Conservation Planning 101

Colorado Conservation Forum, Yates OppermanLike transportation, conservation takes an orchestrated effort including science, technology, research, policy, money, management and a healthy dose of public participation. But unlike transportation, conservation doesn’t have a huge cadre of conservation planners who enjoy a steady stream of funding to maintain a rigorous “continuing, comprehensive and cooperative” planning process. And perhaps the greatest difference between transportation and conservation planning is the outcome. Transportation planning is about an ever expanding network, while conservation planning is about saving the best of what’s left.

History of Conservation Planning

Within the past few decades, there have been some notable efforts to address conservation needs for certain habitat types such as wetlands and old growth forests, but generally only in response to federal mandates such as the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. To capitalize on these efforts and new technology, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched the Gap Analysis program in the late 1980s. Congress funded the cooperative fish and wildlife research units and other university scientists to map the vegetation, land cover, species distributions, land ownership, and land management of each state in order to identify “gaps” in the conservation network. The U.S. Geological Survey now manages the program and most states have completed at least one coarse scale biodiversity assessment. The development and refinement of geographic information systems and gap methodology stimulated interest in statewide wildlife conservation planning.

What's Missing from Conservation Planning?

If it takes a village to raise a child, what does it take to manage and conserve America’s wildlife? Primary responsibility for wildlife management has always rested with the states. Traditionally, state fish and wildlife agencies have focused on game management and responding to their constituents within the sport hunting, fishing and recreation communities. The federal resource and land management agencies primarily manage wildlife occurring on public lands and endangered species. Essentially, our conservation framework disregards all non-game, non-listed species and nearly all private lands. Without protection, these species are vulnerable to continued habitat loss, degradation and eventual listing. Without incentives, private landowners may develop rather than conserve vital habitat.

State Wildlife Action Plans

Red fox, CorelAcknowledging that conservation is much more cost-effective than endangered species recovery, Congress established a program to assist state fish and wildlife agencies in conserving non-game and non-listed wildlife species through “wildlife diversity programs.” The 2002 Department of Interior Appropriations bill included language creating the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program which provides new, dedicated funding for cost-effective, proactive conservation efforts intended to prevent wildlife from declining to the point of becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife agencies receive federal appropriations according to a formula based upon the state’s size and population. Projects include the restoration of degraded habitat, removal of invasive vegetation, reintroduction of native species, partnerships with private landowners, research and monitoring.

Much like the earliest transportation planning, conservation planning began as a condition of receiving continued federal funding. Congress charged state fish and wildlife agencies with completing a State Wildlife Action Plan by October 1, 2005. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed each action plan and state wildlife agencies are required to revisit and update them at least every 10 years to ensure conservation success over the long term.

The action plans not only address “species of greatest conservation need,” but also, the “full array of wildlife and wildlife issues,” and they establish a plan of action for conservation priorities with limited funding. To “keep common species common,” all plans are based on targeting resources to prevent wildlife from declining to the point of endangerment. Ideally, each action plan will create a strategic vision for conserving the state’s wildlife, not just a plan for the fish and wildlife agency.

Congress identified eight essential elements the action plans must contain in order to ensure nationwide consistency:

  • Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife (including low and declining populations) that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife
  • Descriptions—including locations and relative conditions—of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identified in (1)
  • Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identified in (1) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts relevant to restoration and conservation of these species and habitats
  • Descriptions of needed conservation actions and priorities
  • Proposed plans for monitoring species and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of conservation actions and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions
  • Descriptions of procedures to review the action plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years
  • Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, implementation, review and revision of the action plan with federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage or affect significant land and water areas within the state
  • Broad public participation is an essential element.

The practical effect of this new planning requirement was to take advantage of the many disparate, ad hoc and unrelated conservation planning initiatives, combining them under one all-inclusive, sanctioned and funded program. The scale is ambitious, yet manageable and fits easily into an existing administrative framework. Strategies are intended to remain dynamic, serving as the home base for prioritizing conservation efforts in each state and coordinating the roles and contributions of all agencies and conservation partners. Implementation of strategy goals and objectives is aided through continued federal funding, matched by additional sources.

Road, Corbis Corp.In theory, the strategies represent the future of wildlife conservation. If each action plan is indeed a strategic vision for conserving the state’s wildlife, implementation will require more than the state fish and wildlife agency. For the conservation strategies to be successful, all sectors must embrace the goals, engage in the process and accept responsibility for their own roles and contributions—including transportation agencies.