Number range CHAPTER

A Process for Integrating Wildlife Population, Biodiversity, and Habitat
Goals and Objectives on the National Wildlife Refuge System:
Coordinating with Partners at all Landscape Scales

**FINAL REPORT**

**January 2004**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.733333333333333in"
height="3.7333333333333334in"}

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska

**Wildlife Populations, Habitat and Biodiversity Goals Action Team
("Goals Team"):**

> Steve Berendzen, David Blankinship, Dirck Byler, Vernon Byrd, Brian
> Czech\*, Stephen Gard, Dan Kuzmeskus, Harold Laskowski, Jim Mattsson,
> Karen Murphy\*, Steve Van Riper, Tara Zimmerman.
>
> \* Primary writers, editors

Number range CHAPTER**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Following the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), a vision document called
*Fulfilling the Promise* was published. This document included an
assessment of the status of the National Wildlife Refuge System and a
list of recommendations of actions necessary to fulfill the vision for
the future. A need for clear goals and objectives for conservation of
wildlife populations and habitats was identified (referred to in the
Wildlife and Habitat section of *Fulfilling the Promise* as
recommendations WH-1 and WH-2 respectively). Furthermore, a need was
identified to have clear objectives on how the National Wildlife Refuge
System contributes to biological diversity in North America (WH-3). The
integrated objectives for wildlife populations, habitat, and
biodiversity would help focus the management of existing refuges and
guide strategic growth of the Refuge System. An action team ("the Goals
Team") was chartered by the Promises Implementation Team, a group
appointed to oversee implementation of the vision, to address the three
recommendations relating to goals and objectives. The team's task
included reviewing available national and regional guidance and
developing a process for integrating goals and objectives at all
administrative and geographic levels (national, regional, ecosystem,
refuge) of the Refuge System. The first step was to locate existing
plans that contain quantitative population, habitat, and biological
diversity objectives.

Overarching Refuge System national goals are provided in 601 FW 1.6,
"National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Purposes" (DRAFT),
but this policy does not include specific objectives. Nevertheless,
recently the Service has joined with partners in national and regional
planning efforts for migratory birds. As a result, goals and objectives
have been or are being developed for waterfowl, shorebirds, land birds,
and colonial waterbirds. Similar planning efforts for fish, large land
mammals, and marine mammals have occurred at regional levels, and
recovery plans have been written for many threatened and endangered
species. Population and habitat objectives in these plans are usually
associated with "trust species"; i.e., species that the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been explicitly mandated to conserve (e.g.,
migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional
fishes, marine mammals, and species specifically listed in refuge
establishing purposes). These plans provide the basis for setting
specific habitat objectives needed to meet population objectives at
various geographic levels. While meeting objectives in these plans
contributes significantly to conservation of biodiversity, the plans do
not address it directly.

Biodiversity objectives may be derived using a "coarse filter", in which
the conservation of a variety of habitats serves to sustain a diversity
of species and other units of biodiversity. The IUCN-World Conservation
Union recommendation of 10% habitat coverage is adopted and refined such
that conservation of 10% of National Vegetation Classification System
formations is the operational biodiversity objective at the national
scale.

Objectives for species, species groups, or formations are specified in
the common unit of habitat (e.g., acres, miles of river, number of
nesting islands) whether they are derived from species group plans or
from the IUCN objectives. With this potentially dizzying array of
"guidance" a process is needed to integrate the objectives effectively
for use by refuges and other conservation land managers. Refuges play a
critical but sometimes limited role in wildlife conservation in many
ecosystems. One way to optimize objective setting for each unit is to
view it in a broader (e.g., landscape) context and in concert with the
efforts of other public and private land managers partners.

In the process recommended, national goals and objectives for
populations and biodiversity are identified, stepped down to the
regional and ecosystem level, and converted to habitat objectives.
Regional and ecosystem goals and objectives are added as appropriate
during the step-down process. Partners are involved in developing goals
and objectives at all levels. At the ecosystem level, a database would
be created listing conservation targets, their habitat objectives, the
amount of each habitat already in conservation lands, and habitat
deficits to meet objectives. Similar to the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan Joint Venture process, an ecosystem level team would use
this database in ecoregion planning and to evaluate the effectiveness of
the joint conservation efforts.

Clearly refuge establishing purposes provide at least general priorities
for many refuges, but almost all units can, and do, contribute
additionally to conservation of other wildlife. During comprehensive
conservation planning and habitat management planning, alternatives have
to be considered. Ecosystem level wildlife and biodiversity objectives
can help managers make informed decisions about how to optimize the
management of each unit, and habitat objectives identified through the
process also provide valuable information that can be used for strategic
growth.

Ecosystem-level planning is the linchpin of the process, as consistent
with the Service's policy on the ecosystem approach to conservation. The
process will allow refuge managers to see how their land management
activities may fit into the larger landscape level planning effort, but
is not designed to dictate any refuge management activities which are
not within Service priorities and budget capabilities. Refuges will be
able to make informed decisions on how best to meet their specific
mandates while contributing with partners to broader ecosystem-level
wildlife and biodiversity conservation.

The Refuge Improvement Act recognized a significant need for Refuge
System policy and planning development, much of which is outlined in
*Fulfilling the Promise*. *Fulfilling the Promise* puts the Refuge
System on a progressive course for the foreseeable future. The process
outlined in this report for setting objectives for managing existing
refuges and for helping guide strategic growth of the Refuge System and
will be integral to sustaining this course.

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

**Introduction -** Page 1

**Definitions -** Page 4

**Overview and Key Concepts -** Page 7

-   Using existing plans for identifying goals and objectives.

-   The concept of fine and coarse filters in identifying FWS habitat
    objectives.

-   Identifying the appropriate ecoregional planning unit.

-   The role of partners in implementing the process.

-   Use of relational and spatial databases to organize objectives.

    **Population Goals and Objectives: Using a Fine Filter Approach to
    Identify Habitat Objectives** (Implementation of Fulfilling the
    Promise Recommendations WH-1, WH-2) **-** Page 12

    **Biodiversity Goals and Objectives: Using a Coarse Filter Approach
    to Identify Habitat Objectives** (Implementation of Fulfilling the
    Promise Recommendations WH-3, WH-2) **-** Page 25

    **Integration of Population and Biodiversity Habitat Objectives**
    (Implementation of Fulfilling the Promise Recommendation WH-2) **-**
    Page 34

    **The Role of Identifying Habitat Objectives in guiding the
    Strategic Growth of the Refuge System** (Contribution of WH-2 toward
    Implementation of Fulfilling the Promise Recommendation WH-17) **-**
    Page 37

    **Conclusion -** Page 38

    **Acknowledgments** - Page 40

    **References** -- Page 41

    **Appendix A. Example of plans available to provide objectives to
    use in the WH 1-3 process** - Page 42

    **Appendix B. Example: Wood Thrush and other birds of the Northern
    Hardwood Forests** - Page 48

    **Appendix C**. **Proposed process to prioritize Regional
    conservation targets developed in Region 3** - Page 56

**Appendix D. Directives found in Service documents pertaining to the
use of objectives in refuge management and planning** - Page 60

Number range CHAPTER**INTRODUCTION**

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is comprised of more
than 540 refuges in the United States and its possessions. These refuges
were established for a variety of conservation purposes, often with a
focus on a group of species (e.g., migratory waterfowl) and in many
cases on a single species (e.g., prairie chicken). Every refuge,
however, provides habitat for numerous species beyond those specifically
described in refuge purposes.

Upon passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), the Refuge System undertook a
reassessment of its responsibilities and activities. This reassessment
culminated in the publication of *Fulfilling the Promise*. This vision
document included chapters on wildlife and habitat, people, and
leadership, each of which contained a set of recommendations. The
wildlife and habitat chapter reflected the concern that the Refuge
System had never clearly recognized, defined, and implemented national
wildlife population goals and habitat priorities. It also acknowledged
that the Refuge Improvement Act called for a broader approach to
conservation on the Refuge System, including conservation of
biodiversity and representation of the ecosystems of the United States.
Teams were chartered to address the recommendations of *Fulfilling the
Promise*. A National Goals Team (Goals Team) was charged with developing
a process for executing recommendations 1, 2, and 3 of the wildlife and
habitat chapter (WH-1-3). These 3 recommendations pertained to
integrating objectives for trust species, better habitat management
through better planning, and biodiversity conservation, respectively.
They stated:

> WH-1: Develop integrated population goals and objectives (as
> appropriate) at the System, regional, ecosystem, and refuge levels;
> develop refuge priorities among species or species groups accordingly;
> and use the priorities to implement appropriate wildlife conservation
> strategies at each refuge.
>
> WH-2: Establish national, regional, and ecosystem habitat priorities
> to direct the strategic growth and long-term management of the System.
> Habitat priorities would be the basis for national, regional, and
> ecosystem habitat goals and objectives which will be incorporated in
> refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans and Habitat Management Plans.
>
> WH-3: Define how the System and each unit can best contribute to
> maintaining biodiversity, and determine biodiversity objectives and
> indicators for each refuge within the larger ecosystem and landscape
> perspective.

The Goals Team included representatives from each region and the
Washington office. These individuals also represented various Service
programs and projects to better reflect the perspective and concerns of
the entire Service.

The Goals Team Charter called for a review of existing population and
habitat goals for trust species and the development of a process to
integrate these goals and objectives at various geographic levels. The
team was directed to:

> "Recommend the best sources for existing goals and suggest a process
> for integrating goals at national, ecosystem, and individual refuge
> levels"; and to,
>
> "produce a report identifying the types of available and needed goals
> for various species groups and habitats, and a recommendation on how
> to integrate national and ecosystem goals of individual refuges."

The Promises Implementation Team later charged the Goals Team with
developing recommendations for WH-3, too. This decision was based upon
the close relationship of biodiversity goals and objectives with
population and habitat goals and objectives and the expertise of the
Goals Team in biodiversity conservation issues and principles.

The Goals Team was aided in its effort by the fact that the Service had
already drafted a policy (601 FW 1.6, "National Wildlife Refuge System
Mission, Goals, and Purposes DRAFT") identifying the major goals of the
Refuge System. This allowed the Goals Team to focus on a process for
compiling, developing, and coordinating objectives pursuant to national
goals. The draft policy states, "The following goals guide the
administration, management, and growth of the Refuge System:

A.  Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of
    fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with
    becoming endangered;

B.  Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine
    mammal populations;

C.  Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants;

D.  Conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of
    the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic
    of those ecosystems; and

E.  To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish,
    wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the
    public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent
    recreational uses. Priority public uses include hunting, fishing,
    wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education
    and interpretation."

Goals A-E are the goals of the Refuge System pertaining to populations
and habitats. The Refuge System acknowledges goals found in other
Service national programs and plans, and in the national programs and
plans of Service partners. Goals A-E are sufficient, however, to cover
virtually all wildlife population and habitat concerns in the United
States, including those expressed in the goals of other national
programs and plans. More specific goals and objectives are typically
provided in plans covering specific species, species groups or habitats
(e.g., the North American Waterfowl Management Plan).

![](media/image1.wmf)

The WH-2 *Promises* recommendation calls for the refuge system to use
habitat objectives and priorities to drive our conservation management
plans as well as strategic growth of the system. Our process ties the
population-based habitat objectives and the additional habitat-based
biodiversity objectives together to meet the goal of WH-2. However,
habitat objectives not derived from population or biodiversity goals do
exist in regional wetland conservation plans. In the WH1-3 process,
wetlands will often be identified as the key habitat needed to meet
population-based habitat goals as well as biodiversity objectives.
Wetland objectives found in existing conservation plans can be entered
independently into the process in the same fashion as population-based
habitat objectives. They can thus be factored into Refuge System habitat
objectives.

While the population-based habitat objectives contribute to the
maintenance of biodiversity, additional types of habitats are required
for a more comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation pursuant
to WH-3. We use a "coarse filter" for biodiversity conservation based
upon habitat representation. By conserving habitats that are
under-represented in the network of conservation lands, we provide the
foundation to conserve a wide variety of species and other levels of
biodiversity from the genetic to the ecosystem (see Biodiversity Goals
and Objectives section).

The remainder of this document describes the process developed by the
Goals Team for executing WH-1-3; i.e., the process of compiling and
developing national wildlife population, habitat, and biodiversity goals
and stepping them down through regional, ecosystem, and refuge levels.
The process is referred to as the "WH-1-3 process".

Number range CHAPTER**DEFINITIONS**

**Alliance:** A classification layer within the National Vegetation
Classification System that describes a group of associations sharing one
or more diagnostic species which, as a rule, are found in the uppermost
stratum of the vegetation.

**Association:** A classification layer within the National Vegetation
Classification System that describes a group of vegetation stands that
share one or more diagnostic overstory and understory species. These
elements occur as repeatable patterns of assemblages across the
landscape, and are generally found under similar habitat conditions.

**Coarse Filter:** A metaphor to express the idea that by conserving
representative samples of all the ecological communities of a given
region, the majority of species will be conserved.

**Conservation Lands:** Lands (federal, state, private etc.) which
presently have some type of restrictions designed to protect the habitat
and resources associated with it. The team has elected to use the GAP
definitions for management status 1, 2, and 3.

> Status 1: Areas with permanent protection from conversion of natural
> land cover and a management plan that allows for natural processes.
> Status 2: same as status 1, although the area may receive uses that
> degrade the quality of existing natural communities including the
> suppression of natural processes. Status 3: Areas with permanent
> protection from conversion for most of the area but where resource
> extraction (logging, mining), or modification (e.g., agricultural)
> occurs over a portion of the area. (See Scott et al. 1993, Edwards et
> al. 1994 for full definitions.) Many Refuge System lands that are
> highly manipulated to maximize their habitat value for certain species
> are covered in Status 3 lands.

**Conservation Target:** Species, species groups, or under-represented
habitats selected for specific management objectives in a landscape
planning unit. The term was coined by The Nature Conservancy.

**Ecological Integrity:** Natural biotic and abiotic composition,
structure, and functioning of ecosystems. The synthesis of biological
integrity and environmental health.

**Ecosystem:** Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal
communities and their associated non-living environment.

Number range CHAPTER**Ecosystem**

**Approach:** Protecting or restoring the ecological integrity of an
ecosystem in consultation and coordination with all Service programs and
partners.

**Ecosystem-level**

**Team:** A team of Refuge System employees and Service employees from
other divisions develop integrated conservation objectives at the
ecosystem level, with guidance from national and regional officials
(Service and non-Service). The team also includes partners representing
other conservation lands. Collectively the team can devise conservation
strategies for the ecosystem that meet the Service's and partners'
mandates. An ecosystem-level team will typically include the following
types of professional

**Ecosystem Unit:** An area delineated on the Service's watershed-based
map. The Service recognizes 53 ecosystem units in the United States.

**Fine Filter:** A metaphor to express the idea that some species need
to be conserved through individual efforts lest they fall through the
pores of a 'coarse filter' approach.

**Formation:** A level in the National Vegetation Classification System
based on ecological groupings of vegetation units with broadly defined
environmental, and additional vegetation and geomorphic factors in
common.

