lcc network virtual meeting conservation strategy session ......the l network strategic plan goal 1...

LCC Network Virtual Meeting – October 2015 1 Conservation Strategy Session – SHORT Synthesis

LCC Network Virtual Meeting Conservation Strategy Session – SHORT Synthesis

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 The following are highlights from the presentations and discussion from the virtual meeting. For more details, please see the copies of the presentations and the comments entered by participants during the chat sessions. 1. Landscape Conservation Designs (LCDs) are central to the mission of the LCC Network. The foundational documents for the LCC Network, the LCC Strategic Plan, and metrics for tracking LCC performance and accomplishments all highlight the importance of Landscape Conservation Design as a means of achieving the mission of the LCC Network. Landscape Conservation Design offers a means of a visionary, strategic, organized, coordinated, partnership-oriented process to address large-scale conservation challenges that transcend the capacity of any single organization to address. 2. LCCs are heavily invested, and have gained valuable experience, in developing and supporting Landscape Conservation Designs. The LCC Network LCD catalog and mapper identify 33 Landscape Conservation Designs involving LCCs that are planned, underway, or completed from the Aleutian Islands to the Caribbean. Twenty-one of the 22 LCCs reported involvement in at least one LCD in their geography. For multiple LCCs, such as the South Atlantic, Landscape Conservation Designs are a central part of their work. The early years of partnership development, investment in foundational science, and refinement of missions by LCCs laid the groundwork for the recent burgeoning of effort in the area of Landscape Conservation Design. 3. The approaches, scope, and methods being used for Landscape Conservation Designs are highly diverse. This diversity reflects both 1) flexibility in applying LCD to the needs of specific partnerships and 2) an absence of agreement across the LCC Network about the definition, elements, and applications of Landscape Conservation Design. LCC-supported efforts described as being “Landscape Conservation Designs” are diverse across a number of axes. These include geographical setting; targets of conservation action; threats considered; nature of partnership involvement; and expected outcomes. For example, geographic diversity includes application to island settings (ABSI, Caribbean, PICCC), largely undeveloped settings (NWB), and heavily developed settings (California). Geographic scope ranges from single watersheds to entire LCC geographies. Targets of conservation range from a single wildlife species (e.g., monarch butterfly) to a wide breadth of ecosystem processes, functions, and services. Discussion during the workshop made it clear that there is not a consensus among the Network regarding definitions and elements related to Landscape Conservation Design. The six “Essential Elements” of LCD generated considerable discussion and debate, with significant conceptual and practical concerns raised about several of them. For example, the element stating that an LCD incorporates a “spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition” of the landscape generated a diversity of views and concerns. While the absence of consensus on LCD may be perceived as a problem to be solved by the Network, it also reflects the flexibility and adaptability that LCCs have found in applying LCD in the context of their particular partnerships and conservation challenges. The value of such flexibility should be weighed in any effort to standardize or institutionalize Landscape Conservation Design.

LCC Network Virtual Meeting – October 2015 2 Conservation Strategy Session – SHORT Synthesis

2

4. The social, institutional, financial, and technical barriers to successful completion and implementation of LCDs are numerous and substantial, but LCCs have found ways to surmount many of them. The inherent nature of Landscape Conservation Design – typically addressing conservation of multiple natural and cultural resources across a large geography – raises a host of challenges. Recommended approaches identified by presenters and participants to address these barriers and challenges include the following:

Clearly define goals and objectives.

Involve as many diverse stakeholders as early in the process as possible; these should include stakeholders with ability to influence identified conservation outcomes.

Devote substantial attention to the needs and viewpoints of stakeholders throughout the process – building trust and relationships is essential.

Build on existing data and knowledge.

Leverage capacity and funding as much as possible.

Produce tangible results (success) early and iteratively.

Devote significant effort to support users of the LCD. 5. Several desired outcomes of the virtual meeting session were accomplished; follow-up work across the Network would be required to fully achieve the outcomes. The broad participation and wide-ranging discussion during the virtual meeting signal that several objectives of the workshop were met. These include an expanded understanding of current practices, elements, barriers, and opportunities for developing Landscape Conservation Designs across the Network. More concrete products, if determined to be desirable, would require additional work across the Network. Examples of such potential products identified by workshop objectives or raised during the discussions include: revisions to the “essential elements” of LCD or other standardized descriptions of what constitutes an LCD; a more formalized assessment of barriers and how to overcome them; and guidance on how LCDs from neighboring geographies can be made compatible or synergistic. At the conclusion of the session, participants expressed strong support for an in-person meeting or other mechanisms to build upon the discussions during the virtual meeting.

LCC Network Virtual Meeting – October 2015 1 Conservation Strategy Session – EXTENDED Synthesis

LCC Network Virtual Meeting Conservation Strategy Session – EXTENDED Synthesis

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Goal 1 Session Objectives: 1. Facilitate the development (i.e., the number, spatial extent, comprehensiveness, compatibility, and

utility) of LCC-supported landscape conservation designs as the primary MEANS by which LCCs will facilitate achieving the goal of an ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes.

2. Common understanding of the current state of the LCC Network in terms of progress towards developing the ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes, with a focus on the compatible landscape conservation design or related efforts of LCCs at multiple scales.

3. Common understanding of the core elements of landscape conservation design and why they are important

4. A discussion and understanding of anticipated state of progress of LCC-supported landscape conservation design or related work to be achieved in the next fiscal year.

a. Discussion of what the end-goal looks like (i.e., what we are aiming at), and of what realistic and attainable ‘success’ at intermediate points in the future looks like.

5. Common understanding of barriers and opportunities for advancing these efforts within and across LCCs, with articulation of practical implementable solutions.

Part 1: Developing Common Understandings about LCC Conservation Design Efforts

Expected Outcomes: Increased understanding of how LCCs can ensure that landscape conservation designs are compatible within and across LCC geographies so that they can collectively contribute to an ecologically connected network of functional landscapes and seascapes Expected Outcomes: (1) Common understanding about the current and target (FY16) state of LCC-supported conservation designs; (2) Suggestions for improving and using the design catalog and geospatial map; and (3) Feedback and improved understanding about the essential elements of landscape conservation design Presentation: Collaboratively Defining & Designing the Conservation Landscape of the Future - Bill Uihlein.

North American Conservation is changing due to (1) Societal Expectations - The Public Trust Doctrine and expectations regarding transparency and accountability for conservation investments; (2) Advancements in Science and Technology- landscape ecology, GIS/remote sensing, decision theory; (3) System Changes- climate, land use, energy demand, human population growth.

In 2060 there will be a landscape. No one can predict the future. The best way to predict the future is to create it.

Explicit objectives and landscape conservation design provide definitive direction- How much? How much more? Where? Why?

Presentation: Needs and Expectations Regarding Landscape Conservation Designs - Seth Mott

As the LCC Network was being established expectations were described in the LCC Information Bulletin #1 Form and Function (January 2010). Key Guiding Principles include: (1) The principal

http://lccnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Resources/LCC_Bulletin_1.pdf


function of LCCs will be to provide scientific and technical expertise to produce landscape-scale conservation designs; and (2) States will be essential partners, along with other federal agencies, especially the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other DOI bureaus, tribes, and private organizations.

The Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS 2.0) further articulated expectations regarding the roles of LCCs in developing landscape conservation designs: See benchmark 3.C (The LCC is developing spatially‐explicit conservation designs and products that reflect landscape conditions and the ability of current and future landscapes to support the LCC’s priority resources).

The Department of Interior further laid out expectations regarding landscape conservation designs in its FY2014-2018 Strategic Plan and GPRA performance measure: 4.8.7 The number of Landscape Conservation Designs available to inform management decisions.

Presentation: A Scale-Dynamic Approach to Integrating Landscape Conservation Design within and among LCCs: Chad Rittenhouse, John Tirpak, Frank Thompson.

Project funded by SA HQ on behalf of the LCC Network. Goal is to propose a framework to help characterize LCD projects to facilitate cross-LCD integration.

Scale Dynamics: Used scales and levels to categorize LCD elements. Used a ‘watershed’ approach to address linkages among models, threats, approaches, and goals of different LCD projects.

Comments: This is a really helpful analysis. It should be scalable to the entire network. LCDs need to be defined by the decision problem, not a one size fits all, but this is a helpful guiding framework.

Presentation: Conservation Design Efforts: Current State of the Network & Developing Common Understandings about Essential Elements. Ben Thatcher, Greg Wathen, John Mankowski, Megan Cook, Amanda Robertson, and Scott Schwenk.

The LCC Network Strategic Plan Goal 1 Conservation Strategy “An ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes adaptable to global change- such as climate change- with the ability to sustain ecological integrity and health to meet the needs of society at multiple scales” is the overarching goal (end) for the LCC Network (NAS 2015:35). The 5 objectives under this strategic plan goal focus on developing, integrating, resourcing, and monitoring landscape conservation designs (LCD or design).

Despite the clear expectations and the interest by the LCCs in developing designs, common understandings do not exist regarding what elements should be included such that a project “qualifies” as being a landscape conservation design rather than something different than a design. Common understanding among the LCCs about design is important in order to move forward in a coherent manner and to achieve the primary goal of the LCC Network Strategic Plan as well as the LCC Network Vision. The DOI Performance Measure describes what a design is and what it can and should include. As a starting point, six of these elements, plus “being partnership-driven”, can be considered Essential Elements of a landscape conservation design.

To respond to basic questions about LCC Network designs- such as how many, where are they, and what are their attributes?- the LCC Network Coordination Office created a database and map based on feedback and input from each LCC. Feedback and discussion from the audience followed.

The LCC staff reported that their LCCs would be supporting the development of 33 landscape conservation designs by the end of fiscal year 2015. These designs were in various stages of

http://www.fws.gov/science/pdf/SIAS-FY2013.pdf


“completeness” – from planning to implementation – and varied in the degree to which they included the six essential elements identified in the performance measure. For example, 94% (31/33) of the designs included the ‘Assess Current Conditions’ element, whereas 52% (17/33) of the designs included the ‘Coordinated Strategies’ element.

During the presentation, the six essential elements were discussed, and examples of how LCCs had met that element were provided (please see the PowerPoint presentation). Note that the Essential Element of “being partnership-driven” was not discussed because LCCs are inherently and explicitly formal collaborative partnerships, and the assumption was that designs supported by these partnerships would necessarily be “partnership-driven.” Due to time restrictions, the audience only provided feedback on four of the six elements. Participants were asked to “provide comments, questions, or concerns about this element, including the nature of any potential barriers to including it in your LCC’s designs.” Below, we summarize that feedback. Essential Element Feedback: Assess Current Conditions- “Assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socio-economic metrics”

Feedback was not provided on this element. Essential Element Feedback: Desired Future Condition- “Spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives”. Feedback included:

Spatially explicit assessment: o You can know what you want in a desired future condition.. without knowing what it

actually LOOKS like, depicting that condition AS A MAP may not always be possible…. for example we want max size & connectivity of grasslands, but would be hard pressed to show some map of the "ideal"… In short I think we need to frame as DECISION problem, not as "ideal future condition map"

o May be better to say "Quantifiable assessment..." rather than "Spatially explicit assessment..." I agree with the comment above about it not always translating into a map.

