Stakeholder Advisory Committee November 29, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Meeting Summary
Welcome, introductions, general updates Gustavo Bisbal, NW CSC Director Donna Silverberg, Facilitator, DS Consulting Gus and Donna welcomed the group to the Northwest Climate Science Center’s (NW CSC) Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting, noting that the purpose of the meeting was to introduce the new academic host and consortium capacity, and to adopt the 2018-2023 Science Agenda. Gus briefly reviewed the year at NW CSC:
• From May to September there was a Department of the Interior (DOI) moratorium that prevented the SAC from meeting in person.
• The annual SAC meeting was postponed in anticipation of an unrealized government shutdown. • The previous NW CSC and academic “host agreement” came to an end, and a new agreement has
begun between the NW CSC and the University of Washington. • The President’s Budget (PBUD) for FY18 requested a substantial decrease in the national CSC
network’s budget, a cut in the number of centers nationally, and a name change from Climate Science Center to Climate Adaptation Center. The House upheld the budget cut, however, decided to retain all eight centers; the Senate rejected the PBUD entirely, reestablishing funding, retaining centers, and preserving the name.
• NW CSC received the 2017 annual budget with only three weeks to coordinate the research; however, Gus was able to get the money awarded for research for the coming year.
o There was a requirement that the DOI review any awards over $100,000. Because of transition limitations, NW CSC avoided giving awards over $100,000. It is expected that this cap will continue through FY18.
• NW CSC also saw staff changes: Nicole DeCrappeo and Betsy Glenn moved on to other positions and Chas Jones joined the NW CSC team as the Tribal Liaison. Depending on funding for FY18, there likely will be more people joining the team in the near future.
Gus summarized that it has been and continues to be a difficult and confusing time for the CSC network. At this point, they are waiting to see what happens with the FY18 budget and potential government shut-down. He noted that in the event of an extended continuing resolution, they will not be able to start new projects; instead, monies will have to go to existing projects. Introducing the new NW CSC Host and academic consortium Amy Snover, Director, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington For presentation slides, see file “2. Snover_0900 university consortium” on the ESAC meeting webpage. .
Amy reflected that, in the Northwest, there is a rich history of engagement from a diverse group of people within climate sciences. The University of Washington and NW CSC Academic Consortium is eager to build on this strong regional foundation. Amy noted that the Academic Consortium is made up of a team of
unique experts from US Geological Services (USGS) and universities throughout the region, including University of Washington, Washington State University, Western Washington University, University of Montana, and Boise State University. Pending an approved budget extension past December 31st, 2017, the Consortium is expected to grow even more, likely to include universities in Oregon. Amy noted that one of the strengths of the Consortium is that it is a community of practice. As such, it brings with it a number of meaningful relationships upon which the Consortium hopes to build and leverage. She provided insights on how the Consortium plans to focus their efforts:
• Co-develop strategic priorities to ensure University-USGS alignment; • Execute research to assess climate risks, inform efforts to evaluate response options, and implement
change in complex systems; and • Assess and interpret existing knowledge for today’s decisions.
She noted that there is a cycle to ‘actionable science’: catalyze awareness, assess risk, evaluate options, implement change, then monitor and evaluate. Up to this point, much of the NW CSC’s work has focused on catalyzing awareness and assessing risks. The consortium would like to move the region further down the path towards exploring options and implementing change. Specifically, they plan to do this by:
1. Funding research that supports the Science Agenda and supports changing priorities. 2. Skills-building for managers and scientists, including workshops/webinars aimed at building
capacity for people around the region to develop projects for actionable science and decision making. This effort will focus on skills to help broaden scientific participation in the CSC and provide social science skill development.
3. Student training and development, specifically for graduate student, tribal programs, and internships for underrepresented undergraduates (via the Doris Duke Foundation).
a. Currently, the Consortium is working with eight students and would like to bring on more as funding allows. Amy noted their vision is to have the fellows/associates program develop an online training in order to allow for broader participation.
4. Running a summer training program, Bootcamp 2.0, for graduate students and professionals. This would be a 2-3 day deep dive on a particular issue.
5. Leading strategic communications to support mutual learning in and out of the network and across the region.
Amy noted that, from her perspective, the Consortium has a responsibility to reach out across the spectrum, to leaders and innovators as well as to those just entering the community of practice. They plan to help the innovators’/leaders’ work expand beyond them in order to enhance the impact and make their work transferrable, while also increasing access to resources, learning, and contributions to the body of work. Amy asked the SAC to provide input to her on how the Consortium could be an effective partner to them and their group in order to help move this work forward. SAC members were encouraged to follow-up with Amy to provide their input. Additionally, it was suggested that the rest of the Consortium attend a face-to-face SAC meeting in the future to encourage connections and learning.
→ ACTION: Provide input to Amy regarding how the Consortium can help move this work forward.
→ Also, consider inviting Consortium members to a future face to face SAC meeting. In closing, Amy noted that the NW CSC has been evaluating previously funded work to determine the effectiveness of that work and to further inform the Science Agenda. Moving forward, they would like to develop an evaluation framework that allows for ongoing evaluation and real-time evaluation, instead of only retrospective evaluation. They are also looking into ways to be more effective communicating the work and outcomes to others outside of the community of practice.
3
Upcoming NW CSC website features Heidi Roop, NW CSC Communications Manager For presentation slides, see file “3. Roop_0950 Comms” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Heidi updated the SAC on the current communications activities at the NW CSC: • Ongoing knowledge-transfer from the previous consortium to the current, which has resulted in a lot
of learning from the previous Communications Manager and others. • Building relationships with staff at USGS/CSC Headquarters, specifically between communications
and program staff. • Providing weekly highlights and reporting to USGS regarding ongoing research, new FY17 projects,
etc. This is aimed at making sure USGS is aware of the work and status of what we are doing. They then take these reports back to D.C.
• Rebuilding and designing the website. This is a great opportunity for the SAC to work together to identify how the various communication tools we use can be most effective.
• Establishing access to a new web-based marketing platform which allows for analytics on use and content.
• Working to hire a part-time Communications Manager; after receiving 98 applications they are now in the interview process.
In regards to the website overhaul, Heidi noted that step one was to look at use of the current site to see what information can be gained to improve the new site. For instance, who is using the site? What content are they accessing? And how long do they stay on the page? She noted that there are visitors from all 50 states and nearly 9,000 unique users annually who, on average, spend two minutes on the site. Thus for the redesign, they will focus on making the site more efficient and streamlined to allow visitors to get at the information they are looking for (and what the NW CSC wants to highlight), without having to click through multiple pages to find it. Additionally, the redesign will focus on telling the story of the NW CSC – who we are and what we are doing – with a focus on the CSC people, its research, training, news and events, and contact for more information. A big focus of Heidi’s is to strategically enhance communications to communicate the actionable science process in a way that shares the whole story of the work that the CSC is doing. She noted that the communications efforts are looking into innovative tools or platforms that NW CSC can use to advance the mission and work around the region. Moving forward, the communications will focus on:
• Strategic Communications Planning; • Website build-out; • Establishing evaluation targets & metrics; • Maintaining social media presence; • Working closely with NCCWSC to amplify our efforts; and, • Collaborating with UW’s Climate Impact Group (CIG) to develop communications trainings.
Heidi provided a survey to the group to get more information about what is helpful or missing in current communications. The group was encouraged to fill out the survey and provide their input to Heidi.
→ ACTION: Provide input to Heidi regarding communications via the communications survey. The group also provided immediate input on the following communications issues:
Question: Do you use the website? • Yes, nearly everyone in the room affirmed that they use the website.
Question: What do you use the website for? • To access research, products, data, and publications.
o Suggestion: It would be nice to have a bibliography of products and publications; or include links to all of the publications.
• To get information on specific projects in order to keep up-to-date on the regions’ work, what has been funded, etc.
o Generally, the project descriptions and data is meeting the SAC’s needs, however, there were mixed reactions to the being redirected to ScienceBase.
o Suggestion: It would be helpful to be able to access project results and final write-ups. o Suggestion: A synthesis or analysis of the projects would be helpful.
• To get background information: Tribal strategy, transition plan, Science Agenda, etc. • To link to the site from external websites in order to provide access to the information without
duplicating materials. • To look for products to collaborate on. • For the list of SAC members, mainly to provide others with more information on who the SAC is.
Question: What could Communications do to help enhance partnerships? • Monthly session (face-to-face or calls) with tribes to share out news and information.
o The University of Oregon currently does these calls and NW CSC participates in them. NW CSC is also working on developing a monthly tribal-focused webinar.
