The
Conservancy
BIORESERVE HANDBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER:
 
 
I: WHAT IS A BIORESERVE?
 
II: THE BIORESERVE CONCEPT, Dr. Robert E. Jenkins
 
III: STAGES OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING
 
IV: BIORESERVE EVALUATION AND SELECTION
 
V: "THRESHOLD" QUESTIONS FOR BIORESERVE PLANNING
 
VI: BIORESERVE PLANNING TOOLS
 
VII: ILLUSTRATIVE STRATEGIC PLAN
 
 
 
 
APPENDICES: CASE STUDIES
 
A: Identifying Ecological Priorities
B: Ecosystem Processes and EcologicaL Modelling
C: Bioreserve Mapping
D: Identifying Critical Threats
E: Protecting Riverine Ecosystems and Species
F: Protecting Estuarine and Marine Ecosystems
G: Buffer Zone Conservation Tools
H: Watershed Planning Programs and Management
I: Positive Grass Roots Action
J: Influencing Public Policy
K: Building Partnerships
L: Federal Government Programs for Bioreserves
M: Promoting Compatible Economic Development
N: Local Land Use Planning and Zoning
O: Water Law and Policy
P: Ecosystem Restoration
Q: Staffing for Bioreserves
R: Bioreserve Fundraising and Campaign Planning
S: Strategic Planning
T: Bioreserve Preserve Design
 
 
Chapter 1
 
What is a Bioreserve
 
A bioreserve is a landscape - usually large in size - with naturally functioning ecological processes, and containing outstanding examples of ecosystems, natural communities, and species which are endangered or inadequately protected.
 
A bioreserve includes core natural areas containing significant biological resources. Long-term protection also requires reasonable insulation from threats. A bioreserve is therefore designed to withstand human pressure through its size and configuration or by accommodating compatible human use.
 
A Conservancy bioreserve must be:
An ecologically viable landscape, typically a watershed, which encompasses one or more of the following features:
(1) High quality examples of terrestrial or aquatic communities which are endangered or inadequately protected;
(2) Concentrations of rare species;
(3) A large, relatively undisturbed example of natural community once characteristic of its ecoregion, but now fragmented or degraded;
(4) A critical migratory stopover point or corridor.
 
Bioreserves will continue to draw on the Conservancy's traditional conservation techniques, such as land acquisition and stewardship. Indeed, bioreserves will often begin with combinations of preserves, or large existing preserves, whose enlargement or connection will enhance their ecological processes and viability. However, we will need to invent new techniques, find new partners, influence other landowners, and develop whole new funding sources to succeed. In many cases, we will need to understand the economics of the landscape, and find ways to promote compatible human uses.
 
Over the long run, Conservancy bioreserves will become models of how man should live with nature. They will become a network of multi-purpose protected areas which conserve a diversity of species, natural communities, and naturally functioning ecosystems, and places where we find ways to use natural environments without degrading them.
 
 
The Bioreserve Concept
 
Robert E. Jenkins, Jr.
VP - Science
The Nature Conservancy
 
 
ABSTRACT
 
 
"Bioreserve" is a term used by The Nature Conservancy to refer to areas – generally large ones - where conservation of biodiversity can be carried out at the landscape scale. Bioreserves must be large enough to encompass examples of multiple community types that naturally occur and dynamically interact within a region. Such large areas will usually be complexes consisting of multiple real estate tracts under various kinds of ownership but with coordinated management. This paper discusses biodiversity itself, the need to conserve it, the necessity of nature reserves, the Bioreserve concept, and the idea of comprehensive biodiversity conservation planning. The theme of people [scanning error] nature is a key aspect of the Bioreserve idea of making land use patterns and resource management regimes that are compatible with the needs of the biota, both on preserves and on the general landscape. For too long we have behaved as if conservation could be achieved merely by separating nature from people, with detrimental effects on both.
 
INTRODUCTION
 
As used by The Nature Conservancy, the term "Bioreserve" means
an area large enough to encompass intact examples, in an integrated
Bioreserve definition array, of as many as possible of the ecosystems typical of the geographic
region. Within a Bioreserve, the ecosystems must be managed in a way
that maintains the primary ecological processes and provides adequate
habitat for the survival of the native species that should live there.
Wherever possible the Conservancy will select areas that contain habitat
for clusters of endangered species and those that are difficult to conserve.
 
For many years the Conservancy has been establishing nature
preserves to protect endangered species populations, pristine ecosystem
Biodiversity and remnants, and other important biological and ecological features.
The Nature Conservancy Because many of these preserves are small and challenges from outside
their borders are increasing, we must take additional steps to ensure their
long-term capability to sustain all of the targeted species and biotic
communities. To prevent a gradual loss of species from these preserves
 
 
2
and the consequent disintegration of their communities, we must find
enlarge their effective size. In many or most instances, we must
also manage them intensively to replicate natural processes that may no
longer operate.
 
We propose to do this through landscape complexes of preserved
and multiuse lands that we call "Bioreserves." The idea is to arrange for
land and resource uses on the non-preserve portions of the complex that
will minimally damage and, if possible, actually enhance the status of the
biota within the area. The concept of such a multizoned reserve goes
back at least to 1892, when the Adirondack Park was established in New
Bioreserve antecedents York. A similar idea was employed by the British in the 1940s on their
"green line parks." The New Jersey Pinelands Reserve is another large-
scale application of the concept, and UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere
Program has encouraged the establishment of a worldwide network of
such reserve complexes, which it refers to as "Biosphere Reserves"
(UNESCO, 1974,1984). Nature Conservancy properties form important
parts of several such IJNESCO-designated complexes, and the
Conservancy's Latin American "Parks in Peril" campaign is attempting to
enhance the conservation status of many others. Through its Bioreserve
initiative, the Conservancy will greatly increase the fraction of its total
efforts devoted to such large-scale projects.
 
Land within a Bioreserve's ecological boundaries will not ordinarily
be under single ownership, and much of it will not be managed for strict
nature conservation purposes. However, the Conservancy will be
undertaking overall `assessments of regional ecosystem processes to
identify critical threats and indicators of healthy function. Then it intends
Multiple ownership complexes to use its traditional land-protection tools and work with all willing
landowners to help them understand the relationship of their land
management to the whole and to develop management and development
plans that are compatible with the needs and limitations of the overall
system. This approach will not only extend the effective biological
habitat to larger land areas but will allow the local community to
participate in management and use of the reserves. It will be a special
challenge to understand the ecosystem processes well enough to prescribe
the correct management treatments. It may be an even bigger challenge
to find combinations of sustainable land uses on the multiuse lands that
are compatible with both human needs and those of the other biological
inhabitants.
 
The concept is an attractive one that promises to contribute
enormously to the conservation of biological diversity. For it to do so, a
great many complex biological, ecological, legal, financial, and managerial
systems must be successfully integrated. Over the next five to ten years
Scope of Bioreserve the Conservancy intends to apply this concept on a large scale
initiative increasing the number of Bioreserve projects as rapidly as possible in
North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Internally
we intend to transform the organization in order to develop the skills and
expertise we will need for this multifaceted task.
 
 
3
 
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
The Nature Conservancy was founded as a special committee of
the Ecological Society of America in 1917 and was established as a
separate actionoriented organization in 1946 (Ecological Society of
Biodiversity values America, 1921,1926; The Nature Conservancy, 1981). Since its inception,
the organization has been completely devoted to conserving biological
diversity by establishing nature reserves. It has done this by identifying
and protecting land areas containing a wide variety of ecosystems to serve
as habitat for the greatest diversity of biota possible.
 
The destruction of natural landscapes, ecosystems, and species that
so concerned the Ecological Society in 1917 has continued and intensified
in spite of the helpful effects of the nature reserves. As nature's estate
has shrunken away, a larger and larger fraction of the conservation
community has turned its attention from traditional interests and begun
to join us in focusing specifically on conserving biological diversity. By
now an extensive literature on and the
has been developed biodiversity,
reasons for concern have become familiar (Jenkins, 1975; McAllister,
Wilson, 1984). it is
1984; However,
worth reiterating some of the main points here.
 
Nature as a Storehouse of Renewable Natural Resources
 
Renewable natural resources are the basis of all human societies,
primitive and modern. In the classic hunter-gatherer economy, low
human population densities can maintain themselves in a rough
equilibrium with the productivity of their natural surroundings, hunting
game animals and gathering roots, berries, and other food plants for their
local needs. Higher population densities depend instead on farms,
ranches, and orchards as their sources of food, drink, and other biological
applied uses of products, but all livestock and crop plants derive ultimately from the wild
biodiversity biota. New breeds are developed, and old ones improved, through
continued exploration and experimentation that depend on the natural
landscape for its source materials.
 
Corn (Zea mays), for example, is one of the most widely cultivated
food plants in the world, having an economic value over $50 billion. First
domesticated by American Indians, corn's wild relatives still exist in
Mexico, where one species in particular, the recently discovered
diploperennis (Iltis et al., 1979), provides novel genes conveying disease
resistance and other desirable characteristics to agricultural corn strains.
Yet, until Rafael Guzman, a Mexican botany student, discovered this
species, its only known stand, a mere 15 acres, had no particular
protection from logging, farming, and other diversity-reducing land uses
characteristic of the Mexican mountains. Conserving this diploid wild
corn was the key factor in establishing a 350,000-acre UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve maintaining this species and its many thousands of
ecological and evolutionary associates in their natural landscape setting.
 
 
 
 
Page 4 missing
 
 
5
just two examples, reach into the natural landscapes of faraway places.
 
Insects and many other invertebrates -- terrestrial, aquatic, and
marine -- have also been evolving complex chemicals for many millions
of years, which may prove of immense pharmaceutical value (Myers,
1983). Poisonous fish may also provide new drugs (Segman, 1959).
 
The economic wealth of tropical biota is only now beginning to be
explored systematically, yet in some regions extinction is happening faster
than species can be studied even superficially, and far faster than they can
be categorized, described, and named. Landscape conservation is the key
to protecting the largest number of unknown species, not only for their
own sake, but for the future benefit of human society as well.
 
Nature's Right To Exist
 
Most of us have a natural moral sense that tells us it is wrong to
drive other species to extinction just because we want to consume more
and more of the Earth's resources until an absolute limit is reached. The
advance of civilization has caused most people and societies to recognize
progressively a moral obligation to accord increasing rights to other
individuals, other social groups, other societies, and other living entities.
Political pressures for humane treatment of animals, for example, are
Live and let live growing rapidly. A number of legal scholars have recently argued that
much good would result from recognizing nature as having legal rights
such that "trees. could have standing" under which lawsuits could be
brought in their defense (Stone, 1988).
 
Some of this extension of rights to others results from the fact that
decent behavior makes us feel good, whether from instinct or social
conditioning. Some of it is based on the sound expectation that if we deal
unfairly with others they will deal unfairly with us. There may also be a
simple concept of good management that says unrestrained competition
places dangerous strains on a system's stability (see below).
 
Nature as Essential to the Human Psyche
 
A written record of humankind's affinity for nature's beauty,
harmony, and tranquility goes back to Herodotus (5th century B.C.) in the
Western tradition and at least as long in Far Eastern cultures. Nature
has been prevalent in the art and literature of all cultures for as long as
they have had art and literature. Many people have looked to the
wilderness for a sense of freedom. Outdoor recreation, from hunting and
fishing to picking wildflowers, has been a source of enjoyment throughout
Psychological values recorded time and in recent years, so-called ecotourism has become one
of the fastest-growing sectors of the travel industry. It is sad to think that
this represents something of a scramble to visit the last wild places before
they are gone, but obviously, the phenomenon is fueled by the inherent
love that our species feels or nature (Wilson, 1984).
 
 
6
 
Sensory deprivation experiments show that the the human mind cannot
stand the monotony of being cut off from a stream of varied messages
about objects and events in the external environment. Almost any human
activity we find pleasurable depends in part on diversity, and nowhere is
this more convincingly demonstrated than in our response to nature. Few
people would go bird watching if there were only one or two species of
birds, and it is the rare and seldom-seen ones that are most sought after.
The loss of a rare species is always deeply felt, often even by non-
biologists who know little or nothing about them. It is instinctive.
 
Ecological Resilience and Ecosystem Services
 
Perhaps the best of all arguments for preserving biological diversity
is that we don't know whether we can get along without it.
 
A decade ago James Lovelock made the first statement of what he
called the Gala hypothesis (Lovelock, 1979). This complex idea has some
very debatable aspects, but it highlights at least one important premise
Biodiversity and with which experts in many fields increasingly concur -- that the biological
ecological integrity inhabitants of this planet have profoundly modified the chemical and
physical attributes of the surface and near surface of the Earth through
their life processes. We have called the thin envelope around the surface
of the Earth and the lower atmosphere the "bios here," by which we
mean that this is the only place we know of where lid exists or where the
conditions that make it possible can be found. Now we realize that not
only does life exist here, but it is life that has largely made the biosphere
the way it is.
 
Conversely, the biota have adapted through evolution to the
current environmental conditions, and vet few extant biological species,
including human beings, could live under e conditions that prevailed on
the Earth's surface before life proliferated. Every living thing is
dependent on other living things. We cannot be sure what will happen
if we disrupt biological processes beyond a certain point or to what
degree current planetary function might be dependent on the immense
biotic diversity that has evolved over the last couple of billion years. Paul
Ehrlich has used an engineering analogy to illustrate this point (Ehrlich
and Ehrlich, 1981). Ehrlich says that if someone were in an airplane
waiting to take off and observed mechanics drilling rivets out of the wings
one after another, that person would begin to be more than a little
apprehensive about how many rivets could be removed before the plane
suffered structural failure. Extinguishing biological species from the
Earth is even worse in some respects, because we do not have even a
clear understanding of just what functions given species may be
performing. The potential for large consequences from the loss of quite
unprepossessing species seems high. Prudence would dictate that we not
allow biotic diversity to be reduced in any very marked way.
 
On a simpler level, the relationship between biological diversity
and the stability of individual ecosystems has been debated for many
years (e.g., Anonymous, 1969; Goodman, 1975; Hutchinson, 1959; May,
 
 
Page 7 missing 
 
 
8
1) Genetic diversity. At this level are included all the genes and
genotypes found in all individual organisms, important to their own
adaptational existence and representing resource options for use
Biodiversity organization by people.
 
 
 
2) Taxonomic diversity (often referred to as species diversity).
This level comprises the full array of kinds of plants, animals, and
microorganisms that exist in nature. The term "taxonomic
diversity" is preferred because it includes the idea that Species
classified in different higher taxonomic groups, such as families
and orders, differ more from one another than species in the same
genus (McAllister, 1991); also, that infraspecific taxa like
subspecies, varieties, and interspecific hybrids also represent
differences that may be worthy of conservation attention.
 
3) Community (or ecosystem) diversity. Species live together and
interact in a great variety of combinations in nature; these
combinations differ from each other enough to be recognized as
distinct biotic community types including many kinds of forests,
grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic assemblages. When abiotic
habitat variables are included with the biotic communities, the
totality is referred to as "ecosystems" (Whittaker, 1975).
 
For some purposes, and especially relevant to the Bioreserve
concept, it is useful to recognize a fourth level of organization (Noss,
1986):
 
4) Landscape diversity. All landscapes display subtle or obvious
variations in land form, substrate, and disturbance history which
favor different community assemblages, so that the total landscape
is made up of a patchwork of different community types. Because
of broad differences in regional climatic regimes, the typical
community assemblages differ from one geographic region to
another (Emmanuel et al., 1985; Forman and Godron, 1986).
 
BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND CONSERVATION
 
Our heritage of biological diversity is being rapidly depleted by the
increasing demands human activities place on the environment. Although
species extinction has occurred in nature since life arose, it has generally
Extinction been compensated for by the evolution of new species. We can discern
in the fossil record several great extinction episodes, but most experts
believe that these really took place at a stately pace by human standards
(they only look rapid when compressed into rock strata laid down over
millions of years) and that the overall trend has been upward. We
believe, therefore, that at the time our ancestors began to walk upright,
there were probably at least as many species as ever existed in the Earth's
history. Since humanity's fateful rise, however, the trend for other species
has been ever downward. The human-caused extinction spasm that we
are currently experiencing appears to have begun in many places about
 
 
9
10,000 years ago with the loss of the great Pleistocene megafauna, the
woolly mammoths and ground sloths and camel relatives, that we were
taught as schoolchildren to associate with the advance of the glaciers (it
really happened after their retreat) and has been continuously picking up
speed. It is now taking place at a blinding rate.
 
appears to have brought about the Pleistocene
extinctions directly by overhunting, and this has continued to recent times
(Martin and Klein, 1984). Our colonial grandfathers killed off the
passenger pigeon, the Russian sealers got the Steller's sea cow, and we
almost finished off the American buffalo in the same high fashion. Since
the advent of game laws and game management, direct taking has ceased
in some parts of the world to be a main cause of extinctions, although
unregulated taking of rare plants such as certain cacti continues to be a
problem in our own country. Ambient environmental threats, like acid
rain and thinning stratospheric ozone, will probably cause the extinction
of some especially vulnerable species like lichens on mountain tops, but
these forces may threaten humanity as much as they do most other
species, so that we may be more inclined not to let these threats become
extremely serious.
 
Meanwhile, the overwhelmingly greatest threat to the biota today
comes from direct habitat destruction. The destruction of tropical
rainforests for agriculture and going is much in the news, but other
Habitat destruction regions and ecosystems are equally affected. Tropical dry forests and
grasslands are even more endangered than rain-rests. Agriculture
continues to expand to more and more marginal lands almost everywhere
in the world. Absolute destruction of natural habitats is exacerbated by
fragmentation into remnant patches that are subject to severe edge effects
-- that is, invasion of weedy species, drying effects on microclimates,
increased windthrow of exposed trees, etc. Many of the ecosystem
fragments are just too small to support minimum viable populations of
various species inhabitants. This fragmentation of North and Latin
American habitats is now believed to be the major cause of rapidly
declining populations of our migrant birds (Terborgh, 1989).
 
Aquatic systems are especially vulnerable (Benke, 1990; Karr,
1981; Master, 1990, 1991). Alien species and habitat degradation are
responsible for the increasing number of endangered fish and other
Watersheds aquatic organisms. There are at least 167 North American desert fish
species that have been identified as endangered, vulnerable, rare, or of
indeterminate status. Forty-eight of these are listed as endangered
(Desert Fishes Council, 1985). In addition to direct destruction from
impoundment, drainage, channelization, water withdrawal, riprap, and the
like, they are subject to the run-off of toxic pollutants, silt, and excess
nutrients from disruptive forces exerted anywhere in their watersheds
(Borman and Likens, 1979). (To fight this, Bioreserves will often be
designed around critical watersheds.)
 
 
c
 
 
 
 
Page 10 missing
 
 
11
 
Effects of Small Preserve Size Island biogeographic theory suggests that for a variety of reasons,
small preserves, or small habitat patches within preserves, will gradually
lose some of the species they originally contained (Diamond, 1975
Preserves too small Diamond and May 1976; Higgs, 1981; MacArthur and Wilson, 1967;
Shafer, 1990; Willis, 1974). Considerable empirical evidence shows what
common sense would predict -- that there is a correlation between smaller
preserves and more depauperate biota (Burgess and Sharpe, 1981;
Lovejoy and Oren, 1981; MacClintock et a1., 1977; Newmark, 1987).
Larger areas are believed to lose species much more slowly than smaller
areas and, under ideal management, it is hoped that a large enough area
would lose species at no greater rate than the long-term geological rate
(that is, species would be lost not faster than other species evolved to
replace them).
 
One of the reasons for species losses is undoubtedly that small
habitat patches are not large enough to sustain viable populations of
many of their rarer constituent species (Gilpin and Soule, 1986; Shaffer,
1981,1990; Soule, 1987). On top of that, many species require multiple
habitats which smaller preserves cannot include. Some birds, for
example, nest in one kind of habitat and feed in another (see, e.g.,
Wegner and Merriam, 1979). Larger species and those high in the food
chain typically have large home ranges `and require a great deal of space.
To cyst~n enough individuals of such species in a given area to constitute
a viable population may require a great deal of space. This means that
from the very date of establishment, smaller preserves simply cannot
sustain populations of many species.
 
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation
 
Fragmentation of the landscape by development or serious
disturbance produces remnant vegetation patches surrounded by a matrix
of a different sort. Lord and Sass (1990) pointed out four major
aspects of fragmentation as important for conservation: small fragment
size, isolation, edge effects, and increased vulnerability to extrinsic
disturbances. Soule (1987) and Saunders et al. (1987) stated that the
Habitat Fragmentation primary impact of fragmentation on the biota is through loss of habitat
continuity, because any disruption of previously intact vegetation has some
effect on the population sin of species dependent on that habitat.
Another serious effect is an alteration of the microclimate within and
surrounding the remnant. Thus, in a fragmented landscape there are
biogeographic effects compounded by changes in the physical environment
(Saunders et al., 1991).
 
The impact of habitat loss and isolation at a given scale of
fragmentation can be considered species-specific, but the physical impacts
of edge effects and increased vulnerability to disturbance are much more
dependent on the nature of fragmentation itself. The significance of edge
effects in geographical fragments has been well documented (Lovejoy et
al., 1986; Whitney and Runkle, 1981; Yahner, 1988), with some studies
 
 
12
indicating that edge effects may penetrate for several hundred meters into
fragments (Ranney et al., 19 I; Wilcove et al., 1986). because of the
substantial internal modifications associated with smaller areas,
structurally fragmented vegetation can be regarded as being subjected to
edge effects throughout.
 
