Get documents about "Biological Needs Assessment National Wildlife Refuge System - Publications
Document Sample
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Biological Needs
Assessment
National Wildlife
Refuge System
Division of Refuges
July 1998
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
To administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-57, October 9, 1997)
Forward
Significant anniversaries are This is the context within which the Both the Division of Refuges and
opportunities for introspection and Division of Refuges offers the the Committee on Refuge Biology
assessment. The approach of the present document, the “National recognize the many biological
National Wildlife Refuge System’s Wildlife Refuge System Biological strengths of the Refuge System:
100th birthday is an ideal time to Needs Assessment.” Almost two The dedicated staff which have
look back over the road thus years of rewarding and sometimes produced many well-structured
traveled, yet forward to the road painful self-analysis under the refuge programs, the productive
ahead. In 1997, the Refuge System guidance of the Committee on research, the successful habitat
received a very special centennial Refuge Biology was necessary restorations and fruitful efforts to
gift, the long-awaited National for this, the most comprehensive restore endangered species. The
Wildlife Refuge System review of biological activities ever “Biological Needs Assessment” is
Improvement Act, which will shape undertaken by the Refuge not about strengths, however, but
the System during its second System. The results of that work— about needs. It is about work yet to
century of growth. It provides the recommendations for 36 specific be done, work that should build on
clearest map of the road before us. actions the Service should take to and emulate these successes. It is
strengthen the Refuge Biological with a desire to improve, in the
Fundamental to the Act is the Program—were included here only recognition that wildlife and good
concept of “Wildlife First!” This after extensive review and comment biology are the only foundation on
recognizes the wildlife resource as by the Division of Refuges, the which the Refuge System can
the underlying reason for Assistant Regional Directors for continue to thrive, and in the
developing and maintaining the Refuges and Wildlife in all seven recognition of standards set by
Refuge System. So, it follows that Regions, and by a majority of field the Refuge Improvement Act,
the System’s Biological Program— stations within the System. that the Division presents the
the core activities surrounding “Biological Needs Assessment.”
development, implementation, The Assessment is the baseline by
and evaluation of management which we will measure our progress
objectives for the benefit of as we take the Refuge System into
wildlife—should be at the heart of the 21st Century.
our efforts to guide the System into
its next 100 years. Richard A. Coleman
July 1998
Chief, Division of Refuges
Table of Contents
Developed by the NWRS Inroduction 4
Committee on Refuge Biology
Definition of Refuge Biological Program 5
Region 1: Fred Paveglio
Goals and Recommended Actions 7
Region 2: Kathy Granillo
Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing 7
Region 3: Kevin Brennan
Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives 7
Region 4: Don Orr
Integrate evaluation and oversight into biological program 8
Region 5: Tom Goettel
Hal Laskowski Increase amount and accountability of funding for biological program 8
Region 6: John Cornely Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff 9
Wayne King
Meet information needs of the NWRS biological program 10
Region 7: Mark Bertram
Financial Considerations, Priorities and Timetable 11
Region 9: Bob Adamcik
Implementation Proposal 11
Table 1: Recommended actions the Fish & Wildlife Service should 13
take to address needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System
biological program
Table 2: Recommended actions the Fish & Wildlife Service should 17
take to address needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System
biological program, grouped by four implementation mechanisms
Appendix 20
Introduction
“We will be leaders in applying the In support of these arguments, the ■ Integrate evaluation and
best science and technology . . .” National Wildlife Refuge System oversight into the biological
(The NWRS, Promises for a Improvement Act of 1997 (Act) program
New Century, 1997) clearly puts wildlife first within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. It ■ Increase amount and
Management of National Wildlife specifically directs the Service to: accountability of funding for the
Refuges (NWR’s) in the 1990’s is biological program
complex—and increasingly non- ■ provide for the conservation of
biological. Good refuge biology fish, wildlife, and plants on refuges ■ Provide for career and
often seems a luxury rather than professional needs of biological
the System’s foundation. Yet ■ maintain the biological integrity, program staff
refuges exist for wildlife, and diversity, and environmental health
biology must be woven throughout of the System ■ Meet information needs of the
their management. Unfortunately, biological program
more immediate public demands ■ monitor the status and trends of
and political agendas have intruded fish, wildlife, and plants. The document recommends 36
on refuge operations, weakening the specific actions the Service should
System’s connection to its biological Moreover, the Act requires the undertake to attain these goals
roots. Wildlife should come first, but Service to manage the NWRS as a (Table 1). These actions could be
many stations today find that many “System,” implying cohesion and accomplished over the next five
nonbiological considerations drive consistency in programs across years—in time for the NWRS 2003
refuge management. A strong Regions. A strong, consistent, Centennial—through: (1) changes in
biological program would assure biological program, with wildlife at policy; (2) a questionnaire to field
the Service’s compliance with the its core and with common elements staff and review of NWRS data in
