Assessing the use of climate change information in State Wildlife Action Plans

Abstract

Assessing how climate change information is used in conservation planning is an important part of meeting long‐term conservation and climate adaptation goals. In the United States, state agencies responsible for fish and wildlife management create State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) to identify conservation goals, prioritize actions, and establish plans for managing and monitoring target species and habitats. We created a rubric to assess and compare the use of climate change information in SWAPs for 10 states in the Intermountain West and Great Plains. Interviews with SWAP authors identified institutional factors influencing applications of climate change information. Access to professional networks and climate scientists, funding support for climate change vulnerability analysis, Congressional mandates to include climate change, and supportive agency leadership facilitate using climate change information. Political climate could either support or limit options for using this information. Together, the rubric and the interview results can be used to identify opportunities to improve the use of climate information, and to identify entry points to support conservation planning and natural resource managers in successful adaptation to climate change. This research is directly relevant to future SWAP revisions, which most states will complete by 2025, and more broadly to other conservation planning processes.

Full text

CONTRIBUTED PAPER
Assessing the use of climate change information in State
Wildlife Action Plans
Heather M. Yocum
1
| Deanna Metivier Sassorossi
2,3
| Andrea J. Ray
4
1
Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences, University of
Colorado Boulder, Boulder,
Colorado, USA
2
Forestry and Environmental Resources,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina, USA
3
Natural Resources and the Environment,
University of Connecticut and Eversource
Energy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
4
Physical Sciences Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Correspondence
Heather M. Yocum, University of
Colorado—Boulder, 4001 Discovery
Dr. Suite 348, Boulder, CO 80303, USA.
Email: heather.yocum@colorado.edu
Funding information
National Science Foundation, Grant/
Award Number: 1243270
Abstract
Assessing how climate change information is used in conservation planning is an
important part of meeting long-term conservation and climate adaptation goals.
In the United States, state agencies responsible for fish and wildlife management
create State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) to identify conservation goals, priori-
tize actions, and establish plans for managing and monitoring target species and
habitats.Wecreatedarubrictoassessandcomparetheuseofclimatechange
information in SWAPs for 10 states in the Intermountain West and Great Plains.
Interviews with SWAP authors identified institutional factors influencing applica-
tions of climate change information. Access to professional networks and climate
scientists, funding support for climate change vulnerability analysis, Congressio-
nal mandates to include climate change, and supportive agency leadership facili-
tate using climate change information. Political climate could either support or
limit options for using this information. Together, the rubric and the interview
results can be used to identify opportunities to improve the use of climate infor-
mation, and to identify entry points to support conservation planning and natural
resource managers in successful adaptation to climate change. This research is
directly relevant to future SWAP revisions, which most states will complete by
2025, and more broadly to other conservation planning processes.
KEYWORDS
adaptation planning, Central United States, climate change, climate change vulnerability,
conservation planning, Northern Great Plains, resilience, wildlife planning
1|INTRODUCTION
Comprehensive planning to adapt and manage fish, wild-
life, and habitats to climate change requires assessing
species and ecosystem vulnerability to climate-related
risks (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Mawdsley et al., 2009;
West et al., 2009; Glick et al., 2011; Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, 2012
1
; Stein et al., 2014). The
imperatives for incorporating climate change information
into conservation planning are robust (c.f., Heller &
Zavaleta, 2009). For example, key strategies to achieving
conservation targets include using climate change infor-
mation to identify risks to diverse habitats, map climate
refugia, and increase habitat connectivity (Game et al.,
2011; Groves et al., 2012; Lacher & Wilkerson, 2014;
Michalak et al., 2018). However, there are gaps between
managers' understanding of the importance of climate
change, the use of climate information in planning
Received: 18 March 2021 Revised: 22 November 2021 Accepted: 28 November 2021
DOI: 10.1111/csp2.608
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Conservation Science and Practice. 2022;4:e608. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csp2 1of20
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.608

efforts, and implementation of adaptation actions (Cross
et al., 2013; Dilling et al., 2019; Donatti et al., 2019; Peter-
son St-Laurent et al., 2021). Although natural resource
managers increasingly recognize the importance of using
climate change information to inform conservation, this
information is currently underutilized (Archie et al.,
2014; Delach et al., 2019; Ellenwood et al., 2012; Lemieux
et al., 2013). To close these gaps, there is a need for better
guidance on how to use climate change to inform conser-
vation planning (c.f., Archie et al., 2014; Yocum &
Ray, 2019).
Understanding how climate change is being used in
conservation planning is key to both improving those
planning processes and to understanding the linkage
between plans and actions. A review of 185 Comprehensive
Conservation Plans for the US National Wildlife Refuge
System found that plans varied in the extent to which they
addressed climate change but also identified excellent
examples within the plans that, if compiled and shared
across planning entities, could improve planning efforts
(Meretsky & Fischman, 2014). However, reviews of other
conservation planning documents have found disconnects
between managers' understanding of climate change-
related risks to conservation and the inclusion of potential
adaptation strategies or actions in plans (Fontaine, 2011;
Delach et al., 2019; Hoeppner & Hughes, 2019). These
gaps may result in conservation efforts that fall short of
conservation goals (c.f., Delach et al., 2019).
Systematic comparison of strategic conservation plan-
ning across multiple, comparable land units can identify
best practices to support the use of climate change infor-
mation in conservation planning. In the United States,
state fish and wildlife agencies are required to write State
Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) to outline conservation
goals, identify priority species and habitats, and describe
plans for monitoring and observation (Department of the
Interior, 2001). The first SWAPs were published in 2005,
and must be revised every 10 years (AFWA, 2009). In
2005, 35 SWAPs mentioned climate change as a potential
threat (Lerner et al., 2006); however, only four dealt sub-
stantively with climate change (Lacher & Wilkerson, 2014)
and only one-quarter explicitly discussed using adaptive
management to address climate change (Fontaine, 2011).
For the most recent revision of the SWAPs, guidance from
the President and the Department of the Interior (DOI)—
which is responsible for national policy on fish, wildlife,
and public land—strongly encouraged states to include cli-
mate change in the 2015 SWAP revisions (Executive Order
13514, 2009
2
; DOI Secretarial Order 3289, 2009). However,
the best practices guidance on how to include climate
change information was non-prescriptive in order to
accommodate the specific ecological, environmental, and
social differences between the states (AFWA, 2009, 2012;
Glick et al., 2011; National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Cli-
mate Adaptation Partnership, 2012).
SWAPs vary widely in approaches to conservation and
criteria for selecting and classifying priority species and
habitats (Lackstrom et al., 2018; Lerner et al., 2006; Paskus
et al., 2016). Concurrently with our study, comparisons of
SWAPs in the mid-west (Paskus et al., 2016) and the south-
ern United States. (Lackstrom et al., 2018) suggest that
enhancing regional collaboration and using shared classifi-
cation and terminology could improve the use of climate
change information in future SWAP revisions. This in turn
could improve planning for climate adaptation, especially
with regard to vulnerability analysis and identifying
regional target species and habitats in common.
This study contributes to this literature by creating a
method to analyze the use of climate change information
in plans and understand the circumstances that facilitate
its use. Our results are directly relevant to future SWAP
revisions, and more broadly to other conservation plan-
ning processes. We created a novel rubric and conducted
follow up interviews to evaluate and compare the use of
climate change information in SWAPs in the north central
United States. Similar rubrics have been used to compare
other types of conservation plans (Meretsky &
Fischman, 2014) and to understand how the use of climate
change information in adaptation planning improves over
time (Adler & Gosliner, 2019); however, no such rubric
existed for SWAPs. We developed a novel rubric based on
best practices and guidelines. Our rubric allows
researchers and SWAP authors to assess the use of climate
information, to compare it to available guidance, and to
learn from examples from other states in order to improve
future revisions. This article describes the development of
the rubric and its application to the SWAPs of 10 states in
the Intermountain West and Great Plains. Based on inter-
views, we describe reasons why states performed differ-
ently. We use these results to recommend steps to
improving the use of climate change in these plans—and
other conservation planning processes more broadly.
2|METHODS
Our analysis had three steps: documenting the use of cli-
mate change information in each plan; creating a rubric
to compare and analyze the use of this information; and
interviewing key informants. This research was part of a
larger project seeking to generate actionable climate
information to support wildlife managers and conserva-
tion in the north central United States. (c.f., Ballard
et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2020; Yocum & Ray, 2019).
We reviewed the most recent SWAP from 10 states:
Colorado (Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 2015); Iowa
2of20 YOCUM ET AL.

(Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2015); Kansas
(Rohweder, 2015); Minnesota (Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, 2016); Montana (Montana Fish, Wild-
life, and Parks, 2015); Nebraska (Schneider et al., 2011);
North Dakota (Dyke et al., 2015); South Dakota (South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 2014); Utah
(Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2015); and Wyoming
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2017). These
states were selected because they are served by boundary
organizations which collaborate in the region (Averyt
et al., 2018): the USGS North Central Climate Adaptation
Science Center (NCCASC), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Western Water Assessment
Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (NOAA
RISA), and the US Department of Agriculture Northern
Plains Climate Hub. Boundary organizations work to facil-
itate the flow of information between the research and
management communities (Averyt et al., 2018; Crona &
Parker, 2011; Gustafsson & Lidskog, 2018; McNie, 2007).
Adjacent states of Iowa and Minnesota are included
because they encompass the eastern portions of the Prairie
Pothole Region and Northern Great Plains, ecosystems
which are a focus of the NCCASC.
2.1 |Documenting the use of climate
information
We read and annotated each SWAP to identify the cli-
mate information used. Often, specific information was
absent, in separate reports, or had to be inferred based on
available information.
2.2 |Creating and applying the rubric
We developed a rubric based on best practices and guide-
lines for revising the SWAPs in three guidance docu-
ments: the eight congressionally mandated elements
(AFWA, 2002); Best Practices for State Wildlife Action
Plans (AFWA, 2012); and Voluntary Guidance for States
to Incorporate Climate Change into State Wildlife Action
Plans and other Management Plans (AFWA, 2009). We
identified guidance specific to the use of climate change
information in these documents and then combined
these guidelines to eliminate redundancy and create met-
rics for scoring. The rubric was not designed to evaluate
the use of specific types of climate change information
(e.g., specific downscaled climate projection tools)
because the guidance documents did not make explicit
recommendations about this.
Our rubric includes 20 metrics and criteria for five of
the eight required elements: species, habitats, threats and
stressors, actions, and monitoring. three elements were
not included because they were not closely related to cli-
mate information use nor easily scored based on SWAP
content: timelines for revision; community and partner
engagement; and public engagement. For example, while
all SWAPs listed some partnerships, there were few
details as to how these might specifically contribute to
climate change adaptation.
For each metric, the score is based on criteria for the
use of climate information. A score of 0 was given if a
metric was not addressed in the SWAP, a score of 1 was
given if the metric was addressed, and a score of 2 was
given to exceptional examples. For some categories, the
recommended criteria was either present or not in the
plans, so the possible scores were limited to 0 or 1.
2.3 |Interviews
We used purposeful sampling (Bernard, 2005: 186–99) to
identify key individuals involved in incorporating climate
change information into the SWAPs. This process resulted
in interviews with 16 individuals from state fish and wild-
life management agencies, non-profit organizations, and
universities. All interviewees were listed contributors to
the SWAPs and gave permission for quotes to be used in
this manuscript. Personnel from Iowa, Kansas, and Mon-
tana did not participate in the study because individuals
either elected not to be interviewed or could not be
reached after multiple attempts. The number of inter-
viewees differs across states, reflecting the number of per-
sonnel involved in integrating climate change information
into the SWAPs. Thirteen interview questions focused on
the revision process and factors that influenced organiza-
tional capacity to identify, use, and integrate climate infor-
mation into the SWAP. All interviews were conducted,
transcribed, and analyzed by the lead author using a
grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Saldaña, 2015). Interviews were analyzed using Atlas.ti, a
qualitative data analysis program that facilitates the orga-
nization and analysis of textual data. Interview questions
and thematic codes are available in Data S1. All interview
questions and data collection procedures were approved
by the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for research with human subjects.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Climate information used
The AFWA guidance did not make specific recommenda-
tions about which climate change information or models
YOCUM ET AL.3of20

TABLE 1 Climate change information used in SWAPs. For increased readability, please see Table 1 in Supporting Information.
State
Climate futures used for
climate change
vulnerability
analysis (CCVA)
Future period
analyzed
Vulnerability assessment
strategy Notes
CO (2015) 12 IPCC5 models,
a
RCP6.0,
80% of the model spread
represents range of futures;
extensive discussion of how
climate futures were
chosen and used.
2035–2060 Loosely based on CCVI Included spatially explicit
information (GIS rasters and
maps); represented uncertainty
by bracketing a range of climate
projections.
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
and the North Central Climate
Science Center assisted with
modeling and use of climate
information.
IA (2015) CCVI default ensemble
inferred, because specific
models not provided,
b
medium emissions
scenario; narrative
description of projected
regional changes.
End of century CCVI Leverages Iowa Climate Change
Impacts Committee Report
c
;
taxonomy of threats includes
climate change and severe
weather.
KS (2015) CCVI default inferred
because climate input
choices not discussed;
narrative description of
projected regional changes.
End of century CCVI CCVI used to assess subset of 83 of
285 SGCN, representative of
taxonomic groups; provides
short bibliography on climate
change impacts on species and
ecosystems.
MN (2016) Narrative descriptions of
trends and impacts; drew
from NCA report
d
;
qualitative scenarios of
projected changes used for
habitat vulnerability
e
; did
not directly use climate
model output.
2041–2070, 2070–
2099
Leveraged vulnerability
analyses from other states
f
;
CCVI not used.
Technical Advisory Teams
concluded that data was
insufficient for a species CCVA;
however, teams considered how
changes in temperature,
precipitation, and the frequency
and severity of storms could
interact with other criteria to
reduce population long-term
health and stability.
MT (2015) Qualitative scenarios of
projected changes used for
habitat vulnerability; did
not directly use climate
model output.
Not specified Used CCVAs from the
literature; CCVI not used
Recommends continuing to
evaluate current climate science
models and recommended
actions, but does not provide
specifics on how to evaluate.
ND (2015) CCVI default inferred
because no discussion of
climate inputs; Lit review
drew from NCA
g
which
uses B1/A2 and RCP 2.6/
RCP 8.5 scenarios.
2021–2050, 2041–
2070, 2070–
2099
CCVI An appendix to the main
document describes projected
climate change impacts based
on the NCA, other literature and
CCVI from other states.
NE (2011) CCVI default inferred, no
discussion of the climate
inputs to CCVI; also used
qualitative scenarios
focused on the
directionality of projected
change, but these lack
citations.
Not specified CCVI Describes how climate change is
projected to impact fire regimes,
hydrology, habitat
fragmentation, pollution, and
invasive species.
4of20 YOCUM ET AL.

to use, allowing states discretion to decide which of the
many available tools and downscaled climate models to
use. While the rubric did not include criteria for the type
or source of climate change information, we document
this for each SWAP (Table 1). Rather than mandating
specific products, AFWA guidance (2009, 2012) suggested
using tools that combined climate change information
with projected impacts on species and habitats, such as
NatureServes Climate Change Vulnerability Index
(CCVI), a scoring system that incorporates a species'
TABLE 1 (Continued)
State
Climate futures used for
climate change
vulnerability
analysis (CCVA)
Future period
analyzed
Vulnerability assessment
strategy Notes
SD (2014) CCVI default inferred;
separate analysis of 16
IPCC4 CMIP3 models
h
is
used extensively in report.
2021–2050, 2070–
2099
CCVI Included spatially explicit
information (GIS rasters and
maps). Represented uncertainty
through use of 16 GCM futures
for temperature, precipitation,
and growing degree days for
each of the state's major land
resource areas (MLRA).
UT (2015) Qualitative assessment of
threats including drought,
increasing stream
temperature, and
increasing variability of
temperature and
precipitation. Did not
directly use climate model
output.
Not specified Climate change as part of
threats assessment
i
; CCVI
not used
Used threat assessment strategy;
Qualitative assessment of threats
being exacerbated by climate
change (e.g., rising average
temperatures increase the risk of
fire frequency and intensity);
describe specific data gaps for
assessing threats.
WY (2017) CCVI default; separate
analysis of 16 CMIP3
models
j
and A2 scenario is
used extensively.
2040–2069
k
or
“mid-century”
CCVI Provides spatially explicit
information (30-m GIS rasters
and maps); considered
microclimates based on
topographic diversity and
moisture availability; where
temperature confidence was
low, used only moisture deficit
for climate exposure;
represented uncertainty range of
temperature and precipitation
climate projections.
Note: All include narrative discussion of current climate, including maps and graphics, and literature review of climate impacts.
a
List of models in table 4 (Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 2015); see methods section for how CCVI was used and uncertainty represented.
b
The CCVI provides a number of options or choices for climate inputs to generate their index (Young et al., 2010); if no options chosen, the tool calculates the
index based on temperature and a moisture index (defined as potential evapotranspiration (PET) precipitation (in mm)) from an ensemble average of 16
IPCC models (see Young et al., 2010), under three greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios, downscaled to 12-km (1/8) resolution according to the method by
Maurer et al. (2009). If the choices were not specified, we inferred that the default was used.
c
Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee (2011).
d
Description in appendix D uses Staudinger et al. (2015); created maps from Climate Reanalyzer (http://cci-reanalyzer.org).
e
Qualitative scenarios focus on directionality of projected change, for example, warmer temperatures, increased evapotranspiration, and more intense storm
events.
f
Wisconsin (LeDee & Ribic, 2015); and Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska (Small-Lorenz et al., 2013).
g
Melillo et al. (2014), which provides the basis for our summary of potential climate changes in the Northern Plains, Kunkel et al. (2013).
h
See Cochrane and Moran (2011) for models selected from Climate Wizard.
i
Salafsky et al. (2008).
j
Cochrane and Moran (2011).
k
Wyoming SWAP chose “mid-century”because, “2050 is far enough into the future for significant changes to have occurred, while projections from various
climate models begin to diverge beyond 2050”(Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2017: p. 14).
YOCUM ET AL.5of20

