Conservation Accomplishments

These can be summarized in terms of Lord May’s challenge: “coordinate the information that already exists” … make these databases “widely available and 'customer friendly' ” … “accelerate current efforts for international cooperation and coordination” … and create “common formats [which] are increasingly agreed and used”.

These are usefully presented in a different order, however. It also needs to be a central point that Dr. Jenkins’ accomplishments are not in the nature of “research,” so prized by the academic scientist. Rather they have been achieved with the very practical purpose of reorienting two major social institutions and influencing the actions they take: First, the conservation organization for which he worked, small in comparison to a government agency, even in its present size, but one capable of achieving much biodiversity preservation by working at the cutting-edge and with far greater flexibility than a cumbersome bureaucracy can achieve. And second, government, the most powerful actor in society. (The scientific establishment, itself heavily dependent on government support, can be considered a third target).

Common formats.
The need for, and development of, common formats and common methods sprang from the job that the Chief Scientist was supposed to do: assess – and prioritize -- the scientific merit of proposed land preservation projects.

As projects came across his desk, from across the country, he quickly found that if wanted to judge these by actual biological conservation goals, he was required to be an expert on the biology of all species and every ecosystem in the nation if he was to do his job. More than that: he had to know which species and which ecosystems were more important for conservation than any others. He knew biology at the macro level as well as anyone of his age, but America is the third largest country in the world (depending on how China’s disputes with its neighbors are resolved), with an environment that includes the Arctic and the tropics.

Its natural history traditions (and data), moreover, had remained highly local, despite several hundred years of effort. Biologists in Arizona, for example, knew, and had data on, the desert -mountain ecosystem there, but swamps in the southeast of the US or midwestern prairies were like foreign countries -- just as Arizona was to biologists in the southeast or the midwest.

Existing “natural area” surveys, in a line first summarized in 1927 in the publication of The Naturalist’s Guide to the Americas under the leadership of Victor Shelford, first president of the Ecological Society of America, were also highly local, or else just a skim of the surface. ESA, founded in 1915, soon split into a group concerned with theory and a group concerned with conservation. Shelford was in the latter, and after WW2, he left ESA to form the Ecologist's Union, which in 1950 changed its name to The Nature Conservancy. Early leaders were Charles Kengdeigh and Dick Goodwin.

They were also plagued by different formats -- so that one study, even of the same area at different periods of time, was difficult, or indeed often impossible, to compare with another.

Similar difficulties plagued TNC's internal "project packages," proposals to buy this or that piece of land. Although there was a common format, it was so vague ("project description") as to be virtually useless, and when it came to "data" there was none, or virtually none. The opinion of "experts" was sometimes alluded to, and "thought to be" was frequent, as was the word "important."

Nonetheless, natural area surveys and project packages were all that was available. Taking any data they contained and determining what should be protected by an organization like The Nature Conservancy, which was in the business of buying land to protect biodiversity, seemed the way forward. And doing more natural area studies seemed the likely future.

Accordingly, the first State Natural Heritage Program, launched in South Carolina in 1974, started with the idea of using existing natural area survey data and adding to it.

The opportunity in SC came about because the Governor, John C. West, had admired the Georgia Heritage Trust started by Jimmy Carter in the neighboring state. West felt a kinship with Carter because they shared many views, and they shared the label "New Democrat." He knew that TNC had worked with the GHT, and had done a good job in a number of ways, especially in acquiring properties, so he managed to find $100,000 in his budget and came to TNC to start something similar in his state.

The national office of TNC had no real idea how to use this money, but Bob, who initially viewed it as a burden he didn't need, eventually saw it as an opportunity to field test a number of the ideas he'd been working on. The GHT had had no real inventory component, beyond what he characterized as a " team that drove the roads to see what would jump out." Moreover, it included preservation of the state's cultural and historic heritage, fortunately not part of the deal with SC. But Bob was happy with the term "heritage" for what he had in mind, "natural heritage." The money was then made available to him, and thus the first state-oriented biological inventory was initiated in April, using "natural areas," and the ideas of collecting and computerizing data about them, and somehow prioritizing them, as fundamental concepts.

Over the next amazing twelve months, he'd also started natural heritage programs in MS, OR, TN -- and WV. It was WV that produced what Bob has called his "Eureka moment," resulting in a group of important new ideas and concepts. These were engendered, to some extent, just by the difficulty and frustrations of trying to use existing, and ab initio, natural area surveys to come up with a list of what portions of the landscape should be protected first and which could safely be given a low priority.