The reduction in spatial continuity, together with edge effects
increases the vulnerability of fragmented vegetation to extrinsic
disturbances such as windstorm, fire, and flooding. Although the
importance of this increased vulnerability has perhaps been less widely
recognized, it also has significant implications for the long-term viability
of fragmented vegetation (Pickett and Thompson, 1978).
 
Emphasis in the literature has been on the design of nature
reserves, but we are usually too late to do anything except try to manage
the remnants left following fragmentation. There is a pressing need for
an integrated approach that treats the landscape as a whole instead of as
a collection of biotic and legal entities (Saunders et al., 1991). Noss and
Harris (1986) state that conservation agencies have not realized the
important biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation and have
therefore not developed policies to manage their remnants to maintain
conservation values.
 
Minimum Viable Populations
 
Where possible, sites should be large enough to support
populations of species above the minimum viable population (MVP) size.
The MVP refers to the minimum number of individuals required to
ensure the long-term survival of the population. Below this threshold,
genetic and demographic constraints may pose serious threats to the
Viability of species population's persistence (Murphy et al., 1990).
 
Critical factors affecting MVP include habitat heterogeneity and
suitability, environmental stochasticity, and population structure and
dynamics (Grumbine, 1990), all of which may vary with species. As a
gross approximation, an effective population size of 500 is considered to
be within the order of magnitude essential for long-term viability
(Franklin, 1980). Large tracts of land are often required to sustain viable
populations of animals such as large herbivores and carnivores. In a
study of eight U.S. parks, Newmark (1987) found that none were large
enough to sustain long-term populations (MVP=500) of the five major
carnivores (grizzly bear, mountain lion, wolverine, black bear, and gray
wolf. For an MVP of 50, only one was large enough to support
populations of these mammals. Where it is impossible to preserve such
large unfragmented reserves, Bioreserve design must provide for an
adequate network of connections among smaller reserves across the
landscape. Properly managed, connections among smaller fragments may
be adequate to sustain viable population of large vertebrates.
 
Similar connections are also necessary for plants and invertebrates
(Shafer, 1990). Although these species generally exist at much higher
 
 
13
population densities they can also to habitat fragmentation.Linkages between subpopulations (termed "metapopulation dynamics")
may be crucial to the persistence of endangered species of plants
(Menges, 1990) and invertebrates (Murphy et al., 1990). Connections
between subpopulations allow for recolonization of a patch after
extinction occurs. Similarly, gene flow among patches preventS genetic
bottlenecks and genetic drift in small subpopulations Population
substructuring also provides for resilience to extreme environmental
perturbations For such species, the most prudent Bioreserve design
strategy is to maintain sufficient habitat patches to reduce the risk of
extinction (Shafer, 1990).
 
Preserve Enlargement and Management Interventions
In many places, The Nature Conservancy has been able to enlarge
small preserves by acquiring adjacent lands. At some preserves, such as
Preserve enlargement Chiwaukee Prairie and Mianus River Gorge, The Nature Conservancy has
been acquiring additional acreage almost every year for more than 30
years. In many instances such assemblages have been government
reserves like Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge or additions to
reserves like the Okeefenokee, Yellowstone, or the Everglades. But it is
not always feasible to acquire adjacent lands, and it is rare that we are
able to make a preserve as large as we would like it to be, even through
a drawn-out process of land assemblage.
 
We have also sought to improve the viability of preserves through
intensive management, as in restoration of natural fire or other
disturbance regimes, suppression of aggressive weeds, or even hastening
ecological succession toward the desired community structure and
Intensive management composition by direct replanting and species programs. As
example, Conservancy probably uses burning
maintain or restore fire-dependent biological communities on a larger
scale than anyone else except the Federal land management agencies.
Such intensive interventions will have to become the rule on smaller
preserves if we are to counteract further degradation of the general
landscape. With the advent of such pervasive threats to ecosystem
stability as rapid global climate change, in many places we simply will not
be able to do enough (see, e.g., Peters and Darling, 1984; Thompson,
1988; Webb, 1987).
 
Corridors as a Mitigative Factor
 
Corridors are suggested as a means to increase species immigration
to nature reserves and other habitat islands in fragmented landscapes, and
thus to maintain species richness (Harris, 1984). Corridors include linear
landscape features such as hedgerows and river banks, as well as broad,
Restoring connectivity internally heterogeneous zones that permit dispersal of species from one
region to another over long periods of time (Brown and Gibson, 1983).
 
 
Page 14 missing
 
 
Page 15 missing
 
 
Page 16 missing
 
 
Page 17 missing
 
 
18
that our projects will achieve their aims, based on historic evidence, when
humans themselves have ushered in an unprecedented collection of
ambient insults including acid precipitation, ground-level ozone, intense
ultraviolet radiation from the lack of high-altitude ozone, and greenhouse
gas concentrations that will probably cause global climatic change at
unique rates of speed.
 
After a Bioreserve site has been selected, the iterative process
moves into its next phase of ecosystem analysis, modeling, and
management prescription. In the long run, the real challenge in
biological land conservation at any scale is not the legal or administrative
protection of the real estate, which is only the beginning, but the proper
Management prescription management of ecosystems and species populations. It is a sufficiently
complex matter just to recognize endangered communities and species
and to identify the land areas most important to them. Understanding
their individual relationship to the landscape, disturbance regimes,
successional ecology, and susceptibility to cost-effective management
interventions is far harder. It will be crucial that we develop the ability
to determine the driving forces in a given Bioreserve or its component
ecosystems and the threats to system integrity. In most cases, our
management objectives will be keyed to the status of selected indicator
species, physicochemical processes, or critical ecosystems.
 
Sustainable Uses of Buffer Lands
 
In addition to managing the core reserves in which the status of
the biota is to be optimized on Bioreserves, we must cooperate with our
fellow property owners to assist them in making use of the natural
resources on their lands in ways t,hat are minimally harmful to the biota.
The very words "nature preserve imply that humans have traditionally
been regarded as an intolerable ingredient in the natural scheme of
things. Conservationists have thought, not without reason, of humanity
as being such a destructive force that natural elements we wish to
preserve must be completely separated from human society, with a strong
fence in between.
 
In the 20th century, human society has become such a pervasive
force that it is not practicable to insulate nature from it. Indeed, the
human-occupied landscape has not been a total loss to the rest of the
biota, many of which find niches to their liking there. Some, like starlings
and house mice and the score or so of pervasive garden weeds, have
prospered so well that they share our own explosive ecological success
and have spread abundantly to nearly every landmass on Earth. Many
Humans in nature more species hang on in the remnant seminatural habitats like hedgerows
and drainage ditches. Under modified forms of management, even more
species could survive in the human-dominated landscape. If seminatural
meadows are not treated with pesticides, for example, they may make fine
habitat for butterflies at the same time that they can be mowed for hay.
Page 19 missing
 
 
Page 20 Missing
 
 
21
 
invaluable in choosing effective indicators, understanding threats to ecosystem function, developing models for integrated management, and
designing and monitoring programs to measure degrees of success.
Expanding our information management scope to encompass
Bioreserves entails many new challenges. Among the areas of special
emphasis are computerized mapping and spatial information management,
in which some of our Federal cooperators have made major
advances. Another important area for system expansion involves the need
to incorporate information about applied conservation technology into our
networked databases. We are also making special efforts to interact more
effectively with academic and agency research scientists, especially
systematic biologists, and modification of our data systems to
accommodate such interactions are under way.
 
Management Project Activities
 
The Conservancy has been known widely as "the most business-like
conservation organization" for many years. The size and complexity of
this Bioreserve initiative will test us in this respect.
 
As an example of business-like practices, the Conservancy has
always put stock in planning, performance evaluation, and accountability.
Every unit of the Conservancy has worked under an annual plan for many
years. We wrote the first long-range plan for the organization in 1971
and have, written a new one every two or three years since. The process
Institutional management has also been decentralized outward to the Conservancy's individual state
field offices, most of which have now been through a strategic planning
process of their own.
 
When the Conservancy was undertaking mostly hundred-acre
projects, they could often be conceived, launched, and completed quickly
with the next one following immediately afterward. Bioreserves are
clearly a different proposition, and we decided at the outset that the
should be considered lifetime endeavors. Managerially, this approach is
probably more good than bad, because nothing is more important than
continuity of purpose. Nevertheless, operating on such a geographic and
temporal scale will demand that we improve our planning process.
Accordingly, an individual strategic plan will be developed for each
approved Bioreserve with the same care that we pinto our state and
overall corporate plans.
 
Partnerships
 
No conservation organization is an island. Conservation carried
out on any worthwhile scale has become too complicated for any group
to attempt alone.
 
Partnerships One of The Nature Conservancy's mottoes has always been, "We
can work with you," and no one has exhibited a wider array of cooperative
relationships. Our work with government agencies on cooperative land
 
 
22
acquisition projects dates back to the early l960s, our corporate associates
program to the l970s. Through the State Natural Heritage Programs, we
have established the closest working relationships with State governments
(all of them) of any organization in the non-profit field. In Latin
America, we work closely with cooperating non-governmental partners,
endeavoring in all ways to help them become strong and effective
organizations.
 
Almost all of the Conservancy' 5 cooperative relationships are
working partnerships developed with other institutions that want to
accomplish specific tasks. The Bioreserves will necessitate a tremendous
expansion and decentralization of partnerships to the level of county
governments, county extension agents, local schools and colleges,
municipalities, and perhaps most important of all, individual private
landowners banded together to do something important locally.
 
Parks in Peril
 
The Bioreserve concept to be applied by our Latin American and
Pacific programs is essentially the same as the one we will be following
in the United States, but with several differences worth noting.
 
In many parts of the developing world, large parks and reserves
have been established, usually by government decree. Many of these are
Non-U.S. Bioreserves in remote areas and in pristine condition. They include a number of
internationally designated Biosphere Reserves, established with the
multizone land complex in mind, often carefully conceived and designed.
Unfortunately, they are also often entirely lacking in direct physical
protection and management, constituting the "paper parks" mentioned
frequently these days. These reserves often differ from those in the
United States and other developed countries in that they contain people
-- indigenous people and cultures as much endangered by the pace of
change as any non-human inhabitants of these areas.
 
The most pressing need usually is for direct external assistance to
mount a credible protection and management effort for these areas.
Sometimes the financial assistance required' is modest -- training,
infrastructure support, and land tenure. It does not seem sensible to pass
over these nascent protected areas while seeking to establish new ones.
Therefore, much of the Bioreserve effort in Latin America, and probably
in our new Pacific region, will be devoted to these "Parks in Peril."
 
Another major consideration in the Latin American region is that
the tropical countries have the highest biodiversity in the world. The
sheer number of species and the complexity of the ecosystems necessitate
some differences in the way we conduct our inventory, data collection,
data management, and iterative conservation planning. Because of the
high biodiversity, "coarse filter" methods are particularly applicable;
therefore, some of the remote sensing and aerial reconnaissance
technologies mentioned in the section on monitoring will have much
wider use in the tropics. They will be 
used for rapid ecological 
 
 
Page 23 Missing
 
 
24
Chipley, R., and R.E. Jenkins. 1987. Preserve Selection ~n ~. Arlington,
Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.
 
Desert Fishes Council Endangered Species Committee. 1985. Endangered aquatic
ecosystems in North American deserts with a list of vanishing fishes of the region. Journal
of Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 20(1): 1-61.
 
Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for
the design of natural preserves. Biological Conservation 7:129-146.
 
Diamond, J.M.,and R.M. May. 1976. Island biogeography and the design of nature
reserves. In Theoretical Ecology: Principles Applications (R.M. May, ed.).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Saunders.
 
Ecological Society of America. 1921. Preservation of natural conditions. Springfield,
Illinois: Ecological Society of America.
 
Ecological Society of America. 1926. Naturalist's . Baltimore,
Maryland: Williams and Wilkins Company.
 
Ehrlich, P.R., and A.H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species.
New York: Random House.
Emmanuel, W.R., H.H. Shugart, and M.P. Stevenson. 1985. Climatic change and the
broad-scale distribution of terrestrial ecosystem complexes. Climatic Change 7:29~3.
 
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. - Ecology. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Franklin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. In Conservation Biology:
Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, eds.). Sunderland,
Massachussetts: Sinauer Associates.
Franklin, J.F.,D.A. Perry, T.D. Schowalter, M.E. Harmon, A. McKee, and T.A.Spies. 1989.
Importance of ecological diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity. In Maintaining
I-on2-term Productivity Northwest Ecosvstems (b.A. Perry et al.,eds.).
Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species
extinction. In Conservation Biology: ~Scarciry Diversity (M.E. Soule, ed.).
Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
 
Goodman, b. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology. Quarterly
Review of Biology 50:237-266.
 
Grvmbine, R.E. 1990. Viable populations, reserve si~, and federal lands management: A
critique. Conservation Biology 4(2): 127-134.
 
Harris, L.b. 1984. Fragmented ~: Biogeographic
Preservation ~i Diversity. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Higgs, A .J. 1981. Island biogeography and nature reserve design. Journal of Biogeography
8:117-124.
 
 
25
 
Noose,. P.M. 1981. Building Ark: T~ Preservation o-f Diversity
Protection. Covelo, California: Island Press.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of
animals? American Naturalist 93:145-159.
 
Iltis, N.H., J.F. Doebley, R.M. Guzman, and B. Pazy. 1979. diploperennis
(Gramineae): A new teosinte from Mexico. Science 203:186-188.
Janzen, D.H. 1983. No park is an island: Increase in interference from outside as park size
decreases. Oikos 41:402-410.
 
Jenkins, R.E. 1975. The preservation of natural diversity. In preservation
Diversity: 9 Recommendations (I. Humke et al.,eds.). WaShington, D.C. U.S.
Department of Interior Report.
 
Jenkins, R.E. 1979. Macro-reserves: The coarsest filter. Natural Heritage News II(2):5-6.
 
Jenkins, R.E. 1985. Information methods: Why the Heritage programs work. The Nature
Conservancy News 35(6):21-23.
 
Jenkins, R.E. 1986. Applications and use of biological survey data. In Foundations
National Biological (Kim, K.C. and L. knutson, eds.). Lawrence, Kansas:
Association of Systematics Collections.
 
Jenkins, R.E. 1989. I-ong-term conservation and preserve complexes. The Nature
Conservancy Maga:::ine 39(1):5-7.
 
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
 
Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of
nature reserves. Biological Conservation 25:127-134.
 
I-n, I.N., and D.A. Sass. 1990. Scale and the spatial concept of fragmentation.
Conservation Biology 4(2): 197-202.
 
I-ovelock, J.E. 1979. ~: 9 ~. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 
I-ovejoy, T.E., and D.C. Oren. 1981. The minimum critical size of ecosystems. In
Dynamics Man-Dominated Landscapes (R.C. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds.).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
 
I-ovejoy, T.E., R.O. Bierregaard, Jr., A.B. Rylands et al. 1986. Edge and other effects of
isolation on Amazon forest fragments. In Conservation ~l: The Scarcity
Diversity (N.E. Soule, ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
 
MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. Bio~eo~raphy. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
 
 
26
MacClintock, L., R.F. Whitcomb, and B.L. Whitcomb. 1977. Island biogeography and the
"habitat islands" of eaStern forest. II. Evidence for the value of corridors and minimization
of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. American Birds 31:6-12.
 
Maddox, b., and L.E. Morse. 1990. Plant conservation and global climate change. The
Nature Conservancy Magazine 40(4):24-25.
 
Margules, C., A.J. Higgs, and TR.W. Rafe. 1982. Modern biogeographic theory: Are there
any lessons for nature reserve design? Biological Conservation 24:115-128.
 
Martin, P.C. ,and R.G. lKlein, eds. 1984. Ouarternary Extinctions: Prehistoric Revolution.
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.
 
Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity
Network News 3(3): 1-2,7-8.
 
Master, L. 1991. Aquatic animals: Endangerment alert. Nature Conservancy 4l(2):2~27.
 
May, R.M. 1974. Stability Complexity -IIi Ecosystems. 2nd ed. Princeton, New
Jersey:Princeton University Press.
McAllister, b. E. 1991. What is biodiversity? Unpublished paper prepared for Keystone
Center for dialogue on biodiversity conservation (available from The Nature Conservancy).
 
McMahan, L.R. 1990. Propagation and reintroduction of imperiled plants, and the role of
botanical' gardens and arboreta. Endangered Species Update 8(1):4-7.
 
McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner. 1990.
Conserving World's Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Washington, D.C.: World Resources
Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund - U.S., and the World Bank.
 
Menges, E.S. 1990. Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conservation
Biology 4(1):52-62.
 
Miller, K.R. 1989. Strategy Conserving Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: World
Resources Institute.
 
Morse, L.E. 1987. Rare plant protection, Conservancy style. The Nature Conservancy
Magazine 37(5): 10-15.
 
Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An environment-metapopulation
approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation
Biology 4(2):41-51.
 
Myers, N. 1983. 9 ---lWil ~: Storehouse Welfare. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
 
Newmark, W.D. 1987. A land-bridge island pers
c western North American parks. Nature 325:430~43~tive on mammalian extinctions in
 
 
Sass, B.G., ed. 1986. Preservation ~: Biological 27
Princeton, New Jersey: Pnnceton University Press.
 
Sass, B.G. 1987. Who Preserve ~t? die In ~, Political,
Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
 
Noss, R.F. 1986. From plant communitites to landscapes in conservation inventories: A
look at The Nature Conservancy (`115A). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.
 
Noss, R.F., and, L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at
all scales. Envtronmental Management 10:299-309.
 
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to maintain biological diversity.
OTA-F-330. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States.
 
Oldfield, M. 1984. Conserving Resources. Washington, D.C.: U. S.
National Park Service.
 
Peters, R.L., and J.D.S. Darling. 1984. The greenhouse effect and nature reserves.
BioScience 35:707-717.
 
Pickett, S.T.A.,and J.N. Thompson. 1978. Patch dynamics and the si:::e of nature reserves.
Biological Conservation 13:27-37.
 
Pimm, S.L. 1984. The Complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321-326.
 
Pressey, R.L., and A.O. Nicholls. 1989. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring
versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation 50:199-218.
 
Ranney, J.W., M.C. Bruner, and J.B. I-evenson. 1981. The importance of edge in the
structure and dynamics of forest islands. In Dynamics Man-Dominated
(R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Reid, W. V., and K. R. Miller. 1989. Keepin2 ~v: Scientific
Conserving Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
 
Salwasser, K. 1990. Conserving biological diversity: A perspective on scope and
approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 35:79-90.
 
Salwasser, K. 1990a. Sustainability as a conservation paradigm. Conservation Biology
4(3):213-216.
 
Saunders, b.A., G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbridge, and A.I.M. Hopkins. 1987.
Conservation: Remnants ~`v Vegetation. Chipping Sass, N.S.W.,
Australia:Surrey Beatry and Son.
Saunders, b.A., R.I. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1): 18-32.
 
 
c
 
 
28
Scott, JMAn~ ~nBtegC~a5tuedti~ K. Smith, and S. Caicco. 1988. Beyond Een~ddananggee~Ceded
 
Species Update 5:43-48.
Segman, R. 1959. Wanted: Poisonous fish. Science News Letter, June 27,407 and 410.
 
Shafer, C.L. 1990. Reserves: Conservation Practice.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
 
Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience
31:131-134.
 
Shaffer, M.L. 1990. Population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 4(1):35-40.
 
Simberloff, D., and L.G. Abele. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory:
Effects of fragmentation. American Naturalist 120:41-50.
 
Simberloff, b., and I. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors.
Conservation Biology 1(1):63-71.
 
Simpson, B.B., and M. Connor-Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic ~: Ill ~.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
 
Soule, M.E., ed. 1987. ~l Populations Conservation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
 
Stone, C.D. 1988. T~ Standin~? Portola Valley, California: Tioga
Publishing Company.
 
Terborgh, I. 1989. Princeton, New Jersey; Princeton
University Press.
 
Thompson, R.S. 1988. Vegetation dynamics in western United States: Modes of response
to climate fluctuations. In Ve2etation (B.Huntley and T. Webb In, eds.). Volume
VII in -- .. . Ve2etation (H.I-eith, ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
lCluwer Publishers.
 
The Nature Conservancy. 1981. 30th Anniversary Issue: A History. The Nature
Conservancy News. 31(4): 1-30.
UNESCO. 1974. ~. Guidelines
Establishment Biosphere Reserves. MAB Report Series 22. Paris: UNESCO.
 
UNESCO. 1984. Action plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and Resources 20(4): 1-12.
 
Webb, T. , III. 1987. The appearance and disap~ce of major vegetational assemblages:
I-ong-term vegetational dynamics in eastern North America. Vegetatio 69:177-187.
 
Wegner, J.F.,and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a
wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16:349-357.
 
 
29
Whitney, G.G., and J.R. Runkle. 1981. age versus effects in the development of a beech
maple forest. Oikos 37:377-381.
 
Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities Ecosystems. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
 
Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McI-ellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the
temperate zone. In Conservation ~l: Scarcity Diversity (M.E.
Soule, ed.). Sunderland, MaSsachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
 
Willis, E.O. 1974. Populations and local extinctions of birds on Iarrro Colorado Island,
Panama. Ecological Monographs 44:153-169.
 
Wilson, E.O. 1980. Resolutions for the 80's. Harvard Magazine, January-February.
 
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
 
Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-339
 
 
 
Chapter 3
 
Stages of Project Development and Fundraising
 
 
There are four evolutionary phases in the development of a bioreserve project or
program --nomination, selection, threshold planning, and strategic planning. These
phases are described below, including the specific action steps that are typically
involved in each phase.
 
