PPP LCC Decision Analysis and Science Needs Workshop
held August 23-25, 2011
Executive Summary
The PPP LCC Technical Committee held a three-day workshop in Bismarck, ND from August
23rd to the 25th, with a primary goal of developing a process that can be used to identify and
prioritize science needs from the perspective of land, resource, and conservation decisionmaking. By putting the decision-makers needs first, future PPP LCC science work can be
targeted towards decision-driven science priorities, rather than having the science priorities
derived from a the set of proposed projects.
Workshop participants (Appendix 1) discussed four steps in creating both short-term and longterm science plans for the LCC.




Identify potential “science needs”
Prioritize the identified science needs
Solicit and evaluate projects aimed at meeting or reducing those science needs
Develop a portfolio of activities / projects to pursue as a PPP LCC science plan
Participants followed a structured process to develop a first pass (“straw-man”) for each of these
elements, but recognized throughout the process that the input of a broader group is very
important. As a first step, this summary is being distributed to all Technical Committee
members, and specifically for those who did not attend the workshop, seeking their input on each
element of the overall process.
The full Technical Committee will discuss on their next conference call (Oct 5) what additional
input should be sought and how to go about obtaining that input.
This Workshop Summary highlights the four steps and the workshop outputs; additional details
on the workshop process and outputs, including specific questions for the Technical Committee
are included in the Appendices.
Step 1: Identify potential “science needs”
There are two different types of decisions that are relevant for PPP LCC science planning. First
are decisions that the LCC can and must make to fulfill its goals, including decisions about how
to organize, how to allocate LCC resources, and how to seek or generate project opportunities,
among others. Second are the conservation-delivery decisions that are made by LCC partners
and other entities. The goal of the PPP LCC is to provide support for those conservationdelivery decisions. Effective and useful decision support starts with a clear understanding of the
decisions to be supported, and a large portion of the workshop focused on clearly establishing the
scope of those decisions and the information needed to support those decisions.
p. 1 of 22
In this context, “science needs” are defined as information that could reduce key uncertainties.
Key uncertainties are those issues where limited knowledge prevents decision-makers from
making a sufficiently accurate prediction of the outcomes of potential conservation actions to
enable them to make a well-informed decision. Specifically, “science needs” should address
uncertainties where the current level of knowledge leaves considerable doubt as to preferred
conservation actions.
Workshop participants identified the range of decision-makers and the types of decisions the PPP
LCC aims to support and influence, identified a set of outcomes that are of interest to those
decision makers (where improved predictions would be useful), and identified a preliminary list
of information that would help improve the necessary predictions. Those results are summarized
in Appendix 2, Sections 2.2 and 2.3, and the immediate next step is to review and expand, as
necessary, the list of identified science needs.
Step 2: Prioritize the identified science needs
Once the committee is satisfied that a robust list of potential science needs (key uncertainties)
has been identified, the needs will be prioritized in terms of the importance of reducing those
uncertainties. Workshop participants reviewed and discussed several formal approaches for
valuing information for decision support, including formal decision-analytic value-ofinformation (VOI) analyses. These formal methods for valuing information require the
construction of full conceptual models linking the key uncertainties to improved predictions of
outcomes of interest to decision-makers, and quantification of the current state of knowledge
about each of those key uncertainties. Developing a reasonably complete set of such conceptual
models and quantifying of the current state of knowledge would be quite useful, but would also
require a considerable amount of effort.
For the immediate prioritization need (FY12), we defined a simpler approach, using the
principles of SDM and multi-attribute utility analysis. In such an approach each identified
uncertainty is evaluated against a set of well-defined criteria, using carefully developed scales or
metrics. The decision-makers (in this case, the PPP LCC Steering Committee, or the Technical
Committee acting as proxies for the Steering Committee) then establish the relative importance
of each of the criteria in determining the priority of a science need, and the appropriate
calculations can be carried out to yield a prioritized list. The first step in this approach is to
develop a set of criteria that will be used to determine the importance of an uncertainty or
information need. The list below summarizes the preliminary set of criteria defined by the
workshop participants. Additional description of the basis for selecting this set of criteria is
included in Appendix 2, Section 2.4.





