State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies Author(s): Laura M. Bies Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2):739-743. Published By: The Wildlife Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[739:SCWCS]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/0091-7648%282005%2933%5B739%3ASCWCS%5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. 739 Policy News by Laura M. Bies State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies Teaming With Wildlife (TWW), a coalition of wildlife and conservation groups, was formed in the early 1990s with the goal of securing permanent federal funding for state programs to address the conservation needs of all wildlife species. The Wildlife Laura M. Bies Society is active in Acting Wildlife Policy Director, TWS TWW, both at the national level and through state TWW coalitions. Later in the 1990s, the Teaming With Wildlife coalition was instrumental in the introduction of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). CARA would have provided $350 million in funding for wildlife. Despite broad support, the Congress did not pass CARA. However, it did alternatively create two new programs to fund state wildlife conservation efforts. One was the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program (WCRP), which was funded for just one year, at $50 million. Congress also created the State Wildlife Grants Program, which is funded annually through the appropriations process. While providing an important annual source of funding, the State Wildlife Grants Program is not the permanent source of funding envisioned by CARA. Recent years have seen other legislative attempts to secure permanent funding, but thus far none has been successful. Even without permanent funding, the State Wildlife Grants Program has allowed states to make great progress in on-the-ground conservation of all species of wildlife. Since 2002 it has been the nation’s core program to keep wildlife from becoming endangered. The program, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), provides grants to state wildlife agencies for on-the-ground conservation and comprehensive wildlife conservation planning. The grants must be matched at the state level; the FWS provides one-to-one funding for implementation projects and three-to-one for planning projects. Federal funding for the State Wildlife Grants appropriated each year through the budget process and is allocated among the states using a formula that takes into account the land area and human population of the state. Over the last five years, the State Wildlife Grants Program and the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program have provided a total of almost $340 million in new money for wildlife conservation. In a very tough budget climate, this kind of growth is remarkable, and reflects the strong bipartisan support that the TWW coalition has built. The Wildlife Grants Program’s final funding for FY 2005 was $69 million. For FY 2006, the President requested funding of $74 million. Teaming With Wildlife coordinated a campaign to secure funding of $85 million in the FY 2006 budget, which is a return to the FY 2002 level. The House Interior Appropriations bill allocated $65 million to the program, while the Senate allocated Key Words: state wildlife grants, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, global climate change, transportation bill Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(2)739–743 740 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(2):739–743 $72 million for FY 2006. The final amount will be worked out in conference committee. In order to receive future federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants Program, each state must develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. These strategies, developed by each state’s fish and wildlife agency, will serve as a blueprint for wildlife conservation in the state and will contain science-based information on priority species and habitats, the conservation issues that need to be addressed, and recommendations for addressing those issues. Some states are developing plan elements for wildlife recreation and education as well. While the state fish and wildlife agencies took the lead in developing the strategies, it was envisioned that both the development process and the implementation would involve input from various partners, including other government agencies, private landowners, conservation groups, and others. These strategies will allow states to use nonregulatory, preventive approaches to conserving wildlife, rather than simply reacting to crises. The strategies must be completed and submitted to FWS for review and approval by October 2005. The National Advisory Acceptance Team, made up of state and federal officials, will review the strategies and make approval recommendations to the Director of FWS; the Team hopes to have all the strategies reviewed by early 2006. Many states have already completed their strategies, and the team met for the first time in July to review the first several strategies to be submitted. The state wildlife strategies focus on the species in greatest need of conservation while addressing the needs of the “full array of wildlife” in each state. They are being developed according to requirements laid out by Congress for the WCRP and criteria developed by FWS for the State Wildlife Grants program, but each state is developing its own approach based on local issues and management needs. The eight required elements for the strategies include: information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, descriptions of locations and relative conditions of key habitat and community types, descriptions of problems that may affect wildlife