NPLCC · 8/10/2012 · 8 DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline 2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas (the “meat”) –One section for each identified focus area: Description of the focus area

®

NPLCC

Science and TEK Subcommittee

Meeting

Dial 866 628-1318

Participant Code: 6959549

August 10, 2012

2

Today’s Goals: the 2013-2017 S-TEK Strategy

Agree on draft, flexible Strategy outline

Strategy Focus Areas: results of our priority scoring

exercise

Additional or refined Focus Areas?

– Draft National Wildlife Federation Findings now out

– Process to incorporate additional priorities

Priority recommendations to the Steering Committee

as the basis for the Strategy

– Process for updates if necessary

Schedule for remaining work

– Recommendations to Steering Committee late August

– Process for S-TEK Strategy review during drafting

– Additional (optional) S-TEK calls prior to final strategy

3

Steps in developing the S-TEK Strategy

4

DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline

NPLCC Strategy for Science and Traditional

Ecological Knowledge: FY2013-2017

Overall Organization:

Introduction and Background

Purpose / goals of the S-TEK Strategy

Process Used to Develop the Strategy

Key Principles

2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas

Implementing and Updating the Strategy

Appendices to include details

5


Introduction and Background

– Climate change, uncertainty, and issues of scale

– LCC’s, NPLCC, S-TEK roles and history

– The LCC ecosystems: overview and unique issues

Purpose / goals of the S-TEK Strategy

– Purpose and goals defined by the S-TEK in June

– Who the strategy is for

Process Used to Develop the Strategy

– Brief overview of the steps, meetings, scoring

exercises, etc.

– Details in Appendices

6


Key Principles

– LCC products will go beyond enhanced

understanding of climate change influences, to

encompass support for climate change adaptation

– Strategy actions may be undertaken by the NPLCC or

by individual NPLCC or outside partners; emphasis is

on usefulness and filling gaps

– Balance will be built into the Strategy, considering the

breadth of partner/stakeholder needs and the

geographic diversity of the LCC

– Approaches to include the full range of research,

syntheses of existing information, coordination and

collaboration on tools, and decision support

(depending on the issue)

7


Implementation: 4-year Strategy, Annual

Implementation Plans

Strategy Annual Implementation Plans

Broadly identifies high-priority focus

areas to guide NPLCC Science and

TEK efforts over 4 years.

Describes different types of

information and support that may be

useful for different topics at different

points in time

Specifies (steps down) priorities for

actions during a single year:

• Topics to be addressed

• Most useful types of information

and support needed

• Approaches to be taken to

address the topic (e.g, NPLCC

directed funding; open RFPs;

workshops & collaboration

support , Partner actions, etc)

• Describes specific projects

8


2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas (the “meat”)

– One section for each identified focus area:

Description of the focus area

Why it is important to the LCC

Brief summary of any current or ongoing work

Preliminary discussion of the types of work

that might be useful within the focus area

Example topics within the focus area

9


Annual Implementation Plans

– Identify available resources to support work

– Identify a subset of Strategy topics for annual effort

Consider overall importance, urgency of information

need, and opportunities to collaborate with other

science-support organizations or efforts

– For each topic, identify (and prioritize) the types of

information and support that would be most useful to

the NPLCC Partners

Focus on information gaps not being filled by others

– Determine what specific projects to pursue and how

best to pursue / fund those efforts.

10


Updates: Strategy will be reviewed and

updated every four years unless one of the

following occurs to trigger an update:

– Results from FY12 funded TEK work raise issues that

LCC partners agree should be incorporated

– New information is developed or a new need is

identified that would alter the relative priority scoring

of topics

11


Appendices:

The S-TEK Subcommittee and responsibilities

Development of Purpose and Goals

Potential needs identified in initial “laundry list”

Impact Matrix exercise establishes the “short list”

Prioritizing exercise to refine/rank focus areas

Assuring balance: “portfolio criteria”

The annual planning process and schedule

Terminology and definitions

12

S-TEK Strategy Development

Steps to Date:

Steering Committee Framing Workshop (Oct. 2011)

NWF Projects begun before the S-TEK convened:

Freshwater, Coastal Marine (2011)

