Congressional designations are the holy grail for landscape-scale protections. However, passing legislation to designate large blocks of public as wilderness, for example, is difficult to get through Congress. Rightfully so—these kinds of permanent land protections necessitate a thorough, thoughtful and deliberative process. The flip side, however, is that this process often becomes mired in political wrangling and unrelated legislative bouts that unnecessarily stall good legislation.

For this reason, at times it is best to pursue alternatives to legislation to help achieve the same end for conservation. There are many possibilities, ranging from land use plans, to rulemaking, to executive actions, and we keep an open mind to pursue creative, pragmatic and strategic options. Oftentimes these administrative protections do not have the permanence of legislation but nevertheless provide meaningful and long-lastly levels of protection. Importantly, determining the best path forward doesn’t need to be either/or. At times a dual strategy of establishing interim, administrative protections while we slog through the legislative process is the most effective way to conserve a landscape. Like any decisions, TU’s strategy starts on the ground and is built from a foundation of trust and collaboration that informs whether legislation, administrative action, or both is the strategy that is best suited for a community, stakeholders and the fish and wildlife habitat we all seek to conserve. Considerations like conditions on-the-ground, political will, partner and stakeholder input, community support, organizational capacity, threats and need for conservation, and mission-fit all factors we consider when evaluating whether administrative policy or legislation is best suited to achieve necessary protections for cold, clean water. When it comes to land protection there’s more than one way to achieve our goals.