to the partnership with Brooks Township. The different
demandsforlandusewithinBrooksTownshipcreateagreatdealofstressonthe
ecosystem. Through the Land Use Vision project, efforts are being made to resolve
competing land use demands within a context of cooperation and partnership through the
crossing of social, political, and ecological boundaries.

The purpose of this study is to explore this emerging approach to land management
planning and implementation in order to increase our lmderstanding of its implications for
use and extension to other communities For the extent of this paper, I will refer to this
new approach as a 'bormdary crossing strategy' and as 'cross-boundary management.’ The
primary difference between this new strategy and those of traditional natural resource
management approaches is implied in the terminology and stems from the new paradigm
of Ecosystem Management; the goals involve crossing political, social, legal,
organizational, educational, communication, ecological, age, and participation bormdaries
(Grumbine, 1994). Ecosystem and landscape level environmental management strategies
have been gaining support over the past decade, however, extensive cooperation across
boundaries, especially involving the public-private sector, is still unique (Stevens et. al.,
1999).

Experiences from some planning projects . . . indicate that conflicts between
environmental pretection . . . and "development" can be addressed effectively if
government [and community] intervention recognizes not only conventional political
boundaries and frameworks, but the "soft" regions of ecosystems and social groups.
Learning to see the softness of cultural and ecological regions can eliminate at least
some of the problems inherent to the politics of boundaries. (Briggs, 1993, pp. 487,
490) '

The Brooks Township Land Use Vision project has been a learning experience of this very
nature; the people involved have attempted to soften the traditional boundaries associated
with land management so that they can see the larger picture more clearly. Through an

examination of the Vision project, this researcher has attempted to gain a better
understanding of how one approach to cross-boundary management can demonstrate the

positive influences gained from crossing political, social, and ecological boundaries.

The Problem

Across the United States, it has become clear that lands are influenced by factors
outside of their boundaries and that management decisions have impacts on the
surrounding landscape. But despite this rising level of awareness, land management
problems persist. Specialized management within legal boundaries contributes to the
negative impacts of suburban expansion and land fragmentation, and can negate the
positive roles of protected land areas such as National Forests and Nature Conservancy
reserves. We know that the affects of pollution do not remain within certain age,
education, or economic levels; nor do they obey the bounds of legal property lines
anymore than wildlife follow these lines, but land managers are still struggling to
communicate and coordinate across all of these superficial boundaries.

In response to the increasing demands made in land uses and the threats to ecosystem
processes and wildlife, many public agencies and private organizations are in the process
of developing cross-boundary management strategies with their neighbors. Although
there are still many communication problems to be worked through, the process is in
motion Brooks Township is currently entering the implementation phase of an
innovative cross-boundary management initiative which was developed through the
cooperative partnerships of several public and private conservation groups. Because the
complex and contentious process of land conservation and management in the U. S. is
always changing, the unique cooperation and partnership characteristics employed in the
Brooks Township project have provided an ideal situation in which to examine the
emerging strategies of cross-boundary land management

This study focuses on examining how the strategy of crossing political, social and

ecological bormdaries in land management has impacted the planning process and initial
implementation efforts of the Brooks Township Land Use Vision. I will also examine the
relationship between landowners and land use in the township to determine how the
inclusion of these, through the boundary crossing strategy, has impacted the Vision
project and how they might impact its implementation process. _

Sub questions to this larger issue include: how can cross-boundary management
strategies help control suburban expansion and the negative impacts of land
fragmentation; and how can private landowner participation in crossing boundaries be
increased through the use of incentives? In determining whether cross-boundary
strategies will mature into effective land conservation and management programs, projects
like the Brooks Township Vision will need to be followed for several years. The true
success of this boundary crossing strategy will only be determined by how much of the
Vision can be translated into land management practices in Brooks Township and by how
much of .the cross-boundary planning process can be transferred across further boundaries

to be used by other communities in their land conservation and management efforts.

Structure of the Study:

Chapter 2 Literature Review
A discussion will be presented on the larger issues radiating out of this case and how

they relate to other studies.

Chapter 3 Methodology and Analysis
A discussion of the qualitative research approach will be presented as well as the
primary methods used to collect and analyze data for this study and the limitations

therein involved.

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion
An extensive description of the case will be presented as well as a discussion of the

data and this researchers interpretations.

Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
A summary of the findings from this case will be presented as well as conclusions
fi'om the data interpretations. Recommendations for further study will be given.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The Changing Perspectives in Land Management

In this review of land management literature, I will focus on a few of the changing
perspectives from the late 1800’s through the present case but only those that best relate
to this study. I will briefly trace the changes in land management from the conservation
movement, through the emergence of intrinsic values toward nature, into the growth of
concern over suburban expansion and its land fragmentation issues, and finally, toward
the increasing interest in cross-boundary management strategies. Therefore, abbreviated
histories of the National Forest Service and The Name Conservancy will be examined as
primary examples of the changes that have occurred in land management perspectives. In
addition, an argument will be made for the necessary inclusion of human-land use
relationships in land management and planning.

Utilitarian Conservation

A utilitarian approach to land use has dominated the American perspective for many
generations. This view holds that natural resources are to be used wisely so that they
may benefit the greatest number of people. Thus, management decisions are based on
what will bring the best outcome for humans at the least expense. This is the perspective
that produced the land management decisions to support the ‘harvest’ of National Forest
timber, the construction of dams to control floods and produce irrigation, and the still
present early American thinking that humans must overcome the ‘whims’ of nature.
Utilitarian conservation followed in the footsteps of the frontier American spirit of
conquest as it argued that the failure to seek out natural resources, wherever located, was
just as wasteful as traditional abuses of them. (Runte, 1987, pp. 68-69)

Land management in colonial frontier America was primarily focused on the conquest

of nature. As experience has shown us, 'value derives from scarcity' and most of the early

American colonists did not come to understand the meaning of scarcity for several
. centuries (Wellman, 1987, p.26).

In the late 1700’s, settlers reaching a crest of the Wilderness Road in a notch of the
Cumberlands stood blinking into the western light across the greatest deciduous forest
that ever was. How do you make a cornfield out of a forest? How do you make a
town? How do you clear away trees five feet through and towering one hundred and
fifty feet? Forty acres, eighty, a section, a cormtynhow do you “cut the top off” all
the flat land between the Cumberlands and the Mississippi? Our minds [today] can
only ache to comprehend Like the first farmstead, towns of the frontier were built in
stumpland meadows. The trees were gone. The civic landscapes sweltered in the sun.
Never so quick an afterthought: fast growing black locust trees were imported and
planted everywhere, from college campuses to courthouse squares, to provide a
promise of shade. What irony—the sons of the world’s most incredible axemen
planting seedlings in the shadow of stumps five feet across. (W ellman, 1987, pp. 27-
28)

This passage provides a vivid image of American’s early relationship with land. Over the
centuries, this relationship has evolved through our use of land and it has provided the
impetus for many changes in land use and the development of land management. In
localized areas of colonial America, policies and restrictions did develop to deal with real
or potential natural resource shortages, but this was not widespread because overall,
America was rich in land and resources while only limited in labor and capital. Therefore,
it made no sense to expend the scarce labor and money that would have been required to
carefully manage the abundant natural resources. This situation laid the path for
America’s history of carefree and wasteful natural resource use. However, afier a century
of this nearly unimpeded resource exploitation, prominent voices called for actions to
change. (Wellman, 1987, pp. 29-30)

George Perkins Marsh was one of the first of those voices to protest the American
treatment of nature. His book, Man and Nature, was written to reveal these abuses,
explain some of the causes, and to promote solutions. Before Man and Nature, American

land use policy was shaped by two major forces: agrarianism, based on Thomas

10

Jefferson’s ideas about the importance (for democracy) of small independent farmers, and
romanticism, which was a complex collection of aesthetic and religious ideas imported
from Europe and modified to fit the American landscape (Wellman, 1987, p.38).
According to David Lowenthal, who edited Marsh’s original book a centtny alter its first
publication, few other books on this subject have had more impact on the way. people
view and use land Man andNature appeared at the peak of the American belief in the
inexhaustibility of natural resources; it was the first book to challenge the myth of such
superabundance and to present the need for reform. Before Marsh wrote this book, few
saw and fewer worried about how people were affecting the environment Man and
Nature showed how humans differed from the environment; it showed how the
environment operated within itself; it showed precisely what happened when humans
cleared and farmed and built on the land Marsh's writing was truly the wellspring of the
conservation movement and prompted the first tentative steps toward purposeful land
management planning. (Lowenthal, 1965, p. ix)

Land management and planning, as we think of it today, began to emerge in the mid
1860’s, after the publication of Man and Nature, as a slow realization grew that the
nation’s natural resources were not of endless supply and that the novel idea of
conserving natural resources was of basic importance in detemlining human relationships
with nature (Huth, 1957, p. 193). Through these realizations came the emergence of the
conflict between the economic value and the intrinsic value of land, the use of natmal
- resources versus the preservation of them. The problem arose in determining which of
these should be the proper goal of conservation After Marsh' book, the conservation
movement grew quickly and eventually delineated itself into two factions, those who
supported use of natural resources soon found a leader in Gifford Pinchot and those who
supported preservation of natural resources followed Steven T. Mather. These men came
to embody the use versus preservation conflict in the 1900's as Pinchot became the first
chief of the National Forest Service, and Mather became the first director of the National

11

Park Service (Watkins; Sellars, 1992, pp. 12-19). Thus, from the early days of the 20th
century, land management perspectives have been in constant conflict from the
competition between these opposing ideologies. Throughout the years, this conflict has
promoted the development of hundreds of environmental groups, and although the
majority have been fostered independently, they have been working toward a policy of
conservation in which the competition between use and preservation ideologies can
gradually become more coordinated (Huth, 1957, p. 185). However, this does not always
happen through preconceived planning, rather, like the development of the Brooks

T ownship Land Use Vision, it has been negotiated as each situation demands and has been
the driving force behind the changing perspectives in land management throughout this
century.

The National Forest Service: The H won-Manistee National Forest

The national system of forest reserves was established in the early 1900’s as a
reaction to the increasing fear that excessive logging was damaging watersheds and
depleting futme supplies of timber (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1987, pp. 15-18).
Although, the National Forest Service (NF S) was not officially established until 1905, the
momentum behind its creation had been growing for nearly 25 years beforehand due to the
poor forestry practices of the frontier timber industry (Clarke and Mch1, 1996, p. 50).
Even though large portions of US. land have been held in public ownership by the federal
government since the nation’s beginning, it was anticipated that much of this public land
would pass into private ownership. People expected farming practices to follow in the
footsteps of the logging industry. However, in the 1890’s two factors changed this
expectation. A growing public interest in the need for forestry and land resource
conservation prompted presidential decisions creating 192 million acres of preserved
lands. Added to this was the failed efforts of thousands of settlers who attempted to
cultivate lifestyles on lands not suited for agricultural developments. These factors

12

finally convinced many Americans that those remaining public lands were not best used
for private endeavors. This change in attitude brought about a reorientation of the
federally owned lands and a new outlook for use of those lands. With the recognition that
those lands were no longer considered temporary government holdings, emphasis was
given to the development of long range management programs and thus agencies were also
created to implement and maintain those programs. Through the decades of policy
changes and land use changes, the current agencies are faced with an ironic twist of fate.
These lands that no one wanted a century ago, are now lands that everyone wants to own,
use, and enjoy. This ironic situation is another factor which has led to the growing need
for cooperation across boundaries in land management (Barlowe, 1996, pp. 516-517)

In the case of National Forests, the original land management strategies were prime
examples of utilitarian conservation concerned primarily with timber and watershed
management and their protection for economic use. Throughout the 20th centlny, this
emphasis has been challenged and has required adaptive changes as public demands
changed. As more people became concerned with the possibility of overharvest of natural
resources and an increasing number of people used the forests for recreation purposes,
demands rose for greater emphasis of these uses within forest planning and management
The Forest Service complied by creating policy which required the forests to give 'equal
consideration' to wildlife and recreation when conducting planning and management
adjustments. (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1987, p. 30)

- The continued increasing demands made on public lands will require that management
agencies have adaptive plans and strategies to be capable of meeting both the human and
ecosystem needs of an area “As the impact of public policies affecting private lands
increases, so does the demand for public services and scarce resources” (Cubbage et. al.,
1993, p. 4). Necessary changes thus require communication and cooperation across
boundaries and betvwen stakeholder groups. As A.W. Bolle states: “Major alterations in
the operation of a federal agency are accomplished only be continuing and unrelenting

13

effort, both within the agency and by concerned citizen’s groups” (Wilkinson and
Anderson, 1987, p. 1).

As the NFS lands grew throughout the early 20th century and their management was
controlled under a plant and harvest perspective, many people became concerned that this
approach would not satisfy the growing public interest in preservation and recreation.

[As early as the mid 1940's] the intensive and steadily growing demand for
recreational sites could not be overlooked by the administrators of the national

forest The US. Forest Service, therefore, which had originally centered its attention
on problems of economy and maintenance, established the Division of Recreation and
Lands, which was to give attention to the needs of visitors and invite the public to
seek recreation in the national forests. [As visitation increased and as foresters came
to trust that the majority of the public would not make careless mistakes harming
habitats and wildlife,] it was [eventually] recognized not only that under certain
conditions a forest would yield profits when maintained as a smoothly running,
sustained-yield project, but also that a fine stand of trees had, beyond its commercial
value, a beauty value which attracted visitors and therefore might in time acquire
added commercial value of a new kind. (Hath, 1957, pp. 200-201)

~ The public's rising interest in recreation, therefore, brought the conflicts between use and
preservation closer to a harmonious existence, but changes to national forest land
management have been accomplished through generally slow processes.

The most recent alterations to the planning and management strategies of the NFS
came in the form of federal legislation in 1974 which enacted the, Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA). This act requires all mtional forests to
develop and use a Forest Plan for the management of their lands. In 1976, the RPA was
amended by the National Forest Management Act, so that each Forest Plan provides for
multiple-use and sustained-yield of goods and services from the NFS lands in an
environmentally sound manner. The Forest Plans are to be revised every ten years but
can be revised sooner if conditions or demands change significantly. (United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1986, p. l)

The HMNF is two distinct forest areas in the state of Michigan with the Huron forest

14

on the eastern side of the state and the Manistee Forest in the west The combined
management of these two National Forests is a good example of the emergence of
cooperation between public agencies in land management and eventually between public
and private organizations. The HMNF is currently in the process of revising its Forest
Plan, but elements from its mid 1980's Plan can show the clmnges which citizen and

employee influence have generated.

The commitment of the Forest Service is to care for the land and serve the people.
This commitment includes: ‘

-A balanced consideration of all forest resources in meeting present and futrne nwds.
-Application of scientific knowledge.

-Management in partnership with other agencies.

-Responsiveness to people. (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, 1986, p. 5)

The mere mention of partnerships between agencies and of a willingness to respond to the
concerns of people outside of the organization, shows how much the NFS has shified its
land management perspectives from its early days when it was believed that only
professional foresters knew how to best care for the lands. Other components of the
HMNF Forest Plan provide further examples of the development of the NFS perspective
on land management: the Forests will remain an essential part of our communities by
providing jobs, recreation, goods, and services; public involvement and interdisciplinary
resorn'ce management will keep the Forests responsive to public needs; one of the major
reasons for selecting a proposed course of action is how well it responds to public issues
and management concerns; it is important to consider the plans of others so that
unnecessary duplication and potential conflicts can be minimized; cooperative ventures
with many state and local organizations have been integral components in the management
of the Forests; and, the plan provides a summary list of activities which are compatible
with the land management plans of other organizations (United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, 1986, pp. 13-37). In addition, through its current

15

partnerships and policy updates and revisions, the MNF is attempting to adapt its land
management policies to align closer to an ecosystem level perspective. The NFS has
made significant shifts in its land management perspective throughout the 20th centrny
flour a strictly 'resom'ce protection for economic use' approach toward a realization that
decisions and trends cross boundaries. This has led the NFS to begin looking beyond its
legal boundaries in order to cooperate with state and-local organizations; and the agency
continues to shift its land management perspective as it becomes more involved in
partnership projects, like the Brooks Township Vision, that involve cross-boundary
management strategies. The most recent shifi has come through these types of projects
and has helped the NFS begin to gain a better understanding of the issues involved in true
cooperation and partnerships with private landowners. (Brandenburg and Carroll, 1995)

The Nature Conservancy

The origin and development of TNC marked the emergence of a new perspective in
the conservation movement, the rise of intrinsic values toward land TNC has thus
provided the necessary vehicle through which a significant grth in the support of
preservation could be accomplished The organization was foun®d with a unique goal
which has always been to’protcct biological diversity, by preserving land that is
endangered by human use. TNC’s other unique characteristics stem from the fact that it
is a private non-profit environmental organization that specializes in preserving species
and habitats by buying the land and waters needed for their survival. TNC owns and
manages the largest private system of wine preserves in the world It owns more than
1,500 preserves in the United States alone, covering over 10.5 million acres. Some of
these preserves are only the size of a backyard garden while others cover thousands of
acres, but all of them are considered safe havens for imperiled species of plants and
animals. In addition to creating nature preserves in the US, TNC has also helped
develop preserves in 22 other countries. This long tradition of land preservation began in

16

1955 with the purchase of a small 60 acre plot of land in New York state. However, the
history of the organization itself is even older. (The Nature Conservancy,
http://www.tnc.org)

In 1915, 50 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
voted to form a group titled the Ecological Society of America (BSA). This group
proceeded toward their goal of gathering and publishing information about the original
biota of America Their desire was to make available for study as much North American
biotic information as possible. However, this goal produced a division in the group’s
members as to whether they should restrict their efforts to scholarship only or adopt an
additional strategy, namely active ecological protection By the mid 1940’s the dispute
over this proposal led 158 members to break away from the ESA to form the independent
Ecologists Union which would pursue strategies for direct action when natural areas
became threatened Then, in 1950, after the defeat of a legislative proposal to form a
government sponsored nature conservancy organization, the members of the Ecologists
Union officially adopted the name 'The Nature Conservancy.‘ Within five years of
adopting their new title, TNC had created its first preserve and launched its grant based
process of financing its future actions to protect threatened lands. (The Nature
Conservancy, httpzllwww.tnc.org) _

Through the decades, the organization has come under attack from many different
groups and persuasions, including private rights advocates and other environmental
organizations. Many people feel that TNC’s efforts to protect threatened habitats and
species are tainted by their fundraising efforts, especially from the money they solicit
from energy and chemical companies andother free enterprise corporations. Other
complaints revolve around the issue of private property rights. 'TNC is often seen as an
enemy of private landowners because of its land purchases; many pe0ple feel that TNC is
interfering with private land use because it buys lands to set them aside in protection,

which seems to show that the argument between use and preservation is still running

17

rampant today. However, as its history shows, private land rights have been the
organization’s traditional vehicle for preservation. (Bartlett, 1995, pp. 4-5)

In the past ten years, TNC has come to realize that biological diversity cannot be
preserved without the support and participation of private landowners. Nearly 60
percent of all endangered species in the U. S. are folmd on nonfederal lands. Through trial
and error, TNC has developed many strategies to work with private landowners to create
positive interactions and purchases. In fostering positive relationships with private
landowners, TNC has been contributing to the shift toward cross-boundary management.
Some of TNC’s strategies include simple but important considerations, such as the
purchase of private lands from willing sellers, the pinchase of private lands fiom willing
sellers through a c00perative agreement with state or federal agencies, registry programs
for private landowners who voluntarily work to preserve endangered species on their
land, habitat conservation plans that flmction rmder requirements of the Endangered
Species Act, and large landscape conservation projects. (Bartlett, 1995, p. 10)

In addition to these strategies, TNC has develOped strong principles that govern its

work with private landowners.

-The Conservancy respects the rights of private property owners and encourages
private landowners to accept the responsibility of preserving biological diversity by
managing their own lands wisely.

-The Conservancy believes that public policy should seek to make the presence of
endangered species an asset to a landowner instead of a liability by providing
incentives that make it easier and economically advantageous for private property
owners to manage or convey their lands for conservation purposes.

-The Conservancy promotes a policy of willing buyer-willing seller in its dealings
with landowners.