Desired future condition: o Setting Common Timeframes:

should be at least one common point in time across all LCDs (e.g., 2060) for comparisons/knitting purposes

o Static Goal vs Multiple Future Conditions, Insufficient Data, and Ability to Anticipate the Future:

What happens if your desired future conditions is flexible, i.e. it could take a number of different configurations or the configurations change over time (as when 15-year easement contracts come and go)? How can/should that be shown or described?

Scenarios are useful for that case.

Agree...multiple future conditions...or really is a projection based on stressor/change dynamic

How the conversation about different stable states or different desired states within one landscape or across time would be included

One concern about the phrasing of this goal is that it implies a single future condition / timeframe. We've been thinking about what a landscape design needs to allow for continuous adaptation and change, not a singular future state


Our desired future condition is as close as we can get it to be to today's condition…We lack the predictive models and basic understanding of today's condition to do a lot of the planning… Current uncertainty regarding physical habitat requirements necessary to support 'current' (=our desired future, in most cases) biological levels severely limits our ability to provide spatially explicit assessment of physical condition. Thus we are focusing efforts on addressing those info needs.

A concern is that this is dependent on models for these, which may not be available. Also many models are species-based, not about larger systems. Some places have insufficient data to describe past or current states, so how can we describe a future state?

In the case of expanding energy development -- our ability to predict is limited by the not yet fully developed change in renewable energy development and new technologies (i.e., natural gas and hydro fracing).

o Gaining agreement among partners:

Defining a desired future landscape requires accommodating human needs (not necessarily all desires). A strong discussion is needed on the front end of LCD centered on what metrics we use to measure socio-economic desired future conditions... Without this the process is moot.

A "desired" condition implies a human element...to arrive at this, data and information around conservation targets and objectives for the conservation goal help inform the development of this vision.

Desired future conditions may not be universally accepted by partners

I can see many partners being supportive of this but some would want to know how the conversation about different stable states or different desired states within one landscape or across time would be included

WHO agrees, and how one gets to agreement are key questions. If implementation is desired, does it make sense to include those (a) who might not agree or (b) control resources such as money

This is where the rubber meets the road- getting the entire partnership to come into agreement on the future desired conditions. Hopefully, each partner already has some sort of strategic plan to help the process. However, that’s not always the case.

Sometimes it can be easier to articulate what is NOT desired first (facilitation tool)

Resources and time are barriers. Critical to have consensus from partners in deciding DFC and assessing them, but this takes time and resources to do modeling/assessments. LCCs are being asked to provide targets much quicker than is truly feasible for this step.

Quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives

o hard to be quantitative about desired future conditions without setting some specific objectives linked to those conditions

o Our partners resist using population values as metrics of desired condition

o The socio-economic objectives could be difficult to nail down

o Does it need to include all three quantifications? biological, physical, and socio-economic?


o For remote, vast landscapes such as the Arctic, baseline information on current condition and understanding of ecological relationships may be lacking, making explicit quantification of future objectives very difficult. Need to collect baseline data find do basic systems research is a first step.

o I think this is the ideal--but IF quantifiable bio, phys. social/economic objectives are not ALL in place one can still make progress on conservation through the LCD process

o Quantifiable objectives are critical here...knowing how much and how much more is key. Qualitative objectives that reference broad goals like "sustainable populations" are too undefined to be of use. You only end up with a map of priority areas, not a design

General:

o For example: landscapes that can support and sustain priority resources (fish, wildlife, human needs) into the future at prescribed levels

o I think this element works well...but it may take getting through the process and into implementation before its really understood or embraced

Essential Element Feedback: High Level Plan - “High-level plan with recommendations on how to move the landscape from the current to the future condition”. Feedback included:

High-level plan with recommendations:

o Implementation, Action, and Utility:

The plan is more a framework or suite of actions that then individual agencies implement the ones they feel best meet their needs

should be worded as high-level plan with suite of possible actions to achieve desired future conditions

Examples [provided in the slides] seem to be closer to a vision not an actionable plan. Need to have a strategy to go along with design

Management intervention points need to be identified, and then play with scenarios (cause and effect) to evaluate potential of each action - does this management action get us closer to our desired future?

Concern is not with the high-level plan but with implementation at the management scale.

I've had Steering Committee members muse that all the science and maps and decision support tools won't get conservation actions implemented if the implementation funds aren't available.

Our partners want to know how LCDs help them with their work so this seems too broad

Ask partners who are using it how it’s useful...that’s why it needs to be locally driven or led

Plans are most useful with metrics indicating how the community weights actions (efficiency, effectiveness, cost, etc.)

High level plan is just a benchmark. Action resulting from such a plan filters through agency mandate, objectives and implementation plans. So need a step where the


team relates high level plan to ongoing implementation/action & planning cycles of partners (land Managers)

o Specificity and Interpretation:

"High level plan" based on the examples on the preceding slide seems like an awfully wide target. Can't we be more specific?

I like this one, though maybe not the term (high-level has a lot of connotations for different people) but I think the description is clear and leaves open to a variety of ways

A "high level plan" can help us only to the extent that the desired future condition is explicitly defined. I think it will be seen as prescriptive. A better approach is a portfolio decision analysis problem - look at the set of possible ACTIONS by individuals that address the shared objectives across the whole landscape

I don't think the LCDs need to be too prescriptive, as long as partners can provide significant input, and they add up to something larger than just the LCD.

o Common Priorities and Partner Engagement

Challenge because some partners within the same landscape may have conflicting priorities

Do we have ALL, and all the RIGHT PEOPLE at the table -- regarding plan design.

Move the landscape from the current to the future condition:

o Adapting to, Changing, or Creating the future landscape

I don't think it’s about the group 'moving' the condition...it’s about how we adapt/deal with a future condition

Change or restoration of current landscape NOT intent; rather focus is identification of what needs to happen to achieve (or maintain) the landscape goals

If we want to maintain as much as we can we are trying to avoid moving in an undesirable direction. Movement that way will happen whether we want it or not (climate change driven) so we need to see if we have any strategic options or ways to help adapt to the changes

Or how to maintain the status quo, in cases where future desired condition is current. However, with external forcing such as climate change, maybe a desired future condition would be to allow the system to evolve to some unknown (probabilistic) state?

The wording needs to be modified. This reads like we are looking for a singular future condition that we are changing to, rather than 1) preserving the most important of what we have, and 2) accommodating and adapting to continuous change.

The LCC community does have a key role in creating that future condition

General

o Does NOT require formal agreements…Intent is to provide context to inform more detailed planning and actions

o This is a purely technical approach, it seems. Implementing requires agreement among parties…

o there is technical...and there is social/consensus...and 80/20....find the commonality


o All of these descriptions seem accurate, but they are vague enough that they can be interpreted very differently by project leaders

o So the plan = the product?....[Not entirely] process+plan+people=product

Essential Element Feedback: Conservation Targets- “Conservation targets (such as wildlife population or ecological process objectives or habitat conditions), including the measurable objectives for those conservation targets, within that landscape”. Defined as: The biological, ecological, cultural, and/or physical entities or processes that a project is trying to conserve. Feedback included:

Need to distinguish among targets, goals, objectives.

People in different areas value different things and will likely have different conservation targets Essential Element Feedback: Factors (Threats & Stressors) - “Factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change) limiting the ability to achieve LCD recommendations”.

Feedback was not provided on this element. Essential Element Feedback: Coordinated Strategies - “Coordinated management, mitigation, and monitoring strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives”. Feedback included:

Difference Between “High-level Plan” & “Coordinated Strategies”?

o Help me understand the difference between a high level plan and coordinated strategies

o Not sure there is one

o A high level plan is implemented through coordinated strategies.

o We're developing adaptation strategies that along with the spatial info are the plan

o I like the intent of this requirement is to include a link to action....I think we can bag the high level plan....these strategies capture what needs to be done

o Is this defining a "high level plan" as what would be required as changes in state variables/conditions to get from current state to desired future state(s), then the coordinated strategies are selecting which actions to take to move conditions from here to there?

o I think that's exactly it. And specifically there are almost infinite "sets" or portfolios of actions that could us "there," and at least several different versions of "there." So I am good with us defining things that way, as long as we acknowledge that it is dynamic

o That’s where we’re at…we have no pretense that the LCD plan will drive action among partners. The actions have to be timed & located such that they mesh with partner cycles and priorities

Strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives

o Being prepared with the right info at the right time

o So you DO see the outcomes (desired future conditions) as potentially shifting based on partner opportunities?


o The high level outcomes shouldn't move much (though the whole LCD needs some dynamism to stay current). The team that worked through the LCD needs to stay engaged and be conscious of opportunity and leverage actions when they align with LCD goals

o Our outcomes are starting to measurably shift based on our design. We used our metrics and design to get $ for prescribed fire that wouldn't normally come to the region. That fire is starting to get on the ground and we can track outcomes based on our ecosystem indicators

General

o New elected officials come in and throw out the agreements of their predecessors

o Management strategies are entirely dependent on the specific goal of the LCD

o The LCD should help participating entities decide the best thing to do in their area of opportunity to best benefit the landscape goal. AND it needs to help put that decision in context with OTHER FACTORS (objectives) that the organizations also need to consider

o I think of the LCD as BOTH a shared design across organizations AND the ability of each organization to find the parts that best align with their missions

o I can see us getting to all of the bullets (except the final one)[the 6 essential elements of design] for the components that need to be included in a grand LCD (big design), but the last one really only happens at that grand level. Or am I confused again?

o let's get rid of the nested linguistics and focus on clean and clear steps

o the main thing is that it takes significant time and resources...we need people to be patient while all of this is coming together...there is a lot of pressure to produce results NOW, but for the results to be meaningful, it will take some time...

o But the very idea of "we have an LCD, and it's done - for the whole LCC" makes no sense to me

Other Feedback

Terminology or What IS a landscape conservation design?

o we can get wrapped around the axel on terminology and categorizing but it’s more of a fluid process that isn't necessarily easily broken down into plans, strategies, etc.

o the problem becomes that it is so fluid it isn't coherent any more

o not true. I think it depends on whether you're a lumper or splitter

o this needs to have structured specific components… not "a map of desired future conditions" which I think is too vague… and frankly, a black box incorporating too many assumptions to be useful

Distinction between a DTS (decision-support-tool) and an LCD ( landscape conservation design)

o I think we need to be more specific in clarifying the distinction and use of DST and LCDs

o I think we're still very much coming at this with different definitions of an LCD. In my narrower definition most of what folks are talking about I'd describe as Decision Support Tools for prioritizing actions

o We need to clarify the distinctions between a decision support tool and an LCD and clarify whether the purposes of an LCD are specific conservation targets or an ecologically connected network.

