1.
Powered by
NatureServe
Network Member Program Survey
January 2016
NatureServe 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.

2.
Powered by

3.
Responded = 70 (90%)
Response on the Way = 4 (5%)
No Response = 4 (5%)
*Non responders were emailed several times
Responses to 27
Question Survey

4.
27 (35%)
16 (21%)
8 (10%)
12 (15%)
15 (19%)
Institutional Housing

5.
Guiding Statutes?
Yes = 42 (54%)
No = 28 (36%)

6.
Directly Involved with
Land Acquisition or
Management?
Yes = 28 (36%)
No = 42 (54%)

7.
Number of
Full Time Staff
Network Summary Statistics
Mean = 11.3
Median = 7
Range = 0 - 58
6 programs have no full time staff
15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff
Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff

8.
Number of
Full Time Staff
Network Summary Statistics
Mean = 11.3
Median = 7
Range = 0 - 58
6 programs have no full time staff
15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff
Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff

9.
• 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

10.
Percentages
State/
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 58
Mean 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 0
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum 100 90 100 96 99 12 32 100
Dollars
N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Mean $392,267 $178,320 $31,261 $409,027 $6,419 $10,449 $14,071 $171,069
Median $237,500 $4,330 $0 $98,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Minimum $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Maximum $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

11.
N = 58

12.
N = 54

13.
Total Funding
% Funding from State/
Prov/Nat for Core Functions

14.
Total Funding
% Funding from Federal
for Core Functions

15.
Total Funding % Funding for Projects

16.
Percentage of Programs Reporting the Following as Funders
N = 66

17.
Regular
Partner/Stakeholder
Meetings?
Yes = 19 (24%)
No = 50 (64%)
Programs with Regular Partner Meetings
Number of Partner
Attendees
Colorado Natural Heritage Program 140
Montana Natural Heritage Program 35
Natural Heritage New Mexico 25
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre 20
Minnesota NH and Nongame Research Program 15
Idaho Natural Heritage Program 12
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 10
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 5
New York Natural Heritage Program 4
Rhode Island Natural History Survey 4
Connecticut Natural Diversity Database 3
Yukon Conservation Data Centre 2
Northwest Territory Conservation Data Center 1
Tennessee Division of Natural Areas 1
Manitoba Conservation Data Centre ?

18.
Percentage of U.S. and Canadian Programs Reporting the Following as Stakeholders
N = 60

19.
Percentage of Programs with Position Filled (Yes)

20.
N = 67

21.
Director
Yes = 58 (74%)
No = 12 (15%)

22.
Finance & Grants
Administrator
Yes = 7 (9%)
No = 63 (81%)

23.
Office Manager
Yes = 18 (23%)
No = 52 (67%)

24.
Database Manager
Yes = 52 (67%)
No = 18 (23%)

25.
Data Assistant
Yes = 30 (38%)
No = 40 (51%)

26.
Web Programmer
Yes = 10 (13%)
No = 60 (77%)

27.
Botanist with Vascular
Plant Expertise
Yes = 52 (67%)
No = 18 (23%)

28.
Botanist with Nonvascular
Plant Expertise
Yes = 14 (18%)
No = 56 (72%)

29.
Botanist with
Mycology Expertise
Yes = 2 (3%)
No = 68 (87%)

30.
Terrestrial Vertebrate
Zoology Expertise
Yes = 50 (64%)
No = 20 (26%)

31.
Aquatic Vertebrate
Zoology Expertise
Yes = 21 (27%)
No = 49 (63%)

32.
Terrestrial Invertebrate
Zoology Expertise
Yes = 28 (36%)
No = 42 (54%)

33.
Aquatic Invertebrate
Zoology Expertise
Yes = 23 (29%)
No = 47 (61%)

34.
Wetland or Aquatic Plant
Community Ecologist
Yes = 20 (26%)
No = 50 (64%)

35.
Terrestrial Plant
Community Ecologist
Yes = 38 (49%)
No = 32 (41%)

36.
Terrestrial Plant
Community Ecologist
Yes = 38 (49%)
No = 32 (41%)

37.
Environmental Review
Coordinator
Yes = 27 (35%)
No = 43 (55%)

38.
Wetland Mapper
Yes = 7 (9%)
No = 63 (81%)

39.
GIS Analyst with
Photogrammetric
Experience
Yes = 20 (26%)
No = 50 (64%)

40.
GIS Analyst with
Predictive Modeling
Experience
Yes = 20 (26%)
No = 50 (64%)

41.
Natural Areas
Coordinator
Yes = 12 (15%)
No = 58 (74%)

42.
Wildlife Action Plan
Coordinator
Yes = 11 (14%)
No = 59 (76%)

43.
Management of
Element Occurrence Data
Biotics 5 = 42 (54%)
Biotics 5 and Self Constructed = 5 (6%)
Self Constructed = 18 (23%)
Other 3rd Party Software = 5 (6%)