• Create a framework that allows for a simplified approach to regular stakeholder engagement – use technology that allows for conversations with stakeholders, not just one way communication.
o This might support opportunities to leverage the group’s products and outcomes so that they do not just get lost as time goes by.
• Strategize on how to coordinate everyone’s communication efforts in order to utilize what others are doing and avoid duplicating efforts.
• Clarify who the audience is and what the desired message is to allow for a strategic approach to communications.
o Identify the hierarchy of audiences – Heidi agreed and noted that this is part of the current effort; for example, this conversation today is aimed at getting information from the SAC, which is one of the audiences.
o Tailor the product and outcomes to the audience; for instance, develop materials specifically for lobbying efforts in D.C.
• Utilize partner resources; for example, use the national CSC’s communications center to communicate out to the broader public.
There was interest in exploring how to connect the communications work to the evaluation work that Amy spoke to earlier. Amy and Heidi are working to clarify ways to do this and test it out. This will be an ongoing effort that evolves over the next five years, and Amy and Heidi will bring their efforts back to the SAC for ideas as it evolves. Climate and NW fisheries Michelle McClure, NOAA Fisheries For presentation slides, see file “4. McClure_1045 NMFS Climate” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Michelle presented her teams’ work on a species-level and salmonid-specific climate vulnerability analyses. She noted that they have identified three basic components to climate vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. For the purposes of their analysis, they only implicitly looked at adaptive capacity, because it is very difficult to measure. However, the group used both quantitative and qualitative approaches to look at the vulnerability of 82 different species with the goal of assessing their vulnerability to a changing climate, and to clarify the reasons for vulnerability.
This was an expert-based modeling effort that resulted in a list of ranked species signaling overall vulnerability of each species. One thing the scientists considered was their ‘certainty of the vulnerability factor’. They factored in an “uncertainty value” depending on the level of certainty. For instance, there is a high level of certainty that oceans will become more acidic with climate change; however, food web impacts are less certain, thus the uncertainty value was weighted higher. The study did not look at the vulnerability of the species that the analyzed species consume. Overwhelmingly, experts thought that effects of climate change would have neutral to negative impacts on salmonid species vulnerability. They found that highly mobile species were less vulnerable generally and anadromous fish had low predictions of being able to change their distribution to avoid impact. The experts were able to identify “hot spots” for vulnerability, which are priority areas for management actions that could mitigate impacts. Michelle noted that they are developing two manuscripts from this work, as well as species narratives and vulnerability scores. Managers can utilize the information to help prioritize actions and inform decisions. Michelle has already presented findings to some managers; however, she recognized that it is difficult to get this information out to everyone who might benefit from using it in decision-making, in part because many decision-making processes are not well equipped to incorporate this type of tool (for instance, harvest management). She noted that one of the most useful ways for managers to use this tool is to look at the highest exposure factors: for example, sea level rise poses a high risk to certain species, thus, managers need to consider this when thinking about riprapping projects in areas with at-risk populations. In response to a SAC member question, Michelle noted that NMFS has not sufficiently explored opportunities to engage tribal knowledge in the vulnerability analysis, however, would be interested in doing so in the future. SAC members noted that there is a rich history of tribal knowledge and interest, both from coastal and interior tribes, which could benefit the work.
→ ACTION: Gus will provide Eliza, Laura, and David’s contact information to Michelle so that they can connect regarding tribal knowledge.
Another effort that NMFS is working to develop is a national climate science strategy that outlines a suite of actions to address the identified gaps in climate science. Efforts range from continuing the current integrated ecosystem assessment to building a coordinated climate program, and ensuring that information is well-disseminated. NMFS is trying to think proactively and move toward science and action that will help in this changing world. Michelle sees the big opportunities for this plan are in thinking hard about what questions need to be answered and tailoring the science to respond to those questions, and then working with managers to incorporate this kind of information into robust management, even when there are high levels of uncertainty. Michelle noted that, although they have not yet begun to reach out to provide the outcomes of their work, they will do so after the manuscripts are complete. At that point, it may be worth looking into opportunities for regional data collectives to expand the work. She noted that they have many data, dependent and independent of the NMFS work, all of which are currently stored and accessible on the NMFS’ website. NW CSC syntheses projects in Fiscal Year 2017 Gustavo Bisbal, NW CSC Director Jherime Kellermann, Oregon Institute of Technology For presentation slides, see file “5. Gus_1115 FY17 projects” and “6. Kellermann_1115 Phenology” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Gus reviewed the six science synthesis projects for FY17. He noted that these projects focus on the tribal, federal, and state stakeholder priorities, are consistent with both the old and new Science Agendas, as well as
the Guiding Principles, and are relatively short in duration (products should be available between January and March 2018). The six FY17 projects include:
1. Changing Wildfire, Changing Forests: A Synthesis on the Effects of Climate Change on Fire Regimes and Vegetation in the Pacific Northwest – A synthesis project on wildfire regimes, patterns on forest vegetation, etc. Products include a state of the knowledge report, and a four-page easily digestible informative document. This work will be conducted by the University of Washington and US Forest Service.
2. Spoilt for Choice: a Review of Downscaled Climate Datasets for the Pacific Northwest – A down-scaled modelling effort that looks at a collective set of models to clarify which models are helpful for what. This work will be conducted by Oregon State University.
3. Climate Change Impacts on Invasive Species in the Northwest: A Synthesis and Path Forward – Looking at terrestrial and aquatic invasive species status and impact. This work will be conducted by the USGS and Oregon Wildlife Institute.
4. Extremes to Ex-Streams: Ecological Drought Adaptation Synthesis Project – Exploring to what extent there is science to support management actions around climate adaptation implemented due to ecological drought. This work will be conducted by EcoAdapt.
5. Phenology and Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest: Status and Resources for Management and Decision Making – Looking at the lifecycle timing, changes, and interactions for plants and animals. This work will be conducted by the Oregon Institute for Technology.
6. Will Climate Warming Affect Locations or Timing of Availability of Food Sources from Native Northwestern Shrubs? – Looking at flowering and fruiting of plants of particular interest to tribes (First Foods). This is a bit more intensive than the other studies and will last two years. Products include an online tool to overlay climate factors impact on foods. This work will be conducted by University of Idaho, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Cedar River Watershed, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, CBI, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and USFS.
In regards to the last study noted, there was inquiry as to how the study will manage sensitive tribal information? Gus noted that, similar to every NW CSC project, there would be a detailed data management plan. Additionally, the USGS has developed guidelines to address the sensitivity of tribal information and they have a Data Manager Steward to help navigate this.
Gus introduced Jherime Kellermann who provided more detail on his project, Phenology and Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest: Status and Resources for Management and Decision Making. Jherime explained that phenology is the timing of reoccurring single lifecycle events; it is fundamental to species biology and ecology, an interaction of genetic and environmental controls, and is evolutionarily adapted to local-regional conditions. However, climate change is altering conditions faster than species can evolve. He pointed to the climate change trends, such as higher annual temperatures, declining snowpack and reduced snow-water-equivalent, and variable precipitation; noting that these changes have significant impacts on natural systems and species phenology. The capacity of a species to adapt to climate change depends on the flexibility of their phenology and how they interact with other species’ phenology. Impacts to changes in phenology can impact processes such as forest health, fisheries migration timing, wildfire, plant invasions and encroachment, changes in wildlife populations (migration, diseases, predator-prey/herbivore dynamics), and even recreational use. In order to understand phenology and impacts from climate change there needs to be a large scale monitoring effort; so large that many researchers are turning to citizen-scientists to provide expansive monitoring. These citizen-scientist monitoring programs vary in geographic and ecological scope, complexity, methods and more; however, they produce a plethora of information across many different landscapes. Quality control varies across the programs: some programs have so much data that it overcomes quality control, some have
7
strict training and volunteer programs to ensure a regular and consistent connection to the program, while others allow data to be narrowly selected to filter out noise. Jherime introduced the group to a few monitoring programs and explained that his 2017 synthesis will provide:
• A summary of the relevant literature; • A guide to the currently available monitoring programs, and, • A summary of the USA-National Phenology Network database for the Northwest.
Jherime noted that there is still a lot of room for these programs to grow and expand. In the meantime, they are evolving and utilizing many different data sources, thus providing a rich body of information that can be helpful for climate science. Our new graduate fellows Meade Krosby, Deputy University Director, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington NW CSC 2017 Graduate Fellow(s) For presentation slides, see file “7. Krosby_1200 Fellows”, “8. Dittbrenner_Watershed scale beaver benefits”, and “9. Cook_1230 Frogs” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Meade explained that the goal of the NW CSC Graduate Fellowship program is to support research aligned with the NW CSC’s Science Agenda and to build capacity for actionable science among early career scientists. The first cohort of 2018 Graduate Fellows includes eight graduate students from the five consortium universities and includes partnerships with state, federal and tribal governments (all fellows must have a practitioner partner).