-As a landowner itself, the Conservancy supports the rights of landowners to protect
their communities from irresponsible neighbors and incompatible uses. (Bartlett,
1995, p. 11) -

These strategies have worked extremely well for TNC as its acreage record indicates but
in the early 1990's, the organization made a significant change in the way it approached its

18

conservation efforts and in the way it measured its own success. When John Sawhill took
over as TNC president, he began to guide the organization through a major shift in
thinking. He believed that changes were necessary in order for TNC to successfully
achieve its mission over the long term. Up to that point no significant problems had been
detected, but as the organization began to review its scientific data, many problems were
brought to light. (Howard and Magretta, 1995, p. 110)

For over forty years, TNC has been focused on buying endangered habitats and
setting them aside under protection from human use. The organization can be proud of its
collection of preserved lands but in reviewing its efforts, it found that many of the
preserves were not really being protected through this traditional strategy. Actually,
TNC formd that populations of rare species were declining in some of their preserves.
The organization slowly came to realize that its traditional strategy did not work because
forces and actions outside of their legal boundaries were often harming the lands and
species they were trying to protect. This called for action and a new strategy. (Howard
and Magretta, 1995, pp. 110-111)

In planning the new strategy, TNC began by forming a task force and promoting one
of necessary components for the new strategy within this group: active stakeholder
participation. Through this approach, the staff felt a greater sense of involvement and
ownership of the organization's mission, which in turn promoted their best efforts in
achieving the necessary changes. In addition to creating a positive planning environment,
this is also a key component for cross-boundary land management in the field The most
crucial change in TNC strategy crossed a significant social boundary in the organization's
way of thinking. The new strategy was described by Sawhill as the conservation issue of
the 1990's, integrating economic growth with environmental protection (Howard and
Magretta, 1995, p. 1 1 1). Besides being an innovative change in land management
perspective, this approach also involved a certain level of risk for TNC.

19

The risk comes fiom our getting deeply involved in places where people live and
work, because people are as much a part of the landscape as the plants and animals
we're trying to protect So we have to find ways to work with communities and
businesses as partners; and that won't happen if conservation means throwing pe0ple
out of work or driving companies out of business. Promoting compatible economic
development has therefore become a strategic imperative for us. [So, now,] if an oil
company wants to drill in an environmentally sensitive area, we won't say, Don't drill.
Instead we ask, Is there any way you can drill and not harm the area's ecological
integrity? Let's try to develop a drilling plan that won't disturb the wildlife habitat.
We believe in partnerships. (Howard and Magretta, 1995, p. 111-114)

In addition to the Brooks Township Vision project, TNC is also working on a cross-
boundary management project in the Upper Peninsula where they have formed
partnerships with private and public landowners. One of the main goals in this project is
for TNC to continue to learn how the strategy of crossing boundaries can best benefit all
of the partners.

Our challenge is to conserve these [rare species and habitats] within an environment of
multiple forest landholders with different management objectives. [The project's]
mission is;"to facilitate complementary management of public and private lands
(across ownership boundaries) for all appropriate land uses (to meet various
landholder goals) through a multiple scale (landscape-based) approach to maintain and
enhance sustainable representative ecosystems in the eastern Upper Peninsula of
Michigan." The mission recognizes ecological and economic interests, and works to
strike a balance between the two. (Beyer et. al., 1997, pp. 199-211)

This new approach has helped TNC become one of the leaders in ecosystem level

conservation and one of the trailblazers in the emerging strategy of crossing boundaries in

land management.

Development Pressures and Problems Leading to the Shifi Toward Crossing Boundaries
Many of the significant changes in land management perspectives over the past 30
years have been influenced by the general US. trend in suburban expansion. In fact, the

influence of urban density, complexity, and congestion were strong forces even as early as

20

1916, with the introduction of zoning regulations to provide better control over the use of
private property. One source describes these early zoning regulations as innovations to
resolve a conflict between two private rights, the personal right of every individual
property owner to use her property as she wishes versus the collective right of residents
in a community to have the type of community atmosphere they desire. Therefore,
community zoning should be viewed as a reassertion of the importance of private
property's contributions to a collective region. (Nelson, 1977, p. 112)

However, these community level zoning regulations have been cited as one of the
major contributing factors in the suburban expansion trend as one community's zoning
actions direct new development away from itself and toward a community that is more
willing to accept it. In this view, if projects like the Brooks Township Land Use Vision
remain isolated within the boundaries of the township, then it could be seen as an
unsuccessful attempt to promote cross-boundary management The problems lie with the
lack of regional control of zoning regulations and coordination of new development
patterns. This has led to broaddevelopment patterns that tend to be haphazard and
unpredictable, which have given rise to the trend of suburban expansion or sprawl.
(Nelson, 1977, p. 55; Cullingworth, 1993, p. 123) ..

This trend has been prevalent in American culture since the early 1960's when urban
residential populations began to shift out of the cities and into the suburbs (Nelson, 1977,
p. 158; Cullingworth, 1993, pp. 124-132). However, some experts feel that this trend has
been prevalent throughout American history and that today's suburban sprawl is simply
the new frontier of expansion Accordingly, this frontier American 'prairie psychology'
has strongly influenced the US. system of master planning, zoning and subdivision
controls. One expert explains U.S. urban development patterns as characterized by the

following:

21

-a supply of land which is viewed as virtually unlimited;

-land that is open to all and property ownership rights that are encouraged and
protected by the US. Constitution;

-economic forces that are barely understood and should not be tampered with;
-dcvelopment professionals who prepare land for development and do not question
whether the land should be developed (i.e., they make sure utilities are in place and
feeder roads have been planned for); and

-a basic distrust of elected and appointed officials, so that all procedm‘es are codified
and development that qualifies under these procedrn'cs does so "as of right," with
minimal public review. (Burchell et. al., 1998, p. 5)

From the influence of these factors we find many varied definitions of sprawl but a
combination of these seems most relevant to the concerns of Brooks Township residents:
‘ low density residential development in rural and undeveloped areas which is spread out,
skipping over some properties while utilizing others, and is seen as an inevitable
consequence of urbanization that will occur under any system of private or even public
ownership, since undeveloped land next to developed lands may not be appropriate or
desirable properties for use at a particular time. (Burchell et. al., 1998, p.5)

Despite the seemingly negative factors associated with suburban sprawl and the
concerns expressed by many citizens, most experts have concluded that this form of land
use reflects the desires of the majority of the American public. They base this conclusion

not only on the widespread nature of this trend but also on the ideas that sprawl:

-dilutes congestion while accommodating rmlimited use of the automobile,

-distanees new development from the fiscal and social problems of older core areas,
«provides a heterogeneous economic mix;

-fosters neighborhoods m which housing will appreciate;

-fostcrs neighborhoods in which schools provide both education and appropriate
socialization for youth; and

-requires lower property taxes to pay for local and school district operation expenses
than locations closer in. (Burchell et. al., 1998, p. 2)

However attractive these factors may be to American citizens, many pe0ple have also

argued that sprawl has unattractive, negative impacts on a community's quality of life,

22

including that it is aesthetically displeasing, it creates a weakened sense of commrmity, it
creates greater stress, contributes to higher energy consumption and air pollution, and
lessens historical preservation (Burchell et. al., 1998, p. 83). In addition, some experts
argue that the greatest failing in this land use trend is its cost. They state that American
citizens can no longer afford to pay for the infrastructure required to build further and
firrther away from metropolitan areas. (Burchell et al., 1998, p. 3)

These and other concerns have led to an increasing awareness of sprawl in the past
decade. In part, this is because most Americans now live in metropolitan and suburban
areas; but few efforts to slow or stop sprawl have been presented and fewer still have
been implemented Despite criticisms that studies of the negative impacts of suburban
sprawl have produced only ambiguous and contradictory results, many planners,
researchers, and residents of Brooks Township are convinced that this type of urban
growth must be changed (Stoel, 1999)

Dispersed forms of development are considered to result in inefficiencies, misuses of
land, undenrtilization of existing infiastructure, diseconomies of overextended social
services provision, and detriment of local environmental and ecological systems
[especially in terms of land fragmentation resulting in losses of species and habitats].
Dispersed suburbs also 'exact higher out-of-poeket costs and adjustments to
household schedules that are neither efficient nor equitable in terms of social welfare
and quality of life. The automobile dependency that accompanies dispersed
development is also objectionable to some planners. (Weitz and Moore, 1998, p.
431)

Most efforts to change the situation have been aimed at alleviating the symptoms, traflic
congestion, water and air pollution, etc, rather than eliminating the problem itself. In
addition, efforts aimed at preventing the problem have only recently been presented
outside of the state of Oregon or countries in Europe (Stoel, 1999, pp. 8-10). The needed
changes require a great deal of cross-bormdary planning and management but many
challenges lie ahead of these efforts.

23

During the process of land development each step ideally ought to be closely
coordinated with other steps. But the piecemeal nature of land development, the very
large number of participants involved, the competitive relationship among private
(and also to some extent public) participants, the fiequently poor understanding of
the workings of social and economic forces in land markets, and various other factors
have often resulted in a lack of coordination. The desirability of improvement in this
regard has long been perceived, and public land-use planning has been widely
proposed to provide the coordination needed for land development (Nelson, 1977, p.
52)

This type of planning would examine patterns of land use within regions or even across
nations by using social and economic ties to identify their geographical bormdaries, in
contrast to the politically determined boundaries of most communities which cut
arbitrarily across social and economic interrelationships (Nelson, 1977, pp. 52-53).
Despite the challenges that this type of planning would involve, the promotion of these
factors as a way to determine regional areas for cooperative land planning and
management shows a significant move toward cross-boundary strategies. However, actual
attempts to implement cross-boundary strategies have been very slow to emerge.

One of the most significant obstacles in this slow development has been me inability
to create the right incentives to get people involved in crossing boundaries. These
incentives must come through one of two pathways or a combination of both: government
regulations and rewards or community-based structures like lake associations or
neighborhood groups. The combined approach, such as the Brooks Township Vision,
may provide the incentives needed to control suburban expansion problems.

In addition to the concerns in Brooks Township, the pressures and problems of
suburban expansion are prevalent in many areas of Michigan. Many commrmitics are
concerned about the trends in high population grth patterns and loss of Open space
which have been so prevalent in the past decade, for example:

Southeast Michigan is expected to grow by 426,000 peeple between 1995 and 2020,
with 95 percent of the growth in 32 nnal communities. That will eat up 251,000 acres
of open space, equal to 10 townships, the Southeast Michigan Council of

24

Governments estimates. Suburban communities sprout on the edge of Metro Detroit,
reflecting a nationwide trend of sprawl. It's an issue that is gaining attention among
state and national power brokers. Now, residents, developers and local governments
are working together to find solutions in Detroit and elsewhere. (Hoover, 1999)

The Brooks Township Land Use Vision project is an example of the type of cooperation
needed to address the issue of suburban expansion.

The Vision project is considered a 'pilot' and a learning process for everyone involved
because none of the officials have worked on anything like this in the past. The MNF
officials could only compare this project to the public input they seek for National Forest
Service management plans but the Vision project is different because it is looking at a
landscape view. An official from the MDNR compared the Brooks Vision project to the
Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management project (NLM). He stated that the
Brooks Township Land Use Vision was a smaller, more manageable version of the type of
guidelines which the NLM project is trying to develop. The NLM project encompasses
31 counties in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan (Mang and Ruswick, 1997, pp.
2-3). The DNR would like to take helpful points fiom the Vision project and translate
them into the NLM project if possible. The difficulty lies in the great size difference.
The agencies and people involved with the NLM project will not be able to sit down with
each township throughout the 31 counties to develop a vision; however, Brooks
Township could serve as a model case for counties and townships to follow on their own
initiative. The DNR commented that through the Brooks Vision project it was interesting
to actually see and find out how to do the things they have been talking about in the
NLM project. In addition, when asked to expand on what the agency had learned in the
Brooks Vision project, the DNR replied that it wants to make sure that people involved
in the NLM project or similar projects understand that the agencies and the govermnent
are not trying to tell them how to do anything, they are only making suggestions. The
DNR would like to try getting small groups of local people to carry forth suggestions to

25

their communities in the NLM and possibly other similar landscape size projects. This
may stem from the high number of recommendations for public education in the Brooks
Vision project. Recommendations for increased education encompassed a number of
significant topics for each category (rivers, lakes, and streams; forests and prairies, and
illegal trash dumping). The growing numbers of people moving into Brooks Township
will continue to add to the problems associated with suburban expansion

Another significant concern for the township is the fragmentation of land that
accompanies suburban expansion, leading to losses of wildlife habitat, rare plant and
animal species, recreation areas, and aesthetic qualities. Land fragmentation or habitat
fragmentation has two components and both can contribute to loss of plant and animal
species. Habitat loss is a reduction in the total area of an ecosystem such as when a
wetland is drained and covered by a parking lot. , Habitat insularization increases as more
habitat is lost. This occurs as the remaining fragments of ecosystems become more
isolated from each other, for example, asthey are interspersed by suburban homes.
Habitat loss destroys, reduces, and subdivides populations of plant and animals which
increases their vulnerability to extinction from the area. Insularization adds to this
vulnerability by restricting or preventing plant and animal species fiom moving between
fragments of habitat, thus, reducing their reproductive success (Grumbine, 1992, p. 48).
However, a growing realization that fragmentation issues are not just a concern for science

has helped shift land management perspectives toward ecosystem management.

Ecosystem Management

Ecosystem Management (EM) has emerged in many different areas and through many
different management approaches in the past fifteen years; it is increasingly being viewed
as a new ‘paradigrn’ of public land management (Freemuth, 1996, p. 411). In the rrrid
1980's, managers throughout many levels, in biological and social sciences, and
conservation groups began to see the nwd for changes in their approach to public land

26

management In 1987, a group of managers, scientists, and planners met to develop a new
approach, a cooperative ecosystem management approach, which would recognize that
most'ecological problems, whether biological, social, or both, are often tmconstrained by
bormdaries (Agee and Johnson, 1988, p. vii). Most land managers, whether they own a
small farm or supervise a National Forest, have begun to realize that their land is part of a
larger ecosystem impacted by the management strategies of areas surrounding them. J .A.
McNeely observes that significant strides have been made within the past decade toward
the recognition of protected land areas as parts of regional landscapes, leading to new
partnerships with institutions responsible for managing adjacent lands (McNeely, 1995,
p. 169). Accepting this realization has helped usher in BM as one approach to cross-
bormdary land management. However, because EM has been in practice for less than a
decade, there is much remaining controversy over defining and implementing it (Maser,
1994, p. 303-340; Lackey, 1998; Rudzitis, 1995, p. 35-52).

Edward Grumbine (1994) has identified ten common themes that land managers have
found to be significant in the past ten years.

1. Hierarchical Context. A focus on any one level of the biodiversity hierarchy
(genes, species, populations, ecosystems, landscapes) is not sufficient When
working on a problem at any one level or scale, managers must seek the connections
between all levels.

2. Ecological Boundaries. Management requires working across
administrative/political boundaries (i.e., national forests, national parks) and defining
ecological bmmdaries at appropriate scales. _

3. Ecological Integrity. Most authors discuss this as conservation of viable
populations of native species, maintaining natural disturbance regimes, reintroduction
of native, extirpated species, representation of ecosystems across natural ranges of
variation, etc. ‘

4. Data Collection [EM] requires more research and data collection (i.e., habitat
inventory/classification, disturbance regime dynamics, baseline species and population
assessment) as well as better management and use of existing data

5. Monitoring. Managers must track the results of their actions so that success or
failure may be evaluated quantitatively. Monitoring creates an ongoing feedback loop
of useful information.

27

_ 6. Adaptive Management. [This] assumes that scientific knowledge is provisional
and focuses on management as a learning process or continuous experiment where
incorporating the results of previous actions allows managers to remain flexible and
adapt to uncertainty. ’ .

7. Interagency Cooperation Using ecological boundaries requires cooperation
between federal, state, and local management agencies as well as private parties.
Managers must learn to work together and integrate conflicting legal mandates and
management goals. .

8. Organizational Change. Implementing ecosystem management requires changes in
the structure of land management agencies and the way they operate.

9. Humans Embedded in Nature. People cannot be separated from nature. Humans
are fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes and are in turn
affected by them.

10. Values. Regardless of the role of scientific knowledge, human values play a
dominant role in ecosystem management goals.

These ten goals form the basis of a working definition: [EM] integrates scientific
knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values
fi'amework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the
long term.1

Grumbine later argues that the full combination of these themes is essential for EM to be
a successful management strategy and, although managers have had problems
implementing different themes of EM in different land regions, communication and
cooperation across legal boundaries appears to be the greatest obstacle to this and other
strategies (Grumbine, 1997, p. 41-47; Yaffee et al., 1996, p. 36). Therefore, landscape
size projects like the Brooks Township Land Use Vision are valuable steps forward and
can be used to evaluate what components of EM can best promote the crossing of
boundaries. The combination of various management approaches using EM themes as
guidelines holds great potential in assisting public and private land managers’ engagement
in boundary crossing efforts. However, EM has been focused almost exclusively on
cooperation between public agencies and their neighboring stakeholders. The strategies
this study is promoting would not only engage this realm of public land managers and
their neighbors, but like the Brooks Township Vision, cross-boundary land management

 

1 Italics original, p. 29-31.

28

strategies promote cooperation and partnerships between private landowners with or
without the involvement of other organizations; TNC sees this as one of the ideal
outcomes of the Vision, that neighbors would openly discuss their land management
strategies with each other. With the rising concerns over losses in biodiversity, there is an
increasing need for private landowners to become active partners in conservation efforts
and although this has been accomplished to some degree through public initiatives such as
conservation easements and hunting and fishing organizations, private-private cross-
botmdary management could increase landowner involvement significantly. (Dickenson,
1995, pp. 33-52)

The inclusion of the private-private realm in cross-boundary mamgement has the
potential to overcome factors not directly mentioned in Grumbine's assessments of EM.
Primarily these include lack of ftmding for public agencies, accessibility, land costs, levels
of protection, owner attitudes, and proximity to urban areas. For example, in regions that
have already been impacted by land fragmentation from suburban sprawl, homes on large
lots, some urban parks, cormty fishing reservoirs, certain resorts, and even golf courses
can provide necessary habitat patches and corridors between patches for some plant and
animal species (Schwartz, 1997, p. 362-363). However, the benefits of these habitat
patches may not be realized or maximized without private landowners becoming
interested in cross-boundary land management strategies.

Partnerships and Crossing Boundaries

A ‘partnership' can be defined as "anon-going arrangement between two or more
parties, based upon satisfying specifically identified, mutual needs” (James, 1999).
Partnerships have been a popular trend in conservation and land management for many
years and for many issues, from agriculture and rangelands to wetlands and energy
conservation; the recent history of partnerships has struggled through controversies and
issues of power control, but overall they have shown positive contributions (Guglielrnino,

29

1999; Paulson, 1998; Endicot, 1993; Compton, 1992; Squires, 1989; Byers, 1988). In
the past decade, calls for cooperation and partnerships have increased significantly as
more people have become concerned over the scarcity of resources available for
conservation (McNeely, 1995, p. xv). This rising interest in partnership opportunities
holds great potential for crossing boundaries when goals and compromises can be
determined The partnership component has been the driving force behind the current
level of success in the Brooks Vision project.

The majority of the calls for partnerships have come fiom public conservation
agencies as they follow in the footsteps of TNC and other private organizations
(Waterstradt, 1999; Daerr, 1998; Walsh, 1997; McNeely, 1995). In fact, TNC has been
credited with pioneering the partnership approach to conservation which has certainly
proved successful for the organization. TNC initiated its partnership programs by
working with state agencies to build matural heritage database inventories of biological
diversity in the 1970’s. After successful use of one of these inventories to save an
endangered swamp land in Mississippi, TNC has since established .this program in every
state as their classic example of partnership success (Bartlett, 1995, p. xiv-xv). As can be
seen through the research in this study, TNC continues to use partnerships to achieve its
goals and because of its successful history, many public agencies, local governments, .
community groups, and private landowners have become involved in partnership efforts
for conservation and land management.

Partnership efforts are also helpful in BM projects and they may provide useful
mediums through which cross-hormdary strategies between private landowners could be
achieved However, because this area of land management has always been seen as taboo,
so as not to interfere with the sacredness of private property rights and so that private
landowners are not fiightened away from working cooperatively with public agencies,
there is a general lack of knowledge about private landowners’ attitudes and preferences

toward privateoprivate partnerships and cooperation (Stevens et. al., 1999, p. 81). This

30

lack of knowledge is also problematic for public agencies in their attempts to form
partnerships with private landowners; most agencies do not have enough yearly funding
to accomplish their short-term goals; therefore, by establishing partnerships across
boundaries, they could accomplish more with'their limited funding if they could initiate
successful private-private cross-boundary strategies instead of having their efforts reach a
few private landowners and then stop when the funds run out. Attempts to promote
self-sustaining cross-boundary strategies have been in motion throughout the 1990's but
they still require a great deal of public initiative and funding; difficulties also stem from a
lack of understanding of human relationships with land use in many areas (Lins, 1991;
Briggs, 1993).

