Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LCC Council Meeting - March 26, 2015 Meeting Packet Materials
Inside Binder Flap
LCC Network Strategic Plan Section 1 – Meeting Info
Page 1: Agenda with Breakout Discussion Questions
Page 4: Meeting Attendee List
Section 2 – LCC Network Documents
Page 7: Summary of LCC Network Science Plan
Page 8: LCC Conservation in Action Success Stories
Appalachian LCC and Assessing Energy Development
California LCC and Pacific Sea Level Rise Adaptation
Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) – Appalachian, South Atlantic, Gulf
Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, Peninsular Florida, and Caribbean LCCs
Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC and Aquatic Connectivity Restoration
Western LCCs and Sage Grouse Conservation – Great Northern, Southern Rockies, Great
Basin, and Plains & Prairie Potholes LCCs
Section 3 – National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Review of LCCs
Page 12: Statement of Task for NAS review of LCCs
Page 13: LCC Introduction for NAS Review
Page 16: Task 3 Response – Facts about LCC Funding of Projects/Activities
Page 24: Task 4 Response – Performance Metrics
Section 4 – FY16 Budget Request
Page 57: Summary of FY16 LCC and Applied Science Budget Request
Page 58: FY16 LCC Budget Justification
Page 68: FY16 USFWS Science Support Budget Justification
Draft Process/Working Agenda v. 19 Mar. 2015
LCC Council
Meeting Title: LCC Council Meeting Agenda Date: March 26, 2015 8:00am-4:30pm Location: Denver Airport Marriott at Gateway Park, 16455 E. 40th Circle, Aurora, CO, 80011, 1 (800) 228-9290 Meeting Lead: Lynn Scarlett, LCC Council Chair
Recorder: Gwen White and Megan Cook, USFWS Goal: Develop strategies for advancing the LCC Network Objectives: a) continue learning about the LCC Network
b) Help the LCC Network determine how 1) to enlist more ownership of LCCs by partners, and 2) to effectively engage with other long term partnerships to understand their objectives and look for areas of overlap of interest.
c) Determine additional direction for the LCC Council Pre-meeting assignments: Review background documents. Things to bring: Good ideas for moving the LCC Network forward! Dress: Business casual (no ties!) Call in number: 866/745-0259 code 974 7259 Adobe Connect Pro (webinar): https://meet39041854.adobeconnect.com/documents Log in as Guest, no password required
Thursday March 26, 2015 Time Agenda Topic Person Process Product/Result
7:45 Coffee and Mingle Council informal interaction
8:00-8:20
Welcome, purpose, introductions, agenda
Welcome/introduction –Lynn Scarlett, LCC Council Chair
Discussion Purpose of meeting understood
Agenda is understood and finalized by participants
8:20-8:30
Opening Remarks Lynn and Council Members
Discussion Recap of previous meeting and assignments
8:30-8:45
Review LCC Network Issues and Progress since last Council Meeting
Lynn Presentation Recognize leadership changes and LCC Network accomplishments and news since last June.
8:45-8:55
National Academy of Sciences Review
David Policansky and Stacee Karras, NAS; Elsa Haubold, LCC Network Coordinator
Update Understand review and information provided to NAS
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 1 of 79
Draft Process/Working Agenda v. 19 Mar. 2015
LCC Council
Time Agenda Topic Person Process Product/Result
8:55-9:25
LCC Network Strategic Plan
LCC Council members Leslie Honey, Madeline Maley, Jeff Raasch, Eric Schroff
Presentation and Discussion
All understand strategic plan and LCC Council role in implementation
9:25-9:40
Southern Rockies LCC Kevin Johnson, SR LCC Coordinator
Presentation Inside look at nearby LCC!
9:40-10:00
Break All Stand up and move around
All refreshed!
10:00- noon
Network Direction – Partnerships
Jeff and Deb Schlafmann, CA LCC Coordinator w/presentations* by Great Northern and Peninsula Florida LCCs; Playa Lakes Joint Venture and Great Plains LCC; & the Multi-LCC Gulf Hypoxia effort
Presentations and Brainstorm Discussion*
Understand partnering efforts underway
LCC Council provides input to LCC Network on more effective partnering
12-1 Networking Lunch All Go to Hotel Restaurant
Enjoy lunch and networking
1:00- 1:20
Ideas from the morning
All Discussion Additional reflections on the partnership discussion
1:20-2:00
Budget and in-kind overview
Elsa Presentation and Discussion
Understand leveraging by partners and LCC funding and President’s FY16 budget request for LCCs
2-2:15 Break
2:15-3:15
National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy
Mark Shaffer (USFWS) Sean Hart (BIA) Kevin Hunting (CA) Davia Palmeri (AFWA) Kim Penn (NOAA) Cynthia Wilkerson (WA)
Presentation and Discussion
All understand the strategy, how LCCs are contributing to Strategy Implementation, and discuss how Council might engage.
3:15-4:15
LCC Council Business Lynn Discussion At-large seats
Agree on Council direction and next steps
4:15-4:30
Recap Day and Next Steps
Lynn Discussion Who, what, and when documented
6-8 Dinner out All enjoy good food and good company!
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 2 of 79
Draft Process/Working Agenda v. 19 Mar. 2015
LCC Council
*LCC Partnership Session (10am-noon)
Objective: Help the LCC Network determine how 1) to enlist more ownership of LCCs by partners, and 2)
to effectively engage with other long term partnerships to understand their objectives and look for areas of
overlap of interest.
Title People Process Result
Introduction Deb Schlafmann All understand purpose of this
session
LCC Partnership
examples: Great
Northern and
Peninsular Florida
Gary Tabor, LCC
Council member and
GNLCC Steering
committee; and Tim
Breault, Peninsular
Florida LCC
Coordinator
Presentations
comparing 2 LCC
partnerships
Begin to understand differences
in LCC partnerships
Broadening
Canadian
Participation
Madeline and Eric Update Know what Madeline and Eric
are doing to encourage broader
participation in LCCs
Playa Lakes Joint
Venture and Great
Plains LCC
partnership
Jeff; Alex Daniels and
Kyle Taylor PLJV
staff; Nicole Athearn
GP LCC Coordinator
Presentations Understand collective work of
these partnerships and how the
collaboration is evolving
Multi LCC Gulf
Hypoxia Effort
Gwen White, ETBR
LCC Science
Coordinator, Acting
Assistant National
LCC Coordinator
Presentation Example of LCCs leading a
partnership of partnerships to
tackle a wicked conservation
problem – 7 LCCs working on
Gulf Hypoxia
How LCC Council
can help Network
advance partnerships
LCC Council Brainstorm # Develop ideas to help the LCC
Network improve partner
engagement
# Partnering Questions to Discuss: a. Why – What motivates your group to be involved with LCCs (e.g., research & development, product testing, science translation)? How do you benefit from collaborative landscape-scale conservation? What contributions do you make to LCCs?
b. How – How can engagement and ownership be enhanced? What are the barriers to engagement from missing segments of your group?
c. What – What is the role of the LCC Council in enhancing engagement? How can the Council help LCC Network advance partnerships at the Network level and within individual LCCs? Which barriers are most responsive to Council action?
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 3 of 79
List of LCC Council Meeting Attendees - Thursday, March 26, 2015
LCC Council Members Name Title Organization Federal Participants Ed Roberson Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning Bureau of Land Management
Buck Sutter Director, NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Cat Hawkins Hoffman National Climate Change Adaptation Coordinator
National Park Service
Sandy Boyce National Wildlife Ecologist USDA Forest Service Clint Evans State Conservationist for Colorado USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Dan Ashe Director US Fish and Wildlife Service
State Participants Mallory Martin Chief Deputy Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission David K. Whitehurst
Director, Bureau of Wildlife Resources
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Jeff Ver Steeg (alt. for Scott Talbott, WY)
Assistant Director, Research, Policy, and Planning
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
US Federally Recognized Tribal Participants Terry Williams Treaty Rights Office Tulalip Tribes
Non‐Government Organization Participants Dr. Gary M. Tabor Executive Director Center for Large Landscape Conservation
Leslie Honey Vice President of Conservation Services
NatureServe
P. Lynn Scarlett Managing Director, Public Policy The Nature Conservancy
Jad Daley Climate Conservation Program Director
The Trust for Public Land
International Participants Madeline L. Maley Executive Director Regional
Operations South Area BC Provincial Government (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
Eric Schroff Director Yukon Government, Department of Ecology
Indigenous Participant Ulalia Woodside Regional Assets Manager, Natural
and Cultural Resources Land Assets Division, Endowment Group
Kamehameha Schools
LCC Participant Deb Schlafmann LCC Coordinator California LCC Major Partnerships Participants Jeff Raasch Wetland and Joint Venture Program
Leader Bird Habitat Joint Venture Partnership
Tom Champeau Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
National Fish Habitat Board
LCC Council
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 4 of 79
Other Attendees
Name Title Organization LCC Staff
Nicole Athearn LCC Coordinator Great Plains LCC
Tim Breault LCC Coordinator Peninsular Florida LCC
Megan Cook Science Coordination Specialist LCC Network Coordination Office
Elsa Haubold LCC Network Coordinator LCC Network Coordination Office
Kevin Johnson LCC Coordinator Southern Rockies LCC
Gwen White LCC Science Coordinator Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC
Federal Sean Hart (by phone) Climate Change Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs
Steve Farrell Budget Office Department of the Interior
Katie Nuessly Presidential Management Fellow National Park Service
Kim Penn (by phone) Climate Change Coordinator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Emma Roach Budget Examiner Office of Management and Budget
Randy Johnson National Leader USDA Climate Hubs
Rachel Merkel Division of Budget US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark Shaffer (by phone) Climate Change Policy Advisor US Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Souza Assistant Director, Science Applications
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Steve Torbit Assistant Regional Director, Science Applications
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region
Greg Watson Chief, Office of Landscape Conservation
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region
Robin O’Malley Policy and Partnership Coordinator USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
Leann Sullivan Communications USGS North Central Climate Science Center
State Mark Humpert Wildlife Diversity Director Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Ron Regan Executive Director Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Davia Palmeri (by phone) Climate Adaptation Assistant Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Kevin Hunting (by
phone) Deputy Director California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Cynthia Wilkerson (by
phone) Manager, Land Conservation and Restoration Section
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Joint Ventures Anne Bartuszevige
Conservation Science Director Playa Lakes Joint Venture
Alex Daniels
GIS Director Playa Lakes Joint Venture
Kyle Taylor
GIS Analyst Playa Lakes Joint Venture
National Academy of Sciences Stacee Karras Research Associate National Academy of Sciences
David Policansky Scholar National Academy of Sciences
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 5 of 79
LCC Network Science Plan Summary as of March 20, 2015
Purpose of the Science Plan The Science Plan articulates and frames the priority science and technical needs that transcend LCC geographies and are needed for the LCC Network to achieve its vision and mission. These Network-level needs are intended to support and add value to individual LCC efforts. The Science Plan supports the LCC Strategic Plan in achieving its Science Goal. The Science Plan also strives to:
identify and focus attention on science issues that emerge at supra-LCC scales
communicate the LCC Network’s shared priority science and technical needs
inform investments (funding, technical capacities) by science funders and providers
provide the LCC Network Science Coordinators Team with a shared direction on the top priority LCC Network-level science issues, allowing for the scaling of individual LCC efforts
identify areas of potential collaboration among LCCs, Climate Science Centers, and other science producers to develop and provide integrated science-based information about the implications of climate change and other stressors for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources
provide a unifying vision and a framework for developing a shared scientific understanding about the landscape that individual LCCs and partners can tier off of
provide a mechanism to identify relationships (and gaps) among LCC science efforts at multiple scales (individual LCC, multi-LCC, network-wide) and between the LCCs and other science providers
provide a baseline for subsequent discussions on LCC Network science and technical needs
Science Plan Table of Contents
Introduction o Purpose of the Science Plan o Development of the Science Plan o Implementing the Science Plan o Relationship between the Themes in the Science Plan
Theme 1: Landscape Conservation Planning
Theme 2: Landscape Conservation Design
Theme 3: Climate Adaptation
Theme 4: Data Management, Integration, and Sharing
Theme 5: Socioeconomic & Cultural Values
Theme 6: Science Communication & Delivery
Theme 7: Monitoring
All themes contain the following sections:
Aspirational Statement
Scope of Issue
Fundamental Question
Objectives
Action Items & Deliverables
Project Timeline
Appendix A: Science Plan Glossary of Terms Appendix B: Summary of Science Plan Action Items (compilation of all action items identified in the
Science Plan)
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 6 of 79
T H E C O N S E R V A T I O N C H A L L E N G E
Energy and Biodiversity within the Appalachians
The Appalachian Region is a landscape of unique, globally-
significant biological diversity and cultural resources that
provides essential benefits to large cities and surrounding
human communities. The region is also rich in energy
resources including coal, natural gas, and wind that help
meet national and regional demands for domestic energy.
Landscape Planning to Balance Energy Needs and Environmental Benefits
Serving as a collaborative forum for conservation planning
and design at large, regional scales, the Appalachian
Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) provides the
tools, methods, and data resource managers need to
address land-use pressures and resource challenges that
are beyond the scope of any one agency.
The Cooperative assembled more than 150 scientists and
resource managers throughout the region who identified
all top research needs to advance landscape-level planning
for biological and cultural resources. Assessing future
energy development potential was identified as the top and
most immediate need. Through coordination and strategic
investment, this regional partnership prioritized and
supported fundamental scientific research to develop vital
information and decision-support tools related to energy
development that will target the right conservation actions
in the right places.
I N O U R P A R T N E R S ’ W O R D S
“The models and science that we are developing with the LCC will help inform proactive management for protecting natural resources while meeting our
domestic energy needs.” — Thomas Minney, The
Nature Conservancy
SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESULTS
Assessing Potential Energy Development Across the Appalachians
Mapping tool displays intersection between high probability energy development and forest cover.
As wind, natural gas and oil expands along with coal
development in the region, there is an increasing need for
research to inform discussions on how to meet energy
needs while sustaining healthy natural systems. To help
address this need, the Appalachian LCC awarded a
research grant to The Nature Conservancy to assess
current and future energy development potential across
the entire LCC region.
The assessment modeled data on wind, natural gas, and
coal development trends and identifies where these may
intersect with important natural resources and ecosystem
services, to give a comprehensive picture of what potential
energy development could look like in the Appalachians.
Data is integrated into a web-based map tool to inform
regional landscape planning decisions. The online tool
provides critical information to help decision makers and
industry effectively avoid, minimize, and offset impacts
from energy development to important natural areas and
the valuable services they provide. M O R E I N F O R M A T I O N Access the Online Tool and Study at:
http://applcc.org/assessing-future-energy-development
Contact: [email protected]
WHO WE ARE
California Landscape Conservation Cooperative
The CA LCC supports diverse ecosystems through lasting
conservation partnerships working to incorporate
climate-smart conservation strategies into natural
resource management across the state. The CA LCC
collaborates with the North Pacific LCC on this project.
How We’re Funded
The CA LCC is funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and is supported by investments from the U.S.
Geological Survey, California Department of Fish and
Game, and other partners.
IN OUR PARTNERS’ WORDS
"Sometimes nature is big, and
crosses our human
boundaries. Climate change
is such a phenomenon. In
response, we need to think
big, and work together across
those boundaries. The LCC is a place where
that can happen."
—MARK KRAMER, CALIFORNIA PROGRAM, THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY
KEY PARTNERS
SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESULTS
Adapting to Sea Level Rise Across the Pacific Coast
Threats to the Pacific coast include rising sea levels, shifting
precipitation patterns, erosion, and changing frequency and
intensity of storms. The U.S. Geological Survey, with support
from the CA LCC, is modeling sea level rise to help develop
adaptation strategies across the Pacific coast to provide
valuable ecosystem services such as filtering pollutants from
water and buffering cities from storm surge and flooding.
Coastal models help natural resource managers at National
Wildlife Refuges, State Parks, military bases, and other
locations plan for future flooding. Refuge managers in
California, Oregon and Washington use the models to predict
how tidal wetlands may change over time from marshes to
deeper water habitats. This scenario planning leads to better
long-term restoration decisions for priority species and
habitats. The CA LCC is convening other managers to identify
how to incorporate climate science into management actions.
MORE INFORMATION
Visit the California Climate Commons to learn about applying
climate science in California. <climate.calcommons.org>
Contact:
CA LCC Coordinator:
CA LCC Science Coordinator:
WHO WE ARE The six Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the Gulf region are working closely with States and other partners on the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS). The LCCs include the Gulf Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks, South Atlantic, Appalachian, Peninsular Florida, and Caribbean. Collectively, these six LCCs span 15 states and the territory of Puerto Rico. The U.S. Geological Survey Southeast and South Central Climate Science Centers are also engaging in this collaboration.
IN OUR PARTNERS’ WORDS
“The time is upon us all to be
more collaborative and
strategic in targeting our
collective conservation
activities to achieve broader
landscape level conservation
goals.”
- ED CARTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE WILDLIFE
RESOURCES AGENCY
KEY PARTNERS
MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Bill Uihlein, Assistant Regional Director, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, <[email protected]>
SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESULTS Defining the Future Conservation Landscape of the Southeast U.S.
SECAS is setting shared conservation priorities across the region, developing the science needed for success, and leveraging resources across States, Federal agencies, private landowners, and non-government organizations to maximize on-the-ground results. SECAS is a shared, long-term vision for lands and waters that sustain fish and wildlife populations and improve human quality of life in the southeast U.S. This vision provides regional focus for investments across organizations, disciplines, and partnerships.
Current and future generations rely on the nation’s fish and wildlife resources and habitats, both publicly and privately owned. Sea level rise, urbanization, habitat fragmentation, changing weather patterns and exotic species are affecting species and habitats across the region. In the face of these threats, this partnership is creating opportunities for transformative change in how conservation is planned and resources are managed. Over the next 5 years, LCCs will: » Build a habitat network for the southeastern U.S. based upon shared conservation priorities. » Integrate major existing conservation plans across the Southeast. » Assess vulnerabilities, such as sea level rise along the Gulf coast, future urban growth, and river flow alterations. » Improve how resource management decisions are made to facilitate implementing conservation priorities. » Develop tools to help partners, resource managers and community leaders better target conservation actions.
WHO WE ARE
Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC
Centered on the Great Lakes region, the Upper Midwest
and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative
(LCC) is a bi-national partnership of governments,
commissions, and private conservation organizations. In
support of the LCC Network’s vision, we work toward a
vision of a healthy, ecologically-connected network of
lands and waters across the region. We develop and
direct science toward landscape-scale planning and
design tools to inform on-the-ground conservation.
How We’re Funded
The UMGL LCC receives funding from the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Partners in the LCC provide significant in-kind
contributions.