But it was actually the problems of (and expense of) implementing such surveys on a computer which was directly responsible. The complaint about cost derived from the fact that the machine had to read through the entire tape of natural area survey data to find data about one species. There was no such thing as modern random access to data. Reading the entire tape was expensive. The coordinator of the WV program complained that it was ruining his budget.

What if data were organized around species instead?

Eureka! (It is not known whether Bob, like Archimedes, was in his bathtub at the time):

-- rather than starting with natural areas and then trying to compare them, start with their components, and compare these. Natural areas become logical and defensible groupings thereof, and their importance becomes a function of what they contain.

In other words:

-- break biological diversity down into its "elements": species elements, on the one hand, and, on the other, natural community or ecosystem elements (which include among other things micro-organisms, so numerous that most have not yet been given a name, but which contain significant genetic diversity). These fundamental elements can be directly compared, no debatable boundaries, common formatting for and understanding of each and all.

And his further idea, seeking to prioritize based on relative imperilment, was that an element's imperilment is, for the most part, a function of how many of it there are. The total number of individuals of a species is important for this, of course, but so is how they occur. If a plant not thought to be particularly rare, for example, actually exists in only a few places, then the species is more imperiled, and of higher, priority than its numbers suggest. This led Bob to the idea of compiling data on individual element locations, "element occurrences" (or EOs, as they quickly became).

-- element occurrences: specific, mapped locations where discontiguous populations, or even a single individual, occur. Lifeboats.

For those thought to be rare, map each as a dot on a standard USGS topo map. Eventually this approach was modified by "ranking" all elements on a logarithmic 1 to 5 scale, so that an element ranked 5 was exponentially more abundant than a 1. Only those ranked 1 or 2 were inventoried and mapped. Later still, through discussions in the OPG, emerged the idea of giving each element three kinds of ranks, one each as to its status within its global range (G rank), its national range (N rank), and its subnational range (S rank).

A fundamental principle was that "element ranks" were strictly comparable, so that all elements, whether species of plant. species of animal, or ecosystem type would be prioritized using the same scale. The trifurcation of ranks, moreover, meant that a state or province could set priorities within its own boundaries, choosing for example to protect an element with a G rank of 4 because within that state or province it had the S rank of 1.

Bob had always been fond of a saying attributed to Confucius: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." Element, EO, Rank -- these are the right names.

-- common formats: one jurisdiction’s data must be strictly comparable with all other jurisdictions’ data, and common concepts and shared record formats are the way to make this possible.

Further still:

-- computer systems: develop computer software systems which incorporate these concepts. Continue to advance these as hardware and software improve.

-- create central databases, initially to provide standardization across the network as to element names, which varied significantly, even the scientific names, from place to place. Plant names were in particularly bad shape, but John Kartesz, a friend of the botanist Bob hired, Larry Morse, had undertaken a one-man effort of standardization -- using 3x5 cards stored under his bed; these were quickly computerized. The central databases were also used to maintain other data useful to the network and most often derived from individual programs.

-- central support: create training curriculums, continually supervise and assess the progress of each program for the contractual pilot period (usually two years), undertake ongoing technical development.

-- continuity: the effort must not, like traditional natural area studies, have a start date and an end date, but must continue beyond the pilot period as part of state government -- a transition which must be brought about; This ensures the perpetuity of the network, so that data is always current and always used for decisionmaking.

Bob established an Operating Procedures Group (OPG) as a forum for creating and documenting the core methodology which Natural Heritage Programs would use. The OPG existed from the earliest years of the Heritage enterprise. Originally, the group was informal and ad hoc. Records of discussions and decisions were not rigorously preserved. The name "OPG" came later. (The first memo still preserved addressed specifically to the OPG, however, is from January 1976). It's decisions were the basis of the Operations Manual (OM). There thus exists a continuous body of decisionmaking materials on Heritage methodology which stretches back to the beginnings of the development of common formats. Many of these documents reside, since 2009, at the Library of Congress, though they remain unprocessed as of 2021: LOC.

