Summary Notes

FWS/USGS Leadership Meeting

October 30, 31

Shepherdstown, WV

 

 

Meeting Expectations

 

Steve Williams:  Thanks to Chip for his willingness to hold this meeting, and Sue Haseltine and Dan Ashe for their leadership in putting it together.  We need to discuss both what we do well and what we can do better.  Thanks to Rick and Todd for providing such a welcoming venue.  I’d like to emphasize 3 things as we begin:

 

1.      The common thread in FWS directorate discussions on resource issues is science; all of our programs face major science-related demands; we always feel the need for better information to support decisions.  We face many challenges - regulatory, conservation, land management; all revolve around science. We must improve our science capabilities.  From a geographic perspective, we are constantly faced with the challenge of credible data, good analyses, and best decisions.  The public expects to be a party to our science deliberations; we must improve our ability to involve them.

2.      We must set priorities – FWS’s highest profile is the endangered species  program – we have needs in the hydrological and geological arenas as well as the biological.  Responsibility to provide information to States- two specific priorities are the USGS and FWS working together to provide information to states for migratory bird seasons and in the Great Lakes on fish stocks.

3.      My expectations for this meeting – 1. We build personal relationships; everything we want to achieve starts with that.  2.  Begin to ID knowledge gaps and ways to close those gaps.  3.  Begin mapping out a plan to institutionalize the mechanisms to better coordinate to match our scientific needs with your scientific capabilities.  4.  FWS needs to find a way to better prioritize and articulate our research needs; we can’t accomplish everything.  Finally, I want this to be the first of many meetings.

 

Chip Groat:  The scare factor that scientists feel about managers and managers feel about scientists has already been mentioned.  My hope is to find mechanisms to eliminate this factor between USGS and FWS and find better ways to communicate and build lasting relationships.

 

There are significant challenges to accomplishing this, but it is a real need and there will be real gains for both science and natural resource management if we commit to it.  USGS challenges include developing a clear understanding of what manager’s needs are and responding in an effective way.  This is especially true in long term programs; we have long term efforts in 28 programs in USGS – making those as relevant as possible to management needs in the long-term context is a challenge.  Managers have immediate needs, how can those long term programs be framed to meet those immediate needs.  I suggest we need ‘boundary people’ to translate the long-term and short-term needs between the two bureaus; translating science to managers and management to scientists. We in USGS want to see our role as DOI science bureau be as effective as it can be.  Our responsibilities are national, but DOI should be first and foremost. How do we make that work at all levels in the bureaus –locally, regionally and nationally?

 

This process is kicking off identifying what the needs are from FWS and what the capabilities are in USGS. How can we find ways to communicate effectively?   Today we’ll identify both where things are working well, and where they are not. We need to institutionalize some discussions, but the most important goal is building relationships and trust between the peoples of both bureaus.  We need to build this relationship together.

 

Relationship and Partnership Commitments

 

There was consensus that common principles, activities and commitments need to be fostered by leadership in every office of both bureaus as we conduct our business:

 

1.      Strengthen relationships and trust between the bureaus at the local, regional and national levels -- personal and institutional; formal and informal.

2.      Work together in developing future plans and complimentary capabilities in emerging science areas such as genetics, landscape mapping and ecology, and modeling.

3.      Encourage and advocate timely and effective communication on issues and projects.  For instance, USGS involvement in FWS Regional Directorate, program ARD, and project leader meetings was discussed and encouraged.

4.      FWS needs to better articulate science priorities at all levels and USGS the applicability of research results to a variety of resource management decisions.

5.      Build on existing long-term relationships using an adaptive science/adaptive management model toward strategic management and science goals.

6.      Facilitate joint program and project planning and review as early and often as possible.

7.      Joint advocacy on critical science issues in DOI is essential.

8.      USGS/FWS relationships need to be strengthened in hydrology, geography and geology as well as biology. Constructive criticism and feedback are critical to building success.

9.      Build  support and understanding of appropriate technical assistance and technical support partnerships.

 

Specific Action Items

 

1.      Task: Identify and develop a pilot project, focused within a specific geographic area, that uses all available data and information technology to better collect synthesize and apply environmental data to comprehensively address multiple management and science needs.  Responsible parties: Siderelis, Schmidt, Compton, Haseltine, Ashe.  Timeline:  Initial meeting in January 2004; proposal for consideration and review by May 2004.

2.      Task:  Facilitate participation in and collaboration by peers from both bureaus at regional, program and thematic meetings. Responsible Parties:  All.

Timeline: Continuous.

3.      Task:  Develop a bottom-up reporting mechanism to capture successful collaborations and use the results in highlights, videos, communication to the Hill, etc.  Responsible parties:  Melius, Wainman, Lemon.  Timeline:  Initial meeting in November 2003; Implementation in 2004.

