Webinar Series on State Wildlife Action Plan Revision

1. Webinar Series on State Wildlife Action Plan Revision • 4.17.14 • 1-2:30pm For audio: Dial: 712-432-1500 Passcode: 882578#

2. Agenda • 1:00pmWelcome & Purpose • Mary Pfaffko, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies • 1:03pmBest Practice for SWAPs—why create consistency? • Cathy Haffner, Pennsylvania Game Commission • 1:10pmCase Study: Northeast Regional Products • Northeast Synthesis & Regional SGCN (Karen Terwilliger, Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.) • Northeast Lexicon (Elizabeth Crisfield, Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.) • Delaware Database (Jonathan Mawdsley, Society for Conservation Biology) • 2:10pm Case Study: USGS Species Conservation Analysis Tool (“the SGCN tool”) • Abby Benson, US Geological Survey • 2:20pm Questions Best Practice for State Wildlife Action Plans: Working together towards common terminology • 4.17.14

3. A Common Language for Species, Habitats, Threats and Conservation Actions in State Wildlife Action Plans Best Practices from Chapters 2 & 3 Why create consistency? CATHY HAFFNER Conservation Planning Coordinator Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Diversity Division

4. Acknowledgements Best Practices Subgroup 2 Team (Species and Habitats) Jimi Gragg, UT (Lead) Jon Ambrose, GA Rita Dixon, ID Kristal Stoner, NE Presentation Mary Pfaffko, AFWAJimi Gragg, UT Elizabeth Crisfield, Terwilliger Consulting Inc. Best Practices Subgroup 3 Team (Threats and Conservation Actions) • Danna Baxley, KY (Lead) • Katy Reeder, IA • Sunni Carr, KY • Leslie Hawkins, SC • Austin Kane, National Wildlife Federation Hal Korber

5. Will your (or does your) revised State Wildlife Action Plan use standard terminology* for species, habitats, threats or conservation actions? • Yes • No • Don’t know Enter your state or territory name and your answer in the chat pod in the bottom right corner of your screen. Example: PA - Yes *Refers to well-accepted or official classifications for these categories (e.g., American Ornithologists’ Union checklist for bird names, NatureServe’s Terrestrial Ecological Systems for habitat , Salafsky et al. 2008 for threats and conservation actions, etc.).

6. If ‘Yes’ or ‘Don’t know’, for which required element(s) are you using, or would you consider using, standard terminology*? Element 1 – Species Element 2 – Habitats Element 3 – Threats Element 4 – Actions All of the above Still not sure Enter your state or territory name and your answer in the chat pod in the bottom right corner of your screen. Example: PA – 5; UT – 2, 3, 4 *Refers to well-accepted or official classifications for these categories (e.g., American Ornithologists’ Union checklist for bird names, NatureServe’s Terrestrial Ecological Systems for habitat , Salafsky et al. 2008 for threats and conservation actions, etc.).

7. Overview • Genesis for Best Practices document • Why create consistency in State Wildlife Action Plans? • Utah example • Highlights of Best Practices chapters 2 & 3

8. 2011 survey of Wildlife Diversity Program Managers, State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators and partnersWhat’s working? What’s not? Overwhelming response was that plans should be more consistent.

9. Voluntary practices to enhance conservation and consistency across plans. con·sis·ten·cynoun \kən-ˈsis-tən(t)-sē\ agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole Merriam-Webster “…our hope [is] that we can and should achieve greater consistency and standardization across our plans.” - Carter Smith (TX), Teaming With Wildlife Chair, Best Practices foreword

10. Why create consistency? Improve Communication - Enhance Coordination Affect Conservation

11. It can work! Utah example (thanks Jimi!) Categorized threats for all species in Utah following a standard classification system (Salafsky et al. 2008).

12. Sidebar: Consistent terms allow for communicating information in different ways.

13. Utah example… continued Which taxonomic group or groups is most impacted? Fish are facing the greatest number of threats in Utah. Dams are primary issue, but hard to do anything about. Second highest threat – non-natives: FISH STOCKING!

14. Utah threats assessment -Result Utah Division of Wildlife Resources will be switching all non-native sport fish production to sterile hybrids to reduce this threat. Mike Cline/Wikimedia Commons

15. Make State Wildlife Action Plans the best they can be! Selected Best Practices (Chapters 2 & 3) • Use accepted or official taxonomic standards for species of greatest conservation need (p. 10) - Note: The American Fisheries Society Special Publication 34 is the recommended list of common and scientific names of fishes from the US, Canada, and Mexico (Nelson  et al. 2013) • Use common habitat classifications that align with ecological boundaries (p. 8) • Use standard terms for threats and conservation actions (p. 12 & 14)

16. Thank you! CATHY HAFFNER Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Diversity Division chaffner@pa.gov 570. 275. 3934

17. Regional Coordination for NE SWAP Revision and Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee Conservation Made More Efficient And Effective Karen Terwilliger, Elizabeth Crisfield, and TCI Team for the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee

18. Why coordinate? • States have similar information needs • Habitat and species conservation crosses state lines • Cost-effective conservation requires coordinated action. • The committee has addressed their shared needs through the Regional Conservation Needs Grant Program (RCN) • The NEFWDTC prioritize projects that meet their documented needs • Results are shared on the RCN website