Importance / criticality of the uncertainty to decision-making (decision-relevance).
The breadth or range of decisions the information could support.
Urgency / timing of information needs relative to decision needs.
Opportunity for information collection & uncertainty reduction exists now that will not
exist later.
Uncertainty is not currently be addressed by any other group.
p. 2 of 22
Step 3: Use science priorities to generate project opportunities, and evaluate proposed or
potential projects in terms of their benefit
It has not yet been decided what approach the PPP LCC will use to generate research and project
opportunities for FY12. In past years, the LCC has issued an RFP seeking proposals, and that is
being considered for FY12. Other approaches could include reconsidering proposals received in
response to previous requests, or directing funding to specific organizations, agencies, or groups
to pursue research addressing a specific (high priority) issue. Any approach that involves
soliciting or reviewing multiple proposals will require a mechanism for evaluating the quality of
the proposed work and the benefits of funding the work.
In most standard approaches used in the scientific community to evaluating proposals, the RFP
will lay out a set of evaluation criteria on which the proposal will be judged. The process of
defining those project evaluation criteria is useful regardless of what approach is chosen to
generate those research opportunities.
The workshop participants developed a preliminary list of project evaluation criteria, to be
reviewed and commented on by the rest of the Technical Committee. Additional discussion can
be found in Appendix 2, Section 2.5.








Addresses a priority science need identified <in Step 2>.
Number / importance of additional science needs addressed and decisions supported.
Scientific rigor and quality of research proposal and team
How much will a successful project reduce the underlying uncertainty?
Scalability of project; ability to derive insights from the proposed work that are
applicable to a large portion of the PPP LCC
Timing of project results
Ability to leverage existing projects and work being done by others
Costs of the proposed work (current year and full costs)
Step 4: Incorporate portfolio-level considerations into an annual or multi-year science plan
A common method for deciding which projects to fund, when there are more projects proposed
than there are resources, is to rank the proposed projects by their benefit-to-cost ratio, and then
fund the most cost effective proposal in order, until the total amount spent equals the total
resources available. This approach is intuitively (and mathematically) appealing, as the set or
portfolio of projects funded derives its benefit from the value of the projects within that portfolio.
In practice, there are often considerations that apply to the portfolio of projects or activities that
are not adequately captured in the individual project evaluations. Often those considerations are
accounted for informally, but for the PPP LCC process it is useful to discuss and lay out those
portfolio issues explicitly.
The workshop participants expressed a strong preference for letting the project evaluation results
be the primary driver of funding decisions, but did identify a small number of portfolio-level
criteria that could be used to adjust the project mix. Each of the factors listed below could be
p. 3 of 22
considered justification to fund a lower ranked project over a higher ranked project, because
doing so would lead to a better overall science plan.

Set of projects includes at least one project addressing needs in each of the three subregions. Goal is to ensure that the PPP LCC is working on an appropriately broad range
of topics, and providing information that is useful to a broad set of partners and
stakeholders.

Set of projects includes work addressing at least 3 of 5 (exact numbers to be determined)
identified high-priority science needs. Goal is to ensure that the PPP LCC is working on
an appropriately broad range of topics, and to account for the potential

Total future-year funding requirements of the selected projects should not exceed 75%
(threshold to be determined) of the total planned funding for those future years. Goal is
to ensure that as new ideas are developed there is the potential to fund work in those
areas.

Set of projects includes at least one project addressing a longer-term decision need. The
goal is to avoid addressing only short-term, immediate decisions at the expense of issues
that will become critical over time.

Project solicitations should encourage innovative projects. Goal is to inspire researchers
to submit projects that have the potential for “break-through” science or methodology but
which might have a relatively high chance of project failure. Including at least one
“innovative” project could be a portfolio-level goal, but workshop participants were not
in full agreement on what an innovative project would look like, or whether it should be
considered as a factor in determining the portfolio.
p. 4 of 22
Appendix 1. Workshop Attendees
Rick Nelson
Mike Olsen
Neil Chartier
Kevin Doherty
Jason Gude
Steve Krentz
Mike Larson
Neal Niemuth
Kara Paintner
Max Post van der Burg
Anne Schrag
Jeff Stoner
Genevieve Thompson
Johann Walker
Coordinator, PPP LCC
Science coordinator, PPP LCC
FWS
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
MT Fish Wildlife & Parks
Great Plains Fish Habitat Partnership
Minnesota DNR
NGPJV
NPS Midwest Region
USGS
WWF
USGS
National Audubon Society
Ducks Unlimited, Ltd.
Additional participants not on the PPP LCC Technical Committee
Jean Brennan
Coordinator, Appalachian LCC
Bridgit Costanza
Science coordinator, Appalachian LCC
Billy Gascoigne
USGS
Glenn Salmon
Coordinator, Eastern Tallgrass Prairies and Big Rivers LCC
p. 5 of 22
Appendix 2. Description of Framing Workshop and Requests for
Additional Input
2.1
Decision Analysis Framing Process
The structure of workshop discussions was designed around the principles of decision analysis
(DA), which decomposes decision problems into three related but separable components:

Decisions and alternatives are actions that the relevant decision makers can take. In the
current context, these are conservation delivery-type decisions made by the PPP LCC
partners and other end-users of PPP LCC science

Objectives are the outcomes that are of interest for the decisions being considered, and
are generally thing that the decision-makers would like to achieve (or avoid). Here the
outcomes of interest will likely include