NWF Current work: Terrestrial (2012)

S-TEK develops Strategy purpose, goals (June 2012)

S-TEK ecosystem calls yield “long list” (June 2012)

Impact Matrix exercise yields “short list” (July 2012)

Today: Ranking “short list” for priority and balance

– Results of workgroup ranking exercise

– Crosswalk with latest draft NWF findings

– Portfolio balance considerations

– Product: Strategy Focal Areas for recommendation to Steering

Committee

13

Priority Scoring Results

Summary of process and expectations

Overview of S-TEK member response

Analysis

– Logic used

– Single-criteria results

– Combined analysis

Group discussion

14

Process

22 Resource-driver pairs evaluated in detail using

defined scales

Four criteria define overall importance of LCC

support for potential focus area

– Value of information for decision-making

– Partnership needs

– Importance of LCC-level participation

– Timing of need

Four factors relate to portfolio balance

– Relevance to three ecosystems

– Relevance of the topic to States, Provinces, Tribes/First Nations

– Relevance of the topic to outcomes of interest

– Geographic scale of the issue

15

S-TEK overall response

23 S-TEK members submitted evaluations (more

than half))

Each scored only topics for which they had

expertise

Group 1 (Effects of ocean/coastal changes)

Group # # of driver-

resource

pairs in group

# of

responses

1 – Effects of ocean / coastal changes 6 8

2 – Effects on forests 4 9

3 – Effects of stressors on

anadromous fish

2 7

4 – Hydrology, extreme events,

freshwater habitats

4 7

5 – Effects on rivers and stream (4

items)

4 7

6 – Effects of specific stressors on

biological communities (2 items)

2 5

16

S-TEK overall response

Average scores for all items, all criteria are

on the high side

– High average scores not surprising given that these

were the top 22 of over 400 items considered!

– Within each group, the full range of scores was used

for value of information & importance of LCC

participation

– Largest variance in scoring for:

Value of information for decisions about the protection

of cultural and historic resources

# of partners who have an interest, and the importance

of LCC support, for topics within for Group 2 (effects on

forests)

17

S-TEK overall response (cont’d)

Group differences?

– Each group was scored by a subset of the 23

evaluators

– There is some overlap – most people scored more

than one group

– Group 1 scores are (slightly) lower than for other

groups

Group 1 had the 6 items, other groups had 2 or 4 items

Potential for Group 1 scores to be more “diluted” by averaging?

6 people scored both Group 1 and at least one other

group

4 of the six scored Group 1 items (on average) lower than they

scored other groups

18

Analysis logic (1)

Three of the criteria used multiple metrics

Value of information

– Averaged the scores across the 6 decision types to yield a single

metric

– Will consider the “sensitivity” scores in describing the chosen

priority focus areas and developing implementation plans

Importance of LCC participation

– Weighted the score for “Importance of LCC support” 2x the

weight for “work currently being done”

– Considered both the maximum (combined) score across the four

types of information and support and the average (combined)

score

Timing of need

– Timing scores will be used to inform selection of annual priorities

rather than Strategic priorities

19

Detail: Value of information for decision-making

6 decision types

– Protection, mitigation, and restoration of habitats

– Species management

– Land use and management

– Water use and management

– Protection of cultural and historic resources

– Management / response to disturbances

1– 4 scale (1 = not important, 4 = critical)

Equal weights imply that it is equally

important to provide support for any of the 6

decision types

21

Detail: Importance of LCC participation

For each of 4 types of information and

support that could be needed / provided

– Are you aware of relevant work of this type that is

already being done (i.e., how large is the information

and support gap?)

