Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

Sathishkumar Samiappan; Andrew Shamaskin; Jiangdong Liu; Jennifer Roberts; Anna Linhoss; Kristine Evans

doi:10.3390/land8050084

Samiappan, Sathishkumar;Shamaskin, Andrew;Liu, Jiangdong;Roberts, Jennifer;Linhoss, Anna;Evans, Kristine

2019-05-23 00:00:00

land Review Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Eorts 1 , 2 2 2 Sathishkumar Samiappan * , Andrew Shamaskin , Jiangdong Liu , Jennifer Roberts , 1 , 3 2 Anna Linhoss and Kristine Evans Geosystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA; acs920@msstate.edu (A.S.); jiangdong.liu@msstate.edu (J.L.); jennifer.roberts@msstate.edu (J.R.); kristine.evans@msstate.edu (K.E.) Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA; alinhoss@abe.msstate.edu * Correspondence: sathish@gri.msstate.edu; Tel.: +1-662-325-4049 Received: 29 April 2019; Accepted: 21 May 2019; Published: 23 May 2019 Abstract: An unprecedented land conservation eort is presently underway in the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region (GCR) due to an inﬂux of funds from settlements related to the 2012 RESTORE Act. A complete understanding of the priorities of the states in the GCR is critical to ensure that land conservation planning eorts are implemented eectively and eciently. The paper reviews past, current, and future land conservation priorities in the GCR to inform strategic planning eorts. This review catalogs an extensive list of projects and plans proposed and implemented at federal, state, county, and city levels with direct ties to land conservation during the past 20 years. Comprehensive restoration goals proposed by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration (Restore) Council were used as a framework for grouping priorities within conservation plans and projects. Plans were ﬁrst compiled via internet searches and expert sources, then a series of eight stakeholder charrettes were held across the GCR states to validate the catalog and add missing projects and plans. A geospatial web tool was developed using the Restore Council goal framework to allow for the identiﬁcation and exploration of plans in the GCR. Keywords: conservation priorities; conservation planning; strategic planning; habitat protection 1. Introduction The United States (US) Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region (GCR) contains a vast and diverse natural landscape, which includes coastal wetlands, submerged vegetation, bayous, uplands, and oshore marine areas (Figure 1). Encompassing more than 700,000 square km, the GCR harbors over 15,000 species of ﬂora and fauna [1]. This biodiversity is a product of the breadth of ecosystems represented within the GCR landscape. The ﬁve adjoining states in the GCR, including parts of Alabama (AL), Florida (FL), Louisiana (LA), Mississippi (MS), and Texas (TX), are also places of rich culture and great natural beauty, with deep socioeconomic ties to the abundant natural resources in the region. Since natural and societal values depend on the ecological richness of the region, conservation is a shared priority among many GCR stakeholders. However, years of ecological degradation [2–5], including the eects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and oil spill, have increased the vulnerability of resources within the region. The US has a long history of practicing land conservation at all levels of government resulting in a robust network of protected lands in the GCR [6]. However, a persistent conservation planning Land 2019, 8, 84; doi:10.3390/land8050084 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2019, 8, 84 2 of 19 challenge is the identiﬁcation of optimal lands in need of protection and subsequent prioritization of those areas based on ecological and socioeconomic valuations. As it is not possible to protect all the land worth protecting within a region at the same time, a strategic approach must be used to identify the most eective lands to conserve relative to ecological and socioeconomic goals [7]. However, substantial lands remain vulnerable to conversion, and, to date, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis of land conservation planning eorts across the entire GCR geography to improve strategic targeting of land conservation eorts. A holistic understanding of the extent and focuses of existing conservation eorts in the GCR will help planners direct appropriate conservation actions in the future. With private land ownership dominating over 86% of agricultural and forested lands in the GCR, conservation and management decisions involving private landowners has a signiﬁcant impact on the region’s environment and economy [8]. Proactive engagement with state and federal agencies, private landowners, local communities, and nonproﬁt organizations that actively conserve land via joint agreements with landowners, direct land purchases, and other methods will be paramount to create a sustainable future for the GCR. In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, the US government acted in concert with states to implement coordinated eorts to restore the ecosystems and economy of the GCR. Included in the federal response is the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States (RESTORE) Act, signed into law in July 2012 [9]. The RESTORE Act created the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) and the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The RESTORE Council consists of 11 members, including leaders of six federal departments and governors of the ﬁve Gulf Coast states. One of the Council’s responsibilities is the development of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Gulf Coast. The Trust Fund is responsible for obligating 80 percent of the Clean Water Act penalties generated from the oil spill with the funds going towards accomplishing goals and objectives identiﬁed in the RESTORE Council’s comprehensive plan [10]. These goals include Restore and Conserve Habitat (Habitat), Restore Water Quality (Water Quality), Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources (LCMR), Enhance Community Resilience (Community Resilience), and Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy (Gulf Economy). For clarity, we will hereafter refer to each RESTORE goal in the text as they appear in parenthesis in the previous sentence. The Strategic Conservation Assessment (SCA) project, funded by the Department of Interior (DOI) via the Council Selected Restoration Component, is focused on developing science-based conservation planning support tools using the RESTORE goal framework to maximize the eectiveness of land conservation investments. In this work, one of these tools is presented that catalogs existing conservation plans in the form of geospatial visualization. A holistic understanding of the origin of conservation plans and their relationship with respect to RESTORE conservation goals can be useful in understanding and aligning conservation planning eorts to funding opportunities associated with land conservation in the GCR. Similar comprehensive analyses of conservation eort have been conducted in Australia and Europe [11,12]. The outcomes of such research found an uneven representation of habitat protections across their respective regions and characterized the frequency of conservation at dierent planning extents. While our study has a similar vein of analysis, it is distinguished by our characterization of conservation eorts within the framework of the RESTORE goals which represent the shared priorities of the GCR. We focus on the RESTORE goals framework because of the unique opportunity to fund conservation eorts from the inﬂux of funds from settlements related to the 2012 RESTORE Act. The product of this study will thus summarize how land conservation across the GCR has addressed the RESTORE goals, with the intent that it will help illuminate and guide appropriate conservation actions that provide adequate protections for the region’s diverse landscape, species, and economic activity. In this study, we compiled and reviewed an extensive inventory of conservation plans in the Gulf of Mexico—from local to regional (i.e., GCR) levels—to catalog priorities identiﬁed and eorts undertaken with respect to land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we expect plans to more frequently address Habitat, Water Quality and LCMR. Whereas socioeconomic goals such as Land 2019, 8, 84 3 of 19 Community Resilience and Gulf Economy are not typically addressed through land conservation, we therefore expect these goals to occur less frequently. This study is the ﬁrst large-scale regional Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 assessment of conservation planning eorts across governmental, nongovernmental, and nonproﬁt organizations encompassing all ecosystem types in the GCR. This comprehensive analysis is vital to therefore expect these goals to occur less frequently. This study is the first large-scale regional understanding the key factors that may drive existing conservation eorts, as well as identify potential assessment of conservation planning efforts across governmental, nongovernmental, and nonprofit organizations encompassing all ecosystem types in the GCR. This comprehensive analysis is vital to gaps in conservation planning eorts. understanding the key factors that may drive existing conservation efforts, as well as identify The contributions of this study include potential gaps in conservation planning efforts. The contributions of this study include 1. a catalog of conservation plans and projects in the GCR at multiple levels of the jurisdiction from 1998 to 2018; 1. a catalog of conservation plans and projects in the GCR at multiple levels of the jurisdiction from 2. the development 1998 to 2018; of an online geospatial tool for exploring conservation plans in the GCR; and 2. the development of an online geospatial tool for exploring conservation plans in the GCR; and 3. an assessment of how conservation planning at various political and geomorphological subregions 3. an assessment of how conservation planning at various political and geomorphological within the GCR associates with the RESTORE Council goals. subregions within the GCR associates with the RESTORE Council goals. 