There should be no rush for any potential bioreserve to proceed through these phases.
Each project or program should have its own logical progression, based upon the
availability of scientific information, the history of TNC action, the availability of
partners and resources, and the capacity of the local TNC program. Funding
opportunities and regional/HQ assistance will be provided at all phases of project
development.
 
Traditional TNC land conservation work -- such as preserve design and acquisition of
standard sites, government co-op acquisitions, cooperative management agreements,
etc. -- can proceed at all phases, independent of bioreserve planning.
 
 
I. Nomination
 
Nomination is the initial scientific fi1ter for all bioreserves. The proposed site
should meet bioreserve criteria (see: "What is a Bioreserve" in the Bioreserve
Handbook). Over 700 sites have been nominated as bioreserves, including all
Latin American Parks in Peril.
 
Steps:
 
1. Discussion -- TNC state/country program and state
heritage/CDC discuss nomination of proposed site.
 
2. Documentation -- TNC state/country program or state
heritage/CDC completes Site Basic Record and sends it to
Regional Heritage Task Force Director/ Latin America Science
Director.
 
3. Approval -- Regional Heritage Task Force Director and TNC
State/Country Director jointly approve nomination of site, and
notify Director of Bioreserves.
 
At this stage, a project is considered a "nominated" bioreserve.
 
 
II. Selection
 
From the hundreds of nominated bioreserves, potential sites and program
initiatives for TNC action should be evaluated according to four main criteria:
(1) ecological significance and viability; (2) TNC's ability to make a unique
contribution; (3) do-ability; and (4) leverage (see: "Evaluation of Potential
Bioreserves" in the Bioreserve Handbook.)
 
Steps:
 
1. Discussion -- State/Country Director talks with Regional
Director to discuss whether a nominated site, group of sites or
program merits potential bioreserve status.
 
2. Evaluation -- State/country/regional scientists and program
directors meet to evaluate site or program.
 
3. Approval -- State/Country Director and Regional Director
jointly concur that site or program merits further strategic
planning and notify Director of Bioreserves.
 
At this stage, a project is considered a "potential" bioreserve. Small matching
grants are available from HQ to assist threshold planning, based on need and
leverage.
 
 
1st. Threshold Planning
 
After the preliminary evaluation and selection of a potential site or program,
various questions need to be addressed to further assess the viability and do-
ability of the project, and to lay the groundwork for a bioreserve strategic
plan. Suggested questions are outlined in "Threshold Planning Questions" in
the Bioreserve Handbook. The threshold planning approach allows a state or
country program to begin bioreserve planning incrementally.
 
 
 
Steps:
 
1. Discussion -- State/Country Director talks with Regional
Director to discuss who should serve as the bioreserve planning
captain and who should serve on the planning team.
 
2. Planning Captain and Team -- A planning captain and multi-
disciplinary planning team are approved by the Regional
Director, in consultation with the Director of Bioreserves.
 
 
2
 
 
The planning captain should be an experienced staff person
with good organizational, analytical and interpersonal skills
who has previously developed complex projects or programs.
 
The planning team should typically involve S to 10 people,
including the state director, land steward, heritage director and
other appropriate staff, scientists or volunteers.
 
3. Threshold Planning Questions Addressed -- Planning team holds
planning meetings as needed. Regional Director visits site.
Planning team answers "threshold" planning questions, and
sends draft to Regional Director and Bioreserve Program
Director for review and comments.
 
4. Approval -- Regional Director and Bioreserve Program Director
provide feedback to Planning Team, and jointly agree if TNC
should proceed with full-fledged strategic planning.
 
Note; In sob cases it be possible to jump start a
bioreserve strategic plan by securing a start-up planning grant,
as the Southeast Region did for the Alto River. Bioreserve
placing grants of this type are strongly encouraged.
 
At this stage, a project is considered a "candidate" bioreserve site or
program. Matching. grants are available from HQ to assist strategic
planning, based on leverage and need.
 
 
IV. Strategic Planning
 
Strategic planning involves in-depth and ongoing assessment of ecological
values, threats, core and buffer sites, institutional partners, and our capacity to
succeed with the bioreserve. A good strategic plan includes a definition of
TNC's (or the NGO's) strategic role and programs, specific objectives and
strategies for each program, a program budget, an organizational structure,
and a funding plan. A recommended format for a bioreserve strategic plan is
presented in the Bioreserve Handbook.
 
Steps:
 
1. Draft Plan -- Bioreserve planning team develops draft strategic
plan, including preliminary scorecard, programs, objectives,
program budget, public and private funding plan.
 
2. Circulation and Feedback -- Draft plan is distributed to Regional
Director, Bioreserve Program Director, Director of
 
 
3
 
 
Development, Director of Government Relations, Director of
Agency Relations, Director of Conservation Science, and Chief
Operating Officer. Feedback from all parties is made directly to
the planning captain, with copies of correspondence or messages
to the other parties.
 
3. Site Visit. HO Planning Date. and Outside Review -- Bioreserve
staff and reviewers discuss the utility of a site visit. Tentative
date set for planning meeting at HQ, coordinated by the
planning captain and the administrative assistant to the Chief
Operating Officer. Planning team and reviewers consider
benefits and possible sources of outside review, and facilitate
such review if desired.
 
4. Second Draft -- Second draft of plan prepared, taking into
account previous feedback, and circulated in advance of HQ
planning date.
 
5. Staffing Plan -- Each bioreserve requires a designated bioreserve
captain. A co-captain may also be named. Most bioreserves
also require an on-the-ground project director, supported by a
team of state and/or local staff. The strategic plan should cite
the proposed bioreserve captain and staffing.
 
Note: The bioreserve captain will typically need to devote at
least 20% of his or her time to managing the project. The
captain must be a seasoned and experienced person who has
demonstrated excellent judgement and the ability to manage
complex projects or programs. This person will assume
corporate responsibility for the success of the bioreserve. The
job description of this person should be appropriately modified.
 
6. Funding Plan & Assessment -- Tentative funding plan is
developed -- including prospect pool, identification of volunteer
leadership, and staffing support. Development office provides
assessment and report to Regional Director. A tentative public
funding plan (federal and state) is also developed, in
consultation with the Government Relations office.
 
7. HO Planning Meeting
 
A. Conservation Plan -- Planning captain, key team
members, regional director, COO, and HQ managers
hold meeting to review draft conservation plan, public
funding plan, staffing plan, and program budget.
Suggestions made for modification of plan and budget.
 
 
4
 
 
B. Fundraising Plan -- Bioreserve team meets with HQ
resources team (including regional development director)
to review funding plan and viability of funding goals.
Funding goals adjusted as may be appropriate.
 
C. Resolution -- If conservation program and funding goals
are not congruent, then the Planning Captain, State
Director, Regional Director, Bioreserve Program
Manager and Director of Development (and/or Director
of Government Relations) should agree on final
resolution.
 
Closure -- At end of the HQ meetings, there should be
closure on any necessary modifications to the plan and
budget.
 
8. "Final" Draft Approval -- Modifications made to plan as agreed,
and plan returned to the Chief Operating Officer for final
approval.
 
Note: Bioreserve strategic plans will evolve over time, as we
test hypotheses and gain actual experience. There will and must
be constant changes and adjustments. Major changes in goals,
strategies: or budget require approval by the Regional Director
and the Bioreserve Program Director.
 
At this point, a project is considered an official "campaign site"
or "campaign program". Matching grants and risk-capital loans
are available from HQ to assist start-up operations, based on
need and leverage.
 
Bioreserve Fundraising.
 
I. Goals
 
1. To have the "best team for the best ask for the most money"
from each major campaign donor.
 
We need to avoid ill-advised requests to major donors -- asking
for too much or too little; asking for the wrong thing; poorly
conceived requests; ill-timed requests, competing INC requests;
or requests where our promises might not be deliverable.
 
2. To have good campaign plans and delivery capacity before we
make commitments to major donors or volunteer leaders for
 
5
 
 
bioreserve fundraising campaigns.
 
II. Fundraising Phases
 
1. Pre-Campaign Fundraising
 
Precampaign fundraising involves fundraising for a "potential"
or "candidate" bioreserve.
 
We especially want to encourage fundraising for bioreserve
planning. Not only does this empower us to do good planning,
but it often presents an opportunity to cultivate and return to the
same donor in a year or two for a major request -- based upon
the strategic plan which the donor supported.
 
We also want to encourage fundraising for start-up
staffing/operations, critical research, and well-designed program
initiatives for "candidate" bioreserves where we have: (1) good
planning underway; (2) a good project team; and (3) an
experienced bioreserve captain. However, we must also ensure
that we don't make promises we may be unable to fulfill, or
commitments that may prejudge the conclusions of a more fully
developed strategic plan.
 
Steps:
 
A. Consultation -- State/Country Director and Regional
Director agree on purpose and scope of fundraising
proposal for any potential or candidate bioreserve.
 
Bioreserve Program Director is consulted on any major
program initiatives which go beyond bioreserve planning
or traditional TNC conservation work. There should be
no commitments made which TNC may not be able to
fulfill or which preclude strategic options.
 
Regional Development Director is consulted, and
provides feedback, on any national campaign prospects
being considered for solicitation.
 
B. Clearance for National Campaign Prospect
Development Executive Committee (i.e. Geoff Barnard,
John Cook, Sheila Dennis, Paul Eckhardt, Henry LiNe,
John Sawhill, Bill Weeks and Dave Wheelan) approves
 
6
 
 
purpose, plan, and amount of solicitation for any national
campaign prospect. Donor cultivation team will be
contacted in advance of decision.
 
2. Campaign Fundraising
 
Because each bioreserve has unique, and therefore somewhat
complex, capital needs and opportunities, it is difficult to issue
hard and fast rules that permit these projects to go "on line". It
is also not in our interest to create such a rigorous test that it
runs the risk of creating an artificial or bureaucratic process that
endangers opportunities and hampers the entrepreneurial culture
that TNC has carefully developed over the years.
 
Nonetheless, fundraising at of the scale at which the Capital
Campaign plans to operate poses unprecedented demands. With
an average for the private funding needs at around $5 million
per project, the level of exposure has never been greater in most
cases. The necessity to formulate a way to encourage and
support good fundraising, not only for existing projects, but as a
foundation for others down the road, is equally important to the
Conservancy.
 
As part of its approval process, TNC's Development Division will be looking
for
a number of characteristics in a project that indicate good fundraising
planning. Those characteristics are as follows:
 
 
 
A. Campaign Plan. The ability for a state office to commit on paper a
strategic blueprint for capital fundraising is an essential ingredient to a
successful campaign. The document provides a level of comfort to
volunteers and staff alike that a thoughtful strategy has been developed
and supplies a case for support that is persuasive.
 
Major components of a solid campaign plan will include a case
statement for support for the project, an organization for campaign
leadership and staff, with task requirements outlined, a realistic
timetable, prospect evaluation structure, donor cultivation and
solicitation procedures, and a communications section that outlines
public relations and publicity requirements.
 
B. Volunteer Leadership. The Conservancy has entered into a major,
national capital campaign to not only secure $300 million in private
 
7
 
 
funding, but seek increased levels of volunteer commitment to state
programs. It is clearly in each state's self-interest to secure influential
and affluent volunteer leaders for state campaigns, who are willing to
make major capital commitments themselves as part of their overall
responsibility to the project. We also would expect full participation
from the state board as part of the pre-approved stage for the
bioreserve.
 
C. Local Prospect Pool. It must be anticipated at the field office level that
a significant number of local prospects must be identified for the
bioreserve in order to have any chance of succeeding with their
campaign. While every campaign can expect a certain level of support
from national prospects, as well as unique commitments that can be fit
into the existing formula for inter-state bioreserve gifts, it must be
assumed that the vast majority of gifts must be identified locally.
Using the traditional standard ratio of 1:3 for each gift-to-number-of-
prospects, the state development officer should he able to demonstrate a
prospective donor pool at or exceeding this level.
 
The final judgement of whether a project is a formal bioreserve project
will rest with the Regional Vice President, Program Director, Chief
Operating Officer and Bioreserve Captain. The development office can
help the decision process with the information and documents
assembled through the preceding steps, as well as the development
office assessment.
 
 
m. Fundraising Assistance
 
The HQ and regional office development team will provide assistance for appropriate
requests at all stages of project development. Assistance can include:
 
* Campaign planning
* Donor research
* Proposal preparation
* Help from the President and Board of Governors
* Joint venture funding opportunities
 
We have high expectations for success, and with good communication, good
teamwork, and great energy, we will achieve it.
 
 
 
 
 
8
 
 
Chapter 4
 
Bioreserve Evaluation and Selection
 
A potential bioreserve project should meet four major tests:
 
1. Ecological Test
 
A potential bioreserve should meet most (but not necessarily all) of the
following ecological characteristics. (Drawn from a draft list of bioreserve
attributes developed by the Midwest Heritage Task Force).
 
SIGNIFICANT CORE AREA. A bioreserve should contain a
significant core area or areas, either a very large, high-quality example
of a community, or a large cluster of several high-quality communities
or highly-ranked species occurrences.
 
AREA-LINKED ELEMENT PROTECTION. Establishment of a bio-
reserve should protect elements whose long-term viability is linked to
large acreages. Examples include fishes and aquatic mollusks dependent
upon watershed protection and water quality, riverine community types,
top predators, large migratory bird concentrations.
 
CORE VIABILITY ENHANCEMENT. Establishment of a bioreserve
should dramatically improve the chances for maintaining the biological
integrity of existing or proposed managed areas (including TNC
preserves) that contain important heritage scorecard sites. Bioreserve
establishment should help prevent exotic species invasions, increase
stewardship options for burning or perimeter defense, permit buffer
restoration for animals that require interior habitat conditions, enable
survival after catastrophic natural disturbances, and allow natural
disturbance regimes such as existed at the time of settlement.
 
ECOREGION REPRESENTATION. A bioreserve should represent an
unprotected, significant portion of the variety in an ecoregion (e.g.
Omernik). Variety in an ecoregion consists of location in the
ecoregion, geology, topography, soils, and associated communities.
 
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVERSITY. A bioreserve should include the
widest range of habitat variety that exists in its portion of an ecoregion.
For example, it should span the entire moisture gradient that is possible,
from river bottoms, swamps, and marshes up to rocky ridges, mountain
tops, and mesas. Large expanses of various habitats should be present.
It should also encompass large altitudinal and latitudinal distances.
 
 
GOOD DEIGN. Design of a bioreserve should reflect current
biological conservation theory. A bioreserve should be a natural
defensible entity -- e.g. an entire watershed, an entire mountain, a
system of natural corridors and core areas.
 
APPROPRIATE SIZE. The size of a bioreserve should be appropriate
to the ecoregion which it represents. Encompassing an entire ecoregion
is not appropriate. Depending upon the ecoregion, a bioreserve may
range from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand acres.
 
Triage Test
 
 
Can TNC bring a unique contribution to the table to deal with the priority
ecological factors, to protect of core and buffer areas, to address the
impending, potentially fatal threats to the priority elements or ecological
processes, and/or to create the necessary partnerships at the proposed
bioreserve? Would our failure to act be likely to prove fatal to the ecosystem?
 
3. Do-Ability Test
 
Does TNC have, or can we secure, the skilled staff, the institutional
partnerships, and the financial resources that are necessary to implement the
project successfully?
 
The most critical of all "do-ability" factors is the availability of skilled and
experienced staff. Typically, a bioreserve will require 25 of an seasoned
TNC manager's time, plus a full-time bioreserve director, plus major time
commitments from other state program staff.
 
4. Leverage Test
 
Will the bioreserve project add to TNC's storehouse of knowledge, con-
servation tools, and institutional partnerships to protect biological diversity?
 
 
Chapter 5
 
"Threshold" Questions for Bioreserve Planning
 
Answering some threshold questions is the first planning stage for most bioreserves.
To address these questions, we need to assemble the right people as a bioreserve
planning team, gather necessary information, and make some preliminary hypotheses.
 
Based on this feasibility analysis, we can then decide if a potential project appears to
have the makings of a successful bioreserve, and proceed to develop a full-fledged
strategic plan.
 
A list of some threshold questions follows. The starting point is science.
 
1. Ecological Objectives
 
A. What biodiversity and ecological factors are we seeking to protect,
including ecosystem representation and processes, natural communities,
and shies.
 
B. Are these factors of global significance, based either on rarity of the
elements and/or quality of the occurrences. Bioreserves will protect
both "last of the least" and "best of the rest."
 
C. How does the proposed bioreserve compare ecologically to other
managed areas and/or potential bioreserves in the same ecoregion?
What is its value "on the margin" as compared to other opportunities?
 
D. What are the essential conservation requirements of the priority
ecological factors, including habitat conservation, management, and
control of threats.
 
E. Does the management capacity (policies, programs, funding) exist, or
potentially exist, within TNC or a public agency?
 
2. Bioreserve Preserve Design
 
A. What are the minimum core areas required to protect the globally
significant ecosystems, processes, species and natural communities?
 
B. Are there "keystone species" which are key to the ecological operations?
Are there other critical factors essential to assure protection of the target
elements (e.g. horseshoe crabs for migratory shorebirds, abiotic features
such as karst topogrpahy).
 
 
C. What buffer areas are needed to ensure protection of the core areas?
 
D. What land use regimes and human uses in the buffer :i:one are
compatible with the target ecological goals.
 
E. What are the incremental bioreserve sin requirements to protect species
with large landscape requirements, keystone species, migratory birds,
aquatic organisms, etc. What are benefits versus the costs of expanded
boundaries?
 
F. can we do the job with a series of standard sites, or do the ecological
objectives require some kind of "connectivity" among the sites?
 
G. What are the processes that make the ecosystem function and do what it
does (e.g. fire, hydrology, flooding)? What does it take in the way of
preserve design and management to maintain these processes?
 
3. Threats
A. What are major threats to key ecological objectives -- especially threats
which are not site-specific and which require protection strategies other
than acquisition (e.g. non-point pollution, exotic species)?
 
B. What broad protection strategies are required to address these threats?
 
C. Are these strategies achievable, and what will they cost? What is the
potential of implementing non-acquisition protection strategies needed to
address broad threats (e.g. nonpoint pollution).
 
4. Institutions
 
A. What institutions are critical to success and what is the likelihood of
their participation?
 
IS. What is the necessary framework of policies, programs, and funding?
 
5. TNC Capacity
 
A. Does TNC have the management and staff capacity to take on a
complex bioreserve?
 
IS. What is the political viability of securing federal or state funding or
protection and management programs?
 
C. What is the potential for private fundraising? Are there adequate local
resources? Do we have the staff capacity and volunteer leadership?
 
 
 
Chapter 6
 
Bioreserve Planning Tools
 
Planning for bioreserves is a complex business. There is a Constant need to establish
priorities in the midst of sometimes overwhelming possibilities. Information needed
for decision-making is often incomplete. Good intuition is often required to formulate
strategies which will achieve the best results, with the highest probability of success,
for the lowest Cost.
 
The following set of analytical forms has been developed to assist bioreserve planners.
These forms are meant to assist, but not replace, good judgement.
 
Using these forms can help a bioreserve planning team share information. The forms
can serve as a good springboard for discussion. They can serve as an exercise to help
a bioreserve team work through the difficult jobs of defining the playing field,
evaluating alternatives, sharpening judgements, revealing flaws, and setting priorities.
 
The principle to help determine priority strategies is simple: The highest priority TNC
attention should be applied where we will secure the greatest benefits, with the highest
probability of success, for the lowest cost. For example, in some cases TNC action
might make a critical difference in the condition of an element, site, etc. -- either by
improving the condition or by preventing serious deterioration. In other Cases, TNC's
action or lack of action may be relatively inconsequential because of larger forces at
work that govern the probable outcome.
 
The conclusions reached from using these forms can be summarized onto simple
charts. The charts can be included as appendices to a bioreserve strategic plan (see
Chapter 7, "Illustrative Strategic Plan").
 
The forms can serve another useful purpose of documenting information and analysis.
This body of information would serve as a helpful "library" to a future bioreserve
director or staff member.
 
The enclosed forms have gone through several iterations, and have been field-tested to
a limited degree. User feedback would be appreciated.
 
 
Forms Missing
 
 
Chapter 7
Illustrative Bioreserve Strategic Plan
 
Bioreserve planning should be viewed as a means, not an end. It is not a bureaucratic
hurdle to be overcome, but rather an ongoing process and living document to assist
bioreserve teams with their work.
 
There is no magic format for a bioreserve strategic plan. Bioreserve plans need to be
long enough to capture vital information, goals and strategies, but not so long that we
lose sight of the forest for the trees. One way to deal with this problem is to keep the
main body of the plan relatively short (e.g. 12-15 pages), with additional detailed
information included as appendices. The following plan illustrates what seem to be
emerging as key bioreserve planning components.
 
Bioreserve plans should reflect priorities, rather than a "laundry list" approach. The
illustrative plan spells out priorities in several sections, and documents them via the
charts included as appendices. 11
 
A bioreserve plan should be driven by a clear long-term vision. On the other hand,
incipient ecosystem conservation initiatives should not be daunted by a seemingly
impossible and distant challenge. The goals and strategies of the plan should
emphasis the here and now -- getting from step 1 to step 2, rather than from step 1 to
step 10.
 
