A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

2 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

..

Final Report:

A Landscape-Scale
Approach to Refuge
System Planning
Table of Contents
Getting Started...................................................6
Opportunities, Challenges, and Action............6
Landscape Conservation Design:
In Support of SHC.............................................8
Grouping and Coordinating CCPs
and Step-Down Management Plans................14
Establishing a Schedule for LCDs,
CCPs and LPPs.................................................16
Placing Greater Priority on Step-Down
Management Plans............................................18
CCP Reporting, Tracking,
and Implementation...........................................21
Improving the Scientific Quality of Refuge
System Plans......................................................22
Standard Templates for
Planning Documents.........................................25
A Process for Reviewing
and Amending CCPs.........................................26
Policy and Training........................................... 28
Staffing, Funding, and Organization...............29
Conclusion...........................................................30
Report Compendium of
Planning Resources...........................................31

4 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Introduction
The Planning Implementation
Team (PIT) was chartered to
address this recommendation
from Conserving the Future:
Wildlife Refuges and the Next
Generation, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s 21st century
strategic vision for the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Our
charge was to investigate how
Refuge System planning will
address large-scale conservation
challenges such as climate
change, while maintaining the
integrity of management and
conservation delivery within our
boundaries.
This report is our proposal for
“A Landscape-Scale Approach
to Refuge System Planning.”
It recommends that we focus
the next generation of planning
on Landscape Conservation
Designs (LCDs), developed
by the greater conservation
community through partnership
in Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCCs). LCDs
are consistent with Strategic
Habitat Conservation (SHC)
and are a partnership-driven
conservation strategy that
identifies desired future
conditions and management
prescriptions at multiple scales
across jurisdictions. Key
to our recommendation is
incorporating LCDs into the
preplanning phase of every
Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) and Land Protection
Plan (LPP). With limited
exceptions, no CCP or LPP
should be developed until after
an LCD has been completed.
We envision that LCDs would
include multiple refuges within

a defined geographic area that
leads to a single, broader CCP
with step-down management
plans to address site-specific
management.
Many refuges already employ
a landscape-scale conservation
approach, but we need to
increase these efforts and
incorporate the LCD approach
across the entire Refuge System.
The Refuge System can be a
catalyst for change throughout
the greater conservation
planning community and become
a primary partner in the LCC
network’s design efforts. We
also need to incorporate and
more clearly communicate
biological, social, and economic
science into Refuge System plans
at all scales.
In addition to recommending
an approach for landscapescale planning, the report also
addresses: CCP revisions and
amendments, plan schedules and
tracking, standardized templates,
and some policy changes
required to fully implement
these recommendations. While
some of the strategies will result
in streamlining and efficiencies,
others require more technical
expertise, training, and staff.

“Incorporate the
lessons learned
from our first
round of CCPs and
HMPs into the
next generation
of conservation
plans, and ensure
these new plans
view refuges in a
landscape context
and describe
actions to project
conservation
benefits
beyond refuge
boundaries.”
- from Recommendation
One in Conserving the
Future: Wildlife Refuges
and the Next Generation.

Our recommendations apply
only to the Refuge System, but
it is our hope that other Service
programs join us in basing their
program-specific management
plans on LCDs.

Introduction 5

Getting Started
Conserving the Future offers a series of
recommendations that address important issues
including Recommendation 1, for which the PIT
is responsible. Charged with developing the next
generation of conservation plans in a broader,
landscape context, the PIT began by developing
a Work Plan consisting of tasks that addressed
specific issues. Over the past two years we:
• held a number of meetings, and enlisted
the help of others in the Refuge System and
across the Service, representatives from
other federal agencies, the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, and a number of nongovernmental conservation organizations;
• surveyed refuge staff to determine how
planning processes could be improved, adapted,
or streamlined while further integrating
refuges into the landscape matrix; and
• reviewed completed CCPs, previous studies
of CCPs, past planning recommendations, and
other agencies’ and organizations’ conservation
planning models.
This work resulted in a large collection of
reports, survey data, reference tools, and
analyses that form a Report Compendium of
planning resources. It is from this variety of
contributors, data, and analyses that we draw
our recommendations.

Opportunities, Challenges,
and Action
The Refuge System is the world’s largest
collection of lands and waters specifically
designated and managed for fish and wildlife.
Overall, it provides habitat for more than 700
species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250
reptile and amphibian species, 200 species of fish,
and more than 280 threatened or endangered
plants and animals. Conservation planning is
essential for ensuring that the Refuge System
knows where it’s going and meets its commitment
to conserving fish, wildlife, plants, and their

There are over 560 National Wildlife Refuges;
photo: USFWS
habitats for future generations of Americans.
Today, planning is done primarily through
CCPs, which drive on-the-ground management
on refuges across the country. CCPs identify
goals and objectives for refuge management
and identify strategies to achieve these goals
and objectives. The Service is nearing the
completion of a CCP for every unit of the Refuge
System. Some units have started to revise their
original CCP, and many have also begun work on
documents such as the Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) that “step down” the guidance of CCPs to
a greater level of specificity.
Up to now, many CCPs have identified
landscape-scale conservation goals and are
translating these into management actions
that can be implemented on a refuge. To be
effective in confronting the challenges posed
by climate change, invasive species, and habitat
fragmentation the next generation of plans must
continue this effort and broaden our focus beyond
refuge boundaries. We must tie refuge planning
and management actions to the larger landscape.
These plans must also incorporate the best
available science, encourage collaboration with
partners, be readable, and inspire action. The
challenge is to define clear priorities for wildlife
conservation within landscapes and to implement
larger-scale conservation with multiple and
perhaps, unconventional partners.

See a list of compendium content provided at the back of this report or the complete
Report Compendium of planning resources on SharePoint.
6 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Major Recommendations
•

Promote LCDs throughout the Service, LCCs, and the greater conservation
planning community.

•

Develop LCDs as part of the preplanning phase of every refuge-specific
CCP and LPP.

•

Postpone developing new CCPs and LPPs and revising existing CCPs and LPPs
until after first completing corresponding LCDs. Continue completing step-down
plans needed to implement existing CCPs in the interim.

•

Include in a single CCP, when possible, all refuges within the geographic
area covered by the LCD.

•

Consolidate to the maximum extent feasible, step-down management plans
for all refuges within the geographic area covered by an LCD.

•

Base refuge-specific plans on LCDs to help ensure that every plan relies
on sound biological, social, and economic science.

•

Strive to develop CCPs in a broad scope with more details provided in
step-down management plans.

•

Prioritize the completion of HMPs and visitor services plans.

•

Modify the Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) database to

geospatially track every refuge’s progress in implementing CCPs and
contributing towards LCDs.

•

Incorporate CCP implementation into the Annual Performance Plans of refuge
managers, project leaders, and refuge supervisors.

•

Clearly communicate in Refuge System plans how the best available science
was used to develop specific and measurable goals, objectives, and strategies.

•

Develop standardized templates for new CCPs, LPPs, and step-down
management plans.

•

Revise policies and training to fully implement these recommendations.

•

Evaluate the Refuge System’s planning organization, capacity to conduct
landscape-level planning, and budget—if and when we move forward with
the recommendations contained in this final report.

Getting Started 7

“Landscape
Conservation
Design is an
important part
of achieving
SHC’s purpose.”

