Strategic Habitat Conservation

Final Report of the

National Ecological

Assessment Team

Forest

Breeding Bird

DST

July 2006

Strategic Habitat Conservation 

A Report from the 

National Ecological Assessment Team 

~ June 29, 2006 ~ 

1
2
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Preface 

Executive Summary 

Chapter I. The Changing Nature of Conservation 

 Introduction 

The Catalysts of Change 

The Science and Practice of Conservation 

Thriving Amidst Change 

Chapter II. The Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework 

 Introduction 

Strategic Habitat Conservation – A Tool, Not a Rule 

Element 1 – Biological Planning 

Element 2 – Conservation Design 

Element 3 – Conservation Delivery 

Element 4 – Monitoring and Research 

Chapter III. Building Joint Capability for the FWS and USGS 

A Direction for Change 

Strengthening Institutional Relationships 

Strengthening Operational Relationships 

Chapter IV. Recommendations 

 Introduction 

Recommended Actions 

Glossary 

Appendix A The National Ecological Assessment Team Charter

Appendix B Draft MOU between the FWS and USGS 

Appendix C Technical Skills and Infrastructure Needs

Appendix D Workforce Development in Biological Planning and Evaluation

Appendix E Geospatial Data and Technology Recommendations 

3
4
P REFACE

Across the conservation community, species and habitat conservation increasingly rely on 

landscape approaches that integrate scientific information with management decisions. The tools 

and language of conservation are evolving, and using consistent and broadly understood methods 

will improve our ability to succeed. 

Recognizing the changing 

field of conservation, both 

internal and external to the 

FWS, the Directorate 

chartered a cross 

programmatic effort in 

June, 2004 to: 1) 

characterize current and 

emerging scientific habitat 

conservation strategies and 

2) recommend unifying 

approaches and capacity

building measures (see 

Appendix A). The Team, 

featuring a mix of FWS and 

USGS technical and policy 

experts, focused on 

identifying how best to 

prioritize and make trust 

resource management decisions. 

The National Ecological Assessment Team:

Charles Baxter (R4), Rex Johnson (R9), Migratory Birds 

and Clint Riley (R9) 

Dirck Byler (R9), Rob Dietz (R2), National Wildlife Refuge System

John Esperance (R6), Mike Estey (R6), 

Steve Earsom (R4), Fred Paveglio (R1), 

and Jan Taylor (R5) 

Deb Green (R9) National GIS Coordinator 

Wilson Laney (R4), Fisheries and Habitat Conservation 

Leopoldo Miranda-Castro (R9), 

and David Perkins (R5) 

Debby Crouse (R9) Endangered Species 

Craig Czarnecki (R3) and Stew Fefer (R5) Ecological Services

Karene Motivans NCTC 

Anne Frondorf and Pat Heglund USGS

We envision the FWS working collaboratively with partners to develop and implement a 

landscape approach to habitat conservation, leading to what we term strategic habitat 

conservation. Success will depend on how quickly and effectively our organizational approach 

evolves, including steps to better communicate with and work alongside our partners. 

As a departure point, clearly, FWS 

biologists are noting and incorporating 

advancements in the conservation field. 

Progress remains patchy, however, as we 

often identify success with particular 

individuals or offices, rather than 

expecting it throughout the organization. 

In answer to our charter, we recommend implementing Strategic Habitat Conservation as a 

defining characteristic of our bureau and our relationship with USGS. The question remains how 

shall we proceed? That is the nature of our report. 

We acknowledge the tremendous achievement 

of our biologists and managers over the past 

century. They have compiled a record of 

successful conservation actions and strategies 

that allow the FWS to proudly build on their 

work. 

5
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

The FWS has traditionally approached conservation with an emphasis on “more” - more 

protection, more restoration, and more management. We find opportunities in our programs, 

take action, and then report on completed projects using standard measurements, such as number 

of acres, river miles, and funds expended. Recent advances in the field of conservation science, 

however, are leading us in a new direction – a strategic pursuit of sustainable landscapes. These 

advances result from a growing body of information regarding conservation biology, landscape 

and population ecology, and adaptive resource management, along with improvements in remote 

sensing, database management, and geographic information systems (GIS). In short, activity 

based conservation with an emphasis on “more” gives way to the science of “how much more” 

and “where”, as we consider how best to pursue our mission. 

The change occurring across the conservation community includes a number of FWS offices and 

individual biologists. Our progress to date is promising, although patchy and inconsistent. In 

many cases, we lead the conservation community, while in others we simply seek to keep pace 

with partners and stakeholders. 

To take the next step, we need 

an organizational response that 

uses the principles of adaptive 

management. Our conservation 

actions for federal trust 

resources should increasingly 

flow from a cycle of 1) 

Biological Planning, 2) 

Conservation Design, 3) 

Conservation Delivery, and 4) 

Monitoring and Research. 

Using this framework, we 

improve our abilities to define 

desired biological outcomes and 

articulate the consequences of 

site-scale actions on landscape 

scale functions. We use the 

phrase “strategic habitat conservation” (SHC) to identify this iterative framework. Obviously, 

some trust resources face challenges that require consideration of factors other than habitat. All 

trust resources, however, need adequate habitat and SHC will help us address this challenge. 

Overview of Recommendations 

Commit in principle – senior leaders make a clear 

commitment that is visible in actions and on paper. 

Expand understanding - broaden employee understanding of 

Strategic Habitat Conservation 

Expand engagement and ownership – foster a commitment

among employees to develop, implement, and use Strategic 

Habitat Conservation

Expand operational capacity - increase and accelerate 

implementation of Strategic Habitat Conservation through 

adequate funding, training, outreach, evaluation, 

administrative services, and technological capabilities and 

functions.

The challenge of implementing SHC goes beyond the procedural. As a framework, SHC 

represents an approach, rather than a process or a new initiative. This framework will require an 

increased capacity for strategic Biological Planning, Conservation Design, and Monitoring and 

Research at ecoregional scales. Meeting this challenge will apply not only to the Service, but to 

our partner in science, USGS. 

6
The proposal to adopt a more strategic approach to habitat conservation is timely given the 

current climate of lean budgets, increasing demands for accountability, and deteriorating 

conditions faced by many of our trust resources. SHC answers these challenges by offering 

efficiencies, better prioritization, and a strong, transparent basis for taking action. Further, 

working together on SHC will help the FWS and USGS enhance their relationship. The two 

bureaus can employ an improved conservation model that maximizes scientific, analytical, and

administrative potential.

To encourage and expand the use of SHC, the following chapters address the change in our 

approach to conservation, including emerging methods, organizational capacity, and how best to 

recruit, prepare, and maintain an effective workforce. We recommend the FWS’s Directorate 

and USGS’s Executive Leadership Team take immediate steps to endorse and implement the 

SHC framework. By doing so, the FWS, with strong assistance from USGS, will become more 

efficient and effective at conserving priority habitats; will take actions that are increasingly based 

on scientific findings and adaptive management; and, ultimately, stakeholders and partners will 

find the bureaus more credible and accountable. 

The nature of conservation has changed before and so has the FWS. Our biologists have already 

ensured a good start and we are confident that the FWS will not only keep pace with the change, 

but will continue to lend leadership and expertise in the future for management of the Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources. 

7
C HAPTER ON E: The Changing Nature of 

Conservation 

Introduction 

The traditional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conservation approach has frequently 

relied more on opportunity and less on scientific strategies. Resulting conservation priorities, 

policies, and actions have not fully benefited from landscape level considerations or the priorities 

and work of others. However, an increasing number of FWS offices, many in partnership with 

USGS, are moving the bureau in a different direction: one that features landscape level scientific 

analysis and coordinated on-the-ground actions. In many cases, these offices are leading the 

conservation community; and in others, FWS biologists are simply seeking to keep pace with 

partners and stakeholders. Chapter One characterizes changes in the field of conservation 

science and how the FWS and USGS can thrive. 

The Catalysts of Change 

Three catalysts are spurring change in the science 

and practice of conservation. As described below, 

these catalysts enable us to achieve conservation 

objectives more effectively and efficiently. 

• Advancements in conservation theory 

• Geospatial technologies

• Increasing emphasis on accountability 

Advancements in Conservation Theory

To some extent, it is true that “all conservation is site-specific.” But invariably, events at a 

broader scale (both in place and time) affect each conservation action. For example, we may 

manage habitat on a refuge in coastal Louisiana to increase duck populations, but the broader 

context of climate, hurricanes, and conditions on migration stopover and breeding habitat will 

surely affect our habitat management efforts. In turn, our site-specific actions can affect 

conservation efforts elsewhere. Recent advances in conservation theory seek to clarify the 

linkages between site-scale actions and processes at landscape, ecoregional, and continental 

scales. Knowledge of these linkages alters conservation objectives, strategies, and 

accompanying decisions. 

Geospatial Technologies

Absent advancements in technology, a multi-scale approach to habitat conservation would 

remain essentially theoretical. Technological advancements in geospatial information 

management associated with remote sensing, GIS, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) 

allow theory to move to practice. Also, advances in GIS continue to improve our ability to 

support biological planning and assessment, along with inventory and monitoring at multiple 

scales. 

Increasing Emphasis on Accountability

Increasing emphasis on accountability requires defensible methods of planning and transparently 

derived objectives and strategies. Accountability also requires an ability to deliver results based 

on realistic expectations. Very modest increases in conservation funding often come with an 

expectation of perceptible increases in fish and wildlife populations. When agencies do not have 

8
the ability to determine and communicate likely outcomes, they risk losing credibility. 

Accountability has become a defining feature of conservation, and successful agencies will need 

to articulate defensible scientific objectives. 

The Science and Practice of Conservation 

The catalysts described above are leading to 

actual changes in the science and practice 

of conservation. These can be described in 

three broad categories. 

• Goals/objectives emphasize biological outcomes

• Models tie populations to landscape 

• Scientific findings inform management 

 

Goals and Objectives Emphasize Biological Outcomes

Resource management has typically featured activities – protect, manage, restore – that serve as 

the overarching aim. Managers pursue opportunities with programmatic vigor, and the target is 

“more” – more protection, more restoration, and more management. An activity-based objective, 

such as pursuing more protection, management, or restoration, may lend itself to measurement 

and tracking. It does not, however, demand 

understanding of ecological conditions or rely on the 

scientific underpinnings of species-habitat interactions 

– because it does not define a measurable end. 

Conversely, strategic habitat conservation (SHC) 

focuses on the ability of the landscape to sustain species as expressed in measurable objectives. 

Developing a strategy to attain a biological outcome, such as a population objective, requires 

documented and testable assumptions to determine whether the objective is met (Table 1). 

