13th US/ICOMOS International Symposium

Organized in partnership with The World Bank

May 20-22, 2010, Washington DC

Pennsylvania Wilds: Development of a Conservation Landscape

by Brenda Barrett
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Landscapes are the new unit of measurement for historic preservation and natural
resource conservation. Almost every month new collaborative regional efforts are being
announced to advance regional heritage development and conserve whole environments.
There are important reasons to work at this scale. The environmental and land
conservation fields pioneered ecosystem thinking, which has become more and more
significant with growing concerns about biodiversity and climate change. In the world of
cultural and historic preservation the interconnectedness of community and economic
systems means that saving one landmark or historic Main Street at a time does not have
much impact on a regions vitality, character, or sense of place.

This paper reviews some the elements that make up a this new idea of landscape and
looks at how this new paradigm is being used to engage one size bigger thinking to shape
a larger vision. It also examines the role of government in this new field. To look at how
these issues play out on the ground, a case study is provided on an ambitious rural
development initiative, the Pennsylvania Wilds, and the outcome of that initiative is
examined as way of looking at the opportunities and challenges of this kind of work.
Central to all of these broad sweeping ideas is that conservation and historic preservation
will be advanced and communities will prosper economically and socially if government
agencies, nonprofits and residents develop a holistic regional strategy that meets the
needs for income generation and quality of community life.

Starting with the basic building blocks, there is not yet an agreed upon definition on what
is a landscape in the context of this new big idea. One way the National Park Service
defines landscapes is in terms of the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for
designation and the understanding of what is significant in our nations past has expanded
from individual landmark properties to historic districts to larger agricultural and working
landscapes to places, many of them natural features, that have traditional cultural values. i
The more recent National Heritage Area designation is truly a large landscape scale
designation. The recent report of the National Park System Advisory Board titled
Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas defines them as places that includes
nature and culture and importance of the traditional practices of the people who live in
the region in shaping the landscape. ii This definition is still just a work in progress.
Many heritage areas contain national park units and are related thematically to the parks
significance. However, National Heritage Areas are just one framework to organize large
landscapes worthy of national investment and preservation

1
From a natural resource perspective the issues are vaster and building blocks are even
more scattered. Definitions of important landscapes include the habitat of individual
species to the characteristics of large watersheds, bays or estuaries to the
interrelationships of regional ecosystems. However, these well developed concepts for
recognizing places of high ecological value have not been reduced to any governmentally
recognized programmatic approach. The working landscape world of agriculture and
forestry also has multiple moving parts around high value farmland conservation and the
management of timber and forests. Some of the working landscapes are also recognized
as part of state or National Heritage Areas.

This definitional void on what is landscape scale work may be changing. Recent articles,
books and conferences have heralded a strong interest in this kind of big picture thinking
and have been identifying examples regional collaborative efforts underway across the
United States. iii Even more recently the Regional Plan Association has proposed the
development of an Atlas of Northeastern Landscape Conservation Initiatives an
ambitious effort to inventory large landscape efforts on the eastern seaboard, which looks
at issues of size, governance, legal status, primary objectives and other factors. This will
be an effort to watch in the future.

What is interesting about this preliminary work is that these definitions are not just the
physical definition of the characteristics large landscape. Integral to these emerging
definitions are the structure of the regional coalitions that animate them. In other words
large landscapes are understood not just as a place, but as people acting in a place. For
example, National Heritage Areas are not a boundary on a map with certain natural and
cultural features. They are also the management entity and the local constituency that
implement plans for resource conservation and community revitalization.

These human powered collaborations can be governmental or non governmental

although most are a blend of public and private partnerships as it requires a significant
effort to have an impact over a large geographic scale. But it is the role of government
and public investments in large landscape conservation or revitalization efforts that is of
greatest interest to policy makers.