Building capacity for actionable science for the fellows will include online skills building modules that explore the theory and practice of linking science to action, science communication, social science and collaborative research methods, and best practices for tribal engagement.
Meade introduced the fellows and welcomed Ben Dittbrenner and Kimberly Cook to present their work.
Ben presented on the Sky Beaver Project, noting that historically, beaver spanned throughout the region and occupied nearly all flat and slow streams that had woody vegetation. However, in the early 1900’s they were extirpated throughout most of their range. He explained that beavers are ecosystem engineers, creating dams, holding back and slowing down water, creating different habitats, and building up sediments in incised channels. Thus far, Ben’s work has sought to:
• Characterize beaver population levels in the Snohomish Basin. • Relocate problem animals into the basin – taking nuisance beavers from lowland areas (especially
where landowners are planning to trap and kill), create beaver families and release them into a more suitable habitat. There has been a focus on relocating the beaver onto US Forest Service lands to avoid landowner concerns around increased flooding.
• Look at what the beavers are doing - monitor sites above, in and below the system. Looked at how much water is being held in the system, water flow changes, and what types of animals are attracted to the beaver-influenced changes.
Ben found that beavers can create systems of dams that lead to the development of wetland complexes. Also, they can impact water temperature changes, as water is pushed into the hyporheic zone and cooled substantially. Additionally, they saw significant vegetation changes in the narrow valley forested systems that they worked in, mainly in the form of a shift to faster growing shrub species. Ben was unsure of the long-term impacts on evapotranspiration, however, noted that he could consider that in the upcoming modelling effort.
Moving forward, Ben will use NW CSC funds to continue his research to look at whether the beavers combined hydrological benefits might have a mitigating impact for climate change. The objectives of his research are to:
• Construct a watershed model using Sky Beaver Project data to identify the cumulative effect on hydrology.
• Compare the modeled hydrologic benefits of beavers to anticipated impacts of climate change on local hydrology.
• Determine the minimum level of site occupancy required to mitigate climate impacts. In regards to how this work can be used to inform management, Ben noted that so far they have seen site level benefits that can be used to: identify the effectiveness of relocation as a climate adaptation tool; prioritize relocation for greatest benefit; and make policy and management recommendations. In response to inquiry, Ben noted that he is not currently collecting information on potential impacts from beavers on salmon in- and out-migration, although it is a hot topic. He said that according to studies, juveniles seem to out-migrate fine; however, adults appear to hold below the dam until water is high enough and then they pass the dams. There are unknowns for sure, however, before Europeans, beavers and salmonids co-existed, so it is likely that they still can. Kim Cook presented her work on montane amphibians, specifically looking at how climate change affects montane amphibians and how her research can be translated into conservation strategies. She noted that frogs and toads are intrinsically linked to montane lakes that are affected by climate change because their reproductive success relies on these waterways and the hydro-period is becoming shorter. For example, eggs are laid, however, if the pool dries before they hatch or the tadpoles do not have sufficient water, the population suffers. Increased threats from pathogens are also impacting montane amphibians, as well as the additional threats resulting from the interactive nature of temperature changes, disease, and impacts to the immune systems of amphibians. Through her research, Kim has concluded that there are multiple interactive threats to montane amphibians, including climate and disease and that there is a need to understand these interactions better. Although there are compounding and other potential factors impacting the frogs that Kim studied, she noted that disease seems to be the prominent driver to their decline. She noted that in her research she studied the Cascade frog specifically because it is very similar to the endangered yellow-legged frog, thus lessons can be transferred. One objective of Kim’s research is to translate her findings into conservation measures. She suggested that extending the hydro-period and developing effective treatments for disease (for example, using a fungicide to treat pathogens) are two tangible ways that managers and management could support the species. Tribal engagement at three levels Chas Jones, NW CSC Tribal Liaison For presentation slides, see file “10. Chas_0100 Tribal” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Chas presented on how the NW CSC is engaging tribes at the local, regional and national scale. He noted that he was recently hired to be the Tribal Liaison for NW CSC through the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) and his goals are to learn the following from the tribes:
• What resources are important? • How are resources at risk? • What projects would improve tribal resilience? And, • How can NW CSC help tribal resilience projects succeed?
Chas explained that NW CSC is helping to fund tribal projects at the local level. Since 2011, they have funded 13 tribal research projects and in 2015 funded a more regional Columbia River Basin effort to assess the tribes’ capacity to address climate change. From 2016-2017, NW CSC has been working with the tribes to build capacity to assess vulnerability to climate change, assess the impact of climate change on the availability of food sources, and held a tribal climate camp. They are currently working on the approach for 2018 tribal engagement. At the regional level, NW CSC has provided funding for tribal conferences and summits, and Chas is working with regional networks, on summits, and building connections to help support capacity. Finally, at the national level, NW CSC is working via the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the CSC National Tribal Liaison Network to develop a webinar series, contribute to the national tribal climate change adaptation efforts, and collaborating with other CSCs on tribal engagement. There was inquiry as to whether Chas has had the opportunity to visit any of the tribes. He noted that he has been trying to meet tribal members via meetings or direct introductions, and did participate in a fall Chinook monitoring effort with Siletz members. SAC members noted that they appreciated Chas’ approach to getting to know tribal members and his efforts to listen and learn from tribal members. They encouraged him to continue working to build relationships with visits to each of the tribes. Adoption of NW CSC Science Agenda 2018-2023 Gustavo Bisbal, NW CSC Director For presentation slides, see file “11. Gus_0130 Science Agenda” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Gus presented the final 2018-2023 Science Agenda, noting that this is the culmination of three years of collaborative work between the NW CSC and SAC. Guiding this agenda are seven principles:
1. Let resource management priorities drive science opportunities 2. Focus on climate adaptation science 3. Support co-produced actionable science 4. Emphasize synthesis and interpretation 5. Capitalize on partnerships and leveraging 6. Encourage innovation 7. Maintain flexibility
The Agenda outlines management priorities, science opportunities based on those priorities, and clarifies the level of available knowledge for each priority. Gus noted that the question now is: how do we implement this agenda? To which he noted there are a number of factors, not limited to funding, decisions at the Department of the Interior, staffing, and such. However, the NW CSC is now moving forward towards implementation. Gus asked the SAC if, after reviewing the document and seeing that most of their suggestions were included, they were ready to move forward with this agenda for the next five years. The SAC responded with a resounding “yes”!
AGREEMENT: The SAC agreed that they are ready to support and help to implement the 2018-2023 Science Agenda.
Gus thanked the SAC for their hard work and offered celebratory chocolates for a job well done! Discussion about the future of the Science Advisory Panel Amy Snover, Director, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Marty Fitzpatrick, Deputy Director, USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
For presentation slides, see file “12. Snover_0215 SAP continuity” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Amy asked the SAC to reflect on the process and lessons learned from bringing the Science Advisory Panel (SAP) together with the SAC to develop the Science Agenda. She reminded the group that the SAP was put together to provide capacity from the science side of things, in order for the managers to get a better idea of what the science could provide to management. She encouraged the group to think about how well it worked and what lessons they have learned to take forward. The SAC shared the following initial thoughts:
• The interaction was enormously useful and the Science Agenda is fundamentally more useful because it went through the SAP/SAC lens.
• The process was helpful, but limited to the perspectives of those on the teams. In the future it would be good to take a more comprehensive approach to getting input from partners and member entities.
• It was challenging to get the word out about the SAP/SAC regionally in order to make sure that the right people from partner agencies/organizations were at the table.
• The focused and specific task of the SAP/SAC made it so that the work was achievable with a group of volunteers; however, if the decision were to take a deeper dive into particular research, this approach would likely not be sustainable.
• Moving forward, it might be helpful to have the SAP involved in RFP development at a broad scoping level. It would be important to establish protocols to ensure that their level of involvement does not create any conflict of interest, as many of the SAP members may wish to apply for research funding.
Amy noted that the terms and objectives that the SAC asked of the SAP were clear and had an end date; she wondered whether there are other SAC planning or processes that would benefit from this higher-level, strategic scientific input. The SAC shared the following initial ideas for future SAP engagement:
• Help with sequencing and priorities of the Science Agenda. • Help to inform evaluation; specifically, the five-year evaluation plan and how it might advance ideas
into the future. • Mentoring from SAP members for individual project PI/PDs. • Provide scientific oversight for all SAC products. • Strategizing with the SAC on actionable science.
