strategic planning workshop documentation - swcasc

www.anthrosconsulting.com

Mapping the Future of the USGS Southwest Climate Science Center

April 14 & 15, 2015

Workshop Documentation

Dave Mason, Jim Herman, Kathy Hornbach, Dave Herman

AboutthisDocument

This is the complete documentation of the scenario development workshop held at USGS Tucson on

April 14 and 15, 2015 with 31 participants. It contains the various presentations and discussions that

occurred. Corrections or additions can be sent to Jim Herman ([email protected]).

www.AnthrosConsulting.com

TableofContentsExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3

The Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 11

The Facilitators ........................................................................................................................................ 12

The Acronyms and Initialisms ................................................................................................................. 12

Task 1: Current Expectations .................................................................................................................. 13

Highly Likely and Highly Unlikely Events ............................................................................................. 14

Polarized or Highly Uncertain Events .................................................................................................. 17

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 17

Task 2: New Events ................................................................................................................................. 18

Tasks 3‐5: Endstate Analysis, Event Selection, and Team Presentations ............................................... 21

Team A 2020: .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Team B 2020: .......................................................................................................................................... 28

Team C 2020:.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Team D 2020: ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Team E 2020: ........................................................................................................................................... 45

Task 6: Data Feedback............................................................................................................................. 52

Results of Endstate Ranking Exercises ................................................................................................ 52

The Common Events ........................................................................................................................... 55

Task 7: Composite Scenario Development ............................................................................................. 61

Team 1 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 61

Team 2 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 63

Team 3 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 65

Team 4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 67

Team 5 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 68

Plenary Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 73

Persons Interviewed to Prepare for this Workshop ........................................................................... 73

Full text of events ................................................................................................................................ 75

Background on Regional Climate Change Organizations .................................................................... 88

Attached Appendices with Full Results of Voting from Workshop ................................................... 103


ExecutiveSummaryFor two days a diverse group of representatives from the USGS, other Department of the Interior and

federal agencies, NGOs, native tribes, and universities discussed and debated the future of the USGS

Southwest Climate Science Center (SW CSC). It was a workshop to explore strategic issues and choices,

not a decision making meeting. Although the topic was explicitly about the SW CSC, the discussions

ranged wider and addressed the issues faced by all the participants in developing science‐informed

resource decisions in the Southwest region.

This workshop was structured around the Future Mapping scenario development process of Anthros

Consulting. Anthros conducted this effort on a pro bono basis as a means of introducing the process to

the Federal Government and to gain valuable experience in this region’s specific climate change issues.

In this process, a scenario is defined in two parts: an endstate that describes future conditions at the

planning horizon (in this case 2020) and a series of discrete events or actions taken by organizations

involved between today and 2020.

The five endstates used in this meeting became known by these simple titles:

Endstate 2020 A: Big Science

Endstate 2020 B: The Convener

Endstate 2020 C: Knowledge Co‐Production

Endstate 2020 D: Info Services

Endstate 2020 E: Crisis‐Driven

The endstates formed the basis of a debate about goals and aspirations of the SW CSC and the ways it

relates to other organizations in this arena. Each endstate was assigned to a team of six or seven people

who developed it into a narrative supported by key events of how the SW CSC evolves and described the

benefits of taking this approach. After presentation and debate of all the scenarios, all participants

ranked them on measures of desirability from the point of view of DoI leadership and attainability from

the point of view of the SW CSC Director.

Participants had read and ranked the endstates on the same measures prior to arriving at the workshop.

The diagram below shows the results of both ranking exercises. As you can see, the B Convener scenario

increased significantly in desirability and somewhat in attainability. Overall, the A Big Science, B

Convener and C Knowledge Co‐Production scenarios were the core of the vision for this SW CSC but

some elements of D Info Services and E Crisis‐Driven remained in the final synthesis.


Ranking of Scenarios Before and After Workshop Analysis and Debate

For the last half day or the workshop, participants were put into new teams comprised of members of

each of the original scenario teams. This mixed set of perspectives allowed the teams to construct

composite visions for how the SW CSC evolves that used multiple endstates and event paths. It was

never the goal of the workshop to just pick one of these. Instead the group identified the best and most

compatible parts of all of them to create a more complete vision. The following is one of many

examples of how the group expressed the evolution of the CSC over time.


The final plenary discussion of the workshop showed a strong convergence on a vision for the SW CSC.

Today, it is relatively strong on Big Science (A) (although there is much more to do) and the main

challenge is to move more into the Convener (B) role, helping to foster more collaborative relationships

among all the players in the southwest. Along the way, there will be experiments with Knowledge Co‐

Production (C) at various scales and levels of completeness. The crisis response (E) scenario was a part

of most synthesized visions but in the background, obviously reactionary, but important and inevitable.

The low ranking of E showed that no one wants it, for a couple of reasons. First, it is built upon a series

of natural disasters so it appears like ambulance chasing, a bit unseemly. But the idea of a stream of

such crises was deemed highly likely. Indeed, it was said these crises will not be surprises to the

scientists. Second, responding to crises is very disruptive to the limited resources dedicated to science.

In the end the SW CSC can’t let itself get run over by a crisis, but it can’t ignore them either.

In the Plenary discussion, the meaning of the Convener role became more nuanced. It’s not so much

leading as fostering the development of a collaborative culture in the research and stakeholder

communities that creates a more unified vision and a more aligned set of efforts. In our experience,

regional collaboration is the top priority in many areas, but certainly in conservation and environmental

protection. Funders prefer to work with an aligned set of interests that know what they are doing and

don't get in each other’s way.

The sense of the room was that this exercise reenergized many and renewed the commitment to build a

truly collaborative ecosystem for climate adaptations in the region. Although the challenges and


roadblocks are often daunting, we don’t really have any choice – the urgency of the climate adaptation

problem means we have to strive harder to do better and go further.

The event portion of this effort provides insight into more specific elements of an action plan to achieve

the vision above. Analysis of patterns in how events were selected to support each endstate provides

insight into the most critical issues and obstacles. Three events below stood out because they were the

only ones chosen by all five teams.

Events selected by all five teams

A B C D E HU HL # Year Title

+ + + + + 7 2017 Support for Government Action on Climate Change Reaches 75% of General Population in Southwest

+ + + + + Y 42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and Stakeholder Engagement

+ + + + + 55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource Managers

These three events capture three main themes: broader public support for action on climate change,

stronger incentives in academia for doing applied research, and the need to hit a home run on the

drought project just starting. Note that the university incentives event was also voted highly unlikely.

This combination (required but unlikely) means that has the potential to be a major obstacle no matter

what mix of scenarios is selected. Other events about relaxing some DoI bureaucratic limitations on

holding meetings and disbursing funding were also viewed as very helpful but very unlikely. Again,

these are obstacles to the group’s preferred vision for the SW CSC and the entire system of

organizations.

Further analysis of the event selections is found in the section on “Common Events”. A few events

indicate areas for future investment or development and a few for what to deemphasize. A number of

events look at specific areas for the SW CSC to get involved, including scenarios (event 16), helping

managers cope with uncertainty (event 87), assisting development of new ecosystems after a

disturbance (event 89), extreme planning outcomes (event 91), and working collaboratively on a key

water issue (event 121). Two events spoke to areas to deemphasize going forward: model downscaling

(event 86) and model harmonization (event 88).

In the same task that created composite scenario for the SW CSC, teams were asked to identify three

critical events to move toward that set of goals. The key points identified were:

CSC partners with NGOs and climate‐focused foundations

Resource managers regularly attend CSC‐sponsored sessions on aspects of climate science

CSC establishes a rotation program for resource managers and others to work closely with the

CSC for periods of time

CSC develops metrics and evaluation processes to determine success of its projects

CSC convenes its partners to develop common agreement on roles and goals


CSC holds regular meetings for stakeholders and scientists to set priorities

CSC engages in prototype knowledge co‐production projects

CSC adds some staff that focus on the convener role

CSC leads a collaborative development of a vision and strategic plan for this group of

organizations

These organizations improve the coordination of their business practices

CSC prepares for and positions itself for opportunistic funding

CSC better develops the ability to strategically respond to crisis

This group really engaged with the process and worked hard. The conclusions seem robust and

actionable. However, it is important to note that this was the outcome of a certain combination of

people. If the workshop is rerun with a different group of stakeholders and CSC people it could end up

with different areas of emphasis and priorities. In fact, there are tentative plans to run this with another

group in June, which will allow comparison

of data across both sessions to obtain an

even more robust result.

In discussions after the workshop, the SW

CSC team made some initial observations

about the implications of the workshop on

their strategy and plans. They put together a

variant of a well‐known science framework,

placing the CSC in the region that studies

larger yet practical science questions.

Some specific actions that the SW CSC plans

to follow‐up on are:

Thinking through the role of convener in

more depth, as the CSC takes on work in

the upper‐right quadrant of broad but

practical science. Convening may be a

way to scope these broader science

questions while still ensuring they are

eminently practical. Convening also aids in subsequently sharing the results

Getting clearer on how/where knowledge co‐production can be used (or not) when answering the

broader scientific questions in the upper‐right quadrant.

Thinking through the range of stakeholder engagement approaches – it is not “one size fits all”.

Knowledge co‐production may not be the appropriate or feasible strategy in some cases. Is it

possible to reduce the overhead burden of co‐production, especially at start‐up? Will the

relationship building and shared understanding built by “convening” make things easier?


Understanding the motivations that would cause very busy resource managers to want to

participate in co‐production

Taking a step back and looking at the larger goal of alignment across the southwestern climate

adaptation community. What would that actually entail? The SW CSC could be a catalyst, but it

would have to be a broader community effort. What would be required to actually bring it about?

These are just the initial thoughts on the workshop results – much remains to be done. We wish to

thank all who participated and made this a successful workshop.


TheProcessandContent

This scenario development process is based on the following principles:

Two‐part definition of scenario. In Future Mapping, a scenario is divided into the endstate or

outcome statement at the planning horizon (in this case 2020) and a series of events that must

occur or must not occur that lead us from the present to that outcome. For this project, we

wrote 5 endstates and 113 events based on interviews and other research. The endstates

describe different visions for the SW CSC in 2020. The events each describe a single action or

condition at some point in time between now and 2020.

The highly prepared meeting. We interviewed all participants ahead of time in order to

understand the issues and to solicit ideas about important actions, investments, changes in

focus, etc. that would be necessary for “good futures” to transpire. Using this approach means

that the participants were presented with a lot of ideas to work with and spent relatively little

time getting up‐to‐speed. All participants received the endstates one week prior to the

workshop and were asked to read them carefully and complete an exercise in which they rank

ordered them from most to least desirable and most to least attainable.

Multiple, diverse but not necessarily divergent scenarios. The scenarios are not all about the

same issues and they are not all mutually exclusive. By dividing up the issues into different

scenarios, each team is not working on the same thing and more work gets done. Overall, the

scenarios frame important choices that the SW CSC could face.

Each Scenario is a Vector from Today to the Future

The workshop is divided into the following major task blocks:

Current Expectations. Participants sit in their assigned teams, read through the events one by

one, and vote on each event’s likelihood. Each person votes their personal opinion but because

they are in a team they can see where their expectations align with their colleagues or not. This

exercise was only done for events external to the SW CSC.


New Event Creation. Teams were then asked to brainstorm additional events that could have a

major influence on the SW CSC. The new events were collected and made available to all teams

for event path creation later in the workshop.

Endstate Analysis. Each team was assigned one of the endstates. They are asked in the

workshop to defend it as a lawyer would defend a client, in role play style, even if they have

objections to it. To prepare for this task, they must decide on the way they wish to interpret and

defend it and answer these questions about it:

o What are the 5 – 7 major changes from today that characterize your endstate?

o What activities has the SW CSC curtailed/added in this endstate?

o Who are the main players in this endstate? (e.g. LCCs, HQs, stakeholders, etc.) What

are their respective roles?

o What are the major driving forces causing these changes?

o What are the biggest obstacles to overcome? What could derail it?

o What needs to be added to the SW CSC for it to achieve this (resources, competencies,

partnerships, etc.)?

o Who benefits most if this is how things end up?

o What are the best metrics to use to measure progress toward achieving your endstate?

They were also asked to come up with a tag line and/or icon to represent their endstate.

Event Selection. Each team then went through all the events (internal, new and external) and

selected those that helped the development of their endstate or hurt its development. They

then clustered the events into major themes that related to their analysis of the endstate.

Team Presentations. On the morning of the second day each team presented its endstate

analysis and narrative of events as if the current date was April 15, 2020 looking back over the

past five years. A question and answer session followed, where each team responded to

questions from the rest of the participants, still in role‐play. Finally, each team member was

given the opportunity to briefly describe their personal opinion of the endstate. After all the

team presentations were given, the participants re‐ranked the endstates in terms of Desirability

and Attainability.

Data Feedback. The results of the two ranking exercises (pre‐workshop and after the

presentations) were presented and compared. The ways in which the events selected by each

team intersected was also examined.

Composite Scenario Development. As a final exercise, participants were assigned to new

teams, asked to consider all the endstates and event paths, and draw a synthesis or composite

diagram that better expresses how the SW CSC should develop and make strategic choices over

the next five years. After the teams explained their syntheses, the meeting ended with a

plenary discussion.


TheParticipantsThe 31 participants were a diverse group that represented a broad cross‐section of organizations and

roles across the SW CSC. Here they are in alphabetical order by name. We wish to thank them for

taking the time to participate.

Doug Beard Acting Associate Director for Climate Change and Land Use, and Director, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

[email protected]

Gus Bisbal Director, Northwest Climate Science Center [email protected]

Elias Emile Deputy Director, USDA Southwest Climate Hub [email protected]

Carolyn Enquist Deputy Director, Southwest Climate Science Center [email protected]

Dan Ferguson Program Director, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (RISA)

[email protected]

Rich Ferrero USGS Pacific Regional Director, Acting and Chair, Pacific Islands CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committee

[email protected]

Erica Fleishman Researcher, Earth Resource Institute (UC Davis) and SW CSC Principal Investigator

[email protected]

Rebecca Fris Science Coordinator, California LCC [email protected]

Gregg Garfin Deputy Director of Science Translation & Asst Professor, School of Natural Resources & the Environment

[email protected]

Anita Govert Grants and Contracts Coordinator, SW CSC [email protected]

Steve Gray Director, Alaska Climate Science Center [email protected]

Steve Jackson Director, Southwest Climate Science Center [email protected]

Rick Kearney Coordinator, Great Basin LCC & SW CSC SAC Member [email protected]

Jim Leenhouts Director, Arizona Water Science Center [email protected]

Missy Matty Administrative Officer, SW CSC & NCCWSC [email protected]

Jerry McMahon Director, Southeast Climate Science Center [email protected]

Alison Meadow Staff Scientist, Center for Climate Adaptation Science & Solutions

[email protected]

Louise Misztal Conservation Director, Sky Island Alliance and Desert LCC Committee steering committee

[email protected]

Jonathan Overpeck Co‐Director, Institute of the Environment & SW CSC Lead Principal Investigator

[email protected]

John Rice Science Coordinator, Southern Rockies LCC [email protected]

Dana Roth Director of Science Applications for Region 2 FWS LCCs Dana_Roth@g‐fws.doi.gov

Jennifer Ruyle Forest Planner, Coronado National Forest [email protected]

Lara Schmit Southwest CSC Communications and Outreach Manager [email protected]

Rebecca Shaw Assoc VP & Senior Lead Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund; SW CSC Proposal Reviewer

[email protected]

Scott Stonum Chief of Resource Management, Saguaro National Park [email protected]

Adam Terando Research Ecologist, SE Climate Science Center [email protected]

Karen Thorne Research Ecologist, Western Ecological Research Center, USGS, and SW CSC funded researcher

[email protected]

Brad Udall Senior Water & Climate Research Scientist & SW CSC Principal Investigator

[email protected]

Sam Veloz Climate Adaptation Group Director, PointBlue [email protected]

Selso Villegas Director of Water Resources, Tohono O’odham Nation selso.villegas@tonation‐nsn.gov


Tamara Wall Climatology Researcher & SW CSC funded researcher [email protected]

TheFacilitatorsThis project is a pro bono effort by Dave Mason, Jim Herman, Kathy Hornbach and Dave Herman. Dave

Mason, Jim and Kathy ran a boutique strategic planning consulting firm through the 1990’s. Their clients

were large, global organizations as well as some government agencies. This scenario development

methodology was the core of their practice. The business was sold in late 1999 and after a few years at

the new firm they all retired. They are now returning to the consulting world by starting the firm

Anthros Consulting with Dave Herman. Dave Herman’s background is as a PhD materials scientist and

most recently a consultant at McKinsey & Company.

TheAcronymsandInitialismsThe following terms are used throughout this document. Further information about them can be found

in the background information appendix.

SW CSC Southwest Climate Science Center

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative

NCCWSC National Climate Change and Wildlife Sciences Center

RISA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments

NPS National Park Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

FS Forest Service

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BoR Bureau of Reclamation

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

USGS United States Geological Survey

DoI Department of the Interior

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center


Task1:CurrentExpectationsThe first major task of the workshop asked the participants to go through the 113 events with their

teammates and vote on whether they personally thought each event was:

Highly likely to occur within the specified timeframe (greater than 75% chance in their personal

opinion), or

Highly unlikely to occur (less than 25% chance), or

Uncertain.

The purpose of the exercise is twofold. First, it is

important for the participants to become familiar

with the events so they can use them effectively in

the afternoon exercise. A major benefit of this task

is that participants learn from each other about the

issues brought up in events. Second, voting on

likelihood is a powerful way to help the group see

what their current expectations are, particularly

when the summarized results are discussed later in

the day.

At each team table, the number of votes in each category was recorded and then entered into our

analytical software. To calculate the results, the percent of unlikely votes was subtracted from the

percent of likely votes, creating a “certainty percentage” metric. The “net certainty” metric was then

used to filter out events that described the group’s cumulative worldview or “current expectations”. In

this workshop, the net certainty % had to exceed +50% or ‐50% to ensure that the event likelihoods

represented a certainty beyond a simple majority. For example, if the totaled voting showed 14%

thought it was highly unlikely, 10% thought it was uncertain, and 76% thought it was likely, the certainty

percentage was 76%‐14% = 62%. Since 62% is greater than the 50% cut‐off, the event would be

considered highly likely. The events summarized below as ‘current expectations’ can be seen as widely

held positions in this group of participants. The selected events were clustered around a narrative

created by the facilitators in order to foster discussion, and are shown in the photos and tables that

follow. There were 14 highly likely events (black standard text in the tables that follow) and 9 highly

unlikely (red italics text in the tables that follow).

Note that the narrative described below was an attempt to fit a top‐down story on a bottoms‐up

process, and doesn’t necessarily reflect the attendees’ beliefs.


Picture 1: Current expectations. The events that have blue vertical bars on the right side were nearly unanimous. The events that have red slashes were highly unlikely. Events with no slashes were voted as highly likely.

HighlyLikelyandHighlyUnlikelyEventsCurrent Expectations, Cluster 1

On the top left of Picture 1, the narrative begins

with month after month of climate disasters in

the Southwest. Working fast to adapt to a

‘disaster of the month’ reveals that adaptation

decisions often have negative mitigation

implications, causing even more problems.

The impacts are nation‐wide and severe

enough that CSC funding increases across the

whole network.

Impacts shift in unexpected ways, so extreme

flood in the Southwest become as worrisome

as droughts. It’s either too wet or too dry.

Discussion suggested flooding might be a

particularly difficult problem for tribal areas.

There’s no 5 year forecast to aid in planning.

Politics & economic interest keep the water

flowing for irrigation in desert California in the

short‐term.

Here is the table with the voting data for the

above photo:

# Year Title HL HU Cer%

3 2018 It's Just One Damned Thing After Another Out There In The Real World

Y 94

36 2016 Adaptation Decisions Often have Mitigation Implications Y 94

43 2020 SW Water Research Additionally Focuses on Flood Events Y 90

52 2016 CSC Funding Increases Opportunistically Y 84

62 2019 DOI Funding is Skewed Toward Regions with Most Federal Lands

Y ‐81

41 2018 5yr Seasonal Climate Forecasting Becoming Reliable Y ‐97

1 2017 CA Drought Leads to Widespread Abandonment of Almond Orchards and Other Ag Holdings

Y ‐55


Current Expectations, Cluster 2

Cluster 2: A Federal mandate requiring resource managers to include climate adaptation in their plans is

in place, but only as an Executive Order which

is subject to repeal when the administration

changes.

There’s a disconnect between researchers

and managers. Research papers are not being

read by land managers. In fact, they’re not

being read much by other researchers ‐ half

of all US climate research papers are not even

being cited by other scientists. Post‐project

assessments indicate resource managers are

not using tools that researchers develop.

Lawyers, however, do read the literature and

the legal implications of research becomes an

issue.

Project funding from CSCs does include

resources for meeting with stakeholders,

which helps. But there isn’t funding for LCCs

to help appropriately distribute findings, nor

are universities opening up incentives for

applied research, stakeholder interactions

and the like.


59 2017 New Federal Mandate Requires Gov't Resource Managers to Put CC Adaptation in their Plans

Y 55

12 2015 Survey Indicates Federal Land Managers Are Not Following Literature on CC and Adaptation

Y 64

37 2016 Half of All Climate Science Papers from US Authors are Uncited Y 58

11 2018 Researchers Don’t Understand Legal Implications of their Projections

Y 65

27 2016 CSCs Fund LCCs to Distribute Findings Y ‐58

42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and Stakeholder Engagement

Y ‐61

6 2016 CSC Project Funding Now Includes Time and Resources for Periodic Meetings with Stakeholders

Y 58

18 2018 Post‐Project Assessment of 3 SW CSC Projects Indicate Resource Managers Not Using the Tools

Y 78

Picture 2: Current expectations. The events that have red slashes were highly unlikely. Events with no slashes were voted as highly likely.


