![](media/image1.png){width="2.0208333333333335in"
height="3.0520833333333335in"}

> **Baseline Inventory Data Recommendations**
>
> **for**
>
> **National Wildlife Refuges**

Prepared by:

***Fulfilling the Promise***

**Baseline Inventory Team**

**WH8.1**

January 2004

**Table of Contents**

Baseline Inventory Team Charter 3

Executive Summary 5

I. Baseline Inventory Recommendations 6

II\. Annotated List of Abiotic and Biotic Data Needs

1.  Topography 8

2.  Aerial Photography 9

3.  Hydrography 12

4.  Soils 13

5.  Boundaries 14

6.  Man-made Features 15

7.  Vegetation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Vegetation Mapping 16

B.  Plant Community Description 18

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  National Wetlands Inventory Maps 19

9.  Vertebrate Fauna and Vascular Flora

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Data Collection 20

B.  Species Lists and Checklists 20

C.  Nomenclature 21

D.  Species Lists for Vertebrates 21

E.  Species Lists for Vascular Plants 22

F.  Invertebrates and Non-vascular Plants 24

G.  Voucher Specimens 24

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. Resources of Special Interest 24

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. Implementation Strategies 26

Appendix A --Rapid Methods of Assessing Terrestrial Biodiversity
Comparison 31

***Fulfilling the Promise***

***Baseline Inventory Team***

**Charter**

***Purpose*** The Team will develop detailed guidelines and core
baseline biotic data standards for inventories that include the types of
information every unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System should
have on its resources.

***Team is empowered to***

Develop standards for baseline data layers appropriate to all refuges
for planning and management.

Identify minimum inventory data needed for every refuge.

Adopt standards (where currently lacking or applied inconsistently) for
various types of refuge resource data (e.g., vegetation, soils,
topography, physical features, hydrology, key wildlife habitats, species
lists/distributions, etc.)

Determine appropriate spatial scales for data collection and
presentation.

Seek and coordinate internal Service reviews and external partner
reviews of draft inventory standards and guidelines.

Convene Team meetings as necessary to complete tasks required to develop
baseline inventory standards and guidelines including: addressing
comments received from informal and formal internal Service reviews and
external public reviews; and briefing *Fulfilling the Promise*
Implementation Team, and Washington and Regional Office managers.

***Participants*** The Team consists of representatives from the Regions
and the Washington Office. Subject matter experts from other Service
programs, other agencies, conservation organizations, and universities
could be included as Team members, or consulted as appropriate. The Team
will be in place through September 2001.

***Process*** The Team will follow Service procedures for policy
formulation; develop products in a timely manner; and coordinate with
the *Fulfilling the Promise* Implementation Team to ensure compliance
with *Fulfilling the Promise* Recommendation and Action Item. The Team
will coordinate with the Regional Refuge Biologists Team involved in an
ongoing effort to standardize monitoring protocols, per WH-8.3

***Products and Services***

The Team will develop baseline inventory standards and guidelines to be
incorporated into Service policy through revision of the Inventory and
Monitoring Chapter (701 FW 2).

***Reporting Relationships***

The Team reports to the Promises Team, chaired by the Chief, National
Wildlife Refuge System.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System Date

**Team Members**

***Fulfilling the Promise* Implementation Team Liaison:**

Vernon Byrd

**Washington Representatives:**

Bob Adamcik, National Wildlife Refuge System

Morgan McCosh, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance

(Left Team due to another assignment)

**Regional Representatives:**

Region 1 - Dennis Woolington

Region 2 - Charles Sexton

Region 3 - Bridget Olson

Region 4 - Jane Griess

Region 5 - John Morton, Jennifer Casey

Region 7 - Steve Talbot

***Fulfilling the Promise* Inventory and Monitoring Database Team
Members who participated in meetings:**

Mike Long, Region 6

Hal Laskowski, Region 5

Kevin Kilbride, Region 1

Barb White, Region 9, Denver, CO

**Executive Summary and Overview**

Baseline inventories provide data about abiotic and biotic resources on
refuges needed for planning and daily management. The Baseline Inventory
Team is an action team chartered by the Promises Implementation Team to
recommend minimum abiotic and biotic inventories that every refuge
should have. The team reviewed baseline inventory programs of other
agencies and organizations, and experts in particular areas were invited
to several team meetings to help us complete the task. After review of
an earlier draft within the Fish and Wildlife Service, the team produced
this report to document recommendations. The intent is to combine this
work product with similar output from other action teams dealing with
monitoring and database management in a revised Refuge Manual chapter on
Inventory and Monitoring.

The Baseline Inventory Team recommends that each refuge have available
abiotic "data layers" for topography, aerial photography, hydrography,
soils, boundaries, and manmade features. Suggested sources are provided
and appropriate scales are recommended. Many of these products are
available free to the Service. It is suggested that regional offices
provide these data to each refuge. Recommendations for biotic inventory
needs include vegetation mapping and National Wetland Inventory data. In
addition, lists of vertebrate fauna and flora are discussed and the need
to collect supplement data on resource of special interest (e.g.,
Threatened or Endangered species) is recognized. Finally, an
implementation strategy is presented which includes suggested ways to
collect and otherwise acquire the types of data needed.

Obviously most refuges will want to ultimately expand beyond the minimum
inventories recommended in this document. Nevertheless, if all refuges
acquire at least the recommended data, comprehensive conservation
planning and habitat management will be enhanced.

**I. Baseline Inventory Recommendations**

The Baseline Inventory Team has identified the following types of
abiotic and biotic information that every National Wildlife Refuge
should eventually have at a minimum. The primary abiotic data layers are
available digitally (sources are indicated below), and we recommend that
these data be centrally gathered (i.e., either in Washington or in the
Regions) and synthesized for distribution to the refuges to ensure
consistency and avoid redundancy of effort.

The biotic data layers need to be collected at the refuge level, and we
recommend that these data be collected for storage and manipulation with
a Geographic Information System (GIS) or in other appropriate data
bases. Biological data and other information for land management is
inherently spatial in nature, i.e., it can be tagged to a particular
location on earth. GIS provides a great platform for developing and
integrating these myriad data. The table below outlines the data needs
and provides information on the sources. As indicated above, the list
outlines the minimum types of inventory data needed for each refuge.
Obviously most refuges will have a need to collect additional inventory
data (e.g., vegetation mapping may need to be done at the association
scale rather than alliance for some management purposes). Following the
table is an annotated list explaining in more detail each item in the
table.

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| ###                   | ##### Source of Data                         |
| ## Abiotic Data Needs |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **1. Topography**     | USGS 7.5\' minute topographic map 1:24,000   |
|                       | scale                                        |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | USGS Digital Raster Graphic (DRG)            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM)           |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **2. Aerial           | Digital Orthographic Quarter Quads (DOQQs)   |
| Photography**         | 1:12,000, 1:24,000 scale                     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **3. Hydrography**    | National Hydrography Data Set. 1:100,000     |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Hydrologic Units, level 3                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **4. Soils**          | Natural Resource Conservation Service.       |
|                       | 1:24,000 scale                               |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **5. Boundaries:**    | USFWS Regional Realty Offices                |
|                       |                                              |
| (refuge, easements,   | Public Lands Survey System for 30 western    |
| right-of-ways,        | states.                                      |
| wilderness areas,     |                                              |
| political, etc.)      | BLM's Geographic Coordinate Data Base where  |
|                       | available.                                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **6. Manmade          | USGS; Census Bureau; NWR Road Inventory;     |
| Features:**           | DOQs                                         |
|                       |                                              |
| Roads:                | USFWS Real Property Inventory which gathered |
|                       | refuge specific structures using GPS; DOQs   |
| Culverts, dams, water |                                              |
| structures,           | Gather from relevant agencies; DOQs          |
| buildings:            |                                              |
|                       | NOAA's Office of National Geodetic Survey    |
| Power Lines,          | (NGS)                                        |
| underground           |                                              |
| utilities:            |                                              |
|                       |                                              |
| NGS survey markers,   |                                              |
| bench marks:          |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+

+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| #####             | ***Data             | ***Method of Collection*** |
| Biotic Data Needs | Recommended***      |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **7. Vegetation** | National Vegetation | The Vegetation             |
|                   | Classification      | Classification Panel of    |
| **A. Vegetation   | System (NVSC) to    | the ESA's document         |
| Map**             | the Alliance Level. | 'Guidelines for Describing |
|                   |                     | Associations and Alliances |
| **B. Plant        |                     | of the U.S. National       |
| Community**       |                     | Vegetation                 |
|                   |                     | Classification'.           |
| **Description**   |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | National GAP products may  |
|                   |                     | be useful in developing    |
|                   |                     | refuge vegetation maps.    |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| #### N            | Cowardin, Carter    | Available from National    |
| ational Wetlands  | and LaRoe. 1979.    | Wetlands Inventory Center. |
|                   | Classification of   |                            |
| **Inventory Map** | Wetlands and        |                            |
|                   | Deepwater Habitats  |                            |
|                   | of the United       |                            |
|                   | States.             |                            |
|                   | USFWS/OBS-79/31 is  |                            |
|                   | the source for the  |                            |
|                   | classifications.    |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **9. Vertebrate   | Species Lists and   | Literature Review.         |
| Fauna and**       | Checklists          |                            |
|                   |                     | Presence Confirmation      |
| **Vascular        |                     | based on surveys.          |
| Flora**           |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | Collection of voucher      |
|                   |                     | specimens.                 |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **10. Resources   | Delineate Focal     | Map developed by refuge    |
| of Special**      | Areas               | based on local knowledge.  |
|                   |                     |                            |
| **Interest**      | (heron rookeries,   | Literature review and      |
|                   | rare plant          |                            |
| (determined by    | communities,        | Species-specific or        |
| the refuge)       | concentration       | species group surveys.     |
|                   | sites).             |                            |
|                   |                     | Species-specific surveys.  |
|                   | Distribution of     |                            |
|                   | Species             |                            |
|                   |                     |                            |
|                   | \- spatial location |                            |
|                   |                     |                            |
|                   | \- habitat affinity |                            |
|                   |                     |                            |
|                   | Quantitative        |                            |
|                   | Abundance of        |                            |
|                   | Species             |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+

