Round Two - 2008 WHPRP Project Descriptions  

2.A. Wildlife funding/ policy linkages: using State Wildlife Action Plan priorities to direct shape policies and direct expenditures at multiple levels of government

A) Need: 

State fish and wildlife agencies don’t have the ability to deliver all of the conservation actions identified in the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) by themselves.  Innovative partnerships with other agencies and organizations are essential to access additional fiscal resources and influence regional, state and local priorities.  For example, state transportation investment decisions, regional open space investments and local land use decisions can all add to the implementation “currency” for State Wildlife Action Plans.  End users of this study include: state fish and wildlife agencies, other public agency managers, habitat conservation and land conservation Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and policy staff at senior levels of local and state government.

B) Purpose: 

Demonstrate how other funding sources and policy initiatives can use the conservation actions defined in the State Wildlife Action Plans to meet both of their goals/mandates.

C) Approach: 

- interviews, case study development, use of advisory group, and outreach to public policy think tanks (ex. American Planning Association, Western Governors Association, Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute on Land Policy).

D) Deliverables: 

Final Report with the following:

• Complete list of opportunities for multi-agency partnerships or initiatives that would advance the implementation of specific actions contained within State Wildlife Action Plans.
• Complete list of developing multi-agency and/or multi-party jurisdictions using State Wildlife Action Plans as guiding documents, including short descriptions of ongoing initiatives (ex. Western Governors Association, Mid America Regional Council).
• Results of 5 to 7 geographically diverse case studies from different levels of government, different types of habitat, develop spatial maps of the case histories when appropriate.
• Describe specific conservation outcomes such as wildlife linkages/corridors.
• Interview results from people who act as “catalysts” (senior state-level policy makers or NGO leaders who have designed and brokered multi-agency partnerships to accelerate State Wildlife Action Plan implementation) to capture insights on how the partnerships or information exchange materialized or developed. Create 3 case studies of catalytic action.

Communicate project results to the local, state, and federal levels including using: 1) presentations and briefings; 2) papers in professional journals; 3) articles in appropriate non-technical publications for disseminating the results to wildlife policymakers, managers, and practitioners; and, 4) links to major websites to get this information to appropriate users and decision makers.

E) Time Frame: 12 months

2.B. Efficiency of Land Conservation Spending for Priority Habitats

A) Need: 

American Society currently spends in excess of $7 billion per year for land conservation related, directly, or indirectly to wildlife habitat.  Many of the newly completed State Wildlife Action Plans identify the most important habitat areas in their states.  It is important to inform land conservation programs on the amount and percentage of current expenditures that are going, or could go to the most important habitat areas identified by the states.

B) Purpose: 

Determine through selected case studies the amount and percentage of current land conservation expenditures going to the most important habitat areas as identified in the relevant State Wildlife Action Plan.

C) Approach:  

Using a sampling** (4-6) of State Wildlife Action Plans with statewide maps of priority habitats, document the amount and percentage of current federal and state land conservation funding that is being spent in  important habitat areas. To the extent practical, estimate the percentage of future funding that could be directed to priority habitats.

** (1-2 of the selected states for this project must correspond with 1-2 of the selected states in Project 2.C. WHPRP will enable coordination and communication between Principal Investigators on Projects 2.B and 2.C once the grants are awarded.)

D) Deliverables:

• Final Report documenting the amount and percentage of current land conservation funding (federal, state, local and private-for both permanent and temporary protection) that is being spent on the most important habitat areas as identified in the relevant State Wildlife Action Plans.  Include an estimate (with rationale) of the future amount and percentage of such funding that could go to priority habitats.  Identify key policy levers that would maximize the amount of funding going to priority habitats.

• Communicate project results to the local, state, and federal levels including using: 1) presentations and briefings; 2) papers in professional journals; 3) articles in appropriate non-technical publications for disseminating the results to “users: such as wildlife policymakers, managers, and practitioners; and, 4) links to major websites to get this information to appropriate users and decision makers.