– How important is it that the LCC support additional

work of this type? (i.e., role of LCC in filling the

information and support gap)

22


Overall importance is some combination of:

– The size of the information/support gap

– Whether the work can be done without the LCC

Topic A Topic B

Size of the

gap

Not aware of activities of this

type being conducted;

anticipate significant

additional would be

necessary to fully address

this topic

Significant activity of this type

is underway; some gaps

remain where additional work

could be helpful

LCC

contribution

Some gaps are known or

suspected; those gaps could

be addressed by existing

entities

Clear gaps exist that require

multi-entity and/or cross-

boundary work; the LCC is

uniquely suited to providing

this type of information or

support

23


Overall importance is some combination of:

– The size of the information/support gap

– Whether the work can be done without the LCC

Topic A Topic B

Size of the

gap

Not aware of activities of this

type being conducted;

anticipate significant

additional would be

necessary to fully address

this topic

Significant activity of this type

is underway; some gaps

remain where additional work

could be helpful

LCC

contribution

Some gaps are known or

suspected; those gaps could

be addressed by existing

entities

Clear gaps exist that require

multi-entity and/or cross-

boundary work; the LCC is

uniquely suited to providing

this type of information or

support

If it is more valuable to

address Topic B (all else

equal) than Topic A, we

should weight “LCC

contribution” > “size of

the info/support gap”

25

Detail: Types of information and support

Key principle of the S-TEK strategy is that the

NPLCC will provide / support any whatever type of

information that is most useful

Is the key question whether there is SOME type of

information / support need for which LCC

participation is important?

– Use the maximum importance score across the

information types

Is the key question whether the LCC can provide

multiple types of useful information / support?

– Use the average importance score across the information

types

26

Analysis logic (2)

Now we have four metrics, corresponding to

the four main criteria

– Value of information for decision support

– Importance of LCC participation

– Partnership need

– Timing of need

Intend to use timing and “opportunity”

scores in deciding on what to include in

annual implementation plans rather than

strategic priorities

– Only 2 focus areas had average scores suggesting

work could be delayed beyond four years

27

Analysis logic (3)

We will present & consider two types of

results

– Combining scores to yield a single ranking

Weighting value of information for supporting decisions

2x the other metrics (with sensitivity analysis on the

weights)

– Rankings by individual criteria

We will then look at several ways to choose

Priority Focus Areas

– Ranked list by combined score

– Items that are in the “top 10” on all individual criteria

– Portfolio considerations

28

Ranking by

combined score

29

Ranking by value

of information for

decisions

30

Ranking by

importance of

LCC support

31

Ranking by

Partnership

interest

4 = Information is relevant to the

decisions of a large majority

(almost all) NPLCC stakeholders


decisions of most NPLCC

stakeholders


decisions of a limited number of

NPLCC stakeholders

1 = Information is not relevant to

NPLCC stakeholder decisions

32

Comparing the single-criteria and combined

evaluations in one graphic…

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Sho

relin

e

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Nea

rsh

ore

Sea

Leve

l -

Estu

arie

s

Sto

rms

- M

arin

e Sh

ore

line

Oce

an C

on

dit

ion

- S

hel

lfis

h/I

nve

rteb

rate

s

Sea

Leve

l -

Site

s

Fire

Reg

ime

- Fo

rest

Pre

cip

itat

ion

- F

ore

st

Inva

sive

s, D

isea

se, P

ests

- F

ore

st

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Fo

rest

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

- A

nad

rom

ou

s Fi

sh

Fres

h W

ater

Qu

alit

y -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

- R

ipar

ian

Flo

od

s/D

rou

ghts

- R

iver

/Str

eam

Flo

od

s/D

rou

ghts

- R

ipar

ian

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

- G

rou

nd

wat

er

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

- R

iver

/Str

eam

Pre

cip

itat

ion

- R

iver

/Str

eam

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Riv

er/S

trea

m

Fres

h W

ater

Qu

alit

y -

Riv

er/S

trea

m

Inva

sive

s, D

isea

se, P

ests

- B

iolo

gica

l

Co

mm

un

itie

s

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Bio

logi

cal C

om

mu

nit

ies

Value of information for decisions3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0

Sensitive? (at least one type of sensitivty > 1.5)yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes

Parterships 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.1 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2

Importance of LCC participation

Maximum 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5

2* avg VOI + Parter + max imp 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3 3 3.3 3 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2

33

Sensitivity analyses (1)

How sensitive are the results to the various

assumptions describe previously?