“It is not enough to be busy. So are 

the ants. The question is ‘What are 

we busy about?’”

Henry David Thoreau

By using testable assumptions and evaluation of management outcomes, the aim to “protect, 

manage, and restore” finds value with specific, mission-based biological outcomes, rather than 

simply delivering “more”. 

Table 1. Comparison of Conservation Objectives for the Endangered Delmarva Fox Squirrel 

Type of 

Objective 

Objective Characteristics of the Objective 

Activity “Increase level of forest 

management on the Eastern Neck 

NWR for Delmarva fox squirrels.” 

Does not require application of limiting factors, 

nor help prioritize research needs. Success could 

occur without benefiting the squirrels. 

Biological 

Outcome 

“Provide foraging habitat sufficient 

to sustain 1,000 Delmarva fox 

squirrels within the native forests of 

the Delmarva Peninsula.” 

Knowledge of limiting factors helps lead to “what, 

where, and how much” forest management 

sustains 1,000 squirrels. Provides basis for 

evaluating assumptions and monitoring success. 

Success relates to benefiting the squirrel 

population. 

Models That Tie Populations to the Landscape

When knowledge of how ecosystems operate is incomplete, biological models are increasingly 

essential for synthesizing and applying current knowledge about species and habitats. Through 

models, biologists document uncertainties as testable assumptions, creating a direct link between 

9
management and research. Models also help describe the effect of habitat on populations and 

allow better access to empirical information or expert knowledge. When variables like land 

cover or elevation (spatial variables) are included, we can often better determine the unique 

potential of every site and landscape to contribute toward population objectives. Thus, we 

answer the questions “Where?” and “How much?” with more confidence. As a result, models 

that tie populations to habitats and management in a particular landscape provide the basis for 

setting transparent objectives. Finally, using results to help prioritize conservation actions and 

achieve objectives sets up an adaptive management loop – in other words, biologists can monitor 

conservation actions and use the results to inform future models and conservation actions. 

Scientific Findings Inform Management

The relationship between research and management remains tenuous. As the conservation field 

continues to mature, however, researchers are trying to make their work more accessible to 

managers, and in turn, managers are increasingly turning to scientific findings. The SHC 

framework institutionalizes this relationship. The processes of building models, setting 

objectives based on biological outcomes, taking conservation actions, monitoring results, and 

changing actions as needed, requires the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. 

Further, as a manager undertakes this adaptive cycle, gaps in information and unfounded 

assumptions become apparent, leading to research priority setting for USGS and other partners. 

Thriving Amidst Change 

Biologists and managers are adjusting their approach to conserving species and habitats. The 

changes are systemic and founded on advances in science, technology, and accountability. They 

are here to stay. To thrive amidst these changes and improve our ability to conserve species and 

the ecological processes that sustain them, the FWS and USGS must take advantage of biological 

models, landscape level analyses, new technologies, biological models, and other emerging 

techniques and information resources. As premier agencies involved with the research and 

management of fish and wildlife resources, the FWS and USGS can embrace these changes and 

help provide leadership to the conservation community. SHC provides a framework that will 

allow us to lead coordinated, cooperative multi-partner habitat conservation efforts and build the 

capacity to conserve sustainable landscapes. 

10
C HAPTER TW O : T HE S TRATEGIC H ABITAT 

C ONSERVATION F RAMEWORK

Introduction 

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Biological

Planning

Conservation

Design

Delivery of

Conservation Actions

Monitoring and

Research

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Biological

Planning

Conservation

Design

Delivery of

Conservation Actions

Monitoring and

Research

Figure 1. The Elements of Strategic Habitat 

Conservation. 

SHC provides a framework for setting 

and achieving conservation objectives at 

multiple scales, based on the best

available information, data, and 

ecological models. By applying this 

framework, we move away from

opportunistic, program-specific 

activities to an approach that features a 

strategic focus. 

Full implementation of SHC requires 

four elements that occur in an adaptive 

management loop: (1) Biological 

Planning, (2) Conservation Design, (3) 

Conservation Delivery, and (4) 

Monitoring and Research (Figure 1). 

Use of this framework answers vital 

questions about our conservation work - 

“How?”, “Where?” and “How much?” 

No level of theory, planning, and design becomes meaningful until implemented. However, the 

framework for SHC becomes “strategic” because on-the-ground actions are based on planning 

and design and measured through monitoring and research. Through these strategies, habitat 

conservation can measurably benefit populations. The value of adaptive management, as an 

iterative process, has become widely recognized. SHC represents a form of adaptive 

management specifically tailored to habitat conservation. 

Strategic Habitat Conservation – A Tool, Not a Rule 

Even with increased cross-programmatic coordination, programs have varying statutory 

obligations, land bases, partnerships, budgetary limitations, staff capability and expertise. 

Consequently, SHC does not represent a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, we 

present the SHC framework as a general guide to help us achieve our mission. 

At the field level, SHC does not represent a turn to a prescriptive approach; rather biologists 

would still execute Program-specific responsibilities as the core of the third element - “Delivery 

of Conservation Actions.” The Service and USGS, along with others, would build a capacity for 

Biological Planning and Conservation Design at ecoregional scales that support Programs and 

Field Stations in executing their duties strategically in a landscape context. The fourth element, 

“Monitoring and Research,” would find relevance in the evaluation of assumptions and 

11
uncertainties inherent in Biological Planning and 

Conservation Design and would provide direction 

to existing and future monitoring efforts. 

Each individual element of SHC has value, and 

partial use of the framework is generally 

preferable to ignoring the process entirely. 

However, the SHC framework achieves full value 

only when all four elements are effectively in 

place. Any resource management decision that 

occurs based on partial implementation should 

note limitations and accompanying assumptions 

and uncertainties. For example, conservation 

practitioners may apply Biological Planning, 

Conservation Design, and Delivery of the 

Conservation Action (Elements 1-3), but if resources are unavailable for Monitoring and 

Research (Element 4), future management decisions lose reliability. Nonetheless, a manager 

may face a decision with less than perfect information, but should do so recognizing uncertainty, 

rather than operating under false confidence. As the FWS implements SHC, using whatever 

data, expertise, time and other resources are available, the following principles of SHC are 

important to keep in mind: 

The NWRS will incorporate information derived 

from the SHC framework into the refuge planning 

process. This information will provide valuable 

assistance to refuge staffs and planners when 

evaluating and identifying the appropriate 

contribution that each refuge can make to larger 

landscape conservation priorities. Considered with 

NWRS mandates, policies, and guidance, the SHC 

framework will help facilitate development of

wildlife and habitat management goals and 

objectives for comprehensive conservation plans 

(CCPs) and habitat management plans (HMPs) that 

will guide future management on over 540 refuges. 

Guiding Principles

1. Habitat conservation is simply a means to attain our true goal – the conservation of 

populations and ecological functions that sustain them. 

2. Defining measurable population objectives is a key component of SHC, at any scale. 

3. Biological Planning must use the best scientific information available, both as a body of 

knowledge and a method of learning. Our understanding of ecological conditions is 

never perfect. An essential element of SHC is managing uncertainty through an iterative 

cycle of planning, doing, and evaluating. 

4. Management actions, decisions, and recommendations must be defensible and 

transparent; thus, the implementation of SHC must be systematic, well documented, and 

explicit about the nature and magnitude of potential errors. 

5. Conservation strategies consist of dynamic suites of objectives, tactics and tools that 

change as new information enters the SHC cycle. 

6. Partnerships are essential, both for management and for developing conservation 

strategies. 

In implementing SHC, the sixth guiding principle is especially important. Partnerships are a 

powerful means of communicating and implementing a conservation strategy. Whether a 

partnership focuses primarily on the conservation of Federal trust resources (e.g., migratory birds 

via joint ventures), or more broadly on the conservation of all fish and wildlife species in a 

particular ecoregion, partnerships allow us to integrate these priorities and decide who does what 

and where. Under this arrangement, each partner can fulfill its particular mandate, while 

working cooperatively. The priorities and actions developed from collaborating on the elements 

12
of SHC will also help partners realize when to work separately to achieve unique objectives. We

realize the greatest impact of partnerships when partners jointly deliver and promote a common 

conservation strategy that achieves multiple objectives and respects the unique goals of each 

program. 

Keeping the guiding principles in mind, Figure 2 depicts the SHC framework, with each element 

more fully described below. Please note that the elements of SHC, as well as associated subelements, may occur simultaneously and continuously, rather than in the sequential order of the 

text below. For example, monitoring and research may coincide with biological planning, or 

population objectives may occur after the current state of the system and limiting factors are 

identified. Finally, we may expand the concepts and principles of SHC to factors other than 

habitat. 

Assess

Current State

of Species

Populations

Identify

Limiting

Factors

Develop

Species Habitat

Decision

Support Tools

Combine

Appropriate Species

Decision Support Tools

Strategic Habitat Conservation Diagram

Identify

Program

Priority

Areas

Monitor Effects

Of Management Actions

On Populations

Feedback Loop:

Evaluate

Program

Accomplishments

Feedback Loop:

Assess

Net Progress

Toward

Population

Objectives

Conservation Delivery

Revise Models

Accordingly

Identify

Priority Species

Formulate

Habitat

Objectives

Select

Priority Subset

Formulate

Population

Objectives

Compile and Apply

Models

Describing

Population-Habitat

Relationships Feedback Loop:

Target Research

For Highest Value

C

onser

vation

Design

Biological

Planning

Conservation

Delivery

Monitoring

And Research

Revise Models

Accordingly

Assess

Current State

of Species

Populations

Identify

Limiting

Factors

Develop

Species Habitat

Decision

Support Tools

Combine

Appropriate Species

Decision Support Tools

Strategic Habitat Conservation Diagram

Identify

Program

Priority

Areas

Monitor Effects

Of Management Actions

On Populations

Feedback Loop:

Evaluate

Program

Accomplishments

Feedback Loop:

Assess

Net Progress

Toward

Population

Objectives

Conservation Delivery

Revise Models

Accordingly

Identify

Priority Species

Formulate

Habitat

Objectives

Select

Priority Subset

Formulate

Population

Objectives

Compile and Apply

Models

Describing

Population-Habitat

Relationships Feedback Loop:

Target Research

For Highest Value

C

onser

vation

Design

Biological

Planning

Conservation

Delivery

Monitoring

And Research

Revise Models

Accordingly

Figure 2. Schematic of the SHC framework at a landscape scale. Although depicted as a 

sequential process, some activities may occur simultaneously. 

