U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1277

Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey

Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program:

2004–2009
In Memoriam

In memory of Timothy M. Bartish (1956–2004), who, as leader 

of the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) 

Program, made significant contributions to ecological monitoring on a 

national scale, to the development of this Plan, and most importantly, to 

the lives of his family and many colleagues and friends.
Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey 

Status and Trends of Biological Resources

Program: 2004–2009

By Paul V. Dresler, Daniel L. James, Paul H. Geissler, Timothy M. Bartish,

and James Coyle

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1277
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text. 

Permission to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.

Suggested citation:

Dresler, P.V., James, D.L., Geissler, P.H., Bartish, T.M., and Coyle, J., 2004, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological 

Survey Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program: 2004–2009: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Discipline, Circular 1277, 23 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004
iii

Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... vi

Why Monitor the Status and Trends of Biological Resources? ............................................................ 1

What Is the Organizational Context and Role of the Program? ............................................................ 1

Department of the Interior .................................................................................................................. 2

U.S. Geological Survey ....................................................................................................................... 2

USGS Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program ........................................................ 3

What Are the Needs and Challenges? ...................................................................................................... 4

Greater Integration of Data and Information at Multiple Scales ................................................. 4

A Systems Perspective of Status and Trends ................................................................................. 4

Human and Fiscal Resources ............................................................................................................ 6

Where Are We Going? . 6

A National Framework for Monitoring Biological Resources ...................................................... 6

How Will We Get There? ............................................................................................................................. 7

Goal 1: Develop a Conceptual Model and the Required Infrastructure (a National Monitoring Framework) ....................................................................................................................... 7

Goal 2: Develop and Evaluate Inventory and Monitoring Methods ............................................. 9

Goal 3: Collect, Manage, Archive, and Share Critical, High-Quality Monitoring Data ............. 9

Goal 4: Produce and Provide Analyses and Reports that Synthesize Information ................. 10

Implementation ........... 10

Table 1. Strategic Plan Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Outcomes, and Measures for Achieving

the Mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program, 2004–2009 ........ 11

Figure 1. Summary and Timeline of Status and Trends Program Goals, Objectives, Outcomes, 

Measures, and Milestones: 2004–2009 ...................................................................................... 19

Table 2. Recommended Directions by Taxa and Theme for Advancing Program Goals ................. 20

List of Abbreviations ... 22

References Cited ........ 23
iv

Foreword

The Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), Biological Resources Discipline (BRD), established a Program Planning Committee to develop a 5-year Strategic Plan. The Committee was selected from nominees recommended by USGS-BRD Science Center Directors and included representatives from the Water 

Resources, Geology, and Geography Disciplines. Committee members represent a wide range 

of regional, interdisciplinary, and intra-bureau scientific and technical perspectives. 

The Committee was encouraged to solicit input from peers within and outside of the 

USGS, including other Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus, other federal and state 

agencies, and non-governmental organizations. This dialog with internal and external clients 

and partners ensured a lively debate concerning the challenges of and approaches to meeting 

Program goals. Committee members were also tasked with summarizing the goals, objectives, 

deliverables, and measures of success for selected ongoing Program activities. The resulting 

“topical papers” provided the basis for discussions that led to the Program priorities addressed 

in this Strategic Plan. 

The Plan describes a vision for assessing the status and trends of the Nation’s biological resources and sets milestones for measuring progress over the next 5 years. It presents a 

strategy for moving the Program beyond a “large collection of projects” (USGS, 1999) toward 

an integrated and focused effort to address identified monitoring information needs. A critical aspect of this Plan is the development of a National Monitoring Framework for biological 

resources. The Framework is intended to provide a structure for achieving better data sharing 

and integration related to biological monitoring.

This Plan also envisions long-term participation and involvement by the full community, 

public and private, that may collect and/or use biological resource monitoring data and information. It addresses requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and meets the planning process requirements outlined by the 

USGS Director. Just as important, the Plan provides for accountability of the Program to the 

USGS, DOI, OMB, Congress, and the public.

Recognizing that input from stakeholders is critical to Plan success, the Program solicited 

review and comment on the Plan from individuals representing a variety of federal, state, tribal, 

and non-governmental organizations. Their thoughts and comments were integral to creating a 

plan relevant to resource management needs.

Acknowledgments

The efforts, dedication, and input of our many colleagues in the USGS and partner/client 

agencies and organizations clarified our vision and refined and enriched the Status and Trends 

of Biological Resources Program Strategic Plan. To begin with, we would not have a Plan were 

it not for the initial labors, expertise, and vision of the Planning Committee. The team comprised:

Steve Amstrup, Alaska Science Center

Tim Bartish, Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program, BEST Program

Jayne Belnap, Southwest Biological Science Center

Rob Bennetts, Florida Integrated Science Center

David Busch, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

Steve Corn, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

Paul Dresler, Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program Coordinator

George Durner, Alaska Science Center
v

Paul Geissler, Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program, National

 Park Monitoring

Tom Gunther, Geographic Information Office

Pam Haverland, Columbia Environmental Research Center 

Marshall Howe, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Dan James, Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program

Barry Johnson, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

Doug Johnson, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

Jimmy Johnston, National Wetlands Research Center

Tim King, Leetown Science Center

Lee Lamb, Fort Collins Science Center

Tom Loveland, Geography Discipline, EROS Data Center

Steve Moulton, Water Resources Discipline, National Water Quality Assessment

Karen Oakley, Alaska Science Center

Dave Pyke, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

Mike Ruggiero, Biological Information Management Program, Taxonomic Information

John Sauer, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Chris Schmitt, Columbia Environmental Research Center

Steve Schwarzbach, Western Ecological Research Center

Bern Shanks, Western Regional Office

Tom Stohlgren, Fort Collins Science Center

David Woodson, Western Regional Office

Lisa Zolly, Biological Information Management Program

Our cadre of reviewers provided invaluable suggestions and insights to make the Plan 

more reflective of land and resource manager needs. We especially thank the reviewers from 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as The Ornithological Council, International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and many of our colleagues at USGS Science Centers across the 

country for their significant contributions to the quality of this Plan.

Special thanks go to Carolyn Bell, USGS Communications Officer, who served as facilitator for the Planning Committee meetings, and to Tony Frank, USGS Eastern Regional Office, 

and Mike Ruggiero, who persevered in advancing the draft Plan through its later stages.

Finally, we acknowledge Melissa Dresler, who reviewed and edited the many iterations; 

Juliette Wilson of Johnson Controls World Services (under contract to the USGS Fort Collins 

Science Center), who incorporated review comments and conducted the final edits; and Jennifer 

Shoemaker and Dora Medellin at the Fort Collins Science Center, who designed and generated 

the final publication. 
vi

Executive Summary

The mission of the USGS Status 

and Trends of Biological Resources 

Program is to measure, predict, assess, 

and report the status and trends of the 

Nation’s biological resources to facilitate research, enable resource management and stewardship, and promote 

public understanding and appreciation 

of our living resources. Determining the 

status (abundance, distribution, productivity, and health) and trends (how these 

variables change over time) of our living natural resources is critical for their 

protection or restoration. The Program 

provides the USGS, other agencies of 

the Department of the Interior (DOI), 

other federal and state agencies, and the 

public with science-based monitoring data and information for local, regional, and national 

assessment of biological resources and the ecosystems that support them.

The Status and Trends Program developed this Strategic Plan to better meet the biological 

inventory and monitoring information needs of the land and resource management community. 

By setting clear goals, strategies, and measures of success, this Plan will guide development of 

a more cohesive, unified Program over the next 5 years. Further, the Plan outlines strategies for 

increasing communication, cooperation, and collaboration among the USGS and other agencies and organizations involved in biological resource monitoring. Most importantly, the Plan 

envisions a process where scientifically valid biological status and trends information, across 

multiple spatial and temporal scales, is readily available to land and resource managers and 

their stakeholders to inform and enable sound stewardship of the Nation’s biological resources 

and their supporting ecosystems.

Over the next 5 years, progress made in addressing each long-term Program goal and 

its associated 5-year priority objectives will gauge the Plan’s success. Specific strategies, 

outcomes, and measures of success related to accomplishing these goals and objectives, both 

programmatically and within the context of specific taxa, are described in this Plan and are 

summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1.

All of the following goals involve partnering to coordinate and integrate information collection, management, and dissemination. Such cooperation and collaboration, built purposefully 

and steadily over time, is essential to their achievement. 