**GAP:** Gap Analysis Program, originated in the Service and now
administered by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the purposes of
identifying gaps in the conservation of biodiversity. Gap analysis
efforts are also made by other parties, especially state Heritage
Programs, usually in cooperation with the USGS. Gap analysis entails the
processing of large amounts of spatial data and is therefore largely
dependent upon GIS (geographic information system) technology.

Number range CHAPTER**Goal:** Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad
statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does
not define measurable units.

**Habitat:** A vegetative community or physiographically categorizable
area serving as a conglomerate of species-specific habitats. For
example, a "ponderosa pine forest habitat" in the Southwest typically
includes the biotic and abiotic features conducive to supporting
ponderosa pine, cliffrose, Arizona fescue, elk, wild turkey, timber
rattlesnakes, and other species. Used in this sense, habitat is roughly
synonymous with "habitat type", "plant community", and "ecosystem",
depending upon context. It may be used at any level of detail coarser
than species-specific. For example, one may refer to the various
associations, formations, or even classes of the National Vegetation
Classification System as "habitats".

**LAPS - Land**

**Acquisition Priority**

**System:** A process used to compare and rank refuge land protection
projects for budget purposes by completing a series of questions that
assess individual refuge contribution to conservation of Service Trust
Resources.

**National Vegetation**

**Classification**

**System:** A process/methodology adopted by the Federal Geographic Data
Committee to provide a recognized syntaxonomy of plant/habitat types for
the United States.

**NatureServe:** A science-based organization with a mission to develop,
manage, and distribute authoritative information critical to the
conservation of the world's biological diversity. NatureServe maintains
a comprehensive database of biological diversity.

**Objective:** A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much
we want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is
responsible for the work.

**PPP - Preliminary**

**Project Proposal:** Proposal from Service Regional Director to
Director that describes a project to expand or establish new National
Wildlife Refuges. Once signed by the Director, authorizes the Service to
conduct a detailed planning effort.

**WH-1-3 Process:** The process, as described in this document, for
executing Wildlife and Habitat Recommendations 1-3 of Fulfilling the
Promise; i.e., the process of compiling and developing national wildlife
population, habitat, and biodiversity goals and objectives and stepping
them down through regional, ecosystem, and refuge levels.

Number range CHAPTER**OVERVIEW AND KEY CONCEPTS**

**Using existing plans for identifying goals and objectives**

The Service is involved in the development of national and regional
plans for many species and species groups. National plans exist for many
species groups (Table 1) although the level of detail for quantitative
objectives provided in these plans varies widely. Many of the national
plans are supported by plans for smaller geographic areas. These plans
generally serve as sources for population and habitat objectives.

  -------------------------------- --------------------------------------
  **Conservation Target/Species    **Existing Guidance with Goals and
  Groups**                         Objectives**

  Migratory Birds                  Goals & objectives from flyways plans
                                   for waterfowl, and area plans for
                                   landbirds, waterbirds and shorebirds.

  Marine Mammals                   Management plans are available for all
                                   species.

  Fish                             Management plans by stocks or sites;
                                   national effort underway.

  Threatened and Endangered        Recovery plans, Habitat Conservation
  Species                          Plans, but not all listed species have
                                   plans at this time.

  Under-represented habitats       National GAP Analysis
  -------------------------------- --------------------------------------

**Table 1**. Species groups/habitats with existing National/regional
plans with population or habitat goals and objectives.

Developing a list of applicable national plans that contain population
or habitat goals or objectives is the first step in the WH-1-3 process.
For example, the North American Waterfowl Management plan describes the
goal, "Attain a black duck mid-winter population index of 385,000" (2000
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: 17). There are at least nine
plans to be considered for waterfowl conservation in the Alaska Region
of the Refuge System (Appendix A).

Migratory bird conservation plans are examples of multiple species plans
which step down objectives from large to smaller geographic scales. The
national waterfowl management plan, and the corresponding flyway and
joint venture (JV) plans provide clear objectives for many species of
waterfowl and their habitats at the flyway and JV level. Landbirds,
shorebirds, and waterbirds have similar plans with objectives down to
the scale of Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) or states, though the
waterbird plans at the BCR levels are still under development. The North
American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is integrating these plans
across the nation.

For marine mammals and migratory fish species, national and regional
plans are often focused on populations and stocks. These plans generally
provide goals and objectives for the conservation of populations. In
2002, recovery plans were available for 981 of the 1,258 listed species;
these plans provide very specific objectives.

No goals or objectives for under-representative habitats or plants exist
with the exception of goals found in recovery plans for plants that are
listed as threatened or endangered. There are several publications that
identify habitats (or ecosystems) of concern and prioritize these areas
based on levels of threats or other criteria, but these plans do not
state national or regional goals or objectives (e.g., Ricketts et. al.
1999; Stein et. al. 2000). Also, based on the IUCN-World Conservation
Union recommendation, The GAP Analysis Program of the U.S. Geological
Survey has a conceptual goal that at least 10% of each ecosystem be
conserved in conservation lands. The Gap Analysis Program of the U.S.
Geological Survey supports this recommendation as a political minimum
bar for widespread ecosystems. Clearly highly depleted ecosystems would
require greater conservation concern.

**The rationale for using both fine and coarse filters in identifying
FWS habitat objectives**

Because conservation targets range in scale from species and populations
to ecosystems and landscapes, the term 'fine' and 'coarse' filter
conservation provides a convenient metaphor in simplifying the complex
spatial relationships inherent in natural systems. Coarse filter
conservation in its simplest form focuses on conserving representative
samples of all ecological communities in a specified region. By serving
as a coarse filter, conservation targets, such as vegetative communities
act as a surrogate in conserving the majority of species in a region.
Employing a coarse filter can protect potentially important ecosystem
linkages and processes, as well as preemptively protecting species
before they become endangered. However, because critical or important
species may fall through the pores of a coarse filter, fine filter
efforts aimed at conserving specific populations of species are
necessary. Examples include rare or endangered species which may have
small or severely limited habitat distributions. Additionally, species
with large ranges, i.e. migratory birds, may use a variety of unique
habitats depending upon the season. Thus using a fine filter approach in
understanding the specific quality, quantity, and distribution of these
habitats across a variety of ecosystems is important to maintaining
populations.

The combination of employing both a fine and coarse filter approach
ensures that the Refuge System's habitat objectives reflect both species
objectives as well as the broader ecosystem objectives necessary to
undertake a integrated approach to conservation at multiple scales.
Either approach taken alone would be incomplete in identifying the high
priority habitats necessary for conserving species and the larger
ecological communities for which these species depend. By applying both
fine and coarse filters in identifying FWS habitat objectives, we
capture the appropriate amount and geographic distribution of habitat
required to achieve the Refuge System mission.

This process differs from other established ecoregional planning
processes used by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) or the National Gap
Analysis Program (GAP) in its application of the fine filter
conservation targets. Our process is designed to ensure that
conservation efforts address the quantity or quality habitat necessary
to meet population objectives rather than focusing on the presence or
absence of species across the landscape. This results in a comparatively
greater emphasis on the fine filter approach than the TNC and GAP
programs. Through collaborative ecoregional planning our process
involves the larger conservation community in the achievement of both
fine and coarse filter objectives for the Service as well as those of
our partners.

**Identifying the appropriate ecoregional planning unit**

The Service has adopted the U.S. Geological Survey\'s Hydrologic Unit
Map as the foundation for organizing and managing staff and program
capabilities at the ecoregion scale (052 FW 1.6.A). The Service
recognizes 53 ecosystems, and these units are integral in the WH-1-3
process of stepping down goals and objectives to the refuges from the
national and regional levels (see "Integration of Population,
Biodiversity, and Habitat Goals and Objectives"). However, we are
flexible in the application of these boundaries, pursuant to the
following sections of 052 FW 1:

> **Section 1.6.B. Use of "Focus Areas".** "The Service's ecosystems
> boundaries map provides a suitable framework around which to mobilize
> diverse staff resources. However, the most appropriate ecosystem
> boundaries can often be defined by the issues or problems to be
> resolved resulting in the delineation of smaller areas than the
> Service's ecoregion units. Focus areas allow the Service to adapt to
> ongoing State regional, or other management initiatives. The ecosystem
> approach is intended to be flexible enough to allow the Service and
> its partners to customize the area of focus to fit the issue at hand."
>
> **Section 1.6.C. Working Across Ecosystems.** "The Service's watershed
> map does not preclude the need to address important conservation
> objectives for larger areas. Fish and wildlife population and habitat
> goals are based upon species biology, population dynamics, and
> ecological processes that may be international in scope (e.g.,
> migratory waterfowl). Service managers must plan based on objectives
> developed at multiple scales simultaneously. Planning and implementing
> management actions within the Service's ecosystem units must be
> flexible enough to address site-specific conservation priorities and
> reflect the broader population and habitat needs of widely ranging
> species."

Other resource agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service), private
conservation groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy), and public and
private consortiums representing various geographic areas or taxonomic
groups of interest (e.g., landbirds, shorebirds, anadromous fish) have
also adopted different boundaries to facilitate conservation planning.
For example, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)
delineated 35 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the United States
(coterminous US and Alaksa) to serve as the geographical template for
biologically-based planning and bird conservation within North America.
BCRs encompass landscapes with similar bird communities, habitats, and
resource issues and are based on ecological units delineated by the
Commission for Environmental Conservation (U.S. NABCI Committee 2000).
This geographic framework is endorsed by the Service, 8 other Federal
agencies, Canada, Mexico, and the four partnership-based bird
conservation initiatives (Partners In Flight, U.S. Shorebird Plan, N.A.
Waterbird Plan, and the N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan). Basin-wide
conservation plans for anadromous fish represent another example of
conservation planning at an ecosystem scale with the planning boundaries
defined by the biological characteristics of the target resource.

While the geographic boundaries of these existing plans may not coincide
with Service ecosystem boundaries, these plans provide
biologically-based goals and objectives that can be cross-walked to
Service ecosystems and those of our partners; combined with goals and
objectives for other species to develop multi-species,
landscape-oriented ecosystem management plans; or stepped down to
refuges or other local management units in collaboration with partners.
While Service ecosystems will continue to serve as a geographic template
for organizing Service staff and programs, boundaries for planning and
implementation may be modified as needed to best address resource issues
in collaboration with our partners.

**The role of partners in implementing the process.**

The Service takes an ecosystem approach to conservation that depends
upon the formation and maintenance of partnerships. These concepts are
presented as policy in the "Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife
Conservation" (052 FW 1, 1996). The goal of the ecosystem approach is
"the effective conservation of natural biological diversity through
perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems." The critical role of
partnerships in conservation at the ecoregion scale is acknowledged in
that "The Service cannot fulfill this goal alone. Only through an
ecosystem approach where the Service works with others to conserve the
Nation's biological heritage will the goal be realized." (052 FW 1.3.B).

A collaborative partnership approach to identifying conservation
targets, goals, and objectives is envisioned as a means to enhance the
effectiveness of Service conservation actions and those of our partners.
Defining a geographic framework for planning and implementing fish and
wildlife conservation at the ecoregion scale and developing mutually
beneficial partnerships are fundamental to the process of stepping down
national and regional population and habitat goals and conserving
biodiversity within the National Wildlife Refuge System (WH-1-3 in
*Fulfilling the Promise*).

Partnerships are fundamental to both planning and implementing fish,
wildlife, and biodiversity conservation at all scales. While National
Wildlife Refuges are recognized as anchors for ecosystem and
biodiversity conservation, clearly the refuge system cannot achieve the
goals of multi-species and ecosystem management alone. There are
numerous examples of successful partnerships in conservation planning
for fish and wildlife (e.g., Joint Ventures under the North American
Waterfowl Conservation Plan).

Partnerships at the ecosystem scale are integral to implementing the
WH-1-3 process. Service ecosystem teams, JV's, and multi-agency
endangered species recovery teams are examples of existing partnerships
that illustrate this process. We involve our partners in the process of
stepping down goals and objectives from the national level through the
regional, ecosystem, and refuge levels. With our partners, we identify
common priorities and conservation strategies for fish, wildlife, and
biodiversity conservation at the ecosystem scale.

## Use of spatial and relational databases to organize objectives

Implementation of the process will require a simple but useful
relational database to organize objectives for each conservation target
across multiple scales (national, regional, ecosystem). In other words,
each conservation target will be linked to its population (or
biodiversity) objective, habitat objective (by season or life stage if
necessary), habitat conserved on refuges and other conservation lands,
the current habitat deficit, and other necessary data fields. The
relational database will be linked to spatial data contained in a GIS to
provide the user the ability to visualize the level of protection (and
lack of protection for individual or multiple conservation targets).
This information can then be used as a tool by individual refuges to set
their own objectives and priorities. The database can also be shared
with partners in developing a comprehensive understanding of the
landscape and quite simply, what organizations and resources are needed
to overcome existing habitat deficits. A more detailed description of
this database and its required fields exists in the following section.

Number range CHAPTER**POPULATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES**:

USING A FINE FILTER APPROACH TO IDENTIFY HABITAT OBJECTIVES

(Implementation of Fulfilling the Promise Recommendations WH-1, WH-2)

The process for executing population objectives through habitat
objectives is patterned after ecoregional planning efforts like those
conducted by Joint Venture and some Service Ecosystem teams. Existing
conservation plans that the Service helped to develop at national and
regional levels provide the initial suite of conservation targets and
their objectives. Some plans use individual species to represent a group
of species that utilize the same type of habitat. For instance a
particular species of grassland bird with relatively large habitat
requirements may be listed as a conservation target with a specified
habitat objective. Meeting the objective for that species may
simultaneously meet the objective for other species in the suite that
have similar habitat needs. Rather than establishing each species within
the group as a conservation target, we adopt the same clustering that
occurs in the existing plans.

Each organizational level of the Service has a role in selecting
conservation targets and formulating objectives, but the more technical
aspects of the process occur at the ecosystem level where more specific
objectives are formulated. The process is iterative and dynamic because
improved ecological understanding requires periodic revision of
objectives and estimates of deficits (Figure 2). The remainder of this
section describes the tasks to be completed at each organizational level
of the Service. An example of the process, using the wood thrush as the
conservation target, is provided in Appendix B.

**National**

A national WH-1-2 team identifies all existing plans that span more than
one Region, were developed with Service involvement, and contain
population and/or habitat objectives for species or species groups. From
these plans, the team creates a comprehensive list of all conservation
targets (species or species groups) identified in the plans and their
corresponding objectives. This list is provided to each Region where it
is expanded to include species unique to each Region, and refined
through the processes at the Regional and Ecosystem scales. Figure 3
illustrates the process steps at the National level.

With regional feedback, the national team maintains an additional,
comprehensive list of conservation targets and objectives that includes
those particular to the Regions. The national team uses this
comprehensive list to identify missing or redundant efforts among
regions.

![](media/image2.wmf)

![](media/image3.wmf)

In summary, the National team:

![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.8777777777777778in"
height="2.6319444444444446in"}

1)  Identifies the conservation plans that cover areas broader than one
    Region. These plans only include those that the Service has
    developed independently or in partnership.

2)  Creates a list of all the conservation targets (species or species
    groups) and the corresponding population and/or habitat objectives
    provided in the plans.

