Introduction and Study Background
This report explores the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, also known as State Wildlife Action Plans (plans), for the nine Northeastern states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. As part of a study funded by the National Council for Science and the Environment’s Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program, eight universities conducted research on development and implementation of all U.S. plans. During 2007–2008, a team of nine interdisciplinary graduate students at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment investigated plan development and implementation in nine states in the Northeast United States. This report includes the team’s findings of state wildlife conservation activities, emerging conservation priorities, new conservation approaches and tools, and examples of current projects that demonstrate promising directions for accelerating habitat conservation.
What are the State Wildlife Action Plans?
In 2001, Congress required states and territories to develop a CWCS in order to continue qualifying for federal State Wildlife Grant funds. Each plan was required to include the following eight common elements:
(1) Distribution and abundance of wildlife species,
(2) Locations and condition of key habitats and community types,
(3) Wildlife and habitat threats,
(4) Conservation actions to address these threats,
(5) Plans for monitoring species, habitats and the effectiveness of conservation actions,
(6) Plans for review and adaptive management of the strategy,
(7) Plans to coordinate strategy development, implementation and review with federal, state, local agencies and Indian tribes, and
(8) Opportunities for broad public participation in plan development and implementation.
While some states approached plan development as an exercise in articulating broad goals and objectives for protecting state species and habitats, others developed more specific action plans with prioritized short-term and long-term actions.Master of ScienceNatural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/21/Regional_ExecSum_Final.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/20/Regional piece_final.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/19/Vermont.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/18/Rhode Island.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/17/Pennsylvania.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/16/New York.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/15/New Jersey.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/14/New Hampshire.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/13/Massachusetts.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/12/Maine.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/11/Connecticut.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/10/EMichael_TransbFreshwater_final.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/9/AppC.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/8/AppB.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/7/AppA.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/6/Visser_Federal%20Collaboration-1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/5/Lewis%20and%20Theriot_LIP%20final%20report.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/4/Levy.GIS.all.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/3/Lauren_s%20Drilldown%20Final.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/2/Ashley_Partnerships.dochttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58214/1/Aldridge_Jastremski_DD.pd
