Virginia’s Native Wildlife in Jeopardy

While Virginians get increasingly worked up over the impact of Global Warming on Virginia’s climate and coastlines some 70 to 80 years from now, cricical environmental problems demand our attention right now.

The Virginia Department of Inland Game and Fisheries has published the State Wildlife Action Plan, the most comprehensive investigation into the status of Virginia wildlife ever conducted. The encyclopedic, 900-page plan assigns 925 species of mammals, fish, birds, amphibeans, reptiles and other creatures to one of four tiers of conservation need — critical, very high, high and moderate — and maps the locations of their habitats.

The plan, the culmination of a Warner administration initative, identifies two major threats to native Virginia species, as well as several deficiencies in wildlife conservation programs. The threats are:

Unprecedented fragmentation and development of habitat. This is one of the most frequently identified problems facing wildlife. To address it, those responsible for land planning will need to be more fully engaged in wildlife conservation efforts.

Invasive exotic plants and animals negatively impacting native wildlife and habitats. Even though they are already widespread, the prevalence of invasive species is increasing in both aquatic and terrestrial communities. From exotic common reed (Phragmites) in coastal marshes to crayfish introduced through the bait trade, this is a crucial statewide conservation issue.

You see, folks, we don’t have to wait for global warming to witness the widespread extinction of native species. Five species of mammals, 15 of birds, 11 of fish and countless more are designated Tier I, facing “an extremely high risk of extinction or extirpation.”

So, what can we do? Combatting invasive species is incredibly difficult — foreign marauders don’t respect state lines. The challenge of invasive species can be addressed systematically only at the level of the federal government. On the other hand, Virginia can do a lot to preserve wildlife habitat.

And that raises an interesting issue — the prioritization of Virginia’s conservation easement tax credits. Demand for the tax credits has taken off, but for reasons of fiscal prudence the General Assembly has clamped a lid of $100 million a year upon the program. I’m not sure what the criteria are now for awarding the credits, whether applicants join a queue and wait their turn, or whether some other factors come into play. But it strikes me that not all conservation easements are created equal. Easements that preserve vital wildlife habitat, I would suggest, should have a higher priority over easements that preserve significant viewsheds, which should have priority over easements that preserve some random property owner’s farm land.

Inland Game and Fisheries has published a map (see above — click on the image for greater detail) that shows where the most critical habitat is located. If Virginia is going to expend $100 million a year in tax credits, some portion of that sum should be used to secure the habitat of Virginia’s threatened species. The greater the threat to the species, the higher the priority for habitat conservation.

Additionally — and this was a major point raised during a meeting in Prince William County I attended recently on the topic of land conservation — local governments should integrate the Inland Game and Fisheries data into their comprehensive plans. We know where the threatened species live now. There is no excuse for waiting until a developer blunders upon a piece of critical habitat to do something about it.

Finally, Virginia needs to look at the full panoply of its land management practices. States the report:

Pollution, sedimentation, and nutrient overloads are causing changes in water quality that negatively impact aquatic wildlife and habitats. Such aquatic degradation is caused mainly by certain agricultural and forestry practices, industrial and municipal development, and certain industrial practices, such as mining. Rivers in southwestern Virginia experienced degradation from certain mining practices, certain agricultural practices, and creation of downstream dams.

Virginia’s wildlife constitute one of the state’s most precious and irreplaceable assets. This superb study gives us a powerful tool to conserve this heritage. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries deserves praise for a job well done.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

11 responses to “Virginia’s Native Wildlife in Jeopardy”

  1. E M Risse Avatar

    One fact to keep in mind:

    To occommodate all the urban land uses now present and projected for the next 30 years at minimum sustainable densities requires about 4 percent of Virginia’s land area. That leaves at least 96 percent for Countryside and for conservation.

    Far more land is already devoted to urban land uses in dysfunctional patterns and in dysfunctional locations. More is held for speculatie gain and will be catalized by public actions supported by Business-As-Usual.

    The path to the best place for humans and their fellow occupants of Virginia to live is functional settlment patterns.

    Conservation organizations saving a bit here and a bit there will not solve the problems highlighted by this study.