IN OUR PARTNERS ’ WORDS
“Decisions about whether to
remove or retain fish barriers
have typically been made in
isolation. The landscape-scale
approach creates a larger
context and will allow us to make the best
decisions in a much more cost-effective
manner”
—BOB LAMBE, GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
KEY PARTNERS
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
The Nature Conservancy
University of Wisconsin -
Madison
SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESULTS
Prioritizing Barrier Removal to Restore Native
Fish Migration in Great Lakes Tributaries
Restoring access for anadromous fish to upstream areas
for spawning and rearing young is a significant
contribution to the improvement of stream health and
water quality. Stream barriers such as dams and road
crossings prevent native species from moving up and
downstream to important habitat. The LCC has created a
decision support tool to prioritize fish passage projects
across the Great Lakes basin.
The LCC identified over 275,000 total potential barriers,
estimated the amount of new habitat that removal could
create, and developed a tool for prioritizing barrier
removals for a given budget. However, these barriers
also help prevent invasive species from expanding into
new areas. Federal and State fish managers seek to target
dam and road removal to maximize opportunities for
native species while minimizing spread of invasive
species. The LCC is refining the tool to optimize native
fish passage and minimize the spread of invasive species.
Another goal is to establish a collaborative to develop
shared goals for connectivity across the basin and use the
tool to evaluate the pros and cons of barrier removal
from a landscape-level perspective.
MORE INFORMATION
Brad Potter, LCC Science Coordinator
Dr. Peter McIntyre, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Dr. Patrick Doran, The Nature Conservancy
Dr. Matthew Diebel, Wisconsin DNR
WHO WE ARE
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
(Service), eleven
Western States, and
other partners have
joined forces to conserve
the Greater sage grouse,
an imperiled species. The Great Northern, Southern
Rockies, Great Basin, and Plains & Prairie Potholes
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are
providing a forum for partners to collaborate and
contribute to the science needed for this unprecedented
and tremendous conservation effort. Federal and State
agencies are working together to find the best way to
conserve the species while sustaining working lands.
How We’re Funded
These LCCs are funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Bureau of Land Management, as well as by
States, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
other many organizations. Certain funds are leveraged
for specific projects. In FY13 alone, a $500K LCC federal
dollar investment leveraged more than $900K of
funding from partners for sage-grouse conservation.
IN OUR PARTNERS ’ WORDS
“This is the first time that a
landscape-scale, highly
collaborative process has
been used to solicit science-
based proposals to further
sage-grouse management."
—TOM REMINGTON, WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE AGENCIES
KEY PARTNERS
SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESULTS
LCC Science and Sage-grouse Conservation
Investments in LCCs are producing answers to key scientific
questions and inform decisions that need to be made by the
Service and its partners. LCCs are fostering scientific
collaboration across a broad Western landscape that targets
conservation investments toward the species’ greatest
needs. For example, LCC work has informed the design of
wildland firebreaks, sagebrush steppe habitat restoration,
and assessments of the health of sage grouse in areas
targeted for conservation efforts. Through engagement from
LCCs in the sage-grouse conservation assessment effort:
We now understand how to reduce the threats of
invasive species and wildland fire, two of the greatest
threats to the species.
We have created a database to share best practices for
land and wildlife managers that can be used by States
and other organizations to positively impact sage-grouse
habitat.
State and Federal land and wildlife managers are now
using a comprehensive geospatial map and database to
share the best available science and build a
comprehensive picture of sage-grouse conservation.
MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Stephen Torbit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
303-236-4602, <[email protected]>
500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202 334-1993 Fax: 202 334-2885 http://dels.nas.edu/
Evaluation of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Statement of Task The National Academy of Sciences will convene an ad hoc committee to examine the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) program. This committee will evaluate the purpose, goals, and scientific merits of the program within the context of similar programs, and whether the LCC program has resulted in measurable improvements in the health of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. This will include: 1. An evaluation of the scientific merit of the LCC program and its goals.
2. A comparison of the stated purpose and goals of the LCC with other similar programs. How are these programs similar, and how do they differ? Is there substantial overlap in their mission and purpose? If so, is there rationale for and benefit from this overlap? Is there sufficient coordination with these related programs?
3. A comparison of the types of projects, activities, and collaborations supported by LCC and related programs.
o Do the projects, activities, and collaborations supported by the LCC program overlap significantly with the traditional portfolio of other FWS programs (as the primary sponsoring agency)? Is there sufficient coordination and integration with these related programs? What benefit, if any, is gained by moving and/or consolidating this work within the LCC program? What effectiveness or efficiency is lost, if any, by housing this work within the LCC program? What changes can the FWS consider to address concerns?
o Do the projects, activities, and collaborations supported by the LCC program overlap significantly with the portfolio of related programs in other agencies? Is there sufficient coordination with these related programs?
4. An examination of the evaluation process for the LCC program. What is FWS’s strategy to assess the effectiveness (output and outcomes) of the LCC program? What are reasonable short, medium, and long-term metrics for the effectiveness of the LCC program in achieving its stated purpose and goals?
5. An assessment of the impacts of the LCC program at various scales. What goals (and/or objectives) have been achieved? What improvements in managing and conserving habitat and fish and wildlife species might be reasonable to expect from the LCC program in the timeframe it has existed? What longer-term impacts are likely to be realized?
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 12 of 79
LCC Introduction for National Academy of Sciences Review The last century has seen great changes in the landscapes and seascapes across North America, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean. Our natural areas face increasing pressure to meet the demands of a growing, more urban human population. Global and national conservation challenges like development pressure, resource extraction, wildfire, pollution, invasive species, hypoxia, and other impacts to our land, water, and wildlife are magnified by a rapidly changing climate. These challenges are greater than any one organization can meet alone. In spite of past successes in conservation, a change is needed in our stewardship of oceans, lands, and waters and the ecological processes that support the wildlife, peoples, and cultures of North America. These challenges demand innovative approaches to resource management and conservation based on collaboration and requires a longer-term view than traditional decision making. Further, these challenges demand an unprecedented collective effort to better understand the specifics of threats we face, and inspire coordinated action to address them. Acknowledgement of these emerging challenges was framed by the state wildlife agencies as early as 1993 at the 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. At the same time, Federal resource management agencies were recognizing project or issue level actions were not effective in addressing the scale and scope of changes across the landscape. The US Fish and Wildlife Service first conceived the concept of the Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) network building on examples of large-scale conservation partnerships. For example, sustainable populations of waterfowl have been achieved by a broad coalition of partners who share a common goal through the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. Another example is the large scale restoration efforts in biologically rich areas such as the Everglades. This has been successful because they included a diverse array of partners who identified shared priorities and committed to a sustained effort over decades to achieve the collective vision. Like large-scale conservation successes of the past, LCCs establish a forum to identify shared goals with a host of influential partners thereby leveraging capacity in a sustained effort over the long-term and increasing the likelihood of on-the-ground success. The LCC concept was adopted by Former Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar who recognized many of the DOI’s essential functions were being impacted by climate change and managers needed more information, rigorous science, and new decision-making tools in order to plan for the future and implement adaptation strategies. He issued Secretarial Order 3289 in September 2009, establishing the first-ever coordinated, Department-wide strategy for addressing climate change impacts on the resources the DOI manages. The order recognized the value LCCs provide in coordination and specifically states: “A network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives will engage DOI and federal agencies, states, tribal and local governments and the public to craft practical, landscape-level strategies for managing climate change impacts…” The mandate for LCCs is broader than just climate change including additional stressors LCCs deem important to their geography. Today LCCs provide a forum where entities with statutory authorities and responsibilities, and land management interests can come together to consider a larger landscape perspective and collectively find conservation solutions. Commitment to this forum is demonstrated by diverse
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 13 of 79
consortia of federal and state agencies, NGOs, tribes and other partners engaged in LCCs and providing support through financial, staffing, and other resources. Initially nine LCCs were established in 2010 and 13 more were stood up in 2011 and 2012. While the US Fish and Wildlife Service has administrative responsibility for most of the LCCs, five are managed or co-managed by other federal agencies or bureaus (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service and US Forest Service). Some LCCs have staff from state fish and wildlife agencies and LCCs with geographies crossing international borders have steering committees that include international organizations/agencies. Each LCC has a volunteer steering committee typically containing senior representatives from States, federal agencies, tribes, NGOS, universities, and other conservation partners. As individual LCCs were established, there was recognition of a need for inter-LCC coordination. Much like individual LCCs bring together management partners with common interests at regional scales, a Network of LCCs offered a similar opportunity at national and international scales. The Network fosters collaboration and partnerships among the LCCs and established a collective vision of “Landscapes and seascapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.” As the LCC Network developed, it was also apparent a coordinating body would be vital for long-term success. The LCC Council was established in 2014 as a representative body of executive-level leaders from LCC partner organizations including states, federal agencies, tribes, international representatives, NGOs, and indigenous peoples. Together, they support the cooperative conservation and sustainable resource management efforts of the LCC Network. They are working to help the LCC Network achieve its goals and sustain a broad constituency of partners. Through its diversity of partners and organizational structure, the LCC Network is designed to change the way the partners think about, plan, and act upon conservation issues across large landscapes. While respecting individual organizations’ authorities and mandates, LCCs provide a “shared table” where partners identify and act upon common interests in conservation and information needs. Of equal importance, the LCCs help to build trust between and among partners even when individual organizational interests may conflict. Though individual LCCs predominantly focus on the priority needs for their geographies there are also frequent collaborations between neighboring LCCs on issues that span broader geographies. The LCC Network seeks to make significant positive conservation differences on issues spanning even larger geographies across the continent and the associated island systems. The LCC Network vision is compelling for each of the 22 LCCs and they see themselves as making progress towards this vision. Yet, by design, the LCCs are as diverse as the ecosystems they cover. From the largely undeveloped, but rapidly changing landscapes of Alaska, to the highly fragmented landscapes of the eastern United States, or the islands and ocean systems of the Caribbean, Pacific Islands or Aleutians, the individual LCCs have defined priorities most relevant to the managers within their geographies. They have done this by convening partners, identifying where the diverse partnerships share priorities to take the process as far as possible to identify a shared vision of conservation. The conservation needs and socio-political environment shape how the individual LCCs determine their priorities with some focusing on addressing science and information needs while others are invested in recommending strategies for
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 14 of 79
conservation across their geographies. As the LCC Network matures, it is anticipated many individual LCC actions will become scalable to benefit conservation at large geographic scales. Although the first LCCs are only five years old, there are already many success stories that indicate they are a worthwhile endeavor. LCCs are taking action on shared needs, whether it is a scientific study to resolve a key question, or developing a landscape plan to highlight the best available conservation corridors, the collaborative approach is effective and is already reducing duplication across the partners. For example the South Atlantic LCC has developed a “Conservation Blueprint” identifying shared conservation priorities with many state partners and other stakeholders across the region. Now, all LCC members have a shared vision they can use to target their conservation investments and achieve greater results than any individual organization could have accomplished alone. The fifteen southeastern state fish and wildlife agency directors asked the five LCCs in the southeast to create a Southeastern Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) and the South Atlantic LCC blueprint is the first step in the completion of SECAS, due to be finalized in fall 2016. LCCs are also working with broad coalitions of partners to conserve imperiled species before protection under the Endangered Species Act is needed. For example, LCC investments supported a five state partnership to conserve the lesser prairie chicken and joined an unprecedented 11-state coalition to conserve the greater sage grouse. In the Great Lakes, LCCs are helping prioritize the removal of barriers to fish passage and control the spread of invasive species. Each LCC has a growing list of accomplishments that stem directly from the shared priorities identified by the conservation collaborative. Decreasing budgets in nearly every sector have created an added incentive to collaborate with partners to achieve shared goals and the LCCs have been a useful forum for those collaborations to begin. Already, LCC investments have been significantly leveraged by partner resources and leveraging will expand in the future as the individual organizations invest to achieve the common vision. Collaborative conservation has been fostered in the past but never on the scale and with the commitment associated with the LCCs. The LCCs are building an integrated conservation community unlike any that has previously existed. The LCC model was derived from other important partnerships such as the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the Fish Habitat Partnerships but LCCs encompass all natural and cultural resources the LCC partnership prioritizes. In the grand vision, the steps taken now will make it easier for decision-makers to collectively know where actions are most beneficial or where they can do the most harm. This type of change doesn’t happen quickly and requires breaking down institutional barriers across many sectors and the LCCs are building the momentum to accomplish this transformation. The platform is now in place to affect change at both the individual LCC level and across the LCC Network. The potential conservation benefits of the LCC Network are enormous as the LCCs become even more cohesive and work together to achieve a shared vision.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 15 of 79
Facts about Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Funding of Projects/Activities
The National Academy of Science staff requested information about how LCC project funding has been distributed. The tables provided in our response include information through federal fiscal year 2014. As the panel considers these responses it is important to recognize that LCC funding, and thus their capacity to conduct projects and other activities, varies across the network. Table 1 shows the funding allocated to each LCC from the USFWS. “The number and total dollar amount of grants by LCC”
• Since 2010, there are 690 separate agreements totaling $73,860,582 of “LCC funding.” These agreements represent projects or distinct components of integrated projects sponsored by the individual LCCs and the LCC Network. Table 2 shows this information by individual LCC.
• “LCC Funding” refers to funding provided to the LCC from the sponsoring agency or agencies. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the sole sponsor for 17 of the LCCs, but Bureau of Reclamation co-sponsors Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs, National Park Service co-sponsors Great Northern LCC, Bureau of Land Management co-sponsors Great Basin LCCs and USDA’s U.S. Forest Service is the primary sponsor of the Caribbean LCC. The distinction in where “LCC Funding” comes from is not made in the attached table.
• The funding mechanism varies based on the partner and the award type. Cooperative Agreements are most common, but grants and contracts are also used with non-federal collaborators. Federal collaboration awards are made using inter- or intra-agency agreements.
• While there has been nearly $74M expended on project/agreements since 2010, a crude estimate of leveraged dollars from the collaborators is nearly $69M. We believe this is an underestimate but leveraged dollars are particularly challenging to calculate.
o This does not include contributions of staffing or office space, etc. that have been made to support business operations of an LCC - we’ve just gathered information associated with projects/activities.
“The total dollar amount spent by each LCC to various sectors (academia, NGOs, states, etc.)”
• Please see Tables 3 and 4 for the information by LCC on projects with non-federal and federal partners.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 16 of 79
• Caveats: the spreadsheet provides a minimum reflection of collaborators on LCC sponsored projects/activities. The following points are important:
o This does not represent step-down agreements where funding from the LCC is then dispersed to additional partners.
o The USGS values are confusing because they also include Cooperative Research Units (CRU) within Universities. For example, within the Western Alaska LCC at least half of the funding shown under USGS has actually gone to three University CRUs but the funding mechanism was an interagency agreement with USGS. Therefore, the “Academia” value would actually be higher if the CRU project values were listed there rather than under USGS.
o When the FWS is listed as a recipient of funding it represents other program areas from Science Applications where LCC funding is administered, or it represents funding from one of the other LCC Sponsor agencies going to the FWS.
“The number and total dollar amount of any grants joined with CSCs, RISA groups, Climate Hubs, etc.”
• At least 78 projects/activities have direct funding links to CSCs, RISA groups, Climate Hubs, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, or Fish Habitat Partnerships.
• Approximately $8.6M of LCC Funding has been provided while these major partnership groups have contributed approximately $10.4M.
• Please see Table 5 to show LCC and Partner group contributions by LCC.
• Caveats:
o It is important to recognize that these major partnerships have strong relationships with Universities. It is possible for one professor to be part of a RISA, CSC, Climate Hubs etc., thus one project could be counted in multiple categories but are limited here to the primary partner only.
o Again, this only looks at direct financial links and not at the shared interest or integrated project efforts. We have examples where LCCs and Fish Habitat Partnerships have joined forces to accomplish shared goals but have not co-mingled funding.
o This does not include contributions of staffing capacity that have been made to or from an LCC to these other partnership groups.
o There is some duplication of partner funds in this table when multiple LCCs contribute to the same project jointly supported by a CSC or other partner group. The partner contribution shows up in each LCC.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 17 of 79
“How does the LCC Network categorize projects or proposals?”
• LCC projects are described using the following categories: Decision Support, Monitoring, Population & Habitat Evaluation/Projection, Vulnerability Assessment, Conservation Planning, Conservation Design, Informing Conservation Delivery, Data Management and Integration, Data Acquisition and Development, Socio-economics/Ecosystem Services, Traditional Ecological Knowledge
o Multiple categories are typically assigned to one project
o We have a LCC project catalog that was developed via a grant and is current through 2013. The catalog is being updated now and will eventually be converted to a living database.
How do individual LCCs categorize projects or proposals?
This was not a specific request from the Academy; however, we feel it is important to recognize that the individual LCCs may also have systems in place to describe their projects and proposals. Typically, the LCCs utilize the Network Categories as one form of categorization but may use other approaches that link activities to stressors/threats; specific geographies; species groups; ecological system levels or other categories that help link the projects and activities to specific goals or outcomes of the LCC.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 18 of 79
Table 1. Funding allocation to each LCC from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by year; the LCCs in italics are co-sponsored by other agencies, but those funds are not shown in this table. The funding allocation shown is total USFWS funding (project and administrative). Landscape Conservation Cooperatives FY10 Budget FY11 Budget FY12 Budget FY13 Budget FY14 Budget
Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands
- 200,000 378,000 584,000 550,000
Appalachian - 1,292,000 1,082,000 1,085,000 950,000 Arctic 2,208,000 2,208,000 2,100,000 2,082,000 1,545,000 California 2,208,000 2,208,000 1,687,000 1,676,000 1,545,000 Caribbean - - 375,000 472,000 440,000 Desert - 200,000 625,000 725,000 675,000 Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers
- 200,000 375,000 531,000 700,000
Great Basin - 250,000 375,000 531,000 495,000 Great Northern 2,208,000 2,208,000 2,100,000 2,082,000 1,545,000 Great Plains 2,208,000 2,208,000 2,100,000 2,082,000 1,300,000 Gulf Coast Prairie - 1,292,000 1,082,000 1,085,000 1,150,000 Gulf Coastal Plain/Ozarks - 1,292,000 1,687,000 1,676,000 1,250,000 North Atlantic 2,208,000 2,208,000 2,100,000 2,082,000 1,545,000 North Pacific - 1,292,000 1,082,000 1,085,000 950,000 Northwest Boreal - 200,000 375,000 581,000 540,000 Pacific Islands 2,208,000 2,208,000 2,100,000 2,083,000 1,375,000 Peninsular Florida - 200,000 625,000 731,000 800,000 Plains and Prairie Potholes 2,208,000 2,208,000 1,687,000 1,676,000 1,050,000 South Atlantic 2,208,000 2,208,000 1,687,000 1,676,000 1,545,000 Southern Rockies - 750,000 625,000 629,000 750,000 Upper Midwest/Great Lakes - 1,292,000 1,082,000 1,085,000 950,000 Western Alaska - 1,292,000 1,082,000 1,085,000 950,000
Total 17,664,000 27,416,000 26,411,000 27,324,000 22,600,000
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 19 of 79
Table 2: The number of agreements (projects), LCC funding and partner contribution to those projects by individual LCC.