Refuge Improvement Act. It would throughout all Regions and the Refuge Management
assure wildlife remains a primary administrative levels of the Information System; (3) various
consideration in all decision-making, NWRS, is fundamental to meeting projects developed by special teams
and that wise and defensible these mandates. or work groups; and (4) enhanced
conservation decisions are focus on the NWRS biological
articulated to a questioning public. Pursuant to the Act, the present program in the budget process
document articulates the vision of (Table 2). Policy changes and many
Refuge activities may often affect the Division of Refuges regarding other actions would require no
sensitive populations and habitats, the recognition of wildlife—and additional funds. Other actions—
sometimes irreversibly. Such thus, the related NWRS Biological staffing, training, equipment, and
actions should be taken with highly Program—as underlying all elements data gathering—would require new
trained personnel, up-to-date of the NWRS. Implementation of funds and staff solicited through the
equipment, and an understanding recommendations in this document Refuge Operating Needs System
of the biological rationale and would assure the Service meets the (RONS). The Division of Refuges
consequences. Focused inventory Act’s mandates through the creation expects these six goals—and the
and monitoring efforts, reliable and of a structured and comprehensive related recommended actions—
management-oriented research, biological program. This would will provide the foundation for all
and properly stored and retrievable occur as the NWRS took actions subsequent discussions related to
wildlife data would increase the in pursuit of six general goals: refuge biological programs and
probability that we make wise Service implementation of the
resource decisions. ■ Address inadequate and Refuge Improvement Act.
inconsistent biological program
staffing
■ Focus biological program
activities through goals and
objectives
4 July 1998
Definition of the Refuge Biological Program
The National Wildlife Refuge ■ Assess through monitoring the
ensures that each step is based on
System biological program refers to outcome of actions taken to meet
sound biological principles, reflects
the integration of sound principles objectives
the best biological information
of wildlife management into all available, and provides refuge
levels of refuge operations (See This sequence—information
managers with the best information
figure). It entails the collection, collection and analysis —->
possible to make appropriate
analysis, and application of setting objective(s) —-> development
resource decisions. The result is
biological information to: and application of management
that sound professional judgement
strategies—-> evaluation of
drives refuge management. The
■ Support development of goals outcomes —-> revision of
Service, the Refuge System, and
and objectives management strategies—
individual refuges each make their
functions collectively as “adaptive
highest and best contribution to
■ Design and implement habitat management.” A strong, well-
wildlife conservation and to the
and wildlife management actions integrated biological program
biological integrity, diversity and
health of the System.
Figure
Integration of the Bilogical Program into NWRS Adminstration
The National Wildlife Refuge System biological program refers to the collection, analysis, and application
of biological information to: (1) develop goals and objectives; (2) design and implemtent management
actions; and (3) evaluate results. Sound biological judgement is integrated throughout these three elements
of refuge operations.
Determine USFWS
Resource Priorities
▲
Evalutaion Objectives
Assess/Revise Determine Regional
Objectives/Strategies Resource Priorties
▲
▲
Write Station Goals and
▲
Evalutate Outcomes
Objectives (CCPs)
▲
▲
Management
Develop and Implement
▲
Management Strategies
July 1998 5
Goals and Recommended Actions
A comprehensive NWRS biological Relatively fewer staff have been Goal: Focus biological program
program would result as the Service assigned greater responsibilities, activities through goals and
takes actions to address six goals. leaving little time to carry out well- objectives
designed population surveys;
Table 1 lists the goals, as well as 36 monitor, assess and report impacts Planning policy (602 FW 1-3, and
specific recommended actions and of management actions; or design, Writing Refuge Management Goals
strategies the Service might implement, and evaluate and Objectives: A Handbook)
implement to achieve them. management plans and objectives. directs that refuge management
There is insufficient time for stem from clear goals and
Goal: Address inadequate and writing, training, applying new objectives. These goals and
inconsistent biological technologies, and networking within objectives are to be derived from
program staffing the greater professional community. broader statements for the
While a dedicated cadre of refuge landscapes within which stations are
Over the last 25 years, refuge biologists accomplish a great deal of found, are to be consistent with
management has embraced much outstanding work in spite of these other Service planning initiatives,
change: new technology; new limitations, many critical needs are and should derive in part from
statutory obligations; new not being met, and we can do much related Service documents.
emphases on endangered species, better. Additionally, the lack of Unfortunately, the various larger
fire ecology, neotropical migrants, consistent regional organization scale planning documents in effect
biodiversity, and nongame; and impedes interregional for the Service have not been
involvement of biological staff in communication among biological translated into consistent and
multiple off-refuge initiatives. staff, makes career moves across clearly articulated goals and
Additionally, the public and regions difficult, and limits objectives for the System, individual
Congress have demanded more opportunities for cross-regional Regions, and many ecosystems.