Sensitivity to differential weighting of decision types

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Sho

relin

e

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Nea

rsh

ore

Sea

Leve

l -

Estu

arie

sSt

orm

s -

Mar

ine

Sho

relin

e

Oce

an C

on

dit

ion

-

Shel

lfis

h/I

nve

rteb

rate

s

Sea

Leve

l -

Site

s

Fire

Reg

ime

- Fo

rest

Pre

cip

itat

ion

- F

ore

st

Inva

sive

s, D

isea

se,

Pes

ts -

Fo

rest

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Fore

stH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Fres

h W

ater

Qu

alit

y -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Rip

aria

nFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Riv

er/S

trea

mFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Rip

aria

nH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

Gro

un

dw

ater

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Riv

er/S

trea

m

Pre

cip

itat

ion

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mA

ir t

emp

erat

ure

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mFr

esh

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mIn

vasi

ves,

Dis

ease

,

Pes

ts -

Bio

logi

cal

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Bio

logi

cal C

om

mu

nit

ies

Protection, mitigation, and

restoration of habitats 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.0 4.0 3.4 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.0

Species management 3.0 2.8 3.4 2.5 3.6 2.0 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 2.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2

Land use and management 3.6 2.3 3.4 3.6 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.0 3.2

Water use and management 2.1 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.7 3.6 2.6 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.0

Protection of cultural and historic

resources 2.9 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.6 3.7 2.7 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.4 2.6Management / response to

disturbances 3.6 2.7 3.1 3.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.3 2.2 3.6 3.6 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.8

average (across all decision types) 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0

With differential weighting of the decision types

2x wgt on Protection, mitigation, and 26.6 20.2 25.8 25.1 21.3 21.5 23.6 24.8 23.6 22.9 27.9 24.4 26.2 27.7 28.2 22.3 28.7 25.9 22.3 26.1 24.6 24.0

2x wgt on Species management 25.7 19.6 25.4 24.2 21.6 20.8 23.4 24.8 23.8 23.1 27.6 24.4 25.6 27.5 28.0 22.0 28.6 26.0 22.4 26.1 24.6 24.2

2x wgt on Land use and management 26.3 19.1 25.4 25.3 20.0 21.8 23.8 25.1 23.9 22.9 27.1 24.0 25.5 27.2 28.2 22.3 28.1 25.9 21.7 26.0 24.2 24.2

2x wgt on Water use and management 24.8 18.1 24.3 23.7 19.6 20.4 23.3 25.2 23.2 22.9 27.9 24.3 25.5 27.7 27.8 22.6 28.7 26.1 22.1 26.4 24.2 24.0

2x wgt on Protection of cultural and historic

resources25.6 19.1 24.8 24.7 20.6 22.5 23.3 23.7 22.9 21.8 26.3 23.3 24.9 26.7 27.6 21.5 27.1 24.7 21.3 25.4 23.6 23.6

2x wgt on Management / response to

disturbances26.3 19.6 25.2 25.3 20.7 21.7 24.1 24.7 24.1 22.7 27.0 23.6 25.5 27.6 27.8 21.5 28.3 26.1 21.6 25.6 24.2 23.8