Based on the recent academic research and on the ground practice, working on a
landscape scale, has been advanced as an important policy direction for federal programs
in the United States. Great Outdoor America, the report of the Outdoor Resources
Review Group, noted the importance of this work and recommended that: “Federal and
other public agencies should elevate the priority for landscape level conservation in their
own initiatives and through partnerships across levels of government, with land trusts,
other nonprofit groups, and private landowners to conserve America’s ‘treasured
landscapes’”. iv Advancing the National Park Idea, v the report of the Second Century
Commission charged with defining the future of the National Park Service, also strongly
endorsed landscape-scale thinking. Some of the commission’s top recommendations are
centered on the agency embracing a 21st- Century mission by “creating new parks,
collaborative models and corridors of conservation and stewardship, expanding the

2
national park system to foster ecosystem and cultural connectivity” and by “enhancing
park protection authorities and cooperative management of large land- and seascapes.”

It should be noted that the term landscape being applied to a number of current federal
efforts. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also within the Department of Interior is
leading an effort called the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to coordinate research
and information from a biological perspective. vi Another part of the Interior department,
the Bureau of Land Management already had developed a landscape scale designation
called the National Landscape Conservation System for those parts of their public land
holdings that were deemed to be of high natural and cultural value.vii The term
“treasured landscape” has been adopted by the U. S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to
encompass his vision for a high level of attention to both National Park Service units and
other large landscapes worthy of protection.

However, it is one thing for government agencies to characterize large areas for research
purposes or even for special management if they already control it, it is quite another
thing to develop regional strategies and to target investments in living landscapes with
multiple interests. Yet this opportunity to achieve a bigger outcome is of great interest to
advocates of effective community development and meaningful resource conservation.
So attempting to answers the question of how to manage large landscapes in partnership
with the people who live there, what kind of investment to make, and how to measure
outcomes are important.

There are examples of this work such as the National Heritage Areas and in conservation
focused watershed based initiatives. However, by any measure most of this landscape
work has been an under funded production. After designation and some initial planning,
local supporters are left trying to carry out big plans on a shoe string. However, there a
few examples of longer, larger investments that are worth examining. In particular
Pennsylvania’s work in an area called the Pennsylvania Wilds. The case study that
follows describes one of the most ambitious investments in large landscape conservation
and rural community development in the nation.

Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Rural Economic Development

North central Pennsylvania is a sparsely populated region known for its extensive public
lands and small historic communities. In the 12 counties that make up the core of the
region there is over 2 million acres of public land including 29 state parks, eight state
forests, hundreds of acres of state game lands and the Allegheny National Forest. It is one
of the largest blocks of public land on the east coast equivalent in size to Yellowstone.
The region’s has miles forests beyond the public lands and is known for its wilderness
feel and plentiful wild life Crossed by 2,000 many miles of trails and rivers including the
West Branch of the mighty Susquehanna ---- the region was already a great recreational
resource -- dotted with hunting and fishing camps and small communities that time
forgot. viii

3
Over the last hundred years the region had seen a cycle of boom and busts based on
resource extraction of timbering, mining and oil and gas drilling. By the turn of the 21st
century, the environmental was recovering; the once stripped hills were thickly
reforested and remediation of acid mine drainage in the streams was gaining ground. A
state sponsored Lumber Heritage Region and a state funded Initiaitves to link the historic
communities along the main east west transportation axis the Route 6 State Heritage had
begun to connect the partners across county lines.