3)  Provides the list to Regional teams.

4)  After the Regions complete their portions of the process, the
    national team revises and updates the national list of conservation
    targets.

Evaluates the list and objectives to identify missing or redundant
effort among regions.

Number range CHAPTER

Number range CHAPTER**Regional**

With the guidance of the Regional Conservation Goals Coordinator, a
WH-1-2 team selects the national conservation targets that are relevant
to the Region. The team is comprised of members representing each
resource program. Using plans that are unique to the Region (e.g., North
American polar bear conservation plan, unique to Region 7) the regional
WH-1-2 team expands the list of conservation targets stepped down from
the national WH-1-2 team so that all conservation targets and their
objectives are compiled. This comprehensive list is organized and
prioritized to assist refuges in making choices between conservation
targets. A modification of the process used in Region 3 is presented in
Appendix C as a prioritization strategy.

Number range CHAPTERThe process used by the regional WH-1-2 team is
iterative (Figure 4), whereby input from each Ecosystem is solicited,
discussed, evaluated and incorporated into the final regional list. At a
minimum, the team uses the following criteria, which reflect priorities
from Migratory Birds, Ecological Services and Fisheries. (No criteria
are listed for marine mammals because each Service trust species has an
individual management plan and is automatically included as a Service
conservation target.)

**Migratory Birds:**

1)  Species included in the Service's Birds of Conservation Concern
    (2001);

2)  Harvested species;

3)  Invasive species (which include endemic 'nuisance' species).

![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.85625in" height="2.09375in"}Number range
CHAPTER**Endangered Species**:

1)  Listed, proposed and candidate species;

2)  Rare/declining species for which Service sponsored conservation
    actions are being planned or are currently underway;

3)  Listed species undergoing reclassification or delisting;

4)  Species debited within 5 years, undergoing post-delisting monitoring
    activities.

**Fisheries:**

1)  Native, interjurisdictional species;

2)  Aquatic nuisance species;

3)  Aquatic habitat protection and restoration;

4)  Recreational species and mitigation to meet lost fishing
    opportunities.

Number range CHAPTERThe final list of regional conservation targets and
corresponding population objectives (where available in the plans) is
compiled in a relational database (e.g., *Access*, *Oracle*). The key
components of the database include the conservation target, associated
species (the list of species, if any, that are represented by the
conservation target), population objective(s) (by season, if
applicable), habitat description, habitat objective (if available and
applicable), and source plan reference.

The relational database is distributed to each ecosystem within the
Region and also to the national WH-1-2 team (for purposes of maintaining
the System-wide conservation target list). The ecosystem-level teams use
the database and expand the information to create an ecosystem level
assessment of the habitat availability for each conservation target
objective. A linked spatially explicit GIS database is developed to
display habitat distributions and protection status throughout the
ecosystem. Once the ecosystem-level process is complete, the regional
team compiles the ecosystem objectives and evaluates the combined
objectives to see if they meet the regional/national objectives
described in the plans. Regions are responsible for ensuring that
appropriate ecosystem-level teams are created and that partners are well
represented on these teams. In the development of these teams, regions
strive to avoid duplication of effort. For example, if a Joint Venture
group is developing an ecoregional plan for migratory birds, the Region
may provide additional resources to expand the plan to include other
conservation targets (e.g., aquatic resources, T & E species\...) rather
than assembling an independent ecosystem-level team.

In summary, the Regional team:

1)  Assembles conservation plans that are unique to the region.

2)  Develops a comprehensive regional list of conservation targets. This
    list includes the conservation targets identified at the national
    level, as well as from plans that are unique to the Regions.

3)  Refines the lists of conservation targets based on criteria that
    reflect priorities of each Service division.

4)  Populates a relational database that includes the revised
    conservation targets, associated species (those that may be
    represented by the conservation target), population objectives for
    each season (these would be taken directly from the conservation
    plans), general habitat description, habitat objectives (if
    available in plans) and source plan reference.

5)  Provides the database to ecosystem level teams and to the national
    team.

6)  After the ecosystem level teams have completed their portions of the
    process, evaluates the conservation target list and associated
    objectives to identify missing or redundant effort between
    ecosystems.

7)  Works with appropriate groups and technical experts to revise
    objectives if necessary.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.672222222222222in"
height="2.7840277777777778in"}**Ecosystem**

In each ecosystem, an ecosystem-level team (see Definitions) selects
relevant conservation targets from the Regional conservation target
database. Figure 5 illustrates the process steps at the ecosystem level.
Because the ecosystem level is where most of the coordination with
partners occurs, new conservation targets and their objectives are
included into the ecosystem database along with identifying codes so
conservation targets can be displayed together or sorted by primary
managing agency or partner.

Once ecosystem conservation targets and population objectives are
identified, the team uses the appropriate plans, species and habitat
Number range CHAPTERdistribution maps, and sound professional judgment
to formulate habitat objectives. These habitat objectives are derived
from objectives in plans but are tailored to the ecosystem. Most
regional conservation plans cover areas that are different than Service
ecosystem boundaries, so each ecosystem-level team must establish
objectives based on relevant plans that overlap their ecosystem. This
requires merging information between plans and determining the best
approach to identify how much of each objective should be covered within
the ecosystem. The simplest approach to formulating objectives is based
on the proportion of the ecosystem that covers the area described in the
objective. For example, for a species with a distribution encompassing 2
million acres in ecosystem A and 1 million acres in ecosystem B, two
thirds of its population and habitat objectives may be assigned to
ecosystem A and the other third to ecosystem B. Normally, however, the
team considers factors such as population and habitat distribution,
competing species, and habitat connectivity in refining the allocation
of objectives.

In order to understand how habitat for different conservation targets is
distributed across the ecosystem and conservation lands, habitat maps
must be entered into a GIS system. Habitat maps can be digitized from
existing maps or from models that identify habitat based on known
species-habitat relationships. This spatially explicit information is
linked to the relational database. Developing the habitat models and
maps that incorporate habitat quality, size and juxtaposition
requirements is an integral step to this process. Unfortunately, habitat
models are not available for many species and will need to be developed.
Guidance on developing habitat models is widely available in the
literature and not repeated here; however, it is important to recognize
that habitat models can range from very elaborate to very crude
depending on available information. Because this is a dynamic process,
crude models can be updated and revised as soon as improved information
becomes available.

In addition to habitat maps for each of the ecosystem's conservation
targets, a stewardship layer of conservation lands (see Definitions)
within the ecosystem is obtained or created. Many states have GAP
programs that have compiled GIS layers of conservation lands. In other
cases, ecosystem-level teams have these layers constructed by ecosystem
or regional GIS personnel.

The conservation lands GIS layer is overlain with conservation targets
habitat map(s). This spatial relationship exercise is used to calculate
the amount of habitat that occurs within the conservation lands. These
maps are important aids to refuge managers and partners to make
decisions about management opportunities at the landscape scale. This
information is entered into an expanded version of the conservation
target database stepped down from the Region. The regional relational
database included the following fields:

-   Conservation target;

-   Associated species;

-   Population objective(s) (by season, if applicable);

-   Habitat descriptions;

-   Habitat objectives (if available)

-   Source plan reference

Ecosystem-level teams add the following data fields:

-   Habitat description (a new field if the description for the
    ecosystem is more specific than at the regional level);

-   Habitat objective (by season or life stage if necessary, may be
    represented in acres, sites or other metric as appropriate for the
    conservation target);

-   Amount of the habitat currently conserved;

-   Habitat deficit within ecosystem conservation lands;

-   Habitat conserved on refuges (ideally by for each individual refuge
    within the ecosystem);

-   Habitat conserved on other conservation units;

-   Habitat available on other lands;

-   FWS or partner code identifier.

    This expanded database and corresponding GIS layers are provided to
    the regional WH-1-2 team, which evaluates the conservation target
    objectives from all of the ecosystems to identify gaps or
    redundancies. The database is used as a tool for coordinated
    ecosystem and refuge planning. As progress is made toward fulfilling
    objectives, the database is revised. New conservation targets and
    objectives are added as necessary.

    Table 2 provides an example of a portion of an ecosystem objectives
    database from the Gulf of Maine Rivers ecosystem. Note that the
    "Habitat (General)" column in Table 2 displays habitat in a course
    classification scale. In reality habitat descriptions would be much
    more complex and would be based on the habitat models for each
    conservation target. Typically, habitat objectives for conservation
    targets will be described in terms of acres or hectares, however,
    some conservation targets such as many fish species, colonial
    nesting birds, and marine mammals may have objectives based on
    linear (i.e. miles of river with specific characteristics) features
    or points (number of colony sites supporting XXX breeding pairs).
    The process works the same for these non-area objectives.

    In summary, an ecosystem-level team (see Definitions):

1)  Identifies conservation targets from the Regional list that apply to
    the FWS ecosystem.

2)  Develops ecosystem-level habitat objectives for each conservation
    target, by season or life stage, if necessary.

3)  Creates a spatially explicit GIS data layer for each conservation
    target using existing habitat models, or develops new models, to
    identify the conservation target's habitat or potential habitat
    within the ecosystem.

4)  Creates a GIS layer to show conservation lands that fit GAP's land
    status 1, 2 and 3 rankings within the ecosystem. Many ecosystems
    will be able to use the stewardship layer created by the GAP program
    for each state.

5)  Complete relational database analysis.

6)  Provide database to Refuges and to Regional team.

The completed ecosystem-level relational and spatial database becomes a
tool for conservation planning. The Service and ecosystem partners have
various options to respond to habitat deficits

within an ecosystem:

1)  Work together with other conservation land managers to address as
    many habitat objectives as possible on lands currently within
    conservation lands.

2)  Consider partnerships with other land owners to continue to provide
    habitat outside of the conservation units.

3)  Alter management of existing refuges to maximize benefits for
    selected Service conservation targets.

4)  Consider acquiring new conservation lands (See discussion on
    Strategic Growth).

+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Co       | *        | **Area  | **C  | **D  | *    | *     | **  |
| nservation | *Habitat | Needed  | urre | efic | *Con | *Cons | Ava |
| Target**   | (Ge      | (from   | ntly | it** | serv | erved | ila |
|            | neral)** | Object  | Con  |      | ed** | on    | ble |
|            |          | ives)** | serv | **in |      | other | on  |
|            |          |         | ed** | Eco  | **on | Co    | ot  |
|            |          |         |      | syst | R    | nserv | her |
|            |          |         |      | em** | efug | ation | l   |
|            |          |         |      |      | es** | Un    | and |
|            |          |         |      |      |      | its** | s** |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Wood     | Mixed    | 3.6     | 1.5  | 2.5  | 22   | 1.478 | 5   |
| thrush**   | hardwood | million | mil  | mil  | ,379 | mi    | m   |
|            | forest   | acres   | lion | lion |      | llion | ill |
|            |          |         |      |      |      |       | ion |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **         | Early    | 3.3     | 2.7  | 600  | 113  | 2.6   | 7.9 |
| Woodcock** | Succ     | million | mil  | ,000 | ,470 | mi    | m   |
|            | essional |         | lion |      |      | llion | ill |
|            |          |         |      |      |      |       | ion |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Arctic   | Coastal  | 5       | 3    | 2    | 3    | 2     | 3   |
| Terns**    | islands  | c       | (w   | colo |      | is    | (   |
|            |          | olonies | /500 | nies |      | lands | \<5 |
|            |          |         | pa   |      |      | (\    | 00) |
|            |          | (\>500  | irs) |      |      | <500) |     |
|            |          | pairs)  |      |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| *          | Maritime | 41,000  | 15   | 26   | 4    | \~1   | 64, |
| *Saltmarsh | or       | acres   | ,000 | ,000 | ,100 | 1,000 | 000 |
| s          | s        |         |      | plus |      |       |     |
| harptailed | altmarsh |         |      | buf  |      |       |     |
| Sparrow**  |          |         |      | fers |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Black    | In       | 175,000 | 15   | 159  | 3    | 1     | 2   |
| duck**     | tertidal | acres   | ,200 | ,800 | ,400 | 5,200 | 58, |
|            | and      |         |      |      |      |       | 000 |
| **(wi      | shallow  |         |      |      |      |       |     |
| ntering)** | subtidal |         |      |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Atlantic | Rivers   | (Lacked | 45   |      | 2    | 1     | 29, |
| Salmon**   | w/ocean  | s       | ,653 |      | ,691 | 6,000 | 000 |
|            | access   | pecific | a    |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | geo     | cres |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | graphic | (    |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | lo      | inc. |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | cations | m    |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | for     | igra |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | this    | tion |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | e       | habi |      |      |       |     |
|            |          | xample) | tat) |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **         | Coastal  | 1200    | 286  | 900  | 51   | 235   | 2,  |
| Redbellied | plain    | acres   | a    |      |      |       | 420 |
| Cooter**   | ponds in |         | cres |      |      |       |     |
|            | Plymouth |         |      |      |      |       |     |
|            | county   |         |      |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Furbish  | Riparian | 8 to 13 | 2    | 6 to | 0    | 2     | 62  |
| L          | habitat  | miles   | m    | 11   |      | miles | mi  |
| ousewort** | along    |         | iles | m    |      |       | les |
|            | St.      |         |      | iles |      |       |     |
|            | John's   |         |      |      |      |       |     |
|            | River    |         |      |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+
| **Short    | Short    | 1.65    | 7.6  | 0    | 1.1  | 8     | 7.4 |
| medium     | medium   | million | mil  |      | mil  | mi    | m   |
| x          | xer      | acres   | lion |      | lion | llion | ill |
| eromorphic | omorphic |         |      |      |      |       | ion |
| gr         | gr       |         |      |      |      |       |     |
| asslands** | asslands |         |      |      |      |       |     |
+------------+----------+---------+------+------+------+-------+-----+

**Table 2**. Examples of results from an ecosystem analysis for nine
conservation targets. All results are hypothetical and more detailed
information would be provided in the relational ecosystem level
database.

**Refuge**

![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.027083333333334in" height="6.75in"}The
ecosystem objectives database includes a wide-range of conservation
targets identified by the Service and our partners. For the Service,
these conservation targets include species, species groups, and
underrepresented habitats (see following section). During development or
revision of CCPs and HMPs each Refuge, in coordination with "appropriate
FWS regional staff", selects the suite of Service conservation targets
and objectives to be managed for on the Refuge based on the following
criteria and proceeds through the process (Figure 6):

1\) Establishing orders. Are the conservation targets within the scope
of the Refuge purposes?

2\) Statutory mandates. Is the Service required or guided by statutory
law to manage for the conservation target? (For example, the
conservation target may be a trust species.)

3\) Ecological integrity and other Service policies. Is the conservation
target appropriate considering the ecological integrity policy (601 FW
3) and other Service policies?

During the CCP and HMP processes, the following factors are considered
in prioritizing Number range CHAPTERconservation targets:

1)  Magnitude of habitat deficit and risk.

2)  Relative importance of your Refuge to the conservation target.

3)  Responsiveness to management. Some conservation targets may not
    respond to our management, especially where the population is
    affected by factors in other geographic areas.

4)  Economic efficiency. How do we maximize conservation benefits per
    unit cost?