4.      Task:  Immediately highlight successful cooperation by sending a note of appreciation to each of the teams who submitted examples for the Collaboration panel at the meeting.  Responsible parties: Williams, Groat.  Timeline: November 2003.

5.      Task:  Acknowledge and celebrate outstanding cooperation between the bureaus by developing a video that will be coupled to a joint, all-employees broadcast or webcast featuring Chip Groat and Steve Williams.  Responsible parties:  Rick Lemon.  Timeline:  Initial meeting February 2004; implementation by September 2004.

6.      Task:  Organize a team to create a white paper outlining future management challenges and the scientific capabilities, information and analysis needed to address them effectively.  Responsible parties:  Ashe, Haseltine, Kaufman, Parker.  Timeline: Initial meeting December 2003; completion by December 2004.

7.      Task: Increasing our ability to record and share technical information through information systems technology.  Responsible parties:  Compton, Siderelis.  Timeline:  Initial meeting by January 2004; identification of actions and initiatives by March 2004, including a timeline for implementation.

8.      Task:  Develop an FY’06 joint budget initiative with broad input from the bureaus.  Responsible parties:  Haseltine, Ashe.  Timeline:  Initial meeting by February 2004; budget proposal available for Directorate-ELT review by April 1, 2004.         

9.      Task:  FWS suggests topics for USGS Congressional Briefing Series.  Responsible parties: Melius, Wainman.  Timeline:  February 2004.

10.  Task:  USGS and FWS will work together to develop training in hydrology that will target managers and teach emerging principles of science.  Responsible parties:  Hirsch, Lemon.  Timeline:  Initial Meeting by March 2004; proposal for Directorate-ELT review by May 2004.

11.  Follow-up Directorate-ELT meeting 2004 (September, November, or December) to review implementation progress and future directions. Responsible parties:  Groat; Williams.

 

 Other Issues for follow-up:

 

·        Technical Support/ Technical Assistance – clarify expectations, increase FWS awareness of tools and capabilities across all disciplines, increase support for these activities in both bureaus without eroding long-term science/ resource management efforts, identify successful models, acknowledge them through communication in both bureaus and reward good examples.

·        Build a “common pool” of candidates to encourage movement of professionals between the two organizations.  Explore opportunities to coordinate/integrate leadership development training between the bureaus.

·        Increase support for workshops that bring resource managers and researchers together around topics, needs, landscapes.

·        Best partnerships are at the local, single issue level; explore ways to foster at other bureau levels.

·        Explore closer cooperation on water issues by such mechanisms as training courses, SSP-type fund for hydrology issues, and enhanced participation of USGS hydrologists in FWS program discussions.

·        Same opportunities exist with geology.

·        Improve coordination at CRUs by ensuring a national schedule of Coordinating Committee meetings is available, clarifying dollar requirements for participation and broader sharing of information from meetings.

·        Explore different models of co-location for individuals and offices.

·        Nesting of communications is essential.  It can’t be just at the national level.  It must build from the local to the regional to the national level.

·        Ecosystem level teams are excellent venues for communication.

·        Mapping is a common need. Partnerships will help both bureaus.

·        Collaboration at the FWS deputies meeting was effective, was a model for this meeting, and should continue.

·        Rapid response teams are an effective way to build longer term partnerships.

·        Rewards system for RGE needs further exploration concerning technical assistance and technical support.

·        Suggested jointly funded/ mixed function units to facilitate science discussions.

·        Develop real time hand held data entry and retrieval technologies for the field and national data base use across the bureaus.

·        Develop joint evaluation teams for both science prediction and management actions.

·        Build on the SSP program and include all disciplines in USGS.

 

Closing Remarks

 

Chip Groat:  – We have a lot in common, Steve and I. The stars are aligned.  We have strong links to the States.  Some of it comes down to how we get along.  Steve and I have common backgrounds, communicate well, share interests, we discuss issues.  Between USGS and FWS there are great opportunities to grow together in capabilities.  We share so many commonalities. I’m really glad about how this went. We have a base to more forward.  Dan and Sue have been interactive in developing this meeting. Let’s follow that model and develop goals and strategies for our partnership together.  I look forward to the follow-up discussions on the many ideas generated over the last day and a half, and to jointly highlighting our accomplishments over the next few months.

 

Steve – Thanks to all the USGS and FWS leadership for a great meeting and a good kickoff; we accomplished 2 of my expectations - building relationships, and to ID opportunities and mechanisms to broaden and institutionalize partnership between our bureaus.  Couldn’t accomplish it at this meeting, but prioritizing research needs is something we need to work on together – we need to set a process so we can do that in the future.  The great ideas, energy and cooperation that we have seen here will only take root if everyone leaves here with a personal commitment to make it happen.  I challenge everyone to go back to their jobs with that same commitment.  It will payoff for both agencies, in terms of support from the Department and Congress.