The Nature Conservancy of Nevada's Strategic Conservation Framework

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Shortly after becoming The Nature Conservancy’s Nevada State Director in July 2005, I convened a working group of staff scientists and project leaders to update our chapter’s strategic plan. I never questioned that our remarkable team was doing good work, but I wanted to be sure that we were doing the right work, and in the right places. While the exercise showed that we were, in fact, squarely “on mission,” it also revealed the need to make some course corrections and align ourselves more closely with the Conservancy’s organization-wide goal of protecting 10% of every major habitat type on Earth by 2015.

Perhaps most importantly, revisiting our conservation framework provided a powerful motivator to restate and recommit to The Nature Conservancy’s mission of conserving Nevada’s irreplaceable lands and water. With this updated strategic plan as our blueprint, we are dedicating the Conservancy’s Nevada Chapter—its resources, staff and trustees—to conserving twelve of Nevada’s Last Great Places by 2015.

Under the leadership of longtime trustee Dr. William Douglass and Greg Low, one of the Conservancy’s most senior and respected conservation practitioners, the strategic working group assessed approximately 70 large functional landscapes ranging from 250,000 to 1,000,000 million acres on both public and private lands. Through the careful analysis of myriad data and indicators—including number and distribution of focal conservation targets (ecological systems and rare species), critical threats, and overall landscape viability—Nevada’s 21 highest priority landscapes were identified (Appendix A).

These 21 Last Great Places reflect Nevada’s exceptional biological diversity. Together, they capture almost all ecological systems found in the Mojave Desert and Great Basin ecoregions, and over half of their imperiled species.

Twelve of the 21 landscapes will be selected for focused Conservancy action based on 1) the severity and urgency of threats; 2) feasibility of successful outcomes (i.e., willing partners; sufficient funding; marketing potential, etc.); 3) duration of results; and 4) the degree to which TNC engagement increases the likelihood of conservation success.

Early engagement is anticipated on eight landscapes, and capacity will grow over time. In addition to the four landscapes where the Conservancy is already working (Truckee River, Carson River, Muddy River, and Upper Amargosa River/Oasis Valley/Ash Meadows), four new projects will be brought online in FY07 (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007).

These first eight landscapes alone represent 80% of Nevada’s ecological systems and 40% of its imperiled species.

The nature and degree of TNC engagement will be tailored to the needs of each place. At priority landscapes, for example, the Conservancy will commit a project leader and a multidisciplinary team to effectively implement a multitude of conservation strategies including land acquisition, restoration, cooperative agreements, conservation easements, community outreach and government relations. Scorecards showing both the baseline and evolving status of threats and ecosystem health at each priority landscape will help us measure our progress.

We will continue to provide assistance to public agencies that may reach beyond the twelve highest priority landscapes; however, any such Conservancy engagement will be designed towards producing tangible, enduring and measurable conservation results.

Achieving our ambitious 2015 goal will require private and public fundraising at an unprecedented level, and will necessitate launching the Nevada Chapter’s first-ever capital campaign. It will also require staying true to our collaborative, solution-oriented approach; maintaining our commitment to balancing economic and environmental needs; and working with an expanding universe of public agencies and private partners.

Perhaps most of all, our success will be determined by the focus, discipline, and commitment brought to bear on this plan. Saying “yes” to twelve landscapes necessarily means saying “no” (or at least “not now”) to others. But it also means that in less than ten years, we will have permanently protected millions of acres across Nevada’s most threatened and important landscapes.

It is a challenge that our mission obligates us to meet, and I have the utmost confidence that, with this plan to guide us, we will succeed in doing so.

Kathryn E. Landreth

Nevada State Director

2015 GOAL

Conserve 12 highest-priority functional landscapes that represent Nevada’s biological diversity.