13
Element 1 – Biological Planning 

The Biological Planning element identifies clear goals 

and objectives and compiles information necessary to 

achieve them. Goals and objectives provide the motives 

for investing in a particular habitat or location. For the 

purposes of Biological Planning, a goal is a descriptive, 

open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys purpose, but does not define 

measurable units. An objective elaborates on a goal. It 

provides a concise, measurable statement of what we want to achieve. The Biological Planning 

element, which consists of six sub-elements, ensures development of outcome-based objectives 

that flow from the best available data, information, and models. 

• Identify priority species 

• Select subset of priority species 

• Formulate population objectives 

• Assess current state of priority species 

• Identify limiting factors 

• Compile and apply models of 

population-habitat relationships 

Sub-element 1.1 – Identify Priority Species

Only some of the species that inhabit an ecoregion are Federal trust responsibilities, and, of 

these, a smaller subset represents priority species. Although the FWS seeks to benefit all species 

and to contribute to the health, integrity and biodiversity of ecosystems, we have an obligation to 

benefit trust species first and foremost. Ideally we would address the needs of all trust species 

with equal energy, but with limited resources, it becomes necessary to prioritize. Lists of priority

trust species already exist and are routinely reviewed and updated. For example, the FWS 

Endangered Species Program maintains a database of endangered, threatened and candidate 

species and the Migratory Birds Program maintains a list of Birds of Management Concern. 

Sub-element 1.2 – Select a Subset of Priority Species

Biological planners may choose to work with a subset of priority species. Selection criteria may 

include a number of legal, social, and biological factors, with some species sharing more than 

one characteristic. For example, statutory obligations will lead the FWS to select federally listed 

or candidate species to better prioritize actions, avoid jeopardy, and aid in recovery. In other 

cases, public demand and/or targeted programmatic funding may also influence species selection 

(e.g., providing fishable or huntable populations of a trust species). 

In addition to legal and social factors influencing species selection, the use of focal species can 

provide a biologically sound method for choosing a subset of priority species to aid in Biological 

Planning and Conservation Design. Although the term may have different meanings among 

various programs, for the purpose of this document, focal species represent larger guilds of 

species that use habitats similarly. Generally, focal species are selected based on knowledge that 

factors limiting their populations are sensitive to landscape scale characteristics, such as land 

cover composition or connectivity. By addressing the needs of focal species, other trust species 

within a guild are expected to benefit. However, we should always evaluate the assumption that 

other species in a guild respond similarly to focal species. In the end, biologists must balance the 

specifics of their ecoregion, availability of data and information, and programmatic obligations 

to select an appropriate subset of priority species. 

Sub-element 1.3 – Formulate Population Objectives

A population objective represents a measurable expression of a desired outcome. Population 

objectives are expressed as abundance, trend, vital rates, or other measurable indices of 

14
population status, and they are based on the best biological information about what constitutes a 

healthy population. Without population objectives there exists no basis for determining staff and 

funding resource needs for SHC, nor can we account for how efficiently these resources are 

used. 

Sub-element 1.4 – Assess the Current State of Species Populations

If population objectives describe where we want to end up, the current state describes our 

starting point. If the current population occurs below the objective, the difference represents a 

conservation deficit. When habitat insufficiencies contribute to the conservation deficit, SHC 

aims to lay out and then follow an efficient route to make up the deficit at the lowest cost, 

consistent with other goals of FWS programs (e.g., public access). Obviously, to compare 

population objectives to the current state of populations, the two must have equivalent terms of 

reference. The models described in sub-element 1.6 may help assess the current state in terms of 

carrying capacity, recruitment, or survival rate. 

Sub-element 1.5 – Identify Limiting Factors 

“The presence and success of an organism 

or group of organisms depends upon a 

complex of conditions. Any condition 

which approaches or exceeds the limits of 

tolerance is said to be a limiting condition 

or a limiting factor...first and primary 

attention should be given to factors that 

are operationally significant to the 

organism at some time during its life 

cycle.” - Odum E.P. (1971) Fundamentals 

of Ecology

Informed assumptions about the factors limiting populations or ecosystem 

function are critical to developing an efficient conservation strategy. To use a 

simple analogy, if an automobile manufacturer’s output is limited by the number 

of tires their supplier can deliver, increasing 

the availability of transmissions will not have 

the desired impact. Because their goal is clear 

– the production of fully functioning 

automobiles – they will (1) work with their 

current supplier to increase tire output, or (2) 

find additional tire vendors. 

To use a biological example, low reproductive 

success resulting from nest predation and 

parasitism by edge species able to penetrate 

small forest patches may limit interior forest 

breeding birds. At an ecoregional scale, there 

are not enough large patches to sustain the population at desired levels of abundance. Birds that 

settle in small patches may fail to recruit young into the population, so individuals settling in 

large patches must maintain the population. Once we understand the factor limiting populations, 

several potential management treatments are possible: 

• Use reforestation to create large patches 

• Focus on increasing non-breeding survival 

• Use predator and nest parasite control 

• Raise the species in a hatchery and release 

Generally, one or two management treatments will appear most practical and compatible with 

our goals for this ecosystem and other species that inhabit it. In this case, we would likely 

choose reforestation – coalescing small patches where recruitment is low into large patches 

15
where recruitment is higher. If survival remains the same and reproductive success increases in 

response to increasing patch size, the population will grow toward desired levels. 

Subelement 1.6 – Compile and Apply 

Models Describing Population-Habitat 

Relationships

Next, we begin to answer the interrelated 

questions of how much management and 

where? We ultimately answer these 

questions through Conservation Design 

(element 2 of SHC). Initiating 

Conservation Design, however, requires an 

understanding of the relationship between 

populations and habitats. Models are 

useful descriptions of what we know or 

assume about how a population responds 

to habitat – particularly the factors limiting 

the potential of the habitat to sustain 

selected species. We use models to assess 

the current state of the ecosystem in terms 

of its ability to support populations, and to 

determine how best to make up the 

population deficit and attain our desired 

objective. 

Staying with our forest breeding bird 

example, we learn from available data that 

the ratio of patch edge to area limits 

recruitment rate – as patches become

larger and blockier, recruitment rate 

increases. As a result, answering the 

questions of where and how much requires 

models that describe the relationship 

between the edge to area ratio and 

recruitment rate. Figure 3 illustrates 

several means of describing this 

hypothetical relationship. We see that 

after the edge to area ratio exceeds 0.1 

(about 120 acres for a square patch, larger 

for irregularly shaped patches), further 

increases in recruitment rate start to slow down. We have reached the point of diminishing 

returns. A strategic approach to attaining our habitat objectives would indicate that once we 

have reached a ratio of 0.1, we should move on to a new area rather than continue to make the 

same patch bigger and bigger for less and less additional benefit. 

Mathematical expression of the relationship: 

R = 0.419 + (0.847√E) 

Set of rules to express the relationship (heuristic): 

Ratio of

edge to area 

is greater

than... 

Ratio of

edge to area 

is less 

than... 

Recruitment 

Rate 

0.00 0.02 0.10

0.02 0.04 0.21

0.04 0.06 0.50

0.06 0.08 0.66

0.08 0.12 0.75

0.12 0.20 0.82

0.20 0.30 0.85

0.3 0.90

Graphical expression of the relationship: 

Figure 3. Three expressions of a model that 

relates the rate of bird recruitment (R) to the ratio

of forest edge length to patch area (E). 

16
Whether based on data 

or expert opinion, the 

use of models serves as 

a defining feature of 

SHC. Models help us 

describe in measurable 

terms what we know or 

assume about the 

probable response of a 

population to habitat 

and how our actions 

provide an effect. 

Without models, it remains difficult to systematically apply the biological foundation for 

management. 

Why model at an ecoregional scale? 

The relationship of species to their habitats varies among regions of the 

U.S. Species use different habitats for different purposes at different 

relative densities. An effective conservation strategy for forest 

breeding birds in the southeastern U.S. may not work for the Pacific 

Northwest. Thus, building an effective and efficient conservation 

strategy requires a geographic approach within which species of 

concern, habitat types, habitat use, threats to habitats, and habitat 

potential are relatively homogeneous. This enables the use of models 

and a systematic application of the biological foundation. 

Element 2 – Conservation Design 

Conservation Design brings together the results 

of Biological Planning into one or a few 

products that are accessible to diverse 

stakeholders. The most common products of 

Conservation Design are maps. Maps can be extremely compelling, but beware: a map is no 

more accurate than the information that went into creating it. Conservation Design, which 

consists of three sub-elements, provides the on-the-ground strategy for achieving objectives. 

• Develop species habitat decision support tools 

• Designate priority areas 

• Formulate habitat objectives 

Sub-element 2.1 – Develop Species Habitat Decision Support Tools

A decision support tool combines geospatial data, biological information, and the results of 

ecological models into a format that helps managers decide which conservation actions to apply 

to a given landscape (Fig. 4). Decision support tools should be linked to specific treatments that 

target a population response. The decision support tool arranges available information relevant to 

the decision into a single format, allowing the manager to view the compilation of the data, 

information, and models in a simple form. 

Decision support tools provide a way to evaluate the potential of every acre of habitat to support 

desired populations of a species by summarizing, at a glance, available information regarding 

accompanying habitat types. These tools may also be developed for ecological functions like 

water quality enhancement, flood damage reduction, or carbon sequestration. The FWS and 

USGS may choose to invest in developing these or other types of decision support tools in order 

to further the conservation of Federal trust species by broadening the appeal of our strategies and 

the diversity of our partnerships. Decision support tools can be used individually or in 

combinations to direct activities or advise partner programs. However, as the phrase indicates, 

these are tools meant to support a decision, not supplant the decision maker.

17
Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Figure 4. Example of programmatic application of decision support tools. When the 

USDA-NRCS expressed an interest in supporting migratory bird goals through the 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the FWS helped them target priority areas in western 

Minnesota. Having a portfolio of species habitat decision support tools that were 

appropriate to this program (represented by Factors 1-3) made assistance quick and 

effective. More than $15 million/year of USDA funding in Minnesota is contributing to 

the strategic conservation of migratory bird populations. 

Sub-element 2.2 – Designate Priority Areas

Most of the time, decisions about where to protect or restore a particular habitat type or where to 

deliver a particular program are based on the potential of each landscape to provide desired 

benefits. Desired benefits might be as narrowly defined as the potential to support multiple 

species of ducks (as in the FWS’s Waterfowl Production Area program), to as broadly defined as 

wildlife, clean water, and soil retention (as in USDA’s Wetland Reserve Program). 