34


Changing the weights on the importance of

LCC role vs. size of the information gap Se

a Le

vel

- M

arin

e

Sho

relin

e

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Nea

rsh

ore

Sea

Leve

l -

Estu

arie

sSt

orm

s -

Mar

ine

Sho

relin

e

Oce

an C

on

dit

ion

-

Shel

lfis

h/I

nve

rteb

rate

s

Sea

Leve

l -

Site

s

Fire

Reg

ime

- Fo

rest

Pre

cip

itat

ion

- F

ore

st

Inva

sive

s, D

isea

se,

Pes

ts -

Fo

rest

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Fore

stH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Fres

h W

ater

Qu

alit

y -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Rip

aria

nFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Riv

er/S

trea

mFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Rip

aria

nH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

Gro

un

dw

ater

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Riv

er/S

trea

m

Pre

cip

itat

ion

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mA

ir t

emp

erat

ure

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mFr

esh

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mIn

vasi

ves,

Dis

ease

,

Pes

ts -

Bio

logi

cal

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Bio

logi

cal C

om

mu

nit

ies

2xLCC 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5

equal wgts 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.4

2xgap 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4

3xLCC 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5

35


Modest changes in the criteria weights have

small (negligible?) effects on the ranking by

combined score Se

a Le

vel

- M

arin

e

Sho

relin

e

Sea

Leve

l -

Mar

ine

Nea

rsh

ore

Sea

Leve

l -

Estu

arie

sSt

orm

s -

Mar

ine

Sho

relin

e

Oce

an C

on

dit

ion

-

Shel

lfis

h/I

nve

rteb

rate

s

Sea

Leve

l -

Site

s

Fire

Reg

ime

- Fo

rest

Pre

cip

itat

ion

- F

ore

st

Inva

sive

s, D

isea

se,

Pes

ts -

Fo

rest

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Fore

stH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Fres

h W

ater

Qu

alit

y -

An

adro

mo

us

Fish

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Rip

aria

nFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Riv

er/S

trea

mFl

oo

ds/

Dro

ugh

ts -

Rip

aria

nH

ydro

logi

c R

egim

e -

Gro

un

dw

ater

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

-

Riv

er/S

trea

m

Pre

cip

itat

ion

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mA

ir t

emp

erat

ure

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mFr

esh

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

-

Riv

er/S

trea

mIn

vasi

ves,

Dis

ease

,

Pes

ts -

Bio

logi

cal

Air

tem

per

atu

re -

Bio

logi

cal C

om

mu

nit

ies

2* avg VOI + Parter + max imp 3.09 2.61 2.93 2.91 2.6 2.6 2.92 3.22 2.99 3.04 3.33 3.02 3.24 3.53 3.38 2.93 3.54 3.23 2.86 3.24 3.28 3.15

Avg VOI + Partner + Max Imp 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2

Avg VOI + Partner + Max Imp + Timing 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.9

Avg VOI + Partner + max imp + avg imp 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2

2*Avg VOI + Partner + max imp + avg imp 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2

36

Two ways to look at the results

Top half of ranking by combined

score

– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts - River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts - Riparian

– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous

Fish

– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological

Communities

– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian

– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream

– Precipitation - River/Stream

– Precipitation - Forest

– Air temperature - Biological

Communities

– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline

5 items rank in the top 10

for all three criteria (and

by combined score)

– Hydrologic Regime -

River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts -

River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts –

Riparian

– Hydrologic Regime –

Riparian


37

What’s missing?

Other potential focus areas or topics not

evaluated in detail

– Review NWF focus group results

– Other topics?

Consider portfolio balance

NWF work - Overview

Phase I Aquatic Reports

(Oct 2010-Aug 2011)

Phase II Survey & Web-based Focus Groups

(Jan/Feb 2012, May 2012)

Phase II In-person Workshops

(Feb 28, Apr 20, June 2012)

Final Products (Aug 2012, March-May 2013)

*March 2012: New funding to complete terrestrial work

*2 Aquatic Reports. 1 Terrestrial Report. 1 Focus Groups Report

79 web surveys returned and analyzed

13 web-based focus groups; 107 participants

3 workshops; 108 participants

39

NWF Draft synthesis report

Synthesis of survey, focus groups & workshops with

195 resource managers, conservation practitioners

& researchers

10 “opportunities, needs and potential priorities”

identified in the Executive Summary

23 focal areas in 7 groups

– NPLCC-wide needs that transcend specific ecosystems,

habitats, and species

– Identified needs for

coastal ecosystems and habitats

freshwater ecosystems and habitats

terrestrial ecosystems and habitats

rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone species

invasive species, pathogens, and disease

indigenous natural and cultural resources

40

NWF -- Types of information and support

Five of the 10 “opportunities, needs and potential priorities” in

the Executive Summary relate directly to the different types of

information and support that the NPLCC can provide

– Develop decision-support systems and tools

– Facilitate collaboration to build capacity

– Support the generation of new or different science, data, or

information: Emphasize compatibility with existing sources of

information and an organized approach to store and access the

information.