Uncertainties, or factors and processes that are outside the control of the decision-makers
but which affect the objectives or outcomes of interest. Future climate conditions are an
obvious example of an uncertainty that can affect conservation outcomes in the PPP LCC
(and elsewhere).
Using these three components to structure conservation-delivery decisions provides a useful
platform for providing science for decision support – the main goal of the LCC. In the DA
framing process (the first step in developing decision support models), we first focus on
understanding who the relevant decision-makers are, what types of decisions they make, and
what their objectives are in making those decisions. This focus on management decisions helps
to narrow the vast list of uncertainties about climate and other stressors and their impacts on
ecological functions in the PPP LCC region to a (hopefully) more manageable list of
uncertainties that are directly relevant to conservation decision-making. Ultimately, the list of
uncertainties identified through this process becomes the list of potential science needs in the
PPP LCC.
Slides used to provide background on the process and prompt discussions of each of these
components of a decision problem are included as separate documents and are posted at <if we
can get Chuck to post these on the web site>
2.2
Framing the types of decisions the PPP LCC aims to support and influence
Steps in DA framing include identifying and describing:

Relevant decision-makers and stakeholders

The range of decisions each group might make, and assumptions bounding those
decisions

Key objectives (outcomes of interest) for various decision-makers and stakeholders
p. 6 of 22

Potential metrics for measuring performance against those objectives

Critical information (science) needed to evaluate how decisions will affect objectives
Workshop participants worked through the first three steps as part of framing, and the results of
those discussions are summarized below. Time did not allow for focused discussion of
performance metrics, although some performance metrics were identified during the process of
identifying critical information. In the context of this workshop, the fourth step listed above
begins the process of identifying potential science needs, and that is also described in a separate
section below.
Decision-makers, stakeholders, and types of decisions the PPP LCC aims to support
Decision-makers were defined as those who make decisions that affect conservation delivery in
the PPP LCC, and stakeholders were defined as those who are affected by and can have
influence on those decisions. This division is not perfectly clean – the same entity can be a
decision-maker for some decisions and a stakeholder for others. Workshop participants
brainstormed a list of decision makers and examples of the types of decisions they make, as
shown in Table 1. This list is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive, and was used
to identify a set of decision types for which PPP LCC sponsored science could potentially be
useful. Although Table 1 lists a large number of government and quasi-government agencies as
decision makers, participants highlighted the fact that a very large portion of the LCC (especially
in the Potholes region) is privately owned, and conservation-focused agencies hope to influence
how private lands are management, but have no direct decision-making responsibility of control
over a large percentage of lands.
The list below groups the example decisions into a smaller set of types of conservation- and
conservation affecting decisions that LCC science could inform.

Policy-level decisions affecting land use, environmental quality, e.g.,
o Farm Bill provisions
o Incentives
o Approval of CRP, WRP lands
o Regulations (zoning, water quality standards, utility & infrastructure siting…)

Land and easement acquisition (where, when, how much, what conditions)

Land management practices
o For both public lands (direct) and private lands (influence)
o Crop choices, land in conservation use

Water management / water allocation / Flow control

Funding, selection, design, and implementation of conservation & restoration projects

