Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
- inputs_no slides Date
Host
June 29, 2015
Greg Wathen
Participants
Shauna Marquardt
jeff powell
JJ Apodaca
Dusty Pate
Tim Mullet
Mike Shelton
Craig Rudolph
Jeff Duguay
Cara Joos
Dan Magoulick
David Bowles
Julie Whitbeck
Jeff Fore
John Tirpak
Anne Mini
Keri Landry
Doug Novinger
Meg Goecker
Hardin Waddle
Esther Stroh
Tony Brady
Cynthia
Jason Singhurst
Tim Churchill
Hal Schramm
Mark Woodrey
TALKING POINTS/PRIMARY THEMES
1. Many positive comments regarding the overall process proposed here. Folks liked the logical
flow, combination of "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches, and the incorporation of
existing efforts & data.
2. Caveats expressed about the proposed process included concerns about the aggressive
timeline (need to prioritize quality over speed), the clarity of end products (need to focus on
useful products over process), the make-up of the team (need broader input earlier), the
alignment with existing efforts (other LCCs, agencies, NGOs, etc.), the availability of data
(especially aquatic), the need for rigorous (e.g. multi-model) & peer-reviewed science, and
the current lack of a clear communication plan/strategy (especially relative to uncertainty &
error).
3. The Bottom-up assessment (compilation of existing conservation priorities/investments) &
its side benefits (partnership building & leveraging) are widely seen as very valuable. Team
members provided >40 plans or partnerships to consider for inclusion in the Priorities &
Investments Database.
4. The Top-down assessment (data-driven assessment of the next “best place” for collaborative
action) is clearer to folks after walking through the Ozark Highlands example. There was
support for this Rule Set-based approach to ranking catchments (i.e. small watersheds).
However, many caveats were expressed relative to the appropriateness of catchments as a
planning unit for some habitat systems, availability of data, ability to transfer the approach
from terrestrial to aquatic systems, and reliance on a few species to accurately represent
community & ecosystem dynamics. Team members provided guidance on adapting the
Ozark Highlands Rule Set for use across the GCPO LCC. The Team approved using the
presence of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGN) or other priority species (+),
presence of protected land (+), and risk of urbanization (+/- depending) as ranking criteria. A
super-majority (or more) of the Team also supported using catchments as the basic
planning/assessment unit, having consistent criteria across habitat systems & subgeographies, and weighting criteria un-equally (i.e. some will be more important than
others).
ACTION ITEMS
1. Bottom-up Approach
a. Todd – Pass the >40 identified plans to the GCPO’s Research Technician, Taylor
Hannah, for inclusion in the Partner Priorities & Investments Database (DONE). We
will contact the team for more information if we have difficulty tracking down
information for any of these.
b. ASMT Members – Please continue to provide plans as you encounter them.
2. Top-down Approach
a. Todd – Compile a draft list of priority habitats & species from the Investments
Database for comparison/crosswalk with the Integrated Science Agenda
b. Todd – Compile draft criteria & definitions for ASMT review
c. Todd –Identify potential data sets to spatially depict criteria for ASMT review
3. Next Steps
a. Todd – Invite SWAP Coordinators to the next round of ASMT meetings
b. Todd – Solicit nominations for additional experts from Steering Committee members
c. ASMT Members – Please fill out the Doodle Poll for the next meeting by COB Friday
7/31/15.
d. ASMT Members – Please send nominations for additional experts (especially State &
NGO) to include in this process (regardless of resource focus or sub-geography) by
COB Friday 7/31/15.