Current Expectations, Cluster 3

While the disasters support bump‐ups in funding, the annual

budget cycle variations undermine planning for adaptation

and resilience. Rules for project funding remain complex and

difficult. Seeking alternative funds, the CSCs develop working

relationships with NGOs and foundations focused on climate

issues, but even these organizations are finding it difficult to

reconfigure themselves to be more responsive in the era of

climate change.

The CSC network is still forming, so it is early to find ‘best

practices’ in one region that transfer easily to other regions.

This may explain why it is highly unlikely that the CSCs could

agree on common frameworks.

CSC / LCC relations remain uneven. Some stakeholders

prefer working with LCC’s, others prefer CSC’s, so it is

complicated and no clean lines can be drawn. Discussion

suggest that CSCs and LCCs need each other, for sure, but

the exact situation varies a lot.


47 2017 USGS Simplifies Project Funding Rules for CSCs Y ‐81

57 2017 Annual Budget Cycles Undermine Planning for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

Y 87

56 2018 CSCs Develop Closer Working Relationship with Strategic NGOs and Climate‐Focused Foundations

Y 68

9 2017 Conservation Organizations Find It Difficult to Reconfigure Themselves

Y 55

45 2016 One CSC Builds Best Practices Database, Other CSCs Ignore It Y 68

51 2016 CSCs Kick‐Off Program for Common Framework for CC Indicators, Protocols, and Monitoring

Y ‐65

26 2016 CSC Supported Survey Indicates that Most Stakeholders Prefer to Deal Only with the LCCs

Y ‐68

28 2016 LCCs Represent Interests of States on CSC SACs Y ‐52

Picture 3: Current expectations. The events that have blue vertical bars on the right side were nearly unanimous. The events that have red slashes were highly unlikely. Events with no slashes were voted as highly likely.


PolarizedorHighlyUncertainEventsThis set of events are events where the certainty percentage is +/‐10 or less. These events are

interesting because it shows where the group is either completely uncertain, or polarized in that there

are equally strong views of an event being highly likely or highly unlikely.

Centered right on zero is whether or not the CSC HQ promotes the value of the LCCs (event #21). The

later workshop discussion suggested supporting the LCCs was important.

The surprise on this list is uncertainty about the success of the CSC drought project (event #55). It was

very clear in the later discussions that is was critical for the drought projects to succeed.

Several conflicted events are about the development and use of different tools: sub‐region climate

models (event #40), scenarios (event #16), ecosystem models (event #38), science translators (event

#53) – this is not surprising. And, of course, action by Congress with respect to LCCs is uncertain.

HU% UN% HL% Cer% # Year Title

42 26 32 ‐10 38 2017 Ecosystem Model Fails, Causing Species Loss

26 58 16 ‐10 55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource Managers

39 29 32 ‐7 53 2017 CSCs Develop Cadre of Science Translators that Facilitate Discussion between Scientists and Practitioners

39 26 35 ‐4 13 2016 Resource Managers Present Existing Plans to CSC Staff

23 58 19 ‐4 61 2017 Congress Eliminates the LCCs

29 42 29 0 21 2016 CSC HQ Promotes the Value of LCCs

29 39 32 3 16 2017 Scenarios Begin to be Used to Screen Specific Resource Manager Decisions

35 26 39 4 40 2017 Detailed Sub‐Region‐Specific Climate Models have Higher Accuracy

SummaryThe events selected based on current expectations appeared to the group, and to us, as well grounded

in today’s reality. It made the group a bit uncomfortable that disasters across the nation are good news

for CSC funding, but that also seems realistic. These disasters may surprise the public, which will stir up

political will to take various actions. It might also call for stark shifts in research focus, depending on the

disaster. The SW CSC should be prepared and have a plan in place if these realities present themselves.

Another important issue is how research links to stakeholders. Current expectations of the group

indicate a likelihood of research papers not cited, land managers not using tools that are developed, and

potential lawsuits based on projections in reports. How does the SW CSC get around these barriers?

Finally, difficult rules linked to funding might be obstacles for certain SW CSC objectives. Offsetting these

obstacles by developing better relationships with NGOs and foundations focused on climate issues could

be important. In addition, there will be room for improvement for how the national CSC networks share

best practices, as well as how the SW CSC and LCC’s clarify ambiguity when it comes to their interactions

in delivering results to stakeholders.


Task2:NewEventsAfter completing task 1, participants were asked to brainstorm additional events that were not found in

the ones created prior to the workshop. The teams developed a total of 28 events that reflected a

number of concerns of the participants. It is worth noting that a number of these became key events in

some of the scenarios.

The major topic was future catastrophes and climate crises that could drive increased support for

climate research:

2022 80% of American Public Supports Action on Climate Change

We hit a tipping point where generation Z becomes politically active and starts to vote.

2020 Antarctic Ice Sheet Melts ‐‐ Southern California Flooded

An ice sheet melts, all California cities are flooded and coastline destroyed.

2016 Severe Wildfire Season Prompts Congress to Increase Funding for Fire‐Response Planning

Massive wildfires across the Western U.S. lead to funding increases in support of community‐based planning and restoration.

2019 Farmers and Ranchers Cash‐In on selling Senior Water Rights to CA Municipalities

Continued drought drives a move to fallow additional lands and sell water rights to the highest bidders.

2022 Lake Mead Hits 1000', Colorado River Compact Open to Discussion

2018 Large Fire Season Results in Ecosystem Conversion across Sky Islands

2017 US Food Prices Spike US Food Prices Spike as a result of drought causing renewed emphasis on climate mitigation.

2017 Fire Sweeps the Great Basin After a dry winter, an early warm wet spring contributes o two crops of annual grasses. In late summer, dry thunderstorms set off landscape level wildfires, which extensively damage sage steppe ecosystems in the region.

2020 Extended Drought Shifts Use to Groundwater, Amplifying Impacts to Stressed Riparian Ecosystems

Groundwater withdrawals have a delayed effect on connected springs and streams. Having not fully appreciated that fact, resource managers and the public have assumed groundwater could be developed with minimal impact.

2020 Cascading Effects of Ecosystem Stressors Shift Funding to Response and Mitigation

An "imperfect storm" of drought, forest pests, catastrophic wildfire, etc. cascades through the ecosystems of the Southwest, causing resources to be pulled away from the CSCs and LCCs in favor of response and mitigation.

2018 MegaFires Reveal Lack of Management Coordination Among Management Agencies

Fires sweeping across National Forest, National Park, BLM, State land and private land expose shortcomings in coordination and management among agencies. New Executive Order mandates that regional scale interagency coordination take place in fuels treatment, reseeding, etc.

2020 Economic Impacts of Climate Change Recognized as Top Priority

Economics drive funding including large increase in USDA Climate Hub budget and decrease in DOI funding.


2018 Devastating Atlantic Hurricanes Divert Funding for Drought‐Stricken Southwest

After two years marked by major hurricanes making landfall along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast, Congress votes to divest the majority of funding for CC‐impacts science and adaptation efforts into post‐storm recovery.

2020 Record Low Stream Flow across SW Leads to Rewriting of Major Western Water Law

Coincident low snowpack and stream flow in both the Colorado River and California headwaters lead to rewriting of major water laws, including the "Law of the River" and prior appropriation more generally.

2020 Coastal Impacts from Storms in Southern California Lead to Increase Funding for Sea Level Rise Adaptation

Impacts from sea level rise and storms become a major public concern following storm events. DOI increases CSC funding to support research into novel approaches for coastal communities and natural resource managers to adapt to these impacts.

2020 Massive Forest Dieback Across the SW Drives Managers (Forest & Water) to Triage Priorities

Large areas are closed to public access due to fire risk and post flooding damage from erosion. Watershed management focuses on keeping water in systems and reducing erosion to support delivery of water downstream; quantity and quality are compromised.

Other events addressed partnership issues:

2018 CSCs Sign MOAs, MOUs with tribes CSCs in each region sign MOAs, MOUs and other agreements with tribes to communicate and collaborate.

2018 LCCs, Hubs and CSC Create a Truly Collaborative Network to Address Key Water Issue in SW

Driven to create a workable solution to a water resource challenge, the LCCs, Hubs and CSC form a true partnership to address the issue successfully.

2017 DOI Mandates that All Bureaus Invest in CSC Infrastructure

DOI mandates all bureaus invest in CSC infrastructure. The original design of the DOI CSC was to have engagement with bureaus.

2018 Major Tribes in SW (Navajo, Hopi, TO) Identify Water as Top Priority

Smaller tribes follow.

A couple of events envisioned a merging or decommissioning of organizations:

2018 CSCs & LCCs Merge, Creating Unified Climate Science and Delivery Organization.

2018 NOAA Eliminates Funding for RISA Program

2020 Consolidation of Federal Resources for Climate Change

The existing set of Government organizations charged with climate change activities/ research efforts are brought together under a single organizational construct. Prioritization of missions done under one roof. Portfolio of activities streamlined as some areas of focus are dropped, others emphasized according to a


centralized set of policies.

One event envisioned a mandate for being stakeholder need driven:

2017 CSC Network Policy Requires All Research to Have Explicit Management Need

In new round of CSC funding, NCCWSC restructures to require that all funded projects begin with an explicit and specific management need and partnership with management agency.

Another event took issue with model downscaling efforts:

2016 Downscaling Output Oversold Results from multiple modeling efforts produce conflicting results.

One event described knowledge co‐production as working:

2020 Co‐Production is Real and Practiced by CSCs

CSC staff worked with stakeholders to frame a resource problem, elicit objectives and desired endpoints, use cutting edge science to predict the value of different actions and consult on implementation and formal learning through strategic monitoring. The CSC is involved from planning to implementation of adaptive management plan.

One event stressed the role of longer range thinking by the CSC:

2018 CSC Projects Keep Managers Focused on Managing for Limited Water even after Break in Drought

CSC projects that have focused on long‐term trends in precipitation variability and slow social responses to variability convince stakeholders about need to build resilience. This position is supported by State Administration and Agencies.

Lastly, one event envisioned a more hostile Congress:

2017 Congress Maintains CSCs, but Mandates Variability Focus

Federal employees cannot refer to climate change or sustainability.


Tasks3‐5:EndstateAnalysis,EventSelection,andTeamPresentationsThe afternoon task was to analyze the endstates and select events would have had to have happened

for the endstate to become reality (“simulated hindsight). The morning of the second day each team

presented its scenario, doing their best to convince the others that their scenario was the most

desirable. For each team’s report‐out below, the first sub‐section is a reproduction of the original

endstate text, followed by the team’s analysis and then its presentation, which includes an overview of

their event selections. Concluding each team’s section is documentation of the Q&A session (still in role

play), followed by each team member’s “true” opinion.

TeamA2020:

OriginalEndstateTextThe SW CSC puts most of its energy into funding, managing and coordinating major research projects

guided by the needs of resource managers but not overly constrained by them. The main role of the SW

CSC is pulling together interdisciplinary, high‐quality teams of PIs to tackle important research problems

in climate change and its impacts. The application of the results of this research is the role primarily of

the LCCs and the stakeholders themselves rather than the scientists affiliated with the SW CSC. The SW

CSC strengthens its relationship with the 5 LCCs in its region and the Climate Hub, and depends on them

as the main interface to stakeholders, relying on them for the tactical application of existing science as

well as education and outreach. Regular interactions with these groups ensure that the major research

findings are quickly translated and integrated into resource manager planning processes. Making a clear

distinction between the LCCs and the CSC plays well in DC.

The university partners of the SW CSC now collaborate regularly and there are additional partners that

expand the capabilities of the consortium. They are able to do more significant research by pooling

resources and expertise across multiple partners. Many of the problems in climate (e.g., higher

resolution simulations) are big, complex and need significant computing resources and teams of

collaborators. They can’t be done effectively at one institution. Encouraged by headquarters, the SW

CSC fosters a culture of collaboration and sharing among researchers, including those in other USGS

science centers. Solving big problems in science increasingly requires large, distributed teams led by

visionary scientists, and climate science is certainly no exception. Gone are the days of the lone

researcher. Researchers increasingly are contributing a piece to a larger effort and need to feel

comfortable in that distributed, multidisciplinary model.

The SW CSC’s collaborative approach results in a set of “big science” findings, published in the top

scholarly journals that address major real‐world problems facing the region (drought, conservation

strategy, ecosystem restoration, etc.). These strategic projects couldn’t be implemented by anyone

other than the SW CSC with its skills, funding and mandate. It answers really big questions, like the

relationship between groundwater and fossil water; or when it no longer makes sense to try to recover a


species or ecosystem after a major disturbance. It funds development of complete models of major

ecosystems in the region and links them to climate models.

The SW CSC creates a longer‐term, broader research agenda for climate adaptation, i.e., multiple

projects that add up to something bigger over a longer time. It gets beyond just a bunch of separate

siloed projects. Compared to some other organizations where research priorities shift from year to year

and it is hard to sustain a line of investigation with a dedicated cadre of researchers, the work of the SW

CSC is seen as adding up to larger results and capabilities. With the demand so much greater than the

available resources, being more strategic in its priorities and planning is critical. This starts with the SW

CSC convening yearly PI planning meetings to discuss current and develop new major research

programs.

Over time, multiple CSCs participate with the SW CSC in this collaborative definition of the bigger

science agenda. The CSCs also begin to co‐write and co‐fund national RFPs which result in projects with

PIs from multiple CSCs. One example is species migrations, short distance and long, that turn out to be

at the heart of managing climate change and especially ecological drought impacts. The CSCs work

together to lay out national road maps for assisted migration strategies.

The CSCs are fundamentally academic institutions and they can't really escape that affiliation. To many

on‐the‐ground resource managers they speak a different language and look at issues differently. Rather

than overcome these deep differences, the CSCs rely on the LCCs and others for stakeholder

engagement and maintain their identity as providers of strong academic research that pushes the

boundaries of scientific knowledge.

TeamMembersJim Leenhouts

Rebecca Shaw

Gregg Garfin

Tamara Wall

John Rice

Steve Jackson

TeamAnalysisWhat are the 5‐7 major changes from today

that characterize your endstate? What

activities has the SW CSC curtailed/added in

this endstate?

Stronger relationships with LCCs & Hubs

Clear definition of roles

Expansion of available expertise for partnerships

Strong relationships between researchers (integration between institutions & disc.)

Cumulative sum of research is greater than the parts


Collaboration and coordination across CSC geographic boundaries

Network works at multiple scales

What are the major driving forces causing these changes?

Reduced budgets

Key questions not addressed

GAO

Science incentives

o $

o Publishing

o Desire to help – usable science, relevant to society

o Interesting science

Leverage – Intellectual, $

Cross‐disciplinary work => $, fun, challenge, institutional rewards, removal of institutional

punishments

What are the biggest obstacles to overcome?

Existing organizational culture

Had to maintain networks through attrition

o Need less reliance on individuals, build network resilience – “more borg, less Picard”

o Funding to maintain – hard to measure value

o Outside perception that CSC is just another academic institution

What needs to be added to the SW CSC for it to achieve this?

Staff – more human capital

Funding for multi‐investigator projects

Process/resources for communication and network development

Ability/mechanism to pool resources among institutions and CSCs

Leadership – champions at multiple institutions & vision

o Thinking outside the box is the norm => facilitator => process

Evaluation – process, program, project

Train/socialize next generation of scientists

Who benefits most if this is how things end up?

Involved researchers – early career & grad students

USGS, member institutions

Resource planners and managers

Resources

What are the best metrics to use to measure progress towards achieving the endstate?

# new PIs


Publications, reports

Integrated into resource manager plans

$ leveraged

Successful RFPs or projects funded

# of integrated teams working (active)

Event Flow

Event Flow

2020: RESEARCH Kumbayah & Nirvana

Focus on big science questions

o Transdisciplinary projects ‐‐ phys, nat’l, soc sci – wicked problems

o Big science includes meta‐analyses and synthesis assessments and pattern

recognition that informs process studies, modeling, social science research, monitoring

– We Coordinate National Roadmap for assisted migration

Bottom up and top down

Cumulative results: the sum of research is greater than the parts

And we work to make that INTENTIONALLY SO

o Responsive to management concerns via partnerships with boundary orgs, science

translators

Strong partnership between SWCSC & LCCs, Other CSCs, USDA Reg. Hubs, etc. – CULTURE SHIFT

break down the silos

o SING kumbayah

o But clearly defined roles

“No Silos”


Helps shield from outside perceptions that CSC is just another academic

institution, even as we work on answering big science questions to inform

management

o Expand expertise through partnerships

More human capital

By developing redundancy in the network, we fend off possible attrition and

disruptions to funding and HQ internal michegas

Adding evaluation skills through partnership and investment

o Increased collaboration & coordination & communication + Kumbayah

Across CSC boundaries

This network works across multiple spatial scales

Adding communication expertise across the network strengthens network and

helps coordination on pooling resources

o Leadership + CULTURE SHIFT

Champions at multiple institutions

Thinking outside the box becomes the norm

Increased facilitation, capacity building, team building skills increased

emphasis on process in TANDEM with increased emphasis on big science

o Helps us overcome obstacles, such as reliance on individuals

We Co‐write & co‐fund national RFPs = intentional funding

o + positioning to take advantage of opportunistic funding

Giving an address to you young grads in 2020, reflecting back over the last five year. We started with

precept that we needed to create luck. Never allow a good crisis to go to waste. Be prepared and ready

to use them to advantage. We were impacted by external events – climate, political, headquarters. In

2015 – at the Southwest Climate Summit in the fall – we sat down with the CSC, PIs, University staff,

USGS staff, all the LCCs, and other partners. We were spread too thin and there was too much overlap

with the LCCs. We discussed and clarified responsibilities. We made the decision the CSC will focus on

science and coordinate the research agenda. The LCCs work directly with the managers. We agreed on a

shared vision.


We told HQ how critical the LCCs were. HQ made sure the Hill and DoI appreciate and cherish the LCCs.

They didn’t go away. In fact, they were strengthened. We developed a communications plan – we had

an awesome communications manager.

We needed to concentrate on the big questions, not be nibbled to death. Death from 1000 cuts. We

made an explicit decision not to do things that would have drained us. We took an interdisciplinary

focus on big projects – recovering from a big fire in the Great Basin, a huge fire season, continued

drought, Sky Islands are gone. With all these disasters, public support increases.

We weren’t diverted by HQ demands, but did do some partnering with other CSCs on our own when it

made sense. But we were mainly concentrating on our own region. Researchers found they really liked

working with managers. They were having fun, and it was good for the science. We established impact

metrics and evaluations for the research.

By 2017 we were reaping benefits of the big drought project. We heard that uncertainty was a big issue

for resource managers. We agreed we needed to focus on dealing with uncertainty. We focused more

on social science and communications. We relied on LCCs as our primary conduit to stakeholders.

Funding increased after each new crisis. We weren’t restricted to DoI projects only. We focused on

regional things – include Forest Service, states, and defense land. Another focus was on the emergence

of new ecosystems in the wake of large disturbances. We had already been doing work on step changes

in ecosystem, so when we saw it actually happening, we were ready. The drought continued.

A miracle occurred – USGS regulations got easier.

For the SW CSC recompete, we brought in more universities and created a new graduate program.

There were new funding models and opportunities. Funding wasn’t diverted after big east coast

hurricanes because our communications plan let people know what a difference we were making. There

are no siloes – everyone is having fun – no burnout. We even learned to make beer out of the buffel

grass and vodka out of cheat grass.

END with Sangha and Nirvana

QuestionsfromAudience(stillinroleplay)Q: How are you different from NSF? A: We are doing user‐inspired science. Big science, but motivated

by issues that managers have, through the LCCs. We leverage NSF funds.

Q: How did you get anyone to read your papers? A: The LCCs were instrumental. We coordinated with

other groups as well. The LCCs did the translation.

Q: How many scientists do you have on staff? A: Our time is spent mostly on program management –

not many on staff. The research is done by USGS and University PIs.

Q: Who is the enforcer to ensure papers get published? A: Team building and facilitation – we are a well‐

oiled machine. We followed up with our connection in the business community about how to build and


maintain high‐functioning teams – that’s our secret sauce. The scientists want to publish – they don’t

hold up the process.

Q: How do you know your info is used by decision makers? A: Evaluation metrics are clear. Follow up

during and after project. We work with managers to see what is being used. It’s part of the science

evaluation.

Q: LCCs – how often do you met with them? A: We spend a lot of time working with them –they are a

critical link. We have a Board with NGO members that facilitate some of this relationship.

Q: You have five LCCs – whose heart do you break? How do you decide what science to focus on? Does

the Board make the decision? A: Kumbaya ‐ all five LCCs are on board – part of an agreement we made

in 2015. We developed a partner committee that met regularly. We did the coordination before we

developed the research agenda.

Q: How many projects do you have at one time? A: We have 3‐4 at different phases. One is ramping up,

two midway through, and one ramping down. Four or five major themes. They are broad enough –

water, social issues, ecological resources. We emphasized coordination and working with the larger

science community.

Q: Who defines that “science community”? A: We define it. There were no shotgun marriages between

PIs. More borg, less Picard. More integration. Incentives. Workshops and forums for PIs and scientists

with LCCs to discuss these issues. Let the science assemble within overarching themes. We play god.

RealOpinions&CommentsThis is part of what we already do. This scenario is missing the knowledge co‐production – it is delegated

to the LCCs. I think there needs to be more direct engagement between researchers and managers.

Parts I like a lot. It needs to be more explicit on co‐production. There are consultative and contractual

modalities of co‐production. It shows the importance of the LCCs – they do play a key role. It’s too much

to ask this of the CSCs, to build/develop stakeholder relationships. LCCs are critical.

I like it – it is very strategic – we are focused on science we need and are organized to produce it. Can

pull in other scenarios as they are appropriate. We can do a quick response. The right things need to be

co‐produced, but not everything is appropriate for co‐production.