An explanation of key elements of the 2015 goal statement follows:

Biological diversity includes all types of ecological systems (e.g. sagebrush semidesert, desert riparian shrubland, wet meadows) which serve as a “coarse filter” for capturing the diversity of plant and animal species, plus a “fine filter” of very rare or significantly declining species that may not always be captured in representative ecosystems. Ecological systems and rare species are the focal conservation targets.

A set of 12 highest priority landscapes in Nevada will substantially represent the state’s biological diversity. Analysis of ecoregional data shows that 12 well-selected landscapes will capture:

o High-quality examples of almost all ecological systems – stratified across Nevada’s sections of the Mojave Desert, Great Basin and Columbia Plateau ecoregions.

o Viable occurrences of over 50% of all globally imperiled species or species significantly declining across their range.

The 12 highest priority landscapes will be selected from a larger group of ecologically significant areas identified in Appendix A (table and map). The landscapes will be selected using the criteria outlined in Appendix B.

These “Last Great Places” are functional landscapes - large areas ranging from 250,000 acres to over 1,000,000 acres - with relatively intact or feasibly restorable ecological processes. They capture multiple conservation targets at all spatial scales, including large-scale ecological systems and embedded rare species. The landscapes typically include multiple sites identified in the Conservancy’s ecoregional assessments. Some landscapes transcend state borders and ecoregional boundaries and require “joint ventures” with adjacent states.

To conserve the focal targets within each landscape, any critical threats must be abated and the target’s long-term health (viability) must be maintained, or if necessary, restored. The Conservancy uses scorecards to measure these critical elements of success.

STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THE 2015 GOAL

Conservation strategies will be tailored to abate the critical threats and enhance the viability of conservation targets. Among the array of conservation strategies that will be applied, as needed and as appropriate, are…

· Acquisition of interests in land and water

· Adaptive management of land and water

· Developing and advancing compatible uses of land and water

· Providing information to decision-makers to abate critical threats

· Solution-oriented, collaborative engagement in public policies

The Conservancy will focus on taking direct action at priority landscapes, working with public & private partners. In addition, the Conservancy will implement multi-site strategies and will collaborate with public agencies to address critical threats that impinge on multiple places.

I. Landscape Conservation Strategies

A. Intensive, community-based strategic engagement (e.g. Truckee River)

These landscapes typically involve substantial private land protection, multiple critical threats, and/or a complex institutional environment where substantial TNC leadership is required. A suite of conservation strategies is usually needed. TNC acquisition of land or conservation easements may be required to abate critical threats and catalyze strategic action by partners. TNC engagement may be long-term (e.g. a decade or longer).

B. Selective strategic engagement (e.g. Spring Mountains)

These landscapes typically involve primarily public lands, areas with one or two critical threats, and/or areas where other institutions have a primary leadership role. One or two key conservation strategies may be required. Focused TNC engagement may be long-term or short-term (e.g. 2 or 3 years), with future re-engagement as circumstances require.

The Conservancy is currently engaged to a substantial degree at several priority landscapes, and has been involved with public agency partners at others. Conservancy experience has shown that certain key elements are required for success with landscape-scale conservation. The “key success factors” are outlined in Appendix C.

Early engagement will be sought at 8 priority landscapes. To make a “go” commitment to a new landscape project as one of the Last Great Places, the following minimum threshold criteria must be met:

· A plausible hypothesis that strategies, over time, can abate the critical threats

· Credible first steps towards strategic engagement

· Commitment to fielding a project leader

II. Multi-Site Conservation Strategies. Some critical threats will require action at a scale beyond the individual landscapes (e.g. regional groundwater drawdown). Either the threat will impact multiple landscapes, the source of the threat will necessitate action at a higher scale, or actions may be taken more efficiently at a higher scale. The Conservancy will engage in the following multi-site conservation approaches:

A. Strategies to abate critical threats across priority landscapes

Threats at each priority landscape will be assessed and compiled to determine how they may impact multiple landscapes. TNC will evaluate potential multi-site strategies to abate these threats, using the factors for “Evaluating Strategic Opportunities” (see Appendix B). Strategies to address multi-site threats often require constructive engagement with public agencies and policies.

