gcpm ecoregional plan - conservation gateway · the gulf coast prairies and marshes. the gulf coast...

THE GULF COAST PRAIRIES AND MARSHES

ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN

Gulf Coast Prairies and MarshesEcoregional Planning Team

� The Nature ConservancyJune 2002

PREPARED BY

of 27GCPM Plan

This document may be cited as follows:

The Nature Conservancy. 2002. The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Conservation Plan. GulfCoast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, TX, USA.

of 27GCPM Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 1 Ecoregional Planning in the Gulf Coast Prairies And Marshes ............................................................5

Introduction to Ecoregional Planning ........................................................................................................... 5The Ecoregional Planning Process ............................................................................................................ 5

The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ........................................................................................................... 6Pre-Settlement Landscape ......................................................................................................................... 6Coastal Prairies.......................................................................................................................................... 6Marshes ..................................................................................................................................................... 7Marine Environments ................................................................................................................................ 7Humans in the GCP&M ............................................................................................................................ 8Alteration of the Landscape....................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2 Element Selection, Goals, Distribution, and Viability .......................................................................10

Conservation Elements............................................................................................................................... 10Geographic Distribution of Elements ...................................................................................................... 10Spatial Pattern of Elements ..................................................................................................................... 11

Conservation Goals..................................................................................................................................... 11Species .................................................................................................................................................... 11Terrestrial Communities.......................................................................................................................... 12Freshwater Communities......................................................................................................................... 12

Viability ........................................................................................................................................................ 12Freshwater Systems................................................................................................................................. 13Mexico team target selection................................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 3 The Ecoregional Portfolio Design ......................................................................................................14

Portfolio Design .......................................................................................................................................... 14Phase One – Proto-Sites .......................................................................................................................... 14Phase Two – Portfolio Review................................................................................................................ 15Terrestrial Conservation Areas................................................................................................................ 15Freshwater Conservation Areas............................................................................................................... 15Marine Conservation Areas..................................................................................................................... 16

Conservation Areas in the Ecoregional Portfolio - A Summary................................................................ 16Evaluating the portfolio ................................................................................................................................ 16

Managed areas in relation to the portfolio............................................................................................... 17Success at Meeting Conservation Goals ...................................................................................................... 21

Functionality ........................................................................................................................................... 21Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................................ 22

Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................................................................25

of 27GCPM Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregiontraverses 2 states and transcends an internationalborder. Across the 24 million acres of thisecoregion, ecological processes and the species,communities, and systems they maintain havechanged drastically since European settlement.The future harbors potentially greater impacts.Present estimates indicate that more than 1/3 ofthe combined population of Texas and Louisianaand over 70% of these states’ industrial base,commerce, and jobs are located within 100 milesof the coastline. Every coastal county or parishsupports intensive agriculture or grazing. InMexico, while industrial and populationpressures are less than those documented in theU.S., overfishing, water quality as well asquantity, and development pressures are presentor imminent. Climate change, as indicated bysea level rise, is a key threat to this ecoregion(Twilley et al. 2001).

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has historicallybeen very involved in protecting coastal habitatsin the GCP&M by means of habitat acquisition(e.g., 13 federal refuges, 5 state wildlife areas,various county, other land trust organization andTNC preserves). However, recent estimatesindicate that just a fraction of the biodiversity inthe ecoregion has been documented on thesemanaged, public areas. The Gulf Coast Prairiesand Marshes Ecoregional Plan is an effort toidentify the most important remaining, viableconservation areas and determine how to bestachieve lasting conservation results on thelandscape. These sites are called portfolioconservation areas.

Within ecoregions, portfolio conservation areasare designed to conserve conservation elements,defined as all viable native community types andall viable vulnerable native species. Protectingone population of each element is seldomadequate for the long-term survival of mostspecies, so the goal in ecoregional conservationplans is to design areas that will conservemultiple, viable or recoverable occurrences ofelements. Protection of high-quality areas that

simultaneously conserve multiple, unprotectedelements are preferred conservation strategies.To fulfill conservation goals, we will also needto restore and maintain the ecosystem patternsand processes that species and communitiesneed to survive.

The Nature Conservancy recognizes thecomplexity of the GCP&M not only in abiological context but also in a socioeconomicsetting. Just as there are unique species ofplants, animals, and plant communities withinthe region, so too are there unique population,economic, cultural, and social attributes. Tomeet our mission, we must frame ourconservation action within the acceptable limitsof each community in which we work. Withinthe GCP&M, if TNC is to be successful, wemust facilitate the means by which humans canlive productively and sustainably whileconserving biological diversity.

Planning was initiated for the GCP&M in 1998.It was the first ecoregional planning effortlaunched in Texas. A total of 341 conservationelements were selected and 1,873 elementoccurrence records were used in the finalselection of conservation areas within theportfolio. Eighty-six conservation areas weredelineated. Conservation areas encompassed36% of the ecoregion. Five conservation areaswere selected in Mexico, 45 were selected inLouisiana, and 36 were selected in Texas. Atotal of 18 functional landscape scale sites weredelineated. Functional landscapes are defined asareas where large numbers of ecologicalsystems, communities, and species exist. Size ofthese areas is substantial (1,000,000 acres),landscape intactness must be high, and of courseviability of elements should be good toexcellent. An example of a functional landscapein the GCP&M is the Laguna Madre.

A critical challenge encountered during theplanning process was the lack of data for many(51%) of our conservation elements and the lackof a natural heritage database for the Mexican

of 27GCPM Plan

portion of the ecoregion. A key, albeittangential benefit of the planning effort, was theestablishment of a Conservation Data Center byPronature Noreste to develop heritage data innortheast Mexico. In addition, a completeoutline of existing data gaps was developed tocraft strategies for elevating our knowledge baseprior to the next iteration of the plan. Also, thelack of clear planning standards proved to be achallenge in this planning effort.

Implementation of the plan has already actuallybegun based upon work carried out at Phase Isites and several areas defined in this plan. Aspecial focus will be placed upon generating

resources to put field project directors in place atthe most highly ranked conservation areas orcluster of areas. Providing capacity forconservation partners in Mexico will be crucialto achieving plan success. Implementing agovernment relations strategic plan in the regionwill also be a key strategy in order to betterleverage TNC resources with public funding tiedto coastal wetland conservation, landacquisition, and habitat restoration. Finally,more thorough consideration of climate change(i.e., sea level rise) will be necessary during thenext iteration of the plan.

Redhead ducks (Aythya americana)rely on seagrass beds in the LagunaMadre portion of the GCP&M. In2000, over 1,100,000 redheads wereestimated to be wintering along thecoast of Texas and Mexico. Nearly20,000 winter in the ChandeleurSound of Louisiana.

CHAPTER 1

Ecoregional Planning in the Gulf Coast Prairies And Marshes

“In the end, our society will be defined notonly by what we create but what we refuse todestroy.” John Sawhill

INTRODUCTION TOECOREGIONAL PLANNINGIn its 51 year history, The Nature Conservancy(TNC) has continually adapted and expanded itsconservation strategies and methods to be moreefficient and scientifically sound. Within the last10 years, TNC has adopted a framework forconservation that places emphasis on theconservation of all communities and ecosystems(not just the rare ones), emphasizes conservationat multiple scales of biological organization, andrecognizes the value of comprehensivebiodiversity planning on ecoregional, rather thangeopolitical lines. To aid in the analysis ofbiodiversity patterns at a landscape level,ecoregions have been identified as cohesiveecological units for conservation andmanagement planning (Bailey 1998).Ecoregions are relatively large areas of land andwater that contain geographically distinctassemblages of natural communities.