– Promote improved science communication and outreach

– Determine if/how to incorporate TEK with Western science and

build capacity for Tribes, Native Alaskans, and First Nations

One of the 7 main groups also focuses on different types of

information and support (“NPLCC-wide needs that transcend

specific ecosystems, habitats, and species”)

41

“Opportunities, needs, and potential priorities”

Two (or three) of the 10 areas identify

potential priorities that are similar to those

evaluated by the S-TEK

– Assess the vulnerability and resiliency of the intertidal

zone, especially wetlands and estuaries

– Assess the vulnerability of Pacific salmon, other

anadromous fish, and their habitat to climate change

effects and related stressors

– Think of the NPLCC region as a corridor for wanted

and unwanted species movement, and determine

needed priority assessments and actions as a result

42

“Opportunities, needs, and potential priorities”

Two (or three) of the 10 areas suggest on-

the-ground management priorities

– Increase the resiliency of the hydrologic regime to

climate change and other stressors

– Collaborate across ecosystems to address invasive

species, pests, pathogens, and disease

– Think of the NPLCC region as a corridor for wanted

and unwanted species movement, and determine

needed priority assessments and actions as a result

Suggest a need for better information and

support on availability and effectiveness of

adaptation approaches

43

Cross-walk: Coastal ecosystems and habitats (1)

Potential focus area –

NWF report

Related driver-resource

pairs from impact matrix

Disposition

Address potential changes

to phenological

relationships and food

webs as a result of

acidified and low-oxygen

conditions

Ocean conditions were a primary climate driver;

phenology a secondary driver – not possible in

the matrix to evaluate the interaction

Ocean conditions - food

webs/productivity

Not selected for

detailed evaluation

Closest pair evaluated:

Ocean conditions –

shellfish/inverts

Ranked #21 of 22

items evaluated in

detail

44



NWF report


pairs from impact matrix

Disposition

Generate research results

and maps to inform cost

estimates and vulnerability

assessments associated

with altered coastal

flooding regimes

Effects of Floods/droughts

on:

Marine Shoreline

Marine Nearshore

Estuaries

Not selected for

detailed evaluation

Storms - Marine Shoreline

Storms - Estuaries

Not selected for

detailed evaluation

Storms - Marine

Nearshore

Ranked #18 of 22

focus areas

evaluated

Sea level - Marine

Shoreline

Ranked #11

Sea level - Marine

Nearshore

Ranked #16

Sea level - Estuaries Ranked #20

45



NWF report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Research, modeling,

capacity-building, and

decision-support in the

intertidal zone, with a

focus on wetlands and

estuaries

(all stressors) – Marine

Nearshore [intertidal

zone]

(all stressors) --

Estuaries

Sea level – Marine

nearshore evaluated in

detail (#20 of 22)

Sea level – Estuaries

(#16)

Research and capacity-

building to characterize

eelgrass and kelp

habitats and identify

priority areas

(all stressors) – Marine

Nearshore [eelgrass

and kelp habitats]

(see above for Marine

Nearshore)

46

Cross-walk: Freshwater ecosystems and habitats


NWF report


pairs from impact

matrix

Disposition

Increase the resiliency of

the hydrologic regime to

climate change and

other stressors

“Hydrologic regime” identified as a secondary driver – it

was not possible in the matrix to evaluate the interaction

between primary and secondary drivers

Impacts of five specific

stressors on Rivers &

Streams were evaluated

in detail

Hydrologic Regime (#1 of 22)

Floods & Droughts (#2)

Freshwater quality (#7)

Precipitation (#8)

Air temperature (#19)

Impacts of hydrologic

regime on multiple

resources were

evaluated; four were

selected for detailed

evaluation

HR – Rivers & Streams (#1 of

22)

HR – Anadromous fish (#4)

HR – Riparian (#6)

HR – Groundwater (#15)

47

Cross-walk: Terrestrial ecosystems and habitats (1)

Potential focus area – NWF

report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Improved understanding of

altered fog patterns and

implications for coastal

temperate rainforest

hydrologic regimes

Precipitation –

Forests [description

of precipitation

includes “fog”]

Ranked #9 of 22 –

highest of the

stressor-Forest

interactions

Research, scenario

development, and decision-

support to address whole-

scale landscape change with

a focus on changes in

vegetation composition

(all stressors) –

Biological

communities

Air temp – Biological

communities

evaluated in detail

(#13)

Invasives, diseases,

pest – Bio. Comm.

also evaluated in

detail (#18)

