Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative:
Past Progress, Current Activities, and Future Directions
Adaptation Science Management Team
Conference CallJanuary 22, 2014
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
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
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
Strategic Habitat Conservation
Integrated Science Agenda
• Communication Tool– Describe how the
GCPO LCC is “operationalizing” SHC
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
Defining Landscapes
• Geographic frame of reference
West GulfCoastal Plain
Gulf Coast
East GulfCoastal Plain
OzarkHighlands
MississippiAlluvialValley
Priority Habitat Types
Terrestrial #1 Terrestrial #2 Aquatic
East Gulf Coastal Plain
Open Pine Woodland and Savanna
Grassland-Prairie-Savanna
Freshwater Aquatic: Medium-low gradient streams & rivers
Ozark Highlands Upland Hardwoods Freshwater Aquatic: High gradient streams & rivers
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Forested Wetlands Freshwater Aquatic: Mainstem “Big” Rivers
West Gulf Coastal Plain
Grassland-Prairie-Savanna
Open Pine Woodland and Savanna
Freshwater Aquatic: Medium-low gradient streams & rivers
Gulf Coast Beaches and Dunes Estuarine Systems: Tidal marsh
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.)
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
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?
Open Pine Woodland and Savanna
Defining Desired LevelsLandscape and Species Endpoints
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
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
Request for Proposals
• 5 Topic Areas• ~$1.75 M available– $350K/topic area
• Timeline– Released July 15th
– Closed August 30th
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
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)
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)
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
Proposal Review Process - Structure
• Reviewers provided standard ranking form
Proposal Review Process - Structure
• Reviewers provided standard ranking rubric
Proposal Review Process - Outcomes
• Individual reviews compiled by topic area
Proposal Review Process - Outcomes
• Composite rankings provided to Review Teams
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Portfolio of Selected Science Projects
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
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
Technical Advisory Teams
• Seeking volunteers to serve on TATs
• Interested or know someone that is?– Call– Email–Write in chat box
February 1st deadline
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
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
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
National LCC Project
• Integration of Conservation Design Across LCCs of the Eastern United States
Strategic Plan
• Developed and approved by the Steering Committee
• Outlines– Vision–Mission– Challenges– Long-range goals–Way of working– 5-year strategies
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
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
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
Strategic Plan
• Conservation Delivery Strategy– The GCPO LCC will
develop the appropriate tools, [and] decision support…to facilitate strategic and coordinated conservation delivery
Priority LCC Activities for 2014
• Landscape and Species Assessments
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
Priority LCC Products for 2014
• Landscape Assessment– “State of the Systems” Report
• Landscape Conservation Design– A Conservation Blueprint for the GCPO
LCC
Conservation Blueprint for GCPO LCC
• Rapid integration of existing priorities while avoiding pitfalls of inappropriate overlays
• Many types of “priorities”–Where we work–Where we could work–Where we should work
• Niche– Geographic scale– Cross-partner perspective– Incorporation of future change
Efforts Supporting a BlueprintOzark Highlands Comprehensive Conservation Strategy
• Participants– SWAP Coordinators from AR, MO, and OK– Central Hardwoods Joint Venture– Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC
• Products– A spatial data layer prioritizing conservation
actions across AR, MO, and OK
• Currently being piloted in two habitats– Pine-Oak Woodland– Glades
• Plans to expand to other terrestrial and all aquatic habitat types
Efforts Supporting a BlueprintGulf Coast Vulnerability Assessment
• Participants– Four Gulf Coast LCCs (GCPO, GCP, PF, and SA)– Gulf of Mexico Alliance
• Products– Phase I – A report on vulnerability of these
systems to anticipated changes– Phase II – Prioritized conservation actions
• Currently being piloted in four habitats– Oyster reefs– Mangroves– Tidal marsh– Barrier island beaches and dunes
Efforts Supporting a BlueprintSoutheast Conservation Adaptation Strategy
• Participants– SEAFWA – SNRLG– 6 Southeast LCCs (GCPO, App, Carib, GCP,
PF, SA)
• Six Essential Work Areas– Communicating Conservation– Building a Southeast Habitat Network– Understanding Governance Structures– Conservation Leadership Summit– A Collaborative Monitoring Network– SECAS Coordination
Efforts Supporting a BlueprintIntegrating Conservation Design Across Eastern LCCs
• Participants– Nine “Eastern” LCCs (GCPO, App, Carib, ETP&BR, GCP,
NA, PF, UM&GL, SA)– USFS– UConn
• Products– A technical guide that compiles and compares the methods,
assumptions, data requirements, and strengths and limitations of existing modeling approaches for landscape conservation design.
– A white paper that outlines opportunities and challenges in making outputs from alternative conservation design models compatible and seamless
– A seamless product for some elements of a conservation design across at least two LCC areas that clearly demonstrates means of unifying inputs and/or outputs from two or more conservation frameworks
Challenges for ASMT
• How do we effectively leverage all this collective work?
• How do ensure these individual efforts are adding up to a meaningful whole?
• How do we make progress on a conservation blueprint for the GCPO LCC without getting trapped in the weeds or producing something so rough as to be useless?
Potential Solutions
• Increased involvement of ASMT members and LCC partners in these efforts– Technical Advisory Teams – Regional Design Initiatives
• In-person ASMT Meeting– Summer 2014– Explore these individual efforts in more depth
• Review and refine conservation targets/desired states
• Review ongoing science• Evaluate the State of the System report• Take a first crack at prioritizing the landscape
– Conservation Blueprint v.1
Next Steps and Needs
• Populate TATs and host kick-off meetings• Update Science Agenda – version 5– Incorporate latest round of comments– Link the science projects into the agenda– Expand to include design
• Offer opportunities to engage in existing regional design initiatives
• Arrange and host a summer meeting– Clarify objectives, outcomes, agenda– Doodle for time and location; logistics–Meet and work
Questions or Comments
Top Related