predicted exposure to climate change with information
about the species biology and potential climate change
sensitivity (Young et al., 2010). Guidelines also suggest
using qualitative scenarios focused on the directionality
of projected change if resources were limited
(e.g., warmer and drier climate without quantifying the
amount of the change) (AFWA, 2009: 14).
Six states used the NatureServe CCVI version 2.1
(Young et al., 2010) to inform their vulnerability analysis of
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The CCVI
3
incorporates climate futures from a Nature Conservancy
product, Climate Wizard (Girvetz et al., 2009), which is
based on the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) generation of models (IPCC, 2007). Climate
Wizard provides a default set of two variables (temperature
and a moisture index) from 16 General Circulation Models
(GCMs) under three greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios,
downscaled to 12-km (1/8 degree) resolution (Maurer
et al., 2009). Users can choose an ensemble average, select
individual GCMs, or provide climate projections from other
sources.ManySWAPsdidnotspecifywhichoption(s)
authors chose, so this was inferred.
While most SWAPs analyzed used the CCVI default
options, some went further. South Dakota augmented the
CCVI with a climate change study that used 16 GCM
futures to represent a range of plausible futures for tem-
perature, precipitation, and changes in Growing Degree
Days, mapping these projected impacts on habitats
(Cochrane & Moran, 2011). Wyoming's SWAP took
advantage of a more detailed analysis that considered
additional variables, including a topographic index to
represent locations that accumulate moisture, and the
Heat Load Index to represent the relative temperatures of
locations based on solar radiation, aspect, and slope
(Pocewicz et al., 2014). The 2014 Colorado SWAP
Enhancement used downscaled model output (Bureau of
Reclamation, 2013, an update of Maurer et al., 2009)
based on the Fifth IPCC (IPCC, 2013) to select the five
most influential climate variables for 17 habitat types
(Decker & Fink, 2014: 19, table 5).
3.2 |Rubric analysis
We found that states used and incorporated climate
change information in a variety of ways (Table 2;
Figure 1). State scores ranged from 7 to 26 out of a possi-
ble maximum of 31. Points were given for each metric in
the rubric: 0 if a metric was not addressed; 1 point if
addressed satisfactorily; and 2 points for exceptional
examples. The total score is less important than what the
spread among scores reveals about the different ways that
states are using climate change information in
conservation planning. Below we highlight examples
from each required element.
3.2.1 | Species
All 10 states identified SGCN as required. Six states used
the CCVI to determine the climate vulnerability of some
or all of their SGCN species. Wyoming, South Dakota,
and Nebraska—which all scored 2 for metric 1.1—went
further and used the CCVI to prioritize and/or rank
SGCN, consistent with prescribed best practices
(AFWA, 2009, 2012; Glick et al., 2011). Wyoming com-
bined its vulnerability analysis with threats from energy
development and disease to identify and rank SGCN.
South Dakota and Colorado SWAPs scored a 2 for metric
1.4 because they included spatially explicit maps and GIS
rasters that depict projected climate change impacts to
species distribution. North Dakota and Minnesota lever-
aged climate change vulnerability analyses from other
states (LeDee & Ribic, 2015; Small-Lorenz et al., 2013), a
practice that can save limited time and resources in con-
servation planning.
3.2.2 | Habitats
Eight of the 10 SWAPs included projected climate change
impacts to habitat quality and/or distribution as rec-
ommended in the best practices. States scored a 2 on met-
rics 2.2 and 2.3 if they provided spatially explicit
examples of projected climate impacts to habitats. For
example: Wyoming included maps that depict habitat
vulnerability, resilience, and exposure to climate change
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2017: figs. 1–3:
II-4-9-II-4–10); Colorado's analysis included maps and
projected changes for 17 habitat types in the state; and
South Dakota produced an interactive website that pro-
vides information on current species and habitat distribu-
tion as well as projected changes in temperature and
precipitation (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks, 2015).
3.2.3 | Threats and stressors
Most states used a standardized system (Salafsky
et al., 2008) to identify threats and stressors on SGCN
and habitats and how climate change could exacerbate
them or pose new ones (e.g., habitat fragmentation,
changes in disturbance regimens, water management
and use). Nebraska scored exemplary on metric 3.1
because it considered how climate change is projected to
6of20 YOCUM ET AL.

impact fire regimes, hydrology, habitat fragmentation,
pollution, and invasive species. Colorado and Utah
scored a 1 on most metrics in this category, but provide
interesting approaches. Colorado considered compound
threats, such as how increasing drought frequency may
impact reservoir and dam management, which in turn
may impact the availability and quality of aquatic habi-
tats and breeding habitat for migratory waterfowl, poten-
tially increasing disease prevalence among Sand Hill
Cranes. Utah scored all the threats, including climate,
relevant to conservation targets.
3.2.4 | Actions
All SWAPs identified potential actions to mitigate linked
threats and stressors, as recommended. South Dakota
ranked exemplary on metric 4.3 because it provided spe-
cific actions to address climate change impacts on species
(e.g., planting native C4 species to replace declining C3
grasses) (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks, 2014: table 5-5: 121–127) and in some cases targets
those actions and/or research and monitoring needs in
particular habitats and areas. Utah scored a 2 on metric
4.3 because it listed threats, associated actions, and spe-
cific indicators for success with respect to managing spe-
cies and habitats during drought and increased stream
temperatures associated with climate change (Utah Divi-
sion of Wildlife Resources, 2015: 154–162).
3.2.5 | Monitoring
All SWAPs reviewed scored 1s in this category because
they did not provide detailed plans for monitoring cli-
mate change impacts on SGCN and habitats, only the
general need to do so. While Utah included some
climate-related variables among indicators of success for
reducing threats of drought and stream temperature,
none of the 10 SWAPs discussed specific monitoring
needs for climate variables, for example, to assess if bio-
logical thresholds are being approached. Although moni-
toring changes in precipitation and temperature could be
outside the scope of state wildlife agencies, describing
key biological thresholds or indicators, or types of infor-
mation needed to support management goals, could
inform effective monitoring plans.
3.3 |Interview analysis
Interviews shed light on organizational differences in
leadership, resources, and capacity that might explain the
differences in use of climate change information among
states. Here we present the themes identified from these
interviews.
3.3.1 | Professional networks and boundary
organizations
Professional networks facilitated the use of climate change
information, including individuals with climate knowledge
and boundary organizations. The Minnesota Fish and
Wildlife Division is housed down the hall from the state cli-
matologist offices within the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, so SWAP authors reported that it was
easy to walk down the hall to “bounce the idea off of them
and see what they thought would be important to include
or what resources they had to offer.”In Colorado, the
NCCASC—a boundary organization—facilitated meetings
between the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, which
conducted the climate change vulnerability analysis, Colo-
rado Parks and Wildlife, and NOAA climate scientists
(Morisette et al., 2017). One interviewee commented that
“[I]t was a really neat collaboration of the climate scientists
that knew the models and how to do the computing and
the ecologists from the National Heritage Program and the
habitat specialists and wildlife biologists from the State
Wildlife Agency to all sit around the table and talk.”
Established professional relationships and previous work-
ing experience with researchers at universities or non-profit
conservation organizations were also cited as helpful. Fur-
thermore, interviewees wanted to know how other states
navigated the revision process and expressed enthusiasm
for increased interstate engagement and collaboration.
3.3.2 | Finding appropriate information
Interviewees reported that there was too much climate
information, but not enough of the right kind. Most inter-
viewees told us that they were limited not by the avail-
ability of information, but instead the lack of specific
information on potential impacts on species and habitats
in their region and “shovel-ready”data sets that could be
used in conjunction with their existing planning or GIS
tools. One reported, “I was astonished at how much data
is available”but “half the time it's not even explicitly
clear what somebody did in order to produce it”and that
it was necessary to “make some assumptions coupling
what [ecological] research is out there with the [climate
change] information.”Furthermore, many SWAP
authors felt that their agencies did not have clear guid-
ance on how climate change impacts or vulnerability
analyses could be used to support management decisions,
YOCUM ET AL.7of20

TABLE 2 Table listing the best practices for including climate change in the SWAPs from AFWA (2009, 2012). For increased readability, please see Table 2 in Supporting Information.
Required elements
Best practices from AFWA (2009,
2012) and metrics for using
climate change info
Metrics and ranking scale for
combined best practices CO IA KS MN MT ND NE SD UT WY
1. Species—Information on the
distribution and abundance of
wildlife, including low and
declining populations, that
describes the diversity and health
of the state's wildlife, including
Species of Greatest Conservation
Need (SGCN).
1.1. The SGCN list should consider
climate change impacts on species
including shifts in habitats and
changes in distribution and
abundance (2009). Include climate
change impacts as one of the
criteria for selecting and
prioritizing SGCN (2012).
0=Not addressed
1=Considered impact of climate
change on SGCN
2=Used climate change to select
and/or prioritize SGCN
1111 1 02 212
1.2. Use vulnerability assessments to
assess climate change impacts on
species (2009). Conduct
vulnerability assessments to inform
the selection of SGCN and
conservation actions using
guidelines in Glick et al. (2011).
0=Not addressed
1=Conducted vulnerability
assessments for SGCN
2=Used vulnerability assessments to
identify SGCN
1100 1 12 211
1.3. Use models to forecast landscape-
scale vegetation thru time,
including future habitat changes
under climate change projections
(2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Used available models or vuln.
assessments to project climate
change impacts on species
2=Offered explicit examples (e.g.,
how projected changes in P and T
will impact species)
1000 1 11 202
1.4. Use species-based models to
project climate change impacts.
Information should be spatially
explicit (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Spatially explicit but not with
regard to climate change
2=Spatially explicit with regard to
climate change
2011 1 01 211
2. Habitats—Descriptions of
locations and relative conditions
of key habitats essential to SGCN.
2.1. ID current location and condition
of priority habitats. Use
vulnerability assessments to assess
climate change impacts on
identified habitats (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Used vulnerability assessments to
assess climate change impacts on
habitats
2=Used vulnerability assessments to
identify and/or prioritize habitats
1011 1 00 121
2.2. Use scenarios to identify how
habitats are likely to change (2009).
Use existing models to project
landscape-scale vegetation
0=Not addressed
1=Used scenarios or existing models
to project potential climate change
2021 1 11 212
8of20 YOCUM ET AL.