When we combine priorities identified by decision support tools for multiple species that occupy 

the same area and can benefit from a particular conservation action, the product is a depiction of 

where aggregate benefits can occur for Federal trust species. These kinds of priority areas may 

be useful throughout the FWS, ranging from land acquisition by the NWRS, to priorities for 

18
Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects, or as decision 

tools that assist Ecological Services staff with 

environmental reviews. 

The systematic evaluation of species and habitat 

conservation strategies provide for decision-making 

in a more structured, scientific manner to better 

accommodate the needs of trust resources. When 

"spatially-explicit" conservation strategies are 

developed by applying models to geospatial data, 

managers can operate in an awareness of the 

conservation needs and strategies for multiple species 

and guilds, as well as other ecological functions. 

Thus, managers may seek opportunities to leverage 

benefits for one species with another, estimate their 

accomplishments and the impacts of partners on the 

attainment of their objectives, and anticipate and proactively address potential conflicting responses of species to habitat management. 

The Habitat and Population Evaluation 

Team (HAPET) of the Prairie Potholes 

Joint Venture had developed landscape 

level models for ruddy ducks. They used 

these models to develop a decision 

support tool to estimate a habitat 

objective necessary to mitigate a number 

of ruddy duck deaths attributable to an 

oil spill in the Chesapeake Bay. The 

information was used to direct the 

expenditure of $600K to restore ruddy 

duck breeding habitat. HAPET’s rapid 

response ensured that the funding was 

directed toward the restoration of habitat 

where it would most likely mitigate duck 

losses. 

 Sub-element 2.3 – Formulate Habitat Objectives

Models and priority areas can help estimate the amount of habitat of each type required to attain 

population objectives. This information enables us to establish habitat objectives that directly 

relate to achieving our population objectives. Relative conservation efficiency (e.g., biological 

benefits/acre) varies across landscapes. Thus, the actual amount of habitat required to attain our 

population objectives depends on where we deliver our programs. Nonetheless, even crudely 

estimated habitat objectives enable us to convey the magnitude of required conservation actions 

to partners and stakeholders. Timely adjustments to habitat objectives may be made based on 

new scientific information, recent management accomplishments, and other influences on habitat 

due to policy changes and socioeconomic factors. The same process used to set habitat 

objectives may also be used to predict population impacts of these policy and socioeconomic 

factors. 

Element 3 – Conservation Delivery 

SHC represents a framework for compiling, interpreting and refining the biological foundation 

for trust resource conservation. It provides for day-to-day use of scientific information to guide 

an array of management decisions regarding how and where to efficiently attain trust resource 

conservation objectives. As an integral part of SHC, “Delivery of Conservation Actions” will be

the subject of a considerable amount of future discussion, including the changing role of the 

Service in collaborative conservation. The first steps are to understand our role in partnerships 

as the lead agency for trust resource conservation and to create an internal and external 

expectation that the Service and USGS will strive for a more strategic and efficient approach 

with our own contribution to conservation delivery. Whereas the Service has a considerable 

capacity for conservation delivery, the NEAT has focused primarily on building the largely 

heretofore undeveloped capacity for biological planning, conservation design and targeted 

research and monitoring. 

 

19
In the future, the Service will be equally a manager of populations and habitats and the steward 

and purveyor of the biological foundation for Federal trust species conservation. The latter 

function has significant implications for how the Service operates with others. Partnerships are 

valuable to the extent that they enable conservation that exceeds the sum of the potential actions 

of the individual agencies and organizations that comprise them. Among traditional 

conservation delivery functions, future conservation partnerships will function as a nexus for 

information between the scientific community and the agencies and programs seeking diverse 

natural resource enhancement benefits through habitat conservation. In many cases, more 

diverse partnerships will eventually be needed to bring together expertise on economics, 

sociology, hydrology, as well as biology, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive land 

use strategies that enable humans and wildlife to co-exist at objective levels of abundance. No 

one should purport to understand the details of how partnerships like these will function most 

effectively; however, SHC is an open-ended framework that enables integration of any 

environmental or socio-economic factors that can be measured and predicted based on landscape 

context. 

Implementation of on-the-ground actions based on information from Biological Planning and 

Conservation Design (SHC elements one and two) results in the application of specific 

conservation actions on specific parts of the landscape. Managers constantly make decisions 

about what conservation treatments to apply and where to apply them. The framework of SHC 

offers managers access to a variety of tools developed from the best available data and 

information to make those decisions. They will have transparent and defensible reasons for 

applying treatments. Finally, they will have targeted research and monitoring to validate or help

them adjust their management decisions. 

Element 4 – Monitoring and Research

Monitoring and Research are a prominent and fundamental 

element of SHC, and without this step, we lose the iterative 

process whereby managers learn and increase their 

efficiency. The FWS cannot afford to undertake large scale 

habitat protection, restoration or enhancement endeavors, 

only to discover after years of management that actions 

were ineffective or even counterproductive. Monitoring 

and Research, which consists of three sub-elements, helps evaluate: 

• Target research for value to 

resource management 

• Establish monitoring activities to 

support inferences 

• Use monitoring and research in a 

feedback loop. 

• assumptions made in population-habitat models and decision support tools; 

• habitat responses to conservation actions; 

• population responses to conservation actions; and 

• progress toward habitat and population objectives. 

Sub-element 4.1 – Target Research to Provide the Highest Value to Resource Management 

Implementation of the first three elements of SHC (Biological Planning, Conservation Design, 

and Conservation Delivery) reveals uncertainties in the biological foundation we use for 

management. In the absence of perfect knowledge, biologists are forced to make assumptions, 

but they can treat these assumptions as testable hypotheses. Research provides the avenue for 

conducting the tests and supporting or disproving the hypotheses. Not all assumptions, however, 

20
are equally important. Those assumptions having the greatest impact on management decisions 

are the highest priorities for research. 

Identifying research priorities using SHC will help the FWS target research at mission critical

information. With research priorities in hand, the FWS can collaborate more effectively with 

USGS and the rest of the research community. As a systematic use of the biological foundation, 

both as a means of learning and as a growing body of knowledge, SHC helps bridge the gap 

between managers and researchers. 

Sub-element 4.2 – Establish Monitoring Activities to Support Inferences

When applying management actions to a given site, the FWS infers which habitat management 

actions will produce the most efficient effect on populations. To evaluate whether management 

actions are having the predicted consequences, we need to monitor actual outcomes, most often 

using a representative sample of sites to ensure that, on average, the effects of a particular type of 

treatment match expectations. Such effects, when tallied up over larger areas, or for an entire 

region, enable us to infer a program’s effectiveness. We then revise and refine our predictions so 

that future iterations of our conservation strategy are more reliable. 

Sub-element 4.3 – Use Monitoring and Research in a Feedback Loop

New information from research and monitoring only becomes useful if it influences future 

conservation decisions and actions. These benefits are most pronounced when the elements of 

SHC are iterative and ongoing rather than static or episodic. Thus, habitat conservation 

strategies are most appropriately viewed as living strategies that are continually developing in 

response to targeted research and inferential monitoring data. 

All elements of SHC are part of a continuous feedback loop. In fact, successful application of 

any element of SHC depends upon awareness of the information being developed in other 

elements. Nonetheless, we highlight the critical importance of Monitoring and Research 

because, all too often, information from this element is implicitly viewed as the end of the 

process, rather than an indispensable part of a cycle. 

21
C HAPTER T HREE: Building Joint Capability for the 

FWS and USGS 

A Direction for Change 

The SHC Framework presents both FWS and USGS with significant challenges. The four functional 

elements will require a more complex science/management relationship – one that treats science not 

simply as what we know, but how we operate. In recommending SHC as the Service’s conservation 

framework, we do not propose that the Service duplicate the Survey’s science capabilities. Rather, we 

recommend the Service operate within a conservation framework that increases both the demand for and 

relevance of USGS science. For the Service, SHC means increasing our capability for biological

planning and conservation design at broad spatial scales. For USGS, SHC represents a recognition that 

the Service’s science needs will increasingly extend beyond traditional research. 

The FWS has long operated as a science-based organization and our conservation actions are rooted in a 

broad body of scientific knowledge that USGS has helped develop. Yet, as the Service embraces SHC, 

our science needs will extend to predictive modeling, landscape characterization, decision-based 

monitoring, and assumption-driven research. Fortunately, all USGS science disciplines are recognizing 

the need to not simply grow the body of knowledge through basic research, but to predict, monitor, and 

assess ecological change within an interdisciplinary context. We see SHC as the framework for merging 

the increasingly complex needs of both organizations. In the future, we will require that FWS and 

USGS work collaboratively to: 

1. Develop an integrated capacity for Biological Planning and Conservation Design at 

ecoregional scales (see Appendix C - Technical Skills and Infrastructure Needs); 

2. Create ecoregional partnerships focused on leveraging the resources of the conservation 

community; and 

3. Reengineer decision-making processes to link Biological Planning, Conservation Design, 

Conservation Delivery, and Monitoring and Research iteratively in an adaptive cycle of 

science. 

A number of FWS field offices employ collaborative conservation efforts, driven by partnerships 

and conducted within the framework of SHC. The FWS needs to learn from those efforts and 

expand on them to build a stronger, more comprehensive partnership with USGS. 

Strengthening Institutional Relationships 

Although the Service’s science partners extend beyond USGS, we cannot overstate the importance of a 

strong institutional relationship between FWS and USGS in advancing the SHC framework. While our 

missions are distinct, our federal trust responsibilities are intertwined. We should remember that past 

organizational changes, though they served to separate us administratively, were undertaken with the 

intent of strengthening the science/management relationship within the Department of the Interior. The 

SHC framework provides an opportunity to progress with this intent. 

22
We have previously noted the progress of FWS field stations in responding to the changing 

nature of conservation. Progress to date depends on a close, if not dynamic FWS/USGS 

relationship, built on the strength of interpersonal relationships. Yet each time offices and 

individuals reach across agency lines in a context other than research needs/response, they must 

begin by redefining their own inter-office level roles, relationships, and responsibilities. Doing 

so is not a trivial exercise. We challenge the Directorate of both agencies to support emerging 

cross bureau work with the power of institutional relationships redefined to support the 

functional elements of SHC. Appendix B provides a draft Memorandum of Understanding 

intended to facilitate and support the integrated relationship that SHC requires. Again, we see a 

new future – one in which FWS conservation biologists are supported by USGS scientists in a 

unified conservation framework of biological planning, conservation design, conservation 

delivery, decision-based monitoring, and assumption-driven research. 

Strengthening Operational Relationships 

To the extent that the FWS embraces SHC, we will require 

a partnership with USGS that effectively addresses each of 

the four functional elements described in Chapter 2: 

Biological Planning, Conservation Design, Delivery of 

Conservation Actions, and Research and Monitoring. In 

effective partnerships, capabilities complement one another. 