biological accountability, including details and other exchanges. Thus, while Comprehensive
a wildlife monitoring mandate cited Conservation Plans are mandated
in the Refuge Improvement Act. Actions by the Refuge Improvement Act for
Administrative requirements have all refuges by 2012, it remains for
also increased considerably. The Service should: individual planning teams and/or
Biological staffing has not kept refuge managers to decide how
pace, and Regions have addressed ■ Identify existing regional NWRS individual stations fit into the bigger
the issues differently. Currently, staff and staffing organizations System picture. Different planning
about 310 biological field staff are teams may determine the highest
distributed across 92 million acres. ■ Assess refuge biological and best use of a refuge from a local
There is little consistency among complexity relative to staff on perspective, rather than in the
regions as to how field staff are stations context of ecosystem, regional,
distributed, and no assurance that flyway, or national goals.
biological staffing patterns overall ■ Provide staff to adequately Additionally, the current CCP
reflect the most critical System address biological complexity, with a initiative will not be completed for
needs. Technical support for field goal of at least one PFT biologist 15 years. In the interim, many
staff differs across Regions, but in per staffed station stations may continue with critical
general is sorely lacking. planning documents or objective
■ Establish a regional refuge statements that are dated,
biologist position in each Regional incomplete, or even nonexistent.
Office
■ Create technical assistance
teams to support refuge biological
operations
July 1998 7
The lack of clear and consistent Goal: Integrate evaluation Actions
goals and objectives at National and and oversight into the biological
Regional levels makes it impossible program The Service should:
to plan refuge activities across the
System that consistently support Where stations have completed ■ Ensure that data collection is
critical resource needs of the larger CCP’s or have functional interim consistent with station goals and
landscape. Locally focused goals management objectives in place, objectives
and objectives, or others that are there is no Systemwide evaluation
out of date or lacking, make it process to assure those plans or ■ Develop and implement a process
difficult to direct and evaluate objectives are being followed. for station biological evaluations
station biological activities for the This, despite clear guidance in
greater good. Standards against 602 FW 2 directing that evaluation ■ Ensure follow up on biological
which to evaluate station activities, occur and that Project Leaders evaluations to establish
measure progress, maintain and staff be held accountable for accountability
accountability, or assess the implementation through
currency and appropriateness of performance plans. Where ■ Update and implement Service
programs are inconsistent or evaluations do occur, there is no Manual and related policies
lacking. Admirable, but possibly consistent mechanism to assure governing habitat management
unfocused or misdirected activities resulting recommendations are
not addressing the most critical implemented. This lack of Goal: Increase the amount and
resource needs may result. Funding evaluation and/or follow-up also accountability of funding for
and personnel, already limited, may encourages pursuit of admirable the biological program
not be utilized in the most effective but perhaps inappropriate projects,
or efficient manner. Too, without weakening the consistency and Current refuge budgets are
clearly articulated biological goals focus of biological activities within inadequate to meet existing
and objectives at all levels, it the System. Taken together, the biological needs related to baseline
becomes difficult to defend lack of national and regional goals, data, routine monitoring, purchase
controversial actions before a of well-written station objectives, and maintenance of equipment, and
questioning public, defend budget and of a functional evaluation research. Additionally, most funds
requests, or to promote educated process is also unfair to project for refuge biological programs
advocacy for the biological integrity leaders. They have neither a are wrapped up in the general
of either the station or the System. national vision, consistent standards operational (1260) account. While
for evaluations, an evaluation and occasional non-1260 funding (such
Actions feedback process, nor a mechanism as 1230 monies) is sometimes
to encourage implementation of allocated specifically to a biological
The Service should: recommendations where activity, 1260 operational funds are
evaluations do occur. not clearly earmarked for the
■ Articulate consistent goals for the biological program. Instead,
NWRS at National and Regional biological activities compete with
levels maintenance, public use, and
general administrative needs and
■ Consistently base developing often are less pressing. On refuges
station CCP’s and other planning where fixed expenses such as
efforts on newly articulated salaries and utilities may constitute
National and Regional goal more than 90% of the budget,
statements monitoring, equipment, and habitat
management frequently are lower
■ Develop interim goals and priority than more immediate
objectives on stations not scheduled administrative needs.