Many bioreserve strategies should be designed to test hypotheses or to reflect a
"successive approximation" approach to our work. The knowledge we gain will often
cause us to establish new priorities, goals, and strategies over time. Bioreserve plans
should be living documents which reflect these changes. Bioreserve planning teams
should meet regularly to adjust strategies, and the plan should be overhauled every few
years. The current Virginia Eastern Shore plan differs substantively from its
predecessor plan in 1986.
 
The format of the illustrative plan has gone through several iterations. It is meant to
serve as a guide, not a template. In the end, the secrets to a good plan are a solid
ecological foundation, good judgement, and clear presentation.
 
 
Illustrative Bioreserve Strategic Plan
Virginia Eastern Shore
 
 
 
Note: following planning format is presented for illustrative purposes only.
It does represent the actual strategic plan for the Virginia Eastern Shore
bioreserve. The facts, priority rankings, and conclusions are solely those of the
author (Greg Low), and have not been reviewed by the Virginia Coast Reserve
planning team.
 
 
Illustrative Bioreserve Plan
__ _ Table of Contents
 
 
I. Introduction
 
II. Priority Ecosystem Elements, Processes, & Conservation Requirements
 
III. Major Threats
 
IV. Priority Core & Buffer Sites
 
V. Compatible Human Uses
 
VI. Key Institutions
 
VII. The Bioreserve as a "Theater of Action"
 
VIII. Vision, Goals, Priority Strategies
 
TNC Organization & Capacity
 
X. Program Budget -- Income & Expenses
 
Fundraising Plan
 
Appendices
 
A. Planning Maps
 
1. Location Map
2. Element Occurrences
3. Critical Resources
4. Threats
5. Core and Buffer Zones
6. Managed Areas
 
B: Summary Planning Charts
 
1. Ecosystem Elements
2. Threats
3. Core and Buffer Sites
1-
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION
The United Nations has cited the Conservancy ,5 Virginia Coast Reserve as a Biosphere
Reserve - a designated reserved for the world's most important ecosystems.
Biosphere reserves are large, multi-purpose areas intended to protect functioning
natural systems and conserve species, and find ways for people to use environments
without degrading them. Biosphere reserves are intended to become models of how
we should live with nature.
 
A narrow finger of land extending for about 70 miles as the lowermost section of the
"Delmarva Peninsula" (see map in Appendix ---), its hundreds of miles of shoreline
and relatively undisturbed landscape host ecological values of global significance.
 
The heart of this natural system is the Virginia Barrier Islands, a chain of 18 offshore
islands. This system of sandy beaches, maritime vegetation and forests, and rich salt
marshes provides habitat for the highest concentrations of nesting shorebirds on the
Atlantic Coast. Today, all or part of 14 islands have been acquired by the
Conservancy to form the Virginia Coast Reserve. Federal or state refuges have been
established on the other islands.
 
The coastal bays and wetlands behind the islands are also vital parts of the system, and
comprise the finest coastal aquatic system on the East coast. The narrow strip of
shoreline forests near the Shore's southern tip provide one of the two most critical
staging areas for songbirds and raptors during the fall migration.
 
In 1985 the Conservancy began efforts to protect the mainland buffer zone. Over
acres of seaside farms and village properties have been acquired at key locations
on the Shore. Based on extensive scientific research, the Conservancy is reselling
these properties with conservation easements, and demonstrating that low-intensity use
of the waterfront is an economically viable alternative.
 
The Conservancy has built close working partnerships with local and state institutions,
including: a Long Term Ecological research program with the University of Virginia,
launched by a $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation; technical and
financial assistance to establish economic development and housing programs in the
community; and land planning and public education efforts with local leaders and
citizen groups to promote good local zoning ordinances.
 
Based upon a solid foundation of past action, the Conservancy's long term vision for
the Virginia Eastern Shore is:
 
To protect the best representative example of a naturally functioning coastal
ecosystem in the Atlantic coastal plain, including all of its priority elements,
working in partnership with the local community and other institutions to create
a world-model, science-based biosphere reserve.
 
 
II. PRIORITY ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS, PROCESSES AND
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS
 
The Ecosystem
 
The Virginia Eastern Shore represents the best occurrence of a naturally functioning
coastal ecosystem in the Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion.
 
The ecosystem includes four major components: (1) the marine system; (2) the barrier
islands; (3) the estuarine system of shallow coastal bays; and (4) the terrestrial
watershed. All four components are currently in good to excellent condition.
 
Key Processes:
* Tidal flow.
* Natural migration of the barrier islands.
* The "nutrient budget" of the system.
 
Key Conservation Requirements:
* Protect barrier island habitat, with no hardening of shoreline.
* Control excessive nutrient loadings from the mainland.
 
Outstanding Natural Communities
 
The chain of 13 barrier islands provide outstanding examples of all Atlantic barrier
island communities, including Atlantic Maritime Forests (G2).
 
Key Conservation Requirements:
* Protect barrier island occurrences.
* Control use of ORVs on beach and dune communities.
 
Priority Species
 
 
 
The Virginia Barrier Islands provide outstanding habitat for the highest concentrations
of nesting colonial shorebirds on the Atlantic flyway, including approximately 20% of
the population of the piping plover (G2). The system also serves as a major staging
area for other shorebirds during the spring migration; horseshoe crab eggs on the
mudflats provide a key food source.
 
Key Conservation Requirements:
* Protect barrier island habitat.
* Maintain good water quality of coastal bays (control nutrient loadings).
* Control ORV use on barrier islands during nesting season.
 
 
Songbirds and Raptors
 
The southern tip of the peninsula is one of the two most important staging areas on the
East coast for migratory songbirds and raptors (including peregrine falcons (G3))
during the fall migration.
 
Key Conservation Requirements:
* Maintain wooded areas with connecting corridors at southern tip.
 
Other Globally Rare Species with significant occurrences include:
 
Animals:
* Tiger beetle (G2)
* Loggerhead sea turtle (G3)
 
Plants:
* Sea beach pigweed (G2)
 
Key conservation requirements for these species are generally covered above.
 
 
III. MAJOR THREATS
Very High Priority
 
* High-density waterfront development
 
High-density residential/recreational development of the seaside waterfront
would have a severe, long-term, and virtually irreversible impact on the coastal
bays, primarily through nutrient pollution from wastewater (septic systems).
The associated increase in human use would threaten the nesting shorebirds and
sensitive communities on the barrier islands. Development at the southern tip
will cause forest conversion and fragmentation, destroying critical migratory
bird impact.
 
Development potential is very high over the next decade. TNC has the ability
to address this threat through local zoning ordinances and resale of priority
tracts with conservation easements.
 
High Priority
 
* Agricultural pollution
 
Intensive row-crop agriculture has been the dominant land use on the Virginia
Eastern Shore for over 30 yes. Significant amounts of nutrients are entering
the coastal bays via direct runoff and the groundwater interface. Sediment is
entering coastal creeks and bays where there is inadequate buffer.
 
This threat is long-standing, caused by agricultural practices influenced by
major economic and social forces. It might be gradually reversed over time,
through a combination of regulations and demonstration of cost-effect farming
alternatives. The flow of nutrients into the system is not fully understood.
TNC's short-term role is to become better informed, to begin testing best
management practices on our farms, and look for high-leverage opportunities.
 
Medium Priority
 
Several other threats are potentially serious, but either have a more localized impact, a
shorter-term impact, a lower certainty, or less urgency. TNC will employ high-
leverage, cost-effective strategies to understand and address these threats:
 
* Off road vehicles on barrier islands
* High-impact tourism
* Off-shore oil and Gas drilling
* Overharvesting of keystone fish species
* Industrial point-source pollution
 
 
IV. PRIORITY CORE AND BUFFER SITES
CORE AREAS Virginia Barrier Islands Macrosite: All of the barrier islands should all be in
conservation ownership. Critical inholdings remain on four islands. The
priority sites within the macrosite -- based on ecological values, protectability,
and urgency -- are:
 
High priority:
Hog Island
Smith Island
 
Medium Priority:
Cobb Island
Cedar Island
 
* Magothy Bay/Cape Charles Corridor Macrosites: A series of wooded sites
connected by wooded corridors needs to be established for migratory bird
habitat -- extending from Oyster on the seaside, around the southern tip, to
Cape Charles on the bayside. The southern tip has been largely secured via the
national wildlife refuge; the seaside is partly secured by TNC and other
holdings; the bayside is in jeopardy.
 
B ZONE
 
The "Seaside Megasite" is the buffer zone of the bioreserve. This megasite extends
over 5O miles in length, and averages three to eight miles in width, including the
proximate watersheds for the coastal bays and perennial streams. Within the
megasite, macrosites have been mapped and ranked based upon importance,
protectability, and urgency. Individual tracts within these sites have also been ranked.
 
Very High Priority
Magothy Bay
Hog Island Bay/Broadwater (Brownsville)
 
 
High Priority Ramshorn Bay (Oyster)
Machipongo River
Burtons Bay (Finney Creek/Wachapreague)
 
TNC should secure conservation easements on all key tracts within the highest priority
sites, and easements where feasible on other tracts. Landowner contact is an important
holding action for all priority tracts. Immediate protection to the megasite should be
provided via good zoning ordinances in the two local counties. Zoning possibilities
are good in Northampton County, fair-to-poor in Accomack.
 
 
V. COMPATIBLE USA AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
 
Socioeconomic Conditions:
 
There are approximately 45,000 people living in two counties on the Virginia Eastern
Shore, a predominantly agricultural area with small towns, villages and settlements.
Approximately 40% of the population is African-American. Northampton County
(which includes our highest priority core and buffer sites) ranks 132 out of 136
Virginia counties and cities in per capita income ($6436). One-third of the black
population, one-seventh of the Hispanic population, and one-third of the white
population live at or below the poverty level.
 
TNC Actions to Date:
 
The Conservancy over the past six years has worked hard on building local community
partnerships for ecological protection and compatible economic development on the
Virginia Eastern Shore. Some of our efforts include:
 
* Assisting the formation of Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore (CBBS), a
broadly based local citizens group which includes all major socio-
economic sectors, and which is working to help implement the goals of
the county's comprehensive plan and promote compatible development.
 
* Tangibly demonstrating to local landowners that low-density uses of
waterfront farmland can be planned and implemented without adversely
impacting the economic value of the land.
 
* Working cooperatively with CBBS, the local chapter of the
N.A.A.C.P., the Farm Bureau and others to secure a new county
zoning ordinance which better protects natural resources, while at the
same time provide affordable rural lots.
 
* Providing technical assistance and seed funds to help launch the
Northampton Housing Trust, now a professionally staffed local
organization devoted to providing affordable housing.
 
* Working with local watermen in a cooperative venture to assure
sustainable oyster grounds in the coastal bays.
 
Vision and Next Steps:
 
The Conservancy needs to develop and promote compatible human use regimes and
economic development opportunities to ensure long-term protection for the ecosystem.
Programs need to be deployed in five major areas which represent dominant (or
potentially dominant) human activities in the bioreserve, and which present significant
 
 
threats to the ecosystem. Priorities are based on opportunities and urgency, with a
brief description of long-term vision and next TNC action steps needed to gain
understanding of and/or demonstrate economically and ecologically viable human uses.
Very High Priority
 
* Waterfront Development
 
Vision: Secure low-intensity, low-density residential uses of the waterfront which will protect water quality, sustain the productive fisheries
resources, and allow continued use by local watermen.
 
Next Steps: Demonstrate that well-planned, low-density residential
development is economically viable. (Done) Get professional expertise to help
develop a product mix, financing support, and replicable program to reach a
broader market of conservation-minded buyers. (Being Done)
 
High Priority
 
* Rural Economic Development:
 
Vision: Secure a diversified local economy -- including agriculture, fisheries,
tourism, small businesses, cottage industries, services, commerce, and
appropriate industry -- which capitalizes on the Shore's special natural
resources without degrading them, and where value is added to products and
services as a result of the biosphere reserve.
 
Next Steps: Get professional expertise to help TNC and the local community
develop a plan and feasibility studies for compatible economic development.
 
Medium Priority
* Tourism
 
Vision: Secure low-volume, high-income tourism based around a variety of
history experiences and the culture of the Eastern Shore, generating a
long-term revenues for both TNC and the local community.
 
Next Steps: Get professional expertise to help develop a strategic plan for
nature tourism which is economically and ecologically viable.
 
 
 
C
 
 
*Agricuture
 
Vision: Through the use of vegetative filter strips, lower input of chemicals,
soil management, other "best management practices", and/or new crops/markets which require less intense argicultural practices -- secure a new regime of agriculture on the Shore which achieves a redulction od sediment and nutrients to levels which do not seriously harm the ecosystem.
 
Next Steps: In partnership with local agricultural institutions, test various "best
management practices" on TNC (and other) farm plots,. with measures of
biological economic results.
 
* Fisheries
 
Vision: Maintain the shellfishing industry as an important part of the Shore's
culture (and ally for TNC's work); enhance the industry by improved product
differentiation and marketing; maintain a viable sports fishing industry.
 
Next Steps: In partnership with key institutions, develop a directed research
program to identify and monitor keystone species and/or indicators of biotic
health of the coastal bays.
 
 
Key Institutions TNC must work in partnership with a wide array of institutions to implement a comprehensive biosphere reserve program. Priorities are based upon the potential roll of the institution in addressing key elements, sites, or threats; the probability of effective action; and urgency.
 
Very High Priority
 
* Northampton County -- Determines zoning ordinance; economic development
programs; and real property taxation.
 
* Virginia Marine Resources Commission -- Determines barrier island and
fisheries policies.
 
* University of Virginia LTER -- Key institution for long-term ecological
monitoring and directed research.
 
* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service -- Capacity to protect migratory bird habitat via
expanded refuge at southern tip; long-term capacity to help protect barrier
islands.
 
* Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore -- Broadly-based local citizen action group;
support is key for good zoning ordinance and economic development programs.
 
High Priority
 
* Virginia Dept. of Natural Resources -- Moderate potential resources for
migratory birds and natural areas
 
* Farm Bureau -- Support is important for zoning ordinance and long-term
changes in agricultural practices.
 
* Accomack County -- As important as Northampton County above, but much
lower chances of success.
 
Medium Priority
 
* NAACP - Support is important for zoning ordinance.
 
* Tourism Commission -- Potential supporter and resource for a good nature
tourism program.
 
* Chamber of Commerce -- Potential supporter and resource for a compatible
economic development program.
 
 
VII. BIORESERVE AS A "THEATER OF ACTION"
 
TNC is engaged in four activities at VCR which represent replicable approaches
elsewhere for biodiversity conservation
Very High Priority
 
* Working Model Biosphere Reserve -- The biosphere reserve concept is
powerful, and is increasingly being recognized as the new paradigm for
conservation. Nowhere, however, has the concept been holistically
demonstrated as a working model, with an eye towards replicability of buffer
zone conservation and compatible human use.
 
* Compatible & Successful Rural Economic Development -- Determining ways to
promote economic development may be the "keys to the kingdom" for
bioreserve conservation. Without an economic program in conjunction with an
ecological program, we may be doomed to failure over the long-term, with
biodiversity lost to the ongoing flood of growth and misuse of natural
resources.
 
High Priority
 
* Good Local Zoning -- Development of effective strategies and tactics to secure
good local zoning ordinances represents a key vehicle for controlling buffer
zone land use practices' in much of the United States.
 
Medium Priority
 
* Replicable Approach to Waterfront Development -- Anywhere there is
waterfront within access to metropolitan areas, there is invariably
residential/recreational development, which invariably impacts important
biological resources. Development of a replicable process for promoting low-
density waterfront development could serve as a key strategy for other marine,
estuarine and riparian bioreserves.
 
 
VII. VISION GOALS AND PRIORITY STRATEGIES
 
Vision 
To protect the best representative example of a naturally functioning coastal ecosystem
in the Atlantic coastal plain, including all of its priority elements, working in
partnership with the local community and other institutions to create a world-model,
science-based biosphere reserve.
 
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
 
Goal are long-term measures what's needed to secure the vision. Strategies are the
action programs that will be taken over the near term of one to five years.
 
1. Core Area Protection: Secure legal protection and management for all
core areas in the bioreserve.
 
* Protect barrier island inholdings, via a combination of TNC, state and
federal land acquisition, as opportunities Use.
 
* Secure a good state policy for protecting the barrier islands' intertidal
zone (i.e. "commons") and marshlands lying behind the islands.
 
* Via an expanded nationalwildlife refuge, state acquisitions, local
government participation, and private sector partners, secure adequate
wooded areas and corridors for migratory birds at the southern tip of the
peninsula.
 
2. Buffer Zone Conservation: Secure adequate legal protection for the
seaside buffer zone, including conservation easements on priority tracts.
 
* Secure a good zoning ordinance in Northampton County; pursue any
windows of opportunity to influence zoning in Accomack.
 
Develop, test, and implement a model program to protect priority tracts
in the Hog Island Bay/Broadwater macrosite, via resales with
conservation easements.
 
Maintain contact with landowners of the highest priority tracts
throughout the buffer zone, and pursue protection opportunities as they
arise.
 
3. Compatible Human Uses and Economic Development: Research, develop,
test, and deploy programs for economically and ecologically viable human
uses of the ecosystem, in the context of a diversified and vital local
economy.
 
 
Develop with the local community a strategic plan and feasibility
studies for compatible rural economic development.
 
* Develop and begin testing a strategic plan for nature tourism.
 
* Develop and begin testing various "best management practices" on TNC
and other farm land in the Hog Island Bay/Broadwater Macrosite, with
measures of biological and economic results.
 
4. Partnerships: Establish good working relationships and implement
cooperative programs with key local institutions and leaders, whereby
TNC is looked to as an integral and important member of the local community, and whereby the biosphere reserve program becomes integrated
with the local community's vision and plans.
 
* Continue to provide technical assistance and undertake cooperative
biosphere reserve projects with Northampton County, Citizens for a
Better Eastern Shore, the Tourism Commission, Chamber of
Commerce, Northampton Housing Trust, local schools, and the
Economic Development Forum.
 
5. Research: Provide good science as the foundation for all biosphere reserve
conservation and development initiatives and to measure the long-term
health of the ecosystem.
 
* Support the continuation of the University of Virginia LTER program.
 
* Develop a program with the LTER and others to monitor the health of
the ecosystem, including biological indicators for the coastal bays.
 
* Secure directed research as needed to document priority threats and to
develop programs for compatible human use.
 
6. Dial Catty: Build the neck framework of financial support to
maintain a strong, holistic biosphere reserve program.
 
* Launch a $5 million campaign to implement the strategies outlined
above (see program budget), assisted by good volunteer leadership.
 
* Secure $5-10 million of investment capital to enable protection of all
key buffer tracts in the Hog Island Bay/Broadwater Macrosite.
 
* Test nature tourism as potential source of long-term operating support.
 
 
TNC ORGANIZATION AND CAPACITY
Bioreserve Team:
 
Implementing a program to protect the Virginia Eastern Shore ecosystem will require
an extraordinary team effort. We are fortunate to have an outstanding, full-time
bioreserve staff team to carry out the project.
 
Local staff members at the Virginia Coast Reserve include:
 
John Hall, Director
Barry Truitt, Science & Stewardship
Charles Pattison, Protection
Abby Gale, Naturalist & Community Outreach
Lynn Badger, Administration
 
Greg Low, at headquarters, serves as TNC's captain for the project, strategic planning
facilitator, and fundraiser.
 
George Fenwick, Virginia State Director, serves on the bioreserves planning team and
provides leadership and assistance with matters relating to state government, policies,
and fundraising.
 
Volunteers:
 
The Virginia Coast Reserve is fortunate to have over 35 active local volunteers, who
assist in many areas of preserve management and local community relations.
 
Volunteer fundraising leadership, however, has never been formalized. Fundraising
has been largely carried out by staff, with assistance from Virginia Chapter
leaders and others with particular donors. We struggled to raise $6 million to fund the
first phase of our bioreserve work from 1985 through 1990. We need stronger
volunteer capacity for the next round of fundraising, and will address this in our
fundraising plan.
 
Funding:
 
The VCR bioreserve program has been adequately funded on a year-to-year basis, via
a combination of annual giving, endowment income, and program grants. However,
to continue a fully-staffed program we face a long term funding shortfall of
approximately $100,000 for operations. While this gap can be filled via program
fundraising over the next five years, a permanent solution is needed. We will explore
nature tourism and other alternatives for securing long-term operating revenues.
 