B. Public agency partnerships

The Conservancy will engage in public agency partnerships where that work is likely to produce tangible, enduring and measurable conservation results. TNC will evaluate potential public agency partnerships using the factors in Appendix B, as well as the following additional criteria:

· Identifiable public agency action is likely to be applied on the ground to abate threats or enhance the viability of focal conservation targets

· The agency understands that the Conservancy’s mission may require constructive TNC re-engagement at a future date

· Sufficient public funds or targeted private funds are provided to cover TNC’s costs

· The effort doesn’t divert project leaders and discretionary staff resources from addressing critical threats at priority landscapes

C. Other high-leverage strategies

Occasional, extraordinary opportunities may arise to build the chapter’s capacity to do expanded and more effective conservation in the future. These opportunities will be pursued when they materially advance TNC’s mission, with a plausible hypothesis for achieving large-scale, enduring conservation of focal conservation targets.

Note: Although the chapter’s priorities may change as a result of the new strategic framework, all existing commitments will be fully honored.

STRUCTURE & CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES

Achieving the 2015 goal requires the integration of four major ingredients:

people; plans; money; and measures.

I. People

A. Project Leaders

o For each priority landscape project and multi-site strategy, a TNC staff person will assume responsibility for achieving defined results.

o The staff leader’s time commitment will vary by project.

§ Intensive, community-based strategic engagement will require a full-time project director over multiple years.

§ Selective strategic engagement typically will require less intensive staffing. Leadership time may vary over the years as strategies play out (e.g. ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 FTE per year).

§ Multi-site strategies leadership will vary, based on the complexity and time horizon of each strategy.

o Some projects will combine two or more functional landscapes under a single staff leader, based upon common targets, threats, land ownership/management, and/or geography.

B. Project Teams

o A multidisciplinary project team - including the staff leader and a conservation ecologist - will be assembled for each landscape project and multi-site strategy, drawing upon TNC staff, specialized scientists and consultants.

o TNC administration, communications, finance, grants and philanthropy staff will participate with project leaders and teams in developing strategies relating to their areas of responsibility and expertise.

o Staffing levels will need to grow to fully implement conservation strategies and ramp up new landscape projects. Total TNC-Nevada staffing may need to double over the next 10 years.

C. Conservation Management Team

o The state director will appoint a conservation management team that has the following responsibilities: (1) evaluating TNC engagement in new landscape projects, multi-site strategies and public agency initiatives; (2) reviewing all conservation action plans; (3) setting conservation priorities; and (4) maintaining measures of success.

II. Plans

A. Landscape Portfolio

TNC’s ecoregional plans for the Great Basin, Mojave Desert and Columbia Plateau will be analyzed to identify functional landscapes, focal conservation targets, and the alternative portfolios for achieving the 2015 goal. Appendix A shows the initial assessment of potential priority landscapes.

B. Conservation Action Plans (CAPs)

o Rapid CAPs. A rapid, first iteration CAP will be developed for each priority landscape and multi-site strategy as a first order of business.

o Peer Review. Plans for all landscape projects, multi-site strategies, and public agency partnerships will be peer reviewed by the conservation management team and other colleagues. This process will be used to make appropriate adaptations to plans. All plans will also be updated and reviewed at least every 2 years.

o Project Budgets. All projects will have basic operating and capital budgets reflecting their appropriate time frame. Any matching requirements and/or “subsidy” from TNC-Nevada discretionary operating funds will be identified.

C. Annual Operating Plan & Priorities Review

The conservation management team will annually review and rank projects and strategies according to their return on investment from discretionary staff time and financial resources. The team will recommend staffing and funding adjustments as needed.

III. Funding

A. Private Funds

A statewide capital campaign will be launched to support the priority landscape and multi-site conservation strategies. A capital campaign can also provide discretionary funds for high priority strategies and projects that don’t have large sources of funding support.