There are 80 ecoregions in the U.S. and 12 inMexico, with 6 shared between the twocountries. In each of these ecoregions, TNC isconducting ecoregional planning to identify theareas of highest biological significance. TheGulf Coast Prairies and Marshes represent thefirst effort by TNC to partner with Mexican

Figure 1-1. Location of Gulf Coast Prairies andMarshes Ecoregion

conservationists to develop a bi-nationalecoregional plan. Pronatura Noreste was ourpartner in this effort and played an invaluablerole in the overall process.

The Ecoregional PlanningProcess

The first step in ecoregional-scale conservationis the development of a plan for each ecoregionthat identifies the areas that must be conserved,managed, or restored to represent the entirediversity of the ecoregion in viable populations,communities, and ecosystems. Someconservation areas are already underconservation protection within state or federalrefuges or wildlife management areas. Theprincipal product of an ecoregional plan is a map

The goal of ecoregion-based conservationis the design of portfolios of conservationareas that would collectively conserve the

native species and habitats found in anecoregion.

of 27GCPM Plan

of conservation areas, along with pertinentinformation on the elements (species,communities, assemblages) contained within

of 27GCPM Plan

these areas. Designation of conservation areaswithin the plan does not necessarily mean theseareas will be purchased; rather, conservationstrategies will focus on threats to conservationelements found on those areas and how to abatethose threats.

The basic steps in ecoregional planning include:

1. Identifying species, communities, andecological systems within the ecoregion asthe building blocks of portfolio design. Wecall these species, communities, andecological systems conservation elements;

2. Determining conservation goals for thenumber or amount of conservation elementsthat must be protected;

3. Assembling information on the quality anddistribution of conservation elements; and,

4. Identifying a set of conservation areas thatmeets these goals for all conservationelements.

Throughout the planning process, the teamremained vigilant in meeting or exceedingminimum standards identified in Designing aGeography of Hope (The Nature Conservancy,2000).

THE GULF COAST PRAIRIESAND MARSHES

The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion(GCP&M) is a region of contrasts andcommonalties. The region encompasses 2countries, 2 states, 22 primary bays, 19 majorrivers, and nearly 600 miles of shoreline. A richand vast ecoregion, consisting of nearly 24million acres, the GCP&M is characterized bygreat biodiversity. The number and types ofbirds in the ecoregion is among the greatestanywhere in the United States or Canada, and itis also renowned for its butterfly and reptilediversity. The region’s productive bays andestuaries are virtual factories, producing fishesand shellfish upon which the people of theecoregion depend economically, and whichconstitute important links in the food chain formany marine organisms. At the same time, theecological diversity of the GCP&M faces drastic

declines, with habitat loss and fragmentationposing some of the most serious threats to theecoregion’s biological health (Ricketts et al.1999).

Immediate protection and restoration of theremaining habitat in the GCP&M is needed ifwe hope to abate the threats to ecologicalprocesses that drive both the region’sproductivity and its aesthetic attractiveness.

In terms of managed areas within the ecoregion,over 1.4 million acres (6% of the ecoregion) aremanaged by federal (53%), state (38.7%), andcounty, nongovernmental organizations andothers (8.3%). These existing protected areasare critical to meeting overall conservation goalsset for the ecoregions. Presently, there are noareas defined as managed areas in Mexico.

Pre-Settlement Landscape

Before European settlement, the GCP&M wascomposed of a mosaic of tallgrass coastalprairie, riparian bottomland hardwood forests,ephemeral freshwater wetlands, canebrakeswamps, extensive coastal forests, chenierwoodlands, freshwater tidal wetlands, brushmottes and corridors, barrier islands, estuaries,saltwater marshes, hypersaline lagoons, lomasand associated Tamaulipan Thornscrub habitats.This integrated matrix of habitat types combinedto form one of the most productive andbiologically rich ecosystems in the world(Briggs 1974, Smeins et al. 1991).

Coastal PrairiesTallgrass coastal prairie, one of the endemicecological systems of the ecoregion, is foundalong the coast of Texas and Louisiana. Similarin many ways to the tallgrass prairie of theMidwestern United States, coastal prairie ismaintained by natural processes of fire anddrought, which preclude woody speciesproceeding along the successional continuumand dominating the grasslands. In healthycoastal prairies, a diverse variety of wildflowers(nearly 1,000 plant species have been identifiedthus far) are found but are under constant threat

of 27GCPM Plan

from habitat fragmentation, exotic species,overgrazing and lack of fire.

Functional prairies and insects naturally gotogether. The result is a unique insect diversityincluding butterflies, dragonflies, and numerousspecies of bees, wasps, leafhoppers, ants,grasshoppers, beetles, and preying mantis.Many bird species rely upon remnant prairiehabitat where more red-tailed hawks, northernharriers, white ibis, and white-faced ibis residethan in any other ecoregion of North America.There are also abundant numbers of waterfowl,wading birds, and shorebirds. One bird ofparticular concern (defined as a conservationelement in the plan) is the Attwater’s prairiechicken. Only 2 populations (< 50 birds) of thissubspecies remain in the wild; a far cry fromVernon Bailey’s account of Attwater’s prairiechickens being the number one breeding bird inTexas coastal prairies (Bailey 1905).

Coastal prairie once occupied over nine millionacres, but today substantially less than 1%remains. Estimates are that as little as 65,000acres remain in Texas (Smeins et al. 1991), andvery little prairie can be found in Louisiana –most along narrow strips of land near railroadright-of-ways (USFWS 1999). Nonetheless,these prairie remnants are critical sources ofbiodiversity and genetic material for theecoregion and must be protected and managedproperly.

MarshesCoastal marshes are some of the most dynamicand productive ecological systems that exist.They provide food and shelter for numerous fishand wildlife species, and perform importantroles in maintaining water quality and mitigatingstorm surges from the Gulf of Mexico. Theabundant commercial and recreational fisheriesalong the coast also depend on marshes, as theyprovide the critical nursery and spawningground for many species of finfish and shellfish.It is estimated that over 95% of marine speciesin the Gulf of Mexico rely on coastal marshesfor their survival (USFWS 1998).

From the vast and expansive wetland systems ofthe Mississippi Delta region to the hypersaline

lagoons and wind tidal flats of the LagunaMadre, the GCP&M represents a grand array ofwetland systems. In Louisiana, deltaic, fluvialsystems intergrade into expansive chenier plainwetlands continuing into the upper Texas coast.Salinities range from saline to brackish tointermediate to fresh.

