Restructuring R4 IMP development

February 8, 2016

General Overview

From here to IMPs

Three components

Region-wide survey prioritization
Protocol development of prioritized surveys
IMP assembly

More detailed document on Google Drive (link on I&M site)
comments/suggestions welcome

Restructuring

Process, timeline, and outcomes

Region-wide survey prioritization

Process
- Query PRIMR for POC refuges
- Supplement with cross-program survey possibilities
- Prioritize existing and new survey needs
  - CCP/HMP objectives
  - site visits
  - refuge capacity should influence survey priority

For their POC refuges, I&M ecologists (1) query PRIMR for surveys (current only?); (2) supplement this list with possible contributions that the refuge could make to cross-program surveys (e.g., Migratory Bird priority surveys; Fisheries priority watersheds)
With list of potential surveys for each refuge, conduct survey prioritization workshop (e.g., SMART tool workshop) for each refuge to rank existing surveys and potential (new) survey needs relative to explicitly addressing objectives from the refuge CCP or, if completed, HMP. So, under this proposed scheme, we take care of all refuge site visits/SMART tool workshops up front, rather than on a case-by-case basis as in the current IMP approach.
When prioritizing surveys (i.e., which Tier does it belong), we should realistically consider each refuge's capacity to do that survey well in the 15 year IMP period. In other words, I would advocate with staffing/funding trends we should we emphasize "doing less, but doing it much better" and strongly favor those surveys with a clear product and link to management decisions/objectives.

Region-wide survey prioritization

Timeline
- PRIMR query, cross-program additions (< 1 month)
- Survey prioritization (???, 12+ months)

Region-wide survey prioritization

Target outcomes
- Prioritized surveys and non-surveys; updated PRIMR record
- Table 1 (survey prioritization table) for every IMP
- IMP appendices? (e.g., considered surveys)

Region-wide survey prioritization

Discussion
- PROS: Table 1s; survey name standardization
- CON: Just spent 18+ months on site visits
- Prioritization timeline (how long can we afford to take?)
- ↑ visitation efficiency (administrative and "spatial" complexes)
- SMART tool webinar/video tutorial?

PROS: With the survey prioritization table (Table 1) completed, IMP development is essentially ready to go. Perhaps some precocial refuges will start their own IMPs if we give them a template containing Table 1 and, possibly, relevant narrative sections started?
CON: RO/NRPC might think we're duplicating effort by making site visits again so soon, but as these site visits are a component of the current IMP approach, it's simply a decision regarding when we make these visits (i.e., all up front, or spread out over many years). Additionally, I think we can be more efficient with visits (more below).
Regarding visitation efficiency - our current model takes a refuge-by-refuge approach, but could we not tackle a whole complex of refuges in a single visit? And could we not coordinate prioritization workshops among "spatial" refuge complexes or ecologically-similar refuges with similar management objectives?
Maybe we could produce a webinar or video tutorial demonstrating the SMART tool and how it's relatively insensitive to details of weightings? Would this prevent biologists/managers getting lost in the weeds over the details of the prioritization tool and the weighting of surveys? Would it be helpful if viewed ahead of the workshops?

Protocol development

Process
- Identify surveys most in need of protocol development
- Balance scales of protocol development (national, regional, site)
- National framework: defer development to NRPC
- Regional framework: multiple (>5?) refuges; I&M assumes lead
- Site-specific: few refuges (1-5?); I&M coordinates working group of refuge staff
- Existing frameworks: site-specific adaptation with I&M assistance

Using the list of region-wide surveys compiled from all prioritization workshops, we now apply some kind of decision-making process to identify those surveys that would benefit most from the development of protocols
I suggest that we try to balance the spatial scale of protocols in active development. For example, I would suggest we develop regional frameworks concurrently with more localized, site-specific protocols.

More specifically, we should:

Leave the national frameworks to NRPC
Take the lead on developing regional protocol frameworks - these are protocols appropriate for priority surveys that affect multiple (how many) R4 refuges. Maybe choose 1-2 regional frameworks to start?
For surveys of high value to only a few refuges (1-5?), coordinate a working group of relevant biological staff for each protocol; these 1-5 refuge staff form committee/working group in charge of site-specific protocol development
As warranted by the needs of a particular refuge, the site-specific protocol for an existing national framework (e.g., IWMM) can be completed with assistance from R4 I&M staff (at least initially)

Protocol development

Timeline
- Depends on the scale:
  - Regional: 12-18 mo/protocol; simultaneously develop 2-3?
  - Site-specific: new (≈ 6 months) or adaptations (≈ 3 months)

Protocol development

Target outcomes
- Regional frameworks: ready for adaptation (with example)
- Site-specific: ready for IMP insertion
- Functional protocol links in PRIMR!

Protocol development

Discussion
- PRO: rigorous, consistent data collection starts earlier
- PRO: WAY easier to go from general framework → site-specific protocol
- PRO: refuges get protocols
- PRO: ↑ cross-refuge communication/solidarity among biological programs
- CON: Show me the IMPs
- What to do with queued surveys (ISIs?)

I expect the main benefits of this approach are that (1) more rigorous and consistent (within- and across-refuges) data collection begins earlier and relative to specific management objectives across all refuges (at least those involved in any given survey) because they are based on a general protocol framework rather than (typically) less rigorous ISIs
Second, when we tackle IMPs on a refuge-by-refuge basis (as we do now), ISIs are typically completed in relative isolation from potentially similar surveys on other refuges. That means we have the unenviable task of later deriving a more general protocol framework from a suite of site-specific ISIs developed mostly independently of one another. Moving from general framework to site-specific applications of that general framework seems way more efficient and natural.
Third, refuges get actual protocols, which we repeatedly hear is their greatest need. I hope that the prospect of getting protocols gives refuges some incentive to actively engage in site-specific protocol development (which will be a large part of their IMP and will give them more ownership of their IMP)
I also hope that the "working group" approach can foster cross-refuge communication and solidarity among biological programs working on similar problems (and protocol development); IMPs with regional implications shouldn't be completed in isolation
One problem with the approach is that it may not be apparent that we're producing IMPs (which of course we are, but a bit at a time). It does raise the question of whether we should work on a small number of IMPs during the first 1-2 years (after survey prioritization, and with partial R4 I&M staff contribution) concurrently with regional protocol frameworks. I would personally argue against this, but what do others think?

IMP development/assembly

Process
- Complete site-specific adaptations fo national or regional frameworks
- Append/adapt site-specific protocols from "working groups"
- Remaining surveys either (1) WAIT or (2) proceed under the status quo (ISI placeholder)

IMP development/assembly

Timeline
- Refuge-specific

IMP development/assembly

Target outcomes
- IMPs
- Updated and complete PRIMR with protocol link, costs
  - refuge responsibility?

IMP development/assembly

Discussion
- PRO: IMPs ready for use; lower maintenance
- CON: completing IMPs will take longer
- Encouraging adherence to protocols?

The adapted site-specific protocols in the IMP will be ready for use and posterity; plus, we won't have to go back and replace ISIs with site-specific protocols or, as I mentioned earlier, find similar ISIs among refuges and generalize up to a protocol framework
The waiting is the hardest part; completing IMPs will take longer (for any given refuge) than under the current process but I suspect/expect that over a given time length (e.g., 7 years) more IMPs will be completed this way than under the current approach and they'll contain actual protocols that, hopefully, link to specific management objectives rather than ISIs
In my experience, just because you have a protocol doesn't mean a particular refuge is going to follow it. How can we encourage adherence to protocols? Withhold funding opportunities, similar to what was suggested for not turning in progress reports/data for funded projects?