Landscape
Conservation
Design:
In Support of SHC
In 2006, Service leadership
endorsed Strategic Habitat
Conservation as the adaptive
management approach it would
use to achieve its mission in
the 21st century. In response
to the unprecedented scale
and complexity of challenges
facing our natural resources,
there was a need to develop
and implement a landscape
approach to conservation that
was more strategic, sciencedriven, collaborative, adaptive,
and understandable.
SHC is a response to changes
affecting not only the Service
but the conservation community
at large. It allows the Service
to deal with issues of scale and
accountability and effectively
work with our partners to
address priorities and challenges
such as climate change. The
purpose of SHC is to coordinate
and link actions that various
Service programs and partners
perform at individual sites so
that their combined effect may
be capable of achieving these
outcomes at the larger landscape,
regional, or continental scales.
Landscape Conservation Design
is an important part of achieving
SHC’s purpose.
SHC (exhibit A) is built on five
main elements: (1) Biological
planning – working with
partners to identify conservation
features (e.g., surrogate
species), measurable targets for
those features (i.e., population
objectives), and the limiting
factors affecting them; (2)
Conservation design – creating
tools that help to identify and

8 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

direct conservation actions
effectively and efficiently towards
a desired future condition; (3)
Conservation delivery – working
collaboratively with partners to
carry out conservation strategies
on-the-ground; (4) Outcomebased monitoring – evaluating
the effectiveness of conservation
actions in achieving desired future
conditions and to adapt future

Exhibit A: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Strategic
Habitat Conservation Framework
planning and delivery; and (5)
Assumption driven research
– testing assumptions made
during biological planning and
conservation design to refine
future plans and actions.
In the spirit of SHC, and with the
intent of fulfilling its conservation
design element, LCD stands as
a partnership-driven method to
assess current and anticipated
future conditions (biological
and socioeconomic), offers a
spatially-explicit depiction of a
desired future condition, and
helps provide management
prescriptions for achieving those
conditions. LCD is both a process
and a product.

In creating an LCD, each partner identifies
the conservation features within their purview
(such as the Service’ surrogate species and the
Refuge System’s strategic growth priorities).
This is, in effect, the biological planning portion
of SHC. Collectively, these features are used to
define the geographic extent of the LCD, develop
conservation targets (such as population objectives)
within that landscape, identify limiting factors
(i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change),
conduct gap and population analyses, and model
future resource relationships. The partners then
identify management, restoration, and protection
strategies that can be implemented to address
the identified resource concerns, attain desired
future conditions, sustain ecosystem function, and
achieve the missions, mandates, and goals of each
partner organization. Upon completion of the
LCD, partners implement the strategies applicable
to their organization. Normally, this would require
each individual partner to conduct more detailed,
site-specific planning (such as Refuge CCPs
and LPPs) prior to implementation. Over time,

partners monitor and evaluate the effectiveness
of their individual and collective implementation
and reconvene to assess and revise the LCD on a
periodic basis.
Attributes of an LCD are listed in table 1 followed
by some of the key features described in more
detail.
LCDs are developed
and delivered with our partners.
The greater conservation community’s
engagement in LCDs is essential, because
the Service’s ability to fulfill its conservation
mission relies on its partners in delivering
the on-the-ground design. An LCD is an
assessment of the landscape’s current and
potential future condition, a description
of a desired future condition, and a suite
of preliminary, coarse-scale management
strategies that are developed by the greater
conservation community. Coarse-scale
landscape goals and objectives and a suite

Table 1: Attributes of an LCD

Landscape Conservation Design: In Support of SHC 9

of broad strategies can inform or guide
development of each agency’s or organization’s
site-specific management plans.
LCDs are based on sound science. An
LCD relies on the collaboration of the greater
conservation community in bringing together
the diversity of frameworks, processes, data,
tools, technical capabilities, and other resources
that each partner agency and organization
possess—and which are needed—to accurately
assess and address the current and future
condition of the landscape. This collaborative
approach distributes the burden of developing
and implementing the design across the
greater conservation community and improves
coordination between partners. Following
the SHC framework, an LCD is based on the
greater conservation community’s ability to
identify conservation features of particular
interest. The Service’s surrogate species
approach to planning is one example. An LCD
identifies coarse-scale targets for those features,
such as population objectives, and it articulates
key assumptions. Limiting factors (i.e., threats
and stressors) and future research needs are
identified as well. An LCD also conducts other
key science-based activities that are of particular
interest, such as: climate modeling, vulnerability
assessments, land use including infrastructure
analyses, and socioeconomic impact analyses.
LCDs are technologically advanced.
An LCD utilizes the latest in geospatial
technologies to aid decision makers in
understanding both present-day and future
trends and conditions. Technologies, including
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote
sensing, and spatial modeling are used to
assess and evaluate both current conditions and
expected changes to physical and socioeconomic
parameters such as climate, land use,
population and demographics, transportation,
and energy infrastructure. Data development,
modeling, and the creation of decision support
tools are expected to be collaborative outputs
of an LCD. An LCD may include gap analyses,
population viability analyses, and other models
that depict future resource relationships.
LCDs are iterative.
An LCD is not a static product. It must be
periodically modified by all partners based on
the results of their collective implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation. This is adaptive
management at a landscape scale.
10 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

The LCCs’ Role
in LCD Development
The Service is committed to taking a
collaborative, science-driven, landscape-scale
conservation approach to achieve its mission.
This commitment is exemplified by the
Service’s endorsement of the SHC framework
in 2006 and Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives in 2009. Ken Salazar, Secretary
of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No.
3289 on September 14, 2009, which officially
established the LCCs.
Twenty-two LCCs collectively form a
national network. The network’s vision is to
preserve “landscapes capable of sustaining
natural and cultural resources for current
and future generations.” The network’s
role for achieving that vision is, in part, to
provide a forum for national and international
conservation planning and to facilitate and
integrate efforts across and among the
individual LCCs.
In November 2011 sixty leaders from the
conservation community representing
non-profit organizations, state and federal
agencies, and others met to discuss the
potential for substantially and strategically
improving the Nation’s system of wildlife
habitats as described in the Wildlife Habitat
Policy Research Program’s (WHPRP) 2010
research report. The report recommended
that LCCs be a forum to “identify and map
conservation priorities at multiple scales
to guide investments in habitat protection,
management, and restoration.” In July 2012
the Service released “DRAFT Guidance on
Selecting Species for Design of Landscapescale Conservation,” which states that LCCs
were “established to support biological
planning and conservation design at
landscape scales” and suggests that LCC
partnership efforts “should continue and be
expanded . . . to integrate priorities and select
common targets to be used for designing the
conservation of sustainable landscapes.”
Many of the 22 LCCs have identified LCD as
a priority in their strategic, operational, and/
or science needs plans. Some have initiated
development of LCD components (e.g.,
decision support tool development) and others

have sponsored LCD development. These
initial LCDs (listed in table 2) will serve as
national pilot projects that can be used to
identify and duplicate effective processes.
The PIT supports the LCC network’s vision
and purpose and supports the WHPRP LCCrelated recommendation described above.
We assert that the Refuge System should be
an advocate for the LCC network’s interest
in designing functional landscapes, be a
catalyst for change throughout the greater
conservation planning community through
leading by example, and become a primary
partner in the LCC network’s design efforts.

The Refuge System’s Role
in LCD Development
Although the network of LCC partnerships
is still relatively new, it has made exceptional

progress in building a national and regional
organizational framework, internal capacity,
partnerships, and support. LCC partnerships
have successfully identified their collective
science needs and have begun to develop
products to address those needs including
those related to LCD. To ensure that LCCsponsored LCDs are relevant to Refuge
System interests, the Refuge System should
immediately engage in those efforts at the
national level and with each LCC.
The PIT recognizes that Refuge System
planners and other staff possess significant
professional skills and attributes that could
contribute to the LCCs’ development of
LCDs. They include partnership building,
facilitation, project and contract management,
obtaining resource-specific information and
expertise, data collection and management,
GIS modeling and analysis, writing and
editing, and document design. The Refuge
System could become a catalyst for LCD

Table 2: LCC-Sponsored LCDs and/or Products that Support LCD Development

The LCC’s Role in LCD Development 11

development by directing some
of this expertise to the LCCs.

