State Wildlife Action Plans Alternatively Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS), State Comprehensive Wildlife Plans (SCWP), Etc. Created.

Keeping the Common Species Funded: State Wildlife Action Plans and the DoD INRMP Template from

an Author’s Perspective

David McNaughton, PA Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs

Ft. Indiantown Gap [email protected] 717-861-8408

Presented at DoD the Natural Resources Conservation Workshop, 12 March 2015

State Wildlife Action Plans• Alternatively Comprehensive

Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS), State Comprehensive Wildlife Plans (SCWP), Etc.

• Created By The States To Support USFWS

• Defines Statewide Priorities For State Wildlife Grant Program– Much Like INRMP Defines

Conservation Priorities for Service Funding

– Priority Habitats as Well as Species

Responsibility• SWAPs Include State

Responsibilities– Percentage of Total Range

Nationwide Within State– Percentage of Total

Population Nationwide Within State

– Distribution of State Within Range (“Core” Populations)

– Includes Common Species, Edge of Range Rarities

INRMP Applicability

• Section 1.d. Responsibilities (2) External Stakeholders– Sets the Need and

Commitments for Cooperation

– Sets Timeline for State Agency Review(s)

• Section 1.e. Authority– Discuss State Code– State-Owned, Federally-

Leased Property May Have to Comply With State Version of ESA

INRMP Applicability (Cont’d)• 2.a.2. Regional Land Uses

– ACUB Opportunities and Priorities

– Chance to Discuss Cross-Boundary Priorities

• 2.c.3. and 2.c.4. Fauna and Flora Descriptions– Tie-in and Highlight State

Responsibility Species• 3.d. Beneficial Partnerships

and Collaborative Resource Planning

• 3.f. Encroachment Partnering

INRMP Applicability (Cont’d)

• 3.g. A Whole Section Just for State Comprehensive Wildlife Plans!– Include the Shared

Species Lists– Discuss Monitoring and

Annual Programs– Discuss the SWAP

Revision Cycle and Coordination with Annual and 5-Year Reviews

• 4.c. Law Enforcement, 4.d. Fish and Wildlife Management, 4.m. Outdoor Recreation– Common Topics for Partnering

and Benefits to States– Often the Most Approachable

Partnerships• 4.p. Training of NR Personnel

– Include State-Assisted Opportunities

– Include Window for State Agency Personnel in In-House Training

• 5.c. Use of Cooperative Agreements

INRMP Applicability (Cont’d)

T&E Discussions

• 2.c.1. General Biotic Environment, T&E AND Species of Concern

• 3.b. Natural Resources Consultation Requirements

• 4.a. T&E Program Elements• Appendices 7 and 8

Endangered Spp. and Critical Habitat– Include State Species If State

Lists and Code Are Applicable– Include State Rarities as

Species of Concern

Funding• National Guard Has STEPs

for State-Listed Species on State-Owned Installations

• Use INRMP Text for State Wildlife Grant Applications

• Use INRMP Meetings to Develop Relationships and Communicate Opportunities

• Seek State Partners In-Kind Assistance

• Use State Partners to Attract Volunteers

Tools In Use

• Fort Indiantown Gap Examples – SWG Funds in 2009-

2012 for Grassland Restoration and Monitoring on Post

– 2014 Partnering for Regal Release Sites

– 2009-Present Cooperative Fire Assistance