Goal 1: Develop a Conceptual Model and the Required Infrastructure 

(A National Monitoring Framework) that Facilitates the Integration of 

Information from a Variety of Sources, at Multiple Spatial and Temporal 

Scales, to Describe and Track the Abundance, Distribution, Productivity, 

and Health of the Nation’s Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems

The Program will work to develop a conceptual model and the required partnerships 

(a National Monitoring Framework) to facilitate the acquisition, sharing, and integration of 

scientifically valid status and trends information. In partnership with collaborators, a document 

will be developed describing the elements that constitute the Framework, the organizational 

relationships among them, and their contribution to the accomplishment of existing and emergTrumpeter swan with numbered wing tags. This technique allows birds to be monitored remotely without the 

need for recapture to identify individuals. Photo by

 Wayne Miller.
vii

ing biological resource monitoring goals. The Framework will undergo periodic review and 

refinement, and will foster improved programmatic efficiencies and economies of scale through 

better collaboration than currently exists among public and private organizations. 

Goal 2: Develop and Evaluate Inventory and Monitoring Methods, Protocols, Experimental Designs, Analytic Tools, Models, and Technologies to 

Measure Biological Status and Trends

Achievement of a holistic approach to monitoring the status and trends of biological 

resources will require that methodologies are current, appropriate to their intended purpose, 

well documented, scientifically sound, and to the extent possible, compatible among studies. 

As a part of this effort, the Program will network and cooperate with DOI and other public and 

private organizations conducting research programs that involve developing biological inventory and monitoring tools and techniques.

Goal 3: Collect, Manage, Archive, and Share Critical, High-Quality Monitoring Data in Cooperation with Partners to Enable a Determination of the 

Status and Trends of Biological Resources

At the heart of the Program are its existing monitoring activities, and the USGS is committed to continuing the data collection activities that are core to its mission (USGS, 2002). Here 

again, the Program will coordinate with other agencies and organizations engaged in biological inventory and monitoring to harmonize monitoring efforts and identify gaps where further 

investments are warranted.

Goal 4: Produce and Provide Analyses and Reports that Synthesize Information on the Status and Trends of Our Nation’s Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems and Respond to the Needs of the Scientific Community, Land and 

Resource Managers, Policymakers, and the Public

The Program will assess the information collected and produce reports that are relevant 

to resource management and biological research needs, and provide information and technical 

support that also meet the needs of DOI and other resource management agencies.

 1

Why Monitor the Status and Trends of 

Biological Resources?

The Nation’s living resources and the habitats on which 

they depend are undergoing constant change. In the face 

of influences like climate change, invasive species, and a 

plethora of human activities, natural resource management and 

conservation efforts are becoming increasingly challenging 

and complex.

To protect and conserve the living resources entrusted to 

their care, land and resource managers must first understand 

the condition, or status, of those resources:

• inventory (what they are),

• abundance (how many there are),

• distribution (where they are located), 

• productivity (their capacity to reproduce), and

• health (their well-being, resilience);

and their trends (how these variables change over time and 

space).

Credible, long-term monitoring is required to satisfy 

these information needs. In addition, long-term monitoring can 

be used for

• detecting changes that may signal degradation of or 

improvement in natural systems, 

• identifying new or emerging conditions that signal the 

need for management action or further investigative 

research,

• providing feedback critical to evaluating the effectiveness of specific management actions in adaptive 

management (see inset),

• validating research results and models, and

• promoting increased public understanding and appreciation of the status and trends of our living resources. 

What Is the Organizational Context and 

Role of the Program?

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Status and Trends 

of Biological Resources Program recognizes that a wide 

variety of public and private organizations are involved in 

biological or ecological monitoring efforts. Examples include 

federal entities such as the Departments of the Interior (DOI), 

Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, Defense, Energy, and 

Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the 

National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA)—as well as tribal and state 

governments, academic and research institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This Plan acknowledges 

the value of these ongoing efforts and promotes collaboration 

in sharing and integrating data and information generated by 

the diverse monitoring community. Enhanced cooperation 

will expand our ability to understand and forecast the condition of our shared biological resources. 

Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and 

Trends of Biological Resources Program: 2004–2009

Adaptive resource management is a sequential

decision-making process for continually improving

management policies and practices by learning from

the outcomes of previous decisions (Walters, 1986).

Long-term monitoring at regular intervals is a critical 

component of this process to evaluate the resource’s 

response to management action and detect change 

that may require either adjustments in management 

actions or further investigative research. In addition, 

long-term monitoring can span changes driven by 

natural forces, such as unusual weather patterns, 

disease events, fire, changes in predator densities, or 

other factors, so the managers can recognize trends, 

anticipate outcomes, and adapt management actions 

to respond to them.

Update

Model

Modify

Strategy

Research

Monitor

Adaptive

Management

Evaluate

Effectiveness

Management

Actions
2 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

The remainder of this section places the Plan within the 

context of the DOI and USGS strategic plans and explains how 

this Plan addresses and responds to their respective monitoring 

requirements.

Department of the Interior 

The mission of the DOI is to protect and manage the 

Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor 

its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American 

Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities. To 

meet its stewardship responsibilities, as conveyed by numerous legislative authorities,1

 the DOI is mandated to estimate 

the availability and abundance of fish and wildlife resources, 

determine the distribution and abundance of migratory birds, 

investigate and report on North American birds, conduct 

inventories of all public lands and their resources, implement 

programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, 

conserve marine mammals, and implement the Convention on 

Great Lakes Fisheries.

The Department relies upon biological monitoring 

information to achieve its mission, measure its success in 

responding to these legislative mandates, and determine its 

progress toward meeting DOI Resource Protection goals. 

These include: 

• improving the health of watersheds, landscapes, and 

marine resources that are DOI-managed or influenced 

in a manner consistent with obligations regarding the 

allocation and use of water;

• sustaining biological communities on DOI-managed 

and influenced lands and waters in a manner consistent 

with obligations regarding the allocation and use of 

water; and

• protecting cultural and natural heritage resources.

To fulfill these 

goals, the DOI drafted 

a Strategic Plan (DOI, 

2003) that aims to 

expand its biological information base, 

improve its data 

management, enhance 

technical assistance 

to resource managers, 

and improve resource 

assessment processes 

in support of these 

goals (see box, page 3). More specifically, the DOI Plan 

identifies performance measures for evaluating its success in 

achieving desired habitat conditions, restoring burned areas, 

establishing sustainable populations of targeted species, 

and evaluating the status and trends of invasive species. The 

availability of scientifically credible monitoring information is crucial to the ability of DOI to achieve its resource 

management objectives as demonstrated through established 

performance measures. Many of the priorities in the Status 

and Trends Program Strategic Plan derive from and directly 

support stated DOI information needs. Relationships between 

DOI goals and Program strategies and desired outcomes are 

cross-referenced in Table 1.

U.S. Geological Survey

The USGS is the DOI’s principal science agency. As 

such, it is entrusted to provide unbiased, independent data and 

information on hydrology, geology, geography, and biology.2

Specifically, the USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable 

scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; 

manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and 

enhance and protect our quality of life. Included in the USGS 

mission are requirements to collect natural resource information and conduct systematic analyses and investigations to 

inform natural resource decision making (USGS, 2002). To 

achieve its mission, the USGS intends to “continue to improve 

the quality and usefulness of its long-term data sets,” and, 

where appropriate, work with partners (other federal, state, 

tribal, and local governments; academic and research institutions; and private organizations) to acquire the necessary data. 

“A major part of protecting those resources is knowing 

what they are, where they are, how they interact with 

their environment and what condition they are in. This 

involves a serious commitment from the leadership of the 

National Park Service to insist that the superintendents 

carry out a systematic, consistent, professional inventory and monitoring program, along with other scientific 

activities, that is regularly updated to ensure that the 

Service makes sound resource decisions based on sound 

scientific data.” 

U.S. House of Representatives (1999)

1

For example, the Antiquities Act, National Park Service Organic Act, 

Lacey Act, Endangered Species Act, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

2

The Organic Act, 43 U.S.C. 31 et seq., 1879; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 1934; Fish and Wildlife Act, 1956; Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 1918; 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 1900; Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, 1976; Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act, 1978; Endangered Species 

Act, 1973; Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972; Great Lakes Fishery Act, 

1956; Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, 1990; 

Water Resources Development Act, 1990; and other authorizations conveyed 

to the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Now and in the future, rigorous 

approaches to inventorying and 

monitoring wildlife resources are 

needed to provide the information critical to devise, evaluate, 

and refine management strategies implemented to meet refuge 

goals and objectives.” 

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (1999)
 3

USGS Status and Trends of Biological 

Resources Program

The Program responds to the monitoring and information needs and requirements of both the DOI and the USGS. 