As is the case nationally, wetland loss in theGCP&M has been dramatic. In Louisiana alone,which possesses 41% of the nation’s coastalwetlands, 40 to 60 square miles of marshlanddisappear annually due to a variety ofanthropogenic sources. By 2040, an area largerthan Rhode Island will have been lost fromLouisiana’s coast (Gore 1992). In Texas, 4.1million acres of wetlands existed in the mid1950’s. By 1992, an average annual net loss of5,700 acres had occurred (Moulton et al. 1997).Freshwater wetlands have experienced thegreatest loss overall (>30%). Most losses wereattributed to subsidence (mostly induced byanthropomorphic sources [oil/gas extraction]),deepwater intrusion (a.k.a., channelization),agriculture, and urban/rural development.Although past losses have been dramatic, withinthe past 2 decades, annual wetland losses havedeclined by 80% (Dahl 2000). No data areavailable concerning wetland losses in Mexico.

Marine EnvironmentsThe northern Gulf of Mexico is a rich andproductive subtropical environment thatsupports extensive wetland and seagrasshabitats, oyster reefs, sponge and soft coral,marshes, mangroves, tidal flats, submergedfreshwater grasses, and several distinctivespecies such as dwarf seahorse, Gulf sturgeon,diamondback terrapin, and fringed pipefish.Although there are several biologicallyoutstanding bays along the coast of theGCP&M, one is unique. The Laguna Madre ofTexas and Mexico is the only hypersaline lagoonin North America, and it is the largest of onlyfive hypersaline lagoons in the world (Tunnelland Judd, 2002). Unlike other bays in theecoregion, the evaporation rate in the Lagunaexceeds the freshwater input, and the result is ashallow, salty body of water bordered by barrier

of 27

islands and home to species uniquely suited toits saline environment (Beck et al. 2000).

Coastal marine environments in the Gulf CoastPrairies and Marshes ecoregion are ecologicallyinseparable from the terrestrial and freshwaterenvironments on which this plan focuses. Thus,to complement this ecoregional plan, theConservancy developed a marine-based plan in2000, focusing on identification of estuarineareas of biological significance in the NorthernGulf of Mexico. The results of the NorthernGulf of Mexico ecoregional plan are brieflyincluded in this document, although the methodsused are not elaborated here. More details on themarine ecoregional effort can be found in: Becket. al. 2000. Identification of priority sites forconservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: anecoregional plan.

Humans in the GCP&M

Human inhabitants have always been drawn tothe Gulf of Mexico. Nomadic native peoplestook advantage of the bounty of food resources,such as oysters, shrimp, fish, alligators, andbirds available in the nearshore waters andcoastal prairies (Ricklis 1997). Today, theattraction is fueled by industrial developmentand distribution, business infrastructure,agricultural production, tourism and the appealof a coastal lifestyle with associated recreationaland aesthetic attributes.

Although certain areas of the ecoregion aresparsely populated, other areas, such as Houston,the fourth largest city in the U.S., and HarrisCounty, the second most populous county in theU.S., locally impact biodiversity. On asomewhat larger scale, the ecoregion supportsthe world’s second largest petrochemicalcomplex and some of the United States’ busiestport facilities (USFWS 2000). In Texas, morethan 1/3 of the state’s population lives within100 miles of the coast. If current trendscontinue, another 1.2 million people willrelocate to the coastal zone by 2005 (Texas

Environmental Center 1996).

Alteration of the Landscape

The ecoregion has been transformeddramatically since the early 1900’s. Freshwaterwetlands have been reduced by 30% (Moulton1997), coastal forests have been cleared andfragmented (Lange 1996), the chenierwoodlands of the upper Texas coast areessentially gone (Gosselink et al. 1979), and lessthan 2% of the tallgrass coastal prairie remains(Smeins et al. 1991). Remaining representativepieces of most habitat types are generally small,fragmented, and degraded in some way (i.e.,exotic plants, disrupted hydrology, overgrazing,channelization). Large landholdings are alsobecoming less common due to inheritance taxand developmental pressures. However, in theLaguna Madre portion of the GCP&M, largelandholdings are the norm.

Sea-level rise is one of the most frequentlypredicted effects of global climate change,despite the uncertainty about exactly how andwhen the earth’s climate will respond to theproliferation of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere. Even a slight increase in sea levelcould have devastating effects in the Gulf CoastPrairies and Marshes. Many coastal areas liebelow 5 feet (the 5-foot, or 1.5 meter, contourline is the lowest elevation that can beconsistently illustrated over large regions withavailable digital data) (Titus and Richman2001). At Grand Isle, Louisiana, sea level isrising by over 3’ per century, and is predicted torise by almost another 5’ by the year 2100.Even a 1-3’ increase in sea level could submerge70% of Louisiana’s remaining salt marshes.Freshwater marshes far inland may convert tobrackish or salt marshes due to saltwater

The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshesecoregion encompasses nearly 24 millionacres of ecological diversity.

GCPM Plan

of 27GCPM Plan

intrusion (Twilley et al. 2001). These impactscould be exacerbated by anthropogenic (fromoil/gas withdrawals) subsidence, sinking of landfaster than sedimentation can build it up. Thisthreat is already occurring in coastal areas of theGCP&M, especially in Louisiana (EPA 1997).In Louisiana and Texas alone, the cumulativecosts to protect the coast from a 20-inch sealevel rise by replenishing beaches with sand is

projected to be between $6.8 and $19.6 billion(EPA 1997).

Within the next 100 years, sea levelrise is expected to severely impact theGulf Coast Prairies and MarshesEcoregion and obviously affect selectspecies/communities, such as thisreddish egret (white phase). Futureconservation action must take intoaccount this potential and design theconservation portfolio accordingly. Forthis iteration of the plan, tools,capacity, and time to integrate sealevel rise were not available.

of 27GCPM Plan

CHAPTER 2

Element Selection, Goals, Distribution, and Viability

CONSERVATION ELEMENTSThe goal of ecoregion-based planning is thedesign of portfolios that capture species,communities, and ecological systems withinconservation areas to ensure adequate geneticrepresentation and long-term viability. Becauseit is impractical to plan for all the species and

communitiesrepresentative of anecoregion, a subset ofspecies and communities,called conservationelements, was selected torepresent biologicaldiversity in the GCP&M.In addition, elements arechosen based upon thefact they are consideredrare, threatened, or in astate of rapid decline(also see Appendix F).Conservation elementsare the building blocks ofecoregional planning.They are the plants,animals, naturalcommunities, andsystems around whichthe Conservancy designsportfolios ofconservation areas.Conservation elementswere selected by teamsof zoologists, botanists,

and ecologists (see Appendix B, Planning TeamStructure). By analyzing Natural Heritagedatabases, searching literature and museumcollections, and holding expert workshops, theteams developed lists of natural communitiesand plant and animal species occurring withinthe Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes. In all, 127animals, 101 plants, and 113 natural terrestrialcommunities were identified as conservation

elements. In addition, 27 freshwater systemswere identified as conservation elements in theecoregion (see Appendix H), and 20 estuarine ormarine-area elements were identified. Waterbirdcolonies, grassland bird guilds, gulf beaches,mangrove wetlands, neotropical migrant birdfallout habitat, gulf beaches and dunes, andresaca wetlands were selected as non-specieselements. The team felt that theseassemblages/unique systems were so importantthat they should be singled out for consideration.See Appendix F for element selection criteriaand Appendix I for lists of conservationelements.