A network of interoperable (edge-matched) landscape conservation designs


o Can you have different LCDs in the same geography serving different purposes that don't add up to the same purpose at the largest scale?

o We can't necessarily expect that adjacent LCDs will edge match nor that we can maintain consistent conservation targets among LCD. Our example is the grizzly bear. Our partners would scoff at an LCD in the northern Rockies that did not include GB. However nowhere else in the 48 would that make sense

o I'd respectfully disagree. Our designs should all add up to an ecologically connected network. We may use different methods but they should still edge match. The fundamental objectives of each LCC are still very close

o I’m not sure about that. An LCD like xxxx is designed for specific objectives, not an overall corridor plan that is everything to all species and interests

o I think that's a fundamentally different type of LCD.

o I think we can all agree that base layers should edge-match and those can be used to drive larger-level plans that DO form an [ecologically connected network] ECN

o It's debatable but I argue if LCDs make ecological sense they will edge match. But that can't be forced

o I think they need to be "forced" but do so in a meaningful - adaptive matter - specific to the end-game we're trying to achieve

o Definitely base layers should edge map but categories/qualities can differ by priority. we see that in SWAPs

o That's the problem with SWAPS. They don't add up across state lines

Rate of Advance, Designs as Countable Outcomes, and To What End?

o Our rate of advance will increase as more examples are available across the Network.

o Our rate of advance on the design front will increase as we find creative ways to expand capacity (especially GIS support and communications support).

o Keeping score is not helpful at this point

o Maybe need to develop interim benchmarks to show progress without pressuring LCCs to meet targets.

o It occurred to me that we are counting LCDs like we used to and still do count acres!..acres for what was the clarion call during the NEAT days... so, LCDs for what?

o End goal: Inform collaborative conservation delivery to realize shared resource objectives in support of ecologically connected landscapes

o Designs are the primary MEANS [tools/processes/mechanisms] by which LCCs will facilitate achieving the goal of an ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes

Part 2: Identifying and addressing barriers and opportunities to advancing the landscape conservation design efforts of the LCCs

Expected Outcomes: Common understanding about key barriers and opportunities to developing and expanding landscape conservation designs; understanding of successes and additional peer-exchange opportunities; list of action items to address barriers and opportunities in the next year Key Points of Presentations:


Presentation: Amanda Robertson – Northwest Boreal LCC

Challenge 1 – Communicating Value of LCDs

o Articulate the “why”

o Proof of concept to demonstrate value and success

Challenge 2 – Capacity

o Don’t try and do everything – proofs of concept, show success, show utility, rapid prototyping

Challenge 3 – Timing with new and ongoing planning efforts

o Timing – making relevant for ongoing plans

Example: BLM Central Yukon Resource Management Plan; Yukon Flats NWR CCP

Incorporating into plans takes facilitation, work with planning teams – lots of back and forth

Challenge 4 – Expanding to be more comprehensive

o Being more comprehensive – we started with a few landscape conservation goals – how can we articulate and integrate other goals?

o Requires trust, seeing the value of the process Presentation: Rua Mordecai – South Atlantic LCC

Overcoming the Barriers: o 1 - Communicating the Value

Help others see the niche Help your early adopters communicate the uses

o 2 – Capacity Build on existing assessments whenever possible Align everything around a single major product Say no to lots of cool stuff Invest heavily and creatively in dedicated staff

o 3 – Trust Regularly show change based on feedback Always have an update process in the near future Be transparent in decision making Language is important – This is your cooperative Invest heavily and creatively in dedicated staff

o 4 – Buy-in and Seeing the Value Involve lots of people but be super efficient with their time Deliver products at regular intervals Work with early adopters Invest heavily and creatively in dedicated staff Dedicate significant staff time to supporting users

Presentation: Rebecca Fris – California LCC

Challenges: o 1 - Engagement and Resources

Amount of effort and resources needed was large Getting all stakeholders on board is an ongoing process


Keeping folks engaged who are already very busy is challenging

Lessons Learned: o 1 - Start at the Beginning

Have a clear climate informed goal(s) Have a defined resource management issue, identified users, and purpose to

help ensure implementation – keep checking in on management connection Remind the group the goal, purpose and outcomes each meeting

o 2 - Start All Together Involve as many diverse stakeholders as possible as early in the process as

possible Find a good balance of scientists and managers on all teams/committees What conservation targets ultimately get included depends on what

stakeholders are at the table o 3 - Foster the Team(s)

Ensure participation from appropriate subject area experts for every step Maximize time for group work Expect differences of opinion on focal resources Secure committed reviewers of assessment summaries early

o 4 - Share Early and Often Make interim results available for incorporation into management

plans/documents Present results internally and externally multiple times in multiple formats Executive summaries are helpful Share across efforts, disciplines, geographies

o 5 - Highlight what’s in it for them Stress importance of networking and working across jurisdictions Ensure time for introductions and informal conservations Make it fun!

Presentation: Jeff Burgett/Brent Murry/Aaron Poe – Island LCCs

ABSI LCC: o LCD Barriers:

Terrestrial resources are linked to poorly understood marine processes Contrasting, non-overlapping social/cultural (regulatory) systems Island isolation, not connectivity, is critical Lack of capacity at the end of the earth

o Lessons: An LCD focused on threat mitigation can protect many islands Marine & terrestrial players, process very different Buy-in takes LOTS of time

Caribbean LCC: o LCD Barriers:

Poorly understood endemics with limited ranges Both connectivity and isolation are essential Language, cultural differences Small governments, high turnover limit capacity Climate change, sea level rise will eliminate some habitats

o Lessons:


Emphasize the convening stage, build trust first. Small, attainable goals build shared priorities. LCC can supply institutional memory, bridge turnover An island network LCD is being designed to support meta-populations & guide

strategies such as translocations to address SLR.

Pacific Islands CC o LCD Barriers:

Limited climate change and impact information, with high vulnerability Little partner capacity for adaptation planning Conservation focus on island endemics

o Lessons: Islands can multiply the number of LCDs and players LCD on islands must deal with extinction LCCs can increase capacity by moving partner staff through the adaptation

process

General Chat Transcript General LCD Comments

I'm not sure we always put enough emphasis on evaluating actions that get us to that desired landscape.

And on the front-end what steps are the agencies and organizations taking to aligning their programs and actions to achieve the common vision?

I am guessing that decisions are being made and actions are being taken in every "landscape" regardless of data wealth or lack thereof. There are underlying assumptions that are being made. An "LCD" forces more explicit recognition in decisions being made and expected outcomes being more explicit.

o LCDs are supposed to help coordinate those random acts of conservation kindness. And not lead to more.

What I catch here is the difference and path between the LCD we start and the one we want to end up with after trust created, and barriers broken down.

Moving Partnerships Along

LCDs are important, but it takes time to get the LCC partnership to a place where that can happen

o Progress has to be made at the speed of the partnership.

o We can push, but we have to push gently

o It's more effective when we can get one of the partners to do the pushing, particularly influential ones!

The more we can align with partners to help them really invest in the outcomes, the more successful we'll be.

o Agreed- it is important to have a well-paced process to ensure that people are on board and that the LCD is more likely to be implemented

o "LCD moves at the Speed of Trust and that can't be rushed!"

Progress is also affected by capacity and budget.


A major obstacle to LCD is lack of will by key groups to engage (e.g., State and local government, Native American tribes, etc.)

We need to engage with local governments that make "official" land use decisions

Decision making approach is a partnership decision.

Cooperative decision making is a process objective but not something to actually help make the decision.

"it's like setting up a mini-LCC" to do a stakeholder-driven LCD

LCD also allows getting disparate sectors/stakeholders on the same page who don't normally speak the same language

Technical LCD Issues

Region is spatial extent so how do we define grain? Habitat?

Rapid prototyping and iteration is important.

How do you know the landscape is or isn't already there? Or when the threshold will be crossed?

o Isn’t that based on human values/eco services and your expectations?

o You see the development proposals coming and do something to try to mitigate their potential future effects on the habitat.

o Requires the value to be "defined" explicitly.

Defining connectivity

o I DO think connectivity is defined in terms of species.

o We have common species/habitat/ecoprocess targets that define our terms of connectivity

o But, habitat is defined in terms of species too. Ecosystem processes -- species interactions and species-habitat interactions.

o So ultimately some species need to be identified to define connectivity - even if it is just endpoints

o Landscape critical species that depict the common values of your landscape vision

o This is where we need good baseline information on species distribution, habitat relationships, and explicit species-specific goals to define connectivity.

Dealing with imperfect or incomplete information, uncertainties

o Obsession with quantification in an environment where 'things aren't known' can be paralyzing

o ALL our information is imperfect, and all we can ever have is "best available." That said, our best bet is to prioritize the unknowns that most impact our decisions and try to address them via adaptive management.

o Explicit can include explicit quantification of our uncertainty.

What does "edge matching" mean with 3 LCDs having very different objectives?

o Each LCC is working toward something more inclusive. Edge matching can start with the pieces they have in common.


Glad to hear that the island designs “fit” the broad contours of the essential elements of design (assessment of current conditions, desired future conditions, and high level plan) even despite the big ecological and other differences in islands.

o I think it’s a question of flexibility in how we perceive scale and connectivity, given flexibility there, it’s all the same conceptual thing.

Defining LCD

Goal(s)

o What's the "goal of an LCD"?? to do "more"? It’s like where we were a few years back when everyone was "racing" to develop DST (which in some definitions is analogous to what folks are calling LCD).

o The "Goal" needs to be specifically defined for each LCD. Even though the same inputs could be used for multiple LCDS that support different decisions.

o LCDs need to be defined by the decision problem, not a one size fits all.

Products

o The challenging thing is in defining products. If you mean an actual plan that will be different than components or products to support a more developed plan.

o I think it is products to support conservation decision making.

o I think a "plan" needs to be a living thing, too... opportunities and challenges change over time. Product should be the framework to enable changes to give best strategy portfolios almost on-the-fly.