I value the distinct roles and the partnerships. On the other hand, it is good to let 1000 flowers bloom,

with some redundancy and overlap. What I fear there could be a propensity to be too detached from

the stakeholder.

I like the LCC/CSC coordination – they don’t have to merge – but so well coordinated we don’t lose any

time. Nested research, nested answers, top down, bottoms up. Could be a nice balance. The focus is on

getting a solid communications plan – respond to crisis, advertise success, build a constituency for long

term, building over time and sequencing to build an org that can tackle multiple endstates over time.


I really like the clear identities of the CSCs and the LCCs. For this to work the LCCs have to deliver and

follow through. The real weakness is informing the research in the front‐end. How do the needs in the

landscape make it to the science community?

This is a key part. My ideal model would have coproduction in the front end.

TeamB2020:

OriginalEndstateTextIn addition to funding and managing its own research project portfolio, the SW CSC has become known

as the convener of physical scientists, ecologists, social scientists, as well as representatives from LCCs,

RISAs, Climate Hubs, NGOs, local, state and Federal governments, tribes and Mexico, and everyone else

needed to attack wicked climate adaptation problems that inherently cross organizational boundaries. It

has slowly knit together all the different regional groups into an effective sharing network and inter‐

dependent ecosystem. Each meets the needs of a different constituency and geography or has

developed into a center of excellence in a particular domain. FS manages the forest habitat and trees.

FWS worries about the animals and endangered species that live in these habitats. BoR and various

regional authorities worry about water issues. BLM manages the deserts. BLM and FS manage habitat

as well as grazing, mining and timber. Decisions in these different domains interrelate in complex ways.

The region needs a diversity of approaches. Each member of the network and each LCC in particular is

quite different in its management style, its focus areas, and its ways of operating. This is driven both by

the characteristics of their landscape, as well as by the partners in the organization and how long it has

been active. The SW CSC forges unique relationships with each. This is time consuming but makes the

SW CSC the hub of the ecosystem able to make important connections between players as needed.

The tangible benefits come mostly from regular and ad hoc meetings convened and coordinated by the

SW CSC to share what’s going on in the network. With more regular communication and reporting of

what is being done, there is less duplication of effort and more collaboration on research needed by

multiple parties. Frequently a big agency does some good piece of work and then it can be leveraged or

even just copied by smaller groups that are not going to be out front. Administrative rules have been

loosened so that hosting meetings and travel to meetings is somewhat easier than it had been in the

early years of the CSCs.

One of the hardest problems is dealing with potential step‐function changes in ecosystems, especially

after major disturbances, which often require stepping back and rethinking overall conservation goals

and strategies in light of potential future climate conditions. The SW CSC convenes numerous meetings

to get these different agencies more aligned in their conservation strategies. They foster a far more

interactive and collaborative effort to use the best of all the work to synthesize views of whole

landscape ecosystems. Most lands are complex multi‐use systems, and only a whole‐system view will

help determine the best course of action on the ground. The SW CSC develops a repertoire of meeting

formats, many of which include participatory engagement or facilitated decision making. It uses a


variety of distributed collaboration tools to make remote interaction more productive. It leverages

social network technology to keep everyone in touch and up to date.

The 8 CSCs also now function as a real network. They share not only data and results but processes

and best practices. The CSCs all remain quite different in focus, process and practices. But they share

common objectives and simple standards necessary for data sharing and collaboration. The CSCs are

known for helping all these organizations and agencies work together better at multiple levels from very

local to internationally. The CSCs develop a leadership role on this. The national system of climate

change researchers is much better organized, more aware of each other’s issues, better able to avoid

duplication, and there are much richer information flows. Information is easy to find and easy to use.

The key to melding such diverse groups’ efforts was creating a shared vision and alignment across

regional actors – CSC, LCC, RISAs, Hubs, universities, research institutes, land managers, NGOs, local and

regional climate change adaptation organizations in the southwest ‐ and build a shared understanding of

the important issues and the priorities in

addressing them. Everyone is less confused and all

are relieved to have someone lead the effort to

knit it all together. The CSC has stepped up to the

podium to coordinate and conduct the complex

orchestra and guide it through a confusing score.

TeamMembersCarrie Enquist

Richard Ferrero

Sam Veloz

Jonathan Overpeck

Steve Gray

Missy Matty


TeamAnalysisWhat are the 5‐7 major changes from today that characterize your endstate? What activities has the SW

CSC curtailed/added in this endstate?

Top 2015 Issues – Motivating Problems

1a. Ever‐changing climate challenges

1b. Decisions lack science

2. There’s a frustratingly large array of efforts, some seem duplicative to stakeholders and to DC

establishment

3. Lack of dedicated resource

Top 2020 Vision

1. Can only meet climate challenge with collaboration

2. A network of trusted, sustained relationships

3. Built on shared and highly leveraged resources

4. Clear and comfortable roles for all

5. CSC is the catalyst for collaboration across the Southwest

Action Plan for 2020 (What needs to happen)

1. Promote collaboration

a. Reduce bureaucratic barriers where possible

b. Proactive, joint planning

2. Move $ and people to support convening without hurting science quality

3. More frequent in‐person interaction (stakeholders & scientists)

a. Cross‐region

b. Sub‐region

c. Thematic/sector


Great size/diversity of southwest climate issues & potential impacts & federal lands & partner

entities

Institutional inertia

Crazy insane rules! Too much risk aversion.

Poor public understanding of issues, especially non‐market

Competition with science funding

Hard to work across border with Mexican scientists/stakeholders (species are moving North)


Stakeholders across a huge and diverse region

o Resource managers (special DoI focus), farmers, ranchers, public health, etc.

Scientists too!


o More opportunity for use‐inspired, interdisciplinary work

o More career options

Universities

o Expanded service to society


Decisions made with CSC support

Good decisions

Increasing science‐>decision efficiency

Demand for CSC interaction, information, expertise

Event Flow

Go back to 2015 to see where we were then. We decided we needed to establish the CSC as “Convener

Plus”. Instead of just waiting for money to show up, we built positive feedback to take control of the

situation and get more funding. Looking back, there were a host of challenges thrown at us from Mother

Nature. A big part of our success was to turn those into opportunities. Many resource decisions were

being made ad hoc and without science. This increased costs – more money, lost lives. There are a

frustrating array of people who are trying to do something about this. NGOs, agencies, others, all loosely

coordinated – even the private sector. Guys back in DC were oblivious Lack of dedicated resources, the

problems were not getting solved. The Southwest is gigantic – oceans, coast, mountains, desert, boreal

forest, huge rivers with fed jurisdiction that impact 10m people. It’s not just wildlife and fish. We needed

to figure out a way to deal with all these problems more effectively.

We had a vision of collaboration – Collaboration Plus. The CSC is a science organization. One

organization alone will never solve these problems. The only way we will succeed it to bring everyone to


the table necessary to solve the problem. Everyone in the region is necessary. We are a

catalyst/convener for greater collaboration. We build a network, meet in person and electronically,

frequently enough to build trusted, sustained relationships. It is built on leverage. We will never have

enough money – but there are a lot of resources in partner organizations. We are now are clear who is

doing what. It’s not competitive. We do science and are a catalyst for collaboration. We build a plan –

not reactive planning. We reduce bureaucratic barriers ‐ we need flexibility to move money and people

around. Unless we convene it will be chaos. We have more frequent in‐person interactions – cross‐

region, within region, by sector, special areas of concern, etc. There are incentives for participation.

Stakeholders benefit. We help them deal with their problems and build capacity. Scientists too, benefit

from the use of inspired science. We build capacity in science too – more people get into this game.

USGS is able to serve society much better. This creates positive feedback.

To get started we needed to do three things – finalize a strategic plan for the Center, and establish

metrics to judge how we are doing. We really got started when we figured out how to navigate the

bureaucracy. Both at HQ, and how to work better to work with the cards we were dealt in the region. It

allowed us to build better partnership with USGS and PIs. We got new staff.

This allowed us to connect with a large number of groups on a number of different issues. We clarified

the responsibilities between the LCCs and the CSC. There are incentives for participation in the

community. Disasters happen, one after another, and in many case we thought this might derail us. But

we had our collaborative framework in hand. We turned the disaster on its head, used the disasters as

opportunities. E.g. drought in southwest – since we had collaborative framework in place, could bring in

partners like in Mexico, LCCs, Hubs, etc. to the table. It is worth noting that everyone is now on the

same page – helped us head off stumbling blocks – like the potential elimination of the LCCs. We used

our metrics to show how important the LCCs were.

By 2020 or earlier, we produced tangible results – a review paper in Science about eco‐system step

change. A study of decision making. Stakeholders drive funding. Managers are prepared for extreme

outcomes. The process saved some of our key programs—it show the important role of RISAs to the

entire collaboration. We were able to have positive feedbacks – co‐production came about as a side

effect. Researchers saw benefit of the application of their science. 65% of DoI resource managers have

climate plans. DoI welcomes integrated climate change plans for the Southwest. So we could stave off

some of these disasters. Because of this, funding increases. We shared resources. Incentive to increase

participation

QuestionsfromAudience(stillinroleplay)Q: The convener makes sense. Conveners have power – you can either get the authority given to you, or

you can do something to get it without asking. Are people asking you to assume it? Or did you just go

after it? A: The best approach is non‐aggressive leadership – find some partners who want to work

together. We focused on the LCCs, SAC, took advantage of these challenges that partners have, like

California state agencies with the drought. We stepped up to the task, other partners followed. Over

time other partners ran events – thematic, sectoral. USDA got some real funding. Important in this kind


of endeavor, let each lead at times. It’s important to give everyone a role and take advantage of their

resources.

Q: You were the early adopter? A: There was a vacuum that we filled.

Q: Is there a shared climate plan for the southwest? Given that DOI has already issued this demand but

hasn’t achieved it. Is the structure of DoI a roadblock? A: It is fine and dandy what happens in DC. We

need to appear to be aligned. But at the same time we have to get the job done. We have to deal with

reality. We can’t afford to get bogged down with DC. We built an integrated climate change plan –

based on existing plans – pull out key concepts (cut & paste). We were fortunate – the entire delegation

were onboard – we are such a large region – our partners helped us cut through obstacles.

Q: What does staff makeup look like? A: We need to cut through the red tape. We changed our staffing

– HQ let us try a different model. We now have a staff that is better designed, as it grew, different

partners stepped up, like the CA LCC and state agencies.

Q: What does the science look like? A: Convening is setting the science priorities. There is still science

that is going to happen. We prioritize better to take advantage of limited resources. A variant of co‐

production – not sitting at their desks, but not hand‐holding either. Using manager input at a higher

level to guide the science. At the backend we do a finer level of interaction with managers to put the

findings into use. The key is to build in positive feedback for funding. Coproduction is critical to that.

Hill will be motivated to provide more resources.

Q: What is the mechanism for science ‐ RFP or direct funding? A: Both. More directed funding. More

flexible – sometime direct RFP, but it depends. Extremely focused RFPs. So many good people across

region – we should tap into that diversity of excellence.

Q: The LCCs have been audited three years in a row – what products do you bring to the table? How are

you different? Why will Congress fund you? A: With our convening role, we will better understand what

is most needed, most definable, where the bang for the buck is greatest. We can’t do that alone. When

we do this collaboration, we are aware we need to document and have discussions that we could

capture in review documents – review papers that summarize best practices for collaboration with

partners – state of the science.

RealOpinions&CommentsThis was my top choice – there are many elements I like. If we can’t reduce the red tape, the whole

thing could fall down. Also incentivize participation – if the stakeholders see benefits going only to a

subset of the group, it won’t work. You need to keep people at the table.

This was the Southwest Climate Alliance – heavy science and lots of collaboration. We have done well on

the science, but we are hampered on collaboration. To meet all the challenges, we need direct

feedback. If we don’t get the rules changed, this will be very hard.


It’s an attractive idea, but I am unclear on how clarifying roles is an issue. We do have to watch out to be

too high level, we may lose our grounding. There are times you need to dive deeper in coproduction –

where to get the resources to do that. But I like this leadership idea.

I like this model – in the real world it could work with modified co‐production. We could really do this,

despite the fact we will never simplify funding rules. If one of our partners took a big hit or changed

directions – we would have to be very creative how we put money into the collaboration. Maybe Steve

and Peck can horse‐trade – university funds workshop, Steve provides research funding.

To me this looks like many of the attributes of high performing team. All the players knowing their roles,

engaged, without rules and requirements. All the aspects of high performing team, if you could only

attain it. I have seen one of these in 35 years. They are very rare. Obstacles – to form one, you need an

extraordinary leader – a very rare commodity. That’s number one in determining who can get everyone

to come to the table.

TeamC2020:

OriginalEndstateTextThe SW CSC stakes out knowledge co‐production as its focus area. It develops best practices for

connecting practitioners and researchers, for integrating climate science into resource decision making,

and for evaluating the effectiveness of both research and resource management decisions. Better

decisions are made when both science and practical stakeholder knowledge are combined. The SW CSC

funds the science and works on a spectrum of stakeholder interaction strategies. It develops a repertoire

of best practices for achieving fruitful dialogue between scientists and practitioners. No one technique

is best. You need a range of approaches depending on the people and problems involved. It’s the deep

personal relationships with frontline resource managers that give the SW CSC the kind of detailed

guidance its researchers need.

The SW CSC gets to the point where it is involved with specific resource management decisions in the

region. The SW CSC and its PIs are more aware of the cycle of decision making in their stakeholders and

structure projects to be more responsive to decision points. It has done a great job of getting

researchers to think in terms of usability of their work. Now researchers get ideas for new projects from

their interactions with stakeholders. Many RFPs for new work require meetings up front with

stakeholders to collaboratively complete the research design, progress meetings to tune the research

program and a final briefing to explain how to use the results. In some cases, seed funding is provided

to support a collaborative process of developing the specs for one or more research projects.

Evaluations of project results are used to adjust and tune the approaches for greater impact and

timeliness. They also provide evidence of the superiority of co‐production over traditional processes.

The SW CSC works with LCCs to help resource managers use existing science as well as new research

results. In reality, most of the needs are not for cutting edge science. Many resource managers don’t

really know how to use the results of modeling or historical data development. It is a skill set that needs


to be developed and the CSC works with a number of LCCs to offer training geared to the needs of

different types of resource managers: forests, wildlife, water, soil, etc.

The SW CSC integrates physical and social sciences to increase effectiveness of its approaches to co‐

production. The social science side looks at how organizations make decisions, identifying different

cultures and approaches as well as ways of engaging different types of people in climate issues

depending on the responsibilities of the person, the level in an organization, the culture of the

organization they are in, etc. At least one key person was added to the SW CSC with a background

primarily in how people and organizations work.

The SW CSC develops the skill of facilitating the match between scientists and resource managers. Two‐

way productive relationships require trust and take time to develop. Many scientists don't come to this

easily and don’t see why they need to do all this extra work at first. They come around as they begin to

see that these dialogues can also result in a continuing stream of further work with the same

stakeholders.

In reality, what’s needed is a new culture in a subset of the research community where applicability and

close relationships with those who need to make resource management decisions are valued over

intellectual curiosity and expanding the limits of human knowledge. Frequently, it is the younger

scientists who “get it” and as they begin to dominate the projects sponsored by the SW CSC, there is an

emerging new culture in the entire network of PIs and researchers surrounding the SW CSC. It is clear

now that this is a different kind of research

enterprise than the one at NSF. Now there are a

crop of young scientists who have been trained

as graduate students and post docs to think

about the applicability of their work and making

sure it delivers value to society. In DC, this is

viewed as a major accomplishment of great

future impact. Society also starts to see the

value that well‐funded, capable scientists bring

to their community.

TeamMembersRich Kearney

Gus Bisbal

Jennifer Ruyle

Karen Thorne

Dana Roth

Allison Meadow


TeamAnalysisWho are the main players in this endstate?

Southwest CSC, LCCs, agencies, stakeholders


Lack of product use

Focus on management questions


Funding, politics, bureaucracy

Lack of commitment

What needs to be added to the SW CSC for it to achieve this?

Staff, $


Everyone but entrenched interests


Events with red dots, such as rolling out grad student training in co‐production, permission to

spend 25% of funding out of network, resource managers flocking to science adaptation

sessions, joint stakeholder/scientist meetings

Event Flow


It’s all about partnerships and coproduction. All have to recognize reality as we proceed – the old ways

don’t work. What we have tried to do over the past years since the creation of the CSCs is to follow a

model that is fundamentally broken. It’s no one’s fault – it’s a disconnect between two groups that must

be fixed by working more closely together. As a manager for many years – I can tell you that people in

the field don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t know how to deal with climate change. They

don’t know what questions to ask. They need to catch up with researchers, becoming more familiar with

terms and issues and how it applies in their context. The community – we don’t have the right people in

the right places to ask the right questions. With coproduction we can build that capacity. It will get us to

where we need to be. It comes at a cost – it requires time and money and investment on all sides. This

stuff is hard to do, but we have got to do it.

We co‐produced this scenario – different people from different organizations – we didn’t always agree.

We are living coproduction.

In 2015, a post‐project assessment showed that tools and results were not being used by managers.

Research papers were never cited. The two sides are missing each other big time. The SW CSC was

selected for a pilot on co‐production, partnering with CCASS and others to develop more capacity. BIA

provided an adaptation liaison. We increased our capacity to be a knowledge broker. We spent time

together. We invest in translators, facilitate discussions, clarify LCC role, we are moving away from just

one another damn thing after another. We will be proactive and build partnerships ahead of time, so

we are ready for unexpected events.


The RFPs changed. We had more directed projects. We require impact metrics and an evaluation

process. The questions are driven by stakeholders. Resource managers come to the CSC. Projects have

funding to meet with stakeholders. We build new partnerships. If LCCs are doing it, we will partner with

them – we don’t want to duplicate. All of a sudden we started doing evaluations, researchers saw how

their work was being used and became energized. We don’t bother doing things that other

organizations are already doing. No online community.

2017 – We recompete, it’s an opportunity for funding and policy changes. Doug makes sure more

funding is tied to real management questions. We’re allowed to use money out of network. There is a

step‐up in funding. Project rules are simplified. Crises bring in new business. States now recognized they

need adaptation plans, we know these people, and they will come to us. We do more training in co‐

production – interns, grad students, bring the next generation along. We start to see the impact ‐‐

people come to meetings, the big drought project was successful.

2018 – By now, the general population is thinking about climate change. The science is stronger. Tribes

are onboard now, and working with us. We hold more workshops. University PIs are sending their grad

students to our courses on engaged science.

2019 – The public wants climate action – they see it can be effective. Real coproduction is going on. We

are solving real problems. Much faster delivery of research. Researchers see their science is used. It is a

factor in their promotion.

2020 – Nirvana – total commitment and partnership. We are able to work together from the beginning.

Win‐win.

QuestionsfromAudience(stillinroleplay)Q: How do you staff this? A: A lot of calm people. Need physical science with training in how to do

coproduction. They don’t have to be a social science expert in engagement, but they have to have the

basics. You will need people with more expertise in the developmental process. You have to keep

evaluating. There will be early adopters who see the need to do things differently – they are looking for

the opportunity to do this. As they more through their careers they will mentor the next generation.

Q: I loved it until the part about “universities recommend”. Will universities really change? How would

they accept this? A: Through evaluation and performance metrics – show the value of the actual impact

on the ground. Peer review is all well and good, but they have to show that a paper changed

management practices – we need to track impact. If you are good at this you could get more funding to

do more of this. It is both publishable and actionable – only a select few can do it initially. Steve has to

find those people. At Colorado State they just advertised for a post‐doc position for someone to work

with private lands. The LCC was called – for private landscape. Funding someone to bridge the

knowledge coming through our academic network.

Q: My agency is under extreme travel restrictions – will you provide travel grants? I can’t get to all the

workshops? A: Yes. Doug will fix this problem. There will be a new administration. We are too busy to


look at all this. Follow the fire science team approach – distance learning, remote training, and online

interactive meetings.

Q: We tried this in the SE CSC – what we have found is there are a one or two teams responding to an

RFP that bring the right mix of competencies, like structured decision making. The bench is short.

Significant issue is bench strength. We have to make the investment in training. Starting a few years out,

we will start training the next generation as things get rolling, and the newcomers become experienced,

become PIs.

Q: We are kidding ourselves if we think it will grow without investments from above. A: There needs to

be changes to policy and practices that allow/incentivize that. Create a science applications program. In

the west we have roundtables. Interview ahead of time, then sit together in a room and focus on

priorities. Build a focused science delivery program. Like the fire community. Impacts speak, the BLM

will come around. You really solved a problem, your reputation will rise.

RealOpinions&CommentsThis is the ideal we need to strive for. Won’t happen in foreseeable future unless we commit.

I am married to this – it eats my lunch. Long term commitment, baby steps, needs time to bloom,

especially with the tribes. Which is an obstacle to responding quickly. We need a longer window, which

is an obstacle for crisis and federal funding schedule. We need to invent this. There are real obstacles. It

is where I am going.

This resonated with me – I am really interested in long term & building capacity – let people learn how

to problem solve ‐ it takes a special kind of person who wants to do this approach. Not every manager

and every scientist. If they have the open mind to try it. Very fun and rewarding when it happens.

I am a real manager – and only USDA person. This is the most attractive to me. There is a huge need for

managers to have this kind of connection and be able to get the answers and solve problems with the

science community. It doesn’t have to be identical – come together and overlap and get traction –

needs to be more of that with USDA. It is hard for us to even apply for grants – we have no money.

This is really hard to do, with the pressure for CSCs to show success early. Long run it may have the

biggest impact. Finding the right scientists and managers is where you start the early years. LCCs can

come in here ‐ they are doing it. Potentially a lot of success. Not much of a reward system for scientists

to do this. A lot of it is based on trust – how does the CSC foster this? Are there existing relationships?

Could it be a funding source?

I’m a big fan – realistically because of the investment – it may be that the CSC retains short‐cycle

projects. This short projects could be the basis for longer term partnership, a chance to shift to co‐

production.