    See Backgrounder “Guantification of Land Resources and the Impact on Land Conservation Efforts” 28 August 2006 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com

    EMR

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We need a better understanding of what the purpose of “Conservation Easements” should be.

    “Preserving” land – anywhere for any reason is dumb in my view.

    Those who know me, know that I am totally opposed to the rape and pillage of land also but there is a huge area in between these two extremes that is being ignored.

    I also invite anyone to travel through most of rural Virginia far enough away as to not be a practical urban commuting venue to… peruse thousands.. upon thousands of acres not only not particularily “threatened” but also not exceptionally significant with regard to history or scenery or other important values.

    Right now.. the law does not distrinquish on this basis in terms of elgibility so there is no ranking system much less criteria for ranking.

    So we “preserve” exactly what and for what purpose?

    Even near the urban areas – setting aside land – any land – whether it has any particular historic or natural significance with no public access and which will primarily function as a monetary and scenic amenity for the owner and adjacent “monied”

    … INSTEAD of land that actually should be preserved – but cannot because the funds have already been allocated for “amenity” preservation..

    how in the world did we end up with a policy like this?

    and we have the same problem I feel with respect to TDRs and PDRs.

    The goal of land preservation should NOT be to stop development because in the end – it truly hurts legitimate preservation of things that we should preserve.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Thank you, Larry. Well said.

    Here is a question. I used to have pheasant and quail and woodcocks here on the farm, and whippoorwills. Neither the farm nor anything around me has changed much, but they are all gone. I spoke to a friend who tried to reintorduce quail on his farm, and he said, “Don’t bother. All I did was provide a $2000 feast for the hawks.”

    How is the loss of these particular critters in this location related to loss of habitat? Is it because they lost their habitat to developers, or to the hawks? Is it because the farms here no longer raise grain?

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Why do we need 96% of the land for countryside and conservation?

    If we are only using 4%, why does it matter which 4% or where? How much scatteration can you do with 4%?

    Who decides what is “minimum sustainable density” and how much does that minimum sustainable density actually rely on the other 96%?

    If it is actually sustainable on its own, then why do we need 96% for countryside and conservation?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    “which will primarily function as a monetary and scenic amenity for the owner and adjacent “monied””

    If that’s the case then why all the noise about how open space saves the reaminder of the community on tax money? What about how cutting some people off saves everybody else money by allowing for more compact infrastructure?

    What about watershed, habitat, forest, environmental cleansing, CO2 sequestration, oh yeah, and really cheap food?

    If open space raise the value of adjacent properties, then don’t they pay more taxes for essentially the same services? And isn’t that a benefit that reduces the tax load on thosse that do not live next to open space? Or is one of those “services” the funding of incentives for open space?

    I don’t think the idea that open space serves primarily as monetary and scenic amenity for the owner and the adjacent monied is correct: especially when the alternative of development could be worth millions more to them, and is denied by those who prefer to have the items mentioned above.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    “Easements that preserve vital wildlife habitat, I would suggest, should have a higher priority over easements that preserve significant viewsheds, which should have priority over easements that preserve some random property owner’s farm land.”

    I’m not sure I understand your priorities. The state has an interest in preserving wildlife habitat, presumably because it benefits the states citizens. Certainly it is our habitat, too. And there are hunters, birders, photographers, hikers and others that spend money in order to enjoy these offerings.

    The state has in interest in preserving beauty, too, for many of the same reasons.

    Farmland can do all those other things and provide significant other cash flow which benefits the state and its residents.

    We ought to have some metrics which we can use to establish the priorities, before we rush off and simply proclaim them. The state’s money is a critical resource, too.

    While I agree conceptually that the greater the threat to the species the greater the commitment to preserving it should be, I still wonder if all species are created equal. I don’t hear anyone suggesting that we preserve disease carrying creatures, for example.

    If those engaged in planning are going to be more fully engaged in wildlife conservation efforts, for the good of the entire state, then those that are affected by and contribute the most to benefits enjoyed by the state’s populace should be paid commensurate with the priority, whatever it turns out to be.

