Virginia Wildlife Action Plan

  • Upload
    adrina

  • View
    55

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Virginia Wildlife Action Plan. David K. Whitehurst Virginia Department of Game 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

  • VirginiaWildlife Action Plan

    David K. Whitehurst

    Virginia Department of Game 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 Virginias wildlife & habitats

    In line with Roadmap for Virginias Future (Virginias 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 programs within and outside of Virginia government

  • Wildlife Action Plan OverviewA wildlife conservation plan for the Commonwealth, not just DGIFDeveloped with input from multiple partners, stakeholders, and citizensPlan evaluates and assesses: Location and abundance of wildlife and habitatsProblems facing species and habitatsConservation actions to address problemsResearch and monitoring needs

  • External Steering CommitteeUS Fish & Wildlife Service (ES & Refuges)US Forest ServiceVA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation VA Dept. of TransportationVA Assoc. of Planning District CommissionsNatural Resource Conservation ServiceWestern Virginia Land TrustThe Nature ConservancyNational Park ServiceVA Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer ServicesVirginia AudubonDucks UnlimitedUS Dept. of DefenseVA Dept. of Forestry

  • Key Outcomes

  • Species of Greatest Conservation NeedFinal List: 925 speciesAssigned to one of four tiers of relative conservation needReviewed and endorsed by scientists and stakeholdersTiers and associated species served as the foundation for Plan development, including setting conservation priorities and actions.

  • Species of Greatest Conservation NeedMammals 24Birds 96Fishes 97Reptiles 28Amphibians 32Mussels 61Aquatic crustaceans 61Aquatic insects148Terrestrial insects142Other aquatic invertebrates 34Other terrestrial invertebrates20270% are invertebrates; 60% are aquatic

  • Summary of Taxa

  • Habitat AssessmentBroad Habitat Assessment Statewide terrestrial, aquatic, and subterranean habitats, their locations, and their condition

    Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Habitat AssessmentIdentified general habitat needs for all SGCN speciesCreated detailed maps of Tier I species habitats modeled from best available information

  • GAP Habitats Wildlife Species RichnessUnderprotected Species Richness

  • Terrestrial species distribution mapShenandoah salamander

  • Aquatic species distribution map Little-wing pearly musselFrom NC Mussel Atlas

  • Conservation Opportunities

  • Human Population Density(from 2000 census block groups)

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

  • High Impact Growth Areas

  • Problems Facing WildlifeGreatest 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-Related Challenges to Wildlife and Habitats in VirginiaHabitat fragmentationHabitat destructionHydrologic regime change (impervious surfaces)Inadequate land use planningOrganic pollutants, other toxicsHydrologic regime change

  • Conservation ActionsCoordinationImprove coordination between law enforcement entitiesEducation and OutreachEducate local planners & developersEnforcementImprove enforcement & prosecution of wildlife lawsHabitat ManagementIncrease participation in and rates of use of BMPsLand ProtectionContinue or improve conservation easement programsPlanningImprove land use planning in urban, forestry, ag usesRegulations, Policy and LawEstablish permanent dedicated funding for conservationSpecies ManagementControl overabundant native species, exotic/invasive species

  • Transportation-Related Conservation ActionsBetter local and regional land use planning, including sustainable developmentRemoval or alteration of impediments to fish movementWildlife crossingsReplace wooden bridgesReduce salt application to roadways

  • How Will We All Get It Done?Implementation, Coordination, Planning CommitteeInformation & Monitoring Working GroupEducation, Outreach & PartnershipsPolicy, Enforcement, Regulation & LawHabitat Management & ProtectionSpecies ManagementSub-Committees

  • Act Now! Find Your Niche in the Wildlife Action Plan!www.vawildlifestrategies.org

    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 participantproviding data layers, reviewing draft chapters, identifying possible solutions to problems, and more.Development of Virginias 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.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 needList 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.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.

    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 its doing?As part of our broad assessment, we used products from the Virginia Gap Analysis Program to evaluate habitats based on species richness. A useful product of that assessment is an evaluation of underprotected species richness.

    Underprotected species richness, the areas in red, depicts those areas with the highest number of species that have underprotected habitat. This richness layer identifies conservation targets that would benefit terrestrial species richness the most.Example of our Tier I species potential habitat models for terrestrial wildlife, based on knowledge of species habitat requirements and mappable elements of those requirements; we recognize that the product may over-estimate potential habitat available for the species.Example of our Tier I species potential habitat models for aquatic wildlife, based on knowledge of species habitat requirements and mappable elements of those requirements (using our recently-completed aquatic Gap Analysis Program data); we recognize that the product may over-estimate potential habitat available for the species.

    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.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.Population density change from 1990 to 2000, then predicted population change between 2000 and 2009High 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. 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 designednot 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.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. Its important to note that wildlife and habitat conservation isnt 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 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; andWorking with VDOT regarding possible solutions in those areas adjacent to waterways where there are regular (frequent) spills resulting from overturned vehicles.Were 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, creating subcommittees based on geographic regions.

    -Policy, Enforcement, Regulation, and Law - 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, with subcommittees based on geographic regions.

    -Species Management - Responsibilities would include all conservation actions under the Species Management group, using the Taxonomic Advisory Committees as their primary resource.