 
VIRGINIA EASTERN SHORE PROGRAM BUDGET: 1991-1995
DRAFT--MAY,1991
 
CORE AREA PROTECTION
A.Barrier Island Protection
 
1.Barrier Island Acquisition
a. Hog Island $750,000
b. Smith Island $250,000
c. Cobb Island $25,000
d. Fowling Point $225.000
$1,250,000
 
2.Parramore Island Protection
a. Coast Guard Station Costs $100,000
b. Taxes (yrs'$ per yr) $20,000
c. Protection Plan -00
$170,000
 
3.Barrier Island Stewardship Programs
(ORVs, etc. --4 years $35,000) $140,000
 
4.Endowment Addition
a. Research $10,000
b. Staffing 25%/perso $10,000
c. Boats -00
Total Annual Costs $30,000
Endowment Required 6% $500.000
Subtotal Barrier Island Protection $2,060,000
8. Migratory Bird Protection
1. Study & Protection Planning $20,000
2. Staff -- tour yrs 50% . $80,000
3. Land Acquisition Risk Capital $1.000.000
Subtotal Migratory Birds Protection $1.100.000
SUBTOTAL CORE AREA PROTECTION $3,160,000
 
BUFFER ZONE CONSERVATION
A. Programs
1. Staff four',ears $160,000
2. Zoning Studies, Maps, Research $50,000
3. Macrosite, Site, Tract Planning/Mapping $350,000
4. Market Research, Feasibility Studies $150.000
Subtotal programs $710,000
 
-8. Private Investment Funds $10.000.000
(seaside farms purchase & resale; no net cost to TNC)
SUBTOTAL SUFFER ZONE CONSERVATION $10,710,000
 
 
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
 
A. Economic studies/business plans $150,000
B. Seed grants to local partners $25,000
C. Staff --4 years 50% $80,000
 
SUBTOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $255,000
 
 
RESEARCH, OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
 
A. Volunteer Program Expenses $25,000
B. Water Quality Monitoring $50,000
C. Biosphere reserve workshops $10,000
D. Brownsville visitor program $60,000
E. Machipongo Station Repair & Upkeep $130,000
F. Staff -- four years $100,000
 
SUBTOTAL RESEARCH AND OUTREACH $375,000
 
 
 
TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET $14,500,000
 
LESS: PRIVATE INVESTMENT FUNDS [$10.000.000]
 
TNC FUNDRAlSING GOAL $4,500,000
 
 
FUNDRAISING PLAN
 
A fundraising plan for the Virginia Eastern Shore bioreserve is now being developed.
See the Case Study in the Bioreserve Handbook on "Bioreserve Fundraising" for
information on the elements of a good fundraising plan.
 
 
APPENDICES - MAPS AND SUMMARY CHARTS
 
 
 
The following set of maps is intended to illustrate the types of maps which should be incorporated into a bioreserve strategic plan. Some of the maps are in draft form. A final set of maps for the Virginia Eastern Shore is now being developed in a consistent format, and will include:
 
* General land uses in the bioreserve
* Locations of priority ecosystem elements
* Threats
* Core and buffer zones
* Priority macrosites and sites
* Managed areas
 
Other bioreserves may need maps showing major natural communities; watershed
boundaries; political boundaries; soils and wetlands.
 
A few bioreserves are working to develop an integrated planning map. Others have
integrated TNC planning maps with local GIS mapping systems. These examples will
be shared as we learn from our successful experiences. See the Case Study on
"Bioreserve Mapping" for more information.
 
 
Summary Charts
 
The following charts provide a summary analysis of the priority ecosystem elements,
threats, and sites. These particular charts are illustrative, and do not reflect an actual
consensus analysis by the Virginia Eastern Shore planning team. The summary charts
can be derived from the analytical planning forms presented in Chapter 6 of the Bioreserve Handbook, or can be developed by expert consensus. They are intended to
serve as a helpful planning tool for setting priorities, not necessarily as a required
component of a bioreserve strategic plan.
 
 
LOGICAL PRIORITIES
 
Key Points:
 
* Routine Heritage information management provides a systematic process for
converting element, occurrence, and site information into potential bioreserves.
 
* The identification process should initially call upon the data and expertise of
State Natural Heritage Programs and Field Offices.
 
* "Search images" for identifying potential bioreserves include:
 
a. Areas of concentration of high priority species and community element
occurrences and smaller sites,
b. large intact landscape areas containing viable populations of species and
communities representative of the character of a region,
c. large existing preserves or combinations of preserve areas needing
enlargement or connection in order to insure viability of species and
communities, and
d. critical migratory points, pathways, or corridors.
 
* A bioreserve should:
 
a. Contain a core area(s) of Heritage scorecard caliber,
b. protect significant elements whose viability is area dependent,
c. dramatically improve the chances for maintaining the biological
integrity of an area, and
d. contain the greatest diversity of habitat.
 
* In addition to knowing the life history requirements of species and the
structural and functional relationships within and among communities, we need
to know what natural processes and conditions are needed to maintain the
species and communities.
 
* Areas chosen for bioreserves may be intended to become single large
preserves, preserve complexes, or parts of a network of preserves.
 
 
Case Study: Tallgrass Prairie, Oklahoma
 
In late 1988 the Oklahoma Field Office and Natural Heritage Program expressed an
immediate need to classify tallgrass prairie communities in Oklahoma and to rank
them according to their perceived rarity. To do this adequately, they needed to
address the Tallgrass Prairie Biome as a whole and obtain the help of people who
worked with and studied grasslands in the midwest and southern plains. It was
 
Al
 
 
decided that the best way to accomplish this task was to convene a meeting of
Heritage and Field Office staff and other knowledgeable people.
 
The following conclusions evolved from the meeting:
 
* Tallgrass prairie is the most disturbed major North American biome in
terms of percent lost (more than 90%).
* A functioning plant/animal tallgrass prairie community did not exist.
Presettlement tallgrass prairie community processes were large scale
(climate-fire-herbivore interactions) and resulted in a shifting mosaic of
landscape patches.
* A functioning tallgrass prairie preserve must include a re-establishment
of the fire/bison interaction, since this was one of the primary
processes driving the presettlement tallgrass prairie ecosystem. A
functioning ecosystem allows the natural evolutionary and ecological
processes to continue to act.
* As the remaining tallgrass prairie occurrences become increasingly
reduced and fragmented, establishment of a functioning tallgrass prairie
preserve will be increasingly difficult and costly.
* The best opportunity to recreate a process-driven tallgrass prairie
preserve, at the necessary large scale, is in the Flint Hills of Oklahoma
and Kansas. Protection of the best remaining examples of tallgrass
prairie is a TNC priority.
* One or more large, functioning tallgrass prairie preserves should be
established, plus additional smaller satellite tallgrass prairie preserves
protecting other important elements.
* Tallgrass prairie preserve selection and design suggestions included:
 
a. I-etched the preserve in the most diverse landscape
possible; include other elements and high quality patches
of prairie vegetation.
b. Capture complete watersheds.
c. Preserve size should not be less than 16,500 acres in
order to maintain a minimum viable population of bison
(500 breeding adults) in a fire/bison interaction model.
d. Consider buffer needs to insure preserve and element
viability, and stewardship activities (smoke management,
etc.)
e. Moderate degradation from over-grazing or herbicides
should be recoverable.
 
Following the meeting, the Heritage staff put together a species-area curve depicting
the numbers of acres of tallgrass prairie that would need to be managed in order to
protect minimal viable populations of animal species. It was at this point that
stewardship input added another dimension to the concept of minimum preserve size.
Although 16,500 acres could sustain a minimum viable population of 500 breeding
 
 
A2
 
 
bison, 32,000 acres would be needed to sustain an economically viable herd of 1000
individuals.
 
Through the use of aerial photography, topographic maps, and on-the-ground surveys,
two areas meeting the above criteria were found; Sand Creek and Buck Creek
Macrosites, each approximately 50,000 acres in size. It was judged that the
additional 18,000 acres would provide the following:
 
a. Enough additional land to insure a shifting mosaic of landscape patches
resulting from the interaction of bison and fire,
b. property that could be sacrificed to support an operating bison ranch,
c. insurance that too small of a preserve may have been designed since the
50/500 rule for determining minimum viable population sire does not
reliably apply to all animal populations, and
d. additional acreage that could be swapped to provide for more defensible
boundaries.
 
 
Prepared by: Joe Jacob, Southeast Director of Science
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A3
 
 
Key points:
 
1. Ecological communities are dynamic systems. Successful protection of these
systems hinges on our ability to identify and perpetuate those (ecological) processes
that originally created and have historically maintained them. Examples of these
processes include both large-scale effects (e.g. wildfire, flooding and grazing) and
small-scale disturbances (e.g. wind-throws, insect damage, soil disturbance).
 
2. Ecological communities are unbelievably complex, and often are organized
around the interaction of several conflicting ecological processes. If we are to
grapple with this complexity, we need some framework to organize our thinking
this is a conceptual model. It can be as simple as a detailed narrative of the
community ,5 key species and processes, or it can be as complicated as a hierarchical
mathematical model which attempts to incorporate the dynamics of every species.
Most often, within TNC, we will be constructing "budget models" (box and arrow
models similar to a corporate organization chart).
 
3. Irrespective of complexity, every useful model has three characteristics:
 
i. It is predictive: it allows us to make predictions about how the system will
respond to perturbations -- these predictions are often non-intuitive).
 
ii. It is general in scope: it allows us to work at whatever spatial scale is
appropriate).
 
iii. It is flexible: it allows for the incorporation of new and different information).
 
4. The values of using an ecological model as the scientifIc paradigm for our
conservation efforts are many:
 
i. The model allows us to objectively evaluate a preserve design in the light of
how it affects the those species and communities we are trying to protect.
 
ii. It allows us to effectively prioritize our protection efforts, by identifying
important refugia and migratory routes.
 
iii. It allows TNC to relate to our conservation partners exactly what is important
from our conservation perspective, and why it is so. This is crucial when
identifying "compatible" uses for buffer lands.
 
iii. It allows us to objectively identify and evaluate the relative importance of
to the system.
 
 
B1
 
 
iv. It allows us to prioritize and evaluate the effectiveness of our management
programs.
 
5. Constructing models is an iterative process. It is a very extraordinarily useful
exercise irrespective of our current level of knowledge of the system.
 
 
Case Study: San Pedro River Ecosystem Project
 
 
The San Pedro River Ecosystem Project (SPREP) attempts to integrate and focus
conservation actions in Arizona and northern Sonora throughout the entire watershed
of a major aridlands river system. The San Pedro River basin drains an area of 3,739
square miles and includes nearly all physiognomic plant community types and life
zones found in the American Southwest. The primary values of the SPREP include a
large number of natural communities and plant and animal species that are globally
endangered. Many of the rare elements are associated with the canyon environments
of the "mountain islands" that ring the San Pedro River and its perennial tributaries.
The rich aquatic and riparian environments provide the focal point of this
conservation project.
 
Among the outstanding ecological features of the SPREP are:
 
1. Rare plants and animals: The basin includes 55 globally endangered elements
and 163 element occurrences; the second largest aggregation of any watershed
system in Arizona.
2. Gila River Native Fishery: of the 18 original fish species found in the Gila
River system. Eight of these persist today as remnant populations, four of
which are globally rare.
3. Deciduous Broadleaf Riparian Forest: The riparian corridor of the mainstem
San Pedro River and its tributary systems support the most extensive example
of this vegetation type in the Southwest.
4. Madrean Marshlands: Once prevalent along valley floors of the arid
Southwest, these unique marshlands or cienegas have been largely eliminated.
Fifty percent of the known historical occurrences of these rare wetlands are
within the SPREP area.
5. Riverine Wetlands: of Arizona's natural environments, none have suffered as
greatly at the hands of man than the perennial streams and rivers within the
arid and semiarid portions of the state. The San Pedro River system contains
several of the highest quality, aquatic stream systems in the American
Southwest.
6. Migratory Bird Corridor: The SPREP area is a significant migratory corridor
for many passerine bird species, which twice a year move between tropical
wintering areas in Mexico and Central America and breeding areas in
temperate North America. Nearly half the North American bird fauna (345
species) have been documented within the riparian corridor of the San Pedro
 
 
B2
 
 
River. One of the most diverse concentrations of breeding raptors in North
America (13 species) are found within the corridor.
7. Biogeographic Regions: Several biogeographic provinces converge within the
SPREP area, including the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert provinces,
"Mountain Island" outliers of the Rocky Mountain province, and the Apachean
province
 
Processes
Protection of elements and ecological systems of the SPREP area requires that the
processes that shape and drive this environment be protected. The primary goal of
the SPREP concerns maintenance of the hydrologic regime necessary to sustain the
existing species and natural communities within the core aquatic and riparian areas;
fully recognizing that protection of these biological resources requires that the desired
hydrologic regime must allow for the natural processes of extinction and colonization
to continue within some minimum defined area. The principal components of the
hydrologic regime include groundwater status (annual and seasonal variation, sources
of recharge, sources of extraction for cultural purposes, and linkage to surface and
near-surface waters) and surface waters (annual and seasonal variation, including
duration, magnitude, frequency and timing of flood flows).
 
Progress
a sound protection strategy requires an understanding of the linkages among
ecological processes and the elements and ecosystems we wish to preserve. These
relationships are currently being developed via a series of ecological models that
include: (1) the SPREP area hydrologic regime (discussed above), (2) riparian
vegetation dynamics and the relationships of these to hydrology, (3) fish population
and habitat models (including interactions with exotic species and watershed
conditions), and (4) upper watershed vegetation dynamics-sediment transfer
relationships.
 
The modeling efforts are headed by members of the Arizona staff (David Gori,
Ecologist, and Tom Collazo, Project Stewardship Director) with assistance from the
National Stewardship Ecologist (Rick Young) and Western Regional Stewardship
Wetlands Ecologist (Jeff Baumgartner). Overall project guidance is provided by the
SPREP Director, Andy Laurenzi. The arizona Director of Stewardship, Mark
Heitlinger is also a key member of the modeling team. As required, outside
assistance is sought by a variety of academic, agency and private consultants.
 
To date, funding for theses activities has been provided by a wide array of sources,
including: the Arizona Field Office of TNC, the Bureau of I-and Management, the
MacArthur Foundation, and the US Bureau of Reclamation. Another potential
sources of funding is the Arizona Department of Game and Fish.
 
 
Prepared by: Bob Unnasch, Director of Biological Management, HQ
 
 
 
B3
 
 
BIORESERVE MAPPING
 
Key Points:
 
 
1. There is a phenomenal amount of information associated with Bioreserves that
needs to be compiled, organized, managed, analyzed and evaluated in order to
provide intelligent and efficient support.
 
2. It is of critical importance to identify the important types of information that
need to be collected, in one way or another, to support bioreserve design,
acquisition and protection.
* Through analysis of objectives and critical processes, identify the
gaps in available data and support the efficient stratification of data
acquisition.
 
3. Most of the conservation information that we need to apply to planning in
bioreserve planning is geographically referenced, i.e. there is a spatial quality
to the data that enables this information to be represented over a map base.
 
4. We are increasingly applying efficient and cost effective data management
systems available to organize, analyze and display large quantities of spatially
referenced data.
* This approach provides easy access to conservation information in
multiple formats and scales, from data printouts to real-time on line
access, to the generation of maps.
 
5. The strong foundation for building up a spatial database composed of different
types of information on a bioreserve requires developing precise base maps at
appropriate scales. (From known referencable source material)
 
6. Maps which provide the best baseline information that support ecological
analysis and conservation planning can be generated from up-to-date imagery.
* Provides a view of exactly what is on the ground.
 
7. Evaluation and analysis of the imagery and other data supports mapping and
analysis needs for classification, inventory and overall conservation planning.
* land cover and land use.
* sites and tracts
* preserve design
* identification of threats
* identification of watersheds
* identification of core areas
* identification of buffer zones
 
 
 
C1
 
 
Case Study: Virginia Coast Reserve
 
The Virginia Coast Reserve NCR) has been used to test many new remote sensing,
geographical information system (GIS), classification, field and mapping techniques.
It was the first large conservation project to be conducted by The Nature
Conservancy. It is in close proximity to TNC-HQ at Arlington, and presents many of
the challenges that will be encountered throughout the Bioreserve Initiative.
 
The VCR did not suffer from questions of whether this was a unique enough area to
justify a large conservation effort. This chain of barrier islands and associated
___ mainland is touted to be the largest unspoiled stretch left on the Eastern seaboard.
Partnerships in conservation and research at this site include the University of
Virginia at Charlottesville, who have established this as a Long Term Ecological
Research (LTER) site funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
 
Programmatic goals for ecosystem management at VCR are complex. They include
the characterization and protection of the natural systems associated with the barrier
islands. Management of the mainland component is needed to 1)ensure conservation
of the remaining good occurrences of natural communities and 2)enforce the
application of best management practices over the rest of the landscape to reduce the
environmental impact to the terrestrial and aquatic systems.
 
Baseline information that is needed to support these actions is included in an outline
on the following page. classical Heritage data had been gathered on particular
elements of biological diversity and site designations on the bioreserve. Element and
site information is managed in the Biological and Conservation Database. The land
cover has been mapped in some areas employing inconsistent classifications and
unreliable map bases. Maps needed by the planning teams have been hand drawn by
a drafting firm, where every change requires a redrafting of the entire map section.
 
The VCR pilot began with the acquisition of up-to-date imagery over the entire
bioreserve. This included Landsat TM imagery, SPOT panchromatic imagery, and
high altitude CIR photography. Using this imagery, an initial land cover / land use
classification was completed over a subset of the bioreserve. Existing data were
brought in from the BCD database, as well as expert knowledge of the area.
Information gaps were identified, and field work was completed to fill the gaps. Data
gathered from the field work allowed the refinement of cover classification and
mapping, and all data are entered into the BCD to build up the working database.
 
Adding other environmental variables to the spatial data system (GIS) not only allows
for refined classification of the cover classes, but further supports the design,
management and planning requirements associated with all stages of bioreserve
implementation. These cover maps also serve as a basis for documenting change
from the analysis of older imagery, and a baseline from which to monitor change over
time and evaluate success of the management programs. Tracts and boundaries can
be delineated, buffer strips identified and evaluated, and development plans exercised.
 
 
C2
 
 
At any point, and for a variety of purposes, maps can be generated to support
fieldwork, or support a discussion to a potential donor.
 
The blending of the conservation data in the BCD database with a spatial data system
with map generating capability will allow the controlled compilation, management and
application of appropriate information to specific inventory, mapping, management
and planning needs of the bioreserve teams.
 
 
Baseline Information to support Bioreserve Implementation
 
A. A land cover / land use map of the bioreserve
1.Mapping of natural community patches
a. Biological characterization
(1) Element Occurrence data
b. Conservation ranking
c. Assessment of management knowledge
d. Identification of information gaps
(1) Objective driven sampling
(a) Patch based
(b)Gradsect based
2.Mapping of current land use
a. Identification of information gaps
(1) Objective driven sampling
B. Key environmental data for the bioreserve
1.Soils
a. especially hydric
2.Flood zones
3.Watershed delineation
4.Water chemistry
5.Topography
6.Geology / Geomorphology
C. Geopolitical
1.Political boundaries
2.Zoning I Restrictions
D. Property boundaries
1.Ownership tracts
a. Contact history
2.Managed area tracts
a. Status
b. Delineation
 
Other Ongoing Bioreserve Projects:
 
Altamaha River, Georgia
ACE River Basin, South Carolina
 
 
C3
 
 
Gray Ranch, New Mexico
Blue Mountain / John Crow Park, Jamaica
Pantanal, Brazil
 
 
Discussion Questions:
 
I. What is the institutional capacity within TNC to support bioreserves in a
standard fashion using these methods?
 
II. How do you know what information is available?
 
 
 
Prepared by: Dennis Grossman, Chief Ecologist, HQ
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C4
 
 
IDENTIFYING CRITICAL THREATS
 
Key Points:
 
w
Identifying and defining threats accurately is a crucial element of bioreserve
protection.
 
2.) Know Thine Enemy
Understanding the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of threats is critical
to addressing them.
 
3.) Buying "Good Dirt" Is Not Enough
Most Bioreserves will have multiple threats requiring multiple solutions.
 
4.) What Have You Done For Me Today
Bioreserve threats will change over time.
 
5.) Your Friends Can Be Your Enemies
Controlling partners can be an important part of managing threats.
 
6.), K.I.S.S.
Addressing threats takes money. In raising money, simplicity is beauty.
 
7.) Avoid The Mushroom Theory
Communication amongst partners and implementation team members is a key
to success.
 
 
Case Study: Truckee - Carson (Stillwater) Bioreserve:
 
The Resource
 
Located in Northern Nevada, 60 miles east of Reno, the Stillwater National Wildlife
Refuge and Management Area and the Lahontan Valley Wetlands represent the most
critical wetland ecosystem in Nevada and a key "steppingstone" on the Pacific
Flyway. Stillwater supports 50% of Nevada's waterfowl including 200,000 ducks,
1,000 geese, and one of the largest white-faced ibis nesting colonies in the west. In
addition, Stil1water provides a foraging base for wintering bald eagles, peregrine
falcons, and the great white pelican. Because of its large numbers of dowitchers
(over 1/3 of the Pacific Flyways's total population) Stillwater has been designated as
a Western Hemispheric Shore Bird Reserve - one of only 13 in the world.
 
Inextricably tied to the Stillwater wetland ecosystem is the Truckee River and
Pyramid Lake Ecosystem - a preservation need of formidable proportions in its own
 
 
D1
 
 
Page D2 missing
 
 
including two major watersheds (920,000 acres) b.) a major migratory staging area
(the Lahontan Valley Wetlands) c.) key elements (the cui-ui, white pelican, Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout, great basin wetland etc) d.) conservation partners (the Lahontan
Valley Wetlands Coalition etc.) e.) agency partners (USFWS, NDOW, BOR, EPA)
f.) sustainable economy issues (the communities of Fallon, Fernly and Reno are
involved) and g.) great complexity (link all of the above and throw in two feuding
indian tribes and two indian reservations).
 
In addition, certain exciting characteristics make Stillwater atypical. These include:
a.) With $5 million in state monies and as much as $16 in federal funds, Stillwater
has high rollover potential b.) No other bioreserve has a major piece of federal
legislation which helps to outline and support project activity c.) Stillwater is the
Conservancy's maiden voyage into large scale water marketing for wildlife.
 
 
Discussion Questions:
 
 
1.) Should Bioreserves be ranked nationally according to priority?
 
2.) How should "degree of threat" be a factor in such a ranking?
 
3.) Are some threats/Bioreserves too tough to tackle?
 
4.) Should Bioreserves with greater threats receive greater funding?
 
5.) How should we define "closure" in terms of eliminating and/or addressing
threats in Bioreserves?
 
