: An -based Conservation Blueprint

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Three or four little puddles, an interminable string of crazy, warped, arid mountains with broad valleys swung between them; a few waterholes, a few springs, a few oasis towns and a few dry towns dependent for water on barrels and horsepower; a few little valleys where irrigation is possible and where the alfalfa looks incredibly green as you break down out of the pass… Its rivers run nowhere but into the ground; its are probably salty or brackish; its rainfall is negligible and its scenery depressing to all but the few who have lived in it long enough to acquire a new set of values about scenery. Its snake population is large and its human population small. Its climate shows extremes of temperature that would tire out anything but a very strong thermometer. It is a dead land, though a very rich one. of Wallace Stegner, Mormon Country, 1942 October 2001 The Nature Conservancy

A CONSERVATION VISION The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. It has become clear that if The Nature Conservancy is to successfully achieve this mission, we must focus our work at larger scales than we or any other conservation entity ever has. This imperative to work at increasingly broader scales has led us to our current conservation approach which emphasizes communities and ecosystems, conservation at multiple scales and all levels of biological organization, and biodiversity planning along ecoregional1 rather than geopolitical lines.

Ecoregional-level planning is the first step of a four- part conservation approach. The primary goal at this initial stage is to identify important conservation areas and networks of conservation areas that would protect the diversity of species, communities, and ecological systems that are representative of and unique to each ecoregion in the least area possible. The principal product, a “portfolio” of conservation sites, broadly identifies areas of conservation importance that will serve as the blueprint for where The Nature Conservancy will focus conservation actions in the coming years. To be sure, ecoregional plans will identify more potential conservation sites than The Nature Conservancy will be capable of conserving on its own. Conservation partners, public and private, are crucial to the quality and success of ecoregion-based conservation efforts.

This is nowhere more true than in predominantly publicly-owned , such as the Great Basin. In the spring of 1999, The Nature Conservancy of Nevada (TNC NV) initiated the Great Basin ecoregion planning process, the first comprehensive planning effort that has been made for the Great Basin. The resulting plan identified 358 potential conservation areas encompassing almost 28.5 million acres as important areas of biodiversity. More than 78% of the Great Basin

1 Ecoregions are relatively large geographic areas of land and water delineated by climate, vegetation, geology, and other ecological and environmental patterns. See The Nature Conservancy, Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success (Arlington: The Nature Conservancy, 2000, 2nd ed.).

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 1 The Nature Conservancy is managed by federal partners, the largest among them being the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Collaborative efforts across administrative boundaries are imperative to accomplish the overarching goal of efficient biodiversity conservation in the Great Basin.

THE GREAT BASIN The Great Basin encompasses more than 72 million acres of semidesert from the east slope of the across much of Nevada to the Wasatch Mountains of the western in central . It would be simplifying matters too much to merely imagine the as the gigantic bowl its name conjures up. Between the outer mountain boundaries lie more than 300 mountain ranges interspersed among long, broad valleys, a landscape that has once been likened to an army of caterpillars crawling northward out of .2

The ecoregion is characterized by salt scrub and sagebrush shrublands in the valleys and the lower slopes, and by pinyon- woodlands, mountain sagebrush, open conifer forests, and alpine areas in the mountain ranges. Upon closer inspection, these larger ecological systems reveal important aquatic, riparian, wetland, badland, and habitats nestled within. Isolated mountain tops, isolated aquatic habitats in valley bottoms, and unusual badlands and sand highlight the Great Basin’s unique biological diversity: more than 280 plants and animals are considered endemic (occurring nowhere else) to this cold desert ecoregion.

DRAWING THE BLUEPRINT The myriad of ecological systems and habitats combined with the high degree of endemism present in the Great Basin posed daunting challenges to selecting a set of conservation targets3 at multiple spatial scales and levels of biological organization to best represent the range of biological diversity within the ecoregion. With the assistance of biological experts, the Great Basin planning team chose 675 plants, animals, ecological systems, aquatic habitats and rare

2 Captain Clarence E. Dutton in P.B. King, The Evolution of (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977). 3 A set of plants, animals, natural communities, and ecosystems, which we refer to as “conservation targets” was selected to guide the planning process and, in turn, to identify the conservation sites that harbor regionally and globally significant biodiversity. For a list of all Great Basin conservation targets, please see Great Basin: an Ecoregion-based Conservation Blueprint, v.2001a.