E)  Time frame:   12 months 

2.C. Time Sensitivity of Priority Habitats

A) Need:  

In a multi-faceted, decentralized fashion, American society is piecing together a system of conserved lands to provide habitat to maintain the nation’s wildlife heritage.  Many recently completed State Wildlife Action Plans identify the most important habitat areas still in need of protection.  The current leading threat to these habitat areas is conversion for intensive development.  It is important to inform society and its many programs for land conservation, how much time remains to adequately protect priority habitats before they are likely to be impacted by intensive development.

B) Purpose:  

Determine, through selected case studies, the likely time to permanent conversion of priority habitats (identified in the relevant State Wildlife Action Plans).

C) Approach:  

Using a sampling** of State Wildlife Action Plans with statewide maps of priority habitats, overlay existing development (e.g., build-out) scenarios to determine likely time to conversion of priority habitats to a built environment.

** (1-2 of the selected states for this project must correspond with 1-2 of the selected states in Project 2.B. WHPRP will enable coordination and communication between Principal Investigators on Projects 2.B and 2.C once the grants are awarded.)

D) Deliverables:  

• Final Report documenting the results of the analysis, including maps of projected overlap of development and priority habitats for at least three time periods 2015, 2025, and 2035 for each example. Also include a separate review of existing visualization tools, documenting their relevance to users faced with real time situations.

• Communicate project results to the local, state, and federal levels including using: 1) presentations and briefings; 2) papers in professional journals; 3) articles in appropriate non-technical publications for disseminating the results to “users” such as wildlife policymakers, managers, and practitioners; and, 4) links to major websites to get this information to appropriate users and decision makers.

E)  Time frame:   12 months

2.D.  coastal and floodplain habitat conservation opportunities where people and property are at high risk of flooding and other storm damage

A) Need:  

It is widely recognized that global warming will result in increased frequency of flooding and other storm damage in coastal and riverine communities.  In many cases, these areas currently serve, or can be restored, as wildlife habitat, and development there otherwise would put people and property at unnecessary risk.  Many are likely designated as priority habitat in State Wildlife Action Plans.  An analysis of current coastal and floodplain policies, particularly those implemented by FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, is needed to identify conservation opportunities and to ensure that development does not go forward in these important habitats without adequate consideration of the risks.

The National Flood Insurance Program, implemented by FEMA, serves as the federal government’s principal program to promote wise management of coasts and floodplains.  Floodplain maps are the foundation for this program – they help determine what development will be subject to flood insurance purchase requirements and NFIP land use and building regulations -- and yet these maps are badly outdated and do not reflect modern climate science. FEMA is currently in the process of updating virtually all floodplain maps in the U.S. into digital formats. The new maps will be in formats that can be integrated with other Geographic Information System formats to identify multiple attributes, such as wildlife habitat, wetlands, groundwater recharge areas and open space for recreation.  

Similarly, the Army Corps of Engineers, which (among other floodplain activities) certifies the adequacy of the nation’s levees, is proceeding to identify floodplain areas behind levees that may not be adequate to provide appropriate protection for development. The Corps has already found that at least 122 such areas where federally-built levees are in disrepair or otherwise at risk of failure and should be considered either for improvements, removals or further study. 

There is much interest among policy makers and floodplain managers in improving the nation’s management of its coasts and floodplains.  This presents an opportunity to implement large scale ecosystem restoration projects that will reduce flood and other storm damage to people and property while protecting and restoring important fish and wildlife habitat.