Lastly, Amy asked the SAC how the NW CSC could help them cast a wider net for input on management priorities, as well as challenges within their agencies. The SAC shared the following initial thoughts:
• Keep the information flowing through skills seminars and boot camps to provide opportunities to learn from the community of practice.
• Conduct an annual survey for the broader community to weigh in on priorities. • Continue encouraging and engaging in organic conversations on climate change management
priorities; create opportunities for this non-systematic approach as well. • Help keep a pulse on what is going on in the broader communities and bring this to the annual
agenda review and evaluation. • Explore opportunities to engage from a social science perspective.
Amy thanked the SAC for their input and noted that this is the start of an ongoing conversation that the NW CSC and University Consortium are eager to engage in with the SAC. Evaluation component of the NW CSC-Science Agenda Alison Meadow, University of Arizona For presentation slides, see file “13. Meadow_0315 Evaluation” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Alison joined the group by telephone to share her ideas on a plan focused on how to evaluate the Science Agenda. The evaluation plan is very generally included in the Science Agenda and the forthcoming Strategic
Plan will incorporate both the Evaluation Plan and the Science Agenda. She provided examples of the evaluation questions and methods of information gathering, noting that some of these questions/methods could be eliminated if there are resource limitations. The intention is for the evaluation methods to capture more than just the tangible outputs; for instance, relationship and community impacts are important outcomes to capture. Alison suggested the following questions and methods for gathering the desired evaluation information: Evaluation Question: To what extent was the Agenda developed collaboratively with the SAC? Method: Develop a short electronic survey to administer to SAC members, aimed at gathering their perspectives. Responses will be anonymous and will go to NW CSC leadership. Evaluation Question: Have resource managers been active participants in NW CSC–funded research projects? How has their participation influenced outcomes and impacts? Method: Online or emailed survey to all resource managers who were identified as participants in NW CSC-funded projects. Responses can be anonymous and will go to NW CSC leadership. This survey would go out immediately post-project and yearly there after (up to three surveys, however, the survey could narrow over time). This survey is aimed at evaluating at the uses and impacts and thus needs to go directly to the resource managers. This effort will help document how people have been involved and the impact of the involvement, allowing the CSC to identify and work to remove barriers to participation and impact. Evaluation Question: Are projects designed to include stakeholders throughout and to focus on stakeholders’ science needs? Method: Create proposal review guidance for external proposal reviewers that asks the reviewers to consider how collaborative the proposal development process was. This is an early intervention to improve projects. Evaluation Question: Are products and tools accessible to (and used by) resource managers?
Method: Use online search engines to trace project outputs (citations) to see where they are used beyond the immediate project. This would be an annual search and findings would be input into a database for ongoing tracking.
Evaluation Question: Is the research being funded by the NW CSC having an impact on resource management decisions in the region? Method: Utilize the information that you already have to gauge the impact that the NW CSC is having in a cumulative manner. This will help to tell the story of impacts and see where there is opportunity to have greater impact. Alison explained that the next steps are to finalize the evaluation and implementation plans, determine how to use the information gathered, collect the data, and then use that data to inform program decisions. This will be an adaptive process and the NW CSC can reassess the evaluation process as needed. SAC members shared that, generally, the evaluation plan looks good. Members expressed interest in the opportunity to provide more input after a more in-depth review, potentially via one-on-one conversations, targeted interviews, or sharing out drafts of surveys. It was noted that the details of the surveys will be important and will play a significant role in the success of the efforts. Additionally, the SAC thought that the closer aligned this effort can be with the national CSC network’s goals, the better. Alison noted that in developing this evaluation she is considering “impact” and “use” broadly, for example a change in management. She noted that there may be a need for more philosophical discussion for the SAC as they move forward in order to get at the cumulative effect of the science from an actionable science perspective.
12
NW CSC Strategic Plan: our next endeavor Gustavo Bisbal, NW CSC Director Amy Snover, Director, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington For presentation slides, see file “14. Gus_0345 Strategic Plan” on the ESAC meeting webpage.
Gus explained that he and Amy have started talking about the Strategic Plan and are eager to bring the SAC into the conversation. Gus expects SAC participation will be requested via conversations, surveys and webinars. He plans to work quickly with a goal of wrapping up the planning effort within six months, starting in January 2018. Additionally, Gus noted that the plan would be condensed to around 10-15 pages in length.
Due to national CSC network direction, there are a number of Strategic Plan aspects that are fixed and not open for group input, such as the mission and pillars/themes. However, the vision of the Strategic Plan is up for the SAC to determine. Various documents already discussed will be pulled into the plan, for example the Science Agenda and the Evaluations Plan (although it will be more extensive to cover more than just the Science Agenda); the Tribal Engagement, Education and Training, and Communications Plans will also be developed and included. The Plan will be as specific as possible in describing the objectives and strategies; still, Gus believes it should retain a level of flexibility in order to stay relevant given the uncertainties with the budget. This will be a five-year plan, with supplemental annual work plans providing greater detail on the budget and work for each upcoming year.
Suggestion: It was suggested that training be added to the “core services and products”. Gus noted that he is looking for SAC input through this process and that timing will be limited. The group suggested reconvening in March for a two-day face-to-face meeting to work on the plan. Prior to that meeting, there will be emails and webinars aimed at initiating work on the plan in order to make the March session as productive as possible.
→ ACTION: Gus will coordinate a two-day face-to-face SAC meeting in March 2018 to work on the Strategic Plan; prior to that the SAC will meet via webinar and email to begin work on the plan.
General discussion Donna noted that the SAC’s time together for this meeting was nearing the end and asked for their thoughts at this point in the process. SAC members shared that they are excited about the scope of work that they discussed, the University Consortium, and the level of engagement from the SAC, as well as the increased energy behind tribal engagement efforts. It is clear that there are strong partnerships, as well as opportunities to continue building relationships that move the work forward. Despite some challenges and uncertainties, the group has been able to move forward and will continue to do so. In moving forward, the group noted they will have to take care not to duplicate efforts. They also noted they are very interested in bringing in more social scientists to help broaden the groups’ understanding and ideas. The SAC saw a lot of opportunity to learn from the social sciences. Additionally, the group noted that the process has been fun and that, as a result of the structures and systems they have developed together, they will be able to move forward and continue producing meaningful work and results together. Members were encouraged by each other’s dedication and focus on climate impacts and noted new and inspiring growth in the field. Donna thanked Gus and the SAC for their commitment and hard work and adjourned the session.
States Idaho Department of Fish and Game: Leona Svancara Montana Department of Natural Resources: Michael Downey Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: David Jepsen Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Lynn Helbrecht Tribes Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission: Laura Gephart Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians: Kelly Coates NW Indian Fisheries Commission: Eliza Ghitis Federal Bonneville Power Administration: Chris Furey Bureau of Indian Affairs: David Redhorse Bureau of Land Management: Louisa Evers Great Basin Landscape Conservation Commission: John Tull Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative: Yvette Converse, Sean Finn Northwest Climate Science Center: Gus Bisbal, Chas Jones, Aaron Ramirez National Park Service: Chris Lauver National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Michelle McClure, Mark Storm, Kevin Werner Natural Resource Conservation Service: Jolyne Lee North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative: John Mankowski US Department of Agriculture NW Climate Hub: Holly Prendeville US Environmental Protection Agency: Linda Anderson-Carnahan, Bruce Duncan US Forest Service: Katherine Smith US Geological Survey: Marty Fitzpatrick Others (SAC-SAP members or facilitators) DS Consulting: Donna Silverberg, Emily Stranz Oregon Tech: Jherime Kellermann University of Arizona: Alison Meadow University of Washington: Amy Snover, Meade Krosby, Heidi Roop, Kim Cook, Ben Dittbrenner, Ronda Strauch
Amy SnoverUniversity DirectorDirector, Climate Impacts Group
Meade KrosbyUniversity Deputy
Director
John RybzyckChair, Dept of Enviro Sciences
Stephanie HamptonDirector, Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach
Alejandro FloresDirector, Ecohydrology Lab
Tom DeLucaDean
W UNIVER SITY vf WAS H I NG TON I
~ \._
WESTERN WASIIIS'C:TON L'\;IVII.S I TY
BSU
B BOISE STATE U N IVERSITY
WASHINGTON STATE !'j lJNI VERSIW
Leveraging the NW Community of Practice
• Federa l
State
. Triba l .