Wildlife management practices

Energy development decisions (where, when, how)
p. 7 of 22
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of decision types above.
If there are types of decisions that you believe PPP LCC science should aim to support of
influence that are not represented in this list, please add them. You can review Table 1 to see
examples discussed.
Table 1. List of some decision-makers and stakeholders in the PPP LCC, and examples of the
conservation-affecting decisions they make
Decision-maker
Federal Government Agencies
FWS
Example decisions
ESA decisions
Land acquisition
Land management
Conservation
DOI (BLM, NPS, BIA, BoR, USGS),
Funding, R&D funding, monitoring, energy development and siting, grazing,
Other Feds (Forest Service,
conservation, regulation and enforcement, interpretation of legislation,
USACE, DOT, DOE, DOD, NRCS,
international funding and capacity building for cross boundary species, timber
ARS, EPA, NOAA, USDA)
management, outreach and education, implementation of strategic
partnerships
Natural Resources Conservation
Incentives
Service (NRCS)
Approval of CRP lands
Management / emphasis for available funding
Management of easement programs
Regulation for wetland protection
Influence development of the Farm Bill
Congress
Policy
Funding
Regulations, “oversight” (OMB, etc.)
GAO, NSF
Inform Congress on effectiveness of science, influence policy, science funding
State Government Agencies & Provincial Agencies
State / Provincial agencies that
Management of all state fish and wildlife species on public or private lands
have jurisdictional responsibility
Hunting, fishing, trapping regulations
for Fish and Wildlife
Outreach function
Habitat conservation
Actively manage some lands
Easement management – access, etc…
Strategic planning
(research and funding decisions)
State Land Departments (e.g.,
Land management /use (generally leased – required to generate revenue for
school lands)
the state schools)
Collaboration with adjacent properties
Consolidation / sales decisions
Grazing decisions
p. 8 of 22
Decision-maker
Other state agencies, incl
Heath Dept, Water Commission,
DoT
PUC , PSC
State legislature (and advisory
boards to the legislatures)
Canadian provinces
Local agencies
County commissioners
County Weed Boards
Watershed councils; drainage
districts; water resource boards
Example decisions
Surface water quality standards
Road surfacing, water crossings
Water allocation
Mining reclamation (revegetation requirements)
Energy siting
Transmission siting
Pipelines
Funding for conservation projects; use of F&G license fees for conservation
Promulgate laws to support (or not) conservation
Regulation of water sales/water mgm
Where conservation is done / what is focus
Support (or not) support ballot initiative to ,provide public funding to
conservation planning
Land acquisition by public agencies (approve or disapprove)
Zoning
(Land use decisions, broadly)
Depending on state and county rules…
Enforcement
Public outreach / education
Prioritization of which species to manage
Agriculture + more.
Advise the NRCS
Policy decisions
Can assess fees on landowners, decide how to spend that money
Township boards
Tax equalization, land designation
Other quasi-governmental organizations
Western Governor’s Assoc
Funding for regional problems
Influence water decisions
WAFWA, MAFWA (western and
Set policy
Midwest assoc of fish and wildlife Lobby
agencies)
Other individuals and entities
Individual land owners
Set aside land for conservation
Leasing decisions
Land use
Farmers
Crop choices
Take land in or out of conservation
Sportsmen
Stakeholders / decision influencers
Land trusts, NGOs, Universities
Manage large tracts of lands
Joint Ventures
Stakeholders / decision influencers
In the western portion, have some actual land management responsibilities
Private energy development /
Siting, sizing, etc.
rural electric cooperatives
Land management
p. 9 of 22
Decision-maker
Native Tribes
Commercial recreation providers,
Recreation users
Agribusiness
Hatcheries, zoological
associations
Example decisions
Tribal land management
Leasing land (and associated land mgmt…)
Land acquisition
R&D decisions; internal resource allocation, marketing, eland acquisition
Propagation of endangered species
Outcomes of interest
Objectives represent outcomes that are of interest to decision-makers, typically things they are
trying to achieve or avoid when they make any of the specific decisions listed above. Objectives
can be defined at many different levels, and it is helpful (and can be challenging) to organize
objectives into a hierarchy, where fundamental or top-level objectives represent the ultimate
goals of the decision maker: outcomes that they care about because they are of value in and of
themselves. Sub-objectives or lower level objectives are typically outcomes that are of interest
because they are believed to be a means for achieving the fundamental objective, because they
provide further definition of an abstract objective, because they are reasonable proxies for the
larger objective and/or because they are easier to measure, quantify, and estimate than the top
level objectives.
For example, workshop participants initially identified a number of objectives related to habitat
such as “minimize habitat fragmentation,” “maximize habitat connectivity,” and “minimize
invasive species.” These all connect to a larger, but more difficult to define, fundamental
objective of maximizing habitat quality. In a full discussion of objectives and outcomes of
interest considerable effort goes into organizing identified objectives into a useful hierarchy,
with top level objectives representing fundamental goals (such as “maximize habitat quality”)
and the sub-objectives representing quantities that can be measured and that, in combination,
provide a good approximation for the fundamental objective.
The workshop schedule did not permit a detailed development of a hierarchy of objectives, so we
focused on identifying the top-level outcomes of interest and deferred discussion of the lowerlevel, potentially more measureable, sub-objectives. After a lengthy discussion on habitat
quality and the relationship between habitat, species, and ecosystems, participants determined
that it would be useful to focus on key ecosystem “features” already known to be important in
the PPP LCC region. Knowing what impacts different decisions would have on the preservation
and functioning of those key features would be critical for conservation decision-making. Six
key ecosystem features were defined:
Potholes Region
Palustrine wetlands
Native grasslands
Restored grasslands
Plains Region
Sage prairie
Rivers & Riparian
Woody draws and riparian habitats
Hydrologic systems
p. 10 of 22
The list below show the preliminary set of outcomes of interest and objectives of conservationmanagement decisions identified by the workshop participants.

