# Presentation: 034854

## VirginiaWildlife Action Plan

- David K. Whitehurst
- Virginia Department ofGame and Inland Fisheries

## Federal and State Support

-  **Congressionally mandated** and funded under U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and State Wildlife Grants program since FY 2001
-  States/Territories had to submit Strategies to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by **October 1, 2005** to continue receiving funds; all did!
-  Tasked by former Secretary Murphy after the 2003 **Virginia Natural Resources Leadership Summit** to “Develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan by 2005”

## What Does It Mean For Virginia?

- A strategy and common vision for conservation for the **Commonwealth**, not just DGIF
**Status check** of Virginia’s wildlife & habitats
- In line with ***Roadmap for Virginia’s Future*** (Virginia’s long-term strategic plan):  “Protect, conserve, and wisely develop our     natural, historical and cultural resources”
- Can be used to **prioritize and leverage****funding** across agencies and programswithin and outside of Virginia government

## Wildlife Action Plan Overview

- A wildlife conservation plan for the Commonwealth, not just DGIF
- Developed with input from multiple partners, stakeholders, and citizens
- Plan evaluates and assesses:
- Location and abundance of wildlife and habitats
- Problems facing species and habitats
- Conservation actions to address problems
- Research and monitoring needs

## External Steering Committee

- US Fish & Wildlife Service
- US Forest Service
- VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation
**VA Dept. of Transportation**
- VA Assoc. of Planning District Commissions
- Natural Resource Conservation Service

- Western Virginia Land Trust
- The Nature Conservancy
- National Park Service
- VA Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services
- Virginia Audubon
- Ducks Unlimited
- US Dept. of Defense
- VA Dept. of Forestry

**Notes:**
To complete the development of the Plan, we think we were very effective at bringing all interested parties together:

We relied on more than 50 expert scientists and reached out to over 430 stakeholder groups for input and discussion at 22 community meetings.  Two advisory teams was formed to help ensure that we were adequately addressing the required elements; these groups also were able to direct additional resources to the initiative when needed. We

Our Internal Steering Committee, composed to senior administrators in the agency, really focused their time on ensuring that the required elements were addressed and that the Department, as the entity responsible for submitting this plan, was doing what was needed to complete the work in the time available.

External Steering Committee:  key partners in the initiative, including other agencies and non-governmental organizations, who had large or significant landholdings or had major programs that impacted wildlife and habitats.  This group met quarterly throughout this process and was instrumental in shaping the final product.  The Department of Transportation was an active participant—providing data layers, reviewing draft chapters, identifying possible solutions to problems, and more.

## Key Outcomes

**Notes:**
Development of Virginia’s Wildlife Action Plan occurred over about 3 years, with the final document being submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in mid-September last year.

## Final List: 925 species
Assigned to one of four tiers of relative conservation need
Reviewed and endorsed by scientists and stakeholders

- Assigned to one of four tiers of relative conservation need
- Reviewed and endorsed by scientists and stakeholders

**Species of Greatest Conservation Need**

***Tiers and associated species served as the foundation for Plan development, including setting conservation priorities and actions.***

**Notes:**
Includes about 100 federal and state listed threatened and endangered species; about 200 globally rare species (G1-G3 as defined by NatureServe)

Game wildlife:  black rail (I), Am. Black duck (II), king rail (II), brant (III), redhead (III), northern bobwhite (IV), clapper rail (IV), yellow rail (IV), greater scaup (IV), Virginia rail (IV), American woodcock (IV), snowshoe hare (I), Delmarva fox squirrel (II), fisher (II), southeastern fox squirrel (III), Appalachian cottontail (IV), marsh rabbit (IV), least weasel (IV), eastern spotted skunk (IV), and long-tailed shrew (IV).