It works closely with the resource management community 

to provide scientifically sound approaches to fulfilling its 

mission of measuring, predicting, assessing, and reporting the 

status and trends of our living resources. This Strategic Plan 

defines the Program goals and outlines a strategy for achieving 

this mission. The Plan also serves as a tool to guide Program 

management through periodic Program reviews, annual project 

reviews, and day-to-day operations.

Program Activities. The Program currently comprises 

a wide variety of activities. The major components of this 

approximately $19 million Program are projects focused on 

national park monitoring; bird, mammal, and fish monitoring; 

vegetation mapping; contaminant effects monitoring; development of monitoring standards and protocols; taxonomy, statistics, and museum studies; predictive population modeling; 

science for decision support systems; adaptive management; 

and human dimensions and socioeconomics. Program work 

is enhanced by many additional monitoring projects funded 

through other internal and external programs and partners.

In FY 2004, there were more than 250 activities funded 

by the Program. These projects, tasks, and subtasks address 

Department of the Interior Strategic Plan 

Goals and Strategies*

End Outcome Goal 1. Improve the health of watersheds, landscapes, and marine resources that are DOI-managed 

or influenced in a manner consistent with obligations regarding the allocation and use of water.

Strategy 1-1: Restore and maintain proper function to watersheds and landscapes.

Strategy 1-2: Improve information base, information management, and technical assistance.

End Outcome Goal 2. Sustain biological communities on DOI-managed and influenced lands and waters in a 

manner consistent with obligations regarding allocation and use of water.

Strategy 2-1: Create habitat conditions for biological communities to flourish.

Strategy 2-2: Manage populations to self-sustaining levels for specific species.

Strategy 2-3: Improve information base, information management, and technical assistance.

End Outcome Goal 3. Protect cultural and natural heritage resources.

Strategy 3-1: Increase knowledge base of cultural and natural heritage resources managed or influenced by DOI.

Strategy 3-2: Manage Special Management Areas for natural heritage resource objectives.

Strategy 3-3: Reduce degradation and protect cultural and natural heritage resources.

Strategy 3-4: Increase partnerships, volunteer opportunities, and stakeholder satisfaction.

*DOI, 2003. DOI and Status and Trends Program goals and strategies coincide and/or support one another. Monitoring 

underpins the associated measures and outcomes. For a detailed analysis and specific linkages, refer to Table 1, p. 11.

Kristin Simac of the Alaska Science Center’s Polar Bear Research 

Project weighs a radio-collared bear captured on the pack-ice of 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Photo by Steven Amstrup, USGS.

What Is the Organizational Context and Role of the Program?
4 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

status and trends of the full range of biological resources, from 

wildlife disease pathogens to marine mammals in the Arctic. 

They also include trends related to socioeconomic factors 

that influence visitation to public lands. Program activities 

are diverse given their origins in various DOI bureaus with 

different missions and priorities. For example, the Program 

includes (1) status and trends monitoring for endangered 

species, migratory birds, and marine mammals to help the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service meet its requirements to manage 

and protect public trust resources; (2) Great Lakes fish stock 

assessments to satisfy international agreements and Native 

American treaty obligations; (3) monitoring of select biota 

within networks of national parks to help preserve their natural 

resources and promote biodiversity; and (4) inventory and 

monitoring of vegetation, invertebrates, and fish populations 

to assess the impacts of human activities in the Upper Mississippi River for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Through projects like these and similar efforts (see box, 

page 5), the Program continues to successfully produce data 

and information that is highly relevant and timely. A formal 

review of the Program (USGS, 1999) found that “the Status 

and Trends Program is a strong and valuable part of the 

BRD [Biological Resources Discipline] and that...BRD has 

established strong scientific expertise and leadership in many 

aspects of inventory and monitoring.”

What Are the Needs and Challenges?

Greater Integration of Data and Information at 

Multiple Scales

Although individual projects of the Program are providing valuable information to the USGS and its partners, they 

have not yet been integrated into a comprehensive strategy for 

holistically assessing the abundance, distribution, productivity, 

and health of the Nation’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. 

Because they originated in other DOI bureaus with different missions and/or legislative mandates, these monitoring 

activities are not always comparable or compatible in their 

design, methodology, or purpose. Further, they are not fully 

complementary: collectively, they do not represent a complete 

and comprehensive program of status and trends services and 

expertise.

The synthesis of data and information derived from 

biological monitoring projects is a key need. This will 

produce a more complete, holistic understanding of the status 

and trends of living systems, spanning multiple spatial and 

temporal scales. The Program Review (USGS, 1999) stated 

that “BRD scientists need to view themselves as vital elements 

of an overall Status and Trends research team that collectively 

contribute to a grand vision.” Hence, the Program needs to 

move beyond “a loose collection of projects” and integrate 

information across scales and from multiple sources. However, 

progress toward integration must be accomplished without 

compromising the ability to address the data and information 

needs associated with ongoing, site-specific USGS Status and 

Trends projects, even as we work to consolidate and align 

them into a cohesive whole. 

The USGS must work with partners and clients to generate relevant biological monitoring data that forms the basis 

for sound resource management decisions. Only with their 

participation can a national framework of cooperation and 

partnership begin to emerge.

A Systems Perspective of Status and Trends

Just as important, the Program needs to approach the 

status and trends of biological resources from a systems 

perspective. This means focusing on a holistic view of all 

species and their habitats placed within a context of the 

systems (ecosystems) in which they reside. This systems 

approach to monitoring will require that knowledge be 

acquired at multiple biological (genetic, species, populations, 

“The U.S. government spends hundreds of millions 

of dollars on the collection of natural resource and 

environmental data. These activities produce a wide 

variety of information, designed to be useful in the 

context of regulatory and management programs. Other 

entities likewise have used a variety of approaches and 

chosen different sets of indicators. These activities 

provide a good basis for further work. Currently the 

U.S. government does not have a framework to guide 

federal indicator development or provide a consistent 

analytic basis for working with international, state or 

non-governmental indicators endeavors.” 

CEQ (2002)

This endangered California red-legged frog wears a belt-attached 

transmitter that allows scientists to track individual movements. 

Photo by Gary M. Fellers, USGS.
 5

Examples of Recent Accomplishments and Ongoing Work

of the USGS Status and Trends Program

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). The BBS is a long-term, continental avian monitoring project 

designed to track the status and trends of North American bird populations. Each year, during the 

height of the avian breeding season, participants skilled in avian identification collect bird population 

data from over 4,100 survey routes located across the continental U.S. and southern Canada. The data 

provide an index of population abundance that can be used to estimate population trends and relative 

abundances at various geographic scales. BBS data were instrumental in focusing research and management action on neotropical migrant species in the late 1980s and on grassland species in the mid-1990s. 

Over 270 scientific publications have drawn heavily from BBS data.

Monitoring Great Lakes Fisheries. Fisheries are a valuable natural resource in the Great Lakes 

Region, and coordinated research programs are needed to sustain the productivity of these important 

fish populations. State, tribal, and federal managers across the Great Lakes basin have requested help 

in providing accurate assessments of fluctuating prey fish populations. For over 30 years, the Great 

Lakes Science Center has conducted annual bottom trawl surveys in all five Great Lakes that focus on 

the health of prey fish populations such as alewife, rainbow smelt, bloater, sculpin, and lake herring. 

This information helps managers with decisions concerning top fish predators (e.g., lake trout, walleye, 

Pacific salmon, and other sport and commercial fish) that feed on these prey fish. To enhance survey 

estimates of prey fish populations, the program is expanding to include assessments of pelagic (openwater) fish species using remote sensing technology. Staff are also evaluating the experimental design 

to provide even better estimates of prey fish abundance and biomass. Since prey fish may be limited 

by their invertebrate prey as well as by predator populations, scientists also incorporate invertebrate 

community assessments in survey designs. This important monitoring project enhances our understanding of the processes that shape the fish community and identifies characteristics critical to each 

species. The resulting long-term data set also can be used for a variety of long-term ecological studies, 

and enables scientists to address the importance of scale (within lake, between lakes, across basin) in 

ecological research questions. 

Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST). Since 1995, BEST has assessed 

fish health and contaminants in the Nation’s large rivers. As of late 2004, BEST staff had conducted 

sampling at over 95 sites within the Columbia, Colorado, Yukon, Rio Grande, and Mississippi River 

basins. This work documents the impacts of environmental contaminants on fish in large rivers, including reproductive, pathological, and molecular indicators and fish health. BEST also documents and 

provides training to USGS scientists on several biomarker techniques. For example, monitoring results 

have identified potential endocrine disruption in large river fish in some sections of the Upper Mississippi River, prompting the USGS and associated state agencies to launch investigations into the causes.