Roles emanate from the different functions of the bureaus – one, a management agency charged 

with the conservation of populations, and the other, a research agency charged with providing 

scientific information and conducting scholarly research suitable for publication in peer reviewed 

journals. The respective roles help establish who should do what in each of the four elements of 

SHC. 

• Biological Planning 

• Conservation Design 

• Conservation Delivery

• Research and Monitoring 

Biological Planning – As a key management agency responsible for Federal trust resource conservation, 

via environmental statutes, the FWS identifies priority species and works with stakeholders to determine 

population objectives. Scientists within both bureaus and from other partner agencies determine 

potential limiting factors and compile models. USGS will typically contribute to the completion of

technical models, with the methods and results suitable for journal publication. 

Conservation Design – The FWS will often serve as a lead for spatial analysis and use of models and 

GIS technology to designate priority areas for federal trust species, but partners and stakeholders will 

also have roles to play. In particular, our partnership with USGS will increase the FWS capacity to 

accomplish this type of work in areas lacking sufficient staff or expertise. In addition, USGS will 

continue to develop and distribute many required spatial data layers, such as land cover, elevation, etc. 

It remains vital that USGS consult with FWS end users of spatial data before and during data 

development to ensure that spatial resolution and classification systems are suitable for the FWS’s 

conservation design needs. 

We do not anticipate that every FWS Administrative Region would use the same geographic framework 

for SHC. Each approach, however, should have: 

• Geographic units that are relatively ecologically homogeneous (i.e., contain a single ecosystem

type to facilitate Biological Planning and to aid in making inferences from Research and 

Monitoring); 

23
• Geographic unit definition is spatially comprehensive (i.e., boundary definitions encompass 

entire country without overlap). 

• A manageable number of geographic units – neither too many nor too few (and therefore too 

heterogeneous); 

Ecological regions do not follow political boundaries, although some use of political boundaries may 

occur for pragmatic reasons. Defining the appropriate geographic framework is another part of 

Conservation Design where FWS and USGS will need to work closely, and with partners and 

stakeholders. 

Conservation Delivery – Clearly, implementation of habitat conservation is the role of the FWS. 

However, planning, design, evaluation and implementation, the tenets of SHC are all linked in a 

continuous iterative process. A constant dialog between managers, planners, and researchers is essential 

to the process. SHC, therefore, provides a venue within which USGS science and information can 

influence where and how management occurs. 

Research and Monitoring – A USGS contribution to research and monitoring is indispensable, 

but the FWS and USGS both have a role in ensuring that research results affect future 

management. In Chapter 2 we state that monitoring and research must be carried out to evaluate: 

• assumptions made in population-habitat models and decision support tools; 

• habitat responses to conservation actions; 

• population responses to conservation actions; and 

• progress toward habitat and population objectives. 

The first bullet is research targeted at FWS assumptions identified through the Biological Planning 

element. Whereas FWS staff must articulate these assumptions and related research needs, it will 

generally fall to USGS and other scientists to conduct the research – develop the methods, collect, 

analyze and interpret data, and publish results. 

The other bullets represent monitoring. Site-scale monitoring of habitat and population response to 

management should be performed by FWS field staff as a routine management function. USGS may 

assist with monitoring design and data analysis as needed. Ecoregional and national scale monitoring of 

Federal trust species population and habitat status and trends are logically the responsibility of the FWS 

as an agency legally mandated to ensure their conservation. There is, however, a clear supporting role 

for USGS in survey design, data management, and analysis, and there may be roles for other partners as 

well. 

24
C HAPTER F OUR : Recommendations 

Introduction 

We have developed an ambitious set of recommendations to formulate, embrace and support 

SHC. We offer our recommendations to assist the FWS’s Directorate and USGS’s Executive 

Leadership Team in: 

1. Articulating a new and shared conservation approach via SHC; and 

2. Leading a gradual and progressive effort to embrace, implement and support the new 

conservation framework and use it to guide agency planning, priorities, and decisions. 

Recommendations are made with the 

understanding that other efforts are 

currently underway that seek change. With 

budget challenges, increasing breadth and 

volume of workload, and a changing 

workforce, our bureaus face a unique 

opportunity to prepare for the next decade 

and beyond. Venues like the “Shaping Our 

Future” Workshop and initiatives such as 

“Future Challenges” are just a few 

endeavors that complement policy 

deliberations and decisions that seek 

increased efficiencies and effectiveness 

through cross-programmatic delivery of our 

mission. 

The recommendations are organized under 

four headings that reflect complementary 

aspects of expanding SHC capacity. Also, 

we have not identified all the actions that 

the two bureaus could or should undertake. 

As we receive feedback from Directorate members, bureau employees, and our partners, 

recommendations and actions will evolve. 

Overview of Recommendations 

Commit in principle – senior leaders make a 

clear commitment that is visible in actions and on 

paper. 

Expand understanding - broaden employee 

understanding of Strategic Habitat Conservation. 

Expand engagement and ownership – foster a 

commitment among employees to develop, 

implement, and use Strategic Habitat 

Conservation.

Expand operational capacity - increase and 

accelerate implementation of Strategic Habitat 

Conservation through adequate funding, training, 

outreach, evaluation, administrative services, and 

technological capabilities and functions. 

We also assign a recommended time frame for performing each action item as Immediate (0-2 

years), meaning items that need to occur without delay to capture existing momentum within our 

bureaus; Near-term (2-5 years), referring to minimal or relatively low-cost actions that will take 

longer to initiate but are critical to foster change; and (3) Long-term (5 years +), representing 

actions requiring a significant accretion or potential redirection of resources to accomplish, but 

that are ultimately the full manifestation of a FWS-USGS partnership that uses the SHC 

framework. 

25
Finally, developing and implementing these recommendations will require a considerable 

investment of time by a dedicated team of FWS and USGS staff. We suggest creation of a 

national implementation task force to facilitate a FWS and USGS-wide dialog on SHC concepts, 

various manifestations of current species lists and their use, and to ensure consideration and 

implementation of our recommendations, as appropriate. 

Recommended Actions 

Commit in Principle

1.1 The Service Directorate and USGS Executive Leadership Team endorse SHC as a shared 

conservation framework (Immediate). 

1.2 The Service Directorate and USGS Executive Leadership Team promote refining, 

strengthening, and expanding science/management relationships between the organizations by 

entering into a Memorandum of Understanding that guides the establishment of operational 

relationships and procedures. (see Appendix B for a draft MOU) (Immediate). 

1.3 Establish a National Implementation Task Force (NITF) 

1.4 Develop a fiscal year 2008 budget approach to begin implementing capacity building 

measures for SHC (Immediate). 

Expand Understanding

2.1 Facilitate national outreach on SHC concepts and methods via the NITF to: 

2.1.1 Conduct inreach and outreach on SHC concepts, methods, and recommendations 

(Immediate). 

2.1.2 Share concepts with FWS and USGS staff (Immediate). 

2.1.3 Complete and make available a practitioner’s handbook (Immediate). 

2.2 Conduct a national workshop for regional and program leaders to increase knowledge on 

SHC concepts and methods and obtain staff feedback on specific needs to implement SHC 

(Immediate). 

2.3 Conduct regional workshops for a wider, cross-program audience for field managers and 

biologists (these could be through distance learning followed by on-line communication tools) 

(Immediate). 

2.4 Brief bureau, DOI and OMB staff involved with budget construction/oversight, 

accountability reporting via GPRA, DOI Strategic Plan, PART review process, etc., and 

stakeholder outreach (Immediate). 

2.5 Develop curricula (accessing current FWS/USGS practitioners) and institute new NCTC 

training that address SHC concepts by: 

2.5.1 Assigning technical staff specializing in Biological Planning and Conservation 

Design to provide detailed information on model development, application, monitoring 

design, etc. (Near-term). 

26
2.5.2 Informing project leaders and other program staff (end users of assessment 

products) on basic approaches and applications of SHC (Near-term). 

2.6 Initiate a partnership strategy to: 

2.6.1 Share SHC concepts with states and solicit input (Immediate). 

2.6.2 Review State Comprehensive Wildlife Management Strategies and identify 

opportunities to develop cooperative capacity for SHC (Immediate). 

2.6.3 Establish a “community of practice” whereby the FWS convenes members of the 

conservation community to share methods and approaches for SHC (Near-term). 

2.7 Identify cross-programmatic teams to help provide outreach and training (Immediate). 

Expand Engagement and Ownership

3.1 Develop and implement performance standards and program objectives relating to SHC: 

3.1.1 Create program objectives based on full implementation of SHC (Long-term). 

3.1.2 Add performance standards based on SHC concepts to the Employee Performance 

Appraisal Plans of pertinent resource management program supervisors and employees 

(Near-term). 

3.1.3 Create program objectives and performance standards to build partnerships for 

sharing in the implementation of SHC (Near-term). 

3.2 Develop national and regional cooperative agreements based on the MOU between FWS and 

USGS to integrate staff and resources and build capacity for SHC (Near-term). 

3.3 Include NIFT members in workforce planning sessions and efforts, in addition to other 

strategic initiatives, including the Decision Analysis Community of Practice, Science 

Committee, Information Quality group, Future Challenges, etc. (Near-term). 

3.4 Seek better integration of programmatic conservation priorities and develop protocols for 

making structured, strategic decisions where priorities are potentially in conflict. (Near-term). 

Expand Operational Capacity

4.1 Analyze current abilities to conduct the Biological Planning and Conservation Design 

elements of SHC: 

4.1.1 Review Biological Planning and Conservation Design assets within FWS and 

USGS administrative regions and ecological regions (Immediate). 

4.1.2 Analyze current status and capability for providing land cover data, National 

Wetland Inventory data, and other digital data layers for SHC efforts (Immediate). 

4.1.3 Develop regional strategies for building capacity (Near-term). 

4.2 Build SHC capacity by: 

4.2.1 Augmenting current conservation assessment efforts already underway in priority 

ecological regions (e.g., joint venture offices, Refuge Goals Coordinators, USGS, etc.) by 

4.2.1.1 Sharing programmatic assets for biological planning and conservation 

design (Near-term); 

27
4.2.1.2 Consolidating existing programmatic staff into cross-program teams 

(Near-term); and 

4.2.2 Establishing capacity in other ecological regions that are high priorities for the FWS 

(Near-term). 

4.3 Implement geospatial data and technology recommendations (see Appendix E). 

4.3.1: Establish national and ecoregional inter-bureau teams to identify and prioritize 

base data needs to facilitate SHC and support cost-effective, collaborative data 

acquisition efforts (Near-term). 