B) Purpose:

• Determine where flood and other storm hazards and priority habitats converge in riverine and coastal communities.
• Examine the potential to use mitigation funding, market-based incentives and other policy tools to recover floodplain functions, protect and restore wetlands, and improve habitat and water quality.
• Propose changes to national flood insurance, disaster relief, infrastructure investment, and mitigation programs to address the new challenges and opportunities posed by climate change.
• Determine how and where flooding severity is going to change under future climate scenarios  

C) Approach:  

• Use maps to identify the overlap between flood hazard areas and SWAP-identified priority habitats.
• Identify and describe opportunities to direct mitigation funding and adjust public subsidies and investments to large-scale ecosystem management projects in one or more communities.
• Propose policy changes necessary to improve integration of hazard mitigation and wildlife conservation.
• Propose policy changes to ensure relevant modern climate science is utilized.

D) Deliverables:  

Final Report including:

• Map(s) showing overlap of flood hazard and priority habitats in 5 to 6 states
• 2-3 case studies illustrating potential use of mitigation funding and market-based incentives to fund a large scale restoration project
• Analysis of programs governing floodplain and coastal management, with a focus on those implemented by FEMA and the Corps, and recommending policy changes to address the impacts of climate change and to promote conservation in areas at risk of flooding and other storm damage
• Synthesis of findings relevant to “users” needs on the ground. 

Communicate project results to the local, state, and federal levels including using: 1) presentations and briefings; 2) papers in professional journals; 3) articles in appropriate non-technical publications for disseminating the results to “users” such as wildlife policymakers, managers, and practitioners; and, 4) links to major websites to get this information to appropriate users and decision makers.

E) Time frame: 18 months

2.E.  Impacts of Bioenergy Production on Conservation of Wildlife Habitat

A) Need:

Bioenergy production has become the solution du jour for America’s concerns with “high” oil and gasoline prices, dependence on supplies from politically-unstable sources, and climate change. Bioenergy will bring additional land under cultivation and, whether that land comes from the conservation reserve (Conservation Reserve Program and related programs) or not, will place increased pressure on wildlife habitat conservation.  Wildlife habitat conservation interests need a strong voice in the inevitable policy debates focused on bioenergy production. 

B) Purpose:

This research will assemble and interpret data on the extent of the threat to wildlife habitat, and outline some promising policy responses.  The aim is to complete this project in a timely manner and disseminate its results widely via multiple channels.

C) Approach:

This project will take a few consensus bioenergy production scenarios as its starting point, and address the following objectives:

• Review the existing impact studies on US bioenergy production and assess their implications for wildlife habitat conservation
• Estimate (from best available secondary sources) the likely net loss and improvements of wildlife habitat – i.e., the amount of land currently supporting wildlife habitat that will be brought under cultivation and/or management for bioenergy production (including forestry), nationally and for multi-state regions.  Estimate the additional loss in habitat quality that can be expected due to development of bioenergy infrastructure (processing plants, upgraded transportation networks, etc.) that will degrade habitat and/or render it less productive for wildlife (e.g., by impeding movement and migration).
• For several representative states (3-5 states that together provide a fairly good representation of the nation’s diverse agriculture, forest and wildlife resources), identify the land likely to be converted from habitat to bioenergy production, and relate it to the conservation priorities identified in the State Wildlife Action Plans (using GIS overlays or other appropriate techniques).
• For the representative states, quantify the threat to wildlife habitat in terms of habitat types, quality (or conservation priority), ownership or land tenure status, and participation in agricultural conservation programs.  Extrapolate these findings to the regional and national levels.
• Propose first-cut policies or strategies to meet bioenergy production goals while promoting wildlife habitat conservation (or at least minimizing conservation losses) – first-cut means that these policies and strategies should have coherent rationales and compelling potential, but are neither developed in detail nor comprehensively evaluated.

D) Deliverables:

• Report summarizing bullets in C) Approach section above.
• Communicate project results to the local, state, and federal levels including using: 1) presentations and briefings; 2) papers in professional journals; 3) articles in appropriate non-technical publications for disseminating the results to “users” such as wildlife policymakers, managers, and practitioners; and, 4) links to major websites to get this information to appropriate users and decision makers.

E)  Time frame: 12 months