and necessary research to address them, descriptions of proposed conservation actions, proposed plans for monitoring, procedures to review the strategy at least every 10 years, plans for coordination with federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes, and provisions for broad public participation. Though all strategies must contain these elements, state wildlife agencies have taken different approaches in developing and formatting the strategies based on their own resources, local issues, and management needs. For example, Missouri’s strategy is structured on ecoregions within the state, while other strategies are based on species of greatest conservation need. The agencies have also set up a variety of systems for identifying the species of greatest conservation and representative of each state’s wildlife. While North Dakota is building its strategy on the basis of 100 priority, low-and-declining species, Virginia’s strategy started from an assessment of more than 900 species broken into several tiers of imperilment. This diversity of planning approaches can be frustrating, but it also represents the essential strength of this effort:Within the core planning elements, the state wildlife agencies have developed structures that will work in each state and translate into on-the-ground results for wildlife. For more formation about your state’s strategy and the contact information for the state coordinator, go to the Teaming With Wildlife’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy website at www.wildlifestrategies. org. Throughout the development of the state strategies, The Wildlife Society has encouraged all wildlife professionals to get involved. Even as the strategies enter the final stages of development, there are still opportunities to contribute and much work will need to be done after the strategies are completed. Public and professional input will be needed as the strategies are implemented, updated, and improved, and on components such as the status of species of greatest conservation need and performance monitoring. The next step is implementation of the strategies, where states will translate them into on-theground conservation successes. These strategies are meant to be dynamic and adaptive in order to change with increased knowledge and changing conditions. The strategies should identify any current information gaps, and as they are implemented, states will move forward with research and inventory and monitoring to complete the picture of the status of wildlife in the states, focusing on species identified as being in greatest need of conservation. Implementation of the strategies will involve a broad array of conservation partners. Land conservation, land management, environmental education, research, and surveys are just some of the conserva- Policy News • Bies tion actions identified. These tasks will not be accomplished solely by state fish and wildlife agencies. Every conservation interest should find a role in these strategies, which is why it is important for wildlifers to become engaged in their state’s strategy. A crucial ingredient for implementation will be adequate and reliable funding. As mentioned earlier, the State Wildlife Grants Program does not provide the permanent source of funding envisioned by CARA. Several pieces of legislation currently before Congress would provide more reliable, dedicated funding. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) recently reintroduced the Americans Outdoors Act (S. 964), which would provide dedicated funding of $350 million per year for the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program. Another novel proposal for funding is included in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151) introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). This bill would dedicate a portion of the proceeds from climate emissions permits to the WCRP, possibly generating $500 million to $2 billion in funding for conservation. There is a concurrent need to find dedicated funding to support wildlife conservation at the state level. A key component of the State Wildlife Grants program is the requirement that states match the grants they receive from the federal government. To date, states have had varying success in raising this money. The most successful states are those that have dedicated sources for wildlife conservation funding from sales taxes, tax checkoffs, lotteries, and so forth. In March, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment released a study that examined the various strategies that states have used to secure funding for wildlife. The study examined 15 different funding mechanisms employed by 14 different states in an attempt to provide guidance to state agencies in increasing funding for wildlife through different mechanisms. Some of the mechanisms examined were sales taxes (both general and on outdoor equipment), tax checkoffs, lotteries, and license plates. The report analyzed the various funding mechanisms and provided guidance to states in developing them. It identified several important factors to consider when choosing a funding mechanism, including building statewide public and legislative support, demonstrating a clear need for the 741 funding, having a targeted message, and forming partnerships to support the mechanism. By learning from the experiences of other states, fish and wildlife agencies can develop funding mechanisms that will be successful in their state. The Wildlife Society has been part of the Teaming With Wildlife initiative since its inception. As the leading voice of professional, science-based wildlife management,TWS has played a crucial role in building strong bipartisan support among policy-makers for comprehensive, strategic investment in