LCC Name Number of
Agreements1 LCC
contribution Partner
Contribution Aleutian Bering Sea Islands 10 $330,877 $818,148 Appalachian 26 $1,918,493 $352,612 Arctic 56 $5,403,542 $13,570,357 California 52 $4,827,156 $6,300,000 Caribbean 23 $549,636 $250,000 Desert 39 $3,848,524 $4,050,510 Eastern Tall Grass Prairie Big Rivers 21 $905,111 $425,720 Great Basin 30 $1,902,451 $1,291,192 Great Northern 65 $6,827,000 $14,374,600 Great Plains 31 $5,127,452 $1,069,851 Gulf Coast Plans and Ozarks 24 $4,980,643 $4,161,727 Gulf Coast Prairie 10 $3,810,429 $807,209 North Atlantic 38 $5,347,463 $2,153,847 North Pacific 52 $2,449,906 $2,010,000 Northwest Boreal 12 $513,185 $206,793 Pacific Islands 21 $3,488,273 $3,216,024 Peninsular Florida 5 $303,053 $85,000 Plains and Prairie Potholes2 35 $5,455,045 $0 South Atlantic 28 $3,997,086 $510,027 Southern Rockies 33 $3,145,398 $3,506,893 Upper Midwest and Great Lakes 16 $2,459,310 $2,599,237 Western Alaska 39 $2,973,255 $6,244,063 National Office 24 $3,297,294 $690,557 Grand Total 690 $73,860,582 $68,694,367
1 The number of agreements usually, but not always, represents individual projects/activities. In some instances, more than one agreement is required to conduct one collaborative project with multiple partners. 2 Contributed funds have not been calculated for this LCC.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 20 of 79
Table 3. LCC funding to different non-Federal partner groups based on agreements and contracts issued as of October 2014. LCC funding comes from the agencies sponsoring the LCC. This is not always USFWS dollars. Non-Federal Partners
Academia3 NGOs Provinces or Territories
States Tribes/First Nations
Other Non-Fed
Total by LCC
Aleutian Bering Sea Islands (ABSI) $109,253 $22,639 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,892 Appalachian $641,069 $1,077,747 $0 $12,648 $0 $0 $1,731,464 Arctic $3,113,193 $668,551 $0 $0 $91,000 $89,813 $3,962,557 California $420,053 $2,250,104 $0 $396,123 $0 $100,000 $3,166,280 Caribbean $54,736 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $252,400 $310,636 Desert $1,428,109 $1,198,219 $0 $99,661 $0 $149,961 $2,875,950 Eastern Tallgrass Prairie Big Rivers (ETPBR) $194,793 $50,000 $0 $55,202 $0 $50,000 $349,995 Great Basin $541,293 $262,855 $0 $0 $50,000 $406,000 $1,260,148 Great Northern $1,279,000 $1,483,000 $255,000 $1,490,000 $103,000 $67,000 $4,677,000 Great Plains $1,169,279 $2,323,252 $0 $1,115,625 $0 $0 $4,608,156 Gulf Coast Plains and Ozarks (GCPO) $1,815,430 $598,250 $0 $892,809 $0 $262,406 $3,568,895 Gulf Coast Prairie $945,080 $2,033,748 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,978,828 North Atlantic $2,894,894 $1,850,868 $0 $20,000 $0 $491,696 $5,257,458 North Pacific $428,948 $844,588 $54,900 $99,266 $633,014 $0 $2,060,716 Northwest Boreal $120,000 $291,000 $0 $0 $33,185 $0 $444,185 Pacific Islands $2,655,070 $323,181 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,978,251 Peninsular Florida $157,761 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,892 $235,653 Plains and Prairie Potholes $908,536 $603,062 $0 $1,009,000 $0 $358,700 $2,879,298 South Atlantic $2,051,309 $1,192,218 $0 $149,977 $0 $149,233 $3,542,737 Southern Rockies $1,005,706 $922,801 $0 $601,646 $0 $0 $2,530,153 Upper Midwest and Great Lakes (UMGL) $1,977,950 $221,410 $0 $59,950 $0 $0 $2,259,310 Western Alaska $993,442 $425,865 $0 $27,192 $166,023 $0 $1,612,522 National Office $1,170,180 $822,514 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,992,694 Grand Total $26,075,084 $19,469,372 $309,900 $6,029,099 $1,076,222 $2,455,101 $55,414,778
3 This is an under-representation because much of the funding shown as going to USGS is to Cooperative Research Units at Universities. We did not ask for that information to be separated but an educated guess is that 50% of the “USGS” funding is to these USGS/Academia partnership programs.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 21 of 79
Table 4. LCC funding provided to different Federal partners through inter-agency agreements.
Federal Partners
BIA BLM BOR EPA FWS4 NOAA NPS Other Fed USFS USGS5 total by LCC ABSI $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,724 $10,000 $0 $58,261 $0 $0 $198,985 Appalachian $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,029 $0 $187,029 Arctic $0 $100,501 $0 $0 $22,845 $35,000 $92,500 $77,732 $0 $1,112,407 $1,440,985 California $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 $130,374 $0 $0 $0 $1,255,502 $1,660,876 Caribbean $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $0 $0 $228,000
$0 $239,000
Desert $0 $154,941 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $336,729
$380,904 $972,574 ETPBR $0 $0 $0 $0 $471,125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $83,991 $555,116 GCPO $0 $0 $0 $0 $302,380 $25,214 $0 $0 $154,685 $929,469 $1,411,748 Great Basin $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,750 $75,000 $0 $0 $112,422 $179,131 $642,303 Great Northern $0 $0 $0 $0 $806,000 $0 $0 $0 $656,000 $688,000 $2,150,000 Great Plains $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $165,335 $353,961 $519,296 Gulf Coast Prairie $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $831,601 $831,601 North Atlantic $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $365,089 $90,005 $555,094 North Pacific $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $196,500 $196,500 Northwest Boreal $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,429 $0 $0 $0 $121,261 $30,000 $222,690 Pacific Islands $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $368,909 $407,909 Peninsular Florida $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,113 $67,400 $208,513 Plains Prairie Potholes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,171,925 $2,171,925 South Atlantic $0 $0 $0 $0 $203,822 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $206,599 $610,421 Southern Rockies $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $247,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $368,289 $681,039 UMGL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,956 $200,000 $381,956 Western Alaska $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $325,213 $0 $0 $0 $799,710 $1,124,923 National Office $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,582 $50,000 $200,000 $130,228 $0 $589,511 $1,075,321 Grand Total $0 $255,442 $65,000 $0 $3,062,407 $650,801 $292,500 $1,130,950 $2,084,890 $10,903,814 $18,445,804
4 This represents either LCC funding from within the FWS going to a non-LCC programs, or LCC funding from other sponsoring agencies awarded to FWS, both would be to fund proposals through the same process used to decide on any of the other awarded agreements. 5 The USGS values in this column represent LCC-sponsored projects that are being conducted by USGS staff or by university staff through the USGS Cooperative Research Units. Although we did not request this information specifically, we estimate roughly 50% of these funds go to the Cooperative Research Unit partnerships.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 22 of 79
Table 5. The LCC contribution and major partner group contributions to joint projects and activities, based on the primary recipient of the agreement. Note that there is often overlap of personnel between these partnerships.
Climate Hubs CSC Joint Ventures Fish Habitat Partnerships RISA
Total LCC Amount
Total Partner Amount
LCC Amount
Partner Amount
LCC Amount
Partner Amount
LCC Amount
Partner Amount
LCC Amount
Partner Amount
LCC Amount
Partner Amount
ABSI $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,261 $53,000 $58,261 $103,000 Appalachian $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,585 $108,585 $82,000 $224,000 $0 $0 $190,585 $332,585 Arctic $0 $0 $896,314 $2,144,157 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $896,314 $2,144,157 California $0 $0 $145,000 $485,000 $1,470,735 $41,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,615,735 $526,000 Caribbean $30,000 $27,000 $0 $577,708 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $604,708 Desert $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $54,750 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $54,750 ETPBR $0 $0 $0 $212,220 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $212,220 GCPO $0 $0 $0 $309,000 $160,496 $149,800 $170,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $330,496 $478,800 Great Basin $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 Great Northern $0 $0 $316,000 $350,000 $180,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $496,000 $550,000 Great Plains $0 $0 $0 $0 $697,752 $450,994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $697,752 $450,994 Gulf Coast Prairie $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $260,113 $0 $305,000 $0 $0 $0 $645,113 $0 North Atlantic $0 $0 $969,679 $305,596 $195,490 $362,722 $250,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $1,415,169 $693,318 North Pacific $0 $0 $367,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $367,250 $0 Northwest Boreal $0 $0 $85,000 $1,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,085 $0 $0 $85,000 $1,400,085 Pacific Islands $0 $0 $182,449 $277,532 $0 $0 $141,113 $451,800 $240,026 $300,000 $563,588 $1,029,332 Peninsular Florida $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Plains Prairie Potholes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $243,000 $0 $0 $0 $243,000 $0 South Atlantic $0 $0 $517,830 $0 $0 $0 $329,870 $0 $0 $0 $847,700 $0 Southern Rockies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UMGL $0 $0 $206,630 $245,846 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,630 $245,846 Western Alaska $0 $0 $403,020 $2,295,422 $0 $0 $300,085 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $733,105 $2,315,422 National Office $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total $30,000 $27,000 $4,219,172 $8,502,481 $3,124,171 $1,367,851 $1,870,068 $1,040,885 $278,287 $428,000 $9,521,698 $11,366,217
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 23 of 79
Responses to NAS request regarding performance metrics
20 January 2015 Elements of success include both tangible (e.g., products, funding, actions with direct links) and less tangible components (e.g., fostering collaboration and ideas and relationships that lead to changes in actions by collaborators, as we all focus on shared priorities). Our response to this request for information on performance measures from NAS staff in Fall 2014 places the emphasis of success more on the measures that are tangible and directly tied to LCC action, but does not capture the value of a broad partnership. The collective impact potential of the LCCs at individual and Network scales depends largely upon the less tangible components of success and a metric has not been developed, aside from leveraging, to measure the value of partner and stakeholder interactions through the LCCs (see Hanleybrown et al. 2012 and Kania and Kramer 2011 for discussions on collective impact). Question 1 “Is the benefit to the states from LCCs measured? If so, how?” We have not tracked relationships with any particular partner segment within an LCC or the Network. The states are critical members of the LCC partnerships, but are not singled out in performance measures. Nevertheless, more attention is typically paid to foster State relationships within LCCs than perhaps any other segment of partners. We can infer benefit to the States (and all partners) through their participation in all levels of the LCC Network including individual Steering Committees, LCC Science or work groups, LCC Network and LCC Council activities. State agencies are involved in all LCCs. State representatives, usually State Directors or Deputy Directors, currently hold Chair or Vice-Chair roles on 14 LCCs and have recently rotated out of those roles on at least two others. Participating in the LCC governance and in science workshops, etc., affords States the opportunity to articulate their science needs and help the LCCs formulate a science agenda that is beneficial to state resource management.
Additionally, we can infer benefit to States by their participation in LCC sponsored projects. Since 2010, States have been the lead or primary partner on 50 projects and/or activities and their contributions as partners total over $6 million. As participants in individual LCCs and the LCC Network, States have helped establish LCC goals and objectives, and many of the LCC efforts have direct and indirect benefits to States. Southern Rockies LCC Example The Southern Rockies LCC (SRLCC) provided States with LCC funding (from Federal sponsors) both directly and indirectly. States were directly provided with LCC funding for four projects. The SRLCC also provided funding to non-state entities for 13 projects that were beneficial to management of a State wildlife agency trust resource; State agencies contributed cash (~$400,000) and/or in-kind resources. Additionally, SRLCC supported 14 projects directly
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 24 of 79
related to management of water resources of value to State water management agencies (~$1.5 million); State water resource agencies and state universities are contributing cash and/or in-kind support to these projects (~$890,000).
Some examples of SRLCC projects directly applicable/beneficial to States include: supporting Western Governor’s Association’s Crucial Habitat Assessment Tools (CHAT); completing digitization of National Wetland Inventory data across western Colorado; supporting water needs assessments in the Middle Rio Grande; developing fish databases in Colorado and Arizona; completing a Vulnerability Assessment for Gunnison Sage-grouse; developing a Landscape Conservation Design for management of sage-steppe habitat in the Green River Basin; and supporting the Utah State Wildlife Action Plan and the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative through data analysis, and the Habitat Connectivity in the Four Corners Region of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Questions 2 and 3: “Does the LCC Network (do the LCCs) have a strategy for measuring effectiveness (outcomes)? If so, what metrics have been/will be collected and used?” “Does the LCC Network (do the LCCs) have a strategy for measuring impacts? If so, what metrics have been/will be collected and used?” The responses to these two questions have been combined for “outcomes” and “impacts” because the systems in place are largely the same for both. Where appropriate, we have identified how different measures or strategies may fit into the definitions of outcomes and impacts as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (Appendix A). During these formative first four years of the LCCs and LCC Network, much of the emphasis has been placed on meeting “Process,” “Input,” and “Output” measures. With the maturation of the LCCs and the LCC Network, more thought is being placed on “Outcomes” and “Impacts,” though much of the focus is still on Output measures. Projects producing results to support Outcome metrics generally take several years to complete. Most LCCs have been funding projects for three years or less, and are just beginning to see, or will soon see, products produced by their earliest funded projects; hence, outcomes are not available yet for most projects (see following figure for illustration). Note individual LCCs may use the terms “outcomes” and “impacts” differently from definitions provided by NAS. The LCC Network produced its first Annual Report in 2013. Each LCC reported on progress towards: Leveraging partnerships; Meeting science priorities; Planning and conservation design; Information, data and tools; and Assessing, inventory, and monitoring. The LCC Network is planning to produce a similar report for 2014. Finally, the LCC Network website contains a wealth of information about individual LCCs and the Network successes. Monthly use analytics are provided by the web contractor.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 25 of 79
Figure: Progress towards completion of Western Alaska LCC funded projects since inception.
LCC Network Performance Measures/Tracking The LCC Network includes all 22 individual LCCs as well as the LCC Council, LCC Network Coordinator, and other Network staff. Performance measure tracking systems are in place through the Science Application program within the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as the primary investor in LCCs and through the Department of Interior (in which USFWS is housed). The systems described here incorporate results from all LCCs but primarily represent the USFWS investment and goals and not the full range of goals that may be held by the broader LCC partnerships. DOI, USFWS, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures (Appendix B) Priority Goals for USFWS and LCCs from DOI. Within their Priority Goals for USFWS, DOI established a specific activity for LCCs in FY 2014: The Fish and Wildlife Service will develop shared Climate Change adaptation goals and then Climate Change resilient landscape designs utilizing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). The status is reported on quarterly. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measures. In accordance with accomplishment reporting requirements of Circular A-11 and the GPRA, the USFWS consults with the DOI and OMB to establish new or modify existing performance measures, and has recently transitioned between two sets of reporting measures. Through FY 2014, the LCCs reported on three measures in Cooperative Landscape Conservation and six measures under Adaptive Science (see the “Annual Targets” in Appendix B). These nine measures predominately focused on Output and Outcome metrics.
In FY 2015, the nine performance measures were replaced with two new GPRA measures reported on by the USFWS Science Application program (where LCCs are housed) within each Region. The new measures are:
1. The number of Landscape Conservation Designs (LCDs) available to inform management decisions.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 26 of 79
2. Number of landscapes with surrogate species identified to support conservation actions. These goals are not LCC Network specific, but rather goals for the USFWS with opportunities for the LCC partnerships to provide significant contributions. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS) The Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS) has been developed by the USFWS for two substantial purposes: (1) to express the USFWS’ vision for, and to inform the USFWS investment in, the suite of activities, actions, and output/outcomes that an LCC would accomplish as it develops as a collaborative conservation forum and (2) to help respond to Congressional direction that “the USFWS establish clear goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes for LCCs that can be used as benchmarks of success of the program.” As such, SIAS is not expected to reflect the total suite of roles with which any individual LCC may be involved as part of meeting the needs of other partners, but should reflect a large percentage of those needs. The SIAS is an LCC performance and accountability tool that articulates expectations (along with associated benchmarks and metrics) from the USFWS regarding both the (1) organizational, process, and input steps an LCC should undergo to develop into a successful conservation partnership; as well as the (2) outputs and outcomes (science, information, and tools developed and used for decision making) and impact (shared vision among partners) an LCC should influence or produce. An assessment using SIAS is conducted annually by each of the 22 LCCs. Each LCC reports on the following SIAS metrics. See Appendix C for the full SIAS tool and description of the 8 Conservation Activity Areas, 22 Benchmarks, and 22 Metrics.
1. Organizational Operations a. 1.A - Engagement and Coordination b. 1.B - Leveraging Resources c. 1.C - Evaluating Progress d. 1.D - Engaged Technical Community and Dedicated Technical Staff
2. Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation a. 2.A - Assess Existing Conservation Efforts b. 2.B - Identify Priority Resources c. 2.C - Collate and Establish Conservation Goals and Measurable
Objectives d. 2.D -Refining Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation -
3. Landscape Conservation Design a. 3.A - Vulnerability and Landscape Assessments b. 3.B -Adaptation Strategies
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 27 of 79
c. 3.C - Integration of Multiple Priority Resources and Associated Measurable Objectives into Landscape Conservation Designs
4. Informing Conservation Delivery a. 4.A - Provide Decision Support b. 4.B - Information Delivery c. 4.C - Assessment of Information Delivery d. 4.D - Collaborative conservation delivery to realize resource
objectives 5. Decision-based Monitoring
a. 5.A - Collaborative Monitoring b. 5.B - Monitoring Change of the Landscape and Priority Resources
6. Research to Support Adaptive Management a. 6.A - Testing Underlying Assumptions
7. Data Management and Integration a. 7.A - Data Management and Integration
8. LCC Network Function a. 8.A – Participation in the LCC Network Enterprise b. 8.B - Function as Part of Integrated Network of LCC Partnerships
New scientific information, tools, methods and forums for collaboration and co-governance are required to achieve landscape-scale conservation outcomes articulated in the LCC Network Vision and Strategic Plan. The metrics promoted by the SIAS are intended to provide a foundation and capacity for enabling the LCC partnerships to define, design, and help partners collectively achieve shared conservation impacts. The USFWS strategy for measuring impacts, based on the Strategic Habitat Conservation adaptive management model (see http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/index.html), is embedded within the SIAS. For example, because of the SIAS, LCCs are working to establish conservation goals and measurable objectives and to monitor change of the landscape and their priority resources. The identification of the specific priority resources and metrics is not prescribed by SIAS but is being developed by the individual LCC partnerships.