However, the demographic and economic trends for the 12 counties were not positive. A
recent report noted that in the past decade the region saw a net decrease in businesses
and jobs. In 2009 six of the 12 counties had an unemployment rate of over 10 percent
with one county nearing 15 percent and another exceeding 18 percent. Demand shifts for
forest products caused a drop in traditional jobs and the small manufacturing operations
in the region were impacted by an increasingly globalized economy. The population in
the area declined by 2.9 percent as compared to a slight increase in population for the
state as a whole. Furthermore there was a distinct declines in the numbers of younger
working age residents. ix

A number of factors came together to respond to the challenges of economic

disinvestment in the region and the potential opportunity to build on the landscape assets
of the regions. In 2003 new political leadership in the state came up with a new idea that
was built on the work of the Lumber Heritage Region and a study titled A Plan for Elk
Watching and Nature Tourism in North Central Pennsylvania (2002) on increasing out
of area visitation based in part on the area’s free ranging elk the largest herd in the
Northeastern United States. The. A 2004 press release described this new approach as,
“Our vision for the Pennsylvania Wilds is to diversify and expand travel and recreational
opportunities within the region, and to do it in a way that continues the careful
conservation and protection of these resources and the communities around them”. x

The new governor established a task force included representatives from economic
development, fish and wildlife, historic preservation, natural resource and transportation
agencies as well as local organizations and officials. The taskforce based a number of
their strategies for regional development on the report that outlined opportunities for
nature based tourism focus on wild life watching. The primary goals of the projects
were established as:

1) Ensure stewardship of the public lands and character of the region’s

communities;
2) Support and grow private businesses such as accommodations, services and
locally made products:
3) Promote the renewal of the region’s communities and appropriate
community planning; and
4) Invest in public infrastructure to enhance the visitor experience in the
Pennsylvania Wilds.

4
To implement the project a marketing brand was developed for the Pennsylvania Wilds
and heavily promoted by the state’s tourism and travel agency. A national campaign
spent an estimated $5 million dollars. More limited funding was also directed to the local
tourism promotion organizations for some joint promotions. Over $5 million dollars was
made available for grants and loans for small business development.

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the state’s public
lands agency, began a program of major investment in state parks and forests visitor
infrastructure. This included new signage, refurbished facilities such as restrooms, access
roads and trails and most ambitiously new visitor centers in state parks, an Elk Country
Visitor Center and a new LEED certified nature inn, which added upscale option to the
range of accommodations for park visitors. This investment totaled $26 million and was
made possible in part by a large state bond issue and a strong economy. The department
also took the lead on coordinating much of the work with the communities by designating
a staff coordinator for the Pennsylvania Wilds to serve as a liaison to the community and
to help target public dollars to priority projects. The agency also refocused a number of
existing staff in parks and forestry on enhancing the visitor’s recreational experiences on
public land.

Interestingly, the natural resource department determined that this approach met the
needs of the agency’s strategic plan, Shaping a Sustainable Pennsylvania, xi and was a
model for all of their work. Based on some of the experience gained in the Pennsylvania
Wilds, the agency started other large scale projects across the state .The agency came to
call this work the Conservation Landscape Institutive and defined it as a value-driven,
place-based approach for strategic investment and actions around the goals of
conservation, recreational projects and community revitalization. In a recent report the
agency stated, “Simply put: working to save special regions of the state can save the
lifestyles they offer to their citizens and the benefits they offer to their visitors.” xii

By 2008 the approach was underway in seven large landscapes in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. These collaborations developed in landscapes where there were natural
assets particularly state parks and forests, local engagement through heritage areas and
other community partners, and significant state investments in green infrastructure such
as protected lands, greenways, trails and other outdoor recreational amenities. Although
the focus was on conservation of natural resources, a stated purpose was community
quality of life and economic development.

Unusually for a government agency, the Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources recognized that the work was a nontraditional strategy and commissioned two
studies to assess the impact of their investments of funding and effort. Two nationally
known consulting firms, Econsult in partnership Wharton Geospatial Initiative and OMG
Center for Collaborative Learning, were retained to evaluate the impact of this work.
Econsult to review the both the economic impact of the public investment and OMG to
better understand the process underway in the Conservation Landscapes and to make
recommendation for improving and sustaining the approach in the future. Both studies

5
focused on the Pennsylvania Wilds as the most mature and long running of the efforts,
although the OMG study also did an in depth at one of the other conservation landscapes
known as the Lehigh Valley Greenway and looked at all seven initiatives for common
factors and themes. Funding from three of the state’s major foundations allowed the
department to undertake this level of evaluation. xiii