for Comprehensive Conservation
Planning before 2000
8 July 1998
The link between funding and Goal: Provide for career and Actions
accomplishment of a station’s professional needs of biological
habitat and wildlife management program staff The Service should:
objectives is a critical one. Until
the recent implementation of the Continuing education and active ■ Provide advancement
Refuge Comprehensive involvement in the larger opportunities for biological positions
Accomplishment Reporting System professional community is required at all levels
(RCAR), managers could not track for professional refuge biological
expenditures on biological program program staff. Yet existing policy ■ Upgrade selected biological
activities and report successes. discourages attendance at program positions to reflect current
This made it difficult to identify professional meetings and largely responsibilities
biological funding needs, evaluate assimilates training, career
progress towards meeting advancement, and other personnel ■Determine NWRS biological staff
those needs, and document needs of biological staff into those of needs regarding education and
accomplishments. Yet, the System other refuge staff. Regional efforts career development
must remain accountable for vary, but there are limited means
commitments it makes towards for refuge biologists to ■ Develop core competency
these ends, particularly as we are communicate within and across training guidelines for biological
now bound by law to put wildlife regions, and opportunities for program staff
first in managing refuges. RCAR career advancement in the field
can resolve this, assuming specific beyond the GS-11 level are few. It is ■ Adopt 40-hour minimum in-
biological commitments are also difficult to implement new service training requirement for
identified in RONS and the policies or handbook guidances (e.g., biological staff
Maintenance Management System those relating to wildlife inventories
(MMS), and subsequent or management objectives) without ■ Develop core training module of
accomplishments reviewed during consistent, Systemwide training. biological program administrative
station evaluations. material
The professional isolation of many
Actions refuge biologists limits management ■ Develop mechanism to teach new
perspectives and promotes a low core training module to biological
The Service should:
profile for the NWRS within the program staff
■ Enhance funding for biological
larger scientific community. This
program needs using RONS
costs the System new approaches to ■ Facilitate opportunities for
and MMS
management issues, critical review biological staff to pursue advanced
of Service activities, and degrees
■ Use RCAR to track biological
opportunities for research. Stability
program expenditures
and long-term knowledge at field ■ Facilitate opportunities for
stations is lost as individuals leave biological staff to engage in
■ Incorporate review of biological
seeking advancement and take with cross-regional and cross-program
program expenditures into station
them personal insights and details or exchanges
evaluations
specialized expertise. Yet biologists
work in an evolving field and a ■ Revise as possible Service and
public forum, often risking Departmental policies governing
professional integrity and public official participation in professional
credibility in the work they do. The organizations and attendance at
System cannot afford to base technical meetings.
critical and controversial
recommendations on superficial or ■ Develop “refuge biological
out of date professional knowledge, program forum” in conjunction
sometimes without feedback from with TWS meetings
the larger Service and professional
communities. By law, we are ■ Promote publication of
required to make sound peer-reviewed articles by refuge
professional judgements based on biological program staff
sound biology. To do otherwise will
risk loss of public confidence and
support.
July 1998 9
Goal: Meet information needs of The capability of effective electronic
the biological program communication and access to
various on-line information sources
The Refuge Improvement Act is still inadequate for many refuge
contains an explicit mandate for biologists. These electronic tools—
monitoring within the NWRS, yet a list servers, web-pages, or other
host of issues impede our ability to means of information exchange—
do that well. Existing baseline data function best if each individual has a
on refuge biotic communities are fully modern personal computer,
inadequate for monitoring trends in personal e-mail, and Internet
those communities. Instead, we access. Yet, these basic tools are
intensively manipulate refuge lacking for many biological staff.
habitats without knowing the full
complement of resources affected. Actions
Additionally, new data needs
mandated by the Act are coupled The Service should:
with existing weaknesses in
traditional data gathering. ■ Design and adopt core baseline
Resolving these issues will require biotic data standards applicable to
funding to support new inventories all refuges
and surveys, improved standards,
technology, oversight, and training. ■ Determine stations’ existing
While the Department of Interior baseline biotic information
has adopted the vegetative
classification standards recently ■ Incorporate baseline data needs
developed by the Federal into RONS
Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC), it remains for NWRS to ■ Implement Systemwide standards
implement that standard. Also, for GIS projects
other protocols—such as those for
shoreline and other types of earth ■ Provide and maintain equipment
cover—are not yet endorsed. Such to gather, store, and analyze
GIS technology and protocol biological data
standards are critical to compatibly
mapping resource data across ■ Develop electronic formats for
refuges, regions, and other land wildlife data storage and analysis
management agencies. Until many
of these needs are met, the Service ■ Develop a Refuge Management
cannot produce a reliable index to Information System (RMIS)
vegetation, biodiversity, and long- module to profile biological
term change on Service lands. resources and current status on
Finally, the System lacks a stations
functional means of identifying
research and other biological ■ Provide personal cc:Mail and
information needs to complement Internet access to all biological
ongoing data gathering. This program staff
obstructs communication with
research sources such as the U.S. ■ Develop a biological information
Geological Survey’s Biological needs process
Resources Division, other agencies,
and universities.