4.3.2: Establish national and ecoregional inter-bureau teams to ensure that data conform 

to required standards, are relevant to the region(s) that collect them, and facilitate crossregional coordination on SHC (Near-term). 

4.3.3 Provide mechanism for developing, documenting, and sharing common GIS tools 

and models (Near-term). 

4.3.4 Identify hardware, bandwidth, and other technical infrastructure requirements at 

strategic locations, such as Joint Venture offices and co-located field offices (Near-term). 

4.3.5 Identify topics for joint training opportunities, such as metadata, advanced GIS 

applications, and advanced software technical support (Near-term).

4.4 Conduct an inter-bureau review of administrative procedures that hinder cooperation between 

the FWS, USGS and other DOI bureaus, and recommend appropriate resolutions (Immediate). 

4.5 As new endangered and threatened species recovery plans are developed and older ones are 

revised, ensure that the species' status assessments and habitat goals and criteria are framed, to 

the extent possible, in terms that lend themselves to integration within the SHC framework. The 

same concept should be applied to the development of candidate conservation programs. (midterm to long-term). 

4.6 Develop an apprentice/internship program that provides learning opportunities for bureau 

biologists and scientists conducting SHC. Existing teams (reference 4.2.1) may serve as 

locations: 

4.7.1 Establish 30-60 day details (Immediate). 

4.7.2 Establish 1-2 year internships (Near-term). (Appendix D) 

4.7.3 Arrange job swaps between FWS and USGS staff with compatible background 

and skills (Near-term). 

4.8 Secure increased annual program funding to hire monitoring staff who collect biological 

information to evaluate consequences of management actions and assumptions (Long-term). 

4.9 Establish protocols for accomplishment reporting in terms of biological impacts as well as 

acres effected and dollars expended (Near-term). 

4.10 Implement an approach to allocate funds based on accomplishments and efficiencies of a 

region or station to achieve biological objectives that arise from SHC (Near-term). 

4.11 Secure reliable increased annual funding for targeted research (Long-term). 

28
GLOSSARY

Decision support tool (DST): Maps, data bases and other tools built from geospatial data, 

biological information, and the results of ecological models that help a manager decide which 

conservation actions to apply to a given landscape. 

Focal species: A species used for conservation assessment, especially a species that represents a 

guild or larger group of species that use habitat similarly. The use of focal species is a planning 

shortcut when collecting data or building models for priority species. 

Geospatial: Relating to data, services, databases or other items that are geographically 

referenced and thus can be linked to a location on the earth (sometimes abbreviated to spatial). 

Limiting factor: A primary factor constraining the growth of a population toward objective 

levels. 

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A framework for setting and achieving conservation 

objectives at multiple scales based on the best available information, data, and ecological 

models. Full implementation of SHC requires four elements that occur in an adaptive 

management loop: (1) biological planning, (2) conservation design, (3) delivery of conservation 

actions, and (4) monitoring and research. 

29
APPENDIX A

U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey 

 National Ecological Assessment Team

CHARTER 

Purpose Several FWS initiatives focus on developing nation-wide, science-based conservation 

strategies. The USGS is focusing on integrating science and information in geographic 

regions to support multiple conservation and management needs. The National 

Ecological Assessment Team will integrate these efforts into a consistent Service-wide

approach to setting and prioritizing conservation goals for trust species, important 

habitats, and other conservation targets. 

This approach will focus will enable development of habitat conservation strategies at 

the ecosystem level and will support adaptive management. The approach will be based

on use of the best available information on factors limiting populations and ecological

integrity. Finally, this approach will serve as the foundation for cross-program

coordination of conservation activities within the Service, as well as joint conservation 

ventures with our partners. 

The Team is

empowered 

1) to design a cross-programmatic approach to science-based ecological assessment for

the Service; 2) to recommend a unified implementation structure and process, including

guidance on the implementation roles and responsibilities of each program; and 3) to use 

the resources of their respective offices, to travel, and to request and receive assistance 

of other offices as necessary to achieve their purpose.

Participants The Team consists of representatives from 5 FWS program areas: Refuges, Migratory

Birds-State Programs, Endangered Species, Fisheries, and Habitat Conservation. Team

members will include staff involved in the Refuge System’s “Habitat Goals” process, 

the Migratory Birds/Joint Venture science teams, and others with an appropriate 

background in science-based conservation planning. The team also includes 

representation from the biological and information disciplines of the U.S. Geological

Survey, who will coordinate needs across USGS. 

Process The team will 1) develop a time line with a detailed schedule for product delivery, 

including internal and external review periods; 2) assess and integrate relevant

ecological assessment methods and other documents, including Joint Venture initiatives, 

the NWRS final report for integrating habitat goals and objectives for conservation, and

sound science-based ecosystem team approaches; 3) consider other appropriate

ecological assessment concepts and approaches used by States and other outside 

organizations; and 4) prepare a report and recommendations for the Directorates of both 

bureaus 

 

Products and Services • Refine and merge the individual program strategies into an integrated Service-wide

approach. 

• Identify work force needs, roles and responsibilities of each program in supporting

implementation.

• Identify priority science and information systems to be developed in partnership

with USGS and others. 

• Analyze alternative, phased implementation strategies and corresponding budget

30
recommendations, including an alternative involving the realignment of existing 

budget and personnel; recommend a preferred alternative. 

• Recommend a geographic framework and associated information infrastructure for 

seamless, nationwide application of ecological assessment. 

Reporting 

Relationships 

The team will be chartered by the Directors of the Fish & Wildlife Service and the 

Geological Survey and reports to the Directorate Oversight Council (FWS Assistant 

Directors for MBSP and NWRS, FWS Regional Directors from regions 1, 3, 4, and 5, 

FWS Science Advisor to the Director, FWS Special Assistant to the Director, USGS 

Associate Director for Biology, and USGS Geographic Information Officer). The FWS 

Science Advisor will serve as the Directorate Oversight Council’s primary liaison to the 

National Ecological Assessment Team. 

31
 APPENDIX B

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geologic Survey 

ON STRENGTHENING THE SCIENCE/MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP

IN THE CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is broadly one of refining, 

strengthening, and expanding the science/management relationship between the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (hereafter FWS or Service) and the U.S. Geologic Survey (hereafter USGS or 

Survey) in exercising the federal trust for fish and wildlife conservation. More specifically, the 

purpose is to facilitate development of (eco)regional agreements between the Service and USGS 

that will support both agencies in attaining their goals by promoting collaborative relationships 

within a unified conservation framework. 

BACKGROUND

Advances in conservation theory and information management technologies are merging with 

increasing demands for organizational accountability to change the nature of conservation. 

Increasingly, both the problems and the solutions of natural resource management are being seen 

in a multi-scaled, interdisciplinary context. The conservation strategies of resource agencies 

such as the Service are expected to be spatially explicit in orientation, multi-scaled in approach, 

adaptive in delivery, and outcome driven in results. Likewise, the role of USGS as an 

interagency science resource is increasingly seen as extending beyond research to one of 

predicting, monitoring, and assessing ecological change in an interdisciplinary context. The 

changing nature of conservation both anticipates and requires a more complex and robust 

relationship between science and management. 

As a response to these challenges, an interagency team of FWS and USGS biologists have put 

forth and the Service Directorate has adopted a unifying framework of biological planning, 

conservation design, conservation delivery, decision-based monitoring, and assumption-driven 

research that is termed “strategic habitat conservation” (SHC). As the Service embraces this 

conservation framework, its science support needs will become functionally more complex; and 

it will have need to expand its capacity for population/habitat modeling, landscape 

characterization and assessment, integrated monitoring, and biological information management 

at ecoregional scales. The growing capabilities of USGS in the areas will become ever more 

critical and relevant to the Service’s operational success. Accordingly, the functional elements 

of SHC should be viewed as a unifying framework in which both organizations work 

collaboratively to create a more operationally effective Service-USGS relationship – one that has 

both agencies working less in a customer/client relationship and more as partners with common 

goals, a shared sense of purpose, and working within a defined framework of strategic 

conservation. 

32
Integrating and Expanding Capacity and Capability: The SHC Framework challenges the 

Service to expand its capabilities for population/habitat modeling, landscape characterization and 

assessment, integrated monitoring, and biological information management at ecoregional scales. 

It challenges the Survey to in turn support the Service’s efforts with its own growing capacity in 

these areas. In the realm of monitoring, SHC challenges the Service to link monitoring explicitly 

to decision-making. Within the realm of research, SHC challenges both agencies to modify 

existing processes for identifying research priorities to incorporate the documented assumptions 

and uncertainties that emanate from Biological Planning and Conservation Design.

Supporting Ecoregional Partnerships: The Service’s emerging capabilities for SHC are 

typically occurring within the context of ecoregional-scale partnerships in which there is a strong 

focus on biological planning, conservation design, decision-based monitoring, and assumptiondriven research. It is in the context of such partnerships that the Survey’s growing capabilities in 

population/habitat modeling, landscape characterization and assessment, integrated monitoring, 

and bioinformatics can find their greatest relevance. 

Creating Ecoregionally-based Conservation Science Teams: If SHC is to function as a 

framework that unifies the Service’s conservation actions and the Survey’s science support, it 

will require an operational construct. We envision that construct as being teams possibly 

organized as Conservation Science Offices, either real or virtual. A Conservation Science Office 

could be literal in the context of collocated employees or virtual in the sense of team members in 

separate stations. In each instance however, the team would consist of Service and Survey 

employees who cooperate to inform the efficient pursuit of Service goals and objectives for 

Federal trust resource conservation. 

For those USGS employees that function as members of teams, the RGE processes should be 

modified to recognize the complexities of a science/management relationship that extends 

beyond the traditional research needs/response paradigm. Population/habitat models, landscape 

characterizations, biologically-driven decision support tools, statistically valid monitoring 

designs, etc. merit recognition as scholarly work essential to the Strategic Habitat Conservation 

Framework.

INTENT OF THE PARTIES

By entering into this MOU, the Regional Executive Leadership of both the Service and the 

Survey commit their respective regions to adopt procedures and protocols that support the 

functional elements of the SHC framework, and to develop (eco)regional Cooperative 

Agreements between FWS personnel responsible for ecoregional and landscape scale planning 

and assessment. and USGS personnel. These agreements should be developed and exercised in 

strategic locations and at strategic times in the future. Nothing in this MOU is intended to 

prohibit or discourage engaging other partners that may contribute to our collective capacity for 

SHC 

One of the first steps in building a Service capacity for SHC is for Service Regions to explicitly 

define their goals for SHC and to develop strategies for attaining these goals. This will mean 

consulting with USGS to review existing assets in both bureaus, identifying priority areas for 

33
building SHC capacity, a draft timetable, and means of eventually juxtaposing existing or new 

staff with skills in Biological Planning, Conservation Design, Decision-based Monitoring and 

Assumption Driven Research (Attachment 1). Provisions for the development of (eco)regional 

Cooperative Agreements and the formation of conservation science teams should be prominent 

in Regional SHC strategies. 