Geographic Distribution ofElements

Geographic distribution of elements is importantwhen setting goals (Table 2-1). Representationacross the ecoregion is vital for attainingadequate element goals for the portfolio while

Table 2-1. Geographic distribution definitions

Endemic elements occur exclusively in theecoregion.

Limited elements occur predominantly in one ortwo ecoregions, but may also occur in a fewadjacent ecoregions.

Peripheral elements are more commonly found inother ecoregions; generally less than 10% of theelement’s total distribution is in the ecoregion ofinterest.

Widespread elements occur within the ecoregionand in many other ecoregions.

Disjunct elements have populationsgeographically isolated from those of otherecoregions.

What are naturalcommunities?

Natural terrestrialcommunities are plantassemblages that repeatacross the landscape andare described by acombination of dominantand diagnostic plantspecies and significantenvironmental conditions.

Communities – bothterrestrial and freshwater-- are building blocks ofconservation in and ofthemselves, but they alsoact as coarse filters,habitat for the suite ofbiodiversity that residesin the community, includingcommon species notindividually included asconservation elements.

considering rangewide distributions. Specialfocus must be directed towards capturingendemic or restricted species/communities. Incontrast, goals for widespreadspecies/communities can be less stringent. Eachof the 341 terrestrial community, animal, andplant conservation elements was labeled with itsappropriate geographic distribution: endemic,limited, peripheral, widespread, or disjunct (seeTable 2-1).

Attributing conservation elements with theirappropriate geographical distribution helpedtechnical teams determine elements to includeand exclude. For instance, endemic species andcommunities were selected as elements, sincetheir conservation is entirely dependent onefforts in the single ecoregion in which they arefound. Expert opinion largely determineddecisions on whether to include or excludespecies, communities, and coarse level elements(e.g., grassland bird guild).

Spatial Pattern of Elements

Like geographic distribution, each conservationelement has a characteristic spatial pattern(Appendix L; Figure 2-1). Spatial pattern refersto the typical range in area of a species ornatural community. Four spatial patterns wereused to describe the conservation elements in theGCP&M: local, intermediate, coarse, andregional.

Figure 2-1. Ecological spatial scale diagram(from Poiani et al. 2000).

CONSERVATION GOALS

Conservation goals set the number of viableoccurrences required to sustain a conservationelement in the ecoregion and across its range.Although it is impossible to say with certaintythe exact number or distribution of any speciesor community type that will ensure itspersistence in the face of climatic or otherenvironmental changes, conservation goalsprovide guidance as to “How much is enough?”

Species

Conservation goals for plants and animal specieswere based on the number of populations neededto conserve the element across its range. Defaultconservation goals developed by the SouthernResource Office of The Nature Conservancywere assigned to each element based on theglobal ranking of the element and its geographicdistribution (see Appendix N; The NatureConservancy 1999) (see Appendix J forinformation on global ranking). In some cases,goals were adjusted based on expert opinion. Iffederal recovery plans were available for a listedendangered species, guidelines suggested thereinwere taken into account.

Figure 2-2. Spatial scale of conservation targets

Regional-Scale Species

Matrix Communities,or

Coarse-Scale Species

Large Patch Communities,or

Intermediate-Scale Species

Small PatchCommunities,

orLocal-Scale

Species

Regional >1,000,000 acres

Coarse 20,000 - 1,000,000 acres

Intermediate 1,000 - 50,000 acres

Local <2,000 acres

Intermediate / largepatch

Local / small patch33%

of 27GCPM Plan

Coarse / matrix12%

Regional4%

Unknown31%

20%

Terrestrial Communities

Like species, conservation goals for naturalcommunities were derived based on the numberof occurrences needed for long-term viability aswell as their distribution in the ecoregion. Inaddition, the spatial pattern of communities wasused in setting goals for terrestrial communities(see inset). As for species elements, defaultgoals were used as preliminary guidance forestablishing conservation goals. Based upon theassumption that large and small patchcommunities may harbor a disproportionatelylarge amount of the biodiversity in an ecoregion,the conservation goals for patch communitieswere set higher than for matrix communities.

Freshwater Communities

Numerical goals for representation of aquaticsystems were stratified across watershed unitscalled Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs) (seeAppendix D). EDUs are broad-scale watershedunits with similar patterns of zoogeography,connectivity, climate, and hydrologiccharacteristics. The use of EDUs asstratification units ensured that all intra-ecoregional variation in species pools wasaccounted for when representing bioticassemblages with physical variables.

The conservation goal for freshwater aquaticsystems was one example of each large riversystem and two examples of each small streamsystem in each EDU. All examples wererequired to meet a minimum length, based on therequirements of the expected biotic componentsof the communities to be represented by theaquatic system. Thus, the minimum length isgreater for large rivers than for smaller streams.Minimum lengths for inclusion were 1 km forstream elements and 20 km for river elements.

VIABILITY

In the context of ecoregional conservation,viability is the likelihood that a conservationelement or its component occurrences (e.g., aspecific population) will be maintained over agiven period of time. This concept is of primeimportance if ecoregional plans are to beassembled in such a way that the Conservancywill meet its conservation goals in a givenecoregion.

Factors of size, condition, and landscape context(also known as EO Rank Specifications/Specs)were evaluated to judge the viability of eachelement occurrence. In cases where EO RankSpecs had not been developed, viability rankingswere based on the educated guesses of experts.

Viable occurrences were given one of three

Spatial Pattern Definitions

Matrix Communities: Matrix communities arethe dominant or historically dominant habitat inthe ecoregion, occurring in patches of greaterthan 10,000 acres. These communities aredefined by widespread physical gradients, suchas elevation, precipitation, and temperature,across broad areas. As a result, viable areasselected for these elements tend to be amongthe largest.

Large Patch Communities: Large patchcommunities typically formed blocks of 2,000to 10,000 acres within the above matrix.Viable sites for large patch communities aretypically large enough to also support smallpatch community types and many species.

Small Patch and Linear Communities: Smallpatch and linear communities tend to begeographically discrete -- less than 2,000acres in size -- and have been traditionallysustained by local and specific physical factorsand environmental regimes processes such asmicroclimatic variability. Thus, small patch andlinear community viability requirements may bemet at areas too small for large patch andmatrix types.

of 27GCPM Plan

rankings, in descending order of predictedviability: I (Irreplaceable), R (Recommended),or V (Viable). These ranks influenced portfolio

of 27GCPM Plan

design; for example, all I ranked occurrenceswere examined for inclusion in the portfoliobefore other occurrences, since they had thehighest predicted viability and represented thebest chances of conserving an occurrence of aconservation element. In other words, “I”ranked occurrences are the most viableoccurrences in the portfolio and were deemed asbeing irreplaceable. Occurrences ranked N (NotViable) or U (Unknown) were not consideredduring portfolio design. Occurrences with Uranking will become priorities for inventory (seeAppendix M for more information on viabilityranks). Although viability ranking criteria variedfor Heritage programs in Texas and Louisiana,the IRV ranking method created a level playingfield for all occurrence viabilitity ranking byusing the exact same criteria in combinationwith expert and Heritage staff input.