Performance Tracking at the Individual LCC level Each LCC has multiple levels and systems for tracking performance and progress towards goals. Because there were no “off-the-shelf” performance measure systems available, the first established LCCs often took the lead on developing tools that were adopted by other LCCs. However, LCCs tend to have different approaches because each is a self-directed partnership with individual goals. This section describes common measures used by many, if not all, LCCs though their actual metrics, terminology, and methodology may differ. The first three categories “Project Level,” “Outreach,” and “Participation,” are within direct control of the LCC because the response is directly tied to LCC action. The ability of an LCC to track Outcomes or Impacts to its actions beyond those directly connected to LCC actions is less obvious. The final
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 28 of 79
three categories, “Synchronization of Activities,” “Outcomes,” and “Impacts,” describe examples of the types of benefits LCCs are attempting to document that are beyond their direct control but within their sphere of influence. Most LCC strategic plans include information about their evolving strategies for measuring performance. Project Level: All grants and agreements include milestones and reporting requirements. A searchable Project Catalog is available on the LCC Network website and includes all projects funded through early 2013. The Catalog is being updated to reflect all projects through 2014 and should be available by February 2015. http://www.lccnetwork.org/projects. All LCCs have a method of tracking their sponsored projects and products. Some LCCs have adopted Project Tracking Systems that record project metadata, track progress on achieving milestones, and the location and archiving of completed data and products. Examples of these include the Arctic LCC’s Project Tracking System and the Great Northern LCC’s Landscape Conservation Management Analysis Portal (LCMAP). Both of these systems have been adopted by some other LCCs. Recently LCCs agreed to use ScienceBase, a US Geological Survey (USGS) project catalog (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/) to make LCC projects discoverable through one site. Outreach: LCCs conduct outreach activities to inform the public and potential partners about the LCC vision and activities. All LCCs established webpages and most have mailing lists to distribute newsletters or updates throughout the year. Some LCCs have developed strong community dialog groups either using a blog format through their website (see South Atlantic LCC) or through communities of practice (see Appalachian LCC), and some use social media (see absiLCC.org). Quantitative metrics are available for many of these outreach tools though the decision to collect these data is up to the LCC Steering Committee. The ‘Impact’ of these direct measures is harder to understand or quantify. Participation: A relatively easily tracked metric is participation in LCC activities – for example how many people attend a workshop, open a newsletter, respond to a request for information or call for proposals. Participation may also take the form of contributing to the cost of running an LCC or a specific LCC activity. Synchronization of activities: By working in a collaborative forum, LCCs can influence how participating entities implement their programs as they see opportunities to improve effectiveness or efficiencies. For example, in Alaska there is an acute lack of empirical data necessary for making predictions about how salmon habitat may change with warmer freshwater temperature. The Western Alaska LCC, Alaska Climate Science Center (ACSC), Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership, USFWS Refuge Inventory and Monitoring Program, US Geological Survey and the National Park Service and others have coordinated funding investments and activities to enable partners to build capacity and collect data that can be used for regional-scale analyses. Documentation of these types of collaborations is inconsistent.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 29 of 79
Outcomes: Evidence that partner agencies and task forces are using LCC products to inform their decisions is becoming more common. Some LCC sponsored projects have been pivotal in stimulating corresponding or follow-up work by participating partners. For example, the Sierra Nevada partnered project of the California LCC supported a collaborative effort of over 15 agencies and organizations to develop a large scale vulnerability assessment for 27 priority resources of the Sierra Nevada; 8 ecosystems, 4 ecosystem services, and 15 species. Workshops were held for resource managers and decision makers in 2014 to deliver the information and have it available for their current efforts. The data are currently being used in US Forest Service (USFS) planning and management; including USFS Plan revisions, USFS Regional Climate Scorecard, and specifically for three early adopter Forests. Additionally, other partners have been involved in the development of the strategies and are using the results for the following products; CA State Wildlife Action Plan focal resources, National Park Service Sequoia and Kings Canyon Resource Stewardship Strategy, Yosemite National Park conservation priorities, and the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture mapping project. Most LCCs have no formal mechanism to identify when partner outcomes have occurred as a result of LCC actions. A few examples have been identified through word of mouth and queries of Steering Committee members. For example, the South Atlantic LCC maintains a blog of how their recently completed Conservation Blueprint is being used (Blueprint in Action 1, Blueprint in Action 2, Blueprint in Action 3, Blueprint in Action 4, Blueprint in Action 5). In November 2014, at the joint Alaska LCC and Climate Science Center conference, NOAA demonstrated how it had used climate circulation models funded by the Western Alaska LCC to develop additional tools that are leading to storm surge emergency forecasting systems for vulnerable Alaska coastal communities. Impacts: LCCs are beginning to influence policy and conservation impacts on the ground in a number of ways. They were recently called upon in the President’s Priority Agenda for Climate Change to help identify flagship areas in which to focus conservation efforts. In addition numerous examples of contributions of LCCs to implementation of the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy were highlighted in the “Taking Action: A Progress Report” in September 2014 and more have been identified recently by the LCC Network.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 30 of 79
Appendix A: NAS description of metrics Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for the Climate Change Science Program http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11292.html Box ES1 pgs 6-7 General Metrics for the CCSP Process Metrics (measure a course of action taken to achieve a goal)
1. Leader with sufficient authority to allocate resources, direct research effort, and facilitate progress.
2. A multiyear plan that includes goals, focused statement of task, implementation, discovery, applications, and integration.
3. A functioning peer review process in place involving all appropriate stakeholders, with (a) underlying processes and timetables, (b) assessment of progress toward achieving program goals, and (c) an ability to revisit the plan in light of new advances.
4. A strategy for setting priorities and allocating resources among different elements of the program (including those that cross agencies) and advancing promising avenues of research and applications.
5. Procedures in place that enable or facilitate the use or understanding of the results by others (e.g., scientists in other disciplines, operational users, decision makers) and promote partnerships.
Input Metrics (measure tangible quantities put into a process to achieve a goal)
1. Sufficient intellectual and technologic foundation to support the research. 2. Sufficient commitment of resources (i.e., people, infrastructure, financial) directed
specifically to allow the planned program to be carried out. 3. Sufficient resources to implement and sustain each of the following: (a) research
enabling unanticipated scientific discovery, (b) investigation of competing ideas and interpretations, and (c) development of innovative and comprehensive approaches.
4. Sufficient resources to promote the development and maintenance of each of the following: (a) human capital; (b) measurement systems, predictive models, and synthesis and interpretive activities; (c) transition to operational activities where warranted; and (d) services that enable the use of data and information by relevant stakeholders.
5. The program takes advantage of existing resources (e.g., U.S. and foreign historical data records, infrastructure).
Output Metrics (measure the products and services delivered)
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 31 of 79
1. The program produces peer-reviewed and broadly accessible results, such as (a) data and information, (b) quantification of important phenomena or processes, (c) new and applicable measurement techniques, (d) scenarios and decision support tools, and (e) well-described and demonstrated relationships aimed at improving understanding of processes or enabling forecasting and prediction.
2. An adequate community and/or infrastructure to support the program has been developed.
3. Appropriate stakeholders judge these results to be sufficient to address scientific questions and/or to inform management and policy decisions.
4. Synthesis and assessment products are created that incorporate these new developments.
5. Research results are communicated to an appropriate range of stakeholders. Outcome Metrics (measure results that stem from use of the outputs and influence stakeholders outside the program)
1. The research has engendered significant new avenues of discovery. 2. The program has led to the identification of uncertainties, increased under- standing
of uncertainties, or reduced uncertainties that support decision making or facilitate the advance of other areas of science.
3. The program has yielded improved understanding, such as (a) more consistent and reliable predictions or forecasts, (b) increased confidence in our ability to simulate and predict climate change and variability, and (c) broadly accepted conclusions about key issues or relationships.
4. Research results have been transitioned to operational use. 5. Institutions and human capacity have been created that can better address a range
of related problems and issues. 6. The measurements, analysis, and results are being used (a) to answer the high-
priority climate questions that motivated them, (b) to address objectives outside the program plan, or (c) to support beneficial applications and decision making, such as forecasting, cost-benefit analysis, or improved assessment and management of risk.
Impact Metrics (measure the long-term societal, economic, or environmental con- sequences of an outcome)
1. The results of the program have informed policy and improved decision making. 2. The program has benefited society in terms of enhancing economic vitality,
promoting environmental stewardship, protecting life and property, and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
3. Public understanding of climate issues has increased.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 32 of 79
Appendix B DOI and USFWS’ Science Applications
Performance Measures for LCCs
Priority Goals for USFWS and LCCs from DOI
DOI Strategy 1: Mainstream and integrate climate change adaptation into both agency-wide and regional planning efforts, in coordination with other Federal agencies as well as state and local partners, Tribal governments and private stakeholders. FWS Activity: Develop shared Climate Change adaptation goals and then Climate Change resilient landscape designs utilizing LCCs. DOI Strategy 2: Ensure agency principals demonstrate commitment to adaptation efforts through internal communications and policies. FWS Activity: Update six Climate Change Policies.
GPRA Measures (new for FY 2015)
1. The number of LCDs available to inform management decisions. 2. Number of landscapes with surrogate species identified to support conservation actions.
Annual Targets (Green Book measured through FY 2014)
CL.2.1.4 Number of decision-support tools provided to conservation managers to inform management plans/decisions and ESA Recovery Plans. CL.2.1.5 Number of conservation delivery strategies and actions evaluated for effectiveness. CL.2.1.6 Number of landscape-scale conservation strategies developed that can direct management expenditures where they have the greatest effect and lowest relative cost. CL.3.1.1 Number of risk and vulnerability assessments developed or refined for priority species or areas. CL.3.1.2 Number of inventory and monitoring protocols developed, refined or adopted to capture data on priority species addressed in LCC work plans that are expected to be vulnerable to climate change. CL.3.1.3 Number of population and habitat assessments developed or refined to inform predictive models for changes in species populations and habitats as a result of climate change. CL.3.1.4 Number of biological planning and conservation design projects developed in response to climate change. CL.3.1.5 Number of management actions evaluated for effectiveness in response to climate change and research activities conducted to address information needs in response to climate change. CL.3.1.6 Number of conservation genetics projects to improve and enhance conservation design and delivery for fish and wildlife populations in response to climate change.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 33 of 79
1
APPENDIX C
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS 2.0) Commitment in Support of a National Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network
FY 2014 Complex and persistent challenges have led the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to re-assess how best to pursue the FWS mission. Our response has included the adoption of Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) as our conservation approach for sustaining populations of fish and wildlife, in the context of landscape and system sustainability, and the establishment of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) as public-private partnerships that can provide the expertise needed to support conservation planning, implementation, and evaluation at landscape scales. Taken together, and working within the larger conservation community, SHC and LCCs will focus on improved levels of collaboration that enable a region’s private, state, federal, and tribal conservation infrastructure to operate as a networked, leveraged system. Specifically, within any given ecological region, entities comprising the private, state, federal, and tribal conservation infrastructure must interact as a system if they are to expect system-level impacts. Organizations and agencies recognize the need for functional connectivity and are developing ways to integrate their otherwise independent capacity for conservation planning and design, conservation delivery, as well as monitoring and evaluation. They acknowledge that the goals and objectives expressed at landscape scales exceed the grasp of any one organization. In recognition of the importance of these emerging themes in conservation, the FWS has committed to:
o Connecting strategic goals and explicit objectives to budgets by collaboratively developing conservation targets that link desired biological
outcomes for fish, wildlife, and plants and other natural resources to landscape and habitat conditions necessary to sustain species at desired levels;
o Leveraging assets in ways that support robust networks of conservation partners and partnerships; o Pursuing conservation at landscape scales as a science-based, collaborative endeavor that incorporates human dimensions
considerations; o Remaining transparent and accountable for our work by communicating outcomes and results of investments based on
conservation goals and measurable objectives; o Acknowledging, assessing, and addressing the uncertainties in alternative future landscape conditions by using an adaptive
management framework where learning is an explicit objective of management; and o Integrating our work with partners to effectively achieve conservation results expected by the public. With the above interests in mind, the FWS Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS) will help guide our support for individual Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and the National Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network. In pursuit of our agency’s mission and our vision for science, the following Activity Areas and associated Benchmarks will help specify our investment and participation in the LCC network to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and support for the LCC Network vision and mission. This updated version of the SIAS (2.0) for FY2014 is built on the foundation of previous versions of the SIAS and has included elements of the SHC framework in a more structured manner.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 34 of 79
1
LCC Network Vision: Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.
LCC Network Mission: A network of cooperatives depends on LCCs to:
• Develop and provide integrated science-based information about the implications of climate change and other stressors for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources;
• Develop shared, landscape-level, conservation goals, objectives, and strategies that are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape, including the implications of current and future environmental stressors;
• Facilitate the exchange of applied science in the implementation of conservation strategies and products developed by the LCCs or their partners;
• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LCC conservation strategies in meeting shared objectives; • Develop appropriate linkages that connect LCCs to ensure an effective network.
The SIAS is founded upon and maintains integral linkages to: “Strategic Habitat Conservation: Final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team” (2006); “Interior’s Plan for a Coordinated, Science-Based, Response to Climate Change Impacts on Our Land, Water, and Wildlife Resources” (DOI ca. 2009); “Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (Secretarial Order No. 3289, amended 2010); “Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, Form and Function” (FWS ca. 2010); “Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers Implementation Guidance” (2011); “High Priority Performance Goals (OMB)”; the “Core Activities and Benchmarks” developed in 2011 and applied to FY12 LCC allocations; the “Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network (2012); and, “Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science Funding Allocations for 2013” (FWS, Director’s Memo Dec., 2012).
SIAS 2.0 was developed by a team of Science Applications Assistant Regional Directors, LCC Coordinators and Science Coordinators, and OSA staff, and refined with input from each of the LCCs, to improve and expand upon the FY13 SIAS 1.0 conservation activity areas and benchmarks, thus reflecting the additional experience and perspectives of the evolving National LCC Network.
SIAS 2.0 is comprised of eight interrelated Conservation Activity Areas and associated benchmarks that are guided by the Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework. Implementation of SHC 2incorporates elements of the conservation enterprise in an iterative process of adaptive management, including: biological planning, conservation design, delivery of conservation actions, decision-based monitoring, and assumption-driven research.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 35 of 79
1
SIAS 2.0 (FY2014)
Conservation Activity Areas and Benchmarks
Metric
1. Organizational Operations: Addresses fundamental organizational and administrative components necessary to establish and maintain an LCC as part of the National LCC Network. The LCC Partnership is composed of participating organizations (LCC Partners), is directed by the LCC Steering Committee (LCC SC), and is supported by the LCC Staff as well as science, technical and other work teams. The LCC Staff and LCC SC and their associated organizations actively engage other relevant individuals, organizations, and partnerships creating collaborative relationships with key decision makers who are able to influence current and future landscape conditions. The LCC Staff maintains strong professional contacts and connections, networking to keep LCC Partners abreast of current conservation issues, techniques, etc. The LCC Staff also identifies partner capabilities to address the LCC mission and works with partners to address capacity gaps by adding key positions, relying on partner capacities, utilizing contracts, or by training appropriate to the size and complexity of the LCC geographic region (LCC Geography). LCCs must work closely with other conservation science and delivery activities to ensure efforts are coordinated and integrated. The LCC participates in development of common national LCC network messages to relevant state, regional, and national entities. The LCC works to ensure its activities are coordinated and integrated with those of the Climate Science Centers, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units, Forest Service Research Centers, Joint Ventures, Fish Habitat Partnerships, and similar key players.
1.A - Engagement and Coordination - LCC Staff and Steering Committee are actively fostering strategic engagement, collaboration, and coordination with a diversity of entities that influence landscape conservation decisions, including: state and federal agencies, tribes, Universities, NGOs, regional partnerships (e.g., JVs, NFHPs, AFWA regions) and regional and local community planners.
No/Yes (0/1)
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 36 of 79
1
1.B - Leveraging Resources - LCC Partners contribute resources (e.g., staff, funding, infrastructure, tools, expertise, etc.) to fill administrative and technical capacity, and information gaps necessary to achieve the LCC mission.
0) 0% of total FWS annual investments* leveraged by partner contributions* (cash and/or in kind).
1) 1% to 33% of total FWS annual investments leveraged by partner contributions (cash and/or in kind).
2) 34% to 66% of total FWS annual investments leveraged by partner contributions (cash and/or in kind).
3) 67% to 100% of total FWS annual investments leveraged by partner contributions (cash and/or in kind).
4) >100% of total FWS annual investments leveraged by partner contributions (cash and/or in kind).
1.C - Evaluating Progress – The LCC Steering Committee has established metrics and processes for identifying, collaboratively pursuing, and evaluating actions in support of the LCC’s mission, goals, and objectives. The LCC develops a comprehensive strategic action plan, updated on a regular defined time period, that describes their science agenda, approach, monitoring, and communications strategy and progress in collaboratively achieving the LCC mission.
The LCC has developed a comprehensive strategic action plan. [Not Started (0); Started (1); Completed (2)]
The LCC Steering Committee has developed and implements a process
at regular intervals for evaluating progress towards established goals and updating the identification and prioritization of the most important science and capacity needs to support LCC goals. [Not Started (0); Started (1); At least one iteration of this process, resulting in an updated strategic action plan, has been completed (2)] [Note: Report (in narrative form) on the identified adaptive actions taken as a result of the process.]
* All terms in red are defined in the attached SIAS Appendix A
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 37 of 79
1
1.D - Engaged Technical Community and Dedicated Technical Staff - The LCC has organized the technical capacity, including dedicated partner staff, needed to address priority conservation science needs. Further, the LCC has established a working relationship with USGS regional Climate Science Center(s) and other entities to ensure that science and conservation activities involving the LCCs have access to the best regional technical information and that priorities are coordinated and integrated.
0) The LCC has not organized technical capacity nor established relationships with the broader science community.
1) The LCC has established science teams or technical committees to assess science and technical needs for the LCC.
2) The LCC’s science teams or technical committees are addressing the LCC’s priority conservation science needs.
2. Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation: Defines the foundation upon which an LCC builds an integrated landscape conservation planning, design, and delivery process that informs the identification of priorities relevant to achieving the mission of the LCC and the LCC Network. Establishes the conservation science foundation of LCCs based on transparent replicable processes and procedures to identify priority resources (biological, ecological, and cultural features and processes) including goals and measurable objectives and conservation priorities (knowledge, actions, or activities needed to address priority resources) for those resources. To be successful, landscape conservation planning and priority setting is a dynamic and iterative process that acknowledges and anticipates change, by incorporating the results and lessons learned from research, modeling and monitoring efforts. Further, assumptions are reviewed particularly for consideration of new threats and information - this review is to encourage the LCCs to regularly assess conservation priorities at various spatial and temporal scales.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 38 of 79
1
2.A - Assess Existing Conservation Efforts - The LCC analyzes or assesses past and/or current large scale planning efforts’ conservation priorities and associated goals and objectives (e.g., those identified by JV, NFHP, Marine National Monuments management plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, etc.) within the LCC geography to assist in the identification of priority resources. The LCC helps integrate conservation and design activity across partnerships to achieve LCC mission.
0) The LCC has not documented or evaluated large scale planning efforts across its geographic area.
1) The LCC has queried partners throughout the geographic area and documented large scale planning efforts.
2) The LCC has conducted, or evaluated the results of, formal assessments of large scale planning efforts and has documented convergence/overlap of priorities and objectives of all AND identified key information/monitoring needs identified by said planning efforts to enhance strategic conservation. [Report on methodology used for assessment (e.g. forums, workshops, literature review) and provide synthesis of findings.]
3) The LCC has incorporated priorities of ongoing planning efforts and/or identified opportunities to leverage planning efforts. [Report on how priorities and information needs have been considered and formally incorporated into LCC workplan and information acquisition/delivery strategy.]
4) The LCC has effectively leveraged, and provided key information needs to, large scale planning efforts across its geographic area. Partners in said efforts are integrated with LCC operations and actively exchange scientific information and provide updates regarding conservation delivery. [Report on number of planning efforts successfully integrated, type and extent of information exchanged and extent of conservation delivery undertaken for common resource priorities.]
2.B - Identify Priority Resources -The LCC uses the compilation developed in 2.A to help conduct systematic and transparent processes resulting in the identification and establishment of priority resources (biological, ecological, and cultural features and processes) and conservation priorities for those resources.
0) The LCC has not started this process.
1) The LCC has initiated the process to identify priority resources.
2) The LCC has identified and formally established priority resources.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 39 of 79
8
2.C - Collate and Establish Conservation Goals and Measurable Objectives - The LCC is using existing partner conservation goals and measurable objectives, as appropriate, or refines them in establishing new conservation goals and measurable objectives as needed for the identified priority resources. Goals and objectives are linked to the ability of current and future landscapes to support desired resource levels at appropriate spatial scales across an LCC’s geography.
0) The LCC has not started the process to identify measureable objectives.
1) The LCC has initiated the process to identify measurable objectives.
2) The LCC has completed identification of measureable objectives for at least 25% of the identified priority resources.
3) The LCC has completed identification of measureable objectives for at least 50% of the identified priority resources.
4) The LCC has completed identification of measureable objectives for 100% of the identified priority resources.
2.D -Refining Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation - The LCC partnership has developed a mechanism and timeline for updating conservation priorities and associated objectives, including revisiting conservation design and assessment of assumptions under which it bases its designation of priority resources (See 2.B) and decisions relative to achieving the LCC’s mission as part of an adaptive management framework.
The LCC has developed a process and timeline to reassess priority resources and measurable objectives at regular intervals. (No/Yes - 0/1)
The LCC has used the results and products of research, monitoring, and modeling activities within an adaptive management framework to improve and revise conservation plans, conservation design tools, monitoring protocols, and research priorities for the LCC’s priority resources. (No/ Yes – 0/1)
The LCC has implemented a process to assess assumptions under which it bases its designation of priority resources and its establishment of conservation priorities (No/Yes -0/1)
Summary Score (0 to 3): [Provide narrative report to support all “YES” responses to the above.]
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 40 of 79
9
3. Landscape Conservation Design: Interprets the biological, ecological, and cultural goals and objectives for priority resources defined by the LCC in support of the mission of the LCC and the LCC network. LCC members develop or assemble climate, land- cover, land-use, hydrological and other relevant data in spatially explicit contexts to define and predict landscape patterns that support biological, ecological, and cultural resource goals and objectives defined in Conservation Activity Area #2 (Landscape Conservation Planning Foundation). Results of conservation planning and integrated landscape design are used to establish conservation and adaptation strategies to help target conservation delivery.
3.A - Vulnerability and Landscape Assessments - LCC staff and partners are coordinating, supporting or conducting vulnerability assessments specific to the LCC's priority resources and agreed upon conservation goals and objectives. The LCC also coordinates, conducts, and supports the development of landscape assessments that consider current and expected future conditions of landscapes and uses these two sets of analyses to evaluate the capability of the LCC’s geography to support its objectives and targets for the LCC’s priority resources.
0) The LCC has not conducted vulnerability or landscape assessments.
1) The LCC or partners are developing or assembling information necessary to drive vulnerability and landscape assessment efforts for the LCC’s priority resources.
2) The LCC or partners have completed or adopted vulnerability or landscape assessments for at least 33% of the geography or 33% of the LCC’s priority resources.
3) The LCC or partners have completed or adopted vulnerability or landscape assessments for at least 66% of the geography or 66% of the LCC’s priority resources.
3.B -Adaptation Strategies- Informed by vulnerability and landscape assessments for the LCC’s priority resources, the LCC develops and integrates practical tools and information resulting in adaptation strategies that identify alternative management approaches for specific conservation priorities. For example, an adaptation strategy may consider the effects of climate change, land-use change, and ecosystem services in the development of management actions and landscape designs for the LCC’s priority resources.
0) The LCC is not developing climate change adaptation strategies. 1) The LCC is developing or compiling assessments of threats, exposure, and resilience (vulnerability) to inform climate change adaptation strategies. 2) The LCC or partners have developed or adopted adaptation strategies for at least one of the LCC’s priority resources. 3) The LCC or partners have developed or adopted adaptation strategies for more than 25% of the LCC’s priority resources. 4) The LCC or partners have developed or adopted adaptation strategies for more than 50% of the LCC’s priority resources.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 41 of 79
10
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.
0) The LCC Steering Committee hasn’t committed to this process.
1) The LCC Steering Committee has committed to adopting or developing shared conservation designs for the LCC’s priority resources.
2) The LCC has completed shared conservation designs for up to 50% of the LCC’s geography or for up to 50% of identified focal areas.
3) The LCC has completed shared conservation designs for more than 50% of the LCC’s geography or for more than 50% of identified focal areas.
4) The LCC has completed shared conservation designs for 100% of the LCC’s geography.
4. Informing Conservation Delivery: Ensuring that scientific information and technology are useful and readily available to decision makers that can influence current and future landscape conditions. Many organizations participating as members of LCCs have extensive conservation delivery or related programs and efforts. LCCs develop tools and information to inform conservation delivery decisions now and in the future and ensure tools are relevant to individual organization mission pursuits. These products are built in consultation with end users, transferred and accessed with minimal impediment, and applied in a manner that improves efforts that address common and shared conservation priorities. LCCs must work closely with other conservation science and delivery partners to ensure efforts are coordinated and integrated.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 42 of 79
11
4.A - Provide Decision Support - The LCC develops landscape conservation decision support information and tools to inform partners’ conservation strategies relative to meeting LCC objectives for priority resources.
0) The LCC has not produced decision support information or tools.
1) The LCC is investing in the development of decision support information or tools.
2) The LCC’s conservation partners are using the decision support information or tools developed by the LCC to address at least one of the LCC’s identified priority resources.
3) The LCC’s conservation partners are using the decision support information or tools developed by the LCC to address at least 50% of the LCC’s identified priority resources.
4) The LCC is refining/improving the decision support tools and information it has developed to better meet the needs of conservation partners relative to the LCC’s identified priority resources.
4.B - Information Delivery - The LCC develops delivery techniques to ensure that the LCC’s products and tools are available for various decision makers that influence landscape conditions relevant to resource priorities and conservation objectives of the LCC and the LCC partners.
Indicate the extent to which the LCC has addressed the benchmark: 0) Not at all; none; 1) Minimally; barely; to a small degree; 2) Medium; moderately; 3) Mostly; largely; to a large degree: 4) Fully; completely; significantly.
[Note: Include description of the information delivery capacity (techniques being used for resource priorities include:
Access to data, visualization of data, integration of information, workshops/conferences, etc.)]
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 43 of 79
12
0) The LCC has no tracking system in place.
4.C - Assessment of Information Delivery – The LCC has a transparent system to track and assesses use of products it has invested in and makes adjustments to the products or the delivery techniques, as needed.
1) The LCC has an information delivery tracking system in place. 2) The LCC is receiving and analyzing feedback on its approach to information delivery. 3) The LCC is actively modifying its information delivery techniques to meet the needs of its management partners and the LCC demonstrates an overall increase in the use of its products and tools over time.
4.D - Collaborative conservation delivery to realize resource objectives - The LCC has been effective in informing resource managers and wildlife managers about the LCC’s collectively identified conservation priorities (and related information and planning tools) for the landscape. Where appropriate, partners integrate shared LCC conservation priorities into respective planning activities and align their conservation delivery to support achievement of objectives for the LCC’s priority resources while also meeting their missions, mandates, and authorities. Optimally, these actions can be tied directly to the desired measurable responses of fish and wildlife populations, as well as other natural and cultural resources valued by the partnership.
0) LCC partners have not integrated LCC conservation priorities with management plans nor delivered conservation actions consistent with objectives for the LCC’s priority resources. 1) The LCC partners have incorporated the conservation priorities for up to 50% of the LCC’s priority resources into conservation planning or decision-making processes. 2) The LCC partners have incorporated the conservation priorities for greater than 50% of the LCC’s priority resources into conservation planning or decision-making processes. 3) The LCC partners are implementing conservation delivery actions (Partners applying their respective authorities, abilities and funding where appropriate) to achieve measurable objectives for up to 50% of the LCC’s priority resources.
4) The LCC partners are implementing conservation delivery actions (Partners applying their respective authorities, abilities and funding where appropriate) to achieve measurable objectives for greater than 50% of the LCC’s priority resources.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 44 of 79
13
4.E - Tracking Delivery on the Landscape. The LCC has developed or has access to the capacity to track, catalog and report on conservation delivery actions undertaken and implemented by management partners, as well as to evaluate the utility of LCC products to improve delivery. The LCC has implemented a methodology (voluntary updates from partners, surveys conducted by LCC staff, etc.) to populate and update the tool or process. This tool/process allows the LCC to catalog modifications to operational plans and subsequent conservation delivery actions that help to achieve measurable objectives for the LCC’s priority resources and to assess effectiveness of LCC conservation design products. The tool/process is used to promote situational awareness of ongoing conservation operations among the LCC’s partners, to facilitate evaluation of attainment of collectively recognized conservation priorities (provides target rich environment for 5B), and to adaptively improve LCC products.
0) The LCC does not track partners’ use of LCC products nor evaluate attainment of conservation priorities or objectives for the LCC’s priority resources.
1) The LCC has developed a tracking tool or process that examines the utility of LCC products for improving partners’ conservation delivery and that can be used to evaluate attainment of measurable objectives for the LCC’s priority resources.
2) The LCC is measuring attainment of measurable objectives for up to 25% of the LCC’s priority resources Attainment of objectives includes on-the-ground delivery of conservation mechanisms as a result of LCC products.
3) The LCC is measuring attainment of measurable objectives for 25% to 75% of the LCC’s priority resources. Attainment of objectives includes on- the-ground delivery of conservation mechanisms as a result of LCC products.
4) The LCC is measuring attainment of measurable objectives for greater than 75% of the LCC’s priority resources. Attainment of objectives includes on-the-ground delivery of conservation mechanisms as a result of LCC products.
5. Decision-based Monitoring: Entails promoting and supporting a collaborative monitoring approach to track and evaluate landscape change overtime relative to conservation objectives for the LCC’s conservation and resource priorities. Where adequate, LCCs use existing monitoring infrastructure to develop collaborative monitoring networks among partners that efficiently track and evaluate status and trajectory of resource priorities and landscape condition change overtime. The results of these efforts are shared broadly and result in refined approaches to conservation and adaptation actions.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 45 of 79
14
Indicate the extent to which the LCC has addressed the benchmark:
5.A - Collaborative Monitoring - The LCC helps coordinate sharing of protocols, data management and analysis tools, etc. among the collaborative monitoring network partners including the Service’s Inventory and Monitoring capacity (i.e., Refuges I&M) and other LCC member organizations.
0) Not at all; none. 1) Minimally; barely; to a small degree (The need has been clearly identified and a committee structure adopted to support the goal). 2) Medium; moderately (Committee established that represents the diversity of organizations needed to monitor the LCC’s established conservation priorities and associated objectives). 3) Mostly; largely; to a large degree (Monitoring objectives are set and protocols established). 4) Fully; completely; significantly (Necessary investments are available to initiate monitoring).
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 46 of 79
15
0) Not at all; none.
1) LCC partners are monitoring status and change of conservation priorities and associated objectives within at least one landscape previously identified as an LCC focal area or within at least 25% of the LCC’s geography.
5.B - Monitoring Change of the Landscape and Priority Resources - The LCC facilitates evaluation of and sharing and synthesis of information on landscape change over time and projected changes in status of priority resources. The LCC tracks change in status of priority resources relative to established conservation objectives at time-relevant intervals. Results are being used by decision makers to refine conservation and adaptation actions.
2) LCC partners are monitoring status and change of conservation priorities and associated objectives within at least one focal area or within at least 25% of the LCC’s geography and results have been integrated and shared, resulting in refinement of priorities, objectives and designs for conservation or adaptation actions. 3) LCC partners are monitoring status and change of conservation priorities and associated objectives within multiple LCC subunits (focal areas) or within at least 50% of the LCC’s geography and results have been integrated and shared, resulting in refinement of natural resource priorities, objectives and designs for conservation and adaptation actions. 4) LCC partners are monitoring status and change of conservation priorities and associated objectives across entire LCC geography. The results have been integrated and shared, resulting in refinement of priorities, objectives and designs for conservation and adaption actions.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 47 of 79
16
6. Research to Support Adaptive Management: Conservation planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring are placed in the adaptive management framework envisioned by SHC. Research is focused on identified uncertainties and assumptions associated with each of the previous five activity areas such that conservation priorities and the actions taken to address them are being regularly re-evaluated by the LCC. The LCC has identified, prioritized, and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties, assumptions and significant gaps in knowledge for the LCC as it organized its efforts to identify and address priority resources. The LCC coordinates, supports, or conducts identification of sources of key uncertainties with respect to their influence on planning, conservation design, monitoring, and information delivery and uses those results to guide future science activities (e.g. data collection, research, model refinement) as part of the adaptive management framework.
6.A - Testing Underlying Assumptions - The LCC has identified, prioritized and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties related to LCC priority resources. The LCC coordinates, supports, or conducts identification of key uncertainties with respect to their influence on planning, conservation design, monitoring, and information delivery and uses those results to guide future science activities (e.g. data collection, research, model refinement) as part of the adaptive management framework.
0) The LCC has no process in place for evaluating its ability to address key uncertainties related to priority resources.
1) The LCC has identified, prioritized, and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties for one of the LCC’s priority resources.
2) The LCC has identified, prioritized, and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties for up to 33% of the LCC’s priority resources and has used the results of this research to guide its science activities.
(3) The LCC has identified, prioritized, and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties for between 33% and 66% of the LCC’s priority resources and has used the results of this research to guide its science activities.
4) The LCC has identified, prioritized, and targeted research that addresses key uncertainties for more than 66% of the LCC’s priority resources and has used the results of this research to guide its science activities.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 48 of 79
17
7. Data Management and Integration: Facilitates formal mechanisms for information discovery, sharing, and collaboration. Guidance documents from the LCC Network Data Management Working Group call for individual LCCs to coordinate information management and delivery both internally (intra-LCC), and externally (inter-LCC) as many resource issues will cross existing LCC geographies. This Conservation Activity Area addresses whether the LCCs are coordinating across partners and linking activities to standards developed to function as a national network.
7.A - Data Management and Integration - The LCC has developed or adopted a data and information management plan that identifies how information management will occur among LCC Partners and the LCC Network. The LCC’s lead data management capacity implements the data management plan and uses a shared data and information platform to accumulate and deliver foundational data, conduct data gap assessments, provide a repository and tracking mechanisms for modeling, research, or other science products.
0) The LCC has no data management plan in place.
1) The LCC has a data management plan in place.
2) A functional data management platform has been implemented, consistent with the plan, and funded science projects are adhering to the management plan (delivery of data and metadata).
3) The LCC has capacity for management and stewardship of the platform, including ability to interrogate, utilize, and manipulate datasets to provide interpretive products and new or improved decision support tools and opportunities for the LCC.
4) All LCC partner organizations that have data relevant to the LCC’s priority resources or to LCC science planning needs are contributing or exposing (with appropriate controls and security) those data.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 49 of 79
18
8. LCC Network Function: The LCC enterprise was designed to be an integrated network of self-directed partnerships to address broad resource management challenges. To secure the conservation landscape of the future, the 22 unit LCC Network should function seamlessly by addressing conservation issues at appropriate scales via shared priorities and targets. Although each LCC has unique characteristics and challenges specific to its geography, an important measure of an LCC's success is how well it integrates and shares with neighboring LCCs, other partnerships and the network as a whole.
8.A – Participation in the LCC Network Enterprise - LCC staff participates in formal LCC Network activities, including participation on national working groups, coordinator calls, and national meetings. Further, LCC staff and Steering Committee members engage in informal network activities to exchange ideas, conservation tool development (data management, decision support tools, etc.) and problem solving techniques. The overall goal is to ensure efficiency and collaborative learning across the broader landscapes in addressing science and management issues and needs.
0) LCC staff does not actively and regularly participate in formal LCC Network activities, including national working groups, coordinator calls, and national meetings.
1) The LCC has formally shared its priorities and/or conservation objectives with neighboring LCCs and looks for opportunities to coordinate planning and conservation design to determine if its conservation products and activities can inform the conservation objectives of those other LCCs at broader scales.
2) The LCC is routinely coordinating and collaborating with neighboring LCCs on business approaches (e.g., RFPs, communication strategies, business models, etc.).
3) The LCC is collaborating with at least one other LCC on a multi-LCC science project that fills a shared data gap, produces a shared decision support tool, and/or addresses a shared management concern/question of multi-LCC partners.
4) Landscape-level conservation delivery has occurred as a direct result of fulfilling metrics 1, 2, and 3 above.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 50 of 79
19
8.B - Function as Part of Integrated Network of LCC Partnerships – LCC identifies shared priorities with other LCC(s) and coordinates planning and conservation design, as appropriate. LCC actively ensures that LCC supported science, planning, data, tools, priorities, etc., are compatible and interoperable with other LCCs so that LCC products and activities can link to conservation objectives and at broader scales (e.g., regional, continental, and oceanic).