44.
Percentage of Programs Managing Information (Yes)

45.
Manage
Plant Observations
Yes = 37 (47%)
No = 33 (43%)

46.
Manage Plant
Element Occurrences
Yes = 56 (72%)
No = 14 (18%)

47.
Manage
Plant Surveys
Yes = 43 (55%)
No = 27 (35%)

48.
Produce
Plant Models
Yes = 25 (32%)
No = 45 (58%)

49.
Manage
Animal Observations
Yes = 42 (54%)
No = 28 (36%)

50.
Manage Animal
Element Occurrences
Yes = 52 (67%)
No = 19 (23%)

51.
Manage
Animal Surveys
Yes = 38 (49%)
No = 32 (41%)

52.
Produce
Animal Models
Yes = 25 (32%)
No = 45 (58%)

53.
Manage Community
Element Occurrences
Yes = 47 (60%)
No = 23 (30%)

54.
Manage Wetland
Mapping Information
Yes = 21 (27%)
No = 49 (63%)

55.
Manage Riparian
Mapping Information
Yes = 9 (12%)
No = 61 (78%)

56.
Manage Land Cover
Mapping Information
Yes = 24 (31%)
No = 46 (59%)

57.
Manage Land
Management Information
Yes = 36 (46%)
No = 34 (44%)

58.
Manage Species
Information for Field Guide
Yes = 29 (37%)
No = 41 (53%)

59.
Manage Information on
Conservation Sites
Yes = 37 (48%)
No = 33 (42%)

60.
Interest in Predictive
Distribution Modeling?
Yes, currently involved = 36 (46%)
Yes, not currently involved = 27 (35%)
No = 5 (6%)

61.
Interest in Regional
Cross Border Displays
of Information
Yes, currently involved = 22 (28%)
Yes, not currently involved = 39 (50%)
No = 7 (9%)

62.
Percent of Element Ranks Reviewed in Last 5 Years
N Mean Median
Plant Elements 57 50 50
Animal Elements 54 51 38
Community 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 17
11-100 9 5 13
101-1000 20 16 10
1001-10000 13 13 4
>10000 1 7 0
Total N 52 49 44

63.
Percentage of Programs with Web Delivery (Yes)

64.
Web-based
Basic Program
Information
Yes = 64 (82%)
No = 6 (8%)

65.
Web-based
Enviro Review Tool
Yes = 19 (24%)
No = 51 (65%)

66.
Field Guide for
Species of Concern
Yes = 16 (21%)
No = 54 (69%)

67.
Field Guide for
All Species
Yes = 3 (4%)
No = 67 (86%)

68.
Interactive Mapping
Application for
Animal Data
Yes = 21 (27%)
No = 49 (63%)

69.
Interactive Mapping
Application for
Plant Data
Yes = 19 (25%)
No = 51 (65%)

70.
Interactive Mapping
Application for
Community Data
Yes = 14 (18%)
No = 56 (72%)

71.
Web-based
Species of Concern List
Yes = 58 (75%)
No = 12 (15%)

72.
Ability to Generate
Customized Field Guide
Yes = 2 (3%)
No = 68 (87%)

73.
Web-based Wetland &
Riparian Mapping
Yes = 8 (10%)
No = 62 (80%)

74.
Web-based
Land Cover Mapping
Yes = 15 (19%)
No = 55 (71%)

75.
Web-based
Program Reports
Yes = 42 (54%)
No = 28 (36%)

76.
Web-based
Delivery of other
Spatial Data
Yes = 28 (36%)
No = 42 (54%)

77.
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!

78.
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

79.
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

80.
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

81.
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

82.
Recommendations
1. Refine the survey and follow up on certain topics
like funding, programmatic needs, species tracked
2. Link program needs to Network funding campaign
3. 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

83.
Number of Plant
Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!

84.
Number of Animal
Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!

85.
Number of
Community Elements
Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!