Freshwater Systems

After lengthy expert review, the viability ofaquatic systems in the GCP&M was notexplicitly considered. Only freshwater systemspresent in portfolio areas already selected on thebasis of viable terrestrial elements became partof the ecoregional portfolio. When possible,

experts were consulted as to whether or notthese aquatic system occurrences representedviable examples, but expert validation wasunavailable for most aquatic systemoccurrences. Site conservation planning teamsare encouraged to consult experts beforeincluding aquatic systems in the future plans.The next iteration of the GCP&M plan mustaddress this gap in assessing freshwater aquaticelements in the region.

MEXICO TEAM TARGETSELECTIONThere was a great focus in working with ourpartners in Mexico to provide orientation toecoregional conservation planning anddeveloping the appropriate support, financialand otherwise. The team was successful inconducting an Experts’ Workshop and refining aconservation target list for the Mexican portionof the ecoregion. However, we experienceddifficulty in melding the existing target lists forTexas/Louisiana with that of Mexico. Inaddition, investing more time, effort, andfinancial resources at the initiation of target listdevelopment in the future will be critical toavoiding the difficulties we experienced in thisprocess. Overall, the Mexico Team incorporatedthe main concepts of Geography of Hope verywell and advanced their conservation planningcapacity tremendously.

Tallgrass coastal prairie once occupiednearly 8 million acres of the GCP&Mecoregion. Now less than 2% remains.Primary threats include overgrazing,exotic invasion (Chinese tallow [Triadicasebiferum]), lack of fire, and conversionto tame pasture.

of 27GCPM Plan

CHAPTER 3

The Ecoregional Portfolio Design

PORTFOLIO DESIGNUsing information gathered during the dataassembly and assessment phase of the project,the planning team met in October 1999, in PortAransas, Texas. Our ultimate objective was toassemble a portfolio of conservation areas. Theresulting portfolio was subsequently refined andfinalized by the technical teams. The ecoregionwas stratified (Mississippi Delta, Chenier Plain,Texas Bays and Marshes, Hypersaline Lagoon)into ecologically based subunits based uponrainfall, soils, and geology. However, the teamdecided not to tie goal setting to specificsubunits due to lack of data and distinctdistribution variation from north to south.

Phase One – Proto-Sites

To focus portfolio assembly on areas of highbiological significance, element occurrenceswere mapped in GIS and buffered at varioussizes according to their assigned spatial scale(i.e., local scale plant [Chloris texensis] 0.5 km;also, see Appendix O). Occurrences in closeproximity were merged into proto-sites (seeFigure 3-1 and Appendix O). Proto-sites servedto draw attention to areas in the ecoregion thathave a high density of viable elementoccurrences. Thus, evaluation of proto-sites forinclusion in the portfolio began with those proto-sites containing viable matrix communityoccurrences.

Irreplaceable (I rank) occurrences were thosedetermined by experts (TNC, Heritage Programpersonnel, others) as being critically imperiled;if excluded, they would be lost. Recommendedoccurrences were defined as being morecommon but still critically important. If therewere fewer occurrences than the goal set, allviable occurrences were included in theportfolio. For G4-G5 species and communities,

Figure 3-1. Proto-Sites in GCP&M.

occurrences were required to have an ElementOccurrence rank of A or B to be included in theportfolio (also see Appendix M). As they wereincluded in the portfolio, boundaries of theproto-sites containing matrix communities wereadjusted to reflect the landscape requirements ofembedded species and communities. Inaddition, boundaries of proto-sites were redrawnto reflect actual conditions on the landscape,rather than their default buffer shapes.

Natural community-based proto-sites wereadded to the portfolio until all viable examplesof communities were added (along with anyassociated fine-filter elements embedded in theproto-sites), or until the conservation goal foreach community was met with the best and mostviable community occurrences. Subsequently,proto-sites without any viable communityoccurrences but containing animal and plantelements for which the conservation goal hadnot been met by proto-sites previously selected,were considered for inclusion in the portfolio.

of 27GCPM Plan

Phase Two – Portfolio Review

Terrestrial Conservation AreasThe portfolio developed from the proto-siteevaluation was reviewed and revised by thetechnical teams to ensure that all appropriateelement occurrences had been incorporated intothe portfolio. Viable occurrences possessedheritage ranks of A-C and had to be dated from1980 or later, or confirmed by technical teammembers as being viable. Highly viableoccurrences had EO ranks of A or B.Occurrences were labeled “Not Viable” if it wasknown that the occurrence was not viable or itno longer existed. Non-viable (N-ranked)occurrences were not selected at any point in theportfolio selection process.

All technical team members and several outsideexperts were involved in the manual process ofdelineating areas. Viable occurrences notincorporated in Phase One that were necessaryto meet conservation goals were added to theportfolio, and conservation area boundaries werechanged if necessary. This period of elementinclusion was built in to the process to accountfor record development during a protracted “datamining” stage. Sources included museumrecords, data from an expert workshop inMexico, partners, and select experts.Admittedly, this was not the most efficientapproach but was mandated due to deadlines setfor completing the plan.

Figure 3-2. Phase Two of Portfolio Design:Terrestrial Conservation Areas

This phase of portfolio design also providedtechnical teams an opportunity to identify datagaps for each conservation element. Remedyingdata gaps will become inventory priorities and akey implementation strategy (Appendix S).

Freshwater Conservation AreasAlthough it is well known that freshwaterinflows into the bays and estuaries of the Gulf ofMexico are crucial for the maintenance andfunctioning of productive marine systems, thebiological diversity of contributing streams wasnot completely assessed for this planning effort.Only 4 freshwater species elements wereidentified as elements in the ecoregion.

However, a lack of understanding about thebiological diversity of freshwater systems in theecoregion should not imply that these systemsare unimportant. Thus, as a means to begindeveloping an understanding of freshwatersystems in the ecoregion, a classification andgap analysis were performed for the freshwatersystems encompassed in terrestrial conservationareas.

A region-specific, physically-based model wasdeveloped by consulting literature and regionalexperts to determine the most important keyabiotic and biotic variables that distinguishnatural aquatic communities in lotic systems.The model was applied in a GeographicInformation System (GIS) using digital datalayers to represent key variables. Using thismodel, distinct classes of each variable weredeveloped to identify unique combinations,called Aquatic Ecological Systems (hereafter“aquatic systems”). Each aquatic systemrepresented a different pattern of physicalsettings thought to contain a distinct set ofbiological communities and was therefore adistinct conservation element. Stream size,gradient, hydrologic regime, water chemistry,and salinity were identified as the mostimportant physical variables that distinguishnatural aquatic communities in lotic systems inthe GCP&M.

