Full Project Descriptions

 1. A: Analysis of the Priorities, Obstacles and Opportunities that Exist for the Implementation of U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

A) Need: State Wildlife Action Plans identify species and habitats in greatest need of conservation, and also the actions necessary to conserve these species and habitats. Now that the plans have been completed, a national audience (policy makers, federal agencies, conservation groups, etc.) needs a broad vision for habitat conservation to prevent additional species from becoming endangered and to recover those already endangered.

B) Purpose: Identify the general priorities, obstacles and major opportunities that exist in regard to the implementation of the State Wildlife Actions Plans, which have the potential to help diverse constituencies work together across boundaries to envision and protect a system of wildlife habitat in each state. The conservation community must know what steps need to be taken in order to ensure that the critical species and habitats identified in the plans receive the necessary conservation actions.

C) Approach: Review and analyze all 56 U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans and associated maps, conduct a literature review, and perform necessary interviews to identify the obstacles and opportunities that exist in regard to the implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans especially with regard to habitat conservation. Consult appropriate State Wildlife Agencies that developed the plans during the development of the synthesis. Analyze the implications for the acceleration of wildlife habitat conservation from the picture that emerges. Develop sets of general recommendations for addressing both obstacles and opportunities.

D) Deliverables: A report that identifies the major priorities, obstacles and overall opportunities that exist in regard to the implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans in general, and their habitat conservation component in particular. The report should identify unmet needs for information, tools and approaches as well as recommend effective steps to address these needs. Include maps as appropriate to habitat description and analysis. Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 18 months

1. B: Analysis of Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Wildlife Habitat.

A) Need: Climate change is expected to cause major changes to the landscape and affect habitats that support species of greatest conservation need as identified in the State Wildlife Action Plans.  Information is needed to assist states with understanding and evaluating the implications of climate change on the implementation of these plans. This information includes habitats and ecological systems expected to undergo significant changes, species likely to be affected, and possible management action to minimize harm to these resources.

B) Purpose: Planners and managers need to develop long-term strategies for conserving wildlife in the face of climate change.  The requested review and synthesis would identify those U.S. habitats, systems and species that are expected to experience the most dramatic impacts from climate change.   Because not all species are expected to be affected in the same manner (some may actually see increases in potential available habitat), information developed in this project will enable managers to identify the species and habitats that will likely see the greatest impacts and identify potential management responses. Appropriate actions can then be incorporated into State Wildlife Action Plans. 

C) Approach: Perform systematic review and synthesis of the literature on climate change’s impact on U.S. wildlife, and also on potential management responses to these impacts.  This will identify the habitats and systems that are expected to undergo significant changes. The synthesis will:

• Identify the habitats and systems that are expected to undergo significant changes.
  
  
• Identify and prioritize those impacted species of greatest conservation need.
  
  
• Identify the array of potential management responses available to minimize harm to habitats and species threatened by climate change.

Additionally, select three State Wildlife Actions Plans that include maps in diverse regions with contrasting conditions. Examine how these plans would need to be modified considering the potential impacts of climate change.

D) Deliverables: A report on literature review, synthesis, and analysis of potential impacts of climate change on three State Wildlife Action Plans. Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. C: Approach to Developing Performance Measures for U.S. Habitat Conservation

A) Need: Metrics are needed to evaluate progress towards specific, targeted improvements in U.S. wildlife habitat conservation.  Measuring performance is critical in assessing the effectiveness of conservation actions. Practical performance measures are the key to applying adaptive management to conservation projects under state wildlife action plans, citizen science projects as well as those carried out by Federal Agencies.

B) Purpose: To develop an approach on how to define success in order to focus on measurable, and oftentimes, incremental progress towards U.S. conservation goals. 

C) Approach: Identify ways to explicitly define measurable management objectives that allow for the development of metrics useful for evaluation and potentially for triggering change in management action.  Measures should be scalable so they can contribute to the development of the Heinz indicators on (1) ecosystem extent, (2) fragmentation and landscape patterns and (3) at-risk native species. The Wildlife Society's technical review paper on performance measures for ecosystem management and sustainability provides a framework for designing performance measures that should be considered. The description mentions management “objectives” and “triggers”.  We need an approach to describing metrics and triggers that is consistent or provides compatible data.     

D) Deliverables:

1) Synthesis of existing efforts on performance metrics for wildlife habitat conservation.

2) Experts workshop, engaging a full set of U.S. stakeholders including public and private land managers,  academics, public land managers, and agency field scientists et al. in order to promote consistency among various approaches (e.g. data collection and storage methods, sampling design), and integration of monitoring metrics with management actions.