2. Materials and Methods 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Scope of the Study 2.1. Scope of the Study The SCA region of interest aligns with the RESTORE Act-identiﬁed GCR, an area of approximately The SCA region of interest aligns with the RESTORE Act-identified GCR, an area of 700,000 square km (Figure 1). The GCR encompasses coastal parts of AL, LA, MS, TX, and all of FL. approximately 700,000 square km (Figure 1). The GCR encompasses coastal parts of AL, LA, MS, TX, This geographic extent was created using the coastal management zone area in the ﬁve Gulf states, and all of FL. This geographic extent was created using the coastal management zone area in the five plus a 40.2 km inland buer. Some of the plans within the catalog extended outside these limits but Gulf states, plus a 40.2 km inland buffer. Some of the plans within the catalog extended outside these were included if beneﬁts directly occurred within the SCA region. limits but were included if benefits directly occurred within the SCA region. Figure 1. Overview of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region (GCR) along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The Figure 1. Overview of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region (GCR) along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The GCR G includes CR includes all of allthe of th coastal e coasta counties, l counties,plus plus 40.2 40.2 km km iinland nland oof f ththe e cocoast ast incincluding luding the th bae rrbarrier ier island islands s as shown in red outline. as shown in red outline. Land 2019, 8, 84 4 of 19 2.2. Method for Cataloging Plans To represent the breadth of planning scales, the conservation plans were categorized in three ways: by (1) individual states in the GCR; (2) political and geomorphological subregions (Table 1); and (3) the goals identiﬁed by the RESTORE Council (Table 2). Some plans extended beyond an individual state and were grouped as GCR plans in lieu of belonging to an individual state. The plans were also grouped by political and geomorphological subregions because of the importance of planning scale towards achieving conservation objectives. Plans with political boundary classiﬁcations (i.e., city, county/parish, region (within the state), statewide, and GCR), were developed by the representative political entity and incorporated some land conservation actions. Regional plans had focal areas of two or more cities or counties/parishes within a state and GCR plans had planning scales that spanned multiple states within the GCR. Geomorphological classiﬁcation scales included coastal habitat for plans with focal areas such as barrier islands, estuaries, and other areas within the coastal zone (e.g., beaches, dunes, and salt marshes), and basin/watershed for plans which used watersheds as planning scales. Table 1. Political and geomorphological subregions (subregions) considered in the assessment of Gulf Coast plans. Category Subregion Name Geopolitical City (CY) County and Parish (CP) Regional (REG) Statewide (ST) Geomorphological Coastal Habitat (CH) Basin and Watershed (BW) The axis labels in all graphs will refer to subregions by their short forms displayed here. For purposes of this work, we deﬁne land conservation as strategic investments in land acquisitions, easements, and stewardship for conservation and/or preservation purposes to protect ecological and socioeconomic values in the GCR. We deﬁne acquisition as land acquired from a willing seller who enters into a purchase agreement and sells the title of a property to a land trust or government (i.e., fee title or fee simple). In contrast, easement limits speciﬁc uses of the land to achieve speciﬁc conservation objectives while keeping the land in the owner ’s control. Stewardship is a general term for land management, restoration, and maintenance of lands speciﬁcally applied here to fee title acquisitions and conservation easements on private lands. Table 2. Goals identiﬁed in the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council [10]. RESTORE Goals Deﬁnition Restore and conserve the health, diversity, and resilience of 1 Restore and Conserve Habitat (HAB) key coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats. Restore and protect water quality of the Gulf Coast 2 Restore Water Quality (WAQ) region’s fresh, estuarine, and marine waters Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Restore and protect healthy, diverse, and sustainable living Marine Resources (LCMR) coastal and marine resources Build upon and sustain communities with capacity to 4 Enhance Community Resilience (CRES) adapt to short- and long-term changes Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Enhance the sustainability and resiliency of the Economy (GEC) Gulf economy The axis labels in all graphs will refer to RESTORE goals by their short forms displayed here. The RESTORE Council distinguished ﬁve goals in their comprehensive plan (Table 2) as a framework for helping to restore the ecosystem and economy of the GCR [10]. For purposes of the SCA project we deﬁned goals as desired ecological and socioeconomic outcomes that can be achieved Land 2019, 8, 84 5 of 19 through land conservation. Priorities are components of a single goal that focus on a speciﬁc aspect in achieving the goal. Plans are documents compiled by various organizations or government agencies that outline land conservation actions. Projects are plans that are funded for implementation or already implemented. Conservation targets are areas of land that are of interest for land conservation. The vast majority of identiﬁed “conservation targets” are formalized in existing plans and databases. Classifying land conservation plans based on the values or beneﬁts they provide with respect to RESTORE goals bestows conservation planners with an important understanding of conservation eorts within a region. In this work, the conservation plans within the GCR were classiﬁed into ﬁve groups that reﬂect the RESTORE goals (Table 2). These goals provide the framework for an integrated restoration approach at local, state, tribal and federal levels. The conservation community along the GCR represents a diverse set of stakeholders with wide-ranging interests, priorities, and objectives. In this work, the established conservation targets were identiﬁed through the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (JVs), State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation (PGCLC), National Estuary Programs (NEPs), and many others to forgo the “priority resource setting” process that so often bogs down similar eorts [13,14]. To collate these priorities, the SCA project team mined available plans and databases and classiﬁed priorities and objectives contained therein by a variety of scales and levels (Tables 1 and 2). This assessment was intended to be extensive, but not exhaustive, as only the primary considerations for conservation needed to be captured for prioritizing the landscape. Cataloging the priorities and objectives in this way enables stakeholders to identify scale mismatches, scale pluralities, and scale omissions that left unresolved would ultimately undermine any overarching eort to unify these individual plans and designs. Within the study area, an extensive list was created of existing and proposed conservation plans and projects between 1998 and 2018 (see Appendix A). Each plan underwent an initial review which was used to identify the geographic extent of the plan, the conservation strategies (i.e., acquisition, stewardship, and easement) included in the plan, and the RESTORE goal(s) to which the plan is associated (Table 2). To reduce subjectivity, a second reviewer independently recorded the same information for cross-validation. A plan’s review was considered complete if the two reviews were identical. Otherwise, a third reviewer was used to settle dierences. Only plans that addressed at least one conservation strategy as part of the plan content were included in the ﬁnal inventory. From March to May 2018, the SCA project team held charrettes with stakeholders across the GCR to discuss the inventory of plans and conservation priorities and identify other priorities for land conservation within the framework of the RESTORE goals. Stakeholders in attendance were representatives from various RESTORE member and partner agencies, and organizations that engage in conservation actions. A total of eight charrettes were conducted within the GCR (Austin, Corpus Christi, and Galveston, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Biloxi, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; St. Mark’s and St. Petersburg, Florida) where 176 stakeholders worked with the SCA project team to (1) review and discuss priorities that land conservation strategies can address; (2) develop a weighted list of shared priorities; (3) brainstorm a list of measures for each of the priorities; (4) rank the ﬁve RESTORE goals with respect to land conservation strategies; and (5) verify the data catalog and report missing plans/projects. 2.3. Online Catalog of Conservation Plans The dispersed nature and a lack of single portal access make it dicult for people to eectively and eciently discover and learn about conservation plans in the GCR. Conservation researchers and organizations often have trouble ﬁnding these plans due to the distributed nature of the websites that host them. As users increasingly prefer to take advantage of geospatial data visualization methodologies, an online web portal was developed to organize plans that were analyzed in this work (Figure 2). The catalog was published online as a geospatial web tool, which can be accessed at Land 2019, 8, 84 6 of 19 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21 http://bit.ly/sca_gulf, which will serve as an aggregate of plans and projects in the GCR. This portal also allows users to report missing plans. Since the tool was launched in December 2017, it has been also allows users to report missing plans. Since the tool was launched in December 2017, it has been accessed 368 times. accessed 368 times. Figure 2. The site map of the geospatial online visualization tool and catalog detailing the structure, Figure 2. The site map of the geospatial online visualization tool and catalog detailing the structure, high-level functionality, user options, and navigation scheme. high-level functionality, user options, and navigation scheme. 