**II. Annotated List of Abiotic and Biotic Data Needs**

Many of the data layers that are recommended are available free of
charge through the USFWS GIS website:
*[fws.gov/data/gishome.html.]{.underline}* It is essential that this
site be visited while gathering data. Links to National and State data
sets are gathered in one location as well as GIS tools, data standards
and metadata information. This website is maintained by the USFWS
National GIS Coordinator. Before a refuge purchases data or develops a
contract for GIS work to be done, contact the Coordinator for assistance
in determining the current availability of GIS data sets. This is the
initial step in developing a GIS. After obtaining the GIS data layers,
the time consuming process of consolidation and georeferencing of the
data layers needs to be accomplished by someone with GIS expertise
before the GIS is complete.

Newer GIS data are referenced to the North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83) and cast on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.
All data layers need to be in NAD83 in order for them to all line up
properly when they are being used in GIS software such as ArcView.
Likewise, all refuge-specific data that is collected with a Global
Positioning System (GPS) need to be collected using NAD83. Some of the
older GIS data are in the process of being converted to NAD83. Data that
is not in NAD83 can be converted with the newer version of ArcView.

**1. TOPOGRAPHY**

Topographic features have traditionally been displayed on U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. A digital raster graphic
(DRG) is simply a scanned image of a USGS topographic paper map,
georeferenced to the surface of the Earth, which can be used in a
Geographic Information System (GIS) such as ArcView. The scanned image
includes all map collar information (Public Land System coordinates,
contour interval, latitude-longitude, UTM, State Plane grid ticks,
datum, projection, declination, and other source information). When
Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs) are not available, DRGs can serve
as a base map for a Refuge in which other digital information can be
overlaid as separate data layers or delineated on-screen. (note, that
DOQs are preferred to DRGs as a base map, see Section 2.). Several of
the components of a DRG can be separately acquired as digital line
graphics (DLGs) allowing for these components to be manipulated
independently from the base map (see Section 7. Man-made Features for
further details).

DRGs are only a graphic representation of top relief, whereas, digital
elevation model data (DEMs) contain the actual elevation data and are
often the best source of topographic relief. DEMs can be used in
applications such as flood inundation models, view shed analysis, and
vegetation mapping. DEMs are used to develop maps of slope, aspect, or
shaded relief, or produce 3-D renderings of the land surface that can be
draped with other data layers (such as DRGs). DEMs are available
free-of-charge at the 1:24,000 scale from USGS at the EROS Data Center
website: *[edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/dem.html]{.underline}*.

Between 1995 and 1998, the USGS produced DRGs of topographic maps at
several scales. The most widely available DRG is the 1:24,000 (7.5
minute) scale. The map is scanned at a minimum resolution of 250 dots
per inch (dpi); if scanned at a finer resolution, the image is resampled
to 250 dpi. The digital image is georeferenced to the true ground
coordinates of the 2.5-minute grid ticks and projected to the UTM for
projection consistency with USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (see
Section 2) and DLGs. In most cases, the datum of the source map is
preserved in the DRG, which may be NAD27 or NAD83.

DRGs are in TIFF 6.0 format, with GeoTIFF 0.2 or 1.0 extensions to
define georeferencing. The TIFF is accompanied by a metadata file that
complies with the Federal Geographic Data Committee=s AContent Standards
for Digital Geospatial Metadata@ (8 June 1994). Since 1998, some new
DRGs are derived directly from digital data rather than from scans of
the paper map. Detailed information about DRGs, including technical
standards, DRG viewing software, and status and availability of all
DRGs, is available at the USGS website:
*[mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/drg]{.underline}*.

The USGS distributes topographic maps on paper and DRGs on a variety of
media, including recordable compact disc-read only (CD-R), digital
versatile disk (DVD), and from file transfer protocol (FTP) websites as
uncompressed files. The 7.5 minute printed paper topographic maps can be
ordered from USGS from their MapFinder website:
*[edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/mapfinder]{.underline}.* At this website, you can
enter a zip code or click on a map of the U.S. to find the map you want
as well as the nearest map dealer who may have the map you need. Dealer
prices may vary, USGS=s price per map is \$4.00 with a handling fee of
\$5.00, regardless of the number of items you order.

The FWS GIS Office will copy DRG CD=s upon request from any Service
office for the cost of blank CDs (\< \$0.50 each) plus shipping costs.
There is an interactive map that can be used to find the quads that are
needed at the website:
*[sii.fws.gov/r9data/gis/data_drg.html]{.underline}*. Alternatively, the
USGS distributes DRGs on CD-Rs and orders are filled on demand. There is
a base charge of \$45 per order, plus \$5 shipping and \$1 for each DRG
quadrangle purchased. DRG files are available from the USGS Sales Data
Base and can be ordered through the USGS Global Land Information System
website: *[edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/webglis]{.underline}*, EarthExplorer at
*[earthexplorer.usgs.gov]{.underline}* or from any Earth Science
Information Center (ESIC). For price and ordering information, see the
USGS GeoData Digital Raster Graphics order form, available online at
*[mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/drg.pdf]{.underline}*.

**2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY**

Aerial photography is used in varieties of refuge applications,
including vegetation and timber management, routing and habitat
analysis, environmental impact assessments, flood analysis, soil erosion
assessment, facility management, ground-water and watershed analysis as
well as biological inventory assessment. Aerial photography serves as a
base map onto which other map information may be overlaid. There are a
number of imagery data sources that can be used in a GIS, the most
common and readily available is a digital orthophoto quadrangle (DOQ).
The DOQ is a computer-generated image of an aerial photograph in which
image displacement caused by terrain relief (topography) and camera
tilts has been removed by a mathematical process called rectification.
It combines the image characteristics of a photograph with the
georeferenced qualities of a map.

DOQs may be available in black and white (B/W), natural color or color
infrared images (CIR) with 1-meter ground resolution In general, fine
vegetative differences are more apparent in natural color or color
infrared orthophotos and it is easier to distinguish details when
interpreting vegetation coverages than with B/W orthophotos. Another
consideration when selecting either B/W or color orthophotos is the
notably larger size of the color files and the requisite storage space
needed.

Since an orthophoto has uniform-scale, it is possible to measure
directly on it like other maps. A DOQ can be used on-screen to collect,
review, and revise other digital data, especially digital line graphs
(DLG) and topographic maps. The accuracy and extraordinary detail
provided by the DOQ allow users to evaluate their data for accuracy and
completeness, make real-time modifications to their data, and even
generate new files. When the DOQ is combined with other digital
products, such as digital raster graphics (DRGs) or digital elevation
models (DEMs), the resulting image provides additional visual
information for the extraction and revision of base cartographic
information.

There are a number of DOQs available within the Service. Check the
Service=s GIS homepage on the Intranet:
*[sii.fws.gov/r9data/gis/]{.underline}* for an index of DOQs already
owned by the Service. For coverages of areas not already available
through the Service, images may be obtained by the U.S. Geological
Survey(USGS) through the website:
*[edc.usgs.gov/products/aerial/doq.html]{.underline}*. The USGS produces
three kinds of DOQs:

1\. **3.75-minute (quarter-quad) DOQs** and formerly called DOQQs, are
available at a scale of 1:12,000 and cover an area measuring 3.75
minutes longitude by 3.75 minutes latitude. Most of the U.S. is
currently available, and the remaining locations should be complete by
2004. To check availability status for your area a status map is
available at: *[mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/status/doq_state.html]{.underline}*.
Quarter-quad DOQs are distributed on CD-ROM, DVD, 8-mm tape, and File
Transfer Protocol (FTP) as uncompressed files.

2.  **7.5-minute (full-quad) DOQs** are available at a scale of 1:24,000
    and cover an area measuring 7.5 minutes longitude by 7.5 minutes
    latitude. Full-quad DOQs are mostly available for Oregon,
    Washington, and Alaska. Limited coverage may also be available for
    other states. Full-quad DOQs are distributed on CD-ROM, DVD, 8-mm
    tape, and FTP as uncompressed files.

3\. **County DOQs** consist of collections of individual DOQs that have
been compiled on a county-by-county basis. There is fairly good coverage
for counties in Kansas, Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania. Other state may also have limited coverage available. The
files are cast to the UTM projection and referenced to either NAD 27 or
NAD83. County DOQs are packaged as individual JPEG-compressed 8-bit
binary files on CD-ROM.