[B]oth ecological and social scientists and the public are only beginning to ask some
fundamental questions about human relationships with ecosystems. For example, are
there alternative, economically and socially viable ways to meet human needs without
impairing the quality of life or the functioning of ecosystem processes? (Schmidt,
www. nps. gov)

Through such diffith questions as these, many public agencies have begun to look
toward the formation of partnerships to address many social, economic, political, and
ecological bormdary concerns in land management.

One of the largest scale examples of partnership efforts in the past decade was the
Greater Yellowstone Vision This cooperative venture began in 1989 with the creation of
a 74 page draft document written by an interdisciplinary team from the US. Forest
Service and the National Park Service.

Thanks to grizzly bears, seasonally migrating elk, trumpeter swans, natural fire, and
countless other wilderness inhabitants that have no regard for agency boundaries, the
parks and forests, ofien in c00peration with state management agencies, have
developed dozens of efficiently fimctioning initiatives for cross-boundary
cooperation This effort continues today. (Barbee et al., 1991, p. 81-82)

31

Through this cmperative history, the agencies felt the time had come to step up their
efforts, so they released the Yellowstone Vision draft document for public comment in
1990. After a largely unprecedented, extensive, and explosively heated public comment
period, the final Yellowstone Vision document emerged as a mere seven pages of a few
main points that the agencies fought hard to retain. Through this process, and without
intending to, the two agencies learned some significant points about human relationships
with land use; mainly, that cooperation is difficult and compromise is nearly impossible if
any key stakeholders feel that they have not been included in the process. Due to the
significant level and pressure of the opposition and the resulting reductions of the
document, many people still debate whether the project was a complete failure or an
example that presented some important lessons for future efforts. (Barbee et al., 1991,
p. 84-85) .

For'cross-boundary strategies, this project does seem to provide lessons for future
partnership efforts, most importantly it showsthe risks involved in crossing boundaries
and secondly it shows the significance of stakeholder inclusion Since the Yellowstone
Vision, the NPS has attempted other cooperative ventures and it is increasingly finding
that the inclusion of community values is a key variable in forming working partnerships
with communities. (Lins, 1991; Briggs, 1993)

Human Relationships with Land Use
There has been a growing awareness of the nwd to gain greater understandings of

human-land use relationships in the field of protected area management

Partnerships between protected areas and their neighbors are often hampered by
substantive conflicts over natural resources . . . . In these cases adjacent land uses
must be promoted that meet both conservation and development needs. These land
uses can be more successfully promoted by better understanding how people . . .
make land use and natural resource—use decisions. These decisions are influenced by
socioeconomic factors . . . [which cross many social, political, and ecological
boundaries]. (McNeely, 1995, p. 206)

32

The inclusion and understanding of community relationships within a landscape has
become a criticfl component for regional planning efforts in the last ten years. However,
there is much research and learning to be done yet on the process involved in doing this
(Chambers and Ham 1995, p. 75-92). "Successfully incorporating the concerns of
hmnans into ecosystem management means giving equal consideration to social as well as
physical and biological concerns” (Elsner et. al., 1999, p. 9). Determining how people in
an area or community value the land is a complex issue and has been contentious
throughout American history (Grumbine, 1999, p. 237). However, many organizations
have found that gaining this understanding is crucial for partnership formation, EM, and
future cross-boundary management strategies.

American Forests is partnering with local groups seeking to integrate environmental
and community wellbeing. In 1996, [they] began an ecosystem management program
that helps forest-dependent communities gain a more meaningful voice in policy
discussions and decisions affectingpublic and private forest management. (Enzer,
1998)

The NPS has also been using this strategy to develop working relationships with localized

communities.

Park service managers, in cooperation with landowners, now oversee a few small
communities. To do this best, the NPS exercises greater sensitivity to people's
contemporary needs, as well as their cultural values and concerns. The people, in
return, benefit by retaining their ancestors' lands and maintaining their connection to
place. Cooperation is key to making a successful historic [or nature] reserve. Not
only does the plan encourage private landowners to work with preservation efforts,
but town and county governments are also asked to coordinate so that problems
overlapping various jurisdictions are jointly addressed. (Lins, 1991, p. 7-10)

These boundary crossing efforts are becoming important aspects in many areas of land

management where there is a growing realization that the inclusion of community

participation at local levels of land management is crucial for long-term conservation

33

success at regionalscales. There is now a prevailing belief in some circles that community
based approaches to planning tend to be more effective because they incorporate the
relevant knowledge and experience of those private landowners affected by the
management decisions. This community interaction approach is being used in protected
area management in many regions of the world and it relies on the concept of 'co-
management' which provides a high level of community participation and greater
community control over its own destiny.2 In this view, a partnership is created where
the rights, aspirations, knowledge, and skills of a community are enhanced, and in which
the importance of human-nature relationships is recognized and valued This provides
strong encouragement for crossing social, political, and economic boundaries in addition to
traditional natural resource bormdaries and issues. However, there are still some
significant challenges facing boundary crossing efforts; as shown by the recommendations
in the Brooks Township Vision, effective participation by communities may require some
bridge-building to cross educational boundaries. Perhaps the greatest clmllenge remains in
the question of how to encourage communities and private landowners to engage in
crossing boundaries for conservation and land management. (Chambers and Ham, 1995,

p. 76-77)

Encouragement and Incentives

Encouragement for enviromnental conservation and protection has been focused
primarily on economic incentives. These incentives have included pollution prevention,
clean energy development, pollution clean-up, reforestation measures, and agriculture
reserves for wildlife (Costello, 1999; Adams, 1998; Anonymous, 1998; Tonning, 1997).
However, there appears to be a shortage of literature discussing incentives encouraging

private landowners and commtmities to become involved in conservation and land

 

2"Co-rrnrnrrgement" isdfledasasharhgofmanagememmhontymdresponsibihfiesbygovemments
and communities. ‘

34

management, outside of incentives to protect endangered species on private property
(Anonymous, 1997 and Kennedy, 1996). The Brooks Vision project serves as a valuable
addition to this limited discussion.

Conservation and protection measures can be categorized as institutional mechanisms,
such as the NPS or MDNR agencies, research programs from universities or government,
laws and regulations, and incentives, which motivate desired actions, or disincentives,
which discourage undesired actions. Incentives and disincentives have become more
attractive measures to use in pursuing conservation and protection efforts because of a
general attitude that institutional, research, and regulation measures have not provided
adequate means for achieving desired goals through the past few decades. Due to
shortages of funding and personnel, many government agencies and efforts have not been
able to reach their conservation goals which has also contributed to the rising interest in
incentives programs. (McNeely, 1988, p. 37-39)

Incentives Options are a desirable approach because they have the potential to offer
immediate rewards to individuals who take appropriate environmental actions. If this
positive feedback can be created so that individual rewards are immediate, as opposed to
others that require an initial period of sacrifice followed by a long waiting period for a
reward, or those that might reward people who have done nothing to help the
environment, in theory, individuals would take better care of the environment because by
doing so they would be taking better care of themselves. However, creating the right
incentive program for a desired goal has proved uniquely challenging (Gardner and Stern,
1996, p. 95-124)

It is unrealistic to ask people to make voluntary contributions to preserve the
environment because of the "free rider problem": any individual is better off by letting
other people make the contributions because no one can keep a noncontributor from
enjoying the benefits. (Gardner and Stern, 1996, p. 100)

This factor presents a significant challenge to projects like the Brooks Township Vision.

35

Other challenges that must be overcome for incentives options to have greater chances for
success include evasion, barriers, and convenience factors.

In certain situations, incentives can be counterproductive and lead to evasion tactics.
Evasion of an incentive can often occur when people perceive it as a punishment instead
of a benefit. This attitude tends to surface whenever an incentive places limits on
individuals' freedom to act or decide as they prefer. One example is classic regulation
efforts to protect the environment. Individuals, finding out that they could be restricted
in the acts they may do on their property, such as harvesting a stand of trees, ofien rush
to sell or cut the trees before anyone can determine the environmental impacts of the
action. These individuals often see a government regulation as a punishment and a
restriction of their freedoms, not as an incentive for environmental protection, so they
rush to evade the incentive. Thus, habitat areas may be lost unnecessarily in the process
of flying to conserve them. (Gardner and Stern, 1996, p. 95-124) .

Other challenges are found in the form of external barriers. These can be anything that
prevents actions that lead to pro-environmental behavior and they are different for each
situation and for each person involved. For example, a tax break incentive may encourage
housing developers to provide open space areas, but it may not encourage private
landowners to set aside acreage for wildlife protection. In addition, the tax break incentive
may work for one developer but another developer may prefer a different option
However, if the right options can be made available through various forms of incentives,
barriers can be overcome. (Gardner and Stern, 1996, p. 95-124)

Overcoming the difficulties of evasive individuals and external societal or political
barriers to the use of incentives can be challenging but factors involving convenience may
be the most difficult. People have set priorities and habitual routines in their daily lives
which are difficult to change. Often the difficulty arises because people do not have the
information necessary to make decisions that would change their daily actions, thus it is

easier to continue on a path that is familiar. This can be seen in the Brooks Vision project

36

as the number of residents’ attending community meetings dropped off throughout the
project. For some individuals, even if they tend to support conservation and
environmental protection measures, if incentives do not fit conveniently into their daily
lives or into a simple one time action, individuals may not make the effort to reach the
goal. On the other side, for people who are generally. not supportive of pro-
environmental measures, an incentive that is simple and convenient may encourage these
individuals to become involved in conservation efforts. One example from land
conservation involves helping! people understand all of the different available options so
that they do not abandon the idea of conservation This abandonment is often due to a
perceived difficulty in gathering information and trying to use this information to make
decisions. When this type of information and education boundary is bridged, people can
make informed decisions with greater ease and they are more likely to become involved in
other cross-hormdary management efforts. Buta crucial question remains; how to
develop the right incentives to get people involved? (Gardner and Stern, 1996, p. 95-124)

A significant key to successful implementation of cross-boundary management
strategies is the creation of community-based incentives that will encourage private
landowners and residents to become actively involved in making necessary daily changes
that will benefit their local environment and not cause significant inconveniences for them.
One agency official, in my research, described this issue as the need for people to see the
larger picture and how their decisions will impact it. Another official pointed out the
difficulty involved in finding the right incentives for people to become proactively
involved in crossing bormdaries versus the more prevalent process where action comes
only after direct impacts to peoples' lives. Two types of incentives, direct and indirect,
are used to promote pro-environmental actions. (McNeely, 1988, p. 40-43)

Direct incentives are used to achieve specific objectives, such as reducing off-road
vehicle use on non-designated lands, improving management of national forest lands, or

restoring endangered species habitat. Direct incentives can be in one of two forms, either

37

in cash or in kind For example, a direct cash incentive would provide subsidies that
encourage landowners not to farm a wet lowland area and leave it as wildlife habitat
instead Not surprisingly, direct cash incentives are often the most accepted forms of
incentives. Incentives in kind are generally exchanges of material goods for services or
actions that help achieve a pro-environmental goal. For example, private individuals Often
donate used equipment, such as tractors or tools, to organizations who are trying to
accomplish conservation goals. (McNeely, 1988, p. 40-43)

Indirect incentives encourage pro-environmental actions without any distribution of
direct monetary benefits to do so. These incentives involve the application of fiscal,

service, social, and natural resources policies to specific conservation problems.

-Fiscal measures. Fiscal incentives are a legal and statutory means Of channeling flmds
toward conservation actives, involving such indirect measures as tax exemptions or
allowances, insrn'ance, guarantees, tariffs, and price supports.

-Provision of services. When a government has acided that certain biological resource
areas are of outstanding value to the nation [county, or township] as a whole, it
should consider what sorts of service it might be able to provide to commlmities most
directly affected by any restraint on use. As incentives for changing their behavior . .
such communities can be prOvided with . . . [preferential development opportunities]
in recognition of their contribution . . .[to conservation objectives].

-Social factors. Social incentives are designed to improve the quality of life Of the
community or nation, ensuring that benefits . . . are equitably distributed They
include a wide range of measures aimed at developing a harmonious and sustainable
relationship between people and biological resources . . . (McNeely, 1988, p. 42-43).

These indirect incentives may also involve preferential treatment through such measures
as trade agreements, price supports, or exchanges in land title. For example, Brooks
Township, in conjunction with several of its partners in the Vision, is attempting to
obtain a large tract of private land for conservation through a series of title and monetary
exchanges. This round-about approach is more complicated but it provides benefits to all
the stakeholders. The landowner can take advantage of the Opportunity to exchange or

38

sell his property in a favorable time frame, the conservation supporters can Obtain an
ideally situated area of land that would otherwise be too expensive for any Of the involved
organizations to Obtain on their own, the residents of the township can gain additional
wildlife habitat to enjoy, and the ecology of the area is improved by preserving a large
corridor area through which plant and animal species can travel undisturbed Thus, the
right incentives in the right situation can help people cross boundaries which would
Otherwise become barriers. (McNeely, 1988, p. 40-43; The 1999 Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Areas Master Plan for Brooks Township, Newaygo County, p. 29)

One recommendation to help develop the best incentives for a particular situation has
been demonstrated in the Vision project.

The most effective way to learn what incentives can work is often to involve some of
the people who are the targets Of behavior change in actually designing the program.
Moreover, the process of public involvement can attract volunteer help in
implementing a program and building a sense of commrmity support for the program
and its environmental goals. (Gardner and Stern, 1996, p. 119-120)

This method of combining public involvement with the right community-based incentives
has produced a vision for land management in Brooks Township which has a great deal of
the momentum needed to carry it through into full implementation The remaining
challenges revolve around those private landowners who have not yet participfled in the
Vision project: how can the township encourage the participation Of those landowners
who were too busy to become involved earlier; how can seasonal residents be encouraged
to become involved when they have only a limited physical presence in the township;
and, how can the township encourage newly arriving residents to become proactively

involved as they build their new homes?

39

Conclusion

In tracing the changing perspectives in land management we can see the evolving trend
that has led to the emergence cross-boundary management strategies. From the creation
of land mamgement agencies to the development Of partnerships between those agencies
and private landowners, we are crossing not only political bormdaries but through efforts
like the Brooks Township Land Use Vision project, we are now beginning to cross a wider
variety of social and ecological boundaries in our attempts to improve and maintain
healthy relationships with land As we follow the spread of cross-boundary management
to difl‘erent communities and landscapes, we will learn more of its strengths and
weaknesses and how to apply it best to each situation. However, the greatest present
challenge is the difliculty involved in creating the right incentives to encourage more
landowners to participate in crossing boundaries. The Vision project has recently entered

its implementation phase and is now struggling with this challenge.

40

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

The emerging nature of cross-boundary management and the varied character of human
relationships with land use requires a subjective analysis for the purpose of this study.
In addition, literature addressing possible connections between cross-bormdary
management and human relationships to land use is very limited In light of these

components, a qualitative approach is taken in this case study.

Qualitative Research

A qualitative study is defined as an inquiry process which attempts to understand a
social or human problem. To accomplish this, qualitative research is concerned primarily
with process, rather than outcomes or products, so that the researcher can grasp an
tmderstanding of the case being Observed The researcher is the primary instrument for
data collection and analysis in alqualitative approachdue to a belief in the existence of
multiple individual realities which influence the world around us. This belief system
promotes a high degree of researcher-participant interaction and predisposes the study to
bias laden information. However, because the qualitative study seeks to understand the
participants perceptions and experiences, and the way they make sense of their world,
biased data is taken as part of the process of negotiating meanings and interpretations
with the participants. Due to the evolving nature of most qualitative studies, the
researcher generally uses an inductive approach to gathering and analyzing data; therefore,
v no predetermined assumptions or theories are brought into a new research study. Any
assumptions or theories incorporated into the study develop throughout the research
process. The characteristics of a qualitative study, thus, are significantly different than
those Of a traditional quantitative study which seeks to analyze a problem based on
testing a predetermined theory. (Creswell, 1994, pp. 1, 145-170)

A qualitative research design is an important application in this study, as Opposed to

41

a traditional quantitative approach, for the purpose of seeking a better lmderstanding of
the human experience within the domain of boundary interfaces and its potential for
impacting land management planning and implementation The specificity of the Brooks
Township case, with its cooperative efforts between many public organizations and
private landowners, also lent itself to a qualitative approach Quantitative research
regularly treats uniqueness Of cases as 'error,‘ outside the system of explained science.
Qualitative research, in contrast, treats the uniqueness of individual cases and contexts as
important to understanding (Stake, 1995, pp. 35-45).

Limitations

The situations studied by qualitative researchers require extensive interaction and
often involve long time {frames in order to gain substantial levels Of lmderstanding. Within
these lengthy research periods, new problems Often arise before. Old questions are
answered and the research process evolves throughout the study. Due to the unique
situations studied in qualitative research, the findings are generally noncomparitive and
not repeatable; with the researcher as the primary vehicle for data collection and
interpretation, there is a potential for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and breech Of
privacy. In addition, qualitative research is subjective and is, therefore, predisposed to
many criticisms. However, subjectivity is not viewed as a negative component of the
qualitative approach. Subjective analysis of this case is an essential element in our
attempt to gain a greater understanding of human relationships with land use. (Stake,
1995, pp. 45-46)

Gaining Access and Background
Case selection for this study was a lengthy process beginning at a national level.
Many federal and state agencies, as well as many private organizations, are involved in

land management partnerships but very few of these are, as yet, working intensively on

42

projects which cross social, political, and ecological boundaries with private landowners.
The majority Of land management approaches are only beginning to recognize the
importance of these boundary interfaces. (Yaffee et. al., 1996)

To best accomplish the extensive interaction desired in a qualitative case study,
selections were narrowed to be within the state of Michigan and then to be contained
within the boundaries Of the HMNF. After commrmicating with several HMNF officials
to narrow the case selection down to a specific project, an off-hand suggestion pointed me
toward the Brooks Township Land Use Vision. In speaking with the HMNF Official who
was the primary NFS representative involved with the project, I obtained contact
information for two additional primary representatives and I proceeded to contact the
township office.

My initial contact with Brooks Township was through the person most intimately
involved in the Vision project, the township supervisor. He briefly described the history,
goals, and upcoming events for the Vision project and invited me to observe and interact.
His enthusiasm to share the experience of being involved in the Vision project was
apparent from our first phone conversation and he proceeded to Openly introduce me to
key participants in the project and to provide me with all the documentation materials I
would need to conduct my study. His openness and generosity in accommodating my
interactions and learning were essential components to my successful entrance into the
Vision project

In approaching data collection for this study, my role was one Of observer and
interpreter. Because of the unique nature of this case, I did not construct initial
assumptions or theories to be tested Instead, the Brooks Township case has provided a
unique opportunity for me to study how new developments in an ongoing relationship
(between land management and human relationships with land use) may impact the
stakeholders and the process Of planning and management.

To begin to understand this ongoing relationship, I first interviewed a few of the key

43

Vision participants. These participants included officials from the HMNF, TNC and the
Brooks Township Office. After establishing a basic idea Of the history of the Vision
project, I observed an all day workshop, in Brooks Township, facilitated by TNC. The
workshop was aimed at recruiting volunteers for help in implementing some of the Vision
recommendations. Additional observations include one regularly scheduled township
Planning Commission meeting and several landscape tours via driving and walking.

Data Collection

The primary data collection method was a questionnaire administered to township
landowners via interviews and a mailing. This two-pronged questionnaire method enabled
me to gather data from a wider range of people than I could have done by using only
interviews or by a smvey alone. It also afforded the best potential replies from
landowners who may not have been receptive to interviews, especially if they had not yet
heard of the Vision project This was also an important factor to consider due to the
limited time frame of the study. In addition, this combined approach will aid my data
triangulation to provide greater support to my conclusions.

The landowners who participated in my research were selected from two primary
categories: participants, those landowners who had attended at least one of the public
meetings for the Vision project (group 1); and, non-participants, comprised of landowners
who had not attended any of the public meetings and may not have even heard Of the
project (group 2). The non-participant group was further categorized as landowners who
were adjacent to National Forest property (group 2a) and those who were not adjacent
(group 2b). These groups were established in order to search for any noticeable
differences between them which might surface in analyzing the data results.