The outcome of this process provides Refuge Managers with better tools
for making defensible, sound biological judgments for the management and
future growth of the Refuge. As a tool, it provides the manager with the
ability to better communicate to partners and the public the role and
function of a Refuge not only within the larger Refuge System but within
the US protected area network as a whole.

Partners may ask to have non-trust species included among the
conservation targets for a Refuge. These conservation targets may be
appropriate, especially in situations where the Refuge contains
important habitat components. These potential conservation targets are
evaluated by the Regional Refuge Chief to determine if the additional
conservation target should be selected for management on the refuge.

For most refuges, only a subset of conservation targets can be managed
for at any one time. Many refuges will be faced with difficult decisions
during the CCP and HMP processes about which conservation targets to
select and prioritize. The ecosystem objectives database will help
managers to coordinate with other refuge personnel, other Service
programs, and partners in making these decisions.

It should be noted that the intent of the coordination within the
ecosystem-level teams during the selection of conservation targets is
for all players to consider the full extent of landscape level planning,
but not to have the ecosystem-level team dictate to any partner how they
should manage their respective lands. Each participant will ultimately
be responsible for final selection of conservation targets on lands that
they manage. In some cases refuge managers may select conservation
targets based on shortages of habitat or eliminate targets based on
existing abundance. However the Establishing orders, statutory mandates,
ecological integrity and other Service policies, and guidance from line
authority within the refuge system will ultimately dictate final
selection of conservation targets for each refuge. For NWRs, the CCP and
HMP processes are the appropriate forum to make these determinations.

In summary, at the Refuge level, Refuge managers:

> 1\) Use the ecosystem relational database and linked GIS, to select
> conservation targets for refuge based upon Refuge Purposes, Trust
> Species responsibilities, and other Service policies.
>
> 2\) Addition of conservation targets on a refuge that do not meet the
> above criteria must be approved by the Regional Refuge Chief.
>
> 3\) In the CCP and HMP processes prioritize the conservation targets
> and objectives based on: the magnitude of the habitat deficit;
> relative importance of the refuge to the conservation target; the
> conservation target's responsiveness to management; and the economic
> efficiency of the necessary management actions compared to other
> conservation targets.
>
> 4\) Incorporate the conservation targets and objectives when making
> other refuge management decisions.

**BIODIVERSITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:**

USING A COARSE FILTER APPROACH TO IDENTIFY HABITAT OBJECTIVES

(Implementation of Fulfilling the Promise Recommendations WH-2, WH-3)

The Refuge Improvement Act calls for the Secretary of the Interior to
"ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans" (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(A)). The Service
defines biological integrity as "Biotic composition, structure, and
functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with
historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that
shape genomes, organisms, and communities." Biological diversity is
defined as "the variety of life and its processes, including the variety
of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities
and ecosystems in which they occur". Environmental health is defined as
"Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other
abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the
natural abiotic processes that shape the environment" (601 FW 3.6).

Native migratory birds, aquatic species, anadromous fish, and threatened
and endangered species and their habitats are especially
well-represented on the Refuge System and thus contribute to
biodiversity conservation and biological integrity. However, the Refuge
Improvement Act and WH-3 call for the Refuge System to accommodate a
broader perspective of biodiversity that goes beyond the focus on
traditional trust species. As stated in draft policy 601 FW 1.5, "there
is a clear need for a network of lands and waters representing the
diversity of landscapes and ecosystems of the United States dedicated to
the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants." Therefore, one of the 5
goals of the Refuge System is to "preserve and restore representative
ecosystems of the United States, including the natural processes
characteristic of those ecosystems" (601 FW 1.6.E Draft).

In fulfilling recommendation WH-3, we acknowledge the following
principles of wildlife ecology and conservation biology:

> 1\) Native plant and animal species richness is an important and
> useful indicators of biodiversity;
>
> 2\) Species are a function of habitats;
>
> 3\) Animal habitats are characterized largely by plant species
> composition, while plant habitats are characterized largely by
> physiographic features; and,
>
> 4\) Conservation of a broad range of physiographic features and plant
> communities will ensure the conservation of a broad range of species
> and other components of biodiversity.

A comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation must be simplified
for purposes of Refuge System management. It would be neither practical
nor possible, for example, to ensure that the Refuge System protects
every unit and combination of units of biodiversity from the genetic to
the ecosystem level. We therefore adopt a "coarse-filter approach" to
join with the population-based "fine-filter approach" for biodiversity
conservation. This approach is consistent with the recommendation of the
IUCN--World Conservation Union and the Gap Analysis Program of the U.S.
Geological Survey that [\>]{.underline}10% of remaining habitats (or
ecosystems) be conserved. A similar approach has been adopted in British
Columbia, which instituted a "protected areas strategy" in 1992, calling
for 12% of the land area of its habitats to be protected by the
provincial government.

We emphasize that the 10% guideline is a minimum guideline and that, in
many cases, more than 10% conservation of remaining habitats is
appropriate, especially for habitats that have already been
substantially converted for the sake of economic production or other
purposes. We also emphasize that, for habitats currently having more
than 10% coverage in the conservation estate, no "surplus" of habitat
conservation is implied. A rule of thumb in conservation biology
(stemming from the species-area curve) is that protecting 10% of the
landscape from development will result in the conservation of only 50%
of the species and that species are rapidly lost when further
development occurs. The 10% guideline was developed partly because, for
most habitats, it has become unrealistic to expect more conservation in
the face of economic growth and concomitant land conversion. To some
extent, we depend on other conservation measures (for example, recovery
plans) to conserve species that would otherwise not be protected by the
coarse-filter approach.

The coarse-filter approach requires the use of a habitat classification
system for identifying and inventorying habitats. We recognize the
National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), which is sanctioned by
the Federal Geographic Data Committee, as an appropriate system for this
purpose. The NVCS is a hierarchical system comprising two tiers. The
first tier is based on physiographic characteristics and contains 3
basic levels (Table 3). The second tier is based on floristic features
and consists of 2 levels.

We identified the formation level of the NVCS as an appropriate level,
at this point in time, for constructing a coarse filter for biodiversity
conservation. The appropriateness of the formation level is based upon
four major reasons: 1) Formations are designated at the hierarchical
boundary of physiographic and floristic features and, therefore, are
reasonable proxies for a wide variety of plant and animal habitats; 2) A
gap analysis of formations in the United States is a feasible and
affordable endeavor in the immediate future; 3) Unlike associations,
formations are relatively easy to identify in the field by most refuge
staff.

However, there are other habitat classification alternatives that may be
useful, in the interim, for constructing a coarse filter for
biodiversity conservation. One alternative is an overlay of Bailey's
ecoregions and the natural or semi-natural land cover types of the
National Land Cover Database. Dietz and Czech (under review) have
already conducted a national gap analysis using this overlay although it
is even coarser than a formation level assessment.

  --------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------
  **Level**       **Primary Basis for   **Example**            **Number in
                  Classification**                             North America
                                                               (north of
                                                               Mexico)**

  Tier I (Based                                                
  on                                                           
  Physiography)                                                

  Class           Structure of          Woodland               7
                  vegetation                                   

  Subclass        Leaf phenology        Evergreen Woodland     22

  Formation       Additional            Saturated Temperate or 231
                  physiognomic and      Subpolar Needle-leaved 
                  environmental         Evergreen Woodland     
                  factors, including                           
                  hydrology                                    

  **Tier II                                                    
  (Based on                                                    
  Floristics)**                                                

  Alliance        Dominant/diagnostic   Longleaf Pine -        1,700\*
                  species of the        Saturated Woodland     
                  uppermost or dominant                        
                  stratum                                      

  Association     Additional            Longleaf Pine / Little 4,750\*
                  dominant/diagnostic   Gallberry / Carolina   
                  species from any      Wiregrass Woodland     
                  strata                                       
  --------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------

\* approximations obtained from Kat Maybury, vegetation ecologist,
NatureServe

**Table 3**. Structure of National Vegetation Classification System
(modified from *Seeing the Forest and the Trees*, 1999, The Nature
Conservancy).

Number range CHAPTERThe selection of a habitat classification
alternative for developing the prototypical coarse filter for
biodiversity conservation will be based largely on technical and fiscal
restraints and opportunities. However, we expect to adopt the
"ecological systems" described and categorized by NatureServe once they
are mapped throughout the U.S. Ecological systems combine vegetation
classification with ecological processes and are a meaningful
representation of biodiversity and ecosystem health.

**Developing a Coarse-filter biodiversity conservation plan for the
NWRS**

Constructing a coarse filter for biodiversity conservation entails the
involvement of Refuge System personnel at all geographic scales and
administrative levels. The primary administrative distinctions for this
purpose are national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge. Development of
habitat representation objectives begins at the national level. These
objectives are stepped down through regional and ecosystem levels to the
refuge level in an iterative process. In many cases national personnel
will consult with regional personnel in developing biodiversity habitat
objectives, and in like fashion regional personnel will consult with
ecosystem personnel, who will consult with refuge personnel.

**National**

Implementation of the 10% habitat coverage objective for
under-represented habitats requires a national gap analysis. The only
national gap analysis available thus far is the one conducted by Dietz
and Czech (under review) using a combination of ecoregions and cover
types. It does not include Alaska and Hawaii. However, national gap
analyses using various habitat classification systems (and encompassing
Alaska and Hawaii) are expected in the coming years.

The two major products of a national gap analysis will be a map of the
habitats in the United States, overlain with the boundaries of
conservation areas, and a gap analysis table. Figure 7 provides an
example of a map of NVCS formations for one state.

The gap analysis table will include all habitats found in the 48
contiguous states, acres of each habitat , acres of each habitat found
in each conservation lands category (e.g., national wildlife refuges,
national parks, state wildlife management areas, etc.), and "habitat
coverage ratio" (i.e., habitat acreage found in the conservation estate
divided by acreage of that habitat in the 48 states).

The gap analysis table is converted to a database (Table 4) in which
each habitat constitutes a conservation target. In most cases the
habitat representation objective will be conservation of 10% of the
remaining acreage in the United States. Some habitats are already so
heavily depleted in the United States that the 10% conservation
objective is insufficient, in which case, higher objectives are set.
(For example, see Table 4, "Tall sod temperate grassland".)

Decisions on these cases are made by the national habitat representation
team (assembled as described below). The deficit for each habitat is the
objective minus the existing acreage in conservation lands. Habitat
representation objectives do not commit the Refuge System to managing or
acquiring lands for the purposes of eliminating deficits, but allow
managers to make more informed decisions. The database reveals what
types of habitats are under-represented in the nation's conservation
lands. This information, in combination with population-based habitat
objectives, is used for making management and planning decisions.

To assist the regions in interregional coordination, a small and
efficient national habitat representation team with members from the
appropriate Divisions steps down habitat representation objectives that
span more than one Region. The team may invite experts in vegetation
ecology to serve as *ad hoc* team members. In formulating step-down
objectives, the team may consider fine-tuning some parts of the coarse
filter. . For example, in the NVCS, the "tall temperate grassland with a
sparse cold-deciduous tree layer" formation consists of two alliances.
Only one of these, the *Quercus macrocarpa* -- (*Quercus alba*) wooded
herbaceous alliance (deep-soil oak savannah), is heavily depleted. The
team may therefore suggest an allocation for this formation that is
weighted toward the deep-soil oak savannah alliance and therefore toward
Regions 3 and 6, where virtually all of this alliance exists.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.802777777777778in"
height="5.3694444444444445in"}**Figure 7.** Kansas Gap Formations Map
from Region 6.

+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| **Cons   | **Exa | **    | **     | *     | **  | *     | **Com   |
| ervation | mples | Acres | Conser | *Curr | Def | *Curr | ments** |
| Target** | of    | in    | vation | ently | ici | ently |         |
|          | Quali | conti | Objec  | in    | t** | in    |         |
|          | fying | guous | tive** | Co    |     | R     |         |
|          | "Hab  | 48    |        | nserv |     | efuge |         |
|          | itats | sta   |        | ation |     | Sys   |         |
|          | "\*** | tes** |        | Est   |     | tem** |         |
|          |       |       |        | ate** |     |       |         |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| S        | Hamm  | 5,00  | 5      | 10    | 4   | 5     |         |
| aturated | ocks, | 0,000 | 00,000 | 0,000 | 00, | 0,000 |         |
| t        | Ba    |       |        |       | 000 |       |         |
| emperate | yhead |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| seasonal | fo    |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| e        | rests |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| vergreen |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| forest   |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| Se       | Har   | 7,00  | 7      | 90    | No  | 5     | Mostly  |
| asonally | dwood | 0,000 | 00,000 | 0,000 | d   | 0,000 | in      |
| flooded  | sw    |       |        |       | efi |       | N       |
| cold-d   | amps, |       |        |       | cit |       | ational |
| eciduous | flood |       |        |       |     |       | Forest  |
| woodland | plain |       |        |       |     |       | System  |
|          | wood  |       |        |       |     |       |         |
|          | lands |       |        |       |     |       |         |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| Creeping | a     | 8     | 8,000  | 5,000 | 3,  | 1,000 | Much    |
| or       | lpine | 0,000 |        |       | 000 |       | more of |
| matted   | h     |       |        |       |     |       | this    |
| cold-d   | eath, |       |        |       |     |       | fo      |
| eciduous | a     |       |        |       |     |       | rmation |
| dwarf-s  | lpine |       |        |       |     |       | in the  |
| hrubland | dwarf |       |        |       |     |       | Alaskan |
|          | -shru |       |        |       |     |       | conse   |
|          | bland |       |        |       |     |       | rvation |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | estate  |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| Tall     | Oak   | 3,00  | 3      | 20    | 1   | 5     | Deep    |
| t        | sava  | 0,000 | 00,000 | 0,000 | 00, | 0,000 | soil    |
| emperate | nnah, |       |        |       | 000 |       | al      |
| g        |       |       |        |       |     |       | liances |
| rassland | tall  |       |        |       |     |       | esp     |
| with     | grass |       |        |       |     |       | ecially |
| sparse   | sav   |       |        |       |     |       | d       |
| cold     | annah |       |        |       |     |       | epleted |
| d        |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| eciduous |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| tree     |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
| layer    |       |       |        |       |     |       |         |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+
| Tall sod | Tall  | 1,00  | 5      | 30    | 2   | 4     | Conse   |
| t        | grass | 0,000 | 00,000 | 0,000 | 00, | 0,000 | rvation |
| emperate | pra   |       |        |       | 000 |       | ob      |
| g        | irie, |       |        |       |     |       | jective |
| rassland | Sand  |       |        |       |     |       | \> 10%  |
|          | hills |       |        |       |     |       | due to  |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | paucity |
|          | pr    |       |        |       |     |       | of      |
|          | airie |       |        |       |     |       | re      |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | maining |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | acreage |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | r       |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | elative |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | to      |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | o       |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | riginal |
|          |       |       |        |       |     |       | acreage |
+----------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-----+-------+---------+

\* This column includes examples of "habitats" as might be expressed in
species-specific habitat conservation targets.

**Table 4.** Example rows from the national biodiversity habitat
objective database. Conservation targets (formations) are real; values
for acres are hypothetical.