Either GeoTIFF or Native format can be specified, however, GeoTIFF has
much smaller file sizes and is recommended format for ArcView per USGS.
GeoTIFF format are cast to the UTM projection and referenced to NAD83.
DOQ orders are filled on demand. Any combination of files can be
ordered. To order by mail, download the order form from the Earth
Science Information Center (ESIC) from their website:
*[ask.usgs.gov]{.underline}* and return the order form and payment to
any ESIC or to:

*Customer Services*

*USGS EROS Data Center*

*Sioux Falls, SD 57198*

After obtaining DOQs, they can be combined and compressed into a single
file using software such as Mr. Sid, to create a seamless image of
compressed data. The Mr. Sid format allows for the 3.75 and 7.5 DOQs to
be compressed greatly without sacrificing the visual quality of the
image.

Data can also be searched for availability and ordered through the
Global Land Information System website:
[*edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/webglis*/]{.underline}. At the time of writing,
prices include: a base charge of \$60.00 per DVD order, or \$45.00
CD-ROM or tape order, plus \$5.00 shipping, and \$7.50 for each 3.75
minute black and white (B/W) DOQ file, or \$15.00 for color 3.75 DOQ.
The full-quad DOQs are only available in B/W at a price of \$15.00 per
file. The County DOQs start at \$32.00. For information or ordering
assistance, call 1-888-ASK-USGS.

It is important to note that DOQs are not available for all portions of
the US, such as Alaska and Hawaii. There are alternative imagery sources
which can be purchased to cover these areas as well as provide the most
current land cover conditions. Recent land use or land cover changes are
not always visible on DOQs because they are often produced from older
photography. Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) imagery is collected
continuously and allows for the assessment of recent landscape changes.
It is available in 7.5 minute quad format for the entire US and can be
purchased for \$250 to \$350 per quad. It is panchromatic with a 5 meter
pixel resolution. Although IRS imagery is coarser than DOQ, it is
adequate for most visually interpretive applications. IRS can be ordered
through Space Imaging=s website: *[SpaceImaging.com]{.underline}*. There
are other higher resolution sensors, which are multi-spectral and
panchromatic such as Quick Bird and Iconos. This imagery is expensive,
but is an alternative.

**3. HYDROGRAPHY**

Hydrography is the scientific description and analysis of the physical
conditions, boundaries, flow and related characteristics of surface
waters such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, springs and wells. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a comprehensive set of digital spatial
data, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), that contains information
about surface water features and drainage networks which are combined to
form \>reaches=. The linkage enables the analysis and display of
water-related data in upstream and downstream order. This abiotic data
layer will provide basic surface water data with the added information
of flow direction, which will assist the refuge in determining potential
contaminant threats, assessing flow rates, etc. Understanding the
hydrography of a refuge and surrounding landscape will assist in
maintaining or reintroducing natural water flow regimes to encourage
ecosystem functions.

The dataset is currently based on the content of the USGS
1:100,000-scale data, giving it accuracy consistent with those data.
However, the NHD is designed to incorporate and encourage the
development of higher resolution data that is required by many users.

The NHD is available, free of charge, from USGS through either USGS
National Hydrography website: *[nhd.usgs.gov]{.underline}* or by
ordering the data on CD from the Global Land Information System website:
*[edc.usgs.gov/webglis]{.underline}* at the cost of \$45.00 plus \$5.00
handling charge. The data are available in cataloging units. The
cataloging units for an area can be determined from the National
Hydrography website. Hydrography data is also available from the FWS GIS
website: *[fws.gov/data/gisconv/dlgtools.html.]{.underline}*

Also available are maps of watersheds called hydrologic units. The
United States is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller
hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions,
sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic
units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging
units) to the largest (regions). There are 18 regions within the US
which are subdivided into smaller units, ending with 2150 Cataloging
Units which are sometimes referred to as watersheds. Each hydrologic
unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of
two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the
hydrologic unit system. Refuges should be mapped to level three HUC.
More information regarding Hydrologic Unit Maps can be found at the USGS
website: *[water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html]{.underline}*.

A single-sheet hydrologic unit map is available at a scale of
1:3,500,000 and measures 41-58 inches. The map is part of The National
Atlas of the United States of America series, more information is
available at the Atlas=s website:
*[nationalatlas.gov/atlasmap.html.]{.underline}* The map is also
available from USGS at a cost of \$7.00 per sheet. There is a Hydrologic
Unit Map of the US, East (GHU0057-1T) and one for the West (GHU0057-2T).

Digital hydrologic units at a scale of 1:250,000 are available, free of
charge, from the USGS website:
*[water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.]{.underline}* The coverage may be
retrieved as a single file for the entire U.S. or by Water Resources
Region which is the first level of classification. Digital hydrologic
units at a scale of 1:2,000,000 are available along with an attribute
table showing hydrologic unit names and flow direction can be found at
the same website. The coast of the U.S. is included and land/water
polygons are distinguished. Unofficial offshore extensions of cataloging
units are shown.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a website that
provides the current river conditions
(*[nws.noaa.gov/oh/hic/]{.underline}*). USGS has a website of maps and
graphs of current water resource conditions
(*[water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/]{.underline}*). A hydrology web can be
found at: *[terrassa.pnl.gov:2080/hydrology/lists.html]{.underline}*. A
list of links to information sources for hydrogeology, hydrology and
environmental sciences can be found at:
*[us.net/adept/links.html#keys.]{.underline}*

**4. SOILS**

Knowledge of soil types on Refuge lands and understanding of their
influence on plant and wildlife communities is critical to the proper
management of Service trust resources. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), in cooperation with State agricultural experiment
stations and other Federal and State agencies has been making soil
surveys and publishing them since 1899. These surveys constitute a
nationwide system soil classification, nomenclature, and interpretation,
and cover almost all lands of the United States. Published soil surveys
contain, in addition to soils maps, general information about the land
use and climate of the area, and descriptions of each kind of soil. They
include a discussion of the formation and classification of the soils in
the area, productivity, land capability, and also laboratory data when
available.

Most published soil surveys cover one or more counties and are so named.
Most of the surveys published since 1957 contain soil maps printed on a
photomosaic base. The usual map scale is 1:24000, 1:12000, or 1:15840,
depending on the needs of the area.

Published soil surveys that are still in print may be obtained through
contacting the State or local office of the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), or from the local county agricultural
extension agent. Many libraries keep published soil surveys on file for
reference. Also, soil conservation district offices and county
agricultural extension offices have copies of local soil surveys that
can be used for reference.

Digitized versions of the soils maps are available for selected counties
and areas throughout the United States and its territories through the
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database website:
*[ftw.nrsc.usda.gov/stssaid.html]{.underline}* These digitized mapping
bases meet national map accuracy standards, and are either orthophoto
quads or 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. SSURGO is linked to a Map
Unit Interpretation Record (MUIR) database. The attribute database gives
the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties for
each map unit. The MUIR database includes over 25 physical and chemical
soil properties.

SSURGO map data are available, either online or on a CD, in modified
Digital Line Graph (DLG-3) optional and Arc interchange file formats. To
obtain SSURGO soil spatial data and attribute data contact your State or
local USDA-NRCS office or:

National Cartography and Geospatial Center

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

P.O. Box 6567

Fort Worth, TX 78115

Telephone: 1-800-672-5559

FAX: (817) 509-5469

Soils data can be very confusion for those unfamiliar with the data sets
or do not use it often. The FWS GIS website:
*[fws.gov/data/gisconv/soiltool.html]{.underline}* has tips for
interpreting soils data and descriptions of the MUIR database.
Additional information on soil surveys, lists of surveys, and USDA-NRCS
contacts can be obtained through the USDA-NRCS website:
*[nrcs.usda.gov.]{.underline}*

**5. BOUNDARIES**

During the process of developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) and Habitat Management Plan (HMP), it is essential that the refuge
have accurate refuge boundary data. The refuge boundary data layer needs
to consist of the current and approved acquisition boundary along with
inholdings. The Realty Division of US Fish and Wildlife Service is
working on creating boundary layers for every refuge and this should be
done by 2003. For those already done, regions may be able to obtain
these directly from the Regional Realty Office free of charge. They can
also be downloaded from the FWS GIS website:
*[fws.gov/data/datafws.html.]{.underline}*

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| #            | **Refuge Boundary Availability**                      |
| USFWS Region |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 1            | All refuges, except Hawaii and the Pacific Islands,   |
|              | are complete and available on the FWS website.        |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 2            | Older general boundaries for all refuges are          |
|              | available. They are in the process of updating to     |
|              | current boundaries.                                   |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 3            | Approximately 25% are complete, many of the refuges   |
|              | do not have the boundary metadata.                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 4            | Approximately 85% complete and available on FWS       |
|              | website.                                              |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 5            | 100% complete and available on FWS website.           |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 6            | Approximately 80% done, only available through the    |
|              | Regional Reality Office, they do not have the         |
|              | boundary metadata.                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 7            | Almost 100% complete, only available through the      |
|              | Regional Reality Office.                              |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

Along with the refuge proposed and current boundaries, the surrounding
landownership boundaries are a necessary data layer for the CCP and HMP
process as well. Land ownership along with other political boundaries
such as, towns, counties, Indian reservations, parks, zoning, local
planning, etc. can often be found at State GIS clearinghouse websites.

