1 / 60

Adaptation Science Management Team Conference Call January 22, 2014

Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative: Past Progress, Current Activities, and Future Directions. Adaptation Science Management Team Conference Call January 22, 2014. Objectives and Outline.

erwin
Download Presentation

Adaptation Science Management Team Conference Call January 22, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative: Past Progress, Current Activities, and Future Directions Adaptation Science Management Team Conference Call January 22, 2014

  2. Objectives and Outline • Overview LCC activities from 2013 to ensure ASMT is aware of existing science efforts • Science Agenda • RFP • Multi-LCC projects • Discuss broad science priorities for 2014 • Strategic Plan • Landscape and Species Assessments • Landscape Conservation Design • Offer up some potential next steps for 2014 • Engagement in TATs • In-person ASMT meeting

  3. Official LCC Mission • To define a shared vision for sustainable natural and cultural resources in the face of a changing climate and other threats; design strategies to achieve that vision; and deliver results on the ground through leadership, partnerships, contributed resources, evaluation and refinement over time

  4. Official LCC Mission • To define a shared vision for sustainable natural and cultural resources in the face of a changing climate and other threats; design strategies to achieve that vision; and deliver results on the ground through leadership, partnerships, contributed resources, evaluation and refinement over time

  5. Strategic Habitat Conservation

  6. Integrated Science Agenda • Communication Tool • Describe how the GCPO LCC is “operationalizing” SHC

  7. Science Need Themes • Define desired states for each habitat in terms of specific endpoints • Species-habitat relationships for species indicative of desired states for habitats

  8. Defining Landscapes Ozark Highlands • Geographic frame of reference Mississippi Alluvial Valley West Gulf Coastal Plain East Gulf Coastal Plain Gulf Coast

  9. Priority Habitat Types

  10. Establishing Conservation Targets • Endpoints define the desired states for broadly-defined habitat types • Landscape • Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat • Species • Ecological role (habitat, functional, etc.)

  11. Open Pine Woodland and Savanna • Ecologically Desirable State of the System • Woodlands and savannas comprised mostly of pine with low basal area, open canopies, and dense herbaceous understories in large interconnected blocks

  12. Open Pine Woodland and Savanna • Ecologically Desirable State of the System • Woodlands and savannas comprised mostly of pine with low basal area, open canopies, and dense herbaceous understories in large interconnected blocks • How much pine? • How low does the basal area need to be? • How open the canopy? • How much understory? • How large the forest block? • How interconnected?

  13. Open Pine Woodland and Savanna Defining Desired Levels Landscape and Species Endpoints

  14. Integrated Science Agenda • Communication Tool • Describe how the GCPO LCC is “operationalizing” SHC • Articulate the initial subset of science needs that are the specific priorities of the GCPOLCC Partnership and the logic behind their identification • Context for LCC science

  15. Science Need Themes • Define desired states for each habitat in terms of specific endpoints • Species-habitat relationships for species indicative of desired states for habitats • ID of indicators for economically and culturally sustainable landscapes • Current assessment of landscape • Prediction of alternative future landscapes • ID prominent drivers of system change and mechanisms by which they act • Better define decision context

  16. Request for Proposals • 5 Topic Areas • ~$1.75 M available • $350K/topic area • Timeline • Released July 15th • Closed August 30th

  17. Five Topic Areas • Linking Habitat and Population Objectives and Integrating Multidisciplinary Conservation Goals • Quantification and Evaluation of Relationship between Species and Landscape Endpoints for Priority Systems • Characterization of Flow • Evaluation and Assessment of Incentives for Natural Resource Management on Private Lands: Identification of Economic and Cultural Endpoints/Indicators • Targeting Science Need Themes in the GCPO LCC’s Integrated Science Agenda

  18. Request For Proposals - Response • 78 Proposals Submitted Under 5 Topic Areas • Integrating Multidisciplinary Conservation Goals (12) • Evaluating Species and Landscape Endpoints (25) • Characterization of Flow (6) • Economic and Cultural Indicators (11) • Addressing Science Needs from Science Agenda (24)

  19. Proposal Review Process - Structure • Reviewers (33) • ASMT (11) • PAC (3) • SC (6) • GCPO LCC Staff (10) • External Partners (5) • Science Coordinators from adjacent LCCs (6)

  20. Proposal Review Process - Structure • All reviewers required to sign “Reviewer Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” • Disclose real or perceived conflicts • Some reviewers reassigned • Maintain confidentiality of proposals and review team discussions

  21. Proposal Review Process - Structure • Reviewers provided standard ranking form

  22. Proposal Review Process - Structure • Reviewers provided standard ranking rubric

  23. Proposal Review Process - Outcomes • Individual reviews compiled by topic area

  24. Proposal Review Process - Outcomes • Composite rankings provided to Review Teams

  25. Proposal Review Process –Timeline • September 6: Review Team receives proposals • September 27: Reviews due back to Tirpak • September 30: Topic 3 Review Team convenes • October 28-November 15: Review Teams convene to review composite rankings and develop recommendations • November 18: Review of recommendations by Partnership Advisory Council • November 21: Final project selection by Steering Committee