I feel strongly that most of our actions are components of the information / coordination / collaboration needed for LCD, but they are largely individual pieces. How can we get the information we need about salmon habitat and the trajectory it may change (and change populations into the future). Without that we cannot do a reasonable LCD but it, by itself, doesn't seem to be an LCD.

o Part of the issue is that you'll never really have "all" the info you need. Everyone is always making decisions with imperfect info.

o An LCD requires "inputs" - some more critical than others and some in "better" shape than others. But the emerging paradigm doesn't require all the inputs and all the inputs with perfect information. What is needed are the assumptions and uncertainties of all those inputs, which can be prioritized and tested, and inputs refined.

What does LCC supported mean?

o Funded, capacity, facilitate, network, implement, provide context.

So is the "design" the "academic" product(s), or the vision developed by the conservation community based on the conservation goals, objectives, and the academic produced information (e.g., distributions, optimizations, vulnerability assessments, etc.)?

o Yes

o I think it’s the whole enchilada...including the ingredients...but that doesn't mean they will all be implemented at the same level/time/way.

Timing for LCDs

ETPBR: OK, seriously, we are three years in and have about 3 LCDs ongoing. One more on the way. Four if you toss in the LCD for Urban Monarchs

Great Northern LCC:


o We have 3 experiences; 1 where partners already had a shared vision... the LCD took about a year to develop

o A second where regional collaboration was less common. There, we're a year in and only just getting started

Heard 2-3 years just building trust. It's all about trust. Too bad SIAS runs annually - I don't trust it.

Costs for LCDs

For the Columbia Plateau, GNLCC has invested about $500K over the course of 4 years (about $300K with $572K matching for pre-LCD connectivity analysis and $208K with $158K matching for the actual LCD). GNLCC has also invested in actions implementing the LCD through the Arid Lands Initiative (about $75K with $47K matching).

Gulf hypoxia has been $156K for workshop and spatial analysis but it was built on an existing green infrastructure analysis for Wind energy that cost the FWS quite a bit more. Call it "opportunistic LCD development".

Urban Monarch LCD will be $290K including demo/proof of concept projects for one big LCD and 2-3 local mini-LCDs, but again, built on existing Green Infrastructure plan for Chicago - adapting tools to new purposes.

Northwest Basin & Range LCD (year 1) is about $350K. Just cash, does not include match, partners program funds, etc.

North Pacific LCC: We funded the planning/launch of an LCD (Phase I) cost $20K, not including staff time. Phase II, the actual design work will probably cost $200K?

Key Things Needed:

Time – for building trust, learning, adapting, adjusting

Patience

Staff support – needed to facilitate discussions, need creative ways to expand capacity

Resources

Flexibility - in approach, taking into account unique needs in different geopolitical landscapes, to meet regional partners’ needs

Conversations with other LCCs on how to develop interim products that are useful and keep partners engaged, develop evaluation metrics.

Collaboration and coordination across regions

Major Insights:

Can’t rush the trust building in the process

People and trust relationships were at the heart of all the presentations. This takes more time than has been acknowledged in the formulation of the SIAS. Time is just as valuable if not more so than $ cost

Sharing often and widely about interim and final products

The perceived differences among the east and west, islands and mainlands, north and south really don't exist...it’s just small differences in tactic and emphasis


We need to keep a loose definition of LCD to encompass all the possible visions and ways of going about it, I think the less we institutionalize it (overly define/prescribe it) the better, the more flexible the concept can remain the more useful of a tool it will be

We are doing LCD to better inform our collective pursuit of conservation outcomes. It is a tool and we must remain focused on that end game. Without that focus they will end up an exercise in academics.

We are all facing similar challenges

To do LCD, we need dedicated staff

Our current SIAS metrics are about the tools (LCDs, datasets, etc.) instead of the outcomes

Need a common vocabulary and definitions when discussing LCDs, there's still a lot of confusion out there.

There are really smart and dedicated people working on this stuff

The diversity of approaches different LCCs are taking shows the need for continued discussions

This format is not conducive to addressing a challenging topic. It is impossible to get in depth enough to clear up misunderstandings

There needs to be some distinction between a design and a non-design, but there is much flexibility. If the broad contours of the essential elements of design (assessment of current conditions, desired future conditions, and high level plan) don’t work for your LCC partnership, we need to understand why and work through that.

Next Steps:

Might form a kind of LCD integration "report card"

Meeting report out

o Capturing the diversity of ideas and approaches that were touched on today, including the quick iteration of ideas to retain engagement, will be a big aid in helping us advance more quickly.

Follow up discussions

o It would be great to have a future dedicated call on the comments and feedback we are getting today - an LCT call or joint SCLT/LCT.

o I'm thinking one logical next step may be for small teams to, as objectively as possible, capture the feedback in the boxes so we can see the range of concerns. Maybe use that to frame a future discussion. It can be aspirational while we get at what we really want. Then we will have to have a discussion on meeting the expectations that have been established in the various reporting frameworks. And work to provide clarity between what we're reporting and what it means.

o We didn’t come to a common understanding of expectations regarding LCD. It would take a day or two, or maybe longer, of in-person discussion to arrive to that point.

o Having an in-depth working session with the LCC staff is needed to pound out an understanding of "LCD".

Changing State of NA Conservation& the emergingNiche-space…

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

North America Continent-wide Network of LCCsOnline-Meeting October 20, 2015

lccnetwork.org




lccnetwork.org

• Colloratively Designing and Realizing The Conservation Landscape* of the Future

• Inspire and Webinar (Oxymoron?)

…ok, I’m Not Afraid – for the most part:-/

* Any reference to “landscape” herein is inclusive of lands, waters, air, terrestrial, aquatic, islands, main lands, etc…

Inspire…&…Be Inspired

Inspire…&…Be Inspired Changing State of North American Conservation

“The conservation community faces unprecedented issues of scale, pace, and complexity in sustaining our Nation’s natural resources.”

“The conservation challenges of the 21st Century represent a force of change more far-reaching and consequential than any previously encountered.”

“The world we’re in today is undergoing as rapid a change as any in the history of mankind. Everything necessary to support the world’s population is changing at incredible rates causing increased pressure on the planet, environment, society and individuals in general,” comments Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, Commander Allied Joint Force Command, Naples. Sept 2011




lccnetwork.org

What Will the North American Landscape Look Like in 2060?

In 2060 There Will Be a Landscape

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”-Peter Drucker

No One Can Predict The Future

The first step toward creating an improved future is developing the ability to envision it. VISION will ignite the fire of passion that fuels our commitment to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to achieve excellence. Only VISION allows us to transform dreams of greatness into the reality of achievement through human action. VISION has no boundaries and knows no limits. Our VISION is what we become in life.” ~Tony Dungy

“The conservation community faces unprecedented issues of scale, pace, and complexity in sustaining our Nation’s natural resources.”

“The conservation challenges of the 21st Century represent a force of change more far-reaching and consequential than any previously encountered.”

i d i i d f i d llChanging State of North American Conservation

LCC Network

Vision:Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural

resources for current and future generations.

22 Public-Private EcoregionalPartnerships

Continued Responses to the Challenges- A Way of Working Response -




lccnetwork.org

There are now about 7 billion people in the world.

By 2050, there will be more than 9.6 billion.

Credit: Chris Brown

Wealth is also growing faster than at any time in history.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UK, 1820-70 US, 1900-50 China, 2000-20 India, 2010-30

Average increase in Share of global GDP

What does this mean? Demand for food will grow by 35

percent.

Demand for energy will grow by 50percent.

Demand for water will grow by

40 percent.

Credits: Luiz Asuncao

40404040

Most people will have little

contactwith nature.

Credit: Richard Ricciardi

Why in 3 Slides

The Ecological Systems on Which Fish and Wildlife Depend Have and Are Continuing to Change…

Urban Density1940 - 2030

Societies' Values on Which Fish and Wildlife Conservation Depend Have and Are Continuing to Change…

December 9 2013

System Changes

Why in 3 Slides

The Public Trust Doctrine

The Nation’s fish and wildlife resources are publicly owned and held in trust by the government for the continuing benefit of the public.

How Much? How Much More?

Where?

Public ConservationLands in SE

Accountability

Adaptive Management

Structured Decision-making

Bayesian Belief Networks

Decision TheoryConservation TheoryConservation Biology

Landscape Ecology

Ecosystem Management

Digital RevolutionGeographic Information Systems

Remote Sensing

Information Management

Remote Collaboration

Advancements in…ements in

Why in 3 SlidesUnbounded IngenuityRapid and Systems-level Changesd and Systems-level CChangeChang

WE NEED TOTransparency & Accountabilityransparency & Accounttabilitytabilit

WE HAVE TO

Advancements in Theory and Technology

WE CAN

Fossil Fuels

Biomass ResourcesWind Resources

Solar Resources

Projects…and Products

• GCVA• Biological Objectives• GOMGOM• Coastal Resilience• SCA• LCD• SLAMM• Marsh Migration

Inefficient

Explicit objectives and landscape design provide definitive direction

How much? How much more? Where? Why?

Changing State of NA Conservation…

A Continent-wide Network of regional partnerships could become…

so well coordinated in leveraging their assets &so well coordinated in targeting and aligning science and conservation actions

that the collective contributions continent-wide would have an intended and positive effect on supporting and sustaining desired levels of natural & cultural resources.

The Theory of aContinent-wide Network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

An Epic Need To; Have To; Can Do: Experiment in Collaboration

Anticipate | Adapt| Achieve The Landscape of Tomorrow

?

Southeast Conservation Adaptation StrategyConservation Landscape of the Future…To Sustain Fish and Wildlife

Landscape 2010 Landscape 2040? 2060? …

SECAS Conservation Blueprint 2060 – A Vision for Shared Action Partners and partnerships are convening as part of the North American LCC

Network to develop…

• A capacity for conservation that extends beyond the operational footprint of its individual programs – the capacity to characterize, assess, and predict population and habitat sustainability at landscape scales. B/c…

Solutions extend beyond the operational footprint of individual programs, agencies, and organizations.

Problems transcend the boundaries of individual programs.

Goals and objectives defined at landscape scales exceed the operational reach of individual programs.

Emerging Niche-Space in Conservation

Assessing and characterizing the environmental sensitivity of landscapes to species and populations

Assessing and predicting sustainability at the landscape scale

Spatially depicting goals and objectives that reflect measurable biological outcomes

1 Prahalad, C.K. and Gary Hamel. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review. May-June 1990

• New organizational core competencies1 in landscape assessment.

• A capacity for conservation that extends beyond the operational footprint of its programs – the capacity to characterize, assess, and predict population and habitat sustainability at landscape scales.

Emerging Niche-Space in ConservationPartners and partnerships are convening as part of the North American LCC Network to develop…


• New organizational core competencies in landscape assessment

• An approach to partnering that enables a region’s private, state, federal conservation infrastructure to operate as a networked, leveraged system.