48

Cross-walk: Terrestrial ecosystems and habitats (2)


report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Improved understanding of the

relationship between fuels, fire,

other disturbance regimes, and

forest management

implications

Fire regimes – Forests Ranked #17 of 22

evaluated in detail

Floods/droughts –

Forests

Not evaluated in detail

Ranked #14 Invasives, diseases,

pests - Forests

Research, data coordination,

and decision-support to

improve connectivity and

refugia networks

(all stressors) -

Connectivity

Nothing related to

connectivity evaluated in

detail. In impact matrix

scoring, connectivity was

14 of 27 valued resources

Support cross-boundary

collaboration, public outreach,

and development of guidance

and scenarios in the Willamette

Valley

Geographically-specific focus areas were not

evaluated as potential focus areas for the Strategy

(case studies could be considered as part of annual

implementation)

49

Cross-walk: Rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone

species (1)


report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Research and decision-

support to identify climate-

resilient focal indicators and

assess management options

Not clear there a

parallel exist for this

topic. Closest might

be impacts on

Biological

Communties?

Impacts of Air Temp

(ranked #10 of 22)

and Invasives,

diseases, and pests

on Biological

Communties (#5)

evaluated in detail

Research and capacity-

building to assess vulnerability

of Pacific salmon, other

anadromous fish, and their

habitat to climate change

effects

(all stressors) –

Anadromous fish

Hydrologic regime –

Anadromous fish,

and Freshwater

quality –

Anadromous fish

evaluated in detail

(#4 and #13)

50

Cross-walk: Rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone

species (2)

Potential focus area

– NWF report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Research and

modeling for forage

fishes

(all stressors) –

Forage fish

Not evaluated in detail. In

the impact matrix, highest

ranked item related to forage

fish was #59 (of 242

receiving any votes)

Modeling and

decision-support for

other key fish

species

(all stressors) –

Ground / Rock fish

Not evaluated in detail. In

the impact matrix, highest

ranked item related to

ground/rock fish was #88 (of

242 receiving any votes)

51

Cross-walk: Invasive species, pests, pathogens, and

disease

Potential focus area

– NWF report

Related driver-

resource pairs from

impact matrix

Disposition

Identify corridors for

invasive species,

pests, pathogens,

and disease

Invasives, diseases,

pests – (all resources)

Invasives, diseases, pest –

Biological communities

ranked #5 of 22 items

evaluated in detail

Collaborate across

ecosystems and

specialties to

address invasive

species, pests,

pathogens, and

disease

No clear parallel – suggests an information and

support need related to improved understanding of

how to manage invasive species, pests, diseases and

their impacts

52

Cross-walk: Indigenous natural and cultural resources

NWF work identified three potential focal areas

related to indigenous natural and cultural resources;

no clear parallel for these exists in the impact matrix

or evaluations

– Research to understand and assess climate change effects on

the indigenous Way of Life

– Identify if and how to incorporate Traditional Ecological

Knowledge and Western science and the NPLCC’s work

– Provide capacity-building and decision-support to build and

enhance the ability of Tribes and First Nations to address climate

change effects

53

Discussion: Possible gaps or disconnects

A few items were mentioned in the NWF report that

the S-TEK did not consider or evaluate directly

– Effects of some primary climate drivers on some secondary

drivers (i.e., ocean conditions on phenology)

– Understanding climate change effects on Indigenous Ways of

Life

Four of the potential focus areas from the report did

not score well enough in the impact matrix to

warrant detailed evaluation

– Effects of changing ocean conditions on food webs

– Effects of any climate-related drivers on connectivity

– Climate impacts of forage fish

– Climate impacts on “other key fish species” (not including

anadromous fish, which were evaluated)

54

What now?

Need to narrow down to a list of Priority

Focus Areas for the S-TEK Strategy

– Based on work to date

– Starting from the results of the scoring and NWF work

just reviewed

55

Reminder for discussion…


score





Fish


Communities






Communities


5 items rank in the top 10

for all three criteria (and

by combined score)

– Hydrologic Regime -

River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts -

River/Stream

– Floods/Droughts –

Riparian

– Hydrologic Regime –

Riparian


56

Discussion: Overlap or redundancy?


score





Fish


Communities






Communities


Is there overlap in the

highlighted items?