  26. Portfolio of Selected Science Projects • 9 projects • Topic 1: Integrating Multidisciplinary Conservation Goals • McGowan – Grassland Habitat Management DSS • Riffell – Delivering Open Pine Conditions on Managed Forests • Topic 2: Evaluating Species and Landscape Endpoints • Murrow – Black Bear Habitat Modeling • Conner – Evaluating Open Pine Conservation Targets • Robinson – Developing and Testing Endpoints for Priority Freshwater Aquatic Habitat Types • Topic 3: Characterization of Flow • LaFontaine – Assessing Flow for the GCPO LCC • Topic 4: Economic and Cultural Indicators • Grala – Landowner Values for Alternative Land Uses • Topic 5: Addressing Science Needs from Science Agenda • He – Forest Changes from Climate and Urbanization • White – Developing DECs for Open Pine Systems

  27. McGowan • Title: Grassland Habitat Management for Diverse Taxa and Stakeholders • Cost: $77,110 • PIs: McGowan, Lonsdorf, Guyer, Grand • Affiliations:USGS AL Coop Unit, Chicago Botanic Gardens, Auburn • Subgeography: EGCP • Objectives: • Expand existing grassland decision tool to include non-avian species • Incorporate economic and cost considerations into existing DST

  28. Riffel • Title: Open Pine Habitat: Desired Ecological States by Managed Forests • Cost: $91,368 • PIs: Riffell, Wigley, Miller, Deusen • Affiliates: MSU, NCASI, Weyerhaeuser • Subgeography: East and West Gulf Coastal Plains • Objectives: • Evaluate extent to which different forest management techniques provide desired ecological states for open pine • Evaluate potential for operationally-feasible forest management scenarios to provide open pine conditions over time

  29. Murrow • Title: GCPO LCC Black Bear Habitat Assessment with Associated Landscape Endpoints • Cost: $50,831 • PIs: Murrow, Clark, Thatcher • Affiliations: UMD, USGS, UT-K • Subgeography: Ozark Highlands and MAV • Objectives: • Improve and couple existing LA and Ozark bear models • Identify specific forest endpoints associated with bears

  30. Conner • Title: Using wildlife habitat models to evaluate management endpoints for open pine woodland and savanna • Cost: $132,104 • PIs: Conner, Smith • Affiliates: Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center • Subgeography: East and West Gulf Coastal Plains • Objective: • Evaluate efficacy of habitat characteristics to be predictive of species occurrence for open pine system endpoints

  31. Robinson • Title: Assessment of Water Availability and Streamflow Characteristics in the GCPO LCC for Current and Future Climatic and Landscape Conditions • Cost: $170,000 • PIs: Robinson, Davis • Affiliations: SARP • Subgeography: Entire LCC • Objective: • Developing and documenting conservation targets for freshwater aquatic priority habitat types identified in Science Agenda • Landscape endpoints • Species endpoints

  32. LaFontaine • Title: Assessment of Water Availability and Streamflow Characteristics in the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative for Current and Future Climatic and Landscape Conditions • Cost: $349,787 • PIs: LaFontaine, Hay, Archfield, Bock, Hart, Markstrom, Regan, Viger, Hunt, Kern, Montgomery • Affiliations: USGS • Subgeography: Entire LCC • Objectives: • Simulate streamflow using daily time step model • Provide summary products to characterize current and future flow

  33. Grala • Title: Assessment of ecosystem service value and program delivery options: establishment of a scalable model for understanding landowner engagement opportunities • Cost: $227,148 • PIs: Grala, Gordon, Hunt, Cooke, Galik, Olander, Urban, Nelms, Hatcher • Affiliates: MSU, Duke, NRCS, Farm Bureau • Subgeography: East & West Gulf Coastal Plains, MAV • Objectives: • Assess landowner values towards alternative land uses in bottomland hardwood, open pine, and grasslands • Spatially depict variability in landowner preferences for incentive program attributes, information tools, expected participation in EGS program delivery options

  34. He • Title: Changes in Forested Landscapes of Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks Under Alternative Climate and Urban Growth Scenarios • Cost: $259,500.20 • PIs: He, Thompson, Iverson, Guldin • Affiliations: University of Missouri, USFS • Subgeography: Entire LCC (-OZH) • Objective: • Model landscape change under alternative climate, urbanization, management scenarios

  35. White • Title: Developing and Applying Desired Forest Condition Metrics to Enhance Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity Within Southern “Open Pine” Ecosystems • Cost: $125,496 • PIs: White, Wilson, Ware • Affiliations: NatureServe, USFWS • Subgeography: Entire LCC • Objectives: • Develop a definitive set of desired forest condition metrics to define wildlife needs and ecological integrity • Develop a protocol to use in assessing ecosystem integrity