TeamD2020:

OriginalEndstateTextThe SW CSC structures itself as an information service, the “go to” organization for climate science

information. Resource managers and other stakeholders can make requests for climate science relevant

to a problem or decision they are working on, with responses delivered in a few days for many regular

requests. SW CSC has adopted the role of locator and interpreter of climate science for regional

adaptation organizations. The service focuses on basic climate science, the nature of the forecasts and

projections, and the uncertainty in them, all tied to specific geographies, habitats and decision‐making

cycles. Today, decisions are more temporary and contingent – revisited regularly as we learn more and

respond to the next unpredicted change. The result is more frequent requests for information and

interpretation.

The SW CSC representing USGS, DOI and University Science has credibility that most other organizations

of the Federal Government don’t in the climate change space. It helps that they don’t have a regulatory

authority. It created an integrated interface for climate science results and expertise, a clearing house

of information on what projects are underway, and who is interested in what. It groups relevant science

together regardless of source, pointing out areas of saturation or dearth of work, which can still lead to

starting new focused research projects. Before a new science or adaptation project is started, a quick

check with the CSC will provide guidance on others to contact who are working in the area. This is

supported by strong social media networks, not just person‐to‐person phone calls.

Most of the SW CSCs funding goes into integrating and repacking what has already been done rather

than generating lots of new results. Most practitioners today don’t need big new science. Most of what

they are ready to use has already been produced, but it is not in a form that is easily assimilated or

applied by resource managers. This is the kind of work that can be done in the CSC that would never get

very far in a traditional university setting because it isn’t breaking new ground. The CSC can do things

that a university can’t, such as develop processes or a tool for synthesizing, packaging, visualizing and

interpreting research results so they are applicable to the broadest set of possible users. Tools that

integrate into stakeholder decision‐making processes are a major effort. These new tools are also

accompanied with training and some amount of hand holding at least at first. These are usually

developed in partnership with one or more LCCs.

There is a huge need to bring some order, harmony and standards to the chaotic plethora of methods

and scales to explore issues around topics like climate forecasts, drought impacts, sea level rise or wild

fire impacts. The SW CSC develops standard data sharing interfaces and common platforms that meet

federal regulations but are not so hampered by them that it makes the use of the data impossible. An

example is a consistent set of downscaled climate science models that can be shared across the

southwest, paired with an advisory service on how to best use the data and what it really means. Having

a single source of data, models, and frameworks saves the web of resource managers, LCCs, Hubs, RISAs,

etc. a great deal of wasted time, and helps ensure comparability of results. Stakeholders appreciate the


continuing flow of ‘climate products’, some updated annually or monthly, others appearing sequentially

in response to requests or perceived needs.

Doing this well requires employing some people who are not top‐notch researchers but instead are

climate knowledgeable information managers and tool builders. They publish regular newsletters with

summaries and pointers to particularly good research, build tools that simplify interactive exploration of

results, and develop information integration standards in partnership with both the researchers and the

stakeholders.

LCCs, Climate Hubs, RISAs and resource managers applaud the SW CSC’s efforts to get a handle on this

research and data sprawl, to assess what’s been done already and assemble the whole picture, and then

establish some basic common approaches and standards.

The challenge now is to keep all this up to date as new

work is done.

TeamMembersEmile Elias

Louise Misztal

Erica Fleishman

Rebecca Fris

Lara Schmit

Adam Terando

TeamAnalysisWho are the main players in this endstate?

Who What

LCCs Translating and distributing science

WRCC Source of climate science/data

Stakeholders, e.g.

resource managers, LCCs,

climate hubs, tribes, etc.

Consumers of outputs, identifying

information needs

Go‐to Scientists Expert knowledge

IT industry e.g. software

engineers

Expertise on knowledge

management/capital


Conflicting objectives – being applicable to a specific situation vs being broadly applicable

Federal mandates that inhibit open source philosophy

Staffing issues ‐ $ to hire, hiring freezes, etc.

Complexity hindering rapid respond and ability to identify regular requests


Business model:

In‐depth consultation

Rapid information provision

CIDA for SW CSC (Center for Integrated Data Analysis)


People writing vulnerability assessments and fulfilling climate adaptation mandates.

Resource managers

Those hit with new mandates

Public


Number of users

Response time of CSC

# of boxes checked

Event Flow

“The place to be”

<Announcer> Are you overwhelmed by portals and tools?

Are you being told you must incorporate climate science

into you plans? Come to the CSC – we have people who

know the region, know the data. We are climate science

translators! Uncertainty? We can help you figure it out.


We’ll tell you about the standards.

Short on time? We can help you there. We’ll get back to you. No two week wait. Not even five days. We

get back to you in 72 hours! Rapid response!

Partners – check LCC box. We can do that too. We give you access to information. Super‐friendly staff.

Call now – 1‐800‐got‐data. Tweet us, like us on Facebook.

We are available 24/7 – well, actually we are government employees and are available 8am‐5pm. Except

for holidays, sequestration, or furloughs.

Events:

Imagine I am Steven Colbert – top 10 events to make us the premier source of climate information in the

Southwest:

1. Partnerships ‐ We have a long list. Open and collaborative relationships with organizations like

WRCC, LCCs, Tribes, RISAs, state and local governments.

2. From the outset – the CSC clearly defined what it was NOT doing. No climate model

harmonization, no common framework for monitoring.

3. The CSC hires applied climate scientists and science translators. These are the frontline people ‐

when someone calls – they lead them through a clear decision making process about the data.

4. CSC conducted a rapid and peer reviewed study of decision making.

5. Meeting with data providers to help synthesize and package and visualize existing data – not

new data.

6. PIs and CSC agree on the shared vision, strategy, and directions

7. Because HQ likes the SW CSC direction, there is no attempt at a coordinated national CSC plan.

It doesn’t divert us.

8. There is no consolidation of climate centers – each CSC has a niche. Funding increases

opportunistically

9. Rapid direct data sourcing model, decreases the wait for information and consultation. More

rapid response.

10. More public support

QuestionsfromAudience(stillinroleplay)Q: This is a consulting model. What if client asks you the wrong question? You answered it, but the

answer wasn’t of any use. A: The science translator can lead them to the right question. Bifurcated focus


– some will be easy questions to answer. Others will be different – will need a broader conversation

with decision science experts, biologists.

Q: This sounds like a climate change concierge service. We get requests for this. How will you staff this?

Active PhD researchers? What draws them to work for concierge service? It will kill your resume. Maybe

experienced master level people? Will they be skilled enough? A: We are not doing research anymore.

This is the stuff I would do if I couldn’t do research anymore. How do you attract people to the job?

There are a lot of PhDs looking for work. There are people who want to save the world, cross‐

disciplinary experts.

Q: How do we resource this? You are measuring your success by number of managers served. How will

you properly staff this? A: A severe crisis spurs funding.

Q: How is this different than what RCCs already do? A: Those groups don’t have capacity to interact with

a consultation need. We have more ability to think about the response variables. But we would be close

to partners. There is a distinction between RCC and CSC. CSC is focused on impact, vs. on climate data.

Q: LCCs are your marketing brand – why can’t they be the initial contact? A: We will work with them.

Q: Research is out the door – you are just packaging stuff that exists. What if data doesn’t exist? A: We

will hang up the phone politely.

Q: This is not just about delivery of current info – it would be about knowledge management – wouldn’t

that be where the basic research comes in? A: The translators don’t do research. But there is still some

research. Constant synthesizing of the information. Like McKinsey does. But not a lot of peer reviewed

papers. This group would know about the emerging issues.

RealOpinions&CommentsI like doing scientific research – I would get burnt out in this model. There is a constituency that wants

this model

Checking the box is not thoughtful – I am skeptical based on what I’ve seen. You can’t be both generic

and specific. There is not one type of information that lots of people can use.

Really interesting in terms of knowledge of who is doing what.

Scale is impossible – LCCs are the place people should go to.

Interesting endstate – if I worked for the CSC, I don’t think I’d like it. Might be nice to have. Don’t know

about the funding for it. Where would you get the money? Two scientists, five translators.

What about the funding? It’s not the case that one box fits all.


TeamE2020:

OriginalEndstateTextThe SW CSC has evolved into an agile, adaptive, learning organization. It is able to quickly and robustly

respond to a growing number of climate‐driven crises and accelerating ecosystem changes in the

region—another snowpack failure in the Sierras, a powerful El Niño event, failing monsoons, a massive

trout die‐off in Colorado trout, etc. There are new needs all the time.

The climate is not the only thing changing ‐‐the field of climate change adaptation has been evolving so

rapidly that statically defining the SW CSC’s role and partnerships was not possible. It continually

redefined itself as new players appeared, old ones got reorganized away, funding levels changed, and

new needs emerged. Much of this change happened organically and on the fly. Climate adaptation

organizations continually re‐chartered, re‐strategized, and changed who they worked with and the

spatial and temporal scales on which they worked. Most have moved from incremental adaptation

efforts to more transformational strategies. Inevitably, many of these organizations were also drawn

into mitigation efforts. It is not only a bad idea, it is in fact impossible to set up a static network of

organizations in this type of situation. Instead, you have to plan for continual adaptation if you want to

succeed amidst this churn that isn’t going away.

A big part of the SW CSC and its consortium is structured as a consultancy that provides senior levels of

expertise to stakeholders. A major chunk of the budget funds episodic projects that last for a few hours,

days, weeks or even months. Solving serious real‐world problems is the consultants’ number one goal

and metric. The SW CSC is where the real experts reside, when a problem or a question can’t be

answered by an LCC or in an agency. There are experts (on staff or on call) to help with the toughest

science questions – and if there isn’t an answer, and it is important enough, they will spin off a fast‐track

research project to find the answer. The SW CSC routinely publishes best practices and “FAQs” to help

people find the answers themselves. Scientists and top level field people often circulate through these

roles, to bring both theoretical and hands‐on experience. A diverse cadre of dynamic, highly capable

generalist experts has become associated with the SW CSC’s interventions. Deep expertise is contracted

for as needed. Having achieved a culture of learning, experimentation and openness to new ideas, they

foster it in stakeholder organizations.

Concern over climate change is rising as near‐term impacts begin to accumulate. With more data on

what’s really happening, it becomes clearer every day that we may be getting close to dangerous tipping

points or the possibility of step function changes in ecosystems (e.g., replacement of forest with shrub

land). Demand for climate science expertise and advice skyrocketed from frontline resource managers

who saw the threats. In the more general public, ranchers, tribes and farmers didn’t need fancy models

to tell them the climate was changing and not for the better. Once the parade had started, the

politicians started to get on board and no longer questioned the need for climate adaptation planning

and input. Expert talking points for testimony before Congress are now a frequent request.

The SW CSC proactively created a set of multi‐dimensional scenarios (climate, demographics,

economics, land use, new regulation, etc.) as frameworks for decision making under uncertainty. The


content in them is backed by hard data and regional research. Scenarios help various players to rehearse

future situations and crises and thus be better prepared to respond when major events occur. The

approach has been made iterative where the framework of possible outcomes is used as the basis for

ongoing environmental and social monitoring to evaluate which scenario is really playing out. Over

time, the monitoring reduces the uncertainty in a given projection or helps to define an updated set of

scenarios.

The SW CSC streamlines its processes and organization, making it possible to respond to requests more

rapidly. The SW CSC’s reputation is that it is there to help, often with boots on the ground, to address

difficult stakeholder needs as quickly and effectively as possible. This isn’t co‐production. There’s no

time for that.

TeamMembersSelso Villegas

Scott Stonum

Dan Ferguson

Jerry McMahon

Anita Govert

Doug Beard

Brad Udall

TeamAnalysisWhat are the 5‐7 major changes from today that characterize

your endstate? What activities has the SW CSC curtailed/added

in this endstate?

Consulting model

Accumulating acceptance of climate change – public,

political

Create scenarios as framework for discussion/decisions

Big changes across the board: RISA; institutional landscape, indiv leave

Model not strategic/opportunistic/reactive. Responding to climate‐driven crises.

Not looking to LCCs to surface issues – no RISAs or Hubs. All calls/emails go directly to CSC.

SW CSC has senior experts – think tank

Climate change hitting harder than expected

No co‐production

CSC would have to manage lots of projects

Able to get university researchers in place quickly

Bureaucracy eliminated


More social science expertise

Structured monitoring program/capacity

Who are the main players in this endstate?

CSCs; stakeholders

LCC & Hub remain robust? More top‐down, deployed as assets. One possibility ‐ sage grouse

initiative type organization emerged – a separate entity – uber productive NGO. Federally

funded – move money from LCC. Mandate to SW CSC – executive order. Manage science and

restoration.

Stakeholders (utilities etc.) are key players – kill the LCC and go right to the CSC

Combined CSC/LCC/Hub – staff and function. Go right to this entity.


Crises have led to unstable economy

Ongoing climate crises – one damn thing after another – lead to acceptance of climate change

and societal changes

Sandy‐like events are already happening

Acceptance ‐> economic shifts

Climate change and its impacts are hitting people in their wallet and their lifestyle


$ to put adaptation strategies in place

DoI/political buy‐in

No shared vision – state, federal, etc.

o Responsibilities, competition for $

Impact of global economic crisis (e.g. 2008)

Jurisdiction fighting (state vs. federal) (fed vs fed), tribal issues (with state, federal)


Generalists: climate scientists

Land managers have access to boots on the ground ‐ focus on their needs

Society – they get the knowledge needed to act


Satisfaction of land managers – lever of engagement, the number of requests received by the

SW CSC

Congress supports climate science and adaptation

Climate projects in the hopper get funded

Scenarios were created – did they happen?

Monitoring resumes

Ordinances with respect to water and other adaptation strategies


Shift to solar

Event Flow

This is the “all bets are

off situation”. It is

driven by crisis. If you

find the kinds of crisis

we are describing

credible then this is the

best way to contend

with those realities.

Crises are driving

everything. It impacts

the institutional

context. It affects

stakeholders and how

they perceive the

world. It affects the

identity of the SW CSC.

Co‐production is out the window, and appropriately so. There is no time to do that, the crisis is of such a

magnitude.

CSCs directors don’t have to do all the stuff that is eating our lunch these days.

Lake Meade is at 1000 ft. All bets are off. CAP allocations are cut. These kinds of things that are

possible over next couple of years. If these resonate with you, there is no other way to go.

CSC becomes a command and control organization. There is no time to care about the niceties. We will

drive forward and solve problems. There are crises in the southwest, frequent 1000 year flood events,

along with an increase in wildfire linked to climate drivers. These drive support for action on climate

among the public to increase to 75%. The overwhelming bureaucracy, combined with the idea of co‐

production, delays the initial response.


The SW CSC stakeholders clamor for the SW

CSC to work across the climate bureaucracy to

identify and combine resources for action as a

result of the lack of a coordinated response to

wildfire season. The federal bureaucracy is

slow to change though, with rules for funding

organizations and policy on who receives

funding not keeping up with demand and the

inability of conservation organizations to

reconfigure themselves to respond. Everyone

is entrenched.

The long continued drought in the southwest

finally catches up with the inaction of the CSC

and administration as every year something

new happens; groundwater dries up, the AZ

water allocation dries up, the CA almond

industry (and agriculture in general) collapses,

spiking food prices nationally. Additionally in

spite of a FWS clarifying the role of climate in

ESA listing, a misapplied ecological model,

through the over‐emphasis on co‐production

of science, leads to new species

listing. Everyone is mad at us.

Congress, however, because of its structure, is slow to react, undermining action with the inability to

consistently develop a predictable budget cycle. Elimination of funding for both the RISA's and LCC's

further exacerbates the ability to respond. The public is up in arms, finally the administration responds,

by clarifying the roles of the various climate entities and giving more top down direction to the various

agencies and consolidating climate impacts across the government.

Finally Congress follows by increasing funding for federal resources in climate and increased

environmental monitoring, relying on the SW CSC as a critical point of contact. DoI mandates all

bureaus work with the CSCs, forgoing development of independent bureau efforts, and USGS responds

by simplifying policies on funding rules and policy for CSC support to assure emphasis on meeting

needs. HQ empowers each CSC to respond to local needs within the framework of the overall mission of

the CSC.

Broad scale monitoring is put in place and common scenarios are developed and metrics are monitored

to assure scenarios are impactful in meeting the crisis needs. The SW CSC responds by de‐emphasizing

work on downscaling and climate model harmonization, instead focusing on approaches to uncertainty

and understanding impacts of extreme events on planning. The SW CSC balances the PI team with

ecologists, social scientists and physical scientists.


Hoping to avoid attrition the SW CSC consortium builds a shared vision with strategies and objectives to

assure balanced workload across the enterprises. The SW CSC builds a stakeholder network that shares

science and work with the University partners to train a cadre of science translators and generalist

experts to work on science issues. Universities increasingly incentivize applied research and stakeholder

engagement as part of their process. Managers flock to SW CSC training on adaptation and

planning. The SW CSC is receives accolades for implementation of the drought projects and works

through its seamless network of science practitioners to be proactive in response to future climate

crises.

QuestionsfromAudience(stillinroleplay) Q: What does the CSC do? A: Respond to crises– we bring the science for whatever you need. Because

we have reduced the bureaucracy & have MOU and MOA with other agencies – we can bring in people

on short‐term contracts. President Rubio is the key – he cut out the red tape. California agriculture

collapsed. $22 broccoli.

Q: But what if the things managers ask for aren’t what they actually need? A: The politicians want rapid

response. It’s adaptive, it’s fast, try it and fix it. Monitor and adapt. Adaptive management at its best.

Throw the best science out there and adjust based on the experience. Selling the policy isn’t our

problem. Money for monitoring is allocated by Congress – they are motivated by constituent anger over

food prices.

Q: How do you relate the Hubs? A: We got rid of them. All the secretarial orders were rescinded. The

Hubs never were funded.

Q: Why didn’t you just build more dams? A: There is no more water. Dams won’t make any difference.

We’re building pipelines from the Great Slave Lake.

Q: Its 2020 now – did you start building this in 2015? A: We were too slow to start. It was just one damn

thing after another. We were bouncing from one issue to the next. It took a couple of years to get to this

point.

Q: What in this situation makes coproduction inadequate? A: It takes too much time. Managers know

what they want. Adaptive management is the name of the game. It can’t work now because there is no

pull for it. They weren’t wrong, but because the cultures in all organizations are not set up to do it

efficiently. We found it took multiple years to do coproduction. There was no way to scale it up. It was a

nice idea on paper.

Q: Is this more feasible in 2050? A: It relies on repeated Sandy‐like events. It has to have national impact

to get the Congress to act. That’s why the food price spike is so important.

Q: Could you think about this as the need to be flexible? Why did you treat it as solely reactive? Crisis

mode – anything about bringing in social science on what to give up? A: We see the consulting firm as

including social scientists and physical scientists. Transdisciplinary capacity to visualize the problem.

Spend a day on rapid prototyping, then go. No need to take six months to go to OMB to get permission


to call 12 people. Flexibility – we did that by wiping out the bureaucracy. Steve has freedom with the

money. We don’t have the flexibility now.

RealOpinions&CommentsI think it is not very strategic.

Elements of this could be fun. You waste a lot of money – throw things out.

It would take radical change of thought to get rid of government regulation. Some components are

intriguing – crisis inspires ingenuity. There is a NPS and FWS “service first agreement” – about cost‐

sharing. It has been in effect for several years – yet we still can’t share an employee.

I am accustomed to reactionary scenarios. I work in a tribe. This is what we do. It’s OK with me.

I like the focus on scenarios, and moving away from downscaling. The streamlining is not going to

happen.

I think you could do coproduction – not necessarily full baggage of coproduction – coproduction light.


Task6:DataFeedback

ResultsofEndstateRankingExercisesPrior to the workshop, the participants were given the endstates and asked to read them carefully and

then complete a ranking exercise. They were asked to rank order the endstates on two measures:

Desirability: which endstate do you think is most desirable from the point of view of

Department of the Interior (DoI) leadership?

Attainability: which endstate do you think would be the easiest for the SW CSC Director, to

make happen?

They had to put the endstates in a linear rank ordering from most to least on these two measures. The

rankings were then summed across the entire group of 28 participants that completed the exercise

before the workshop. We attach a score from 0 to 100 to each endstate. If an endstate is ranked first

by all participants it gets 100. If it is ranked last by all participants it gets 0. Very high or very low

scores show agreement in the room. Here is the result of the “before the workshop” ranking.

Ranking Result Prior to Workshop

In this result the Knowledge Co‐Production (C) endstate was most desirable by a considerable margin

but was seen as somewhat difficult to attain. The Big Science (A) endstate was second most desirable

and most attainable. Info Services (D), Knowledge Co‐Production and The Convener (B) were all very

close in their attainability. The Crisis‐Driven (E) endstate was least desirable and least attainable.

2020 A: Big Science

2020 B: The Convener

2020 C: Knowledge Co‐Production

2020 D: Info Services

2020 E: Crisis‐Driven


2020 A: Big Science

2020 B: The Convener

2020 C: Knowledge Co‐Production

2020 D: Info Services

2020 E: Crisis‐Driven

After the presentation of the scenarios on day two of the workshop we again asked the participants to

rank order the endstates on the same two measures. Now, however, they were ranking the endstates

as interpreted and defended by the teams in the room.

Ranking Result after Scenario Presentations

As can be seen in the comparison chart below, the big change was that endstate B The Convener

became most desirable and moved up to second in attainability. Also, endstate D Info Services went

down in attainability. As will be seen in the section of the workshop on scenario synthesis, endstate B

become the core of the future target for the SW CSC. Even though endstate E Crisis‐Driven is neither


desirable nor attainable, it represents a piece of the future capability needed by the SW CSC, as will be

seen later.

In discussion, one person expressed skepticism about the attainability of the Convener scenario, stating

that it would require a high functioning team environment, which is not the norm in the government

sector. It’s not that people don’t have good intentions but there are so many forces working against

achieving the high functioning state. In response it was suggested that maybe you had to master the Big

Science scenario before setting out on the Convener scenario.