Approximately 40 interviews were conducted throughOut the researchprocess. The
bulk of these were via telephone with participants from group 1. Despite the potential
difficulties involved in using phone interviews, including possible annoyance toward the

researcher as a general negative response to telemarketing and phone survey
bombardment, only three landowners declined to speak with me (Babbie, 1983, p. 235). I
believe that the use of the phone interview method may have helped some of the
participants feel more comfortable discussing the Vision project due to a greater sense of
anonymity in contrast to a face to face interview. The phone interview method was also
chosen as most convenient for the researcher and the participants. The initial list of
phone interview participants was taken from a sign-in sheet for one of the first public
meetings for the Vision project. This list was increased through a system of referrals.
Each person who was interviewed was asked to recommend another person who might be
interested in participating (Brandenburg and Carroll, 1995, p. 384). This referral process
was continued until the participants' suggestions were exhausted; this entailed that the
suggestions were people who had already been interviewed or the participants could not
think of anyone to recommend Other participants who were interviewed include ofiicials
from TNC, the Brooks Township Office, the MNF, the MDNR, and the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). In addition to the interviews, a two page
questionnaire was mailed to 100 landowners in the township. Through these collection
methods, a group of 76 participants was engaged in this study (70 landowners and 6
organization officials).

Semi-structured, open-ended questions were used to collect data during all of the
interviews and they were derived from the questionnaire that was mailed to group 2 (see
Appendix 1). The questionnaire was mailed to 50 landowners in group 2a and 50
landowners in group 2b. This sample of 100 landowners was chosen by locating 50
parcels of property, from a 1998 plat map, for each category of group 2. The parcels
were chosen not only by location but by general size greater than 10 acres; these were
names that could be identified from the map and matched with a correct address from the
township record.

45

Analysis Procedures

Analysis and interpretation are ongoing processes in a qualitative study. There is no
specific time fiame when data analysis begins; it is a process of giving meaning to first
impressions and collections of notes. Even in traditional quantitative research, analysis
should not be viewed as separate from the ongoing efforts to make sense out of events.
(Stake, 1995, pp. 71-72)

Qualitative research takes advantage of our everyday routines for making sense out of
general encounters with strange objects and events. Each person has experience
encountering and trying to understand new phenomena We attempt to understand new
things automatically in our daily lives and researchers do this in their work as well but
with some help from analysis strategies. In a case study, two strategies assist the
researcher in gaining new understandings: direct interpretation of an individual event and
aggregation of events into meaningful groups. (Stake, 1995, pp. 72-77)

In using direct interpretation, I observed the Vision project’s Implementation meeting
and realized that I did not understand how some of the discussions fit into the larger idea
of the Vision project. But I listened and noted many of the discussion tapics and some of
the specifics; in revisiting these notes later in my research, I found patterns amongst the
topics while the specifics characterized individual’s concerns or perceptions. But
qualitative research, especially within the case study context, focuses on the single
impression and tries to pull it apart before putting it into the larger whole (Stake, 1995, p.
77). So, I also found myself unconsciously questioning everything that happened during
and after the implementation meeting. Many of the specific concerns surfaced again in
the interview process and became components of larger topics; I found myself
unconsciously categorizing them throughout the study so that when I did examine my
data for statistically significant relationships, I already knew what many of the categories
would look like. '

Some of my data did require aggregation into groups and the quest for understanding is

46

often a search for patterns; so I made a conscious effort to detect relationships and I
actively encouraged participants to discuss their feelings in specific contexts. Do Brooks
Township landowners feel that natural resources in the township are being threatened by
anything? Do landowners who live on the already crowded waterways see suburban
expansion as a threat to land? Do landowners who are adjacent to MNF lands feel that
suburban expansion is more of a threat currently or do they see it as something that is
coming toward them in the near future? The resident responses to the question of what
they felt was a threat to land in the township were widespread throughout several
categories and each participant had their own way of describing what they felt was a
threat But when teasing specific categories out of people’s descriptions, I found that
their responses could be grouped into threatening land uses related to suburban expansion
and those related to other activities (mostly recreational uses). However, this limits the
objectivity of the groupings because I have still relied on my interpretation of people’s
descriptions to group their responses. (Stake, 1995, pp. 74-77)

To increase understanding and validation, necessary steps have been taken throughout
this research project to reduce possible misrmderstandings that may arise between the
researcher and the potential research audience. In case study analysis, we assume that the
meaning of an observation is one thing, but subsequent observations can give us grounds
for revising our interpretation (Stake, 1995, p. 110). This is the process of triangulation.
Triangulation is based on the assumption that biases in data sources, investigators, and
methods can be eliminated when combinations of methodologies are used to study a
phenomenon or case. Triangulation is used to seek convergence in data results, to peel the
layers off complex issues, to develop greater understanding between the different analysis
strategies used in a study, to introduce contradictions which can produce new
perspectives on the data, and to ad scope and breadth to the study. (Creswell, 1994, pp.
174-175) The collected data in this study was not only analyzed through interpretation
but it was also triangulated with other outside research studies and with analysis through

47

the computer statistics program, SPSS. Through this mixed method approach to data
analysis, potential biases in the study can be reduced; the SPSS analysis produced no
significant statistical findings due to the small sample size and the relatively wide
distribution of many of the responses, but this lack of significance is a result in itself as it
is used to check other questions in the data Additional triangulation was provided as
interview notes were revisited either through summary analysis or interpretation for
computer data entry into SPSS. Finally, follow up questions via email or phone contact

provided clarification or additional information where necessary.

48

Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Land and the Vision

Brooks Township is located approximately 30 miles north of Grand Rapids,
Michigan in the south central region of Newaygo county (see Figure 1). This region of
the northern lower peninsula (NLM) is characterized by glacially-formed features with
the interior being composed of a sandy-soiled high plain smrounded by a lower elevation
lake plain. Pre-settlement vegetation in the upland forests consisted of hardwood species
such as, maple and oak, in moist areas, and oak-pine or pine forests in drier areas. Swamp
and bog lowland habitat were also common (Yaffee, et al., 1996, p. 217). More
specifically, Brooks Township had an extremely mlique habitat feature in its sand
prairies surrounded by oak-pine barrens; however, only a few remnant patches can be
found today. .

Throughout the settlement and development of Michigan, many of its natural features
have changed significantly. Historically, the lands of the NLM area have been logged
repeatedly and often converted to agriculture or reforested through federal government
efforts. Cmrently, approximately half of the region’s timber is composed of maple, oak,
and red pine. The remaining portions are made up of early successional tree species such
as aspen, birch, and jack pine. Human relationships with land and its use have also
changed as the state’s population has grown and shifted; it has moved from predominant
land use for foresz and farming to land use for expanding urban areas and increasing
numbers of second homes. '

The NLM area also includes state forests, parks, and public access sites which
protect nearly two million acres of land (Mang and Ruswick, 1997, p. 3). These public
lands provide protection for many endangered species and habitat commrmities. In
addition, they ofien provide socio-economic stability to local communities through timber
interests and tourist attraction (HMNF Need for Change Assessment, 1998, p. 40). Land

49

State of Michigan Map

Huron-Manistee National Forest Proximity Map -

 

 

Q‘s. .-
/
.I
't
\
\ . .. .
-:.‘ r’ ”.x
4*.

 

 

mum “ . r "
RATIO '
fORES sud-

 

 

 

 

 

. E
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a C s .—
I
BfOOkS . m .5: . ’m E...)
Township ' 1
ll i 1 ‘ nn . ' mun
”ii- =
_ -‘- it- ----- '

 

Figure l

50

uses in the region which characterize both public and private lands include recreation,
timber and wildlife management, and oil and gas development (Yaffee, et. al., 1996, p.
217). Due to the fact that historical and current land uses in NLM have changed and
continue to change the landscape, the HMNF has identified several key issues which need
to be addressed in their Forest Plan Revision. One of those issues, land adjustment, is

pertinent to this study.

As more private land within the Forest boundary is being subdivided, developed and
posted, the Forest Service and the public have come to recognize the importance of
these isolated tracts. The objective of the land ownership program is to rearrange the
ownership pattern into a more cost effective and usable form. Approximately 40,000
acres of small, scattered National Forest holdings will be made available for exchange
for private tracts within large National Forest blocks. Priority will be given to
acquiSition of semiprimitive, wilderness, and high priority recreation areas, and for
land with habitat required by endangered, threatened and sensitive Species. (HMNF
Need for Change Assessment, 1998, p. 20)

Potentials for land exChanges have surfaced through the Brooks Township Land Use
Vision projeCt and may provide further opportunities for cross-boundary management
strategies to develop.

Although Brooks Township is completely within the boundaries of the MNF, the
majority of the land is privately owned with the MNF having only approximately 3,000
acres (out of approximately 21,000 acres in the township). The township has attracted
people who enjoy outdoor recreation and quiet rural living for nearly 100 years. Seasonal
residents have found Brooks Township a welcome relief from the crowded cities dating
back to. the early 1900’s; a few of the participants in this study have family ties reaching
back into this time frame. Summer cottages were soon built around the four major lakes in
the township and many of these cottages were eventually converted into permanent
residences. However, even today, Brooks Township is very popular for seasonal
residence with its 1990 population census reporting approximately 35% of all homes

were for seasonal use (The 1999 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Master Plan for

51

Brooks Township, Newaygo County, p. 13). Paralleling this high percentage of seasonal
residence, the majority of the township’s permanent residents are concentrated around
the lakes or along the Muskegon River as it winds through the middle of the township
(see F igln‘e 2). With the high values placed on water, issues related to the lakes and
streams have received a great deal of attention in the Vision project. Other than these
heavily populated water courses, urban land uses, of residential and commercial nature,
comprise less than 6% of the landscape (The 1999 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas
Master Plan for Brooks Township, Newaygo County, p. 7). There is little to no
agriculture in the township, a few small tree farms, and the city of Newaygo, which is on
the west side and officially outside of the township bormdaries, has only a small and
struggling commercial district.

The primary land cover in Brooks Township is in the form of upland hardwood forest
areas (The I 999 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Master Plan for Brooks Township,
Newaygo County, p. 7). This wooded landscape is interspersed with wetlands, park-like
barrens, and remnant tracts of sand prairies. (See Figure 3) The presence of so much
variety in such a small area, 33 miles square, attracted the attention of the Michigan
chapter of TNC. Within a c00perative working group, this non-profit land conservation
association took an active role in initiating the Vision project and has provided the
ecological perspective throughout the process.

The Vision project began almost by accident Several land conservation organizations
had been using the Brooks Township hall as a centrally located place for meetings. After
one of these meetings, someone forgot to lock the door which greatly concerned the
township supervisor and prompted him to identify the organizations and their purpose
for holding meetings in the township hall. This encounter resulted in the development of
a partnership between two groups: the township ofiicials and residents, and a working
group of conservation practitioners interested in protecting the natural features of the
Newaygo outwash plain (a geologically significant region stretching from Traverse Bay,

52

Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Wetlands in Brooks Township

 

Lakes, Rivers, '
Streams, and Wetlands in 4
Brooks Township ’

 

[3 Brooks Township Boundary

.- -"-.,." County Road:

- Lakes and Muskegon River

 

 

l

 

 

II .c.
l

W Source N" L ' " o
Wchugan Department oi Natural Resources

 

Note; Some small wetlands do no! show on the map.

 

 

-Source: Brooks Township Land Use Vision
Figure 2

53

Brooks Township Landcover 1830’s and 1997

 

Pre-European
Settlement Landcover
in Brooks wanship
(1830's)

 

1 o 1 2w“ M: earn-tau. ms. W'smvm.
m‘ ”ImmNWWthlto-Im.
anmw MM.

 

 

Landcover in
Brooks Township
(1 997)

filing};

- 105‘ 1- '

.W 'I ‘I l .
mcmrmm-uml _ 11 r‘

smmmmu ll ‘I', v- .
um

g :mhr‘mmrrn) . 7“,",- ll? 3

6;,

 

 

Sam “ ' ,u-m.
wmdwam. erssrw

 

 

 

-Source: Brooks Township Land Use Vision

- Figure3

54

Michigan to just south of Brooks Township). The collection of organizations that
comprised the working group identified themselves under the tide of the Newaygo
Conservation Effort (NCE) (Brooks Township Land Use Vision, 1999, p. 6). This
partnership eventually grew offshoots to form a series of partnerships which crossed
many organizational, political, and legal boundaries throughout the state. Then this series
of partnerships led to the collaborative effort needed to cross many social and political
boundaries in order to produce the 25 page document titled Brooks Township Land Use
Vision: Rivers, Lakes, Forests, Streams and Prairies.

The document was developed through a series of four community meetings (beginning
in March of 1998) held at the township hall and two field trips to sensitive habitat areas
in the township. After the initial meetings (where the township's ecology and current
land use trends were presented and residents identified specific concerns about water and
land features, illegal trash dumping, and managed motorized recreation), a group of
residents volunteered to work on a steering committee with the conservation officials.
This committee worked to focus the list of concerns in order to determine the greatest
threats to the township’s land and water resources. These efforts were instrumental in
bridging the ecological and educational boundaries.

TNC assisted the township in listing many unique species of plants and animals
found in the dry sand prairies and barrens and others that migrate through or depend on
the clear, cold waters of the small streams (Brooks Township Land Use Vision, 1999, p.
17). Many difficulties have existed for these lmique species; for example, Red pine
plantations were established on many of the former prairie lands in the 1930’s and more
recently, many others were converted to Christmas tree farms (Brooks Township Land
Use Vision, 1999, p. 15). Now, the potential for future difficulties comes in the form of
suburban residential expansion (both primary and seasonal homes) as it crosses many
legal, ecological, and social boundaries.

55

The Threat

Agency officials, MNF and DNR, involved in the Vision project described their views
on the growth and development issue as follows: they expressed concerns over the
impacts that come with housing development, i.e. poor sewer systems for the lake homes,
residential development following major roads, and the conversion of land into smaller
acres with more stakeholders to involve in management efforts. With the development
issues, the officials described what one called the ‘last pioneer syndrome.’ People moved
to Brooks Township in the past because they liked the rural character which continues to
attract others; however, each newly arriving resident wants to be the last one to move in
before the ‘gate’ closes behind them preventing finther increases in the number of
residents. This phenomena is perpetuating the urban sprawl from which pe0ple are so
desperately trying to escape. One official also commented on how this shows that
people are usually looking at their own individual interests while missing the larger
picture and that this becomes a real problem when everyone does it In addition, even
though the residents do not appear to desire the continued development and arrival of
new people, the officials do not believe that the residents would want a complete stop in
development; this is because they value the right to decide how to use their land, their
city, their township, their cormty, etc. These observations were also confirmed by many
of the landowners.

Through many of the interviews with landowners, several described the growth and
deve10pment issue to me in this way: what they most value about the township’s natural
resources is the diversity (from the many lakes, streams and wetlands, to the National
Forest lands and the dry sand prairies with their cacti) and they believe that this brings
diverse people to the area which can be a blessing and a curse because everyone wants to
be the last person to move there and they don’t want things to change afterward. Several
of my interview questions attempted to draw out the participants’ feelings on this issue

in order to better understand the human-land use relationships in Brooks Township. All

56

of the participants were asked what they most highly valued about land and natural
resources in the township and why they owned land there. Out of 70 landowners, 21
most highly valued the beauty and naturalness of the township and 20 replied that they
owned land there for the ‘quiet rural character.’ (see Figure 7 and Figure 4) In addition,
when asked about the issue of fragmentation caused by development and whether they
felt this was a serious current or future threat to land, 25 responded that it was a serious
current threat and 32 felt that it would be a threat in the next 5-10 years (see Figure 5).
These concerns translated into active participation in the Vision project (attendance at
two or more of the community meetings in the past year) for 27 of the 70 landowners
(see Figure 6). However, there were a number of residents who felt they might welcome
growth and development in the township; at least they did not see it as a problem or a
threat. The second highest number of responses to this question appeared as 19 out of
the 70 landowners who did not see any current threats to land and 11 who did not see any
future threats. This contrast is a good example of the difficulties involved in crossing the
communication and education boundaries and has been readily observed throughout the
Vision project. These opposing viewpoints have contributed to other contradictory
outcomes dming the project as well.

One township official commented that most residents do not see any of the issues
raised at the community meetings as problems until those issues have a direct negative
impact on their property or quality of life. Therefore, most of the residents who
participated in the initial meetings had a grievance to voice either due to a situation they
were already upset about or out of fear that the Vision project was a new attempt to add
more restrictions to their property and lifestyles. These commrmication and education
boundaries were fairly easy to bridge as the conservation and township officials explained
the voluntary participation basis of the project and its goals for improving the township's
land and water resources and their management. Unfortunately, once the residents were

able to voice their grievances, have their concerns listed, and their fears eased, the

57

Why Own Land in Brooks Township

 

 

 

30
20-
10-
E
8
o 0-
nature enjoyment business investment other
family ties quiet rural characte job in area
Why own land in Brooks
Figure4

58

 

Count

Count

FigureS

Development Threats

 

 

see threat do not see threat

Current Development Threat

 

 

 

 

see threat do not see threat

Future Development Threat

59

, 14-

Count

Future Development Threat

and VISIOD Partrcupatlon

30 ; '
28-1
26-3
244
22-
20-
181
16-

 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   

12'I
10-
8‘
6.
4..
, 2‘
0

Future Develpmnt Thr

 

- see threat

 

 

. - do not see threat
no attend. meetings yes attend. meetings

Vision Participation

60

participation numbers dropped off significantly. By the time of the Implementation
meeting in March 1999 (one year after the project began), the resident participation
reflected the population concentration centers in the township. Approximately 20
people were present to discuss the water related issues and out of these a number of
voltmteers stepped forward to help implement different education efforts. However, the
land related issues had little to no attendance with only three people interested in the
prairies and forests and only one person in attendance to discuss options for dealing with
the issue of illegal trash dumping. The lack of attendance for the issue of trash dumping
was a surprise since it was a significant concern expressed by a large number of residents
at the initial meetings. However, the lack of support for implementing solutions to a
problem that is more of an eyesore to all of the community rather than a personal impact
on a specific group or individual shows the difficulty involved in crossing the interface of
social boundaries. In seeking to better understand this boundary interface, it is important
to identify other barriers to participation.

When asked what they felt might be some barriers that may have prevented more
residents and landowners from becoming involved in the Vision project, organization
officials discmsed several different issues. The DNR official suggested three possibilities:
if the meetings could have been held in the evening more people might have been able to
attend (some of the early meetings were held in the late afternoons which may have
conflicted with work schedules); people may not feel that they can have any impact so
theyneedtobemadeawarethattheyare welcome andthattheycancontrrbute valuable
input; and the agencies involved are generally not used to working in this type of arena so
theyareoutoftheircomfortzoneandhavetobewillingtoaccept somethingsthatmay
not be ideal. But there may also be situations involving organizational barriers where an
organization's policies may prevent certain types of cooperation. This issue surfaced
early in the Vision project and shows how important active boundary crossing can be.

One township official discussed her reaction to the realization that the many public

61

agencies active in Newaygo county have very little commtmication with each other
despite the fact that many of their management boundaries and goals overlap. She was
bewildered to see how little awareness there was as to what related agencies were doing
and she felt that a much higher level of information exchange was needed. “Management
activities have often been inefficient as agencies and other groups operated in ignorance of
each other’s efforts” (Yaffee et. al., 1996, p. 3). At an early meeting last year, a
suggestion was made tint the township needed to map out the location of its wetland
areas. But in addition to the nods of approval, one official volunteered that his agency
already had such a map for the township. This fact highlighted the lack of agency
commrmication in surprising clarity. As one township official commented, "if the right
hand knew what the left was doing, ftmds could be better used and they could go much
further because it would cut. down on so much unnecessary duplication" The awareness
ofthisgapsparkedadiscussionoftheneedtocrosstheseorganizationand
communication boundaries so that collaboration efforts can produce management plans
with geater ease and fewer time delays and so that these boundaries do not continue to be
barriers to effective action. Other potential barriers to involvement in cross-boundary
strategies dwell in the private landowner realm.

One MNF official felt tint landowners still maintained a level of fear that their land
will be taken because of endangered species, wetland protection, or other environmental
protection measures. An explanation was given that in some cases, people may feel that
if they don't know about the rare natural components on their land, then they won't need
to fear for loss of their property, so they don't seek to learn how to protect their land
However, the fear element seems to be less of a factor in Brooks Township because of the
information sharing at the various meetings throughout the past year. But concern was
expressed that people may not realize that the Brooks Township Land Use Vision
document is of no value if it cannot be implemented Yes, bringing people together to talk
about these issues (landscape level cooperation, cross-boundary land management and

62

conservation) is important but it is only the very beginning.

A second MNF official felt that time commitment was the primary barrier. Pe0ple
have many interests and responsibilities in their lives which they may prioritize higher
than becoming involved in community activities such as the Vision project. Another ’
suggestion was that there remains a general lack of understanding and the perception of "is
there a problem?" This may signal that preventive land management strategies still have
educational hurdles to overcome; many people do not see the need to make changes in
many situations tmtil they encounter a problem that touches their lives directly. Many
people in Brooks Township are still unaware of the tmique natural features, such as the
sand prairies, present in the area.