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
2(10)
Current Representation of GCPOLCC Adaptation Science Management Team - DRAFT - 6-30-15
Fish
East Gulf Coastal Plain/
South Atlantic-Gulf,
Tennessee
Ozark Highlands/Missouri,
Ohio, Upper Mississippi
Herps
Tim Churchill Keri Landry
(TWRA)
(SEPARK-LNHP)
Birds
Mammals
Doug
Novinger
(MDC)
Mississippi Alluvial Valley/ Hal Schramm
Lower Mississippi
(USGS-MSU)
Bill Sutton
(SEPARC-UTK)
Cara Joos
(CHJV)
Hardin Waddle
(USGS-NWRC)
Randy Wilson
(USFWS)
West Gulf Coastal Plain/
Arkansas-Red-White, TXGulf
Gulf Coast/TX-Gulf
Craig Rudolph
(USFS)
Anne Mini
(LMVJV)
JJ Apodaca
(SEPARC-WWC)
Mark Woodrey Jeff Duguay
(MSU)
(LDWF)
Organizational Role
Federal
State
NGO/Private
Partnership
Functional Role
Researcher
Manager
About 50-50
Status
Confirmed
Invited
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
Aq Inverts
Plants
Barry Grand
Darren Miller
Jeff Powell
(USGS-Auburn) (Weyerhaeuser) (USFWS)
Water
Scott Gain
(USGS)
Shauna
Marquardt
(USFWS)
Joe Clark (UTK)
David
Bowles
(NPS)
Wendell
Haag (USFS)
Esther Stroh
(USGSCEEC)
Sammy King
(USGS-LSU)
Dan Magoulick (USGS-UA)
Chris Comer
(SFA)
Tony Brady
(USFWS)
Jason
Singhurst
(TPWD)
Julie
Whitbeck
(NPS)
VACANT
Meg
Goecker
(SER LLC)
Ed Lambert
(USACE)
Mike Shelton
(ADCNR)
3(10)
1 Self-Introduction
Contents
Contents
1 Self-Introduction
1.1 Background & Vision Presentation (Presentation)
Presenter
Greg Wathen
2 LCD
2.1 LCD Intro (Presentation)
Presenter
Greg Wathen
Slide Number 1
· A great presentation! (#1)
2.2 Proposed Approach Overview (Discussion)
Number of participants: 26
Participant instructions:
Tell us what makes sense & what doesn't
All contributions are anonymous.
What DO you like about the proposed process?
· I like looking at ongoing efforts from "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches (#1)
· I like the iterative approach proposed re: revisiting what we have at various points (#2)
· I like using existing tools and adapting them to work for other taxa (#3)
- I have concerns that specific taxa will accurately represent community and ecosystem
dynamics such that we reach desired endpoints. (#23)
· Very inclusive across agencies and geographically focused. The approach lets us use existing
data layers. (#4)
· I really like making sure the "bottom-up assessment" first. Ongoing conservation efforts and
our partners shoudl be top priority (#5)
- I agree. Bottom-up suggest research, which is a must (#8)
· The process seems functional, but I am still having a hard time invisioning how we get to an
endpoint or product. Can an example be provided? (#9)
- I agree. Please give us an example of how we get to an endpoint or product. (#14)
- I'm still not sure how we are going to get the final product. (#21)
· I like that this appraoch takes advantage of on-going efforts (#11)
- The approach seems reasonable and I especially like the focus on modeling and structured
decision making. (#22)
· I also perfer the bottom-up assessment (#20)
· I like the partnership building aspects and taking advantage of ongoing work. Bottom-up
assessment approach a plus. (#24)
· I like the framework for the process and think it is well laid-out (#25)
· diversity of team and focus on existing/available information is a strength (#26)
· This seems like a good path forward to me. (#27)
· I like the proposed process and use of existing data and strengthening partnerships (#34)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
4(10)
2 LCD
2.2 Proposed Approach Overview (Discussion)
What other things do we need to consider?
· Are there any other groups (Nature Conservancy, etc.) who may be doing similar work/projects
(#6)
- yes, there are other, non-Federal directed groups that are doing similar things; we should
investigate (#16)
· It seems that we may be leaving folks out that could greatly contribute to this exercise. Some
organizations may be able to play a wider role while others may have datasets that are the
best available for certain habitats/taxa. (#13)
· If State's are going to be our primary partners (which I believe they should) we need to focus
on their respective State Wildlife Action pLans (#15)
- States are important but also private groups like farmers and paper companies (#32)
- Agreed - States are an important partner but only one of many - of course this LCC
touches many different states so overall representation by states is higher. SWAPs are
important considerations for certain. (#44)
· I would like to see more specifics related to the science (modeling and SDM). (#28)
· Is it possible to compile information (contact list) on those individuals or organizations who are
experts and/or working on particular conservation efforts? This may provide the broader
GCPO LCC a means of selecting groups and individuals for collaboration. (#29)
· Need to keep the end product in focus - what will the blueprint look like (#31)
· Not sure if NRCS staff are on this team or in the process, but they have the most direct linkage
to private landowners and could be an integral and effective partner in this process. (#36)
· It is important to consider multiple spatial and habitat modeling approaches. Not just one.
This could prove beneficial for assessing the effectiveness of modeling approaches for
particular objectives. (#37)
· I'd say to make sure that all relevant partner/organizations doing work are represented (similar
to comment #6) (#38)
· Build a strong plan for communicating and getting products to states as well as to journals.