Academ ic Partnership • Mu lti-Stakeho lder
Actionable Science for Climate Adaptation
Researcher Inputs Synthesize and translate
existing scientific knowledge
'
.. , Mrt~na1 gter Inputs t . . d
A 1cu a e managemen m1ss1on an - challenges -
Catalyze Awareness
Collect and analyze informat ion about exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptive capacity
Share past experiences to direct research toward important vulnerabilities; Identify connections with management goals
Assess Risks Analyze ince ntives, costs, benefits, ~~..__ Identi fy entry points for alternative
barriers and consequences of actions; Prioritize based on risk actions; Share case studies; tolerance, windows of Facilitate scenario planning opportunity, available resources
Evaluate Options
Document processes and strategies to compare to other
organizations and regions
Gather and direct technical, human, and financia l resources
Implement Change
Provide "best practice" frameworks for success and
performance assessment
Measure performance and adjust activities
Monitor & Evaluate
1. Co-developing strategic priorities to ensure University-USGS alignment
2. Executing research to assess climate risks and inform efforts to evaluate response options and implement change in complex systems
3. Assessing and interpreting existing knowledge for today’s decisions
Supporting the NW CSC Science Agenda
1. Annual competitive research funding*
2. Skills-building for scientists and managers
3. Student training and development• Graduate students, incl. a focus on tribal programs*• Applied climate science internships for underrepresented
undergraduates
4. Bootcamp 2.0: Scientists’ and managers’ collaborative deep dive on priority issues
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5
Goal: Assess the vulnerability of FMP and ESA-listed fish species (and subunits) to a changing climate.
Objectives:1. Provide relative vulnerability rankings across species 2. Identify key attributes/factors and life-stages driving vulnerability 3. Identify key data gaps or information needs4. Provide input to management options at the regional and Council
level5. Contribute, where appropriate, to life-cycle modeling efforts
") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Strengths Widely applicable across species Expert elicitation Minimizes bias Robust, reproducible results Estimates uncertainty Identifies data gaps Identifies key drivers Species narratives interpret results Weaknesses No mechanistic relationships between climate factors and sensitivity attributes Unable to estimate secondary or ecosystem impacts
Overview•Expert-opinion based•Two scales
•Species-level (divided into functional groups)•Salmonid-ESU level
•Steps•Compile base information •Expert scoring•Integration of expert scores•Present results
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7
Exposure
Stock Vulnerability
Sensitivity
• Habitat Specificity• Prey Specificity• Sensitivity to Ocean
Acidification• Sensitivity to Temperature • Stock Size/Status• Other Stressors• Adult Mobility• Spawning Cycle
• Complexity in Reproductive Strategy
• Early Life History Survival and Settlement Requirements
• Population Growth Rate• Dispersal of Early Life
Stages
]
I
") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
12 Sensitivity attributes, consistent across regions CC has 9 exposure variables Note– exposure is future climate with current distribution…. Sensitivity is the here and now Note- Salmon assessment exposures and sensitivities are different and specific to salmon Provide an abstract/paragraph with presentation – Roger will lead this.
SST Salinity SON
45N -
-
40N 40N
35N 35N .. 8
130W 125W 120W 115W 130W 125W 120W 115W
I l r -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -1.6-1.2-0 .8-0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
") NOAA FISHERIES
Habitat Specificity (Sensitivity)Scoring Bins:
Low: The stock is a habitat generalist and/or utilizes very common abiotic habitats.
Moderate: The stock strongly prefers a particular habitat.
High: The stock is a specialist on an abundant biological habitat.
Very High: The stock is a specialist on a restricted biological habitat.
") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Goal: To determine if the stock is a habitat generalist or specialist as well as the type and abundance of key habitats. Relationship to climate change: Habitat generalists stocks should be more resilient to than habitat specialists or stocks that depend on rare habitats. How to use expert opinion: Experts should account the type of habitats that a species utilizes, as well as the availability and vulnerability of those habitats to change.
Vulnerability Scoring Rubric
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10
V e r y H i g h Moderate H igh V ery H igh V ery H igh
H i g h L ow Moderate H igh V ery H igh
M o d e r a t e L ow Moderate Moderate H igh
L o w L ow L ow L ow Moderate
L o w M o d e r a t e H i g h V e r y H i g h
V u l n e r a b i l i t y R a n kSe
nsiti
vity
E x p o s u r e
") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I was going to describe the theory behind how we came up with the 4 categories and why. I would cover how the matrix is basically the lesser of exposure and sensitivity (and give logic why) except for very high… which we bumped up a category to cover uncertainty/ be conservative…..
Species-Level CVA ResultsV ery H igh 1 salmon
1 O th er anadramou s1 Pu get Sou nd rock fish2 Pu get Sou nd rock fish
5 Rock fish1 H MS
4 salmon1 Elasmobranch
1 Elasmobranch 15 Rock fish1 O th er Grou ndfish 4 H MS
3 O th er grou ndfish1 O th er anadramou s
2 CPS1 Flatfish
2 Flatfish 5 H MS1 O th er Grou ndfish 4 flatfish
5 CPS2 O th er grou ndfish
1 Elasmobranch1 Rock fish
L ow Moderate H igh V ery H igh
Bio
logi
cal S
ensit
ivity
Moderate
L ow
Climate Ex posu re") NOAA FISHERIES
Drivers of Vulnerability
Air temperaturePrecipitation
Sea Level Rise
Sub
surfa
ce 0
2,U
pwel
ling
Pop
ulat
ion
Gro
wth
Rat
e
Reproductive StrategyOther Stressors
~ .....
U")
0
N ui ·x "' 0 ci 0 X Q)
l U")
9
0
";-
-3 -2 -1
exp.axis.1
~
~) NOAA FISHERIES
U")
~ .....
l U")
0
IN ui ·x "' ui 0 C:
0 Q) ti)
U")
9
0
";-
0
o Rockfish t::. Flatfish
Group
• CPS
"HMS + Elasmobranch ill Salmon x Other.Ground * Other.Anad
-2 -1
Vulnerability
• Low • Medium • High
Very High
'v x6
0
0 9: 0
0 0 0 0 0
oo 0 'v
0 0 CJ
0
sens.axis.1
Species-level CVA Results: Directional Effect
Numb
er of
Spe
cies
~
~) NOAA FISHERIES
15-10-
o-
15-1 aso-
E1lasmobranchs
I
Pos1ti'Je Neutral Ne~ati\le
,other Gro undfish
Po smve Neutral Neg at,ve
Anadromous Spec i,es
I I I
Pos itive Neutral Neg atlve
D~rectiuna lr Effect
15-,o-5-0-
t5-10-s-
Rockfish
Pos,ttve Neutral Negative
Flatfish Species
o- -- ,-- I
15-10-
5-o-
15-1•-
5 ..
c-
Pos11~Je
I
Fusmve
Pos1tive
N~utra1 Negativ~
HMS
-1 I
Jeutral N~gatri1e
CPS
r Jeutra1 r JegatJve
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Expert opinion regarding the directional effects of climate change suggest that the impacts of climate change are overwhelmingly likely to be neutral to negative (Figure 6, right panel). All of the anadramous species and just over half of the rockfish and other groundfish species are expected to be negatively impacted. Less than half of the species in the flatfish, CPS and HMS functional groups are expected to have negative impacts. The only functional group that was expected to have some positive impacts are flatfish species.
General CVA Results: Distributional Shift
Numb
er of
Spe
cies
~
~) NOAA FISHERIES
15-10·
o-
15-10 -
.:::,-
Elasmo.branchs
UlN .ioderate H1gt, V~ry High
Other 1Gro u ndfish
Anadromous Species.
ft - --- ~~~ ·--1\J I I I I
Low ,faderate H1gr, Very Hach
1f -10-5-o-
1f -10 -
J:: --· o-
·1E-10-
o-
15 · 10-
o-
Roclkfish
Low ltoderate High Very Hi~h
Flatfish Species
- -' I
LIJI ~ Moderate Hl!Jh Very Higll
HIMS
' I I
lo ff Moderate H,gh Vert High
1CPS
i
Low Moderate H1yh Vert High
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A majority of the CVA species, 58%, were classified as having a high potential for distribution changes, with 18% of the species falling into both the moderate and very high categories, and 5% of the species falling into the low category (Figure 6). Anadromous and rockfish species dominate the those species with a low to moderate potential for distribution changes, while species with high to very high potential for distribution changes were dominated by other groundfish, CPS, and HMS functional groups.