Sportfish:  Roanoke bass (II), river redhorse (III), alewife (IV), American shad (IV), stonecat (IV), American eel (IV), sauger (IV)

Tiers:
 - Tier 1: Critical conservation need
 - Tier 2: Very high conservation need
 - Tier 3: High conservation need
 - Tier 4: Moderate conservation need

## Species of Greatest Conservation Need

- Mammals			  	  24
- Birds				  	  96
- Fishes				  	  97
- Reptiles			  	  28
- Amphibians			  	  32
- Mussels			  	  61
- Aquatic crustaceans	  	  61
- Aquatic insects			148
- Terrestrial insects			142
- Other aquatic invertebrates	  34
- Other terrestrial invertebrates	202

**70% are invertebrates; 60% are aquatic**

**Notes:**
List does not include marine wildlife (except one regularly nesting sea turtle species); we are assembling a working group to more formally evaluate the problems facing marine wildlife and their habitats in Virginia and recommend appropriate conservation actions.

## Habitat Assessment

**Habitat Assessment**

- Broad Habitat Assessment
- Statewide terrestrial, aquatic, and subterranean habitats, their locations, and their condition
- Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Habitat Assessment
- Identified general habitat needs for all SGCN species
- Created detailed maps ofTier I species habitatsmodeled from best availableinformation

**Notes:**
Evaluated the condition of habitats statewide using a number of existing trend analyses programs:

Forest status and trends: from the Forest Inventory Analysis (coordinated by VA Dept. of Forestry) – 1963-2002, declined from 16.4 million acres to 16.1 million acres

Open habitat status and trends: from the Natural Resources Inventory (Natural Resources Conservation Service) – 1982 – 1997, experienced net loss of 0.48 million acres (of cropland to development, patureland, forest regeneration, etc.)...  36% of that loss was permanent to urban development.  Same time, 0.25 million acres of pastureland occurred, 50% of which was permanently to urban development.

Barren habitat status and trends: little information available; many of the important barrier islands already in conservation ownership

Wetland habitat status and trends: difficult to quantify in recent years; no reliable monitoring program that tracks changes statewide.  1780-1980, lost 42% of wetlands statewide, 80% of which occurred in Coastal Plain.

Aquatic habitat status and trends:  evaluated based on monitoring reports of water quality and impairment compiled by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

Recognize that these are not definitive tools for evaluating trends in these habitats; priority issue to be addressed through the Action Plan.  How do we know what we really have and how well or badly it’s doing?

## Conservation Opportunities

**Notes:**
We were able to complete potential habitat maps for about half of the 93 Tier I species of greatest conservation need.  Combining those maps together gives us a visual that can be used to help guide and direct habitat conservation efforts.  Areas of darkest red support highest numbers of these Tier I species, so habitat restoration, acquisition, or protection on those areas will likely protect a greater number of these most imperiled resources.

## Human Population Density(from 2000 census block groups)

**Notes:**
As part of our assessment of threats to wildlife and habitats in Virginia, we certainly had to evaluate changing land use and development patterns.  Using 2000 U.S. Census data, we looked at population density in 2000, and then changes over time.

## Predicted % Change in Population(from 2000 to 2009)

**Notes:**
Population density change from 1990 to 2000, then predicted population change between 2000 and 2009

## High Impact Growth Areas 

**Notes:**
High impact growth areas consist of census block groups with 20 or greater people/km2 in 2000 and populations predicted to grow by at least 15% between 2000 and 2009. 

## Problems Facing Wildlife

- Greatest threats to terrestrial species state-wide are related to **habitat destruction or fragmentation**, including development and some agricultural and forestry practices.
- Greatest threats to aquatic species state-wide are related to **water and habitat quality**, including pollution and sedimentation, from development and some industrial, agricultural, and forestry practices.

## Transportation Challenges

- Habitat fragmentation
- Habitat destruction
- Hydrologic regime change (impervious surfaces)
- Inadequate land use planning
- Organic pollutants, other toxics
- Hydrologic regime change

**Notes:**
Overall, problems resulting from transportation were identified as somewhat significant to wildlife and habitats in Virginia.

The unintentional capture/killing of wildlife along roadways was identified as one of the overall top 10 threats to wildlife.  This problem was particularly significant for reptiles (turtles and snakes) and for early successional birds that forage along road edges.

Roadways were identified as created impediments to fish passage when culverts or other crossings are inappropriately designed—not just for anadromous fish like American shad, alewife, and American eel (all SGCN), but also for the daily/seasonal movements of resident fish populations, possibly resulting in the isolation of populations.