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 2 The Nature Conservancy terrestrial communities, which ultimately drove the selection of conservation areas for protection. In addition to 29 terrestrial ecological systems, 36 imperiled terrestrial communities, and 32 aquatic ecological systems, the list captures all imperiled species, all federally listed threatened and endangered species and a representative subset of species of special concern (including disjunct species, wide-ranging species with migratory concentrations, and declining species).

The Great Basin planning team4 gathered information on the status and distribution of the conservation targets and started off with an initial database of nearly 2800 viable occurrences of species and terrestrial communities derived from the Natural Diversity Database, Nevada Natural Heritage Program and Utah Natural Heritage Program. It became immediately clear, however, that there remained significant gaps in specific biodiversity data for the Great Basin ecoregion. Almost no information was available for aquatic communities. Vegetation coverages from the state Gap analysis projects (GAP) missed many of the small patch and linear communities. Information estimating occurrence viability for species, natural communities, and ecological system targets was sparse. To fill these data holes, the planning team traveled throughout the ecoregion and met with over 170 biologists, land managers, academics, and other experts with knowledge about the abundance and distributions of conservation targets, their viability, the state of important ecological processes at these locations, and threats to both site processes and the targets themselves. Altogether, these interviews helped to nearly double the number of viable occurrences of conservation targets and to identify a total of 660 potential sites for conservation attention. The team also used ecological models of vegetation and physical gradients to map the distribution and diversity of ecological systems throughout the Great Basin.

Next, conservation goals were established for each conservation target based on its global distribution, rarity, and vulnerability. The team sought to capture within the blueprint all known viable 5 and feasibly restorable occurrences of imperiled species, imperiled plant communities, and all aquatic species targets. Less imperiled species had less robust goals based on their

4 Members of the Great Basin planning team included many participants at various stages of this effort. They are listed at the end of this summary. 5 For our purposes, viable species or populations are defined as having high probability of continued existence in a state that maintains its vigor and potential for evolutionary adaptation over a specified time period (we assume 95% certainty of surviving 100 years or 10 generations).

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 3 The Nature Conservancy geographic distributions, while representative ecological systems had goals based on size, condition, and landscape context criteria that would most likely result in the long term viability of that system within the ecoregion. The planning team used the six subsections of the Great Basin to geographically stratify known occurrences in an effort to capture variation at multiple scales.

To handle the enormous amount of biological data collected for the ecoregional planning effort, the Great Basin team chose to use a computerized portfolio selection program specifically designed for The Nature Conservancy to design and compare portfolios of conservation sites. This tool enabled the planning team to evaluate each potential conservation site relative to the conservation targets within it and surrounding it, and then to amass the most efficient suite of sites that captured the greatest number of conservation targets not only in the least area possible but within the most ecologically intact and unfragmented areas. The initial portfolio of conservation areas was evaluated by the planning team and adjustments, where necessary, were made. The resulting 358 conservation sites (figure 1) cover about 40% of the ecoregion and capture three quarters of the sites originally identified by the biological experts that the team had interviewed.

The Great Basin portfolio of 358 conservation sites encompasses about 28.4 million acres of lands and waters. If appropriately managed and protected, these sites will make tangible progress toward conserving the Great Basin’s biodiversity.

About eleven percent of the portfolio already lies in well-protected lands, although this includes wilderness study areas that have not yet received congressional decision regarding their long- term status. About 57% of the sites are on lands managed by public agencies, typically for multiple use purposes, and the remaining 32% have no guaranteed management protection.