Maximize abundance/diversity/persistence of species (“trust species”, “species of
management interest”)

Minimize loss of key ecosystem features (listed above)

Maximize ability of those key ecosystem features to support and maintain existing natural
ecological processes

Maximize environmental services provided by the landscape

Maximize economic benefits provided by the landscape

Maximize quality of life for people living in the LCC
o Maximize public health and safety
o Maximize recreational opportunities
o Maintain rural lifestyles and traditions

Minimize adverse impacts on cultural resources and traditions

Maximize public support/acceptance for and understanding of conservation
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of outcomes of interest
for conservation delivery shown above. If there are other objectives for land and resource
managers, or other outcomes that you believe decision-makers would like to know prior to
making any of the types of decisions listed previously, please suggest them. Think about what
you would like to know (if the information could be given to you for free) prior to making any of
the conservation-related decisions that you or your agency typically make.
2.3
Identifying science needs
In the context defined above, “science needs” are defined as information that could reduce key
uncertainties. Key uncertainties are those issues where limited knowledge prevents decisionmakers from making a sufficiently accurate prediction of conservation outcomes to enable them
to make a decision or choice. Specifically, “science needs” should address uncertainties where
the current level of knowledge leaves considerable doubt as to preferred conservation actions.
The goal of the science planning process for the PPP LCC is to ensure that supported science is
directly relevant to decision-maker / end-user needs. This requires consideration of how science
is used to influence or inform a very wide range of decisions made by a variety of different endusers. Ideally, one could build conceptual decision models of all of the major types of decisions
outlined previously to ensure that all of those links are made and understood (and this may be a
worthwhile exercise for the LCC over the longer-term).
p. 11 of 22
Given the limited time during the workshop, the group proceeded through a two-step process to
develop a preliminary list of science needs. First, three representative and important decisions
were chosen for development of high-level conceptual models. These models were not intended
to be very detailed, but only to identify the main uncertainties affecting those decisions. Then,
using these models as guidelines, the broader list of science needs was constructed taking into
account a wider scope of decision types.
Conceptual models were developed for the following type decisions:

Land acquisition or easement

Flood control or mitigation

Energy development / siting
Conceptual model for land acquisition / easement decision
The model below shows the basic elements of a land acquisition or easement decision and how
that decision links to two fundamental outcomes of interest; the impact on habitat (which also
incorporates impacts on species and general ecosystem function), and on the economics of the
landowner.
Note: In this and following diagrams, decisions are represented with rectangles; uncertainties with ovals; outcomes
of interest with hexagons. Dark blue rounded rectangles hold more detailed portions of the model.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of land acquisition or easement decision
p. 12 of 22
A number of potentially important uncertainties were discussed, all of which are potential
information or science needs. Whether a land acquisition or easement is possible is essentially
controlled by the landowner and their land use decision, whether it’s a choice to sell or provide
an easement or to convert the land to agricultural use is driven both by exogenous factors as well
as their perceptions of those factors and how they lead to benefits or costs of different choices.
Exogenous factors (uncertainties) include climate, soil conditions on their land, future
commodity prices, government incentives, and technology changes. The group discussed
landowner perception itself an important uncertainty, along with the ability of scientists to
successfully communicate the nuances of the science and associated uncertainty.
Habitat is impacted by climate, land use (directly and regionally through impacts on
fragmentation and connectivity), fire (both intentional and natural), restoration and conservation
management activities, and invasive species prevalence, all of which are also potential
information or science needs.
Conceptual model for flood management decision
The model below (Figure 2) shows the basic elements of decisions that affect flood frequency
and severity and how those decisions link to three fundamental outcomes of interest; the impact
on habitat, public health and safety, and economics.
This conceptual model incorporates important uncertainties about the hydrologic system
including flow rates and conditions in surface waters, subsurface ground water flow and levels,
and the connection between surface and subsurface hydrology. All of these are affected by
climate conditions. Various decisions may also affect these hydrologic uncertainties and thus
flooding frequency and size; decisions about land use and development near rivers affect
watershed conditions, water management (e.g. river operations) and flood mitigation activities
directly affect hydrologic flow, and wetland drainage and restoration activities affect wetland
storage capacity.
Figure 2: Conceptual model of flood management decision
p. 13 of 22
Public health and safety (injury and loss of life) and economics (response and repair costs, lost
economic activity) are affected by the frequency and size of floods, contamination mobilized into
waters, and decisions about development near rivers of other flood prone areas. Habitat is
impacted directly by flooding and by contamination of waters.
Conceptual model for energy development decisions
The model below (Figure 3) shows the basic elements of an energy development decision,
specifically wind energy siting. This type of decision often involves trade-offs between two
outcomes of interest; impacts on species and habitats and impacts on landowner and energy
industry profits.
This conceptual model incorporates important uncertainties about the direct impacts of siting
decisions on species abundance and health, including uncertainties about species mortality from
turbines or transmission lines, species avoidance near turbines, impacts on species reproductive
capacity near turbines, and introduction of invasive species from roads and other newly created
pathways.
Economic impacts (profits) are directly impacted by wind conditions, including changes in the
future, and wind siting choices.
Figure 3: Conceptual model of wind energy siting decision
p. 14 of 22
Preliminary list of Science Needs
The conceptual models above provided examples of how uncertainties are related to outcomes of
interest important to decision makers for a few representative decisions. As shown, there are
uncertainties that are relevant for all three of the example decision types – displaying the
complexity of these relationships is difficult, in either graphical or tabular form.
The group was then asked to expand the list of uncertainties (science needs) for other types of
decisions not modeled, while keeping in mind the links to management decisions and outcomes
of interest. A long list of science needs was created including relationships to various decisions
and outcomes of interest for each science need.
This information can be presented in different ways, either sorting the list by similar science
needs or by similar decision types. The following table shows the list sorted first by decision
type, which perhaps provides a more explicit reminder that supported science must be relevant to
end-user decisions.
Table 2. Preliminary list of science needs, sorted by relevant decision
Relevant decision(s)