Early members of OPG included Hardy Wieting, Robert Chipley, Helmut Moyseenko, and Ken Wright, all of whom joined the Science Division just before or just after the first program was launched, and all of whom represented disciplines differently related to the role that Natural Heritage Programs were being designed to play. They were eventually joined by Larry Morse, a botanist who had acquired experience in information management, Keith Carr, a geographer who had become an expert in computer systems, particularly as they relate to information management, both of whom had very long tenures. Over the years, significant contributions were also made by Ann Lewis (the OM), Rob Solomon, Larry Master, Bennett Brown, Joe Jacob, Steve Chaplin, George Fenwick, Curt Soper, Craig Groves, Pat Bourgeron, John Humke, Dennis Grossman, John Nutter, Dave Mehlman, Shelly Rodman, Loring LaBarbara, Lyndon Woodall, Sandra Woodall, David Wilcove, Steve Taswell, who impressively documented and diagrammed all that had gone before, and others. Also by Richard Warner, Shara Howie and the Regional Information Managers, Audrey Godell, Margaret Ormes, Eugenie Drayton, Mary Klein, and Donna Riggs. Perhaps others should be added to this list.

Very significant input came from the states, where the common formats were being installed and used in what theorists sometimes call "real life." This input came from program "coordinators" (directors), data managers, and the botanists, ecologists, and zoologists. A good example, just one of many, is element ranking, which devolved from the "stratification" Bob learned Minnesota's botanist, Welby Smith, had applied to the list of the state's plants he'd drawn up.

Hardy formalized a process of regular visitation (usually monthly) by OPG members to state programs still in the pilot period not only to offer advice and assess progress, but also to observe data entry and to report to the OPG on any problems incurred in this. This was a means of advancing the methodology. He also formalized a process of supervision, loosely adhered to originally, and ensured that it included a workplan for each scientist, regular progress reports every two weeks ("biweeklies"), and created an Administrative Manual, an AM to pair with the OM. The contract between TNC and the state initiating each heritage program included a budget which contained not only money for the in-state staff, but also money for the national office of the Science Division, money used for these visits to the state, but also for continuing development of the methodology. This proved, over 50 states, and other jurisdictions, to be a very important resource.

One of the main consequences of the common formats and methods as they became widespread was that they enabled scientists, and the Chief Scientist in particular, to move from a passive, reactive, advisory mode with respect to others at TNC to an agenda-setting mode.

This was Bob's main goal.

Instead of merely adding comments to TNC "project packages," many of which represented decisions already taken, the scientist can now get out in front of the process and demand that the priorities demonstrated by the heritage system be pursued. These are the projects that would contribute most to the Conservancy's central goal of preserving biodiversity, and that contribution can be objectively, scientifically demonstrated.

Coordinate the information that already exists.
Even were it possible to do de novo field inventory of an entire state with a core staff of only several individuals, the data generated would be small in comparison with the treasure troves of specimens collected by scientists over many decades, largely for the purpose of taxonomy. Moreover, de novo inventory would be unfocused, expensive, and in immediate need of updating.

One of the major insights of the Natural Heritage system was that these existing collections -- "the information that already exists" -- created for purposes of taxonomy, could be utilized for the purposes of conservation if effective procedures for utilizing them in this way are worked out.

The procedure which developed under Bob's guidance was to capture locational data from all specimens of species of interest. This is done by examining the label attached to the specimen and reading any field notes associated with the specimen. The specimens need not reside in a collection within the jurisdiction where the data center is located; the only requirement is that the specimen was collected within the jurisdiction.

Other existing sources of information are also rigorously mined: peer-reviewed scientific literature; the “gray literature” of naturalist clubs, often richer in locational data than the published literature; environmental reviews; experts who study particular species, groups of species, or natural communities; and prior natural area studies.

The main consequence of this approach, aside from building a database as quickly as possible, is that when field work is undertaken, it has focus. It can be aimed at resolving ambiguities in the existing data, at reconfirming aging locations, and at exploring areas which have received insufficient attention in the past.

Widely available and customer friendly.
The genius of the State Natural Heritage Program approach is that it is not merely scientifically original, but consists also of a political and administrative structure which is responsible for making it “widely available.” And permanent.

Specifically, it began by exploiting, in its origin and growth, a feature of that most widely available institution – government. In the US, this feature had been created by the Founding Fathers: federalism. In the federal system, there are 50 primary jurisdictions rather than a single, monopolistic national jurisdiction. Each of these jurisdictions has primary legal authority over, among other things, the land and water within its boundaries (except for that owned by the feds), the authority to raise revenues to support activities affecting these resources;, and the authority to review decsions which affect them, as well to pass new laws providing protection.

