Analysis

We gathered 352 plans from communities, NGOs, and state and federal agencies for our initial efforts, and found 293 of those that included some form of land conservation (i.e., acquisition, easement, and stewardship). From the catalog of plans, the majority from each state include Living Coastal and Marine Resources (LCMR) (65–77%) as well as Habitat (53–92%) as conservation priorities (Figure 3). Overall, the minority of plans focus on enhancing Community Resilience (CRES) or revitalizing the Gulf Economy (GEC), with LA-based plans addressing these goals at the highest rate (47% and 43%, respectively). Water quality and quantity (WAQ) is addressed in conservation planning at varying rates depending on the state. The majority of FL and 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.

Figure 3. The focus of conservation plans in states spanning the entire GCR categorized into the goals of assessment. RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

The percentage of plans focused on each RESTORE goal was dependent on 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 (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 included the Habitat goal. While WAQ was a focus of nearly 100% of Basin-Watershed plans, plans from other subregions included WAQ only 19–59% of the time. The majority of city and county/parish conservation plans included Community Resilience as a priority, while other subregions prioritized Community Resilience 17–35%.

Figure 4. The focus of conservation plans in the Gulf of Mexico coastal states and the entire Gulf Coast region (GCR) with respect to coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

Of the 293 plans, 37 came from Alabama (AL), 60 from Florida (FL), 30 from Louisiana (LA), 57 from Mississippi (MS), 56 from Texas (TX), and 53 from the GCR (more than one state). With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified that the majority of plans cataloged in AL focus on Habitat, WAQ, and LCMR (Figure 5). County/parish and state-level plans in AL contained disproportionately greater priorities related to the Habitat goal relative to other goals. Regional plans focused with greater emphasis on priorities reflecting LCMR goals, whereas basin-wide priorities were the only spatial unit that incorporated elements of WAQ over priorities in other goals.

Figure 5. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Alabama with respect to coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

In the state of Florida, we gathered 60 plans that are focused all or in part on some form of land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, WAQ, 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 priorities aligned with Habitat and WAQ, whereas regional and state-level priorities also 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.

Figure 6. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Florida with respect to coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

In the state of Louisiana, we gathered 30 plans that are focused on some form of land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, LCMR, Community Resilience, and WAQ. Basin and watershed and county/parish plans are more aligned in Habitat and WAQ, though county and parish-level plans prioritize Community Resilience and Gulf Economy over other goal categories (Figure 7). Priorities aligning with LCMR were also found in the majority of state and coastal habitat plans, but also in county/parish-level as well as basin and watershed plans.

Figure 7. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Louisiana with respect to coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

In the state of Mississippi, we gathered 57 plans that are focused on some form of land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, Community Resilience, and LCMR (Figure 8). Note that MS had the greatest prevalence of plans that established priorities aligning with Community Resilience across planning scales compared to the remaining states. On the other hand, WAQ and Gulf Economy priorities were not in the majority across any planning scale.

Figure 8. The focus of conservation plans in the state of Mississippi with respect to coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

In the state of Texas, we gathered 56 plans that focused on some form of land conservation. With respect to RESTORE goals, we identified the majority of plans focus on Habitat, LCMR, and WAQ, though Gulf Economy was a driving force behind city plans (Figure 9). WAQ priorities were only found in the majority of plans at the basin and watershed-level and state-level. 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 coastal habitat (CH), basin and watershed (BW), county and parish (CP), city (CY), region (REG), and state (ST). RESTORE goals can be found in Table 3.

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). Multistate (GCR-level) plans followed a similar pattern, with Habitat and LCMR priorities in far greater proportion compared to WAQ, Community Resilience, and Gulf Economy. This is not unexpected, as typical strategies relative to revitalizing the Gulf economy often lean toward resource use, extraction, and workforce development and away from placing land in conservation and limiting development. While open space protection and utilizing green infrastructure is becoming a more recognized tool for enhancing community resilience, the number of plans identifying land conservation as a community resilience strategy was substantially fewer than those aiming to protect habitats, species, or waterbodies. That being said, priorities aligning with Community Resilience were identified in greater abundance in FL and LA compared to the remaining GCR states (Figures 3, 6 and 7). Likewise, Gulf Economy priorities were identified in greater proportion in LA relative to other GCR states.

The plans’ focus on WAQ was dependent on the state. Many of the conservation plans that target WAQ reference Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130), which requires states to identify impaired waterbodies within their boundaries. The D’Olive Watershed Management Plan (Appendix A—Plan 33) in AL mentions waterbodies listed under Section 303(d) and references urban development and excessive erosion and sedimentation as principal causes for impairment. The high variation in the plan focus on WAQ by state may be due to different methods each state uses in assessing waterbody impairments, and differences in the proportion of their waterbodies they assess. For instance, MS has only assessed 7.2% (lowest in GCR) while FL has assessed 20.2% of its waterbodies (highest in GCR). The high percentage of FL plans focused on water quality is reflective of the state’s emphasis on protecting water resources. FL has five water management districts (WMDs), 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). The importance of WAQ 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.

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 sufficient size to achieve economies of scale, take advantage of local government and technical expertise, and be viable for long-term management. 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 different subregions may be confounded with regulatory extents. Recognizing potential confounding effects, 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 efforts 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 WAQ). 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). 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 different levels of ecological and economic stressors; and they generally work within a constructed management framework. Community resilience planning is perhaps more effective 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 US 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 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 differences in how respective economic drivers (urban and rural) connect to their environments. Along the GCR, 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, therefore protecting water resources and habitats may be more efficacious. 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 (https://scagulf.shinyapps.io/iop_beta/) 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.