Aquatic systems captured in terrestrial-basedportfolio areas were evaluated based on the

of 27GCPM Plan

variables mentioned above. Because time did notallow for a detailed GIS analysis of watershedquality or a meeting of regional experts, onlytwo portfolio areas were delineated based solelyon aquatic systems. Most aquatic systems wereintegrated into existing portfolio sites by notingwhich aquatic systems were represented bystreams existing within terrestrial portfolioareas. In order to satisfy an occurrence forreaching a system goal, a “captured” streamreach must have been of sufficient length torepresent the minimum required for that systemtype. Descriptions of the aquatic systems can befound in Appendix H, Table H-1. Subsequently,a gap analysis was completed to determinewhich freshwater systems met their conservationgoals, and which were not represented in anyconservation area. While this method ofidentifying freshwater systems is sufficient as afirst step to understanding coastal freshwatersystems in the ecoregion, greater attentionshould be paid in subsequent iterations of theecoregional plan to identify which freshwatersystems are of highest quality and support thegreatest biodiversity, rather than relying on high-quality terrestrial areas to indicate high qualityfreshwater systems. However, we feel confidentthat the majority of freshwater elements areadequately addressed by this plan based uponpresent data and knowledge.

Marine Conservation AreasMarine and estuarine portfolio conservationareas were incorporated in the GCP&Mportfolio from the suite of conservation areasidentified in the Northern Gulf of Mexicoecoregional plan (Beck et al. 2000). TheNorthern Gulf of Mexico ecoregional planidentified 23 estuarine or marine sites, with 8high priority conservation areas, and 15 lowerpriority areas. Most of the marine areasidentified in the NGOM plan are adjacent to, oroverlap, terrestrial or freshwater conservationareas identified in the GCP&M plan (see Figure3-4, Table 3-1). Where conservation areasoverlap, the resulting landscape should beconsidered an integrated conservation area thatincludes all components of diversity within thelarger land and seascape.

Ecological processes integrally link the bays andestuaries of the northern Gulf of Mexico to thesurrounding terrestrial and aquaticenvironments. Conservation in select parts ofthese landscape-scale sites will benefitbiodiversity across multiple scales, and thisconnectivity must be recognized and used indevelopment of conservation strategies.Ultimately our understanding of thisconnectivity will improve the chances forsuccessful conservation of seamless biodiversitythroughout the GCP&M and Northern Gulf.

CONSERVATION AREAS INTHE ECOREGIONALPORTFOLIO – A SUMMARYThe conservation design resulted in a portfolioof 86 conservation areas, which representsconcentrations of biodiversity within theGCP&M (see portfolio map and list of areas inFigure 3-3 or Appendix E). Conservation areasin the ecoregional portfolio do not necessarilyrepresent areas where The Nature Conservancy,or its partners, are going to actively acquirehabitat. The scope and scale of this plan makesit clear that conservation of biological diversityin the ecoregion will be dependent upon thecooperation and participation of manystakeholders. These will include privatelandowners, industry, government, as well asnon-profit conservation organizations – and thatthe tools of conservation will range fromcontinued good land stewardship and protectionof waters where elements currently occur, tomore permanent protection tools, such asconservation easements and land acquisition.

Evaluating the Portfolio

Several assessments were conducted to criticallyevaluate the conservation implications of theportfolio. The analyses performed includedassessments of conservation goals met,biological richness, site functionality, andcritical threats to biodiversity in the portfolioconservation areas. In spite of consideringnearly 1,900 element occurrence records andgenerating additional records during expert

consultation, data were lacking for numerousspecies and communities. This was especiallytrue for the Mexican portion of the ecoregion.

In addition to the identification of areas of highbiological significance (in other words, the mapof the portfolio of conservation areas), avaluable outcome of ecoregional planning is theelucidation of data gaps. Before the nextiteration of planning for the GCP&M, it will becrucial that vast data gaps be filled in order toincrease the robustness of the conservation areaportfolio. Of particular concern are gaps relatedto plant species and community types. Specieswith regular monitoring methodologies in placeor possessing threatened/endangered status mostreadily met goals (e.g., piping plover, waterbirdrookeries, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle).

Restoration is a crucial activity that will benecessary to implement on a large scale if we areto be successful at implementing this plan.Exotic species, overgrazing, lack of fire, andhydrological disturbance are just a few examplesof impacts upon species and communities thatcan be reversed through proper restorationtechniques. However, a comprehensive analysisof restoration necessary to sustain or allowreintroduction of lost species/communities wasnot incorporated into this plan. Conservationarea plans (see Figure 3-6) must developrestoration strategies where necessary.

Managed areas in relation to the portfolioAs mentioned earlier, 5.9% of the GCP&M isdesignated as protected or managed lands. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NationalPark Service are the 2 primary agencies withmanagement responsibilities. Relative to theportfolio, there is an overlap betweenConservancy designated conservation areas andexisting protected areas of 12.1%. Thebreakdown by ownership category within thisoverlap is as follows: federal (USFWS, NPS) –64.6%, state (Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries,Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TexasGeneral Land Office) – 31.2% andcounty/NGO’s – 4.1%. The Conservancy

presently owns and manages 30,791 acres withinthe ecoregion or just 0.36% of the entireportfolio. Needless to say, a focus on workingwith private landowners will be critical to thesuccess of this plan since 87.9% of the portfoliolies within private lands.

Barrier islands can be found along theentire marine portion of the GCP&M.Some are heavily developed (GalvestonIsland) while others are presently infairly intact condition (Padre Island,

of 27GCPM Plan

Complejo los Rabones-el Baril e Islasde Barrera). In Louisiana, theChandeleur Island has been severelyimpacted by recent hurricanes and sealevel rise.

of 27GCPM Plan

Fig 3-3. Portfolio of the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion. (See Appendix E for a largerversion of this map.)

of 27GCPM Plan

Fig 3-4. Overlap of the GCP&M portfolio conservation areas and Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM)marine conservation areas. (Also see Table 3-1.)

of 27GCPM Plan

Table 3-1. GCP&M ecoregion conservation areas that overlap with marine sites identified by Beck et al.2000.

Marine Conservation Areas Adjacent or Overlapping Terrestrial Conservation Areas

High Priority Marine Areas

(A) Lower Laguna Madre (49) Laguna Madre

(B) Redfish Bay (part of Corpus Christi Bay) (39) Ingleside Point(47) Mustang Island Complex

(C) Barataria Bay

(5) Grand Isle / Barataria Bay Complex(7) Abandoned Channel of Bayou Barataria(8) Jean Lafitte Woods(52) Jean Lafitte National Park(55) Delta Farms Marshes(65) Lake Salvador

(D) N. Lake Pontchartrain to N. Lake Borgne (51) White Kitchen / Lower Pearl River Complex(62) Lake Ponchartrain / Wetlands

Priority Marine Areas

(E) Laguna Madre de Tamaulipas

(79) Complejo los Rabones – el Baril e Islas de Barrera(80) Rancho los Ebanos – Anacahuitas e Islas de Anidacion(81) Complejo Laguna las Nacha – Anda la Piedra y Delta del Rio San Fernando(83) Laguna Madre de Tamaulipas

(F) Lower Laguna Madre (49) Laguna Madre

(G) Upper Laguna Madre(41) Redhead Pond Complex(47) Mustang Island Complex(49) Laguna Madre

(H) Corpus Christi Bay

(39) Ingleside Point(40) Nueces River Delta(41) Redhead Pond Complex(47) Mustang Island Complex(49) Laguna Madre

(I) San Antonio Bay

(36) Powderhorn Lake Complex(37) Matagorda Island(38) Aransas Complex(85) Lower Guadalupe River