B. Public Funds

Public funding sources (federal, state, agency and local) that explicitly support the priority landscape and multi-site conservation strategies will be pursued.

C. Project Leader Responsibility

Project leaders will share responsibility and work in partnership with philanthropy and grants staff and the state director to identify and secure funds for their projects.

IV. Measures

A. TNC-Nevada Conservation Scorecard

A conservation scorecard will provide the measure of whether the focal targets at priority landscapes are “conserved.” CAP workbooks will be rolled up to provide a statewide overview of the health of conservation targets and the degree of threat across all priority landscapes (see illustrative example in Appendix D). The measures in the CAP workbooks will be based upon the best science that is readily available to the project teams, including both quantitative data and informed expert opinion. These scorecards will show the degree to which TNC-Nevada is accomplishing its 2015 goal.

Appendix A

Priority Functional Landscapes in Nevada’s Ecoregions

Stratified by Ecoregional Sections

Great Basin					Mojave Desert		Columbia Plateau
Lahontan	North Central	Central Mountains	California Section	Tonopah	Eastern Mojave	Northern Mojave	Nevada
Pyramid Lake -Lower Truckee River	Ruby Mtns- E. Humboldt Range	Toquima Range-Montor Valley-Monitor Range	White Mountains (CA-NV)	Pine Valley Mountains (UT)	Spring Mountains	Ash Meadows-Amargosa River-Oasis Valley (NV-CA)	Sheldon NWR
Black Rock Desert-Smoke Creek Desert	Argenta-Sheep Creek Range-Tuscarora Mountains	Spring Valley-Snake Range	Owens Valley -Benton Valley (CA)	Railroad Valley	Mojave National Preserve (CA)	Death Valley (CA)	Jarbidge
Carson Sink	Ruby Valley	White River Valley	Inyo Mtns (CA)	Meadow Valley-Rainbow Canyon	Muddy River -Meadow Valley Wash-Morman Mesa	Last Chance-Saline (CA)
		Toiyabe Range-Big Smokey Valley	Long Valley (CA)		Gold Butte-Pakoon (NV-AZ)
		Steptoe Valley-Schell Creek Range	Carson River-South Pine Nut Mtns

Notes: These preliminary results are based solely on highest capture of focal conservation targets in each section of the ecoregions. Landscapes are ranked in order by section; some landscapes are more significant than others. This list reflects no consideration yet of the optimal array to meet TNC-NV’s 2015 goal, nor any consideration yet of viability, threat, feasibility, TNC value-added or leverage.

Appendix B – Evaluating Strategic Opportunities

Factors to evaluate priority landscapes, conservation strategies, and other strategic opportunities include…

o Conservation Value

§ Biodiversity: number of focal targets; high-quality matrix systems; irreplaceable target occurrences; overall target richness

§ Complementarity: degree to which the landscape includes ecological systems not conserved elsewhere

§ Viability: landscape intactness; target health

o Threat/Feasibility/TNC Value-Added

§ Threat: severity and urgency of threats that would be addressed

§ Feasibility: ability to implement successful strategies to address critical threats (based on multiple sub-factors)

§ Duration of Results: degree to which the strategic outcomes are likely to be enduring

§ TNC Value-Added: degree to which TNC engagement increases the likelihood of successful outcomes (e.g. we can contribute to key strategies that are not being done well by others)

o Leverage - Degree to which TNC engagement is likely to demonstrably and significantly boost conservation success at other priority landscapes or ecoregional portfolio sites, now or in the future. In selecting its 12 highest priority landscapes, TNC will seek a suite of places that engage a diverse suite of partners who will be important to conserving the larger portfolio.

o Cost - Amount of discretionary TNC-NV staff & funds required to engage in the landscape or strategy

Note: All factors above may not apply for a given application

These factors can be used in a decision matrix that provides a proxy for “conservation return on investment.” As circumstances and opportunities change over time, priority landscapes and strategies may be expected to change.

Appendix C – Key Success Fac