A DEQ official echoed the DNR as she commented that people lead very bmy lives
today. An average family's time must be divided between two working parents who may
spend the majority of their free time transporting their children from one extracurricular
activity to the next The interface of these different social boundaries (family
responsibilities, community projects, etc.) are diffith to bridge and as the DEQ official
remarked, it is often nearly impossible to bring an issue to people’s attention before it
becomes something tint impacts their lives directly. This presents a challenge to any
cross-boundary management strategy, the complexity of understanding the people, the
stakeholders, who will be directly or indirectly involved in a project area. .

The People
All of the Brooks Township landowners with whom I spoke, expressed a strong

emotional attachment to the natural resources of the township and their own land.

The same strong sense of place that motivates a wide variety of people to express an
affinity for the land is also common to landowners and managers. They often identify
closely with the tracts for which they have a stewardship responsibility, deriving
both the satisfaction of a job well done and nature-based spiritual benefits. (Rey,
1999,p.l93)

63

All of the study participants were asked to discuss what they most valued about their
land Most replies fell into these categories: beauty and naturalness (30%), quiet rural
area (1 1%), the forests and wildlife (19%), the water (9%), being close to Grand Rapids
but in a quiet natural area (6%), the outdoor recreation or hunting opportunities (10%),
and strong family ties through years of seasonal residence (3%). (see Figure ‘7) These
landowners represented the long history of natural resource enjoyment present in the
township, however, they did not constitute a general sample of the population. The
majority (43%) were long-time landowners (20 years or more) in the township, while
very few new landowners (less than 5 years) were represented (only 13%). However,
when comparing the years of land ownership with attendance at the Vision meetings, the
new landowners and the long-time landowners composed the greatest percentage of
residents who participated. (see Figure 8) This shows one of the primary divisions
within the population. According to many residents there is a significant age division in
the township, and this surfaced not only in the data with 44 out of 70 respondents having
owned their land for 11 years or more but also in my observations at the Vision
Implementation meeting. The majority of residents in attendance appeared to be near or
of retirement age with only a handful of residents appearing to be younger than 40 years
of age. This observation was also confirmed by township officials who spoke of an age
gap between the incoming young families and those landowners who have been seasonal
for 20 years or more and are now retiring and converting their summer cottages into
permanent homes. However, age is not the only variable creating a division in the
township population.
Another factor involved in the township dynamics is the high concentration (80%) of

the community population who live around and along the water courses. This variable
was examined in the interviews and surveys to see if the location of people's property

(divided as group 2a, adjacent to MNF property and group 2b, non-adjacent) noticeably

64

Most Valued Characteristics

 

Count

 

 

Most Valued Characts. and Use

Figure7

65

Percent Who Attended Vision Meetings

Figure8

Length of Land Ownership

 

Impact on Vision Participation

70
60 - i
f 'l
50 - :
l
J 3.
4°" i
\ Vision Participation
30 - ' ‘
; l - No attend. meetings
\ l
20 I ‘ fii Yes attend. meetings

 

<5 5-10 1 1-20 >20

Years Owned Land

impacted other variables. One expectation, involved analyzing human relationships to
land and its use through the variable of landowners being adjacent to MNF property. I
suspected that adjacent landowners would be more likely (than landowners in the
residential districts of the more crowded water course areas) to see suburban expansion as
a threat to natural resources in the township and that they were more likely to see other
human activities as threatening land in the township. This expectation was confirmed and
surfaced as the only significant result (only minor statistical significance) in the SPSS data
analysis. This factor of property location seems to heavily influence who and how many
of the landowners have attended the Vision meetings. The most significant observation
was the high number of non-adjacent landowners who composed the majority of the
active involvement throughout the Vision project In addition to their non-adjacency to
public land, these actively involved residents were mostly lake shore or riverside
landowners. l .
The level of resident participation in the Vision project has received mixed responses
from the organization officials involved. .The combined attendance of approximately 1 10
residents between the first two Vision commrmity meetings produced completely
opposite feelings. The township oflicials described their first impressions to the
community turnout as very disappointing and cause for dismay. They were aware that
many people were concerned about the suburban residential pressures migrating into the
township and, thus, they expected the town hall to overflow with interested persons.
However, those officials involved in the public sector of natural resource conservation,
such as DNR and the MNF who have worked with many different levels of public -
meetings, were highly impressed The MNF was surprised by the high level of
attendance and participation at the early meetings. The DNR commented that anytime
you can focus on something that people can readily relate to, you will get more
involvement. The closer you get to a personal level, the more resident involvement you

get, larger scale projects tend to have more philosophical aspects and, therefore, they tend

67

to have more organizations than residents involved This project is probably on a fine
line between these two levels; it is a landscape level effort but it is on the small side of
that category.

Due to this fine line placement, another factor that may have influenced landowner
participation in the Vision project is the issue of trust or power. A few landowners
commented that their involvement in the project thus far had been a positive experience
because they felt there was a certain level of honesty in the actions of the ofi'rcials
involved This feeling led the residents to trust the officials and thus to support the
Vision as a project. The trust variable was not examined in this study due to a limited
time frame for research, however, its appearance in the interview and questionmire data
shows it to be an important factor for organizations involved in this type of public-
private interface to consider when approaching cross-boundary strategies.

’ The Partners

The Brooks Township Land Use Vision has been a highly collaborative effort
involving many different public and private organizations along with the local
government, residents, and landowners. Due to the time constraints involved in this
study and the need tocollect detailed discourses, I have had a chance to interact with only
a few of the individuals from these organizations who were key participants.

The Brooks Township supervisor is also a long time seasonal resident of the area. He
established his permanent residence in the township just seven years ago, but in that time
his concern for preserving the township's high quality of life has prompted him to become
an active local oflicial. He has been in office for three years, and in the course of this

study, he has surfaced as the resident expert When asked who they would contact with a

question or concern about natural resources, 30 out of 70 residents replied that they
would seek out a township official and .14 of those stated specifically the township
supervisor. The organization officials involved in the Vision project have often stated

68

that without the supervisor’s strong leadership and commitment to protecting the
township’s natural features, the Vision project would not have occurred In addition,
many felt that his continued support is crucial for this implementation phase.

Among the other partners, one of the most involved private organizations is TNC.
TNC is an international organization comprised of many state and local chapters and it is
dedicated to land conservation in order to protect rare plants and animals (1998 Annual
Report, The Nature Conservancy—Michigan Chapter). TNC got involved with Brooks
Township early in 1998 because they already own approximately 80 acres in the
townshipandare interestedinpreservingthe unique sandprairies andthethreatened
species found there, for example the Karner Blue Butterfly and the Prairie-smoke plant.
These preservation goals have coincided well with the goals of the MNF which has
brought these two organization together to collaborate on projects prior to the Brooks
Township Vision. 3

The prairie habitat restoration project for the Karner Butterflies, has been a common
goal between the MNF and TNC. In their field studies, TNC has not yet found Karner
Butterflies on public MNF lands because these do not have any significant patches of
remnant or restored prairie yet, so, the butterflies are mostly still seen on neighboring
private lands where their necessary prairie habitat can be found However, the
organizations have not yet begun to contact key private landowners to discuss land
management partnerships; although, the MNF officials plan to begin doing that soon. ,
TNC has expressed great concern for preserving lands adjacent to critical species habitat
areas in the township.

In working with the township, TNC has seen approximately 150-200 residents get
involved during the first four community meetings. Through these meetings and through
conversations with residents, they have found that many people feel disenfranchised with
the MNF management in the township. Residents do not feel that the MNF office seeks

their input in land management options or decisions. Many residents were upset about

69

the MNF management decision to clear-cut 200 acres of forest land for prairie restoration
efforts. The residents felt that the MNF sought only after-the—fact input on this decision.
One landowner bordering the clear-cut acreage found out that the MNF had notified the
previous owner of the property two years prior to the actual clear-cut but the present
landowner only found out when she came home and saw the downed trees. TNC has also
observed that residents have a strong sense of the MNF as a landowner in the township
but not as a presence in the township. Residents have confirmed this in stating that when
the White Cloud MNF office (just nine miles north) was moved to the city of Baldwin
(nearly 40 miles north), the MNF presence in the Brooks Township area all but
disappeared (see Figure 1). Many residents have commented on how the public forest
lands often suffer more current abuse which they feel stems from the lack of MNF
presence.

The other public agency involved in managing a smaller amount ofland in the
' township is the MDNR office. Because the state owns very little land in Brooks
Township (approximately 300 acres), its presence is minimal. However, the level of
organizational involvement in Brooks Township seems to vary between the MNF and the
MDNR agencies and by season With the MNF prairie restoration project in Brooks
Township, personnel may visit the area as often as twice a week during the field seasons
of spring, summer, and autumn. This was explained to be a high level of involvement
when compared to other areas of the White Cloud Ranger district where Brooks
Township is located As far as direct communication with landowners in the township,
the MNF has sent out written letters to inform pe0ple, especially adjacent landowners, of
projects or actions that may be upcoming. In addition, a few of the Brooks township
landowners have requested that the MNF give them personal phone calls before
implementing projects or changes in management actions. Being that the Brooks

Township Vision project is barely a year old, it may be too soon to determine if it has had

70

any impact on the level of communication between the MNF and landowners in the

township.

Implications for Conservation and Management Policy

The Vision project has been and continues to be a learning experience for everyone
involved. Within the changing perspectives of land conservation and management and the
ever changing trends in human relationships with land use, the Vision project has emerged
as a prime example of how organizations, policies, and individuals can adapt to change.
Through cooperative partnerships, the Vision project has taken the necessary and
significant first steps toward crossing social, political, and ecological boundaries for the
purpose of improving human relationships with land use.

Thisstudy hasattemptedtogainabetterunderstandingofthesefirststepssothat
the stakeholders involved in the Vision project can benefit from an outside perspective
and so that other individuals, communities, and conservation and management
organizations can learn of the benefits of crossing boundaries. To continue the learning
process involved in the Vision project, several participants from Brooks Township have
invited me to return to the township to discuss my observations, analysis, and findings
with them; additional interest has been expressed by TNC. The Brooks Township
participants and TNC have expressed a great interest in seeing the Vision project through
my outside perspective, discussing the human-land use relationships explored through my
data collection and analysis, hearing comments on the Vision project expressed by
township landowners, and in gaining a greater understanding of their role in the emerging
strategies of cross-boundary land management. Therefore, in addition to distributing
copies of this study to the interested participants, I have met with the Brooks Township
supervisor, and I will be meeting with a TNC official to share and discuss my research
findings and their potential for local policy and conservation influences.

The policy implications stemming from widespread adoption of cross-boundary land

71

management partnerships and cooperation could greatly improve human relationships
with land use and conservation by assisting policy makers in revising or creating new
guidelines; one of Brooks Township's long-term goals is to create zoning guidelines based
on political, social, and ecological factors (see Figure 9). In addition, the desire to
understand and include the boundary interlhces between social, political, and ecological
issues in the Vision project can provide a stimulus for other local governments to develop
their own land use visions for planning and management and improve their communities’
relationships with land. By sharing the experiences of those people involved in the
process of developing and implementing the Brooks Township Land Use Vision, this
study attempts to promote cross-boundary land management strategies to individual

landowners as well as land conservation organizations.

Limitations to the Study

The unique nature of this case study presents many limitations to the research
process. First, my entry into'the Vision project at the implementation phase required me
to do a great deal of ‘catching-up’ with the history and objectives of the project. Due to
the limited time frame available for my study, this late entry may have reduced the
amolmt of in-depth interaction I could accomplish with the stakeholders in the Vision
project If I had entered the Vision project at an earlier point in its one year development
stage, I may have been able to learnmore about individuals’ relationships with land use
and to examine specific issues more extensively, such as the importance of trust in
crossing boundaries. Second, the survey used for a potion of the data collection may have
produced misunderstandings between the researcher and the participmts; therefore, it
may not have drawn out the most detailed information possible. In addition, through the
use of qualitative research, the observations and findings in this study are subjective
interpretations which are partly unique to this researcher’s experience. Although

subjectivity is considered an essential component for gaining greater understanding in a

72

Brooks Township Zoning Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U v" 1 fl "
W '\, 3'}: O (,
fl -- c. ‘3 _- - _- . ‘ «I
s - . . . ' .. . . o o
l o . ,
.:_ mu- ' . o . P
z. _ — ¢ . o 5
- ’ I . ‘ . . .
h 0-.— - ' . o . .
ant—u..— “- - ‘ ‘ . .
' ' —.JL
-—— . ' O .
fl ' . . . . .
.fl 0
on..— ‘ o
. fl— 0 Q .
w' 0 . O. o "
--—— —-— 0 . . e 0
.~ . ' O . ‘
~ '
_— ‘00—- O. ' o ' . o . ' . o .
t ..._—-'-—" ' ._____=_.;E-_-=-‘—-—— . . .
0 ‘ I . v .
7 an I ‘- —: D . o
n _::: _. —— . .
_——-—" :2 -—-‘-- -~_. . . ~ i .1:
‘ ' . z .. '= - ‘ - - .
o ' o I, 0 . o _ ‘._‘
' D . a \ ‘ ' ‘ .-—\_;
o 0 4|". ' O , o r ”‘5‘“.
' I .C .,..
e ' 0 ' .
a . I . a I b O l
l“ \I I .o . O ' o
‘ fi . ‘. . ' ' o
= —_=-__~— . . o f o 4'" new A
~ 0 . q 0 0 ' ‘2 O ' " w I
I ‘ ‘. i O ' ' / ' l\L
% :— ._____— c . ‘- 0 ‘ J"
x _
- - ‘_ v P—— ‘ . . O \N
J: t -— - 2‘ m - -—-———---- - ° 5 - . '
w :7. - ~— - . l . ' w
~n— . o . i o . .
— w :- w . . . ' -‘ . o o .
_ * fl
‘/ i o o O
a o u
5 ~ - ‘
o ' p
l LT. ..... 2‘- . . , l . . -,
\- _ a ’l i
x =— i! . i :
x _ _ . ' I
‘— —- ~ l
. = ' -9 . J
\:

 

 

R-tmOmSivo-‘IHVW
R-ZWOMWIMW
R-Jt-iytww

R‘I‘ORWNYMM
'W MOI-“mmo'NMl-fiwwa
”NM." d“
WON-ta
Lama-”vimxunwwmm
"not”. can...”

THE ZONING MAP OF
BROOKS TOWNSHIP timer... .
NEWAYGO COUNTY, MICHIGAN Q)

THIS IS TO CERTlf-‘Y THAT THIS IS THE N0 5““
OFFICIAL mm MAP REFERRED TO IN THE mm: 90-”
BROOKS TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE. moan-com: - '. '3!

 

oooooooooooooooooo

 

“I OOII‘I “I

LORA L. JONES - TOWNSHIP CLERK DATE .753... - ...........

 

Figure 9

73

case study and attempts are made to validate its findings as much as possible, it has the
potential to produce misinterpretations that weaken the research findings and
recommendations (Stake, 1995). Finally, although the Brooks Township Land Use Vision
project has taken significant strides toward the successful development of a cross-
boundary land management strategy, the project is still a great distance away from
achieving its long-term goals. This study only examines a snapshot of time in the
project’s development Further observation and interaction with the stakeholders could
produce a great deal more information which would help us enhance oru' relationships

with land use and our planning and policies for land conservation and management.

74

Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Throughout my interactions and observations in this case study, I have attempted to
gain a better understanding of the benefits and challenges involved in one approach to the
emerging strategy of cross-boundary land management. Through qualitative subjective
analysis of surveys and interviews with 76 study participants, and through observations
of the Vision project and the landscape it encompasses, I found a human-land use
relationship based in a long history of high quality living through natural resource
enjoyment in a quiet rural atmosphere. The value for this quality of life was shared by all
the landowners in this study regardless of other factors, such as seasonal versus
permanent residence. In addition, many landowners have expressed concerns over losing
this quality due to the growing pressure of suburban expansion that is creeping toward
the township from Grand Rapids. The perception of suburban grth as a threat to the
township's natural resources and quality of life prompted the development of the Vision
project and has generated a great deal of community participation and support As more
people move into the township, problems associated with suburban expansion, especially
land fragmentation and the resulting loss of species' habitat, could become more prevalent.
There is hope though, with the formation of partnerships and the proactive stand that has
been taken through the Vision project, there is great potential for prevention, or at least
control of, some of the suburban expansion issues. However, there are many challenges

to be overcome before the Vision project can be judged a success.

Challenges Ahead in Crossing Boundaries

In an attempt to determine if the Vision had, thus far, produced any significant
changes in peoples relationships with land and its use in the township, all landowners
who had attended one or more of the public meetings were asked if their participation had
resulted in any changes in the way they viewed land in the township or the way in which

75

they used their own land The results fell far short of my original expectation Out of 35
landowners who had attended at least one of the public meetings, only six responded that
their participation had changed the way they view land in the township and influenced
them to change the way they use their own land. However, 22 residents responded that
participation had increased their knowledge of the unique natural features in the
township. But just as many (24) residents responded that the Vision project had
strengthened their original viewpoints that natural resources in the township were
valuable and needed protection. These results present a common problem that is
prevalent throughout environmental protection projects, namely that the people who
become involved are generally those who already support the cause.

This brings us back to the question of how to create the right incentives to encourage
. the involvement of those not yet converted to the cause. In the case of Brooks
Township, a high priority was given to water related issues because ofthe high level of
interest by lake and river side landowners. This encouraged more involvement from the
highest concentrated area of residents but many of the water related issues are already
being tackled by many of the area's lake associations. The larger threats, those involving
land fragmentation, are more closely associated with the forest and prairie landowners
who are not yet converted to participating in the process of creating change, despite the
fact that they more often saw suburban expansion as a threat to natural resources in the
township. One challenge facing the implementation phase of the Vision project is how to
encourage the participation of this group of landowners. If the Vision project cannot
provide the right types of incentives to envelope these concerned but as yet unconverted
landowners, the project will become more vulnerable to failure.

The Brooks Township Land Use Vision project has been described as one of a
minority of community level programs in the state of Michigan that is attempting to
devise planning efforts that preserve the natural resources of the area. Other communities

along the Muskegon watershed are also working with state and federal agencies to protect

76

' their natural features; however, Brooks Township is unique in that it is only on the verge
of experiencing the rapid expansion of the Grand Rapids suburbs. Townships and
commrmities closer to Grand Rapids are already being overwhelmed by population
increases and the resulting boom in housing and commercial construction. Brooks
Township has an advantage at this point where it can see the wave approaching and make
the necessary plans to deal with its arrival. Despite the fact that the perception of what
constitutes a threat to the quality of life in a community is different for each individual
and each commrmity, enough of a threat has been felt in Brooks Township to produce a
planned reSponse. .

"The landscape of land management is changing, and changing rapidly. Widespread
concern over ecological health is fomenting a revolution . . . [which is] by necessity
viewing land management in a larger ecological context" (Grumbine, 1992, p. 175) Brooks
Township, even though it had no intention of being a trailblazer, is now one of the leading
examples in this forward thinking movement by not only looking at the larger picttne of
land management but also by taking a proactive approach that crosses social and political
boundaries and h0pes to provide locally effective incentives. However, the proactive
stance of this project may be one of its greatest weaknesses as well as one of its most
shining achievements.

In many of the townships closer to Grand Rapids, such as those in Kent County, a
DEQ official described the fact that there is so much pressure from the suburban
expansion that the local government can work with large scale developers to create
compromises and partnerships that preserve open space and prevent extensive land
fragmentation. Unfortunately or fortunately, Brooks Township is not enveloped in this
amount of extensive pressure yet. This fact is unfortlmate from the standpoint of finding
incentives to promote the proactive planning involved in the Vision. In light of cmrent
trends, the most significant area for land fragmentation concern is at the interface of public
and private lands, due to the fact that coordinated management to deal with the ecological,

77

legal, economic, and social boundaries involved is not cmrently effective when there are
thousands of (mostly small) properties in various stages of development or use by
private ownership (Warbach, 1995, p. 4-6). Various methods used to discourage land
fragmentation are traditionally aimed at large scale developers who construct multi-home
subdivisions (Cullingworth, 1993, p. 125-128). At present, the growing number of new
residents in Brooks Township are arriving as single family units and at a pace which has
not yet attracted the attention of large scale developers. Therefore, the greatest challenge
facing the township is deve10ping the right incentives to encourage these new arrivals to
see the larger picture, prevent land fragmentation, and actively participate in crossing the
boundaries involved in land management

Such simple cross-boundary co-operation between private landowners is considered
to be a necessary core for successfully applying a co-operative management paradigm
in a fiagmented landscape owned by non-industrial private individuals and families. If
such co-operation will not work in its most elementary sense, then greater co-
operation and management activities at a larger scale are certain to fail. (Stevens et. al.,
1999,p.83)

If the Vision project can accomplish this through continued support fiom its key
participants thus far, it will undoubtedly be judged a successful endeavor. But finding
solutions to the pressures and problems surrounding suburban expansion will require
more efforts to better understand residents' relationships with land and its use, in order to
continue the efforts in crossing boundaries, creating partnerships, finding commrmity-
based incentives and maintaining open lines of commtmication.