Build on state wildlife action plans. Communicate to governmental decision-makers even at
local level and as was mentioned yesterday private landholders and agricultural community
(#41)
· Clear objectives obviously need to be clear and concise. However, clear and testable
hypotheses must be produced and tested with rigorous well-planned study designs, with
multiple collaborative input in order to meet objectives. (#42)
What DON'T you like about the proposed process?
· As always, overlaying/combining multiple sources of data for multiple species/parameters
taken at various spatial and temporal scales makes it difficult to assess overall accuracy/error.
(#7)
- Agreed, but we have to recognize there will be some error, and work with that error as
appropriate (#12)
· (but this is better than NOT attempting such broad analyses) (#10)
· I do not see a clear linkage between empirical data collection and the strategy framework...
current approach based on modeling and thus does not reflect the 'real world' (#17)
· True, but there has to be a starting point (#18)
· We are simply providing direction as representatives for our respective employers. Some of us
know a little about a lot of things our agencies/universities do, but are not privy to the
datasets and knowledge of others in our work groups. (#19)
· Recognize and communicate concerns about error and uncertainty to decision-makers. (#30)
- I totally agree. This is difficult but extremely important. (#35)
· Although you are considering other existing plans, etc., I'm still a little unclear on how that will
all meld together. (#33)
· The timeline seems rushed to me. I understand the urgency, but it seems more important to
take the time to do things well than to just get something done. (#39)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
5(10)
2 LCD
2.3 Bottom-up Approach (Brainstorm)
- I'm concerned as well if the timeline is feasible (#43)
· Try hard to avoid getting mired in process and maintain a focus on the products and making
quantifiable progress (#40)
2.3 Bottom-up Approach (Brainstorm)
Number of participants: 26
Participant instructions:
See the first comment in each folder
All contributions are anonymous.
GCPO-wide (1)
1. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS THAT SPAN >1
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
East Gulf Coastal Plain (8)
2. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE EGCP
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
8. Tennessee Heritage Conservaton Trust Act of 2005 Plan
9. Mississippi Coastal Plain Land Trust - conservation priority project... need to get specific
name but should be available on their website
10. Alabama Strategic Habitat Unit (SHU) Project
15. Black Belt Praire Initiative
18. ADCNR Wildlife Action Plan
26. TNC West TN Conservation Business Plan
38. LDWF-LNHP Wildlife Action Plan- recently compiled data to assess "hot spots" and provide
target conservation areas statewide
Gulf Coast (15)
3. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE GULF COAST
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
11. Alabama Strategic Habitat Unit (SHU) Project
14. MS Department of Marine Resources Beneficial Use Group (BUG) effort
19. ADCNR Wildlife Action Plan
22. Escambia Bay Water Quality Initiative
28. MDWFP Wildlife Action Plan
30. Basin plans throughout Alabama created by the Clean Water Partnerships
31. LDWF Wildlife Action Plan
33. NFWF Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund for all Gulf States
42. ADCNR State Lands wildlife management area plans and Forever Wild planning
44. MS Coastal Preserves Initiatives
45. Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation Vision
· Yes - this effort by the Land Trust Alliance should be included - some of the data layers can
be accessed through the CPA (Gulf Coast Prairie LCC) (#47)
46. Gulf Coast Vulnerability Assessment
48. Biologic Objectives Project effort
49. Gulf Coast JV plans
· plans - GCJV Initiative Team plans for MS and AL (#50)
Ozark Highlands (10)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
6(10)
2 LCD
2.4 Top-down Approach (Discussion)
4. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE OZARK
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
12. Old Lead Belt/Viburnum trend lead mining areas, and Tri-State Mining District Natural
Resource Damage Assessment priority areas
13. Heartland Inventory & Monitoring Network (NPS)-databases and monitoring plans
20. Ozark Regional Land Trust and Greenbelt Land Trust of Mid-Missouri
21. Ozark Hellbender Recovery Team (not sure about the status of this group)
23. Missouri Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP)
25. Missouri Dept of Conservation has COA's or something equivalent
34. MDC has a Comprehensive Conservation Strategy CCS under development. MDC Fisheries
also has Priority Watersheds.