TABLE 2 (Continued)
Required elements
Best practices from AFWA (2009,
2012) and metrics for using
climate change info
Metrics and ranking scale for
combined best practices CO IA KS MN MT ND NE SD UT WY
dynamics and how they might
change in the future (2012).
impacts on habitats (e.g., general,
state-wide examples)
2=Used scenarios or existing models
to project potential climate change
impacts on habitats (e.g., specific,
spatially explicit examples)
2.3. Identify projected impacts on
quality and distribution of habitat
across spatial and temporal
scales. Information should be
spatially explicit (2009).
Include both present and future
anticipated extent and condition
of habitat (2012).
0=Not addressed
1=Used existing climate models to
project general changes in habitat
condition
2=Used climate models to project
changes in habitat location,
distribution, and extent (spatially
explicit)
2111 0 10 202
3. Threats and stressors—
Descriptions of problems that
may adversely affect species or
their habitats, and priority
research and survey efforts to
improve conservation of those
species and habitats.
3.1. Consider climate change as a
new threat to both species and
habitats, and an exacerbating factor
compounding known threats
(2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Discuss climate change as a new
and/or exacerbating threat to
species and habitats
2=Identify locations where climate
change impacts may occur
1101 1 12 112
3.2. Use vulnerability assessments to
ID and prioritize threats (2009) and
to ID vulnerable SGCN and related
conservation actions. Use existing
information to identify specific
aspects of climate change that
produce the threat (2012).
0=Not addressed
1=Use vulnerability assessments to
identify and prioritize threats to
species and habitats
1001 1 01 111
3.3. Be specific, and “specify which
impact will result in which threat,
and which action will address that
impact. Avoid unspecified
generalities…”Consider both
current and future trends (2012:
12).
0=Not addressed
1=Provided specific examples about
which climate change impact(s)
will result in which threat
1001 1 11 111
(Continues)
YOCUM ET AL.9of20

TABLE 2 (Continued)
Required elements
Best practices from AFWA (2009,
2012) and metrics for using
climate change info
Metrics and ranking scale for
combined best practices CO IA KS MN MT ND NE SD UT WY
3.4. Use downscaled climate change
information at an appropriate scale
(2009). Should be spatially explicit
(2012).
0=Not addressed
1=Spatially explicit, but not with
regard to climate change
2=Spatially explicit with regard to
climate change
2011 1 11 201
4. Actions—Descriptions of
conservation actions proposed to
conserve the identified species
and habitats and priorities for
implementation.
4.1. Develop “conservation actions to
address direct and indirect climate
change impacts on species and
habitats”under a range of future
conditions (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Identified conservation actions
that address climate change
impacts on species and habitats
1001 1 11 111
4.2. Identify and describe “how
conservation actions will be
prioritized”under multiple threats
and increased uncertainty (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Considered climate change in
prioritizing and listing conservation
actions
1000 1 01 111
4.3. Identify which actions will
minimize climate change impacts,
which will promote wildlife
adaptation, which improve
resilience, and/or facilitate
movement to suitable habitats
(2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Provided examples with regard to
how actions will address threats or
promote monitoring and adaptive
mgmt
2=Identified how actions will
reduce climate change impacts
and/or promote adaptation and
resilience
2001 2 22 222
4.4. Identify decision points or
thresholds for actions to (1)
recognize that some species will go
extinct, and (2) minimize loss of
habitats and species (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Identified thresholds or decision
points related to impacts on species
and habitats
0000 0 00 000
4.5. Identify and protect corridors to
improve connectivity to facilitate
wildlife movement and adaptation
(2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Discussed establishing and
maintaining wildlife corridors to
promote adaptation
0000 0 01 001
4.6. Prioritize conservation actions
benefiting greatest number of
SGCN, habitats, and/or
economically valuable species
(2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Considered actions that will
benefit maximum # of SGCNs,
habitats, and/or valuable species
1000 0 11 111
10 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.

which made it difficult to select and apply climate infor-
mation. Information overload, uncertainty, and the lack
of clear explanations of the methods used to generate cli-
mate change information made it difficult to select,
interpret, and use it to project impacts.
3.3.3 | Funding
Somestates,likeSouthDakota,wereabletosecureaddi-
tional funding to enhance climate change sections
(e.g., SWAP Enhancement Grant from the USFWS or
funding from the Landscape Conservation Cooperation net-
works). This allowed state agencies to bring in outside
expertise when there was not enough in-house capacity or
resources to conduct climate change vulnerability analyses
or to interpret and apply climate change information and
impact data. Some states leveraged information gaps identi-
fied in their SWAP to procure subsequent funding to
address those needs. Conversely, lack of funding was a bar-
rier to increase agency capacity to use climate change infor-
mation or implement actions. One author reported that
they “do a lot of this planning but…don't have any resources
to implement [the plans]…we're talking big, big bucks for
corridors, any other factors affected by climate change that's
not going to come at the state level.”Agency personnel
interpreted a lack of funding to implement conservation
actions identified in the plans to mean that including cli-
mate change in the SWAPs was more about checking a box
than about encouraging substantive changes to long-term
planning strategies or management actions.
3.3.4 | Congressional mandate
Many interviewees reported that the AFWA guidelines
and the Congressional mandate to include climate
change in the SWAPs provided the needed incentive to
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Required elements
Best practices from AFWA (2009,
2012) and metrics for using
climate change info
Metrics and ranking scale for
combined best practices CO IA KS MN MT ND NE SD UT WY
5. Monitoring—Plans for
monitoring species and habitats,
and the effectiveness of
conservation actions.
5.1. Monitoring methods should be
scalable, affordable, streamlined,
and broadly applicable (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Outlined monitoring methods
2=Explicitly mentioned climate
change
1111 1 11 111
5.2. Collaborate with other states,
NGOs, and citizen scientists to
improve monitoring efforts across
region wrt climate change (2009).
0=Not addressed
1=Work with other actors to
improve monitoring
2=Explicitly address climate change
1111 1 11 111
5.3. Use monitoring to inform
adaptive management, and to
evaluate and improve management
decisions (2009).
0=Did not do
1=Described monitoring plans to
inform adaptive management
2=Explicitly monitoring for climate
change impacts
1111 1 11 111
Note: They have been summarized here and combined in order to create 20 metrics to evaluate and rank the states.
FIGURE 1 Comparison of state scores for ranked categories,
including total score broken down by the scores for each required
element
YOCUM ET AL.11 of 20

do so. Although the latest revision of all SWAPs included
climate change information, only four discussed climate
change substantively in 2005 when it was not required
(Lacher & Wilkerson, 2014). While some states reported
that they would have done so regardless of the mandate
in order to satisfy stakeholders or higher level leadership,
most reported that the mandate provided motivation and
justification for the additional personnel and financial
resources needed to include climate change information,
especially in politically conservative states where it might
otherwise be considered politically risky. One SWAP
author felt that, “Without the [mandate] and AFWA
guidance…[climate change] would not have been given
the attention that it was given…That sort of gave cover to
a lot of states to be able to address it.”
3.3.5 | Leadership
Organizational leadership within the responsible state
agency and existing relationships between agencies and
partner organizations (e.g., universities and NGOs) could
either facilitate or hinder the use of climate change infor-
mation. Supportive agency leadership made it easier for
SWAP authors to get time for agency personnel to work
on the climate change portions of the plans or to find
additional funding to do so. No one interviewed reported
that leadership within their organizations was
unsupportive or actively against including climate change
in the SWAPs. One respondent shared that “supervisors
are encouraging them to attend meetings, go to trainings,
take on more information that's related to the change in
climate and so you have it both at the operational level
and you also have it at the sort of personal…They're
trained as scientists. They understand that the environ-
ment is changing and they want to be part of what they
view as the solution.”
3.3.6 | Political climate
Interviewees from several states noted that the local,
state, or national political climate influenced the way that
climate change information was used in the plans.
AFWA guidance (2009) recognizes the politically charged
nature of climate change and gives state agencies discre-
tion in how to use climate change information. For exam-
ple, individuals from politically moderate or progressive
states felt that they had support from elected leaders and
political appointees to use terms like “climate change,”
and “adaptation”and did not feel that their jobs or their
agency's reputation would suffer. In conservative states,
SWAP authors struggled to get clearance to discuss
“climate change”openly and might instead focus on
drought, declining snowpack, or rising stream tempera-
tures to avoid arousing negative feedback from the public
or elected officials. One author reported that it took
approximately “30 months to get a clear message back
from my directorate that it was gonna be okay to even
use the words climate change in”the SWAP. Another
individual reported that although personnel in some
states could discuss climate change more openly than
those in others, it did not necessarily limit the actions
that they could take if they were strategic: “[T]here's a
couple states that come to mind that are doing a lot of
work and one of them, you know, they can say 'climate
change' and the other they can't, so they're saying other
things like saltwater intrusion…[B]ut they're both…really
leaders on adaptation efforts. And the main difference to
me is that one state is blue [politically progressive] and
the other state is red [politically conservative]. But like I
said, they're both doing really great work.”This observa-
tion is consistent with previous findings that political cli-
mate was a key factor shaping climate change
information use by state and federal wildlife (Yocum &
Ray, 2019) and water managers (Werner & Svedin, 2017).
4|DISCUSSION
Our rubric and interview findings can be used to identify
actions to improve the use of climate change information
in SWAPs for the next revisions and beyond. This novel
rubric provides a structure to compare the use of climate
change information in SWAPs in three ways. First, in
planning for the 2025 revisions, a state might view its
score on any part of the rubric to assess how they used
climate information compared to recommended best
practices and identify areas for improvement. Second, it
could be used to assess changes in the use of climate
change information in subsequent SWAP revisions.
Finally, states or researchers can consider how SWAPs
with higher scores on any metric used climate informa-
tion and identify examples of how to elevate the use of
climate information moving forward. SWAP authors
interviewed were eager to learn from the successes of
other states; however, because plans are typically several
hundred pages long, searching for examples is not a
minor task. Opportunities for shared learning include
state-to-state sharing of: climate change vulnerability
analyses from neighboring states or regional conservation
actors; case studies linking climate change impacts with
management actions and evaluations of their effective-
ness; and examples of successful engagement between
state agencies, the climate science community, and
boundary organizations. Some of this is already
12 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.