6.) Is "establishing a model" to address threats sufficient, even if eliminating
threats in any given bioreserve is not realized?
 
7.) Is the lack of long term TNC continuity and staffing at any given Bioreserve a
threat?
 
8.) Politically, are some threats more appropriate for TNC to take on than others?
 
9.) Implementing 40 bioreserves will involve substantially increasing the staff of
the Nature Conservancy. Will this be a threat to our effectiveness?
 
10.) Is there a limit to the number of bioreserves the Conservancy can take on? Is
letting our eyes get bigger than our stomach a threat?
 
 
Prepared by: Dave Livermore, Vice President/State Director, Great Basin
Field Office
 
 
D3
 
 
PROTECTING ESTUARINE AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
 
Key Points:
 
1. Water runs downhill:
Land use and land-based impacts (iq, pollution) are almost always the major
impacts to marine/estuarine ecosystems.
 
2. You can't buy the water:
Protection of marine/estuarine ecosystems is based on strategies for management
and improving public policy.
 
3. Think big:
Marine and estuarine ecosystems are large, "open" systems, with processes and
impacts that may originate hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
 
4. Go to the top:
A number of protection strategies for marine/estuarine ecosystems involve special
designations by government. The people who make the rules (iq, legislators) can
put these in place faster than administrative agencies - IF you can persuade them.
 
5. To quote Greg Low:
The best investment TNC can make is a local project director.
 
6. Good planning turns opportunities into success:
Planning helps you understand what actions are needed, so you can act decisively
when opportunities arise.
 
7. Partnerships leverage your actions and resources.
 
 
Case Study: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
 
In 1987, the Florida Chapter opened a special on-site Florida Keys Office, and
committed itself to a broad conservation strategy, including the coral reefs and shallow
marine waters of the Florida Keys.
 
A Florida Keys planning/management team was formed, consisting of the State Director
(John Cook, now John Flicker), Jora Young (FL Director of Science & Stewardship),
Greg Low (VP for Special Programs), Carol Baudler (Govt. Relations, HQ), and Mark
Robertson (on-site Project Director).
 
Several Strategies became evident, among them:
 
1. We had to find partners who could help develop public support and influence public
 
Fl
 
 
policy. THY was instrumental in facilitating special Florida Keys' programs of The Wilderness Society (1989 and Clean Water Fund (1990).
 
2. We had to establish a public management "system" for the water that cut across the
regulatory tangle that existed, and was capable of management at an ecosystem level.
The planning/management team looked at a number of alternatives, including National
Park, National Seashore, National Recreational Area, National Reserve (the NJ Pinelands
model), special state designation, etc. (The Wilderness Society was drawn into this
also). However, we did not have the ability to deliver an of these in r
 
 
3. We had to address land-based water pollution.
 
Opportunity struck in October 1989, when 3 oceangoing freighters ran aground on three
separate reefs over a 17 day period. The resulting public outrage and media attention
prompted Congressman Dante Fascell, who represents the Keys and south Miami, to
introduce legislation to create the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS).
Fascell's bill only addressed a fraction of the issues, but it provided the opportunity to
write comprehensive legislation.
 
Working with the Wilderness Society, Center for Marine Conservation, and staff of both
Rep. Fascell and Florida's Senator Bob Graham, TNC staff prepared alternative
legislation, which Graham introduced as the Senate's version. Lobbying for the
legislation involved local, state.and national conservation groups, who formed the "Coral
Reef Coalition".
 
The legislation passed in October 1990; 90% of the law was based on the Graham
version. The FKNMS is the only National Marine Sanctuary designated by Congress.
It includes a Water Quality Program to be implemented by EPA, NOAA and the state
of Florida. This is a key provision of the legislation.
 
Designation is just a beginning. The legislation gives NOAA until May 1993 to develop
a Comprehensive Management Plan for the FKNMS. EPA, NOAA and the State have
until May 1992 to develop the Water Quality Program. A major issue is Congressional
appropriations: the legislation authorized, but did not appropriate funds. TNC and
others continue to lobby for appropriations.
 
TNC's role will now shift from the legislative arena to working with administrative
agencies and developing public support for a resource-based Management Plan. TNC
recently (May 1991) signed a Cooperative Agreement with NOAA, is hiring new staff,
and is planning cooperative water quality programs with Environmental Defense Fund.
 
 
Prepared by: Mark Robertson, Director, Florida Keys Office
 
 
 
 
F2
 
 
BAR ZONE CONSERVATION TOOLS
 
 
 
* Conservation protection in the buffer zone does not have to devalue the
land.
 
* An everchanging but overall buffer area plan, mapped with clear
protection goals and priority ownership is critical.
 
* A solid science based plan will create credibility with
me an important marketing tool with your conservation investors.
 
* know the local community. Listen to their goals, in it lies the secret to
achieving your own.
 
* Money! You need major funds to capitalize and leverage the
opportunities you discover and create the action that will seal the
you must create.
 
* Success with the Buffer Zone program depends on keeping it in balance
with the other major elements of your entire bioreserve goals.
 
 
Case Study: Virginia Coast Reserve
 
On the Eastern Shore of Virginia by the 1980's The Nature Conservancy had acquired
over 35,000 acres including all or part of 14 islands now established as the Virginia
Coast Reserve. The Conservancy also acquired an additional 8,000 on the mainland
waterfront.
 
The preserve (core area) is a major nesting area for colonial shorebirds and an
important winter staging area for Atlantic flyway waterfowl and neo-tropical birds.
The Virginia barrier island ecosystem captures a mile long island, marsh/lagoon
and mainland creek/bottomland natural community without the waterfront
development and marsh alterations found along most of the Atlantic coast today.
 
The Conservancy was able to acquire such a dramatically intact barrier island
ecosystem (core area) because the Eastern Shore farm and seafood community has
lived in concert with its natural resources for generations. The future health of the
waters and elements of the barrier islands is also in their hands.
 
As a community the Conservancy is establishing and committing itself to work
toward goals that preserve this area's unique and rich quality of life. By helping local
 
 
G1
 
 
individuals, businesses and institutions reach their goals, The Nature Conservancy
may be able to reach its own.
 
The buffer area of the Virginia Coast Reserve is made up of over 60 miles of
beautiful waterfront farms along with four very small seaside villages focused mainly
on seafood. While the buffer area does not contain the extremely sensitive and
critical elements of the core it is a major supporting part of the barrier island ecosystem. Our primary tools in the buffer area focus on: acquisition and resale of
waterfront farms with perpetual conservation easements; community planning and
zoning; and demonstration of ecologically sound and economically viable development
models.
 
The buffer area is now divided into 10 macrosites each averaging about 6 miles of
waterfront. From the waterfront the depth of the buffer lands average about a mile.
 
While work continues at different levels in all 10 macrosites the centrally located
Broadwater macrosite is being developed as a potential Conservancy and community
model. The Broadwater Macrosite extends for 6 miles along Hog Island Bay and
encompasses 5 deepwater creeks. The area is bordered by the town of Nassawadox
and includes the Conservancy's 1400 acre Brownsville Farm, which serves as the
headquarters of the Virginia Coast Reserve.
 
The Broadwater macrosite has been divided into 10 sites. Site delineation has taken
into account both ecological considerations (e.g. watersheds) and economic
development considerations (e.g. neighborhoods and viewsheds). All major planning
features have been mapped at both the macrosite and site level, including site
boundaries, existing vegetation, land uses (including important shellfish and farm
areas), tract ownership boundaries, soil types, flood hazard zones, key boating access
locations, and exceptional waterfrontage areas.
 
Detailed plans are being developed for each site to show an overall context for
residential, farming and other land uses. The site plans are designed to protect the
assets of the entire macrosite and to keep land values from being diminished by the
TNC conservation easement's controls.
 
Each tract (personal ownership) within a site is evaluated by Conservancy science-
based standards to determine the final conservation easement. For the Conservancy
and the landowner this exercise indicates the potential allowed uses of the tract under
a Conservancy easement. Typically the easement will disallow inappropriate uses
while it will allow many, often historic, uses and include specific best management
parameters or practices. It will also define the extent of development (iq: homes,
inns, farming etc.) and locate where they can and cannot be plywood. It can also define
the use of existing woodlands, roads and sometimes potential common amenities such
as docks. A good plan can turn all of this into an exciting community asset.
 
Prepared by: John Hall, Director, Virginia Coast Reserve
 
 
G2
 
 
WATERSHED PLANNING PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
 
Key Points:
 
* Identify Conservancy interest in watershed planning and define role within the
context of the entire watershed
- e.g. Serve as a catalyst for conservation action and create an
environment in which it becomes easier to conduct our business
 
* Identify key water planning and water resource professionals within state and
tap into their expertise.
 
* Get to know the watershed.
Identify special features in the watershed
Conduct opinion survey of watershed residents
Meet with resource users within the watershed
Meet with local citizens, and local, state and federal government staff
within watershed
 
* Contact key community leaders.
Identify and meet with important decision makers
Be accessible to all interested parties
Keep in contact with press
Get on other people' 5 agendas
 
* Remain flexible. Plan to plan and revise your plans. A watershed project is a
long-term, perhaps perpetual, endeavor.
 
Case Study: Cannon River Watershed
 
The Nature Conservancy's primary involvement has been as a catalyst for local
organizing within the Cannon River Watershed. In 1989, the Minnesota Field Office
identified the Cannon River as one of the most diverse in Minnesota. The watershed
contains 5 endangered plant communities and 28 rare plant species.
 
A public opinion survey was commissioned to determine the environmental "market
conditions" within the watershed. This information allowed us to convince local
citizens, political officials and community leaders that a watershed-wide protection
effort was desired.
 
We have successfully fostered the development of the Cannon River Watershed
Partnership, Inc., a nonprofit corporation incorporated for the purpose "to protect and
improve the surface and groundwater resources of the Cannon River Watershed, to
coordinate local and state government and citizen resources in the implementation of
local water plans, and instill a sense of watershed pride through education,
 
 
HI
 
 
information, and special events, and to generally provide for cooperative management
and protection of the Cannon River Watershed."
 
The Partnership has elected a 26 member board made up of representatives from 6
county boards, 6 soil and water conservation districts, 1 watershed management
organization, and 13 citizens from throughout the watershed. The Nature
Conservancy has provided the Partnership with $40,000 in start up operations funding
 
Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund in July, 1991. The Partnership has
recently hired a part-time director to assist in carrying out the mission of the
organization. This group is developing a watershed monitoring plan and will seek
funding from a variety of state programs.
 
The Minnesota Chapter has entered into partnership with The Land Stewardship
Project, a nonprofit sustainable agriculture group, which has hired a Cannon River
Watershed Coordinator to work with area farmers and the Partnership. They have
sponsored several farming workshops and forums within the watershed and are in the
process of establishing a sustainable agriculture advisory committee within the
watershed.
 
The Nature Conservancy is continuing its traditional land protection efforts within the
watershed. To assist in this effort, the Minnesota County Biological Survey has
conducted detailed inventory of rare and endangered features in Rice and Goodhue
counties. This inventory will be critical to the development of a land protection plan
throughout the watershed.
 
The Conservancy will hire a coordinator for our activities within the Cannon River
Watershed in August, 1991. This individual will serve as a catalyst for the
Partnership, work with local citizens to develop a watershed research program,
develop a strategy for protecting the largest remaining remnant of maple-basswood
forest in Minnesota which is found in the watershed, and coordinate the development
of a watershed-wide land protection plan.
The project is fostering new partnerships, friendships and cooperation between a
diverse array of individuals and organizations.
 
References:
A Citizen's Guide to River Conservation, 1984, Diamont, Eugster, and Duerkson,
The Conservation Foundation.
 
Poison Runoff, 1989, Thompson; Natural Resources Defense Council.
 
Alternative Agriculture, 1989; National Academy Press.
 
Prepared by: Nelson French, Director, Government Relations,
Minnesota Field Office
 
 
H2
 
 
POSITIVE GRASS ROOTS ACTION
 
Key Points:
 
1. Each Bioreserve needs a broad network of many kinds of friends.
 
2. Volunteer leaders are the key to a successful constituency program.
 
3. You can get effective, responsible, first-rate leader who initiative and
self-supervise only if you choose outstanding people and give them real authority.
4. Large numbers of active constituency are magic with politicians, funding-sources, bureaucrats, and even scientists (who often love all the free help and
expanded PR).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 1983, the Illinois field office landed a cute little $15,000 grant to try to organize
volunteers as both constituency and a workforce to "save the preserves." We set our
sights on nearly one hundred first priority sites owned by county forest preserve
districts, public utility companies, and the like. We needed large numbers of
volunteers and, with little staff time to devote to the project, we printed up special
stationary omitting our phone number; we cast our nets for volunteers who could
largely motive and lead themselves.
 
As the network grew over the years we developed a system of volunteer
administrators, volunteer ecologists, and similar leaders who provided the bulk of the
month-to-month supervision. As our sophistication and numbers grew, we tackled
larger and tougher sites, developing state-of-the-art ecological restoration techniques
as we went.
 
 
I1
 
 
Page I2 Missing
 
 
Page J1 Missing
 
 
Page J2 Missing
 
 
We developed three theaters of action:
 
1. All "swing" Members of the House
In a typical water project vote, about 1/3 of the House will always vote no,
about 1/3 will always vote yes, and about 1/3 are swing votes. Using a Sierra
Club computer program, we applied several criteria, such as the 22 previous
water project votes, to determine who the swing members would be. It gave
us a target audience of about 130 swing members.
 
2. The Nebraska Delegation
The House will tend to support the united local delegation. If the delegation is
split, other members feel free to vote their conscience. We needed a split
Nebraska delegation.
 
3. Nebraska State Government
Congress expects the Governor and the state legislature to strongly support a
local water project. If they don't, Congress won't throw money at them that
they don't want.
 
Each theater of action had strategy. The strategy started with theme. It positioned
the issue as a taxpayer issue instead of an environmental issue. Several messengers
were brought into the strategy to deliver the message to particular audiences:
 
- The Nebraska Tax Limit Coalition: Conservative anti-tax, anti-government
organization.
 
- The Nebraska Water Conservation Council: New organization created to
conduct door-to-door canvassing.
 
- Save the Niobrara Rivers Association: Local landowners group who serve as
the plaintiff in the NEPA litigation in federal court.
 
The information, the players, and the money were the key factors in the campaign.
We had a personal relationship of trust with one member of each organization who
controlled that organization. We then sent money to each organization to assist them
in carrying out the strategy. No one but TNC knew the entire strategy.
In Nebraska, TNC was always behind the scenes. We never made public statements.
Everything was done through surrogates who were credible in their own right.
Outside of Nebraska, TNC was more open. We designed a national campaign for
each TNC state chapter to secure the swing congressional members in each state.
Chapters agreed to take on local campaigns to assure votes from their states.
 
As an important additional strategy, we hired an engineering firm to design an
alternative water project that could irrigate the same farm land for less money without
flooding the river. The new project we designed was so good it won a national
 
 
J3
 
 
engineering award for innovative water management.
 
It took three years to implement the strategy. In the end, the Nebraska delegation
split on the issue. A resolution in the Nebraska legislature supporting the project
was blocked. The Governor withdrew support. The House of Representatives voted
to withdraw all funding and to kill the project.
 
More importantly, we did it in a way that did not alienate TNC in Nebraska. Since
then, the Kiewit Foundation has given money to TNC, and the editor of Omaha
World Herald has become chairman of the Nebraska Chapter.
 
 
Prepared by: John Flicker, Vice President/Regional Director of Florida,
Florida Regional Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J4
 
 
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS
 
Key Points:
 
* Define the job. Why do you need a partner?
 
* Match appropriate partners with specific needs. Work from the
existing mission, priorities and strengths of the partner organization.
 
* Find "good people" to approach. Start with people who are
recommended as cooperative and open to new ideas.
 
* Present the opportunity in the language of the prospective partner.
Minimize barriers to acceptance.
 
* Discuss at an early stage how much latitude the partner can have
without conflicting with high priority goals. Partnerships work better
when everyone gets to be innovative, adds something unique to the
overall plan, and can be trusted to work toward common goals.
 
* Help your contacts do the work necessary to obtain agency/organization
commitments. It provides opportunities to insert your ideas and learn
more about the internal workings of the partner organization while
appearing exceptionally supportive.
 
* Recognize your partners' accomplishments frequently and publicly.
 
 
Case Study: Cache River Wetlands, Illinois
 
The Cache River project began in the late 1960s with acquisition of Heron
Pond (1,158 acres) by the Illinois Department of Conservation. The Nature
Conservancy became involved in the early 1970s, acquiring lands for transfer to the
Department. The project is now a joint venture expected to encompass a 60,000-acre
core area and will include efforts to improve land and water management practices
throughout the 473,000-acre watershed.
 
The project developed in stages as the ecological value of other areas became
evident and links between the health of the wetlands and land use in the surrounding
watershed were better understood. A critical stage in the development of the project
began in 1984 when a report commissioned by TNC recognized the importance of
three intensively farmed tributary watersheds to the hydrology and water quality of
wetlands along the Lower Cache River.
 
Chronically short of capital funding, the Department of Conservation was ill-
 
K 1
 
 
equipped to acquire large blocks of buffer land like this and had difficulty acquiring
even the high quality natural areas. We needed another land acquisition partner that
1) had better funding, 2) would recognize and respond to the wetland restoration
opportunities in the buffer areas, and 3) could be trusted to at least improve water
quality through its management practices.
 
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1986) established priorities
for wetlands habitat protection and restoration that included the southern tip of
Illinois. We matched two appropriate partners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Ducks Unlimited, with a specific job that fell within their missions, priorities,
and strengths. Good people and an approach likely to be successful were
recommended to me by Tom Massengale, then of our Southeast Regional Office,
Frank Bellrose, a noted waterfowl expert, and T. Miller, a Department of
Conservation employee that serves as team leader for one of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan joint venture areas.
 
We developed an expanded plan for the Cache River that included the three
tributary watersheds and presented it to Service and Ducks Unlimited staff attending a
joint venture implementation team meeting in Memphis in 1988. A lot of the
discussion took place between sessions and in the evenings. We presented the plan as
an opportunity to protect and restore waterfowl habitat while simultaneously helping
to protect a unique natural area and National Natural Landmark. We had planned the
new partners into the project in a way that allowed them great latitude in their own
management program, since any kind of habitat restoration was bound to improve the
situation in the intensively farmed buffer areas.
 
The Service sent an ascertainment team to the Cache in the fall of that year,
and we gave them a tour with Department personnel along. Miller and I had drafted
a Preliminary Project Proposal (Fish and Wildlife Service paperwork) on my laptop
computer. The Service team leader and I polished the draft while we waited in the
St. Louis airport, and the document was ready to submit the next day. Joint planning
sessions followed.
 
While the Service developed its environmental assessment, we began working
on appropriations. (Nat Williams and Carol Baudler were invaluable.) The result
was $3 million in appropriations in place before the refuge was fully authorized. This
demonstration of political support, coupled with good ecological work by the
ascertainment team, encouraged the Service to develop a much larger plan for the
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge and led to a joint venture plan that forms the
core area of the new bioreserve.
 
Prepared By: Paul Dye, Assistant Director, Illinois Field Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
K2
 
 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR BIORESERVES
 
Key Points:
 
* Partnership means you can't do it alone. We need the feds and they
need us.
 
* Cooperating with the federal government is more than a land
acquisition function. They have all kinds of money.
 
 
* Find the right program(s) and fit it to your bioreserve objectives. To a
degree, federal programs, especially new ones, can be molded to
accomplish bioreserve objectives.
 
* Federal programs are rarely "run" from Washington. D.C. Regional
and state/district level contacts are essential.
 
* The buffer is the new frontier. Federal programs used to acquire and
manage the biological core of bioreserves are important. Those that
insure that external or buffer area activities do not destroy the core may
be even more important.
 
* Understand the Congressional connection! The money and authority
for federal programs comes from the Congress.
 
* The most immediate challenge facing Agency Relations is getting
information to the field in the most useful form. "Tools for
Conservation" and other ideas.
 
Case Study: Nipomo Dunes
 
TNC's vision for protection of central California's Nipomo Dunes has grown from an
initial preserve design of 545 acres of private land to a bioreserve encompassing more
than 200,000 acres. Our efforts to realize this plan have depended, and continue to
depend, upon a wide variety of partnerships with public agencies.
The Nipomo Dunes project is interesting not only in that it involves a large number of
partners, but because of the diversity of agency programs being brought to bear upon
the project. The most obvious partner agencies are those that own land within the
project area, in this case the Department of Defense, Bureau of I-and Management,
State Department of Parks and Recreation, and County Parks Department. We
currently have formal agreements with each of these agencies to bias the management
of their lands toward resource protection. In some cases TNC actually manages the
lands, in others we simply participate in management planning and/or specific
projects.
 
L1
 
 
Other agencies have become partners because they administer programs that fund one
or more of the following: land acquisition, field surveys, management planning,
research, management, restoration or monitoring. Still others have supplied funding
for a visitor center, boardwalk, kiosks and interpretive materials.
 
Another important agency involvement has been through the regulatory process.
Protection of hundreds of acres of lands at Nipomo, as well as much of the money
available to manage them have resulted directly from regulatory actions and mitigation
required by agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Coastal
Commission.
 
Our relationship with Vandenberg Air Force Base at the Nipomo Dunes well
illustrates a number of these types of relationships. Fully half of the proposed
Nipomo Dunes Bioreserve is occupied by Vandenberg Air Force Base, a missile test
launch facility of the Strategic Air Command. Because missile testing requires vast
stretches of open land to minimize possible hazards from aborted launches, nearly
90% of Vandenberg's 100,000 acres remain in a natural state. As a result, many of
the species and habitats that have been lost to development elsewhere still exist in
relative abundance on the base.
 