2.4. Summary of Data 2.4. Summary of Data The catalog of plans was summarized by the state of origin, by political and geomorphological subregions (Table 1), and by political and geomorphological subscales within each state, to compare The catalog of plans was summarized by the state of origin, by political and geomorphological how conservation plans associated with RESTORE goals (Table 2) at each geo-extent. How each subregions (Table 1), and by political and geomorphological subscales within each state, to compare geo-extent of conservation planning associates with RESTORE goals was measured by the percentage how conservation plans associated with RESTORE goals (Table 2) at each geo-extent. How each geo- of plans at each geo-extent that contain objectives that are associated with a particular RESTORE extent of conservation planning associates with RESTORE goals was measured by the percentage of goal. In total, three summaries of conservation plans were made (i.e., by state, by political and plans at each geo-extent that contain objectives that are associated with a particular RESTORE goal. geomorphological subscales, and by political and geomorphological subscales within each state) from In total, three summaries of conservation plans were made (i.e., by state, by political and the catalog that describes the percentage of plans that align with each RESTORE goal. The results of geomorphological subscales, and by political and geomorphological subscales within each state) these summaries were then used to understand how consistently RESTORE Goals are addressed by from the catalog that describes the percentage of plans that align with each RESTORE goal. The conservation planning throughout the GCR. results of these summaries were then used to understand how consistently RESTORE Goals are addressed by conservation planning throughout the GCR. 3. Conservation Plan Analysis 3. Conservation Plan Analysis 3.1. RESTORE Goals by State We gathered 352 plans from communities, NGOs, and state and federal agencies for our initial 3.1. RESTORE Goals by State eorts, and found 293 of those that included some form of land conservation (i.e., acquisition, easement, We gathered 352 plans from communities, NGOs, and state and federal agencies for our initial and stewardship). From the catalog of plans, the majority from each state include LCMR (65–77%) as efforts, and found 293 of those that included some form of land conservation (i.e., acquisition, well as Habitat (53–92%) as conservation priorities (Figure 3). Overall, the minority of plans focus on easement, and stewardship). From the catalog of plans, the majority from each state include LCMR enhancing community resilience or revitalizing the Gulf economy, with LA-based plans addressing (65–77%) as well as Habitat (53–92%) as conservation priorities (Figure 3). Overall, the minority of these goals at the highest rate (47% and 43%, respectively). Water quality is addressed in conservation plans focus on enhancing community resilience or revitalizing the Gulf economy, with LA-based planning at varying rates depending on the state. The majority of FL and LA plans (82% and 57%, plans addressing these goals at the highest rate (47% and 43%, respectively). Water quality is respectively) consider water quality conservation targets, while the minority of plans from other states addressed in conservation planning at varying rates depending on the state. The majority of FL and and gulf-wide plans address this goal. LA plans (82% and 57%, respectively) consider water quality conservation targets, while the minority of plans from other states and gulf-wide plans address this goal. Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Land 2019, 8, 84 7 of 19 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Figure 3. The focus of conservation plans in states spanning entire GCR categorized into the goals Figure 3. The focus of conservation plans in states spanning entire GCR categorized into the goals of Figure 3. The focus of conservation plans in states spanning entire GCR categorized into the goals of of assessment. assessment. assessment. 3.2. RESTORE Goals by Subregion 3.2. RESTORE Goals by Subregion 3.2. RESTORE Goals by Subregion The percentage of plan focus on each RESTORE goal was dependent on political/geomorphological The percentage of plan focus on each RESTORE goal was dependent on subregion (Figure 4), with the exception of LCMR and Gulf Economy. Across all subregions, LCMR The percentage of plan focus on each RESTORE goal was dependent on political/geomorphological subregion (Figure 4), with the exception of LCMR and Gulf Economy. was incorporated as a conservation priority by the majority of plans (60–80%), while Gulf Economy political/geomorphological subregion (Figure 4), with the exception of LCMR and Gulf Economy. Across all subregions, LCMR was incorporated as a conservation priority by the majority of plans was Acr prioritized oss all sub by regi the on minority s, LCMRof wa plans s inco (15–38%). rporated Only as a co 20% nser ofva city-level tion prioconservation rity by the m plans ajority focu of sed plans (60–80%), while Gulf Economy was prioritized by the minority of plans (15–38%). Only 20% of city- on Habitat, whereas the majority of plans from all other subregions included the Habitat goal. While (60–80%), while Gulf Economy was prioritized by the minority of plans (15–38%). Only 20% of city- level conservation plans focused on Habitat, whereas the majority of plans from all other subregions Water levelQuality conservwas ation a pl focus ans fo of cus nearly ed on100% Habita oft, Basin-W whereas atershed the majoplans, rity of plans plans ffr ro om m a other ll other subr sub egions regions included the Habitat goal. While Water Quality was a focus of nearly 100% of Basin-Watershed plans, included Water Quality only 19–59% of the time. The majority of City and County/Parish conservation included the Habitat goal. While Water Quality was a focus of nearly 100% of Basin-Watershed plans, plans from other subregions included Water Quality only 19–59% of the time. The majority of City plans plan included s from oth Community er subregioResilience ns included as Wa a priority ter Qua , lwhile ity onl other y 19–subr 59% egions of the ti prioriti me. Th zed e mCommunity ajority of City and County/Parish conservation plans included Community Resilience as a priority, while other Resilience and Coun 17–35%. ty/Parish conservation plans included Community Resilience as a priority, while other subregions prioritized Community Resilience 17–35%. subregions prioritized Community Resilience 17–35%. Figure 4. The focus of conservation plans in the Gulf of Mexico coastal states and entire GCR with Figure 4. The focus of conservation plans in the Gulf of Mexico coastal states and entire GCR with Figure 4. The focus of conservation plans in the Gulf of Mexico coastal states and entire GCR with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described Section 2.3. in Section 2.3. in Section 2.3. Land 2019, 8, 84 8 of 19 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21 3.3. RESTORE Goals by State and Subregion 3.3. RESTORE Goals by State and Subregion 3.3. RESTORE Goals by State and Subregion Of the 293 plans, 37 came from AL, 60 from FL, 30 from LA, 57 from MS, 56 from TX, and 53 from Of the 293 plans, 37 came from AL, 60 from FL, 30 from LA, 57 from MS, 56 from TX, and 53 Of the 293 plans, 37 came from AL, 60 from FL, 30 from LA, 57 from MS, 56 from TX, and 53 the GCR (more than one state). With respect to RESTORE goals, we identiﬁed that the majority of plans from the GCR (more than one state). With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified that the majority from the GCR (more than one state). With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified that the majority cataloged in AL focus on Habitat, Water Quality, and LCMR (Figure 5). County/parish and state-level of plans cataloged in AL focus on Habitat, Water Quality, and LCMR (Figure 5). County/parish and of plans cataloged in AL focus on Habitat, Water Quality, and LCMR (Figure 5). County/parish and plans in AL contained disproportionately greater priorities related to the Habitat goal relative to other state-level plans in AL contained disproportionately greater priorities related to the Habitat goal state-level plans in AL contained disproportionately greater priorities related to the Habitat goal goals. Regional plans focused with greater emphasis on priorities reﬂecting LCMR goals, whereas relative to other goals. Regional plans focused with greater emphasis on priorities reflecting LCMR relative to other goals. Regional plans focused with greater emphasis on priorities reflecting LCMR basin-wide priorities were the only spatial unit that incorporated elements of Water Quality over goals, whereas basin-wide priorities were the only spatial unit that incorporated elements of Water goals, whereas basin-wide priorities were the only spatial unit that incorporated elements of Water priorities in other goals. Quality over priorities in other goals. Quality over priorities in other goals. Figure 5. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Alabama with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, Figure 5. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Alabama with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, and Fig ST ure . Focus 5. This e fo categorized cus of conse into rvatthe ion goals plans of in assessment the state of described Alabama w in ith Section respec2.3 t to . CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. In the state of Florida, we gathered 60 plans that are focused all or in part on some form of In the state of Florida, we gathered 60 plans that are focused all or in part on some form of land In the state of Florida, we gathered 60 plans that are focused all or in part on some form of land land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identiﬁed the majority of plans focus on conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, Habitat, Water Quality, and LCMR, with some emphasis on Community Resilience at the regional and Water Quality, and LCMR, with some emphasis on Community Resilience at the regional and Water Quality, and LCMR, with some emphasis on Community Resilience at the regional and county/parish-level (Figure 6). Coastal habitat, basin and watershed, and county/parish plans contain county/parish-level (Figure 6). Coastal habitat, basin and watershed, and county/parish plans contain county/parish-level (Figure 6). Coastal habitat, basin and watershed, and county/parish plans contain priorities aligned with Habitat and Water Quality, whereas regional and state-level priorities also priorities aligned with Habitat and Water Quality, whereas regional and state-level priorities also priorities aligned with Habitat and Water Quality, whereas regional and state-level priorities also emphasize LCMR goals. Gulf Economy was not a substantial priority among FL plans overall, though emphasize LCMR goals. Gulf Economy was not a substantial priority among FL plans overall, though emphasize LCMR goals. Gulf Economy was not a substantial priority among FL plans overall, though economic priorities were found in over half of state-wide plans and a quarter of county/parish plans. economic priorities were found in over half of state-wide plans and a quarter of county/parish plans. economic priorities were found in over half of state-wide plans and a quarter of county/parish plans. Figure 6. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Florida with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, Figure 6. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Florida with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, Figure 6. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Florida with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. Land 2019, 8, 84 9 of 19 L La an nd d 2 20 01 19 9, , 8 8,, x x F FO OR R P PEE EER R R REV EVIIE EW W 9 9 o off 21 21 In the state of Louisiana, we gathered 30 plans that are focused on some form of land conservation. I In n th the e st sta ate te o off L Lo oui uis siia an na a,, we we ga gatth her ered ed 30 30 p plla an ns s th tha at t a are re ffo ocused cused o on n so som me e ffo orm rm o off lla an nd d With respect to RESTORE goals, we identiﬁed the majority of plans focus on Habitat, LCMR, Community conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, Resilience, and Water Quality. Basin and watershed and county/parish plans are more aligned in L LCM CMR R,, Co Com mm mu un niity ty R Resi esilliie en nce ce,, a an nd d W Wa ater ter Q Qua ualliity. ty. B Ba as siin n a an nd d wa water tersh shed ed a an nd d co cou un ntty/ y/pa pari rish sh pl pla an ns s a are re Habitat and Water Quality, though county and parish-level plans prioritize Community Resilience and more aligned in Habitat and Water Quality, though county and parish-level plans prioritize more aligned in Habitat and Water Quality, though county and parish-level plans prioritize Gulf Economy over other goal categories (Figure 7). Priorities aligning with LCMR were also found Co Com mm mun uniity ty R Resi esilliience ence a an nd d G Gul ulff E Eco con no om my y o ov ver er o oth ther er go goa all ca catego tegori ries es ((Fi Figure gure 7 7)).. Pri Prio or riiti ties es a ali lign gniin ng g in the majority of state and coastal habitat plans, but also in county/parish-level as well as basin and with LCMR were also found in the majority of state and coastal habitat plans, but also in with LCMR were also found in the majority of state and coastal habitat plans, but also in watershed plans. co coun unty/p ty/pa ari rish sh--llev evel el a as s wel welll a as s ba basi sin n a an nd d w wa ater tersh shed ed pl pla an ns. s. Figure 7. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Louisiana with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, Figure 7. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Louisiana with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, Figure 7. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Louisiana with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. In the state of Mississippi, we gathered 57 plans that are focused on some form of land conservation. In the state of Mississippi, we gathered 57 plans that are focused on some form of land In the state of Mississippi, we gathered 57 plans that are focused on some form of land With respect to RESTORE goals, we identiﬁed the majority of plans focus on Habitat, Community co con nser serva vati tio on n.. Wi With th re respec spect t to to R RE ES STOR TORE E go goa alls, s, we we iid de en nti tiffiied ed th the e m ma ajjo ori rity ty o off p plla an ns s ffo ocus cus o on n Ha Hab biita tat, t, Resilience, and LCMR (Figure 8). Note that MS had the greatest prevalence of plans that established Community Resilience, and LCMR (Figure 8). Note that MS had the greatest prevalence of plans that Community Resilience, and LCMR (Figure 8). Note that MS had the greatest prevalence of plans that priorities aligning with Community Resilience across planning scales compared to the remaining states. esta estab blliish shed ed pr priio ori rittiies es a alliign gnin ing g wi with th Co Com mm mun uniity ty R Resi esillience ience a acr cro oss ss pl pla an nn niin ng g sc sca alles es co com mpa pare red d to to th the e On the other hand, Water Quality and Gulf Economy priorities were not in the majority across any remaining states. On the other hand, Water Quality and Gulf Economy priorities were not in the remaining states. On the other hand, Water Quality and Gulf Economy priorities were not in the planning scale. m ma ajjo ori rity a ty acr cro oss ss a an ny pl y pla an nn niin ng sca g scalle. e. Figure 8. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Mississippi with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, Fig Figure ure 8. 8. Th The e fo foc cus us o of f c co on nse ser rv va attio ion n pla plan ns s iin n tth he e st sta atte e o of f Mi Miss ssis issi sippi ppi w wit ith h r res espec pectt tto o CH CH,, B BW, W, CP CP,, CY, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. REG, REG, a an nd d S ST. T. F Fo oc cus us is is c ca atteg ego or riz ized ed iin ntto o tth he e g go oa als ls o of f a ass sses essme smen ntt de descr scrib ibed ed in in S Sec ecttio ion n 2 2..3 3.. In the state of Texas, we gathered 56 plans that focused on some form of land conservation. With In the state of Texas, we gathered 56 plans that focused on some form of land conservation. With re respec spect t to to R RE ES STO TOR RE E go goa alls, s, we we iid denti entiffied ied th the e m ma ajjo ori rity ty o off pl pla an ns s ffo ocus cus o on n Ha Hab biitta at, t, L LCM CMR R,, a an nd d W Wa ater ter Land 2019, 8, 84 10 of 19 In the state of Texas, we gathered 56 plans that focused on some form of land conservation. With Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21 respect to RESTORE goals, we identiﬁed the majority of plans focus on Habitat, LCMR, and Water Quality, though Gulf Economy was a driving force behind city plans (Figure 9). Water Quality priorities Quality, though Gulf Economy was a driving force behind city plans (Figure 9). Water Quality were only found in the majority of plans at the basin and watershed-level and state-level. Community priorities were only found in the majority of plans at the basin and watershed-level and state-level. Resilience priorities were not substantial across spatial planning scales. Community Resilience priorities were not substantial across spatial planning scales. Figure 9. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Texas with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, Figure 9. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Texas with respect to CH, BW, CP, CY, REG, and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. and ST. Focus is categorized into the goals of assessment described in Section 2.3. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion Across all GCR states, land conservation was identiﬁed as a strategy for addressing Habitat and Across all GCR states, land conservation was identified as a strategy for addressing Habitat and LCMR priorities more frequently than Community Resilience and Gulf Economy (Figures 3 and 5–9). LCMR priorities more frequently than Community Resilience and Gulf Economy (Figures 3 and 5– Multistate (GCR-level) plans followed a similar pattern, with Habitat and LCMR priorities in far 9). Multistate (GCR-level) plans followed a similar pattern, with Habitat and LCMR priorities in far greater proportion compared to Water Quality, Community Resilience, and Gulf Economy. This is not greater proportion compared to Water Quality, Community Resilience, and Gulf Economy. This is unexpected, as typical strategies relative to revitalizing the Gulf economy often lean toward resource not unexpected, as typical strategies relative to revitalizing the Gulf economy often lean toward use, extraction, and workforce development and away from placing land in conservation and limiting resource use, extraction, and workforce development and away from placing land in conservation development. While open space protection and utilizing green infrastructure is becoming a more and limiting development. While open space protection and utilizing green infrastructure is recognized tool for enhancing community resilience [15–17], the number of plans identifying land becoming a more recognized tool for enhancing community resilience [15–17], the number of plans conservation as a community resilience strategy was substantially fewer than those aiming to protect identifying land conservation as a community resilience strategy was substantially fewer than those habitats, species, or waterbodies. That being said, priorities aligning with Community Resilience were aiming to protect habitats, species, or waterbodies. That being said, priorities aligning with identiﬁed in greater abundance in FL and LA compared to the remaining GCR states (Figures 3, 6 Community Resilience were identified in greater abundance in FL and LA compared to the remaining and 7). Likewise, Gulf Economy priorities were identiﬁed in greater proportion in LA relative to other GCR states (Figures 3, 6 and 7). Likewise, Gulf Economy priorities were identified in greater GCR states. proportion in LA relative to other GCR states. Plans’ focus on Water Quality was dependent on the state. Many of the conservation plans that Plans’ focus on Water Quality was dependent on the state. Many of the conservation plans that target Water Quality reference Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s Water Quality Planning target Water Quality reference Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s Water Quality and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130), which requires states to identify impaired waterbodies Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130), which requires states to identify impaired within their boundaries. The D’Olive Watershed Management Plan (Appendix A—Plan 33) in AL waterbodies within their boundaries. The D’Olive Watershed Management Plan (Appendix A—Plan mentions waterbodies listed under Section 303(d) and references urban development and excessive 33) in AL mentions waterbodies listed under Section 303(d) and references urban development and erosion and sedimentation as principal causes for impairment. The high variation in the plan focus excessive erosion and sedimentation as principal causes for impairment. The high variation in the on water quality by state may be due to dierent methods each state uses into assessing waterbody plan focus on water quality by state may be due to different methods each state uses into assessing impairments, and dierences in the proportion of their waterbodies they assess. For instance, MS waterbody impairments, and differences in the proportion of their waterbodies they assess. For has only assessed 7.2% (lowest in GCR) while FL has assessed 20.2% of its waterbodies (highest instance, MS has only assessed 7.2% (lowest in GCR) while FL has assessed 20.2% of its waterbodies in GCR) [18]. The high percentage of FL plans focused on water quality is reﬂective of the state’s (highest in GCR) [18]. The high percentage of FL plans focused on water quality is reflective of the emphasis on protecting water resources. FL has ﬁve water management districts (WMDs), which serve state’s emphasis on protecting water resources. FL has five water management districts (WMDs), to manage water use and quality. These WMDs have much of their support and direction from the which serve to manage water use and quality. These WMDs have much of their support