Cross-boundary land management strategies are growing in number across the US.
under different titles and varied approaches; however, due to the intricacies of each case,
there are many years of observation and study left before a judgment can truly be made of
their general success or failure. In the present case of Brooks Township, the success of

the Vision project will be determined by the case at which the necessary recommendations

78

can cross the social and political boundaries involved and be incorporated into the daily
lives of township residents, the actions of seasonal visitors and landowners, a new

Master Plan, and future zoning ordinances

Recommendations for Future Study

During the course of interviewing landowners participating in this study, I found a
pattern that with further research could be developed into a workable theory. In group 1,
a pattern arose which suggested that landowners were more likely to participate in the
Vision project if they were cmrently or formerly active members of a community-based
organization Many of the participants of group 1 were members of various lake
associations in the township and others were members of the township government, both
past and present.

Due to the late time frame in which this observation surfaced, this study was not able
to examine it closely. A correspondence was sent to those five landowners of group 2
who had included address information for further questions. Three replies have been
received and none of the respondents have been an active member of any community-
based organization. Because the total number of participants in this study was only 76,
few generalizations can be made fiom the observations and interpretations of the findings;
much less can any generalization be taken from the few landowners in group 1 who were
active members of other organizations and the three from group 2 who were not
However, for future implications in promoting proactive cross-boundary land
management strategies, an examination of people's past behaviors could provide a guide as
to who is more likely to participate in a cross-boundary strategy and what group of
people may need more focused incentives to become involved. "For an efficient
promotion of pro-environmental behavior, knowledge is essential about the underlying
motives of both protective behaviors [i.e. being an active member of a lake association]

and of risk behaviors [i.e. pollution of natural resources in the township through use or

79

abuse]" (Kals et. al., 1999, p. 178).
Another recommendation for study is to follow the promotion of cross-boundary

management strategies using the Vision project as a demonstration model.

Little is known about non-industrial private forest landowners' attitudes and
preferences toward co-operation with others to achieve management objectives
[therefore], public programs which effectively promote co-operation have generally
not been developed Most [survey respondents want] to see a demonstration project
before deciding whether to participate. (Stevens et al., 1999, p. 81)

Not only is the Brooks Township Land Use Vision project a valuable learning experience
for those who have been involved, but they should also be encouraged to transfer their
new knowledge to other projects in progress, like the NLM Ecosystem Management
project, and to other communities who may not have considered a cross-boundary
approach to land management yet. This learnihg experience should be shared in a variety
of different settings so that more organizations and commrmities can learn that crossing
boundaries can be a viable option for land management and commrmity planning. One
suggestion raised by participants in the Vision project is for Brooks Township officials to
make a presentation to the Michigan Association of Townships.

Further recommendations for research would include a follow-up study, one or two
years from present, to examine if the project has had any noticeable impact on the level of
communication between public and private landowners (especially between the MNF and
private landowners). Another suggestion for follow-up would be to examine the success
of the Vision project’s implementation and to search for other communities that may have
adopted this cross-boundary strategy. Success or failure, in this late stage, could be
determined by the presence of any increased land fragmentation due to suburban
expansion, the level of resident participation in cross-boundary land management and

planning strategies, and another survey of landowners' relationships to land and its use.

80

Concluding Thoughts

As the gray sky hung low in the trees and heavy with rain, I walked through the slick,
wet interface of last autumn’s oak leaf litter and the damp spring greener of the saplings
all around me. Listening to the music of courting frogs and following the slope of the
landscape, the township supervisor and I maneuvered a path through the second growth
forest down to the edge of a swampy wetland As we stood there amidst the chorus of
frogs and birds, I had to remind myself that this quiet landscape is in the path of a
national suburban expansion trend and many of its human inhabitants are already feeling
the pressure. '

Observing the changes that spring has brought to Brooks Township throughout the
course of this study has been comparable to the changes that can occur through cross-
boundary management strategies. The opening of communication lines, the creation of
community-based incentives, and the development of partnerships are all complex and
slow processes to set in motion. But once these are developing, positive actions tend to
emerge as quickly as new spring foliage. Cross-boundary management strategies are
emerging quickly through these cooperative processes and crossing boundaries may prove
to be the most effective future means we have to control suburban expansion and prevent
its impacts in further land fragmentation, and loss of rare species. But in order to insure
the successful adoption of cross-boundary strategies we need to continue learning how to
better understand human relationships with land and its use. This researcher’s experience
in examining human-land use relationships in Brooks Township has been a personal
encounter with an emerging course of action in conservation and land management which I

have attempted to better understand through the research process.

8.1

APPENDIX 1

82

Rebecca Romsdahl March 25, 1999
Michigan State University _

Dept. of Resource Development

Natural Resources Bld.

E. Lansing, MI 48823

Phone: 517-353-7982

email: romsdahl@pilot.msu edu

Dear Brooks Township Landowner,

I am working on my Master's degree at Michigan State University and I am currently
examining human relationships with land through land management techniques. I am
interested in how people in Brooks township feel about land resources (in the sense of
land, water, air, etc. the big picture of land). I am also interested in the Brooks Township
Land Use Vision project; how residents are responding to it, how it may change their
relationships with land, how those changes may impact the land, and how the Vision will
be implemented In addition, I am interested in examining how the Vision may provide
opportunities for people to open their lines of communication and cooperation in land

management

I believe that you could teach me a great deal by sharing your land management
experiences with me through this survey. Your participation is completely voluntary and
you may refuse to answer certain questions if you prefer. Your responses will be kept
completely anonymous and confidential. The survey should only take approximately 15
minutes of your time and it would be a great benefit to my Master's research paper.

If you proceed to complete the survey, please place it in the enclosed return-
addressed, stamped envelop and drop it in the mail by Friday, April 16, 1999. Your
participation in my survey study will be greatly appreciated

In addition, if you would be willing to participate further in my study, you will find a
place at the end of the survey where you can provide your phone number. I will be
contacting interested residents for short phone interviews later in April. Again, your
pmticipation is completely voluntary.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Romsdahl

83

Instructions:

Please circle the letter of the response that best describes your reply to the question.
If you select a response labeled 'other,' please write a brief explanation in the space
provided In addition, at the end of the questions, you will find a space for added
comments, please feel free to comment on any of the questions or any of the Vision
process—including any suggestions you feel might improve the process.

When you have finished the survey, please place it in the enclosed return-addressed,
stamped envelop and drop it in the mail by Friday, April 16, 1999. Thank you

Survey Questions:

1. How long have you owned your land?
a. less than 5 yrs
b. 5-10 yrs
c. 11-20 yrs
d more than 20 yrs

2. How long have you lived on your land year round?
a less than 5 yrs I
b. 5-10 yrs '
c. 11-20 yrs
d more than 20 yrs
e. I only use it seasonally.

3. Which best describes the primary and secondary uses of your land? (please circle two
letters and circle which is primary and which is secondary)

a (primary or secondary) wildlife habitat with hunting, fishing, or recreation

b. (primary or secondary) seasonal home

0. (primary or secondary) forest production or timber harvest

d. (primary or secondary) home in a rural setting-permanent residence

e. (primary or secondary) other

84

4. Which best describes the location of your employment?
a. I am employed in the Newaygo area.
b. I am employed in the Grand Rapids area.
c. I am retired.
d other
5. Which best describes why you own land in Brooks township?
a high quality natural resource enjoyment
b. family ties—for example: handing down of family business or family property
c. business investment
(I quiet rural character
e. other

 

6. Which best describes, in your view, the most serious current disturbance or threat to
undeveloped land in Brooks township?
a. fiagmentation of land-from subdivision of properties and urban development
b. lack of communication and cooperation in land use, management, or planning-
between private owners and public owners (local government, state government, or
National Forest Service)
c. pollution or erosion fi'om poor land use
d I do not see any serious current disturbance or threat to land in Brooks township.
e. other

7. Which best describes, in your view, the most serious Future disturbance or threat to
undeveloped land in Brooks township—within the next 5-10 years?
a fragmentation of land—from subdivision of properties and urban development
b. lack of communication and cooperation in land use, management, or planning-
between private owners and public owners (local government, state government, or
National Forest Service)
c. spread of nononative plant and animal species—for example, spotted knapweed
d pollution or erosion from poor land use
e. other

85

8. Which best describes, in your view, the importance of National Forest land in Brooks
township?
a. National Forest Service land is very important in Brooks township and the Forest
Service should try to increase their acreage if possible by purchasing land that comes
up for sale in the township.
b. National Forest Service land is important in Brooks township and at present, the
Forest Service owns a good amount of land in the township and should maintain its
current properties without adding or selling any of the parcels.
c. National Forest Service land is not important in Brooks township and the Forest
Service should try to sell some of its current parcels.
d. other

9. Which best describes, in your view, the National Forest Service's involvement in
managing public land use in Brooks township?
a. The National Forest Service should be more involved with land management in the
township and should make changes in their current policies so that they could be more
involved
b. The Forest Service is adequately involved with land management in the township
and is doing a good job at present.
c. The Forest Service is too involved with land management in the township and
should make changes to be less involved
d other

10. Which best describes your familiarity and/or involvement with the Brooks Township
Land Use Vision?

a. I have not heard of the Land Use Vision.

b. I have vaguely heard of the Land Use Vision.

c. I have been to one of the public meetings.

d. I have been to two or more of the public meetings.

e. I am planning to become involved

(If you have Not been involved with the Land Use Vision meetings, please skip to
Question 13)

86

l 1. If you have been involved with the Land Use Vision, which best describes yom'
overall reaction to the project? (you may circle more than one response to this question)
a. Afier attending one or more of the public meetings, I now have a better
understanding of the natural characteristics that other residents find valuable in
Brooks township.
b. After attending one or more of the public meetings, I better understand the
importance of working together as a community to promote land and water
protection
c. I support all oftheeffortsbeing madetotake bettercareoflandandwater
resources in Brooks township.
(1 I support most of the efforts being made to take care of land and water resources,
but some of them seem unnecessary.
e. I do not support the Land Use Vision project.
f. other

12. If you have been involved with the Land Use Vision, which best describes how it will
impact your life? (you may circle more than one response to this question)
a. My involvement in the Land Use Vision project has led me to re-evaluate different
things I do on my land and so I have been thinking about making changes in my land
practices.
b. My involvement in the Land Use Vision project has led me to re-evaluate my
viewpoint toward the public (federal or state) lands in Brooks township and I am now
more interested in how they are used and managed
c. My involvement in the Land Use Vision project has strengthened my original
viewpoint that land and water resources in Brooks township are important and need
protection
d. My involvement in theLand Use Vision project has led me to believe that it will
result in too many new regulations and restrictions of land and water use.
e. other

87

13. In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about
land in Brooks township and how that affects the ways you use land here?

14. If you had a question or concern about land or natural resources in Brooks township,
who is the first person that comes to mind that you would take your question or concern
to? (This person could be anyone and would not necessarily have to be someone in an
official position.)

Their name and/or

title

Comments:
(If you desire, please attach an additional sheet of paper for comments.)

May I contact you with possible further questions for my study? ___Yes __No
If Yes, please list your name, phone number, and/or email:

Thank you again for helping me in my research endeavor.
Rebecca Romsdahl

88

APPENDIX 2

89

Summary of Survey and Interview Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years Owned Land
Valid Cumulative
‘ Frguency Percent Percent Percent
Valid <5 9 12.9 12.9 12.9
5-10 17 24.3 24.3 37.1
1 1-20 14 20.0 20.0 57.1
>20 30 42.9 42.9 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Years Permanent Resident
Valid Cumulative
Freggency Percent , Percent Percent
Valid no reply 1 1.4 1.4 1.4
<5 11 15.7 15.7 17.1
5-10 14 20.0 20.0 37.1
11-20 15 21.4 21.4 58.6
>20 14 20.0 20.0 78.6
seasonal only 12 17.1 17.1 95.7
no buildings 3 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Primary Use of Land
Valid Cumulative
7 Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid mdleaetgabltat. hunt, fish, 16 22.9 22.9 22.9
seasonal home 9 12.9 12.9 35.7
timber production/harvest 2 2.9 2.9 38.6
rural home ‘
setting-permanent 41 58.6 58.6 97.1
other 2 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

9O

 

Secondary Use of Land

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
Frguency Percent Percent Percent
W
W” 2,2252?“ "n" fis ’ 25 35.7 35.7 35.7
seasonal home 4 5.7 5.7 41.4
timber production/harvest 6 8.6 8.6 50.0
rural home
setting-permanent 19 27.1 27.1 77.1
other (camping) 5 7.1 7.1 84.3
water enjoyment 11 15.7 15.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Employment Location
Valid Cumulative
Frguency Percent Percent Percent
Valid newaygo area 16 22.9 22.9 22.9
grand rapids area 14 20.0 20.0 42.9
retired 23 32.9 32.9 75.7
other 17 24.3 24.3 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Why own land in Brooks
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid nature enjoyment 16 22.9 22.9 22.9
family ties 19 27.1 27.1 50.0
business investment 3 4.3 4.3 54.3
quiet rural character 20 28.6 28.6 82.9
other 5 7.1 7.1 90.0
job in area 7 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Any Threat, current
‘ ‘ Valid Cumulative
Freguenry Percent Percent Percent
alid see threat 51 72.9 72.9 72.9
do not see threat 19 27.1 27.1 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

Any Thnat, future

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
L Mency Percent Percent Percent
alid see threat 58 82.9 84.1 84.1
do not see threat 11 15.7 15.9 100.0
Total 69 98.6 100.0
Missing System 1 1 .4
Total 70 100.0
Current Develpmnt Threat
Valid Cumulative
Freqtiency Percent Percent Percent
Valid . see threat » 25 35.7 56.8 56.8
do not see threat 19 27.1 43.2 100.0
Total 44 62.9 100.0
Missing System 26 37.1
Total 70 100.0
Future Develpmnt Threat
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid see threat 32 45.7 74.4 74.4
do not see threat 11 15.7 25.6 100.0
Total 43 61.4 100.0
Missing System 27 38.6
Total 70 100.0
NFS Land Importance
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid no reply 2 2.9 2.9 2.9
very, yes increase 24 34.3 34.3 37.1
important, but enough 39 55.7 55.7 92.9
other 5 7.1 7.1 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

9'2

 

 

 

NFS Involvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
Fwncy Percent Percent Percent
ValitT no reply 5 7.1 7.1 7.1
need improvement-ex.
trash 19 27.1 27.1 34.3
doing well 32 45.7 45.7 80.0
too much already 1 1.4 1.4 81.4
indifference/don't know 12 17.1 17.1 98.6
other 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Vision Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frgugncy Percent Percent Percent
Valid no attend. meetings 28 40.0 41.2 41.2
yes attend. meetings 40 57.1 58.8 100.0
Total 68 97.1 100.0
Missing System 2 2.9
Total 70 100.0
Reaction: Increased knowledge
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 48 68.6 68.6 68.6
yes 22 31.4 31.4 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Reaction: Community working together
Valid Cumulative
F regency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 45 64.3 64.3 64.3
yes . 25 35.7 35.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Reaction: Support all efforts
Valid Cumulative
Money Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 45 64.3 64.3 64.3
yes 25 35.7 35.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction: Support most, some unnecessary
Valid Cumulative
Freq_ug1cy Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 62 88.6 88.6 88.6
yes 8 11.4 11.4 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Reaction: Do not support efforts
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 69 98.6 98.6 98.6
yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Reaction: other
Valid Cumulative
Freqt_iency Percent Percent Percent
VaWd not circled 66 94.3 94.3 94.3
yes 4 5.7 - 5.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Reaction: indifference
Valid Cumulative
fluency Percent Percent Percent
valid not circled 69 98.6 98.6 98.6
yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Influence: Change personal land use
Valid Cumulative
Frgiency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 64 91.4 91.4 91.4
yes 6 8.6 8.6 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Influence: Interested in public land
Valid Cumulative
Frquflcy Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 66 94.3 94.3 94.3
yes 4 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

Influence: Strengthened original views

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 46 65.7 65.7 65.7
yes 24 34.3 34.3 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Influence: Too many new regs.
Valid Cumulative
Frguency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 65 92.9 92.9 92.9
yes 5 7.1 7.1 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Influence: other
Valid Cumulative
Freqqency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 67 95.7 95.7 95.7
yes 3 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Influence: New knowledge, no need more protection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
Frequ_ency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not circled 65 92.9 92.9 92.9
yes 5 7.1 7.1 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0
Most Valued Characts. and Use
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid no reply 8 11.4 11.4 11.4
beauty, naturalness 21 30.0 30.0 41.4
quiet, mral area 8 1 1.4 1 1.4 52.9
forests, wildlife 13 18.6 18.6 71.4
water 6 8.6 8.6 80.0
fiftfigf’aggpds' but “we" 4 5.7 5.7 85.7
outdoor rec., hunt., oprts. 7 10.0 10.0 95.7
business investment 1 1 .4 1 .4 97.1
family ties 2 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

95

 

Resident Expert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid township supervisor 27 38.6 71.1 71.1
other 11 15.7 28.9 100.0
Total 38 54.3 100.0
Missing System 32 45.7
Total 70 100.0
Adjacent to NFS Land
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid no 45 64.3 64.3 64.3
yes ‘25 35.7 35.7 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

 

APPENDIX 3

97

Selected Interview Notes
Interview 1

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-7 years.

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks Township area?
-Yes.

Q: What is the general location of your property?
-Emerald Lake.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-Our residence.

Q: Why do you own land in Brooks Township?
-I grew up here.

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-No. I see the controls on development that are already present and I see other options
that could be used

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveloped land will (increase / emerge) in the next 5-10
years?

-No. The township will have tools available to handle the problems. The lakes and rivers
are threatened areas but creative plans are in progress to take control before development
takes control.

Q: How do you feel about National Forest lands in the township?

-I would like to keep them regardless of whether they remain tmder the NPS. Those lands
are wonderful areas for hunting and walking. They provide wonderful opporttmities for
everyone in the township.

Q: How do you feel about the National Forest Service management of their public lands in
the township?

-They don‘t take an active stand or lead in management There seems to be very little
management in the township; they have little available. So, trash becomes a more of a
problem. If it were possible, I would like to see them be more of a presence in the
township. Actually, before the Vision project, we were not sure who were the NPS
officials in the area

Q: Do you think there is a good level of communication between the NF S and the

township residents?
-No, there is very little communication between them.

98

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-Not very many, but I keep updated

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project—what is your reaction so far?

-The Vision has been extremely positive. I have seen more community involvement in
this than in anything else; even the negative comments have become positives in the end
The project has been able to inform people with negative concerns so that they can
become positive participants.

Q: Has your participation in the Vision project changed how you feel about your land or
how you use you land? Has it changed how you look at land in Brooks township as a
whole?

-Yes, in many ways. It has been an eye-opening and educational experience.

Q: Do you think that the awareness (of the issues related to natural resources and
development) has spread to a great deal of township residents?

-Yes. For example, I am on our Lake Board and they have handed out copies of the
Vision docmnent at our meetings.

Q: Can you think of 3 reasons why some people have not been involved?

-Well, one is a time factor—people don't have any available time. There has been some
discouragement about the length of time it has taken to get things done in the project and
in government work in general. In addition, some people may fear that they will
intimidated or overwhelmed by the project.

Q: Do you think that the Vision will be able to produce any tangible results for the
township?

-Probably, but there is a fear that a change in leadership could cause a loss in the current
momentmn. The current township supervisor is great and if we can get a lot done in his
term of office, then the momentum will survive; it will spread out and take on different
faces as needed

Q: Do you think that the Vision will translate well into new zoning ordinances and the
Master Plan?

-It will be a good reference for the Master Plan and a major tool for the Planning
Commission and the Township Board. The Vision will provide input on how to interpret
zoning regulations. The Vision is a great blueprint for where the township is now.

Q: Do you think that the township is ready to take this step?
-Yes, they are looking for a consultant or planner to help them put the Vision into use.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natural resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township?