The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) is a legal reference system
designed to ease the description, inventory and transfer of real
property primarily in the western half of the US. It is a grid of 6 mile
x 6 mile squares, which are townships, and within the townships is a
grid of smaller squares which are numbered and ownership is indexed
accordingly. This data is available for all except the following states:
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Vermont, and West Virginia. The Public Land Survey System data can be
downloaded, free of charge, from the USFWS GIS website:
*[fws.gov/data/giscinv/dlgtools.html.]{.underline}*

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing a Geographic
Coordinate Data Base (GCDB) as the framework for its Land Information
System and is mandated as the base land lines theme for all federal
agency mapping and GIS efforts. The Geographic Coordinate Data Base will
be a common reference to the Public Land Survey System and is intended
to facilitate the integration to separate GIS systems. The GCDB contains
latitude and longitude coordinate values and other descriptive
information for corner positions and monuments recorded in the PLSS.
These coordinates are easily converted to Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTMs) or state plane values. BLM is designing a data layer to
automatically display data from the national land and mineral records
which includes information on land ownership status and use
authorizations such as oil and gas leases, mining claims, rights-of-way,
and more. The GCDB data is available for Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
Utah and Wyoming at the BLM website: *[blm.gov/gcdb.]{.underline}*

**6. MAN-MADE FEATURES**

Man-made features that occur on and near the refuge are important
features to be mapped for management and planning purposes. The man-made
features generally mapped on refuges include roads, culverts, dams,
water structures, buildings, power lines, and geodetic benchmarks. Many
of these features are displayed on 1:24000 USGS topographic paper maps,
however, the maps may not reflect the current status of these features
and they often do not include refuge specific features such as water
control structures. The current status and location of man-made features
need to be included in the refuge=s baseline inventory. During a recent
Real Property Inventory, each refuge was asked to submit the GPS
location of the real property that exists on the refuge. This data
should be available from the Regional Offices, if a copy was not kept at
the refuge.

Man-made features need to be a separate data layer to allow for GIS
manipulation. The more current USGS topographic paper maps may
accurately display man-made features and, therefore, the corresponding
digital raster graphics will be accurate as well (see Section
1.Topography). However, digital raster graphics (DRGs) are scanned
images of topographic maps and component features cannot be separately
manipulated in a GIS. Existing data such as roads, state and county
boundaries can be easily incorporated as separate data layers, and the
refuge specific data can be collected with a global positioning system
(GPS).

Most of the existing man-made feature data have been created as digital
line graphics (DLGs) by USGS. There is wide variation in data
specifications and availability of data sets. The EROS Data Center is
the major Internet source for DGL data
(*[edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide]{.underline}*). The 1:24000 data
are in Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) format and the instructions
on how to transfer these data into a GIS are found at the FWS GIS
website: *[fws.gov/data/gisconv/dlgtools.html]{.underline}* as well as
the documentation and tools needed to use USGS DLG data.

**7. VEGETATION**

A. [Vegetation Mapping]{.underline}

To assist in the effective assessment, management, and inventory of the
nation\'s plant communities, the National Vegetation Classification
(NVC) was developed (Federal Geographic Data Committee \[FGDC\] 1997).
The NVCS, which has been adopted as the federal standard, serves to
support the use of a consistent national vegetation classification
system to produce uniform statistics in vegetation resources from
vegetation cover data at the national level. For vegetation mapping, we
recommend that the FGDC standard be applied to all refuges at the
Alliance level and at a scale appropriate to the refuge. Many forest
alliances are roughly equivalent to the Acover types@ developed by the
Society of American Foresters and should be helpful for the development
of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Habitat Management Plan
(HMP).

The 1997 FGDC standard introduced two floristic categories of the
classification hierarchy, Alliance and Association, but provided no
details about nomenclature or methods for defining and describing the
units within them. Furthermore, no list of floristic types was provided.
In 1998, a list of floristic types was published in cooperation with the
Natural Heritage Network and maintained by NatureServe as a first
approximation of Alliance and Association types, with the expectation
that the list would be enhanced and revised with adherence to the
philosophy that Athe data used to describe Alliance and Association
types must be collected using uniform standard and documented sampling
methods.@ However, the FGDC standard only provides a brief overview of
what those methods are.

Although the 1997 FGDC standard provided no specific guidance on
methodology for the floristic levels, it did lay out some principles for
its overall development (FGDC 1997, Section 5.3). These principles,
particularly the final one, shed some light on the nature of the
floristic units that the FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee envisioned: AThe
lower levels of the NVCS are based on actual floristic (vegetation)
composition. The data used to describe Alliance and Association types
must be collected in the field using standard and documented sampling
methods. The Alliance and Association units are derived from these field
data. These floristically-based classes will be nested under the
physiognomic classes of the hierarchy.@

Although the standards have been published and adopted, important
components such as widely accepted standards for terminology,
documentation of many vegetation types (particularly below the Alliance
level), and field data acquisition were lacking. To remedy this, the
Ecological Society of America (ESA), joined with cooperating
organizations (The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Federal Geographic Data Committee) to refine the classification system.
In 2003, they completed the document, "Guidelines for Describing
Associations and Alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation
Classification" (Version 2.0; March 2003) that affirms standards for
floristic units of vegetation. In the future, Alliances and Associations
accepted into the list of NVCS floristic units are expected to meet
these standards for sampling definition and description. It is important
to note that the classification guidelines are relatively fixed but do
allow for refinement as additional information becomes available. The
ESA initiative provides standards in four main areas: (1) plot records,
(2) type description, (3) peer review, and (4) data management. These
standards and other pertinent information are available on the ESA's
Panel on Vegetation Classification website:
[esa.org/vegweb]{.underline}. More information regarding the FGDC
Vegetation Subcommittee can be obtained from their website:
[biology.usgs.gov/fgdc.veg/]{.underline}.

The Alliance level represents the minimum standard for NWRS. Based on
the size of a refuge, associated scale issues, and the questions that
are being asked, it may be appropriate to pursue a more detailed
floristic level. For mapping agricultural or other highly manipulated
lands, a flexible approach is recommended depending on refuge
objectives. Such categories might include pasture, orchards, and
agriculture by crops. Vegetation maps at the Alliance level using the
NVCS (or systems that would allow cross walking to NVC) are available as
GAP (Geographic Approach to Planning for Biological Diversity) products
in some states, but in most cases refuges will need to produce these
vegetation maps. This will require aerial photographs and/or digital
images, photo interpretation, vegetation classification, ground
reference data, and GIS interface. Information on methods is available
in a variety of texts such as in Küchler, A.W. 1967. Vegetation mapping.
Roland Press; and Küchler, AW, & Zonneveld, IS (eds.) 1988. Vegetation
Mapping. Handbook of Vegetation Science, Vol. 10. Dordecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Mapping costs will vary depending on
refuge staff skills, the size of the refuge, and vegetation complexity.

## B. [Plant Community Description]{.underline}

Vegetation classification is of central importance to biological
conservation for planning and inventory, to resource management for
monitoring and planning, and to basic scientific research as a tool for
organizing and interpreting ecological information. All of these
activities require that ecological units be defined and that their
distributions on the landscape be known and understood. Vegetation
classification contributes significantly to analysis of ecological
problems that vary in scale from persistence of tiny populations of
endangered species to global projections of the impact of climate
change. Technological advances have made practical large-scale analyses
that cross agency jurisdictions or geographic regions and address
applied ecological issues as diverse as global change, ecosystem
management, and conservation planning. However, all such efforts depend
on having available a common set of well defined and broadly accepted
classification units.

A basic premise underlying the standards for defining Alliance units is
that they are best described and analyzed using plot data collected in
the field using standard methods. The standards for floristic vegetation
classification in "Guidelines for Describing Associations and Alliances
of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification" (Version 2.0; March
2003) (see above) provides a means to describe the floristic composition
and structure of plant communities, describe the spatial and temporal
variation within plant communities, determine the environmental and
biotic characteristics of plant communities, and establish the
geographical and elevation range of the plant communities recognized.
These data may be used to describe and classify the plant communities of
a refuge, region, and the nation as well as provide ground reference
data for vegetation mapping.

As a minimum standard, each Alliance portrayed on a national wildlife
refuge vegetation map shall be represented by a single plot using the
methods described in "Guidelines for Describing Associations and
Alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification" (Version 2.0;
March 2003). A stand selected for sampling is considered typical of the
Alliance of which it is a part and each plot sampled therein is expected
to yield a more or less typical description in terms of both floristic
composition and structure. Each plot should represent one entity of
vegetation; that is, a plot should be relatively homogeneous in both
vegetation and habitat and large enough to represent the stand=s
floristic composition and structure. This representative plant community
is in essence a living voucher of an Alliance. Because quantitative plot
data constitute the primary descriptor of the floristic units, further
plot sampling within Alliances is encouraged. This will permit the
classification of individual plant communities into types such as
Associations and Alliances. For a classification effort to be effective,
samples of types should be collected from as wide an area as possible.
Although only a few plots may be sufficient to determine that a distinct
type is warranted, more widespread sampling will ensure that the type is
adequately characterized and understood in comparison to others that may
be conceptually similar. Not all field sampling can be done this
comprehensively, however, and we recognize that much work will be
accomplished in smaller stages and by different investigators.

The fundamental unit of vegetation observation is the plot. At a
minimum, a plot contains information on location, spatial extent, and
the species present with cover values as a measure of importance. A
vegetation plot database is used to store, preserve and distribute plot
data that meet recognized minimum standards. Plots are used to classify
vegetation. Eventually, each vegetation type will be documented in a
vegetation classification database, which will refer to the plots used
to develop the types. A vegetation classification database that is part
of the national strategy is available, VegBank
(http://vegbank.org/vegbank/index.html), which is the database developed
by the Ecological Society of America\'s Panel on Vegetation
Classification. VegBank consists of three linked databases that contain
(1) the actual plot records, (2) vegetation types recognized in the U.S.
National Vegetation Classification and other vegetation types submitted
by users, and (3) all plant taxa recognized by ITIS/USDA as well as all
other plant taxa recorded in plot records. Vegetation records, community
types and plant taxa may be submitted to VegBank and may be subsequently
searched, viewed, annotated, revised, interpreted, downloaded, and
cited. VegBank is being developed in collaboration with The [National
Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis](http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/), USGS Biological Resources
Discipline, NBII, and NatureServe.