19. Results of Regional Coordination • 50 + RCN projects • Synthesis Report • Lexicon Report • Culture of Coordination • NE lead and recognition

20. Results: RCN 50+ Projects Advantages: Challenge: • Use shared resources to address shared needs • Prevent redundancy • Provide needed data to all states • Tracking project progress • Disseminating information to all state staff who can use it • Translating products for states

21. Reasons for Synthesis Report • Reviewed ALL 50+ RCN projects (along with SWG and NALCC) • Organized results by SWAP element, year, topic • TOC and index – easy to find

22. Results: Synthesis Report • ALSO Reviewed State SGCN to develop a set of Regional SGCN (RSGCN) for inclusion in SWAP revisions • Incomplete for invertebrates • Time intensive for taxa teams

23. For SWAPs and Beyond • Broader Applications • RCN habitat , • Threats and climate change • geospatial projects are of use across state agencies • Synthesis Report helps translate these powerful products in context

24. Geospatial Condition Analysis • States Ranked factors last year at NEAFWA (development, connectivity, etc) • Shows condition, threats, opportunities • For ALL species

25. Aquatic Connectivity • Conservation Assessment • Aquatic Connectivity • Data, maps and tools

26. Results: RCN Projects • Climate Change Projects • NWF- Habitat Vulnerability • NatureServe- Species • Vulnerability • Resiliency project

32. Results: RSGCN list update

33. Coordination Next Steps • Follow-up on Synthesis and Lexicon recommendations • Synthesis and Lexicon updating- project progress • SWAP revision support- how to use it • Keeping the coordination system up and running to help with emerging needs.

34. Synthesis Recommendations • Regional threats assessment • Maintain synthesis as a dynamic document • Regional landscape conservation design • Work with NE Climate Change Working Group • Work with NE Information & Education • States need to advance and review of the RSGCN list and process because it is based on state data and expertise

35. Lexicon Recommendations • Continue work toward a regional web-accessible database of SWAPs • Work with NE Conservation Information & Education Association to support implementation of Elements 7&8

36. Synthesis and Lexicon Updates • The Synthesis is being updated as new RCN projects are completed • As SWAP coordinators use both documents, corrections and improvements are needed • As the Lexicon is applied during SWAP revision, improvements or better solutions are suggested and resolved

37. SWAP Revision Support • Coordinated efforts to support communication plans • A website to share tips and tricks is available to support SWAP revision

38. Maintaining a Culture of Coordination • Holding monthly conference calls and 3 meetings • System for coordination is kept in place to be invoked quickly when needed • NEFWDTC members know they are part of a team of people that is ready, willing, and able to help

39. Delaware Wildlife Action Plan:Database Development& Web-Enabling Jonathan Mawdsley Society for Conservation Biology

40. Role of Database in Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Revision • Capture and store data collected during plan revision about the major plan elements • Support development and refinement of Species of Greatest Conservation Need list • Support comparisons with legacy data from first edition of plan • Support queries that combine multiple plan elements (e.g. species and habitats, threats and actions) • Support web-enabling (Web GIS, data visualization tools)

41. Software Considerations • Cost • Easily accessible and easily used by biologists, state agency staff • Meets Delaware state information technology specifications • Support for complex queries, analyses • Support for web-enabling

42. Existing Microsoft Access Database • Developed for first edition of Delaware Wildlife Action Plan • Main function was to support development of the list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need for Delaware • Included basic information about other elements (threats, habitats, actions)

43. Other Species Lists Biotics Species List for Delaware Other Species Lists Threats and Actions Habitat Associations

44. Database Development • Used existing database architecture as starting point • Normalized tables and relationships for habitats, threats, and actions • Added fields from the Northeast Lexicon for species, habitats, threats, and actions • Added logical relationships between tables using links on common fields

45. New Features • Added tables for storing elements of results chains • Added tables for storing full data from the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index • Added fields for both TRACS and IUCN Threats and Action classifications • Added Northeast Terrestrial & Aquatic Habitat Classifications • Added tables for information about performance measures, monitoring programs

46. Other Lists of Priority Species Species List from Biotics Terrestrial Habitats Aquatic Habitats CCVI Actions Module Threats Module Results Chain Module Effectiveness Measures And Monitoring Module

47. Capturing Data from the CCVI • CCVI = NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index v. 2.1 • Could just capture the overall index value (Extremely, Highly, Moderately, Not Vulnerable, etc.) • BUT, much richness in the data that contribute to calculating this value! SOLUTION: Table that includes index value PLUS all of the data that go into calculating the index value for a species

48. Capturing Data from Results Chains • Results Chains are useful tools for showing relationships between the basic plan elements SOLUTION: Table that includes key elements of results chains: actions, outcomes, threats, species/habitats, indicators of effects

49. Next Steps in Delaware • Migration to SQL Server and cloud hosting • Populating database as revision moves forward • Development of open source web GIS platform for geospatial data • Development of data visualization tools

50. Database Template for States • MS Access file available from Kevin Kalasz (DE) or Jonathan Mawdsley (SCB) • Pre-loaded with US Endangered Species Act listings, IUCN Red List, Northeast regional species of concern list, Northeast Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Classifications • Incorporates fields from the Northeast Lexicon • Basic table designs for required elements and for the relationships between tables