happening, as states like Minnesota and North Dakota
have leveraged available habitat and species data from
neighboring states or regional conservation organizations
to inform their plans, but opportunities remain.
Interview results contribute to understanding the dif-
ferences between SWAPs and point to ways to support
managers to improve the use of climate information in
SWAPs by both boundary organizations and SWAP
authors themselves. Several factors interviewees identi-
fied as informing the use of climate change information
are not within the direct control of the state agencies or
organizations seeking to support them (e.g., funding,
Congressional mandates, and political climate). Two that
are include finding appropriate climate change informa-
tion and connecting with the climate science community
and boundary organizations. SWAP authors were largely
on their own to identify and apply climate change infor-
mation, or to seek support from the climate science com-
munity. SWAP authors cited the disconnect between
climate scientists, managers, and decision-makers as a
hurdle to effectively identifying and applying climate
change information to wildlife management decisions.
This has been discussed in multiple studies (c.f., Barsugli
et al., 2013; Dilling et al., 2015; Yocum & Ray, 2019), but
our interviews highlight that this continues to be an
issue.
Improved guidance is needed from the climate sci-
ence community and boundary organizations regarding
how to use climate information in conservation planning;
however, we do not advocate for specific recommenda-
tions regarding the use of a particular climate change
information product over another. Instead, our results
show that allowing states to select which tools or infor-
mation to use—as in the AFWA guidelines (2009,
2012)—allowed some to develop innovative approaches
to address their particular management priorities and
contexts (c.f., CO, SD, and WY). We also agree with
AFWA's reasoning that non-prescriptive guidance accom-
modates the specific ecological and social differences
between states. Furthermore, this discretion enabled
states to work within their individual time, budget, and
other constraints. However, we found that additional
guidance and support in identifying, selecting, and apply-
ing this information could improve the use of climate
information in SWAPs and other conservation plans, cor-
roborating Yocum and Ray (2019).
Regular planning processes such as the SWAP revi-
sions are entry points to bring in the most recent climate
change information to incorporate risks of climate
change into conservation planning (Ray & Webb, 2016).
Since the last revisions, there are a host of new tools and
products, many of which are now more easily available
in a variety of data formats for resource managers (c.f.,
USGS GeoData Portal).
4
Model output from the Fifth
IPCC assessment (IPCC, 2013) is available online as peer-
reviewed downscaled products intended for natural
resource management, such as: the Multivariate Adaptive
Constructed Analogs projections (MACA)
5
which now
has online tools for visualizing the data and spread of the
models (Abatzoglou & Brown, 2012); the localized con-
structed analogs product (LOCA)
6
(Pierce et al., 2014,
2015; Vano et al., 2020); and products with hydrologic
projections (Bureau of Reclamation, 2013). These prod-
ucts now power tools such as the Climate Toolbox
(Williams et al., 2020) and the US Climate Resilience
Toolkit's Climate Explorer
7
(Lipschultz et al., 2020) and
have been used in the US National Climate Assessment
(US Global Change Research Program, USGCRP, 2017)
and the 4th California Climate Assessment (Pierce
et al., 2018). A third version of the NatureServe CCVI is
available, but still uses GCMs from the third IPCC (2007).
Products based on the sixth IPCC Assessment will be
available over the next few years (IPCC, 2021; Tebaldi
et al., 2021).
Each plan revision provides the opportunity to incor-
porate new information; however, the management com-
munity will not benefit from new products if it does not
know about them or understand how to incorporate
them into planning processes. Given the growing number
of new and future climate information resources,
improved and ongoing guidance on how to identify,
select, and apply climate information is needed to sup-
port management and conservation planning. Such guid-
ance could improve the use of climate change
information in SWAPs and other conservation plans (c.f.,
Yocum & Ray, 2019) as well as support the ultimate goal
of adapting to climate change.
Interview results stress the importance of connections
to professional networks and boundary organizations to
support finding and applying appropriate information.
Boundary organizations facilitate regional cooperation
among states and foster engagement between state agen-
cies and the climate science community (c.f.,
McNie, 2007; Crona & Parker, 2011; Averyt et al., 2018).
Further, as organizations that keep up with the latest
advances in climate science and its application as part of
their mission, they can provide translational information
to help SWAP authors identify and apply appropriate cli-
mate information. Interviewees from Colorado credited
the NCCASC with convening meetings with climate sci-
entists, impact modelers, and agency personnel with
helping them generate and use climate change informa-
tion in the Colorado SWAP (c.f., Morisette et al., 2017).
During interviews, SWAP planners in other states
expressed interest in working more closely with the
NCCASC during upcoming revisions, particularly in
YOCUM ET AL.13 of 20

moving towards scenario-based planning approaches used
successfully in other state and federal agencies (c.f.,
Runyon et al., 2020). Our study highlights the key role that
boundary organizations like the US Geological Survey Cli-
mate Adaptation Science Centers (USGS CASCs), the
NOAA RISAs, or USDA Climate Hubs can play in facilitat-
ing engagement between managers, planners, and climate
scientists and supports previous findings and recommenda-
tions to improve SWAPs (Lackstrom et al., 2018; Paskus
et al., 2016). Although some of these organizations existed
during previous SWAP revisions, they have a longer history
now, and are more prepared to assist.
We see three ways in which SWAP authors
themselves—in the 10 states in our study and in other
states—could improve the use of climate information in
planning efforts. First, the plans should include more
specifics on monitoring information needed by state wild-
life managers. Although several plans call for more moni-
toring of climate variables and developing long-term
monitoring systems, they include few specifics that could
inform state and federal monitoring activities (e.g., what
to monitor for to detect trends towards thresholds or trig-
gers for particular species or priority habitats). Second,
SWAP authors should be explicit about what climate
information was used in plans, providing the specific
GCMs or downscaled products used, including time
periods. This information was often lacking. For example,
several SWAPs used CCVI with little or no discussion of
the climate inputs selected and how these choices might
influence the results. We recommend that SWAP authors
specify whether they used the CCVI default options,
selected particular GCMs, or used an ensemble, and if so,
identify the GCMs in the ensemble. Furthermore, a num-
ber of the literature sections or discussions of qualitative
scenarios are narratives with no citations. This informa-
tion is needed to compare and leverage ecological and
species studies with the SWAP climate change vulnera-
bility analysis. For example, these details would be
needed if SWAP authors and interested researchers
wished to compare their vulnerability analysis with other
analyses for particular habitats (e.g., Adhikari &
Hansen, 2019; Steen et al., 2016), or with species and
habitats in related assessments, for example, US Bureau
of Land Management Rapid Ecoregional Assessments
(e.g., Carr & Melcher, 2015; Ray et al., 2015; SAIC, 2012).
Finally, the analysis of climate risks would be improved
by assessing a range of plausible futures, as Colorado,
South Dakota, and Wyoming did. This could be done by
selecting two or more models representing challenging
futures in the CCVI or another tool, or qualitative scenar-
ios focused on the directionality of projected change
(e.g., warmer and drier, cooler and wetter, etc.). Either
strategy would support scenario planning, which seeks to
manage uncertainty, as described in a burgeoning litera-
ture on scenario planning in natural resource manage-
ment (Lawrence et al., 2021; Runyon et al., 2020;
Symstad et al., 2017).
These findings have implications for other conserva-
tion planning efforts beyond the SWAPs. There is a need
to develop approaches to compare and evaluate the use
of climate change information in conservation planning.
Similar rubrics can be developed and used to evaluate
conservation and adaptation plans in three ways: (1) com-
pared to best practices and guidelines; (2) compared to
similar plans; or (3) to track changes in planning efforts
over time (c.f., Adler & Gosliner, 2019). Our work and
similar efforts would contribute to growing research on
the linkage between conservation and adaptation plan-
ning with actions, supporting evidence-based planning
(c.f., Dilling et al., 2019; Donatti et al., 2019; Peterson St-
Laurent et al., 2021). Coupling rubric analysis with inter-
views moves beyond identifying barriers towards under-
standing the use of climate information in natural
resource planning (e.g., Archie et al., 2014; Ellenwood
et al., 2012; Lemieux et al., 2013; Yocum & Ray, 2019).
This combined method allowed us to identify specific
opportunities to improve planning and information use
across any agency or plan while describing the key social
and institutional context that influences how climate
change information is used. More broadly, linking con-
servation planners with boundary organizations and pro-
viding examples of conservation plans that include best
practices can facilitate integration of additional new sci-
ence information, not just climate change information,
into conservation planning efforts.
Our study has several limitations that should be consid-
ered. First, this work was intended as a regional study to
support efforts of the regional adaptation planners and
boundary organizations with which the authors work. Find-
ings from our targeted sample of SWAPs and interviews
with SWAP authors may not be generalizable to all states.
However, our results are consistent with findings from other
regional studies of SWAPs (Lackstrom et al., 2018; Paskus
et al., 2016) and studies supporting public land managers to
use climate change information in planning (e.g., Archie
et al., 2014; Ellenwood et al., 2012; Lemieux et al., 2013).
Second, our analysis is limited to the information provided
in SWAPs analyzed and does not include internal planning
processes or additional information (e.g., vulnerability
assessments or additional climate studies) which were not in
theSWAPsthemselves.Wecannotconcludethatastate
agency is not taking action on or considering climate change
in conservation planning simply because it is not included
in the specific planning documents we reviewed.
Additional research is needed to understand how and
to what extent the use of climate change information in
14 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.