Roadways and other transportation networks was the 6th most significant problem facing terrestrial wildlife and the 12th most significant for aquatic wildlife.  It was also tied, in part, to even more considerable threats, like municipal development and the introduction of invasive or exotic species.  Examples of these associated impacts include:

Introduction of organic pollutants or other toxins as run-off from road surfaces (e.g., de-icing) or via spills along roadways;
Increased turbidity and sedimentation from run-off from municipal development;
Hydrologic regime change resulting from municipal development and increased impervious surfaces;
Habitat fragmentation and destruction.

Some of these components are tied into inadequate land use planning at the local and regional level that is not evaluating wildlife habitat needs, such as large blocks of intact forests.

## Conservation Actions

**Coordination**
- Improve coordination between law enforcement entities
**Education and Outreach**
- Educate local planners & developers
**Enforcement**
- Improve enforcement & prosecution of wildlife laws
**Habitat Management**
- Increase participation in and rates of use of BMPs
**Land Protection**
- Continue or improve conservation easement programs
**Planning**
- Improve land use planning in urban, forestry, ag uses
**Regulations, Policy and Law**
- Establish permanent dedicated funding for conservation
**Species Management**
- Control overabundant native species, exotic/invasive species

**Notes:**
We identified 8 categories of conservation action from the responses gathered from all groups. These categories represent a wide range of activities and exemplify the comprehensive nature of effective conservation. It’s important to note that wildlife and habitat conservation isn’t just about species and habitat management.

Here are some examples of some consistent themes expressed by the expert scientists, partners, stakeholders and the public.

## Transportation-Related Conservation Actions

- Better local and regional land use planning, including sustainable development
- Removal or alteration of impediments to fish movement
- Wildlife crossings
- Replace wooden bridges
- Reduce salt application to roadways

**Notes:**
Transportation partners and the scientific experts collaborated in the identification of more specific conservation actions that could be addressed by the transportation community.  Examples of such actions include:

More integrated local and regional land use planning that incorporated sustainable development and blue/green infrastructure;
Removal of impediments to fish passage or the alteration of culverts or structures to provide for fish passage;
Development of wildlife crossings, such as underpasses and fences that guide animals along specific corridors;
Replacement of wooden bridges (where feasible) to reduce organic leachate; and
Working with VDOT regarding possible solutions in those areas adjacent to waterways where there are regular (“frequent”) spills resulting from overturned vehicles.

## How Will We All Get It Done?

**How Will We All Get It Done?**

- Implementation, Coordination, Planning Committee

- Information & MonitoringWorking Group

- Education, Outreach & Partnerships

- Policy, Enforcement,Regulation & Law

- Habitat Management& Protection

- Species Management

- Sub-Committees

**Notes:**
We’re proposing to focus efforts based on actions categories, with an “oversight” committee:

The coordination and oversight committee would be the Wildlife Action Plan Implementation, Coordination, and Planning Committee. Responsibilities would include the coordination and planning conservation action tasks. The Implementation Coordinator would be chairperson.  

Information and Monitoring Working Group. Staffed by DGIF folks. Mission would be to provide data repository, collection, synthesis and updating, as well as developing data products. Would document conservation actions and synthesize monitoring results to create information necessary for adaptive management and Action Plan updating.

There would be 4 official subgroups under the Implementation Committee:   
-Education, Outreach and Partnerships - Responsibilities would include conservation actions under the Education and Outreach group as well as fostering partnerships with other organizations.  This committee would be encouraged to create subcommittees based on geographic regions.

-Policy, Enforcement, Regulation, and Law (PERL) - Responsibilities would include all conservation actions under the Enforcement and Regulations, Policy, and Law groups.  This would primarily be a Richmond based committee.

-Habitat Management and Protection - Responsibilities would include all conservation actions under the Habitat Management and Land Protection groupings.  This committee would be encouraged to create subcommittees based on geographic regions.  

-Species Management - Responsibilities would include all conservation actions under the Species Management group.  This committee would be encouraged to use the Taxonomic Advisory Committees as their primary resource. 

## Act Now!  Find Your Nichein the Wildlife Action Plan!

- Act Now!  Find Your Nichein the Wildlife Action Plan!

- www.vawildlifestrategies.org