(J) Northeast Matagorda Bay (46) Mad Island – Oyster Lake Complex(78) Columbia Bottomlands

(K) Grand Lake and White Lake

(23) Hackberry / East Jetty Woods(24) Nunez Woods(25) Outside Island(57) White Lake Marshes / Prairies(58) Grand Lake Marsh(66) Mermentau Basin

(L) Atchafalaya Bay(12) Cote Blanche Salt Dome(56) Oyster Bayou Marshes(60) Atchafalaya / Vermillion Complex

(M) Lake Ponchartrain (51) White Kitchen / Lower Pearl River Complex(62) Lake Ponchartrain / Wetlands

(N) Chandeleur Islands (64) Chandeleur Sound

of 27GCPM Plan

Success at Meeting Conservation GoalsThe portfolio of 86 conservation areas represents889 individual viable occurrences of plant,animal, and community elements and 36% of theGCP&M ecoregion. Each of the elements had aconservation goal, i.e an estimated number anddistribution of populations of that element thatwill ensure its long-term persistence in theecoregion (see Appendix I). Whetherconservation goals are met through portfoliodesign is a primary measure of success of theconservation design. Primarily due to lack ofdata, we were unable to meet design goals formost elements. As shown in Figure 3-5,“represented” refers to those elements that haveactual occurrence data in the portfolio, and“unrepresented” is that portion of elements withno occurrence data at all. Out of a total of 341conservation elements, 26 met their conservationgoals.

Figure 3-5. Conservation target goal summary.

Within the 86 conservation areas in theportfolio, 27 different aquatic systems types arerepresented. GCP&M aquatic system elementsrepresent only those systems that are exclusivelyfreshwater or have a limited brackish/salinecomponent. The aquatic systems in the GCP&Mare described in detail in Appendix H.

FunctionalityAlthough all portfolio sites should be functional,not all sites will be functional landscapes. Ofthe 86 conservation areas in the Gulf CoastPrairies and Marshes, 18 (21%) meet thedefinition of a functional landscape (SeeAppendix R, Table R-1). It is difficult to gaugeif this functionality figure is high or low due toinconsistent reporting standards for other coastalecoregions. Ecoregional planning represents ashift away from conservation based only onrarity to setting priorities based upon ecologicalsystems and landscape-level concepts. Aparticular emphasis is placed upon conservingfunctional landscapes. A functional landscapeconserves elements at several spatial scales (e.g.,matrix/large patch communities andcoarse/intermediate/local-scale elements). Moreimportantly, functional landscapes are ofsufficient size to enable and endureenvironmental processes which naturally impactthe functional landscape, such as hurricanes,flooding, and fire. In other words, functionallandscapes (e.g., Laguna Madre, WhiteKitchen/Lower Pearl River) are designed withchange in mind. By conserving ecosystem-levelenvironmental processes, the landscapes and theelements of biodiversity within them will bemore likely to persist through time (Poiani andRichter 1999).

In contrast to a functional landscape, afunctional site aims to conserve a small numberof elements at only one or two spatial scales.Although they are not necessarily easy toconserve, elements are relatively few and oftenshare similar sustaining ecological processes(e.g., fire-dependent prairie plants andbutterflies; a wetland and its rare species;assemblages of rare fish). It must be stressedthat even though these areas are smaller, theycan possess high levels of biodiversity thatcontribute as much or more towards portfoliogoals as do functional landscapes.

The attention to functional conservation areas isintended to improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of conservation work. Functionallandscapes typically provide more habitat,

Met Goal8%

Represented41%

Unrepresented51%

of 27GCPM Plan

greater habitat diversity, and larger populationsof species. Because of their complex andcomprehensive environmental gradients, theyalso offer greater protection against globalclimate change (Twilley et al. 2001). This isparticularly important in the GCP&M ecoregionwhere sea level rise and subsidence are criticalprocesses. Yet, functional landscapes are alsoexponentially more complex, and understandingas well as measuring conservation successwithin them requires substantial resources.

Data GapsData gaps are the pieces of knowledgeconsidered vital to producing a completeecoregional plan, but which, for reasons of timeor availability of the information, the planningteam was unable to incorporate. Several typesof data gaps were documented by the planningteam, such as those involving the existence ofviable populations of elements of conservationconcern, and those involving the ecoregionalplanning process itself. In addition, incompleteoccurrence records prevented incorporation ofsome data into the assembly process. Half ofour elements were not linked to actualoccurrence data. In some cases, records weremore than 20 years old, and thus were not usedin the assembly analysis.

In the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes, our datagaps are significant. For instance, the planningteam had no knowledge of any existing, viablepopulations of Runyon’s water willow (Justiciarunyonnii) or Cagle's Map Turtle (Graptemyscaglei). In addition, natural community datawere lacking for many of the associations andeco-groups. As indicated previously, theconservation goal was met for only 27 of the 356elements. There are several valid reasons forthis, ranging from insufficient inventory to thenaturally low abundance of the elements. InTexas, Natural Heritage inventories have beenconducted primarily upon public lands. TheTexas Conservation Data Center has undertakenseveral private land initiatives to focus uponpotential occurrences of conservation elements.Collaboration and partnerships with privatelandowners, universities, and other ecologistswill be crucial in addressing the data gap issue.

Please refer to Appendix S for a list of data gapsand information about assisting the Conservancyin filling data gaps in the ecoregion. However,in spite of the need for more data, we feel theGCP&M portfolio captures the majority ofbiodiversity in the ecoregion.

NEXT STEPSWhile there is an inherent focus on large,functional landscapes within the GCP&M, wemust be diligent in protecting biodiversity atlocal and intermediate scales. Conservationapproaches by other management andconservation agencies and organizations, as wellas private landowners, will undoubtedly enhancebiodiversity conservation beyond that which islaid out in this plan. Moreover, it is impossiblefor the Conservancy alone to accomplish all thatis called for in this ecoregional conservationplan. It is imperative, then, for the Conservancyand all stakeholders to work cooperatively toprotect the biodiversity of the Gulf CoastPrairies and Marshes. Fulfillment of this loftygoal, however, will require a great amount ofunderstanding, cooperation, resources (financialand otherwise), and time. This plan shouldserve as an important blueprint to guide thosecooperative ventures.

The Nature Conservancy cannot act in isolation.In order to develop and implement conservation,public and private partnerships need to beestablished that will utilize limited financialresources and lands available for conservation ina coordinated and effective manner. Innovation,collaboration, community-based conservationand development of new partnerships, especiallyin Mexico, will be critical to successfulimplementation of this plan for the Gulf CoastPrairies and Marshes Ecoregion.

As outlined in the conservation process (Figure3-6), the next major task is to carry outconservation area planning for all 86 portfolioareas. Conservation area planning is based onthe detailed analysis of stresses and the sourcesof these stresses to the health of all conservationelements found in each particular area. Discreteand tangible strategies to alleviate the stresses

of 27GCPM Plan

are then developed and described. These plansare developed with partners and experts whohave intimate experience and knowledge of thearea. Staff from The Nature Conservancy andconservation partners will implement eachconservation area plan in a coordinated fashion.