10 July 1998
Financial Implementation
Considerations, Proposal
Priorities and
Timetable
The recommendations made in this This document provides a basis for
document are not amenable to all subsequent discussions or
simple ranking. Some low or no initiatives regarding the biological
cost items could be implemented integrity of the NWRS. Immediate
immediately, while others would mechanisms to be considered are
await funding (Table 2). Many items policy teams chartered under the
are related and must occur in Refuge Improvement Act
sequence. For example, a defensible Implementation Committee, as well
assessment of staffing needs must as the various groups developing
derive from the analysis of station vision and strategy statements in
complexity and a review of current preparation for the 1998 National
staff distribution. Other actions Wildlife Refuge System Conference.
could occur simultaneously rather As many recommended actions are
than in some ranked order. Some complex and interrelated and
would have to await additional somewhat conceptual at this point,
increases to NWRS base funding. considerable coordination and
Specific priorities, timetables, and communication will be necessary
funding initiatives would need to be among the various groups to assure
developed as appropriate by that the recommendations
working groups or individuals presented here are adequately
pursuing implementation of this addressed. In the long term,
document. however, the Service should develop
a mechanism to provide continual
oversight of the NWRS biological
program, to assure that the
biological integrity achieved
through implementation of this
document is maintained. That
oversight may be provided by a
permanent standing committee on
refuge biology or any other group
chartered to assure that wildlife,
and thus biology, remains a
fundamental concern of the NWRS.
July 1998 11
Table 1
Recommended actions the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service should take to address needs of the National Wildlife
Refuge System biological program. Unranked.
Goal: Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing
Recommended Action Strategy
Identify existing regional National Wildlife Refuge Survey regional and field station biological staff to
System (NWRS) staff and staffing organizations identify current staffing and biological effort relative to
acres managed, program complexity, and numbers of
field stations.
Assess refuge biological complexity relative to staff Develop standard criteria to assess biological
on stations complexity at field stations. Use results to determine
biological staffing needs at each station.
Provide staff to adequately address biological Stations meeting certain complexity criteria will be
complexity, with a goal of at least one PFT biologist staffed at recommended levels, with a preferred goal
per staffed station of one GS-9 or higher biologist on each staffed station.
Establish regional refuge biologist position in each Provide dedicated position in each RO as biological
Regional Office (RO) liaison between field stations, technical assistance
teams, and refuge supervisors.
Create technical assistance teams to support refuge Establish field support offices with dedicated positions,
biological operations where biological specialists share expertise to assist
field stations.
Goal: Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives
Recommended Action Strategy
Articulate consistent goals for the NWRS at National Describe habitat and species priorities for NWRS using
and Regional levels existing documents and policies. Derive goal and/or
objective statements for the System and each Region
from these priorities.
Consistently base developing station Comprehensive CCP’s or interim station objectives will step-down
Conservation Plans (CCP’s) and other planning from National and Regional goals/objectives. All
efforts on newly articulated National and Regional planning staff plan from these statements, rather than
goal statements. independently interpret various Service documents or
plan from local perspectives.
Develop interim goals and objectives on stations not Use new National and Regional goal statements and
scheduled for CCP’s before 2000 “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives”
handbook to put interim management objectives in
place on these stations.
July 1998 13
Goal: Integrate evaluation and oversight into the biological program
Recommended Action Strategy
Ensure that data collection is consistent with station Create and follow a schedule to revise all station wildlife
goals and objectives inventory plans according to 701 FW 2, ensuring data
collection relates directly to station objectives.
Develop and implement process for station Establish team to produce handbook that guides
biological evaluations station biological evaluations. Once CCP’S or interim
goals and objectives are in place, complete evaluation
for all stations.
Ensure follow up on biological evaluations to Utilize existing accountability mechanisms to
establish accountability ensure implementation of recommendations from
biological evaluations.
Update and implement Service Manual and related Review, revise as necessary, and implement 620 FW 1
policies governing habitat management and supporting chapters or other guidelines related to
habitat management on refuges.
Goal: Increase the amount and accountability of funding for the biological program
Recommended Action Strategy
Enhance funding for biological program needs using Recognize the increased funding required to implement
the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and biological program needs, and include those needs in
Maintenance Management System (MMS) RONS and MMS.
Use Refuge Comprehensive Accomplishment Use RCAR to identify and track expenditures and
Reporting (RCAR) system to track biological accomplishments for all elements of the NWRS
program expenditures biological program.
Incorporate review of biological program expenditures As evaluations of station biological programs are
into station evaluations implemented, assure that biological program
expenditures proposed in RONS and MMS support
station objectives, and biological projects identified
are implemented.