    I agree about exotic invasive species. If the stae want to eradicate Elanthia trees, they can start with my place. But, if they are going to follow the precedent set by the Johnsongrass committe and simply make NOT eradicating a species a crime, then I have a problem.

    Anyway, what does exotic and invasive mean? Invasive really just means it is better suited to the habitat we have, doesn’t it? And that habitat is always changing. At what point do we give up on a species that can’t survive? When would we rather have something worthwhile rather than nothing, even if it is domestic and natural?

    If some species is being exterminated because some other species is more successful, should we spend money to assist them in their fight against invasion?

    Like, Farmers for example?

    RH

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ehhh… if there is a limited fund for purchasing conservation easements then it would make sense to prioritize the money on the most important parcels which is exactly what organizations like the Nature Conservancy do.

    This is a trust and accountability issue between those that spend the money and those that have their tax dollars spent on “good causes”.

    Without a rational approach to preserving land this program will likely not be sustainable… and probably killed…at some point.

    I’d rather see Virgnia have a true land preservation program that is highly valued by taxpayers… and sustainable – like the Nature Conservancy approach.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    the Nature conservancy works on volunteer funding and it has one product line.

    The state gets its funding by force of law. It has a higher obigation to see that state residents get the best value for their money. It problem is much more difficult, because not only does it have to set priorities among different product lines, it has to set priorites for the tasks within those product lines.

    Practically speaking, the problem is NP hard, so hard we just give up and opt for political decisions inlieu of financial ones.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    TNC also works with limited funding and explicitly uses criteria to decide where to allocate their funding.

    NPS – the National Park Service – by the way – also rates the significance of properties it would like to acquire so that it can acquire the most significant ones as funding becomes available.

    I don’t see any justification for the state not to use a similar approach even with different product lines.

    Politics are always an ever-present external but I would assert that having clear criteria and ranking the priorities actually protects the process better from political interference.

    It’s when you don’t have a process to start with – that..you practically invite a political process to fill the vacuum.

    The bottom line with any State function in my mind is that you ALWAYS have limited funding and never enough to do everything you’d like to do.

    Any budgetting process that is responsible (in my view) REQUIRES that priorities be established.

    and that is the problem that I have with the Conservation Easement program.

    The way it is currently done – invites politics and in the end … the most significant properties are lost… because of a dysfunctional process of prioritization.

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    “Any budgetting process that is responsible (in my view) REQUIRES that priorities be established.”

    “I don’t see any justification for the state not to use a similar approach even with different product lines.”

    Or anyone else for that matter.

    Gee, Larry, this is exactly the argument that I was making in our other (extended) thread.

    It is irresponsible and probably wasteful, especially with limited resources not to establish priorities, which may include other product lines, and this includes expenditures to limit waste and pollution.

    The way it is currently done involves mostly politics and it guarantees waste. The most significant public gains are lost because of a dysfunctional process of prioritization.

    A good part of that dysfunction is because of an adversarial, winner-take-all, I’m right and you are wrong attitude going in.

    My basic problem with the conservation easment process is that there is a one time payment in return for an eternity of benefit which means the ROI is essentially infinite. I see it as another vain attempt to get something for nothing, which will eventually fail. It is fundamentally dishonest, in my opinion.

    Consider a conservation easement that was later surrounded by development. The owner died and the heirs had no interest in the property because it wasn’t economic. The spot became a dumping ground and an eyesore. The county didn’t want to take it over for taxes because they would lose their (mostly free) revenue stream, no one would buy it because of cleanup, liability and restrictions, the heirs said this isn’t my problem, and the easement holder had neither clout nor funds to cause the cleanup.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: ” something for nothing conservation easements”

    tell me again how the government went to the guys house and forced him to sell and screw his heirs out of their rightful inheritance?

    What I’ve heard is that some folks donate their land to a non-profit or even the Government for a park because they don’t want their heirs to squander it

    How do you end up blaming the government for someone’s personal decision to dispose of their property.

    Conservation Easements of one of dozens of things someone can do with their property “forever”.

    I know guys who GAVE AWAY their land for a school site .. and they had kids… who were heirs.

    Do you blame the government for receiving that land donation?

Leave a Reply