Another example of fine-tuning the coarse-filter is when spatial
information on rare habitats is available. For example, G-1 ecological
communities are classified as critically imperiled by the Number range
CHAPTERNatural Heritage Network. The habitat representation team may
find it appropriate to establish a habitat representation objective of
much more than 10% for some, many, or all G-1 communities.

Habitats are converted and lost in the process of economic growth.
Therefore, habitat acreage available for conservation declines. If the
10% acreage guidelines were recalculated periodically, they would also
decline. Therefore, the 10% acreage guidelines are carried forth from
the original gap analyses. Future gap analyses conducted with finer or
different habitat classification systems will account for these changes
and the total acreage of the habitat representation objective will
remain constant.

The national habitat representation objectives (Table 5) are stepped
down to each region. As with the population-based wildlife conservation
targets, the Refuge System will be unable to provide for all of the
habitats identified in the objectives. However, we contribute and work
with partners to achieve these objectives.

+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| **           | **D      | **Re | **Re | **Re | **Re | **Re | **  |
| Conservation | eficit** | gion | gion | gion | gion | gion | Reg |
| Target**     |          | 1**  | 2**  | 3**  | 4**  | 5**  | ion |
|              | **(Obje  |      |      |      |      |      | 6** |
|              | ctive)** |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Saturated    | 400,000  | 50   |      | 100  | 50   | 200  |     |
| temperate    |          | ,000 |      | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 |     |
| seasonal     | (        |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| evergreen    | 500,000) |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| forest       |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Seasonally   | No       |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| flooded      | deficit  |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| co           |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| ld-deciduous | (        |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| woodland     | 700,000) |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Creeping or  | 3,000    | 1    | 500  | 1    |      | 2    | 1,  |
| matted       |          | ,500 |      | ,000 |      | ,000 | 000 |
| co           | (8,000)  |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| ld-deciduous |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| dwa          |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| rf-shrubland |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Tall         | 100,000  |      | 10   | 40   |      |      | 50, |
| temperate    |          |      | ,000 | ,000 |      |      | 000 |
| grassland    | (        |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| with sparse  | 300,000) |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| cold         |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| deciduous    |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| tree layer   |          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Tall sod     | 200,000  |      | 20   | 100  |      |      | 80, |
| temperate    | (        |      | ,000 | ,000 |      |      | 000 |
| grassland    | 500,000) |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------+----------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+

**Table 5.** Example rows from national database where regional
biodiversity habitat objectives have been developed. Conservation
targets (formations) are real examples; values for acres are
hypothetical.

**Regional**

To assist ecosystem-level teams in inter-ecosystem coordination, in each
region a regional habitat representation team steps down habitat
representation objectives among ecosystems. These conservation targets
and objectives are compiled in a Regional conservation target database
(Table 6). The team should include state GAP representatives and may
invite experts in vegetation ecology to serve as ad hoc members.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Conservation Target</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>National Objective</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><p><strong>National</strong></p>
<p><strong>Deficit</strong></p></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Regional Deficit</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><p><strong>Ecosystem Deficit</strong></p>
<p><strong>(in thousands of acres)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>15</strong></td>
<td><strong>17</strong></td>
<td><strong>18</strong></td>
<td><strong>19</strong></td>
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td><strong>22</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Creeping or matted cold-deciduous dwarf-shrubland</td>
<td>8,000</td>
<td>3,000</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Tall temperate grassland with sparse cold deciduous tree layer</td>
<td>300,000</td>
<td>100,000</td>
<td>50,000</td>
<td></td>
<td>10</td>
<td></td>
<td>15</td>
<td></td>
<td>15</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Tall sod temperate grassland</td>
<td>500,000</td>
<td>200,000</td>
<td>80,000</td>
<td></td>
<td>10</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 6.** Example rows from regional database (Region 6), stepped
down from national

habitat representation objectives (see Table 4). Conservation targets
(formations) are real example values for acres are hypothetical.

**Ecosystem/Refuge**

Ecosystem-level teams and refuge managers work together to convert
regional habitat representation objectives into refuge objectives, which
are identified in CCPs and HMPs. While refuge managers are ultimately
responsible for developing CCPs and HMPs, their decisions about which
objectives to adopt are based upon their knowledge of the resources and
needs of other refuges, Service programs, and partners. Ecosystem team
meetings are important in the development of CCPs and HMPs because they
facilitate coordination among refuge managers, other Service program
officers, and partners. In developing CCPs and HMPs, refuge managers
also follow the guidance provided in the following Service documents:

1\) 601 FW 1 (Mission, Goals, and Purposes Policy DRAFT) (awaiting
Director's signature);

2\) 601 FW 3 (Ecological Integrity Policy);

3\) 602 FW 1-4 (Planning Chapters);

4\) 052 FW 1 (Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation);

5\) Refuge System Goals and Objectives Handbook.

Appendix D provides examples of directives provided in these documents
that are especially relevant for developing and incorporating
conservation target objectives during refuge management and planning
(including land acquisition planning). The ecosystem level of Service
administration is where habitat representation objectives and
population-based habitat objectives are integrated in planning and
management, as described in the following section.

Refuges use the ecosystem database when selecting conservation targets
and developing habitat objectives during the CCP and HMP processes and
land acquisition planning. During these planning activities, refuges
consider how they can contribute to the full suite of conservation
target objectives in the ecosystem database.

Number range CHAPTER**INTEGRATION OF POPULATION, BIODIVERSITY,**

**AND HABITAT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES**

(Implementation of Fulfilling the Promise Recommendation WH-2)

The integration of wildlife population and biodiversity conservation
objectives occurs primarily at the ecosystem level. Although the process
to develop objectives for populations and their respective habitats has
been described separately from the process to develop biodiversity
habitat objectives, both processes contribute to the same decision
making tool (i.e., the ecosystem objectives databases) at the ecosystem
level. Although habitat-specific objectives, such as wetland objectives
from Regional Wetland Concept plans, have not been discussed these
habitats should be reached through populations as well as biodiversity
objectives. Nevertheless, wetland objectives may also be included as
conservation targets to ensure that they are covered appropriately.

The ecosystem-level team functions similarly to recovery teams who
decide which parties can contribute in which fashion using the
information from the spatial and relational databases to identify the
relationships between site specific conservation actions and progress
towards objectives. While each party represented on the ecosystem-level
team may have different objectives and priority conservation targets,
the ecosystem objectives databases helps all partners understand their
conservation roles within the ecosystem.

The habitat objectives developed to meet population objectives and
biodiversity objectives are not independent. The Service contributes to
biodiversity conservation through all of its conservation programs, even
those that may be focused on single species. Similarly, objectives
developed to meet deficits for formations having less than 10% national
coverage in conservation lands will contribute to the habitat objectives
that are based upon wildlife population objectives. Consideration of
"coarse-filter" biodiversity objectives concurrently with wildlife
objectives provides a balanced and effective approach to conservation.

The ecosystem level process includes four major tasks: 1) selecting
conservation targets; 2) deriving habitat objectives; 3) developing the
conservation lands layer; and, 4) analysis. The results of these steps
are incorporated into the ecosystem objectives databases that are
relational and spatial. The spatial component is developed with GIS
technology and includes the appropriate habitat maps and the
conservation lands boundaries within the ecosystem. The relational
database includes at least one record for each conservation target in
the ecosystem; more than one record may be developed for wildlife
conservation targets with habitat requirements that differ with season
or life stage. For each conservation target the relational database
includes the following key fields:

-   Habitat Description within Ecosystem;

-   Habitat Objective (by season or life stage when appropriate);

-   Amount of Habitat Currently Conserved;

-   Habitat Deficit within Ecosystem Conservation Lands;

-   Habitat Conserved on Refuges (broken down by unit);

-   Habitat Conserved on other Conservation Lands (broken down by unit);

-   Habitat Availability on other Lands (cumulative);

-   FWS or Partner code identifier.

    The ecosystem objectives databases provide a tool for all parties
    involved in its development, facilitating the coordination of
    efforts to maximize conservation benefits throughout the ecosystem.
    The database is updated as partners make decisions about land
    management or acquisition. Existing habitat conservation and habitat
    deficits will therefore reflect the current land status. Some core
    data layers, such as the land status map will need to be updated at
    least every 5 years to maintain an accurate portrayal of our
    progress towards meeting habitat objectives.

    The WH-1-3 process also aids in the identification of Service
    priorities through the selection of conservation targets at the
    Regional and refuge levels. There are various ways to identify
    conservation priorities; our process focuses on individual species,
    species groups (e.g., guilds), and habitat representation at the
    formation level of the NVCS. The rationale for this focus is that:

    1\) Species represent important ecological and evolutionary
    resources.

    2\) Species conservation in the context of ecological integrity
    necessitates a concurrent focus on habitat conservation.

    3\) Conserving under-represented habitats, in addition to species
    and their habitats, ensures the conservation of biological diversity
    at the landscape scale.

    By simultaneously considering species, species groups, and
    under-represented habitats, we identify congruent needs and make our
    management and land acquisition activities more efficient and
    productive. The database and GIS layers developed through this
    process provide information to improve our ability to work with
    partners. The WH-1-3 process helps to facilitate productive dialog
    about national conservation strategies.

    This process is designed to be iterative so that new information can
    be easily entered to assess our progress towards meeting objectives.
    This is particularly important because our understanding of
    species/habitat relationships at landscape scales varies widely
    between species and species groups and our ability to map these
    relationships varies between geographic areas. Initially, crude or
    coarse-scale models may be necessary to describe and map habitats
    for different conservation targets and weaknesses in these models
    will be identified. As the models improve, or the habitat objectives
    are refined, the databases will be updated to display the most
    current information available. These updates should occur as they
    become available, however, the databases will be reviewed yearly to
    ensure that updates have been entered. This procedure has
    effectively worked with documenting actions related to recovery
    plans and is essential to ensure data quality.

    The land status data layer that identifies conservation lands within
    the ecosystem will also need to be updated. This layer may require
    additional work with our state partners to document land development
    or new conservation efforts within each ecosystem, and should be
    completed at least every 5 years.

Number range CHAPTER**THE ROLE OF IDENTIFYING HABITAT OBJECTIVES IN
GUIDING THE STRATEGIC GROWTH OF THE REFUGE SYSTEM**

(Contribution of WH-2 toward Implementation of WH-17)

As national objectives are developed and stepped down through regions
and ecosystems to refuges and other field stations, they have major
implications for the growth of the Refuge System. For example, if a
population objective is identified that corresponds with 2,000 acres of
habitat, and there are no opportunities for readjusting current
management on Refuges or other conservation lands in the ecosystem, then
the choices become: 1) work with new partners to manage an additional
2,000 acres of habitat; 2) add 2,000 acres to the conservation lands via
acquisition; or 3) re-evaluate the objective. In some cases acquisition
is the only feasible alternative, and in many cases acquisition is the
most suitable approach because it provides management flexibility and
long-term security.

National goals and objectives are paramount factors in the
identification of lands for acquisition and in subsequent prioritization
of lands for acquisition. The WH-1-3 process, especially the ecosystem
databases it generates provides information about entire ecosystems and
how new lands under consideration for the Refuge System would contribute
to ecosystem conservation.

The strategic growth of the Refuge System is complex and entails
concurrent processes for evaluating potential acquisitions. These
processes, including the PPP and LAPS planning tools, are under
evaluation by the Service to ensure that they adequately incorporate
Service conservation targets and objectives. LAPS may need revision to
more adequately consider biodiversity conservation targets
(under-represented formations) in the acquisition ranking process.

**CONCLUSION**

*Fulfilling the Promise* provides the Refuge System with unprecedented
challenges and opportunities. Perhaps none are more significant than
those presented by Wildlife and Habitat Recommendations 1, 2, and 3.
These 3 recommendations call for state-of-the-art formulation and
integration of wildlife conservation goals and objectives, coordination
and collaboration among Service programs and partners, and progressive
implementation and evaluation thereafter.

The WH-1-3 process suffices to execute the first three recommendations
of *Fulfilling the Promise*. The WH1-3 process is consistent with the
mission of the Refuge System and the Refuge System goals specified in
the Mission, Goals, and Purposes (DRAFT) Policy. It emphasizes the
importance of traditional trust species and the newer conservation
concerns stemming from the Refuge Improvement Act. It accounts for
threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fishes, migratory
birds, marine mammals, and biodiversity at all levels from the ecosystem
downward.

The WH1-3 process enables the Refuge System to compile a comprehensive
set of national goals and objectives useful in measuring progress and
ultimately success. National objectives are continuously developed and
refined taking into account the habitat potential at the ecosystem or
Refuge scales. The process of stepping down objectives from the national
level to the refuge level is therefore an iterative one that flows both
from the top down and the bottom up. The iterative nature of the process
facilitates intra-agency coordination among administrative levels. As
objectives are stepped down, additional objectives are identified that
reflect responsibilities specific to smaller geographic areas (e.g.,
refuge purposes). The process discourages decision-making that fails to
account for national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge priorities.

Partners play an invaluable role in implementing the WH-1-3 process. The
Service is committed to working with them and, in many cases,
acknowledging their co-leadership in conservation efforts. Involvement
of partners in the WH1-3 process is important at all levels, and
especially with the ecosystem-level teams. The WH1-3 process helps to
clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Refuge System,
other Service programs, and partners in the unified effort of wildlife
conservation.

The information compiled from the process provides support to existing
Refuge biological planning needs including the development of
Comprehensive Conservation Plans and Habitat Management Plans. The
process of assessing habitat objectives of FWS conservation targets will
increase the efficiency of existing Refuge System planning efforts by
reducing the amount of data collection and analysis required by each
individual Refuge. The WH1-3 process involves Refuge staff and expertise
thereby ensuring that data collected through this effort flows directly
into Refuge management.

Ecosystem-level planning is the linchpin of the WH1-3 process, as
consistent with the Service's policy on the ecosystem approach to
conservation. Within the Refuge System, fulfilling the objectives
formulated pursuant to the WH1-3 process is the responsibility of refuge
managers and other Refuge System personnel. The process will allow
refuge managers to see how their land management activities may fit into
the larger landscape level planning effort, but is not designed to
dictate any refuge management activities which are not within Service
priorities and budget capabilities. However, the ecosystem approach
ensures that refuge management decisions are made with full knowledge of
the needs and resources of other Service programs and partners.

The WH1-3 process also has implications for other aspects of *Fulfilling
the Promise*. For example, the WH1-3 process reflects a holistic
perspective of land acquisition needs pursuant to the Refuge Improvement
Act's mandates pertaining to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation.
Biodiversity conservation via habitat representation, as provided for in
the WH1-3 process, entails reformulation of the Land Acquisition
Priority System and a general re-thinking of land acquisition projects
in the field.

Most of the WH1-3 process may be conducted with existing personnel and
partners, although in some cases restructuring of existing staff will be
necessary. However, certain tasks (e.g., national gap analysis) are
required for the process to work, and others (e.g., GIS habitat
modeling) will make the process work more effectively. Certain types of
expertise (e.g., vegetation ecology) will also become more important for
effective objective setting. The process also emphasizes the need to
engage in collaborative planning efforts. However, while more effort
will be required in implementing this process, the information gathered
will reduce inappropriate redundancy of effort among refuges, other
Service programs, and partners.