“... working in
partnership
with the greater
conservation
community
will result in a
higher quality
plan, a holistic
view of the
landscape, and a
greater capacity
for conservation
delivery.”

Exhibit B:
Two Phases of Planning

Working within the LCCs’
collaborative framework may
require more time than if the Refuge
System were to take a “go-it-alone”
approach to LCD development. But
working in partnership with the
greater conservation community
will result in a higher quality plan,
a holistic view of the landscape, and
a greater capacity for conservation
delivery. Furthermore, the product
resulting from a collaborative
approach will provide the Refuge
System, other Service programs,
and the greater conservation
community with information that
will help us to collectively better
understand our individual role
in delivering conservation as the
landscape around us changes with
time. While refuge staff must be
engaged and provide input in LCD
development, the bulk of the design
work will be conducted through the
partnerships formed around LCDs
and fostered through the LCCs.
In the long-term, this collaborative
approach will save each partner
time and resources. For example,
rather than a refuge developing a
climate vulnerability assessment
on their own, an LCD will provide
the necessary climate science and
predictive decision support tools to
assess the vulnerabilities of multiple
refuges. In this way, LCDs will
bring new economies of scale in
developing refuge-specific plans.

Modified from Knight, et al. 2006

12 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

Photo: USFWS

Refuge System planning is
conducted in two phases: an
assessment and design phase
followed by development of an
implementation strategy (exhibit
B). Refuge System policy identifies
these two phases as “preplanning”
and “planning.” We recommend
that LCDs be developed as part
of the preplanning phase of every
refuge-specific CCP and LPP. (The
PIT recognizes that additional
preplanning, beyond the LCD,
will normally be required for each
refuge-specific plan in order to
address site-specific issues.) We
further recommend postponing
the development of refuge-specific
CCPs and LPPs until the completion
of the corresponding LCD. The

completion of step-down management plans needed
to implement existing CCPs should continue in the
interim.
LCD will provide an opportunity for the Refuge
System to streamline our land protection planning
process. Our current process consists of two phases:
preliminary planning and detailed planning. These
two phases are equivalent to the preplanning and
planning phases described above. Preliminary
planning results in the development of a Preliminary
Project Proposal (PPP), which, with the Director’s
approval, is followed by a detailed planning process
that results in the development of an LPP.

The PIT recommends that land protection strategies
developed after completion of LCDs replace PPPs,
because an LCD will include a more comprehensive
assessment of a potential new refuge (or refuge
expansion) than is currently provided by a PPP.
Director approval of the land protection strategies in
an LCD will be required to enter detailed planning.
In addition, an LCD will allow the Refuge System
to reassess the value of any previously-approved
LPPs that occur within that geographic area. We
recommend that this assessment be conducted as part
of each LCD that contains areas proposed for new or
expanded refuges.

Recommendations
• Do not develop or revise, with limited exceptions, any refuge-specific CCP or LPP until after the
corresponding LCD has been developed in cooperation with our conservation partners in an LCC.
• Postpone developing new CCPs and LPPs and revising existing CCPs and LPPs until after first
completing corresponding LCDs. Continuing completing step-down management plans needed to
implement existing CCPs in the interim.
• Develop LCDs as part of the preplanning phase of every refuge-specific CCP and LPP.
• Design refuge-specific CCPs, LPPs, and step-down management plans to both address refuge-specific
issues and implement the landscape-level goals and objectives identified in the corresponding LCD.
• Use information and strategies from LCDs in place of currently required PPPs to inform and prioritize
LPP development.
• Reassess, upon completion of an LCD, the value and contribution of previously-approved LPPs within
that geographic area.
• Incorporate feedback, by LCDs, from refuges and other conservation partners to enhance and inform
landscape design through adaptive management.
• Promote LCDs within the Service by:
➢

• assigning a Headquarters LCD Coordinator and regional office LCD Coordinators;

➢
• developing institutional structures, processes, and protocols that facilitate effective
communications between Service programs, LCCs, and other conservation partners;

➢
• directing national and regional level capacity towards the coordination of
Service-wide interests in LCD; and

➢

• advocating for and supporting the development of a Service-wide LCD policy.

• Promote LCDs throughout the greater conservation planning community by:
➢

• communicating the concept, use, and values of LCDs;

➢

• advocating for design integration amongst LCC partners;

➢
• being an early adopter of integration by directing capacity to each of the 22
LCCs in support of LCD development; and

➢
• promoting the formation of an interagency organization team that will develop minimum

standards, best management practices, and other guidance materials in an effort to ensure a
structured, systematic approach to LCD development.
• Advocate the development of LCDs through appropriate LCC-related organizational structures (e.g.,
the LCC National Council, LCC U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Steering Committee Representatives,
Regional Science Applications Assistant Regional Directors, etc.).
Recommendations 13

“The Refuge
System has
been grouping
CCPs for many
years—writing
a single CCP
that covers
two or more
individual
refuges.”

Grouping and
Coordinating CCPs
and Step-Down
Management
Plans
The Refuge System has been
grouping CCPs for many years―
writing a single CCP that covers
two or more individual refuges.
Often, the refuges grouped under
one CCP are within an established
administrative complex or a
distinct physiographic area. The
PIT recommends that this practice
be enhanced under the proposed
LCD paradigm:
Once an LCD is developed, the
refuges within that geographic
area should immediately begin
developing (or revising) their
CCPs. When feasible, all
refuges within the geographic
area covered by a single LCD
should be covered under a
single CCP. Doing so would be
the most efficient way to step
down goals and objectives from
the LCD and propose refugespecific management actions
that deliver landscape-level
benefits.
A number of factors may suggest
that some refuges or groups
of refuges within an LCD
geographic area should have
their own CCPs. Our ability to
group refuges under a single
CCP will depend on the refuges’
similarities and differences
in terms of habitats, species,
purposes, uses, proximity, and
management concerns. These
and other factors will determine
the degree to which refuges can
be grouped under one CCP. This
decision will be made on a caseby-case basis.
Even if few or none of the

14 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

refuges within an LCD can
be grouped under one CCP,
we recommend that the
development of all CCPs within
an LCD should be conducted
simultaneously in a coordinated
manner. Refuge staff, partners,
and the public would benefit
from the dialogue that comes
from conducting planning in a
concerted manner. Shared goals,
objectives, and strategies (and
shared writing responsibilities
for areas of overlap) could be
identified. Travel costs could be
reduced. Any resources saved
by grouping or coordinating
CCPs could be invested in future
efforts to develop the step-down
management plans needed to
fully implement these CCPs.
Grouping step-down
management plans for refuges
may have similar benefits to
grouping CCPs (exhibit C). Joint
step-down planning for the same
group of refuges covered by one
CCP makes sense, because they
are likely to share priorities such
as species, habitats, and visitor
service goals.
While individual refuges
may need to add site-specific
priorities, objectives, and
strategies to their step-down
management plans, they may
be able to share much of their
information with other refuges.
For example, there could be
multiple refuges within the same
wetland complex that share
similar species or conservation
challenges and thus may have
similar habitat management plan
objectives. Planning for groups
of refuges would not preclude
production of separate plans to
accommodate specific refuge
needs.
The wetland management
districts of Minnesota,
for example, have already

Exhibit C: Grouping Plans under the LCD

1.

2.

3.

4.

demonstrated that grouped planning efforts can
lead to quality, individual step-down management
plans. Consolidating step-down planning by
coordinating efforts of multiple units would lead to
more consistency among plans. The efficiency of
such an approach may lead to faster development
of step-down management plans without
compromising their quality.
The PIT recommends that step-down
management plans for all refuges within
the geographic area covered by an LCD be
consolidated to the maximum extent feasible.