Goal: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff
Recommended Action Strategy
Provide advancement opportunities for biological Working with the Personnel Office, develop
positions at all levels mechanisms to upgrade ladders in all NWRS biological
positions, adjusting maximum grade to position
complexity and technical expertise. e.g., “7/9/11” and
“9/11/12” at stations; “11/12/13” in zone or regional
positions; and “12/13/14” in Washington Office.
Upgrade selected biological program positions to reflect Examine existing positions for complexity and grade,
current responsibilities integrate where appropriate into the career ladder
concept, and pursue upgrades where merited.
14 July 1998
Goal: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff (continued from previous page)
Recommended Action Strategy
Determine NWRS biological staff needs regarding With NCTC participation, survey biological staff to
education and career development develop profiles of existing personnel. Survey would
include: grade and position; years with Service;
degrees; year obtained; training since graduation;
current training needs; and interest in pursuing
advanced degrees, technical exchanges, or other
types of training.
Develop core competency training guidelines for Work with NCTC to develop policy outlining minimum
biological program staff training required at increasing grade levels (e.g.,
following National Park Service or other model)
Adopt 40-hour minimum in-service biological training Require 40-hour minimum annual training, using
requirement for biological staff “core competency” standards as guidance for choosing
material. Training may come from NCTC, universities,
other courses, details/exchanges, Refuge Academy, or
other sources as negotiated with refuge manager.
Develop core training module of biological program Work with NCTC to create module containing
administrative material biology-related policy and administration training
applicable throughout the System: writing management
objectives and inventory plans; ESA and NEPA
compliance; complying with NWRS data standards;
using Refuge Management Information System
(RMIS) modules; meeting baseline data needs; survey
and study design; etc.
Develop mechanism to teach new core training module Work with NCTC to create regional workshops,
to biological program staff Refuge Academy “add- on,” or other means to reach
all biological staff with newly developed module of
administrative material.
Facilitate opportunities for biological staff to pursue Work with NCTC to establish process, with a range
advanced degrees of work and leave options, to enable biological staff to
obtain higher degrees.
Facilitate opportunities for biological staff to engage in Work with NCTC to establish process to enable
cross-regional and cross-program details or exchanges biologists to participate in exchanges or details across
stations, regions, and programs.
Revise as possible Service and Departmental policies Current policies restrict official participation in
governing official participation in professional organizations, and generally require approval for
organizations and attendance at technical meetings. meeting attendance by Regional Directors or higher.
New policy would (1) facilitate employee participation
in professional organizations and (2) delegate authority
to approve meeting attendance to a lower level.
Develop forum on Refuge Biology in conjunction with Implement a periodic technical meeting featuring
TWS meeting papers and other presentations on NWRS biology, by
and for biological staff to be held in conjunction with
annual meeting of The Wildlife Society.
Promote publication of peer-reviewed articles by refuge Provide funding for costs of publications by field station
biological program staff staff. Establish policy of granting extended LWOP ,
administrative leave, modified work-at-home, or other
policies to permit staff to prepare technical papers for
peer review and publication.
July 1998 15
Goal: Meet information needs of the biological program
Recommended Action Strategy
Design and adopt core baseline biotic data needs Develop standards outlining minimal baseline biotic
applicable to all refuges data that each station needs (e.g., vegetation and
community maps, soils maps, species lists, population
estimates of key species).
Determine stations’ existing baseline biotic information Survey all field stations to determine gap between
existing information and that needed to meet newly
designed standards.
Incorporate baseline data needs into RONS With standards in place and needs documented,
implement funding initiative to bring all stations up
to minimal standards.
Implement Systemwide standards for GIS projects Work with Division of Information Resources
Management, Federal Geographic Data Committee,
Regional GIS coordinators, and others to adopt and
implement software, hardware, training, and technical
support, and data standards for GIS.
Provide and maintain equipment to gather, store, and Identify and provide purchase, maintenance, and
analyze biological data replacement funds for minimal biological equipment at
each station, including computer and global positioning
system hardware, specialized software, scopes, vehicles,
and specialty items.
Develop electronic formats for wildlife data storage Identify, develop, and adopt common databases or
and analysis information modules to store and retrieve wildlife
inventory and survey data on field stations. Establish
national coordinator to maintain system, and develop
training for its use. Implementation mechanisms
include RMIS program or Region 5 model.
Develop Refuge Management Information System Create a module in RMIS to make information on
(RMIS) module to profile biological resources and station inventories, management and monitoring
current status on stations programs, specialized staff, and other data available to
others.
Provide personal cc:Mail and Internet access to all Assure each individual has personal computer
biological program staff with personal cc:Mail address and Net browsing
software, including upgraded phone lines to stations
where necessary.
Develop biological information needs process Create electronic database to solicit and track NWRS
needs related to baseline data, inventory, monitoring,
research, or other biological information.