Can they be defined more

clearly or succinctly?

57

Discussion: proposed modification (1)


score





Fish


Communities






Communities


For purposes of these topics,

include floods and droughts as

part of the hydrologic regime

Note that the impact of

precipitation on rivers and

streams is captured through

the hydrologic regime

Definitions of “rivers &

streams” and “freshwater

quality” have siginficant

overlap

Consolidate 6 topics to 2:

– Effects of changes in the

hydrologic regimes on Rivers

and streams (instream flow,

habitat, water quality)

– Effects of changes in the

hydrologic regimes on Riparian

habitats

58

Discussion: Portfolio balance

Revised list of potential Priority

Focus Areas




Fish


Communities




Communities


This list is dominated by

topic primarily related to

freshwater ecosystems

– Look at balancing criteria

included in the evaluation

59

Discussion: terrestrial ecosystems


Focus Areas

A. Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream

B. Hydrologic Regime - Riparian

C. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous

Fish

D. Invasives, Disease, Pests -

Biological Communities

E. Precipitation - Forest

F. Air temperature - Biological

Communities

G. Sea Level - Marine Shoreline

Topics D and F are cross-

ecosystem

Topic E is primarily

terrestrial

Next highest ranking

terrestrial topics:

– Air temperature – Forest

(#12)

– Invasives – Forests (#14)

– Fire – Forests (#17)

Proposed modification

– Combine air temperature and

precipitation as climate

effects on forests

– Consider prioritizing a focus

on invasives, diseases, and

pests in terrestrial ecosystem

within annual planning (a

subset of topic D)

60

Discussion: Marine/Coastal ecosystems


Focus Areas




Fish



(emphasizing terrestrial/forest

communties

E. Precipitation and air temperatures -

Forest


Communities


Topic F is cross-

ecosystem (Topic D is

less-so if modified)

Topic G is primarily

marine/coastal

Next highest ranking

marine/coastal topics

– Sea level – estuaries (#16)

– Storms – marine shoreline (18)

– Sea level – Marine shoreline

(20)

– Ocean conditions –

shellfish/inverts (21)

– Sea level – sites (22)

61

Discussion: Proposed modification


Focus Areas




Fish



E. Precipitation and air temperatures -

Forest


Communities


Remember the NWF

identified coastal flooding

as a potential focus area

Note that coastal flooding

combines sea level change

and storms

Expand Topic G:

– Effects of sea level and storms

on the Marine shoreline,

estuaries, and nearshore

habitats

(Is a focus area for the

Western AK LCC too)

62

Discussion: 6 Priority Topics for the Strategy

A. Hydrologic Regime – Rivers, Streams, and Riparian

habitats

B. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous Fish

C. Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological Communities

D. Precipitation and air temperatures - Forest

E. Air temperature - Biological Communities

F. Effects of sea Level changes and storms on the

marine shoreline, nearshore, and estuaries

63

Key Dates for S-TEK Strategy

Presentation/discussion at August 29 & 30 -

Steering Committee Meeting

– Present process used by S-TEK for selection of

principles and priorities – including matrix, criteria &

evaluations

– Presentation by NWF their findings

– Lists of initial draft Principles and Priority Focus Areas

recommendations

Sept 25 S-TEK Meeting – discuss draft

Strategy

64

Next Steps for S-TEK Strategy

Frank, Karen and Mary will draft (for SC

Mtg):

– Key Principles

– Priority Focus Areas

Drafts will be based on:

– S-TEK Discussions (7/10 and 8/10 meetings)

– Results from Evaluations

– Results from NWF’s efforts

65

Next Steps for S-TEK Strategy

Optional call before Steering Committee Mtg:

– Preview presentation for 8/29 Steering Committee

Meeting

– Aug. 23, 24 or 27 (doodle will be sent)

Optional call after Steering Committee Mtg:

– Week of Sept. 3rd (doodle will be sent)

Frank, Mary and Karen will prepare draft S-

TEK Strategy to send prior to the S-TEK 9/25

meeting

Documents

NPLCC · 8/10/2012 · 8 DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline 2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas (the “meat”) –One section for each identified focus area: Description of the focus area