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 4 A003 And erso n Hil l Y#Logan Cach e A166 Mon ta na Mou nta in s A108 Gro use Creek Mounta ins/ Modoc A208 A320 Up per Humbold t River-Lo wer Ma rys River Ra ft Ri ver Mounta ins Pin e Forest Range A077 Ei ghteen Mi le Ma rsh Box Elder Figure 1. A226 Red P oint A218 Quin n Ri ver A307 T Great Basin ecoregion portfolio sites Hum boldt A213 housa nd Sp rings Creek Ho t Spri ngs A189 Ogden Ca nyo n Pra th er Weber A270 Sol dier M ea dows A321 Up per Rock Creek A132 A121 Hot Spr ings Creek Spri ngs Jackson Mounta ins A205 P ilo t Creek Val ley A176 A106 Great Sa lt La ke A320 Up per Humbold t River-Lo wer Ma rys River A142 A204 # Newfound la nd Morgan A168 Pequop Mountai ns/ Mountai ns Ki ng L ea r P ea k A285 Squa w V al ley A019 Bla ck Rock Moor Summi t Toa no Draw A034 Ca lico Hi ll s Davis A258 Sil ver State Sa nd Dunes o A207 P ilo t Range A292 Sugar loa f K nob A006 A074 # Y#W innemucca 80 A256 A094 A020 Argen ta M arsh / A158 Ma ggi e Creek East Hu mb oldt Ra nge -,. Portfolio sites Bl ack Rock Desert/ A126 Humbold t River/ Silver I sla nd Mounta ins Fly Ra nch Geys er/ Creek Ran ge/ A333 W arm Springs # A294 Sul phur A083 Gol co nda Tus ca rora Mo untain s YSalt City Gran ite Ran ge A 271 Y# .80 # Elko -, Lassen Eugene Mo untai ns A296 A337 Washoe A148 A236 Rye Pa tch Susie Creek/ Wa satch F ront Sal t L ake Ci ty A029 A118 Horseshoe Springs Great Basin ecoregion boundary La va Beds Creek A127 S F ork Humbol dt River # A266 Smoke Creek Buffa lo Va ll ey/ A352 A192 Oqui rrh M ountai ns Humbol dt Ri ver/I mlay A080 A326 Va ll ey Mo untai n W il d I sle/ A263 Skull V al ley A309 Tod Pa rk Y# # A335 W asa tch Fr ont Dra per To bin Range Battle M ountain # A012 Battle Mounta in Emi grant Pa ss Grea t Sal t L ake Desert A064 Dixi e Creek A284 Spruce Mou ntain A102 Goshu te M ountai ns A170 A 255 Sand Dunes A286 A146 K umiva Va ll ey A232 Ruby M ountai ns Mount Ti mpanogos A125 Humbold t Ran ge Shoshon e-Beo wawe A209 P ine Ri dge Tooele Sta nsbur y Mounta ins A211 A028 A216 A353 Roads and highways Persh ing Qui li ci Spri ng-Butte V al ley Plea sant Va lley Buffa lo Spri ngs A005 Antelop e Val ley A107 Wil low P atch A169 Moun t L ewi s A234 # Grea t Sal t L ake Desert Spr ings YProvo A357 80 A136 A097 F rost Cr eek A072 Ru sh V al ley A324 County lines A180 North Pyrami d L ake -,. A022 Blue La kes-Ba dla nds Mud Fl at A336 # Win nemucca L a ke Jers ey Summit East Dugw ay Utah L aUketah A238 15 Wa satch F ront A 088 A281 A058 DaAi s1y1 C7r Heeokrseshoe Ba si n # A025 Boone S pring Dunes -,. Sahwa ve Mounta ins /A154 L ovel ock Va lley A254 A303 The Na rrows Provo-Spr ingvil le Fencemaker Spring Creek A105 Gra nite P ea k # La ke Range A116 Sh oshone Ra nge/ A153 L ookout Sp rings A259 Simps on Buttes A308 States A2 47 A063 # A 287 # Ca ri co La ke Va lley Ti ntic Mo untai ns A214 Sev enmile A178 Nightin ga le M ountai ns Home Sta tion Wa sh Eurek a Di amond Va ll ey A252 Sherman Moun ta in Steptoe Va ll ey A093 F lat Spri ng A101 Goshen-W arm Springs m as Pyra mi d La ke/Spring A260 Simps on Mountai ns A084 Eureka A024 A008 Alka li Fl at A070 Dugway Ra nge Lower Tr uckee River # A237 