**8. NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP**

The majority of the refuges have wetland habitat. The mapping of aquatic
habitats is essential to these refuges. The National Wetlands Inventory
Center (NWIC) of the USFWS has been producing information on the
characteristics, extent and status of wetlands and deepwater habitats.
Classification is based on the 1979 USFWS publication by Cowardin,
Carter, Golet and LaRoe entitled \>Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States=. The NWI and NVCS differ in
their fundamental approaches. NWI produces a habitat classification,

while NVCS classifies the vegetation. In addition, NVCS encompasses both
upland and lowland vegetation, while NWI is limited to wetlands. The
NWIC has mapped 90 percent of the lower 48 states and 34 percent of
Alaska. About 44 percent of the lower 48 states and 13 percent of Alaska
has been digitized. A map depicting the current status of NWI maps for
the US, information to obtain maps and the Cowardin publication can be
found at the NWI website: *[wetlands.fws.gov]{.underline}*

Digital maps can be downloaded from the NWI website download page, free
of charge. The data is organized by USGS 250k map name. It is advisable
to have a USGS index book for the state in which your desired quads are
located in order to find which 250k directory to access.

Paper maps can be obtained from a number of sources. The USFWS, NWI and
Earth Science Information Center (ESIC) of the USGS have a cooperative
agreement for the sale and distribution of NWI maps. ESIC offices accept
orders and payment for NWI products:

USGS/ESIC

National Headquarters

507 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

\(703\) 648-5920

Overlays are NWI delineation=s only, no base information. Composites are
NWI delineation=s and a USGS topographic base map combined. Maps are
priced as follows:

> Mylar Maps (overlay or composite) \$14.00 each
>
> Paper Maps (overlay or composite) 8.00
>
> USGS handling charge 5.00

NWI maps can also be purchased through various State Distribution
Centers. There are 34 Centers covering 47 States. Each Center
establishes its own pricing structure, product types and order
procedures. A list of State Distribution Centers is available at the NWI
website.

**9. VERTEBRATE FAUNA AND VASCULAR FLORA**

As a minimum standard, refuges should document the occurrence of all
birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and vascular plants.
Additional information is recommended for some vertebrates and vascular
plants and in some cases invertebrates and non-vascular plants should be
included in minimum inventories (see below). Obviously refuges may need
to go well beyond the minimum inventory recommendations for some taxa
that are key conservation targets on the particular refuge.

A. [Data Collection]{.underline}

Some refuges already have baseline inventory information on wildlife
that exceeds minimum standards, but most will need to collect some
additional data if only to update dated information. Furthermore, new
refuges will need the full suite of information. An obvious initial step
is a literature review including specimen data from museums and Natural
Heritage databases. For field data collection, rapid assessment methods
may suffice. A matrix which outlines the pros and cons for a number of
rapid inventory methods is included in Appendix A to assist refuges with
determining the best method for them.

B. [Species Lists and Checklists]{.underline}

A distinction was made between species lists (which should have
abundance derived from objective population sampling that the refuge
will define to fit their needs) and checklists for visitors (where
subjective relative abundance symbols are assigned based on probability
of observing a species). Species lists, which normally would be stored
as a database, could have very specific population estimates, estimated
densities from index plots, or best guesses of experts about abundance
(e.g., hundreds, thousands, etc.) and these would be updated as new
information is derived. Species lists are for use in habitat management
planning and for designing monitoring programs. In contrast, checklists
would meet public use objectives, and information in species lists could
be used to help develop checklists.

C. [Nomenclature]{.underline}

To standardized genus and species names used in the species list
database, refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture=s Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). The ITIS has partnered with others
in Mexico and Canada to develop Species2000, a source for standard
taxonomic names, which can be accessed via the internet.
(*[sp2000.org/Annualchecklist.html]{.underline}*). For plant species use
the U.S. Department of Agriculture=s Natural Resources Conservation
Service=s PLANTS Database which can be accessed via the internet
(*plants.usda.gov*). The names in PLANTS are the most current and are
ultimately fed into ITIS.

D. [Species Lists for Vertebrates]{.underline}

Besides simple lists with abundance indicators, status (e.g., breeder,
migrant, wintering, resident, vagrant) and seasonal occurrence should be
included for species groups where seasonal change is important (e.g.,
birds). Definitions of seasons will vary among areas (e.g., the timing
of spring varies with latitude), so clear descriptions of timing of
seasons needs to be included on species lists. Additionally databases
need to include sources for information (see examples of species lists
formats below).

All the data in the species lists except relative abundance (which will
not have standard definitions among refuges) may be collated at regional
and national levels for planning and reporting.

**Birds**

+----------+--------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| National |        |              |           | Refuge    |          |
| Database |        |              |           | Database  |          |
+----------+--------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| Species  | Status | Seasonal     | Source    | Relative  | Comments |
|          |        | Occurrence   |           | Abundance |          |
|          |        |              |           |           |          |
|          |        | Sp Su Fa Wi  |           |           |          |
+----------+--------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| *U       | *bree  | *Present/not | *source   | *this is  | *could   |
| SDA-ITIS | ding,* | detected     | of the    | refuge    | include* |
| (In      |        | data         | data -    | defined   | *inf     |
| tegrated | *mi    | displayed    | l         | to meet   | ormation |
| T        | grant, | for spring   | iterature | the needs | on       |
| axonomic | res    | (Sp), summer | citation, | of the    | general  |
| Inf      | ident, | (Su), fall   | refuge    | refuge    | lo       |
| ormation | va     | (Fa), and    | survey,   | biologist | cations* |
| S        | grant* | winter       | reports   | and       |          |
| ystem).* |        | (Wi).*       | from      | d         |          |
|          |        |              | visitors, | etermined |          |
|          |        |              | voucher   | upon the  |          |
|          |        |              | s         | level of  |          |
|          |        |              | pecimens* | data      |          |
|          |        |              |           | co        |          |
|          |        |              |           | llected - |          |
|          |        |              |           | census    |          |
|          |        |              |           | data v.s. |          |
|          |        |              |           | index     |          |
|          |        |              |           | data.*    |          |
+----------+--------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+

**Mammals**

  ------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------
  National                                      Refuge Database   
  Database                                                        

  Species       Status        Source            Relative          Comments
                                                Abundance         

  *USDA-ITIS    *migratory,   *source of the    *this is refuge   *could include*
  (Integrated   resident*     data - literature defined to meet   *information on
  Taxonomic                   citation, refuge  the needs of the  general
  Information                 survey, reports   refuge biologist  locations*
  System).*                   from visitors,    and determined    
                              voucher           upon the level of 
                              specimens*        data collected -  
                                                census data v.s.  
                                                index data.*      
  ------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------

**Amphibians / Reptiles**

  ----------------- ------------------ --------------------- --------------
  National Database                    Refuge Database       

  Species           Source             Relative Abundance    Comments

  *USDA-ITIS        *source of the     *this is refuge       *could
  (Integrated       data - literature  defined to meet the   include*
  Taxonomic         citation, refuge   needs of the refuge   *information
  Information       survey, reports    biologist and         on general
  System).*         from visitors,     determined upon the   locations*
                    voucher specimens* level of data         
                                       collected - census    
                                       data v.s. index       
                                       data.*                
  ----------------- ------------------ --------------------- --------------

**Fish**

  ------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------
  National                                       Refuge Database   
  Database                                                         

  Species       Status         Source            Relative          Comments
                                                 Abundance         

  *USDA-ITIS    *anadromous,   *source of the    *this is refuge   
  (Integrated   resident*      data - literature defined to meet   
  Taxonomic                    citation, refuge  the needs of the  
  Information                  survey, reports   refuge biologist  
  System).*                    from visitors,    and determined    
                               voucher           upon the level of 
                               specimens*        data collected -  
                                                 census data v.s.  
                                                 index data.*      
  ------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------

E. [Species Lists for Vascular Plants]{.underline}

Similar to Vertebrates, plant species lists include the names of all
species known, but instead of status, a commonness class and assignment
to a particular National Vegetation Classification System alliance is
included. All this information can be aggregated at regional and
national levels for planning and reporting. Additionally, refuges should
add a data field that specifies the habitat (using nomenclature in for
the ecosystem where the refuge occurs) where the species is the most
common.

While collecting vascular plant data, it is important to obtain a
voucher specimen to allow for the confirmation of species
identification, establish a historical record, and will assist with the
development of species range maps. Each botanical specimen needs to be
prepared and housed in a herbarium either at the refuge or elsewhere
with a label that gives the pertinent information concerning the source
of the specimen, whether collected from nature or cultivated. If
cultivated, the source of the culture should be given.

Refuge specific data that can be housed in the refuge database should
include a Refuge-defined habitat to assist with the general
identification of where the plant can be located on the Refuge.