wildlife conservation. The completion of the state wildlife strategies and the shift into implementation should only elevate the importance of wildlife professionals in this effort. As the TWW initiative enters the next phase, TWS will continue to pursue opportunities to bring our expertise to bear on the complex challenges that we will face in securing a positive future for all wildlife. Making the Connection Between Global Climate Change and Wildlife It is becoming increasingly clear that the effects of climate change will not be limited to those felt by humans; there will be drastic effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat as well. In 2004, The Wildlife Society released a Technical Review, Global Climate Change and Wildlife in North America, the result of a professional panel’s two-year review of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific reports examining the wildlife implications of global warming. The first comprehensive assessment of the effect of global climate change on wildlife in North America, it concludes that wildlife will indeed be affected by climate change, with the degree varying by species. According to the report, the effect of climate change on wildlife will depend in part on species adaptability. Those with small or isolated populations and low genetic variability will be least likely to withstand climate change impacts, while wildlife with broader habitat ranges and greater genetic diversity should fare better. In general, the geographic ranges of North American wildlife are expected to shift in response to global warming, moving northward and upward in elevation. The report describes the effects that climate change is already having on various species, including amphibians, waterfowl, and caribou, and concludes with recommended actions for wildlife managers and governmental agencies to take to 742 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(2):739–743 account for climate change and its effects. In March,The Wildlife Society Council approved a new Wildlife Policy Statement on Global Climate Change and Wildlife. This statement, based on the Technical Review, provides recommendations for action, including global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, education and research efforts directed toward climate change and wildlife, the use of adaptive management and monitoring systems to mange the effect of climate change on wildlife, reducing factors that contribute to ecosystem stress, and increasing carbon sequestration projects. Wildlife professionals are not the only ones beginning to grasp the nexus between climate change and wildlife. Federal legislation is also beginning to address to problem. The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman on May 26, which would control global warming through a market-based cap and trade approach, includes a provision to fund wildlife conservation at the state level. Under the Act’s market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, all sources covered by the Act would be required to hold allowances for their greenhouse gas emissions. Each year, the government will auction off these emissions allowances, creating a stream of revenue called the Climate Change Credit Corporation. Under Section 352 of the Act, no less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the Climate Change Credit Corporation will be allocated to wildlife funding at the state level, through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account, for what is called “Adaptation Assistance for Fish and Wildlife Habitat.” The purpose of this funding is to “strengthen and restore habitat that improves the ability of fish and wildlife to successfully adapt to climate change.” Global climate change is expected to impact wildlife in myriad ways, and this funding would help the states to build and sustain healthy and biologically diverse wildlife communities. The Act was introduced in previous Congresses in a slightly different form. In 2003 it garnered bipartisan support and narrowly lost in a Senate vote (43-to-55). Building on this momentum, in 2004 Representatives Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and John Olver of Massachusetts introduced a similar bill into the House. This Act never made it to a vote. Earlier this year, it was reintroduced again (S.342 and H.R.759). The current version of the bill, introduced in the Senate, is the first to include the wildlife funding provision. This newest version also includes funding to provide incentives for the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. Ignoring the effects of climate change on wildlife is no longer an intelligent option; to do so will increasingly result in an inability to meet wildlife management objectives. Wildlife managers can help many species of wildlife to adapt to climate change by ensuring widespread habitat availability and managing for self-sustaining populations. As policy and legislation develop to deal with global climate change, wildlife and wildlife habitat must be addressed. Provisions such as that in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would provide the funding necessary for wildlife managers to help sustain wildlife in spite of the effects of climate change. Wildlife Funding in the Transportation Bill The transportation legislation passed by both the House and the Senate in the 109th Congress includes provisions important to the wildlife community. Both the “Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (TEA-LU) in the House and the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act” (SAFETEA) in the Senate deal with wildlife issues such as habitat mitigation and planning, road maintenance in the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Forest