Of most interest to the communities in the Pennsylvania Wilds, were the economic
outcomes. And with the expected caveats that the work was preliminary and that it would
need to revisit at regular intervals to assess long term effects, the findings were positive.
Over the time of the investment 2004-2008, tourism and economic development in the
region had increased in the region. Specifically, tourism-related employment earnings
and tax revenues in the region increased over state averages: the economy grew 3.7
percent each year, there was a 5.3 percent increase in overnight leisure travel per year and
a 2.7 percent increase in state sales tax revenue from tourism per year. In addition
visitation increased for state parks for the same period. xiv

OMG’s evaluation was directed at examining both the impact of governmental initiative
to improve the prosperity of a region based on a natural resource economy and analyzing
the efforts of government to be more involved and accountable. How do state agencies in
particular program bureaus in the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
work across bureaucratic boundaries within an agency and with other agencies. This is
critical to understand in delivering any innovative public investment. The findings of the
evaluation were based on individual interviews and focus groups with key partners and
provides analysis and insight into what those partners who lived and worked in the
Pennsylvania Wilds valued as sustaining the effort. This information is an important
contribution the practice of any future conservation efforts in large landscape.

Early on in the initiative a substantial investment was made in developing and marketing
the Pennsylvania Wilds brand. There was some recognition that to meet the adopted
goals of the project -supporting and growing private businesses and renewing
communities- there would be a need for increased capacity. If the marketing was
successful, local residents and businesses must be ready to accommodate increased
visitation, grow a tourism industry and do so in a way that preserved its character. The
original recommendations of the 2002 report had proposed addressing the deficits in the
tourism infrastructure through a business incubator, a small business skills training
program and a revolving loan fund. These specific recommendations were not
implemented as envisioned, but there were some steps made in this direction. The OMG
evaluation reported that the hiring of a Small Business Ombudsman for the PA Wilds
region was an important step. The position assisted in developing an informational web
site and encouraged local business start-ups by connecting small businesses with funding
and technical assistance. Another program that was well regarded was an Artisan
Initiative funded by the state tourism program and a grant from a federal regional
economic development authority. It was designed to improve the visibility and
profitability of the regional artisans and arts-related businesses and included signage,
promotion of an artisan trail, juried art and craft products, and the development of “Made

6
in the Pennsylvania Wilds” branding materials. Both initiatives were a focused on
keeping some of the tourism dollars within the local community.

Another community based goal identified for the region was appropriate community
planning. Implementing this strategy was also closely linked to the projects stated goals
of stewardship and preserving the character of the region’s communities. This recognized
the importance of sustaining and maintaining the authentic regional assets whether
cultural or natural that support a resource based tourism economy. One way state
government encouraged this kind of thinking in a region that had very little community
infrastructure was to fund projects that were multi-jurisdictional in scope. Most
impressive was the outcome of a grant to bring together the often beleaguered county
planners in the 12 county region as a “planning team”. Traditionally the county planners
had been hampered by limited funding and by limited land use authority. But using the
state’s Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement Act all 12 counties signed a
groundbreaking agreement and joined forces around common issues. xv A very visible
outcome was the Pennsylvania Wilds Design Guideline: A Design Guide for Community
Character Stewardship . Implementation of the design standards was totally voluntary,
but new construction, renovation and beautification projects began to adopt its ideas. The
planning team also addressed more mundane, but critical infrastructure needs such as
mobile phone service, traffic control, and water and sewer systems.

The OMG evaluation attributed the building of a common awareness of regional identity
to the Pennsylvania Wilds project particularly those elements that focused on community
development and efforts to expand the work to meet the needs of the people that lived
there as well as visitors. The partnership approach of the Pennsylvania Wilds was also
scaled down to regional coalitions in communities that already existed and were
interested in managing a natural tourism economy. These included communities like
Ridgeway and Wellsboro and organizations along the Clarion River and in the Pine
Creek Watershed many of whom already had work underway, but received support from
being part of a larger effort.