In 1988 TNC entered into a Cooperative Management Agreement with Vandenberg to
protect and maintain the base's biodiversity. Under the auspices of this agreement the
Air Force has funded TNC to conduct surveys of sensitive species throughout the
Nipomo Dunes, to write an integrated Resource Management Plan for the base, to
monitor populations of rare species, to study and make recommendations for
management and restoration of three imperiled natural communities, and rewrite the
base grazing plan.
 
In January of 1990 staff of the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee expressed
an interest in our relationship with Vandenberg and asked TNC how the Department
of Defense could be encouraged to be a better steward of the more than 25 million
acres of lands DoD controls across the nation. The answer was easy: stronger
direction and more money for biodiversity protection, management and restoration.
In October of 1990 Congress passed a bill creating the Legacy Resource Management
Program for the Department of Defense with a first year appropriation of $10 million.
We have already seen benefits from this new program at Vandenberg, but more
importantly, it is a new source of funds and authority to carry out TNC's mission on
all DoD lands.
 
Our experience at Nipomo has underscored our belief that partnership with public
agencies is a desirable and often requisite part of Bioreserve strategy. The upshot of
our partnerships at Nipomo Dunes to date: we currently have partial to complete
management influence over more than 110,000 acres of critical habitat and we don't
own one acre.
 
Prepared by: John Humke, Vice President/Director of Agency Relations, HQ
 
 
L2
 
 
PROMOTING COMPATIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Key Points:
 
* Get professional assistance. Rural and natural resource economics and
community development are complex new undertakings for TNC. There
is no substitute for knowledge and proven experience in any particular
field where you are getting involved. Find the best experts available.
* Have a solid ecological footing. We need to identify and test
ecologically sound alternatives that address the most serious threats to
the bioreserve. We must have sufficient scientific research to support
any TNC initiatives. TNC's reputation is exposed if we mess up,
especially if due to sloppy science.
* Start small. with low risk. Work slowly into any new economic
initiatives. Test before you invest. But also work with an eye towards
building meaningful programs, rather than ad hoc development
projects.
* Demonstrate results. Nothing succeeds like success. Demonstrating
results -- particularly results - builds instant credibility, and
lays the foundation for a larger program and other bioreserve
initiatives.
* Work with the local community. Community leaders must eventually
accept our bioreserve program, or it will fall. Community acceptance
of TNC does not come overnight; it takes years of nurturing relation-
ships and building partnerships.
* Build upon community values and goals where possible. It's always
more effective if you can help someone implement their agenda, rather
than ask them to implement yours.
* Don't underestimate the enormous hurdles. There are no proven
successful models for rural economic development, let alone
ecologically compatible rural development. There are only some
promising beginnings.
 
Case Study:
 
The Conservancy over the past six years has focused on building local
community partnerships for ecological protection and compatible economic
development on the Virginia Eastern Shore. Some of our efforts include:
 
* Assisted the formation of Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore
(CBES), a local citizens action group which includes all major
socio-economic sectors. CBES is a major local ally and partner.
 
* Demonstrated with local landowners that low-density uses of
waterfront property do not adversely impact land value. We
purchased and resold several farms with conservation easements.
 
 
M 1
 
 
Worked cooperatively with CBES, the N.A.A.C.P., the Farm
Bureau and others to secure a new county zoning ordinance to
protect natural resources (and provide affordable rural lots).
 
* Provided outside technical assistance and seed funds to help
launch the Northampton Housing Trust, now a staffed local
organization devoted to providing affordable housing.
 
* Worked with local watermen in a cooperative venture to assure
sustainable oyster grounds in the coastal bays.
 
The Conservancy and community leaders have now agreed to develop a
strategic plan and feasibility analyses for economic development. We have
identified a national non-profit organization, the Corporation for Enterprise
Development (CFED), to lead and facilitate this undertaking.
 
The Conservancy, the community, and CFED have agreed to work toward the
five goals of the Northampton County Comprehensive Plan: (1) conserve
natural resources; (2) preserve the county's rural character; (3) pursue
economic self-sufficiency for all citizens; (4) provide adequate public services
to all citizens; and (5) support agriculture, seafood production, light industry,
and tourism as the basic industries in the county. CFED's work will include:
 
* . A professional economic health assessment of the county, analyzing key
variables of economic health, as well as opportunities, and constraints
for development.
 
* A strategic plan for economic development which proposes a hard-
nosed, implementable agenda for community action.
 
* Feasibility studies for 2-3 of the most promising development opportu-
nities (e.g. nature tourism, biosphere reserve products), which build
upon the community's strengths and demonstrate ecologically compa-
tible development. These studies would include analysis of market
viability, financing options, and economic benefits to the community.
 
The planning process will include citizen participation through a local steering
committee, task forces, and a community retreat. Strategies will foster job
creation and wealth generation, but not at the expense of local quality of life.
 
Prepared By: Greg I-ow, Vice President, Major Program Development
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M2
 
 
"Sustainable" Development
 
 
Herman Daly, a leading environmental economist (theoreti-
cian) who works for the World Bank, recently met with
several us at TNC. Daly defines sustainable development as
development without growth beyond environmental carrying
capacity. He defines carrying capacity as the maximum
number of people in a given area at a certain standard of
living and certain technological capacity.
 
Daly distinguishes between "growth" and "development'.
"Growth" is simply bigger. Development is "qualitative
improvement by expansion of realization of potentialities".
This latter is what we're trying to do on the Virginia
Eastern Shore.
 
Daly listed three criteria for sustainable development: (1)
output/wastes of project should not exceed the assimilative
capacity of the local ecosystem; (2) renewable resource
harvest rates should not exceed regenerative capacity; and
(3) non-renewable resources should be depleted at a rate by
which we can develop a renewable substitute. (I personally
question this last criterion; it does not deal very well
with endangered species, for example.
 
Daly feels that we need to find technical improvements which
allow more efficient use of existing resources. (I'm not
sure .this is the right tack; it may simply allow more
growth.)
 
However, Daly also acknowledges that fundamentally we are
dealing with an ethical question, and that an ethical
conversion is needed to achieve sustainable use of natural
resources.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M9
 
 
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING & ZONING
 
=Key Points:
 
* Local land use regulation is a potential bioreserve land protection tool which
provides an opportunity to influence land uses on a wider scale than on a tract by
tract basis and in ways which are compatible with conservation objectives.
 
* Land use regulation may be an attractive alternative as well as supplement to land
acquisition but it may not be "the" answer for each or every Conservancy
bioreserve.
 
* While there are many existing types of local land use regulations (e.g.,
comprehensive planning process; zoning; subdivision controls; wetlands regulations;
special districts; erosion and sediment controls; septic tank regulations; and capital
improvement budgets, to name a few), we will need to orchestrate their use or
create new applications of these tools to make them useful for conservation
purposes.
 
* Before we can effectively use regulations, we will need to identify land uses which
are both economically attractive to the owner and compatible with conservation
objectives, and specifically:
 
understand the scientific basis for conservation uses and cumulative impacts
of development;
 
 link them to legal "public" purposes; and
 
1 identify economic uses of land which are left after conservation regulation.
 
* Land use regulation is primarily local: To influence local land use regulations
will require intensive work in the local community, involvement in local politics,
coalition building, and mobilization of citizen action.
 
* There are significant problems- risks and limitations in the Conservancy's use of
land use regulations as a protection tool: hard to implement and time-consuming;
subject to change; legal challenges; not useful for all areas of a bioreserve;
depends on enforcement; requires continuing staff time and money; different
public perception of TNC.
 
Case Study: Virginia Coast Reserve
 
Although the Conservancy has made a considerable investment in the ownership of
the barrier islands and marshes of VCR it became evident that inappropriate and
overly intensive development of adjacent mainland areas would have an adverse
 
N1
 
 
impact on the Conservancy's ability to permanently protect the conservation values at
VCR. Indeed, possibly because of the Conservancy efforts to protect the islands, the
marshes and the waters of the Virginia Coast Reserve, growth and development was
increasing and out-of-state developers began buying large parcels of land on the
mainland and subdividing them into smaller parcels for resale.
 
After analyzing the potential cumulative impacts from development on the natural
resources, the Conservancy recognized the need for land use regulations to control
mainland development and growth. In 1988, the Conservancy helped local leaders
prepare an interim zoning ordinance to reduce the density of development along the
waterfront to 5 acre minimum lot sizes and provide a limited number of affordable
one acre house lots. In order to provide support for these land use controls, it was
essential to demonstrate that low density development would not have a negative
impact on the potential economic return to the landowner, which the Conservancy was
able to do in a project with a prominent local farmer. Working through a coalition of
citizens groups such as the "Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore," the local Farm
Bureau and the NAACP, the Conservancy helped persuade a local county government
to pass the ordinance. As part of the ongoing effort to improve local land use
planning in the area, the Conservancy is also working to establish a I-ow and
Moderate Income Housing Trust to counter the perception that environmental
preservation efforts are exclusionary.
 
 
Case Study: Florida Keys
 
Early on, the Conservancy recognized that to protect the unique marine ecosystem
in the Florida Keys, would require addressing water quality management issues on the
Keys, particularly water pollution from nutrient loading from improper septic
disposal. While development has proceeded at an increasing pace in the Keys, no
controls existed on individual septic system location nor is there any municipal
sewage disposal system. Working within the County Comprehensive Planning
process, which has unique powers under Florida law, the Conservancy, together with
other organizations such as One Thousand Friends of Florida, the Wilderness Society
and the County Planning staff, is trying to persuade the county government to adopt,
as part of the plan, a proposal for septic tank installation regulations for all new
development as a key land use regulatory technique to reduce water pollution. The
plan is still in the drafting stage and even if adopted will require continuing review
and oversight by its advocates to ensure that permits are granted by the appropriate
authorities with adequate review and enforcement of conditions.
 
References and Handouts:
 
1) Glossary & Annotated Bibliography from Constitutional Issues of Growth
Management Godschall, Brower,et al, Planners Press, APA, 1979
 
2) "Regulatory Approaches" in Plan Implementation Chapter in Comprehensive
 
 
N2
 
 
Planning and the Environment, Wilson, Tabas and Henneman, Abt Books, 1979
 
3) Planning for Tomorrow: A Citizen's Guide for Managing Growth on Virginia
Eastern Shore, Beatley & Low, 1989
 
4) "The Coming Revolution in Land Use Regulation" Russell and "Regulatory
Techniques for Preserving Open Space" Russell, in Land Trust Exchange
Fall, 1990
 
5) An Evaluation of the Present System of Land Use Control from American Land
Planning Law, Norman Williams, Callaghan & Company, 1975; "The Game
Goes On" from The Zoning Game Revisited; Babcock & Siemon, Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, 1985
 
 
Prepared by: Philip Tabas, Director of Land Protection/Attorney
Eastern Regional Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N3
 
 
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING & ZONING
Workshop Objectives:
 
The objectives of this workshop are:
 
1) to provide participants with a general understanding of land use
regulations, where they may be appropriate and useful and to discuss
how they have been used by the Conservancy in the past;
 
2) to develop consensus about the costs and benefits or difficulties facing
the Conservancy when considering the use of land use regulations in
bioreserve work; and
 
3) to discuss the question of whether and how involved the Conservancy
should become in using land use regulations as part of a bioreserve
project.
 
 
Discussion Questions and Points:
 
1) What are the range of land use regulations which are available for
conservation?
2) Can land use regulations be more appropriate than other protection
techniques for bioreserve projects? Are land use regulations a "means"
to an "end"?
3) Do we have the science and information to back up proposals for
conservation-land use regulations?
4) What are the advantages of using land use regulations? What are the
disadvantages? What is the process for assessing costs and benefits of
using regulations?
5) Can the economics of land use be made compatible with conservation
uses in the land use arena in various kinds of bioreserve situations (and
not just in the high-end markets)?
6) What time frame should we be looking at to use land use regulations?
7) What strategies can we (or have we) used to implement land use
regulations?
8) What kind of politics and local partners are needed to implement
conservation land use regulations?
9) What will be the difficulties facing The Nature Conservancy in using
=land use regulations for bioreserve work? -
10) What should be the range of roles for TNC in the land use regulation
process?
11) Are we (TNC) prepared to make long-term investments in the land use regulation process?
 
 
N4
 
 
WATER LAW AND POLICY
 
Key Points:
 
Two kinds of water rights:
 
 Riparian rights - an element of the property right in the land adjoining
a water body. Usually in the midwest and eastern states.
 
 Appropriation rights - the right to use water is separate or separable
from the land, and is based on first in time, first in right - usually in
the West.
 
Water rights are a form of property right
 
 Government regulatory strategies may be limited; property oriented
strategies will have to be investigated.
 
 Appropriation water rights can generally be acquired and changed to
different places and uses.
 
 Water rights strategies are highly site-specific; no=one technique applies across
the board. Examples of different techniques:
 
a) TNC appropriating new water rights to protect the status quo;
 
b) assisting federal or state agency in obtaining new water rights - federal
reserved water rights
 
c) buying and converting existing water rights from previous uses to
instream, lake level or wetland use;
 
d) assisting state or federal agency in buying and converting;
 
 Much of water law is governed by state law and varies from state to state.
Most appropriation doctrine states now have some emerging recognition of
Instream or environmental water rights.
 
 Ground water is generally connected to surface streams - protection of stream
flows or wetlands may require ground water strategies. Ground water law is
often less clearly developed than surface.
 
A legal strategy will not succeed, without adequate quantitative, technical
understanding of hydrologic system. Hydrologist is a necessary member of
team. Hydrologic modelling will often be required.
 
O1
 
 
1 The strategies must be quantitative. Generally, a water budget must be
developed for the overall system, defining the total inflows and outflows and
defining the amount of water that must be acquired or protected and the
amount that must be left for compatible economic uses.
 
 
Two Case Studies:
 
Pyramid Lake/Sti1lwater Wetland Complex, Nevada
 
In one of the most important ecological sites along the inland portion of the
Pacific flyway, the Truckee and Carson Rivers flow out of the High Sierras onto the
Great Basin Desert, evaporating in historically great wetland complexes. The
Truckee River ends up in Pyramid Lake, one of the unique aquatic sites and home of
the endangered Cui-ui and Lahanton Cutthroat Trout. The Carson River ends up in
the Stillwater wetlands. The Newlands Irrigation Project, one of the oldest
reclamation projects in the country, diverts water from the Truckee River to the
Lahanton Reservoir on the Carson and supplies irrigation water for the Lahanton
Valley. Other uses of water on the rivers have added to the cumulative depletion and
now, dramatized by the extended drought, the wetlands have shrunk to a dangerously
low area. Toxic buildup of agricultural runoff in the wetlands has caused wildlife
kills in the last few years. At the same time, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian tribe
has vigorously fought to protect its cultural heritage in the ecosystem at Pyramid
Lake. The maintenance of Truckee flows into the lake are critically important to
maintain spawning habitat for the endangered fish and to maintain the lake itself in a
stable healthy posture. To protect both the wetlands and Pyramid Lake, a reduction
in irrigation use and careful balancing of water supplies will have to be achieved.
 
The irrigation project supports an agriculture community of some
60,000 acres. These farmers generally have come to recognize the need to go along
with some habitat restoration programs although historical animosity toward tribal
interests in Pyramid Lake are still strong. The Truckee Carson Irrigation District has
been voluntarily cooperating with Nature Conservancy and Fish and Wildlife Service
acquisitions from voluntary sellers of irrigation project water rights and conversion
from irrigation use to the wetlands. There will be significant controversy, however,
about the magnitude of the conversion of water from agriculture to environmental
uses because of related socioeconomic impacts.
 
The Conservancy's role to date has been to negotiate the purchase of water
rights from these sellers, and to prepare and prosecute the change of water rights
proceedings in the Nevada State Engineer's office. We have advanced risk money to
buy some of the rights; the Fish and Wildlife Service has purchased some of the
rights itself. The Conservancy has provided the legal services for the change
proceeding for both. So far, about 5000 acre-feet out of the initial target of
20,000 acre-feet have been acquired.
 
 
 
O2
 
 
The Nature Conservancy is currently involved in a system-wide modeling
process, extending the earlier modeling work of the Bureau of Reclamation to include
the ecosystem functions. This will allow us to reevaluate the target levels of water
acquisition and protection for Stillwater and Pyramid Lake. While continuing the
program to purchase and transfer water rights to ecosystem uses, we are currently
engaged in an overall strategic plan to establish the optimal mix of lake water,
wetlands water, and agricultural uses. In the process we are looking for any system
efficiencies that we can develop in order to balance these tough competing interests.
 
San Pedro River, Arizona
 
In Arizona and elsewhere in the Southwest, riparian cottonwood forest
communities were once widely prevailing on all the stream systems. These systems,
housing the greatest concentration of biodiversity of any ecosystem in the Southwest,
are now being greatly impacted. The San Pedro River watershed, starting in Mexico
and flowing approximately 120 miles to the north where it joins the Gila River,
represents perhaps the best, intact, large riparian forest community still remaining. A
combination of cottonwood willow and mesquite bosque, together with cienaga
wetlands, all still relatively continuously linked along the extent of the river make this landscape one of extremely high priority for protection. In 1988 Congress
created the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area protecting approximately
30 miles of some of the best quality habitat in the basin. The Nature Conservancy for
several years has actively pursued individual preserves in other locations throughout
the basin. Recently, however, the Conservancy, the BLM and other organizations
have come together to develop an integrated overall plan for the long-term protection
and preservation of the system as a whole, including particularly its supporting
hydrological characteristics.
 
The basin is far from pristine and undisturbed; important economic activities
have been taking place for a long time including copper mining and smelting, cattle
ranching, and increasingly in recent years, resort and retirement community
development in the Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca area in the southwest part of the
basin. At the same time, the economic importance of the ecological characteristics of
the basin, particularly bird habitat and bird watching have gained increasing public
acceptance.
 
The key to the long-term preservation of the basin is to establish and maintain
a hydrologic balance between all sources of inflow and recharge and all sources of
outflow and evaporative losses. Maintaining an equilibrium in the ground water
levels is fundamental to the survival of the riparian forest community. At the same
time, some degree of natural flood flow is critical to assure the reproduction of the
riparian trees. Presently it appears that at least one area of the basin, the Sierra Vista
region, is in a condition of ground water overdraft and long-term management
solutions to balance out this overdraft will be critical to the viability of this system.
 
 
 
 
O3
 
 
The Nature Conservancy has in the last year or so been pursuing private
instream flow water rights claims before the state water agency to protect vital fish
flows for endangered native fish populations on discrete segments of several of the
tributaries. It is currently participating in aspects of the overall Gila Basin water
rights adjudication which relate to ground water and surface water interrelationships.
We anticipate becoming one of the lead litigants in briefs to the Arizona Supreme
Court, contending that all ground water hydraulically connected to the surface stream
must be regulated to protect senior surface water rights. The Conservancy is actively
involved in the development of a ground water-surface water flow model which will
be necessary in order to determine the dynamics of the inflow/outflow relationship
and the determining of the water budgets necessary to maintain a long-term balance in
each of the sub-basins. The technique of acquiring and converting agricultural water
rights is anticipated to be a key to achieving this long-term goal.
 
 
Prepared by: David Harrison, Water Law Attorney and Former Chairman of
the Board
04
 
 
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
 
Key Points:
 
* Bioreserve site selection should carefully consider the "restorability" of
places as well as their present condition. It is better to choose a large,
defensible, highly degraded but restorable site over a smaller, difficult-
to-defend but pristine site.
 
* The word "restorable" can mean many different things. Restoration is
a gradient of activities ranging from simple and routine practices such
as burning prairies or the artificial flooding of seasonal marshes, to the
highly complex and experimental work associated with the California
condor program or the restoration of coastal dune communities.
 
* Restoration can be cheap but it is usually a very expensive proposition
generally far outstripping the cost of the raw land. To restore lands
that have been converted to agriculture you must figure out:
 
What the area used to look like
Why it doesn't look like that today
What you want it to look like when it's
restored
How you are going to fix it
 
Then you must directly or indirectly reassemble hundreds to thousands
of species, artificially keeping them alive for some period of time.
You must keep the species in balance, rebuild the soil, and often fix the
hydrology, fire regime and other factors. This all must be done in
some human time scale. Costs in excess of $1000/acre are common.
 
* For some species and some natural communities the way to save
is through restoration. From the seasonal wetlands in the
Mississippi Delta, to the midwest prairies, to the riparian forests of the
south west, these and many more natural communities have been so
reduced in size that they simply cannot sustain the biota that depend on
them. Even if we save every remaining inch of these communities
there is not enough habitat left to prevent the continuing decline of
endemic species. Only restoration on a large scale can turn this
around.
 
* The most effective way to use restoration is in areas where there is
existing high quality but highly fragmented habitat. Restoration can be
used to fill in the gaps, create linkages and increase patch size. Also
the pristine patches provide centers for dispersal of species into the
 
 
P1
 
 
restored areas.
Restoration is the cornerstone of mitigation and as such may be funded
largely by others from dollars otherwise not available to conservation
i.e., private developers or as part of public works, COE or BuRec
projects.
 
Case Study: California's Central Valley
 
In the 1980's the Conservancy embarked on two separate but related projects,
the Sacramento River and the Cosumnes River. The objective of these projects was
to preserve the valley oak riparian woodland, fresh water wetlands and associated
species.
 