1
Policy decisions affecting
land use (e.g., Farm Bill
provisions)
Policy development and
advocacy
Zoning decisions (e.g.
affecting urbanization)
Private landowner decisions
to keep land out of
agricultural use (and as one
of the key ecosystem
features)
Uncertainty
(Information/Science Need)
 Future land use projections under different
Farm Bill policies and future climate
 Effect of different conservation incentives
on landowner behavior and associated
land-use changes
Outcome(s) of interest1




What options for increasing the economic
output of lands in existing uses, and how
effective are they? E.g.,
o Biofuel potential / value for grasses
o Effectiveness of invasives removal
methods (e.g., cost-effective ways to
eliminate Kentucky bluegrass and
replace with native grasses with better
nutritional content for grazing animals



Minimize loss of key
ecosystem features2
Maximize species
abundance (for
species of
management
interest)
Maximize economic
benefits (to
landowners,
community, state,
nation)
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem features
Maximize species
abundance
Maximize economic
benefits
Outcomes of interest that are affected by the decision or better informed by the science needs
2
The term “key ecosystem functions” is used here to refer to the identified land cover/ecotype/habitats identified as important in
the PPP LCC region, as shown in Section 2.3
p. 15 of 22
Relevant decision(s)





Allocation of conservation
resources toward
education/outreach versus
direct land
acquisition/protection
investments
Land acquisition / protection
/easement priorities &
decisions
Conservation easement
design (e.g., perpetual vs.
specified duration, degree of
restriction on various
activities, ??)
Restoration or protection
actions
Reclamation requirements
(mining, O&G)
o Including habitat &
species requirements
Uncertainty
(Information/Science Need)
 Effectiveness of landowner education /
outreach on increasing “wildlife friendly”
land management
o Including “small homesteads”
associated with suburbanization / exurbanization
 Species habitat needs (tolerances)
 How habitat characteristics affect the
ability of that habitat to support species of
management interest
o Amount, patch size (relationship
between the size of a patch and
species abundance/density)
o Connectivity
o Fragmentation
 How future climate will change habitat
characteristics
 Conversion “risk” under different land-use
policies and different climates
o Crop prices
o Ag productivity of lands as a function
of soil conditions
o Ag productivity of lands under future
climate conditions
 Acceptability of easement requirements to
private landowners
 Effectiveness of easement requirements at
maintaining the ecological services
provided
Outcome(s) of interest1


Maximize species
abundance


Minimize invasives
Maximize species
abundance (of
native plants)
Maximize species
abundance for
species of
management
interest (maximize





Invasive species
management
Land management practices



Species needs at “local” level (e.g., habitat
requirements)
Species needs at landscape scale (e.g., how
much development or fragmentation
affects overall species health or abundance)
Current and predicted
cumulative/aggregate impact of
stressors/land use changes on habitats and
landscape
Species response to specific land
mgmt/restoration actions
Effectiveness of different invasive
management approaches
Impact of climate factors on
location/likelihood/speed of invasions
Impact of alternative land uses on
likelihood/speed of invasions

Maximize species
abundance

Maximize species
abundance
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem features
Maximize
biodiversity
Minimize
conservation costs






Maximize species
abundance
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem features
p. 16 of 22
Relevant decision(s)


Restoration or protection
actions (for aquatic
communities in the Plains
region)
Water use (policy,
regulations)
Uncertainty
(Information/Science Need)





Species protection / species
recovery planning
o Including species
translocations





Design of monitoring
programs for land mgnt /
restoration / protection
projects
 Wind-power related
decisions
o Wind development siting
o Siting of individual wind
turbines
o Defining wind-turbine
related restrictions in
conservation easements
or in managed lands