The OMG evaluation also described the challenges of developing a large landscape
project that provide lessons for any future efforts. A particularly difficult issue for
governmental agencies is trying to impose a regional perspective to branding, marketing
and program for travel and tourism purposes. The OMG report noted that, “ ...the
definition of the landscape must make some prima facie sense to those involved .”

In the case of the Pennsylvania Wilds the boundary was set by agents outside of the
region based on the similarity of the areas geographic characteristics and on the presence
of public lands – both forests and parks. The term the “Pennsylvania Wilds” was created
by a marketing firm on contract with the state to entice visitors with a wilderness
experience. In interviews for the evaluation report, residents of the region were both
mystified and offended by the name. In part because the logo included a the picture of an
elk head and elk are only found in a small part of the 12 county region. In addition the
term wilds implied that the region was uncivilized and undeveloped. Residents were
more focused on their region’s cultural heritage. Finally, there were concerns that the

7
brand had not been well communicated within the region and was not fully incorporated
into local tourism promotion efforts.

Another underlying challenge identified by the OMG evaluation was the inherent
resistance that government agencies and even programs within the same government
agency have to working together across boundaries on joint projects. An additional level
of challenge for this particular region was the ingrained skepticism of the people who
lived in the Pennsylvania Wilds, many who were actively “antigovernment” . As the
OMG report put it, “Many are cynical about state government, viewing Harrisburg (the
state capitol) as distant, unconcerned and uninformed about local realities, yet exerting
undue power over local affairs”. xvi

These feelings of independence and suspicion of outsiders were not surprising given the
areas past history of resource exploitation often by investors and economic forces far
beyond resident’s control. There were also local differences of opinion about the project.
Some who lived in the region hoped for a revitalized economy for themselves or their
children. Others wished to keep the status quo. One of the reasons that they valued the
areas was its relative isolation. Balancing these competing interest was difficult.

However, the evaluation report noted the importance of the leadership within the state’s
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources who moved the initiative beyond Elk
viewing and the restoration of public lands to working in concert with the local
communities. The agency developed a big vision of what government could do in the
Pennsylvania Wilds and set about to convince regional partners that it could happen if all
parties worked together. The OMG report emphasized the importance of the personal
approach that listened to local needs and shifted some of the work towards those
expressed needs. This engagement with the residents paid off with increasing local
support and even enthusiasm.

Pennsylvania’s Conservation Landscapes: Critical Ingredients

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources began to refer to this holistic
strategy as the department’s Conservation Landscape Initiative. Over a period of less than
three years the department expanded this work to important landscapes across the
commonwealth. By 2008 the approach was underway in seven large landscapes in
Pennsylvania. These collaborations developed in regions with publicly owned lands -
state parks and forests, local engagement through heritage areas and other community
partnerships, and/or significant state investments in green infrastructure such as protected
lands, greenways, trails and other outdoor recreational amenities. Although the focus was
on the conservation of the state’s natural resources, a stated purpose was also community
quality of life and economic development. Based on the findings of the OMG evaluations
and the agency’s on the grounds experiences, the department identified key ingredients
that define a conservation landscape as:

8
Sense of Place. Regional work is based on a shared characteristics of the landscapes and
is not defined by political boundaries. Working the Pennsylvania Wilds, local community
leaders discovered that they had common issues around the geographic characteristics of
the area and shared past. It helped them think about the area from a regional viewpoint.

Readiness. Communities are ready to participate in a region-wide effort often because of

threats or opportunities such as changes in the economic base, depopulation or urban
sprawl. For the Pennsylvania Wilds the economic picture was quite bleak with high
unemployment that caused disinvestment and out-migration. Like many rural heritage
regions, the area was at a tipping point and was seeking answers to their societal and
economic problems. These factors served as a spur to action by local leadership.