System, control of invasive species, and wildlife/vehicle accidents. The bills also contain provisions related to wildlife recreation, such as recreational trails funding, hunting and fishing access, and sportfishing and boating-safety provisions. The current transportation bill expired two years ago, and reauthorization has been slow in coming, with the current legislation temporarily extended several times. The House bill totals $284 billion, but the Senate version comes in at $295 billion, risking a veto by President Bush, who has vowed to veto any transportation bill over $284 billion. The conference committee will draft the final legislation, which then must be approved by the House and Senate. One important provision in the transportation legislation deals with roads in the National Wildlife Refuge System. According to a Federal Highway Administration and Department of the Interior study, the backlog of transportation infrastructure needs in the Refuge System totals a staggering $2.1 billion. To eliminate this backlog over the next 30 years, the refuge roads need funding of $69 million a year. Currently, the maintenance budget for Policy News • Bies refuge roads is $20 million a year. The House bill would provide $25 million each year and the Senate, $30 million. The House bill would also allow the funding to be used for the construction of wildlife observation infrastructure. The Wildlife Society, as a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), has been active in attempting to secure adequate funding for refuge roads through both the annual appropriation process and the transportation bill reauthorization. This year the Senate bill includes key provisions dealing with habitat mitigation and planning. It amends the planning language in the House bill to require that long-term transportation plans incorporate the best available scientific information on wildlife and native plants, that wetlands and other natural habitats be protected in advance to provide mitigation credits for future transportation projects, and that state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted early in the highway planning process to identify important impacts and suggest mitigation measures. These important measures will provide protection for fragile habitat and the wildlife that rely on them as America’s transportation infrastructure continue to expand. The current transportation bill does not provide adequate funding for forest roads maintenance; specifically missing are adequate resources for the repair and replacement of culverts and bridges on forest roads to facilitate fish passage and ensure reasonable flows. The Senate bill addresses this issue and provides $14 million for the improvement of fish passage under forest roads. Invasive species are becoming an increasing problem, and are spread through transportation corridors. Section 1601 of the Senate bill would make environmental restoration and invasive species control eligible for both National Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funding. Such funding will be key in preventing the spread of invasion through transportation corridors, allowing states to address the threat that invasive plants pose to the forests and farms along roadways. The use of native species also should be encouraged in highway construction and maintenance projects. In recent years, highway accidents involving wildlife have increased. The House bill includes lan- 743 guage calling for a study of methods for reducing collisions between wildlife and vehicles, the results of which would be used to develop a manual on reducing such incidents and a training course offered to transportation professionals covering techniques identified in the manual. Current law provides $50 million a year to the Recreational Trails Program for the maintenance of the thousands of miles of trails used by hikers, hunters, and fishermen. The House included language in its transportation bill to increase this funding to $503 million over six years, which will allow critical access issues to be addressed. In addition, the current transportation bill does not provide adequate funding for signage to identify public hunting and fishing opportunities. A provision in the House bill would provide $1 million a year for improved signage to identify hunting and fishing areas open to the public. Both bills also include important provisions regarding sportfishing and boating safety. The current law provides partial funding of critical sportfish and wetland restoration projects and boatingsafety programs. Under this law, 13.5 cents of the 18.3 cents per gallon gasoline excise tax attributable to outboard motors and small engines goes into the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (ARTF). Under the House bill, the remaining 4.8 cents would no longer be diverted to the general fund of the US Treasury; instead, the full 18.3 cents would go to the ARTF. The Senate bill also includes provisions to streamline and amend the ARTF to the benefit America’s anglers and boaters in the “Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2005,” included in the Senate’s bill as Subtitle E. The next transportation bill to be signed into law has the potential to provide unprecedented benefits to the wildlife community. Many provisions in the House and Senate bills, if accepted in conference, could improve and protect wildlife habitat, improve planning, and enhance wildlife recreation opportunities. Key provisions in the House bill would increase access for wildlife recreation. The Senate bill envisions integrating wildlife concerns into the transportation planning process. These provisions can help to ensure that future transportation planning and infrastructure greatly enhance benefits to wildlife.