16 July 1998
Table 2
Recomnmended actions the Fish & Wildlife Service should take to address needs of the National Wildlife Refuge
System biological program, grouped by four implementation mechanisms. Actions in the first three groups are
NO COST or LOW COST, and in many cases are prerequisite to going forward with funding requests. Only
actions in the last group would require MAJOR NEW FUNDING OR FTE’s. This table must be read in the
context of the text and Table 1.
Implementation Mechanism: Policy change by directive or other means
Recommended Ensure that data collection is consistent with station goals and objectives: Implement existing
Action 701FW2 Systemwide. Develop training module around this chapter.
Implement process for biological station evaluations: After handbook guidance is developed,
implemement policy directing periodic evaluations.
Ensure follow up on biological station evaluations to establish accountability : Develop
performance standards requiring implementation of recommended changes once station
evaluations begin. Use Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Refuge Comprehensive
Accomplishment Report (RCAR) system, where applicable, to commit stations to action.
Implement Service Manual and related policies governing habitat management:
Implement existing policy in 620FW and related existing policies or guidelines Systemwide.
Use RCAR to track biological program expenditures: Track accomplishments through RCAR,
and incorporate RCAR review into guidance for station biological program evaluations.
Incorporate review of biological program expenditures into station evaluations: Add this
element as guideline in new handbook to guide station biological evaluations.
Provide advancement opportunities for biological positions at all levels: Incorporate biological
positions into ongoing NWRS position review. Audit/upgrade selected positions, advertise new
ones as ladders.
Adopt 40-hour minimum in-service biological training requirement for biological staff:
Implement via Service Manual Chapter or Directive.
Revise as possible Service and Departmental policies governing official participation in
professional organizations and attendance at technical meetings: Negotiate within the
Department and Service to liberalize meeting attendance via Directive or changes in
Departmental and/or Service Manuals.
Promote publication of peer-reviewed articles: Develop supporting policies via Service Manual
or Directive.
Adopt core set of baseline biotic data needs applicable to all refuges: Once team agrees on core
needs, adopt standard via Service Manual chapter or Directive.
Implement Systemwide standards for GIS projects: Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) standards have been adopted by Department of Interior. Implement for Service by
Directive. Once hardware/software standards are developed with Division of Information
Resources Management (IRM), adopt via Service Manual Chapter or Directive.
July 1998 17
Implementation Mechanism: Staff Questionnaire and Existing RMIS Documents
Recommended Identify existing regional NWRS staff and staffing organizations: Use Refuge Management
Action Information System (RMIS) data, interviews of Regional Office (RO) staff, and simple
questionnaire to field staff.
Assess refuge biological complexity relative to staff on stations: Use RMIS data, similar or
same questionnaire as above to field staff to score or otherwise rank stations relative to
complexity.
Determine NWRS biological staff needs regarding education and career development: Staff
questionnaire, perhaps same as above.
Determine stations’ existing baseline biotic information: Questionnaire to field stations,
perhaps same as above.
Implementation Mechanism: Work Groups or Teams
Recommended Articulate consistent goals for the NWRS at national and regional levels: Use Government
Action Improvement and Results Act statements, existing North American Waterfowl and Wetlands
Management Plan, Partners in Flight plans, waterfowl goals, ecosystem goals, etc. to develop
Systemwide and Regional goal statements. Possibly work with Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) planning teams
Consistently base developing station CCP’s and other planning efforts on newly articulated
national and regional goal statements: Work with CCP planning teams to assure this, using
goal statements developed above.
Develop interim goals and objectives on stations not scheduled for CCP’s before 2000:
Individual stations develop these statements with planners.
Develop and implement process for station biological evaluations:
Write handbook to prepare for evaluations when funded.
Review and update as necessary Service Manual and related policies governing habitat
management: Review and revise as necessary 620 FW 1 and supporting chapters or other
guidelines related to habitat management on refuges.
Develop core competency training guidelines for biological program staff: With NCTC
coordination, develop schedule of courses expected of biological staff at different grade levels.
Develop core training module of biological program administrative material: With NCTC
coordination, develop a module of courses to teach consistent implementation of existing policy,
statutory mandates, and other policy issues.
Design core set of baseline biotic data needs applicable to all refuges: Create set of required
baseline data needs common to all stations.
Develop Systemwide standards for GIS projects: Develop hardware/ software standards with
IRM.
Develop RMIS module to profile biological resources and current status on stations: Work
within existing RMIS structure.
Develop biological information needs process: Create System to develop and track research
and other needs, perhaps within RMIS structure.
18 July 1998
Implementation Mechanism: Potential Funding Initiative *
Recommended Provide staff to adequately address biological complexity, with goal of at least one PFT
Action biologist per staffed station: Stations meeting certain complexity criteria will be staffed
at recommended levels, with a desired target of one GS-9 or higher biologist on each
staffed station.