36. AGFC wildlife action plans
41. MO has a new state Wetland Plan (MDC)
Mississippi Alluvial Valley (8)
5. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE MAV
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
7. West Tennessee Conservation Plan, Tennessee Heritage Conservation Trust Act Plan of 2005
17. Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee habitat restoration strategy and priorities
35. Forest-breeding Bird Decision Support Model
37. LDWF Louisiana Black Bear delisting plan
39. AR MAV/MS-LA Conservation Delivery Network priorities
40. Ducks Unlimited has a science/delivery strategy to define wetland areas (would inclued
forested wetland) for conservation (I will find out more about this)
43. LDWF-LNHP Wildlife Action Plan
West Gulf Coastal Plain (6)
6. ENTER CONSERVATION PLANS, INITIATIVES OR PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE WGCP
SUBGEOGRAPHY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVESTMENTS DATABASE.
INCLUDE RECENT, CURRENT OR IMMINENT PLANS/AREAS.
16. Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain Conservation Plan.
24. Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership (GCPEP), Longleaf Pine Alliance.
27. WGCPO Landbird Open Pine Plan
29. Pearl River habitat mapping being done by the Baton Rouge Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Office.
32. WGCPO Landbird Bottomland Hardwood Plan (in progress)
2.4 Top-down Approach (Discussion)
Number of participants: 13
Participant instructions:
Tell us what makes sense & what doesn't
All contributions are anonymous.
What DO you like about the Ozark process?
· Fairly clear approach; specfic and transparent (#1)
- agree (#6)
· Seems fairly straight forward (#4)
· Thanks for the example. Beginning to make sense. (#8)
· should be easy to replicate for other habitats or subregions as long as the same data is
available (#9)
- Hope so, but to my limited knowledge we are data poor for the Mississippi River aquatic
habitat (#14)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
7(10)
2 LCD
·
·
·
·
2.5 Rating: New Rating
- We are also data poor for Alabama. (#16)
- There is a reasonable dataset in TN. (#19)
Thnak you for explaining the process, I have a clear picture now. (#12)
Heritage databases can provide some useful information. But, like you said, they are not
scientifically designed studies. They may be a good starting place for some habitats/species.
(#18)
Sounds good in theory, what would be the boots on the ground actions that will follow? (#20)
Rulesets make sense and seems like assessment could be done in a reasonable timeframe for
other areas (data depending) (#23)
What other things do we need to consider?
· Approaches being used by other LCC's; are we learning from each other? (#3)
· would catchments be as valid a unit in grasslands (#5)
· Ozarks are fairly easy to define ecologically. This blurs for the GCPO-wide approach; it might be
too big of a "bite" to assess as one unit. (#10)
· especially for terrestrial systems; less so for streams (#11)
· It's great to describe habitats based upon the criteria described (which works well for
terrestrial speies) but its not clear to me how this is going to apply to aquatic species (#13)
- Agree with this. The habitat-type approach to aquatic systems will be problematic. (#17)
- Also agree. Some type of flow regime approach would perhaps make more sense here. (#21)
· What is the transferability of this approach to other GCPO LCC broad habitat categories (i.e.,
tidal marsh habitats are fundamentally two grass species prairies...) (#15)
- Agree thinking about some of the other subgeographies and priority habitats (#25)
· More than one spatial modeling approach may provide a better assessment of habitat
conditions and locations as well as considering priority areas. Ground truthing is always
important! (#22)
What DON'T you like about the Ozark process?
· Not sure we have equivalent data to use in a GCPO-wide asessment (#2)
· We need a GCPO LCC-wide data sharing network as well as a very good connection with
nationwide databases and spatial data providers. (#24)
· It was mentioned in the things to consider section, but the focus here is strictly terrestrial.
That seems problematic not just for GCPO, but for the state wildlife plans as well. (#26)
· We can't pigeon hole ourselves into one modeling approach. This needs to be published and
peer reviewed. (#27)
2.5 Rating: New Rating
2.5.1.T0 New Rating (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Mean
15 persons have submitted their ratings.
The Host does not participate in the Rating.
Participant instructions of Rating 2.5.1
Answer each question to the best of your ability based on your understanding of the presentation.
Only need to explain your answer if you want to.
Label for scale value
0 = No 1 = Yes
New Rating (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Mean
Criterion "Importance". 7 items.
Scale: 0-1. Abstentions not permitted. List of items randomized.
Nr
Item
1 Do you think presence of SGN or other priority
species should be included as a criterion for
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
0
0
1
15
Ø
1.00
SD
0.00
n
15
8(10)
2 LCD
2.5.1.T0 New Rating (rating by numeric scale)
sorted by Mean
New Rating (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Mean
Criterion "Importance". 7 items.
Scale: 0-1. Abstentions not permitted. List of items randomized.
Nr
2
3
4
5
6
7
Item
prioritizing areas for collaborative conservation?