Recommendations
• Include in a single CCP, when possible, all
refuges within the geographic area covered by
the LCD.
• Consolidate to the maximum extent feasible,
step-down management plans for all refuges
within the geographic area covered by an LCD.
• Conduct simultaneously, in a coordinated
manner, development of all CCPs and (later)
step-down management plans within an LCD.

Grouping and Developing CCPs and Step-Down Management Plans 15

“...it is
important
that each
region take a
leadership role
in developing
the LCD
schedules
with the LCCs
within their
jurisdiction.”

Establishing a
Schedule for
LCDs, CCPs,
and LPPs
In general, our work on a CCP
or LPP cannot begin until the
corresponding LCD has been
completed. There are three
exceptions to this rule:
1. Unfinished First Round
CCPs – Each region’s first
priority is to complete
CCPs for any station where
the statutory deadline for
completing the initial CCP
has already passed (October
9, 2012 or 15 years after
the refuge was established;
see Service Manual chapter
602 FW 3, “Comprehensive
Conservation Planning”).
2. CCPs and LPPs Already
Started – Each region’s
second priority is to
complete CCPs and LPPs
that have already been
started. These include
plans for which (1) preplanning is already
completed or underway
and (2) it is unlikely that
the unit(s) will be covered
under an LCD within the
next three years. If an
LCD is expected to begin
within three years, the
region should consider
postponing development
of the CCP or LPP until
after the LCD has been
completed, especially if they
are in an early stage of the
planning process.
3. CCPs and LPPs for Areas
Outside of LCDs – In the
unusual case of a Refuge
System unit that is not
likely to ever be covered
by an LCD (for example,

16 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

an urban refuge) and is not
a first or second priority
for plan completion (as
described above), the
region should schedule
the CCP or LPP for that
unit in consideration of the
following criteria:

• The age or utility of

the existing CCP;
• The presence of

threats to refuge
resources;
•

The presence of

opportunities for
engagement with
the public and/or
partners; and

•

The existence

or anticipation of
a landscape-scale
planning effort
(other than an
LCD) that could
inform our CCP or
LPP development.

All Other Plans
Completing the remaining
CCPs and LPPs in a region
should be scheduled based
on that region’s schedule for
completing LCDs. CCPs and
LPPs for all Refuge System
units covered under a single
LCD should be completed
simultaneously, preferably
within three years of the
completion of that LCD.

Develop Regional and
National Schedules for
Completing Landscape
Conservation Designs
Since regional CCP and LPP
schedules will be almost
entirely dependent on LCD
schedules, it is important that
each region take a leadership

Blazing Star; photo: USFWS
role in developing the LCD schedules with
the LCCs within their jurisdiction. Regions
must engage in scheduling discussions with
our conservation partners at the LCC level,
securing their commitments as early as
possible. Since we will be working with our
LCC partners to develop these schedules, we
will need to reach consensus on the priority for
each LCD. To the extent possible, however, we
should try to prioritize LCDs that:
• contain a large number of Refuge System
units;
• contain areas that may be suitable for new
refuges or refuge expansions;
• contain habitat important to Serviceidentified surrogate species; and
• contain Refuge System units with CCPs
that require revision due to their age or
changed conditions.
Regional planning schedules for LCDs, CCPs,
and LPPs will be compiled into a national
planning schedule. This schedule will be
maintained in a format that allows flexibility

for adapting to changing circumstances while
providing a central source of information to
share with partners and managers. This is
the same approach that is currently used to
maintain a CCP schedule via the national CCP
database.

Recommendations
• Do not develop a CCP or LPP until the corresponding LCD has been completed, except for:
(1) unfinished “first round” CCPs, (2) CCPs
and LPPs that are already started, and (3) CCPs
and LPPs for units in geographic areas that are
unlikely to ever be covered by an LCD.
• Each region will develop CCP and LPP schedules based on the LCD schedules within their
jurisdiction (see LLC and Refuge System
overlay map).
• Compile regional planning schedules for LCDs,
CCPs, and LPPs into a national planning
schedule.

Establishing a Schedule for LCDs, CCPs, and LPPs 17

“Step-down
planning offers
the opportunity
to make clear
connections
between onthe-ground
management
actions and
broader
conservation
objectives. ”

Placing Greater
Priority on
Step-Down
Management
Plans
Step-down management plans are
program-specific plans that are
“stepped-down” from the goals,
objectives, and strategies contained
in a CCP. They contain sufficient
detail to guide refuge-specific
programs, operations, and annual
work plans. The PIT suggests that,
since the development of new CCPs
will be delayed pending completion
of the LCDs, an opportunity exists
for the Refuge System to focus on
completing step-down management
plans for existing CCPs.
Responses to the PIT’s 2012 survey
of Refuge System employees
(see the Report Compendium of
planning resources) revealed that
most refuge personnel believe that
step-down management plans are
the best vehicle for implementing
and monitoring CCP objectives.
Greater emphasis on step-down
management plans was favored by
a majority (51 percent) of Refuge
System employees who participated
in the survey. Most respondents
also expressed the concern that, at
present, we do not have sufficient
funds and staffing to meet planning
needs. This lack of funding and
planning capacity may help to
explain the low completion rate of
step-down management plans. For
example, a recent internal review
found that only about 15 percent
of refuges have completed HMPs,
while 4 percent have completed
visitor services plans.
Step-down planning offers
the opportunity to make clear
connections between on-theground management actions and
broader conservation objectives.

18 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

While each region varies in its
approach to CCP and step-down
planning, most agree that detailed
and specific strategies are critical
for implementing CCP goals and
objectives. It doesn’t matter
whether these detailed strategies
are contained in a CCP or a stepdown management plan, as long as
they are developed, documented,
and implemented.
Several issues emerged from the
PIT’s evaluation of Refuge System
step-down management planning,
including the following:
• Refuge staffs are
overwhelmed by the need to
write numerous step-down
management plans, with no
identified priorities.
• Little training and guidance
exists for writing step-down
management plans.
• Each Service region has
varied in its approach to
the level of detail in CCPs,
which affects both the level
of detail needed in a stepdown management plan
and the level of National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documentation
required.
• New program information is
rapidly emerging (primarily
from the Refuge System
vision teams) that will need
to be stepped-down to
individual refuges.
Service Manual chapter 602 FW4,
Exhibit 1, “List of Potential StepDown Management Plans,” lists
approximately 40 potential stepdown management plans that a
refuge might need to develop. This
list is not exhaustive. A refuge may
need to develop another type of
step-down management plan if it
proposes to undertake an activity
not listed in Exhibit 1. All of the
step-down management plans listed

in Exhibit 1 are not required on every refuge, but 10
of them are commonly stepped-down from a refuge
CCP. They are:

1. Habitat Management Plan
2. Visitor Services Plan
3. Inventory and Monitoring Plan
4. Fire Management Plan
5. Cultural Resource Management Plan
6. Integrated Pest Management Plan
7. Nuisance Animal Plan
8. Furbearer or Trapping Plan
9. Wilderness Stewardship Plan
10. Land Protection Plan

that completing HMPs be a high priority for the
Refuge System.
NEPA compliance is a key consideration when
planners and field staff begin the step-down
planning process. Some CCPs have incorporated
enough project-specific detail to allow assessment
of effects under NEPA. CCPs that are more
general will need to be followed by additional
project/site specific step-down management plans
that include NEPA analysis.
Several approaches to achieving NEPA compliance
may be considered that can streamline NEPA