We were successful in acquiring blocks of native habitat, but few blocks were
larger than a few hundred acres in extent. While we were saving the best that was
left, research, primarily on the yellow-billed cuckoo, was showing that even if all
existing habitat could be saved the species would probably not persist. What was left
was too little and two fragmented to be of lasting value.
 
Research on other species was pointing in the same direction. The fate of the
cuckoo could be viewed as the fate of the canary in the mine.
 
Experimental restoration work on riparian habitats was underway elsewhere,
demonstrating some success: We determined that the only way to "save" the
Sacramento and Cosumnes was to embark on a massive restoration effort of
unprecedented scale.
 
Donors found the idea of "turning back the clock" appealing and initial efforts
were funded privately. Additionally we found that there was a substantial interest
from public agency regulators to direct mitigation funds into these endeavors on the
theory that TNC will make a better effort than will a permit seeker using a consulting
firm.
 
Labor for restoration was an issue. We felt that it was vital in several ways to
involve the public directly in restoration efforts. We needed large volumes of cheap
unskilled labor, we wanted press coverage, we wanted to demonstrate to politicians
that the voters cared about restoration. To address these issues we created the Habitat
Restoration Team which organizes about 4000 volunteers for restoration projects.
 
We are now in the process of planting and restoring habitat. We have secured
several millions of dollars from public and private sources. Restoration is a key
component and the most compelling "selling" point of this project.
 
 
Prepared by: Steve Johnson, Director of Science/Stewardship, CARO
 
 
P2
 
 
STAFFING FOR BIORESERVES
4
Key Points:
 
* A bioreserve requires the involvement of an experienced
senior TNC manager. (Presumably a seasoned and
successful state director, regional director, or division
head. In most cases, people serving in these roles will
already be too overcommitted to take on this task.)
 
* Rely upon standard TNC "project" relationships with the
Project (Bioreserve) Director reporting to the State
Director. reporting to the Regional Director. reporting to
If an experienced senior manager is added to this
team, he/she should fit within this standard structure.
 
* Bioreserve implementation requires leadership and staff
visibility on or at the bioreserve.
 
* While undertaking a bioreserve is a series of partnerships
with others. TNC may still need to hire new staff of its
own with critical skills and time. In our case, critical
needs were planning, design and mapping, and the ability
to engage others in these tasks.
 
* Adequate start-up bioreserve staffing may require hiring
staff before full funding is available.
 
 
Case Study: Block Island
 
In many respects, the staffing for the Block Island Bioreserve has followed a
typical TNC pattern: the idea for the Block Island Bioreserve originated with a couple
of people who in turn called on A large group of TNC staff and outside experts to help
with vital conceptual work. In the usual TNC spirit, the TNC staff took this often
substantial work on in addition to their regular work (key roles were played by Eve
Endicott and Caren Caljouw, who had played key TNC roles in our early work on Block
Island). As we moved from the conceptual stage to detailed planning and initial
implementation, we needed specific and even more substantial work done and we met
this need both by changing job descriptions for some people to allocate a substantial
portion of their time to the Block Island Bioreserve by hiring new staff specifically
to work on the bioreserve. The original larger group remains involved to varying
degrees to assist and review our progress.
 
While we have suggested some principles that bioreserves share in common,
 
 
Q1
 
 
particularly in staffing relationships, each bioreserve is quite different in scale, needs,
and already existing resources. At one extreme might be a state program that is so well
staffed that it could take on a bioreserve as a part of routine business. Or, at the other extreme, a bioreserve might be so large and complex and so beyond the capacity of the
state and regional offices that a completely new structure and staff might be needed.
Most, if not all, bioreserves, however, will and should fall between these extremes and will depend on existing staff and structure and will also require new staff and adjusted
structure.
 
For Block Island, we decided to stick with and adapt to conventional TNC
relationships. So, technically, for purposes of bioreserve program operations, the
Bioreserve Director (Chris Littlefield) reports to the State Director (Keith Lang), who
reports to the Regional Director (Bruce Runnels), who reports to Bill Weeks. In terms
of quality control, John Sawhill probably holds me (Dennis Wolkoft) responsible for the
Block Island Bioreserve and I am probably devoting more of my time to it than anyone
other than the Bioreserve Director. My "influence" comes from the commitment of all
of us to proceed on the basis of consensus. This may seem fanciful or ambiguous, but
it has worked for us. I have chosen not to describe a team captain or contain here
because I prefer to emphasize conventional TNC reporting relationships. However,
under that lexicon I would consider Keith Lang and me to be co-captains. Should we
ever not agree on how to proceed we would turn to Bruce, and if Bruce and I could not
agree I suppose we would turn to Bill.
 
In addition to the four of us, there are others whose involvement is significant
enough to require job description alterations. First, the Block Island Bioreserve
represents perhaps one-half of the Rhode Island Field Office program, so everyone in
that office is substantially involved, but particularly the Director of Science and
Stewardship and the Development Director. Ultimately, the Block Island Bioreserve is
based upon how the land is managed and that is dependent on our ability to find
resources (if Rhode Island had a Director of Protection, that person, too, might devote
much of his or her time to the Bioreserve. The Rhode Island stewardship and
development people (and the State Director) will probably each devote about 50% of
their time to the Block Island Bioreserve.
 
Early in the process of defining and planning bioreserves in the Eastern Region,
we recognized a need to augment the planning capacity for the Block Island Bioreserve
and for several other potential bioreserves in the east. To meet this need, the regional
office was fortunate in being able to immediately engage Laura Rosenzweig, who had
lived and worked on Block Island and had created the Block Island GIS for the town.
She provides this service across the region and is also skilled and trained in the planning
and zoning process. It has been her job to actually draft the bioreserve plans, preserve
designs, and maps by working with the rest of us. There are also other people at the
regional office, especially Steven Buttrick, Director of Biological Conservation, who are
making a substantial commitment of time to the Block Island Bioreserve.
 
Finally, every major component of our bioreserve plan requires a person-on-the-
 
 
Q2
 
 
ground. In fact, we really need several people with different skills on-the-ground. We
concluded early on that we could not move beyond planning to implementation without
at least one multi-assignment, multi-skill person on Block Island, so we took the plunge
in advance of having all the resources to pay for it and hired Chris Littlefield. While
educated in zoology, Chris was a visible member of the Block Island community who
most recently was employed as harbor master and who was associated with conservation
causes on the island. For now, we are getting by with interns and volunteers to
supplement the work of the Bioreserve Director on the Island.
 
While the Block Island staffing and relationships are presented as a model,
they did suggest the key points above and help raise some questions:
 
1. What about multi-state bioreserves or clusters of bioreserves (Block Island,
Peconic, Lower CT)? Who has oversight overall?
 
2. Do we have enough experienced senior TNC managers to support many
bioreserves? If these people take on major fundraising responsibilities at a
bioreserve, can they then "move on" to the next bioreserve? What authority
should a senior manager have?
 
3. Will a bioreserve inevitably unbalance the work of a state program? To what
degree are we willing to sacrifice other important site protection work,
particularly in a time of decreasing public involvement?
 
4. Is it key to find a "local" bioreserve director or can we import a good
outsider?
 
5. Will the cumulative effort on several bioreserves inevitably overwhelm both
state and regional offices?
 
6. What is the role of HQ staff in an individual bioreserve?
 
7. How long a commitment should someone be asked to make before being given
a key role in a bioreserve? How important is continuity of leadership?
 
Prepared by: Dennis Wolkoff, Vice President/Director of Training &
Major Programs, Eastern Regional Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q3
 
 
BIORESERVE FUNDRAISING AND CAMPAIGN PLANNING
 
Key Points:
 
I. Campaign should be an outgrowth of your planning process. From a Strategic
plan, set your conservation objectives, then determine the finances needed to
achieve your goals.
 
2. Private fund raising goal should be evaluated against potential donor base.
Assume that campaign will sub or fail based on the strength of your local
Prospects.
 
3. Key staff to manage and advance campaign are state Director/Bioreserve
Director, and the Development Director. Relationship should be based on
partnership. Development Director must have authority to develop fund
raising plan and manage campaign. Must also have respect of board, donors,
and colleagues.
 
4. Leadership volunteers are critical to success. They need to understand and
feel part of the conservation agenda if they are going to raise money for the
must
program. This be a team effort.
 
5. Early focus should be on 20% of donors who will provide 80% of funding.
Grassroots component can come later.
 
6. Clear, concise, and beautifully depicted materials are essential.
 
Case Study:
Saving the Best of Texas
"In the Beginning ..."
 
In July, 1990, the Texas Nature Conservancy Board approved a 3-year strategic plan.
The plan set forth multi-year protection and stewardship priorities and complementary
goals for operations and capital fund raising. The strategies focused on membership
growth, ink support from the corporate foundation, and individual donors,
new sources of major gift support, and the implementation of a Statewide capital campaign.
The financial support for three bioreserves will be raised through our SAVING THE BEST OF TEXAS Campaign. Although our current donor base is limited, our
potential for fund raising is, we believe, great. Our local prospects, when compared
to our gift chart, should provide a large enough pool for cultivation and Solicitation.
Although our prospects' capacity seems to support a $25-million goal, our greatest
challenge will be creating the desire for major support of the Texas program.
 
 
R1
 
 
On key decision we still face is: if during our silent solicitation/feasibility stage our
$25-million goal seems out of reach, will we scale back our protection agenda or go
for the Stretch? We will be torn between the desire to address the critical
conservation needs in Texas and the desire for our first, statewide campaign to
success
 
We have in place the volunteer and professional staff to support the campaign: David
Braun, State Director, Jim Fries, Bioreserve Director, and Molly Stevens,
Development Director. In addition, there are 3 other key development positions:
Associate Director of Capital Campaign, Associate Director for Fort Worth, Dallas,
and Houston, and Associate Director of Public Relations. Together, we've developed
a campaign plan and strategies to launch our campaign.
 
The volunteer leadership in Texas is strong. The Board is committed to the campaign
and excited about our potential capacity for protecting great places in Texas. They
have provided the leadership to establish six advisory boards and are participants
in the early stages of the campaign. They are also personal players as each will be
asked to make a leadership gift to the campaign. To date their response has been
generous and 100% positive.
 
With our prospects, people, and plan in place, we're ready to focus, focus, focus.
The 80/20 rule is crucial to our start-up. Our energy, time, and resources are
focused on about 50 prospects out a pool of 1,000 for leadership gifts and personal
leadership. We plan to conduct our grassroots, or membership, campaign, in year 2
or 3 of our three-year campaign.
 
We plan to have secured 40% of our cash gift goal in advance of any public
announcement. The Texas Conservancy is now well into its silent solicitation phase
and hope to set a dollar goal and publicly announce the campaign in the fall of 1991.
 
Case Study:
 
Pennsylvania and the Campaign for the Delaware
Gary Nicholas, State Director, and Deborah Meyer, Director of Development and
Communications, were brought onto the Pennsylvania Chapter staff after the 4-state
Campaign for the Delaware had been launched. The Pennsylvania Chapter previously
had raised $2.2 million for a 3-year campaign in the Poconos. Some trustees were
helpful fund raisers, but most had little experience and were somewhat daunted by the
idea of raising $7 million -- Pennsylvania's share of the campaign's $15-million goal.
There was a hiatus in leadership between Cary`s tenure and the previous state
director's, and the trustees -- especially those who were responsible for the new
campaign -- were anxious and doubtful of our ability to succeed.
 
Our first step was to show the trustees that we were in control and to help them
believe that they could succeed. Deborah brought years of fund raising experience
 
 
R2
 
 
outside the Conservancy to the campaign. Gary asked her to draw up a timeline and
game plan to present at their first campaign committee meeting together.
 
We set our first 2 goals getting 100% of the trustees to pledge to the campaign and
identifying and pursuing corporate and individual prospects most likely to give lead
gifts.
 
We met monthly with the campaign leadership (and talked with them more frequently
on the phone) to plan strategy and follow progress. Deborah sent out follow-up: "To
Do" memos to keep everyone on task, and trustee giving tallies. We held a trustee
kick-off which included a brief training and the presentation of a trustee briefing book
which Deborah wrote (or pirated from other sources.)
 
After 7 months (including Deborah's maternity leave), the results are 100% trustee
participation in the campaign (at $370,000), a $500,000 corporate lead gift, and about
$1 million in proposals (following visits) in the hands of potential lead donors.
 
 
Prepared by: Nancy Mackinnon, Director of Capital Campaigns &
Development, Eastern Regional Office
 
 
BIORESERVE STRATEGIC PLANNING
 
 
* A Food planning team is the most important ingredient of success.
Good team members characteristics include: intellect, experience,
savvy, intuitive skills, leadership, commitment, and tolerance for
ambiguity.
 
* Science is the foundation of a good bioreserve plan.
 
* Five key bioreserve planning elements:
 
Ecosystem elements and processes
Threats
Sites: core and buffer
Compatible human uses
Institutions and policy
 
* Set priorities! Look for the highest leverage actions, taken in the right
sequence, with the lowest cost and risk, to achieve the greatest
ecological benefits and/or program synergy.
 
* Establish hypotheses: "test and invest". In the face of frequent
ambiguity and uncertainty, we should establish and test hypotheses.
We should then invest in those programs which demonstrate success.
 
* Planning is an ongoing process. Planning is a means, not an end.
There is no such thing as a "completed" bioreserve plan.
 
Case Study: Virginia Eastern Shore
 
In the 1970s TNC acquired over 35,000 acres of Virginia barrier islands,
including all or parts of 13 islands which comprise the Virginia Coast Reserve
(VCR). The islands provide habitat for the largest concentrations of nesting
shorebirds on the east coast.
 
Over time, we came to realize that the islands were part of a large, significant
coastal ecosystem. The unpolluted coastal bays, mudflats and marshlands lying
between the islands and the mainland provided a critical feeding area for the birds.
All told, the Virginia Eastern Shore represented the best example of a naturally
functioning coastal ecosystem on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Compatible land uses on
the largely undeveloped mainland were critical to the continued health of the
ecosystem.
 
 
S1
 
 
The first strategic plan for the Virginia Eastern Shore "megasite" was based on
a $96,000, two-year study funded by the Mary Flagler Cary Trust. The study, which
provided science underpinnings and preserve design for our plan, was conducted by
George Fenwick (then working for TNC's science department) and Walt Matia
(INC's director of stewardship).
 
In 1985 we assembled a strategic planning team including four scientists and
one MBA: George Fenwick (who had moved on to become Virginia State Director),
Walt Matia, John Hall (new director of VCR), Bob Jenkins (in the early going), and
myself. We soon added Mark Robertson (aquatic biologist) to the VCR staff. The
brainpower, experience, and practicality of the science members of the planning
team -- directed towards a plan for action -- was a key element of our success.
 
The planning team met bimonthly. We researched and analyzed threats, and
concluded that high-density waterfront development on the mainland was the most
serious threat to the ecosystem. We developed a program for addressing this threat:
acquire and resell major seaside farms with conservation easements.
 
A 20 page written strategic plan included sections on: (1) ecological values;
(2) threats; (3) economic factors; (4) core and buffer areas; (5) five priority tasks; (5)
implementation; and (6) financial needs. We presented this plan, along with good
maps, to the Cary Trust, and asked for a lead grant of $2.5 million to launch a five-
year $6 million program. They agreed! (Morai: A small planning grant can lead to
a large program grant).
 
The VCR strategic plan has since gone through successive formal and informal
iterations. Our planning team met quarterly in the second year, and annually
thereafter.
 
Based on experience, we have subsequently developed the following additional
hypotheses, which are reflected in the latest draft of the VCR strategic plan: (1) we
must demonstrate that lower density development is economically sound; (2) we need
good zoning as an interim holding action; (3) we should contact the owners of all key
tracts in both the core and buffer; (4) an effective, broadly-based local citizens group
is needed as a key ally; (5) we should pro-actively support compatible economic
development; (6) effective partnerships are essential to all programs; (7) the U.N.
biosphere reserve concept should be our overall paradigm for action.
 
References or Contacts:
 
* Bioreserve Handbook (INC) contains suggested bioreserve planning
format and analytical forms to help assess priorities. Contact: Emily
Ross, Bioreserve Program, HQ, 703-247-3762.
 
Prepared By: Greg Low, Vice President, Major Program Development
 
S2
 
 
BIORESERVE PRESERVE DESIGN
 
Key Points:
 
* Importance of Defining and Prioritizing Ecological Values:
Before designing a bioreserve, the ecological values for which the
bioreserve is being established must be clearly defined and prioritized.
 
* Identifying and Prioritizing Ecological Processes As Critical Ecological
 
From the standpoint of bioreserve preserve design, perhaps the most
important ecological values which must be identified and prioritized are
the underlying ecological processes (iq. wildfire, bison grazing,
hydrological flows, etc.) on which priority species and communities
depend for their continued existence.
 
* It's A Team Effort:
A highly capable, interdisciplinary team is the most important
requirement for good preserve design.
 
* Focus on the Buffer Rather Than the Core:
TNC preserve design teams will be tempted to concentrate their efforts
on the core areas, but the preponderance of the teams' efforts might
 better be focused on the buffer zones, where compatible economic
activities are to take place.
 
* Good Maps Are Essential:
Good maps are essential to bioreserve preserve design.
 
* Bioreserve Preserve Design Mosaic of Land Use Patterns:
A preserve design should depict the ideal mosaic of conservation and
appropriate economic uses of land and water resources for the
bioreserve landscape.
 
* Beware of Who You Show a Bioreserve Preserve Design To:
What is contained in a bioreserve preserve design package is potentially
"hot" politically. Plans which depict how TNC would like others to
use their lands could be sensitive. It may be wise to limit exposure of
TNC's plans.
 
Free Case Studies:
 
Tally Prairie Bioreserve, Oklahoma:
 
For over 30 years conservationists had dreamed of establishing a
 
 
T1
 
 
Tallgrass Prairie National Park, in the Flint Hills of Kansas and in
Osage County, Oklahoma. In 1988, after a bold Conservancy-led
effort to legislate such a park collapsed, TNC embarked on a private
campaign to establish a TNC-owned Tallgrass Prairie Bioreserve. The
following year the 30,000-acre bard Ranch was acquired and a $15
million Tallgrass Prairie Campaign was launched. Interdisciplinary
teams met in late-1988 and again in mid-1990 to design the bioreserve.
 
 
The goal of the Tallgrass Prairie Bioreserve is to protect and restore a
functioning example of a tallgrass prairie community, the principal
ecological value (element occurrence) for which the preserve was
established. Wildfire and bison, along with climate, historically were
the driving ecological processes which shaped the tallgrass landscape.
Potential threats to the bioreserve include fragmentation from
subdivision, contamination of Sand Creek from agricultural and oil and
gas practices, smoke management problems, trespass, domestic
predators, and wildfires.
 
The final Tallgrass Prairie Bioreserve preserve design totals 108,569
acres and consists of:
 
A 26,500-acre Element Occurrence Boundary, encompassing the
entire upper Sand Creek watershed.
 
A 45,882-acre Primary Ecological Boundary, including the Sand
Creek watershed and additional lands necessary for
management. (Core)
 
A 62,687-acre Secondary Ecological Boundary, demarking a 2-
mile wide buffer zone around the Core of the bioreserve.
(Buffer)
 
Colorado Plateau Bioreserve, Utah:
 
In the fall of 1990, staff from the Great Basin Field Office staff, the
Utah Natural Heritage Program and the Rocky Mountain Heritage Task
Force began working on the preserve design of a Colorado Plateau
Bioreserve. The purpose of the bioreserve was to capture and protect
the "essence of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion".
Threats include mining, energy exploration, diversion and pollution of
rivers, and excessive tourism.
While taking note of numerous element occurrences, the preserve
design team employed a "gradient analysis" methodology designed to
ensure first and foremost the area of maximum biological diversity, or
"representativeness" within the ecoregion. Abiotic features of elevation
 
 
T2
 
 
and geological substrate were used to arrive at some 60+ "cells" of
possible vegetation types. A sample of these cells were ground
checked for accuracy. Then, various preserve design options were
compared with one another to determine which preserve design would
provide the greatest coverage of vegetation types and thereby capture
the greatest "representativeness" of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion.
 
The result of this preserve design exercise is the delineation of a four
million acre Colorado Plateau Bioreserve.
 
San Pedro River Bioreserve, Arizona:
 
In late 1989, The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, with the assistance
of the Arizona heritage program, conducted an analysis of 82 hydraulic
units throughout Arizona. The analysis indicated that the San Pedro
River watershed constituted one of the state's largest aggregations of
elements and element occurrences, and especially globally rare species
and communities. Subsequently, a knowledgeable, interdisciplinary
bioreserve preserve design and strategic planning team was formed and
convened, beginning in mid-1990.
 
Hydrologic flows and floodplain dynamics were identified as key
ecological processes. Threats to these processes from urban growth,
and to critical core sites from agricultural land conversion, were noted.
An impressive network of protected areas, among them TNC's
Araviapa, Muleshoe and Ramsey Canyon preserves, and BLM's
National Riparian Conservation Area, already had secured a substantial
portion of the bioreserve's core sites.
 
The preserve design ultimately encompassed the entire 2.4 million acre
San Pedro River watershed, from its headwaters in Sonora, Mexico, to the San Pedro's confluence with the Gila River 140 miles to the north.
While identifying a small number of additional core sites, the preserve
design stresses first and foremost the importance of fostering
compatible economic uses of buffer lands within critical urban,
watershed and groundwater recharge zones.
 
 
Prepared by: Henry P. Little, Vice President, Bioreserve
Program