Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) & Session Moderator

Western Alaska LCC

Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC

Appalachian LCC

LCC Scope: from Identify Science Needs,

to Address Immediate Needs, to Invest in Meeting our Future Needs.

Three Cases Studies on the Process & Evolution

1. Decision-Making - Structure / Governance

2. History - Partnership (Relationships) / Trust

3. Capacity - both in terms of Science and Management

LCCs - Self-Directed, Science-Management Partnerships

…each is unique

4. Threats – many are similar, vary in terms of relative proportion / degree of impact, some shared regionally,

…some more unique

5. Landownership – % Public v. Private Ownership / Cultural or Historic Lands / Resources

6. Energy / Infrastructure / Commercial & Extractive Industries

Decision-Making / Oversight

Staff to Coord / Implement LCC operations

(Technical) Groups established to address specific topics or issues

Partners with some expected input to LCC processes or products

Coordinator

Broader societal representation (LCC report out to this broad representation and solicit feedback).

Partnership at large -level

Staff /Team level

Committee level

Exec. level

Stakeholder level

TechGroup level

Exec. subComm

Sub-committee of the main Committee with expedited decision making authority

N/A: This level refers to existing Governmental bodies - limited to the Pacific Islands and Arctic LCCs

System or Issue -based Adv Group

Taxonomic Advisory

Group

Managers Researchers

Science Coordinator

Communications;GIS / Data Mgmt;Socio / Cultural;

Ecologist / Biologist;

Decision-Makers – Staff - Partners - Stakeholders

LCC Profile snapshot WAK PPP AppNumber of US StatesNumber of US States 1 6 15

International (# Provinces)

-- 3 --

Steering Comm: TotalFederal

StateTribalNGO

Regional PartnershipsOther (Univ, Industry, CAN govmt)

12F = 12 S = 1T = 3

30F = 11S = 6

N = 5P = 4

O = 4 (CAN)

33F = 15S = 11T = 1N = 3P = 3

Primary & Secondary EcoregionsTaiga & Tundra

PP & Sage Steppe

Forest & Agriculture

Landownership75% Public21% Tribal2% Private

90+% Private 12% Federal;

Large % Forest Public (S/F)

Critical / Imperiled System(s)Tundra, Sea Ice, Coastal,

AlpinePrairie

Aquatic; Cave/Karst

10 Landscape ChallengeClimate Change

AgricultureEnergy

Development

Science Needs --- Immediate Needs --- Future Needs

Jean Brennan PhD Coordinator

jean_brennan@fws.gov

Bridgett CostanzoScience Coordinator

bridgett_costanzo@fws.gov

Partnership at large -level

Staff /Team level

Committee level

Stakeholder level

TechGroup level

Stakeholders

Partners

Management Research

Executive Executive

Technical Technical

Technical Technical

Technical Technical

WAKWAK

PPPPPPApp

App

Identify Science Needs – Workshop Participants

…Who do you engage and Why?

….( what’s the historic relationships / partnerships? )

WAK PPP App

Planning / Planning / Facilitation Facilitation

Contractor w/ Staff

Contractor w/ Staff

Vol. Trained Facilitators & WPTeam (partner org)

Meeting Meeting Facilitation / Facilitation / Note takersNote takers

Contractor & Vol. ‘Reporting Group Leads’

* Webinars for RGLsContractor

Vol. Trained Facilitators & Technical Note takers

*Webinars for F+NT

Participant Background Materials /

Input

*at Resource Notebook (CC projects / maps)

*Webinars*Bckgrd Reading Materials

* Extensive [Science Portfolio – Prep]

* Webcasts(Resources)

Site Visits / Field Trip

No Yes No

Outputs / Reports

* 100pg Report + 100pg Append

*Sythesis Rept (40 wk)

* Synthesis Rept (1 wk)* Full Portfolio (staff)

Process Goal150 - 1/3 Decision –

Makers + 1/3 Research + 1/3 Field Specialist

21 Technical Comm.

151 - Build Technical Community / Buy-in

Identify Science Needs – Workshop Participants

Workshop Planning Team Repr. = 5 State / 6 Federal / 6 Other (NGOs, University, Partnerships)

62% forest62% forest

Fed. Listed ( 170) Candidate ( 35 )

Proposed ( 3 )

15 States ( NY-AL; IL-VA)

Federally listed species

mussel-

clam

31%

flowering

plants 29%

fish

16%

14 NFs 9 NP Areas

6 NWRs

Major Threats

1.Energy: NG / Hydro- “fracking”

2.Energy: Mt Top Mining

3.Water Stress / Extreme Events

4.Urban Expansion

1.1.

2.2.

3.

