Assessing prioritization measures for a private land conservation program in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region

Private land conservation has become an important tool for protecting biodiversity and habitat, but methods for prioritizing and scheduling conservation on private land are still being developed. While return on investment methods have been suggested as a potential path forward, the different processes linking private landscapes to the socioeconomic systems in which they are embedded create unique challenges for scheduling conservation with this approach. We investigated a range of scheduling approaches within a return on investment framework for breeding waterfowl and broods in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. Current conservation targeting for waterfowl in the region focuses mostly on the distribution and abundance of breeding waterfowl. We tested whether MaxGain approaches for waterfowl conservation differed from MinLoss approaches in terms of return on investment and which approach performed best in avoiding loss of waterfowl and broods separately. We also examined variation in results based upon the temporal scale of the abundance layers used for input and compared the region's current scheduling approach with results from our simulations. Our results suggested that MinLoss was the most efficient scheduling approach for both breeding waterfowl and broods and that using just breeding waterfowl to target areas for conservation programs might cause organizations to overlook important areas for broods, particularly over shorter timespans. The higher efficiency of MinLoss approaches in our simulations also indicated that incorporating probability of wetland drainage into decision-making improved the overall return on investment. We recommend that future conservation scheduling for easements in the region and for private land conservation in general include some form of return on investment or cost-effective analysis to make conservation more transparent

Wind and wildlife in the Northern Great Plains: identifying low-impact areas for wind development.

Wind energy offers the potential to reduce carbon emissions while increasing energy independence and bolstering economic development. However, wind energy has a larger land footprint per Gigawatt (GW) than most other forms of energy production and has known and predicted adverse effects on wildlife. The Northern Great Plains (NGP) is home both to some of the world's best wind resources and to remaining temperate grasslands, the most converted and least protected ecological system on the planet. Thus, appropriate siting and mitigation of wind development is particularly important in this region. Steering energy development to disturbed lands with low wildlife value rather than placing new developments within large and intact habitats would reduce impacts to wildlife. Goals for wind energy development in the NGP are roughly 30 GW of nameplate capacity by 2030. Our analyses demonstrate that there are large areas where wind development would likely have few additional impacts on wildlife. We estimate there are ∼1,056 GW of potential wind energy available across the NGP on areas likely to have low-impact for biodiversity, over 35 times development goals. New policies and approaches will be required to guide wind energy development to low-impact areas

Migration and winter distribution of the Chestnutcollared Longspur

The Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus) is one of five grassland songbirds, endemic within North America, with populations that have declined >65% since the 1960s. These species breed and winter in the northern and southern Great Plains, respectively. Identifying migration routes, wintering sites, and the timing of their habitat use is key for understanding the relative magnitude of threats across the annual cycle and effectively targeting habitats for conservation. We tracked migratory movements of seven Chestnut-collared Longspurs with light-level geolocators deployed in Canada. Individuals wintered up to 112-1,200km apart. All followed the Central Flyway, circumvented high-elevation terrain, and traveled east of the breeding location. Unlike most songbirds, the durations of spring and fall migrations were similar; on average 42 ± 7d and 41 ± 5d during fall and spring migrations, respectively, for an approximately 2,000km migration; this highlights the need to better understand habitat requirements during migration for grassland songbirds. Using geospatial habitat data, we assessed winter distribution overlap with four other endemic grassland songbirds; wintering range overlapped 63-99%. Future studies should use more precise devices (e.g., archival GPS units), programmed for data collection dates from this study, to identify specific migratory sites for better conserving this and associated grassland species

Low-impact areas for wind development in Wyoming.

<p>(A) Disturbed areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Kiesecker1" target="_blank">[22]</a>. (B) Ungulate migration corridors and crucial ranges <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Wyoming2" target="_blank">[51]</a>. (C) Wyoming state wildlife action plan terrestrial priority areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Wyoming1" target="_blank">[50]</a>, Greater sage grouse (<i>Centrocercus urophasianus</i>) core areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Doherty1" target="_blank">[42]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Mead1" target="_blank">[52]</a>, and priority wetland complexes <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Copeland2" target="_blank">[53]</a>. (D) Low impact areas for wind development are the subset of disturbed areas where wind is viable and wildlife sensitivity is low.</p

A SUMMARY OF THE WILDLIFE LINKAGE AND HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT: A PRIORITIZATION AND PLANNING TOOL FOR WESTERN MONTANA