SWAPs and other planning documents leads to changes
in conservation targets and strategies, and ultimately to
adaptation. Previous studies have identified a gap
between conservation planning in the SWAPs and con-
servation actions, particularly as it relates to addressing
habitat fragmentation and connectivity (Lacher &
Wilkerson, 2014) and implementing adaptive manage-
ment practices (Fontaine, 2011). Efforts to support plan-
ners could be improved through further research on how
the use of climate change information in planning docu-
ments influences day-to-day and longer-term operations.
Such research could also refine the types of climate
change information needed. Further interdisciplinary
work is needed to understand how human adaptation
and socioeconomic processes will interact with climate
change to impact species and habitats and related conser-
vation efforts (Ahlering et al., 2020; Heller & Zavaleta,
2009). Making climate change information useful to man-
agers will require increased understanding of the com-
plex interactions between social, ecological, and
climatological systems (Sutherland et al., 2021; USGCRP,
2021). Understanding these interactions is crucial to sup-
port SWAPs and similar conservation planning efforts by
leading to better understanding and prioritization of the
full range of threats and stressors across multiple time-
scales (Ahlering et al., 2020).
5|CONCLUSION
This study seeks to understand how climate change informa-
tion has been used in conservation planning—and what cir-
cumstances facilitate use of this information—in order to
support long-term conservation goals. We developed a novel
rubric to compare SWAPs and improve plan revisions, which
most states will complete by 2025. States can draw from
experiences of other states to find approaches that meet the
demands of their own social and ecological context. Combin-
ing the rubric with interviews with SWAP authors allows
identifying factors that account for differences in rubric
scores. Factors that facilitated the use of climate change
information included access to additional funding, profes-
sional networks that included boundary organizations or cli-
mate information providers, and supportive leadership
within the organization. Factors that hindered its use in
plans included challenges in finding and applying appropri-
ate climate information, budget and capacity limitations, and
conservative state political climates. Boundary organizations
can foster engagement between states and between manage-
ment and climate science communities in addition to provid-
ing climate information and technical support.
Our research has broad implications for other conser-
vation planning processes, including: the value of rubrics
as a tool to evaluate and compare the use of climate
change information in plans; using interviews to under-
stand the planning process and context; and the impor-
tance of linking conservation planners with boundary
organizations to facilitate integration of climate change
information into conservation planning efforts. Addi-
tional research to understand how human adaptation
responses to climate change may mitigate or exacerbate
existing stressors and threats to key habitats and species
could help managers prioritize actions to achieve wildlife
conservation targets. This research supports natural
resource managers as they work to conserve species and
habitats under a changing climate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the reviewers for their thoughtful com-
ments which improved this manuscript. We are grateful
to the individuals who spoke with us, without whom this
research would not have been possible. This work was
supported by the National Science Foundation
(#1243270) (Yocum), the NOAA Physical Sciences Labo-
ratory (Ray), and the UNAVCO RESESS internship pro-
gram (Sassorossi). All opinions, findings, and conclusions
herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the
views of NSF, NOAA, CIRES, USGS, NCCASC, or affili-
ated agencies of study participants.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Heather M. Yocum is currently supported by the
NCCASC although she was not during the period when
this research was conducted.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Heather M. Yocum: conducted the initial document
analysis and created the final rubric, conducted and
analyzed all interviews, wrote the initial manuscript;
Andrea J. Ray: provided substantial edits and additions
to the original manuscript and subsequent revisions;
Deanna Metivier Sassorossi:conductedtheinitial
document analysis and created an initial version of the
rubric. All authors contributed to the revision of the
manuscript and agreed to submission.
ETHICS STATEMENT
All ethical guidelines were followed in the conduct of this
research. The interview questions and protocols were
approved by the University of Colorado Internal Review
Board (IRB) for research with human subjects. All docu-
ments analyzed are in the public domain.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The interview questions and thematic codes used for
qualitative analysis are available in Data S1.
YOCUM ET AL.15 of 20

ORCID
Heather M. Yocum https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3754-
4330
Andrea J. Ray https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5385-1202
ENDNOTES
1
Hereafter, AFWA.
2
Although the Trump administration reversed President Obama's
Executive Order in 2018 (Executive Order 13834, 2018), the SWG
from the US Congress (DOI, 2001) and DOI Secretarial Order
3289 (DOI, 2009) were not changed. The Biden administration
has renewed efforts to consider climate change in managing pub-
lic lands and species in the United States (c.f., DOI et al., 2021).
3
The climate variables used in the CCVI analysis are temperature and
a moisture index which reflects conditions for plants and animals
better than simple changes in precipitation. For a chosen geographi-
cal area, the CCVI Microsoft Excel-based tool allows downloading
downscaled climate projection data in GIS rasters for spatially
explicit vulnerability assessments (Young et al., 2010).
4
https://cida.usgs.gov/gdp/.
5
https://climate.northwestknowledge.net/MACA/.
6
Loca.ucsd.edu; https://climate.northwestknowledge.net/MACA/.
7
https://toolkit.climate.gov.
REFERENCES
Abatzoglou, J. T., & Brown, T. J. (2012). A comparison of statistical
downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. Interna-
tional Journal of Climatology,32, 772–780. https://doi.org/10.
1002/joc.2312
Abel, B. D., Rajagopalan, B., & Ray, A. J. (2020). A predictive model
for seasonal pond counts in the United States Prairie Pothole
Region using large-scale climate connections. Environmental
Research Letters,15, 044019.
Adhikari, A., & Hansen, A. J. (2019). Climate and water balance
change among public, private, and tribal lands within Greater
Wildland Ecosystems across North Central USA. Climatic Change,
152,551–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2351-7
Adler, D. P., & Gosliner, E. (2019). State hazard mitigation plans
and climate change: Rating the states 2019 update. Columbia
Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). (2002). Eight
required elements for state wildlife action plans. Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies Retrieved from http://www.
wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/eight_elements_handout.pdf.
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). (2009). Volun-
tary guidance for states to incorporate climate change into state
wildlife action plans and other management plans. Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Retrieved from http://www.
fishwildlife.org/files/AFWA-Voluntary-Guidance-
Incorporating-Climate-Change_SWAP.pdf
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). (2012). Best
practices for state wildlife action plans: Voluntary guidance to
states for revision and implementation. Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies Retrieved from https://www.fishwildlife.org/
application/files/3215/1856/0300/SWAP_Best_Practices_
Report_Nov_2012.pdf
Ahlering, M. A., Cornett, M., Blann, K., White, M., Lenhart, C.,
Dixon, C., Dudash, M. R., Johnson, L., Keeler, B., Palik, B.,
Pastor, J., Sterner, R. W., Shaw, D., Biske, R., Feeken, N.,
Manolis, J., & Possingham, H. (2020). A conservation science
agenda for a changing Upper Midwest and Great Plains,
United States. Conservation Science and Practice,2(8), e236–
246. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.236
Archie, K. M., Dilling, L., Milford, J. B., & Pampel, F. (2014).
Unpacking the ‘information barrier’: Comparing perspectives
on information as a barrier to climate change adaptation in the
Interior Mountain West. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment,133, 397–410.
Averyt, K., Derner, J. D., Dilling, L., Guerrero, R., Joyce, L.,
McNeeley, S., McNie, E., Morisette, J., Ojima, D., O'Malley, R.,
Peck, D., Ray, A. J., Reeves, M., & Travis, W. (2018). Regional
climate response collaboratives: Multi-institutional support for
climate resilience. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Soci-
ety,99, 891–898.
Ballard, T., Seager, R., Smerdon, J. E., Cook, B. I., Ray, A. J.,
Rajagopalan, B., Kushnir, Y., Nakamura, J., & Henderson, N.
(2014). Hydroclimate variability and change in the prairie pot-
hole region, the ‘duck factory’of North America. Earth Interac-
tions,18,1–28.
Barsugli, J. J., Guentchev, G., Horton, R. M., Wood, A.,
Mearns, L. O., Liang, X., Winkler, J., Dixon, K., Hayhoe, K.,
Rood, R. B., Goddard, L., Ray, A., Buja, L., & Amman, C.
(2013). The practitioner's dilemma: How to assess the credibil-
ity of downscaled climate projections. Eos Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union,94, 46.
Bernard, R. H. (2005). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative
and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Altamira Press.
Bureau of Reclamation. (2013). Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 cli-
mate projections: Release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projec-
tions, comparison with preceding information, and summary
of user needs. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Recla-
mation, Technical Service Center 116 p., Available at: http://
gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/techmemo/
downscaled_climate.pdf.
Carr, N. B., & Melcher, C. P. (Eds.) (2015). Wyoming basin rapid
ecoregional assessment. In USGS open-file report 2015-1155.
Prepared in Cooperation with the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151155
Cochrane, M. A., & Moran, C. J. (2011). Past, present, and future
climates for South Dakota observed climatic variation from
1895-2010 and projected climate change to 2099. Retrieved
from https://gfp.sd.gov/images/WebMaps/Viewer/WAP/Website/
SWGSummaries/South%20Dakota%20Future%20Climate%
20Projections%20Report.pdf.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. (2015). Colorado state wildlife action
plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Retrieved from https://cpw.
state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Tech-
niques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc. Available from http://methods.
sagepub.com/book/basics-of-qualitative-research
Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2011). Network determinants of
knowledge utilization: Preliminary lessons from a boundary
organization. Science Communication,33, 448–471.
Cross, M. S., McCarthy, P. D., Garfin, G., Gori, D., &
Enquist, C. A. F. (2013). Accelerating adaptation of natural
16 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.