The Regional Executive Leadership are of one mind in stating that our intent extends beyond that 

of simply improving communication or coordination. Rather, it is one of creating new functional 

relationships between the Service and the Survey within each element of the SHC conservation 

framework. Our intent is that in the realm of federal trust resource conservation, both agencies 

move toward a collaborative Conservation Science Business Model. 

PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT: Progress in achieving the intent and purpose of the Agreement 

will be reviewed annually, and it will remain in effect until either party chooses to terminate its 

provisions or reassess its relevance.

SIGNATORS: 

USFWS Regional Directors: 

USGS Regional Directors:

34
ATTACHMENT 1 

OVERVIEW OF FWS/USGS FUNCTIONAL ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

IN THE STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK

In the interest of fostering and furthering the Service-USGS relationship envisioned by the 

Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework and its associated Memorandum of Understanding, 

this Attachment provides guidance on the functional roles required of FWS and USGS. Science 

support requirements associated with each element are summarized, and the nature of the 

FWS/USGS relationship being sought is indicated. Service and USGS employees are also 

referred to the report “Strategic Habitat Conservation: A Report from the National Ecological 

Assessment Team” and the “Practitioner’s Guide to Strategic Habitat Conservation” for 

additional details. 

An array of functions is listed under each major SHC element (bold subheadings). Some of 

these roles are intrinsic to the Service. Others may logically be performed by USGS; however, 

as the agency mandated with Federal trust resource conservation, the Service is responsible for 

ensuring that each of these functions is accounted for in carrying out SHC. 

Biological Planning: This Framework element encompasses the processes and procedures for 

deriving goals and objectives that reflect measurable biological outcomes linked across multiple 

spatial scales. It relies on transparent, replicable methods of population/habitat modeling and 

habitat characterization to assess the past, present, or forecasted ability of ecological systems and 

landscapes to support priority species at prescribed levels. Effective biological planning 

documents state testable hypotheses based on the assumptions upon which management operates 

and as such is critical to any adaptive conservation framework. 

Essential Functions:

• Establish goals and objectives – this is an intrinsic Service role. 

• Document assumptions regarding limiting factors at site and landscape scales. 

• Developing models of measurable population-habitat relationships for priority 

Federal trust species. 

• Develop and refine earth resource (spatial) data sets essential to characterizing 

landscape attributes at ecoregional scales, e.g. wetlands (the NWI), land use/land 

cover, ecological systems, surficial geology, elevation, hydrography, hydrology, 

etc. . 

• Document the biological assumptions integral to models of population-habitat 

relationships. 

Key Relationship Sought: USGS scientists experienced in population/habitat modeling and in 

the application of earth resource data sets to ecological assessment providing technical support to 

FWS conservation biologists and natural resource planners responsible for biological planning at 

landscape and ecoregional scales. 

Conservation Design: This functional element of the SHC framework speaks to the myriad 

processes and tasks of establishing spatially explicit conservation priorities. Its aim is to define 

35
in a spatially explicit manner the landscape conditions presumed or predicted to sustain federal 

trust resources at prescribed levels. Key products are decision support models and maps of 

environmental sensitivity that support conservation delivery in achieving measurable biological 

outcomes. 

Essential Functions:

• Engage private, state, federal conservation partners in defining spatially explicit 

conservation priorities – this is an intrinsic Service role. 

• Document the biological assumptions integral to mapping environmental 

sensitivity and developing decision support tools. 

• Provide information that supports the conservation community in targeting 

conservation programs in support of sustainable landscapes. 

• Develop spatial application tools that support landscape characterization and 

accomplishment assessment by applying population/habitat models. 

• Develop conservation decision support applications that allow partners to access 

and apply conservation strategies. 

• Developing applications that allow the Service and its partners to track spatially 

the implementation of conservation practices and programs. 

 

Key Relationship Sought: 1) USGS scientists experienced in population/habitat relationships 

providing technical support to FWS conservation biologists responsible for the development and 

application of decision support tools; and 2) USGS scientists experienced in IT applications 

providing technical support to FWS conservation biologists responsible for managing the 

conservation data integral to partner-driven, multi-scale conservation planning and assessment. 

Decision-based Monitoring: This SHC functional element encompasses both the design and 

implementation of population and habitat monitoring programs tied to Service decision-making 

processes. Inventory and monitoring the Nation’s biological resources is integral to the mission 

of both bureaus. Within this element of the SHC framework, the focus is on USGS providing 

technical assistance specific to Service responsibilities for monitoring and for integrating 

monitoring results into decision-making processes. 

Essential Functions:

• Link any and all monitoring programs to specific decision-making processes. 

• Ensure that monitoring activities at a project or landscape scale are contributing 

to ecoregional or national-scale monitoring programs wherever possible. 

• Support establishment of the biological objectives of individual monitoring 

programs with respect to baseline inventorying, assessing trends, evaluating 

management prescriptions, or testing assumptions. 

• Develop biologically sound monitoring protocols and statistically valid sampling 

frameworks. 

• Develop protocols and procedures for data collection, storage, retrieval, and 

dissemination. 

• Integrate FWS monitoring efforts with USGS national data bases and monitoring 

programs. 

 

36
Key Relationship Sought: 1) USGS scientists experienced in population and habitat monitoring 

assisting FWS biologists whose duties include developing and implementing monitoring 

programs at both the project scale (individual Refuge) and at landscape/ecoregional scales in 

developing statistically valid sampling frameworks and monitoring protocols to 2) USGS 

scientists experienced in database development and management providing IT support to FWS 

conservation biologists and IT personnel responsible for managing the conservation data integral 

to partner-driven, multi-scale conservation planning and assessment. 

Assumption-driven Research: This functional element acknowledges the need to progressively 

refine biological goals and objectives with research directed at testing the biological assumptions 

and uncertainties integral to science-based planning and assessment. Within the SHC 

Framework, biological planning and conservation design are Service responsibilities and each 

leads to explicitly stated assumptions regarding how site-scale actions are presumed or predicted 

to affect sustainability at higher spatial scales. Accordingly, the overarching responsibility for 

defining the otherwise implicit assumptions associated with its conservation actions rests with 

the Service.

 

Essential Functions:

• Define implicit assumptions associated with Service conservation actions. 

• Identify and prioritize the key uncertainties associated with biological objectives, 

assessments of environmental sensitivity, or presumptions regarding biological 

response to conservation prescriptions or practices. 

• Timely communication of results from research directed at the efficacy of 

assumptions. 

• Refine population/habitat models and decision support tools based on knowledge 

gleaned from assumption-driven research. 

• Translate basic assumptions into testable hypotheses. 

Key Relationship Sought: FWS biologists responsible for biological planning and conservation 

design are assisted by USGS scientists in translating biological assumptions into testable 

hypotheses and prioritizing research based on the relative sensitivity of assumptions to FWS 

decision-making processes. 

37
APPENDIX C

Technical Skills and Infrastructure Needs 

In this appendix we recommend competencies and infrastructure to do the Biological 

Planning, Conservation Design, and Research and Monitoring elements of SHC. 

Personnel

In building capacity for SHC, development of some form of “team” whereby coordination of 

scientific and GIS functions occurs is probably eventually essential. It may not be necessary 

for each program to contribute staff to these teams, but if true cross program coordination is 

the goal, it is necessary for every program to participate, if only by relaying information 

needs. 

Obtaining the services of staff with right mix of skills, and ensuring that they function 

effectively as a team is essential. This capacity will generally be internal to the Service and 

USGS since SHC is on-going and not sporadic. 

Staff are more likely to function effectively as a team if they (1) are co-located; (2) have a 

single team leader and/or the smallest possible number of direct supervisors; and (3) are 

made up of dedicated staff rather than staff participating as a collateral duty. Obviously it is

not always possible to assemble a team of dedicated staff in one locations, under a single 

supervisor, but this is probably the optimal model. 

Biological planning, conservation design, and research and monitoring are collectively an 

applied science endeavor; however, a mix of competencies is required for success (Table 1). 

These include: 

 

1. Biological/ecological expertise 

2. Knowledge of (specific) ecosystem characteristics 

3. Spatial Analysis (GIS and image analysis) 

4. Knowledge of habitat management practices 

5. Statistical analysis 

6. Research and monitoring design 

7. Modeling techniques 

8. Communication 

9. Partnership building 

10. Office Administration 

It is less important how the services of staff with these competencies are obtained so long as

they function effectively together. 

38
Technical Infrastructure 

Teams have relatively few specialized infrastructure needs. Computing needs including 

large amounts of hard disk space, RAM, and high processing speeds are available in most

modern high end desktop computers. In most offices, computers, printers, networks, etc. can 

serve both as GIS platforms and for word processing and other routine office functions. 

More specialized hardware and software needs will generally include a: 

1. large format plotter 

2. high volume data backup system

3. GIS and statistical analysis software 

Costs for spatial data and research and monitoring are situational but may be substantial; yet 

these are unavoidable costs of being a science-based agency. The important thing is to 

acquire quality data and to keep costs down by working cross-programmatically and with

partners who will often have the same basic information needs. It is also important to 

remember that an agency like the Service does not develop a full-fledged capacity for SHC 

overnight. We will constantly strive to acquire better information and greater capacity; 

however, it is important to make the best use of existing information, capacity, and 

techniques at any given time. 

Table 1. SHC technical functions and the competencies necessary to fulfill them. 