Measuring success of conservation actions takenas outlined by each conservation area plan is acritical step in our process. The effectiveness ofstrategies in abating key threats to the health ofconservation targets will dictate how much or

how little conservation area plans are changedand adapted to changing conditions. The entireprocess is iterative. Ecoregional plans will berevised every 3-5 years or whenever enough newdata becomes available and the planning teamfeels another iteration is warranted. These basiccriteria hold true for conservation area plans aswell. Setting well-founded standards formeasuring success will be a major key toachieving lasting tangible results within the GulfCoast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion.

Coastal plain backswamp/sloughfloodplain forests with high qualitystands of baldcypress (Taxodiumdistichum) are a high priorityconservation element within the GCP&Mecoregion. Louisiana harbors the bestrepresentation of this habitat in theecoregion.

of 27GCPM Plan

Figure 3-6. The conservation approach of TheNature Conservancy. Ecoregional planning isthe first step in the iterative approach.

Taking Conservation Action

Developing StrategiesSite Conservation

Planning

Setting PrioritiesEcoregional Planning

MeasuringSuccess

TheConservation

Process

of 27GCPM Plan

LITERATURE CITEDBailey, R.G. 1998. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. Springer Verlag,

New York. 312 pp.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. (2nd ed., 1st ed. 1980). Misc. Publ.No. 1391, Washington, D.C. U.S. Forest Service. 108 pgs with separate map at 1:7,500,000.

Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. North American Fauna. 25:1-222.

Beck, M.W., M. Odaya, J.J. Bachant, J.F. Bergan, B. Keller, R. Martin, R. Mathews, C. Porter, G.Ramseur. 2000. Identification of priority sites for conservation in the northern gulf of Mexico: Anecoregional plan. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,VA.

Briggs, J.C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. New York: McGraw-Hill. 475 pp.

Britton, J.C., and B. Morton. 1989. Shore ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. Austin: University of TexasPress. 387 pp.

Carr, William R. 2000. A few priorities for botanical conservation efforts in five ecoregions in the easternhalf of Texas. Draft. The Nature Conservancy of Texas, San Antonio, Texas.

Comer, P. 2001. Observations and recommendations for setting goals in ecoregional plans. The NatureConservancy, Boulder, CO [internal report]. 12pp.

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986- 1997. U.S.Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82 pp.

Elphick, C.P. 2001. Recommendations for bird conservation in the Great Plains. The NatureConservancy, Arlington, VA. 47pp.

Ettel, Troy. 2000. Priority zoological data gaps for Texas ecoregions. The Nature Conservancy of Texas,San Antonio, Texas.

Gore, R.H. 1992. The Gulf of Mexico: a treasury of resources in the American Mediterranean. PineapplePress. 384 pp.

Gosselink, J.D., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of theChenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. 3 vols. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/9 through 78/11.

Groves, C., L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J. Touval, and B. Runnels. 2000b. Designing aGeography of Hope: a practitioner’s handbook to ecoregional conservation planning, Volume I.The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Higgins, J., M. Lammert, M. Bryer, M. DePhilip, and D. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater conservation inthe Great Lakes Basin: Development and application of an aquatic community classificationframework. Great Lakes Program, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.

Judd, F.W. 1985. Reptiles and amphibians of the Rio Grande Valley. Texas Herpetological Society. 4 pp.

Lange, M.A. 1997. Austin’s Woods Land Protection Compliance Document. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. 30pp.

of 27GCPM Plan

Lehmann, V.W. 1941. Attwater’s prairie chicken: its life history and management. North American Fauna57:1-65.

Maxwell J.R., C.J. Edwards, M.E. Jensen, S.J. Paustian, H. Parrott, and D.M. Hill. 1995. A hierarchicalframework of aquatic ecological units in North America (Nearctic Zone). U.S. Forest Service,North Central Forest Experimental Station, General Technical Report NC-176. 72pp.

Moulton, D.F. 1997. Wetland classification, losses, and trends on the Texas coast 1955-1996. NationalWetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 128 pp.

Poiani, K.A. and B.D. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity Conservation at multiple scales: functional sites,landscapes, and networks. BioScience, Vol. 50:133-146.

Quinn, Mike. 2001. Status Report for Stallingsia maculosa. Green Jay Chatter, Winter Issue.

Rappole J.H., and J. Klicka. 1991. Status of six populations of Rio Grande birds. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService Report 14-16-0002-86927. 12 pp.

Ricklis, R.A. 1997. The Karankawa Indians: ecological study of cultural tradition and change. Austin:University of Texas Press. 231 pp.

Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, and C.J. Loucks et al. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of NorthAmerican: A conservation assessment. World Wildlife Fund, United States and Canada.

Smeins, F.E., D.D. Diamond, and W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie, in Ecosystems of the world,natural grasslands. R.T. Coupland (Editor), Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.

Texas Environmental Center. 1996. Texas coastal demographic trends: 2000-2050. Austin, TX. 34 pp.

The Association for Biodiversity Information. 2001. International Classification of EcologicalCommunities: Terrestrial Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases. The Association forBiodiversity Information, Arlington, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1996. Conservation by Design. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.16pp.

------------------------------. 1998. Draft EO Data Standard. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.203pp.

------------------------------. 2000. The five-“S” framework for site conservation: A practitioner’shandbook for site conservation planning and measuring conservation success. The NatureConservancy, Arlington, VA. 49pp.

Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled elevations alongthe U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate Research 18: 205-228.

Tunnell, J.W. and F.W. Judd, Editors. 2002. The Laguna Madre of Texas and Tamaulipas. Gulf CoastStudies No. 2. Texas A&M Press, College Station. 346 pp.

Twilley, R.R., E.J. Barron, H.L. Gholz, M.A. Harwell, R.L. Miller, D.J. Reed, J.R. Rose, E.H. Siemann,R.G. Wetzel, and R.J. Zimmerman. 2001. Confronting climate change in the Gulf Coast region:prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA,and Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C. 100 pp.

of 27GCPM Plan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Climate change and Louisiana. Office of Policy, Planning,and Evaluation. EPA 230-F-97-008r.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Climate change and Texas. Office of Policy, Planning, andEvaluation. EPA 230-F-97-008r.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Final habitat stewardship program: Texas chenier plain. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Natural resource management priorities of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service along the Texas coast. Draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Houston, TX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Paradise lost? The coastal prairie ofLouisiana and Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Houston, TX.

Visser, Jenneke M. 2000. Best marshes of Louisiana. Coastal Ecology Institute, Center for Coastal,Energy, and Environmental Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Weakley, A.S., K. Patterson, S. Landaal, and M. Gallyoun. 1997. An alliance-level classification of thevegetation of the southeastern United States. A report prepared for the University of IdahoCooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit by The Nature Conservancy Southeastern RegionalOffice, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

The Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle(Lepidochelys kempii) is found withinthe GCP&M ecoregion throughout itsannual cycle. Protection of nestingareas (e.g., Padre Island) and foraginghabitat (e.g., Sabine Pass) will becritical in maintaining their recovery.

gcpm ecoregional plan - conservation gateway · the gulf coast prairies and marshes. the gulf coast...

Documents