Step-down management plans should have these
elements:
• Begin by first developing a completion
schedule.
• Track step-down management plan progress
and completion on a national basis.
• Allow a flexible approach to conducting stepdown planning so that each region may use
different formats, documentation, and NEPA
compliance, depending on the level of detail in
the original CCP.
• Have an evaluation process to determine
which CCPs have sufficient level of detail to
satisfy step-down planning and which ones do
not.
• Be based upon new guidance, training,
and templates that provide efficiencies
and consistency in implementing stepdown planning processes across all regions.
Webinars, handbooks, job aids, checklists,
and training in planning from the National
Conservation Training Center are examples of
tools that can help guide staff for preparing of
quality plans.
The schedule and steps for completing inventory
and monitoring step-down management plans
are described in the “Inventory and Monitoring
7-Year Plan for the NWRS” (April 2013).
Inventory and Monitoring Plans (IMPs) are
critical to the success of LCDs and are necessary
to ensure that refuges have the scientific
validation for making management decisions.
IMPs will assist refuges in applying the adaptive
management process at refuge and landscape
scales. Refuges must have clear, prioritized
resource management objectives before IMPs
can be useful, which is why the PIT recommends

Prescribed fire; photo: USFWS
writing and be tailored to individual situations.
For some refuge actions, a programmatic
assessment that evaluates management actions
(like prescribed fire or invasive species control)
could cover the general effects of those actions on
refuges. This type of NEPA analysis could be done
with an individual refuge CCP or at a regional or
national level as a precursor to step-down planning
on multiple refuges. A project-specific assessment at
the refuge level may still be needed, but the NEPA
process and documentation (an Environmental Action
Statement) would be much more condensed and
simpler subsequent to a programmatic assessment.
Refuges with similar needs may be able to combine
their step-down management plans and associated
NEPA documents. Nuisance animal control is an
example where multiple refuges may have very
similar actions and effects that could be completed
under one step-down management plan and/or
covered under one NEPA process.
Placing Greater Priority on Step-Down Management Plans 19

Recommendations
• Strive to develop CCPs in a broad scope with more details provided in step-down management plans.
• Prioritize the completion of HMPs and visitor services plans. These two plans play a key
role in Refuge System management by integrating vision team recommendations at the field
station level, providing coverage for on-the-ground actions, and informing annual work
plans.
• Charter a team to prepare new guidance for visitor services plans that integrate new policy
and guidance on constructed facility assets, transportation planning, and vision team recommendations.
• Prioritize, consolidate, and/or eliminate required step-down management plans. Revise
policy to reflect this.
• Develop training, templates, and tools to streamline the production of step-down management plans.
• Develop regional prioritized lists of step-down management plans with lead assignments,
target completion dates, and a system to track plan status.
• Develop a step-down planning structure for each region:
• ➢ Assign Headquarters and regional office step-down management plan coordinators.
• ➢ Assign multiple plans covering the same topic to a single lead coordinator. For example,
a field-based visitor services manager could assume the lead for all visitor services plans in a
geographic area.
• ➢ Specialized plans such as Wilderness Stewardship Plans (WSPs) and Cultural Resource
Management Plans could be the focus of step-down action teams.

Wilderness Planning
The Refuge System contains 20 percent of
America’s National Wilderness Preservation
System (NWPS) with 20 million acres of
designated wilderness on 63 refuges. The
Refuge System also protects 1.9 million acres
of proposed wilderness on 21 refuges. By law
and policy, we are responsible for preserving
the wilderness character of these designated
and proposed wilderness areas. We do this, in
part, by effective wilderness planning and by
establishing goals and objectives in CCPs and
in step-down WSPs.
Landscape-scale planning through LCDs will
contain a variety of land designations including
some with designated wilderness areas.
Studying wilderness areas at this scale can help
us understand the contributions of wilderness
to wildlife conservation. Studying wilderness
as part of the LCD process could also reveal
20 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Bison; photo: USFWS
issues and events that threaten wilderness
character or reduce their conservation values.
Wilderness areas may provide opportunities to
identify surrogate species best suited for areas
where management potential is modified by
wilderness designation.

Recommendations
• Prepare and update WSPs for all 63 designated wilderness areas in the Refuge System that will
guide the preservation, management, and use of the refuge’s wilderness to ensure that wilderness is unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The WSP will identify desired
future conditions, establish indicators, standards, conditions, and thresholds beyond which
management actions will be taken to reduce human impacts to wilderness resources.
• Charter a Refuge System Wilderness Council, as part of the 50th anniversary of the NWPS in
2014, to evaluate the 21 proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study areas, and prepare a
national strategy to advance priority wilderness proposals to Congress for designation.
• Charter a National Wilderness Planning Team to develop training, templates, and other tools;
to assist the Wilderness Council; and to assist regions in preparing WSPs. Training and tools
should include guidance on how to address climate change issues in wilderness.
• Complete wilderness reviews on all units of the Refuge System to identify areas with wilderness
character and potential. Once wilderness study areas are identified, enter these areas into the
Cadastral National Dataset.
• Identify at least one LCD during the LCD pilot planning phase that includes designated wilderness; and evaluate wilderness issues, values, and conservation potential at the landscape scale.

CCP Reporting, Tracking,
and Implementation
Throughout the Refuge System, CCP
implementation is tracked at the field station level
with varying degrees of oversight from regional
offices. Responses to the PIT’s 2012 survey of
Refuge System employees indicated that CCP
progress is being tracked by stations in a variety
of ways including informal review, annual work
planning, spreadsheets, tables, and inventory and
monitoring plans (see the Report Compendium
of planning resources). Although CCPs have
been completed for the majority of refuge units,
no standardized tracking system to gauge CCP
implementation exists. In fact, the 2012 planning
survey of Refuge System employees found that
one of the greatest barriers to implementing
CCPs is the lack of an accurate reporting
mechanism to track progress of CCP
objectives (65 percent of respondents agreed).
The survey also identified another major
barrier to implementation―station funding is not
coordinated with the needs identified in CCPs (77
percent of respondents agreed).
In order to provide greater consistency in
tracking CCPs across the Refuge System,
the PIT recommends that the Refuge Annual
Performance Plan (RAPP) be modified by adding

Photo: USFWS
a geospatial component to enable field stations
to report on the extent to which their CCPs are
being implemented and the contributions they
are making to LCD goals. If RAPP could be
fully integrated spatially the refuge would be
able to track their own management efforts and
monitor the actions of other partners within the
LCD geographic area. Providing a geospatial
component to RAPP would not only facilitate
the tracking and reporting of achievements,
but it would also provide valuable GIS datasets
CCP Reporting, Tracking and Implementation 21

and reports that could be used by both the
Refuge System and our conservation partners.
Successful examples of spatially integrating
management efforts includes the Habitat
Information Tracking System (HabITS) database
that is used by the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, the Refuge Habitat Management
Database that has recently been used on a
number of refuges in Region 1, and the Refuge
System Lands Geographic Information System
(RSLGIS). Ideally, a single tracking database
should be used throughout the Refuge System.
See the Report Compendium of planning
resources for an example of a spreadsheet that
could be used to tie CCP objectives to RAPP
measures.

In addition, the PIT recommends that tracking
CCP implementation should be incorporated
into the Annual Performance Plans of refuge
managers, project leaders, and refuge
supervisors. See the Report Compendium of
planning resources for an example of what could
be incorporated into Annual Performance Plans
by either creating a new critical element or
incorporating the provided information into an
existing element. The critical element should
focus on what objectives/projects from the
CCP can be achieved that year based on known
staffing and funding.

Recommendations
• Develop a single database that can track every refuge’s progress in implementing CCPs and
contributing toward LCDs. This database should:
• monitor the actions of other partners within the LCD geographic area;
• have a geospatial component and should be integrated with RAPP, HabITS, RSLGIS,
and/or the Refuge Habitat Management Database; and
• incorporate CCP implementation into the Annual Performance Plans of refuge managers, project leaders, and refuge supervisors.