resource management to address climate change. Conservation
Biology,27,4–13.
Decker, K., & Fink, M. (2014). Colorado wildlife action plan
enhancement: Climate change vulnerability assessment. Colo-
rado Natural Heritage Program Retrieved from http://www.
cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2014/CO_SWAP_
Enhancement_CCVA.pdf
Delach, A., Caldas, A., Edson, K. M., Krehbiel, R., Murray, S.,
Theoharides, K. A., Vorhees, L. J., Malcom, J. W.,
Salvo, M. N., & Miller, J. R. B. (2019). Agency plans are inade-
quate to conserve US endangered species under climate change.
Nature Climate Change,9, 999–1004.
Department of Interior (DOI). (2001). H.R. 2217, the Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/
house-bill/2217.
Department of Interior (DOI). (2009). Secretarial Order No. 3289:
Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water,
Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources, January
16, 2009. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/
20170120233539/https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
migrated/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/SecOrder3289.pdf.
Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, and the Council on Environmental Quality. (2021).
Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful 2021. https://
www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-
restoring-america-the-beautiful-2021.pdf.
Dilling, L., Lackstrom, K., Haywood, B., Dow, K., Lemos, M. C.,
Berggren, J., & Kalafatis, S. (2015). What stakeholder needs tell
us about enabling adaptive capacity: The intersection of context
and information provision across regions in the United States.
Weather, Climate, and Society,7,5–17.
Dilling, L., Prakash, A., Zommers, Z., Ahmad, F., Singh, N., de
Wit, S., Nalau, J., Daly, M., & Bowman, K. (2019). Is adaptation
success a flawed concept? Nature Climate Change,9(8), 572–
574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0539-0
Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hole, D., Panfil, S. N., et al. (2019).
Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation out-
comes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Climatic Change,158,
413–433.
Dyke, S., Johnson, S., & Isakson, P. (2015). North Dakota state wild-
life action plan. North Dakota Game and Fish Department
Retrieved from https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
swap-2015.pdf
Ellenwood, M. S., Dilling, L., & Milford, J. B. (2012). Managing
United States public lands in response to climate change: A
view from the ground up. Environmental Management,49,
954–967.
Executive Order 13514. (2009). Archived in Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance Online by
Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency
Project. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
node/286728. Replaced by Executive Order 13693. (2015). Plan-
ning for federal sustainability in the next decade. Retrieved
from https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/executive-order-13693-
planning-federal-sustainability-next-decade.
Executive Order 13834. (2018). Efficient federal operations.
Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2018/05/22/2018-11101/efficient-federal-operations.
Fontaine, J. J. (2011). Improving our legacy: Incorporation of adap-
tive management into state wildlife action plans. Journal of
Environmental Management,92, 1403–1408. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.015
Game, E. T., Lipsett-Moore, G., Saxon, E., Peterson, N., &
Sheppard, S. (2011). Incorporating climate change adaptation
into national conservation assessments. Global Change Biology,
17, 3150–3160.
Girvetz, E. H., Zganjar, C., Raber, G. T., Maurer, E. P., & Kareiva, P.
(2009). Applied climate-change analysis: The climate wizard tool.
PLoS One,4(12), e8320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0008320
Glick, P., Stein, B. A., & Edelson, N. (2011). Scanning the conserva-
tion horizon: A guide to climate change vulnerability assessment.
National Wildlife Federation Retrieved from http://www.nwf.
org/~/media/pdfs/global-warming/climate-smart-conservation/
nwfscanningtheconservationhorizonfinal92311.ashx.
Groves, C. R., Game, E. T., Anderson, M. G., Cross, M., Enquist, C.,
Ferdaña, Z., Girvetz, E., Dondor, A., Hall, K. R., Higgins, J.,
Marshall, R., Popper, K., Schill, S., & Shafer, S. L. (2012). Incor-
porating climate change into systematic conservation planning.
Biodiversity and Conservation,21, 1651–1671.
Gustafsson, K. M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Boundary organizations
and environmental governance: Performance, institutional
design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Manage-
ment,19,1–11.
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in
the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommen-
dations. Biological Conservation,142,14–32.
Hoeppner, J. M., & Hughes, L. (2019). Climate readiness of recovery
plans for threatened Australian species. Conservation Biology,
33, 534–542.
Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee. (2011). Climate change
impacts on Iowa, Report to the Governor and the Iowa General
Assembly. Retrieved from https://www.iowadnr.gov/
conservation/climate-change.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2015). Iowa's wildlife
action plan: Securing a future for fish and wildlife. Iowa Depart-
ment of Natural Resources Retrieved from http://www.
iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Wildlife-Stewardship/Iowa-
Wildlife-Action-Plan
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Cli-
mate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Con-
tribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-
wg2.htm
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013). Cli-
mate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of
working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovern-
mental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press
Retrieved from http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2021). In V.
Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S.
Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang,
K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.
Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate change
2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I
to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
YOCUM ET AL.17 of 20

climate change. Cambridge University Press In Press. Retrieved
from https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
Kunkel, K. E., Stevens, L., Stevens, S. E., Sun, L., Janssen, E.,
Wuebbles, D. J., Kruk, M. C., Thomas, D. P., Shulski, M. D.,
Umphlett, N. A., Hubbard, K. G., Robbins, K., Romolo, L.,
Akyuz, A., Pathak, T. B., Bergantino, T. R. & Dobson, J. G.
(2013). NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-4: Regional Cli-
mate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assess-
ment, Part 4. Climate of the U.S. Great Plains (91p). National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environ-
mental Satellite, Data and Information Service. Available from
https://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_
NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-4-Climate_of_the_U.S.%20Great_
Plains_0.pdf. National Climate Assessment,
Lacher, I., & Wilkerson, M. L. (2014). Wildlife connectivity approaches
and best practices in U.S. state wildlife action plans. Conservation
Biology,28(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12204
Lackstrom, K., Glick, P., Dow, K., Stein, B. A., Peterson, M. N.,
Chin, E., & Clark, K. (2018). Climate change and conservation
in the southeast: A review of state wildlife action plans. Southeast
Climate Adaptation Science Center Retrieved from https://
secasc.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/05/SE-
SWAP-Analysis-Full-Report.pdf
Lawrence, D. J., Runyon, A. N., Gross, J. E., Schuurman, G. W., &
Miller, B. W. (2021). Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate
futures for near- and long-term resource planning. Climatic
Change,167, 38.
LeDee, O. E., & Ribic, C. A. (2015). Determining climate change
management priorities: A case study from Wisconsin. Journal
of Conservation Planning,11,1–12.
Lemieux, C. J., Thompson, J. L., Dawson, J., & Schuster, R. M.
(2013). Natural resource manager perceptions of agency perfor-
mance on climate change. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment,114, 178–189.
Lerner, J., Cochran, B., & Michalak, J. L. (2006). Conservation
across the landscape: A review of the state wildlife action
plans. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/de23/
14ce7c5bbbd3d00d27254a60e35aea154617.pdf.
Lipschultz, F., Herring, D. D., Ray, A. J., Alder, J. R., Dahlam, L.,
DeGaetano, A. T., Fox, J. F., Gardiner, E. P., Herring, J.,
Hicks, J., Melton, F., Morefield, P. E., & Sweet, W. V. (2020).
Climate explorer: Improved access to local climate projections.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,101, E265–E273.
Maurer, E. P., Adam, J. C., & Wood, A. W. (2009). Climate model
based consensus on the hydrologic impacts of climate change
to the Rio Lempa basin of Central America. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences,13, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-13-183-2009
Mawdsley,J.R.,O'Malley,R.,&Ojima,D.S.(2009).Areviewof
climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and
biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology,23,1080–1089.
McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific informa-
tion with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review
of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy,10,17–38.
Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. C., & Yohe, G. W. (2014). Climate
change impacts in the united states: The third national climate
assessment (841p). U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Available from http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
Meretsky, V. J., & Fischman, R. L. (2014). Learning from conserva-
tion planning for the U.S. National Wildlife Refuges. Conserva-
tion Biology,28, 1415–1427.
Michalak, J. L., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R., & Carroll, C. (2018).
Distribution and protection of climatic refugia in North Amer-
ica. Conservation Biology,32, 1414–1425.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2016). Minnesota's wildlife
action plan 2015-2025. Division of EcologicalandWaterResources,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/
mnwap/wildlife-action-plan-2015-2025.pdf.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. (2015). Montana's state wildlife
action plan. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Retrieved
from http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/conservationInAction/
swap2015Plan.html
Morisette, J. T., Cravens, A. E., Miller, B. W., Talbert, M.,
Talbert, C., Jarnevich, C., Fink, M., Decker, K., & Odell, E.
(2017). Crossing boundaries in a collaborative modeling
workspace. Society & Natural Resources,30, 1158–1167.
National Fish, Wildlife & Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership.
(2012). National Fish, wildlife and plants climate adaptation
strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on
Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Retrieved from https://
www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/NFWPCAS-Final.pdf
Paskus, J. J., Pearsall, D. R., & Ross, J. A. (2016). Facilitating the effec-
tiveness of state wildlife action plans at multiple scales in the upper
Midwest/Great Lakes LCC: Findings and recommendations.US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Midwest Great Lakes Landscape
Conservation Cooperative. East Lansing, MI Retrieved from
https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/MNFI-Report-2016-02.pdf
Peterson St-Laurent, G., Oakes, L. E., Cross, M., & Hagerman, S.
(2021). R–R–T (resistance–resilience–transformation) typology
reveals differential conservation approaches across ecosystems
and time. Communications Biology,4,1–9.
Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Maurer, E. P., Abatzoglou, J. T., &
Hegewisch, K. C. (2015). Improved bias correction techniques
for hydrological simulations of climate change. Journal of
Hydrometeorology,16, 2421–2442. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-
D-14-0236.1
Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., & Thrasher, B. L. (2014). Statistical
downscaling using localized constructed analogs (LOCA). Jour-
nal of Hydrometeorology,15, 2558. https://doi.org/10.1175/JFM-
D-14-0082.1
Pierce, D. W., Kalansky, J. F., & Cayan, D. R. (2018). Climate,
drought, and sea level rise scenarios. California's Fourth Cli-
mate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Pub-
lication number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006. https://www.energy.ca.
gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-
006_ADA.pdf.
Pocewicz, A., Copeland, H. E., Grenier, M. B., Keinath, D. A. &
Waskoviak, L. M. (2014). Assessing the future vulnerability of
Wyoming's terrestrial wildlife species and habitats. The Nature
Conservancy, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Wyo-
ming Natural Diversity Database. Retrieved from www.nature.
org/media/wyoming/wyoming-wildlife-vulnerability-assess-
ment-June-2014.pdf.
18 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.