O&G development &
Transmission related
decisions
o Siting
o Details of development
Hydrological systems and aquatic
communities in the Plains regions
o Current and projected effects under
changing climate
o Impacts of stock ponds/ag water on
hydrologic systems
Effectiveness of specific mgmt/restoration
actions at ensuring that aquatic habitats
meet species needs
Water used
Effect on groundwater levels of water use
(O&G, municipal, etc.)
Species needs / tolerances (for all elements
of the life cycle)
Location of suitable habitats for each life
cycle stage with a changing climate
Effectiveness of potential
protection/recovery actions at improving
individual fitness and species
survival/propagation
Changes in disease
frequency/distribution/intensity under
changing climate (e.g., sylvatic plague in
prairie dogs)
What are leading indicators for outcomes
of interest
Species response to land / habitat
manipulations
Impacts of wind turbines on grassland birds
/ waterfowl / deer / <any other species of
management interest> - include landscape
scale impacts
o Direct mortality
o Avoidance
o Diminished reproduction
o Migration
Locations of likely wind development
o As affected by future climate?
Proximity of populations of interest, /
migration corridors to the likely
development locations
Outcome(s) of interest1



Maximize species
abundance (for
species of
management
interest)

Maximize species
abundance
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem functions
Maximize species
abundance for
species of
management
interest
Maximize economic
benefits (of energy
production, for
energy producers,
the landowner, …)
Minimize adverse
impacts on
landscape
(ecological
function?)
Maximize species
abundance (for
species of
management
interest)





< Same needs above for O&G and coal
development, transmission lines, pipelines, etc>
wildlife output of
managed lands)
Maximize species
abundance
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem features
p. 17 of 22
Relevant decision(s)
o
o

Uncertainty
(Information/Science Need)

and well-pad operations
Defining energydevelopment related
restrictions in
conservation easements
or in managed lands
Defining
reclamation/monitoring
requirements for well
pads and coal mining
Flood management




Drought management (dam
operations?)
Outcome(s) of interest1


Flood predictions
o River/stream flow rates
o Closed basin water levels
o Groundwater connectivity and
recharge
o Watershed conditions
o Wetland storage capacity
Flood damage predictions
o Extent of damage to infrastructure (as
a function of flood size)
o Response costs
o Repair costs
o Impact of flood on agricultural
productivity
o Contaminant mobilization
Species response to more severe or
sustained droughts
Impact on hydrologic systems






Maximize ability of
key ecosystem
features to maintain
natural ecological
functions
Maximize economic
benefits (of energy
production, for
energy producers,
the landowner, …)
Maximize public
health and safety
Minimize economic
losses
Maximize ability of
key ecosystem
features to maintain
natural ecological
functions
Minimize loss of key
ecosystem functions
Maximize ability of
key ecosystem
features to maintain
natural ecological
functions
Maximize species
abundance
A topic that came up multiple times in the discussion of science needs was a need for improved,
better, more transparent sharing of information among partners and agencies, in terms of shared
protocols for key indicators, improved knowledge (and use) of existing data, models etc. to
support current decisions and decisions about additional needs, and a desire to eliminate
redundancies in information generation, through better communication and sharing among
agencies. In the structure being used here, this is not a fundamental “science need,” in that it is
not a key uncertainty that limits managers’ ability to make decisions. It is however, an important
issue related to the types of work and projects that are proposed and evaluated, and is discussed
further in Section 2.5.
p. 18 of 22
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of science needs shown
above. If there are other science needs that were not captured, please suggest them and indicate
what types of decision they are relevant for and what outcomes of interest they would be useful
for better predicting.
When an updated list of potential science needs is completed, it will be reorganized and sorted
by similar science need, rather than by decision type, to facilitate the evaluation of the
importance or priority of those needs.
2.4
Prioritizing science needs
As described in the summary report, workshop participants reviewed several approaches to
prioritizing information needs using value-of-information and conceptual modeling approaches.
It was judged that those approaches would take too much work to meet the near-term need to
establish priority areas for FY12. A somewhat simpler approach based on multi-attribute
evaluation was determined to be appropriate. This approach involves five detailed steps, only
the first of which was developed during the workshop:
1. Define a set of criteria that will describe or determine the priority of a science need
2. Develop metrics for each of those criteria that can be used to evaluate or “score” the
identified needs in terms of how well they meet the criteria
3. Develop a set of weights representing PPP LCC management judgments about the
relative importance of each criterion in establishing the overall importance or priority of a
science need
4. Score each identified science needs using the metrics defined, and
5. Calculate a priority based on the scores and value weights.
Workshop participants developed a first pass at a set of criteria for evaluating the overall
importance or priority of an identified science need. The first two criteria described below
address the core issue of the value of the information; the importance or management-relevance
of the information to specific land and resource management decisions and the number of those
different decisions it can potentially affect. The key insight from formal VOI methods is that the
value of information derives from the potential for that information to change actual
management decisions, and the more decisions the information can potentially change, the more
value it has overall.

