Analysis of the priorities, obstacles and opportunities for implementing U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

1. Analysis of the priorities, obstacles and opportunities for implementingU.S. State Wildlife Action Plans Lynn Maguire Duke University Frank Davis and David Stoms University of California Santa Barbara J. Michael Scott and Dale Goble University of Idaho

2. Approach • A “distributed” graduate seminar at eight universities to analyze the recently completed state wildlife action plans. • Our overarching question is: How do conservation science, social and institutional processes come together to set State and regional conservation priorities and the design and implementation of conservation solutions across the U.S.?

3. Funding • National Council for Science and the Environment—Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program (from Doris Duke Charitable Foundation) • Operate pilot seminars • Planning and synthesis meetings • Gap Analysis Program—requested • Seminar operating costs • Outreach with emphasis on connections and synergies of action plans with GAP

4. Seminars Alaska-Fairbanks  Idaho Michigan   Indiana UCSB No. Arizona    Duke TAMU Kingsville 

5. Advisory Group • Sara Vickerman (Defenders of Wildlife, Project Steward) • Mark Shaffer (Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, ex officio) • David Chadwick (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) • Bob Szaro (USGS Chief Scientist for Biology) • Wayne Ostlie (The Nature Conservancy) • Mike Harris (GA Wildlife Resources Division) • Dennis Figg (MO Department of Conservation) • Kevin Gergely (National Gap Analysis Program) • Judy Soule (NatureServe) • Genevieve Larouche (FWS)

6. Methods • Prioritize information needs (Fall 2006) • Pilot seminars (Spring 2007) • Distributed graduate seminar (Fall 2007) • structured & non-structured interviews of key actors • case study analysis of exemplary conservation projects • synthesis across states • special topics • Synthesis (Winter 2008) • Communication and outreach (Spring 2008)

7. Sample characterization questions • What terrestrial habitat classification system was used by the state? • Did the plan identify engagement with the wildlife action planning teams or agencies in other states? • What mechanisms were used to engage stakeholders in development of the plans? • What forms of implementation are specified in the plan that include non-agency groups?

8. Habitat classifications in action plans Preliminary

9. Sample interview questions for Fall 2007 seminars • Have new partners have been engaged in habitat conservation actions or existing partnerships expanded as a result of the plan? • Which habitat types are of highest priority for accelerated conservation efforts and why? • How did the plan’s inclusion (or not) of maps of priority areas affect opportunities for conservation? • What are some of the best examples of innovative and effective conservation projects in your state?

10. Potential exemplar case studies

11. Communication/Outreach • Final report • Summary for policy makers • Journal articles • Characterization of plans • Synthesis of strategies • Special topics TBD • Concept papers for follow-on workshops • Web site • Online documents and databases • Emergent national and regional conservation priorities • Exemplars of innovative planning and implementation • Recommendations for implementation by Bernard Schoenbaum, Published in the New Yorker 12/28/1987

12. For more information or comments • Contact David Stoms, project manager • stoms@bren.ucsb.edu