and direction from the Florida legislature’s passage of the Water Resources Act in 1972 and the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) [19]. The importance of Water Quality in FL is further validated by the size of their recreational fishing industry, and the proximity of human development to many waterways and unique ecosystems [20]. Land 2019, 8, 84 11 of 19 Florida legislature’s passage of the Water Resources Act in 1972 and the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) [19]. The importance of Water Quality in FL is further validated by the size of their recreational ﬁshing industry, and the proximity of human development to many waterways and unique ecosystems [20]. Across political and geomorphological subregions (subregions), Habitat and LCMR were high priority goals (Figure 4), which may be partially due to regulatory structures that mandate planning for particular resources by geographic scale. For instance, state wildlife agencies are tasked with drafting State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), which identify both species (LCMR) and Habitat priorities that land conservation as a tool can address. Similarly, water quality and quantity planning are often accomplished at a basin or watershed scale because state Departments of Environmental Quality are required to draft these plans to meet EPA Clean Water Act regulations. It is widely accepted that watersheds should be of sucient size to achieve economies of scale, take advantage of local government and technical expertise, and be viable for long-term management [21,22]. The same can be said for Hazard Mitigation plans, which are required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and may identify conservation strategies as tools for addressing ﬂood risk reduction and other Community Resilience priorities at the county or parish level because this is where the planning authority for those programs fall. Thus, priorities identiﬁed in plans at dierent subregions may be confounded with regulatory extents. Recognizing potential confounding eects, priorities aligning with RESTORE Council goals consistently emphasized Habitat and LCMR across most subregions and states. In contrast, priorities aligning with Community Resilience and Gulf Economy goals were disproportionately underrepresented in plans we reviewed, though more prevalent in plans at the city- and county-level or parish-level compared to other subregions (Figure 4). Across subregions, plans cataloged in LA prioritized Community Resilience and Gulf Economy goals the most compared to the other Gulf States (Figure 7). LA’s relatively strong focus on Community Resilience and Gulf Economy makes sense as many of the plans cataloged refer to subsidence, hurricanes, and sea-level rise as threats to critical community infrastructure, with frequent mention of Hurricane Katrina as a recent example for why investments in conservation and other land-use planning eorts are desirable (Appendix A—Plans 253, 255, and 258). The Lafourche Parish Comprehensive Resiliency Plan mentions strong support by constituents for “the need to preserve wetlands, plan for anticipated future land loss and for coastal restoration” in order to make community resilience and economic prosperity within the parish a reality (Appendix A—Plan 253). City-level plans show a relatively strong focus on Community Resilience and show little to no focus on ecological goals (i.e., Habitat and Water Quality). The focus on Community Resilience is natural for city planning, and land conservation priorities found within city plans would likely target human welfare (e.g., system resilience to ﬂood risk reduction, human health, and well-being) [15–17,23,24]. The number of plans from urban centers reviewed for this work was fewer than nonurban plans; nevertheless, the urban community resilience plans always include increasing urban green space. Planning typically happens at these scales because the lead planning organizations have access/authority over a political boundary, funding source, or tool kit. Conservation decision makers from various federal-, state-, county-, and city-level agencies and proﬁt/nonproﬁt organizations address dierent levels of ecological and economic stressors; and they generally work within a constructed management framework. Community Resilience planning is perhaps more eective at smaller extents such as county/parish or city because problems such as infrastructure integrity or protection from natural calamities do not often have solutions that are practical to carry out across large geographic extents. Funding for resilience planning has increased post-Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf. The United States Housing and Urban Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others have invested substantial resources in LA and MS to emphasize resilience planning, and this trend appears to be increasing in TX and FL. LA and TX Land 2019, 8, 84 12 of 19 showed priorities more in alignment with the Gulf Economy, which may be potentially linked to strong oil economies and potential for resource-dependent population losses along coastal areas. The plans’ objectives may reﬂect the most direct threats, real or perceived, concerning the given scope of the planning area. The distinction between city- and county/parish-level plans may demonstrate dierences in how respective economic drivers (urban and rural) connect to their environments. Along the Gulf coast, a substantial portion of urban economies are rooted in commercial, ﬁnancial, and cultural activities, while many rural economies have foundations in agriculture and natural resources. As such, the economic wellbeing of counties and parishes often have close ties to ecosystem health, whereas city economies are often less dependent on environmental quality. In rural communities, agricultural lands and other natural resources are plentiful, protecting water resources and habitats may be more ecacious. Likewise, for cities, focusing on resilience provides insurance against threats to infrastructure, such as ﬂoods and storms, which could undermine their economy. The associated web application (http://bit.ly/sca_gulf) provides the RESTORE Council, state and federal agencies, NGOs, and private landowners a means to understand and visualize past, existing, and future land conservation actions within their geography of interest and across the GCR. The tool can also provide the associated rationale for each conservation action. The catalog and tool can also be used to explore where and how land conservation can complement currently protected land. This tool, and our methodology of cataloging plans, could be applied to other regions of interest to help understand conservation priorities of the region of interest. The RESTORE framework adapted in this study could be replaced with other goals of conservation that may reﬂect the desires of the region of interest. Acknowledging that our catalog of plans is not exhaustive, the tool has been built to be dynamic so that users can contribute other existing plans not currently inventoried. However, there may be bias in this identiﬁcation of Water Quality priority prevalence in Florida due to the fact that Florida’s Water Management Districts make Surface Water Improvement, and Management plans (Appendix A—Plans 329, 333–337, 340–346, and 349–352) that are easily accessible through centralized websites, while in other states access to watershed planning documents requires a deeper exploration of available internet sources. For example, Watershed Protection Plans in Texas are authorized through multiple authorities including the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board as well as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and can be dicult to readily locate. In addition to the aforementioned potential for confounding eects of geo-extent with regulatory jurisdiction, sampling bias toward conservation-oriented planning documents may be causing underrepresentation of local development plans, which by their nature may contain a minimal emphasis on Habitat and LCMR priorities and much more focus on Community Resilience and Gulf Economy. We encourage careful use of these ﬁndings, and only with the understanding that this inventory of plans, though extensive, was not exhaustive, and analytical outputs should be interpreted accordingly. This study mainly focused on the total number of plans as an indicator for the presence of focus of each RESTORE Council goal. However, there are exceptions in the GCR, for example, the state of Louisiana has a master plan that implements a large number of conservation actions each of which could be individual conservation plans in other localities (Appendix A—Plan 245). Another indicator could be the investment of ﬁnancial resources to address these goals. Since the plans and projects proposed in GCR are cumulative and typically focus on multiple goals, it is challenging to dierentiate the information on funds being spent per individual RESTORE goal. Thus the analysis based on a number of plans is a safe alternative, and future research should examine ecosystem services provided by plans and projects at a goal-level to further maximize eciencies in funding expenditures. 