It was also pointed out that this room was relatively heavy on scientists and light on real resource

managers. With a different group the Knowledge Co‐Production scenario might have been rated more

desirable. Two representatives from a national CSC advisory committee pointed out that Knowledge Co‐

Production was considered the priority by that group. It was suggested that running this process with a

different mix of people would be an interesting exercise and lead to results that were more widely

supported.


There was some discussion about why the Info Services scenario was rated so low on both measures in

this group. It was pointed out that there is an attempt to create the capability to do this at the national

level. It was also pointed out that this scenario might be better accomplished by a group like an LCC.

A resource manager commented that his experience had been that all these groups were very far from

functioning as a well‐oiled machine and that they didn’t really work together all that well. He had to talk

with each one individually. He argued strongly for developing more collaborative relationships as

envisioned by the Convener scenario.

As we talked, the Convener scenario became identified with achieving a more collaborative regional

approach to climate adaptation. In our previous work, regional collaboration is really the name of the

game today. It is the only way to make progress in an environment of scarce resources and complex

problems. Funders like working with groups that have established unified goals and plans.

TheCommonEventsEach team selected events to build their scenario from their endstate back to the present. We recorded

each team’s event selections and a full list of events and the selections by teams is an appendix. Our

database then pulled out those events that were used in three or more of the five scenarios A through E.

We call these “common events”. In this workshop, there were 38 events that were used in 3 or more

scenarios. This is a fairly large set of events in common among the scenarios. The common events

present issues and possible future actions that are clearly significant. A diagram representing the

common events is included at the end of this section.

In the tables below, the first five columns show how a team selected the event for its scenario:

(+) means that it helped or must happen for that scenario.

(‐) means that it hurt or must not happen for that scenario.

If the space is blank, it means that this event was not in that team’s scenario.

The columns labeled HU and HL stand for “highly unlikely” and “highly likely”, respectively, and

represent the outcomes of likelihood voting collected during Task 1.

First, we will look at the 3 events selected by all five teams. Then the 13 selected by 4 out of the five

teams. Lastly, we will look at those chosen by 3 out of 5 teams.

Events selected by all five teams


+ + + + + 7 2017 Support for Government Action on Climate Change Reaches 75% of General Population in Southwest

+ + + + + Y 42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and Stakeholder Engagement

+ + + + + 55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource Managers


These three events capture three main themes: broader public support for action on climate change,

stronger incentives in academia for doing applied research, and the need to hit a home run on the

drought project just starting. Note that the university incentives event was also voted highly unlikely.

This combination (required but unlikely) means that has the potential to be a major obstacle no matter

what mix of scenarios is selected.

Events selected by four of five teams


+ + + + 35 2016 Researchers Report Benefit from Review of Applications of their Work

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 2016 Coordinated National CSC Plans by HQ Divert Regional CSC Goals

+ + + + Y 47 2017 USGS Simplifies Project Funding Rules for CSCs

‐ + + + 53 2017 CSCs Develop Cadre of Science Translators that Facilitate Discussion btwn Scientists and Practitioners

+ + + + Y 56 2018 CSCs Develop Closer Working Relationship with Strategic NGOs and Climate‐Focused Foundations

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Y 57 2017 Annual Budget Cycles Undermine Planning for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

+ + + + 58 2017 Strategic Step‐up in Funding for Climate Change Organizations

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 61 2017 Congress Eliminates the LCCs

+ + + + 64 2016 Consortium PIs & SW CSC Agree on Shared Vision, Strategy, Objectives

+ + + + 65 2017 SW CSC Establishes Impact Metrics and Evaluation Process

+ + + + 74 2016 BLM, Forest Service, BoR Become Active Partners with SW CSC

+ + + + 79 2016 SW LCCs and SW CSC Clarify Responsibilities

+ + + + 87 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Approaches to Dealing with Uncertainty

These 13 events capture a number of significant issues. Events 35 and 53 address the need for better

communication between scientists and stakeholders. Events 56 and 74 indicate the need for new or

deeper partnerships with strategic NGOs and climate‐focused foundations as well as key agencies (BLM,

FS and BoR). Events 61 and 79 look at the crucial relationship with LCCs, which needs clarification of

responsibilities. Event 64 identifies a widely supported need for a shared vision among the consortium

PIs and the CSC. Events 87 and 65 identifies two future focus areas for the CSC: dealing with Uncertainty

and establishing impact metrics and evaluation process. These should be key areas of investment going

forward. Events 44, 47 and 57 address the problems and obstacles created by current

Headquarters/Congress process and funding rules. Unfortunately, the group expressed little hope that

these would be lessened much less eliminated. Lastly, event 58 that envisioned a step up in funding was

liked by most groups.

Events selected by three of five teams



+ + + Y 1 2017 CA Drought Leads to Widespread Abandonment of Almond Orchards and Other Ag Holdings

+ ‐ + Y 3 2018 It's Just One Damned Thing After Another Out There In The Real World

+ + + 5 2019 Central Arizona Project Water Allocation Cut by 40%

+ + + 15 2017 Resource Managers Flock to Science/Adaptation Sessions

+ + + 16 2017 Scenarios Begin to be Used to Screen Specific Resource Manager Decisions

+ + + 39 2017 Co‐Production Solves the Problem of Long Waits for Research Results

+ + + Y 52 2016 CSC Funding Increases Opportunistically

+ + + 68 2018 SW CSC Holds Regular Joint Stakeholder/Scientist Workshop

+ + + 81 2016 SW CSC Connects to Existing Outreach Groups, Avoids Building Their Own

+ + + 86 2015 SW CSC De‐focuses on Downscaling

‐ ‐ ‐ 88 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Climate Model Harmonization

+ ‐ + 89 2016 SW CSC Focuses on How to Assist the Development of New Ecosystems In the Wake of Large Disturbances

+ + + 91 2017 SW CSC Supplies Managers with Parameters of Extreme Planning Outcomes

‐ + + 96 2017 SW CSC Offers Short Course for Scientists on Engaging with Practitioners

+ + + 105 2016 SW CSC Hires Science Translators

+ + + 107 2017 SW CSC Sets Up Rotation Program for Specific Needs

+ + + 109 2018 SW CSC University PIs Promote Grad Student Training in Science Translation

+ + + 115 2022 80% of American Public Supports Action on Climate Change

‐ ‐ + 116 2017 CSC Network Policy Requires All Research to Have Explicit Management Need

+ + ‐ 119 2020 Co‐Production is Real and Practiced by CSCs

+ + + 121 2018 LCCs, Hubs and CSC create a Truly Collaborative Network to Address Key Water Issue in SW

‐ ‐ + 136 2020 Consolidation of Federal Resources for Climate Change

The remaining 28 common events represent a variety of issues which were important but not quite of

the same significance as the ones previously highlighted above. They fall into a few groups.

The first three (1, 3 and 5) represent catastrophes, which most teams saw as a way to garner increased

funding and support for climate work. Event 52 explicitly talks about opportunistic funding arriving in

the wake of a big disaster. Event 115 on major shift in public opinion was also viewed as helpful.

Another group of events addressed the need to bridge the gap between stakeholders and scientists,

sometimes through workshops or training (events 15, 68, 96 and 109), or by employing some science

translators (event 105) or through a staff rotation program (107).

Events 39 and 119 show support for knowledge co‐production, but not by the crisis‐driven scenario, and

not by the big science scenario.


A number of events look at specific areas for the SW CSC to get involved, including scenarios (16),

assisting development of new ecosystems after a disturbance (89), extreme planning outcomes (91) and

working collaboratively on a key water issue (121). Two events spoke to areas to deemphasize going

forward: model downscaling (86) and model harmonization (88).

Event 81 that suggests that the SW CSC leverage existing outreach efforts of groups like the LCCs, Hubs

and RISAs was picked by teams A, C and E. The idea was only explicit in the A scenario. This may be an

important direction for the SW CSC going forward.

Event 136 suggested consolidating Federal Climate Change resources and was only positive for the crisis‐

driven scenario.

Event 116 suggested that all CSC research should have explicit management need. This was favorable to

the Knowledge Co‐Production scenario but negative for both Big Science and the Convener. Making

such a blanket requirement may not be the best way to go.


Task7:CompositeScenarioDevelopmentAt this point in the workshop we reshuffled the teams so there was at least one person on each new

team that had worked previously on each of the endstates. The new teams were given the task of

combining all of the data they now had including:

The persuasive presentations by the teams of their scenarios and their insights about them

The results of the rank ordering of the scenarios on desirability and attainability

The intersection of events in the different scenarios (common events)

Teams were asked to develop a composite scenario for the SW CSC. They were also asked to identify at

least 3 critical actions that the SW CSC should take to get it on the path to the combined endstate.

Team1SynthesisThis team actually produced three different diagrams.

The first diagram depicted the endstates A, B and C as a reinforcing cycle that they dubbed “The

Ferguson Cycle”. Around the edges are events that drive the cycle forward. The CSC is currently in big

science A, and we use that to get to B Convener. Some combination of science home runs and/or

climate disasters (E) get us to B. Big wins and continued disasters earn us the authority to convene key

groups at key moments (B).


Convening (B) gets us to C (co‐production). In a sense, convening the right people at the right time to

form up the best science questions is the highest form of co‐production. We can draw in managers,

NGOs and others. Small co‐production is a spin‐off from the convener sessions.

Co‐production(C) leads you back to A. The convening group can have input to impact/evaluation of

projects and programs can shift to meet new needs. The consulting model (D) could grow stronger if

(B) convening effort meant barriers were brought down and trust was increased.

Strategic actions are implied:

1. Communication amongst the parties

2. Increased agreement on roles

3. Goal setting. Agreement on what we are doing is goal setting.

4. Establish set of metrics. What does it mean to have a successful project?

If you did it right diagram 2 (above) shows how this evolves – success vs time is the graph. Impacts and

budget resources are proportional. But impact goes up over time because research is better focused and

more efficient too. The size of circle represents impact; the pie split show how the activities of the CSC

are distributed across the scenarios. We begin as mostly science (A) and by 2020 we are half science, a

lot of convening (B), more co‐production, and more consulting (D). We will always have E, and it may


drive activity, but responding to E is not where the resources are spent. The circles will grow in response

to climate/social/political events and the growth path may be a bumpy.

Diagram 3 (above): This is a take on the climate organization ecosystem – a lot of different constituents

doing their things. Some do work together currently. The CSC starts to pull things in through the

convening role. Some groups are already affiliated and when one of them is drawn in to the CSC’s

network, they all tend to come.

The notion is a biological model like an amoeba. It grows, attracts, pulls things in and during all that

time it is moving and adapting.

In the end, this trusted dynamic group evolves into a high performance team that can cross boundaries,

working together productively.

Team2SynthesisThis team offered two diagrams.

First diagram.

As a trained biologist I think in terms of cells.

The current state is the A‐ish cell, with a couple of small infections of B and C. The hope is over time B

and C will evolve into advanced states. Some will die, others will flourish. We get more infections, get

more and more C co‐production. We know it can work but maybe not for the whole portfolio.


One of the things that came across is the difficulty of doing co‐production. Coproduction is hard and

gets harder the bigger the science. Easiest to do at granular level.

Term: CMI – C mass index, indicates how much C we have, involving community building, cultural

exchange. We are building a community, a knowledge coproduction community. Culture change in one

organization is hard and we need to do this across multiple organizations.

Second Diagram – The B‐ecosystem

This team took a different perspective on the Convener B model. We questioned whether we should try

to lead B. It is not clear that is the SW CSC job.

Perhaps we don’t need one leader – we need a collective, a borg‐like leaderless network of conveners.

Sometimes it can be the SW CSC, sometimes it can be others like LCCs, universities, or groups of these. It

is a complex landscape.

Events/Actions:

‐ Pathway to a more salient A, increase in CMI, one concrete thing to do is to have regular

meetings for all the LCCs. Not unanimity – but consensus on the priorities.

‐ Have the same group come up with ideas for prototype C like activity. The CSC shouldn’t decide

this. The group of LCCs, broadly construed, can do this.


‐ Staffing. Additional capacity for coordination of the B‐ish type of activity would be needed. This

is not an easy thing to pull off well, it is not some part time activity.

Team3SynthesisThis is a time diagram ‐ % and time.

D is already happening at the national level, and we expect it to continue there. Each of the CSCs

contributes to this, but it doesn’t make sense to do D at the regional CSC level. D is also about managing

expectations, again best done at the national level.

A is already happening, and it would ramp up with large disasters.

C is steady slow positive incline on C – takes a lot to get it going.

B starts further out, the first key step to starting on B is defining roles, as we move to high functioning

teams, B really ramps up. As we develop working relationships and regular meetings a B & C – feedback

loop can power up synergy between them, intertwined, incentivizing and catalyzing B to grow.


Stakeholders end up demanding research funding. Over time we gather enough leverage to do the big

science. Level of investment comes from leveraging partners.

The same diagram but with events on yellow post‐it notes attached to significant cross‐overs, starts or

increases.


Critical Actions:

An interagency white paper is in process. It will help define roles, show how to coordinate regional

entities and how various centers fit in

Develop a process for collaboration, emphasizing coproduction

Prepare and position for opportunistic funding. Use IDIQ (Indefinite Date, Indefinite Quantity) approach

to contracting to line up what is needed. Think of it as an empty wallet ready to receive opportunistic

funding.

Team4Synthesis

This chart is built on the assumption that where we are now is A – it is what we are accomplishing.

Over time, we have to maintain D, the ability to connect to needs of managers, pointing them to the

resources that are out there. We do not need to be the ones who answer a question, but we need to be

able to connect a decision maker to the person who has the data.

Need a capability to respond to crises as they arrive – maintain or develop capacity to respond to crisis.

Not necessarily CSC staff but we need to know who within the university can respond to a crisis. Know

when you don’t know and push them into a new direction.


C (co‐production) is the path to where we want to be: B+ conveners plus others, build on the back of big

science. We develop partnerships as a part of coproduction strategy, but it is also educating the hell of

the people out there and we use that as a way to move us towards a more complete version of what

coproduction might look like. It is not just coproduction, but if this is going to work other people will

come to the table and support it. It will turn out to be coproduction AND copay that will get us to B+

We also have an ecosystem diagram (above), showing circles and overlaps. The details about specific

players don’t matter. What’s important is that we want to move toward B, but do elements of the other

ones shown as shaded areas. We can’t do it all, we have to cooperate with others along the way.

Actions:

Make sure we educate partners up front, in all cases, but especially for coproduction.

We need a coproduction pilot project.

Convene around big science and coproduction as a science process

Team5SynthesisSteve, I am your cardiologist. It is interesting that all the teams are gravitating to the same idea.

The vertical axis is SW CC identity and the horizontal is time. Starts with heavy A identity. B is not as

developed. C not too a big part yet. E is the crisis driven part. D – no one really likes.

Ideally over time B is growing at a faster pace, eventually at the same level as A and blends with it. A and

B become integrated.

C will grow, but not very intense. Every once in a while there will be a crisis and some drama – more

money, a disaster – you will have to be there. I don’t know how high the peaks are – but we will need to


respond. Everything else will suffer some, as you pay attention to the crisis. When a crisis happens, folks

who are in tense situations will want the hand holding of D.


This last diagram shows B as the largest of a set of nested wheels. It shows the endstate in 2020, not a

path over time.

In 2020, B is what driving things, A is science, cycling back to partners via B convening.

Shorter, smaller coproduction wheels are part the whole geared system.

The little crisis, shown as E, will cut into everyone.

D is also part of cycling outside the whole system.

Three key actions are:

Convene partners (RISAs, Hubs, LCCs) and define roles

Develop an integrated strategic plan across the whole system

Build closer relationships w/NGOs and Foundations

Strategically respond to crises


PlenaryDiscussionWe ended the day with a full group discussion. Jim Herman suggested that the results of the final

synthesis exercise showed a strong convergence on a vision for the SW CSC. Today, it is relatively strong

on Big Science (A) (although there is much more to do) and the main challenge is to move more into the

Convener (B) role, helping to foster more collaborative relationships among all the players in the

southwest. Along the way, there will be experiments with Knowledge Co‐Production (C) at various

scales and levels of completeness. The crisis response (E) scenario was a part of most synthesized

visions but in the background, obviously reactionary, but important.

The low ranking of E showed that no one wants it, for a couple of reasons. First, it is built upon a series

of natural disasters so it appears like ambulance chasing, a bit unseemly. But the idea of a stream of

such crises was deemed highly likely. Indeed, it was said these crises will not be surprises to the

scientists. Second, responding to crises is very disruptive to the limited resources dedicated to science.

But in the fog of a crisis, it is dangerous for the science community to say ‘call me back when it is over’.

In the end the SW CSC can’t let itself get run over by a crisis, but it can’t ignore them either. It goes back

to crisis and how disruptive they can be. When a crisis comes calling, you can’t just ignore it as it can

lead to opportunistic funding and greater support in the stakeholder community. You can’t respond to

all of them, we never will have resources to do so. Managing expectations is one of the toughest parts

of our job. Cut a finger to save a hand. That’s just the reality of our situation.

The sense of the room was that this exercise reenergized many and renewed the commitment to build a

truly collaborative ecosystem for climate adaptations in the region. Although the challenges and

roadblocks are often daunting, we don’t really have any choice – the urgency of the climate adaptation

problem means we have to strive harder to do better and get further.

On the topic of organizational learning, the group asked where does learning fit in, organizational

learning, and how much of your resources do you devote to it? Learning is a big element of C, co‐

production, and so is training a cadre of new professionals. We should take time to see if our steps

ahead, communications/goal setting/metrics could be turned into a learning cycle or at least features of

a learning system. These are new enterprises (the CSCs, LCCs, Hubs, etc.) are at different stages in their

development. We are dealing with the current state of the world – low trust, dysfunction across

Congress, public and private organizations. One of the things about the learning organization is to help

a team move to a different place in organizational health. See Patrick Lencioni’s book: The Five

Dysfunctions of a Team. The point is to learn who is successful and what does it mean to invest for the

purpose of creating a learning organization.

Next, the discussion shifted to the Knowledge Co‐Production (C) scenario. Some people expressed

surprise that it was not front and center in the final synthesis. One person suggested that if we did this

exercise in Washington DC or with a group more heavily weighted to resource managers, we might see a

different result. Was this group a bit heavy on the science side? The discussion emphasized that there

were many approaches to co‐production and that not all of them required a huge extra level of effort.

Some do, however. A CSC manager said he wouldn’t want to run more than one co‐production effort at


once at this point in the evolution of the CSC and the approach. To him, this requires significant

management and orchestration among the players to get it to happen well and in a reasonable amount

of time. The ongoing efforts at evaluation and measurement and critical to getting better at this. More

communication between scientists and stakeholders is the direction for sure.

Similarly, it was suggested that there was a desire at the national level to develop an Info Services (D)

capability. This group did not see much of a role for Info Services (D) for this CSC, but it was pointed out

that something like it (the Climate Concierge) is already a very popular part of the Southeast CSC’s

portfolio of activities. It was suggested that perhaps there were other groups in the southwest that

were able to provide this kind of assistance to resource managers.

It is true that the best results from the process come if you are able to run the workshop more than

once with different mixes of participants. That would be relatively easy as the materials are already

created.


Appendices

PersonsInterviewedtoPrepareforthisWorkshopIn January through March 2015 we interviewed by telephone the following 61 people, which includes all of the people

who participated in the workshop except one last minute addition. The interviews provided the basis for creating the

endstates and events for this workshop. For those who participated in the workshop, the interview began the process

of strategic thinking.

First Last Affiliation

John Andrew California Dept Water Resources

Doug Beard USGS

Julio Betancourt USGS

Gustavo Bisbal USGS

John Bradford USGS

Tim Brown Desert Research Institute

Chris Castro University of Arizona

Hsin‐I Chang University of Arizona

Karletta Chief University of Arizona

Mike Crimmins University of Arizona

Raul De la Rosa California Dept Fish & Wildlife

Emile Elias USDA SW Climate Hub

Carolyn Enquist USGS

Don Falk University of Arizona

Dan Ferguson University of Arizona

Deb Finch USDA Forest Service

Erica Fleishman University of California‐Davis

Rebecca Fris California LCC

Gregg Garfin University of Arizona

Steve Gray USGS

Dave Helweg USGS

Todd Hopkins Great Basin LCC

Chrissy Howell USDA Forest Service

Debra Hughson National Park Service

Steve Jackson USGS

Kathy Jacobs University of Arizona

Genevieve Johnson Desert LCC

Rick Kearney BLM

John Kemmener EPA

Jim Leenhouts USGS

Dave Lytle USGS

Glen MacDonald University of California‐LA

Gerard Macmahon USGS


Mary Mahaffy North Pacific LCC

John Mankowski North Pacific LCC

Melissa Matty USGS

Alison Meadow University of Arizona

Connie Millar USDA Forest Service

Louise Mitzal Sky Island Alliance

Jeff Morrisette USGS

Robin O'Malley USGS

Jonathan Overpeck University of Arizona

John Rice Southern Rockies LCC

Aimee Roberson Desert LCC

Dana Roth US Fish & Wildlife Service

Sarah Ryker USGS

Debra Schlaffman California LCC

Lara Schmit University of Arizona

Rebecca Shaw Environmental Defense Fund

Mark Sogge USGS

Scott Stonum National Park Service

Karen Thorne USGS

Jack Tripke USDA Forest Service

Brad Udall Colorado State University

Phil van Mantgem USGS

Sam Veloz Point Blue

Selso Villegas Tohono O'dham Nation

Tamara Wall Desert Research Institute

Matt Williamson University of California‐Davis

Kim Winton USGS

Connie Woodhouse University of Arizona


Fulltextofevents

External Events 1 ‐ 63

1 2017 CA Drought Leads to Widespread Abandonment of Almond Orchards and Other Ag Holdings

The continuing drought has started to impact agriculture in California. This leads to more questions about landscape scale adaptation plans and the resourcing decisions that should be made by decision makers.