**Vascular Flora**

+--------------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+
| National     |          |           |           | Refuge   |        |
| Database     |          |           |           | Database |        |
+--------------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+
| Species      | Co       | NVCS      | Source    | User     | Co     |
|              | mmonness | Alliance  |           | -defined | mments |
|              | Class^a^ |           |           | Habitat  |        |
+--------------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+
| *USDA-ITIS   | *        | *the      | *identify | *this is | *could |
| (Integrated  | Abundant | National  | the       | refuge   | in     |
| Taxonomic    | Common   | V         | source of | defined  | clude* |
| Information  | U        | egetation | the       | to meet  | *infor |
| System) for  | ncommon* | Class     | data -    | the      | mation |
| individual   |          | ification | h         | needs of | on     |
| species, and | *Rare*   | System=s  | istorical | the      | g      |
| the NVCS     |          | Alliance  | record,   | refuge   | eneral |
| (National    |          | level in  | l         | b        | loca   |
| Vegetation   |          | which     | iterature | iologist | tions* |
| Cl           |          | this      | citation, | and      |        |
| assification |          | species   | refuge    | refuge   |        |
| System) for  |          | was       | survey,   | mana     |        |
| plant        |          | found.*   | volunteer | gement.* |        |
| c            |          |           | inf       |          |        |
| ommunities.* |          |           | ormation, |          |        |
|              |          |           | voucher   |          |        |
|              |          |           | specimen, |          |        |
|              |          |           | etc.*     |          |        |
+--------------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+

^a^ \>Commonness Classes= as modified from Duncan and Meacham (Duncan,
T., and C. A. Meacham. 1986. MEKA manual (Version 1.3). University
Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley, California. 49 pp.) A
species relative abundance is based on how often it occurs within the
NVCS Alliance it is found:

> 1\) Abundant = very likely to be encountered; nearly always found in
> appropriate Alliance, sometimes forming dense stands;
>
> 2\) Common = likely to be encountered in appropriate Alliance;
>
> 3\) Uncommon = unlikely to be encountered, sometimes not present in
> appropriate Alliance;
>
> 4\) Rare = extremely unlikely to be encountered, often not present in
> appropriate Alliance, and often restricted to a small number of sites.

F. [Invertebrates and Non-vascular Plants]{.underline}

The cost of inventorying invertebrates and non-vascular plants does not
warrant including these groups of taxa in the minimum inventory.
However, species which are threatened and endangered, major foodbase
taxa for species of concern, environmental quality indicators, or are
pests, invasive or disease vectors, need to have baseline data
collected. These are addressed in Section 10 Resources of Special
Interest.

G. [Voucher Specimens]{.underline}

Voucher specimens serve to verify identification and provide archive
material for future use. Scientists can make errors in field
identification, particularly with plants and small animals. Furthermore
specimens make future changes in taxonomy less confusing to rectify with
historical information. Vouchers also can provide locality data
important for follow up work in the future.

Voucher specimens of plants and animals should be documented in a
database such as ABiota@. More information on Biota and purchasing
instructions can be found at the Biota website:
*[viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/Biota]{.underline}.* The benefit of having all
national wildlife refuges use the same database is that the information
can be pooled for regional and national perspectives.

**10. RESOURCES OF SPECIAL INTEREST**

Resources of Special Interest are those species, species groups or
habitats selected during the CCP process or during other planning
efforts as particularly important on a refuge (*e.g.* T&E species,
invasive species, establishing legislation species, priority species in
national or regional conservation plans). Included here might be
invertebrates or non-vascular plants of special interest because they
are major food base taxa for other key conservation targets,
environmental quality indicators (*e.g.*, lichens for air quality,
aquatic insects for water quality), or problems species like invasive
species or disease vectors (*e.g.*, fire ants, bark beetles). Every
species or area identified as a Resource of Special Interest should be
evaluated during the formulation or review of the refuge Inventory and
Monitoring Plan.

Resources of Special Interest that can be delineated and mapped, such as
a rare plant community, colonial bird rookery, riparian communities,
shorebird concentration areas, etc. are referred to as AFocal Areas@. As
part of the baseline inventory, the Focal Areas of a refuge need to be
mapped.

Resources of Special Interest that are population based, (an individual
species or species groups) such as the Dakota Skipper butterfly, piping
plover, Plymouth Red-bellied turtle, breeding waterfowl, migrating
shorebirds, etc. require a more intensive effort than the species lists.
Quantitative data need to be collected at least once as a means to
evaluate the species or species group in determining whether or not it
should be included as a target species for monitoring in the Refuge=s
Inventory and Monitoring Plan. For selected species, quantitative
surveys using appropriate protocols should be used to collect baseline
data. These data would then be used for comparisons either in management
assessment monitoring or for long-term trends monitoring. In addition,
the current distribution should be determined and mapped as a GIS data
layer. Each focal area or species map should be a GIS data layer.

**Resources of Special Interest**

+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+
| ***Resource of  | *                 | ***Qu      | ***Comments /    |
| Special         | **Distribution*** | antitative | Other***         |
| Interest***     |                   | Ab         |                  |
|                 |                   | undance*** |                  |
+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+
| *species name   | *where the        | *results   | *reference to    |
| or*             | species is found, | of         | data source,     |
|                 | description of    | inventory  | name of          |
| *group of       | environment,      | survey*    | surveyor,*       |
| species or*     | mapping of Focal  |            |                  |
|                 | Area*             |            | *date of survey, |
| *Focal Area*    |                   |            | etc.*            |
+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+
| For Example:    |                   |            |                  |
+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+
| Dakota Skipper  | Tall Grass        | 9          | Butterfly Survey |
|                 | Prairie           |            | 2001             |
+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+
| Tall Grass      | Well drained,     | 1,7000     | GAP Land Use     |
| Prairie         | nutrient rich,    | acres      | Data             |
|                 | sandy             |            |                  |
|                 | soil\...\.....    |            |                  |
+-----------------+-------------------+------------+------------------+

###### III. Implementation Strategies for Recommended Baseline Inventories

The following are specific approaches that could be used to implement
the recommended biotic and abiotic baseline inventories, followed by a
table outlining possible strategies with existing resources and
new/reallocated funds.

**1. [Assimilation of Existing Abiotic GIS Data]{.underline}:**

> Topography, aerial photography, hydrography, soils, political
> boundaries, and the National Wetlands Inventory maps for each refuge
> are currently available for free or relatively negligible cost.
> However, the consolidation of these data into an operational GIS can
> be complicated, involving georeferencing and converting data into a
> standard datum. The use of these standard data require the development
> of accurate refuge boundary data, which are currently being developed
> by all Regions. Real property, manmade structures and resources of
> special interest (*e.g.*, important wildlife areas, rare plant
> communities, distribution of threatened or endangered species) will
> need to be identified and located via GPS or other accurate means by
> refuge staff.
>
> **Recommendation 1:** Employ a contractor(s) to work directly with
> Regional GIS coordinators, Regional realty offices, and individual
> refuges, to acquire, process, and package these data layers on
> recordable compact disk (CD-R) for turnkey delivery to field stations.
> A standard contract should be developed and coordinated nationally by
> Regional and Washington GIS staff. Contractors could be drawn from the
> private sector, USGS, or academia.

**2. [Acquisition of Biotic Inventory Information (Fauna and
Flora):]{.underline}**

**A.** **Species Lists (vertebrates and vascular plants):** Basic
inventories, including archiving of voucher specimens, are not complete
or poorly documented on most refuges, yet they are critical to planning
efforts and to understanding the full impacts of management actions.
Compilation of these lists will require that intensive, though not
exhaustive, inventories be completed for each refuge. To be reasonably
complete, they need to occur over all seasons and be performed by
persons with taxonomic expertise. Proper archiving and preservation of
specimens is best done by museums with experience and facilities, so the
Service would want agreements with selected universities and
institutions (*e.g.*, National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian
Institution, Chicago Field Museum, American Museum of Natural History)
for this purpose.

> **Recommendation 2A:** A standard "rapid ecological assessment"
> process that would allow refuges to accumulate extensive information
> on their taxa in a one-year period needs to be developed by a small
> national team. The process can draw heavily on existing rapid
> assessment protocols already documented and employed in the Neotropics
> and elsewhere. The refuge protocol would specify the composition of
> each refuge's assessment team, which might consist of BRD scientists,
> university personnel, representatives of State Natural Heritage
> programs, and local experts as well as refuge staff. It would also
> specify a standard reporting format, based on an electronic species
> list developed by the WH-9 Database Team. Individual refuges could
> then be funded and become responsible for implementing the assessment
> based on the existing CCP schedule for field stations. Those stations
> which already have significant data would adapt the approach to target
> existing data gaps by gathering information on specific species or
> groups.

**B. Vegetation:** Baseline vegetation mapping using the federal/Service
standard, which will provide consistency among refuges as well as other
Interior agencies and NGOs, is lacking on most refuges. Collection of
biological data on vegetative communities, which sustain our Trust
Resources, has not been done to the level of the Service's standard.
Increasing the diversity of our 'biological skills' by incorporating
botanists into the workforce will assist in meeting these two needs, as
well as properly address the botanical needs of the NWRS.