3) Analytical report that develops and describes an approach to the development   of performance metrics for habitat conservation. Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. D: Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems

A) Need: U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans provide a unique opportunity to focus habitat banks in those areas of each state that will provide the greatest benefit for species of greatest conservation need. Agency managers and others need guidance on how to design and implement these banks to maximize conservation of State Wildlife Action Plan priority habitat areas.

B) Purpose: Design effective U.S. habitat banking systems that are focused on priority habitat areas identified in State Wildlife Action Plans.

C) Approach: The investigators will review the effectiveness of existing habitat banking programs across the U.S. through case studies and draw conclusions about how successful models could be more broadly implemented. They will identify opportunities and potential strategies for using existing banking programs to conserve priority wildlife habitats identified in the State Wildlife Action Plans. They will also identify opportunities and strategies for developing new or improved banking systems to conserve these habitats.

D) Deliverables: A report that will develop a “typology” of habitat banking practices and compare and summarize:

• What are the most effective practices in mitigation banking?
  
  
• What mitigation banking practices have not been effective in conserving habitat?
  
  
• How could successful models be more broadly applied?
  
  
• What mitigation funds are available for future habitat banks?
  
  
• How can habitat banks be utilized to conserve priority habitats identified in State Wildlife Actions Plans?

Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. E: Analysis of U.S. State and Local Policies

A) Need: There are several potentially significant opportunities for promoting conservation of U.S. wildlife habitat by integrating wildlife values into local and state land use planning and growth management policies, as well as natural resource decisions that are not primarily related to wildlife, but which provide vehicles for effectively promoting wildlife values.  Examples include: local cluster zoning ordinances designed to protect property values may also protect wildlife movement corridors; local flood management programs may require development to be set back from floodplains or water courses and these setbacks may provide important wildlife corridors. Similar opportunities are available for incorporating wildlife conservation into the designation of fire safety zones and protection of ground water resources, among other policies. 

B) Purpose: To assess the extent to which opportunities exist to use state and local and regional land use planning policies to facilitate wildlife habitat conservation, in addition to traditional wildlife programs.

C) Approach:

• Conduct a literature review and synthesis, and develop and publish three case studies of diverse communities which have developed exemplary or innovative local land use policies, plans, and codes designed and tailored to protect wildlife habitat.  Include two sections: (a) habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or multi-species habitat conservation plans (MSHCPs) which utilize local land use policy as an element of a United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved implementation plan; and (b) local land use plans, policies, or codes in which federal or state law is not the driver.  Include both a description of the program and evaluation of its effectiveness.  
  
  
• Conduct a literature review and synthesis, and develop and publish three U.S. case studies of local, state and federal programs and statutes not intentionally designed to protect wildlife habitat, but having this outcome as an ancillary benefit (e.g. local flood plain regulations, reservoir and ground water protection programs, federal statutes such as National Flood Insurance Program.  Evaluate opportunities to adapt and expand these programs. 
  
  
• Conduct a literature review and synthesis, and develop and publish three case studies of private land developments that provide exemplary and innovative examples of integrating wildlife habitat conservation into the development process. 

D) Deliverables: A comprehensive analysis report (perhaps through three or four state-level studies in connection with State Wildlife Action Plans) that assesses the feasibility of implementing State Wildlife Action Plans via state and local policies as opposed to explicit wildlife programs. Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. F: Estimation of Total U.S. Habitat Conservation Costs

A) Need:  In order to secure the resources necessary to protect adequate habitat for the nation’s wildlife resources, conservationists and policy makers need an estimate of the amount of habitat that needs to be protected and what that habitat protection will cost.

B) Purpose:  Estimate the cost of protecting the habitat areas identified in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans.

C) Approach:  

• Estimate U.S. land needs for adequate habitat.  State Wildlife Action Plans provide state-level indications of land needs.  Because not all states identified specific habitat conservation areas, those states that did identify specific areas should serve as the sampled portion of the universe of states (i.e., the estimate of habitat costs will be statistical in nature).  In so far as feasible, estimates of land needs should be specific to habitat classes and spatially-explicit.
  
  
• Costs should be estimated for three alternative ways of protecting needed habitat: (1) fee simple acquisitions; (2) conservation easements, and (3) conservation leases.  A 30-year time frame for assembling the necessary habitat should be assumed as well as prevailing inflation rates.  Management costs for lands acquired in fee simple should be included.  To the extent feasible, habitat costs should reflect local land market conditions, and be sensitive to supply considerations (e.g., will a substantial portion of land in a given land-class/locality be required, and how might this affect offer prices?).  Transaction costs should also be estimated (from the buyers perspective).
  
  
• Cost estimates should be presented by state, for the key habitat classes, and at the national aggregate level.