Do you think some criteria are potentially more
important than others for prioritizing areas for
collaborative conservation (should we consider
weighting them differently)?
Are you comfortable with using National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) catchments (smallest
waterhseds in the database) as the basic planning
unit for assessing landscapes?
Do you agree that we need to have a consistent
rule set (i.e. criteria) for across habitat systems
and subgeographies?
Do you think public lands need to be included as a
criteria for prioritizing areas for collaborative
conservation (e.g. anchors or core sites to build
from)?
Do you think urbanization risk (potential to be
urbanized in the future) should be included as a
criteria for prioritizing areas for collaborative
conservation?
Should we develop separate prioritization
processes for Conservation
(protection/maintenance) and Restoration
opportunities? That is are the criteria different
and would it be useful to produce different maps?
0
1
Ø
SD
n
0
15
1.00
0.00
15
1
14
0.93
0.25
15
1
14
0.93
0.25
15
2
13
0.87
0.34
15
3
12
0.80
0.40
15
4
11
0.73
0.44
15
Do you think presence of SGN or other priority species should be included as a criteria for
prioritizing areas for collaborative conservation?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- Not sure (#1)
- Not sure what SGN stands for... (#2)
Do you think some criteria are potentially more important than others for prioritizing areas for
collaborative conservation (should we consider weighting them differently)?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- e.g., differences in water quality parameters across subgeos (#1)
- Public lands should have priority because that is where most partners are working. (#2)
- Yes, most likely (#3)
- at least identify the areas for consideration (#4)
Are you comfortable with using National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) catchments (smallest
waterhseds in the database) as the basic planning unit for assessing landscapes?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- Good scale for Ozarks; possibly too small for GCPO-wide? (#1)
- Yes (#2)
- Yes, but we need to have a different set of criteria for terrestrial vs aquatic habitats. (#3)
- They are kind of small, but if the computers can handle it, then it's fine. (#4)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
9(10)
2 LCD
2.5.1.T0 New Rating (rating by numeric scale)
sorted by Mean
- so long as issues of scale are addressed (process operating at different scale, emergent
properties) (#5)
Do you agree that we need to have a consistent rule set (i.e. criteria) for across habitat systems
and subgeographies?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- Yes, because it builds consistency (#1)
- I said yes, but I really think it depends on the specific objectives. (#2)
Do you think public lands need to be included as a criteria for prioritizing areas for
collaborative conservation (e.g. anchors or core sites to build from)?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- Yes but we REALLY need to involve private land(owners) (#1)
- since it is a realistic place for action to actually happen, maybe use proximety to public land
as private lands adjacent to public may be more realistic as well (#2)
- no; privatelands from conservation organizations such as TNC, LAD should also be included if
they are willing. (#3)
- They can serve as cores or used to connect corridors. (#4)
Scale value 0 "Importance"
- I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the design. Private land is
equally as important, however, should private land near public land be higher priority for
conservation rather than isolated private land? What is the overall strategy? (#5)
Do you think urbanization risk (potential to be urbanized in the future) should be included as a
criteria for prioritizing areas for collaborative conservation?
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- Definitely yes. Urbanization is the cause of many of our problems. (#1)
- Potential urbanization can affect 2 ways; Conserve before it becomes urbanized OR give
areas a low ranking b/c increased urbanization usually means more exotics, etc. (#2)
- Especially in the context of connectivity.Having a model that predicts urbanization could
help prevent unintended isolation of conservation areas, or could be used to identify areas
needed to maintain connectivity after urbanization. (#4)
Scale value 0 "Importance"
- I said no because I think that it depends on the area and how it would be used. Would you
prioritize away from urban areas or would you prioritize areas to protect from urban
encroachment? (#3)
Should we develop separate prioritization processes for Conservation
(protection/maintenance) and Restoration opportunities? That is are the criteria different and
would it be useful to produce different maps?
Scale value 0 "Importance"
- I dunno. this introduces unnecessary complexity/opportunity for hair-splitting. (#1)
- No because they go hand-in-hand (#3)
- I think we should figure out where the conservation needs totake place, then figure out how
to pay for it and do it. (#6)
Scale value 1 "Importance"
- I see these as quite different activities, especially with regard to controversial management
actions like fire etc (#2)
- Yes, I see these as potentially very different objectives. (#4)
- I could see protection/maintenance as somewhat different from restoration. They are
complimentary (and not necessarily mutually exclusive) but separate maps may benefit
partners (#5)
- restoration could be a different question (#7)
Report ASMT_LCD#1_0615
10(10)