Salmon-specific climate vulnerability assessment
Salmon recovery domains
~
~) NOAA FISHERIES
Interior Columbia
Fresh water ex posu re
factors
StreamT emperatu re
WaterDeficit
Sh ift in H y drological Regime
Sh ift in Atmosph ericRiver Events
Ch ange inFlood Magnitu de
2040
r C::::, ESU R.oo...-y Oom a,n
Z-s core (for August mean )
I r ... ' (
( -r
r
Projected Frequency J Atmospheric River Events -- -- ' ~ QesuR~~ % chan ge
I 15- 20
20 - 25
2'-30
- J0-35
- ]5 -•0
J \
! r'J
Flood Ratio
C) esuR~Oom.wi Cli mate water de fi c it Z-seore
..37195-0
o,-1
- 1-1.5
ll9 1 5 . 7
\ { t,
100 year event frequency
C)ffl - 1-2:87
• 1211-1&0 1
• 160 1 - 2043
• 20'3-262 •
Recovery Doma in (mean)
• 1185-1375
- 137!i•1117S
Presenter
Presentation Notes
You can see here the latitudinal and longitudinal gradients in some of the factors that will show up in the results. Stream temperature change and risk of regime shift was higher in the north, flooding was higher in the south and coast
Resu lts I: Final V u lnerability Rank ing
Ex posu reL ow
Moderate
H igh
V ery H igh
L ow
Moderate
H igh
V ery H igh
Sensitivity
Central V alley Ch inookSou th ern coh oSpring Ch inookInterior sock ey e
Puget Sound Chum
Colum bia River Chum
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho
Mid Columbia Spring Chinook
Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook
Californ ia Coastal Chi nook
Puget Sound Chin oo k
Snake River Basin Steelhead
Southern Californ ia CoastStee lhead
Midd le Columbia RiverStee lhead
Upper Columb ia RiverStee lhead
Puget Sound Coho
Puget Sound Steelhead
Snake Riverfa ll-ru n Chinook
Hood Canal Sum mer-run Chum
Upper Wi llamette River Stee !head
LowerCo lumb ia River Coho
Ore on Coast Co ho
Centra I California Coast Steelhead
South Central California Coast Steelhead
Northern Californ ia CoastStee lhead
Californ ia Centr al Valley Steel head
Lower Columb ia RiverSteelhead
Lowe r Columb ia Rive r Chinoo k
Lake Oze tte Socke e
Presenter
Presentation Notes
How do the results differ from General Assessment? – same rough rank ordering at species level, but ESUs within a species very spread out Chinook dominate the Very High categories, but not all ESUs at high risk Sockeye and coho at greater risk (some in Very High) than steelhead Chum lower than other species Pink was not in the General Assessment and came out as least concern
Snake River spring/summer- Snake River spring/summer- Sacramento River winter-run Central Valley fall-run/late
run Chinook run Chinook*
Mid Columbia Spring Chinook Mid Columbia Spring
Chinook*
Snake River Sockeye Upper Columbia River spring
run Chinook
Upper Willamette River spring-Southern Oregon/No rthern
run Chinook California Coast Coho
Interior Columbia
Chinook
Central Valley _____ ~
fall-run Chinook
Central Valley spring-run
Chinook
Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook
Marine Upwelling
Central Valley fall
run/late fall-run
Chinook
Wrap up•Products:
• 2 manuscripts in prep; • Species narratives and vulnerability scores
• Management Uses• Prioritizing actions (match to key life stages or exposures, etc.)• Informing decisions about precautionary approaches•Not a quantitative tool
• Science Uses• Identify stocks that should be highest priority for incorporating environmental parameters into assessments and life cycle models
• Identify priority monitoring• Fishing or other human community vulnerability assessments
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 20") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Strengths Widely applicable across species Expert elicitation Minimizes bias Robust, reproducible results Estimates uncertainty Identifies data gaps Identifies key drivers Species narratives interpret results Weaknesses No mechanistic relationships between climate factors and sensitivity attributes Unable to estimate secondary or ecosystem impacts
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 22
Build and Maintain Adequate Science Infrastructure
Track Change and Provide Early Warnings
Understand Mechanisms of Change
Project Future Conditions
Adaptive Management Processes
Robust Management Strategies
Climate-Informed Reference Points
inn~
") NOAA FISHERIES
Presenter
Presentation Notes
General outline of the Climate Science Strategy showing 7 core objectives/needs Each level is interdependent on the others Message – need the entire science enterprise to fulfill management information needs Objective 1: Identify appropriate, climate-informed reference points. Objective 2: Identify robust management strategies in a changing climate. Objective 3: Design adaptive decision processes that incorporate and respond to changing climate conditions. Objective 4: Identify likely future states of LMRs and resource use. Objective 5: Identify mechanisms of climate effects on LMRs and LMR-dependent communities. Objective 6: Track trends and provide early warnings of change. Objective 7: Strengthen the science infrastructure needed to fulfill NOAA Fisheries mandates with changing climate conditions.
Action Plan
• Continue California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
• Sustain scientific expertise• Coordinate, optimize survey and observation efforts• Conduct Management Strategy Evaluations• Build Coordinated Climate Program• Ensure information is well-disseminated
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 23~ NOAAFISHERIES
General CVA Results: Logic Rule RanksV ery H igh Green Stu rgeonY ellowey e Rock fish - Pu get Sou nd
C h inook sal monC o h o s a l m o n
S o c k e y e s a l m o nS t e e l h e a d S a l m o n
Black Rock fishBlu efin T u na
Bocaccio Rock fish - Pu get Sou ndCanary Rock fish
Canary Rock fish - Pu get Sou ndCh u m salmon
Y ellowey e Rock fishPacific ocean p erch
Sp iny d ogfishY el l ow tail R ock fishB l a c k g i l l R o c k f i s hB o c a c c i o R o c k f i s h
C a l i c o R o c k f i s hC h i l i p e p p e r R o c k f i s h
C h i n a R o c k f i s hC o w c o d R o c k f i s hW i d o w R o c k f i s hAu rora Rock fish
Common T h resh er Sh arkDark blotch ed Rock fish
L ongnose Sk ate Goph er Rock fishPacific Cod H oney comb Rock fish
K elp GreenlingL ingcod
Mark et Sq u idMola
Pacific H erringPetrale Sole
Py gmy Rock fishRoseth orn Rock fishRou gh ey e rock fish
SablefishSh ortbelly Rock fishSou th ern Eu lach on
Striped MarlinNorth Pacific Al b acore
L e o p a r d S h a r kN o r t h e r n A n c h o v y
P a c i f i c S a r d i n eS h o r t r a k e r r o c k f i s h
S h o r t s p i n e t h o r n y h e a dS t a r r y f l o u n d e r
W h i t e S h a r kBlu e Sh ark
English SoleJ ack Mack erel
Arrowtooth Flou nder J ack SmeltDover Sole Pacific Ch u b Mack erel
Pacific Grenadier Pacific SanddabPacific Wh iting
Rock SoleSh ortfin Mak o Sh ark
SwordfishY ellowfin T u na
L ow Moderate H igh V ery H igh
Bio
logi
cal S
ensit
ivity
H igh
Moderate
L ow
Climate Ex posu re
Green Stu rgeonY ellowey e Rock fish - Pu get Sou nd
C h inook sal monC o h o s a l m o n
S o c k e y e s a l m o nS t e e l h e a d S a l m o n
Black Rock fishBlu efin T u na
Bocaccio Rock fish - Pu get Sou ndCanary Rock fish
Canary Rock fish - Pu get Sou ndCh u m salmon
Y ellowey e Rock fishPacific ocean p erch
Sp iny d ogfishY el l ow tail R ock fish
l
l
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Of the 65 species included in the CC CVA 5% were classified as very highly vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate change, 20% were highly vulnerable, 40% were moderately vulnerable, and 28% had low vulnerability to climate impacts (Figure 3). Of the very highly vulnerable species, all were anadromous except for 1 Puget Sound rockfish. The other two Puget Sound rockfish, all other salmonids, 5 CC rockfish, 1 HMS, and 1 Elasmobranch were classified as highly vulnerable (Figures 3 and 4). The species classified into the top two vulnerability categories share one or more common characteristics in that these species: 1) utilize a wide range of freshwater and marine habitats (e.g. anadromous species), 2) have specific habitat preferences (e.g. rockfish), 3) are long lived (e.g. Spiny dogfish and rockfish), and/or 4) are extremely commercially valuable (e.g. Bluefin Tuna). The moderately vulnerable category was dominated by rockfish and HMS species, along with a few other groundfish, anadromous, CPS, and flatfish species (Figures 3 and 4). The low vulnerability category was composed of a nearly equal split between HMS, flatfish, and CPS species, along with a few other groundfish, elasmobranch, and rockfish species (Figures 3 and 4). The species classified into the lower two vulnerability categories shared one or more common characteristics in that these species are generally habitat generalists or occupy deep-water habitats, or are highly mobile. Climate exposure scores for all species were either moderate or high due to all species having a strong exposure to the impacts of ocean acidification, temperature increase, and sea level rise, while biological sensitivity scores ranged across all 4 categories, from low to very high. Bold font indicates species that had bootstrap trials fall into the next highest vulnerability category > 25% of the time. Plain font indicates species that had bootstrap trial fall into the same category => 75% of the time. Italicized font indicates species that had bootstrap trial fall into the next lowest category > 25% of the time.