Improving the
Scientific Quality of
Refuge System Plans
Sound science should underpin every goal,
objective, and strategy in every Refuge System
plan. Biological, social, and economic science
must be incorporated into Refuge System plans
at all geographical scales. Refuge System
plans should clearly communicate how the best
available science was used to develop specific,
measurable objectives that can be implemented
to achieve our stated goals.
Several scholarly reviews have indicated that
the Refuge System could incorporate more
scientifically-rigorous goals, objectives, and
strategies into our CCPs. The PIT’s 2012
survey of Refuge System employees asked to
what degree certain sections of CCPs include
adequate scientific information. Refuge
background descriptions, habitat management
objectives, visitor services objectives, and
22 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Water quality testing; photo: USFWS
wildlife management objectives were rated
as having adequate scientific information
(see the Report Compendium of planning
resources). Only a little more than a third of
the respondents felt landscape/multi-scale
objectives adequately included scientific
information.

The PIT asserts that cooperatively developing
LCDs during preplanning will greatly improve
the scientific quality of Refuge System plans.
Planning with partners at a landscape scale and
then stepping down goals and objectives to the
refuge scale is a more complex process than
traditional, site-specific planning. But pooling
our technical resources with those of our
conservation partners to develop robust LCDs
will provide a firm scientific foundation for all
Refuge System plans.
The PIT assembled a Science sub-team to analyze
the science-related challenges of Refuge System
planning and to recommend ways to meet these
challenges. This sub-team’s extensive findings
are included in the Report Compendium of
planning resources. The following is a brief
summary of their findings.

Scientific Uncertainty and Planning
Uncertainty drives science forward, and
keeps scientists looking for answers. But for
natural resource managers, uncertainty can
be problematic, particularly as it relates to
controversial issues such as climate change. We
like to have definite answers, but acquisition of
perfect knowledge is generally impossible in
science. So while uncertainty leads scientists
to action, it can sometimes lead managers and
policymakers to indecision. They may delay
action in the hope of eliminating uncertainty,
and/or they may use the perception of excessive
uncertainty as an excuse not to make an
unpopular or costly decision. Perhaps the most
important notion to communicate to managers,
stakeholders, and the public is that uncertainty
does not equate to flawed science.
Planners and decision makers face many barriers
to appropriately deal with scientific uncertainty.
These barriers include: lack of funds, staff time,
and/or data; lack of evidence (or awareness) that
the current level of understanding is insufficient;
lack of training in risk-management and/or
statistics; and, occasionally, a reluctance to
acknowledge the true level of uncertainty. In
addition, simply defining and understanding the
many types and sources of uncertainty can prove
challenging.
Overcoming these barriers will require innovative
responses that are tailored to the specific problem
at hand. In some cases, we may require more

information from scientific research. In other
cases, data may be available but synthesis and
interpretation are lacking. In recognition of
these challenges, the PIT Science sub-team
created a number of recommendations for
better addressing uncertainty, including the
use of structured decision making and adaptive
management. These are more fully described in
the Report Compendium of planning resources.

Best Available Science
Over the years, there has been discussion about
what is meant by “best available science” and
what level of scientific rigor is appropriate for
Service plans. The level of scientific rigor needed
varies based on one’s needs but can generally be
described on a continuum from published, peerreviewed literature to the cataloguing of local
opinion or professional judgment. Here’s an
example of the range of information that should
be sought and used:
• Scientific literature – Peer-reviewed,
published works such as those in scientific
journals and books.
• Gray literature – Often not peer-reviewed
but may contain valuable information.
Examples include technical reports,
conference proceedings, government
reports, and dissertations.
• Secondary data sources – Data sources that
contribute to the issue or question at hand
that were collected by an entity other than
the one using the data, such as U.S. Bureau
of Labor and Statistics, biological surveys,
field notes, or other records.
• Onsite refuge data.
• Institutional knowledge/history.
• Expert opinion.
• Sound professional judgment.
• Traditional/local knowledge.
The PIT suggests that the standard for best
available science will be met if our planning
includes a thorough assessment of the available
science, solicitation of public knowledge, careful
documentation of our assumptions, and targeted
monitoring to test our assumptions and enable
midcourse corrections.

Improving the Scientific Quality of Refuge System Plans 23

Recommendations
• Clearly communicate in Refuge System plans how the best available science was used to
develop specific and measurable goals, objectives, and strategies.
• Base refuge-specific plans on LCDs to help ensure that every plan relies on sound biological,
social, and economic science.
• Frame planning processes, documents, and staff functions around the elements of the SHC
cycle of planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and research.
• Provide adequate time for planning team members to incorporate science by:
• reducing the work responsibilities (monitoring, active management, etc.) of key refuge
staff during the planning process;
• creating a regional “floating” science position to work specifically with stations developing plans;
• offering staff, nationwide, the opportunity to help develop plans or to temporarily assume the responsibilities of refuge staff who are occupied with planning;
• providing funding for temporary hires during the planning process, so that they may
assist with planning or take on some responsibilities of staff that are occupied with planning; and
• training a small team of Service staff, and entrusting them with a regionwide or nationwide task or responsibility in specific situations or for topics that require specialized
expertise.
• Clearly state in Refuge System plans where scientific information came from, how it was
interpreted, and what assumptions were made. If available science offers more than one
viewpoint or supports more than one conclusion it is important to include that information.
• Increase critical review of the science in draft plans, using both Service and outside reviewers.
• Develop and provide specific training topics for specific audiences:
• How to read, understand, and synthesize available science to formulate science-based
objectives.
• Structured decisionmaking or similar decision tool training.
• How to deal with scientific uncertainty.
• Planning in the face of climate change.
• Landscape-level planning for population and habitat objectives.
• Monitoring and adaptive management.
• Fundamentals of human dimensions.
• Encourage the use of standardized, Service-sanctioned metrics and indices by promoting
quality existing methods or developing new methods wherever necessary (for example,
methods such as the Floristic Quality Assessment or various indices of biological or ecological integrity).
• Enhance communication within the Refuge System and across all programs of the Service.
Develop communication options to increase discussion and sharing of resources among
planners and throughout the Service including a national planning portal with literature,
resources, tools, links to secondary data, and other resources.

24 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Standard Templates
for Planning
Documents
The PIT recommends that the
Service develop standardized
templates for CCPs, LPPs, and
step-down management plans.
Many people have commented
that that Refuge System plans
lack a consistent “look and
feel.” There are numerous
inconsistencies among CCPs,
both between and within regions
(e.g., appearance, layout, topics
addressed, placement of the EA,
etc.).
Exhibits 4 (“Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation
Plan Recommended Outline”)
and 5 (“EA or EIS Incorporating
Elements of a CCP Recommended
Outline”) of Service Manual
chapter 602 FW 3 contain two
recommended outlines for CCPs,
one for a stand-alone CCP and
one for a CCP combined with
an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact
Statement. These outlines
have been widely used, but they
are rather sparse, given the
potential complexity of our plans.
Over time, each Service region

has tended to develop its own
templates through the sharing of
documents among planners.
The PIT formed a Documents
sub-team to develop a national
CCP template utilizing the best
practices from all regions to
improve overall readability and
consistency. This template is
a work in progress. The PIT
recommends that its authors
should continue their work and
that they, or other teams, should
also develop templates for LPPs
and step-down management
plans. The PIT suggests that
standardized templates would
provide a consistent look and
feel for Refuge System plans and
facilitate plan development.
The national CCP template is
intended for new CCPs and
complete revisions to existing
CCPs. CCPs that have already
been completed will not require
revision simply to match the
national template. Additional
guidance should be developed
on how to incorporate LCD
information into refuge-specific
plans and how to incorporate
major revisions, minor revisions,
and amendments into existing
CCPs.

“The PIT
suggests that
standardized
templates
would provide
a consistent
look and feel for
Refuge System
plans and
facilitate plan
development.”