National Park Monitoring. USGS scientists assist national parks with inventory and monitoring 

protocol development and monitoring-related research needs. Emphasis is on priority issues identified 

by the National Park Service (NPS) that typically involve and benefit several parks and require multiyear efforts. This work began as the USGS part of the cooperative NPS/USGS Long-Term Ecological 

Monitoring (LTEM) Program at 11 parks, which were selected by NPS as “prototypes” of specific 

biomes. Responsibility for a given park is assigned to the closest USGS Science Center with appropriate expertise. During the initial research and design phases of long-term monitoring at that park (usually 

3-5 years), the USGS provides funding and full-time staff. After completion of research and protocol 

designs, monitoring is considered operational, and NPS assumes responsibility. 

Status and Trends Assessments. The Status and Trends Program has periodically published 

comprehensive reports that synthesize our understanding of the Nation’s biological and ecological 

resources (Mac and others, 1998; LaRoe and others, 1995). 

What Are the Needs and Challenges?
6 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

etc.), spatial (local, regional, national, global), and temporal 

(annual, decadal, etc.) scales. A systems approach to monitoring will prove beneficial in the long run by allowing scientists 

and managers to assess monitoring data in the context of the 

surrounding ecosystem conditions, with its attendant biotic 

and abiotic influences, and to recognize patterns not readily 

apparent when focused only on the smaller scales. Because 

ecosystem management protects the biodiversity of entire 

systems, assessing status and trends at the systems level is 

our long-range target. Although population monitoring is 

species-specific, there is a relationship between trends in 

species—particularly indicator or keystone species—and 

healthy, functioning ecosystems. Thus, increased monitoring 

of plant and animal populations is essential to understanding 

ecosystem change and management. Monitoring information 

must be improved so that it accounts adequately for at least 

keystone species and representative members of each community and habitat type (Mac and others, 1998).

Human and Fiscal Resources

Coalescing the separate, sometimes narrowly focused 

and long-standing monitoring activities of the USGS with 

other DOI bureaus, agencies, and organizations to enable a 

comprehensive assessment of the status and trends of biological resources is a challenging proposition. This challenge 

is made even more difficult given that, within this 5-year 

planning cycle, major funding increases are not anticipated. 

At the same time, operational costs (salaries, equipment, 

field work) increase annually. Advancement toward our goals 

will need to be undertaken with only modest or no additional 

funding. Yet, one of the priority staffing needs is to build 

scientific capacity for technical support in designing surveys 

and monitoring protocols, incorporating appropriate statistical 

analysis methods, developing population models, and creating 

methodologies for evaluating the application of information 

to management. Ultimately, new resources will be required in 

order for this Plan to succeed and for the Program to reach its 

full potential.

Another challenge to the Program related to staffing is 

the perception that monitoring is less scientifically challenging 

than other scientific research, resource management, or any 

of the technical roles of the environmental scientist. Because 

of the repeated nature of monitoring activities, the field is 

viewed by some as being less creative or ingenious, thereby 

discouraging some scientists from pursuing monitoring in their 

professional careers (Mac and others, 1998). This perception 

may also explain the reluctance of professional supervisors to 

reward those who do. Once this Plan is implemented—when it 

begins to provide a structured approach to ensure that biological monitoring yields accessible, integrated, usable information, and its value to federal managers for informing resource 

management decisions is more broadly recognized—these 

perceptions should change. 

Where Are We Going? 

A National Framework for Monitoring

Biological Resources

Both the Status and Trends Program Review (USGS, 

1999) and the National Research Council (NRC, 1993) recommended that the Program develop a national framework for 

monitoring biological resources. Development and implementation of this National Monitoring Framework will improve 

our understanding and enable sound stewardship of the 

Nation’s biological resources and the ecosystems that support 

them. To this end, the Program will work with willing collaboMist-netting enables capture of bats for health assessment and population monitoring. Photo courtesy of Paul Cryan, USGS. 

This Mountain Plover is wearing colored leg markers that can 

be viewed from a distance. This facilitates monitoring the bird’s 

movements and other activities without the need for recapture. 

Photo by Fritz Knopf, USGS.
 7

rators to develop a 

conceptual model 

and the required 

partnerships to 

facilitate the 

acquisition, sharing, and integration 

of scientifically 

valid status and 

trends information 

across multiple 

spatial and temporal scales. In 

partnership with 

collaborators, a 

document will be 

developed describing the elements 

that constitute the Framework (i.e., data generators, data users, 

information infrastructure, data reporting protocols, etc.), the 

organizational relationships among them, and their contribution to the accomplishment of existing and emerging biological resource monitoring goals. Specifically, the Framework 

will (1) increase collaboration in data collection to minimize 

duplication of effort; (2) better integrate data across taxa 

and ecological and geographic scales; (3) identify research 

and information needs; (4) promote new methodologies 

and analytical techniques; (5) support operational monitoring activities; and (6) enhance our ability to predict, assess, 

and report the status and trends of our Nation’s biological 

resources. 

The Framework will be a “living” construct, neither static 

nor unchanging, that is periodically reviewed and refined 

to meet new information needs, respond to organizational 

changes and challenges, and reflect budgetary realities. Such 

a Framework will foster improved programmatic efficiencies and economies of scale through better collaboration than 

currently exists among public and private organizations. This 

collaboration, in turn, will render a more comprehensive and 

efficient information base from which to make planning and 

operational decisions, thereby strengthening the quality of 

such decisions and ultimately improving the management of 

biological resources. In the long term, such an extensive and 

common information base could be used to anticipate and 

reduce or mitigate potential conflicts over managing these 

resources. “A Vision of the Future” (see box, page 8) provides 

a scenario of how this might work, using one specific example.

How Will We Get There?

Given the many challenges, fully achieving the mission 

of the Program will take time. Progress will be measured in 

small, modest gains as scientists and resource managers gradually begin to embrace a new way of doing business and build 

toward a common, unified approach to monitoring the status 

and trends of biological resources. Over the next 5 years, 

progress made in implementing the priority objectives for each 

Program goal, described below and in Tables 1 and 2, will 

gauge our success. 

All of the following goals and priority objectives involve 

partnering to coordinate and integrate information collection, management, and dissemination. Such cooperation and 

collaboration, built purposefully and steadily over time, is 

essential to goal achievement.

Goal 1: Develop a Conceptual Model and the Required 

Infrastructure (A National Monitoring Framework) that 

Facilitates the Integration of Information from a Variety 

of Sources, at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales, to 

Describe and Track the Abundance, Distribution, Productivity, and Health of the Nation’s Plants, Animals, and 

Ecosystems

Even with partner collaboration, developing and implementing a Framework as described above will require more 

than the 5 years this Plan covers. However, we can take several 

significant steps in this time period to move substantially 

closer to this goal. Our initial objectives are these:

Objective 1A. Identify current inventory and monitoring 

activities (what, where, why, how, when, by whom, and data 

accessibility). 

Objective 1B. Improve coordination among USGS 

monitoring activities.

Objective 1C. Improve communication and coordination 

between the Program, partners, and stakeholders.

Objective 1D. Develop a Framework for monitoring 

selected biological resources/indicators.

Objective 1A involves working with partner agencies and 

organizations to inventory and understand the nature of ongo-

“The value of statistical indicators 

for measuring performance, demonstrating accountability and assuring that key policy objectives are 

being met is well recognized. Good 

indicators also provide useful information for public discussion about 

national goals and priorities and the 

effectiveness of policies and programs. Conflicts over competing 

uses of natural and environmental 

resources can often be reduced by 

providing better information on 

conditions and trends.”

CEQ (2002)

Where Are We Going?

Individual manatees, like this female and her calf, can be identified by their unique scar patterns, usually a result of collisions 

with boats. Monitoring populations of this endangered species 

provides input to decisions concerning management of manatee 

habitat. Photo by Galen Rathbun, Sirenia Project, USGS.
8 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

A Vision of the Future

A biologist is working to restore 100 acres of dense willow on a major river to benefit nesting 

neotropical migrant songbirds (yellow warbler, willow flycatcher) and resident moose, river otter, and 

beaver. To evaluate success of the management strategy, the biologist must implement a vegetation 

monitoring plan. A wildlife monitoring plan will also be required to document changes in wildlife use 

and correlate these changes to changes in habitat.

The biologist has access to a variety of technical reports, both in print and on the Web, detailing 

the status and trends of the species of interest at the national and regional levels. On the Web, she can 

conduct custom analyses of the status and trends of critical species in the area surrounding the management unit 

using data from national monitoring surveys.