Sa ge Hen Val ley A059 Bo livi a Augusta Mounta ins A050 Deep Creek A265 Slo w El k Hil ls A075 A009 Bal d Mountai n Rivers and streams A334 A177 A062 Dia mond Springs A288 Co rtez M ountai ns/ Ra nge A092 F ish Spri ngs East Tintic M ountai ns/ Wa rm Spri ngs V al ley Ni ghtingal e Fl at Sti ll water Ra nge/ Lander Roberts Mounta ins/ A245 Schel lbo urne Pa ss Tintic Val ley V al ley A100 Giocoech ea W arm Springs A137 Jua b V al ley Sulphur Spri ng Ra nge A282 A038 A261 A109 Hand y Sprin g A 149 W ater bodies # Spring Val ley Juab Ca rso n Ra nge Fron t/ Simpson Pa rk Mountai ns/ A141 K ern Moun ta in s # Littl e Saha ra # A350 W hite Sa ge Fla t A163 # A175 New ark La ke Creek A313 Topa z Mounta in Reno North V al leys/ North Toiyab e Range A301 Telegra ph Peak Sand Dunes Mi lls Va ll ey/ A065 Dixi e Val ley A145 A318 Tungstoni a Lon g Va lley Sevier Canyon/W es t Hil ls A040 Ca rson Sink Kobeh Val ley A061 Dia mond Peak A157 Sierra # A273 South Jua b Va ll ey A287 Lynndyl Y#Y# 5 0 A122 Hot Spr ings Hi ll Reno/Sparks (/ A228 Steptoe A345 W hirl wind Va ll ey Sand Dunes Churchill A174 New P ass Y# A268 Sna ke Va lley # Sanpete # # Eureka A244 # Reese River V al ley YAustin V al ley A190 Old River Bed Storey A031 Butte Mounta ins Schell Creek A298 # A241 Sa n P itch Mo untai ns A221 Ra ilro ad Pa ss A317 A037 A328 # A199 P ancake Su mm50i t Range Swasey Mou ntain A 076 A060 /( White Pine A 358 Tul e Va lley Ca nyon Mountai ns/ A248 Sevier Bri dge Reservoi r N orth Virgin ia Ran ge A242 Eas tga te/ A 123 50 A302 The Cove A007 Desa toya Mo untai ns A293 Sul liva n SpringA091 F ish Creek Springs A347 A235 Ruth Yel lan d Dry L ake A269 Soa p Hol low(/ Delta Artes ia L ake/ Sand Mounta in Ro ck Creek Whi te Pin e Hous e Range A249 A297 Central # Y# A144 Swan La ke Sa lt Ma rsh Lahontan Bonneville East Pi ne Nut A 159 A085 A212 P ogonip Ridge Ra nge A135 Ja kes Va ll ey Ely Knol l Sprin gs Millard A243 A115 Y# M ountai ns Maso n Va ll ey Fa irview Peak A343 A182 Basin Basin Carson CCaitryson City A021 A026 Broken Hi lls A030 A041 Ca th edra l Can yon Sawtooth Mounta in A046 Clea r L ake Hol den Placer Bl owsa nd Mounta ins/ West Northumberla nd A290 A048 Comin s M ea dow A027 Buckskin Hill A186 N Sevi er L ake A011 Butl er Basi n A332 W ard Mounta in A 143 Sand Dunes A086 Ca nyo n # Ston eberger Bas in NW Sevier La ke Ba rnett Hi ll s Ba rrett Can yon Ki ngs Ca nyon A351 W hite Sa ge Val ley A246 Fa irview Val ley A079 El lis on Creek A049 A071 Central M ountains A164 Mi nera l Va lley Lyon A315 # A3 31 Schurz A167 A316 Tra il Can yon A201 P ark Range A322 Up per W hite River Co nfusi on Ra nge East Cricket # Monte Cris to Toqui ma Ra nge/ A267 Sna ke Range A039 Ca rson River Wal ker L ake/ A341 A172 Mudh ole Spr ing A069 Duckwater Va ll ey Mountai ns Foo th ill s DouglaAs275 W alk er R ive r Monitor Va ll ey-Moni to r Ra nge A089 A054 A139 K ano sh West Ga bbs Val ley M ountai ns A314 Topi er Can yon A055 South P ine Nut Fergu son Desert/ A017 Cr icket M ountai ns A015 Beaver Ri dge # A184 A 073 Curra nt A348 Y RichSfieevldier Mo untai ns # A 310 A056 Tule Va ll ey Bl ack Hi lls A356 North East Gabbs Va ll ey Toi ya be Ran ge/ Mountai n Whi te