Engagement. Convening like-minded partners in a region is a key step. Through a civic

engagement process communities and their leaders can identify common values and
concerns. The evaluation of the Pennsylvania Wilds showed that failing to consult the
community on branding the initiative and poor communications on next steps were an
initial stumbling block to success. This was overcome by Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources leadership who listened to local concerns and recognized the need
to address social issues as well as natural resource conservation.

Strategic Investments. State agencies with regional and statewide partners provide high-
level leadership, financial support and technical assistance. The Conservation Landscape
Initiative, and the Pennsylvania Wilds specifically, were fueled by a period of generous
governmental funding from state bond issues and general government spending. In
addition, the targeting public funds and the combining of funds from multiple
governmental agencies magnified the impact of these investments. A governmental
taskforce in the Pennsylvania Wilds and later the regional planning team helped fund
priorities such as river access sites, downtown rehabilitation projects, regional trail
systems, and major state park improvements.

Public interests and lands. The work in landscapes is also strongly correlated with the
presence of state parks, state forests or significant recreational investments in a region.
These factors provided the foundation for the landscape as well as providing staff that
can help guide the initiative. In the Pennsylvania Wilds public lands were a starting point
and the boundary was drawn to include the state parks and forests. Also important was
the prior community organizing done by the Lumber Heritage Region and the Route 6
Heritage Region. Both organization had a strong local base and received funding from the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Theses places and investments
served a starting point to convene communities and residents. xvii

Finally, the OMG evaluation report documented the important role of government in
validating the significance of a region. When members of focus groups were asked the
most important benefit of the Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative, they stated over and over
“that someone saw real value in us.” This intangible factor may or may not be related to
the landscape scale of the work in Pennsylvania. However, it is an important to think
about as future large scaled projects are initiated across the country. What can

9
government add beyond just targeted funding? How are vision and value related? Is the
difference that this a more encompassing way for communities to look at their place in
the landscape.

The lessons of the Pennsylvania Wilds and the six other Conservation Landscape
Initiatives are still unfolding. This work in Pennsylvania is to date the best funded
landscape scale interventions in the nation. It is certainly the most evaluated and the
there is still much to learn particularly from the evaluation reports of OMG: Center for
Collaborative Learning. Another resource to turn to on landscape scale work is the work
of the Conservation Study Institute of the National Park Service. They conducted studies
on three of the most mature National Heritage Areas that informed the work of
Pennsylvania on critical ingredients for this work. xviii Finally, there are important
lessons to be learned from an international perspective. European landscape scale
management programs have been underway for over 50 years with particularly well
thought out approaches in England’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and France’s
Parc Regionaux. xix

As the units of measurement get larger and larger, it is important that all interested
partners learn from existing models. For example, Executive Order 13508 on
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration signed in May 12, 2009 leads with a
declaration that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure for its ecological values and its
nationally significant assets in the form of public lands, parks, forests, facilities, wildlife
refugees, monuments and museums. The Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Interior are developing new conservation strategies for really big
landscape that encompasses 64,000square miles in a five state region. xx To have any
hope of making a difference, these agencies need to look at what has worked in other
landscapes --- strategies like community engagement, place making, targeted investment,
building capacity and addressing local needs.

Conclusion: A new Ending for the Pennsylvania Wilds

In conclusion, the story of the Pennsylvania Wilds has taken a dramatic turn. First was
the down turn in the global economy, which closed down many of the region’s small
manufacturing industries and caused tourism across the country to falter. However, the
next shift in the region’s economic base resulted in a much more radical change. In less
than two years, the Pennsylvania Wilds, an area already swept over by the great timber
cuts in the 19th century, the discovery of oil, and subsequent exploration and the ravages
of coal mining has now become one of the centers of natural gas extraction from the
Marcellus Shale formation. The popular press has called Pennsylvania the as the Saudi
Arabia of natural gas production. As of July 2010 over 1,600 deep gas wells have been
drilled in Pennsylvania and one of the primary regions for exploration is the 12 counties
that make up the Pennsylvania Wilds.