Indicate the extent to which the LCC has addressed the benchmark: 0) No, not at all; 1) Minimally; barely; to a small degree; 2) Medium; moderately; 3) Mostly; largely; to a large degree: 4) Fully; completely; significantly.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 51 of 79
20
SIAS APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terminology (Terms defined are shown in red font in the SIAS 2.0 Table. The associated Activity Area, Benchmark, or Metric is shown in parentheses.)
broader science community (1.D) Any science provider and user that is not a direct partner in the LCC yet that contributes science, information, tools, etc., in furtherance of mission and goals of the LCC.
collaborative monitoring networks (5) The group of partners participating in monitoring of the status of conservation objectives established by the LCC.
conservation and adaptation strategies (3) A method or plan to achieve a desired outcome that addresses conservation or environmental adaptation challenges.
conservation delivery (2.A; 3) Actions, decisions, and on-the-ground activities undertaken for natural resource management. This can include such actions as legal protection or regulations on use, manipulation, enhancement, and other activities.
conservation delivery decisions (4) Those discretionary decisions made by management entities who have partnered with the LCC to most effectively allocate operational effort, financial resources, and/or permit issuance so as to achieve their respective missions, goals, and objectives.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 52 of 79
21
conservation priorities (2) Conservation Priorities are the critical knowledge, science, actions, or activities that are needed in order to achieve the LCC’s goals for the LCC’s priority resources.
cultural goals (3) A description of the status of the landscape, including plants, animals, geographic setting (landforms) that is desired to be attained or protected that reflects the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group that is of interest.
data and information management plan (7.A) A plan for how the LCC will manage and deliver data; at a minimum the plan must incorporate the Data Management Best Practices for Landscape Conservation Cooperative (and subsequent revisions and addendums) that was developed by the LCC Network Data Management Working Group.
data management system (2.D) Processes that enable the storage, modification, and extraction of information.
decision-making processes (4.D) LCC partners may use a variety of processes to make decisions about how to implement their missions, authorities, and resources. Examples include decisions about how to apply a policy that may support an LCC priority or objective; funding programs for implementing conservation actions such as land conservation may incorporate LCC priorities or objectives as one factor in a decision.
delivery techniques (4.B) Those practices and actions (facilitating access to data, visualization of data, integration of information, workshops/conferences, etc.) that effectively provide information, data, and decision tools to resource managers across the geographic area.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 53 of 79
22
existing monitoring infrastructure (5) Monitoring programs or efforts that currently exist among LCC partners.
focal areas (3.C; 5.B) Focal Areas are geographic area(s) that have been collaboratively identified and prioritized by the LCC Steering Committee for conservation emphasis due to ecological or management significance. In the context of 3.C, this is measured as the percent of all focal areas addressed by conservation designs or strategies for the LCC’s priority resources.
FWS annual investments (1.B) The sum of annual investments for both capacity (Cooperative Landscape Conservation; 1410) and science acquisition (Adaptive Science; 1420) allocated to the FWS region for the operation of that specific LCC.
high priority resource needs (2.D) The priority resources that have been determined to be insufficient in quantity, quality or location in order to attain a conservation goal. In essence, this is the gap between existing resources and those identified as optimal for attainment of goals. In the context of 2.D this is an information system that tracks current status, goals and needs.
key uncertainties (6.A) Data and/or information needs that are limiting a managing entity’s ability to decide upon future management actions (i.e., the “where, when, how, what, who, why” questions for conservation delivery, monitoring, planning, and design).
landscape assessments (3.A) A compilation and characterization and evaluation of the geology, hydrology, soils, ecology, settlement patterns, cultural history, scenic characteristics, land use, etc., in the context of a planning process that relates the current state to some future desired state.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 54 of 79
23
landscape conservation decision support information and tools (4.A) Maps, data bases, decision trees, and other tools built from geospatial data, biological information, and the results of ecological models that help LCC partners decide which conservation actions to apply to a given landscape.
LCC partners (1.B) Organizations and entities that actively participate in the LCC.
LCC products (2.D) Research, monitoring, modeling, analysis, reports, decision support tools, mapping or any tool developed either through or in partnership with an LCC.
measurable objectives (2) Measurable objectives are the spatially and temporally specific quantitative attributes that characterize the desired state of the LCC’s priority resources.
objectives and targets for conservation priorities (3.A) Conservation priorities are defined for activity area 2 (above), measurable objectives are defined for activity area 2 (above), targets are measurable expressions of desired resource conditions that are established by the LCC partnership.
partner contributions (1.B) The sum of annual expenditures by LCC partners to support work in any of the LCC Conservation Activity areas.
priority conservation science needs (1.D) Science needed to make the decisions for protection, preservation, manipulation or restoration of LCC identified priority resources.
priority resources (2) The set of biological, ecological, and cultural features and ecological processes that have been collaboratively identified by LCC Steering Committees and that are the focus of the LCC’s planning, science, and measurable objectives.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 55 of 79
24
shared data and information platform (7.A) A web-based system that allows for the accumulation and delivery of extant and novel data, allowing for the interrogation, utilization, and manipulation of said data sets to provide interpretive products and new or improved decision support tools.
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.
The LCC’s lead data management capacity (7.A) Capacity the LCC uses to adhere to, implement and maintain their Data and Information Management Plan. This capacity can take the form of LCC staff, partner staff, contract staff, etc.
vulnerability assessments (3.A) The process of identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing (or ranking) the vulnerabilities in a system; a vulnerability refers to the inability to withstand the effects of a hostile environment.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 56 of 79
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Applied Science
– FY16 Budget Request –
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget request for fiscal year 2016 includes important
increases for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and our applied science capability more
broadly. Through LCCs, we work with partners to develop landscape-scale conservation
strategies to conserve fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats. By developing shared priorities
with our partners, we enhance our collective capacity to achieve success on the ground. Now
with a number of years under their belt, the achievements within each of the 22 LCCs are
building at an increasing rate. The FY16 request was developed to address the greater demand
for LCC partnerships and the need for applied science investments.
The President's budget includes the following increases for LCCs and Service science.
LCC Staff Capacity - Request of $17.87 million, an increase of $3.88 million over the
FY15 budget
LCC Adaptive Science - Request of $15.16 million, an increase of $4.64 million above
the FY15 budget
Applied Science Capacity for Conservation Priorities - Request of $16.52 million, an
increase of $10.05 million above the FY15 budget
This science capacity is found in two different parts of the FY16 request. The first is called
“Cooperative Landscape Conservation” and the second is “Science Support.” The summary
tables for these two parts are below, and the entire budget justifications are attached.
Activity: Cooperative Landscape Conservation – FY16 Budget Request
2014
Actual
2015
Enacted
FY16 Budget
Request
Increase from
2015
Cooperative
Landscape
Conservation ($000)
14,416 13,988 17,869 +3,881
Activity: Science Support – FY16 Budget Request
2014
Actual
2015
Enacted
FY16 Budget
Request
Increase from
2015
LCC Adaptive Science
($000)
10,767 10,517 15,159 +4,642
Service Science
($000)
6,468 6,468 16,516 +10,048
Total Science
Support ($000)
17,235 16,985 31,675 +14,690
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 57 of 79
Activity: Cooperative Landscape Conservation
2014
Actual 2015
Enacted
2016
Change from 2015 (+/-)
Fixed Costs (+/-)
Internal Transfers
(+/-)
Program Changes
(+/-) Budget Request
Cooperative Landscape Conservation
($000) 14,416 13,988 +163 0 +3,718 17,869 +3,881
FTE 74 74 0 0 +3 77 +3
Summary of 2016 Program Changes for Cooperative Landscape Conservation Request Component ($000) FTE
• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives +3,718 +3 Program Changes +3,718 +3
Justification of 2016 Program Changes The 2016 budget request for Cooperative Landscape Conservation is $17,869,000 and 77 FTE, a net program change of +$3,718,000 and +3 FTE from the 2015 Enacted. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (+$3,718,000/+3 FTE) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) focuses funding and support on those Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that are best able to deliver priority conservation outcomes as defined by LCC partners, while supporting the integrated network of 22 LCCs. The requested funding will continue this strategy of rewarding high performing LCCs, while also maintaining support for the interconnected LCC network. The requested increase will expand operational capacity that is needed to build and sustain partnerships that address a full range of conservation challenges across the nation in collaboration with other Federal agencies, State agencies, tribes, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGO), academic institutions, and the conservation community at large. This collaborative effort enhances the Service’s ability to obtain information that can be used to improve or augment many of the Service’s ongoing conservation efforts, such as Endangered Species Recovery Plans, Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP), fish passage, habitat restoration, and conservation partnerships with States for species before listing is needed, and minimizing or avoiding regulatory impacts altogether. Individually and working as a network, LCCs will inform and facilitate conservation through the following actions:
• develop shared, measurable biological objectives with partners for populations of priority species to guide conservation design and delivery;
• apply and refine population-habitat models and other decision-support tools that will enable partners to manage species more effectively at landscape scales;
• apply climate models to predict effects on fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats; • design and evaluate short- and long-term wildlife adaptation approaches that will help conserve
populations at landscape scales; • identify and, when necessary, design protocols and methodologies best suited to monitoring and
inventorying species, habitats, and ecological functions and structures at landscape scales; and • identify high-priority research and technology needs.
Program Overview The last century has seen great changes in the landscapes and seascapes across North America, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean. Our natural areas face increasing pressure to meet the demands of a growing, more urban human population. Global and national conservation challenges like development pressure, resource extraction, wildfire, drought, invasive species, changing ocean conditions, and other impacts to
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 58 of 79
our land, water, and wildlife are magnified by a rapidly changing climate. These challenges are greater than any one organization can meet alone; partnerships across Federal, state, local, tribal, and private entities will be essential in a successful response to these complex challenges to conservation. In spite of past successes in conservation, our stewardship of oceans, lands, and waters must evolve to address the ecological processes that support the wildlife, peoples, and cultures of North America. These challenges demand innovative approaches to resource management and conservation based on collaboration and require a longer-term view than traditional decision making. Further, these challenges require an unprecedented collective effort to better understand the specifics of threats we face, and inspire coordinated action to address them. Acknowledgement of these emerging challenges was framed by the State wildlife agencies as early as 1993 at the 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in a panel on strategies for improving fish and wildlife agency effectiveness. At the same time, Federal resource management agencies were recognizing that project or issue level actions were not effective in addressing the scale and scope of changes across the landscape. The Service instituted the LCC network to build on examples of large-scale conservation partnerships such as the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and large-scale restoration efforts in the biologically rich Florida Everglades. These examples have been successful because they included a diverse array of partners who identified shared priorities and committed to a sustained effort over decades to achieve their collective vision. Like large-scale conservation successes of the past, LCCs establish a forum to identify shared goals with a host of influential partners, thereby leveraging capacity for sustained long-term effort and increasing the likelihood of conservation victories. LCCs provide a framework for the Service to achieve our mission by working with States, tribes, Federal agencies, NGOs, universities, and other conservation partners to address these challenges that cross political and geographic boundaries, and occur at broader spatial and temporal scales. The LCCs are the only systematic and integrated network of partnerships that span the entire U.S. where entities with statutory authorities, responsibilities, or land management interests can come together to consider larger landscape perspectives, to identify shared goals and leverage resources, and to collectively develop conservation solutions for natural and cultural resources. Commitment to the LCCs as effective and efficient partnership forums is demonstrated by the formal participation of over 250 organizations on LCC steering committees and technical committees. These participants represent a diverse consortium of federal and state agencies, NGOs, tribes, and other partners, and are engaged in the LCCs as partners in priority setting and in providing support through financial, staffing, and other resources. LCCs help Federal agencies, including the Service, and partners to address complex resource management challenges by serving as forums to align large-scale conservation efforts. LCCs help the Service and partners identify potential redundancies and opportunities to leverage resources across conservation efforts, share and interpret data, identify regional monitoring and science needs including research and modeling, and evaluate and facilitate decision-support tools. LCCs are applied conservation science partnerships with two main functions. The first is to promote collaboration among their members in defining shared conservation goals. With these goals in mind, partners can identify where and how they will take action, within their own authorities and organizational priorities, to best contribute to the larger conservation effort. LCCs do not place limits on partners; rather, they help partners to see how their activities can “fit” with those of other partners to achieve a bigger and more lasting impact. The second function of LCCs is to provide the science and technical expertise needed to address the shared priorities and support conservation planning at landscape scales – beyond the scope and authority
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 59 of 79
of any one organization. Through the efforts of in-house staff and science-oriented partners, LCCs are generating the tools, methods, and data that managers need to design and deliver conservation using the adaptive management, Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) approach. The LCCs keep an ongoing dialog between scientists and resource managers to create a mechanism for informed conservation planning, effective conservation delivery, and adaptive monitoring to evaluate the effects of management actions. The importance and value of these two functions for the long-term conservation of natural resources is widely recognized among the scientific and resource management communities, as demonstrated within the National, Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. For example, identifying a connected network of priority areas for natural resource conservation and other investments builds climate resilience and benefits wildlife management, mitigation investments, and water and air quality, among other values. The LCCs provide the partnership frameworks and science that enable states, federal agencies and other stakeholders to undertake the coordinated planning and strategic actions necessary for sustaining America’s natural resources. The Service has worked with a diverse suite of partners to establish the international network of LCCs. Initially nine LCCs were established in 2010 and 13 more were initiated in 2011 and 2012, with the Service having lead administrative responsibility for 17 of the 22 LCCs, and the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service having lead or co-lead administrative responsibility for five LCCs. Some LCCs have staff from state fish and wildlife agencies, and LCCs with geographies crossing international borders have steering committees that include international organizations/agencies. Regardless of which agency or bureau has primary administrative responsibility, the LCCs are unique in that they are inter-organizational partnerships that are directed not by a single agency, but by steering committees whose members all have equal seats at the table. This participatory co-governance model builds trust and ownership and is important for the effective conservation of resources at landscape-scales. Management Structure The organizational model of the LCC Network was intentionally structured to operate as a coordinated network of regionally-focused self-directed partnerships. Self-direction and regional focus are important for individual LCCs to enable latitude for engaging local stakeholders on relevant high-priority issues within their geographies. Network coordination is important for LCCs as a larger collective to address issues at the appropriate ecological scale, share best practices, leverage resources, and find economies of scale. The LCCs, as guided by their steering committees, address a full range of conservation challenges across the Nation as they work collaboratively with other federal agencies, state agencies, tribes, industry, NGOs, academic institutions, and the conservation community at large. Building upon the effort of existing partnerships, LCCs promote efficient and effective targeting of federal dollars to obtain and analyze the science necessary for the Service and its partners to develop landscape-scale conservation models protecting fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. This collaborative effort also enhances the Service’s ability to collect information that can be used to improve or augment many conservation efforts such as pre-Endangered Species Act listing partnerships with states, Endangered Species Recovery Plans, National Wildlife Refuge CCPs, Joint Ventures, fish passage, and habitat restoration. An LCC Council (Council) has been established to support the cooperative large-scale conservation efforts of the LCCs. The Council, selected by a team of LCC partners, serves as the national voice for the LCC network, providing a platform for highlighting LCC successes and challenges. The Council will meet biannually to consider high-priority issues, identify the ecological and institutional challenges facing
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 60 of 79
LCCs that should be addressed on a national level, and make recommendations to support the LCC network. The LCC Council composition is meant to be reflective of the LCC network as a whole. Functioning as a Network To enable shared direction across all LCCs, the Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network has developed a statement of Vision and Mission that has been affirmed by the 22 LCC steering committees:
Vision
Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.
Mission
A network of cooperatives depends on LCCs to:
• Develop and provide integrated science-based information about the implications of stressors for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources;
• develop shared, landscape-level, conservation objectives and inform conservation strategies that are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape, including the implications of current and future environmental stressors;
• facilitate the exchange of applied science in the implementation of conservation strategies and products developed by LCCs or their partners;
• monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LCC conservation strategies in meeting shared objectives; and
• develop appropriate linkages that connect LCCs to ensure an effective network.
The LCC Network Strategic Plan was completed in 2014 and identifies four strategic goal areas (conservation strategy, collaborative conservation, science, and communications) that support the LCC Network’s Vision and Mission. Addressing these science priorities will provide benefit and add value to the work of individual LCCs (e.g., their missions, goals, priorities) and to the LCC Network as a whole. Partner Support The importance that state fish and wildlife agencies place on the LCCs is also evident in that their directors and staff are engaged with LCCs and provide invaluable support and leadership. LCCs complement and build on existing cooperative science and conservation entities such as fish habitat partnerships and Migratory Bird Joint Ventures as well as other efforts which focus on water resources and land protection. LCCs also benefit from their work with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Science Centers and Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, as well as the National Park Service’s Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units. LCCs often use existing facilities and infrastructure of conservation partners, thereby greatly reducing expenditures for space and associated costs. For example, the LCC Coordinator for the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC works out of offices provided by State agency partners and the staff of the South Atlantic LCC is housed in the main office of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS) SIAS is an assessment tool developed in response to Congressional direction on establishing clear goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes for LCCs. In support of the Service’s mission and Strategic Habitat Conservation framework, the SIAS will help guide the Service’s investment and participation in each LCC and in the LCC Network to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency. The Service
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 61 of 79
recognizes that the LCC Network is a broad partnership relying on multiple investments, and the construction of SIAS reflects many of the values of these partners. Following the SIAS structure, each LCC will establish explicit conservation objectives and targets and then prepare biological plans and landscape conservation designs (LCD) in support of achieving these targets. In FY 2016, more attention will be directed toward establishing landscape-scale conservation targets and objectives for the priority species and habitats collaboratively identified by LCC steering committees. As a result, partners can better align their funding and personnel to implement or complement specific activities laid out in the landscape conservation designs. As this occurs, LCCs will devote more time and resources to designing and implementing monitoring and evaluation efforts capable of determining the extent of those successes, while refining and improving science and planning tools which will benefit future biological planning and conservation delivery.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 62 of 79
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 63 of 79
Key Examples and Accomplishments • Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) - Defining the Future Conservation
Landscape of the Southeast US The Directors of the State fish and wildlife agencies of the southeast, collectively known as the Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA), initiated SECAS in the fall of 2011, and requested that the LCCs provide the scientific and technical forum for developing the shared conservation vision. SEAFWA state agencies and the federal resource agencies of the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Group (SENRLG) recognize that the jurisdiction of a single State or agency no longer provides sufficient scope to effectively plan and mitigate for the future conservation challenges. Their vision for SECAS is to provide predictive tools focused on fish, wildlife and habitat that can help avoid conflicting decisions among state, territorial, local and federal governments and business while also adapting management to future conditions. The LCCs in the Gulf region are working closely with States and other partners on the SECAS. The LCCs include the Gulf Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, South Atlantic, Appalachian, Peninsular Florida, and Caribbean. Collectively, these six LCCs span 15 states and the territory of Puerto Rico. SECAS is setting shared conservation priorities across the region, developing the science needed for success, and leveraging resources across states, federal agencies, private landowners, and non-government organizations to maximize efficiency and on-the-ground results. SECAS has a shared, long-term vision for lands and waters that sustain fish and wildlife populations and improve human quality of life in the southeast U.S. This vision provides regional focus for investments across organizations, disciplines, and partnerships. Current and future generations rely on the nation’s fish and wildlife resources and habitats, both publicly and privately owned. Sea level rise, urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and exotic species are affecting species and habitats across the region. In the face of these threats, this partnership is creating opportunities for transformative change in how conservation is planned and resources are managed.