Ri ver Va ll ey A319 # Cu rrant Summit Tun nel Spr ing M ountai ns/ A051 Cove Creek El D orado Wil son Can yon Wa ssuk A3 31 Bi g Smoky Va ll ey A278 A090 Hal fway Hi lls / California Tonopah Range Wal ker L ake/ A087 F anda ngo South Sevier L a ke A010 W alk er R ive r Fin ger Rock Wa sh A131 A171 P ine Val ley Alpin e # Bal d A110 Hea rt Hi lls A114 Holb rook J uncti on # A306 Thorne Du ne Ione Va ll ey A283 Mountai n Home A295 Sul phurda le Mountai n A222 Ra ilro ad Val ley A330 W ah Wa h Wa sh # .15 A280 Spring Val ley/ Ran ge A01-,4 Beaver L ake M ountai ns A299 South A120 A 042 # # A264 Sli nkar d Va ll ey Hamli n V al ley A329 W ah Wa h Springs # A240 Sa n F ran ci sco Moun ta in s Sweetwater Wa ssuk Range A239 Hot Creek/ Cave V al ley/ Min eral A355 A160 6 Beaver ador A338 W el lin gton Hil ls Moun ta in s San Antoni o A 344 Pa lis ade M esa (/ Upper W hi te Ri ver Va lley # A004 Antelop e Springs A 098 Wil low Spri ng Mcki nney # A155 L ucky Boy Pa ss A 206 W es t Stone A304 The W al l A274 South Mil ford Garfi el d F la t/ Dunes A147 L ake Va ll ey # A354 W ill ow Spring Piute Mountai ns Ca bi n Va ll ey A119 A300 Tab le Ground s Rh odes Sa lt Mars h/ Pil ot Mo untai ns A181 A279 A023 Hot Creek Val ley A035 Ca mp Va ll ey A129 Ind ia n P ea k Teels Ma rsh Nor th Ra lston Va lley South W ah W ah Bo die Hil ls A 053 A162 Meloy Spring A349 Mo untai ns A217 # A305 Thermal Hot Spr ings-Esca lan te Desert A002 Cr escent Dunes A095 F ourmil e Basi n A036 Ca ne Spri ng Whi te Ro ck Qui nn Canyon Range/ A134 Ja ckso n W as h A018 Bla ck Mounta ins # A179 Anch orite Hil ls A150 A225 Grant Range Mountai ns laveras Lone Mountai n/ Nor th P arowa n Val ley A128 Red Peak A224 Red Hil l A156 Scale 1:2,550,000 Tuolom n e Monte Cris to Ra nge A289 Stone Ca bin Va ll ey A 276 A203 P atters on W a sh A165 Mon o L ake Huntoo n Spr ing Y# Lund Fl ats Tonopah A229 South A104 Government Peak A096 A311 Ra il roa d Va ll ey A067 Dry L ake Va ll ey A323 Ur sine Fourmi le W ash Reveill e Va lley A202 P arowa n Val ley Garfield 0 25 50 75 Miles To nopah Summit A140 A112 Highl and Ran ge Esm eralda A277 South Ral ston Val ley Ka wich Ra nge A081 Escal an te Desert A151 Mono Iron Lone Tree-Ceda r V al ley A346 A257 Sil ver P ea k Ra nge Nye 0 25 50 75 100 Kilom eters A152 L ong Va ll ey Whi te Mountai ns Lincoln A161 Mead ow V all ey A325 Uva da A339 W est Ced ar City A033 Ca ctus Range A082 Escal an te V al ley A044 Cedar Pa ss (/95 A045 Cla yto n Va ll ey Sa nd Dunes A173 Nel son Spri ng A215 Quicha pa La ke A187 Oak Well Ca nyoAn253 Shoa l Creek Mariposa A052 Cowcamp A262 Sixmi le F la t Map Cre ated : Ju ne 04 , 2 00 1 A047 Clo ver Creek A291 A032 Ca ctus Fl at A231 Rock Spri ngs Canyon A013 A138 K ana rra A198 P almetto Mo untai ns Ston ewa ll Bea ver Dam Wa sh/ A342 W est Groom Ra nge A210 P ine Va ll ey M ountai ns Mou ntain Bul l Val ley Moun ta ins Modification a nd revisio n of po rtfolio site Y# A016 A272 South Groom Ra nge data a nd bo un daries are on going. Bishop # Kane Bel ted Ran ge/ A133 Ja ckso n Spr ing erced Ka wich Val ley/ Washin gton Madera A 195 Gol d F la t/ Ow ens Va ll ey/ Ti mber Moun ta in/ Ben to n Va ll ey Emigra nt Va ll ey