Gustavo Bisbal, Director
NW CSC syntheses projects in FY 2017
SAC F2F meeting – Seattle, WA – November 29, 2017
NWCSC Northwest Clin1ate Science Center
“There is a lot of good science out there, but where is it and what does it all mean?”
6 projects in FY17• 3 weeks from budget allocation to procurement deadlines• Under $100k cap• Focus on tribal, federal, state stakeholder priorities• Essential step: Where is science strong and not?• Consistent with old Science Agenda; new ASAP mode• Consistent with guiding principles on new Science Agenda• Relatively short duration; products available soon
YOU, SAC Members
C h angi ng W i ld f i r e, C h angi ng F or es ts : A S y nth es i s on th e E f f ec ts of C li mate C h ange on F i r e R egi mes and V egetati on i n th e P ac i f i c N or th w es t
Brian H arvey ( U W) , J essica H alofsk y ( U W) , David Peterson ( U SFS)
S p oi lt f or C h oi c e: a R ev i ew of D ow ns c aled C li mate D atas ets f or th e P ac i f i c N or th w es t
Dominiq u e Bach elet ( O SU )
C li mate C h ange I mp ac ts on I nv as i v e S p ec i es i n th e N or th w es t: A S y nth es i s and P ath F or w ar d
Clint Mu h lfeld ( U SGS NO RO CK ) , J ennifer Gervais ( O regon Wildlife Institu te)
E x tr emes to E x - S tr eams : E c ologi c al D r ou gh t A d ap tati on S y nth es i s P r oj ec t
Rach el Gregg and J essi K ersh ner ( EcoAdapt)
P h enology and C li mate C h ange i n th e P ac i f i c N or th w es t: S tatu s and R es ou r c es f or Management and D ec i s i on Mak i ng
J h erime K ellermann ( O IT )
W i ll C li mate W ar mi ng A f f ec t L oc ati ons or T i mi ng of A v ai lab i li ty of F ood S ou r c es f r om N ati v e N or th w es ter n S h r u b s ?
Constance H arrington ( U SFS) and Partners ( U . of Idah o, Mt. Bak er-Snoq u almie National Forest, Cedar River Watersh ed, Gifford Pinch ot National Forest, CBI, Sk ok omish Indian T ribe, Q u inau lt Indian Nation, Y ak ama Nation, Confederated T ribes of th e U matilla Indian Reservation)
P h e n o l o g y i n t h e N o r t h w e s t ’ s c h a n g i n g c l i m a t e A sy nth esis of th e science, monitoring programs, and th e
U SA National Ph enology Network
Dr. J h erime K ellermann, Associate Professor, O regon T echJ h erime.K ellermann@ oit.edu ( 5 4 1) 8 5 1- 5 15 6
W h a t d o t h e s e c h a n g e s m e a n f o r o u r m a n a g e d l a n d s a n d r e s o u r c e s ?
Warmer, drier years associated with
below-average salmon survivalbelow-average forest growthabove-average forest fire risk
(Mote et al. 2003 CC)
E c o l o g i c a l i m p a c t s o f c l i m a t e c h a n g e c a n b e s u b t l e …… a l t e r e d s p e c i e s p h e n o l o g y
What is “phenology”?Phonology Phrenology
Fm. 22.
Phenology is: • Fundamental to species biology & ecology• Interaction of genetic & environmental control• Evolutionarily adaptated to local-regional conditions
Why do we care about phenology?
W h y d o w e c a r e a b o u t p h e n o l o g y ?T h e c a p a c i t y o f s p e c i e s t o a d a p t t o c l i m a t e c h a n g e d e p e n d s o n :• T h eir ph enology• H ow flex ible th eir ph enology is• Interactions with oth er species’ ph enology
W h y d o w e c a r e a b o u t p h e n o l o g y ?Not all species are responding to climate ch ange th e same!
Parmesan 2007Earlier
S o w h a t d o e s c h a n g i n g p h e n o l o g y m e a n f o r t h e N W ?D i s r u p t e d e c o s y s t e m s , r e s o u r c e s , a n d l a n d u s e
F o r e s t H e a l t h - P e s t s • Earlier emergence• L onger breeding seasons• More su sceptible h osts• Range ex pansion
( Raffa et al. 2008 . B ioscience)
Larva~ pupate and lea~e the dying tree, producing d istinctwe Mshotgun "' e.11:il holes in the ba rk.
Life Cycle of Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae
Beetles migrate to nearby hea hv t rees to beg in cycle a,gam.
Beetles mate and burrow through bark or the tree , d positing egg~ in brood chambers in the ti5,5ues.
Adults and tillrv~c crcote horizontal c.hiijmbers., and introduce mold into the tree's w ft tissues. This slow ly kills the tr ee over th e
course of a vear.
Sean Twiddy 2010
V 0 t o · :DC'
Bh · l.lin'-!' (.rccen[}
F o r e s t H e a l t h - F i r e • Earlier snowmelt - > L onger
growing seasons - > Increased Fu el • Bigger fires• More freq u ent fires• L onger fire seasons
( Swetnam & Westerling 2007)
( Westerling 2016 )
Early Spring 1972 - 2012
Late Sno mel Years
Late Spring 1972 - 2012
' •
.. (Sw
,- arly Snowmelt ·· ears
J
-
FisheriesChanging Salmon migrations• Extremely variable across populations
• Local to Global conditions• Genetic phenological diversity
increases resiliency!
Kovach et al. 2015. Global Change Biology
Earlier
Laterl.5 (a)
.,.-._ c+- E--<
l 0~
~o ~ ~ 0.5
" = ..._, ~
00 ..... '0 i:::
0 G) .§ E . .... t""'
• :::l i::: G) 0 OIJ·;j -0.5 C: cd
• • ..... ~ oo
-I 6 '§ .. _,
- 1.5
Fisheries Catch changing to warm water species
Cheung et al. 2013.
Subtropic and temperate ocean
From 1970 to 2006 , as open temperatures were rising, catch composition in the subtropic and temperate areas slowly changed to include more warm-water species and fewer cool-water species.
P l a n t i n v a s i o n s a n d e n c r o a c h m e n t• Western ju niper ex pansion• Wh itebark pine loss• Ex otic species invasion
lo , .a ken ov r a 4;,~ J ~ ~ f erfod, ,c nrun1ent LI e pr ,; ·d of we·: H
juni per , t 1c ma i s, re. m J hn Day River v,· n .y c· D, )'\ ' 11~.
1920 94
W i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s• Migratory birds ou t of sy nch with h abitat• Wildlife diseases ex panding• Predator- prey / h erbivore dy namics disru pted• Pollination disru pted
Shit to Re.member so far • Phe.nolog!J is species' "1
st
response." to climate change • temperature • Snowpack & Snowmelt
• Species responses are e,;ctre.me.l!J variable. • Species & populations
• 8io9eo9raphy • l,ocal conditions
U n d e r s t a n d i n g p h e n o l o g y r e q u i r e s m o n i t o r i n g & r e s e a r c h
CNW / Citizen Wildlife Monitoring Project
B u t d e v e l o p i n g n e w p r o t o c o l s c a n b e e x p e n s i v e & t i m e c o n s u m i n g“ O f f - t h e - s h e l f ” p r o g r a m s a v a i l a b l e• Cu t costs & Save time• Easy for volu nteers• Integration with oth er u sersP r o g r a m s v a r y i n :
• Geograph ic & ecological scope• Complex ity• T ools & Resou rces• Popu larity
C itiz en W il d l ife M onitoring Proj ect
iNaturalist Explore Learn Record
MeadoWatch eBird Conservation
Nortliwest
A~~Monarch 'f ,:J 'Xlatch.org Education• Conservation • Research
'"" .. ,, .·
..;......_ ·. ~ - ---r,,:.
Se,e Wildlife, Do ,Scie11ce
H o w d o y o u c h o o s e ?• Single or mu lti- species• Information needed • Money & T ime• Personnel
• > 1,200 species• > 11,000 active observers• > 10,000 active sites• ~ 12 million statu s records
I n c l u d e s :• V etted monitoring protocols• Web- based data portals • Data entry & download interface• Data visu aliz ation tools• Data produ cts• Decisions su pport tools• T raining resou rces• Edu cational materials• Newsletters
W h a t c a n y o u d o w i t h t h e U S A - N P N a n d N N ?• Map ph enology
• E.g. Aspen greenu p
Greenness Onset DOY High: 160
Low : 60
LJ Poplar range
c NPN observations
• Interacting species activity cu rves - > d e t e c t p h e n o l o g i c a l m i s m a t c h ! W h a t c a n y o u d o w i t h t h e U S A - N P N a n d N N ?