One of the tools that is forming the foundation of SECAS is the South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint, developed by the South Atlantic LCC, which identifies conservation priorities shared with many state partners and other stakeholders across the region. Now, all coalition members have a shared vision they can use to target their conservation investments and achieve greater results than any individual organization could have accomplished alone. The effort has generated so much momentum that the collaboration is expanding to include all 15 southeastern States and will help develop a landscape plan to realize SECAS’s vision.
South Atlantic Conservation Blueprint map
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 64 of 79
Over the next five years, the southeast LCCs will: o Build a Landscape Conservation Design habitat network for the southeastern U.S. based
upon shared conservation priorities. o Integrate major existing conservation plans across the southeast. o Assess vulnerabilities, such as sea level rise along the Gulf coast, future urban growth,
and river flow alterations. o Improve how resource management decisions are made to facilitate implementing
conservation priorities. o Develop tools to help partners, resource managers, and community leaders better target
conservation actions.
• Conserving Imperiled Species LCCs have worked with many partners to conserve imperiled species. For example, LCC investments supported a 5-State partnership with the assistance of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to conserve the lesser prairie-chicken. The effort has resulted in thousands of acres of conservation and regulatory relief for many landowners throughout the species’ range. In addition, LCCs have provided important support to the 11-State coalition created to conserve the greater sage-grouse before an Endangered Species Act listing decision is required. LCCs will continue to work collaboratively with Federal and State agencies, industries, NGOs, and private landowners to address the conservation of declining species in priority landscapes. State fish and wildlife agencies will
continue to play a key role in providing expertise to identify the specific management needs of species, priority areas to do this work, and receptive landowners. LCC science capacity will support this effort by:
o Identifying the best core areas within the priority landscapes that can provide for the needs of numerous species within the landscape;
o Designing ranking criteria to deliver project funding where it will do the most good; and
o Developing an efficient monitoring program to measure species and habitat outcomes across a landscape.
• Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Midwestern states within the Upper Mississippi River watershed currently contribute the greatest nutrient load to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic (reduced oxygen) zone. To reduce downstream water quality impacts to fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, the conservation community needs tools that prioritize the design and configuration of actions that appeal to upstream agricultural communities. The Mississippi River Basin/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (MRB/GH) is spearheaded by seven LCCs (Plains and Prairie Potholes, Upper Midwest and Great Lakes, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers, Appalachian, Great Plains, Gulf Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks). This initiative is undertaking a strategic and transparent process to create an integrated framework that supports planning, design, configuration, and delivery of wildlife conservation practices within the watershed.
Lesser prairie-chicken
Salt Marsh along the Texas Gulf Coast Photo Credit: Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 65 of 79
This framework consists of multiple quantitative objectives representing three interests (wildlife, water quality, agriculture), a tiered set of conservation strategies to achieve those objectives within five production agriculture systems (corn and soybeans, grazing lands, floodplain forest, rice, and cotton), and a modeling approach to determine where to best implement those actions within four key ecological systems of the Mississippi River Basin. Additional scenario planning for landscape change could provide forecast and adaptation strategies over a range of time scales across fundamental portions of this landscape in response to ecological or economic drivers. The initiative will use this framework to address collaborative needs that will enhance capacity, avoid duplication of effort, streamline prioritization, and align the work of agencies and organizations across multiple scales. This effort is intended to be complementary to related ongoing efforts like the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force, Mississippi River Basin Initiative, and State nutrient reduction initiatives, but with an added emphasis on the ecological and social values of wildlife habitat.
• Bringing Alaska’s Hydrography into the 21st Century The National Hydrography Dataset is a vital reference data source for mapped waterbodies, flow lines, and stream topologies. This information is essential to adaptation planning for aquatic systems, among other uses. However, the National Hydrography Dataset in Alaska is based on 1950s topography, has much lower resolution than the continental US, and contains numerous errors and out-of-date information. Updating this dataset for Alaska is too technical and expensive for any single organization to tackle alone. To address this common bottleneck, the five Alaskan LCCs (Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands, Arctic, Northwest Boreal, Western Alaska, North Pacific) have led a collaborative effort to establish a statewide framework to improve hydrography mapping and stewardship in Alaska. This includes updating the National Hydrography Dataset, improving data sharing and use, and making data updates accessible, affordable, and coordinated. Key partners working with the Service include the State of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and Fish Habitat Partnerships.
• Connecticut River Watershed Landscape Conservation Design
In the Connecticut River watershed and across the nation, large connected natural areas provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants and provide jobs, food, clean water, storm protection, recreation, and many other natural benefits that support people and communities. Facilitated by the Service and supported by the North Atlantic LCC, the Connecticut River Watershed Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) is a collaborative effort to plan and design such a landscape. The LCD will use the best available science to help partners set goals and measurable objectives for representative species of fish and wildlife (and supporting ecosystems) and translate those into projections of the amount, type, and distribution of habitat needed to sustain them at those levels. Landscape conservation designs informed by this planning effort will guide collective conservation actions within the watershed and connect to broader regional conservation goals for conserving sustainable fish and wildlife populations. LCD deliverables will include information, maps, and tools that show landscape conservation design options for prioritizing conservation actions needed in the Connecticut River watershed and analysis of lessons learned that can be applied to landscape conservation design in other landscapes across the northeast.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 66 of 79
2016 Program Performance National Academy of Science Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives As part of the H.R. 3547/Public Law 113-76 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Congress directed the Service to commission a review of its LCC program. The Service has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the purpose, goals, and scientific merits of the LCC program within the context of similar programs. In addition, the study will evaluate early successes and the program’s impact with regard to improvements in the health of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and will include an examination of the Service’s strategy to assess the effectiveness of the LCC program. The final report is expected in the fall of 2015.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 67 of 79
Activity: Science Support
2014
Actual 2015
Enacted
2016
Change from 2015 (+/-)
Fixed Costs (+/-)
Internal Transfers
(+/-)
Program Changes
(+/-) Budget Request
Adaptive Science
($000) 10,767 10,517 +10 0 +4,632 15,159 +4,642 FTE 5 5 0 0 +5 10 +5
Service Science ($000) 6,468 6,468 +31 -35 +10,052 16,516 +10,048 FTE 16 16 0 0 0 16 0
Total, Science Support
($000) 17,235 16,985 +41 -35 +14,684 31,675 +14,690 FTE 21 21 0 0 +5 26 +5
Program Overview The FWS Science Support activity addresses science needs using Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) as a guiding framework. Both Adaptive Science and Service Science:
• are highly collaborative and take advantage of the contributions of many partners; • emphasize a landscape scale approach to conservation; and • incorporate flexible decision making in an adaptive management framework that integrates
science and management and makes adjustments that increase effectiveness despite challenges that may arise.
While adaptive management has been embraced by the Service for many years, its use today is even more essential as the challenges to successful conservation of fish and wildlife are compounded by a variety of growing stressors. An adaptive management framework includes setting measurable objectives, making resource management investments and decisions, systematically assessing results against expected outcomes, then making adjustments for future strategies and actions. Careful monitoring of outcomes from management actions and other events advances scientific understanding, helps adjust policies or operations, and ensures future decisions are not made simply by “trial-and-error,” but on the basis of experience and the best available science. The kinds of science the Service needs to achieve these critically-important outcomes include: Species Risk and Vulnerability Assessments – These assessments are the essential first step in deciding where to focus conservation activities and where additional scientific information is necessary for conservation. Inventory and Monitoring – The Service will participate in inventory and monitoring programs, develop or acquire systems for managing data, and evaluate assumptions and scientific information used in models that link populations to their habitats and other limiting factors. The Service will coordinate its inventory and monitoring programs with other Bureaus, especially the National Park Service, and integrate its data and results with those of other agencies. Population and Habitat Assessments – These assessments will improve the Service’s understanding of the relationship among species as well as between species and their habitats at various spatial scales. This information will be used to predict how environmental change will affect populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats, and how various management treatments can reduce or avoid those effects. Biological Planning and Conservation Design – Capacity for biological planning and conservation design includes highly-specialized expertise, training and tools, and the use of complex statistical methods and
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 68 of 79
modeling. The Service will establish targets and objectives, examine management options, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately identify the mix of conservation actions that have the greatest likelihood of achieving the desired biological and ecological outcomes (i.e., Landscape Conservation Designs). Management Evaluation and Research – The Service will use scientific “learning” to provide essential feedback for adaptive management. Science funding will support evaluations and research to answer questions that arise from habitat and species responses to management actions. Targeted research will enable the Service to fill information gaps and reduce uncertainty. Conservation Genetics – Conservation genetics research identifies distinct population and management units. Biological assessments, conservation design strategies, and conservation delivery activities are most effective when they recognize the genetic population structure of a given species. Maintaining genetic diversity is essential for maintaining healthy, resilient populations of fish, wildlife and plants. ADAPTIVE SCIENCE supports the work of our network of Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) partnerships to better manage natural resources across broad areas. These partnerships work with six Interior bureaus, a diverse suite of other Federal agencies, State natural resource agencies, tribes, and other public and private partners to identify and implement landscape-scale conservation solutions to address on-the-ground conservation management questions. SERVICE SCIENCE supports the needs of Service programs for information that can improve decision-making for refuge management, endangered species listing and recovery, regulatory decisions, data management, and other activities that support science excellence. To be effective in its mission delivery, the Service requires focused, applied science to answer questions about threats to trust fish and wildlife resources for explicit and timely decision-making. Improved information leads to better decisions for maintaining species at healthy, sustainable, and desired levels. Service Science funding is used to conduct studies, develop models, and secure scientific expertise to help managers interpret and apply the best knowledge available. Science Support funding is used to help the Service and the larger conservation community sustain fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats across the Nation by building our understanding of natural resource issues. Science funds will be used to build the science capacity necessary to help ensure that the Service fulfills its regulatory and management responsibilities for threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, marine mammals, and inter-jurisdictional fish. Priorities in this area include:
• White-Nose Syndrome - The Service will apply funding to three primary focus areas: research, monitoring/management, and outreach to help save imperiled bats.
• Energy generation and transmission - Research methods to minimize the effects of development and maintenance projects on bald and golden eagles, bats, prairie chickens, sage-grouse, desert tortoise, and other species to better conserve them, and to more efficiently review and permit needed energy infrastructure.
• Carbon sequestration - Develop and test tools and guidelines that can be used to identify the lands with the greatest current or potential carbon stocks and/or sequestration values.
• Wildlife adaptation - Develop decision support tools for land management and other users to address the impact of stressors and threats on fish, wildlife, and their habitats including changing distributions and migration patterns, the spread of diseases and invasive species, and changes in freshwater availability due to shifting precipitation patterns.
• Surrogate species - Use surrogate species to develop, implement, and test conservation strategies to make more efficient conservation decisions and improve resource management in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies and other partners.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 69 of 79
Activity: Science Support Subactivity: Adaptive Science
2014
Actual 2015
Enacted
2016
Change from 2015 (+/-)
Fixed Costs (+/-)
Internal Transfers
(+/-)
Program Changes
(+/-) Budget Request
Adaptive Science
($000) 10,767 10,517 +10 0 +4,632 15,159 +4,642 FTE 5 5 0 0 +5 10 +5
Summary of 2016 Program Changes for Adaptive Science
Request Component ($000) FTE • Adaptive Science Activities +4,132 +5 • Biological Carbon Sequestration +500 0
Program Changes +4,632 +5 Justification of Program Changes The 2016 budget request for Adaptive Science is $15,159,000 and 10 FTE, a net program change of +$4,632,000 and +5 FTE from the 2015 Enacted. Adaptive Science (+$4,132,000/+5 FTE) This increase continues the Service’s strategy of supporting best performing LCCs to deliver priority conservation outcomes while also building the larger capacity of the interconnected LCC network by providing the science, information, and tools needed to better define, design, and help partners strategically support conservation. The LCCs will utilize the Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS) as a primary component of a performance standards system to help identify, prioritize, and target Adaptive Science funding to address key uncertainties, and other information needs of planners and managers in the LCC partnerships. Results of this work are needed to inform and evaluate conservation management decisions as part of the adaptive management framework. Types of projects that could be funded include: developing species adaptation models in the face of a changing climate, designing decision tools to better forecast the spread of invasive species, and continuing to develop science tools to inform landscape conservation design to better target conservation. Biological Carbon Sequestration (+$500,000/+0 FTE) Funding for biological carbon sequestration will allow the Service to identify lands with the greatest current or potential carbon stocks and the most important conservation value. Working with LCCs, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and its LandCarbon products, as well as other partners, the Service will identify and classify spatial distributions of habitats with high soil organic carbon and woody biomass levels and a high likelihood of future conversion. This increase focuses resources on research in priority landscapes that support the Service’s climate adaptation strategy such as: the Pocosin wetlands of the eastern Carolinas (South Atlantic LCC) focusing on quantification of carbon stocks in peatlands and peatland restoration; the plains and prairie potholes of the Dakotas (Plains and Prairie Pothole LCC), focusing on prairie pothole acquisition and management planning; and the Boreal Forest Ecoregion of Alaska (Northwest Boreal LCC) focusing on the biological carbon sequestration and management needs. Program Overview Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are applied conservation science partnerships comprised of federal, state, and local governments, tribes, First Nations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), academic institutions, and interested public and private organizations. Each of the 22 LCCs is a self-directed partnership that functions as part of an international LCC Network. The LCC Network aspires to
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 70 of 79
Appalachian Mountain Valley
develop an ecologically connected network of landscapes and seascapes to fulfill the LCC Network vision of landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.
The LCCs produce and disseminate applied science products for resource management decisions. Funding supports development of scientific information, tools, and techniques that resource managers can apply to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to environmental changes and their effects on fish, wildlife, and cultural resources.
To facilitate landscape scale conservation within their geographies, LCCs support and conduct a variety of science efforts. Working collaboratively within individual LCCs, LCC staff and partners tackle large conservation challenges through a variety of activities, including, but not limited to: identifying best practices, connecting efforts, identifying science gaps, and conservation planning and design. The LCC Network Strategic Plan was completed in 2014 and identifies four strategic goals areas (conservation strategy, collaborative conservation, science, and communications) that support the Network’s vision and mission.
Science Investment and Accountability Schedule (SIAS). SIAS is an assessment tool developed in response to Congressional direction on establishing clear goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes for LCCs. In support of the Service’s mission and Strategic Habitat Conservation framework, the SIAS will help guide the Service’s investment and participation in each LCC and in the LCC Network to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency. The Service recognizes that the LCC Network is a broad partnership relying on multiple investments, and the construction of SIAS reflects many of the values of these partners. Following the SIAS structure, each LCC will establish explicit conservation objectives and targets and then prepare biological plans and landscape conservation designs in support of achieving these targets. In FY 2016, more attention will be directed toward establishing landscape-scale conservation targets and objectives for the priority or surrogate species and habitats collaboratively identified by LCC steering committees. As a result, partners can better align their funding and personnel to implement or complement specific activities laid out in the landscape conservation designs. As this occurs, LCCs will devote more time and resources to designing and implementing monitoring and evaluation efforts capable of determining the extent of those successes, while refining and improving science and planning tools which will benefit future biological planning and conservation delivery. Key Examples and Accomplishments • Assessing Future Energy Development Across the Appalachians (Appalachian LCC)
The Appalachian LCC has completed a study to assess future energy development in the region, providing stakeholders access to information they need to lead productive discussions and make informed decisions on how to meet energy needs while sustaining healthy natural systems and the valuable services they provide. This research includes:
o Individual energy models and reports that identify the scale, scope, and intensity of potential development across the Appalachians to demonstrate how energy development may affect land use change at both regional and local scales.
o The areas where development is most likely to occur. o An online mapping tool that identifies potential
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 71 of 79
Greater sage-grouse
development sites, allowing users to input their own natural resource information to determine where potential intersections occur.
o Identification of these intersections which allows users to focus on discerning areas of potential conflict to: Help incorporate information into landscape-level development and conservation
planning, and Suggest areas needing additional localized assessment and evaluation to inform
conservation planning, design, and delivery. The study, models and mapping tool underscore the Appalachian LCC’s commitment to serve as a forum for collaboration to deliver science that informs conservation planning and actions at local and regional scales. • Sage-grouse Conservation (Great Northern, Southern Rockies, Great Basin, and Plains and
Prairie Potholes LCCs) The Service, 11 Western States, and other partners have joined forces to conserve the greater sage-grouse, an imperiled species. LCCs are providing a forum for partners to collaborate and contribute to the science needed for this unprecedented and tremendous conservation effort. Federal and State agencies are working together to find the best way to conserve the species while sustaining working lands. Investments in LCCs are producing answers to key scientific questions and informing decisions that need to be made by the Service and its partners. LCCs are fostering scientific collaboration across a broad Western landscape that targets conservation investments toward the species’ greatest needs. For example, LCC work has informed the design of wildland firebreaks, sagebrush steppe habitat restoration, and assessments of the health of sage-grouse in areas targeted for conservation efforts. Through engagement from LCCs in the sage-grouse conservation assessment effort:
o We now understand how to reduce the threats of invasive species and wildland fire, two of the greatest threats to the species. o We have created a database to share best practices for land and wildlife managers that can be used by States and other organizations to positively impact sage-grouse habitat.
State and Federal land and wildlife managers are now using a comprehensive geospatial map and database to share the best available science and build a comprehensive picture of sage-grouse conservation.
