natureserve network member program survey
TRANSCRIPT
Powered by
NatureServeNetwork Member Program Survey
January 2016NatureServe Leadership Training Attendees
A survey designed to assess the housing, funding, staffing capacity, guiding statutes, unique assets, and critical challenges faced by individual programs with the goal of strengthening the network and leveraging network assets.
Powered by
Responded = 70 (90%)Response on the Way = 4 (5%)No Response = 4 (5%)*Non responders were emailed several times
Responses to 27 Question Survey
Program Basics
27 (35%)16 (21%)8 (10%)12 (15%)15 (19%)
Institutional Housing
Guiding Statutes?
Yes = 42 (54%)No = 28 (36%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Directly Involved with Land Acquisition or Management?
Yes = 28 (36%)No = 42 (54%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Number ofFull Time Staff
Network Summary StatisticsMean = 11.3Median = 7Range = 0 - 586 programs have no full time staff15 programs have only 1-4 full time staffTotal of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
Number ofFull Time Staff
Network Summary StatisticsMean = 11.3Median = 7Range = 0 - 586 programs have no full time staff15 programs have only 1-4 full time staffTotal of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
Funding & Stakeholders
Annual Program Funding• 57 of 78 programs responded to some extent• Mean annual funding for 54 programs = $1,296,214• Median annual funding for 54 = $712,500• Range in annual funding (N = 54) = $4,000 to $9,500,000• Total annual funding for 54 programs = $69,995,594
Gray = No Response
PercentagesState/
Provincial funding for
core functions
Federal funding for
core functions
Private funding for
core functions
Federal, state, or private
funding for projects
NatureServe (FESTF, MJD,
or other)
Fees charged for individual
data requests
Subscrip-tions for
data renewed
at intervals
Other
N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58Mean 47.6 12.6 3.6 25.1 2.4 0.9 1.7 6.2
Median 47.5 0.5 0 11 0 0 0 0Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maximum 100 90 100 96 99 12 32 100
DollarsN 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Mean $392,267 $178,320 $31,261 $409,027 $6,419 $10,449 $14,071 $171,069Median $237,500 $4,330 $0 $98,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Minimum $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Maximum $1,893,009 $2,850,000 $811,290 $2,379,784 $90,000 $133,800 $203,000 $4,719,448
Total $21,182,419 $9,629,277 $1,688,090 $22,087,446 $346,610 $564,219 $759,819 $9,237,714
Characterization of Funding Sources
N = 58
N = 54
Total Funding % Funding from State/ Prov/Nat for Core Functions
Gray = No Response Gray = No Response
Total Funding % Funding from Federalfor Core Functions
Gray = No Response Gray = No Response
Total Funding % Funding for Projects
Gray = No Response Gray = No Response
Percentage of Programs Reporting the Following as Funders
N = 66
Regular Partner/Stakeholder Meetings?Yes = 19 (24%)No = 50 (64%)No Response = 9 (12%)
Programs with Regular Partner MeetingsNumber of Partner
Attendees
Colorado Natural Heritage Program 140Montana Natural Heritage Program 35Natural Heritage New Mexico 25Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre 20Minnesota NH and Nongame Research Program 15Idaho Natural Heritage Program 12Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 10Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 5New York Natural Heritage Program 4Rhode Island Natural History Survey 4Connecticut Natural Diversity Database 3Yukon Conservation Data Centre 2Northwest Territory Conservation Data Center 1Tennessee Division of Natural Areas 1Manitoba Conservation Data Centre ?
Percentage of U.S. and Canadian Programs Reporting the Following as Stakeholders
N = 60
Staffing & Expertise
Percentage of Programs with Position Filled (Yes)
N = 67
Director
Yes = 58 (74%)No = 12 (15%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Finance & Grants Administrator
Yes = 7 (9%)No = 63 (81%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Office Manager
Yes = 18 (23%)No = 52 (67%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Database Manager
Yes = 52 (67%)No = 18 (23%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Data Assistant
Yes = 30 (38%)No = 40 (51%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web Programmer
Yes = 10 (13%)No = 60 (77%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Botanist with Vascular Plant Expertise
Yes = 52 (67%)No = 18 (23%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Botanist with Nonvascular Plant Expertise
Yes = 14 (18%)No = 56 (72%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Botanist withMycology Expertise
Yes = 2 (3%)No = 68 (87%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Terrestrial Vertebrate Zoology Expertise
Yes = 50 (64%)No = 20 (26%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Aquatic Vertebrate Zoology Expertise
Yes = 21 (27%)No = 49 (63%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoology Expertise
Yes = 28 (36%)No = 42 (54%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Aquatic Invertebrate Zoology Expertise
Yes = 23 (29%)No = 47 (61%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Wetland or Aquatic Plant Community Ecologist
Yes = 20 (26%)No = 50 (64%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Terrestrial Plant Community Ecologist
Yes = 38 (49%)No = 32 (41%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Terrestrial Plant Community Ecologist
Yes = 38 (49%)No = 32 (41%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Environmental Review Coordinator
Yes = 27 (35%)No = 43 (55%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Wetland Mapper
Yes = 7 (9%)No = 63 (81%)No Response = 8 (10%)
GIS Analyst with Photogrammetric
Experience
Yes = 20 (26%)No = 50 (64%)No Response = 8 (10%)
GIS Analyst with Predictive Modeling
Experience
Yes = 20 (26%)No = 50 (64%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Natural Areas Coordinator
Yes = 12 (15%)No = 58 (74%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator
Yes = 11 (14%)No = 59 (76%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Information Managed
Management ofElement Occurrence Data
Biotics 5 = 42 (54%)Biotics 5 and Self Constructed = 5 (6%)Self Constructed = 18 (23%)Other 3rd Party Software = 5 (6%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Percentage of Programs Managing Information (Yes)
ManagePlant Observations
Yes = 37 (47%)No = 33 (43%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage PlantElement Occurrences
Yes = 56 (72%)No = 14 (18%)No Response = 8 (10%)
ManagePlant Surveys
Yes = 43 (55%)No = 27 (35%)No Response = 8 (10%)
ProducePlant Models
Yes = 25 (32%)No = 45 (58%)No Response = 8 (10%)
ManageAnimal Observations
Yes = 42 (54%)No = 28 (36%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Animal Element Occurrences
Yes = 52 (67%)No = 19 (23%)No Response = 8 (10%)
ManageAnimal Surveys
Yes = 38 (49%)No = 32 (41%)No Response = 8 (10%)
ProduceAnimal Models
Yes = 25 (32%)No = 45 (58%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Community Element Occurrences
Yes = 47 (60%)No = 23 (30%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Wetland Mapping Information
Yes = 21 (27%)No = 49 (63%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Riparian Mapping Information
Yes = 9 (12%)No = 61 (78%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Land Cover Mapping Information
Yes = 24 (31%)No = 46 (59%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Land Management Information
Yes = 36 (46%)No = 34 (44%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Species Information for Field Guide
Yes = 29 (37%)No = 41 (53%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Manage Information on Conservation Sites
Yes = 37 (48%)No = 33 (42%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Interest in Predictive Distribution Modeling?