Ray, A. J., Liebmann, B. L., & Allured, D. A. (2015). Climate analy-
sis, chapter 7 in Wyoming Basin Rapid Ecoregional assessment,
USGS report to the US Bureau of Land Management, USGS
Open-File Report 2015-1155. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/
publication/ofr20151155.
Ray, A. J., & Webb, R. S. (2016). Understanding the user context:
Decision calendars as frameworks for linking climate to pol-
icy, planning and decision-making. In A. Parris, G. M. Garfin,
K. Dow, R. Meyer, & S. L. Close (Eds.), Climate in context: Sci-
ence and society partnering for adaptation (pp. 27–50). Wiley &
Sons.
Rohweder, M. R. (2015). Kansas wildlife action plan. Ecological Ser-
vices Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tour-
ism in cooperation with the Kansas Biological Survey.
Retrieved from https://ksoutdoors.com/Services/Kansas-SWAP
Runyon, A. N., Carlson, A. R., Gross, J. E., Lawrence, D. J., &
Schuurman, G. W. (2020). Repeatable approaches to work with
scientific uncertainty and advance climate change adaptation
in US national parks. Parks Stewardship Forum, 36. Retrieved
from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/76p7m8rz.
SAIC. (2012). Northwestern Plains rapid Ecoregional assessment
(p. 142). Bureau of Land Management Available from https://
landscape.blm.gov/REA_General_Docs/NWP-REA_II-3-C_
MainText_App%20A_Final.pdf
Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton-Taylor, C.,
Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H. M., Collen, B., Cox, N.,
Master, L. L., O'Connor, S., & Wilkie, D. (2008). A standard lex-
icon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of
threats and actions. Conservation Biology,22, 897–911.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
SAGE.
Schneider, R., Stoner, K., Steinauer, G., Panella, M., & Humpert, M.
(2011). The Nebraska natural legacy project: State
wildlife action plan (2nd ed.). Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission Retrieved from http://outdoornebraska.gov/
naturallegacyproject/
Small-Lorenz, S. L., Schneider, R. & Walk, J. (2013). Climate
change vulnerability of fish and wildlife in the US Corn Belt
Region. Safeguarding Wildlife from Climate Change Webinar
Series, US Fish and Wildlife Service, December 11, 2013.
Retrieved from http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/uds/pd/
821753390001/821753390001_2994350606001_2013-1218-
Safeguarding-final.mp4.
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. (2014). South
Dakota wildlife action plan. South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish and Parks Retrieved from http://gfp.sd.gov/
wildlife/management/plans/wildlife-action-plan.aspx.
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. (2015). South
Dakota lands and waters. South Dakota Department of Game,
Fish and Parks Retrieved from http://apps.sd.gov/gf43wap/
Ecology.aspx#
Staudinger, M., Morelli, T. L., & Bryan, A. (2015). Integrating cli-
mate change into northeast and midwest state wildlife action
plans. Northeast Climate Science Center. Available from
https://necasc.umass.edu/projects/integrating-climate-change-
state-wildlife-action-plans.
Steen, V. A., Skagen, S. K., & Melcher, C. P. (2016). Implications of
climate change for wetland-dependent birds in the prairie
pothole region. Wetlands,36, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-016-0791-2
Stein, B. A., Glick, P., Edelson, N., & Staudt, A. (2014). Climate-
smart conservation: Putting adaptation principles into practice.
National Wildlife Federation Retrieved from https://www.nwf.
org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-
Conservation/NWF-Climate-Smart-Conservation_5-08-14.pdf
Sutherland,W.J.,Atkinson,P.W.,Broad,S.,Brown,S.,
Clout, M., Dias, M. P., Dicks, L. V., Doran, H., Fleishman, E.,
Garratt,E.,Gaton,K.J.,Huges,A.C.,LeRoux,X.,
Lickorish, F. A., Maggs, L., Palardy, J. E., Peck, L. S.,
Pettorelli, N., Pretty, J., & Thornton, A. (2021). A 2021 hori-
zon scan of emerging global biological conservation issues.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,36(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.TREE.2020.10.014
Symstad, A. J., Fisichelli, N. A., Miller, B. W., Rowland, E., &
Schuurman, G. W. (2017). Multiple methods for multiple
futures: Integrating qualitative scenario planning and quantita-
tive simulation modeling for natural resource decision making.
Climate Risk Management,17,78–91.
Tebaldi, C., et al. (2021). Climate model projections from the Sce-
nario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6.
Earth System Dynamics,12, 253–293.
US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (2017). In D. J.
Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stew-
art, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Climate science special report: Fourth
national climate assessment, volume I (p. 470). U.S. Global
Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6
US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). (2021). Global
change research needs and opportunities for 2022-2031 (Vol. 12).
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26055
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2015). Utah wildlife action
plan. Utah Department of Natural Resources Retrieved from
https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/WAP/Utah_WAP.pdf
Vano, J., Hamman, J., Gutmann, E., Wood, A., Mizukami, N.,
Clark, M., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Wobus, C.,
Nowak, K., & Arnold, J. (June 2020). Comparing downscaled
LOCA and BCSD CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections -
Release of downscaled LOCA CMIP5 hydrology. 96 p.
Werner, K., & Svedin, L. (2017). States, water, and climate: Who's
planning for change? Climate Risk Management,16,59–72.
West,J.M.,Julius,S.H.,Kareiva,P.,Enquist,C.,Lawler,J.J.,
Petersen, B., Johnson, A. E., & Shaw, M. R. (2009). U.S. natural
resources and climate change: Concepts and approaches for man-
agement adaptation. Environmental Management,44, 1001–1021.
Williams, T., Joseph, M., & Erickson, R. (2020). Climate futures
toolbox, earthlab/cft: cft (version v0.2.0). Zenodo. http://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.3932341.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. (2017). Wyoming state wild-
life action plan. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks Retrieved from https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Habitat/Habitat-
Plans/Wyoming-State-Wildlife-Action-Plan
Yocum, H. M., & Ray, A. J. (2019). Climate information to support
wildlife management in the North Central United States.
Regional Environmental Change,19, 1187–1199.
Young, B., Byers, E., Gravure, K., Hall, K., Hammerson, G., &
Redder, A. (2010). Guidelines for using the NatureServe climate
change vulnerability index, Release 2.1 7, April 2011.
YOCUM ET AL.19 of 20

NatureServe Retrieved from https://www.natureserve.org/
biodiversity-science/publications/guidelines-using-natureserve-
climate-change-vulnerability-index.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of the article at the publisher's website.
How to cite this article: Yocum, H. M., Metivier
Sassorossi, D., & Ray, A. J. (2022). Assessing the
use of climate change information in State Wildlife
Action Plans. Conservation Science and Practice,
4(3), e608. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.608
20 of 20 YOCUM ET AL.