Recommendations
• Continue with the development of standardized templates
for CCPs.
• Develop standardized templates for LPPs and step-down
management plans.
• Develop guidance on how to incorporate LCD information
into refuge-specific plans and how to incorporate major
revisions, minor revisions, and amendments into existing
CCPs.

Standard Templates for Planning Documents 25

“In addition
to Service
policy, the PIT
recognizes that
training may
need to be
developed
or revised to
facilitate the
new approach to
landscapelevel planning
proposed
in this report.”

A Process for
Reviewing and
Amending CCPs
The National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act
of 1966, as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) states that
the Secretary of the Interior shall
“not less frequently than 15 years
after the date of issuance of a
conservation plan [CCP] . . . and
every 15 years thereafter, revise
the conservation plan as may be
necessary.” The Refuge System
Administration Act further states
that the Service “shall revise the
plan at any time if the Secretary
determines that conditions that
affect the refuge or planning unit
have changed significantly.”
Service policy in Service
Manual chapter 602 FW 3,
“Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Process,” states that
we will “revise the CCP every 15
years . . . or earlier if monitoring
and evaluation determine that we
need changes to achieve planning
unit purpose(s), vision, goals,
or objectives.” Service Manual
chapter 602 FW 3 also states
that a CCP should be reviewed
“at least annually to decide if
it requires any revisions” and
should be modified “whenever
this review or other monitoring
and evaluation determine that
we need changes to achieve
planning unit purpose(s), vision,
and goals.” Service Manual
chapter 602 FW 3 further states
that we should “document minor
plan revisions that meet the
criteria of a categorical exclusion
in an Environmental Action
Statement,” and that “If the plan
requires a major revision, then
the CCP process starts anew at
the preplanning step.”

26 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

The Regional Refuge Planning
Chiefs have long recognized that
additional guidance for revising
CCPs is needed in order to
address the variety of large and
small changes that a CCP may
require. The planning chiefs
assembled a team of Refuge
System personnel in December of
2012 to provide recommendations
for revisions to Service Manual
chapter 602 FW 3 that would
provide such guidance. This
team recommended that:
• The revised policy
should include definitions
and procedures to
address a variety of
CCP revisions including
“complete” revisions,
“major” revisions,
“minor” revisions, and
“amendments.” Each
category of revision
would require a different
level of NEPA analysis.
The planning chiefs’
team suggested that
CCPs are meant to be
adaptive documents
that should be able to
evolve to meet changing
conditions through a fairly
streamlined amendment
and revision process.
• Each field station could
complete a questionnaire
(similar to one developed
by Service Region 6)
to determine if their
CCP needs revision.
Data gleaned from the
completed questionnaires
would assist regional
offices in prioritizing
CCPs for revision,
thereby facilitating the
scheduling of LCDs. The
questionnaire and this
team’s finding are included
in the Report Compendium
of planning resources.

The PIT recommends that the CCP revision
guidance in Service Manual chapter 602 FW 3
be expanded, and that the revised policy should
allow for the flexibility needed to address the
various changes that a CCP may require in the
context of landscape-level preplanning via LCDs.
A new Service Manual chapter, “Refuge Reviews”
(601 FW 8) is currently under development.
The current draft of this chapter describes
four types of refuge reviews: comprehensive,
periodic, independent, and program-specific.
The comprehensive and periodic reviews will
cover planning as well as staffing, employee
development, budget, administration, and
wildlife and habitat management. The planning
component of these reviews will assess the
refuge’s progress and challenges in implementing
the goals, objectives, and strategies contained in
their refuge-specific plans and will evaluate the
refuge’s success in delivering landscape-level
conservation through partnerships.
The periodic refuge review will be conducted for
every field station (or group of stations) every five
years. The periodic review will be led by a refuge
chief, refuge supervisor, or assistant refuge
supervisor. Depending on the size and complexity
of the refuge/refuge complex, each review should
take from one to four days and will generate a
refuge review report in a standard format. The
comprehensive refuge review will be conducted
every 15 years. Preferably, the review will start
immediately before the corresponding LCD so
that the information generated in the review
report can contribute to both the LCD and the
subsequent (new or revised) CCP. Development
of the comprehensive refuge review will be led by
a refuge supervisor or assistant refuge supervisor
with participation from the CCP planning team
leader and one or more representatives from
the regional office, Headquarters, other Service
programs, other agencies, universities, or
conservation or other organizations.

tracking database and the completion of a brief
CCP questionnaire, as described above. A more
robust planning review could then be conducted
at five-year intervals via the periodic refuge
review. LCD and subsequent CCP development
would be preceded by a comprehensive refuge
review. The specifics of how this will be
accomplished should be described in Service
Manual chapter 601 FW 8.

Recommendations
• Update Service Manual chapter 602
FW 3, “Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Process,” and related Service
Manual chapters that address planning
to better address the CCP amendment
and revision process.
• Coordinate the development of the new
Service Manual chapter 601 FW 8,
“Refuge Reviews” with the revision of
Chapter 602 FW 3 and related chapters.

The PIT recommends that further development
of Service Manual chapter 601 FW 8 should be
closely coordinated with the revision of chapter
602 FW 3 and related Service Manual chapters
that address planning. Specifically, the annual
CCP review mentioned in chapter 602 FW 3
should be more fully described as a very limited
review that consists of tracking the refuge’s
success in CCP implementation. This could
include an update and evaluation of the CCP
A Process for Reviewing and Amending CCPs 27

the use of “historical conditions”
as a frame of reference for habitat
management and restoration. While
this may still be a valid benchmark
in many situations, it could be
improved through the recognition
of climate change processes and
the concept of non-equilibrium
ecosystems. The PIT recommends
that a team of Service scientists
review this policy and suggest
needed changes.

Review and training;
photo: USFWS

Recommendations
• Revise policies and
training to fully implement recommendations in this final
report.
• Revise the Service Manual chapters that address planning (listed
above) simultaneously,
by a single team, as
soon as possible.
• Develop CCP and LPP
courses that incorporate the recommendations from this report
and address how to
develop refuge-specific management plans
that implement goals
and objectives from
LCDs.

Policy and Training
The PIT assembled a Policy
sub-team to determine if new or
revised policies would be required
to implement the new approach to
landscape-level planning proposed
in this final report. The Policy subteam found that a number of policies
would require revision. Their full
report is included in the Report
Compendium of planning resources.
Their findings are summarized,
below, in this sub-team report.
The PIT recommends that Service
Manual chapter 052 FW 1,
“Ecosystem Approach to Fish and
Wildlife Conservation” be rewritten
to serve as the new “Landscape
Conservation Design” chapter.
Because this chapter is applicable
Service-wide policy and is not only
Refuge System policy, it is essential
that representatives from other
Service programs be involved in its
revision. This joint revision process
will provide a valuable opportunity
throughout the Service to consider
how the LCD process can be
integrated into their programs.
Service Manual chapter 601 FW 3,
“Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health,” suggests

28 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

The PIT further recommends
that all Service Manual chapters
that address planning should
be revised simultaneously, by a
single team. These chapters are:
602 FW 1 (“Refuge Planning
Overview”), 602 FW 3 and Exhibits
(“Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Process”), 602 FW
4 (“Step-Down Management
Planning”), 620 FW 1 (“Habitat
Management Plans”), draft 602 FW
5 (“Strategic Growth”), and draft
601 FW 8 (“Refuge Reviews”).
In addition to Service policy, the
PIT recognizes that training may
need to be developed or revised
to facilitate the new approach to
landscape-level planning proposed
in this report. The Service should
consider developing a new LCD
course that would be available to
both Service personnel and our
conservation partners. In addition,
a course or courses that focus on
stepping down LCDs to refugespecific plans are essential. As
mentioned in previous sections of
this report, additional training may
also be needed to address step-down
management plans, wilderness
planning, risk management,
statistics, developing science-based
objectives, structured decision
making, dealing with scientific
uncertainty, planning in the face
of climate change, monitoring and
adaptive management, and human
dimensions.