• Adapting to Sea Level Rise Across the Pacific Coast (California and North Pacific LCCs) Threats to the Pacific coast include rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, erosion, and changing frequency and intensity of storms. The US Geological Survey, with support from the California and North Pacific LCCs, is modeling sea level rise to help develop adaptation strategies across the Pacific coast to provide valuable ecosystem services such as filtering pollutants from water and buffering cities from storm surge and flooding. Coastal models help natural resource managers at National Wildlife Refuges, State parks, military bases, and other locations plan for future flooding. Refuge managers in California, Oregon and Washington use the models to predict how tidal wetlands may change over time from marshes to deeper water habitats. This scenario planning leads to better long-term restoration decisions for priority species and habitats. These LCCs are convening other managers to identify how to incorporate climate science into management actions.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 72 of 79
• Prioritizing Barrier Removal to Restore Native Fish Migration in Great Lakes Tributaries (Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC) Restoring access for anadromous fish to upstream areas for spawning and rearing young is a significant contribution to the improvement of stream health and water quality. Stream barriers such as dams and road crossings prevent native species, such as trout, from moving up and downstream to important habitat. The LCC has created a decision support tool to prioritize fish passage projects across the Great Lakes basin. The LCC identified over 275,000 total potential barriers, estimated the amount of new habitat that removal could create, and developed a tool for prioritizing barrier removals for a given budget. However, these barriers also help prevent invasive species from expanding into new areas. Federal and State fish managers seek to target dam and road removal to maximize opportunities for native species while minimizing spread of invasive species. The LCC is refining the tool to optimize native fish passage and minimize the spread of invasive species. Another goal is to establish a collaborative to develop shared goals for connectivity across the basin and use the tool to evaluate the pros and cons of barrier removal from a landscape-level perspective.
2016 Program Performance In accordance with accomplishment reporting requirements of Circular A-11 and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Service establishes performance measures and tracks results from its programs. Through FY 2014, the LCCs reported on six measures under Adaptive Science. These measures were predominately focused on output metrics. In FY 2015, the six performance measures were replaced with two new GPRA measures reported on by region. The new measures are:
1) The number of Landscape Conservation Designs (LCDs) available to inform management decisions. 2) Number of landscapes with surrogate species identified to support conservation actions.
Landscape Conservation Designs provide a foundation for collective impact in achieving individual and shared goals, meeting objectives for priority resources, and developing a network of large-scale geographies (landscapes) that provide functional habitat for fish, wildlife and plants. The first measure counts the number of LCDs available to support multi-scale management strategies and decisions tied to landscape-level objectives. These LCDs consist of an assessment of a landscape’s current conditions; an assessment of the potential future conditions 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 a desired future condition.
The objective of the second measure is count the number of landscapes with identified surrogate species. Surrogate species are being used as a way to become more efficient in planning conservation actions and monitoring results on a landscape – it is too costly and almost impossible to evaluate and work on all species individually, so surrogates are being used to prioritize and focus conservation efforts to make better use of our limited resources. Ultimately, both surrogate species and LCDs would be developed for the same landscapes as they complement one another.
Adaptive Science Overview Table
Performance Goal 2011 Actual
2012 Actual
2013 Actual
2014 Actual
2015 Target
2016 PB
Change from 2015 Target to 2016 PB
4.8.7 - The number of Landscape Conservation Designs available to inform management decisions
N/A N/A N/A 0 14 14 0
4.8.8 - Number of landscapes with surrogate species identified to support conservation actions
N/A N/A N/A 0 29 29 0
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 73 of 79
Activity: Science Support Subactivity: Service Science
2014
Actual 2015
Enacted
2016
Change from 2015 (+/-)
Fixed Costs (+/-)
Internal Transfers
(+/-)
Program Changes
(+/-) Budget Request
Service Science
($000) 6,468 6,468 +31 -35 +10,052 16,516 +10,048 FTE 16 16 0 0 0 16 0
Summary of 2016 Program Changes for Service Science
Request Component ($000) FTE • Service Science Activities +7,152 0 • Transmission Corridors and Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan +1,400 0 • Ecosystem Services Valuation +1,000 0 • Biological Carbon Sequestration—Development of decision
support tools for land managers and other users +500 0 Program Changes +10,052 0
Justification of Program Changes The 2016 budget request for Service Science is $16,516,000 and 16 FTE, a net program change of +$10,052,000 and 0 FTE from the 2015 Enacted. Service Science (+$7,152,000/+0 FTE) This increase will provide funding to obtain the scientific information and tools needed by the Service. It will be applied to strategically identified priorities that address the needs of on-the-ground resource managers across the Service. Global and national conservation challenges like development pressure, resource extraction, wildfire, drought, invasive species, changing ocean conditions, require an unprecedented effort to better understand the threats we face, and inspire coordinated action to address them. An evaluation team, led by the Assistant Director for Science Applications, will solicit, evaluate, and prioritize the projects for funding. The Service will partner with the US Geological Survey, universities, and others to acquire this priority science. It will be applied across the suite of Service programs, addressing challenges faced by refuges, endangered species, migratory birds, and fish and aquatic resources. Funding will support a cross-programmatic partnership to develop and support management actions addressing current and future threats to candidate and other at-risk species in landscapes with the highest concentration of these species. A clear emphasis of this capacity will be to develop applied science in the short- to mid-term time horizon that helps solve conservation questions and advance high priorities for the Service, States, and other partners. This additional science capacity will address critical issues such as:
• evaluating impacts to species, land and water resources from the development of wind, hydroelectric, solar, oil and gas energy production;
• developing information to help conserve priority species with States and other partners before Endangered Species Act listing is a consideration;
• developing decision tools and models, including risk assessments, for priority terrestrial and aquatic species and ecosystems;
• determining best management practices for combating invasive species; and • developing a conservation strategy to address the 90% precipitous decline in monarch butterfly
numbers over the past 20 years.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 74 of 79
Transmission Corridors and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (+$1,400,000/+0 FTE) Energy development is key for the Nation’s economy, and science investments can help strategically address conservation questions and minimize impacts on fish and wildlife. The Service’s goal is to protect imperiled species and improve certainty for developers seeking to support the installation of renewable energy projects. Identifying high risk areas that should be avoided will reduce environmental costs and conflicts associated with energy development. Examples include minimizing the loss of golden eagles from strikes at wind energy facilities and power transmission lines, and reducing disturbance and direct mortality of desert tortoise at solar facilities. The Service will also use this funding increase to ensure that new energy facilities and transmission corridors avoid sensitive, endangered and threatened species to the greatest extent possible by:
• developing more robust risk analyses; • determining the effectiveness of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures; • developing robust eagle monitoring protocols around proposed renewable energy projects; • understanding factors that influence mortality to ensure proper siting of energy transmission
corridors that minimize harm to wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and • investigating behavioral and reproductive impacts on species of concern such as sage-grouse.
Ecosystem Services Valuation (+$1,000,000/+0 FTE) The Service has been involved in efforts to value the many goods and services provided by natural lands, waters, and fish and wildlife resources for many years. For example, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation is one of the major data sources on the well-documented recreational values of fish and wildlife resources in the United States. More recently, the Service supported research by a university to estimate the value of ecosystem services provided nationwide by the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The Service’s Division of Economics has also investigated the economic benefits to local communities from public visitation of refuges and is overseeing research by a team from the University of Georgia on a wetland ecosystem service valuation module. Service efforts, including our work with USGS on carbon sequestration, is fundamental to valuing ecosystem services, if and when a domestic market for carbon sequestration emerges in the United States. More work is needed to understand the substantial value of the wide spectrum of services society derives from our native fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitat areas we maintain for their use. As outlined in the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) “Report to the President on Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy” it is important to include ecosystems valuation to inform planning and management decisions. The Service will use the requested increase to focus on describing the ecosystem services (e.g., flood and storm protection, water quality, carbon sequestration, recreation) provided by Service programs; learning if useable protocols exist for the measurement of each type of service; determining which types of services can currently be adequately valued monetarily; and selecting a subset of the types of ecosystem services whose quantities and values might be estimated system-wide. This short list of system-wide ecosystem services will then be used to estimate a baseline ecosystem services value for conservation activities. Biological Carbon Sequestration—Development of decision support tools for land managers and other users (+$500,000/+0 FTE) The Service recognizes the importance of considering carbon sequestration values in the protection and management of its lands, and is continually looking for data and tools to assist its land acquisition, management, and restoration practices. The US Geological Survey Biologic Carbon Sequestration Assessment (LandCarbon Project) has identified lands with high carbon sequestration capacity and the potential for future climate change, wildfire, land use change, and land management activities to modify that capacity. Using LandCarbon data products and maps, the Service will develop and test tools and guidelines that can be used to identify the lands with the greatest current or potential carbon stocks and/or
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 75 of 79
Golden Eagle
sequestration values for projects supporting: (1) restoration and acquisition activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System, such as the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and other lands in Iowa, and (2) ecological restorations associated with Natural Resource Damage Assessment settlements and with restoration work conducted through Habitat Conservation programs. These tools and guidelines will help the Service choose the highest-priority lands for conservation or restoration by including biological carbon sequestration in the suite of factors used for conservation priority-setting. Program Overview Service Science funding is used to address science needs in support of on-the-ground management and conservation outside of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) and Adaptive Science activities. To be effective in its mission-delivery, the Service needs focused, applied science directed at high impact questions surrounding threats to fish and wildlife resources for which management and/or mitigation is required to maintain species at healthy, sustainable, desired levels. The Service must base its decisions on the best science available, in order to defend its regulatory decisions, biological opinions and species conservation recommendations to land managers. The Service partners with the US Geological Survey, other Federal and State agencies, universities, and other scientific institutions for acquiring scientific knowledge to answer imminent and important natural resource management questions and provide near-term solutions to address urgent and emerging issues. Examples of Current Projects and the Prioritization and Selection Process • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
The Service’s mandate under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is to ensure that authorization of incidental take is consistent with preserving bald and golden eagle populations. Prioritization Process: Under the Guidance of the Eagle Management Team (EMT), the Eagle Technical Assessment Team (ETAT) was developed to provide technical and scientific recommendations to the EMT and other Service eagle teams. This includes coordinating, prioritizing and implementing research needs for eagles, with policy direction from the EMT, as related to alternative energy development. The ETAT is composed of individuals representing the Service, US Geological Survey (USGS), National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Forest Service), and each Migratory Bird Flyway. Representatives have expertise in eagles, adaptive management and ecological modeling. The ETAT works cooperatively to better understand eagle populations, methods of avoidance and mitigation of eagle fatalities, and the overall population effects that wind turbines may be causing.
To focus eagle research on those questions of greatest significance for eagle permitting under BGEPA, ETAT developed and distributed a list of priority questions signifying the "Information needs of greatest importance to the conservation of North America's Golden Eagles." Based on the list, the ETAT has been coordinating efforts to develop, fund and implement prioritized research projects. To date, the Service and USGS have partnered on at least eight priority science initiatives designed to improve knowledge of golden eagle population biology, improve eagle surveys and population monitoring and frame the adaptive management process for eagle take permits. The Service has undertaken a range of eagle studies including a status review, examination of survival and mortality, dispersal, monitoring, modeling on occupancy and fatality prediction. Research is still needed in areas such as fatality prediction models and estimating sustainable take, golden eagle DNA and stable isotope data, and risk modeling for wind turbines.
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 76 of 79
• White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) Research
The Service is the lead federal agency coordinating the response to white-nose syndrome (WNS), and is the only federal agency to routinely offer grants for WNS outside of their agency through a process of open competition. Since 2008 the Service has awarded approximately $9 million in grants to support research and actions to improve our understanding of WNS and its impact on bat populations, and to develop tools to manage the disease and conserve bats. The majority of these grants have been awarded following a process that satisfies the competitive requirements of federal grant programs, while other agreements were established directly with federal agency partners. Prioritization Process: For the past few years the Service has worked through the teams and committees established under the national WNS response plan (A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats) to develop and validate priorities. This is a different process from the WNS state capacity grant opportunity, which since 2009 has provided approximately $4.6 million in no-match support to state natural resource agencies for bat monitoring, disease surveillance, response planning, and field support for research projects. The WNS national plan established seven working groups to address all aspects of the collaborative disease response. At the onset of our research grant process, usually following our annual workshop, the working groups meet to identify their current priorities. These discussions are guided by the objectives identified in the national plan, and by the current state of knowledge. Working group priorities are then consolidated across all groups by the national WNS Coordination Team and the Service WNS coordinators. The final list of priorities is then shared with the national WNS Steering Committee for review. In 2014 the Service began offering two annual grant opportunities for WNS research, one strictly for Federal agency partners, and a second opportunity open to any and all applicants. The creation of an agency-only grant opportunity allows Federal agencies to provide higher levels of match and in-kind support, which leverages WNS research funds and helps to build capacity within Federal agencies for long-term investment in WNS research and response. The priorities identified for the Federal request for proposal (RFP) included support for important actions that were research related, but not strictly hypothesis-testing (see example below for NABat). Priorities that were addressed through the Federal grant process were then removed from the subsequent open grant opportunity, resulting in a shorter list. We plan to offer both grant opportunities again in FY 2016.
Example: North American Bat Population Monitoring Program - NABat There are no standard methods by which bat populations are monitored and tracked in North America that are robust and compatible with current statistical capabilities. With the exception of certain federally listed bat species, there has been no consistent effort to monitor population trends for bats across the entirety of species ranges and, despite the identification of this unmet need at various times, there has been no impetus for meeting that need until the emergence of WNS. North American bats face several threats, including wind energy development, climate change, and habitat loss, but the emergence of WNS in 2007 demonstrated the considerable limitations of our knowledge of the status of non-listed bat populations. The national WNS response plan identified both the need to develop a robust monitoring plan for WNS affected species, and to develop a comprehensive database system for use by all federal, state, and tribal resource agencies. Because bats face multiple threats, and the susceptibility of many bat species to WNS is not yet known, the WNS Conservation and Recovery Working Group decided to initiate the development of a comprehensive monitoring plan focusing on known WNS-affected species, but designed to eventually incorporate assessments for most of the 47 species that are common to the US, Canada, and Mexico. This effort, formally initiated in 2012, has received financial support from federal partners and is now being field tested in several states and Canadian provinces. The USGS Fort Collins Science Center has been established as the
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 77 of 79
main facility for coordinating the monitoring program and for housing the central database, expanding the existing Bat Data Project.
• Bats and Wind Energy Projects The Service faces regulatory decisions for wind energy projects with limited data and information about: (1) the threat from wind energy projects, and (2) options available to avoid, minimize, and mitigate anticipated impacts. Prioritization Process: In FY 2012, Science Applications developed a national team composed of regional and field personnel involved in bats and wind energy issues. The bats and wind team undertook a rigorous prioritization process to identify and address the most important science needs. Priorities are used to solicit specific project proposals and this process is revisited and updated each time new resources become available. Projects have been a combination of basic research and development of modeling/software tools which were focused on the immediate needs of the federally-endangered Indiana bat, but are designed to be applicable more broadly. We recognize that proactive steps now may prevent future declines of non-listed bats that also face significant impacts from wind energy (or other stressors like white-nose syndrome). Throughout this process, the Service has worked with relevant experts, particularly those at USGS. The team agreed on four objectives to guide the prioritization process:
1. Maintain population health of listed species. 2. Maintain viability of non-listed species. 3. Meet the Service’s regulatory mandates. 4. Provide usable information within two years.
To identify specific science needs, the team went through the Service’s regulatory mandates to identify the type of information needed and whether that information is currently available. For an Endangered Species Act Section 7 or 10 analysis of a proposed wind project’s impacts on bats, Service biologists must be able to determine/predict bat species presence at the wind farm, evaluate if the species will be exposed to potential stressors from wind energy, predict how the species will likely respond, estimate the mortality expected from wind farm operations, determine potential minimization/mitigation/avoidance measures, assess regional effects of wind energy on bat populations, recommend monitoring and/or adaptive management plans, and then assess compliance with any negotiated measures. There are vast data gaps for all these stages, especially for the endangered Indiana bat. Examples: Accurate Mortality Estimates and Effective Monitoring Parameters Individual science needs were ranked based on their relevance to the four objectives and the first prioritization iteration determined that the most critical gap was estimating mortality from a wind project and then being able to accurately measure and monitor post-construction mortality. USGS partnered with the Service to develop a software tool (called “Evidence of Absence”) that allows estimation of actual mortality even when few are observed, which can help determine whether permitted level of “take” has been exceeded. The software can also be used to design search protocols (pre- and post-construction). This tool has helped develop multiple Habitat Conservation Plans for wind projects, particularly in Region 3. Migration Risk Assessment When additional resources became available, the team identified the next critical step as determining the broader impacts of wind energy across the landscape and the population-level risks it poses to
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 78 of 79
migrating bats. Through a public funding opportunity, two complementary studies were awarded that are using different approaches to understanding migration patterns for Indiana bats in the Midwest Recovery Unit (field work to commence 2015). Both recipients will work with the Service to compare the two approaches and assess which approach is better under what conditions. These studies will help with siting recommendations and help determine whether the observed levels of mortality at wind farms are likely to have population-level effects. o Copperhead Consulting will use traditional aerial and ground
based telemetry to actively track bats on a nightly basis to characterize Indiana bat migration behaviors and identify influential environmental factors, providing very detailed and specific information for a small number of bats.
o Southern Illinois University will use a novel, stationary tower-based, passive tracking system to track migratory movement on a regional scale, providing general information on a large number of bats.
• Habitat Creation and Restoration through Biological Carbon Sequestration
The Service has worked for more than 15 years to perfect the use of Biological Carbon Sequestration (BCS) as a tool for both greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and climate change adaptation through habitat restoration and creation. While the Service’s principal goal is habitat restoration and creation in support of our mission to “conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats…,” BCS can serve the dual purpose of helping mitigate GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. This mitigation role – and the carbon credits potentially deriving therefrom – has encouraged private companies and conservation NGOs to partner with the Service to develop and implement on-the-ground BCS projects, especially in the realm of reforestation and peatland restoration. The BCS program is a Service-wide effort focusing on the greatest need and opportunity. The most recent BCS efforts have benefitted from a close collaboration with many other partner organizations and agencies, but particularly the USGS LandCarbon Program (LandCarbon). The Service has been working with our LandCarbon partners to develop model programs in important ecosystems across the Nation, from the east coast to Alaska.
• Invasive Species Rapid Response Innovative research has developed a way to enhance a naturally occurring grass-suppressive soil bacterium, Pseudomonas fluorescens (P.f.ACK 55), now known as Battalion Pro. This bacteria affects only three non-native invasive species: cheatgrass, madusahead, and jointed goat grass. Application of this economical bio-control to the soil of sagebrush communities reduces the three invasive grasses to near zero for three to five years after a single application when used in conjunction with restoration of native plants. This will allow native sage-brush species to re-establish and provide habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sage-brush obligate species. To date, no adverse effect on non-target plants, fauna or animals have been noted. Only by removing the invasive seed bank with a tool of this type, can any real restoration of sage-brush habitat and species be successful. EPA registration of the product begins in December 2014, and is expected to take less than 12 months. Widespread field applications must wait until after registration and NEPA requirements are complete. It is critical to fund NEPA compliance and production scale-up expenses to provide this tool in the shortest practical time.
Indiana bat
LCC Council Meeting, 3/26/15 Page 79 of 79