  36. Science Need Themes Portfolio of Selected Science Projects • Define desired states for each habitat in terms of specific endpoints • White – Developing DECs for Open Pine Systems • Robinson – Developing and Testing Endpoints for Priority Freshwater Aquatic Habitat Types • McGowan – Grassland Habitat Management DSS • Species-habitat relationships for species indicative of desired states for habitats • Murrow – Black Bear Habitat Modeling • Conner – Evaluating Open Pine Conservation Targets • ID of indicators for economically and culturally sustainable landscapes • Riffell – Delivering Open Pine Conditions on Managed Forests • Grala – Landowner Values for Alternative Land Uses • Current assessment of landscape • LaFontaine – Assessing Flow for the GCPO LCC • Prediction of alternative future landscapes • He – Forest Changes from Climate and Urbanization • ID prominent drivers of system change and mechanisms by which they act • Better define decision context

  37. Technical Advisory Teams • Form • Established for each project • At least 3 to 5 individuals who have knowledge and expertise related to the research topic • Understand LCC’s interests and desired outcomes • Member of “target audience” for research • Function • Serve as sounding board for PIs • Ensure projects accomplish the desired outcomes • Liability for products remains with PI and agreement administrators

  38. Technical Advisory Teams • Specific responsibilities • Participate in 1-3 webinars at start of project • Ensure common expectations of objectives, methods, products, and outcomes between partners and PIs • Provide input on key questions and issues for PIs • Read progress reports and participate in webinars biannually • Ensure adequate progress is being made towards desired outcomes • Provide recommendations on and ultimately approve final reports and products

  39. Technical Advisory Teams • Seeking volunteers to serve on TATs • Interested or know someone that is? • Call • Email • Write in chat box February 1st deadline

  40. Science Need Themes • Define desired states for each habitat in terms of specific endpoints • White – Developing DECs for Open Pine Systems • Robinson – Developing and Testing Endpoints for Priority Freshwater Aquatic Habitat Types • McGowan – Grassland Habitat Management DSS • Species-habitat relationships for species indicative of desired states for habitats • Murrow – Black Bear Habitat Modeling • Conner – Evaluating Open Pine Conservation Targets • ID of indicators for economically and culturally sustainable landscapes • Riffell – Delivering Open Pine Conditions on Managed Forests • Grala – Landowner Values for Alternative Land Uses • Current assessment of landscape • LaFontaine – Assessing Flow for the GCPO LCC • Prediction of alternative future landscapes • He – Forest Changes from Climate and Urbanization • ID prominent drivers of system change and mechanisms by which they act • Better define decision context

  41. Multi-LCC Projects • Interior Least Tern Population and Habitat Monitoring • Landward Migration of Wetlands in Response to Sea-level Rise and Urbanization • Providing Training Opportunities to LCC Partners: Introduction to SDM • February 24-28 @ Auburn University • Mississippi River Connectivity: Hypoxia and Wildlife Corridor

  42. Science Need Themes • Define desired states for each habitat in terms of specific endpoints • White – Developing DECs for Open Pine Systems • Robinson – Developing and Testing Endpoints for Priority Freshwater Aquatic Habitat Types • McGowan – Grassland Habitat Management DSS • Species-habitat relationships for species indicative of desired states for habitats • Murrow – Black Bear Habitat Modeling • Conner – Evaluating Open Pine Conservation Targets • ID of indicators for economically and culturally sustainable landscapes • Riffell – Delivering Open Pine Conditions on Managed Forests • Grala – Landowner Values for Alternative Land Uses • Current assessment of landscape • LaFontaine – Assessing Flow for the GCPO LCC • Interior Least Tern Population and Habitat Monitoring • Prediction of alternative future landscapes • He – Forest Changes from Climate and Urbanization • Landward Migration of Wetlands in Response to Sea-level Rise and Urbanization • ID prominent drivers of system change and mechanisms by which they act • Better define decision context • Providing Training Opportunities to LCC Partners: Introduction to SDM • Mississippi River Connectivity: Hypoxia and Wildlife Corridor

  43. National LCC Project • Integration of Conservation Design Across LCCs of the Eastern United States

  44. Strategic Plan • Developed and approved by the Steering Committee • Outlines • Vision • Mission • Challenges • Long-range goals • Way of working • 5-year strategies

  45. Strategic Plan • Mission • To define a shared vision for sustainable natural and cultural resources in the face of a changing climate and other threats; design strategies to achieve that vision; and deliver results on the ground through leadership, partnerships, contributed resources, evaluation and refinement over time

  46. Strategic Plan • Long-range goal • Collaboratively identify and agree on the best and most representative examples of healthy ecosystems as priorities for conservation and management

  47. Strategic Plan • Conservation Science Strategy • The GCPO LCC will work with our partners and other organizations …to develop a robust science agenda that employs the principles of adaptive management on a landscape scale, and which defines a future conservation landscape capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources at desired levels

  48. Strategic Plan • Conservation Delivery Strategy • The GCPO LCC will develop the appropriate tools, [and] decision support…to facilitate strategic and coordinated conservation delivery

  49. Priority LCC Activities for 2014 • Landscape and Species Assessments

  50. Priority LCC Activities for 2014 • Landscape Conservation Design • Conservation decisions often reflect an unstated logic on why a specific action is taken at a specific place to affect a specific target • Spatial depiction of this logic is conservation design

More Related