Establish regional refuge biologist position in each Regional Office: Provide dedicated
position in each RO as biological liaison between field stations, technical assistance teams, and
refuge supervisors.
Create technical assistance teams to support refuge biological operations: Establish field
support offices with dedicated positions, where biological specialists share expertise to assist
field stations.
Implement process for station biological evaluations: Implement guidance when developed to
assure periodic review of biological program on individual stations.
Upgrade selected biological program positions to reflect current responsibilities: Examine
selected positions for complexity and grade, integrate where appropriate into the career
ladder concept.
Develop mechanism to teach new core training module to biological program staff: Work with
NCTC to create regional workshops, Refuge Academy sessions or other means to reach all
biological staff with newly developed module of administrative material.
Facilitate opportunities for biological staff to pursue advanced degrees: Opportunities now
exist. Assign coordination responsibilities to NCTC pending additional NCTC staff and funds.
Facilitate opportunities for biological staff to engage in cross-regional and cross-program
details or exchanges: Opportunities now exist. Assign coordination responsibilities to NCTC,
pending additional NCTC staff and funds.
Develop forum on refuge biology in conjunction with TWS meeting: Implement a periodic
technical meeting featuring papers and other presentations on NWRS biology, by and for
biological staff to be held in conjunction with annual meeting of The Wildlife Society.
Incorporate baseline data needs into RONS: With standards in place and needs documented,
implement funding initiative to bring all stations up to minimal standards.
Provide and maintain equipment to gather, store, and analyze biological data: Provide funds
for the purchase, maintenance, and replacement of fundamental biological equipment at each
station, including computer and global positional system hardware, specialized software,
scopes, vehicles, and specialty items.
Develop electronic formats for wildlife data storage and analysis: Identify, develop, and adopt
common databases or information modules to store and retrieve wildlife inventory and survey
data on field stations. Establish national coordinator to maintain system, and develop training
for its use. Implementation mechanisms include RMIS program or Region 5 model.
Provide personal cc:Mail and Internet access to all biological program staff: Purchase
necessary hardware and software to accomplish this, in some cases included upgraded
phone lines.
* Actions in this last group would require MAJOR NEW FUNDING OR FTE’s.
July 1998 19
Appendix
Evolution of the “NWRS Biological The present document is the result Relationship to the National
Needs Assessment” of extensive Regional ARW and Wildlife Refuge System
field station reviews. The original Improvement Act of 1997:
In 1996, Assistant Regional draft was submitted to the ARW Development of the present
Directors for Refuges and Wildlife Program ARD’s and circulated document was overtaken by
(ARD’s), Regions 1-7, chartered a widely among field station passage in October, 1997, of the
group to develop a budget initiative managers and biological staff Refuge Improvement Act. While
for the biological program of the throughout the Refuge System for originally unrelated, the biological
National Wildlife Refuge System comment. Comments from that needs assessment effort so
(NWRS). Eleven participants from review were compiled by the ARD’s complemented the Act that the
all regions met in New Mexico in and forwarded back to the Committee immediately employed
September, 1996. Collectively, the Committee. In October, 1997, they the Act to strengthen the present
group represented 182 years of were recorded in a second document. The Division of Refuges
service within the U.S. Fish & document, “NWRS Biological now views the final “Biological
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Needs Assessment, Final Draft: Needs Assessment” as a clear
National Wildlife Refuge System Compilation of Comments.” Based baseline from which to measure
(NWRS), as well as many additional on those comments, the Committee progress at implementing the
years with other land management convened again in Oregon in biological mandates of the Act.
agencies. Several had significant October, 1997, to modify the draft
experience as wildlife biologists at document by incorporating ARD
station, zone, regional, or national and field station concerns.
levels; at least five had been or are Significant changes were made to
currently refuge managers; and one the original document. Ultimately,
is a regional migratory bird the group consolidated Tables 1, 2,
coordinator. and 3 of the original draft document
into a single Table of specific
The group reviewed refuge recommendations, and circulated it
biological issues and explored for review among ARD’s in
resolutions to long-recognized November, 1997. Their comments
concerns. They determined that led to further changes. Specific
many of the most fundamental, regional concerns were resolved
longstanding concerns were through individual dialogues with
unrelated—or only peripherally ARD’s or their staff in those
related—to funding. Instead, it regions. The results of this process
appeared the issue of refuge biology were incorporated into Table 1 of
was best addressed through a the present document.
comprehensive assessment of all
elements related to administration
of the NWRS biological program.
They proceeded by listing historical
concerns, appending new ones,
and proposing specific resolutions.
Some were related to funding,
but many were not. They completed
an initial document “Biological
Needs Assessment, Final Draft”,
in March, 1997.
20 July 1998
Division of Refuges
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Rm. 670
Arlington, VA 22203
July 1998
Related docs