Regional Conservation Goals Coordinators can provide a key role in
ensuring the sound implementation of this approach. The role of the
Regional Conservation Goals Coordinator is to provide critical
coordination both within and outside the Service to ensure that the full
suite of biological planning resources are utilized in identifying key
habitat objectives for the Refuge System. Since the Goals Coordinator
generates key biological information important in managing individual
Refuges as well as the Refuge System as a whole, it increases
efficiency, avoids duplication, and reduces staff time spent on existing
Refuge planning efforts such as habitat management plans and
comprehensive conservation plans.

The Refuge Improvement Act created a substantial need for Refuge System
policy and planning development, much of which is outlined in
*Fulfilling the Promise*. *Fulfilling the Promise* puts the Refuge
System on a progressive course for the foreseeable future. The WH-1-3
process will be integral to sustaining this course.

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

This process was developed over the course of two years of intense
deliberations by team members. Former team members Larry Bandolin, Bill
Haglan, Jay Hestbeck, Jim Leach, Lisa Mandell, all contributed to the
development of this process. Many advisors kindly helped us understand
concepts and strategies involved in conservation goal setting and
ecoregion planning. Special thanks are due to Mike Scott (USGS, GAP);
Denny Grossman (NatureServe); Rex Johnson (FWS); Curt Griffin (GAP);
Leslie Snedden (NatureServe); Jeff Baumgartner and Jenny Brown (The
Nature Conservancy); and Barry Christenson (FWS) for attending portions
of team meetings to lend their expertise. We also are indebted to
Service staff from the Gulf of Maine Rivers Ecosystem who participated
in a workshop to help us understand how this process may work using real
world examples. That workshop would not have been a success without the
preparation and analysis conducted by Arnold Banner (Gulf of Maine
Coastal Program - FWS). Lastly, we thank the staffs of the following
refuges that graciously hosted team meetings: Alaska Maritime NWR, Great
Meadows NWR, National Key Deer NWR, Minnesota Valley NWR, Tijuana Slough
NWR.

**REFERENCES**

> Edwards, T. C., Jr., C. G. Homer, S. D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R. D.
> Ramsey, and D. W. Wight. 1995. Utah Gap Analysis: An environmental
> information system. Final Project Report 95-1. Logan: Utah Cooperative
> Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University.
>
> Ricketts, T. H., E. Dinerstein, D. M. Olson, C. J. Loucks et. al.
> 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A conservation
> Assessment. World Wildlife Fund. Island Press, Wash. D.C., Covelo, CA.
> 485 p.
>
> Scott, J. Michael; Frank Davis; Blair Csuti; Reed Noss; Bart
> Butterfield; Craig Groves; Hal Anderson; Steve Caicco; Frank
> D\'Erchia; Thomas C. Edwards, Jr.; Joe Ulliman and R. Gerald Wright
> Wildlife Society. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of
> Biological Diversity. Wildlife monographs, 0084-0173; no. 123 Wildlife
> Monographs, No. 123. 41p. 1993.
>
> Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams, eds. 2000. Precious
> heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. The Nature
> Conservancy and Association for Biodiversity Information; Oxford
> Press. 399pp.
>
> The Nature Conservancy. 1999. *Seeing the Forest and the Trees:
> ecological classification for conservation*. 38pp.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Conservation plan for the Polar
> bears in Alaska. Unpubl. rept. Marine Mammals Management, USFWS,
> Anchorage, AK. 79pp.

**Appendix A.**

These tables include examples of the types of plans that would be
available to provide objectives to use in the WH-1-3 process. In this
instance, these plans are for the Alaska Region of the Service. This is
not intended to be a comprehensive list, and it represents the plans
that were available in early 2000 for birds, marine mammals, and
habitats. Management plans for many fish species are available but are
not documented in this appendix. These plans are more numerous because
they typically are developed for fish by stock or river system. These
tables also do not include recovery plans for listed species that occur
in Alaska. Recovery plans are another source of objectives for use in
the WH-1-3 process.

Number range CHAPTER

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Non-Game Birds**  **Scale**                     **Category**                                                      
  ------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- ------------------
  **Reference**       **National**   **Regional**   **Pops. or     **Habitat**   **Bio\_       **Goals**   **Obj.**   **Notes**
                                                    Species**                    diversity**                          

  **Landbird                         X              X              X                                       X          Identifies
  conservation plan                                                                                                   priority species
  for Alaska                                                                                                          and their habitats
  biogeographic                                                                                                       and conservation
  regions, version                                                                                                    issues, describes
  1.0.** Boreal                                                                                                       objectives for
  Partners in Flight                                                                                                  monitoring or
  Working Group.1999.                                                                                                 studying species.
  unpubl. rep., U.S.                                                                                                  Identifies
  Fish and Wildlife                                                                                                   criteria to
  Service, Anchorage                                                                                                  determine if
  AK. 45pp                                                                                                            restoration
                                                                                                                      action,
                                                                                                                      conservation
                                                                                                                      action or
                                                                                                                      demographic
                                                                                                                      studies should
                                                                                                                      occur.

  **A conservation                   X              X              X                           X           X          Identifies
  plan for Alaska                                                                                                     priority species,
  shorebirds.**                                                                                                       pop. size,
  **2000.** Alaska                                                                                                    habitats,
  Shorebird Working                                                                                                   conservation
  Group. Unpubl.                                                                                                      issues, describes
  rep., U.S. Fish &                                                                                                   objectives for
  Wildlife Service,                                                                                                   monitoring or
  Anchorage, AK. 47                                                                                                   studying species.
  pp.                                                                                                                 Identifies
                                                                                                                      criteria to
                                                                                                                      determine if
                                                                                                                      restoration
                                                                                                                      action,
                                                                                                                      conservation
                                                                                                                      action or
                                                                                                                      demographic
                                                                                                                      studies should
                                                                                                                      occur. ID\'s
                                                                                                                      potential WHSRN
                                                                                                                      sites (crit. hab).

  **Pacific Flyway                   X              X              X                           X           X          Identifies
  management plan for                                                                                                 breeding
  the Pacific Flyway                                                                                                  locations,
  population of                                                                                                       migration routes
  Lesser Sandhill                                                                                                     for Pacific
  Cranes. 1983**.                                                                                                     population.
  Subcommittee on the                                                                                                 Provides est.
  Pacific Flyway                                                                                                      numbers using
  Population of                                                                                                       areas if known.
  Lesser Sandhill                                                                                                     Identifies
  Cranes. Pacific                                                                                                     wintering habitats
  Flyway Council                                                                                                      for protection,
  Subcommittee. \[c/o                                                                                                 guidance for
  USFWS\] Portland,                                                                                                   utility corridor
  OR. unpubl. rept.                                                                                                   construction,
  19pp.                                                                                                               monitoring and
                                                                                                                      inventory needs.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Waterfowl Plans**                                                                                                               
  ------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- -------------------
                      **Scale**                                   **Category**                                                      

  **Reference**       **[National]{.underline}**   **Regional**   **Pops or      **Habitat**   **Bio\_       **Goals**   **Obj.**   **Notes**
                                                                  Species**                    diversity**                          

  **Management plan                                X              X                                          X           X          Population,
  for midcontinent                                                                                                                  distribution
  greater                                                                                                                           objectives, cover
  white_fronted                                                                                                                     northern AK through
  geese. 1998.**                                                                                                                    central flyway.
  Central Flyway                                                                                                                    Threats, hunting
  Council. unpubl.                                                                                                                  regulations
  rept. Central                                                                                                                     described with
  Flyway Waterfowl                                                                                                                  recommendations.
  Technical                                                                                                                         
  Committee. 30pp                                                                                                                   

  **Pacific flyway    X                            X              X                                          X           X          Population
  management plan for                                                                                                               objectives, life
  emperor geese.                                                                                                                    history, threats,
  1994.** Pacific                                                                                                                   critical habitats,
  Flyway Council.                                                                                                                   current management,
  Emporer goose                                                                                                                     monitoring and
  subcomm., Pacific                                                                                                                 inventory needs
  flyway study comm.                                                                                                                described. Habitat
  \[c/o USFWS\],                                                                                                                    objectives to keep
  Portland, Oreg.                                                                                                                   sufficient amounts
  Unpubl. rept. 27pp.                                                                                                               to support
                                                                                                                                    population.

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X              X                           X           X          Population,
  management plan for                                                                                                               distribution
  cackling Canada                                                                                                                   objectives. Habitat
  goose.** **1999.**                                                                                                                mgmt
  Pacific Flyway                                                                                                                    recommendations for
  Council. Cackling                                                                                                                 specific refuges in
  Canada Goose                                                                                                                      wintering range
  subcomm., Pacific                                                                                                                 described. Current
  flyway study comm.                                                                                                                mgmt, problems,
  \[c/o USFWS\],                                                                                                                    hunting
  Portland, Oreg.                                                                                                                   regulations, info
  Unpubl. rept. 36pp.                                                                                                               needs described
                                                                                                                                    with
                                                                                                                                    recommendations.

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X              X                           X           X          Population,
  management plan for                                                                                                               distribution
  dusky Canada goose.                                                                                                               objectives,
  1999.** Pacific                                                                                                                   critical habitats.
  Flyway Council.                                                                                                                   Habitat mgmt
  dusky Canada Goose                                                                                                                recommendations for
  subcomm., Pacific                                                                                                                 specific refuges in
  flyway study comm.                                                                                                                wintering range
  \[c/o USFWS\],                                                                                                                    described. Current
  Portland, Oreg.                                                                                                                   mgmt, problems,
  Unpubl. rept. 46pp.                                                                                                               hunting
                                                                                                                                    regulations, info
                                                                                                                                    needs described
                                                                                                                                    with
                                                                                                                                    recommendations.

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X                                          X           X          Population
  management plan for                                                                                                               objectives, desired
  Pacific Brant.                                                                                                                    distributions,
  1992.**                                                                                                                           critical habitats,
  Subcommittee on                                                                                                                   life history,
  Pacific Brant.                                                                                                                    threats, current
  Pacific flyway                                                                                                                    management,
  study comm. \[c/o                                                                                                                 monitoring and
  USFWS, MBMO\],                                                                                                                    inventory needs
  Portland, Oreg.                                                                                                                   described. Habitat
  Unpubl. rept. 68pp.                                                                                                               objectives to keep
                                                                                                                                    sufficient amounts
                                                                                                                                    to support
                                                                                                                                    population.

  **Subcommittee on                                X              X                                          X           X          Population
  the Pacific Flyway                                                                                                                objectives, desired
  Population of                                                                                                                     distributions,
  White_fronted Geese                                                                                                               critical habitats,
  of the Pacific                                                                                                                    life history,
  Flyway Study                                                                                                                      threats, current
  Committee. 1991.**                                                                                                                management,
  Pacific flyway                                                                                                                    monitoring and
  management plan for                                                                                                               inventory needs
  the Tule greater                                                                                                                  described. Habitat
  white_fronted                                                                                                                     objectives to keep
  goose. Pacific                                                                                                                    sufficient amounts
  flyway study comm.                                                                                                                to support
  \[USFWS Ser.                                                                                                                      population.
  Report, Portland,                                                                                                                 
  OR\] 18pp.                                                                                                                        

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X                                          X           X          Population
  management plan for                                                                                                               objectives, desired
  the Pacific flyway                                                                                                                distributions,
  population of                                                                                                                     critical habitats,
  white_fronted                                                                                                                     life history,
  geese. 1987.**                                                                                                                    threats, current
  Pacific Flyway                                                                                                                    management,
  Council.                                                                                                                          monitoring and
  White_fronted goose                                                                                                               inventory needs
  subcomm., Pacific                                                                                                                 described. Habitat
  flyway study comm.                                                                                                                objectives to keep
  \[c/o USFWS\],                                                                                                                    sufficient amounts
  Unpubl. rept. 28pp                                                                                                                to support
                                                                                                                                    population.

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X              X                           X           X          Includes recovery
  management plan for                                                                                                               objectives, status
  Aleutian Canada                                                                                                                   and distribution,
  goose.** **1999.**                                                                                                                hunting closures,
  Pacific Flyway                                                                                                                    habitat
  Council. Pacific                                                                                                                  limitations,
  flyway study comm.,                                                                                                               predation problems
  Subcommittee on                                                                                                                   and other concerns.
  Aleutian Canada                                                                                                                   Identifies
  Geese, \[c/o                                                                                                                      monitoring and
  USFWS\], Portland,                                                                                                                research needs
  Oreg. Unpubl. rept.                                                                                                               throughout range.
  22pp.                                                                                                                             

  **Pacific flyway                                 X              X              X                           X           X          Identifies
  management plan for                                                                                                               habitats,
  the Wrangel Island                                                                                                                distributions, and
  population of                                                                                                                     threats to habitats
  Lesser Snow Geese.                                                                                                                along migration
  1992.**                                                                                                                           routes. Recommends
  Subcommittee on                                                                                                                   management actions,
  White Geese.                                                                                                                      monitoring and
  Pacific Flyway                                                                                                                    research needs
  Study Comm. \[c/o                                                                                                                 etc..
  USFWS, MBMO\]                                                                                                                     
  Portland, OR.                                                                                                                     
  unpubl. rept. 25pp.                                                                                                               
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Plants and        **Scale**                     **Category**                                                      
  Vegetation                                                                                                          
  Communities**                                                                                                       
  ------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- -------------------
  **Reference**       **National**   **Regional**   **Pops or      **Habitat**   **Bio\_       **Goals**   **Obj.**   **Notes**
                                                    Species**                    diversity**                          

  **Atlas of rare     X (Global \_                                 X                                                  Provides locations,
  endemic vascular    Arctic)                                                                                         abundance and
  plants of the                                                                                                       threat assessment
  Arctic. 1999.**                                                                                                     of plant species
  Conservation of                                                                                                     that are endemic to
  Arctic Flora and                                                                                                    the Arctic and have
  Fauna (CAFF)                                                                                                        20 or fewer
  Technical Report                                                                                                    occurences
  No. 3. U.S. Fish                                                                                                    (classified as
  and Wildlife                                                                                                        \"rare\"). Cons.
  Service, Anchorage                                                                                                  goals not
  AK. 73pp. Talbot,                                                                                                   explicitly stated,
  S.S., B.A. Yurtsev,                                                                                                 but intent is to
  D.F. Murray, G.W.                                                                                                   provide protection
  Argus, C.Bay, and                                                                                                   to as many of these
  A. Elvebakk.                                                                                                        pops as possible.
                                                                                                                      Identifies extent
                                                                                                                      within current
                                                                                                                      CSUs.