To design a monitoring program, the biologist 

accesses the Status and Trends Web site that is supported 

by and populated with information from all partners 

(federal, state, tribal, and local governments; academic 

and research institutions; and private organizations). 

There she reviews a list of peer-reviewed, scientifically 

valid methods designed to address specific types of 

resource questions. The site is continually updated with 

new applications. In this case the biologist reviews the 

monitoring issues pertaining to the restoration of riparian habitats along major rivers in the central U.S. Expert 

systems are available to assist in determining what questions should be addressed, how the sampling design can be applied, what data collection methodologies 

should be used, and what data analyses are appropriate. A data entry format is provided. She fills it in, 

and a statistically valid monitoring protocol, responsive to the issues and questions entered, is generated. 

Comments and suggestions are available from developers and users of the methods as to their strengths 

and weaknesses. Should additional questions remain, the biologist may use an on-line help link to seek 

further technical assistance or direct questions to appropriate technical experts. She can then implement 

the monitoring effort.

In the field, the biologist enters the collected data following the data entry format associated with 

the protocol, and the information is sent directly to a distributed database maintained by her particular 

management agency and accessible to others via the National Biological Information Infrastructure 

(NBII). Expert systems and analytic tools appropriate for use with this protocol are available online to 

assist with the analysis.

Because common or comparable methods are used, the data may be integrated across multiple 

spatial and temporal scales. Now the biologist can assess how the observed changes in yellow warblers 

found on her management unit compare to changes in yellow warblers across their entire range. The 

broader research community can combine information from this management unit with other data to 

model and assess biological communities in the river basin, or the flyway. Models developed to assess 

the system dynamics and variability of the river basin incorporate information on the biological, hydrological, geological, geographical, social, and economic changes occurring within the system. These 

results are also made available to the biologist to help explain the broader impacts of her unit’s specific 

management actions.

Yellow Warbler. Drawing by Dale Crawford
 9

ing biological monitoring programs. To accomplish Objective 

1B, communication within the USGS will focus on coordinating and integrating information acquired through other Bureau 

monitoring activities with each other and with USGS research 

capabilities in order to advance the mission of the Program. 

To implement the NRC (1993) recommendations and 

meet Objective 1C, the USGS will promote and facilitate 

dialogue among partners to (1) share and increase the collective knowledge concerning the status and trends of biological 

resources, and (2) work together to develop and advance 

a Framework to better understand these critical resources. 

Objective 1D will extend this Plan to include our partners in 

developing a joint strategy for monitoring critical resources 

and harmonizing existing efforts.

Goal 2: Develop and Evaluate Inventory and Monitoring 

Methods, Protocols, Experimental Designs, Analytic 

Tools, Models, and Technologies to Measure Biological 

Status and Trends

Achieving a holistic approach to monitoring the status 

and trends of biological resources will require that methodologies are current, appropriate to their intended purpose, well 

documented, scientifically sound, and to the extent possible, 

compatible among studies. The Program Review (USGS, 

1999) recommended that the Program should be “the agency 

leader for the development of basic biological inventory and 

monitoring protocols...including data quality and analytical 

standards for monitoring programs.”

In addition, the Program should network and cooperate 

with DOI and other public and private organizations conducting research programs that involve developing biological 

inventory and monitoring tools and techniques.

Toward these ends, the Program’s 5-year priority objectives for meeting this goal are as follows:

Objective 2A. Work with USGS staff, partners, clients, 

and others to identify, develop, evaluate, and publish methods, 

analytic tools, and models to measure the status and trends of 

biological resources. 

Objective 2B. Work with USGS staff, partners, clients, 

and others to coordinate and promote valid, consistent, and 

comparable inventory and monitoring designs and methods 

across USGS regions, among agencies, and between governmental and non-governmental programs.

Objective 2C. In cooperation with partners, periodically 

review Program monitoring activities to ensure continued 

relevance and scientific rigor.

Goal 3: Collect, Manage, Archive, and Share Critical, 

High-Quality Monitoring Data in Cooperation with Partners to Enable a Determination of the Status and Trends 

of Biological Resources

The existing monitoring activities are at the heart of 

status and trends work, and the USGS is committed to continuing the data collection activities that are core to its mission 

(USGS, 2002). This commitment aligns with the Program 

Review (USGS, 1999) recommendation that the Program 

continue to implement its operational inventory and monitoring program, but also develop and implement appropriate new 

How Will We Get There?

A mountain lion takes a self portrait with a self-triggering camera 

at a kill site. Non-invasive monitoring methods for these elusive 

animals are being developed to better understand their movements and behaviors, especially in popular national parks in the 

West. USGS photo.

A USGS research vessel operated by the Great Lakes Science 

Center captures fish in a bottom trawl on Lake Huron. USGS 

photo.

Technicians sort a bottom trawl sample by size (age) and species 

as part of the Great Lakes Fish Stock Assessment. USGS photo. 
10 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

projects. Here again, the Program will network with other 

agencies and organizations engaged in biological inventory 

and monitoring to become aware of what is already available, 

and to identify gaps where further investments are warranted. 

Accordingly, we developed the following objectives:

Objective 3A. Continue, expand, and improve Program 

monitoring efforts. 

Objective 3B. Identify and promote best practices for 

managing status and trends data and metadata for quality 

assurance, database design, and data storage and exchange.

Objective 3C. Promote access to inventory and monitoring data and interoperability of databases.

Much of the work to achieve these objectives will be 

conducted in partnership with other federal, state, tribal, and 

private agencies and organizations. For example, the National 

Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), developed 

and maintained by the USGS, is actually a consortium of 

government agencies, academic institutions, non-government 

organizations, and private industries collaborating to provide 

increased access to data and information on the Nation’s 

biological resources. The NBII links diverse, high-quality 

biological databases, information products, and analytical 

tools maintained by NBII partners and other contributors. 

Working through programs and partnerships like these to 

improve biological monitoring and data access and management will allow the Program to deliver higher-quality information that natural resource managers, the research community, 

and the public can easily retrieve and apply. 

Goal 4: Produce and Provide Analyses and Reports that 

Synthesize Information on the Status and Trends of Our 

Nation’s Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems and Respond 

to the Needs of the Scientific Community, Land and 

Resource Managers, Policymakers, and the Public

Finally, the Program will assess information collected and 

produce reports that are relevant to resource management and 

biological research needs. The Program will use information 

made available from compatible programs in other agencies 

and will collaborate with these partners, where appropriate, 

in producing more comprehensive, integrated, and applicable 

analyses and reports. Hence, these objectives:

Objective 4A. Provide print and Web-accessible 

reports, syntheses, and other information to advance greater 

Tranquilized bighorn sheep get a health check and radio collars 

for tracking herd movements. USGS photo.

understanding, interpretation, and use of status and trends 

information.

Objective 4B. Provide information and technical support 

relevant to DOI and other resource management agency and 

stakeholder needs.

Our objectives involve continuing and improving the 

delivery of information products, technical assistance, and 

other services related to inventory and monitoring. These 

products and services will focus on answering questions posed 

by DOI resource managers and the broader resource management and scientific community. Timeliness and ease of access 

are high priorities for making this information available, and 

emphasis will be placed on serving data from multiple sources 

on the Web to reflect information and knowledge on the 

status and trends of the Nation’s biological resources at local, 

regional, and national scales.

Implementation

Implementation of this Plan (Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1) 

will be a significant step toward achieving our Program 

mission. Progress will be marked by the necessity to revise 

and update this Plan to reflect new objectives as old ones are 

met. It will also be manifested in the expansion of committed 

partners who will work collaboratively to develop a National 

Monitoring Framework, collecting and sharing data, information, and knowledge on the status and trends of our biological 

resources.
 11

Goal 1: Develop a conceptual model a of sources, at multiple spatial and temporal scales, to describe and track the abundance, distribution, productivity, and health of the Nation’s plants, animals, and ecosystems.

Objective 1A: Identify current inventory and monitoring activities (what, where, why, how, when, by whom, and data accessibility).

Strategy Outcome Measure

1A1. Facilitate or host discussions to inventory the current monitoring activities, practices, and needs conducted within USGS and DOI bureaus (within 3 months), other federal agencies (within 1 year), states (within 1 year), and NGOs (within 2 years).

• Ongoing and dynamic compendium of:

– major long-term biological monitoring activities,– methods and protocols,– major data sets of biological status and trends, and– major data repositories of status and trends information.

• Compendium of monitoring activities is available on the Program Web site (2005).• This information is linked to other relevant Web sites (beginning 2005).• DOI 1-2; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-4

Objective 1B: Improve coordination among USGS monitoring activities.

Strategy Outcome Measure

1B1. Facilitate communication among Program project chiefs and scientists.