5. Conclusions This catalog of land conservation plans and its associated online tool is the ﬁrst of its kind for the GCR and shows the diversity of motivations to conserve land across the region. From our cataloging exercise, we realized a need for a centralized database across the GCR for conservation priorities Land 2019, 8, 84 13 of 19 and planning. One could adapt our tool and methods for cataloging plans to better understand conservation goals in other regions of interest. By developing a catalog with the use of conservation goals that are relevant to the desired region, one could achieve a similar holistic understanding for how the goals are being met in that region. The observed conservation motives from the catalog provide a baseline, with respect to the RESTORE Council goals, for what land conservation eorts exist in the GCR, and may help clarify gaps in conservation as an impetus for future land protections. Collectively, land conservation eorts in the GCR address all of the RESTORE goals; however, there appear to be strong associations among RESTORE goals and originating geographic extent of the plans. Whereas conservation plans address Habitat and LCMR across the GCR at relatively even rates, focuses on Water Quality, Community Resilience, and Gulf Economy appear to be more dependent on locality. For instance, the state of Florida has a high percentage of plans focused on improving water quality and quantity across multiple subregions, and Louisiana has a very high percentage of county/parish plans with a focus on Community Resilience and Gulf Economy (Figure 7). City and county/parish plans have a similar proportion of focus on LCMR, Community Resilience, and Gulf Economy, but substantially dier in focus on Habitat and Water Quality. These outcomes of our analysis highlight distinctions and similarities in conservation priority across the GCR, and conservation planners may use this information to guide future conservation actions that enhance protections for the region’s diverse landscape, species, and economic activity. Acknowledging the distinctions in percentage of plans focused on RESTORE goals, encouraging better representation of certain priorities from plans across subregions could be accomplished with more integration of ecological and socioeconomic values [25]. For instance, a coastal area may be of interest for conservation not only for its use by a diverse group of species, but also to provide ﬂood mitigation for a nearby community. In this case, the simultaneous consideration of biodiversity and ﬂood mitigation could optimize the value of the conservation action. A follow-up evaluation that examines and evaluates the regulatory framework(s) and resource structures guiding the development of planning eorts within states and across the GCR may help to illuminate geographic dierences or goal disparities. Author Contributions: A.L. conceived the idea of this paper. S.S., A.S., and J.L. performed the writing and analysis. J.R. led the initial inventory and synthesis of plans and contributed to writing. K.E. initiated the project and contributed to writing and revisions. Funding: This research was funded by the United States Department of Interior, grant number F17AC00267. Acknowledgments: This paper is a contribution of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and the Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University The authors would like to thank John Tirpak, Ben Wilson, Chris Pease, Matt Snider, David Reeves, and Stephanie Sharuga from U.S Fish and Wildlife Service; Steve Ashby and Wes Burger from Mississippi State University; and Jessica Henkel from the Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Council for their contributions to this work Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Summary of 352 plans that were included in the catalog. The plans are color coded by state or GCR: AL—light green; MS—blue; GCR—yellow; TX—orange; LA—gold; FL—dark green. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 1 BI AL Alabama Barrier Island Restoration Assessment 0 0 1 2 BI AL Increasing Climate Resilience on Dauphin Island Through Land Use Planning 0 1 1 3 BI AL Dauphin Island Bird Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Program 1 1 1 4 BI AL Dauphin Island Strategic Plan-A 20-year vision 1 1 1 5 CZ AL Alabama Coastal Area Management Program Section 309 0 0 0 6 CZ AL Alabama Coastal Impact Assistance Program 1 1 1 7 CZ AL Mobile Bay Shore Habitat Conservation and Acquisition Initiative—Phase II 1 1 1 8 CZ AL Alabama Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Program Implementation Strategy 1 1 1 9 CZ AL Alabama Coastal Area Management Program IV 1 1 1 A roadmap to resilience: Toward A Healthier Environment, Society and Economy for Coastal 10 CZ AL 1 1 1 Alabama 11 CZ AL Gulf Highlands Conservation Acquisition 1 1 1 12 CZ AL Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition 1 1 1 Land 2019, 8, 84 14 of 19 Table A1. Cont. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 13 CZ AL Lightning Point Acquisition and Restoration Project—Phase I 1 1 1 14 CP AL Gulf Shores Vision 2025 for Sustainability 1 1 1 15 CP AL Mobile County Conservation Acquisition 1 1 1 16 CP AL Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 1 1 1 17 CP AL Baldwin County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 1 1 18 ES AL Grand Bay Acquisition 1 1 1 19 ES AL Mobile Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 0 0 1 20 ES AL Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 1 1 1 21 ES AL Salt Aire Shoreline Restoration 1 1 1 22 CY AL Bon Secour-Oyster Bay Wetland Acquisition Project 1 1 1 28 BW AL D’Olive Watershed Restoration 0 0 1 29 BW AL Bayou La Batre Watershed Assessment 0 0 0 30 BW AL Fowl River Watershed Restoration 1 0 1 31 BW AL Fowl River Watershed Restoration: Coastal Spits and Wetlands Project 1 1 1 32 BW AL Eightmile Creek Watershed Management Plan 0 0 0 33 BW AL D’Olive Creek Watershed Management Plan 1 1 0 34 BW AL Weeks Bay Watershed Nonpoint Source Prioritization Project and Site Conservation Plan 1 1 1 35 BW AL Fowl River Watershed Management Plan 1 1 1 36 BW AL Dog River Draft Water Management Plan 1 1 1 37 BW AL Weeks Bay Watershed Management Plan 1 1 1 38 BW AL Three Mile Creek Watershed 1 1 1 39 BW AL Bon Secour River, Oyster Bay, Skunk Bayou Watershed Management Plan 1 1 1 40 BW AL Coastal Alabama River Basin Management Plan 0 0 0 41 REG AL Coastal Habitat Restoration Planning Initiative 1 1 1 42 REG AL Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan 0 0 1 43 REG AL Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mobile Bay Initiative 1 1 1 Conserving Alabama’s Coastal Habitats: Acquisition and Restoration Priorities of Mobile and 44 REG AL 1 1 1 Baldwin Counties 45 ST AL Alabama Wildlife Action Plan 1 1 1 46 ST AL State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 1 1 1 47 CY MS D’Iberville Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 48 CY MS Pascagoula Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 49 CY MS City of Ocean Springs Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 50 CY MS Waveland Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 51 CY MS Diamondhead Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 52 CY MS Biloxi Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 53 CY MS City of Gautier Comprehensive Plan 2030 0 0 1 54 CY MS Pass Christian Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 55 CY MS City of Gautier, Mississippi, Strategic Plan 0 0 1 56 CY MS Moss Point Comprehensive Plan 0 0 1 57 CY MS Bay St. Louis Hazard Mitigation Plan 0 1 1 58 CY MS City of Long Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 0 1 1 59 CY MS Waveland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 0 1 1 60 CY MS City of Pascagoula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 0 1 1 61 CY MS Gulfport Hazard Mitigation Flood Protection Plan 2013–2017 0 1 1 62 CY MS Biloxi Mitigation Floodplain Management Plan 2013–2017 0 1 1 63 CY MS Long Beach Comprehensive Plan 1 0 1 64 CY MS Hiller Park Environmental Enhancement Project 0 1 1 65 CY MS RESTORE Act-Gautier Program Overview 1 1 1 66 CP MS Jackson County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 67 CP MS Harrison County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 68 CP MS 2012 Jackson County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 0 1 0 69 REG MS Coastal Wetlands Priority Acquisition Plan for Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties 1 0 0 70 REG MS Mississippi Renewal Forum Summary Report 0 1 0 71 REG MS Mississippi Gulf Coast Water Quality Improvement Program 0 0 0 72 REG MS Gulf of Mexico Restoration: NRCS Strategy for Success 0 1 1 73 REG MS Sea Turtle Recovery Plans 0 1 1 74 NA GCR Gulf of Mexico Restoration: A Private Lands Vision for Success 0 1 1 75 REG MS Habitat Restoration and Conservation in Turkey Creek—Phase I 1 1 1 76 REG MS Habitat Restoration: Federal Lands Program—Phase I 1 1 1 77 REG MS Acquisition of priority tracts for coastal habitat connectivity—Phase I 1 1 1 78 REG MS Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative 1 1 1 79 REG MS Pascagoula River Corridor Acquisitions 1 1 1 80 REG MS Coastal Headwaters Protection Due Diligence 1 1 1 81 NA GCR Gulf of Mexico Initiative 0 0 0 82 NA GCR US Fish and Wildlife Service. Vision Document for the Strategic Plan for the Coastal Program 0 0 1 83 NA GCR Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat Designation 0 1 0 84 NA GCR Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed 1 1 1 85 NA GCR Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan 0 1 0 86 NA GCR America’s Gulf Coast: A Long term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 0 1 0 87 NA GCR National Fish Habitat Action Plan 0 1 1 88 NA GCR Northern Gulf Coastal Program 0 1 1 89 NA GCR Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 2014–2017 Strategic Plan. 1 1 1 90 NA GCR Gulf Restoration Network United for A Healthy Gulf Strategic Plan 0 0 0 91 NA GCR Southeast United States Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan 0 0 0 92 NA GCR NFHP—National Fish Habitat Action Plan 0 0 0 93 NA GCR Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative Implementation Plan 0 0 0 94 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative 0 0 1 95 NA GCR Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region Report: US Shorebird Conservation Plan 0 0 1 96 NA GCR National Wildlife Refuge at Risk Species Report 0 0 1 Land 2019, 8, 84 15 of 19 Table A1. Cont. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 97 NA GCR Ag Land Easement (ALE) program 0 1 1 98 NA GCR Gulf of Mexico Initiative (GOMI) 0 1 1 99 NA GCR Longleaf Pine Initiative Implementation Strategy 0 1 1 100 NA GCR Migratory Birds Habitat Restoration 0 1 1 101 NA GCR Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) 0 1 1 102 NA GCR Emergency Watershed Protection Floodplain Easement 0 1 1 103 NA GCR Conservation Innovation Grants 0 1 1 104 NA GCR North American Waterfowl Mgmt. Plan 1 1 1 105 NA GCR Open Pine Landbird Plan West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas 1 1 1 106 NA GCR Gopher Tortoise 1 1 1 107 NA GCR Gulf Coast Vulnerability Assessment 1 1 1 108 NA GCR Regional Conservation Partnership Program 1 1 1 109 NA GCR Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governors Action Plan III for Healthy & Resilient Coasts 1 1 1 110 NA GCR Audubon Strategic Plan; Extending Our Conservation Reach Together 1 1 1 111 NA GCR Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1 1 1 112 NA GCR Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1 1 1 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mottled Duck 113 NA GCR 1 1 1 Conservation Plan 114 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Chenier Plain Initiative 1 1 1 Fall Habitat Objectives for Priority Gulf Coast Joint Venture Shorebird Species Using Managed 115 NA GCR 1 1 1 Wetlands and Grasslands 116 NA GCR USFS Forest Legacy Program 1 1 1 117 NA GCR Little Blue Heron Conservation Plan 1 1 1 118 NA GCR Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative 1 1 1 Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 119 NA GCR 1 1 1 Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat by the Lower Mississippi Joint Venture, 2007 120 NA GCR Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan Gulf Coastal Prairie 1 1 1 121 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture Landbird Conservation Plan Bird Conservation Regions 25, 26, & 