Yes, currently involved = 36 (46%)Yes, not currently involved = 27 (35%)No = 5 (6%)No Response = 10 (13%)
Interest in Regional Cross Border Displays
of Information
Yes, currently involved = 22 (28%)Yes, not currently involved = 39 (50%)No = 7 (9%)No Response = 10 (13%)
Percent of Element Ranks Reviewed in Last 5 Years N Mean Median
Plant Elements 57 50 50
Animal Elements 54 51 38Community Elements 53 25 1
Characterization of Backlog in Processing EOs Number of Programs
Backlog in Processing
Plant Elements
Animal Elements
Community Elements
0-10 9 8 1711-100 9 5 13101-1000 20 16 101001-10000 13 13 4>10000 1 7 0
Total N 52 49 44
Information Delivery Via Websites
Percentage of Programs with Web Delivery (Yes)
Web-basedBasic Program
Information
Yes = 64 (82%)No = 6 (8%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-basedEnviro Review Tool
Yes = 19 (24%)No = 51 (65%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Field Guide forSpecies of Concern
Yes = 16 (21%)No = 54 (69%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Field Guide forAll Species
Yes = 3 (4%)No = 67 (86%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Interactive Mapping Application for
Animal Data
Yes = 21 (27%)No = 49 (63%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Interactive Mapping Application for
Plant Data
Yes = 19 (25%)No = 51 (65%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Interactive Mapping Application for
Community Data
Yes = 14 (18%)No = 56 (72%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-basedSpecies of Concern List
Yes = 58 (75%)No = 12 (15%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Ability to Generate Customized Field Guide
Yes = 2 (3%)No = 68 (87%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-based Wetland & Riparian Mapping
Yes = 8 (10%)No = 62 (80%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-based Land Cover Mapping
Yes = 15 (19%)No = 55 (71%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-based Program Reports
Yes = 42 (54%)No = 28 (36%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Web-based Delivery of other
Spatial Data
Yes = 28 (36%)No = 42 (54%)No Response = 8 (10%)
Program’s Unique Assets• Staff Expertise (taxonomic & technical)• Staff Experience (taxonomic & technical)• Staff Dedication• Collaborations/partnerships• Botanical Expertise• We have the data that no one else has• Fish and Game then involvement with SWAPs• University/Library then viewed as neutral
non-regulatory source of information• General craziness!
Program’s Greatest Needs• Funding for core data processing• Filling staff vacancies• Web delivery of data / Web Programmer• Address data backlogs with technical
expertise and more staff time• Nonvascular plant and invertebrate animal
expertise• Younger staff
Cross walking Greatest Assets & Needs
• NatureServe funding campaign• Share code for data processing• Share code for website development• Share web programming expertise/staffing• Share nonvascular plant expertise/staffing• Share invertebrate expertise staffing• Provide webinars on unique assets/products
Suggestions for Improving Survey• What are top two strengths and top two weaknesses of the
NatureServe Network of Programs?• Number of Plant Species, Animal Species, and Communities in
database, number of each that are of State/Provincial Conservation Concern, and number of observations and element occurrences for each
• Is program primary or sole source of plant, animal, or community information in jurisdiction?
• Examples of collaboration with NatureServe or other programs• Years of experience of staff…longevity/aging• Does program map reference/exemplary natural communities?• Does program map rare community occurrences?• Comment fields for all questions
Notes of Interest• Utah’s funding declined from $426,000 to
$173,200 per year in the last 5 years• North Carolina’s funding declined from $1.5
million to $675,000 in 2015/2016• Rhode Island, Venezuela, and a few others
question there involvement in the network
Recommendations1. Refine the survey and follow up on certain topics
like funding, programmatic needs, species tracked2. Link program needs to Network funding campaign3. Make this survey a repeating 5 year survey with
automated report generation…or add some questions to the health status survey…show results spatially regardless
4. Post results in ArcGIS online and downloadable Excel formats for ready access
Questions that may not have been consistently interpreted
Number of Plant Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!
Number of Animal Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!
Number of Community Elements
Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a variety of respondents!