• USGS advisory group established to assess progress in meeting Program goals, identify information gaps, and develop strategies.• Annual internal reviews of Program progress and adjustment of priorities.

• Inclusion of Program achievements and priorities in USGS Director’s annual guidance (2006).• DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-3

1B2. Improve communication and collaboration between the Program and other USGS programs.

• Biological Resources Discipline (BRD): Identification of long-term monitoring needs of other BRD programs, such as the Gap Analysis Program (GAP), Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI), Invasive Species, Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), etc.• Water Resources Discipline: Improved data integration from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) with Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) data in the Upper Mississippi River system and the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program.• Geography Discipline: Expanded interface with the Geography Discipline; particularly, interface between the National Land Cover Data (NLCD) set and the BBS data.• Geospatial Information Office (GIO): Engagement of Enterprise Web to ensure Program Web site compliance with all relevant government standards and requirements.

• Annual documentation of monitoring needs across BRD programs, including assessment of gaps and identification of priorities (2006).• Report detailing measure of comparability between BEST and NAWQA methodologies (2007).• Bird and land-use demonstration pilot study in the Great Plains (2005).• Pilot study report published (2006).• Fully integrated NLCD and BBS data (2008).• Established Program Web site (2005).• DOI 1-2; 2-3

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program, 2004–2009. (Refer to the boxed inset on page 3 for a listing of the DOI Goals and Strategies referenced under the Measure column.)

Table 1
12 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued. Goal 1: Develop a conceptual model and the required infrastructure (a National Monitoring Framework)—Continued Objective 1C: Improve communication and coordination between the Program, partners, and stakeholders. Strategy Outcome Measure 1C1. Facilitate communication and coordination among DOI bureaus regarding measurement of the status and trends of biological resources. • Establishment of DOI biological monitoring working group that communicates biological monitoring issues, needs, and activities. • Completed inter-bureau biological monitoring initiative. • National Park Service (NPS): Increased USGS participation in the NPS Natural Resource Challenge (USGS National Park Monitoring Project) as well as monitoring programs (e.g., Fire Ecology) in other NPS divisions. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Continued work with the FWS to advance all aspects of refuge monitoring. Explored opportunities to assist the FWS in “Fulfilling the Promise.” Provided valid and timely information to manage threatened and endangered species and other trust resources. • Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Development and design of system-wide monitoring of rangeland-shrubland systems and monitoring protocols to assess fire rehabilitation efforts. • Other DOI Bureaus: Identification of opportunities for shared monitoring strategies by 2008. • Establishment of DOI working group (by 2006). • Other examples of bureau coordination and cooperation (2006+). • Development of measures for joint funding (2004). • Number of jointly funded status and trends activities responsive to the needs of DOI bureaus (2005+; baseline 2004). • Opportunities for shared monitoring strategies identified (by 2007). • DOI inter-bureau monitoring budget initiative submitted for 2005. • Demonstrated use of some comparable protocols among bureaus in major monitoring efforts (baseline 2005). • Shared network among bureaus to monitor resources of common concern on Interior lands (2009). • DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4 1C2. Facilitate communication and coordination among federal, state, and tribal governments, academic 

and research institutions, and NGOs concerning measurement of the status and trends of biological resources.

• Establishment of interagency advisory committee for biological monitoring that incorporates the federal community, states, academic and research institutions, and NGOs to work on an initial draft National Framework.• Participated in established committees and/or set up interagency forums for coordination of biological monitoring. Other Federal Agencies• Established linkage to National Science Foundation LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) Network and other ecological observation networks.• USDA Forest Service: Coordinated with Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Natural Resource Inventory, and Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) programs in conducting USGS surveys, including the Breeding Bird Survey and others.• Army Corps of Engineers: Incorporated systems approach within inventory and monitoring efforts such as the Missouri River (in partnership with the Missouri River Basin Association). Explored and identified potential linkages to parks and refuges.

 • Development of a national plan for monitoring a mutually identified biological resource (more specific measures of success to be determined by the committee; 2007).• Specific examples of coordination and cooperation (beginning 2005).• Specific examples of jointly funded activities between USGS and partners and stakeholders (beginning 2005).• DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4
 13

Goal 1: Develop a conceptual model and the required infrastructure (a National Monitoring Framework)—Continued

Objective 1C—Continued

Strategy Outcome Measure

1C2. Continued States 

• Engaged the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) regarding State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans.• Collaboration with states in addressing their resource monitoring needs.• Coordinated with states and other organizations on the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). • Coordinated with state Natural Heritage Programs and, where they exist, research divisions of state fish and wildlife agencies.Other Governments• Coordinated with state, tribal, and other public and private agencies on existing or planned monitoring efforts.• Cooperated with tribal and international governmental organizations to meet treaty and trust obligations.NGOs and Multi-Stakeholder Groups• Communicated and promoted the linkage of Program efforts to other ongoing monitoring efforts. • Participated in professional societies to promote the development and review of protocols and the concept of a national framework;• Partnered with NatureServe in the acquisition and delivery of biodiversity information. • Participated in Roundtable for Sustainable Forests and Sustainable Rangeland.Public• Explored ways to effectively utilize an informed public in the collection of information that contributes to our scientific understanding of the status and trends of biological resources.

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.

Table 1
14 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program Goal 1: Develop a conceptual model and the required infrastructure (a National Monitoring Framework)—Continued Objective 1D: Develop a framework for monitoring selected biological resources/indicators. Strategy Outcome Measure 1D1. Develop, with collaborators, a conceptual model for monitoring selected biological resources/ indicators. • Monitoring objectives and criteria identified among partners. • Conceptual model published on the Web with concurrence of partners (2007). • DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4 1D2. Development of a Framework document for monitoring selected biological resources/indicator(s). • Consensus among partners on Framework and its implementation. • Framework document published on the web with concurrence of partners (2008). • DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4 Goal 2: Develop and evaluate inventory and trends. Objective 2A: Work with USGS staff, partners, clients, and others to identify, develop, evaluate, and publish methods, protocols, analytic tools, and models to measure the status and trends of biological resources. Strategy Outcome Measure 2A1. Document and develop statistically valid, efficient, and feasible protocols that are relevant to the needs of resource managers for monitoring the abundance, distribution, productivity, and health of the Nation’s plants, animals, and 

ecosystems.

• Developed protocols with clearly defined goals and measurable management objectives; involved all relevant disciplines including resource managers, taxa biologists, and statisticians; developed detailed methods, standard operating procedures, and rationale for survey design, training, and data collection, management, and quality control; submitted metadata to clearinghouse; developed analysis and reporting procedures.• Developed protocols applicable at multiple spatial and temporal scales.• Ensured that status and trends data are useful at multiple scales (e.g., FWS Refuge Conservation and Research Program).

• Peer-reviewed biological monitoring protocols accessible via print or Web (baseline 2005).• Peer-reviewed biological monitoring protocols used by land and resource management agencies (2006).• Program data are useful at multiple scales (e.g., FWS Refuge Conservation Research Program; 2007).• DOI 1-2; 2-3

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.
Table 1 15

Goal 2: Develop and evaluate inventory and monitoring methods—Continued

Objective 2A—Continued

Strategy Outcome Measure

2A2. Ensure that measurements have sufficient accuracy for their intended purpose, considering the variances, biases, and costs.

• Considered detectability in all estimates of abundance to ensure that the bias is small relative to the anticipated effects.• Sample sizes and designs provide sufficient confidence and power to characterize or detect important effects.• Statistically valid and efficient probability sampling designs provide reliable estimates and minimize costs, considering the relative effectiveness of alternative methods and their associated variance components and costs.• Demonstrated the relationship between the measured quantity and the parameter of interest when an index or surrogate is used.

• Detectability measures have been assessed, and if appropriate, are routinely incorporated into the BBS (2008), ARMI (2005), and Great Lakes deep-water fish stock assessments (2007).• DOI 1-2; 2-3

2A3. Develop and make available analysis and synthesis tools to allow use of status and trends data and information.

• Tools are available on the Internet (i.e., the Program Web site). • Verified the extent to which these tools are used for 

analysis and interpretation of Program data (2005).• DOI 1-2; 2-3

Objective 2B: Work wit 

designs and methods across USGS regions, among agencies, and between governmental and non-governmental programs.

Strategy Outcome Measure

2B1. Use discussions and engage groups referenced in Objectives 1C1, 1C2, and 2A1 to develop, share, and utilize standards and promote comparability among major monitoring efforts.

• Developed best practices, protocols, and methods for taxa and habitats.• Improved comparability among a limited suite of major protocols.• Protocols are available on the Internet.