• New organizational core competencies in landscape assessment

• An approach to partnering that enables a region’s private, state, federal conservation infrastructure to operate as a networked, leveraged system.

Engage the citizenry in the search for socially viable solutions

Make available transparent, science-based assessments of population and habitat sustainability

• To assume a role in the Public Square that extends beyond the operational footprint of its programs.





lccnetwork.org

• Colloratively Designing and Realizing The Conservation Landscape* of the Future

• Inspire and Webinar (Oxymoron?)

…ok, I’m Not Afraid – for the most part:-/

* Any reference to “landscape” herein is inclusive of lands, waters, air, terrestrial, aquatic, islands, main lands, etc…

LCC Information Bulletin #1 Form and Function Office of the Science Advisor US Fish and Wildlife Service January 2010

Page 1 of 7

Guiding Principles Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) will be fundamental units of planning and science capacity that will facilitate strategic on-the-ground conservation at landscape scales through a partnership approach. The principal function of LCCs will be to provide scientific and technical expertise to produce landscape-scale conservation designs. A secondary function of LCCs will be building interdependent partnerships to develop shared conservation goals and satisfy shared science needs. States will be essential partners, along with other federal agencies, especially the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other DOI bureaus, tribes, and private organizations. LCCs will provide the principal scientific and technical support for implementation of landscape conservation; in the FWS, this framework is called Strategic Habitat Conservation. Each LCC will be part of a seamless national network of LCCs supporting geographically defined landscapes capable of sustaining abundant, diverse and healthy populations of fish, wildlife and plants. Consistency in governance, structure and function will be essential. For LCCs to function as a national framework, and ultimately, as a model for collaborative landscape conservation internationally, each LCC will have:

A Steering Committee of executive and management level representatives from partner organizations, which will provide management direction and set priorities;

An LCC coordinator;

A science and technology coordinator;

GIS capacity;

Population modeling capacity;

Monitoring and evaluation capacity; and

Decision analysis expertise.

Page 2 of 7

3.C - Integration of Multiple Priority Resources and Associated Measurable Objectives into Landscape Conservation Designs - The LCC is developing spatially-explicit conservation designs and products that reflect landscape conditions and the ability of current and future landscapes to support the LCC’s priority resources. Spatially-explicit conservation designs and products (3.B) Conservation design brings together results from “Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation” into spatially explicit depictions of desired future conditions that are accessible to diverse stakeholders. Common products are maps and/or decision trees which provide the strategies for achieving the LCC’s conservation objectives.

SIAS 2.0 (FY 2014)

Conservation Activity Areas and Benchmarks

Page 3 of 7

Department of Interior Strategic Plan Measure Definition Templates FY 2014 - 2018

FWS Contributing GPRA Measures Only

of 7

MISSION AREA 6 BUILDING A LANDSCAPE-LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESOURCES GOAL #1: Provide Shared Landscape-level Management and Planning Tools 4.8.7 The number of Landscape Conservation Designs available to inform management decisions

Measure Scope Describe the measure in a manner that the general public who is not familiar with your program could understand. Spell out all acronyms. Clearly describe in quantifiable terms what exactly will be measured by defining the parameter of the measure. Baseline/target data should be included. If baseline is not established, indicate the anticipated baseline availability.

A Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) consists of three main components: (1) an assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socio-economic metrics; (2) a spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives; and (3) a high-level plan with recommendations on how to move the landscape from the current to the future condition. In collaboration with interested stakeholders (non-DOI entities), DOI bureaus develop LCDs for landscapes under the jurisdiction of, or of interest to, DOI for implementation by both DOI and non-DOI entities. An LCD can include the following: (1) conservation targets (such as wildlife population or ecological process objectives or habitat conditions) within that landscape, (2) factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change) limiting the ability to achieve LCD recommendations, (3) gap and population analyses for the landscape, (4) modeling of future resource relationships for the landscape, and (5) coordinated management, mitigation, and monitoring strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives.

A SCALE DYNAMICS APPROACH TO INTEGRATING LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION DESIGN WITHIN AND AMONG LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVES Chadwick Rittenhouse John Tirpak University of Connecticut US Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf Restoration Program Frank Thompson USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station

The Wildlife Society 20 Oct 2015

22 public-private partnerships Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations “Seamless and integrated network”

THE LCC NETWORK LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION DESIGN

WHAT IS IT? A process (to design) and a product (a design) that achieves partners’ missions, mandates and goals while ensuring sustainability of ecosystem services for current and future generations

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Identifies what actions to take, where to take them, and for what purpose

Minimum Standards for Conservation Design at Landscape-Scales 2014

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? Many approaches to LCD in practice Difficult to integrate LCD outputs with existing conservation plans

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION DESIGN

INTEGRATE LCD PROJECTS WITHIN AND ACROSS LCC’S

Propose a framework to characterize LCD projects Review existing LCD projects conducted by Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Provide examples of integration approaches

GOAL SCALES AND LEVELS FRAMEWORK

SCALE

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 4

Scale is analytical dimension used to measure and study a phenomenon Level is the unit of analysis

Located at different positions on scale Ordered - hierarchical - or not

Cash et al. 2006 Ecology and Society 11(2): 8

COMMON SCALES AND LEVELS

SPATIAL

CONTINENT

REGION

LANDSCAPE

PATCH

TEMPORAL

CENTURY

DECADE

YEAR

SEASON

ECOLOGY

ECOSYSTEM

COMMNITY

HABITAT

SPECIES

MORE SCALES AND LEVELS

SPATIAL

CONTINENT

REGION

LANDSCAPE

PATCH

TEMPORAL

CENTURY

DECADE

YEAR

SEASON

ECOLOGY

ECOSYSTEM

COMMNITY

HABITAT

SPECIES

JURISDICTION

INTER-GOVT

NATIONAL

STATE

MUNICIPAL

IMPLEMENT

STRATEGIES

COAS

POLICY

MGMT

SCALE DYNAMICS

SPATIAL

CONTINENT

REGION

LANDSCAPE

PATCH

TEMPORAL

CENTURY

DECADE

YEAR

SEASON

ECOLOGY

ECOSYSTEM

COMMUNIT

HABITAT

SPECIES

JURISDICTION

INTER-GOVT

NATIONAL

STATE

LOCALITIES

IMPLEMENT

STRATEGIES

COAS

PROJECTS

TASKS

SCALE DYNAMICS

SPATIAL

CONTINENT

REGION

LANDSCAPE

PATCH

TEMPORAL

CENTURY

DECADE

YEAR

SEASON

ECOLOGY

ECOSYSTEM

COMMUNIT

HABITAT

SPECIES

JURISDICTION

INTER-GOVT

NATIONAL

STATE

LOCALITIES

IMPLEMENT

STRATEGIES

COAS

PROJECTS

TASKS

NITTY GRITTY SCALES AND LEVELS

GOALS

PROTECT

RESTORE

MANAGE

PARTNER

INFORM

MODELS

LANDSCAPE

WATERSCAPE

SPECIES-HABITAT

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

D-M APPROACH

PrOACT SDM

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

NORTH ATLANTIC LCC

Sustain a diverse suite of intact, connected and resilient ecosystems Sustain healthy and diverse populations of fish, wildlife and plants

CT RIVER WATERSHED PILOT

NA LCC: CT RIVER WATERSHED

GOALS

PROTECT

MODELS

16 LANDSCAPE

12 WATERSCAPE

16 SPECIES-HABITAT

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

D-M APPROACH

PrOACT SDM

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

SOUTH ATLANTIC LCC

Version 2.0 Identify priority watersheds and actions needed to conserve ecosystem integrity for natural and cultural resources

CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT

SA LCC: CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT

GOALS

PROTECTBITAT

RESTORE

MANAGE

MODELS

8 LANDSCAPE

12 WATERSCAPE

13 SPECIES-HABITAT

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

LANDUSE CHANGE

D-M APPROACH

OPTIMIZATION

PENINSULAR FLORIDA LCC

Illustrate potential impacts of climate change, human population change, and land use as alternative futures

CONSERVATION SCENARIOS

PF LCC: CONSERVATION SCENARIOS

GOALS

INFORM

MODELS

5 LANDSCAPE

5 WATERSCAPE

3 SPECIES-HABITAT

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

GULF COASTAL PLAINS & OZARKS

Sustain healthy animal and plant communities Comprehensive Conservation Strategy

OZARK HIGHLANDS CCS

GCPO LCC: OZARK HIGHLANDS

GOALS

RESTORE

MODELS

4 LANDSCAPE

3 SPECIES-HABITAT

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

MODELS

LANDSCAPE

SPECIES-HABITAT

SCALE DYNAMICS

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

GOALS

LEGEND NA: CT RIVER PF: SCENARIOS SA: BLUEPRINT GCPO: OZARK ALL

WATERSCAPE

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

PROTECT

MANAGE

INFORM

RESTORE

MODELS

LANDSCAPE

SPECIES-HABITAT

OMISSION CHALLENGE? NO

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

GOALS


WATERSCAPE

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

PROTECT

MANAGE

INFORM

RESTORE

MODELS

LANDSCAPE

SPECIES-HABITAT

MISMATCH CHALLENGE? YES!

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

GOALS


WATERSCAPE

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

PROTECT

MANAGE

INFORM

RESTORE

IT DEPENDS WE CAN INTERPOLATE SPATIAL SCALE THREATS ARE NOT APPLICABLE EVERYWHERE

Sea level rise shouldn’t be an issue for the Ozarks

ARE ALL MISMATCHES CHALLENGES?

GOALS ARE SPECIES- OR HABITAT-SPECIFIC WITHIN AN LCC

<10 % of species and habitats in common

WHEN DOES MISMATCH MATTER?

ECOLOGY

22 ECOSYSTEMS

16 SPECIES

ECOLOGY

11 ECOSYSTEM

259 SPECIES

ECOLOGY

12 ECOSYSTEMS

281 SPECIES

ECOLOGY

9 ECOSYSTEMS

8 SPECIES

MODELS

LANDSCAPE

SPECIES-HABITAT

PLURALITY CHALLENGE? YES!

D-M APPROACH

PRIORITIZATION

GOALS


WATERSCAPE

THREATS

DEVELOPMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

SEA LEVEL RISE

HUMAN POP

LANDUSE CHANGE

FUNDING

OPTIMIZATION

PRIORITIZATION

STACKING

PROTECT

MANAGE

INFORM

RESTORE

NEED A TRANS-SCALE APPROACH TO ORGANIZE LCD PROJECTS

Spatial-ecological scales are too narrow Project boundary & species ranges define extent

DEFINE CONSERVATION “WATERSHEDS” Apply stream order to scales Headwaters = ecological scale Tributaries = implementation scale Rivers = goal scale

HOW DO WE ADDRESS MISMATCH AND PLURALITY CHALLENGES?

HEADWATERS

ECOLOGY

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

TRIBUTARIES

ECOLOGY

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

IMPLEMENTATION

OPPORTUNITIES

STRATEGIES

MANAGEMENT TOOLS

POLICY TOOLS

RIVERS

ECOLOGY

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

IMPLEMENTATION

OPPORTUNITIES

STRATEGIES

MANAGEMENT TOOLS

POLICY TOOLS

GOAL

RESTORATION

PROTECTION

MANAGEMENT

“WATERSHED CONSERVATION”

ECOLOGY

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

IMPLEMENTATION

OPPORTUNITIES

STRATEGIES

MANAGEMENT TOOLS

POLICY TOOLS

GOAL

RESTORATION

PROTECTION

MANAGEMENT

“WATERSHED CONSERVATION”

ECOLOGY

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

IMPLEMENTATION

OPPORTUNITIES

STRATEGIES

MANAGEMENT TOOLS

POLICY TOOLS

GOAL

RESTORATION

PROTECTION

MANAGEMENT

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

SPECIES

ECOSYSTEMS

SPECIES MATTER JUST AS HEADWATERS DO But their importance is linked “downstream”

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS APPLY TO MULTIPLE SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

Acquisition, easements, incentives, revegetation

GOAL LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND ENGAGING Provides specific statements of what we mean by conservation Expands conservation conversation beyond protection

WATERSHED CONSERVATION SUMMARY

SCALE DYNAMICS Use scales and levels to categorize LCD elements

MISMATCH & PLURALITY CHALLENGES Species impose boundaries

WATERSHED CONSERVATION Goals provide trans-boundary scale to link projects Align maps with the goals = multiple maps

Funding: National LCC Assistance: LCC Science Coordinators Contributions: Kevin McGarigal et al.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NNNNNNNNN tttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiii lllllllllllllllllllll LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCNNNNNNNNNaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllll LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttiiiiiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Conservation Strategy: LCC-supported Landscape Conservation Designs

lccnetwork.org October 20, 2015

Ben Thatcher, Greg Wathen, John Mankowski, Megan Cook, Amanda Robertson, Scott Schwenk LCC Network Virtual Meeting Conservation Strategy Session

Landscapes Capable of Sustaining Natural and Cultural Resources for Current and Future Generations

2

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccaapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooofffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttturalllll anddddd CCCCCulllllttttturalllllRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRReeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssoooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrcccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssss fffffffffffffffffffooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttt aaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddddddddd FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeerations

222

Goal

Facilitate the development (i.e., the number, spatial extent, comprehensiveness, compatibility, and utility) of LCC-supported landscape conservation designs as the primary MEANS by which LCCs will facilitate achieving the goal of an ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes

Expected Outcomes

Current & Projected Status

Feedback Design-Catalog

Geospatial Map (the MAPPER)

Feedback & Common Understanding about Essential Elements of Design

LCC Network Strategic Plan Strategic Goals

LCC Network Strategic Plan Conservation Strategy Objectives

An ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes adaptable to global change

[Build the LCC Partnership]

ID shared conservation objectives

ID & Obtain Resources to develop and deliver

Develop & deliver landscape conservation designs

Integrate scale-specific conservation designs

Monitor the effectiveness of conservation design(s)

Landscape Conservation Design Performance Measure

Consists of three main components: An assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socioeconomic metrics;

A spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives; and

A high-level plan with recommendations on how to move the landscape from the current to the future condition.

www.fws.gov/planning/Documents/FWS%20GPRA%20Measure%20Definition%20Templates_Compiled_10-20-14.pdf

Landscape Conservation Design Performance Measure

Also: Conservation targets;

Factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change) limiting the ability to achieve LCD recommendations; and

Coordinated management, mitigation, and monitoring strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives.

www.fws.gov/planning/Documents/FWS%20GPRA%20Measure%20Definition%20Templates_Compiled_10-20-14.pdf

Getting a Handle on LCC Design Efforts

How many?

Where?

What are their attributes, and how do they align?

Goals, Partners, Conservation Targets…

Catalog & Map of LCC-supported Landscape Conservation Designs

General data fields

Location, status, expected products, partners, LCC role, uses, communications, URLs

Essential elements

Current Status

• Total = 33 • Planned = 11 • Initiated- Products Not Available = 14 • Ongoing- Products Available = 6 • Project Finished = 2

Anticipated Status (FY16)

• How many change status in FY16? • Planned = 11 • Initiated- Products Not Available = 14 • Ongoing- Products Available = 6 • Project Finished = 2

Landscape Conservation Design Mapper

Special thanks to: Gabe DeAlessio, Teran Smith, Matt Heller

FEEDBACK: Catalog & Landscape Conservation Design Mapper

Mapper: http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=11733c1391b8437e8f895ca1ef3e93e2#map Catalog: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mIRlTZ4vXEBz179_NdVpRSlfdHXvLqvVmoC49CSlSb0/edit#gid=1064145620 Feedback Form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bpk0QOpHuWMFvk9gO0BhT8btag1Acf30VdkvE6PLklo/edit?usp=sharing

USES: Landscape Conservation Design Mapper

• Communication tool • Engagement tool • Gateway to LCC designs • Increase accessibility • Develop linkages / id gaps • Make progress towards Vision

End Goal & Common Understandings about Design Essential Elements

End goal: Inform collaborative conservation delivery to realize shared resource objectives in support of ecologically connected landscapes

Designs should inform:

A description of a desired future condition for identified landscape features, processes, or resources

A suite of management strategies to achieve the desired future condition

Each partner’s site-specific management plans and actions to deliver conservation activities and attain desired resource objectives

Percent of LCC Designs Affirmatively Addressing Key Elements

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Assess CurrentCondition

Desired FutureCondition

High-level Plan Conservation Targets Factors (Threats &Stressors)

CoordinatedStrategies

Essential Element: Assess Current Conditions

“Assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socio-economic metrics”

94% (31/33)

Examples: Assess Current Conditions

Comprised of synthesized data within the design geography including:

Anthropogenic Alterations, Roads, Census, Hydrologic, Riparian Areas, Watershed Boundaries, Land Features, Ecoregions, Landcover, Phenology, Natural Disturbance, Fire History, Insect Infestations

Existing geospatial data include a wide variety of biological, socio-economic, and physical metrics

Include 'current' (+/-10 yrs) conditions in terms of spatially explicit hotspots of change

Land use, urbanization patterns, species distributions, hydrology, downscaled climate data

FEEDBACK: Assess Current Conditions

DESRIPTION: “Assessment of current conditions of a landscape, including biological, physical, and socio-economic metrics”

FEEDBACK: Please provide comments, questions, or concerns about this element, including the nature of any potential barriers to including it in your LCC’s designs

Essential Element: Desired Future Condition

PM: “Spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives”

76% (25/33)

Essential Element: Desired Future Condition

Considerations: Ok if current condition = desired future condition

Important to anticipate future condition

Important to express shared vision of future landscape condition that meets conservation goals

Examples: Desired Future Condition

The LCD sets forth qualitative targets for desired future condition (e.g., “Extant dunes that have a combined rank of B or better defined as “Good condition”)…that will support wildlife populations into the future…[and] represent landscape viability for existing ecological systems

Spatially explicit conservation options that will support resilience and adaptation of priority resources

Desired conditions (amount, landscape configuration and site condition metrics) are defined for 9 habitat systems

FEEDBACK: Desired Future Condition

DESCRIPTION: “Spatially explicit assessment of the desired future condition of the landscape using quantifiable biological, physical, and socio-economic objectives”


Essential Element: High-Level Plan

“High-level plan with recommendations on how to move the landscape from the current to the future condition”

61% (20/33)

Considerations: High-Level Plan Element

Considerations: Does NOT require formal agreements

Change or restoration of current landscape NOT intent; rather focus is identification what needs to happen to achieve (or maintain) the landscape goals

Intent is to provide context to inform more detailed planning and actions

Examples: High-Level Plan Element

Project identified the types, amount, and distribution of habitats and the ecological processes needed to sustain healthy and diverse populations of plants, fish, and wildlife

Provides a completely data-driven prioritization of the LCC at the 200m pixel level to achieve the desired conditions

Integrated series of recommended management actions and best management practices targeted for the agencies, institutions and communities best able to enact them

Online toolbox and outreach plan to help partners use and apply the conservation options for their organization

FEEDBACK: High-level Plan

DESCRIPTION: “High-level plan with recommendations on how to move the landscape from the current to the future condition”


Essential Element: Conservation Targets

“Conservation targets (such as wildlife population or ecological process objectives or habitat conditions), including the measurable objectives for those conservation targets, within that landscape”

64% (21/33)

Examples: Conservation Targets

The biological, ecological, cultural, and/or physical entities or processes that a project is trying to conserve

Coarse filter / fine filter

Species, habitats

Connectivity, resilience, intact landscape blocks, water quality & quantity

Examples: Conservation Targets

Population objectives were set for each of 14 terrestrial species based on continental goals

Targets were expressed in habitat units that could be measured against the population objectives

Ecosystem targets: Core areas will capture the top 5% of each terrestrial ecological system and the top 5% of each aquatic system

Currently using CHJV Habitat Objectives derived from Population Objectives (abundances) for 16 priority bird species

Links species (~77) to the desired conditions for each habitat system

FEEDBACK: Conservation Targets

DESCRIPTION: “conservation targets (such as wildlife population or ecological process objectives or habitat conditions), including the measurable objectives for those conservation targets, within that landscape”


Essential Element: Factors (Threats & Stressors)

“Factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change) limiting the ability to achieve LCD recommendations”

85% (28/33)

Examples: Factors (Threats & Stressors)

Assesses the vulnerability of priority areas to stressors. Scorecards identify key limiting factors and stressors for priority areas

Addresses factors that shape ecological processes and directly affect target species viability

Climate change, connectivity, floods, drought, nitrogen deposition, invasive plants and animals, grazing, disease, ecological succession, and fire

Linked threats & stressors to the desired conditions defined for each system, and will prioritize those linkages as part of the process for identifying adaption strategies

The LCD identifies threats to the ecological value of the resource

FEEDBACK: Factors (Threats & Stressors)

DESCRIPTION: “Factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change) limiting the ability to achieve LCD recommendations”


Essential Element: Coordinated Strategies

“Coordinated management, mitigation, and monitoring strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives”

52% (17/33)

Examples: Coordinated Strategies

Recommended management actions and practices targeted for the agencies, institutions and communities best able to enact them

Adaptation strategies will address coordinated management strategies and possibly mitigation and monitoring strategies

Coordinated strategies relate to allocation of effort across places in the LCD... strategies range from “High Urgency,” higher priority for places in the LCD potentially impacted by 2050, to “Low Risk,” only working in areas not predicted to be impacted by 2050

The participating entities will develop linked conservation plans and coordinated management actions

FEEDBACK: Coordinated Strategies

DESCRIPTION: “Coordinated management, mitigation, and monitoring strategies designed to achieve stated resource objectives”


Discussion

An ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes adaptable to global change with the ability to sustain ecological integrity and health to meet the needs of society at multiple scales

LCC-supported Conservation Designs

Core approach for meeting LCC Network Vision All LCCs are developing designs or design elements LCCs have convened partners; developed shared goals; developed landscape assessments, models, adaptation strategies… Existing or planned designs cover billions of acres

Title

lccnetwork.org

LCC Network Strategic Plan Goal 1 (Conservation Strategy): An ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes adaptable to global change—such as climate change—with the ability to sustain ecological integrity and health to meet the needs of society at multiple scales.

Part 2: Identifying and addressing barriers and opportunities to advancing the landscape conservation design efforts of the LCCs

Overview of the Session • Expectations and Outcomes for this session • Review of Science Coordinators’ October 8 discussion on

barriers to LCD • 4 LCC presentations on Landscape Conservation Design • Breakout Groups

– Barrier 1 - Communicating the Value of Developing a Design

– Barrier 2 – Capacity – Barrier 3 – Trust – Barrier 4 - Buy-In & Seeing the Value

• Report Out & Wrap Up

Outcomes and Expectations

• Common understanding about key barriers and opportunities to developing and expanding landscape conservation designs

• Understanding of successes and additional peer-exchange opportunities

• List of action items to address barriers and opportunities in the next year.

Science Coordinators Discussion on Barriers to Implementing LCD

• Download Document – LCC_Sci_Coor_call - Barriers to Implementing LCD.pdf

• Some highlights that resonated with me: – It is a trust building exercise...takes a lot of time. need to ensure and

find ways to incorporate past and ongoing work into the process – Lack of Interest: Perception by LCCs (including staff and SC members)

designs are not valuable and a resultant lack of motivation to develop them

– It requires a collaborative process and it is asking a lot of individuals to participate that are already overwhelmed with their own jobs

– In our geography, the sheer number of organizations with a potential interest in a design process is a challenge in creating a collaborative process that will be logistically feasible and not leaving organizations being left out.

Science Coordinators Discussion on Barriers to Implementing LCD

• Some highlights that resonated with me (cont’d): – Lots of ideas regarding island LCD barriers. Major challenges in the

Pacific Islands are very low capacity to plan and implement, lack of a history of coordinated planning, cultural gaps between community-managed resources and bureaucracy, the fact that islands are very small geographies with only a few linkages...

– Lack of Understanding: Inconsistent understanding among LCCs (including staff and SC members) as to what is and what is not a landscape conservation design

– I also see a challenge relative to connectivity between LCCs if LCCs are currently addressing different priorities even if they are adjacent their LCDs might not 'match'. This speaks to an issue-based LCD that could be embraced more easily across LCC geographies

4 LCC presentations on Landscape Conservation Design

• Designing Landscape Ecological Resilience – Amanda Robertson (NB LCC)

• Lessons learned from the Island LCCs: Toward best practices to address unique LCD challenges - Jeff Burgett, Pacific Islands (PI) CCC Science Coordinator; Brent Murray, Caribbean LCC Science Coordinator; Aaron Poe (ABSI)

• Central Valley Landscape Conservation Project - Rebecca Fris, California (CA) LCC Science Coordinator and Deb Schlafmann (CA LCC)

• South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint 2.0 - Rua Mordecai, South Atlantic (SA) LCC Science Coordinator

Breakout Groups 1. Communicating the Value of Developing a Design (Amanda) -

This means communicating why LCD is useful (including synthesis of how LCD is used/useful) to get buy-in and engagement. LCD must be participatory in order to be used by partners. (Process - where as buy-in and seeing the value is the result of this)

2. Capacity (Jeff) - This means the time, resources, and peoples’ knowledge/skills needed to develop the design

3. Trust (Greg) - This means believing in the process. That it’s fair, represents them, and will result in something useful/usable.

4. Buy-In & Seeing the Value (Rebecca) - This means having faith in the ongoing process and outcomes of the design and believing the results are helpful and useful/usable.

Amanda Robertson, Coordinator, NWB LCC,

[email protected]

Managing Scarcity Maintaining Integrity

Heller & Zavaleta, 2009 Biological Conservation

©Robert M. Griffith

© Paul Berquist

• Articulate the ‘why’ • Don’t get hung up on jargon – fundamental objective versus

means objective • Proof of concept to demonstrate value and success

• Don’t try and do everything – proofs of concept, show success, show utility, rapid prototyping • Work with what you have – identify future capacity needs

along the way; know how to target and leverage funding in the future

• Timing – making relevant for ongoing plans • Example: BLM Central Yukon Resource Management Plan;

Yukon Flats NWR CCP • Incorporating into plans takes facilitation, work with planning

teams – lots of back and forth

• Being more comprehensive – we started with a few landscape conservation goals – how can we articulate and integrate other goals? • Requires trust, seeing the value of the process

Island Landscapes and LCD

Jeff Burgett PICCC Brent Murry CLCC Aaron Poe ABSI LCC

Islands as Microcosms

• Endemism • Capacity • Social/cultural • Climate change • Land/sea linkages

ABSI LCC: Areas to be Avoided LCD Barriers: • Terrestrial resources are linked to poorly

understood marine processes • Contrasting, non-overlapping social/cultural

(regulatory) systems • Island isolation, not connectivity, is critical • Lack of capacity at the end of the earth

ABSI LCC: Areas to be Avoided

Focuses on source of threat. Design that guards against oil spills, ship strikes and invasives.

ABSI LCC: Areas to be Avoided

Lessons: • An LCD focused on

threat mitigation can protect many islands

• Marine & terrestrial players, process very different

• Buy-in takes LOTS of time

CLCC: Cays Network

LCD Barriers: • Poorly understood

endemics with limited ranges

• Both connectivity and isolation are essential

• Language, cultural differences

• Small governments, high turnover limit capacity

• Climate change, sea level rise will eliminate some habitats

CLCC: Cays Network • Network approach balances strategies for migratory

and endemic species, terrestrial and marine resources. • Multiple partners support progress in spite of

turnover.

CLCC: Cays Network

Lessons: • Emphasize the convening

stage, build trust first. • Small, attainable goals build

shared priorities. • LCC can supply institutional

memory, bridge turnover • An island network LCD is

being designed to support meta-populations & guide strategies such as translocations to address SLR.

Roseate Terns nest only on cays and use different cays each year, so require a network of cays (across several governance structures) to sustain their populations

PICCC: Hawaiian Terrestrial Adaptation Initiative

• LCD Barriers: – Limited climate change and

impact information, with high vulnerability

– Little partner capacity for adaptation planning

– Conservation focus on island endemics


Help develop island-specific LCDs to accommodate shifts in native species distributions under climate change, and maximize their persistence.


Lessons: • Islands can multiply the

number of LCDs and players • LCD on islands must deal with

extinction • LCCs can increase capacity by

moving partner staff through the adaptation process

Some Island LCD Models

Within-island LCD (e.g. for endemic species)

Threat control to benefit multiple islands (e.g. ships, invasives)

Multi-island habitat network (e.g for mobile species )

Central Valley Landscape Conservation Project

1 1

CaliforniaLCC.org

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

PProject Area

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Project Outcomes

• Considering future scenarios, where do we invest in land protection, restoration?

• What are critical areas for connectivity?

• What type of resource management is necessary in face of climate change?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCeeeCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCntntntnttttntttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttnttttttttttttttttntntttttttnttttttttttttnttnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

rararararararararaararaararaaaaaraaraaaraaraaaaraaaaaaaaararaaaaaaraaaraaaraaaraaaaararaaraaraararaaararararaaraaraaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllV

aVVaVaVaVaVaVaVaaaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaaVaVaaaVaVaaVaVaaaVaVaaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaaaVaVaaaVVaVaaVaaaaaVaaVaaaaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle

yeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyyyyyeyeyeyeyyeyyyyyeyyyyyyeyyeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeyeyeyyyyeyeyeyyyyyyeyyyyeyyyyeyyyyyyyyyyeyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

nanannaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssdssssssssssssssssssssssdsssssssssssssdsdsssssssdsdsdsdssssssssssdsdsssssssdsdssdsssssssdsssdsdssdsdsdsdssssdssssdssdssssssssdssssdsdsdsdssssssssdsssdssssssssssdssddddddddddddddddddddddddd

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepepeeeepeppppppppppppppppppp

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCoooooCooooCCCCCCCCC

ssnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsssnsssnssssnssnsssnssnsnssssssssnsssnsnsnssssssssnsnsssssssssnsssssssnssssssnsssnsnsnssssnssnsnsssssnsnsnssnsnssssnsssnssnsnsnsssssnsnssnsssnsnsnsnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnerrrererererererererrererererrererrrrrrrrrerrrrerrerererrrerererrrerrrrerrerererrererrrrrrrerrrerrrrerrrrrrrrererrerrrrrrrrrrererrerrrerererererererererrrrererrerrrerrrerrerrrrerererererrerrrereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

vavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavaavavavavavavaaaaaaaaavaavavaaavaavaavavaavaaavavavavaaavavavaavavavaaavavavaavaavaaaaavaavaaaaavaaavaavaaaavaavavavavavavaaaavavaavavavavaaaaaavaaaaaaaaaaaavavavaaavaaavaavaavavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvtititititititititiititiiititititititiiititititiititititiiiitititiiiititititititiititititititiititiitititititititititiititititiitititititiiiiitiiitiiiiiiititittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooroooooooooooooooreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejeeeejjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

tttttttctctctctctctcttcttttctctctctctcccccccccc

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Project seeks to align and support ongoing planning & programs

• Refuges/Wildlife Reserves • Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan • State SWAP • Flood System Conservation Strategy • Transportation mitigation planning

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

CCentral Valley Conservation Project

Getting Started • Hired a facilitator

• Developed a charter with clear roles and responsibilities

• Organized project teams

• Hired consultant to help with vulnerability assessment

• May need additional data analysis assistance

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Leadership Team Roles: • Provide guidance and direction • Approve Team recommendations • Distribute and promote products