Importance / criticality of the uncertainty to decision-making (decision-relevance). This
criterion connects value of the science need to the potential for improved information
(reduced uncertainty) to affect and clarify actual management decisions. Note that
“critical” information was also described as information without which conservation
managers would be significantly less confident in their ability to achieve their objectives.
p. 19 of 22
Information has the possibility of affecting a number of different decisions and decision
types, so one challenge with applying this importance criterion is assessing the
importance of the information simultaneously across a lot of different decisions. The
assessor will have to consider the aggregate importance of the information across the
range of impacted decisions.

The breadth or range of decisions the information could support. This criterion measures
the number of different decisions and decision types potentially impacted. This breadth
measure is intended to capture many elements of breadth; information that affects
multiple decisions made across a wide geographic area, information that affects multiple
decisions made about a wide range of taxa, information that affects decisions made by
multiple partners, etc. It may prove difficult to define performance metrics that capture
all of those elements and/or for assessors to incorporate those various elements of breadth
in a single evaluation; if so, sub-criteria can be developed to address those elements
separately.

Urgency / timing of information needs relative to decision needs. Addresses the
possibility that information collection may be required now, to support decisions
relatively far in the future.

Opportunity for information collection & uncertainty reduction exists now that will not
exist later.

Is not currently be addressed by anyone else. Part of the mission of the PPP LCC is to fill
important information gaps that are not already being addressed.
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of proposed criteria for
establishing the priority of identified science needs. Think about whether there could be a
science need meets all of these criteria but that you consider to be of relatively low priority; or
one that you think should be of high priority but that would perform poorly against these criteria.
If those occur to you, it may indicate that we are missing something important and your thoughts
on why something should be of high or low priority, if not captured by this list, would help
identify additional criteria.
.
2.5
Generating and evaluating project opportunities and proposals
As mentioned above, there are multiple options under consideration for how best to generate
projects and project funding opportunities to address the prioritized science needs. Regardless of
how such opportunities are generated, it will likely be necessary for the Technical Committee to
evaluate the resulting proposed projects, if there are more project opportunities than there are
resources available to fund work.
Implementing a formal project evaluation approach would involve the same five steps described
above for prioritizing science needs; the most important difference being the evaluation criteria
p. 20 of 22
and metrics that would be used for proposal or project evaluation. Workshop participants
developed a preliminary list of criteria that could be used to evaluate, compare and, if desired,
rank project proposals.








Addresses a priority science need identified <in Step 2>. This could be considered a
screening criterion, under the assumption is that the importance of the underlying topics
or items to be researched has already been determined by the science needs prioritization,
and any project addressing a listed priority science need would, by definition, be
addressing an issue of interest.
Number / importance of additional science needs addressed and decisions supported.
Additional benefit may come from projects or proposals that address multiple science
needs and multiple types of decisions (e.g., that can be used to inform future policies)
Scientific rigor and quality of research proposal and team
How much will a successful project reduce the underlying uncertainty? The criteria
addresses the distinction between the importance of the need and the value of the project.
The first two criteria establish that the uncertainties being addressed by the project are
important; this criterion asks how well the proposed work addresses those important
uncertainties.
Scalability of project. Projects are often proposed for a particular area, taxa, etc. Such
projects will be more useful if their results can scaled up to a broader scope and applied
across a larger portion of the PPP LCC
Timing of project results
Ability to leverage existing projects and work being done by others / scaling up to the
landscape level
Costs of the proposed work (current year and full costs)
During discussions of potential portfolio-level or “balancing” criteria (describe below), several
thing that would be desirable in a project or a portfolio were raised that the participants thought
could or should be handled in the project evaluation step, but it was not clear exactly how. For
example, there was considerable interesting in having the opportunity to consider and fund not
only traditional biology- and field- based studies, but also to consider less traditional work, such
as physical sciences, economics studies, and studies related to “human dimensions,” both in
terms of better understanding how private landowners perceive conservation efforts and what
motivates people to participate in such efforts, and more generally in terms of education and
outreach on landscape-level conservation.
p. 21 of 22
The potential benefits from work that focuses on increasing collaboration, consolidating
information and data already collected by different groups into a common and easily accessible
format were also discussed. So far, it has been difficult for the PPP LCC to generate these sorts
of innovative proposals, and when they do arrive, it has been difficult for the Technical
Committee to judge their merits. Participants expressed a strong desire to increase both the
number of innovative ideas that are brought forth and their ability to evaluate those proposals.
Additional work remains to be done to figure out how to accomplish this goal.
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of proposed criteria for
evaluating and comparing projects, adding or subtracting criteria as you feel is appropriate.
2.6
Developing a portfolio of science projects
Request for review and input: Please review and comment on the list of proposed portfoliolevel criteria listed on p. 4
p. 22 of 22