-The water. The rivers and lakes attracted me to come back here. I love the small town
atmosphere and the closeness of neighbors.

Q: If you had a question about land or natural resource use in the township, who would
you take that question to?
-The township supervisor.

100

Interview 2

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-Seasonally, since the 1970's, permanently, since 1992.

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks Township area?
-Yes. , .

Q: What is the general location of your property?
--The lake shore.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-My residence.

Q: Why do you own land in Brooks Township?
-It was a family tradition to spend our summers here.

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-Yes, by many things. It is threatened by residential development and by ignorant,
destructive, and abusive land practices.

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveloped land will increase in the next 5-10 years?
~Yes, there is the potential for it, but the township is trying to control the situation before
that happens. _

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-All of them.

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project-what is your reaction so far?

-It has been a great learning experience and I am excited about the available tools and new
ideas that the township may be able to use to accomplish its goal of controlling
development. '

Q: Why was Brooks Township selected for this We of pilot project?

-The various conservation groups involved, had been using the township hall as a
convenient meeting place. They were concerned about conservation issues in the large
area of the Newaygo Outwash region and they were interested in finding a smaller,
localized area in which to try a new approach to land conservation and management.

Q: Has there been any significant opposition to the Vision project?

-Not really, some people expressed resentment or concern that the Vision would try to
tell them how to use their land and what to do there. But mostly there have been positive
responses from people.

101

Q: What has been your reaction to the level of citizen interest and involvement in the
Vision project?
-I was dismayed by the number of residents who came to the first commmrity meeting
(over 70). I had expected many more, but officials with the NFS and TNC assured me
that the numbers were amazingly high compared to what they are used to working with
-Many of the Vision recommendations seem may seem obvious but they are important
because they get people talking about all of the issues and rncreases the level of awareness
in the township.

Q: Are more people concerned with the ecosystem perspective (the big picture) afier being
involved in the Vision project?

-Yes, but only those people who have participated Not enough people know what's
going on yet.

Q: Do you think that landowners are becoming more interested in cooperative land
management strategies across boundaries--more than they were 5 years ago for example?
-Possibly, but the primary interest is that people who have lived here for a long time do
not want to see things change.

Q: Can you think of any reasons why some people have not become involved in the
Vision?
-Many people do not care; they do not see any problems.

Q: Do you see the recommendations in the Vision as an ongoing process of land
management, or like goals to accomplish and move on from?

-There are elements of both involved Everyone involved in the Vision has learned how to
better communicate with groups and individuals which is an ongoing process in land
management. But there are also many goals amongst the recommendations which the
township would like to accomplish. In addition, there is the challenge to see how much of
the Vision process is transferable to other areas for their land management

Q: Have you worked with any type of similar land management program—one that has
promoted as much citizen involvement, or developed recommendations or guidelines for
crossing boundaries in land use and management such as the Vision has?

-No, this has been a learning process for everyone involved and it has improved
communication aspects on many levels. The township has had problems in the past with
some of the state agencies who have not been enforcing their own regulations in the
township. But the Vision project has been a good medirnn for improving communication
relations.

102

Q: Could you tell me about the goal of using the Vision as a guide in developing an
"ecological map " for the township's planning and zoning?

-The township's Land Use Master Plan was newly approved in 1993. From that the
township began to rewrite its zoning ordinances and finished those in 1998. Now the
challenge is to take the Vision as a mold for the new Master Plan The township would
like to use the Vision to create an "ecological map" of Brooks Township. This would
show, for example, where wetlands and other sensitive land areas are located so that the
township could use that information to develop zoning and planning guidelines for
controlled development. Knowing the locations of these features is important because
uncontrolled development sprawls along major roads and decreases the level of
connectivity in land which harms farmers and wildlife.

Q: Does the township have any plans yet for creating incentives toward getting more
landowners involved in implementing the Vision recommendations?

-Yes, the township is looking into creating a resource library where people can come to
get information about natural resources in the township, how to preserve land through
easements and other options, etc. In addition, the township is thinking about putting
together "kits" that would help interested landowners create conservation, preservation,
and land management plans.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natw'al resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township? -

-I value the natural beauty of the area.

103

Interview 3

Q: How did your oflice become involved in the Brooks Vision project?
-TNC called us to participate because of the high level of resident interest in water issues.

Q: In your experience, how unique is the Brooks Land Use Vision project?

~Brooks Township is in the minority but not totally alone. Other townships in the
Muskegon River watershed have taken similar actions done planning to protect their
water resources. Other townships have received federal grants to protect their
watersheds. But other townships are already experiencing urban growth. The perception
of what is a threat to natural resources and to a community's quality of life may be
different in each case but many people in Brooks Township obviously already feel that
these features are being threatened. In addition, Brooks Township seems to have a high
level of commitment to the Vision project amongst all of its township officials; that is a
unique and valuable characteristic.

Q: What are some of the challenges facing the township in this implementation phase?
-Brooks Township will need to provide incentives to single families who are moving into
the area so that they can prevent land fragmentation If possible, the township needs to
encourage cluster developments. This type of strategy often works well when dealing
with large scale developers but it has not proven successful at small, individual
landowner, scales. Closer to Grand Rapids, in Kent County, these rs so much sprawl
pressure that you can work with developers to create and maintain open space, thus,

preventing land fragmentation.

Q: Do you see any potential for Brooks Township to use its unique species and habitats to
its advantage in trying to achieve control over development?

-Yes, if the township continues to develop good public relations for promoting their
protection.

104

Interview 4

Q: From your viewpoint, what are 3 land uses in Brooks Township that have significant
negative impacts on the natural resources?

1. development, housing (second and first homes)

2. associations with development

3. elimination of fire fiom the landscape

4. a scattered land ownership pattern-more owners make it difficult to work on
preservation while involving all of the stakeholders

Q: Do you foresee increasing problems with fragmentation in the township for the next 5 -
10 years?
-Yes through development.

Q: Do you perceive the above [and uses as being valued by the residents of Brooks
Township or more so by people outside of the township?

-For the issue of development, you need to find a balance, you can't stop it and people
generally don't want to stop it, but must do it wisely to preserve natural features.

Q: Are other townships in Newaygo County, or in nearby counties, attempting any similar
land use management programs (with high levels of community involvement and
promoting recommendations and guidelines for cross boundary management)?

-No, this rs a pilot project to identify rare features m the area, plan for their protection,
and implement a management plan through partnerships.

Q: How does the level of community involvement in Brooks Township compare with other
projects you have worked with or heard about?

-The Brooks Township Vision has had a high level of citizen participation ,which is
unique in community level land management, and because this is a pilot project, it makes
comparisons difficult. TNC has a partnership project in the Upper Peninsula and they
have another project in northern lower Michigan, but otherwise, I can only compare the
Vision project to our Forest Plan revision process which involves citizen comment and
input. All of these projects are helping to create more awareness of the bigger picture in
land management and how individual actions impact that picture.

Q: Are landowners becoming more interested in cooperative land management strategies
across boundaries, more than they were 5 years ago?

~That's hard to say. A partnership occurred between the MNF and the Brooks
Township residents but without the leadership of the township supervisor the project
would not have occurred This has been a learning opportunity for everyone involved In
general, landowners don't understand the value of land and resources.

105

Q: Do you see any signyicant barriers that may prevent people's involvement, both
individuals and organizations, in efi’orts like the Vision?

-There is still an element of fear, especially for landowners, when we talk about
endangered species, rare plants and animals, wetlands, etc. Landowners fear that their
land will be taken from them. There is an economic fear that the govermnent will step in
and cause people to lose their rights to use their land as they want. Sometimes people
feel that is they don't know about the rare species on their land then they don't have to
fear, so they don't seek out ways to protect their land

-Because of the partnerships in the Brooks Vision, there is not as much fear, but the
recommendations are of no value if people do not implement them. Even though it is a
big step to get people together, communicating, and agreeing on a course of action, the
Vision and its recommendations are only the very beginning.

106

Interview 5

Q: From your viewpoint, what are 3 land uses in Brooks Township that have significant
negative impacts on the natural resources?

1. housing development-Brooks Township has become a bedroom commrmity for Grand
Rapids employees since the mid 1980's

2. road management as development tends to follow paved roads

3. housing development and crowding on the lakes and the river-water quality is an
important issue to the community

Q: Do you foresee increasing problems with any of these issues in the township for the
next 5-10 years?
-Yes, the current zoning laws may not be adequate to manage the increasing development

Q: Do you perceive the above land uses as being valued by the residents of Brooks
Township or more so by people outside of the township?
-For long term residents, development could be good or bad, they may desire the
accompanying higher land values if people are approaching retirement and ready to sell
their land. But new residents, those who have moved there within the last 5 years, seem
more opposed to development People who are moving in like the rural character.

Q: Have you worked with any similar land management programs that promoted a high
level of community involvement and recommendations or guidelines for cross boundary
management?

-The MNF seeks public input for its Forest Plan and other land management actions, but
the Brooks approach is new, fiom a landscape perspective. There are watershed
approaches being used on the Muskegon River but they are in beginning phases so its too
early for comparison. The Brooks project is a pilot, there are no others to compare it to
in the HMNF. The only possibility would be the Upper Peninsula project with TNC
where they are looking at finding sustainable levels of resource extraction by local
residents.

Q: How involved would say your oflice is with land management in Brooks Township or
how ofien does your oflice communicate with landowners?

-We have a Karner Blue Butterfly restoration project in the township so during the
spring-summer field season, we may visit the township twice a week. This is very
frequent when compared to other areas in the White Cloud district We do not have a
high level of communication with residents in the township; they may stop by to chat or
see what we are doing when we are on site in the area

Q: Does your ofiice have any communication with adjacent private landowners?

-We notify adjacent landowners when we are planning a change in land management near
them and some landowners have specifically requested that we call them whenever we
make clnnges that might affect their neighboring land

107

Q: Are landowners becoming more interested in cooperative land management strategies
across boundaries, more than they were 5 years ago?

-From an overall perspective, yes, there is more interest in what the NFS is doing and
how forestland are being managed. The Brooks Vision is an example of that and we will
try to increase it through the implementation phase of the project.

Q: Do you see any significant barriers that may prevent people's involvement, both
individuals and organizations, in efl'orts like the Vision?

-For the residents, there is always the issue of time commitments. They have many other
interests. There is also the issue of perception which comes as the question "is there a
problem?" Many people do not understand the issues and concerns that the Vision
project has tried to present; many people are unaware that thetownship has such unique
features as the prairies.

108

Interview 6

Q: From your viewpoint, what are 3 land uses in Brooks Township that have significant
negative impacts on the natural resources?

1. second home development

2. conversion of land use—from large areas of forest land to smaller amounts of acreage
for forestry now, the land is being divided into smaller units which are not manageable
srzes

3. the amount of impact on natural resource use caused by increases in population, new
homes around the lakes and other related issues such as the potential for new sewer
systems there

Q: Do you foresee increasing problems with any of these issues in the township for the
next 5—1 0 years?

-Yes, as the fiagrnentation of land continues, the affects of these issues will be enhanced,
moving along a spectrum tmless things change.

Q: Do you perceive the above [and uses as being valued by the residents of Brooks
Township or more so by people outside of the township?

-Yes. I see it as the "last pioneer syndrome." Everyone wants to be the last person to
build in a locale with no one else coming after them. These people look at their individual
interests and do not see the larger picture. When everyone does this, it is a problem.

Q: Have you worked with any similar land management programs that promoted a high
level of community involvement and recommendations or guidelines for cross boundary
management?

-I am currently working with the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management
(NLM) project. It began in 1994 and is of a similar nature, but it is a much larger scale
and more complex than the Brooks Vision, so it is more diffith There are over 30
counties throughout northern Michigan that are involved in the NLM project.

Q: Being that the Brooks Vision project is similar to the NLM project, are there any
lessons learned that could be transferred one to the other?

_-MDNR is interested in exploring how it can get similar results in the NLM project
without doing it on a township by township basis. I have learned a lot being involved in
both of these projects. Through the Brooks Vision, it has been interesting to find out
how to do the things we have been talking about in the NLM proj ect-with recognizing
and understanding ecosystems and trying to get people to do things that are
complimentary to ecosystems when they move into a new area for example. We want to
make sure that people understand that neither agencies nor the government are trying to
tell them how to use their land or anything. We just want to develop suggestions with
them and try to get local groups of people to carry those forth to other people. This is a
similar stem to the Brooks project because most of the Vision recommendations are for
education and they came jointly from the group of advisors which included residents.

109

Q: What has been your reaction to the level of community interest and involvement in
Brooks Township?

-1 have not been to all of the meetings yet, but I believe the involvement has been high
compared to other public participation promotions. Anytime you can focus on
something tlnt people can readily relate to, you get more involvement The closer you
get to people, the more involvement you get. Large scale projects, like the NLM, have
more philosophical aspects so more organizations get involved On smaller scales, more
individuals get involved

Q: How involved would say your oflice is with land management in Brooks Township or
how often does your ofiice communicate with landowners?

-With only about 200 acres of state land in the township, we are not very involved The
Vision project was a learning experience and the timing was right in the township since
they are in the process of rewriting their planning guide.

Q: Are landowners becoming more interested in cooperative land management strategies
across boundaries, more than they were 5 years ago?

-Yes, people are hearing through the media and other means about what is going on with
different issues and the timing is better than it was 5 or 10 years ago. People felt more
threatened by government intervention because of property rights issues. But now,
people are becoming more aware of things like urban sprawl so that awareness is a
catalyst to become more involved in land management. ' Many land management options
are very new, such as ecosystem management, and they lave only recently become more
feasible outside of academia through new technologies like GIS. These provide more
opportunities for local people to apply different land management strategies.

Q: Do you see any significant barriers that may prevent people's involvement, both
individuals and organizations, in eflorts like the Vision?

-The timing of some of the meetings could have been a problem for some pe0ple. The
township tried to hold them in the late aftemoons or early evening so people could attend
them after work, but many people's schedules are very busy.

-Some people may not feel that they can have an impact on the issues. They need to
made aware that they are welcome and that they can contribute. Sometimes, people with
higher levels of education tend to become more involved than other people. .

-With agencies, some are not used to working in this type of arena, it is out of their
comfort zone. They have to be willing to accept some things that are not ideal. But there
may also be situations where a particular organization's policies may prevent the type of
cooperation seen in the Brooks project-different types of organizational barriers.

110

Interview 7

Q: When did your organization become interested in the Brooks Township area?
-We have been interested in the southern area of Newaygo County for many years,
probably since the early 1980's. Many projects have been started in the area over the
years but only the Vision project has come through as a significant long-term effort.

Q: In your viewpoint, how unique is the Vision project as compared to other projects that
your agency is working with in the state of Michigan?

-'Ihe Vision project is unique; the partnerships-and cooperation with local residents is
similar to other projects we are worldng with. However, the Brooks Vision is unusual
because we are working with local government and other partners, in addition to the local
residents. In addition, we have turned control over to the township officials and residents
without having one of our own staff in the area

Q: Has your organization previously worked on anything similar to the Vision project?
-We have a couple of community participation and partnership projects in the Upper
Peninsula but they have people fiom our local staff involved and there is little to no
involvement of the local governments.

Q: Could you comment on your reaction to the improved communication factors between
and within the organizations that the Vision project has stimulated?

-Improving communication is a goal for nearly every cooperative partnership project—and
communication is often a problem even within organizations. I was not too surprised by
the lack of prior communication between the organizations involved in the Vision; I may
be more used to encountering that. But improving communication has been a goal for the
pI'OJCCt.

Q: In your viewpoint, what do you feel might be some barriers that may prevent people
from getting involved in projects like the Vision?

-There seems to be a tendency for people, even those who are interested in a project, to
rely on other people (who are already more committed and involved in a project) to take
care of things. Other factors might include time constraints, communication problems, or
issues of hostility toward a project.

Q: Do you think that people who have been, or are currently, involved in an organization
(like a lake association, neighborhood group, church group, etc.) are more likely to
become involved with a project like the Vision?

~Yes, this seemed to be true in the Vision project, those people who are most involved are
already involved in outside organizations and projects, and this seems true in other
projects we work with as well. '

lll

Q: What do you see as a couple of key factors in the Vision project which the township
ofiicials and residents will need to accomplish in order to feel that they have successfully
implemented the Vision?

-Revising their Master Plan based on the Vision will be one key factor.

-But ideally, implementing the Vision should not be something that can be accomplished
by doing a few key things and then saying its done. It should be an ongoing process that
is always present in the township. It should look at long-term goals and have more
influences on people's daily actions. It should influence the way people feel about the
township and reflect how the residents want the township to look. The Vision should be
something that neighbors talk to each other about and something that new residents are
given information about.

Q: What do you feel are the chances for successfully implementing the Vision?

-1 am optimistic that the township will be able to incorporate the Vision into their Master
Plan rewrite. I am also optimistic that successful land exchanges and landowner contacts
can be accomplished through the partnerships that have evolved

-However, in an overall perspective of changing township attitudes, I am less optimistic.
This will be more of a challenge; it is hard to say how likely it will be that they can
maintain a sense of place in a culture that moves so often This type of overall change
will be much harder.

112

Interview 8

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-3 years

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks Township area?
-I’m not presently employed. I’m taking some time off fi'om work.

Q: What is the general location of your property?
-.On a lake shore.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-For our permanent residence.

Q: Why do you own land in Brooks Township?
-We wanted to live on the water and this area seemed quiet but we were wrong about that.
This area has busy streets; the lake is very busy; the houses are too close together, etc.

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-Yes, there is increasing development pressure.

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveloped land will increase in the next 5-10 years?
-Yes.

Q: Is it correct that you served on the Planning Commission recently?

-Yes, I resigned last year. I had 20 years of experience seeing another township become
too crowded and it put too much pressure on the local infrastructure so when I got to
Brooks and saw the beginning of development pressure here, I wanted to help prevent it.

Q: Were you involved in the initial eflorts to develop the Land Use Vision project?

-Yes, I have been a long time member of The Nature Conservancy so when I heard that
TNC had been in the township hall, I jumwd to get them involved in the township. I
formd out that Brooks Township is on the southern end of the Newaygo Outwash Plain,
which would make it a good site for a TNC project So, I petitioned TNC’s involvement.
I felt that if we could develop an “ecological map” of the township we could avoid the
problems I have seen in other townships. An “ecological map” would consist of
ecological overlays that could be layered onto zoning maps. We would have separate
maps for each rmtural feature category in the township and a location of all the plots being
considered for development in the township. We would then overlay the natural feature
mapsoneachotherandonthezoningmapssowecouldseethebestareasfor
development. We would use GIS (Geographic Information System) and the Land Use
Vision to develop this “ecological map.”

113

Q: How do you feel about National Forest lands in the township?
-We like to walk and cross country ski in the Forest lands and we like knowing that NFS
lands are there.

Q: If it were possible, would you like to see the NF S increase the amount of land it owns in
the township?

-It would depend on what was given up, for example if private owners would want to
give up land for management, then maybe I would support an increase. But there are a lot
of “ifs.” On a side note, in working with the state and federal people during the Vision
project, I got a sense that they are stretched too thin with funds anyway.

Q: How do you feel about the National Forest Service management of their public lands in
the township? . ‘ ,

-In reference to the people I worked with on the Vision, they are dedicated, creative and
doing well for what they have available to them.

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-All of them from February to September of 1998.

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project—what is your reaction so far?

-I was dismayed to see how much overlap there is and how little awareness there was on
what other agencies were doing! I felt there needed to be much more information
exchange. But it happens in many other fields as well-if the right hand knew what the
left hand was doing, funds could be better used and go much farther! It would also cut
down on unnecessary duplication.

Q: How strong do you feel are the township ’s chances for success in implementing the
Vision recommendations?

-It depends on whether the township can produce strong enough leadership to carry
things out. It needs dedicated leaders, with a small nucleus of dedicated people (maybe 5
people), it can work. It will also take education, for example, as to why we need more
taxes for land purchases, the township is very mixed with including low income people
and retirees, etc. Some people bought land here 40 years ago to sell it for their retirement
fund and now if someone tries to tell them they cannot sell it to a developer, it will
require education

-Many people do not think that the Vision issues are a problem now so it won’t be
seriously implemented until development increases. Then people may backtrack to use
the Vision I hope it won’t be too late then. The township will need much education to
produce proactive support to prevent the suburban sprawl that people don’t want.

-If I ever worked on a project like this in the future I would seek community funding first
If people in Brooks Township had approved a budget for this type of project, it would
have allowed much more freedom for the project leaders to promote the idea to people
through extensive mailings etc. For all of the effort that went into promoting the initial
idea of the Vision project to the community, the township officials were very

114

disappointed in the public attendance at the first meeting (75 people) despite the
professionals’ assurances that it was a great turnout.