  **Status and trends X                                            X                                                  Update (mid 80\'s
  of wetlands in the                                                                                                  to 90\'s) due
  conterminous United                                                                                                 October 2000.
  States, mid_1970\'s                                                                                                 Identifies types of
  to mid_1980\'s.                                                                                                     wetlands lost over
  1991.** U.S.                                                                                                        decade. Uses
  Department of the                                                                                                   adapted Cowardin et
  Interior, Fish and                                                                                                  al. classification.
  Wildlife Service,                                                                                                   Could identify
  Washington, D.C. 28                                                                                                 priority wetland
  pages. Dahl, T.E.                                                                                                   types for
  and C.E. Johnson.                                                                                                   restoration
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Marine Mammals**  **Scale**                                   **Category**                                                      
  ------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- -------------------
  **Reference**       **[National]{.underline}**   **Regional**   **Pops or      **Habitat**   **Bio\_       **Goals**   **Obj.**   **Notes**
                                                                  Species**                    diversity**                          

  **Habitat                                        X                             X                                                  Identifies
  conservation                                                                                                                      Important Habitat
  strategy for polar                                                                                                                Areas for Polar
  bears in Alaska.                                                                                                                  Bears. Provides
  1995.** USFWS.                                                                                                                    indepth habitat and
  Marine Mammals                                                                                                                    threat information.
  Management, USFWS,                                                                                                                Describes options
  Anchorage, AK.                                                                                                                    for protecting
                                                                                                                                    these sites.

  **Conservation plan                              X              X              X                           X           X          Includes broad
  for the sea otter                                                                                                                 goals and
  in Alaska. 1994.**                                                                                                                objectives for pops
  U.S. Fish and                                                                                                                     and habitats.
  Wildlife Service.                                                                                                                 \"Optimum
  Marine Mammals                                                                                                                    sustainable
  Management, USFWS,                                                                                                                population\" (OSP)
  Anchorage, AK.                                                                                                                    size = goal, but
  47pp.                                                                                                                             unknown. Need info
                                                                                                                                    to add specificity
                                                                                                                                    to objectives.
                                                                                                                                    Population info.
                                                                                                                                    provided.

  **Conservation plan                              X              X              X                           X           X          Provides population
  for the Pacific                                                                                                                   & habitat
  walrus in Alaska.                                                                                                                 information.
  1994.** U.S. Fish                                                                                                                 Includes guidance
  and Wildlife                                                                                                                      on human activities
  Service. Marine                                                                                                                   near haulouts. OSP
  Mammals Management,                                                                                                               size = pop. goal is
  USFWS, Anchorage,                                                                                                                 estimated but
  AK. 79pp.                                                                                                                         uncertain. Many
                                                                                                                                    objectives designed
                                                                                                                                    to fill info. gaps.
                                                                                                                                    Population info.
                                                                                                                                    provided.

  **Conservation plan                              X              X                                          X           X          Includes broad
  for the Polar bears                                                                                                               goals and
  in Alaska. 1994.**                                                                                                                objectives for pops
  U.S. Fish and                                                                                                                     and habitats.
  Wildlife Service.                                                                                                                 \"Optimum
  unpubl. rept.                                                                                                                     sustainable
  Marine Mammals                                                                                                                    population\" size =
  Management, USFWS,                                                                                                                goal, current
  Anchorage, AK.                                                                                                                    estimates within
  79pp.                                                                                                                             OSP. Need info to
                                                                                                                                    add specificity to
                                                                                                                                    objectives.
                                                                                                                                    Population info.
                                                                                                                                    provided.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**APPENDIX B.**

**Example: Wood Thrush and other birds of the Northern Hardwood
Forests**

Number range CHAPTERDuring the 1990s, the interagency and
non-governmental organizations coalition of "Partners in Flight" (PIF)
tackled the enormous task of developing conservation plans for landbirds
in the United States. The effort brought together over 300 partners from
federal and state agencies, academia, conservation groups, and corporate
land managers to develop bird conservation plans that combined
continental-scale coordination with local implementation (Pashley et.
al, 2000). Sixty-eight bird conservation plans were developed for states
and physiographic regions that span the country. Each plan identifies
conservation priorities (species and habitats), establishes objectives,
describes conservation actions to implement the plans, and a method for
evaluation and revision. Additional plans have been developed since the
publication of the plan in 2000. Members within PIF recognized the need
for conservation plans at a mid-scale level and there are efforts
underway to combine physiographic area plans into Bird Conservation
Regions as part of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative.

For this example we will discuss objectives for wood thrush in the Gulf
of Maine Rivers ecosystem in Region 5. This example is simplified in
that it does not adequately discuss how our interactions with our
partners may influence decisions, nor does it provide detailed
information on the feedback steps between FWS organizational levels.

**National Level**

The national team would identify the "Partners in Flight: Conservation
of the Land Birds of the United States" (Pashley et al. 2000), and the
corresponding Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans that span more
than one Region as national level guidance plans. The national team
would identify conservation targets from these plans and the associated
population and habitat objectives if provided.

**Regional Level**

The regional team identifies all of the conservation targets which apply
to Region 5 from the national list, and considers the other PIF Bird
Conservation Plans are included within the region. The team would then
categorize this list of conservation targets based on those that are on
the Service's bird species of conservation concern list, or invasive
species. This information would then be added into the conservation
target database.

For Region 5, wood thrush would be one of the conservation targets.
Although the species is geographically widespread and abundant, there is
evidence of a long-term population decline. Wood thrush is one of
several species used by different Bird Conservation Plans to represent a
suite of species that use the northern hardwood mixed-forest. In the
northeastern U.S., the wood thrush typically uses mid to late
successional stages of mixed deciduous forests. The Northern New England
PIF Physiographic area (PIF Area 27) uses the Wood Thrush,
Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, and
Chestnut-sided Warbler to represent 16 priority species that use
different successional stages, composition and structural
characteristics of the northern hardwood-mixed forest. The wood thrush
and each of the 4 warblers have population and habitat objectives.

At the Regional level, the team would incorporate these 5 conservation
targets from PIF Area 27, other conservation targets from different
habitat types in PIF Area 27, and conservation targets from each of the
other Area plans that overlap with Region 5 into a database. For wood
thrush, the database entries from Area 27 would be as follows:

**Conservation Target:** Wood Thrush

**Concurrent Species:** Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada Warbler,
Blackburnian Warbler, Veery, Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Purple
Finch, Least Flycatcher, Ovenbird, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Northern
Goshawk, Eastern Screech-Owl, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Coopers Hawk.

**Population Objective:** *"Stabilize or reverse declining population
trend for wood thrush; maintaining long-term population of 250,000
breeding pairs."*

**Habitat Description:** Northern hardwood and mixed forests of mid to
late successional stage with dense deciduous understory.

**Habitat Objective:** *"Based on published density estimates, roughly
800,000 ha (2 million ac) of northern hardwood forest is required to
support the entire habitat-species suite* (e.g., 250,000 pairs of wood
thrush)\..."

**Source Plan:** Hodgman, T. P and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners In
Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 27: Northern New
England

When the Regional-level database is completed all the objectives from
all of the physiographic areas in Region 5 would be entered in a similar
fashion to the example above. In some areas, wood thrush may not have
specific objectives but another of the species suite may have been
chosen to represent the mid-successional stage forest. At this stage,
the database is provided to all of the ecosystems within the region and
the ecosystem-level teams begin their process.

## Ecosystem Level 

The Ecosystem-level teams each select the conservation targets from the
Regional database that are applicable to their ecosystem. There are 3
primary technical steps at the ecosystem level that are necessary to
complete the process:

1.  Developing a habitat objective for each conservation target within
    the ecosystem (by season if necessary).

2.  Develop a map showing the locations of appropriate habitat
    throughout the ecosystem (may require a habitat model).

3.  Create a stewardship layer showing conservation lands within the
    ecosystem.

    The following discussion continues the wood thrush example for the
    Gulf of Maine Rivers (GOM) ecosystem in Region 5.

    Habitat Objectives: In the Gulf of Maine Rivers ecosystem (GOM), all
    land bird conservation targets included in the Regional database
    from PIF Physiographic Area Plans 28, 27 and 9 would be selected.
    The three objectives for wood thrush populations and habitats from
    these plans are:

    **PIF 28 Eastern Spruce Hardwood Forest:** Goal is set for a "suite"
    of species, including wood thrush, in the northern mixed forest
    habitat type: *"a total of 1.9 million ha (4.75 mill ac) of suitable
    northern hardwood and mixed forest habitat is required to support
    the entire habitat-suite, based on a density estimate for Veery of
    7-8 pairs per 10 ha."* (Rosenberg and Hodgman 2000)

    **PIF 27 Northern New England: Objective 1:** *"stabilize or reverse
    declining population trends for wood thrush; maintaining long-term
    population of 250,000 breeding pairs.*

    Based on published density estimates, roughly 800,000 ha (2 mill ac)
    of northern hardwood forest is required to support the entire
    habitat-species suite (e.g., 250,000 pairs of wood thrush) with
    100,000 ha (250,000 ac) suitable to maintain 40,000 pairs of
    Black-throated Blue Warblers and roughly 56,000 ha (140,000 ac) of
    mature mixed forest suitable to maintain 25,000 breeding pairs of
    Blackburnian Warblers." (Hodgman and Rosenberg 2000)

    **PIF 09** **Southern New England: Objective 2:** *"halt population
    declines and maintain stable breeding population of 170,000 pairs of
    Wood Thrushes (10-13 bird per BBS route) distributed throughout the
    physiographic area."*

    "Based on published average density estimates of 3 pairs/10 ha for
    Wood Thrushes across their range (Roth et al. 1996) approximately
    600,000 ha (1.45 mill ac) of mature deciduous (and mixed) forest is
    need to support this entire suite of deciduous forest passerines in
    Southern New England. Of this total, approximately 12,000 ha will
    need to be suitable for Worm-eating warblers, based on the 3-4
    pairs/10 ha reported in Connecticut. In addition approximately 7,800
    km of forested streams are required to support Louisiana
    Waterthrush." (Dettmers and Rosenberg 2000)

    The area covered by the 3 PIF plans is broader than the area covered
    by the GOM ecosystem; therefore, the ecosystem level team would need
    to determine how much of each PIF objective should be covered in
    that ecosystem. In this example, the most simplistic strategy of
    estimating the proportion of the area of each PIF Area covered by
    the GOM ecosystem was used to determine the ecosystem level
    objective. In a true application of this process, technical experts
    may be consulted and other parameters such as species distribution
    and abundance may improve the objectives.

    Based on the following area assumptions, the new population and
    habitat objectives for wood thrush would be:

  --------------- -------------- ----------------- -----------------------
  PIF Area Plan   \% of PIF Area GOM Population    GOM Habitat Goal
                  within GOM     Goal              (hypothetical)
                  ecosystem      (hypothetical)    

  #28             60 %           None Available    1.14 million hectare
                                                   (2.85 million acre)

  #27             30 %           75,000 breeding   240,000 ha (600,000 ac)
                                 pair              

  #09             10 %           17,000 breeding   60,000 ha (145,000 ac)
                                 pair              
  --------------- -------------- ----------------- -----------------------

From this analysis a new habitat objective for the GOM ecosystem would
seek to have 1.44 million hectares (3.24 M acres) of mid to
late-successional hardwood mixed forest with dense deciduous understory
available for the conservation of wood thrush populations. Because not
all of the PIF plans included a population objective, it may not be
possible to state a GOM population estimate for wood thrush without
consulting with experts from the PIF Area 28.

Habitat Mapping. The Gulf of Maine Coastal program has already developed
habitat models for approximately 70 species within the GOM ecosystem.
The Gulf of Maine Coastal Program, focuses on protecting important
coastal fish and wildlife habitat through partnerships. Using existing
scientific data along with biological expertise and state-of-the-art
computer mapping, biologists analyze data, identify and map important
fish and wildlife habitat, and recommend and implement habitat
protection and restoration measures
(http://gulfofmaine.fws.gov/gomp1.html). The wood thrush model was
developed as part of an attempt to identify important songbird habitat
throughout the ecosystem (Figure B1). If this model were not available,
the ecosystem team would need to rely on experts to either create a
simple habitat model (e.g., hardwood mixed forest in blocks greater than
X hectares), or simply identify the most appropriate mapped vegetation
community. These interim techniques can be used until a more detailed
habitat mapping effort can be undertaken.

Conservation Lands. A GIS layer of conservation lands within the GOM
ecosystem was created by the GOM ecosystem program staff. The GOM
ecosystem includes portions of 3 states, Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts. Of these three states, Maine and New Hampshire had
stewardship layers, which show the locations of conservation lands,
created by the state's GAP programs. We were able to obtain these layers
and clip the portions that belonged within the GOM ecosystem. For
Massachusetts, the GAP program had not completed a stewardship layer so
county-level land status information was used. Using this information
and the GAP's definitions of Conservation Lands Status 1, 2, and 3. A
preliminary GIS layer of conservation lands was created for the portion
of Massachusetts that is within the GOM ecosystem. This information was
combined with the other 2 states to create a conservation lands GIS
layer for the GOM ecosystem (Figure B1).

Results of the Ecosystem Process. By combining the habitat map for wood
thrush with the conservation lands layer, we were able to determine how
much of the existing wood thrush habitat are within the conservation
lands. This information is used to understand how well existing
conditions are meeting the desired habitat objective for the GOM
ecosystem. This information would be added into a database to calculate
the following information:

**Conservation Target:** Wood Thrush

**Concurrent Species:** A list of the species associated with wood
thrush from the 3 PIF plans.

**General Habitat Description:** Hardwood-mixed forest with deciduous
understory

**Specific Habitat Requirements:** mid- to late-successional
hardwood-mixed forest with deciduous understory, in large blocks
(undefined) to minimize fragmentation.

**Habitat Objective:** 3.25 million acres

**Currently Conserved**: 1.5 million acres

**Deficit in Ecosystem:** 2.5 million acres

**Conserved on Refuges:** 22,379 acres

**Conserved on other**

**Conservation Units:** 1.478 million acres

**Available on other lands**: 5 million acres

**Conservation Target Identifier:** FWS

This information would be developed for all of the conservation targets
within the GOM ecosystem. We recommend that other fields be considered
for the database - particularly a field that indicates our confidence in
the habitat model, and perhaps known threats to the resource. The
completed database would then be available to the individual refuges
within the ecosystem, and would also be sent to the Regional Team for
them to compare with other ecosystem products and the original
objectives. Because the ecosystem level team includes partners from
other conservation lands, there would be an opportunity to discuss
habitat protection strategies with land managers who have important wood
thrush habitat.

**Refuge Level**

Each refuge in the GOM would 1) select appropriate conservation targets,
2) then use the CCP and HMP processes to prioritize the list, develop
refuge objectives, implementation strategies, and to select the initial
suite of conservation target objectives to be implemented.

In the GOM ecosystem, there are 22,379 acres of wood thrush habitat
currently located on refuge lands. Some of the coastal refuges with
upland habitat types that are not wood thrush habitat would not select
the wood thrush and associated hardwood-mixed forest birds as
conservation targets. For refuges that have existing wood thrush
habitat, or could have the appropriate habitat if the ecological
integrity of the refuge were restored, the wood thrush would be an
appropriate conservation target for the refuge. To prioritize the wood
thrush conservation target for a refuge, the refuge would need to
compare the wood thrush along with the other conservation targets.

*What is the magnitude of the deficit for each conservation target?* For
the wood thrush in GOM there is less than ½ of the desired habitat
within the conservation estate, though habitat that is located on
non-conservation lands brings the overall availability closer to the
objective.