A130 Inyo Mounta ins Fresn o

In yo A193 Owens La ke

Tulare The Nature Conservancy

Land Management in Portfolio Native Other American 4% 1% State 8% DOD 5% The BLM oversees management for BLM 50% of the lands selected for USFS 50% 15% conservation attention, the USFS for 15%, the state for 8% and DOD for 5%.

Private Approximately 17% of the lands are in 17% private ownership.6

SELECTING PRIORITY SITES FOR ACTION Ninety-four portfolio sites were identified as functional landscape scale sites and the remaining 264 as functional sites. Functional landscape sites are larger, have more habitat, have more habitat diversity, and larger populations of known and unknown species. They also have a high degree of ecological intactness, and have most or all of their key components, patterns and processes (or they can be feasibly restored). In contrast, portfolio sites categorized as functional sites typically are smaller, with fewer conservation targets at one or two geographic scales and include fewer ecological system groups.

It is easy to see that even if The Nature Conservancy were to initially focus on just the larger functional conservation sites, there would still be more work to be done than any one group could accomplish on its own. Thus, one of the final steps in the ecoregional planning process was to set site-based priorities. A strategy team comprised of protection and science staff convened to rank the landscape sites according to their conservation value, complementarity, threats, feasibility, and leveraging opportunities. The following are guidelines used to evaluate each of these factors.

6 Please see Great Basin: an Ecoregion-based Conservation Blueprint, v.2001a for details on the sites, protection status of the lands within the sites, and conservation targets that can be found within those sites.

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 6 The Nature Conservancy

v Conservation value refers to the number, scale, and diversity, as well as to the health of targets at each of the potential conservation areas. Priority was given to sites with targets at multiple spatial scales, both terrestrial and aquatic targets, and more targets present. Priority also was given to sites with higher biodiversity health based on size, condition, and landscape context criteria.

v Complementarity is the principle of selecting action sites that are most different from sites that are already conserved, thus they complement or add to existing conservation areas. An area is considered already conserved if its targets have high biodiversity health and low threat rankings. Priority was given to sites with targets under-represented in existing areas with conservation management.

v Threat is a measure of both urgency and degree of actions that may destroy or significantly degrade targets. A cursory threats assessment using information compiled during expert interviews was done. Priority was given to sites with greater severity and immediacy of threats.

v Feasibility refers to staff capacity of TNC and partners to abate threats, the probability of success, and the financial costs of implementing needed actions. Priority was given to sites where conservation was considered attainable by these measures.

v Leverage is the ability to affect conservation at other sites by undertaking conservation action at one site. Priority was given to sites where higher leverage opportunities are thought to exist.

Based on the team’s preliminary assessment, 20 top priority action sites have been identified from the Great Basin portfolio. These sites are /Bull , Blue Lakes-Badlands, , Carson Range Front, , Carson Sink, Deep Creek Range, Great , Little Sand Dunes, Long Valley, Meadow Valley, , , -Lower , Rainbow Canyon, , , Tunnel , and Valley.

USING THE BLUEPRINT The Great Basin ecoregion blueprint is a guide for directing conservation work; it does not itself outline specific strategies for action. Threats to conservation targets and the important ecological processes needed to sustain those targets and the strategies needed to abate those threats will need to be more rigorously elucidated in site conservation planning stages. The Great Basin blueprint and other ecoregion plans serve to identify important areas of biodiversity, to establish a baseline picture from which to measure mission success, to identify common threats and strategies that cross over multiple sites, to identify important potential partners and stakeholders

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 7 The Nature Conservancy for future collaborative conservation work, to roughly estimate the level of conservation effort required to protect the biodiversity present in that ecoregion and, importantly, to prioritize where we engage in conservation action first. As new information is forthcoming and circumstances change to alter the conservation value of different areas, so too will the blueprint for action change. The planning team will periodically revisit the ecoregional plan to incorporate new information on changing landscapes and to refocus our conservation work.