Technical Functions Competencies

 

Biological Planning 

Identify priority species Knowledge of ecosystem characteristics 

Assign species to guilds and select Biological/ecological expertise

 focal species 

Develop population objectives Biological/ecological expertise and partnership skills 

Identify limiting factors Biological/ecological expertise 

Compile empirical models Biological/ecological expertise 

 Knowledge of statistical analysis (modeling) 

Compile conceptual models Biological/ecological expertise 

 Partnership or facilitation skills (modeling) 

Assess current capacity of the ecoregion Spatial analysis skills 

Assess historic capacity of the ecoregion Spatial analysis skills 

 

Conservation Design 

Apply models to spatial data to develop Spatial analysis skills 

 Decision Support Tools 

Identify program priority areas Spatial analysis skills 

 Knowledge of habitat management practices

Develop habitat objectives Spatial analysis skills 

 Knowledge of habitat management practices

Spatial data development Spatial data development and management skills - 

39
 possibly including satellite image analysis, photointerpretation

 

Support Conservation Delivery 

Work with managers in Service and Knowledge of habitat management practices

 partner agencies Partnership building and management skills 

 

Research and Monitoring 

Conduct targeted research Research design, data analysis and communication skills 

Monitor habitat response to management Monitoring design and data analysis (monitoring) skills 

 Knowledge of habitat management practices

Monitor population response to habitat Monitoring design and data analysis (monitoring) skills 

Assess progress toward population Monitoring design, model development, and spatial analysis skills 

 objectives 

Evaluate program accomplishments Monitoring design, model development, and spatial analysis skills 

 

Logistics 

Office administration Budget, personnel and property management

Partnership coordination Communication and coordination skills, other partnership skills 

40
APPENDIX D

Workforce Development in Biological Planning and Evaluation 

Justification: Although the Service has a strong heritage as a science-based agency, we have 

established a goal of more systematically integrating science into our resource management 

programs through biological planning, conservation design and monitoring and research 

(hereafter, conservation assessment or CA). In this appendix, we propose one means of building 

CA capacity within the Service. 

Narrative: Even working in close partnership with USGS, the Service will not build its 

needed capacity for CA overnight because program resources are limiting. Instead, conservation 

assessment teams will start out as small, nuclei of CA capacity. Over time, as CA becomes a 

standard element of our approach to conservation, as program resources allow, and as demand 

from managers for CA products increase, nuclear teams will expand and new teams will be 

established. In fact, as the NEAT acknowledged in this report, this growth in capacity is already 

occurring. 

As demand for CA practitioners increases, teams will begin to compete with each other for the 

best and the brightest. Even now, migratory bird joint ventures eye each other warily over the 

prospect of loosing their most skilled CA practitioners to each other. One reason is that CA is 

among the most applied manifestations of science – biologists, spatial analysts, and statisticians 

must be able to work as a team and have an applied understanding of what others do. All must 

understand the needs and constraints of management, and must be able to think about 

management information needs at multiple, inter-related spatial scales. Thus, a planned 

approach to increasing workforce capacity for CA is necessary. 

Proposal: One solution to this problem is a to develop a 1-2 year Internship Program

wherein a Trainee is brought into an existing CA team and is “indoctrinated” into CA principles 

and processes and their technical skills are augmented as they experience enough of the “real 

world” of management that they will be able to perform independently, using proven processes, 

in another part of the country. Training objectives should be established for each Trainee based 

on their background as they work on a project that benefits the host team. 

At the conclusion of a satisfactory internship, the Trainee would be eligible for non-competitive 

employment at another duty station (ideally in a new, forming CA team). Thus, in some

respects, this proposal is similar to the SCEP, although the Trainee would not be a student and 

would work full time as a Service term employee. 

Although the NEAT was not charged with resolving details associated with such a program, we 

suggest the following concerns and possible solutions. 

Concern: Selection of the right Trainee will likely determine future success. 

41
Solution: Trainee selection should be made by the host team – they have a proven track record 

for selecting individuals for this type of work and will be responsible for the trainee’s 

performance. 

Concern: Training would be a burden on host team staff and resources. 

Solution: During the internship, the Trainee would conduct meaningful work that benefits the 

host team and incorporates the skills required to be successful at a future duty station. The 

program must be beneficial to the host team, Trainee, and the future duty station. 

Concern: An effective internship will last too long and the future station will not want to wait. 

Solution: The need must be identified early enough to accommodate a training period. A 

strategic plan for building SHC capacity is needed. Such a plan should incorporate increases in 

the size and number of teams and will be the foundation for implementing a CA Internship 

Program. 

Concern: The Trainee may not be willing to move to a duty station. 

Solution: Include the future duty station in the vacancy announcement, and make the Trainee 

aware of the conditions of participation, that is, a guarantee of permanent status only if they 

accept the position offered at the conclusion of the internship.

42
APPENDIX E

Geospatial Data and Technology Recommendations 

There are significant opportunities to use the same or consistent geospatial data, GIS tools, and 

spatial analytical models in different applications and different locales that are each employing 

the basic conservation assessment methodologies described in this report. One key objective is 

to ensure that spatial data, tools, and models are: 1) developed according to consistent standards 

and practices, 2) well documented so that other practitioners may find and use them, and 3) made 

widely available through a web-accessible "library" or portal. 

There are also potential efficiencies to be gained by providing joint (Service-wide) GIS technical 

training and technical support services that are geared to specific conservation assessment 

functions. Finally, there are some related geospatial data initiatives at the Department level 

which we believe can be leveraged to help support NEAT objectives. These include the DOI 

Enterprise Geographic Information Management (EGIM) activity, the development of a DOIwide "Geospatial Modernization Blueprint" as a key part of the DOI Enterprise Information 

Architecture, and DOI leadership of the Geospatial One-Stop E-Government Initiative. FWS 

and USGS are playing lead roles in each of these multi-Bureau initiatives. 

Implementation Recommendation 1: Establish national and ecoregional inter-bureau 

teams to identify and prioritize base data needs to facilitate Strategic Habitat Conservation 

(SHC) and support cost-effective, collaborative data acquisition efforts. 

Implementing a capability for conservation assessment will require access to current geospatial 

data of appropriate scale and resolution. These data needs fall generally within two major 

categories: specified base data layers (e.g., elevation, hydrography, soils) which, in turn, provide 

a generic foundation or framework for focused thematic data layers (vegetation, species 

distribution, protected areas). A key immediate implementation recommendation therefore is to 

identify all the data needs in these two categories, specifying the preferred scales, resolutions, 

etc. for each key data set or layer. This set of consistently described data requirements can then 

be used to: 1) identify any existing data (from USGS and from other sources) that can be made 

available in a shared and consistent fashion to meet identified needs and 2) documenting the high 

priority unmet data needs so that these data needs can be shared with potential partners and 

collaborators in FWS, USGS, and in other agencies and organizations. This will encourage costsharing acquisition of data of mutual interest and leveraging of new data acquisition plans to 

meet conservation assessment needs. 

USGS has lead responsibility for developing and maintaining current, high-resolution base 

geospatial data layers (including elevation, hydrography, and digital orthoimagery) for The 

National Map. This is primarily accomplished through partnerships and collaborations with 

Federal, State, and local government agencies. Another immediate implementation 

recommendation is to request that USGS, in developing its annual base geospatial data 

acquisition priorities, give full consideration, to the greatest extent possible, to addressing the 

base data needs and priorities of FWS, as associated with conservation assessment efforts. 

43
Implementation Recommendation 2: Establish national and ecoregional inter-bureau 

teams to insure that data conform to required standards, are relevant to the region(s) that 

collect them, and facilitate cross-regional coordination on SHC. 

Consistent data and replicable processes are important elements in science-based conservation 

activities. In order to have consistent data, data standards need to exist and be followed. FWS 

already has a data standards process for creating new standards or adopting existing standards 

used by groups such as the FGDC. Part of that process involves having a responsible data 

steward for each data standard, to shepherd the standard through the process and act as a subject 

matter expert. 

Staff members at any centers applying science-based conservation are likely to be leaders in their 

subject areas and would make logical data stewards for new standards. They should also support 

the use of existing standards, such as the metadata standard.

Implementation Recommendation 3: Provide Mechanism for Developing, Documenting, 

and Sharing Common GIS Tools and Models Among Conservation Assessment 

Practitioners. 

As GIS applications, tools, and geospatial models are developed, there should be a mechanism

through which these tools, applications, and models can be readily shared with other 

conservation assessment practitioners so that they can be re-used and adapted as necessary. The 

objective is to avoid having individuals developing similar or redundant applications, when a 

usable tool already exists. This can be done by providing a web-based "library" of tools, 

applications, and models through which people can find and download those that meet their 

needs. Individual can also post new applications they have developed to the "library" to be 

shared with others. For this type of system to be effective, it will require the development of

standardized metadata to describe or document each tool or model. 

Implementation Recommendation 4: Identify hardware, bandwidth, and other technical 

infrastructure requirements at any physical team locations such as the Joint Venture 

offices. 

The analysis and sharing of geospatial data requires larger hardware and wider bandwidth than 

computer applications such as e-mail or basic web connectivity. Interactive data sharing also has 

specific security requirements that are not normally present. The Service's IT infrastructure in 

general has been planned and sized to meet average requirements, not the outlying higher end 

requirements. When an office location is designated to do conservation assessment, technical 

infrastructure needs should be specified as soon as possible. There should never be the 

assumption that the Service's IT infrastructure can simply accommodate the increased needs for 

this type of work. Technical infrastructure requirements also include ensuring the necessary IT 

technical support (software and hardware installation, operation, and troubleshooting) is 

available to meet practitioner needs. Opportunities to build on and leverage the Service's 

existing Bureau-level IT technical support network to support these additional requirements 

44
should be explored, but it is likely that additional IT technical support resources will be needed, 

beyond current levels. 

USGS may be able to supply information on the technical requirements for certain analysis or

data sharing actions if their offices are already implementing those actions. 

Implementation Recommendation 5: Identify topics for joint training opportunities, such 

as metadata, advanced GIS applications, and advanced software technical support. 

Shared training is an area that can be implemented immediately. There are existing opportunities 

for metadata training that could easily be expanded to locations involved in SHC related data 

acquisition and creation. Documenting data and GIS tools and models that will be shared and 

reused by a number of staff is recognized as an important activity, but it is often pushed to the 

bottom of the priority list. Appropriate training can make it easier to create metadata and 

understand the importance of doing so. 

There are other technical areas that seem to be excellent candidates for joint training. These 

might include specialized remote sensing applications for creation of land cover or vegetation 

data layers; field data collection methodology - with or without GPS units; or advanced GIS 

analysis and modeling techniques. In addition, there will be opportunities for joint training on 

advanced GIS software installation, maintenance, and use. The skills needed to create and 

maintain centers for data analysis and sharing go well beyond the usual GIS skills; effective 

coordination of training and on-going technical support for those skills would reduce costs and 

maximize the use of available staff resources. 

Specific topics can be identified as the program develops, but the commitment to do joint 

training should be made at the start. The facilities at the National Conservation Training Center, 

the USGS Training Center in Denver, efforts of the DOI Enterprise Geographic Information 

Management (EGIM) team to coordinate DOI-wide training and the current USGS metadata 

training program should all be leveraged in this effort. 

45