Q: Has your participation in the Vision project changed how you feel about your land or
how you use you land? Has it changed how you look at land in Brooks township as a
whale?

-Yes, we thought we would buy land here and then sell it to a developer for their
retirement fund, but now they would never do that! Other people are fine to do what
they like, but I have a changed view for my property.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natural resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township?

-The resilient nature of this area It has recovered from the logging era and from many
floods; the landscape and the people have always come back to life. It is also a very
rmique area with so much water in such a small region (they have 9 lakes and 30 miles of
the Muskegon River). If I could create a dream world, I would see the township soundly

developed

115

Interview 9

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-3 years.

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks Township area?
-No, I work in Grand Rapids.

Q: What is the general location of your property?
-We have some prairie land adjacent to NFS property.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-We have our permanent residence here and we like to ride horses and hunt on our land.

Q: Why do you own land in Brooks Township?

-We were looking for quite a bit of acreage. We formd this land in Brooks Township and
thought it was perfect with the NFS as our neighbor so we would not have to worry
about development on those sides.

-But we were surprised by significant clunges a few months after we moved here. The
NFS clear-cut much of the land next to our property. After calling the NFS to complain,
we found out that they are trying to restore prairie habitat for endangered Karner Blue
Butterflies. This was the beginning of a significant learning experience for us. We did not
know how unique our land was—there are cacti and no mosquitoes on our prairie land So,
we became involved in the Vision to understand more.

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-Yes, development can split up large pieces of land to make money.

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveloped land will increase in the next 5-1 0 years?
Definitely. The township rs already trying to push a new school millage for a new high
school because of growth

Q: Can you tell that growth is happening since you moved to the township?

-Yes, we have watched many houses built and those new homes now Want paved roads
and other things. It rs not safe with so many people driving fast on the roads; when you
are onahorse, itcanbeeasily scaredby thecars.

Q: How do you feel about National Forest lands in the township?

-I want to help with them. They are abused lands with people dumping trash illegally; it
is a huge problem. It will take a long time to educate people on how important the
township’s natural resources are.

-I called the NFS, when they began clear-cutting for the butterflies, to find out why they
were cutting all the trees down I was very upset. I formd out that they had contacted
the previous owner 2 years before we bought the property to tell him that they were
planning to clear-cut; they are supposed to contact property neighbors before projects
like this occur. But they did not contact us.

116

Q: If it were possible, would you like to see the NFS increase the amount of land it owns in
the township?
-Yes

Q: How do you feel about the National Forest Service management of their public lands in
the township?

-They are understaffed, overworked, and under budgeted Closing the White Cloud office
has had negative impacts on the NPS communications with the township because they are
not around

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-Probably 6. We have been very involved

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project—what is your reaction so far?

-I was very disappointed in the resident turnout at the implementation meeting! I
volunteered to take the lead on one of the citizen efforts. I think people were originally
fearful that the Vision would be forced on them like new ordinances so there was a lot of
public turn out for the first few meetings; people wanted to make sure they weren’t going
to get burned. (Then when they formd out that it was not going to be new rules and
regulations, they felt better and lost interest)

Q: Has your participation in the Vision project changed how you feel about your land or
how you use you land? Has it changed how you look at land- in Brooks township as a
whole? _

-Yes. I had never looked at a plat map; I did not realize how large our section of land was
in comparison to the majority of parcels in the township. 1 see more value in our land
than when we originally bought it.

-When the NFS began clear-cutting, we wanted to plant all of our land in new trees. Now,
after being involved in the Vision, we appreciate how unique our land is and we are
actually going to cut some of our trees to help restore more of the prairie! We have done
a complete 180 degree trn-n around!

-In looking at the township as a whole, I don’t rmderstand why more young mph, in
their 30’s and 40’s, aren’t interested in preserving the natural resources for the children.
There is a significant split between age groups in the township-there are young people
and retirees.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natural resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township?

-It is so rmique, very hilly; there are sections of the township that are just gorgeous, you
can’t find anything like them in the surrounding area Most people have 10 acres so there
is not much crowding, and yet, we are conveniently close to Grand Rapids. But now it is
creeping toward us.

117

Interview 10

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-16 years. But we have only lived here permanently since 1993.

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks Township area?
-No, I am employed in Grand Rapids.

Q: What is the general location of your property?
-We live on Hess Lake.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-It is our residence.

Q: Why do you own land in Brooks Township?
-It was my childhood dream. My neighbors had property on Hess Lake and I learned to
water ski there when I was a kid

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-Not necessarily at present, but in the future, development pressure will increase. I
believe that Brooks Township is enlightened on land management issues; we changed the
zoning ordinances recently to maintain the “myth of Brooks Township,” that is to say
the myth of few people and lots of woods and water. The newer zoning ordinances help
encourage landowners to split long 10 acre parcels in half instead of creating long narrow
strips. The ordinances also encourage small lots in cluster developments.

I see two forces at work in the township. One wants to preserve sparse development and
the bedroom community atmosphere, while the other wants to bring industry and
businesses into the area .

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveloped land will increase in the next 5—1 0 years?
-Other than the shifting population trend with people continuing to move out of the
cities, no.

Q: How do you feel about National Forest lands in the township?

-They are a boon I like to use them, to wander arormd on foot or drive through and I like
to hrmt deer. I see them as a blessing to the state. But there is a lot of illegal trash
dmnping. Its odd, a lot of people are ecologically minded but things such as increases in
landfill fees force people to dump trash illegally because they cannot afford the fees.

Q: If it were possible, would you like to see the NF S increase the amount of land it owns in
the township?
-Part of me says yes, but I am a fierce supporter of private property rights.

118

Q: How do you feel about the National Forest Service management of their public lands in
the township?

-1 don’t have much of an impression. I am aware that they have limited funding. I would
support more money for the NPS if I knew it was going to be spent for the right things.

Q: Do you feel there is a good level of communication between the NF S and the township
residents?

-No, but what vehicle do you use to get that kind of information out to people. I would
like to start a project working with the school newsletter to get information to people.
You need to talk to people about boundaries, about how to cross those
communication barriers. I think that through something like the school newsletters, we
could cover more information than just school news, like political information or learning
about the NFS.

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-None, but I am an active member of my Lake Association and Lake Board

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project—what is your reaction so far?

' -I read the Vision document and I think it is great except that not a lot of pe0ple will read
it nor do anything because that is human nature. If the township can energize lake
associations and organize river groups, maybe some of the Vision recommendations can
be accomplished but it all needs to be decentralized

Q: Do you feel that the Vision recommendations will be implemented successfully?
-Realistically, probably not, unless the township keeps their thumb on it and keeps the
groups going and influences the developers.

-The Vision can be useful and an effective tool for rewriting the Master Plan; designing
the township around the Vision will not be a bad thing. Some people won’t like the
Vision, especially large landowners, and some people won’t care. But they also live in
Brooks Township so the will have to give a little.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natural resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township?

-All I have to do is look around This is a beautiful place with its dirt roads, creeks,
swamps, rivers, lakes, people and animals! In fact, a recent road millage was defeated and
I think that happened because people want to keep the dirt roads, they give the township
a rural feel and they discorn'age development.

Q: If you had a question about land or natural resource use in the township, who would

you take that question to?
-I would take it to the zoning administrator.

119

Interview 1 1

Q: How long have you owned land in Brooks Township?
-7 years. ~

Q: Are you employed in the Brooks T ownsth area?
-No.

Q: What is the general location of your property?
-Rural forest land with sandy areas and lots of oaks and scrub pines.

Q: What do you use your land for?
-My residence and I enjoy riding horses here.

Q: Mry do you own land in Brooks T ownshrp?
-I found this to be the kind of location I was looking for. I can fish, hunt, ride horse, and
live in a beautiful setting. .

Q: Do you think that undeveloped land in the township is being threatened by anything?
-Yes, there are too many people littering, drnnping trash illegally, and motorcycles are
tearing things up. Plus, the NPS has cut a lot of trees for the Karner Butterflies but they
have not restored the habitat correctly and they are not sure if the strategy they have
chosen is going to work at all.

Q: Do you think that threats to undeveIOped land will increase in the next 5-1 0 years?
-It is already getting worse with people moving up from Grand Rapids.

Q: How do you feel about National Forest lands in the township?

-My land adjoins them on two sides. I like to ride horse through the NFS lands and I
catch a lot of people dumping trash This upsets me a great deal; I thought that with the
money from timber sales, the NPS was supposed to clean up trash. As soon as the
Ranger station moved to White Cloud, I saw much more problems with trash and other
abuses because of the lack of NFS presence.

Q: How do you feel about the National Forest Service management of their public lands in
the township?

-1 am upset about the large acreage of trees they cut for the butterfly habitat; a wind

storm came through here shortly afterward and knocked more trees down, it looks
terrible. Then they didn't leave enough brush for a good controlled burn to help restore
the prairie grasses so the habitat is still no good for the butterflies. Other than this Karner
Butterfly project, the NPS usually has fairly good communications and relations with
neighboring landowners. '

Q: How many of the Land Use Vision meetings have you attended?
-Most of them.

120

Q: How do you feel about the Vision project—what is your reaction so far?

-Good. Everyone involved seems to have different views of what they want to see come
out of the project My preference is to clean up and take care of the lands we have,
especially with the trash dumping. But I don't know if the Vision recommendations are
accomplishable because there are so many different things included; its a good start
though.

-F or the trash issue, my suggestion is that people should be given a permit if they are
cleaning up public lands in the township (NF S, state, or township lands) so that they
don't have to pay the landfill fees for other peOple's trash.

Q: Has your participation in the Vision project changed how you feel about your land or
how you use you land? Has it changed how you look at land in Brooks township as a
whole?

-No, not much can be done on my land (as far as farming or other land uses), so I feel that
l have been a natural conservationist. 1 am Med with many of the agencies and
officials, though, for not doing anything when I call in concerns, such as littering or abuse
by ATV's.

Q: In your own words, could you briefly describe what you most highly value about land
and natural resources in Brooks Township? How does that impact the way you use land
in the township?

-The unique natural features, the diverse plants, and the natural areas. The more the
township can control small parcel land sales and development, the better chance they
have of retaining natural areas here.

Q; If you had a question about land or natural resource use in the township, who would

you take that question to?
-The township supervisor.

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I 998 Annual Report, The Nature ConservancyuMichigan Chapter.
Adams, John H. 1998. "Turning Up the Heat." The Amicus Journal. 20(1):2.

Agee, James K. and Darryl] R. Johnson (Eds). 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks
and Wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Anonymous. 1997. "Endangered Species Act Reauthorization would Balance Needs of
Landowners, Wildlife." International Wildlife. 27(6):6.

Anonymous. 1998. "$200 Million Set for Conservation Cost-Share." Successful
Farming. Iowa Edition, 96(4):24.

Babbie, Earl. 1983. Practicing Social Research. 3rd. ed Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.

Barbee, Robert D., Paul Schullery and John D. Varley. I991. ”The Yellowstone Vision:
An Experiment that Failed or a Vote for Posterity?" Proceedings of a Conference,
Partnerships in Parks and Preservation. Albany, New York, Sept 9- 12, p. 81-82.

Barlowe, Raleigh. 1996. Land Resource Economics: The Economics of Real Estate. 4th
ed Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bartlett, Dick. 1995. Saving the'Best of Texas: A Partnership Approach to Conservation.
Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bender, D.J., T.A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig. 1998. “Habitat Loss and Population
Decline: A Meta-Analysis of the Patch Size Effect” Ecology 79(2):517-533.

Beyer, Jr., D.E., L. Homan, and D.N. Ewert. 1997. “Ecosystem Management in the
Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan: A Case Study.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 38:199-211.

Brandenburg, Andrea M. and Matthew S. Carroll 1995. "Your Place or Mine?: The
Effect of Place Creation on Environmental Values and Landscape Meanings." Society
and Natural Resources, 82381-398.

Briggs, Donald E. 1993. "Fading Boundaries and Emerging Regions: Planning for Publics
and Places." Human Ecology: Crossing Boundaries. Wright, Scott D., Thomas
Dietz, Richard Borden, Gerald Young, and Gregory Guagnano, (Eds) Fort Collins:
The Society for Human Ecology.

123

Brooks Township Land Use Vision. 1999. Fremont: The Fremont Area Foundation.

Burchell, Robert W., and Naveed A. Shad, David Listoldn, Hilary Phillips, Anthony
Downs, Samuel Seskin, Judy S. Davis, Terry Moore, David Helton, Michelle Gall.
1998. The Costs of SprawluRevisited. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Chambers, Nina M and Sam H. Ham. 1995. "Strengthening Regional Planning Through
Community Education." Conservation of Biodiversity and the New Regional Planning.
SaLmier, Richard E. and Richard A. Meganck (Eds). Organizations of American
States and the IUCN—the World Conservation Union, p. 75-92.

Clarke, Jeanne N. and Daniel C. MchI. 1996. Staking Out the Terrain: Power and
Performance Among Natural Resource Agencies. Albany: State University of New
York Press.

Compton, Cathy A. 1992. "Barriers to Public-Private Partnerships." Water
Environment and Technology, 4(6):20.

Costello, Raymond 1999. "Biomass Cofiring Offers Future for Coal Plants. Power
Engineering, 103(1):45-48.

Cresswell, John W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cubbage, Frederick W., Jay O’Laughlin and Charles S. Bullock III. 1993. Forest
Resource Policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cullingworth, J. Barry. 1993. The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use
Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Daerr, Elimbeth G. 1998. "Georgia Pacific Funds Park Projects." National Parks,
72(11/12):43

Dickenson, Joshua C. III. 1995. "The Need and Potential for Private Biodiversity
Conservation. " Conservation of Biodiversity and the New Regional Planning. Saunier,
Richard E. and Richard A. Meganck (Eds). Organizations of American States and the
IUCN-the World Conservation Union, p. 33-52.

Driver, B.L., Daniel Dustin, Tony Baltic, Gary Elsner, and George Peterson, (Eds).
1999. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Elmo R. Richardson. 1962. The Politics of Conservation: Crusades and Controversies,
1897-1913. Berkeley: University of California Press.

124

Elsner, Gary., Darrell Lewis, Frank Snell, and William Spitzner. 1999. "The Role of
Public Lands in Maintaining and Rejuvenating the Human Spirit." Nature and the
Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. Driver, B.L., Daniel
Dustin, Tony Baltic, Gary Elsner, and George Peterson, (Eds). State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, Inc., p. 9.

Endicot, Eve (Ed). 1993. Land Conservation through Public/Private Partnerships.
Washington, DC: Island Press; Byers, Anne M 1988. "Partnerships for today and
tomorrow. " The Nature Conservancy Magazine, 38(3): 8.

Enzer, Maia 1998. "Giving a Voice to Communities." American Forests, 104(3):28.

Freemuth, John. 1996. "The Emergence of Ecosystem Management: Reinterpreting the
Gospel?" Society and Natural Resources, 9:41 1417.

Gardner, Gerald T. and Paul C. Stern 1996. Environmental Problems and Human
Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Grumbine, R. Edward 1992. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis.
Washington DC: Island Press.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. "What is Ecosystem Management?" Conservation Biology
8(1):27-38. ‘

Grumbine, R. Edward 1997. "Reflections on "What is Ecosystem Management?"
Conservation Biology 1 l(l):4l-47.

Grumbine, R. Edward 1999. "Beyond Conservation and Preservation in American
Environmental Values." Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land
Management Ethic. Driver, B.L., Daniel Dustin, Tony Baltic, Gary Elsner, and George
Peterson, (Eds. ). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., p. 237.

Guglielrnino, Janine E. 1999. "Leap of Faith." American Forests, 104(4):24-26.

Hoover, Rusty. 1999, April 4. "Submbs on the Edge." W

Howard, Alice. and Joan Magretta 1995. "Surviving Success: An Interview with The
Nature Conservancy’s John Sawhill." Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct: 109-118

Huron-Manistee National Forest Need for Change Assessment. 1998.

Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Plan Amendment No. 22. 1993.

125

Huth, Hans. 1957. Nature and the American: Three Centuries of Changing Attitudes.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

James, Katherine. 1999. "Understanding Successful Partnerships and Collaborations."
Parks and Recreation, 34(5):38.

Kals, Elizabeth, Daniel Schumacher and Leo Montada 1999. "Emotional Affinity
toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature." Environment and
Behavior, 3 1(2): 178.

Kennedy, Elizabeth T. 1996. "Economic Incentives: New Directions for Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker Habitat Conservation" Journal of Forestry, 94(4):22.

Lackey, Robert T. 1998. "Ecosystem Management: Desperately Seeking a Paradigm."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(2): 92-94.

Lins, Sue A. 1991. "Community Development and the National Park Service: Examples of
Cooperation in Boxely Valley, Arkansas, and Ebey's Landing, Washington." Small
Town. July-August:4-1 1.

Lowenthal, David 1965. Introduction. in Man and Nature. by George P. Marsh
Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Original work published
1864).

Mang, M.T., and F. Ruswick 1997. An Invitation to Participate: The Northern Larger
Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.

Maser, Chris. 1994. Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science and Economics. Delray
Beach: St. Lucie Press.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. (Ed). 1995. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1988. Economics and Biological Diversity: Developing and Using
Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources. Switzerland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Nelson, Robert H. 1977. Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis of the American
System of Land- Use Regulation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press.

Paulson, Deborah D. 1998. "Collaborative Management of Public Rangeland in
Wyoming: Lessons in Co-management " Professional Geographer, 50(3)301-3 15.

126

Rey, Mark 1999. "Private Forest Landowners and an Emerging Land Management
Ethic." Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic.

Driver, B.L., Daniel Dustin, Tony Baltic, Gary Elsner, and George Peterson, (Eds). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., p. 193.

Rudzitis, Gundars. 1996. Wilderness and the Changing American West. New York:
Wiley.

Runte, Alfred 1987. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincolrr University of
Nebraska Press.

Samuel P. Hays. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efliciency: The Progressive
Conservation Movement, 1 890-1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Saunier, Riclmrd E. and Richard A. Meganck. (Eds). 1995. Conservation of Biodiversity
and the New Regional Planning. Organizations of American States and the IUCN—the
World Conservation Union.

Schmidt, Karen J. "Information Paper No. 2: Ecosystem Management" Glacier National
Park [Online] Available http://www.nps.gov/glac/bio.2.htm, DATE

Schwartz, Mark W. (Ed). 1997. Conservation in Highly Fragmented Landscapes. New
York: Chapman and Hall.

Sellars, Richard W. 1992. "The Roots of National Park Management." Journal of
Forestry. 9O (1): 16-19.

Squires, Gregory D. (Ed). 1989. Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy of
Urban Redevelopment in Postwar America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.

Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Stevens, T.H., D. Dennis, D. Kittredge, and M. Rickenbach 1999. "Attitudes and
preferences toward co-operative agreements for management of private forestlands in
the North-eastern United States." Journal of Environmental Management, 55:81-90.

Stoel Jr., Thomas B. 1999. "Refining in Urban Sprawl.” Environment, 41(8):6.

The I 999 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Master Plan for Brooks Township,
Newaygo County. 1999.

The Nature Conservancy. “Conservancy History.” [Online] Available
http://www.tnc.org, May 25, 1999. -

127

Tonning, Barry. 1997 . "Pollution Prevention Incentives: Offering Carrots, Not Sticks."
Spectrum: The Journal of the State Government, 70(3):6—8.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. Record of Decision:
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan,
H won-Manistee National Forests. US. Government Printing Office.

Walsh, Noreen. 1997. "Creating a High Plains Partnership." Endangered Species Update,
l4(9-lO):ss8-ss9.

Warbach, John D., and Daniel Norberg. 1995. Public Lands and Forestry Trends
Working Paper. Michigan Society of Planning Officials, Michigan's Trend Future
Series.

Waterstradt, Kurt. 1999. "Partnerships Take Flight." Endangered Species Update,
16(1):ss6-ss7.

Watkins, T. H. 1992. "Father of the Forests." Journal of Forestry. 90 (l):12-15.

Weitz, Jerry., and Terry Moore. 1998. "Development inside m'ban growth boundaries:
Oregon's empirical evidence of contiguos urban form.” Journal of the American
Planning Association, 64(4):424-440.

Wellman, Douglas J. 1987. W ilcfland Recreation Policy: An Introduction. New "York:
Wiley.

Wilkinson, Charles F. and H. Michael Anderson 1987. Land and Resource Planning in
the National Forests. Washington DC: Island Press.

Yafl‘ee, S.L., A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, SM. Maleki, and BE. Thorpe.

1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current
Experience. Washington DC: Island Press.

128