27 1 1 1 122 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture Conservation Planning for Reddish Egret 1 1 1 123 NA GCR Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) 1 1 1 124 NA GCR Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed 1 1 1 125 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative 1 1 1 126 NA GCR North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 1 1 1 127 NA GCR PGCLCVision Doc 1 1 1 128 NA GCR National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) 1 1 1 129 NA GCR Gulf Coast Joint Venture 1 1 1 130 NA GCR Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) 1 1 1 131 NA GCR 2016 Landbird Conservation Plan 1 1 1 132 NA GCR Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) 1 1 1 TNC-Identiﬁcation of Priority Sites for Conservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An 133 NA GCR 1 1 1 Ecoregional Plan 134 NA GCR Targeted Pollinator Habitat Eorts 1 1 1 135 REG MS Go Coast 2020 Final Report 1 1 1 136 REG MS Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 0 0 1 137 REG MS Invasive Species Management Plan for the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 0 1 0 138 REG MS Project Management Plan for Selected Beneﬁcial Use Projects Along Coastal Mississippi 0 1 0 139 REG MS Mississippi Coastal Nutrient Reduction Strategies 0 1 0 140 REG MS Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 0 1 1 141 REG MS Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Comprehensive Plan Elements 0 1 1 142 REG MS Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2013–2018: 0 1 1 143 REG MS Coastal Wetlands Priority Acquisition Plan for Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties 1 0 0 144 REG MS State Coastal Impact Assistance Plan 1 0 0 145 REG MS Master Plan for the Beneﬁcial Use of Dredge Material for Coastal Mississippi 1 1 0 146 REG MS MS Coastal Preserves Mission, Vision and Goals 1 1 0 147 REG MS Coastal Preserve Program Plan 1 1 0 Draft Land Protection Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of 148 REG MS 1 1 1 Grand Bay NWR 149 NA GCR Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 2014–2017 Strategic Plan. 1 1 1 150 ST MS Gulf Mexico Alliance Governor ’s Action Plan II: 2009–2014 0 1 1 151 ST MS Mississippi Gopher Frog Critical Habitat Designation 0 1 1 152 ST MS MS State Management Plan for Aquatic Invasive Species 0 1 1 153 ST MS Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005 0 1 1 154 ST MS Mississippi’s Basin Management Approach 0 1 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan National 155 ST MS 0 1 1 Forests in Mississippi 156 ST MS Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy 1 0 1 157 ST MS MS Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need 1 1 0 158 ST MS State of Mississippi Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) Plan 1 1 0 159 ST MS Mississippi Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 1 1 1 160 CZ MS Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Research Plan 0 0 0 161 CZ MS Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) 1 1 1 162 BI TX Galveston Island State Park Marsh Restoration & Protection—Phase III 0 0 0 163 BI TX Smith Oaks Bird Sanctuary Rookery Island Restoration and Enhancement 0 0 0 164 BI TX Dagger Island Restoration Project 0 0 0 165 BI TX Oyster Lake Shoreline Protection and Restoration 0 0 0 166 BI TX Follets Island Land Acquisition and Conservation Program—Phase I 1 1 1 167 BI TX Coastal Heritage Preserve Initiative: Bayside Acquisition and Easement 1 1 1 168 ES TX Galveston Bay Plan 1 1 1 169 CZ TX Mad Island Marsh Preserve Shoreline Protection and Coastal Ecosystem Restoration—Phase I 0 0 0 170 CZ TX Beach-nesting and Wintering Bird Protection and Habitat Stewardship 0 0 1 Land 2019, 8, 84 16 of 19 Table A1. Cont. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 171 CZ TX Salt Bayou Beach Ridge Restoration—Engineering and Design 0 0 1 172 CZ TX Sabine Ranch Acquisition 1 1 1 173 CZ TX Gulf Coast Migratory Waterfowl Habitat Enhancement 1 1 1 174 CP TX Aransas County Floodplain Management Plan 0 0 0 175 CZ TX Hydrological Restoration of Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge Wetlands—Phase I 0 0 0 176 REG TX Rebuild Flight Cage and Enclosure Complex for Rehabilitated Birds 0 0 0 177 CZ TX Sea Rim State Park Coastal Dune Restoration 0 0 1 178 REG TX Restoring Colonial Waterbirds on the Texas Coast 0 0 1 179 CZ TX Hydrologic Restoration of the Salt Bayou Watershed 0 0 1 180 CP TX Bee Groundwater Conservation District Management Plan 0 0 0 181 CP TX Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan 1 0 0 182 CP TX Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan 1 1 0 183 CP TX Strategic Conservation Plan 1 1 0 184 CP TX Lost Pines Habitat Conservation Plan for Bastrap County, Texas 1 1 1 185 CZ TX Carancahua Bay Habitat Preservation and Enhancement—Phase I 1 1 1 186 CZ TX Bahia Grande Coastal Corridor–Holly Beach Tract Acquisition 1 1 1 187 CZ TX Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Marsh and Dunes Acquisition 1 1 1 188 CZ TX Dollar Bay-Moses Lake Shoreline Enhancement and Restoration 0 0 0 189 CZ TX Powderhorn Ranch Land Acquisition 1 0 1 190 CZ TX Candy Abshier Wildlife Management Area Shoreline Protection and Marsh Restoration 0 1 1 191 ES TX Egery Flats Marsh Restoration 0 0 1 192 ES TX Nueces Bay Rookery Islands Restoration 0 0 1 193 CZ TX Falcon Point Ranch Conservation and Wetland Restoration 1 1 1 194 CZ TX Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Marsh Acquisition 1 1 0 195 ES TX Virginia Point Shoreline Protection and Estuarine Restoration 0 0 1 196 ES TX West Galveston Bay Conservation Corridor Habitat Preservation 1 1 1 197 ES TX Greens Lake Protection and Marsh Restoration: Engineering & Design 0 0 0 198 CZ TX Restoration of J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area Water Management Infrastructure 0 1 1 199 ES TX Mission-Aransas Reserve Management Plan 0 1 1 200 REG TX Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Laguna Madre Initiative 1 1 1 201 REG TX Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Texas Mid-Coast Initiative 1 1 1 202 CY TX City of Temple Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 203 CY TX City of Georgetown Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 204 CY TX Carrollton City Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 205 CY TX City of Live Oak Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 206 CY TX City of Heath Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 207 CY TX City of McKinney Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 208 CY TX City of Victoria Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 209 CY TX City of Midland Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 210 CY TX City of Melissa Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 211 CY TX City of Cedar Park Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 212 CY TX City of Flushear Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 213 CY TX City of Leaque Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 214 CY TX City of Rosenberg Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 215 CY TX City of Midlothian Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 216 CY TX City of Huntsville Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 217 CY TX City of Sachse Comprehensive Plan 0 1 0 218 BW TX San Bernard River Watershed Protection Plan 0 1 0 219 CY TX City of Sugar Land Comprehensive Plan 0 1 1 220 CY TX Texas City Comprehensive Plan 0 1 1 221 CY TX City of Missouri Comprehensive Plan 1 0 0 222 CY TX City of Fate Comprehensive Plan 1 0 0 223 CY TX City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan 1 0 1 224 CY TX City of Magnolia Comprehensive Plan 1 0 1 225 CY TX City of Nolanville Comprehensive Plan 1 1 0 226 ST TX Coastal Bend Mitigation Action Plan 0 0 0 227 ST TX Texas Water Development Board Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007–2011 0 0 0 228 CZ TX Coastal Texas 2020; A Clear Vision for the Texas Coast 0 0 0 229 ST TX Texas Conservation Action Plan: Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes 0 1 0 230 ST TX Texas Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program Plan (CELCP) 0 1 0 231 TX TX Monarch Butterﬂy Habitat Development Strategy (Working lands for Wildlife) 0 1 1 232 ST TX Texas Wetlands Conservation Plan 1 1 0 233 REG TX Gulf-Houston Regional Conservation Plan 1 1 0 234 ST TX Texas Trustee Implementation Group Restoration Plan 1 1 0 235 ST TX Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan 1 1 1 236 ST TX Texas Multiyear Implementation Plan 1 1 1 237 ST TX Texas Conservation Action Plan Handbooks 1 1 1 238 ST TX Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Strategic Plan 1 1 1 239 ST TX Texas Genral Land Oce Agency Strategic Plan 1 1 1 240 CZ TX Texas Coastal Management Program Section 309 Assessment and Strategies Report 2006–2010 1 1 1 241 CZ TX Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS 1 1 1 242 BI LA Elmer ’s Island Wildlife Refuge Management Plan 1 0 1 243 BW LA Next Steps for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed Atchafalaya Landscape at a Glance 1 0 1 244 BW LA Atchafalaya Basin Annual Plan 0 0 0 245 CZ LA Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast 0 0 0 246 CZ LA Louisiana Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 1 1 1 247 ES LA BTNEP Conservation Mgmt Plan 0 0 1 248 CP LA New Directions 2025, St. Tammany Land Use Plan 0 0 0 249 CP LA Resilient New Orleans Strategic Actions to Shape our future city 0 0 0 250 CP LA Tangipahoa Parish Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 Land 2019, 8, 84 17 of 19 Table A1. Cont. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 251 CP LA Envision Livingston a Comprehensive Master Plan for Investing in Our Future 0 0 0 252 CP LA St. James Government Comprehensive Plan 2030 0 0 0 253 CP LA Lafourche Parish Comprehensive Resiliency Plan 0 0 1 254 CP LA Terrebonne Parish Vision 2030 0 0 1 255 CP LA St. Bernard Comprehensive Plan 0 1 1 256 CP LA Vermilion Parish Comprehensive Resiliency Plan 1 1 1 257 CP LA St. Mary Parish Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 258 CP LA St. John the Baptist Parish Comprehensive Land Use Plan 1 1 1 259 CP LA Plan Ascension the Blueprint for Our Future 1 1 1 260 CP LA Assumption Parish Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 261 CP LA St. Charles Parish 2030 Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 262 CP LA Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Master Plan 1 1 1 263 CP LA St. Charles 2030 Comprehensive Plan 0 1 1 264 REG LA Greater New Orleans Water Management Plan 0 0 0 265 ST LA Resettlement as a Resilience Strategy and the Case of Isle de Jean Charles 1 0 0 266 CP LA St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish Land use and transportation plan 1 0 0 267 NA GCR Next Steps for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1 1 1 Next Steps for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands and 268 NA GCR 1 1 1 Barrier Islands Landscapes at a Glance 269 CZ LA Louisiana Coastal Management Program Assessment and Strategy 2006–2011 0 0 0 270 ST LA Louisiana Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy 0 1 1 271 ST LA Louisiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 1 0 1 272 ST LA Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Strategic Plan 2017–2018 through 2021–2022 1 1 1 273 ST LA Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) 1 1 1 274 ST LA Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan 1 1 1 275 ST LA Louisiana Forest Legacy Assessment of Need 1 1 1 276 ST LA Louisiana Nutrient Management Strategy 1 1 1 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Master Plan for Wildlife Management Areas and 277 ST LA 1 1 1 Refuges 278 ST LA LA Coastal Forest Conservation Initiative 2012 1 0 0 279 BW LA Bayou Lafourche 0 1 1 280 BW LA Bayou Chene Watershed Implementation Plan 0 1 1 281 BW LA Big Creek Watershed Implementation Plan 0 1 1 282 BW LA Bayou Queue de Tortue Watershed Implementation Plan 0 1 1 283 BW FL Lower St. Johns River Basin SWIM Plan 0 0 0 Water Quality Improvements to Enhance Fisheries Habitat in the Lower Choctawhatchee River 284 BW FL 0 0 0 Basin—Phase I 285 BW FL Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 1 1 1 286 BW FL Northern Coastal Basin SWIM Plan 1 1 1 287 BW FL St. Marys River SWIM Plan 1 1 1 288 BW FL Upper Ocklawaha RIver Basin SWIM Plan 1 1 1 289 BW FL Upper St. Johns River Basin SWIM Plan 1 1 1 290 BW FL Middle St. Johns River Basin SWIM Plan 1 1 1 291 BW FL Orange Creek Basin SWIM Plan 1 1 1 292 REG FL Comprehensive Panhandle Coastal Bird Conservation 0 0 0 293 CP FL Restoration of Florida’s Coastal Dune Lakes 0 0 0 294 CP FL Destin Harbor, Joe’s Bayou, and Indian Bayou Water Quality Improvement 0 0 0 295 CP FL Florida Forest Service: Rural and Family Lands Protection Program (RFLPP) 0 1 1 296 CP FL Bay County Comprehensive Plan 0 1 1 297 CP FL Florida Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need 1 1 1 298 CP FL Charlotte County 2050 1 1 1 299 CP FL Citrus County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 300 CP FL Collier County RESTORE multi-year implementation plan 1 1 1 301 CP FL Dixie County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 302 CP FL Escambia County Comprehensive Plan 2030 1 1 1 303 CP FL Franklin County RESTORE Act Multiyear Implementation Plan 1 1 1 304 CP FL Gulf County Habitat Conservation Plan 1 1 1 305 CP FL Hernando County Comprehensive Plan 2040 1 1 1 306 CP FL Jan K. Platt Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP) 1 1 1 307 CP FL Comprehensive Plan 2025 Jeerson County, Florida 1 1 1 308 CP FL Levy County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 309 CP FL Manatee County Florida Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 310 CP FL Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 311 CP FL Okaloosa Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 312 CP FL 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Pasco County Florida 1 1 1 313 CP FL Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan Policy Document 1 1 1 314 CP FL Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 315 CP FL Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 316 CP FL Comprehensive Plan to Restore Walton County’s Ecosystems and Economy 1 1 1 317 ES FL Florida Gulf Environmental Beneﬁt Fund Restoration Strategy 0 0 0 318 ES FL Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay 1 1 1 319 ES FL Sarasota Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update 1 1 1 320 ES FL Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Five-Year Habitat Restoration Plan FY 2016–FY 2020 1 1 1 Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Committing to Our Future, A Comprehensive 321 ES FL 1 1 1 Conservation and Management Plan 322 REG FL Florida Water Management District, Northwest 1 1 1 323 REG FL Florida Water Management Districts, Southwest 1 1 1 324 REG FL Florida Water Management Districts, South 1 1 1 325 REG FL Florida Forever update Suwannee River Water Management District 1 1 1 326 REG FL Florida Water Management Districts, St. John’s 1 1 1 Land 2019, 8, 84 18 of 19 Table A1. Cont. 1 1 1 Code State Plan Name ACQ EAS STE 327 ST FL Florida Forever Five Year Plan (2017) 1 1 1 328 ST FL Florida Forest Action Plan 1 1 1 329 BW FL St. Marks River and Apalachee Bay SWIM Plan 0 0 0 330 BW FL Bayou Chico Restoration 0 0 0 331 BW FL Boggy Bayou Watershed Water Quality Improvement 0 0 0 332 BW FL Restoration and Management of Escribano Point Coastal Habitat—Phase II 0 0 0 333 BW FL Rainbow River SWIM Plan 0 0 1 334 BW FL Lake Panasokee SWIM Plan 1 0 0 335 BW FL Sarasota Bay SWIM Plan 1 0 0 336 BW FL Charlotte Harbor SWIM Plan 1 0 1 337 BW FL Lake Tarpon SWIM Plan 1 0 1 338 BW FL Peninsular Florida LCC Conservation Planning Atlas 1 1 1 339 BW FL Florida Wildlife Action Plan 1 1 1 340 BW FL Perdido River and Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 341 BW FL Choctawhatchee River and Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 342 BW FL Ochlockonee River and Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 343 BW FL Weeki Wachee SWIM Plan—Approved March 2017 1 1 1 344 BW FL Crystal River Kings Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 345 BW FL Tampa Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 346 BW FL Winter Haven Chain of Lakes SWIM Plan 1 1 1 347 BW FL Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 1 1 1 348 BW FL Florida Water Management Districts, Suwannee 1 1 1 349 BW FL Lake Thonotosassa SWIM Plan 1 1 1 350 BW FL Pensacola Bay System SWIM Plan 1 1 1 351 BW FL St. Andrew Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 352 BW FL Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Plan 1 1 1 ACQ: Acquisition; EAS: Easement; STE: Stewardship. References 1. Felder, D.L.; Camp, D.K.; Tunnell, J.W., Jr. An Introduction to Gulf of Mexico Biodiversity Assessment; Texas A&M Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2009; Volume 1. 2. Sherwood, M.G.; Meyer-Arendt, K.J.; Wicker, K.M. Land Loss in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 1981, 31, 295–300. 3. Rabalais, N.N.; Turner, R.E.; Wiseman, W.J. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead Zone”. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2002, 33, 235–263. [CrossRef] 4. Feagin, R.A.; Sherman, D.J.; Grant, W.E. Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 359–364. [CrossRef] 5. Strong, A.M.; Bancroft, G.T. Patterns of Deforestation and Fragmentation of Mangrove and Deciduous Seasonal Forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1994, 54, 795–804. 6. Reiger, J.F. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, 3rd ed.; Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-87071-487-0. 7. Kamal, S.; Grodzinska-Jur ´ czak, M.; Brown, G. Conservation on private land: A review of global strategies with a proposed classiﬁcation system. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 576–597. [CrossRef] 8. USDA; NRCS. Gulf of Mexico Restoration—A Private Lands Vision for Success; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. 9. 112th US Congress. RESTORE Act; Public Law Number 112–114, Code Number 4348, Section 1601–1608; 112th US Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 184–203. 10. RESTORE Council Restoring the Gulf Coast’s Ecosystem & Economy-Gulf Coast Restoration Council Initial Comprehensive Plan. 2013. Available online: https://www.restorethegulf.gov/comprehensive-plan (accessed on 22 May 2019). 11. Pressey, R.L.; Whish, G.L.; Barrett, T.W.; Watts, M.E. Eectiveness of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: Recent trends in six measures. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 106, 57–69. [CrossRef] 12. Fisher, M.; Carver, S.; Kun, Z.; McMorran, R.; Arrell, K.; Mitchell, G. Review of Status and Conservation of Wild Land in Europe; The Wildland Reseach Institute, University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 2010. 13. Cash, D.W.; Adger, N.W.; Berkes, F.; Garden, P.; Lebel, L.; Olson, P.; Pritchard, L.; Yound, O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 8. [CrossRef] 14. Baillie, J.E.M.; Raaelli, D.; Sillero-Zubiri, C. Levels of approach. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 23–41. ISBN 978-1-118-52017-8. Land 2019, 8, 84 19 of 19 15. Aronson, M.F.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [CrossRef] 16. Beyer, K.M.M.; Kaltenbach, A.; Szabo, A.; Bogar, S.; Nieto, F.J.; Malecki, K.M. Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2014, 11, 3453–3472. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef] 18. EPA National Summary of State Information. Available online: https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_ nation_cy.control (accessed on 25 April 2019). 19. Florida Legislature. Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management Act; Florida Legislature; Chapter 373, Section 351, 4595; 1987. Available online: http://www.leg.state.ﬂ.us/Statutes/ (accessed on 25 April 2019). 20. NMFS. Fisheries Economics of the United States Report, 2015; US Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 247. 21. Cooke, B.; Langford, W.T.; Gordon, A.; Bekessy, S. Social context and the role of collaborative policy making for private land conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 469–485. [CrossRef] 22. Black, A.E.; Strand, E.; Wright, R.G.; Scott, J.M.; Morgan, P.; Watson, C. Land use history at multiple scales: Implications for conservation planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 43, 49–63. [CrossRef] 23. Mehmood, A. Of resilient places: Planning for urban resilience. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 407–419. [CrossRef] 24. McPhearson, T.; Hamstead, Z.A.; Kremer, P. Urban Ecosystem Services for Resilience Planning and Management in New York City. AMBIO 2014, 43, 502–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Bodin, O.; Crona, B.; Thyresson, M.; Golz, A.-L.; Tengo, M. Conservation success as a function of good alignment of social and ecological structures and processes. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 1371–1379. [CrossRef] [PubMed] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Land Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/land-conservation-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-region-a-comprehensive-review-S7ePTDBezI

Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
ISSN: 2073-445X
DOI: 10.3390/land8050084
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

Land Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico Region: A Comprehensive Review of Plans, Priorities, and Efforts

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies