microsoft - day 1: · web view2015/12/02 · the strategic plan brings the ecosystem together and...

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative

Steering Committee Draft Meeting SummaryMay 5-6, 2015

Contents

Welcome and Introductions........................................................................................................................1

Introduction to NPLCC.................................................................................................................................2

Oregon Partner/Project Panel Discussion....................................................................................................2

T/FN Recommendations..............................................................................................................................4

NPLCC 5 year Strategic Plan (2016-2020)....................................................................................................6

Focused Round Robin for Steering Committee............................................................................................8

Day 2: NPLCC Partnership Needs and Opportunities...................................................................................9

NPLCC 5 Year Strategic Plan......................................................................................................................11

NPLCC Communications............................................................................................................................13

S/TEK Business...........................................................................................................................................13

Next Steps and Action Items......................................................................................................................14

Attendees..................................................................................................................................................16

Day 1: Welcome and Introductions

John Mankowski, North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC) Coordinator, welcomed participants to the meeting. Lyman Thorsteinson, NPLCC Steering Committee Co-Chair, introduced Barry Smith, Canadian Wildlife Service, as the new Co-Chair of the NPLCC Steering Committee. Barry thanked the committee for the opportunity and expressed interest in keeping Canadian partners active. Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues, noted that the Science/Traditional Ecological Knowledge (S/TEK) subcommittee is currently soliciting nominations for the Chair position. She asked for any objections to the November and April Steering Committee meeting summaries. Hearing none, she noted that the final versions will be made available on the NPLCC website.

Penny reviewed the meeting objectives:

Consider current direction and potential adjustments for the next NPLCC 5 year strategic plan. Identify opportunities to align and leverage partner activities with support from the NPLCC. Learn about and agree on actions regarding Tribes/First Nations (T/FN) Committee plans and

recommendations.

North Pacific LCC Steering Committee Draft Meeting Summary of 16

Seek feedback and conceptual agreement on the approach for completing Measurable Objectives for NPLCC Conservation and Sustainable Resource Management Goals.

Receive an update on projects and activities supported by FY 2015 funding.

Introduction to NPLCC

John thanked new and old members for their participation. He explained that the NPLCC is one of 22 LCCs that works across four states, two territories, and two countries, and encompasses over 200 tribes. Today, natural resource managers are facing larger-scale stressors than ever before, coming at a faster pace than ever. Managers are often working with shrinking resources, so coming together around this large landscape is critical. John reviewed the NPLCC’s seven goals and the strategic role of the NPLCC in in its large landscape. He expressed satisfaction with the progress made thus far, but explained that it is now time to look ahead at the next five years to maximize the utility and efficiency of the partnership.

Oregon Partner/Project Panel Discussion

John introduced the four panelists presenting NPLCC-supported work in Oregon.

Greg Lewallen, Portland State University, presented his research, “Using Beaver for Climate Change and Conservation Benefits.” He explained that his research team has been working to develop a beaver restoration guidebook that will serve as a practitioner’s guide to restoring streams, wetlands, floodplains, and more using beaver restoration techniques. Greg explained that beavers are the most cost effective and sustainable solution for ecological restoration and climate change resilience. This guidebook presents the current state of the science on beaver restoration. He noted that traditional restoration goals often use heavy-handed modifications of the stream channel to achieve their goals. Beaver restoration uses a softer system to achieve the same goal. This project has the ability to impact many different managers across the range of the entire North American beaver, including federal and state regulators, tribes, land owners, and the interested public. The guidebook was written to be applicable to the entire range and to be read by these various audiences. The guidebook includes two sections: one on beaver ecology and a second section on beaver restoration management. In addition to the guidebook, the research team hosted restoration workshops in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington. Greg noted that the finalized guidebook and workshop materials will be available online for free this summer.

Christina Wang, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), presented her research, “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of Pacific Lamprey.” She explained that the research team has been working on this project since 2007, with a goal of achieving long-term persistence of Pacific lamprey and supporting tribal use of the species. The research has occurred in three phases: 1) a status assessment; 2) signing of a voluntary conservation agreement with tribes, and state and federal agencies in 2012; and 3) regional implementation planning processes – the current phase. The research is attempting to understand how the Pacific lamprey will be affected by climate change. The NPLCC funding allowed the research team to modify the preliminary climate change vulnerability index to include more specific information on changes in stream conditions. In addition, match dollars from USFWS were used to fill in gaps in the geography covered by the study. The information collected through this project will be used by regional management groups in their implementation plans. The research team is also working to get the climate change vulnerability index to conservation teams to be included in restoration plans.


Gwyn Myer, Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative, presented her research, “Implementing Climate-Smart Management across Multiple Ownerships in Southwest Oregon.” She explained that in 2013, the research team wrote a climate adaptation plan for the Rogue Basin. The team realized it needed to continue working in order to get climate-smart practices implemented on the ground, so it began working on a cohesive restoration plan. The researchers have evaluated many different layers, including accessibility, ecological diversity, geospatial diversity, fire risks, and more. Partnerships with many agencies and organizations have helped the research team overcome barriers with funding, get the best science applied, and identify synergistic opportunities. She added that the work has been acting as a catalyst to get more funding for other work. The team is catering the research to agencies and their needs, creating a product that resource specialists can and will use.

Dan Isaak, US Forest Service (USFS), presented his research, “Stream Temperature Database and Climate Scenarios.” He explained that his research team is working to evaluate and organize stream temperature data collected by various organizations over the last 20 years to allow for easy use of the data. The research team was studying the thermal needs of a number of fish species and the impacts of climate change on these species. Accessing stream temperature data was difficult, so the team began gathering the datasets scattered between local, state, and federal agencies. In the past four years, the team has logged stream temperatures for about 800,000 kilometers of streams. The finalized database will be available online in an easy to use format. The current website has been active for three years, and has been visited by people across the world who are concerned about the effects of stream temperature on aquatic organisms.

Committee Discussion

One participant asked if partners have committed to feeding Dan’s stream temperature database.

Dan responded that it is relatively easy to add new data with the help of partners. Organizing old data and maintaining the database is more difficult.

A participant asked if Dan’s research team has worked with the Pacific Northwest Monitoring Partnership.

Dan responded that his team has been in communication with them, although they have not been working closely together.

One participant commented that after making a presentation on beaver restoration in Whatcom County, Washington, a farmer implemented the restoration techniques and successfully improved his farm’s output.

Greg responded that the education and outreach aspect of the project is incredibly critical. Beaver restoration can be very helpful to farmers and ranchers, but outreach is needed to make sure they understand the potential benefits.

One participant commented that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working on forest plan revisions, and Gwynn’s team is taking the work one step farther. This will help agencies like the EPA in their work. He also commented that Dan’s research will be important for the EPA’s work on water quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL.)

Another participant commented that the research presented will be of tremendous value to technical staff within her agency. She noted that many senior leaders do not have enough knowledge about items


such as those presented to have a strong opinion. She encouraged the Committee to think about making this type of information easy to communicate to senior leaders so they understand the value of the work.

One participant commented that the USFS uses much of the information presented on a daily basis. The agency is undertaking comprehensive forest revisions in Oregon and Washington, and cannot be successful without comprehensive data like what was presented.

One participant commented that senior leaders like to know that managers are using this type of information. The federal government has recognized climate change as a critical issue and has tried to put together collaborative entities like LCCs to address this issue, but it is up to the LCCs to engage in truly collaborative work.

Tribes/First Nation (T/FN) Recommendations

Eric Morrison, Alaska Native Brotherhood, gave an overview of the September 2014 T/FN Committee meeting. 38 tribes attended the meeting, including tribes from states outside of the NPLCC. He explained that during the meeting, participants shared their experiences with climate change, discussed the need to safeguard tribal information while sharing information with scientific experts, and the need to better engage with state and federal agencies. The T/FN’s 10 recommendations are:

Hold an annual NPLCC T/FN Committee meeting Support a tribal climate change forum Liaison between tribes and scientists working outside of tribes Provide consistent, fair funding for climate change work Support ecosystem-based measures and protection and restoration of cultural resources Support on-the-ground projects Integrate and refine the policy language discussed during the meeting into the NPLCC mission,

structure, and procedures Develop quantitative measures of the impact of these meetings Develop a white paper on approach for other LCCs Increase outreach to First Nations

Don Sampson, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), noted that in his recent work on a capacity assessment of 15 Columbia Basin tribes, the NPLCC emerged as a clear leader among LCCs in terms of tribal engagement. The strong tribal engagement in the NPLCC and the committee structure have been critical for increasing funding of tribal participation in conservation efforts.

Eric explained that during the T/FN Committee meeting, the tribes were able to find similarities in their protocols despite differences in cultures and traditions. He emphasized the respect the tribes have for the scientific experts and the knowledge they provide. He noted that the Tulalip Tribe has volunteered to host the 2015 annual tribal meeting in an effort to maximize tribal participation in LCCs.

Don commented that ATNI hosted its first tribal leader summit this year. The goal of the summit is to engage more tribal leaders in the LCCs. While tribal staff do participate in LCCs, tribal leadership does not often participate. ATNI is developing a collaborative program with 26 tribes to share conservation strategies. T/FN Committee representatives will present the NPLCC recommendations to the ATNI at the May convention, as well as at the upcoming USFWS conference in Alaska.


Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes, added that the Tulalip Tribes worked with the Department of the Interior and other agencies to outline the national organization of tribal participation. He explained that the tribes are very cautious about sharing traditional knowledge and are working on ways to get information that is important to recovery out to other parties. The EPA has adopted a policy to work with individual tribes to protect the tribe’s trust resources. He emphasized the need to use past and current environmental data to develop adaptation measures for future change, so that tribes and states can be ahead of the change rather than catching up to it.

Eric explained that it is important to have collaboration between the T/FN Committee and the S/TEK subcommittee. Tribal staff are very knowledgeable about traditional tribal environmental needs, but are not necessarily technical experts. The technical science information needs to be easier to understand so the tribes can effectively use it. The tribes need support in this area from the NPLCC’s technical experts. He added that the T/FN Committee is encouraging tribal participation and hopes increased participation will increase funding options. He also noted that the NPLCC does not have enough Canadian tribal participation, so the T/FN Committee is working to encourage this. John introduced Susan Kelly, British Columbia Treaty Negotiations Office, and a First Nations member who will help fill the NPLCC’s desire to engage more Canadian tribes. Susan expressed excitement about participating in the NPLCC, and emphasized the room for cross-boundary collaboration.

Don added that the use of the Steering Committee and the uniqueness of the T/FN committee provides a means to coordinate and conduct outreach to all the tribes that are not participating. There is currently a limited approach to tribal representation. Allowing the tribes to come together and learn about the NPLCC provides a mechanism for input and planning.

Preston Hardison, Tulalip Tribes, explained that traditional ecological knowledge is simply the practices that indigenous people have done for centuries. With the rapid rate of change due to climate change, traditional knowledge and practices are not always able to keep up. The challenge tribes face is that much of their traditional knowledge has a spiritual component. Tribal knowledge systems are very complex, and the information system does not work like open science does. He emphasized that the tribes do not intend for spiritual cultural issues to be a barrier, but they do need to be understood and respected by the science community. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that, as tribes collaborate with science experts, the restoration efforts do not make indigenous knowledge vulnerable to exploitation.

Joe Hostler, Yurok Tribe, expressed satisfaction with the NPLCC’s respect of tribal information privacy. He added that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) may be able to leverage more funding for collaborative projects. As tribes become more involved, he hopes they are able to implement some of the recommendations into the NPLCC.


One participant asked if the T/FN had specific areas of focus for the research.

Eric responded that the recommendation was intentionally general so that individual tribes can focus on their own priorities.

Eric asked the Steering Committee if anyone objected to the T/FN Committee recommendations. If no objections were heard, the T/FN Committee will continue moving forward.


No participants objected to the recommendations. John added that the recommendations will be discussed again at the next Steering Committee meeting, determining how and when to include in work plans.

NPLCC 5 year Strategic Plan (2016-2020)

LCC Network Plan and NPLCC Goals

Penny explained that the Steering Committee is asked to provide input on a potential vision for the NPLCC, as well as specific, measurable, actionable, time-bound (SMART) objectives that align with the goals of the organization. John added that creating a strong strategic plan will help identify any additional goals or objectives for the group as well as improve upon existing goals.

Penny noted that although there is no vision statement currently, NPLCC staff put together a draft vision statement based on a visioning activity at a previous Steering Committee meeting. She added that the LCC Council recently created a network strategic plan. She emphasized that the NPLCC’s strategic plan does not need to align perfectly with the network plan, but the network plan will be useful to drive the development of the strategic plan. The LCC network plan outlines the following strategic goals:

• A network of landscapes and seascapes adaptable to global change • Facilitated alignment of partnership needs and resources• Conservation of natural and cultural resources guided by collaborative application of science,

experience, and cultural and traditional ecological knowledge• Advance the knowledge of, support for, and engagement in landscape-scale conservation

John explained the way in which the seven NPLCC goals, included in the meeting package (link) align with the four goals of the LCC Network. Penny asked the Committee to evaluate the two sets of goals and comment on anything that may be missing from the NPLCC goals.


One participant commented that there is congruency between the Network Plan and the NPLCC goals, and nothing specific missing from the NPLCC goals. She noted, however, that there is another component that needs to be addressed first: defining who the NPLCC is and why it does the work it does.

One participant asked if the end goal of the process is to draft a strategic plan that pulls the LCC Network Plan in, or to draft a strategic plan that puts the NPLCC’s objectives in a national framework.

Penny responded that the goal is to create a strategic plan for the NPLCC that considers the LCC Network strategy. The Committee should determine if there is congruency between the two plans, and if not, what needs to be done.

Another participant asked if “global change” refers to any changes occurring in the landscape, not just climate change.

Penny responded that the LCC network plan focuses on general global change. John clarified that the NPLCC’s mission does narrow the focus to climate change and related stressors.

A participant commented that the goals do not explicitly describe making a difference. He suggested that the goals should not just be to disseminate the information, but for the information to be used.


https://nplcc.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Meeting_Documents/SC_5-5-15/2015_0429_SCMtg_HandoutPacket_with3-11x17s.pdf

One participant commented that in order for the NPLCC to be effective, it has to know what decision makers need and want. It is crucial to know the audience and cater to that audience.

A participant commented that the NPLCC has a unique opportunity due to the ecological integrity, which is not based on institutional boundaries. The strategic plan brings the ecosystem together and provides a different perspective.

Another participant commented that the LCC network plan includes the concept of “ecological integrity and health,” which is not explicitly mentioned in the NPLCC goals. The NPLCC should be working to get information that captures the ecological integrity concept into the hands of decision makers

NPLCC Vision

Penny recalled that at the November 2014 meeting the Steering Committee conducted a visioning exercise, which NPLCC staff used to create a draft vision, presented in the meeting packet. She asked the Committee to comment on the draft vision statement.


One participant commented that science is not explicitly mentioned in the vision, but should be.

Penny responded that science could be added to one of the bullets in the vision so it is more explicit.

Another participant commented that the vision should include aspirational statements about the beliefs of the organization. It will define the organization and how the organization relates to decision makers.

A participant liked that the vision focuses on outcomes, and noted that the role of the NPLCC is to help realize the outcomes. She commented that the draft vision is missing the definition of the group. She noted that the NPLCC is not going to fix the issues it discusses. It provides information to those that will, and provides more voices to help fix the issues. This definition needs to be included in the vision.

One participant commented that the NPLCC should include more tribes and NGOs, and that this should be reflected in the vision.

One participant commented that although the draft vision states that finding climate and landscape-scale information should be as easy as buying coffee, getting valid science is not that simple. He expressed concern over the tradeoff between easy access to science and valid science.

NPLCC Goals and Objectives

Penny asked the group to discuss the way in which the draft objectives and goals outlined for the Steering Committee relate to participants and the draft vision. She noted that the objectives displayed in the meeting packet were pulled from the strategic plans of the S/TEK subcommittee, and that the draft objectives are not currently SMART.


One participant commented that there is immense value in emphasizing priorities and being explicit in goals. In order to create and generate products that are successfully implemented, they must be created to satisfy the audiences. Being explicit in the goals will push the NPLCC towards objectives that will result in actionable science.


Another participant commented that an important function of LCCs is the need to help managers and decision makers make informed decisions. The NPLCC must create the opportunity for equal access to information needed to make informed decisions.

A participant added that, while the NPLCC is not making management decisions, it must make information available to those that are making the decisions. The group does not want a decision maker to be unable to make a landscape decision because the decision maker did not have the necessary information.

One participant commented that when the NPLCC has a good understanding of what the need is, it is easy to try to produce science products to address the problem. However, these conversations with managers are not happening often enough.

Focused Round Robin for Steering Committee

Penny asked the Steering Committee to discuss the homework they had done in preparation for this meeting, and to respond to two framing questions:

Between now and the next 5 years, how can the NPLCC be more effective in achieving NPLCC Goal #1 for your organization?

What are some upcoming actions/decisions/plans your organization anticipates that align with the NPLCC goals, where the NPLCC can play a supportive/coordination role?

Brad Bales, Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture (PBHJV), explained that the PBHJV has limited resources and capacity. Much of its work has been opportunistic, with no comprehensive strategy behind it. It is now attempting to focus its resources and be more strategic to determine priority habitat initiatives and projects. He noted the opportunity to partner with the NPLCC to meet goal #1.

Frank Shipley, US Geological Survey (USGS), explained that the USGS FY 2015 budget included an increase in funding for Puget Sound and the Columbia River. USGS is drafting a strategic plan for Puget Sound and attempting to expand Columbia River work to other natural resources aside from hydropower. He noted that it is helpful to understand the priorities of other organizations on the Steering Committee to help increase funding for the USGS.

Marie-Louise Smith, USFS, explained that the USFS is currently implementing comprehensive restoration and resiliency work on forest land in Oregon and Washington. The agency is working with other entities to understand strategic restoration in Oregon, and has found that it can have a greater impact in collecting and processing data and making it available to others.

Sally Sovey, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), explained that BLM is in the midst of developing its 2020 strategic plan now. The plan includes four main concepts: public service, diversity inclusiveness, sustainability, and collaboration. In the strategic planning effort, BLM is clear on its role in the arena, but is attempting to see how it can improve what it does in these four areas. She noted that based on what other participants have discussed, there are some parallels around collaboration and transcending boundaries, and opportunities for NPLCC involvement in sharing information and improving collaboration.

Barbra Schrader, USFS, explained that she would like to see a greater focus on communication, including training teams on the ground. For the USFS in Alaska, having up-to-date, consistent tools for the analysis it needs to do is critical.


Shaun McKinney, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), noted that NCRS has many projects that could meld very well with the work of the NPLCC. He explained that the NRCS is currently working directly with farmers and investing in conservation innovation grants. Other potential areas of collaboration include carbon management, USDA climate hubs, soil health, and Pacific salmon restoration.

Michael Cox, EPA, explained that the NPLCC can be helpful in increasing staff awareness of climate change within the EPA, implementing a training program for federal employees, and improving awareness of traditional ecological knowledge within the agency. He suggested that the NPLCC may be able to provide information to the Puget Sound Partnership as it develops its 2016 Action Agenda.

Lynn Helbrecht, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), agreed with Michael that a simple guide to climate change and climate models would be helpful. Collecting a list of decisions that were made because of climate science data would also be helpful in promoting data collection. She suggested that the NPLCC continue to work on putting the climate lens on environmental issues to view a problem or solution in the context of climate change.

Keith Hatch, BIA, noted that the ATNI summit for tribal leaders presents an opportunity for collaboration between the NPLCC and tribes. Increasing support for tribal participation in the Climate Science Center and grants for tribal participation in climate change summits and meetings is also critical.

Mike Tranel, National Park Service (NPS), commented that it would be beneficial to have greater NPLCC involvement in Alaska, as well as more Alaskan tribes participating in the NPLCC. The NPS is looking for opportunities to connect resource management and the sciences with public outreach. Karen Taylor Goodrich, NPS, added that continuing the NPLCC’s role in awareness building and staff training would also be helpful. She noted that the NPS is attempting to integrate climate change into every day work, not just at the manager level.

Sue Rodman, State of Alaska, explained that she struggles with the difference between short-term harvest regulation based on populations, and long-term predictions and forecasting of climate impacts on species and habitats.

Chris Tunnoch, British Columbia (BC), explained that British Columbia is developing a cumulative effects framework that includes climate change impacts. The natural resources agencies in British Columbia are working to implement climate action plans and climate change thinking in daily actions. She agreed that a training or boot camp to engage the next generation in climate change would be extremely beneficial.

Day 2: NPLCC Partnership Needs and Opportunities

Penny began the second day of discussion by asking the Steering Committee to respond to several framing questions:

How has your organization made use of projects and products the NPLCC has provided over the past 4 years? How can these past investments (and future work) be made more effective at informing decisions for your organization?

As you look at the seven goals, which ones provide the greatest opportunities for synergies between the NPLCC and the goals or your organization? How can we position ourselves to take advantage of these synergistic opportunities?


What one or two big things would you change to enhance the NPLCC partnership’s ability to help achieve your organization’s goals?

Lyman responded that the USGS most identifies with the applied science aspect of goal 3. He commented that his agency has benefited from workshops and synthesis efforts of the NPLCC, and that working with the NPLCC has helped the USGS collaborate with researchers from other organizations.

Barbra responded that trans-boundary issues are a critical issue in Alaska. She agreed that the applied science aspect of goal 3 has been beneficial for her agency. She commented that all of the NPLCC goals listed are relevant to a management organization, and highlighted the importance of moving from information gathering to information dissemination and ensuring that the information is in the hands of people working in the field. She noted that many people working on the ground do not see the benefits of the collaboration the NPLCC fosters, and suggested that these linkages be strengthened so that people in the field go to the NPLCC for suggestions on how to implement management strategies.

Mike Cox explained that the products developed within the NPLCC have been very useful for the EPA. He agreed that the applied science is helpful, but noted that the challenge is translating the science so it can be understood throughout the agency. He emphasized the importance of coordination among agencies so they can help one another implement strategies in the most efficient way possible.

Sue responded that she and others within her agency can improve the way in which they share NPLCC information, by providing targeted project information to staff, rather than simply sharing the general science digest to all employees. She noted that the subsistence division has benefitted from the work of the NPLCC in promoting spatial display of subsistence information, which has been helpful for internal and external users. She added that there is always room for improvement in dealing with trans-boundary issues, and the NPLCC can be especially helpful in this area.

Lynn responded that her agency, like many others, may not be taking full advantage of the products the NPLCC develops. She noted that she has struggled with sharing information about the NPLCC proactively, but is interested in improving her method of sharing. She agreed that trans-boundary issues are critical and that collaboration with other LCCs could be beneficial. She added that the NPLCC could help in making implementation tools relevant to the people working on the ground.

John commented that because many Steering Committee members seem to have similar experiences with unfamiliarity with the entire project portfolio of the NPLCC, perhaps the organization can work to reconnect partners with its portfolio so they can represent the work the NPLCC does to others.

Vicki responded that testimonials are an incredibly effective way of sharing information and demonstrating the true impact of a science product. Using real-life stories allows people to learn more about the NPLCC’s work, without having to understand the technical science.

Mike Tranel commented that collaboration has improved considerably in the last few years so that now it is the norm rather than the exception for land managers and the scientific community. He added that the NPLCC website has been very successful and is one of the strongest LCC websites. He noted that the NPS has the opportunity to work with youth and reach families if it uses information the NPLCC produces in an effective way.

Chris responded that goal 2 and trans-boundary issues are critical to her work in BC. She expressed interested in getting NPLCC support with interpretive work on watersheds at the US-Canada border. She added that the LCC is funding climate action plan workshops for park managers in BC to see how climate


change can fit into daily operations, and to help improve collaboration across agencies. Mary Mahaffy, NPLCC Science Coordinator, explained that the NPLCC had created a vulnerability guide that managers did not necessarily know how to use. In working with Chris, the NPLCC determined that a workshop explaining the guide to the target audience was the best way to take a good product and make it a useful tool for people on the ground. Participants agreed that this sort of translation work would be helpful in other areas as well.

Barry expressed interest in reaching out to Canadian organizations as NPLCC co-chair to improve trans-boundary collaboration. He noted that there may be opportunities to collaborate between sectors of the ecosystem, such as between migratory bird research and fisheries research.

Brad commented that the partnerships and sharing networks created through the NPLCC are extremely helpful for the PBHJV in filling science gaps to implement restoration strategies.

Gustavo Bisbal, Climate Science Center (CSC), responded that, as co-producers of the NPLCC science products, the partnership between the CSC and the NPLCC has been incredibly successful. Both organizations have been able to put their limited resources together to make a significant difference. He noted that the NPLCC can help in determining what managers need, and what their priorities are. With this information, the NPLCC can create useful science products, and then work to translate them for easy use. Stephen Gray, CSC, added that the NPLCC is a great way to move science from high-level work to regional implementation. The NPLCC has helped the CSC expand in Alaska and identify science needs that it can engage in.

Beatrice Van Horne, USFS, noted that within the USFS, managers have plenty of information about climate change, but they do not necessarily have the time to use it. She suggested that the NPLCC could help in making the information that is already available more user-friendly for managers.

Eric commented that many tribes in Washington are interested in a volunteer program that allows native communities to publish the changes they observe in their environment so that people can understand how climate change is impacting day to day life.

NPLCC 5 Year Strategic Plan

Penny divided the participants into four groups, and asked that each group work on developing objectives for some of the goals. After working in small groups, the full group reconvened, and each group reported on their work.

Group 1: This group worked to develop objectives for goals 1, 2, and 3.

Objective for goal 1: stimulate and engage managers, users, and scientists to articulate their particular decision priorities in order to identify information and products that may inform their decisions.

Objective for goal 2: continue to support and expand trans-boundary partnerships and initiatives in a way that enables all cross-boundary partners to understand the terminology.

Objective for goal 3: bring together tribes, local communities, and scientists to get a broader perspective on the issues to inform actions and decisions on the landscape.


Group 2: This group worked to develop objectives for goals 1, 4 and 5. The group explained that to be successful with these goals, the NPLCC needs to produce information, deliver it to a specific audience, and demonstrate that the audience considered it in the decision making process. The decision makers do not necessarily have to rely heavily on the NPLCC’s products, but the information must be made available for them to use as they desire. The group identified the need to conduct an internal needs assessment to prioritize the work of the NPLCC.

Group 3: This group worked to develop objectives for goals 1 and 6.

Objectives for goal 1:o Check-in on a regular basis on emerging issues and challenges in the trans-boundary

context across agencies and states. o Complete the partnership engagement strategy and move on to the implementation of

the strategy by the end of 2015; determine who the partners are outside of the NPLCC’s committees.

Objectives for goal 6: o At least once a year, the NPLCC will convene partners by common geographies and

topics to promote opportunities for sharing and leveraging resources at the steering committee or sub-committee level.

o Assess utility of data-sharing platforms and how they are being used by partners and friends of the NPLCC.

o Enhance the use of these data-sharing platforms to meet the needs identified in the assessment. Determine ways to improve the functionality and make the platforms more useful.

Group 4: This group worked to develop objectives for goals 1 and 7.

Objectives for goal 1:o Identifying stakeholders and addressing each of their needs individually by helping them

find the information and tools they need.o Share NPLCC success stories by highlighting articles that cite the NPLCC or projects

funded by the NPLCC. o Engage new partners and audiences, such as NGOs and youth.

Objectives for goal 7: o Secure new funding to continue to promote the NPLCC. o Create messages targeted to specific stakeholders. o Conduct a survey of the general public to understand what the public knows about the

NPLCC and use the results to increase awareness. o Seek partners that can advocate for the NPLCC to secure more funding and

opportunities.


One participant commented that goal 7 should focus on raising awareness of what the NPLCC does, not simply awareness of the NPLCC.


Penny noted that during the small group work, many participants had commented that there should be fewer, stronger goals that deliver the same content in a more concise way. She asked if any objectives mentioned during the discussion should be prioritized.

A participant responded that climate change and ocean acidification are greatly affecting Washington tribes, and collaborative work to address these issues would be helpful.

Another participant responded that packaging the science information and products to speak directly to the decisions that have to be made on the ground and giving decision makers the targeted information related to specific stressors should be prioritized.

Penny explained that NPLCC staff would create a Meeting Sphere activity to get feedback on the revised draft strategic plan before the next Steering Committee meeting.

NPLCC Communications

Meghan Kearney, NPLCC Communication Specialist, presented the analytics from the NPLCC website, social media, and newsletters. She explained that people tend to get to the NPLCC website by searching conservation pages, tribal wildlife grants, specific research projects, other agency work, and more. Meghan noted that the NPLCC is active on social media, and most active on Twitter. She added that she often interacts with other agencies on Twitter, and encouraged agencies to engage with the NPLCC on Twitter. The NPLCC also hosts webinars that are generally popular and successful. John encouraged participants to share the webinar information with their agencies.


One participant asked if Meghan sends any NPLCC links to agency pages. He added that if someone is reading a page related to climate change on an agency website, there should be a link to the NPLCC website.

Meghan responded that she does not currently do so, but agreed that it would be a good opportunity for collaboration.

One participant added that the North Cascades National Park has a climate change technical report that could link directly to the NPLCC. She agreed to follow up with Meghan to arrange this.

A participant asked what the open rates are on the NPLCC science digest emails.

Meghan responded that the science digest is sent to about 4,000 people, and the open rate is about 25%.

Another participant asked if there are certain topics that attract more clicks in the newsletters.

Meghan responded that since the links are now separated by topic, the interest in links is split nearly evenly between each topic.

S/TEK Business

Mary explained that at the suggestion of the Steering Committee, a workgroup of S/TEK subcommittee has worked to develop draft measurable objectives for the resource conservation targets, which were adopted by the NPLCC last year. She noted that the S/TEK subcommittee will review the draft


recommendations on the subcommittee’s next call in May, and the Steering Committee’s feedback would be helpful during that review process.