D) Deliverables: A final project report.  Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. G: Assessment of U.S. Habitat Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services

A) Need:  Habitat conservation generates a range of benefits beyond habitats’ contributions to biodiversity.  Conservation yields ecosystem services related to water quality and availability, aesthetic and recreational opportunities, flood and pest mitigation, and commercial harvests.  Unfortunately, not all of these benefits are explicitly recognized when conservation is advocated.  Currently, aesthetic (amenity) and recreational benefits are the only benefits being quantified and valued financially (see 1:H). Articulation of habitat conservation benefits will help extend public appreciation of conservation benefits and build coalitions among diverse public constituencies. 

B) Purpose: To develop a practical framework for conceptualizing, quantifying, and when possible valuing the comprehensive suite of services provided by habitat conservation; concretely illustrate its principles on the ground; and to communicate that framework to policy, management, practitioner, and stakeholder communities.

C) Approach: Measurement and articulation of ecosystem services should be credible from the perspective of both ecology and economics.  Also, because the goal is tools with relevance to non-specialists the framework must be practical and meaningful to non-expert stakeholders.  Accordingly, ecologists, economists, and habitat stewards must converge on a common set of practices and principles.  For this reason, the project should demonstrate openness to cross-disciplinary collaboration and an emphasis on practical tools. To foster these objectives, the approach should include:

• Gathering information from U.S. stakeholders (policy makers, managers, and practitioners) to determine their needs and practical decision contexts.
  
  
• An initial workshop to summarize state of the art measurement approaches, identify areas of consistency and complementarity between ecological and economic approaches, and identify opportunities for near-term expansion and improvement in ecosystem service assessment and communication.
  
  
• Based on the listening session and workshop, identify and implement a pilot ecosystem services assessment on a real landscape.  This assessment would use real data to compare different approaches to ecosystem benefit measurement.  If possible, local U.S. decision makers and stakeholders should be involved in a critique of the benefit assessment tool as applied to a specific habitat in the study area.
  
  
• Prepare a report summarizing findings, including an agenda for further research and plans for communicating findings to the policy, management, and practitioner communities. 

D) Deliverables:

1) A report on U.S. stakeholder needs and decision contexts.

2) A Workshop plan, including agenda and participants

3) A Workshop summary and a detailed report – background paper, keynote papers, abstracts of other paper and panel sessions, summary of findings.

4) The pilot assessment report, including the benefit assessment itself, its relationship to the ideas arising from the workshop and listening sessions, its relationship to other measurement taxonomies arising in ecology and economics, and results of the critique by local decision-makers, if applicable.

Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

1. H:Development of an Operational Benefit Estimation Tool for the U.S.

A) Need: Decision makers, including planners and land buyers, require location- and project-specific information on benefits of habitat conservation. The full spectrum of such benefits is not currently accounted for and is the subject of active research elsewhere in this program (see 1:G.) Nonetheless, the existing economic literature provides a substantial body of empirical benefit estimates, for both passive amenity value (e.g., influence of habitat and open space conservation on property values) and active amenity value (e.g., hunting, fishing, bird-watching, etc.). These benefit estimates are derived mostly from specific case studies; however, this information has not been synthesized to produce an operational benefit estimation tool.

B) Purpose: The objective is to develop a quantitative tool, or set of tools, that generalizes the existing body of estimates and applies this information to specific U.S. habitat conservation projects.

C) Approach:

• Studies of the impact of proximate wildlife habitat and open space on property values and community economic competitiveness will be reviewed and synthesized.
  
  
• Empirical habitat conservation benefit estimation studies that use demand-based methods (including willingness to pay) will be assembled and synthesized using meta-analytic and/or other appropriate methods.
  
  
• WTP studies of wildlife-related activities (hunting, fishing, observation, etc.) are more numerous than habitat conservation studies, and provide evidence of benefits.  To generate habitat conservation benefit estimates, the relationship between area conserved and activity days must be established.  Again, substantial empirical literature exists but must be synthesized.
  
  
• Develop tools and/or models to apply the benefits model(s) to specific spatially-defined habitat conservation proposals.

D) Deliverables:

1) Habitat conservation benefits estimation model.

2) Habitat property premium estimation model.

3) Wildlife activity days value estimation model (must address relation between area conserved and activity days produced, as well as activity day values).

4) An operational tool or set of tools with (A) conceptual foundations made explicit, in non-disciplinary language; (B) an “operators’ manual” to guide applications: and (C) a report demonstrating successful application to three different project situations (actual or constructed), and a successful workshop with practitioners who implemented the tools/models in case-specific contexts and provided feedback that was incorporated into the final version of the toolkit (revised as appropriate). 

Communication of results will include presentations as well as papers in professional journals and articles in appropriate publications for disseminating the results to wildlife habitat conservation policymakers, managers, and practitioners.

E) Time Frame: 18 months