THE ROAD AHEAD: SITE CONSERVATION PLANNING AND TAKING CONSERVATION ACTION To truly conserve the Great Basin’s portfolio of sites identified through the ecoregional planning process, we will need to make strategic decisions about appropriate conservation actions, first at priority sites and then at all the remaining sites. We will achieve mission success only by protecting all sites in the portfolio, since they collectively capture both the uniqueness and representativeness of the Great Basin ecoregion. The site conservation planning process is a relatively simple, straightforward and proven procedure for developing conservation strategies and measuring the effects of those strategies. In fact, The Nature Conservancy has been engaged in site conservation planning and taking conservation action at several Great Basin priority sites for some time now through our community-based landscape scale projects. Those sites include Truckee River/Pyramid Lake, Carson River, Muddy River/Meadow Valley, and Oasis Valley/ in Nevada, and in Utah. We will initiate additional community-based landscape scale projects at additional priority action sites over the next few years and we will aggressively work to implement the land protection, threat reduction, stewardship, and research strategies outlined in site conservation plans.

Additionally, the Conservancy will work to build stronger partnerships with key public agencies and private entities at sites that largely encompass public lands as well as at our community- based project sites. The priority public land sites are sites where other public and private conservation entities are already working to protect Great Basin areas through ongoing and improving ecological management practices. The Conservancy will dedicate staff to more fully engage public agency partners at multiple areas. As with the community-based projects, conservation plans for public lands sites also will be developed to identify and implement on-the- ground conservation strategies to abate critical threats and enhance biodiversity health.

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 8 The Nature Conservancy

The Great Basin blueprint sets forth an ambitious agenda for 358 conservation areas encompassing more than 28 million acres of lands and waters. Over the coming years, The Nature Conservancy will boldly work to protect these critical habitats that collectively capture the rich diversity of the Great Basin’s plants, animals, and ecological communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Nature Conservancy is deeply indebted to many individuals, agencies, and academic institutions for collaboratively assisting us by providing data and guidance in the creation of the Great Basin blueprint. Although space prevents our listing each of the 172 individuals who contributed their time and knowledge, we greatly appreciate everyone’s effort.7 We thank the following agencies and institutions, in particular, for their participation: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, University of Nevada–Reno, Utah State University, California Natural Diversity Database, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, and Utah Conservation Data Center.

Funding for the Great Basin’s ecoregional planning effort was provided to TNC’s Nevada Field Office by the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program, the President’s Office of The Nature Conservancy, and , Inc.

The Great Basin ecoregion conservation planning teams consisted of TNC representatives from the three states and regional office, as well as members from other institutions. The core team included:

Graham Chisholm TNC, California Field Office, formerly Nevada Field Office Ted Floyd Great Basin Bird Observatory Teri Knight TNC, Nevada Field Office Craig Mayer TNC, California Field Office Jan Nachlinger TNC, Nevada Field Office Kei Sochi TNC, Nevada Field Office

7 For a listing of all individuals, agencies, and institutions who contributed knowledge of the Great Basin’s biology and land management, please see Great Basin: An Ecoregion-based Conservation Blueprint, v2001a.

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 9 The Nature Conservancy

Julie Steincamp formerly University of Nevada, Reno/Biological Resources Research Center Christine Tam TNC, California Field Office Joel Tuhy TNC, Utah Field Office John Walker formerly University of Nevada, Reno/Biological Resources Research Center Pam Weiant formerly TNC, California Field Office Nathan Welch formerly TNC, Nevada Field Office

Additionally, at various stages of the planning process, the following individuals participated as part of special teams assisting with specific tasks:

Alyce Brandigan University of Nevada, Reno Pat Comer TNC, Western Conservation Science Center Robin Cox TNC, California Field Office Dan Dorfman TNC, Western Conservation Science Center Bob Elston University of Nevada, Reno/Biological Resources Research Center Kerry Green TNC, Utah Field Office Michael Heiner TNC, Western Conservation Science Center Jonathan Higgins TNC, Freshwater Initiative John Humke Western Regional Office Shannon Kimball Independent Gwen Kittel TNC, Western Conservation Science Center Mary Lammert TNC, Freshwater Initiative Cari Leversee University of Nevada, Reno Dave Livermore TNC, Utah Field Office Steve McCormick Home Office, formerly California Field Office Brian McMenamy University of Nevada, Reno/Biological Resources Research Center Jim Moore TNC, Nevada Field Office Jennifer Perot TNC, Freshwater Initiative Joel Peterson TNC, Utah Field Office Donald Sada Desert Research Institute, formerly Independent Rob Scanland TNC, Nevada Field Office

Great Basin v.2001a Executive Summary 10