2 2018 A Review Paper in Science Indicates a Big Increase in Number of Ecosystems Experiencing Step Changes

Across the country, there is a big increase in ecosystems that have been fundamentally changed. Alpine meadows have disappeared in many regions. Massive fires in desert grasslands at low elevations don't come back with their pre‐fire species. Research is needed to help land managers determine best next steps for adapting management practices within these areas after the step change, particularly if novel ecosystems, or assembly of species, now exists there.

3 2018 It's Just One Damned Thing After Another Out There In The Real World

In April it's yet another snowpack failure in the Sierras, in May it's a rapid expansion of cheatgrass in burned rangelands in Nevada, in June it's an unprecedented series of merging wildfires in southern Utah, in July it's a beetle outbreak that threatens the Sky Island spruce, in August, it's loss of a fish species in the dried‐up Gila River headwaters, in October it's recognition that we've lost the war against buffelgrass invasion in the Lower Sonoran Desert, and a storm surge in December takes out extensive salt marshes in California. All of these require science‐backed approaches for effective response.

4 2019 Major Climate Disruption Staggers Southwest

The southwest is overwhelmed by a major, unexpected shift in the climate – the monsoons fail for three years in a row; or there is a 1000 year flood event; or average June temps in Phoenix are over 120 degrees.

5 2019 Central Arizona Project Water Allocation Cut by 40%

The water just isn’t there after years of drought. Interstate water law creates a crisis for Arizona. Lawyers are poised to make a lot of money; real estate values in Phoenix collapse.

6 2016 CSC Project Funding Now Includes Time and Resources for Periodic Meetings with Stakeholders

It is now considered mandatory to meet regularly with stakeholders to review a project and course correct as needed. Time near the end of the project is devoted to interpretation of results and further refinement to make it more useful.

7 2017 Support for Government Action on Climate Change Reaches 75% of General Population in Southwest

The impacts of climate change are more in your face in the SW. Water shortages, fires, etc. all lead to the general population understanding that the climate is changing and generally not for the better.

8 2017 Recalcitrant State Governments Now Seek Help on Climate Adaptation

Driven by in‐state climate disasters and rapid shifts in voter acceptance of climate change, even the states most reluctant to deal with climate change are acknowledging they need to take action, and quickly. They draw heavily on NGOs, federal agencies, and universities in their state to help them jump‐start their programs.

9 2017 Conservation Organizations Find It Difficult to Reconfigure Themselves

The scale and scope of ecosystem shifts due to CC don’t match the way federal, state, and NGO conservation organizations are structured, funded, or measured. They are finding they must change program focus, hire for new skills, make new partnerships, and change metrics. Many find this difficult or impossible to do; instead a new‐generation of climate adaptation organizations are increasingly successful at vying for funding.

10 2018 Major Tribes Identify Forest, Range Lands, and Watersheds as Top Priority, Smaller Tribes Follow

The major Arizona tribes – Hopi, Navajo, and Tohono O’odham – have developed plans and started implementation for climate adaptation. The smaller tribes have begun following in their footsteps.

11 2018 Researchers Don’t Understand When research results are used to justify particular resource management


Legal Implications of their Projections

decisions, they can end up in subsequent litigation. Litigation is a fact of life for most resource managers on Federal Lands as they have multiple uses which often end up in conflict. If researchers offer unnecessary additional speculation or hypothetical outcomes in a paper, this can complicate life for a resource manager down the road. No one wants to censor a researcher, but they do expect a level of sensitivity to future legal issues.

12 2015 Survey Indicates Federal Land Managers Are Not Following Literature on CC and Adaptation

Driven by day‐to‐day crises, by directives from above, scrambling for resources, impacted by personnel turnover ‐‐ the last thing most federal land managers have time for is to stay up to date on the newest literature on climate change and adaptation.

13 2016 Resource Managers Present Existing Plans to CSC Staff

The idea is NOT to change their plans, it is to understand the types of plans resource managers make, over what time frames and under what constraints. This helps the CSC be more effective in directing research and delivering tools that strengthen resource manager's ability to plan even better.

14 2017 County Offices Are Key to Reaching People on the Ground

County offices are where the real stakeholders come together. Their meetings have a mix of private land owners, ranchers grazing on public lands, state land management people, BLM, other water managers, etc. The main topic these days in AZ is drought.

15 2017 Resource Managers Flock to Science/Adaptation Sessions

There is broad interest in climate change adaptation by resource managers of all kinds and all levels – federal, state, local, NGO, private. Scientific findings and applied science seminars given by the LCCs and CSCs are heavily attended. Attendance tends to be even higher when educational and science sharing sessions are taken out for “road shows” – allowing managers to attend without having to travel for more than an hour or two.

16 2017 Scenarios Begin to be Used to Screen Specific Resource Manager Decisions

As comfort with scenario thinking has developed, it now is common practice to screen, or ‘wind tunnel’ test, alternative decisions against a widely understood set of scenarios. Sometimes managers want to make 'no regrets' decisions. In other situations, riskier decisions are considered fine so long as risks are understood and tracked so changes can be made before failures.

17 2018 Resource Managers Often Monitor Against Scenarios

Resource managers have learned that comparing scenarios with the real world as it unfolds has huge value. The practice provides early warning that things are not going as planned and changes are needed quickly because things are heading in a different direction than anticipated. Monitoring is real work and resources are made available to do it.

18 2018 Post‐Project Assessment of 3 SW CSC Projects Indicate Resource Managers Not Using the Tools

Every research project wants to show its impact on resource manager decision making, so it develops a specific tool to aid in this process. The problem is, the average resource manager now has to juggle half a dozen or more tools to get the guidance he needs. The tools are not integrated, have varying user interfaces, and ask for data in different ways. Some tools were even developed without consulting with resource managers. The result: a lot of tools just aren't used.

19 2020 DOI Rewards 25 Resource Managers for Best Adaptation Planning

Rather than managing to static goals in static ecosystems, resource managers have been continually evaluating what the evolution/step‐changes in the ecosystem will be, and reset their goals appropriately. They often gave up on traditional goals as not possible, and frequently come up with new goals that weren’t feasible before. The Secretary of the Interior rewards 25 of the "best" resource managers for their creative and visionary adaptation planning.


20 2020 65% of SW DOI Management Units have Climate Change Adaptation Plan

65% of DOI management units in the southwest have a plan (of some sort) in place for dealing with the impact of climate change. Help was abundant – federal and state agencies, universities, NGOs, and foundations all played a role.

21 2016 CSC HQ Promotes the Value of LCCs

The LCCs' close engagement with stakeholders of all types and their focus on outreach and training makes them ideal partners for the CSCs – both in helping shape the science initially, and in ensuring the eventual use of the science. The CSCs and LCCs have documented several case studies highlighting the synergies. NCCWSC does what it can to ensure that LCC funding will continue and possibly increase.

22 2016 SW LCCs Focus on Collecting Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The native Americans of the southwest have survived millennia of tough ecological conditions – they know how things can change, and how to manage in spite of it. Much of this knowledge has yet to be passed on to the next generation. The LCCs focus on collecting, analyzing, and sharing this information, as well as providing forums to share it with the younger generation.

23 2016 LCCs Publish Co‐Production Best Practices

With their focus on applied science and direct interaction with resource managers, the LCCs have more experience with co‐production than most other climate adaptation entities. They develop a set of best practices which they share with other organizations.

24 2016 LCCs Leverage $2 in Partner Money for Every $1 of LCC Spending

The LCC's have become very entrepreneurial. Even though the LCC budgets are flat, the number of applied research and demo projects continues to expand. This happens as the LCCs become ever more effective at collecting and connecting partners. A $1 investment from the LCC might gather $1 in matching funds from the states, and another $1 from BLM.

25 2016 CSCs Pull Together All LCCs in their Region

Most CSCs work with multiple LCCs, and vice versa. Several CSCs now bring together all the LCCs working with them to coordinate projects and ensure full coverage of needs while minimizing overlap.

26 2016 CSC Supported Survey Indicates that Most Stakeholders Prefer to Deal Only with the LCCs

The results of this survey were a surprise to the CSC, but when it comes down to it, the stakeholders don’t have time to work with multiple DOI organizations. Most prefer to work with the LCCs and let the LCCs represent them to the CSCs.

27 2016 CSCs Fund LCCs to Distribute Findings

The LCCs have a much broader range of manager contacts than the CSC does, and are expert at applied science. In areas with strong LCC capacity, the CSCs prefer to hand off much of the responsibility for sharing the results of research to the LCC – while still providing support from the scientists when and where needed.

28 2016 LCCs Represent Interests of States on CSC SACs

In many states, the CSCs have been unable to build partnerships with State agencies and departments. This is generally a combination of lack of resources on both sides, plus some states have greater skepticism about the reality of CC. In these cases, the CSCs depend on the LCCs to have those relationships and provide input as to their needs. The LCC's get a lot of traction at the state level with the perception that they are "not Federal". This helps them build a lot of the inroads needed for success.

29 2018 LCCs Focus on Educational and Training Role

As the immediate impacts of climate change become obvious, there is a rapid increase in demand for education and basic training in adaptation. The LCCs have taken the lead in fulfilling this need for natural resource managers of all types.

30 2018 LCCs Enlist CSCs for Scientific Review of Projects

Instead of evaluating their own projects themselves, the LCCs are using the CSCs to provide rigorous scientific review of their proposals, holding them to a higher standard for the underlying science. The LCCs continue


to review the proposals on the basis of addressing management needs.

31 2016 CSC and LCC Conduct Joint Strategy Sessions on Research Agendas

The purpose of these strategy meetings are to jointly develop research agendas, and also to identify who owns which projects. The other orgs, like RISAs, USDA Hubs, etc are often included as well.

32 2017 Major Mojave Climate Adaptation Project Kicked Off

Crossing four state boundaries, split up between half a dozen management agencies, understaffed due to budget cuts, with a deluge of alternative energy siting requests, and with ecosystems already hammered by climate change, the Mojave landscape has a dire need to get its act together on climate adaptation. The Desert LCC and the SW CSC jointly begin a process of bringing all the players together, and building a shared research and implementation plan.

33 2018 DOI Welcomes Integrated Climate Change Plan from Southwest

The various federal agencies in the southwest (CSC, LCC, Hubs, etc), along with partners from the states, and NGOs, have produced an integrated climate adaptation research, demo, and implementation plan. This is gratefully accepted by HQ – if everyone agrees, who are they to argue? They just get in front of the parade and pretend to lead it. Congress is pleased.

34 2019 CSC/LCC Attrition Disrupts Many Projects

Everyone agrees that the work of the LCCs and CSCs is very important, and that they are doing a good job at it. But the demand is so high, and resources are so scarce, that many CSC/LCC staff and PIs are leaving their positions because of burnout and family issues. It is a common enough occurrence that many important projects are falling way behind, and many important social networks are unravelling.

35 2016 Researchers Report Benefit from Review of Applications of their Work

The researchers report benefit when they see in practical terms how their results are getting applied. In the past, they just published and didn’t really know what was done with the data. Seeing multiple and different ways their work is used gives them insight into better research design in future projects and better ways to package results for easier applicability. Also, it is inspiring to know that what they did had real world utility. Funders will want to know this, too. At times researchers learn that their work is being misapplied and these reviews help to spot that too.

36 2016 Adaptation Decisions Often have Mitigation Implications

What's good for adaptation can be bad for mitigation, and vice versa. For example, a state eager to grab onto the construction jobs and energy supply of a new massive solar site doesn't bother coordinating with the federal and nearby state resource managers. Or, decisions of resource managers for adaptation have mitigation implications, usually in terms of changes to the carbon storage capability of a landscape.

37 2016 Half of All Climate Science Papers from US Authors are Uncited

NYTimes science journalist reports that half of all climate science papers from US authors are uncited. There is a lot of research out there that even other researchers aren’t looking at.

38 2017 Ecosystem Model Fails, Causing Species Loss

A major investment was made to build a comprehensive model of an ecosystem that was transitioning under climate pressures, putting pressure on certain species. The model pointed clearly to the actions that had to be taken, and they were. Unfortunately, the model wasn't accurate enough, and the species died out. We are not there yet when it comes to ecosystem modeling, and this failure shows us that there's a lot more work to be done.

39 2017 Co‐Production Solves the Problem of Long Waits for Research Results

Scientists partnered with invested stakeholders helps the stakeholders to understand research implications along the way. Co‐production keeps resource managers in the loop much more frequently than waiting for publication in a journal, a process that can take more than a year.


Managers can now take actions a year or two earlier than they could in the past.

40 2017 Detailed Sub‐Region‐Specific Climate Models have Higher Accuracy

A report from the National Research Council concludes that geographically limited models are able to capture more processes that matter in that environment than the traditional global models. For example, the ability to capture the effect that dust has on the melting of snowpack and the expected levels of dust in that region due to human activity. Other processes that drive precipitation are also often more localized in nature and need to be modeled on a sub‐region specific basis to be accurate.

41 2018 5yr Seasonal Climate Forecasting Becoming Reliable

Climate variability is the core problem for resource managers in the near‐in time frames. New research has resulted in better insights into seasonal climate variability over the next 5 years. It is now possible to forecast unusually wet, dry, hot, or cold seasons, particularly summers and winters, 3 to 5 years in advance. This forecasting ability is enormously helpful to land managers and planners.

42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and Stakeholder Engagement

Universities develop incentives for doing applied research and doing the extra work to make their findings usable and understood by practitioners. No longer are basic research and publishing the only things you can be rewarded, tenured, and promoted for.

43 2020 SW Water Research Additionally Focuses on Flood Events

The focus of a lot of research has traditionally been on future water supplies. Following recent disturbances, there is now interest to understand future possibilities for extreme flood events in the SW. The result is less interest in the snowpack and more in extreme rain events, which are harder to predict. Land use questions come up as well.

44 2016 Coordinated National CSC Plans by HQ Divert Regional CSC Goals

As the national CSC leadership attempts to coordinate the activities of individual CSCs to pursue nationwide adaptation goals, some local CSC priorities are postponed to free up resources.

45 2016 One CSC Builds Best Practices Database, Other CSCs Ignore It

Getting the CSCs to really use each other’s results is harder than you might think. There’s no glory in adopting someone else’s approach.

46 2016 NCCWSC Appoints Network Coordinator to Coordinate Projects Across CSCs

The work being done in each region is quite well used within its geography, but little is done in seeking ways to synthesize useful insights across the whole national network. Leadership at HQ and the CSCs simply had no time to do this, so they added a network coordinator who makes national synthesis of the network’s work their priority.

47 2017 USGS Simplifies Project Funding Rules for CSCs

Too much of CSC staff time has been spent on following the byzantine rules for CSC project funding and grant restrictions – far more complex and restrictive than equivalent funding processes elsewhere. After several frustrating years, the process has finally become more streamlined.

48 2017 CSCs Allowed to Use 25% of Funding “Out of Network”

Science funding is no longer strictly limited to CSC member institutions. There are times when the needed expertise is simply not available in‐house. Rules have been loosened to allow the CSCs to spend up to 25% of their funding outside their home organizations.

49 2016 HQ Asks Each CSC to Develop Specialized Expertise

In addition to their focus on regional needs, HQ has asked each CSC to specialize in one or two areas that the other CSCs can call on when needed. Some specialize in specific processes, such as structured decision making, while others take leadership in cross‐regional topics, like bird migration.

50 2016 CSCs Establish Standard Climate Scenarios to Use in Vulnerability Assessments

At present, the stakeholders have no guidance on which climate scenarios to use in doing vulnerability assessment. They chose to rely on the CSCs for providing the subset of models that is preferred for this kind of work in each region. They want to know what are the likely scenarios and then


build resilience based on those without relying on new model work. It can be iterative so that as more research is done and real measurements build up, the scenarios can be refined.

51 2016 CSCs Kick‐Off Program for Common Framework for CC Indicators, Protocols, and Monitoring

Every agency and sub‐department seems to have its own approach to the data it collects, and how it stores them. Besides the drain of continually re‐inventing the wheel, these divergent approaches mean that data sharing is nearly impossible. The CSCs kick off a program to bring some order to this chaos. It will also require agencies to share once‐siloed, inaccessible data sets. The goal is for something light‐weight and adaptable – not a monstrous centralized colossus.

52 2016 CSC Funding Increases Opportunistically

When constituents yell, Congress listens and appropriates. Much of the increase in CSC funding over the last couple of years has come from specific “crisis” situations – the drought, Arctic permafrost melting, strong El Nino, a huge fire. It’s hard to plan ahead in these cases – more important is agility and the ability to quickly develop and deploy new research.

53 2017 CSCs Develop Cadre of Science Translators that Facilitate Discussion btwn Scientists and Practitioners

Science translation is a unique skill set and role that is developed as part of the CSC mission. This new, capable group of science translators helps to facilitate discussions between the scientists and the practitioners.

54 2017 CSCs Make Choice to Only Support DOI Projects and HQ Supports Them

Even though the US Forest Service's climate adaptation needs have a lot in common with the needs of DoI organizations like NPS and BLM, when push comes to shove, the needs of the DoI tend to prevail over those of the Forest Service.

55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource Managers

The major project on drought, which involved 3 CSCs, has gone well and has really engaged the many resource managers in regions involved.

56 2018 CSCs Develop Closer Working Relationship with Strategic NGOs and Climate‐Focused Foundations

The NGOs have content expertise and on‐the‐ground relationships in both the field and in government that are good complements to the CSC mission. The CSCs have developed cordial relationships with a number of NGOs and also environmental foundations where they can seek funding for very specific, important needs that the government can't or won't fund.

57 2017 Annual Budget Cycles Undermine Planning for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

The planning cycle of land managers is being highly impacted by the yearly swing in directives and vagaries of congressional funding. Long‐term plans funded one year may be defunded two years later due to budget cuts or redirection of priorities.

58 2017 Strategic Step‐up in Funding for Climate Change Organizations

The real world impacts of climate change have become more evident and the political winds have changed. CSCs, along with other federal climate change organizations, have received a significant increase in their annual funding.

59 2017 New Federal Mandate Requires Gov't Resource Managers to Put CC Adaptation in their Plans

New requirements from on high mandate that climate adaptation take a central role in resource management. In the past, many of these managers assumed climate change is too far in the future to include in their plans. They suddenly find they need help getting up to speed.

60 2017 New Congress Increases Funding for Environmental Monitoring

Continued monitoring of changes in habitat and species is now something that is considered a fundamental part of becoming better adapted to increasing climate variability, and therefore receives increased funding. Monitoring programs that explicitly support the evaluation of the efficacy of implemented adaptation options are rewarded with even more funding.

61 2017 Congress Eliminates the LCCs Support had been shaky for a while and finally Congress decided to pull all


funding and support.

62 2019 DOI Funding is Skewed Toward Regions with Most Federal Lands

To get the most benefit from its research dollars, the DOI prioritizes funding for those centers with the greatest amount of federal land. Spending becomes more proportional to the actual size of federal lands in each region. For example, the southwest contains 25% of all federal lands.

63 2020 FWS Issues Directive on Interpreting ESA in the Face of Climate Change

The Fish and Wildlife Service, as the main implementer and enforcer of the Endangered Species Act, has finally issued a major policy statement about how to apply the ESA to climate‐related questions of species loss. The FWS focus will be on identifying those species at risk from climate change, determine which ones can have a reasonable expectation of sufficient future habitat to remain viable, perhaps with assisted migration or other assistance. It will be possible under the new guidelines to determine that a specific species cannot be reasonably saved in its current habitat given likely future conditions.

Internal Events 64 to 113

64 2016 Consortium PIs & SW CSC Agree on Shared Vision, Strategy, Objectives

Through a series of facilitated meetings, the PI's and CSC agree on shared vision going forward ‐ in areas of both content and process.

65 2017 SW CSC Establishes Impact Metrics and Evaluation Process

The SW CSC now attaches impact metrics to the projects it funds. After the project is complete, three to five year follow‐up analysis tracks whether any managers are using the findings in their decision making or putting the results into day‐to‐day practice. The metrics are used to improve proposal scoring and to share best practices. With these metrics established up front, the research design is better tailored for real impact.

66 2017 Stakeholder‐Reviewed Proposals Boost CSC Support

The stakeholders on standing committees get far more value from being in the review process to define research and select proposals than in SAC meetings.

67 2018 SW CSC Completes Overview of All Climate Projects in Region

The SW CSC has pulled together descriptions of scope, method and target constituency for all projects funded by any group in its region. This way it knows where there is work already being done and can avoid funding a project that is close to one already funded. Also, the gaps become more apparent with this data in hand. Implicit in this is an overview of the various organizations in the region and their relationship to each other. Describing this intricate set of relationships and the work being done by each was viewed by all as highly valuable.

68 2018 SW CSC Holds Regular Joint Stakeholder/Scientist Workshop

A professionally‐facilitated workshop sets up a rich dialog between stakeholders and university scientists, help them jointly decide what is the most important science needed over the coming years – broad enough to be more generally applicable, and specific enough to help a real manager with a real problem.

69 2018 SW CSC Acts as Resource Leveler The SW CSC has acted as a “resource leveler” over the past few years, attempting to compensate for budget vagaries across agencies by ensuring important work continues when a particular source of funding is cut off, e.g., orphaned monitoring programs, key research, student trainings, outreach & education, etc.

70 2019 Joint Funding of Cross‐Border Projects with Mexico Common

The SW CSC jointly sponsors projects with Mexico on areas of mutual interest, such as a study on the effect of the border wall for species migration north to escape climate change.

71 2019 SW CSC Science Funding Now Stakeholder Driven

The SW CSC Stakeholders are now in the driver’s seat. They discuss and prioritize the science funding they want to see undertaken by the CSC. All proposals still are vetted for quality. The scientists know that if they don’t please the stakeholders, their prospects for future project funding is dimmer.


