feature
feature
1 The Nature Conservancy, Reno, Nevada
2 Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada
3 Lahontan Audubon Society, Carson City, Nevada
4 Nevada Department of Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada
To make the best use of the State Wildlife Grants program, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide Wildlife Action Plan (formerly Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) (IAFWA 2001a). These action plans will provide the foundation of future wildlife conservation across the country. Nevada Department of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy of Nevada, Lahontan Audubon Society, and Nevada Natural Heritage Program partnered to prepare Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan which was submitted in September 2005 and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November 2005.
Although states took varying approaches in the structure of their plans, there were specific requirements for all plans known as the “eight required elements” (IAFWA 2001b). These eight elements ensured each plan provided 1) information about wildlife species numbers and distributions; 2) a description of key habitats and locations; 3) a description of problems that may affect identified species and key habitats; 4) proposed actions for conservation of the identified wildlife and key habitats; 5) proposed plans for monitoring species and effectiveness of conservation actions; 6) a process for periodic plan review; 7) plans for coordinating with land managers; and 8) a demonstration of public participation in plan development.
Assembling a comprehensive plan for Nevada’s wildlife required consideration of a multitude of available data sources. For three of the eight required elements (elements 1, 2, and 7), we relied heavily on Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) land cover and stewardship data (Lowry et al. 2005, USGS National Gap Analysis Program 2005). Using SWReGAP products, the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan development team analyzed patterns of biodiversity and land use to identify species of conservation priority and key habitats. Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan consists of species and key habitat discussions and integrates the two in the development of conservation strategies, implementation, and monitoring sections (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Framework used to develop Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project data were integral in the development of most major sections of the plan (dashed boxes above).
Describing Key Wildlife Habitats
Data were assessed for their adequacy in describing wildlife habitats in Nevada (element 2). Available data included a vegetation geospatial dataset from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, which was recently developed but provided incomplete coverage for the entire state only lands managed by the U. S. Forest Service were mapped. The Nevada Natural Heritage Program has geospatial data for the National Wetlands Inventory, but data are limited to a few aquatic habitats.
A third option we evaluated was the Sage-stitch map (Comer et al. 2002). The map includes the current distribution of 10 sagebrush vegetation types. Although geographically comprehensive, the data are intended to provide a broad-scale perspective on sagebrush and related vegetation distribution across the Intermountain West. It did not meet our need to describe all wildlife habitats in Nevada. The Nevada GAP vegetation data (Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 1996) have been used in previous conservation planning efforts in Nevada (e.g., Nachlinger et al. 2001, MDEPT 2001), however we decided to use the recently completed SWReGAP land cover data because of their increased accuracy and comprehensive regional coverage (Lowry et al. 2005).
Nevada’s landscape is remarkably diverse and varies from huge expanses of salt desert shrublands on valley floors to herbaceous alpine communities above bristlecone woodlands on isolated mountain tops (NDOW 2005). To more readily organize and present conservation strategies in Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan, we chose to aggregate 74 ecological systems mapped by SWReGAP into 27 key habitats. The resulting key habitats were further rolled up into seven major habitat groups for organizational purposes. From lowest to highest elevations, the first four habitat groups are basins and desert scrub, sagebrush semidesert, lower montane, and montane to alpine. The remaining three habitat groups are smaller types not limited to any specific elevation zone because their occurrences are tied more closely to other driving factors. These groups include sand dunes and badlands, riparian and wetlands, and aquatics. Although these groups cover a smaller portion of Nevada, they make a critical contribution to the state’s biodiversity. The sand dunes and badlands system group includes sparsely vegetated terrestrial habitat types controlled by substrate factors. The riparian and wetlands group as well as the aquatics group encompass ecological systems that are controlled by hydrologic characteristics and either occur at the interface of terrestrial-aquatic systems or encompass the aquatic biodiversity of Nevada.
Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan contains strategies for 27 key habitats that integrate conservation needs for ecological systems, wildlife communities, and as necessary, individual species. Species assemblages (i.e., wildlife communities) were characterized through each species’ structural habitat requirements, which facilitated the linkage of Nevada’s species of conservation priority to their key habitats. For many key habitats that include aquatic species, assemblages were driven by species isolation and local endemism as well as by the structural characteristics of aquatic systems within the key habitat.
Land Ownership and Management
Planning the implementation of Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan required prioritization of work, partnership development, and generation of a partner-based work plan. The SWReGAP stewardship map (USGS National Gap Analysis Program 2005) played an integral role in the development of this section of Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan. We were able to summarize land ownership and management for each key habitat with these data and identify the primary partners for conservation in each key habitat.
Conclusions
Challenges encountered during the development of Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan were partially attributable to a lack of digital land cover maps for many of Nevada’s aquatic habitats. Although we did not resolve our need for a digital map for all aquatic systems, we did develop linkages where conservation and management approaches integrate aquatic and terrestrial components. Because SWReGAP products were only recently released, accuracy uncertainties have not been addressed. Our final concern was ensuring compatibility with data used by partners, particularly if they use a different habitat classification scheme and data.
Even with these challenges, SWReGAP data provide the most up-to-date land cover and stewardship maps for ecological systems and land ownership across Nevada and two neighboring states, thereby facilitating collaboration across state lines. Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan will be compatible with other ongoing efforts that incorporate the ecological system classification scheme (e.g., ecoregional assessments by The Nature Conservancy, LANDFIRE).
Future uses of SWReGAP data in Nevada may include incorporation of species model information into later iterations of the Wildlife Action Plan. Collaboration on implementation of habitat strategies with Utah and Arizona should essentially be seamless because of the regional scope of the data. Finally, we could use the land cover data to conduct more complex analyses such as a spatially explicit threats assessment or creation of a habitat viability map.
Literature cited
Comer, P., J. Kagan, M. Heiner, and C. Tobalske. 2002. Sagebrush vegetation in the western United States. Map 1:200,000 scale. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems Science Center, Boise, Idaho, and The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). 2001a. State wildlife grants: the nation’s core program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Washington, D.C. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from <http://www.teaming.com/state_wildlife_grants.htm>.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). 2001b. State wildlife conservation strategies: eight required elements. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from <http://www.teaming.com/state_wildlife_strategies.htm>.
Lowry, J. H., Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O’Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. Rieth, S. Schrader, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. Waller, and B. Wolk. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods, RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Mojave Desert Ecoregional Planning Team CAFO/NVFO (MDEPT). 2001. Ecoregion-based conservation in the Mojave Desert. The Nature Conservancy, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Nachlinger, J., K. Sochi, P. Comer, G. Kittel, and D. Dorfman. 2001. Great Basin: an ecoregion-based conservation blueprint. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2005. State of Nevada comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy September 12, 2005. Reno, Nevada. Retrieved June 12, 2006 from <http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/#plan>.
USGS National Gap Analysis Program. 2005. Provisional Digital Land Stewardship Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University.
Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 1996. Nevada GAP vegetation data layer. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.