Collaborative Landscape Conservation Planning and Delivery in the Northeast, John Kanter, NH Fish and Game, Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee
2. “I also doubt, as a matter of
hindsight, whether anything but
ultimate discredit can come to the
wildlife movement if it encourages or
participates in orgies of incontinent
public expenditures of half baked
plans for wildlife betterment”
Aldo Leopold
3. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in the Northeast Region
Appalachian
Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers
North Atlantic
South Atlantic
Upper Midwest and Great Lakes
0 190 38095 Miles
Northeast
Region
NEAFWA (state
Boundaries)
Landscape
Conservation
Cooperatives
4. Population Land Area
(sq miles)
People/area
Maine 1,329,192 30,843 43.1
New Jersey 8,864,590 7,354 1,195.5
West
Virginia
1,855,413 24,038 77.1
Northeast 72,445,315 229,802 305.5
Montana 1,005,141 145,546 6.8
6. Conservation in Transition
• Unprecedented scale, pace and complexity
of resource management challenges
– Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
– Invasive species
– Contaminants
– Hydrologic impacts
• Accelerated climate change is magnifying
impacts on water and land resources,
agriculture and biological diversity
7. Major Challenge:
We cannot effectively or efficiently address
these challenges by working alone
So how do we organize our separate agencies,
organizations and missions to collectively
understand and address these challenges and
uncertainty and achieve the conservation
outcomes that society wants and expects from
us?
8. RCN Program
• The northeast states answer to that question
is to pool resources to address issues common
to multiple states and State Wildlife Action Plans.
• In 2006 at and subsequent to a workshop in Albany
(“Albany I”) sponsored by NFWF and Doris Duke, the
states agreed to pool 4% of their State Wildlife Grant
funding for Regional Conservation Needs (RCN).
• RCN program was developed by NEAFWA, the Wildlife
Management Institute and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
• Annual process administered by WMI and involving
NEAFWA administrators, technical committees and
Directors
• First RFP was issued in 2007, 27 projects funded to
date
10. Aligning NA LCC and NEAFWA
• Co-location of meetings with NEAFWA
• Synchronized annual LCC/RCN timeline
• Grant administration through WMI
• Common conservation framework & needs
• Projects at Northeast Regional scale (across
LCC boundaries)
• Joint efforts to develop regional information for
SWAP Updates
11. Developing a list of Regional Species of
Conservation Concern
• Northeast regional list (Therres 1999)
“replace” category 2 candidates
• Combined list of State Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (Whitlock 2007)
• Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Committee
NE Partners in Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation, Partners in Flight
12. DRAFT RSGCN Screening Process
• 1. State identifies a list of SGCN based on State
Level Screening Criteria
• 2. SGCN are compiled into Composite SGCN List
• 3. Composite SGCN list is screened For regional
Responsibility
• 4. Composite SGCN list is screened for regional
Conservation Need
• 5. Need will be based on regional Conservation
Need Ranking Criteria (next steps)
13. Conservation Need= Regional Responsibility
States in need High Low
States in NE range
>50% of Range <50% of Range
Very High (>10 states) 1 2
High (7-10 states) 3 4
Moderate (4-6 states) 5
Low (3 states) 6
<3 states 7
15. What order and what process will we use to
address RSGCN?
1)RCN Status Assessment
Wood turtle
Brook floater
2)Review and Evaluation
3)Preventing listing
New England cottontail
Northeast
Regional List
My state’s
list
Integrating RSGCN into Wildlife Action Plan Revisions
18. NE Regional
Habitat Map
My State
Map cut out
of the NE
Regional
Map
Included in each Northeast state’s wildlife action plan
Northeast
Highest
Ranked
Habitats by
Ecological
Condition
My States
Habitat
Map
Scaled ranking
of my state
My State’s
Map with My
state’s Stuff
We agree that all states will insert these as they are completed
20. Northeast Regional Conservation
Framework Workshop
“Albany II”
June 14-16, 2011
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Albany, New York
Hosted by
Northeast Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative
Photo Credit: James Weliver/USFWS
21. Most importantly-
The Northeast Regional effort represents a
partnership and a willingness of the partners to
collectively and intentionally work in an
organized fashion towards a larger landscape
conservation vision
Notas do Editor
The Northeast (NEAFWA and USFWS Northeast Region) is jurisdictionally diverse with 13 states + DC, 5 adjacent Canadian provinces, 17 recognized tribes, and many existing partnerships. There are four LCCs partially or wholly in the Northeast Region with the North Atlantic and Appalachian making up most of the region.
Thescale, pace and complexity of the existing threats to biological diversity are continuing to increase (most notably impacts to habitats) and now these impacts are being magnified by the multiple effects of accelerated climate change.
The major challenge is…
The northeast states response to these challenges…
The goal of the RCN program to address priority, landscape-scale, regional wildlife conservation issues by working collaboratively . Much more information on the program and projects is available at rcngrants.org.
The North Atlantic LCC has aligned its activities closely with NEAFWA including…
NEAFWA and the North Atlantic LCC hosted a workshop to review progress on RCN and LCC projects assess additional needs and agree on a common conservation framework to fit these needs into.Significant outcomes from this meeting include-agreement on a conservation framework-organization of past work done and future work needed-a commitment to work together on the next generation of State Wildlife Action Plans to be able to roll up species, habitats and mgmt needs across the region
This is the common framework agreed upon by the partners at this workshop. It is very similar to strategic habitat conservation but with more emphasis on the how we design, translate and help partners adopt the science and tools and on managing the information. Too many tools have been developed without a strong link to management or a plan for how the information will be provided to those making conservation decisions
And to articulate a clear vision and direction for the partnership.