72 2015 SW CSC Science Review Committee Holds Biennial Face‐to‐Face Meetings

Though they work effectively via con calls, there is no substitution for in‐person interaction and relationship building. The committee has decided to hold a two‐day meeting every other year, with the option of a third day to tour one of the project sites they have funded.

73 2016 SW CSC and CCASS Develop Strong Partnership on Co‐Production

CCASS (Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions at UA) has turned out to be a key partner for the SW CSC. Their objective of creating a unified approach to adaptation work being done at UA dovetailed nicely with the CSC’s objectives. Since the CSC has money and CCASS doesn’t have much, there was a good basis for working together. One key area of joint effort is in co‐production.

74 2016 BLM, Forest Service, BoR Become Active Partners with SW CSC

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, and the USDA Forest Service are now actively involved in co‐production. The SW CSC is the convener. Previously, these agencies had been less directly involved.

75 2018 SW CSC Expands the University Consortium

SW CSC seeks to add members to the primary university consortium both for expertise and connection to critical stakeholders, e.g., a Mexican University or Tribal College; a university in Utah, another campus in the Arizona or UC system.

76 2019 Ecologists Dominate Core PI Team, More Than Physical Scientists

Understanding the impact of changes in climate requires a better understanding of how ecosystems function and respond to climate change, not just the hydro‐climatic attributes of particular geographies. The Core PI team now has more ecologists than physical scientists.

77 2015 SW CSC Supports Southern Rockies LCC “Connections Workshops”

Over the course of several months, the Southern Rockies LCC plans to visit each of its three focus landscapes, and present the results of its work to‐date, and get input on future needs. The SW CSC has arranged for a scientist to attend each of these meetings – to provide more in‐depth expertise, and to listen to the needs of the managers.

78 2016 SW CSC Hosts Annual Climate Workshops for Stakeholders

The CSC hosts an annual event aimed at having a shared conversation about research needs. The focus is to get as many practitioners as possible to attend. It is structured to include small group conversations about what’s needed, what’s possible, what’s already happening, what needs to be added to the research, etc.

79 2016 SW LCCs and SW CSC Clarify Responsibilities

Each of the five SW LCCs work with the SW CSC to delineate distinct responsibilities and spheres of activity, ultimately signing a memorandum of understanding. Originally created for different purposes, they have drifted into similar territory. They now define more clearly each organization’s key mission and scope.

80 2016 SW CSC Partners with Regional Forest Managers

The regional managers are the ones that can direct resources at a broad level – both directly through re‐assignment, but more powerfully through letting everyone know that climate change adaptation is a priority and so is partnering with the SW CSC and similar organizations.

81 2016 SW CSC Connects to Existing Outreach Groups, Avoids Building Their Own

The SW CSC takes advantage of organizations with existing outreach programs. The Extension programs of the land grant universities are generally the oldest. The LCCs have also developed outreach and put a lot of effort into it. Some PIs have long standing relationships with land managers. The CSC approach is to leverage the existing relationships of these people and organizations, not try to re‐create them.

82 2016 SW CSC Builds Social Network and Online Community of SW Climate Change Organizations

Several organizations tried but failed to develop online social networking of the various climate change organizations in the region. It took some work, but the SW CSC was large enough of an entity to bring the coordination needed to develop a robust social network. The online community is active, and people use it to stay up‐to‐date on the many


efforts in the region.

83 2017 5 SW LCCs Discuss Priorities Just Before SAC Meetings

One day prior to SAC meetings, the 5 SW LCC's convene to discuss priorities, requirements, activities underway and envisioned. The SW CSC then hosts the SAC meeting as a dialogue between different groups and revises plans as needed. The LCC meeting the day before the SAC meeting really helps the right priorities to be set.

84 2017 Extension Schools become Key Partner with SW CSC

The cooperative extension schools already have the networks to reach out to farmers and ranchers, etc. As they get more serious about climate change, the SW CSC becomes a key partner. Since their funding has shrunk, they welcome the SW CSC and its funding as a way to help them get up to speed on climate change adaptation issues.

85 2018 SW CSC Partners with NCEAS to Establish Climate War Room

The SW CSC in partnership with NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UCSB) has built a real facility where stakeholders can come and interact in a variety of ways with climate science information, models, scenarios, etc.

86 2015 SW CSC De‐focuses on Downscaling

In the first place, the downscale models just have too much uncertainty in them to really rely on. Additionally, most of the problems that land managers deal with are in the shorter term and pretty obvious. Besides, the science component is often just a small component of dealing with the problem – it’s as much or more about regulations, partnerships, awareness, and so forth.

87 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Approaches to Dealing with Uncertainty

The SW CSC has identified a big need in the stakeholder community and has decided to focus on it. They want to understand and categorize the main sources of uncertainty in climate change forecasting. When managers are confronted with significantly different results from different models they throw up their hands. The CSC is attempting to provide them with a way of understanding the uncertainty inherent in these forecasts and how to make decisions despite that.

88 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Climate Model Harmonization

There are way too many climate models being used across research and management in the southwest. The CSC performs an inventory of all the models in use, then gathers together relevant parties to find a way to streamline the number of models, and improve those that remain. No one is forced to use a particular model; but many welcome handing of model management to someone with more time and experience.

89 2016 SW CSC Focuses on How to Assist the Development of New Ecosystems In the Wake of Large Disturbances

With increased awareness that large scale disturbance are coming, the SW CSC gets involved in answering questions such as: how do we assist the ecosystem that comes next? How do we know what can successfully migrate to the disturbed area? What species need assistance moving into it and what species will be fine on their own?

90 2017 SW CSC Develops Expertise in Stream Flow Projections

A key priority in the southwest is forecasting stream flows. This requires more than just forecasting precipitation levels. It requires ability to model thunderstorms and more extreme rainfall events. Through a series of grants it has developed a dynamic downscaling capability for major basins in the region. It is done in a general way that allows the results to be used by many different practitioners.

91 2017 SW CSC Supplies Managers with Parameters of Extreme Planning Outcomes

Rather than the “most likely” outcome, the SW CSC has been supplying managers with possible extremes that they should include in their profile. What is the chance of a 15 year or longer megadrought? Of the increased frequency of 3x higher storm flow? Managers test their plans against these extremes (not just the “most likely case") as an additional form of risk management.

92 2017 SW CSC Focuses on a Few Large The SW CSC chooses to focus on a few, difficult interdisciplinary projects,


Interdisciplinary Projects e.g., the impact of climate change on the monsoon, a major ecosystem driver in the SW that is little understood.

93 2015 SW CSC Selected for Pilot Project on Co‐Production

Co‐production is much more resource intensive than typical research projects. Few scientists or land managers know how to even approach the issue. The SW CSC has been selected for a HQ pilot grant to run a project using a true co‐production methodology.

94 2016 Project Leaders Work with Practitioners on Data Standards

It is now common practice for a new SW CSC project to have the PI sit down with the practitioners who will use the work to standardize key data structures, formats and scales. The goal is to insure that the results line up with systems in a practitioner office. In the past when a project just delivered a result, it was sometimes the case that the practitioner couldn’t really use it. Wrong scale. Wrong GIS. A little extra effort upfront greatly increases the value of the results.

95 2017 SW CSC Rolls Out Grad Student Training in Co‐Production

The SW CSC has set up a program for training grad students in techniques that lead to actionable science. There is a one‐week training course, plus a semester long seminar. The most interested students do an apprenticeship on a CSC project.

96 2017 SW CSC Offers Short Course for Scientists on Engaging with Practitioners

For scientists wanting to do a better job of this, the SW CSC now offers training on techniques and processes for better dialogue and project design. Included are ways to talk about challenges rather than directly about climate change.

97 2018 Development of Narratives Using Analytics Develops Strong Connections to Stakeholders

Text analytics refers to the process of deriving high‐quality information from text, and is useful for understanding how large groups perceive/frame a particular issue. The SW CSC uses this technique to learn, for example, how ranchers or native tribes in the southwest think about climate change. The goal is to enable scientists to connect better with how people are actually thinking vs trying to change their mind. What stories, or narratives, can go viral in different social communities?

98 2019 SW CSC Social Science Spending Same as Climate Science

Adaptation requires changing people's and organization's long held attitudes and beliefs, processes and procedures. The SW CSC is finding that to be successful it has to place as much emphasis on the former as the latter.

99 2015 SW CSC Creates Federal Agency 101 Webinar for Researchers

The webinar explains what each Federal agency (FS, FWS, RISA, BLM, USBR, etc.) is responsible for, what kinds of funding it might have, what its limitations are, etc. You have to understand how the money works in these different agencies. For example, it’s important how a project is described. Also, there often are end of year funds that can’t be carried over and must be obligated on short notice. All researchers working with the CSCs and LCCs are required to absorb the material so that they can at least talk intelligently with a resource manager.

100 2017 SW CSC Provides Scenario Training to LCCs and Others

The uncertainty of climate change makes scenario‐based planning a natural approach. Many are using it already, though without any formal training. The SW CSC has developed a toolkit of scenario‐based approaches complete with tailorable data. It provides training on how to use the tools, and will help select the right approach and the best data sets for a particular project.

101 2017 SW CSC Performs Climate Change Readiness Assessment

Upon request, the SW CSC will review existing management plans across an ecosystem, providing feedback, analysis and recommendations. Often, the results yield the need for specific science projects, personnel training, cross‐jurisdictional coordination, re‐writing of long term plans, or development of contingency plans in case of step‐changes.

102 2017 SW CSC Creates Decision Support A decision support tool which helps determine the minimum standards,


Tool in Partnership with LCCs and specific types and resolution of climate information needed in specific regulatory documents (Biological Opinions, Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], Candidate Conservation Agreements, NEPA docs, and Resource Management Plans and Forest Plans). Something similar at BR for rivers. The key idea is that more information does not make a better decision, only the right information correctly contextualized and applied.

103 2017 SW CSC Completes Study of Decision Making among its Stakeholders

SW CSC completes a comprehensive look at the kinds of decisions resource managers need to make. Who makes them and how? What are the real decisions and situations they face? A set of categories are developed that characterize different aspects of a decision (geographic scope, timeframe, interactions with other resource managers, risk profile, etc.). The goal is to understand how to bundle needs and projects in a way that is applicable to more than one decision of the same type.

104 2015 BIA Funds Climate Adaptation Liaison to Work with SW CSC

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has put a person in the SW CSC with the goal of getting a better two‐way dialogue about tribal lands issues. This is the start of a more serious relationship between the BIA and SW CSC. You can't manage water and biota in the SW without Native American tribes at the table.

105 2016 SW CSC Hires Science Translators Rather than working only with research scientists, the SW CSC has hired two expert "science translators". These people are the bridge between researchers and stakeholders, helping each to communicate effectively and identify their respective needs.

106 2016 SW CSC Hires Applied Climate Scientist

Land managers have many smaller science needs; often they just need someone to help them sort through existing literature, or advise them on how to run simple experiments. The new staff scientist is available for these smaller requests.

107 2017 SW CSC Sets Up Rotation Program for Specific Needs

The SW CSC now has a program where an agency employee can be rotated into the CSC for a specific length of time (say, 3 months to 6 months) to work on a particular project (say, setting up a new monitoring approach with a PI). This has several advantages – it provides more staff support for the CSC, it supports the concept of co‐production, and it builds tighter links out to field organizations.

108 2018 SW CSC Hosts Interns from Tribal Colleges

The SW CSC has built a relationship with the technical tribal colleges in the southwest, regularly co‐sponsoring internships for students at these institutions on CSC‐funded projects.

109 2018 SW CSC University PIs Promote Grad Student Training in Science Translation

The university consortium in the SW CSC is investing heavily in grad student training in science translation. With its focus on multi‐disciplinary collaboration, synthesis across research, and translation into concepts relevant to practitioners, this is a skill set in much demand for climate adaptation.

110 2016 SW CSC Formulates Standards for Presentation of Results

Each project usually creates some kind of portal to make their data available to others to use. But there is tremendous diversity of approaches. The SW CSC begins to promote specific ways of doing this and specific toolsets and platforms that make this part of a project easier and less time consuming for researchers.

111 2016 SW CSC Develops, Funds, Prioritizes Full Communications Plan

Research isn’t very useful if no one knows about it. The SW CSC has developed press plans, an expanded website, a series of outreach webinars, a newsletter, a speaker’s bureau, case studies of science being applied, and a traveling road show. Research project leaders make support of the communications plan a priority. Everyone from Congress on down wants to know about what's going on. With all this money being spent, if you can’t tell a compelling story of what is being done, why it


matters, what it sets the stage for, you are going to be on shaky ground.

112 2017 Public Education Events Held by the SW CSC Draw Powerful and Connected People

The SW CSC sponsored public events draw powerful and connected people into thinking about what climate change will mean to the region in various ways: water, wildlife, food, fires, etc. The attendees, often recruited by special invitation, are capable of leading change on a social scale for issues that have 10‐30 yr, multigenerational, time frames.

113 2017 SW CSC Collaborates in a Series of Review Papers Summarizing Best Practices in Climate Adaptation

The SW CSC collaborates on a series of review papers to share best practices and approaches to various problems and efforts, from vulnerability assessment to model down‐scaling.

New Events Written at Workshop 114 to 141

114 2018 CSCs Sign MOAs, MOUs with tribes CSCs in each region sign MOAs, MOUs and other agreements with tribes to communicate and collaborate.

115 2022 80% of American Public Supports Action on Climate Change

We hit a tipping point where generation Z becomes politically active and starts to vote.

116 2017 CSC Network Policy Requires All Research to Have Explicit Management Need

In new round of CSC funding, NCCWSC restructures to require that all funded projects begin with an explicit and specific management need and partnership with management agency.

117 2020 Antarctic Ice Sheet Melts ‐‐ Southern California Flooded

An ice sheet melts, all California cities are flooded and coastline destroyed.

118 2018 CSCs & LCCs Merge, Creating Unified Climate Science and Delivery Organization.

119 2020 Co‐Production is Real and Practiced by CSCs

CSC staff worked with stakeholders to frame a resource problem, elicit objectives and desired endpoints, use cutting edge science to predict the value of different actions and consult on implementation and formal learning through strategic monitoring. The CSC is involved from planning to implementation of adaptive management plan.

120 2016 Severe Wildfire Season Prompts Congress to Increase Funding for Fire‐Response Planning

Massive wildfires across the Western U.S. lead to funding increases in support of community‐based planning and restoration.

121 2018 LCCs,Hubs and CSC create a Truly Collaborative Network to Address Key Water Issue in SW

Driven to create a workable solution to a water resource challgence, the LCCs, Hubs and CSC form a true partnership to address the issue successfully.

122 2019 Farmers and Ranchers Cash‐In on selling Senior Water Rights to CA Municipalities

Continued drought drives a move to fallow additional lands and sell water rights to the highest bidders.

123 2017 DOI Mandates that All Bureaus Invest in CSC Infrastructure

DOI mandates all bureaus invest in CSC infrastructure. The original design of the DOI CSC was to have engagement with bureaus.

124 2016 Downscaling Output Oversold Results from multiple modeling efforts produce conflicting results.

125 2018 NOAA Eliminates Funding for RISA Program

126 2018 Major Tribes in SW (Navajo, Hopi, TO) Identify Water as Top Priority

Smaller tribes follow.

127 2022 Lake Mead Hits 1000', Colorado River Compact Open to Discussion

128 2018 Large Fire Season Results in Ecosystem Conversion across Sky Islands

129 2017 US Food Prices Spike US Food Prices Spike as a result of drought causing renewed emphasis on climate mitigation.

130 2018 CSC Projects Keep Managers Focused on Managing for Limited

CSC projects that have focused on long‐term trends in precipitation variability and slow social responses to variability convince stakeholders


Water even after Break in Drought about need to build resilience. This position is supported by State Administration and Agencies.

131 2017 Fire Sweeps the Great Basin After a dry winter, an early warm wet spring contributes o two crops of annual grasses. In late summer, dry thunderstorms set off landscape level wildfires, which extensively damage sage steppe ecosystems in the region.

132 2020 Extended Drought Shifts Use to Groundwater, Amplifying Impacts to Stressed Reparian Ecosystems

Groundwater withdrawals have a delayed effect on connected springs and streams. Having not fully appreciated that fact, resource managers and the public have assumed groundwater could be developed with minimal impact.

133 2017 Congress Maintains CSCs, but Mandates Variability Focus

Federal employees cannot refer to climate change or sustainability.

134 2020 Cascading Effects of Ecosystem Stressors Shifts Funding to Response and Mitigation

An "imperfect storm" of drought, forest pests, catastrophic wildfire, etc. cascades through the ecosystems of the Southwest, causing resources to be pulled away from the CSCs and LCCs in favor of response and mitigation.

135 2018 MegaFires Reveal Lack of Management Coordination Among Management Agencies

Fires sweeping across National Forest, National Park, BLM, State land and private land expose shortcomings in coordination and management among agencies. New Executive Order mandates taht regional scale interagency coordination take place in fuels treatment, reseeding, etc.

136 2020 Consolidation of Federal Resources for Climate Change

The existing set of Government organizations charged with climate change activities/ research efforts are brought together under a single organizational construct. Prioritization of missions done under one roof. Portfolio of activities streamlined as some areas of focus are dropped, others emphasized according to a centralized set of policies.

137 2020 Economic Impacts of Climate Change Recognized as Top Priority

Economics drive funding including large increase in USDA Climate Hub budget and decrease in DOI funding.

138 2018 Devasting Atlantic Hurricanes Divert Funding for Drought‐Stricken Southwest

After two years marked by major hurricanes making landfall along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast, Congress votes to divest the majority of funding for CC‐impacts science and adaptation efforts into post‐storm recovery.

139 2020 Record Low Stream Flow across SW Leads to Rewriting of Major Western Water Law

Coincident low snowpack and stream flow in both the Colorado River and California headwaters lead to rewriting of major water laws, including the "Law of the River" and prior appropriation more generally.

140 2020 Coastal Impacts from Storms in Southern California Lead to Increase Funding for Sea Level Rise Adaptation

Impacts from sea level rise and storms become a major public concern following storm events. DOI increases CSC funding to support research into novel approaches for coastal communities and natural resource managers to adapt to these impacts.

141 2020 Massive Forest Dieback Across the SW Drives Managers (Forest & Water) to Triage Priorities

Large areas are closed to public access due to fire risk and post flooding damage from erosion. watershed management focuses on keeping water in systems and reducing erosion to support delivery of water downstream; quantity and quality are compromised.


BackgroundonRegionalClimateChangeOrganizations

Background Information on Climate Change Organizations National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and Climate Science Centers (CSCs) http://www.doi.gov/csc/index.cfm https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/ The mission of the Climate Science Centers is to provide natural and cultural resource managers with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that address the impacts of climate change on a broad range of natural and cultural resources.

The CSCs aim to provide fundamental scientific information, tools, and techniques that land, water, wildlife, and cultural resource managers and other interested parties can apply to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change impacts. Much of the information and tools provided by the CSCs, including physical and biological research, ecological forecasting, and multi‐scale modeling, is tailored in response to the landscape‐level priority needs identified by the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, as well as the cross‐sector needs of other agencies and communities in the region. One of the stated goals of the CSC network is to produce “actionable science” for use by their clients. This is an opportunity for states to promote work by their CSCs on projects that will benefit state managers. 8 Resource Guide to Federal Climate Adaptation Programs

The CSCs are managed by the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC). They are located at universities and are often comprised of multi‐institution consortia, including other universities, Tribal partners, and federal research labs. The CSCs have eight regions and each has a university as the lead institution.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives http://lccnetwork.org/

The 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) form a network of resource managers and scientists who share a common need for scientific information and interest in conservation. Each LCC brings together federal, state, and local governments along with Tribes and First Nations, non‐governmental organizations, universities, and interested public and private organizations. The partners work collaboratively to identify best practices, connect efforts, identify science gaps, and avoid duplication through conservation planning and design.

As a network, the LCCs are working together to promote connections among conservation efforts across even wider geographic and political boundaries, and to address conservation issues, like climate adaptation, beyond their own borders. To find more information about LCC projects and products that can be applied to climate adaptation in your region, consult your local LCC.


Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) http://cpo.noaa.gov/ClimatePrograms/ClimateandSocietalInteractions/RISAProgram.aspx The RISA program supports research teams with the mission of expanding and building the nation's capacity to prepare for and adapt to climate variability and change. The emphasis is on producing science to support policy decisions. RISA teams work with public and private user communities to advance understanding of policy, planning and management contexts; develop knowledge on impacts, vulnerabilities, and response options through interdisciplinary research and participatory processes; innovate products and tools to enhance the use of science in decision making; and test diverse governance structures for managing scientific research. In order to learn about specific decision contexts to better understand the use of climate science, RISAs form lasting relationships with decision makers from all sectors. RISAs advance of a variety of approaches for applying knowledge to action including scenario planning, participatory assessment, and experimental service development.

Regional Climate Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/regional_hubs.htm These seven regional hubs are not yet fully developed, but will eventually deliver science‐based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners within each region to support decision‐making in the context of climate change. These hubs intend to maintain and strengthen agricultural production, natural resource management, and rural economic development under increasing climate variability. The Hubs will build capacity within USDA to deliver information and guidance on technologies and risk management practices at regional and local scales. These hubs can be useful for producing information for private land owners with whom state natural resource managers frequently work. Each Hub will be located at a soon‐to‐be announced location in the region (Figure 7) and will be supported by a network of public, academic, and private sector organizations, researchers, and outreach specialists. Current partners represent land grant universities; USDA researchers, programs, and field offices; private sector companies addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation; state, local and regional governments; NOAA and DOI regional climate change experts; and non‐profits providing assistance to landowners.