• Information available in reports and on the Internet (2007).• Number of comparable designs and methods used (2009). • DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4

2B2. Identify opportunities (e.g., NBII nodes) and/or existing regional monitoring efforts (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Watershed, etc.) to serve as a pilot study for a pilot network.

• At least one pilot coordination effort initiated by 2006.• Consistent and comparable inventory and monitoring designs and methods are employed within a defined network of monitoring sites.

• Documented examples of challenges/benefits to adopting monitoring standards (2008). • Shared information between cooperating resource management agencies (2006).• DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.
16 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program Goal 2: Develop and evaluate inventory and monitoring methods—Continued Objective 2C: In . Strategy Outcome Measure 2C1. Conduct scientific reviews of all major long-term monitoring projects as part of established 5-year Program Reviews. • A schedule of reviews for 2004-2009. • Assembled committee of internal and external partners to review the Program’s projects. • Completed reviews of Program projects incorporated into Five-Year Program Review report (late 2006). • Reviews available; recommendations for improve- ment incorporated into the relevant monitoring proj- ects (2007). • DOI 1-2; 2-3 Goal 3: Collect, manage, archive, and biological resources. Objective 3A: Continue, expand, and improve Program monitoring efforts. Strategy Outcome Measure 3A1. Continue major long-term monitoring projects. • Current efforts were sustained with appropriate resources. • Regular continued availability of reports, peer- reviewed publications, and accessible, geo-referenced databases via the Program Web site (2005). • DOI 1-2; 2-3 3A2. Expand the scope of existing surveys. • More species included in long-term monitoring. • Expanded geographic scope of biological monitoring (e.g., BBL has been expanded into Mexico). • Expanded suite of chemical contaminants monitored in assessing 

effects on biological resources.

• Documentation of expanded surveys in reports, peerreviewed publications, and accessible, geo-referenced databases (baseline 2004).• DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4

Objective 3B: Identify and promote best p 

Strategy Outcome Measure

3B1. Identify and share best practices and standards for biological inventory and monitoring data.

• Agreement among agency inventory and monitoring database managers on selected best status and trends data management practices and standards, and approved by NBII, Federal Geographic Data Committee, and others.

• Documented and approved data management and integration standards for biological inventory and monitoring data (2008).• DOI 1-2; 2-3

3B2. Upgrade data collection, management, and analytical capabilities.

• Upgraded databases to ensure protection of and access to data and analysis tools, and to facilitate interoperability.

• Documentation of upgrades in annual reports (2008). • DOI 1-2; 2-3

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.
Table 1 17

Goal 3: Collect, manage, archive, and share critical, high-quality monitoring data—Continued

Objective 3B—Continued

Strategy Outcome Measure

3B3. Ensure complete and accurate metadata records.

• Documented status and trends data and information, in complete and accurate metadata records, are available through the NBII Metadata Clearinghouse.

• Completed metadata for all new and existing longterm monitoring projects funded through this Program are accepted by NBII Metadata Clearinghouse by 2006.• DOI 1-2; 2-3

Objective 3C: Promote access to inventory and monitoring data and interoperability of databases.

Strategy Outcome Measure

3C1. Establish, maintain, and accelerate the sharing, standardization, completeness, and accessibility of existing data (e.g., via NBII).

• Long-term monitoring data and information are available on NBII.• Online reporting of status and trends of biological resources for the Nation. • Legacy data has been identified, recovered, and reviewed for application to status and trends assessments.

• Measures of status and trends data accessibility and use (baseline 2005).• DOI 1-2; 2-3; 3-4

Goal 4: Produce and provide analyses and reports that synthesize information on the status and trends of our Nation’s flora, fauna, and ecosystems and respond to the needs of the scientific community, land and resource managers, policymakers, and the public.

Objective 4A: Provide print and Web-accessible reports, syntheses, and other information to advance greater understanding, 

interpretation, and use of status and trends information.

Strategy Outcome Measure

4A1. Develop Program Web site. • Program Web site includes: 

– Program information (projects, funding, activities, accomplishments),– current inventory and monitoring activities and resources, and– accepted inventory and monitoring protocols and standards.

• Program Web site is available and used by scientists, resource managers, and the public, as indicated through Web analytics (2005).• Web site reflects expectations of the user community as assessed through surveys and other feedback (2006).• DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4

4A2. Continue publication of status and trends results and findings. 

• Peer-reviewed publications, technical and non-technical fact sheets, Web pages, brochures, and briefings.

• Number of Program products and accomplishments reported in BASIS+ (2005).• Program Web site and publications contain the latest available accounts of the status and trends of the Nation’s living systems (2006). • DOI 1-2; 2-3

Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.
18 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program Goal 4: Produce and provide analyses and reports that synthesize information—Continued Objective 4A—Continued Strategy Outcome Measure 4A3. Periodically publish the Program synthesis report, Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources. • Report represents a dynamic, online account of the status and trends of the Nation’s plants, animals, and ecosystems reported from representative groups. • Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources is published (2008). • DOI 1-1; 1-2; 2-1; 2-2; 2-3; 3-1; 3-2; 3-3; 3-4 Obj Strategy Outcome Measure 4B1. Develop information on inventory and monitoring standards and protocols for field biologists and resource managers. • Inventory and monitoring manuals for the user community. • Manuals and guidance documents used by land and resource managers have been broadly disseminated (document manuals and guidance documents 2006). • DOI 1-2; 2-3 4B2. Provide training, workshops, and one-on-one assistance to land and resource managers. • Information disseminated to a broader community. • Number of courses, workshops, and technical assistance provided and degree of success as determined by feedback from training recipients (baseline 2006). • DOI 1-2; 2-3 Table 1. Strategic Plan goals, objectives, strategies, outcomes, and measures for achieving the mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program.—Continued.
 19

Figure 1. Summary and timeline of Status and Trends Program goals, objectives, outcomes, measures, and milestones: 2004–2009.

Figure 1

Task Name

Goal 1. Develop a National Monitoring Framework

Goal 2. Develop and evaluate inventory and 

 monitoring methods, protocols, etc.

Goal 3. Collect, manage, archive, & share S&T data

Goal 4. Produce and provide analyses and reports

 that synthesize S&T information

 Within USGS

 Other Interior bureaus

 Other federal agencies

 Non-governmental organizations

Interface National Land Cover Data w/Bird Survey (BBS)

Partner w/GIO Enterprise Web re: S&T Web site

BEST-NAWQA joint sampling and analysis

Refine methodologies, incorporate findings

Pilot Great Plains project NLCD-BBS

Expand to other regions and other taxa

Establish S&T Web site

Shared protocols, information, capacity

Develop a conceptual model for resource/indicator

Implement Framework among partners

Protocols accessible via print or Web

Engage groups to collaborate re: monitoring

Regular, continured availability of S&T data via Web

Schedule and conduct project reviews

S&T data management and integration standards

Ensure availability and accessibility of data

Reporting of accessibility and use of S&T data

S&T Web site includes projects, funding, 

accomplishments, etc.

S&T manuals and guidance documents to managers

 Training/assistance to land and resource managers

 Quantify assistance annually re: baseline 2006

Goal Objective Strategy/Outcome Milestone Split

Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1c. Improve communication and coordination

 between the S&T Program and others

1d. Develop a Framework for monitoring

 selected biological resources/indicators

2a. Work with others to identify, develop, evaluate, 

 and publish methods, protocols, analytic tools, 

 and models 

2b. Work with others to coordinate and promote valid, 

 consistent, and comparable inventory and 

 monitoring designs and methods

2c. Periodically review Program monitoring activities

3a. Continue, expand, & improve Program monitoring

3b. Identify/promote best practices for managing S&T data

3c. Promote access to inventory and monitoring data 

 and interoperability of databases

4a. Provide print and Web access to S&T products

4b. Provide info/technical support to DOI & others

Establish S&T Program advisory group

 

Publish S&T of the Nations Biological Resources

Metadata for all new and existing S&T projects

Annual reporting: improvement and use of S&T data

Expansion in number of species monitored

Increased geographic scope of monitoring (e.g., 

BBL-Mexico)

Pilot monitoring networks via existing efforts

 Best practices, protocols, and methods documented

Populate S&T Web site

Analysis and synthesis tools available via Web

Detectability measures assessed

Pilot framework element for monitoring

Interagency/organizational framework group est.