**Recommendation 2B.1 - Mapping:** Baseline inventory of plant
communities (*i.e.,* habitats) requires the development of digitized
vegetation maps for each NWR to the Alliance level of the National
Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). Costs will vary widely
depending on availability of existing data, minimum mapping unit, and
the contractual arrangement between the refuge and the cooperator
assisting with mapping. A standard Scope of Work needs to be developed
by a team of Regional and national GIS staff and subject-matter experts.
This would ensure standardization, a minimally acceptable level of
accuracy across all stations, and completion of all stations on a
predictable schedule. Stations should be scheduled for mapping following
the existing schedule for CCP completion. Because of the cost involved,
Regions and field stations should develop funding proposals in RONS (see
Recommendation 3). Refuges should explore partnerships with
universities, NGOs and other agencies to bring expertise and
cost-sharing to projects, which may allow expanding projects beyond the
minimum (e.g., mapping at finer classification to the Association
level). Because of the variation in size, terrain, existing data, and
needed ground-truthing among refuges, the cost will have to be
individually calculated for each refuge.

**Recommendation 2B.2 - Living Vouchers:** On each refuge, permanent
representative (*i.e.*, "living voucher") plots need to be established
and maintained within each Alliance. A national botanical team
representing each Region should develop a standard protocol for
identifying, mapping, and maintaining the "voucher plots" and
determining the number appropriate for each Alliance. Identification of
these plots would be done concurrently with the vegetative mapping. The
botanical team will decide how best to choose the expertise (e.g.,
contractor, cooperator, Service botanists, refuge personnel, etc), to
identify the plots.

**Recommendation 2B.3 - Regional Botanists:** Each Regional Office
should establish a dedicated Regional Refuge Botanist position to
recognize the System's responsibility to these resources under the
Refuge Improvement Act and related policies. These positions could be
co-funded with other Service programs that share responsibility for
plant resources.

**3. [Staff, Training and Equipment]{.underline}:**

> Implementing these recommendations will require additional staff,
> training and equipment, primarily at field stations. Refuges need
> additional biologists as well as personnel versed in botany and
> spatial information. Equipment needs will primarily center around more
> advanced computers to process, display and print spatial data;
> advanced GPS recorders, and software. Training needs will center
> around use of this equipment. Requirements will vary greatly across
> stations, depending on current capabilities.

**Recommendation 3**: Biological personnel and spatial information needs
should be incorporated into RONS at every refuge. The RONS projects will
identify the unique needs of each refuge which can then be addressed at
the regional or Washington level. A basic RONS biological and spatial
information needs project description should be developed to assist
refuges with developing their own project tailored to their needs. The
funding proposal should cover the costs for developing data,
staffing/contracting, and equipment and software. Training needs should
be addressed through routine opportunities for professional development
and in staff Individual Development Plans. NCTC offers numerous relevant
courses (e.g., TEC7112 - GIS Introduction for Conservation
Professionals, TEC7114 - GIS Design for Refuge Lands Management,
TEC7134 - GIS Vegetative Cover Mapping).

**4. [Incorporation Into Policy]{.underline}:**

> Institutionalizing these standards within the NWRS requires amendment
> of 701 FW 2 (*Inventory and Monitoring of Populations).*

**Recommendation 4:** The Division of Planning and Policy should be
tasked with assuring completion of this amendment when all Promises
Teams addressing inventory or monitoring issues have completed their
work. The amendment should include a handbook on inventory and
monitoring to accompany the revised policy. Individuals would be drawn
from the various teams to contribute to the policy revision and handbook
development.

####### WH-8-1 Baseline Inventory Team -- Implementation Strategies

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Recommendation**    | ######## Exist        | **New or Reallocated  |
|                       | ing Resource Strategy | Funds Strategy**      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1\. Assimilation of   | A national GIS Team   |                       |
| Existing Abiotic GIS  | has been tasked with  |                       |
|                       | addressing this need, |                       |
| Data                  | and will provide      |                       |
|                       | recommendations.      |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Acquisition of    | The Division of       | The Division of       |
| Biotic Inventory      | Wildlife and Habitat  | Wildlife and Habitat  |
|                       | Management            | Management contracts  |
| Information           | establishes a team of | the development of a  |
|                       | ref                   | rapid sampling        |
| A. Species List       | uge/regional/national | protocol with         |
|                       | biological personnel  | sampling and species  |
|                       | and species           | specialists outside   |
|                       | specialists with      | the Service (i.e.     |
|                       | expertise in sampling | USGS).                |
|                       | design to develop a   |                       |
|                       | standard protocol of  |                       |
|                       | rapid sampling        |                       |
|                       | methods for all taxa. |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       | USFWS partners with   |
|                       |                       | the National Park     |
|                       |                       | Service to cost-share |
|                       |                       | in the development of |
|                       |                       | inventory and         |
|                       |                       | monitoring protocols. |
|                       |                       | (the Database Team is |
|                       |                       | recommending          |
|                       |                       | assessing NPS's       |
|                       |                       | database; NPS is in   |
|                       |                       | the process of        |
|                       |                       | developing            |
|                       |                       | protocols.)           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| B. 1. Vegetation      | The Division of       | Each region is        |
| Mapping               | Wildlife and Habitat  | provided \$100,000/   |
|                       | Management            | year dedicated to the |
|                       | establishes a team of | mapping of refuges in |
|                       | regional/national GIS | accordance with the   |
|                       | staff with            | schedule of CCP       |
|                       | subject-matter        | completion.           |
|                       | expertise to develop  |                       |
|                       | a standard Scope of   | \$700,000 annually    |
|                       | Work (SoW) for        | until completed.      |
|                       | mapping.              |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | \- Refuges use the    |                       |
|                       | SoW to obtain cost    |                       |
|                       | estimates for their   |                       |
|                       | refuges to develop a  |                       |
|                       | mapping RONs project. |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | \- Refuges use SoW to |                       |
|                       | explore partnerships  |                       |
|                       | with Universities,    |                       |
|                       | NGOs and other        |                       |
|                       | agencies to           |                       |
|                       | cost-share project.   |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| B. 2. Living Vouchers | Team member (Steve    | Contract plant        |
|                       | Talbot, botanist) has | ecologists to collect |
|                       | agreed to develop a   | data in concert with  |
|                       | standard Living       | mapping projects.     |
|                       | Voucher protocol for  |                       |
|                       | refuges.              |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | \- Refuge staff       |                       |
|                       | implement protocol.   |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| B. 3. Regional Plant  | Fill existing refuge  | Hire 7 GS11/12        |
| Ecologists            | biologist vacancies   | regional plant        |
|                       | with plant ecologists | ecologists who        |
|                       | who perform regional  | coordinate with the   |
|                       | responsibilities a    | WO Division of        |
|                       | portion of their time | Wildlife and Habitat  |
|                       | and coordinate with   | Management.           |
|                       | the Regional Division |                       |
|                       | of Wildlife and       | 7x \$ 50,000 = \$     |
|                       | Habitat Management.   | 350,000 initial       |
|                       |                       | start-up cost         |
|                       | 1-2 refuge positions  |                       |
|                       | per region.           | 7x \$120,000 = \$     |
|                       |                       | 840,000 recurring     |
|                       |                       | staff cost            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3\. Staff, Training   | The WO Division of    | The WO pursues a      |
| and Equipment         | Wildlife and Habitat  | national funding      |
|                       | Management            | effort similar to the |
|                       | establishes a small   | National Park Service |
|                       | team of               | which enabled their   |
|                       | ref                   | Inventory and         |
|                       | uge/regional/national | Monitoring Program.   |
|                       | staff to develop a    |                       |
|                       | basic RONs biological |                       |
|                       | and spatial           |                       |
|                       | information needs     |                       |
|                       | project description   |                       |
|                       | to assist refuges     |                       |
|                       | with developing their |                       |
|                       | own project tailored  |                       |
|                       | to the refuge needs.  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | \- Refuges develop    |                       |
|                       | and submit a          |                       |
|                       | biological RONs       |                       |
|                       | project.              |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4\. Incorporation     | Establish a team      | The WO Division of    |
| Into Policy           | drawn from the        | Wildlife and Habitat  |
|                       | various Promise's     | Management revises    |
|                       | Teams to revise the   | policy 701 FW 2 and   |
|                       | policy and develop a  | oversees a contact to |
|                       | handbook for refuge   | an outside source to  |
|                       | personnel based on    | develop a handbook    |
|                       | the revised policy,   | for refuge personnel  |
|                       | encompassing all      | based on the revised  |
|                       | aspects of inventory  | policy, encompassing  |
|                       | and monitoring        | all aspects of        |
|                       | (including the I&M    | inventory and         |
|                       | database).            | monitoring (including |
|                       |                       | the I&M database).    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Appendix A.**

**COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF RAPID METHODS FOR ASSESSING TERRESTRIAL
BIODIVERSITY**

+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
|           | **De  | *   | **Rapid  | **GAP  | **G | **R  | *      |
|           | sired | *Bi | Ec       | An     | rad | apid | *Rapid |
|           | At    | oBl | ological | alysis | sec | Biod | Asse   |
|           | tribu | itz | As       | ^3^**  | t** | iver | ssment |
|           | tes** | ^1  | sessment |        |     | sity | Pro    |
|           |       | ^** | (TNC)    |        | *   | As   | gramme |
|           |       |     | ^2^**    |        | *(N | sess | ^6^**  |
|           |       |     |          |        | CR) | ment |        |
|           |       |     |          |        | ^4  | ^    |        |
|           |       |     |          |        | ^** | 5^** |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| **        | low   | low | medium   | high   | med | low  | high   |
| Expense** |       |     | depends  |        | ium | dep  |        |
|           |       |     | on       |        |     | ends |        |
|           |       |     | design   |        |     | on   |        |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | de   |        |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | sign |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| **Time**  | rapid | ra  | rapid    | must   | med | me   | medium |
|           |       | pid | but      | d      | ium | dium |        |
|           |       |     | depends  | evelop |     |      |        |
|           |       |     | on       | GIS    |     |      |        |
|           |       |     | design   | layers |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| **Pe      | mi    | l   | small    | small  | sm  | s    | small  |
| rsonnel** | nimal | ots | team     | team   | all | mall | team   |
|           |       | but |          |        | t   | team |        |
|           |       | o   |          |        | eam |      |        |
|           |       | nly |          |        |     |      |        |
|           |       | for |          |        |     |      |        |
|           |       | 24  |          |        |     |      |        |
|           |       | hrs |          |        |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| **Repeat  | not   | no  | no       | no,    | yes | dep  | d      |
| ability** | nece  |     |          | but    |     | ends | epends |
|           | ssary |     |          | im     |     | on   | on     |
|           |       |     |          | proves |     | de   | design |
|           |       |     |          | w/     |     | sign |        |
|           |       |     |          | spe    |     |      |        |
|           |       |     |          | cies-h |     |      |        |
|           |       |     |          | abitat |     |      |        |
|           |       |     |          | data   |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| **Uniform | not   | no  | no,      | no     | not | dep  | not    |
| Effort**  | nece  |     | although |        | lik | ends | likely |
|           | ssary |     | it could |        | ely | on   |        |
|           |       |     | be       |        |     | de   |        |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | sign |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| *         | not   | no  | not      | yes    | no  | no   | no     |
| *Requires | nece  |     | nec      |        |     |      |        |
| GIS**     | ssary |     | essarily |        |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| *         | yes   | yes | yes      | pre    | yes | yes  | yes    |
| *Measures |       |     |          | dicted |     | but  | but    |
| Occ       |       |     |          |        |     | lim  | l      |
| urrence** |       |     |          |        |     | ited | imited |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | to   | to     |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | inv  | higher |
|           |       |     |          |        |     | erts | orders |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| *         | id    | no  | could if | pre    | yes | no   | no     |
| *Measures | eally |     | linked   | dicted |     |      |        |
| Distr     |       |     | to GIS   |        |     |      |        |
| ibution** |       |     |          |        |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| *         | not   | no  | no       | could, | co  | no   | could  |
| *Measures | nece  |     |          | but    | uld |      |        |
| Relative  | ssary |     |          | theor  | (CP |      |        |
| Ab        |       |     |          | etical | UE) |      |        |
| undance** |       |     |          |        |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+
| *         | not   | no  | no       | no     | no  | no   | no     |
| *Measures | desir |     |          |        |     |      |        |
| Density** | eable |     |          |        |     |      |        |
+-----------+-------+-----+----------+--------+-----+------+--------+

Assessment of biological diversity and methodologies for future
assessments, UNEP, 6 Aug 1996,

([[http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/diodiv/sbstta/sb202.html)]{.underline}](../(http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/diodiv/sbstta/sb202.html))

Nature in Focus: Rapid Ecological Assessment, Sayre *et al.* (2000),
Island Press, Wash., D.C.

BioBlitz
([[http://www.mpl-pwrc.usgs.gov/blitz.html)]{.underline}](../(http://www.mpl-pwrc.usgs.gov/blitz.html))

Appendix A.

Points to consider:

-   Rapid inventories are generally about generating a simple list of
    species. By definition, rapid inventories are short-term projects
    which employ limited sampling techniques over a limited amount of
    time.

-   Depending on the field methods used, a fairly comprehensive species
    list (*i.e*., species richness); a list of species within selected
    taxa (*e.g*., birds, woody flora, and/or invertebrates); or a list
    known to be grossly incomplete (*e.g*., BioBlitz), can be generated.

-   These species lists (whether complete or incomplete) can be
    generated within map polygons or at sampling points (distributed
    randomly, stratified-randomly, or systematically). Taking this extra
    step and complemented with GIS, maps showing distribution and, in
    some instances, estimates of relative occurrence can be generated.
    Several methods that are used internationally (GAP Analysis,
    Conservation Biodiversity Workshops \[CBWs\], and Biodiversity
    Information Management System \[BIMS\]) do not necessarily require
    empirical field data; these use *predicted* occurrence data based on
    a species known habitat/life history requirements.

-   Rapid inventory methods that were reviewed are not standardized
    well. The BioBlitz is a great example. It is a [methodological
    process,]{.underline} not a standardized technique. Even GAP
    Analysis varies from state to state. An existing rapid inventory
    approach that will satisfy our needs may need to be developed
    specifically for Refuges.

    ^1^ The [BioBlitz]{.underline} is an initial step toward closing
    that information gap in inventory. Informal in methodology and
    organization, it can be molded by the sponsoring group to fit the
    circumstances and talent pool of the region. Count as many species
    from as many taxonomic groups as possible in a 24-hour time period.
    The details of when, where, and how are forged to fit the local
    situation. Mark-recapture estimators can be used on combinations of
    simple species lists from the same area to estimate the total
    species richness for taxonomic groups without having to resort to
    comprehensive samples. A one day event cannot come near to
    documenting all the species present. The species pool changes
    throughout the year, so no matter what day is chosen, species will
    be missed. Repeating a Blitz on the same day each year should not be
    thought of as a means of tracking change over time. The loose nature
    of participants, the vagaries of species detection, weather,
    observer skill, and many other factors all conspire to limit the
    usefulness of among year comparisons. However, repeated blitzes will
    add to the accumulated species inventory and are a good means for
    identifying groups that would benefit from a more formal monitoring
    program.

^2^ By definition, TNC's [Rapid Ecological Assessments]{.underline}
(REAs) are short-term projects employing limited sampling techniques
over a limited amount of time. REAs consist of a series of increasingly
refined analyses: satellite imagery to produce land use/cover maps,
airborne remote sensing/aerial reconnaissance to produce vegetation
cover/community maps, and stratified field inventory to ground truth
remotely-generated data sets. The UNEP's appraisal: "In effect, REA uses
the same GIS datasets as a GAP Analysis, and then supports the analysis
with subsequent ground-truthing". Floral surveys are mandatory, faunal
surveys are discretionary. Faunal surveys are generally stratified by
vegetation community/cover polygon. An REA is not a complete floristic
inventory. However, an REA should include: (1) species for
characterizing vegetation types (canopy species, dominant/codominant
species, indicator species); (2) species of conservation concern
(endemic, rare/endangered);, and (3) species of management concern
(exotics, economic). Allows for using vegetation sampling methods of
choice (Dallmeier's square plots, Gentry's rectangular plots). Faunal
surveys may target selected taxa or target species; again, a suite of
published sampling methods can be employed at the discretion of the REA
Team. Page 103 in Nature in Focus: REA suggests that faunal survey
design will ultimately be based on the goal of the REA; TNC suggests six
possible goals: (1) associate animal communities with the vegetation
type they inhabitat (e.g., GAP analysis); (2) determine as completely as
possible the diversity of target taxa within site; (3) compare diversity
among subregions of a site; (4) characterize communities of various
animal taxa in the different veg types at a site, emphasizing the most
common types; (5) map the distribution of target species; and (6)
perform a survey to initiate a monitoring program. NOTE: In the table
above, I've ignored the GIS component of the REA.

^3^ [GAP Analysis]{.underline} is essentially the superimposing of three
digital layers in a GIS: vegetation type, species distribution (actual
and/or predicted), and land use. For example, the Mid-Atlantic GAP
Analysis Program (http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/mdgap) is using eleven Landsat
Thematic Mapper scenes (30-m resolution) to generate digital land
cover/land use maps (including a vegetation map typed to the Alliance
level in the NVCS), a species-habitat association matrix that is refined
using additional ecological filters such as hydrography, soils, or
habitat patch size, and a land stewardship classification.

^4^ [Gradsect]{.underline} (Gradient-directed transect): The National
Conservation Review (Sri Lanka Forest Department) identifies sites on a
1:500,000 topographic map, positioning of transects along environmental
gradients (generally assumed to be elevational contours, although
precipitation, temperature, and latitude may be other gradients over a
landscape scale), and surveyed for presence/absence of selected taxa
(woody plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies,
mollusks, mound-building termites; fish identified opportunistically).
This is similar to the botanical surveys that Stephen Talbot described
in AK.

^5^ [Rapid Biodiversity Assessment]{.underline} (RBA) is based on the
premise that certain aspects of biodiversity can be quantified without
knowing the scientific names of the species involved. Two methods to
characterize diversity without formal taxonomic content: (1) "ordinal"
RBA = taxa keyed to a level needed for the goals of an assessment; e.g.,
in environmental quality monitoring, family or genus may be adequate if
it indicates disturbance or pollution; (2) "basic" RBA = rather than key
to species level, create locally-functional schemes for classification
and ID based on easily-distinguished morphological criteria; e.g.,
butterflies might be distinguished on the basis of wing color, pattern,
and size. RBAs focus on invertebrate groups, particularly butterflies,
ants, termites, certain beetle families, grasshoppers, spiders. The
approach is useful for comparing the diversity between different sites
as long as the same *operational taxonomic units* are used.

^6^ [Rapid Assessment Programme]{.underline} (RAP) uses teams of experts
to conduct preliminary assessments of the biological value of poorly
known areas. Usually focuses on higher vertebrates and vascular plants.
Field trips last 2 - 8 weeks and sites are targeted based on satellite
and remote imagery.