Staffing, Funding,
and Organization
Implementing the
recommendations contained
in this report requires careful
examination of the Refuge
System’s planning organization
and capacity to conduct
landscape-level planning. The
PIT believes that many of the
recommendations in this report,
if implemented, will provide
opportunities for streamlining
our planning processes and
achieving cost efficiencies.
Other recommendations might
increase our planning costs. This
report does not directly address
the Refuge System’s planning
organization, capacity to conduct
landscape-level planning, or
budget. These issues will need
to be addressed if and when
we move forward with each
recommendation.
Responses to the PIT’s 2012
survey of Refuge System
employees revealed some
insights that may prove useful in
future evaluations of the Refuge
System’s capacity to conduct
landscape-level planning in the
manner prescribed in this report
(see the Report Compendium
of planning resources). Nearly
two-thirds of respondents replied
their station has the current staff
(or access to Service staff) with
the knowledge, skills, and abilities
needed to plan and deliver
landscape-scale conservation.
Respondents identified these

knowledge, skills, and abilities
as: emotional intelligence, or
the ability to identify, assess,
manage, and control the
emotions of one’s self, of others,
and of groups; landscape-level
background and experience,
including conservation biology
experience, ecological knowledge,
and institutional knowledge; and
technical skills such as modeling,
GIS, and planning. The survey
results did not, however, indicate
whether there are enough
personnel with these skills to
actually undertake the volume
of work needed to accomplish
landscape-level planning, Refuge
System-wide.

Recommendations
• Evaluate the Refuge
System’s planning organization, capacity to
conduct landscape-level
planning, and budget—
if and when we move
forward with the recommendations contained
in this final report.
CCPs.

“The PIT
believes that
many of the
recommendations
in this report,
if implemented,
will provide
opportunities
for streamlining
our planning
processes and
achieving cost
efficiencies.”

Staffing, FundingPolicy
and Organization
and Training 29
29

Conclusion
“Refuge planning
has improved
how we manage
our refuges and
strengthened
how we function
as one Refuge
System.”

The Planning Implementation
Team’s “Final Report: A
Landscape-Scale Approach
to Refuge System Planning”
recommends that we focus the
next generation of planning
on Landscape Conservation
Design, developed by the greater
conservation community through
partnership in Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives. Our
report gives an overview of the
planning effort and its value and
investigates how National Wildlife
Refuge System planning will
address large-scale conservation
challenges such as climate change,
while maintaining the integrity
of management and conservation
delivery within our boundaries.
After fifteen years of successful
planning under the National
Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, we
are nearing completion of a
Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for every unit of the Refuge
System. Refuge planning has
improved how we manage our
refuges and strengthened how we
function as one Refuge System.
While CCP planning thus far
has served us well, we must take
action to complete high priority
step-down management plans
and adapt strategies so that the
Refuge System contributes to
conserving functional landscapes
beyond refuge boundaries. The
PIT identifies and addresses the
need to shift our planning to a
landscape-scale approach. The
recommendations in this report
describe a coordinated approach
to help the Refuge System
more fully implement Strategic
Habitat Conservation. The
foundation of this approach is the
LCD. Each LCD describes the
partners’ individual and collective
goals for that landscape along
with shared commitments for

30 AA Landscape-Scale
Landscape-Scale Approach
Approach to
to Refuge
Refuge System
System Planning
Planning

implementation and monitoring.
Our recommendations ensure
that future planning is done with
innovation, efficiency, the best
available science, and with strong
collaborative partnerships. They
allow for flexibility in our planning
and leave us poised to meet
new threats and challenges that
cross political and organizational
boundaries.
Refuge-specific management
plans include CCPs, Land
Protection Plans, and a variety
of step-down management
plans. Under the new approach
to Refuge System planning
described in this report, all of
these plans would address refugespecific issues and implement
the landscape-level goals and
objectives identified in the
corresponding LCD. Developing
new CCPs and LPPs (and
revising existing ones) would be
postponed until the corresponding
LCDs are completed. In the
interim, the Refuge System would
focus on completing step-down
management plans to implement
existing CCPs. LCDs would
be developed as part of the
preplanning phase of every new
refuge-specific CCP and LPP. To
the extent feasible, all refuges
within the geographic area
covered by a single LCD would
be covered under a single CCP.
When multiple CCPs are needed
within an LCD, they would be
developed simultaneously, in a
coordinated manner.
Under this approach to Refuge
System planning, CCPs would
be broad in scope with greater
detail provided in step-down
management plans. Step-down
management plans for all refuges
within the geographic area
covered by an LCD would also
be developed simultaneously
and consolidated. The stepdown management plans that

would be completed first are
habitat management plans
and visitor services plans.
Standardized templates would
be used for CCPs, LPPs, and
step-down management plans.
A geospatial database would
be used to track every refuge’s
progress in implementing plans
and contributing toward LCD
goals. Service policy would be
revised, and new training would
be developed to ensure that our
staff and the greater conservation
community are fully prepared to

implement the new approach to
Refuge System planning.
Our recommendations apply
only to the Refuge System, but
it is our hope that other Service
programs join us in basing their
program-specific management
plans on landscape-level goals
and objectives and employ a
landscape-scale conservation
approach with our partners.

The mission of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service
is working with others
to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife
and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the
American people.

Report Compendium
of Planning Resources
The complete Report Compendium of planning resources is located on
SharePoint and contains the following articles and resources.
•

Examples of Resources Available for Use in Landscape
Conservation Design

•

PIT Policy Sub-team Report

•

Review of Existing Regional Templates and Other
Planning Agencies

•

Landscape Level Planning and the NWRS

•

PIT Science Subteam Report

•

Step-down Management Plans

•

PIT Survey Report

•

IU Paper: SMART Planning for Climate Change

•

IU Paper: Private Landowner Engagement

•

IU Paper: Offroad Vehicles

•

IU Paper: Off-Refuge Energy Development

•

IU Paper: Fragmentation Reduction

•

IU Paper: Conservation Planning for the National
Wildlife Refuges

•

IU Paper: Climate Change in Refuges

•

CCP Revision Recommendations

•

LCC and Refuge System overlay map

•

PIT members and contributors to PIT report

The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer
a national network
of lands and waters
for the conservation,
management and, where
appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and
plant resources and
their habitats within
the United States for the
benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.

Conclusion 31

National Wildlife Refuge
System Planning:
Conserving the Future
Recommendation #1

Charter

Purpose
Develop guidance and processes for improving the second generation
of Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP), and Habitat
Management Plans (HMP).
The Team is responsible for researching lessons learned from the
first round of CCP development, and ensuring the next round of plans
consider refuges in a landscape context and describe actions to project
conservation benefits beyond refuge boundaries. This Team addresses
Conserving the Future Recommendation #1.

Sarena Selbo
Will Meeks
Mike Marxen
Monica Kimbrough
Cathy Henry
Ken Litzenberger
Kathryn Owens
Mike Dixon
Winnie Chan
Ross Alliston
Noah Kahn

Co-Chair
Co-Chair
Branch Chief, VSC
Nat. Res. Planner
Refuge Manager
Refuge Manager
Dpty Project Leader
Land Prot. Planner
Refuge Planner
Refuge Planning Spec
Performance Manager

32 A Landscape-Scale Approach to Refuge System Planning

Headquarters Office
Region 6
Region 1, Visitor Services
R2 RO
Port Louisa NWR
SE LA Complex
Back Bay NWR
R6 RO Planning
San Francisco Bay NWR
Headquarters, Refuges
Headquarters, Refuges