At first welcomed by many residents as a chance at “good jobs”, concerns mounted when
from the green hill sides sprouted 10 story drill rigs, the night sky’s once the darkest on
the easy coast was lit up by wells flaring off excess gas, and the region’s roads were

10
pock marked with potholes from trucks carrying materials to the drill sites. The
Department of Conservation and Natural Resource’s certification as the largest
sustainably managed forest in the country is at risk from fragmentation of the forest by
roads, transmission lines and well pads. xxi Of most concern for the long term are the
hundreds of thousands of gallons of water needed to drill these new deep wells and the
potential for water pollution in streams and ground water sources.

The food and lodging businesses in the region are now booming with motels and any
lodging available full of riggers and roughnecks from Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
However, jobs for locals have not been as plentiful and tourists already are complaining
about the roads, the noise and views. These events are testing the idea of the
Pennsylvania Wilds as the centerpiece of the state’s Conservation Landscape Initiative.
So profound is the impact that it may not be possible to measure economic indicators for
the region and draw any conclusions that relate to visitor spending or use any traditional
travel and tourism measures.

It is tempting to look at this from a historical perspective as the latest cycle of

exploitation repeating itself and to predict a negative outcome that might sweeps away all
traces of the vision for the landscape of the Pennsylvania Wilds. The Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources is already developing new monitoring protocols
focused on the impacts on public lands of forests fragmentation, water quality, and state
park visitation. However, out in the communities, there are a few intriguing signs. The
Pennsylvania Wilds Planning Team is working on management issues related to the
Marcellus Shale and the Pine Creek Watershed Association is undertaking water quality
monitoring to check for drilling related water pollution.

In a recent interview Jerry Walls, a founding member of the Pennsylvania Wilds Planning
Team and former Lycoming County Planning Director, xxii he reported that in the
beginning managing the tourism economy took center stage for the planning team , but
that as the team worked together that changed. The team began to address what he
characterized as the real needs of the communities in this special place. As Marcellus Gas
emerged as a region wide issue, regional planning efforts are more important than ever to
help manage the infrastructure demands of roads and pipelines, and to protect water
resources. The planning team established a Natural Gas Taskforce, developed a toolkit
for local officials, and began to make use of planning information to assess secondary
impacts on communities. “Without the Pennsylvania Wilds”, he said “we would not have
been organized and mobilized.”

i
http://www.nps.gov/nr/ and http://www.achp.gov/ All cultural or historic units of the National Park
System are also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. NPS Bulletin 38 “Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties,” Parker and King 1990.
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/.

11
ii
Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas, National Park System Advisory Board (2006),
http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/NHAreport.pdf

iii
cKinney, Matthew J. Mand Shawn JohnsoWorking Across Boundaries: People, Nature and Regions.
Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy,
University of Montana,, 2009. Steiner, Frederick R. and Robert D. Yaro. “A New National Landscape
Agenda: The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 is Just a Beginning.” Landscape Architecture
99 6,June):70-77. Both works have built on years of work. Some of these efforts have also translated into
calls for action and other resources. For web-based resources, see
http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/regional-collaboration/
iv
Great Outdoor America, report of the Outdoor Recreation and Review Group www.orrgroup.org
v
Advancing the National Park Idea: the report of the National Parks Second Century Commission
(National Parks Conservation Association 2009) the report and the accompanying eight committee report
maybe found at www.npca.org.
vi
http://www.fws.gov/science/shc/lcc.html Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are management-science
partnerships that inform integrated resource management actions addressing climate change and other
stressors within and across landscapes. They will link science and conservation delivery. LCCs are true
cooperatives, formed and directed by land, water, wildlife and cultural resource managers and interested
public and private organizations. Federal, state, tribal, local government and non-governmental
management organizations are all invited as partners in their development.