Project Development Team Roles: • Recommends products, priorities, and

processes to Steering Committee

Data Management Team Roles: • Data management and access • Recommends and conducts analysis

Teams

Conservation Community Roles: • Provide input on priorities and products to Teams

or Steering Committee • Use products and provide feedback

Organizational Structure

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCeCeCeCeCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnraaararararaaaaarararararararaaaraarararararararaaaaararaaarararaaaraararararaaaraarararaararaaaaaaraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaraaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllVaVaVaVaVaVaaaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaaaVaVaaVaVaVaaVaaVaVaVaVaaVaVVaaaVaaaaaVaaaaVaaaaVaVaaaaVaaaaaVaVaaaVaaaaaaaaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVaVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleyeyeyeyyeyeyeyyeyeyeyyeyeyyeyyyyyyeyyeyyyyeyyeyyyeyyeyeyyyyyyyyyyyyyeyyyyyeyyyyyyyyyyyyeyyeyyyyeyyyeyyyyyeyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLnnannanananannaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

dsdsssssssssssssssssssssdsssssssssssdsssssssdsssssssssssssssdsdssdssssssdsssdsssdsdsssdssssssdsssssssdssssssssssssssdssssssssssssssssssssssdsdsssssdssssssssssdsdsssddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacacaccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepeepeeppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCoCCCCCCCCCCCCCnsnsnssnsssssssnsssnsnssssssssnsssssssssnsssssssssnsnsssssnssnssssssnssnsssssnsssssnsnsnsssssnssssssnsnsssssnsnssnsssssnsssssssssnsssnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

erererrerrerererrrrererrerererrrererrerererrererrerererrerrerrrrrrererrerrrrerrrrerererrrrrrrrererrrrrrrerrererrererrerererererererererrerrerrrerrrererrerererrrerrrerrrerrerrerrerrrerrrereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaavavaavaavavavaavaavaaaavaavavaavaaaaaaavaavavaavavavaaaaavavavaavaaaaavaaavavaaavavavaaavavavavaaavaavavaaavaavavavaavaaaaaaavavavaaaavaavaaavavavavaaaaavaaaaaavavavavavaavaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

iititititititititititiiititititiitiiiititititititititiiiiiitititiititititiitiiiitiiitititiiiitititiiiitiitiiiitiitititiitiiiiiititiitititiittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnonnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooro

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjttctctctcttctcttcttcttctctctctctccccccccc

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

CCentral Valley Project Goal

Identify actions that will maximize the adaptive capacity of priority species, habitats, and ecosystems to support an ecologically connected Central Valley landscape.

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

CCentral Valley Conservation Objectives

Objective 1. Conserve resilient and adaptable ecosystems that sustain future Central Valley biodiversity. Objective 2. Promote landscape-scale connectivity and ecological and physical processes Objective 3. Reduce the impacts of climate change and other co-occurring stressors. Pr

inci

ples

Intentional and deliberate consideration of climate change in natural resource management

Climate-Smart Conservation

Forward-looking goals Prioritized actions based on climate information Actions designed in ecosystem context Adaptive, flexible management timely to change

• Changes in Management

• Cooperation across Organizations

Obj

ectiv

es

Climate-Smart Conservation Process

5. Monitor, Review, Revise

1. Define Goals and Identify Priorities

2. Assess Vulnerability to Climate Change

3. Identify Adaptation Strategies and Actions

4. Implement Adaptation Options

• Species • Habitats

• Ecosystems

• Sensitivity • Exposure

• Adaptive Capacity • Non-Climate Stressors

• Reduce Sensitivity • Reduce Exposure • Increase Adaptive Capacity • Reduce Non-Climate Stressors

Adapted from Glick et. al, 2012

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

CCentral Valley Conservation Timeline

October 2014 Kick-off workshop March 2015 Scenario Planning workshop June 2015 Priority Resource Selection October 2015 Vulnerability Assessment Workshop Spring 2016 Adaptation Strategy development Fall 2016 Completed online tool box

Central Valley Future Scenarios

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Cent

ral V

alle

y La

ndsc

ape

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Priority Natural Resources

Central Valley Priority Natural Resources (H) = High Priority, (M) = Medium Priority for Vulnerability Assessment

Upland Riparian/Riverine Natural Resource Type Natural Resource Type

Chaparral and serpentine shrublands (H) Sub-Habitat Floodplain (H) Sub-Habitat

Oak foothill pine woodland (H) Sub-Habitat Riparian Vegetation/Natural Riverbank (H) Sub-Habitat Oak woodland (H) Sub-Habitat Stream Channel (H) Sub-Habitat Cavity nesters and roosters (H) Species Group Amphibians (H) Species Group Mast-associated species (H) Species Group Riparian nesting birds (H) Species Group Western bumblebee and pollinators (H) Species Group Salmonids (H) Species Group

Red-legged frog (H) Individual Species Green sturgeon (H) Individual Species Valley oak (H) Individual Species Pacific lamprey (H) Individual Species Yellow-billed magpie (H) Individual Species Hardhead (M) Individual Species Yellow-legged frog (H) Individual Species Native clams and mussels (M) Species Group Swainson's hawk (M) Individual Species Sacramento perch (M) Individual Species Splittail (M) Individual Species

Wetland Desert/Grassland Natural Resource Type Natural Resource Type

Flooded cropland (H) Sub-Habitat Dunes (H) Sub-Habitat Permanent wetlands (H) Sub-Habitat Grasslands (H) Sub-Habitat Seasonal wetlands and saline playas (H) Sub-Habitat San Joaquin Desert (H) Sub-Habitat Wetland-dependent mammals (H) Species Group Vernal pools and swales (H) Sub-Habitat Wetland-dependent reptiles (H) Species Group Burrowing mammals (H) Species Group Wetland-obligate plants (H) Species Group Grassland "shorebirds" (H) Species Group Wintering and breeding water birds (H) Species Group Kangaroo Rats (H) Species Group Wintering shorebirds (H) Species Group Vernal pool crustaceans (H) Species Group Dragonflies and damselflies (H) Species Group Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (H) Individual Species Mallard (H) Individual Species Western burrowing owl (H) Individual Species Tricolored Blackbird (H) Individual Species Native perennial bunch grasses (M) Species Group Estuarine (M) Sub-Habitat Orcuttia grasses (M) Species Group Semi-permanent wetlands (M) Sub-Habitat Atriplex polycarpa (M) Individual Species Tidal wetlands and salt marsh (M) Sub-Habitat Ephedra californica (M) Individual Species

Clim

ate

Com

mon

s

California Landscape Conservation Cooperative

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllClCllllCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCimimmimmmmmmimimimmimimmmmimimimmimmmmmimmmmimmmmmimmmmmmimmimmimmmmmmmmmmmimmmimmmmimmmmmmmmimimmimmmmmmmmmimmmmimmmmmimmimmimmmmmmmimimmmmmmmimimmmmmmmimimimmmmmmmmmmimimmimimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimimimimmimimimmimmimimmmimmimimmmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimmmmmimimmimimimmmimmmmmmmmmmimmimimimmmmimmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

atattatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatattatatatatatatttatatatttattattatttatatttttattatttatttttatatatttttttatatttatttttttatatatatatttttttttttattttttatatttatatttattatatatatttatatatttttattttatatatatttttttatattattatatttttattatttatattttatatatattttatttttattatattttttatattatatttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eee e e e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCoooooooooooooooooooooooooooCoCoooooooooCoCoCoooooooooCooooCooCoooooCoCCoooooooCooCooooCoooCoCooooCooCooCoooCooooCooooCoCoooooooCoCoCoCoCoCooooooCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoooCoCoCoCoooooCoCoCoCoCoCooCoCoCoooCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mmm

mm

mm

mmm

mmmm

mmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmm

mmm

mm

mmmmmmm

mm

mm

mmm

mm

mm

mmm

mm

mmmmmmmmmmmm

mm

mm

mm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mm

mmm

mm

mm

mmmm

mmmmm

mmm

mmm

mm

mmmm

mmm

mm

mmmm

mmm

mmmm

mmm

mmmmm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mmm

mm

mmmm

mmm

mmmmm

mmm

mmm

mm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmm

mmm

mmmmmmmm

mmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmm

mm

mm

mmmmm

mmmm

mmmm

mm

mm

mmmmmm

mmmmmm

mm

mmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmm

mmmm

mmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

nnnnnnnnnonnononnonnnonnnnnonnonnonnnononononononoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Engagement and Resources • Amount of effort and resources needed was large

• Getting all stakeholders on board is an ongoing process

• Keeping folks engaged who are already very busy is

challenging

Challenges

Start at the Beginning • Have a clear climate informed goal(s)

• Have a defined resource management issue, identified users, and

purpose to help ensure implementation – keep checking in on management connection

• Remind the group the goal, purpose and outcomes each meeting

Lessons Learned

Start All Together • Involve as many diverse stakeholders as possible as early in

the process as possible

• Find a good balance of scientists and managers on all teams/committees

• What conservation targets ultimately get included depends on

what stakeholders are at the table

Lessons Learned

Foster the Team(s) • Ensure participation from appropriate subject area

experts for every step • Maximize time for group work

• Expect differences of opinion on focal resources • Secure committed reviewers of assessment summaries

early

Lessons Learned

Share Early and Often • Make interim results available for incorporation into

management plans/documents • Present results internally and externally multiple times in

multiple formats

• Executive summaries are helpful

• Share across efforts, disciplines, geographies

Lessons Learned

Highlight what’s in it for them • Stress importance of networking

and working across jurisdictions

• Ensure time for introductions and informal conservations

• Make it fun!

Lessons Learned

10-20-2015 LCC Network Virtual Meeting

The South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint: Overcoming barriers

Rua Mordecai, Science Coordinator• Indicators

• The State of the South Atlantic

• The Blueprint 2

The Blueprint process

3

Indicators

• Ecosystem integrity

• Intact cultural landscapes

4

The State of the South Atlantic

• Data driven assessment of ecosystem condition

• Overall scores for subregions

• Scores for indicators and ecosystems

5

Blueprint 2.0

Indicators

Priority places

Shared actions 6

The Conservation Blueprint

7

Overcoming barriers

8

Communicating the value

• Help others see the niche

• Help your early adopters communicate the uses

9

Capacity

• Build on existing assessments whenever possible

• Align everything around a single major product

• Say no to lots of cool stuff

• Invest heavily and creatively in dedicated staff

10

Trust

• Regularly show change based on feedback

• Always have an update process in the near future

• Be transparent in decision making

• Language is important – This is your cooperative


11

Buy-in and seeing the value

• Involve lots of people but be super efficient with their time

• Deliver products at regular intervals

• Work with early adopters


• Dedicate significant staff time to supporting users

1212

Thank you!