*What is the importance of the Refuge to the conservation target?* The
refuge may provide one of the only unfragmented blocks of habitat in a
portion of the ecosystem, or it may be one of the most productive
habitats for wood thrush in the ecosystem and thus act as a source for
the population.

*Will the conservation target respond to management actions?* Are there
actions that the refuge can take to manage or create wood thrush
habitat?

*Can the refuge efficiently manage for the conservation target?*
Consider whether the benefits derived to the wood thrush through
management actions (for example converting a pasture field to
hardwood-mixed forest) is economically feasible, and whether or not
there are other conservation targets whose objectives could be met more
efficiently for the same cost.

Each refuge is likely to find that there are more conservation target
objectives that could be met on the refuge than the acreage or economics
permit. Fortunately, there are already processes in place to help
determine which management actions, and which priorities, should be
addressed on a refuge. Refuges which have the information from this
process available during the development of their CCP's will be able to
better meet the intent of the planning policy in understanding the
refuge's role within the ecosystem. They can also use the CCP
alternatives to explore the effects of focusing management on different
conservation targets. The HMP process would also be used to develop
habitat management strategies and to establish priorities for the
refuge. As each refuge makes decisions and takes steps towards meeting
the conservation target objectives for the refuge, the information is
provided back to the ecosystem level to revise the database.

**References**

Dettmers, R. and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird
conservation plan: physiographic area 9:Southern New England.

Hodgman, T. P and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird
conservation plan: physiographic area 27: Northern New England

Pashley, D.N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fiztgerald, R.P. Ford, W. C.
Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight:
conservation of the land birds of the United States. American Bird
Conservancy: The Plains, VA.

Rosenberg, K. V. and T. P. Hodgman. 2000. Draft Partners in Flight
landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 28: Eastern
Spruce-Hardwood Forest.

Roth, R. R., M. S. Johnson and T. J. Underwood. 1996. Wood thrush
*Hylochicla mustelina*. Pp. in A. Poole and F. Gill, ed., The Birds of
North America, No. 246. The Academy of Natural Sciences, and The
American Ornithologists\' Union, Philadelphia, PA and Washington, D.C.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.3625in"
height="4.322222222222222in"}**Figure B1**: GIS coverages used for the
Wood Thrush example. The habitat model and the conservation lands layer
were developed by the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Program.

Number range CHAPTER

![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.102083333333334in"
height="3.8673611111111112in"}

**APPENDIX C.**

Proposal to prioritize Regional conservation targets adapted from
process developed in Region 3.

**IDENTIFYING FWS CONSERVATION TARGETS**

We propose that Conservation targets be developed for each Region by
teams representing each of the Service's Programs from a resource
management perspective. This should be an iterative process whereby
input from each Ecosystem is solicited, discussed, evaluated and
incorporated into a final Regional list. The following sections describe
in some detail considerations for identifying Conservation Targets by
three key FWS Programs: Migratory Birds, Ecological Services, and
Fisheries.

**Migratory Bird Program Information**

Migratory birds are a Trust responsibility of the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act are the primary Federal laws giving the
Service authority over these species. Several cooperative initiatives
are actively working to conserve migratory birds and their habitats.
These include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in
Flight (PIF), the U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the North American

Woodcock Management Plan.

The Service identifies priority migratory bird species as follows:

1\) *Birds of Conservation Concern* - The Service\'s list of Birds of
Conservation Concern 2001 (BCC) are of high priority because they are
exhibiting sharp and documented population declines. Regional BCC lists
also include species that are rare in (but not peripheral to) the
Region. Birds on the BCC list are nongame species that are protected
under the MBTA (but not the Endangered Species Act). They were
identified using national criteria that include population abundance and
trends, distribution and threats on the breeding and wintering grounds,
and the importance of Bird Conservation Regions within a Region to each
species.

*2) Harvested species* - This category includes species or populations
of migratory game birds (e.g., ducks and geese) that are of management
importance within a Region because of their recreational value and, in
some cases, declining status (e.g., American Woodcock).

*3) Invasive species* - This category includes both endemic 'nuisance'
species such as the Double-crested Cormorants (impacting or perceived to
be impacting fish populations, aquaculture, vegetation, and other
colonial waterbirds), Snow Geese (causing arctic habitat damage), and
urban Canada Geese (mostly of the Giant race, causing nuisance
problems); and, introduced species like the European starling.

Assessment of bird species priorities will continue as monitoring,
research, and conservation planning progress. Thus, the list of bird
species identified as Conservation targets should be considered dynamic.
Activities being undertaken through PIF, USSCP, and NAWCP will refine
species priority assessments at the national and ecoregional levels.

State-designated priority species, or other species of particular
interest to our partners, are included in the WH-1-3 process at the
ecosystem level where they may be included as our partners' conservation
targets.

**Ecological Services, Endangered Species Program Information**

Under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, the Service
has primary responsibility to preserve not only jeopardized life, but
also the natural resources on which life depends. The condition of plant
and animal species tells us how much of our world continues to support a
healthy environment. More knowledge of complete ecosystems can help us
to better understand and protect the requirement of all life\--including
the human species.

As of December 2001, a total of 1,254 native species have been placed on
the U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The lead
responsibility for each of these species varies from Region to Region.
For example, Region 3 has National lead responsibility for 40 of the 68
listed species found in the North Central Region. Lead responsibility
includes facilitating recovery activities for listed species, in
addition to facilitating conservation activities for proposed,
candidate, rare/declining species, and delisted species pursuant to the
Act, various regulations and Service policy.

Each Region is home to many unstudied or under-studied rare species; the
nature of hundreds of these species presents a real challenge for each
Region to satisfactorily identify which of them should be selected as
Conservation targets. Often, too little is known about conserving rare
species (i.e., threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species)
and thus they are difficult to prioritize. It is even more difficult to
prioritize rare and/or declining species that we "suspect" may warrant
threatened or endangered classifications, and species of concern status.
Many taxa currently under consideration for listing as threatened or
endangered are virtually unknown to most biologists -- cave and aquatic
invertebrates, beetles, snails, bryophytes, ferns, other rare plants,
planaria, fungi, prairie leafhoppers, etc.

The following criteria should be considered when identifying
Conservation targets based on Endangered Species Program considerations:

> 1\) Listed, proposed and candidate species.
>
> 2\) Rare/declining species for which Service sponsored conservation
> actions are being planned or are currently underway.
>
> 3\) Listed species undergoing reclassification or delisting.
>
> 4\) Species delisted within 5 years, undergoing post-delisting
> monitoring activities.

Species not identified on this list are also important. Many species not
identified on this list will derive incidental benefits from
conservation efforts and management activities made on behalf of the
priority species because they share habitats or other life history
traits. Assessment of species priorities will be an ongoing task as
monitoring, research, and conservation planning efforts continue
throughout the Service.

**Fisheries Program Information**

There are approximately 1,462 species of finfish, crayfish, and
freshwater mussels in North America. Several hundred of these are
potentially covered under the fisheries program's Federal trust
responsibilities. The Service's Fisheries program is currently drafting
a strategic vision document for protecting the health of our aquatic
habitats, restoring fish and other aquatic resources, and to provide
opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources (Draft
Conserving America's Fisheries, 2002)

The strategic vision identifies six focus areas and associated goals:

1\) Aquatic Species Conservation and Management;

2\) Public Use;

3\) Cooperation with Native Americans;

4\) Leadership in Science and Technology;

5\) Aquatic Habitat Conservation and Management;

6\) Workforce Management.

The goals described for these focus areas provide guidance for selecting
and prioritizing conservation targets in the WH-1-3 process. For aquatic
species conservation and management the priority is on maintaining or
restoring healthy populations of native and interjurisdictional fish and
other aquatic resources; while reducing the threat from invasive
species. Through the public use and cooperation with Native American
focus areas there are additional priorities for species important for
recreation, and for those resources which the agency has a trust
responsibility to Native American Tribes. In addition to the more
species-specific conservation targets, healthy and intact ecosystems are
integral to meeting the program's goals.

A preliminary list of aquatic resource conservation targets should be
assembled by a regional team that includes Fisheries resource priorities
described above. The resulting focused list of aquatic species and
resource management conservation targets should span the Service's
responsibilities and authorities while also representing a broad
spectrum of ecological diversity. In this regard the conservation target
list would presents the best available subset of aquatic species, among
the hundreds qualified for special emphasis by the Service.

As of December 2003, the USGS National Gap Analysis Program has
initiated several aquatic GAP projects throughout the country (see
Figure C1). In general the objectives of the aquatic GAP projects will
serve to: Characterize aquatic biodiversity; identify the extent to
which current management efforts are conserving aquatic biodiversity;
and to identify methods for integrating Number range CHAPTERterrestrial
and aquatic biodiversity assesments.

Number range CHAPTER ![](media/image11.png){width="6.492361111111111in"
height="4.075in"}

Number range CHAPTER

**APPENDIX D.**

Directives found in Service documents that are especially relevant for
developing and incorporating conservation target objectives in refuge
management and planning.

+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| **Source**      | **Title or Directive**                             |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| **601 FW 1      | **NWRS Mission, Goals, and Purposes**              |
| DRAFT**         |                                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 1.1      | "This chapter provides goals for the System...     |
| DRAFT           | also provides guidance on the use of goals..."     |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 1.5      | "There is a clear need for a network of lands and  |
| DRAFT           | waters representing the diversity of landscapes    |
|                 | and ecosystems of the United States dedicated to   |
|                 | the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants"    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 1.6.D    | "What are the goals of the System? ...D. Preserve  |
| DRAFT           | and restore representative ecosystems of the       |
|                 | United States, including the natural processes     |
|                 | characteristic of those ecosystems"                |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 1.7      | "We strive to establish and maintain a network of  |
| DRAFT           | biological reserves to ensure preservation of our  |
|                 | Nation's diverse natural heritage..."              |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 1.9      | "We consider these goals \[i.e., listed in 601 FW  |
| DRAFT           | 1.6\] in developing wildlife population and        |
|                 | habitat goals and objectives at the System,        |
|                 | regional, ecosystem, and unit level; in providing  |
|                 | a frame of reference for Comprehensive             |
|                 | Conservation Plans; to guide the land acquisition  |
|                 | decision-making process..."                        |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| # 602 FW 1      | # Refuge Planning Overview                         |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 1.3      | "The CCP will guide management decisions and set   |
|                 | forth goals, objectives, and strategies to         |
|                 | accomplish these ends."                            |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 1.7      | "Refuge planning should maintain continuity and    |
|                 | consistency with other planning efforts. The       |
|                 | relationship between these planning efforts is     |
|                 | hierarchical, starting from national plans to      |
|                 | regional, State, and ecosystem-level plans,        |
|                 | stepping down to refuge-specific plans." \[602 FW  |
|                 | 1 also points out the iterative nature of working  |
|                 | within this hierarchy.\]                           |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 1.7.B    | "Refuges must review goals and objectives of       |
|                 | existing ecosystem plans and determine how the     |
|                 | refuge can best contribute to the functioning of   |
|                 | the ecosystem."                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 1.7.C    | "We integrate land acquisition and CCP planning    |
|                 | throughout the land acquisition planning process." |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 1.8.C    | "The \[Regional\] Special Assistant for Ecosystems |
|                 | is responsible for ensuring that ecosystem teams   |
|                 | participate in developing plans and implementing   |
|                 | approved plans."                                   |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| # 602 FW 3      | # Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process      |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW 3.3.A    | "What are our goals for Comprehensive Conservation |
|                 | Planning? A. To ensure that wildlife comes first   |
|                 | in the National Wildlife Refuge System and that we |
|                 | manage each refuge to help fulfill the mission of  |
|                 | the Refuge System, maintain and, where             |
|                 | appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of   |
|                 | each refuge and the Refuge System, as well as      |
|                 | achieve the specific purposes for which the refuge |
|                 | was established."                                  |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW          | "The \[CCP\] vision statement and goals will       |
| 3.4.C.1.g       | reflect planning unit purposes; help fulfill the   |
|                 | mission of the Refuge System; maintain and, where  |
|                 | appropriate, restore ecological integrity; and     |
|                 | will be consistent with mandates and principles of |
|                 | sound fish and wildlife management."               |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 602 FW          | "Develop objectives \[in CCPs\] with consideration |
| 3.4.C.2.d       | of regional and Service ecosystem goals and        |
|                 | objectives."                                       |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| **601 FW 3**    | **Biological Integrity, Diversity, and             |
|                 | Environmental Health**                             |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 3.7.B    | "The Refuge Administration Act states that each    |
|                 | refuge will be managed to fulfill refuge           |
|                 | purpose(s) as well as to help fulfill the System   |
|                 | mission, and we will accomplish these purpose(s)   |
|                 | and our mission by ensuring that the biological    |
|                 | integrity, diversity, and environmental health of  |
|                 | each refuge are maintained, and where appropriate, |
|                 | restored."                                         |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 3.17.A   | "We will take a proactive approach to identifying  |
|                 | lands that are critical for maintaining or         |
|                 | restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and |
|                 | environmental health of the System at all          |
|                 | landscape scales. We will integrate this approach  |
|                 | into all Service strategies and initiatives        |
|                 | related to the strategic growth of the System."    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 601 FW 3.19.A   | "We integrate the principles of this \[ecological  |
|                 | integrity\] policy into all aspects of             |
|                 | comprehensive conservation planning, including     |
|                 | pre-planning guidance (see 602 FW 3.4C(1)(e)) as   |
|                 | we complete plans to direct long-range refuge      |
|                 | management and identify desired future conditions  |
|                 | for proposed refuges (see 602 FW 1.7D)."           |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| # 052 FW 1      | # Concept \[of Ecos                                |
|                 | ystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation\] |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1        | "This chapter presents the concept of the U.S.     |
|                 | Fish and Wildlife Service\'s ecosystem approach to |
|                 | fish and wildlife conservation."                   |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1.2.C.1  | "The primary goal \[of the ecosystem approach\] is |
|                 | conserving natural biological diversity and        |
|                 | ecosystem integrity, while supporting a            |
|                 | sustainable level of human use."                   |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1.3.B.1  | "As the Service, working closely with others,      |
|                 | carries out its mission and mandates, it will      |
|                 | constantly strive to contribute to: the effective  |
|                 | conservation of natural biological diversity       |
|                 | through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy           |
|                 | ecosystems."                                       |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1.6.A.4  | "Developing and mapping pertinent ecological       |
|                 | information on a national scale to support         |
|                 | conservation initiatives will continue in          |
|                 | cooperation with other agencies."                  |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1.6.C    | "Service managers must think and function at       |
|                 | multiple scales simultaneously. Planning and       |
|                 | implementing management actions within the         |
|                 | Service\'s ecosystem units must be flexible enough |
|                 | to address site-specific conservation priorities   |
|                 | and reflect the broader population and habitat     |
|                 | needs of widely ranging species."                  |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 052 FW 1.12.E   | \[Definition of ecosystem approach\]: "Protecting  |
|                 | or restoring the natural function, structure, and  |
|                 | species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing   |
|                 | that all components are interrelated. Management   |
|                 | of natural resources using systemwide concepts to  |
|                 | ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems   |
|                 | are maintained at viable levels in native habitats |
|                 | and that basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated |
|                 | indefinitely."                                     |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+