4.4.

crops 8

pasture 18

26% Ag Lands

Pho

to S

ourc

e: B

. Sm

ith

Expertise /Profession North SouthAq-ManagerAq-Manager 11 15

Aq-ResearcherAq-Researcher 11 7Terr-ManagerTerr-Manager 13 10

Terr-ResearcherTerr-Researcher 8 11CC-ManagerCC-Manager 3 3

CC-ResearcherCC-Researcher 4 4Human Dim-ManagerHuman Dim-Manager 7 5

Human Dim-ResearcherHuman Dim-Researcher 10 3IT-InfoMgmt-ManagerIT-InfoMgmt-Manager 3 2

IT-InfoMgmt-ResearcherIT-InfoMgmt-Researcher 4 5TOTALS 74 65

Profession 139 Managers 72 Researchers 67

Sector % Federal 43% State (+Coop +CESU) 28% Other (=NGO, Univ, Copr.) 28%

Goals of the Workshop: 1. Survey Science Capacity => Directory of Expertise

(COP)

187

Aquatics:Aquatics: Ecological flows, Ecological flows, species-habitat relationships species-habitat relationships at multiple scales & effects at multiple scales & effects of alterations of alterations

Human Dom. / Economic Human Dom. / Economic Lands: Lands: Resource extraction Resource extraction & demands for energy & demands for energy

Terrestrial:Terrestrial: Species / habitat Species / habitat distribution trends distribution trends (incl. all (incl. all terrestrial habitats – forest, terrestrial habitats – forest, grasslands, wetlands) grasslands, wetlands)

Climate Change & Drivers: Climate Change & Drivers: Vulnerability assessments Vulnerability assessments (climate + non-climate (climate + non-climate stressors)stressors)

Terr x2

HumanDim.

Climate Change

DAY 1- Thematic (Expertise) Groups

Northern

Southern

Northern

Southern

• -------• -------• -------

DAY 2- Interdisciplinary(x6)

Northern

Southern

Northern

Southern

• -------• -------• -------

• -------• -------• -------

}x6

DAY 3 – Synthesis / Writing

Team

Goals of the Workshop:

2. Full Portfolio3. Top-Ranked (Immediate FY$)

=> a transparent and defensible way of selecting science needs / support

Rick Nelson PhD Coordinator

Richard_d_nelson@fws.gov

Mike OlsonScience Coordinator

Michael_olson@fws.gov

Science Needs --- Immediate Needs --- Future Needs

Accomplishments - first 18 months Funded 27 projects (over 5 rounds of

funding) Formed Steering & Technical Committees

(more than 2 dozen active members) Draft Charter - soon to be finalized Conducted Science Needs Workshop Sci Webinars, Website, Initial Op’s Plan Working to develop a seamless national

network

Our Initial List of Urgent Needs / Issues•Agriculture•Energy•Climate Change•Regional Understanding of Habitat Condition (spatial analysis)•Land and Water Management Planning•Water

Plains and Prairie Potholes

We are ….“a work in progress”

Our Fundamental Objective: Increase conservation delivery by reducing scientific uncertainty associated with landscape level stressors which are important to our partnership

From early beginnings => Immediate needs (2nd yr) => preview of “coming attractions”

PPPLCC WALCC AppLCC

DA/Science Needs Workshop

Two Workshops Science Needs Workshop

Early RFP’s Broad Early RFP Broad RFA’s (contracts)

Later RFP’s slightly more specific

Early RFP’s addressed fundamental information

6 themes (priorities)

Early RFP’s address immediate needs and

long-term issues

TEK, Tools/Training for resource managers, data gaps

Ecological flows, Aq. & Terr. Habitat Classification, CC Vul., T&E Rare species,

Energy ‘Footprint’Technical Team

review/rank proposalsSteering Committee review/rank

SC Sub-committee, Annon. reviewers

Scientific rigor, link to needs, unique

Add to conservation / adaptation decision making

Supports adaptive management approach

Scalability /transport - short term

Add to building of partnership Enhances risk management

Management tie, leverages resources

Leverages resourcesFoundational & Tests

promising proof of concept

“Connections” workshop upcoming

SC focused pilot program impacts of coastal storms on

coastal resources

Ongoing examination of portfolio into all planning

activities

Refining/Improving Planning – year 2

Decision analysis workshop

Main focus of workshop

Where we left things

Continue to quantifying relationships between decisions, needs and outcomes

Example scenarios

Terrific idea “borrowed” from UMGLLCC…

Moving from individual projects to an even more comprehensive view of the landscape – Will discuss targets, objectives, gaps.

Oriented on 4 themes (potholes, rivers, sage-steppe, human dimensions)

Bringing PI’s, Technical and Executive committee members together for the first time.

PPP-LCC “Connections” Workshop

Lessons Learned

1. LCC’s must embrace principles of adaptive management – We’re a process of constant improvement

2. Need for well understood review criteria3. Identify those willing to do some of the “heavy lifting” -

sub-group approach was helpful4. Time management vs. embracing a sense of urgency5. Science needs must drive the RFP process not the other

way around. PPP-LCC 6. Integration of fun and opportunity to be creative is

important to the success of the group.7. Collaboration across LCC network important to the

landscape approach…

1. LCC’s must embrace principles of adaptive management – We’re a process of constant improvement

2. Need for well understood review criteria3. Identify those willing to do some of the “heavy lifting” -

sub-group approach was helpful4. Time management vs. embracing a sense of urgency5. Science needs must drive the RFP process not the other

way around. PPP-LCC 6. Integration of fun and opportunity to be creative is

important to the success of the group.7. Collaboration across LCC network important to the

landscape approach…