measuring the effectiveness of state wildlife grant project s
Post on 23-Feb-2016
50 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grant Projects
Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
State Wildlife Grants
0102030405060708090100
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Mill
ions
of $
’s
Fiscal Year
Wildlife Action Plans
SWG SuccessesConserving at-risk fish and wildlife in Ohio
Lake Erie Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum)
Status: De-listed as federally threatened (Sept 2011)
Project Description: Permanent conservationeasements, research, monitoring, education
Cost: $250,995
Outcome: Population increase to >8,000 (Recovery Plan Goal 5,555) Partners: ODNR, USFWS, Black Swamp Conservancy, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, Northern Illinois University, OSU-Stone Laboratory, private landowners
Outputs vs Impacts
b. Relative Costs of Measuring Change
ConservationActions
(Outputs)
Threats(Outcomes)
Species & Habitats(Impacts)
a. C
onfid
ence
in Im
pact
c. Time Required to Detect Change
IntermediateResults
(Outcomes)
The Need for EM
• Improve Conservation Work– link measures & actions
• Improve Accountability to Administration & Congress– show success
• Maintain/Enhance Public Support – tell a story
Adaptive Mgmt
Two QuestionsStatus?
Effectiveness?
Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation
• Developed by leading organizations & agencies
• Draws on many fields• Open source/common language• Used around the world
• Great Lakes• TNC Preserves• Swedish National Parks• Donor Funding Programs• Academic Training
CMP Open Standards
KEY
Direct Threat Result
Intermediate ResultsAction Conservation
Target
Gating caves and mines
Increased bat
populations?
Bat Cave Results Chain
Bat Cave Results Chain
KEY
Direct Threat Result
Intermediate ResultsAction Conservation
Target
Gating caves and mines
Reduced disturbance by humans
Increased bat
populations?
Reduced disturbance by feral cats?
Bat Cave Results Chain
KEY
Direct Threat Result
Intermediate ResultsAction Conservation
Target
Gating caves and mines
Reduced disturbance by humans
Increased bat
populations?
Reduced disturbance by feral cats?
Gating caves and mines
Reduced human access
Reduced disturbance by humans
Increased bat
populations
Reduced disturbance by feral cats
Reduced access by feral cats
i # breaches
i # distinct cat tracks
i # bats
i # juveniles
Plover Results Chain
KEY
Direct Threat Result
Intermediate ResultsAction Conservation
Target
i # breaches
i # disturbed nests
# juveniles
Protecting Nesting Sites
Reduced human access
Reduced disturbance by humans
Increased plover nesting success
Reduced disturbance by predators
Reduced access by predators
i # eggs
i
Generic Results Chain
KEY
Direct Threat Result
Intermediate ResultsAction Conservation
Target
Predator Exclosure
Reduced human access
Reduced disturbance by humans
Increased SGCN
populations
Reduced disturbance by predators
Reduced access by predators
Mockup of Report
Work Group Charge
Develop and test a measures framework for assessing the
effectiveness of State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, conservation actions more broadly, and potentially Wildlife
Action Plans themselves.