A Southwest Climate Science Center Index Number of DOI Climate Science Centers nationally: 8

Number of states in the Southwest1: 4 Year in which the SW CSC was launched: 2011

Number of SW CSC staff, federal side: 2.35 Number of SW CSC staff, university side: 1.5

Percentage of all federally administered lands that are in the Southwest: 25 Percentage of all lands administered by the Department of Interior that are in the Southwest: 25

Percentage of all tribal lands that are in the Southwest: 25 Percentage of all National Park Service lands that are in the Southwest: 17

Percentage of all Bureau of Land Management lands that are in the Southwest: 35 Percentage of all Department of Defense lands that are in the Southwest: 43

Percentage of all National Forest lands that are in the Southwest: 22 Rank of the Southwest in total percentage of lands administered by, respectively, the federal

government, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Forest Service, and the Department of Defense:

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 12 Number of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in the Southwest: 5

Number of Fish & Wildlife Service Regions in the Southwest: 3 Number of Forest Service Regions in the Southwest: 3

Number of National Park Service Regions in the Southwest: 2 Number of U.S. Geological Survey Regions in the Southwest: 2

Number of USDA Climate Hubs in the Southwest: 1 Number of DOI management units in the Southwest3: 1,156

Number of National Parks in the Southwest: 66 Number of Native American reservations in the Southwest: 151

Percentage of reservations in the US that are in the Southwest: 48 Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are administered by the federal government: 67 Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are administered by the Interior Department: 48

Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are administered by tribes: 9 Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are administered by BLM: 33 Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are part of National Parks: 5 Percentage of lands in the Southwest that are in National Forests: 14

1 ‘Southwest’ is defined here as California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, the four states primarily covered by the SW CSC. 2 Alaska is ranked #1 for federal, DOI, NPS, and FWS lands; the Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho) is #1 for Forest Service lands. 3 “Unit” refers to a reservation, wilderness area, refuge, park, reservoir, or other administrative management unit.


Climate Science Centers


Landscape Conservation Cooperatives


Fish and Wildlife Service Regions


USGS

Regions


National Park Service Regions


U.S. Forest Service Regions


Bureau of Land Management – One Office in each of 12 States


Bureau of Reclamation Regions


Bureau of Indian Affairs Regions


Native American

Reservations


AttachedAppendiceswithFullResultsofVotingfromWorkshopIn the pages that follow there are complete listings of the output from the database of voting for this workshop.

HU% UN%HL% HLHU Card# Year Event Text

Future Scenarios for the USGSSW Climate Science Center

Tucson, AZ

Current Expectations SummaryApril 14-15, 2015

Cer%14 9Total Highly Likely: Total Highly UnLikely:# of Records:63 22% 14%

External 14 9Total Highly Likely: Total Highly UnLikely:Southwest Climate

61 32 6 Y 1 2017 CA Drought Leads to Widespread Abandonment of Almond Orchards and OtherAg Holdings

-55

32 23 45 2 2018 A Review Paper in Science Indicates a Big Increase in Number of EcosystemsExperiencing Step Changes

13

6 94 Y 3 2018 It's Just One Damned Thing After Another Out There In The Real World943 58 39 4 2019 Major Climate Disruption Staggers Southwest366 68 26 5 2019 Central Arizona Project Water Allocation Cut by 40%20

Stakeholder Needs16 10 74 Y 6 2016 CSC Project Funding Now Includes Time and Resources for Periodic Meetings

with Stakeholders58

29 23 48 7 2017 Support for Government Action on Climate Change Reaches 75% of GeneralPopulation in Southwest

19

58 26 16 8 2017 Recalcitrant State Governments Now Seek Help on Climate Adaptation-4216 13 71 Y 9 2017 Conservation Organizations Find It Difficult to Reconfigure Themselves5513 39 48 10 2018 Major Tribes Identify Forest, Range Lands, and Watersheds as Top Priority,

Smaller Tribes Follow35

6 23 71 Y 11 2018 Researchers Don’t Understand Legal Implications of their Projections65

Current Expectations Summary Page 1AnthrosConsulting.com



Tucson, AZ


Cer%Frontline Managers

10 16 74 Y 12 2015 Survey Indicates Federal Land Managers Are Not Following Literature on CCand Adaptation

64

39 26 35 13 2016 Resource Managers Present Existing Plans to CSC Staff-413 32 55 14 2017 County Offices Are Key to Reaching People on the Ground4226 19 55 15 2017 Resource Managers Flock to Science/Adaptation Sessions2929 39 32 16 2017 Scenarios Begin to be Used to Screen Specific Resource Manager Decisions358 19 23 17 2018 Resource Managers Often Monitor Against Scenarios-353 16 81 Y 18 2018 Post-Project Assessment of 3 SW CSC Projects Indicate Resource Managers Not

Using the Tools78

13 29 58 19 2020 DOI Rewards 25 Resource Managers for Best Adaptation Planning4529 10 61 20 2020 65% of SW DOI Management Units have Climate Change Adaptation Plan32

LCCs29 42 29 21 2016 CSC HQ Promotes the Value of LCCs029 29 42 22 2016 SW LCCs Focus on Collecting Traditional Ecological Knowledge1348 26 26 23 2016 LCCs Publish Co-Production Best Practices-2216 52 32 24 2016 LCCs Leverage $2 in Partner Money for Every $1 of LCC Spending1629 13 58 25 2016 CSCs Pull Together All LCCs in their Region2968 32 Y 26 2016 CSC Supported Survey Indicates that Most Stakeholders Prefer to Deal Only

with the LCCs -68

58 42 Y 27 2016 CSCs Fund LCCs to Distribute Findings-5865 23 13 Y 28 2016 LCCs Represent Interests of States on CSC SACs-52




Tucson, AZ


Cer%52 32 16 29 2018 LCCs Focus on Educational and Training Role-3619 19 61 30 2018 LCCs Enlist CSCs for Scientific Review of Projects42

SW Climate Orgs13 32 55 31 2016 CSC and LCC Conduct Joint Strategy Sessions on Research Agendas4242 39 19 32 2017 Major Mojave Climate Adaptation Project Kicked Off-2352 39 10 33 2018 DOI Welcomes Integrated Climate Change Plan from Southwest-4219 39 42 34 2019 CSC/LCC Attrition Disrupts Many Projects23

Science32 19 48 35 2016 Researchers Report Benefit from Review of Applications of their Work16

6 94 Y 36 2016 Adaptation Decisions Often have Mitigation Implications9413 16 71 Y 37 2016 Half of All Climate Science Papers from US Authors are Uncited5842 26 32 38 2017 Ecosystem Model Fails, Causing Species Loss-1039 45 16 39 2017 Co-Production Solves the Problem of Long Waits for Research Results-2335 26 39 40 2017 Detailed Sub-Region-Specific Climate Models have Higher Accuracy497 3 Y 41 2018 5yr Seasonal Climate Forecasting Becoming Reliable-9774 13 13 Y 42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and

Stakeholder Engagement-61

10 90 Y 43 2020 SW Water Research Additionally Focuses on Flood Events90

National CSC Issues68 10 23 44 2016 Coordinated National CSC Plans by HQ Divert Regional CSC Goals-4513 6 81 Y 45 2016 One CSC Builds Best Practices Database, Other CSCs Ignore It68




Tucson, AZ


Cer%23 39 39 46 2016 NCCWSC Appoints Network Coordinator to Coordinate Projects Across CSCs1687 6 6 Y 47 2017 USGS Simplifies Project Funding Rules for CSCs-8158 19 23 48 2017 CSCs Allowed to Use 25% of Funding “Out of Network”-35

National CSC Strategy26 29 45 49 2016 HQ Asks Each CSC to Develop Specialized Expertise1958 32 10 50 2016 CSCs Establish Standard Climate Scenarios to Use in Vulnerability Assessments-4868 29 3 Y 51 2016 CSCs Kick-Off Program for Common Framework for CC Indicators, Protocols,

and Monitoring-65

3 10 87 Y 52 2016 CSC Funding Increases Opportunistically8439 29 32 53 2017 CSCs Develop Cadre of Science Translators that Facilitate Discussion btwn

Scientists and Practitioners-7

65 6 29 54 2017 CSCs Make Choice to Only Support DOI Projects and HQ Supports Them-3626 58 16 55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource Managers-10

32 68 Y 56 2018 CSCs Develop Closer Working Relationship with Strategic NGOs and Climate-Focused Foundations

68

Federal Policy13 87 Y 57 2017 Annual Budget Cycles Undermine Planning for Climate Adaptation and

Resilience87

45 39 16 58 2017 Strategic Step-up in Funding for Climate Change Organizations-2913 19 68 Y 59 2017 New Federal Mandate Requires Gov't Resource Managers to Put CC Adaptation

in their Plans55

71 3 26 60 2017 New Congress Increases Funding for Environmental Monitoring -4523 58 19 61 2017 Congress Eliminates the LCCs-4




Tucson, AZ


Cer%81 19 Y 62 2019 DOI Funding is Skewed Toward Regions with Most Federal Lands-8148 39 13 63 2020 FWS Issues Directive on Interpreting ESA in the Face of Climate Change-35

22% 14%External 14 9Total Highly Likely: Total Highly UnLikely:End of:



Tucson, AZ

Full Voting Results SummaryApril 14-15, 2015

HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E

Number of Records: 141External

Southwest ClimateY 1 2017 CA Drought Leads to Widespread Abandonment of Almond Orchards and Other

Ag HoldingsY+ + +

2 2018 A Review Paper in Science Indicates a Big Increase in Number of EcosystemsExperiencing Step Changes

+ +

Y 3 2018 It's Just One Damned Thing After Another Out There In The Real WorldY+ - +4 2019 Major Climate Disruption Staggers Southwest+ +5 2019 Central Arizona Project Water Allocation Cut by 40%Y+ + +

Stakeholder NeedsY 6 2016 CSC Project Funding Now Includes Time and Resources for Periodic Meetings

with Stakeholders+ +

7 2017 Support for Government Action on Climate Change Reaches 75% of GeneralPopulation in Southwest

Y+ + + + +

8 2017 Recalcitrant State Governments Now Seek Help on Climate Adaptation+ +Y 9 2017 Conservation Organizations Find It Difficult to Reconfigure Themselves-

10 2018 Major Tribes Identify Forest, Range Lands, and Watersheds as Top Priority,Smaller Tribes Follow

+

Y 11 2018 Researchers Don’t Understand Legal Implications of their Projections-

Full Voting Results Summary 1PageAnthrosConsulting.com


Tucson, AZ



Frontline ManagersY 12 2015 Survey Indicates Federal Land Managers Are Not Following Literature on CC

and Adaptation 13 2016 Resource Managers Present Existing Plans to CSC Staff+ +14 2017 County Offices Are Key to Reaching People on the Ground- +15 2017 Resource Managers Flock to Science/Adaptation SessionsY+ + +16 2017 Scenarios Begin to be Used to Screen Specific Resource Manager DecisionsY+ + +17 2018 Resource Managers Often Monitor Against Scenarios+ +

Y 18 2018 Post-Project Assessment of 3 SW CSC Projects Indicate Resource ManagersNot Using the Tools

- -

19 2020 DOI Rewards 25 Resource Managers for Best Adaptation Planning+20 2020 65% of SW DOI Management Units have Climate Change Adaptation Plan+ +

LCCs21 2016 CSC HQ Promotes the Value of LCCs+22 2016 SW LCCs Focus on Collecting Traditional Ecological Knowledge23 2016 LCCs Publish Co-Production Best Practices24 2016 LCCs Leverage $2 in Partner Money for Every $1 of LCC Spending25 2016 CSCs Pull Together All LCCs in their Region+

Y 26 2016 CSC Supported Survey Indicates that Most Stakeholders Prefer to Deal Onlywith the LCCs

-

Y 27 2016 CSCs Fund LCCs to Distribute Findings-Y 28 2016 LCCs Represent Interests of States on CSC SACs



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E29 2018 LCCs Focus on Educational and Training Role30 2018 LCCs Enlist CSCs for Scientific Review of Projects

SW Climate Orgs31 2016 CSC and LCC Conduct Joint Strategy Sessions on Research Agendas+ +32 2017 Major Mojave Climate Adaptation Project Kicked Off33 2018 DOI Welcomes Integrated Climate Change Plan from Southwest+34 2019 CSC/LCC Attrition Disrupts Many Projects- -

Science35 2016 Researchers Report Benefit from Review of Applications of their WorkY+ + + +

Y 36 2016 Adaptation Decisions Often have Mitigation Implications+Y 37 2016 Half of All Climate Science Papers from US Authors are Uncited-

38 2017 Ecosystem Model Fails, Causing Species Loss- -39 2017 Co-Production Solves the Problem of Long Waits for Research ResultsY+ + +40 2017 Detailed Sub-Region-Specific Climate Models have Higher Accuracy+

Y 41 2018 5yr Seasonal Climate Forecasting Becoming Reliable+ +Y 42 2019 Universities Increasingly Incentivize Applied Research, Field Impact, and

Stakeholder EngagementY+ + + + +

Y 43 2020 SW Water Research Additionally Focuses on Flood Events+

National CSC Issues44 2016 Coordinated National CSC Plans by HQ Divert Regional CSC GoalsY- - - -

Y 45 2016 One CSC Builds Best Practices Database, Other CSCs Ignore It



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E46 2016 NCCWSC Appoints Network Coordinator to Coordinate Projects Across CSCs

Y 47 2017 USGS Simplifies Project Funding Rules for CSCsY+ + + +48 2017 CSCs Allowed to Use 25% of Funding “Out of Network”+ +

National CSC Strategy49 2016 HQ Asks Each CSC to Develop Specialized Expertise50 2016 CSCs Establish Standard Climate Scenarios to Use in Vulnerability Assessments+

Y 51 2016 CSCs Kick-Off Program for Common Framework for CC Indicators, Protocols,and Monitoring

+ -

Y 52 2016 CSC Funding Increases OpportunisticallyY+ + +53 2017 CSCs Develop Cadre of Science Translators that Facilitate Discussion btwn

Scientists and PractitionersY- + + +

54 2017 CSCs Make Choice to Only Support DOI Projects and HQ Supports Them- -55 2017 CSC Drought Project Hugely Successful in Eyes of Resource ManagersY+ + + + +

Y 56 2018 CSCs Develop Closer Working Relationship with Strategic NGOs and Climate-Focused Foundations

Y+ + + +

Federal PolicyY 57 2017 Annual Budget Cycles Undermine Planning for Climate Adaptation and

ResilienceY- - - -

58 2017 Strategic Step-up in Funding for Climate Change OrganizationsY+ + + +Y 59 2017 New Federal Mandate Requires Gov't Resource Managers to Put CC Adaptation

in their Plans + +

60 2017 New Congress Increases Funding for Environmental Monitoring+61 2017 Congress Eliminates the LCCsY- - - -



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D EY 62 2019 DOI Funding is Skewed Toward Regions with Most Federal Lands

63 2020 FWS Issues Directive on Interpreting ESA in the Face of Climate Change+

ExternalEnd of



Tucson, AZ



InternalSW CSC Strategy & Operations

64 2016 Consortium PIs & SW CSC Agree on Shared Vision, Strategy, ObjectivesY+ + + +65 2017 SW CSC Establishes Impact Metrics and Evaluation ProcessY+ + + +66 2017 Stakeholder-Reviewed Proposals Boost CSC Support67 2018 SW CSC Completes Overview of All Climate Projects in Region+68 2018 SW CSC Holds Regular Joint Stakeholder/Scientist WorkshopY+ + +69 2018 SW CSC Acts as Resource Leveler-70 2019 Joint Funding of Cross-Border Projects with Mexico Common71 2019 SW CSC Science Funding Now Stakeholder Driven+ +

Research Partnerships72 2015 SW CSC Science Review Committee Holds Biennial Face-to-Face Meetings+73 2016 SW CSC and CCASS Develop Strong Partnership on Co-Production+ +74 2016 BLM, Forest Service, BoR Become Active Partners with SW CSCY+ + + +75 2018 SW CSC Expands the University Consortium+76 2019 Ecologists Dominate Core PI Team, More Than Physical Scientists+ +

SW CSC Partnerships77 2015 SW CSC Supports Southern Rockies LCC “Connections Workshops”+78 2016 SW CSC Hosts Annual Climate Workshops for Stakeholders- -79 2016 SW LCCs and SW CSC Clarify ResponsibilitiesY+ + + +



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E80 2016 SW CSC Partners with Regional Forest Managers+ +81 2016 SW CSC Connects to Existing Outreach Groups, Avoids Building Their OwnY+ + +82 2016 SW CSC Builds Social Network and Online Community of SW Climate Change

Organizations- -

83 2017 5 SW LCCs Discuss Priorities Just Before SAC Meetings84 2017 Extension Schools become Key Partner with SW CSC85 2018 SW CSC Partners with NCEAS to Establish Climate War Room-

SW CSC Focus Areas86 2015 SW CSC De-focuses on DownscalingY+ + +87 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Approaches to Dealing with UncertaintyY+ + + +88 2016 SW CSC Focuses on Climate Model HarmonizationY- - -89 2016 SW CSC Focuses on How to Assist the Development of New Ecosystems In the

Wake of Large DisturbancesY+ - +

90 2017 SW CSC Develops Expertise in Stream Flow Projections-91 2017 SW CSC Supplies Managers with Parameters of Extreme Planning OutcomesY+ + +92 2017 SW CSC Focuses on a Few Large Interdisciplinary Projects+ -

SW CSC Co-Production93 2015 SW CSC Selected for Pilot Project on Co-Production+94 2016 Project Leaders Work with Practitioners on Data Standards+ +95 2017 SW CSC Rolls Out Grad Student Training in Co-Production+ +96 2017 SW CSC Offers Short Course for Scientists on Engaging with PractitionersY- + +



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E97 2018 Development of Narratives Using Analytics Develops Strong Connections to

Stakeholders98 2019 SW CSC Social Science Spending Same as Climate Science+

SW CSC Projects99 2015 SW CSC Creates Federal Agency 101 Webinar for Researchers- +

100 2017 SW CSC Provides Scenario Training to LCCs and Others-101 2017 SW CSC Performs Climate Change Readiness Assessment-102 2017 SW CSC Creates Decision Support Tool in Partnership with LCCs-103 2017 SW CSC Completes Study of Decision Making among its Stakeholders+ +

SW CSC Staffing104 2015 BIA Funds Climate Adaptation Liaison to Work with SW CSC+ -105 2016 SW CSC Hires Science TranslatorsY+ + +106 2016 SW CSC Hires Applied Climate Scientist- +107 2017 SW CSC Sets Up Rotation Program for Specific NeedsY+ + +108 2018 SW CSC Hosts Interns from Tribal Colleges+109 2018 SW CSC University PIs Promote Grad Student Training in Science TranslationY+ + +

External Communications110 2016 SW CSC Formulates Standards for Presentation of Results111 2016 SW CSC Develops, Funds, Prioritizes Full Communications Plan+ +112 2017 Public Education Events Held by the SW CSC Draw Powerful and Connected

People+ +



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E113 2017 SW CSC Collaborates in a Series of Review Papers Summarizing Best Practices

in Climate Adaptation

InternalEnd of



Tucson, AZ



New

120 2016 Severe Wildfire Season Prompts Congress to Increase Funding for Fire-Response Planning

+

124 2016 Downscaling Output Oversold116 2017 CSC Network Policy Requires All Research to Have Explicit Management NeedY- - +123 2017 DOI Mandates that All Bureaus Invest in CSC Infrastructure+129 2017 US Food Prices Spike+131 2017 Fire Sweeps the Great Basin+133 2017 Congress Maintains CSCs, but Mandates Variability Focus-114 2018 CSCs Sign MOAs, MOUs with tribes+118 2018 CSCs & LCCs Merge, Creating Unified Climate Science and Delivery

Organization.+ +

121 2018 LCCs,Hubs and CSC create a Truly Collaborative Network to Address Key WaterIssue in SW

Y+ + +

125 2018 NOAA Eliminates Funding for RISA Program- -126 2018 Major Tribes in SW (Navajo, Hopi, TO) Identify Water as Top Priority128 2018 Large Fire Season Results in Ecosystem Conversion across Sky Islands+ +130 2018 CSC Projects Keep Managers Focused on Managing for Limited Water even

after Break in Drought135 2018 MegaFires Reveal Lack of Management Coordination Among Management

Agencies+

138 2018 Devasting Atlantic Hurricanes Divert Funding for Drought-Stricken Southwest-



Tucson, AZ


HLHU Card# Year Event TextCMA B C D E122 2019 Farmers and Ranchers Cash-In on selling Senior Water Rights to CA

Municipalities117 2020 Antarctic Ice Sheet Melts -- Southern California Flooded+119 2020 Co-Production is Real and Practiced by CSCsY+ + -132 2020 Extended Drought Shifts Use to Groundwater, Amplifying Impacts to Stressed

Reparian Ecosystems- +

134 2020 Cascading Effects of Ecosystem Stressors Shifts Funding to Response andMitigation

136 2020 Consolidation of Federal Resources for Climate ChangeY- - +137 2020 Economic Impacts of Climate Change Recognized as Top Priority+139 2020 Record Low Stream Flow across SW Leads to Rewriting of Major Western

Water Law+ +

140 2020 Coastal Impacts from Storms in Southern California Lead to Increase Fundingfor Sea Level Rise Adaptation

141 2020 Massive Forest Dieback Across the SW Drives Managers (Forest & Water) toTriage Priorities

+

115 2022 80% of American Public Supports Action on Climate ChangeY+ + +127 2022 Lake Mead Hits 1000', Colorado River Compact Open to Discussion- +

NewEnd of



Tucson, AZ



55

48

53

39

24

29

30

20

A

B

C

D

2

4

2

7

Team # in Scenario # Common # Consistent #Inconsistent

3

5

8

3

Aggregate Statistics

38

14

9

141Total Events:

Total Number Common to 3 Teams:

Total Number of Highly Likley:

Total Number of Highly Unlikley:

E 54 30 63


strategic planning workshop documentation - swcasc

Documents