vii
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html The Bureau of Land Management’s
National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) contains some of the West’s most spectacular
landscapes. It includes over 886 federally recognized areas and approximately 27 million acres of National
Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Conservation Lands of the California Desert.

viii
Information on the Pennsylvania Wilds is sources from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources web site at www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cli and from the Pennsylvania Conservation
Landscapes Initiative Report, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2010).
ix
Pennsylvania Initiative Program Evaluation, Econsult Corporation, (2010) An evaluation reports
commissioned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide a quantitative analysis of the
Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative. This report can be accessed at:
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cli/PA%20Wilds%20Initiative%20-%20Program%20Evaluation%20-
%20FINAL%20REPORT%20(2010-04-22).pdf

x
Pennsylvania Wilds Case Study, Patrizi, Ed Wilson, Len Albright and Michele Lempa, OMG Center for
Collaborative Learning (December 2009) The information for the case study on the Pennsylvania Wilds in
the article comes form this report unless otherwise noted. This report was one of a series of evaluations of
the Conservation Landscape Initiative approach commissioned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
One of the stated goals of this report was to provide lessons in planning, organizing and executing an
initiative to improve prosperity in a region through efforts to sustain and improve natural resources. This
report can be accessed at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cli/pa%20wilds%20final.pdf
xi
Shaping a Sustainable Pennsylvania, DCNR’s Blueprint for Action, Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/info/shapefuture/plansummarybrochure.pdf

12
xii
Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes Initiative Report, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (2010).
xiii
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cli/reports.aspx All of the reports by Econsult and OMG: Center for
Collaborative Learning on the Conservation Landscape Initiative can be accessed at this web site.
xiv
Pennsylvania Initiative Program Evaluation, Econsult Corporation, (2010)
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cli/PA%20Wilds%20Initiative%20-%20Program%20Evaluation%20-
%20FINAL%20REPORT%20(2010-04-22).pdf
xv
Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes Initiative Report, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (2010).
xvi
Pennsylvania Wilds Case Study, Patrizi, Ed Wilson, Len Albright and Michele Lempa, OMG Center for
Collaborative Learning (December 2009)
xvii
Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes Initiative Report, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (2010).
xviii
See Tuxill, J., Mitchell, N., Huffman, P., Laven, D., Copping, S., and Gifford, G. Reflecting on the Past,
Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report: A Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, Tuxill, J., Mitchell, N., Huffman, P.,
Laven, D. and Copping, S., Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware &
Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership (2006), and Tuxill, J., Mitchell, N., Huffman, P., and
Laven, D. Shared Legacies in the Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking people, Traditions and
Landscape (2008). All by the Conservation Study Institute, Woodstock, Vermont.

xix
Barrett, Brenda and Michael Taylor, Three Models for Managing Living Landscapes, CRM: The
Journal of Heritage Stewardship, National Park Service, Volume 4 Number 2, Summer (2007).
xx
President Obama issued the Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration on
May 12, 2009 at Mount Vernon overlooking one of the bay’s might tributaries the Potomac River.
xxi
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/marcellus/index.html For a good overview on natural gas
exploration on state forest lands, this web site provides a description of shallow well and deep well
production and potential impacts.
xxii
The interview with Jerry Walls took place on September 9, 2010. For more information on his role in
founding the Pennsylvania Wilds Planning Team, see page 5 in the Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes
Initiative Report, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2010).

This article is based in a paper presented at the 13th US/ICOMOS International Symposium organized in
partnership with The World Bank in Washington DC May 20-22, 2010. It has been revised to reflect
recent conditions in the Pennsylvania Wilds region. Submitted September 10, 2010.

Contact Information:
Brenda Barrett
Director of the Bureau of Recreation and Conservation
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
brebarrett@state.pa.us
www.dcnr.state.pa.us

13