Work GroupCONSERVATION PARTNERS
Karl Hess (USFWS)Ron Essig (USFWS)Connie Young-Dubovsky (USFWS)Amielle DeWan (DOW)Tess Present (NAS)Shelley Green (TNC)Mary Klein (NatureServe)Mathew Birnbaum (NFWF)Terra Rentz (TWS)
STATESDana Baxley (KDFWR)Faith Balch (MNDNR)Tara Bergeson (WIDNR)Chris Burkett (VDGIF)Wendy Connally (TPWD)Jenny Dickson (CDEP)Mike Harris (GDNR)Eric Rickerson (ODFW)Tracey Tomajer (NYDEC)
AFWAMark HumpertPriya Nanjappa
FOUNDATIONS OF SUCCESSNick SalafskyCaroline Stem
Timeline
• Sept ’09-Working Group Formed• Dec’09-Workshop 1• Jan’10-Subcommittees Formed• Mar’10-Interim Report to TWW Committee• Apr’10-Workshop 2• June’10-Pilot Testing• July’10-Workshop 3• Sept’10-Phase I Report to TWW Committee• Dec ‘10-Workshop 4• Jan ’11-SWAP Coordinators Review• Mar ‘11-Final Report to TWW Committee• Apr ‘11-Print Final Report/Implement
Framework Steps
1) Define Generic Conservation Actions2) Use Results Chains to Describe the Theory of
Change3) ID a Limited set of Effectiveness Measures4) Develop & Test Data Collection
Questionnaires5) Collect & Analyze Data & Adapt
11 Common Actions
Conservation Area Designation Acquisition/Easement/Lease
Data Collection & Analysis Management Planning
Direct Management of Natural Resources
Species Restoration
Create New Habitat/Natural Processes
Training & Technical Assistance
Outreach & Education Land Use Planning
Environmental Review
11 Common Conservation Actions Funded through SWG
Criteria for Measures
1) Linked-to key factors in results chain2)Measurable-both qualitative & quantitative3) Precise-defined the same by all4) Consistent-unlikely to change over time5) Sensitive-can measure change6)Overarching-can be measured at diff.
stages7)Achievable-not onerous to collect
Info for One ActionDefinition of
ActionExample
s
“Generic” Results Chain
Species Restoration
Species Restoration
“Good” restoration
plan completed
Source population identified
Species Restoration
Species initially restored to site
(short-term)
Species breeding
at sites : o )
Species Restoration
No breedingat sites
: o (
Species Restoration
“Good” overall restoration plan
for species
Key stakeholders buy into plan
Species Restoration
Species Restoration
Obj SP RST 5 – Sp Initially RestoredBy specified target date, the target number of units* have been introduced to Area(s)
YYYY.
Obj SP RST 6a – Sp BreedingWithin xx years of introduction, the restored population is successfully breeding within
the restoration site(s).
Obj SP RST 2 – “Good” PlanBefore implementation work starts, a
"good" restoration plan has been developed for the specific project site(s). "Good" = …
Species Restoration
Ind SP RST 2 – Quality of PlanPresence of plan; assessment of plan against
a priori quality criteria
Ind SP RST 6 – Species BreedingEvidence of ongoing self reproduction of species within the site; Total units of species at the site
Species Restoration
Info for One ActionDefinition of
ActionExample
s
“Generic” Results Chain
Crosswalk TableResul
tObjectiv
eMeasure
sQuestion
s
Questionaire
Questionnaire
This is all most folks would see for
performance reporting
purposes!!
Similar Projects Generating Similar Data
Roll Up Measures
Demonstrate That These are More Than “Counting” Projects
• % of projects that answered research questions• % of projects where data reaching target audiences• % of projects leading to other management actions
Report
IT Systems
• ConPro• Conservation Registry• HabITS• Miradi• Wildlife TRACS• Biotics 4 • DataBasin• NatureServe Explorer Web Service
Wildlife TRACS
Using OS to Evaluate Wildlife Action Plans
1. An approved framework2. Measures for 11 common
conservation actions3. Wildlife TRACS as the IT
System4. Grant Streamlining5. Next steps for SWAP
Final Report
Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants
FINAL REPORT
April 2011
www.fishwildlife.org/files/Effectiveness-Measures-Report_2011.pdf
“Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.”
-Peter Drucker
Questions
Effectiveness Measures & Wildlife TRACS Reporting & Tracking Tool
Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Wildlife TRACS
SWG Effectiveness
Measures Working Group
TRACS & Measures
Sub-working Group
TRACS Development
Team
PDT & PAG Testing
Process
Examples• Direct Management
• Species Restoration
• Data Collection
Direct Management
Direct Management
Species Restoration
Species Restoration
Data Collection
Data Collection
top related