Karen Jenni, Insight Decisions, added that the S/TEK subcommittee identified the five priority topics to focus its work on over a five year period. The S/TEK subcommittee five-year implementation plan outlines what work the S/TEK subcommittee will conduct and what projects it will fund. In 2014, the subcommittee began developing a set of conservation and sustainable resource management goals and objectives to provide more direction for the type of work the S/TEK subcommittee should be supporting and promoting. Now the subcommittee is developing ways to measure progress against those goals and objectives. Karen explained that when developing measurable objectives, they must be unambiguous and clearly defined, as well as direct and operational. She emphasized the importance of understanding the decision makers. The ultimate goal is for the S/TEK subcommittee’s work to be useful to decision makers. To do so, the information and products generated need to be relevant and delivered to decision makers in a way they can use, and decision makers need to be receptive to the information. The S/TEK subcommittee has been evaluating delivering information to those that can and will use it.

Mary explained that the NPLCC has funded 49 S/TEK projects and several trainings. 25 of the projects have been completed, and the reports are available online. She noted that the NPLCC is working with other organizations to make data and information available, and working with EnviroIssues to improve the website.


One participant asked how the S/TEK priority topic areas fit into the NPLCC strategic plan discussion.

Mary responded that within the S/TEK strategy, which was developed in 2013, there are five priority topics. The measureable objectives Karen discussed fit under these five topics. The S/TEK subcommittee developed the priority topics before the NPLCC began the strategic plan development.

A participant cautioned the group against pulling the S/TEK priority topics up into the general NPLCC strategy, as this may limit the NPLCC’s area of focus.

A participant commented that in order for recovery efforts to be measurable and successful, there must be something stable to measure the efforts against.

One participant asked how education fits into the S/TEK strategy.

John responded that education has come up in several meetings, and the NPLCC is currently working to determine the best way to engage youth and the next generation of managers. Chris added that it is important to highlight the human element and social science aspect of climate issues.

Next Steps and Action Items

John thanked the Steering Committee for its participation. He noted that the group achieved all of the goals of the meeting, and was pleased with the discussion during the meeting. He assured the group that the topics discussed during the meeting will be used to update the vision, goals, and objectives.

Penny Mabie reviewed the action items from the meeting:


NPLCC staff will revise the vision, goals, and objectives based on the input of the Steering Committee

EnviroIssues will set up a Meeting Sphere activity to get Steering Committee feedback on the revised vision, goals, and objectives, and will prepare a meeting summary.

Penny Mabie thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting.


Attendees

Steering Committee Members and Alternates

Armand Gonzales State of CaliforniaBarbra Schrader U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationBarry Smith Canadian Wildlife ServiceBeatrice Van Horne US Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region)Becky Anderson U.S. Geological SurveyBecky Gravenmier U.S. Forest ServiceBrad Bales Pacific Coast Joint Venture (U.S.)Chris Tunnoch British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource OperationsDennis Teitzel Bureau of Land Management (Anchorage)Eric Morrison Tribes/First Nations (Alaska)Frank Shipley U.S. Geological SurveyJames Partain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Joe Hostler Tribes/First Nations (California) Karen Taylor-Goodrich National Park ServiceKeith Hatch Bureau of Indian AffairsLyman Thorsteinson U.S. Geological SurveyLynn Helbrecht Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeMarie-Louise Smith US Forest ServiceMike Cox U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyMike Strobel USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (National Water/Climate Center)Mike Tranel National Park ServicePreston Hardison Tribes/First Nations (Washington)Sally Sovey U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementSara Evans-Peters Pacific Coast Birds Habitat Joint VentureShaun McKinney USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (West Region NTSC)Sue Rodman Alaska Department of Fish and GameTerry Williams Tribes/First Nations (Washington)Vicki Finn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Others in Attendance

Anna Schmidt Bureau of Indian AffairsDon Sampson Affiliated Tribes of Northwest IndiansGustavo Bisbal Climate Science Center (Northwest)Jill Hardiman NPLCC Assistant Science CoordinatorJohn Mankowski NPLCC CoordinatorMary Mahaffy NPLCC Science CoordinatorMeghan Kearney NPLCC Communication SpecialistPenny Mabie EnviroIssuesPhil Mote NOAA RISA (Climate Impacts Research Consortium)Sophie Cottle EnviroIssuesStephen Gray Climate Science Center (Alaska)Susan Kelly British Columbia Treaty Negotiations Office