Joint S&T monitoring efforts (initiatives) 

DOI biological monitoring group established

1b. Improve coordination among USGS monitoring

 activities

1a. Identify current inventory & monitoring activities 

Better integration of NAWQA data w/BEST

Identify long-term monitoring needs of BRD

Annually evaluate progress of S&T Program; identify

 priorities; inform annual guidance
20 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

Taxon/theme Recommendations

Birds Incorporate measurement detection probability into survey design of the BBS; ensure 

adequate bird band supply for the BBL; increase the number of species monitored by longterm surveys; expand the geographic scope of existing surveys; improve the bird population 

database infrastructure and data delivery; contribute to the bird status and trends objectives of 

NABCI.

Fish Develop a strategic plan for fish monitoring in the Great Lakes, Mississippi River systems, 

Grand Canyon, and Colorado River; incorporate fish monitoring programs into databases for 

exotic species; develop methods to provide easy access to fish monitoring data of the Great 

Lakes and Colorado River; assess feasibility of hydroacoustic monitoring methods in the 

Great Lakes; implement a monitoring system for the Missouri River.

Mammals Compile, evaluate, and summarize activities to measure and assess the status and trends 

of mammalian species on a state-by-state basis; evaluate current activities for managerial 

relevance (e.g., chronic wasting disease) and statistical rigor; analyze these activities for 

estimation of status and trends; report to states the findings of the efforts leading to improved 

methods, collaboration, and partnerships.

Invertebrates Explore use of taxonomic services through the USGS Water Quality Laboratory to identify 

aquatic invertebrates, and through the Smithsonian, academic institutions, and USGS 

scientists to identify terrestrial invertebrates; develop standard sampling strategies for aquatic 

and terrestrial invertebrates; investigate the utility of using NAWQA invertebrate data to 

assess status and trends of aquatic invertebrates; develop a strategy to assess status and trends 

in terrestrial invertebrates; work toward a common protocol and shared Program information 

base with emphasis on pollinators, soil food-web organisms, and freshwater mussels.

Amphibians and reptiles Enhance the capabilities of existing amphibian monitoring efforts; better utilize and 

coordinate the complementary approaches of the North American Amphibian Monitoring 

Program and ARMI to yield improved estimates of the status and trends of amphibians; 

explore the establishment of a framework for monitoring status and trends of reptiles.

Plants, lichens, and mosses Work toward development and evaluation of regional protocols for inventory and assessment 

of plant, lichen, and moss status and trends; develop and evaluate national protocols for their 

status on U.S. grasslands, woodlands, forests, and rangelands (e.g., Forest and Rangeland 

Roundtables).

Imperiled species Maintain capability for determining status and for monitoring and predicting trends for 

federally listed species, candidate species, and species of concern. Increase accessibility to 

imperiled species data from multiple sources.

Ecosystems Tie species status and trends to ecological systems. Map ecological systems and habitat 

quality over time, corresponding to species population status and trends (which species are 

declining, stable, improving per habitat type, over time). Work toward using knowledge base 

(species-system status and trends) to begin identifying key sets of indicators of ecosystem 

status and trends; strive to formalize linkages to other ecosystem-related efforts such as the 

LTER Network and the National Science Foundation’s National Ecosystem Observation 

Network (NEON).

Genetics Develop guidance to incorporate genetic sampling as a standard monitoring tool; develop 

cost-effective contaminant screening tools; develop an inventory/database of molecular 

markers for trust species; incorporate genetic information within Program reporting vehicles.

Microbes Host workshop to identify current and future approaches (e.g., genetic and molecular 

techniques) to inventory and monitor microbial species/groups and their function in natural 

systems.

Table 2. Recommended directions by taxa and theme for advancing Program goals.
 21

Table 2. Recommended directions by taxa and theme for advancing Program goals.—Continued.

Taxon/theme Recommendations

Contaminants Complete plans to increase the efficiency (leverage with other efforts) and spatial extent of 

the BEST Program efforts to monitor and assess contaminant effects on fish in large U.S. 

rivers; improve capability to integrate findings of BEST and NAWQA; establish, maintain, 

and accelerate the sharing, standardization, completeness, and accessibility of existing data 

on the distribution, concentrations, and effects of environmental contaminants by maintaining 

and enhancing online databases; provide training to DOI bureaus on collection, use, and 

interpretation of biocontaminants.

Invasives Coordinate and promote consistent and comparable inventory and monitoring designs 

and methods for invasives (e.g., early detection in ballast water); establish, maintain, and 

accelerate the sharing, standardization, completeness, and accessibility of existing data on 

invasive species via the NBII Invasive Species Information Node; use this Node as a vehicle 

to promote a status and trends monitoring network for invasive species; provide technical 

assistance to government and NGOs on all aspects of the inventory and monitoring of 

invasive species.

Human dimensions Provide ongoing assessments of the social, economic, and institutional implications of 

resource use; monitor changing human development patterns; develop techniques to assess 

the economic and social effects of environmental trends and conditions; design research 

to guide use of socioeconomic data in decision making and better management of natural 

resource conflicts. 

Taxonomy and 

systematics

Provide taxonomic and systematic research and identification services on North American 

biota to support status and trends activities; provide a credible, automated taxonomic 

reference of North American biota; work to develop the interface between taxonomic/

genomic data. 

Remote sensing Promote dialogue among the internal/external science community to enhance and improve 

methodologies for use of remote sensing to address Program goals; work toward development 

of standards for evaluation and consistency of remote sensing data and methodologies. 

Standards and protocols Ensure statistical and managerial input into standards and protocols; peer review and publish 

(Web or print) protocols; enhance multidisciplinary nature of protocols that are guided by 

conceptual models of the system/questions; strengthen the connection between survey goals 

and protocols; ensure that protocols relate to all aspects of a survey, including analysis and 

dispersion of information; incorporate measures of comparability among methodologies; 

incorporate measures of detectability and confidence in survey/monitoring designs. 

Statistical tools and modeling Ensure that objectives for each Program activity are measurable and of sufficient clarity that a 

reasonable observer may determine if an objective is achieved; demonstrate the feasibility of 

each Program activity to produce valid and reliable results within existing resources; develop 

methodologies to use status and trends data collected at variable scales to enable valid and 

reliable status and trends determinations of species, genera, and systems; through analysis and 

modeling, recommend valid and reliable inferences to identify species, genera, or functional 

groups as indicators of ecosystems; enhance the multidisciplinary nature of models.

Data and information 

management and reporting

Ensure the availability of status and trends methodologies, analytic tools, data, information, 

and products using the infrastructure of the NBII; identify needed priorities for data 

and information to be made interoperable with those of other USGS Disciplines and 

organizations; identify work needed to develop and implement a dynamic, online account of 

the status and trends of the Nation’s plants, animals, and ecosystems.

Table 2
22 Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends Program

List of Abbreviations

ARMI Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative

BBL Bird Banding Laboratory

BBS Breeding Bird Survey

BEST Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BRD Biological Resources Discipline

DOI Department of the Interior

EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems

FHM Forest Health Monitoring

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GAP Gap Analysis Program

GIO Geographic Information Office

IAFWA International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

LTEM Long-Term Ecological Monitoring

LTER Long Term Ecological Research Network

LTRMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

NAAMP North American Amphibian Monitoring Program

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network

NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment Program

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure

NEON National Ecological Observatory Network

NGO Non-governmental organization

NLCD National Land Cover Data

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

S&T Status and Trends 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
 23

References Cited

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2002, Environmental indicators policy coordination: Memorandum to Department Secretaries from James L. Connaughton, Chairman of 

Council for Environmental Quality, December 31, 2002.

LaRoe, E.T., Farris, G.S., Puckett, C.E., Doran, P.D., and 

Mac, M.J., eds., 1995, Our living resources: A report to the 

Nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. 

plants, animals, and ecosystems: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., 

530 p. Available online at http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/index.

htm

Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Puckett Haecker, C.E., and Doran, 

P.D., 1998, Status and trends of the Nation’s biological 

resources (Vol. 1 and 2): U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 964 p.

National Research Council (NRC), 1993, A biological survey 

for the Nation: Commission on the formation of the National Biological Survey, National Research Council, National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 205 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2003, Strategic plan 

FY 2003-2008: Available online at http://www.doi.gov/ppp/

strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 1999, Fulfilling the 

promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System: U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., March 1999. 

Progress report available online at http://refuges.fws.gov/

habitats/promises.html

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, U.S. Geological Survey Strategic Plan 2000-2005: Available online at http://

www.usgs.gov/stratplan/index.html

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division 

(USGS), 1999, Status and Trends National Program 

Review: Available online at http://biology.usgs.gov/

status_trends/index.htm

U.S. House of Representatives, House Appropriations Committee, 1999, House Report 106-222: To accompany H.R. 

2466: Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Bill, 2000, 106th Cong., 1st session, p. 30.

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable 

resources: MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, N.Y., 

374 p.
Printed on recycled paper