Successfully exploiting federalism in the US means that there are 50 State Natural Heritage Programs rather than a single national program located in Washington, DC. Not only are the databases much more widely available in this way, but they are also deeper, more pertinent to local needs, and of immediate use to decisionmakers who have the greatest ability to affect biodiversity preservation. They are permanent because state governments will always need the data and expertise they contain. Much of this also applies to the provinces of Canada, and will apply to any other jurisdiction in the world where subnational entities have decisionmaking authority.

Federalism entails not only subnational primary jurisdictions, but levels of authority, so that different and even overlapping agencies are created. This feature also has been exploited by the Heritage network, in order to make its formats and methods even more widely available. One of the earliest (1976) entities to create a Natural Heritage Program was the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federally owned corporation created in 1933 for economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region that covers most of Tennessee, large parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky, and small portions of Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. The Navajo Nation is another prominent example, as are agreements with various national parks and reserves.

And military bases. As the network spread, the Science Division discovered that military bases have active resource management responsibilities -- and needs for exactly the sort of data the natural heritage program in the base's jurisdiction collects and processes. One of our great successes was negotiating a multi-million dollar contract with the Defense Department facilitating working arrangements between base and heritage program. A win-win: military bases are, of course, protected areas and often harbor species faring poorly outside its borders, species the resource managers really had no knowledge of, whereas the heritage program is always in need of funds to do further work.

The challenge was to keep the nhps/cdcs uniform. This challenge arose not simply because of geographic multiplication, but also because both the core methodology and its software implementations (particularly its software implementations) needed to evolve continuously in order to keep pace with what the OPG was learning from the experiences of each state program but also with rapid advances in technology. The newest program initiated always had the newest version of methods and software, and the task was to update all prior programs. A regular procedure evolved for doing this.

The New World network existing now in the 21st Century is so widespread that it can be compared to Balaenoptera musculus, the blue whale. It is a fully-formed creature of immense size evolving at a slower pace than in its early stages, but still adaptable. It is large enough to stare governments, the private sector, and others throughout most of the region in the face and to influence their maneuvers. It never ceases to move. It is accompanied by, and to some extent guided by, a number of pilot fish which seek to render service, among which are the Association for Biodiversity Information, renamed NatureServe, and BioDiversity Institute's "action project," The BioDiversity Conservancy, which is attempting to extend the Heritage network to China., Also The Nature Conservancy and other national and local conservation groups.

In order to grow to this size, of course, its methods and formats must be “customer friendly,” and so they have been. From the very earliest days the highest priority was given to methods and formats which present clear priorities, which are readily comprehended by staff and outside consumers both, and which in fact demonstrate the conclusions which are drawn from them. The way they have been built into existing environmental review requirements and procedures is testimony to their customer friendliness.

Customers not only in the US, but also in bilingual Canada and in Latin America have found them friendly enough to adopt and use productively. They are just now knocking on the doors of other continents, and early indications are good. The formats are easy to put data into and easy to report data out of. The methods for doing so are logical and readily followed, without squashing ecological complexity in order to make this possible.

It was not always so, either for the formats or the methods, particularly in the very early years. See below.

Accelerate current efforts for international cooperation and coordination.
The first Natural Heritage Programs outside the US were established in the Netherlands Antilles and in Costa Rica in 1982, both of which have now been subsumed into larger efforts. The first data center in Canada began in Quebec in 1988, and there are now data centers across the world’s second largest country, the most recent of which is in the Yukon. The name Conservation Data Centre (CDC) has come to be widely used for these.

Interestingly, the connection with TVA paid off internationally. In the 1950s, partly through efforts of David Lillenthal, TVA's long-time Chairman, a corporation was formed which sought to promote TVA-like projects in Latin America. One such was in the Cauca River Valley of Colombia. Several employees of the Cauca Valley Corporation eventually knocked on Bob's door at the Science Division and requested, and received, access to Natual Heritage Program methodology.

Today, the network stretches from Alaska and the Yukon to Paraguay. It is not, however, worldwide, and that is what Lord May calls for. Will it grow to Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia (Lord May’s birthplace), and the rest of the world?

Like all farflung networks, local conditions require special adaptations and at the same time threaten unity. Even within the New World, huge gaps remain which it is critical to fill. But the network which Bob is responsible for bringing into existence has the greatest potentiality of any system to become worldwide – the globalization of conservation information management and decisionmaking. Political problems and lack of resources remain substantial impediments.