natureserve network member program survey

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!