Protecting habitat connectivity for wildlife is a management imperative facing agencies and wildlife organizations across the United States. To maintain connectivity and improve highway safety across transportation routes in western Montana, American Wildlands conducted a rapid wildlife linkage and highway safety assessment. This analysis had two primary objectives: 1) to provide a planning tool to direct American Wildlands’ conservation efforts for protection of habitat connectivity across transportation routes; and 2) to provide data and information useful to agencies and other conservation partners. This assessment used four criteria to identify priority areas: i) road kill concentration areas, ii) important wildlife linkage areas, iii) planned transportation projects, and iv) land ownership as an indicator of the likelihood of conservation success. To complete the analysis, kernel density estimation and percent volume contours were used to identify high concentration areas where there is a dual concern for wildlife and human safety based on elevated numbers of road kill. Additional GIS data sets were used to further prioritize the potential priority areas. This process resulted in improved understanding of the road kill concentration areas in western Montana as well as a planning document which can be used by both public and private sector entities to improve local and regional planning and coordination. Critical to the success of this project was an engaged advisory group and a focus on delivery of the analysis results and products to the agencies and other partners. To ensure that advisory group members, representing their respective organizations, endorse and utilize the analysis results in their planning processes we actively encouraged and incorporated member input into the analysis process and data products. Delivery mechanisms (hard copy reports, GIS data, and web access) were agreed upon by the advisory group and are available with the final report. Continued collaborative efforts between public and private entities will be essential to ensure the appropriate level of conservation dollars and effort to meet protection needs in the identified priority areas. Since the western Montana study can be considered a pilot for a possible statewide initiative, the lessons learned may be used to create an improved product at the statewide level. Additionally, we propose this model be considered for application to other western states in need of a wildlife linkage and highway safety planning tool

A SUMMARY OF THE WILDLIFE LINKAGE AND HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT: A PRIORITIZATION AND PLANNING TOOL FOR WESTERN MONTANA

Protecting habitat connectivity for wildlife is a management imperative facing agencies and wildlife organizations across the United States. To maintain connectivity and improve highway safety across transportation routes in western Montana, American Wildlands conducted a rapid wildlife linkage and highway safety assessment. This analysis had two primary objectives: 1) to provide a planning tool to direct American Wildlands’ conservation efforts for protection of habitat connectivity across transportation routes; and 2) to provide data and information useful to agencies and other conservation partners. This assessment used four criteria to identify priority areas: i) road kill concentration areas, ii) important wildlife linkage areas, iii) planned transportation projects, and iv) land ownership as an indicator of the likelihood of conservation success. To complete the analysis, kernel density estimation and percent volume contours were used to identify high concentration areas where there is a dual concern for wildlife and human safety based on elevated numbers of road kill. Additional GIS data sets were used to further prioritize the potential priority areas. This process resulted in improved understanding of the road kill concentration areas in western Montana as well as a planning document which can be used by both public and private sector entities to improve local and regional planning and coordination. Critical to the success of this project was an engaged advisory group and a focus on delivery of the analysis results and products to the agencies and other partners. To ensure that advisory group members, representing their respective organizations, endorse and utilize the analysis results in their planning processes we actively encouraged and incorporated member input into the analysis process and data products. Delivery mechanisms (hard copy reports, GIS data, and web access) were agreed upon by the advisory group and are available with the final report. Continued collaborative efforts between public and private entities will be essential to ensure the appropriate level of conservation dollars and effort to meet protection needs in the identified priority areas. Since the western Montana study can be considered a pilot for a possible statewide initiative, the lessons learned may be used to create an improved product at the statewide level. Additionally, we propose this model be considered for application to other western states in need of a wildlife linkage and highway safety planning tool

Low-impact areas for wind development in the Northern Great Plains.

<p>Low impact areas for wind development are the subset of disturbed areas where wind is viable and wildlife sensitivity is low.</p

Low-impact areas for wind development in Alberta. (

<p>A) Disturbed areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Geobase1" target="_blank">[29]</a> within the Northern Great Plains ecoregion <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Natural1" target="_blank">[23]</a>. (B) Conservation priority areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-NatureConservancyof1" target="_blank">[40]</a> and important bird areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-BirdLife1" target="_blank">[38]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Chaundy1" target="_blank">[39]</a>. (C) Low impact areas for wind development are the subset of disturbed areas where wind is viable and wildlife sensitivity is low.</p

Disturbed areas in the Northern Great Plains [<b>22]</b>, [29<b> </b>].

<p>Disturbed areas in the Northern Great Plains <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Kiesecker1" target="_blank">[<b>22]</b></a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Geobase1" target="_blank">[29<b> </b>]</a>.</p

Low-impact areas for wind development in South Dakota.

<p>(A) Disturbed areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Kiesecker1" target="_blank">[22]</a>. (B) Whooping crane (<i>Grus americana</i>) stopover sites and waterfowl breeding bird density <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Reynolds1" target="_blank">[47]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-Niemuth1" target="_blank">[48]</a>. (C) conservation priority areas <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041468#pone.0041468-TheNature1" target="_blank">[44]</a>. (D) Low impact areas for wind development are the subset of disturbed areas where wind is viable and wildlife sensitivity is low.</p