Data produ ctsW h a t c a n y o u d o w i t h t h e U S A - N P N a n d N N ?
~nP.nA-=> .~ National Phenology Network -.~
1 Spring Leaf Index Anomaly, November,28, 2017 NUE\lp Lt Montorrcy www .usanpn .org
BAJA CA U FORNIA SVR
Based on NOAA NCEP RTMA and NDFD Products, Pr.ovisional Data
SI NALd~ DURANGO · : >_ ,,. M
. TA M AOLI , ,,.- 8XICO ~ 20 Days Early
Tr p I lo
A
, lm l I)
Ottawa Montreal • 0
Major fu nd ing pr ovi ded by
EUSGS soie11ce for a clr.mgwg world - --=~ - --..----~----.- - - ---.--- ---,-------,
No Difference 20 Davs Late
W h a t w i l l m y s y n t h e s i s p r o v i d e ?• Su mmary of relevant literatu re
• Gu ide to available monitoring programs
• Su mmary of U SA- NPN database for NW
Go gle Scholar climate change
Articles About 3,290,000 results (0.06 sec)
eBird iNaturalist watch Explore Learn RcLor<l
--······-·
Northwest Climate Science Center Fellowship Program
Meade Krosby, Amy Snover, Ronda StrauchClimate Impacts Group, University of WashingtonNorthwest Climate Science Center
Goals1. Support research aligned with the NW CSC
science agenda2. Build capacity for actionable science among
early career scientists
Presenter
Presentation Notes
1. Support research 2. Build capacity: The NWCSC Fellowship Program aims to produce early career scientists capable of creating and communicating actionable climate science in partnership with natural resource managers. The program will support graduate and postdoctoral research and provide training tailored to build Fellows’ co-production and communication skills. It is designed to promote student leadership and cohort development so that Fellows will have the network and skills necessary to lead collaborative research, a hallmark of actionable science.
2018 Fellows 8 graduate students (MS/PhD)
5 consortium universities
Partners from state, federal, and tribal governments
wsu~
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Restoring hydrologic stability and ecosystem resilience through targeted beaver reintroduction in the Pacific Northwest
Lillian McGill
Project: Estimating climate risks to river flows using water isotopes
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:Fisheries science
center
wsu~
Benjamin Dittbrenner
Project: Targeting beaver reintroductions to address climate impacts
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:
wsu
BSU
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Restoring hydrologic stability and ecosystem resilience through targeted beaver reintroduction in the Pacific Northwest
Tyler Tran
Project: Understandinghow eelgrass can reduce ocean acidification impacts
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:
wu
wsu~
BSU
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Mitigating Ocean Acidification: Towards a model relating pCO2, irradiance and leaf area index of Zostera marina L. (Eelgrass) in Padilla Bay, WA
Kyra Freeman
Project: Modeling climate impacts on hydrology and stream temperatures
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:
wu uw
~ wsu~
BSU
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Modeling climate impacts on hydrology and stream temperature in the Stillaguamish River
Travis King
Project: Modeling climate impacts on the range and status of Canada lynx
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:Washingto~ of Departmen
FISHa:~ WILDw10
u uw
wsu
ssu
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Climate Change and Canada Lynx in the Cascades: Building a Better Understanding of the Status and Range Dynamics of a Climate Sensitive Species
Kimberly Cook
Project: Understandingclimate impacts on the declining Cascades frog
Partners:
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
wsu
BSU
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Impact of climate change – changing temperatures, hydrologic regimes and disease – on viability of a declining amphibian, the Cascades frog
Hamid Dashti
Project: Modeling sage-brush steppe response to future climate change
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:
wsu~
ausGs
Presenter
Presentation Notes
predict ecosystem fluxes, including GPP and NPP, in shrublands by initialization of a vegetation dynamics model with parameters retrieved from eddy flux data and optical and lidar remote sensing. Ultimately, the ecosystem model will be used to derive future scenarios of shrubland structure and function across the western landscape. with partners at USGS FRESC (Drs. Doug Shinneman, David Pilliod, co-PIs onJFSP project) and DOI BLM (Mr.
Drew Lyons
Project: Understanding climate impacts on conifer seedling survival
NW Climate Science Center Fellows
Partners:
uw
u wsu~
ssu
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Building a better understanding of the status and range dynamics of a climate-sensitive species
Building capacity for actionable science
Skills buildingTheory and practice of linking science to actionScience communicationSocial science and collaborative research methodsBest practices for Tribal engagement
Cohort buildingRegular video conference calls
Northwest Climate ConferenceSupport for fellows to attend; opportunities for interaction
Tulalip Tribes 2nd largest salmon-producing river in P.S. All 5 species salmon present Representative of Watersheds west-slope Cascades Development Political constraints Ecosystems Sno Salmon Recovery plan: Sky priority: hydrology & pristine habitat
Dalton et al. 2013
Inter-annual changes to hydrology
• 2.0 to 8.5°F warming
• ↓ ~34% summer precipitation
• ↑ 14% annual average precipitation
(dramatic winter increase)
2
Skykom ~.sh River near Go ld Ba r
10,000
9,000 -- Historical -- 2080A1B - 8"'000 ln ....
u 7"'000
.._..
~ C -
6,.000 -1-i-,
> - 5,000 £i C 0 4))00 ~ C 3.,000 m ~
:a 2,000
1,000
a
0 ND J F MAM 1 A S
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Effects on species & habitat Storm intensity -> Redd scour, Bed & bank scour, floodplains Timing: precip -> Inundation, recharge; Reproduction & life history Drying: tree stress, fire Less snow melt -> Lower base flow Lethal stream temps Perennial -> seasonal
North American Beaver( C astor canad ensis)
Eu ropean Beaver( C astor fib re)
• H istoric popu lation: 5 0- 100 million• Cu rrent: 6 – 12 million
Characterize current population levels in Snohomish Relocate ‘nuisance’ beavers from lowlands to vacant habitat in Skykomish Better understand the hydrologic and ecosystem benefits beaver provide to reduce climate impacts
Obj. 1: Develop habitat model for the Snohomish watershed
B e a v e r I n t r i n s i c P o t e n t i a lH a b i t a t ( B I P ) M o d e l
O b s e r v e d C o n d i t i o n s % of Suitable habitat
Su itable, O ccu pied 27%Su itable, U noccu pied 73 %
100%
0
Bl P Mod el Seo res---------c---, i..:--- ----.- """"l"'Tr:"'""".'"""--:-:r--.c"""C'"""""""T""~ ~ "'""" ~-.::""""' ~ ="l"'"'l""' = ::-T""~rr.-- 'lN.
-- 3 High BIP -- 2 Moderate BIP
1 Low BIP 0 No BIP
10 20
.,,..,.--...-
30 40 Km
O bj 2: Relocation program
Obj. 3: Quantify beaver benefits
Beaver Pond & Stream Temps
60
I
07/25'1 5 08124115
Ov erarch ing Q uestion:
Can th e combined h y drologic benefits of beaver complex es mitigate some impacts of climate ch ange?
NW CSC fu nded research :
O bj. 1: Constru ct a watersh ed model u sing Sk y Beaver Project datato identify th e cu mu lative effect on h y drology
Presenter
Presentation Notes
ID effects at research sites From BIP, ID density of colonies at K Extrapolate hydrologic benefits at watershed scale
O bj. 2: Compare th e modeled h y drologic benefits of beavers to anticipated impacts of climate ch ange on local h y drology
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Identify changes to hydrology from regional climate models Use watershed scale beaver benefits from Objective 1 Determine the ability of beavers to mitigate these effects
O bj. 3 . Determine th e minimu m level of site occu pancy req u ired to mitigate climate impacts.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Assumption: beavers can reduce climate impacts Repeat the process in Objective 2 at varying pop levels to identify threshold for benefit Using Skykomish pop estimate and documented growth rates, identify time until beavers reach threshold
Conclu sions• Site level benefits promising• Findings can be u sed to:
– Identify effectiveness of relocation as climate adaptation tool
– Prioritiz e relocation for greatest benefit
– Mak e policy & management recommendations
• Sch edu le: Winter & Spring 2018
T h ank Y ou - Q u estionsU n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o nBenjamin DittbrennerCh ristian T orgersenJ osh L awlerSu san BoltonAaron WirsingJ u lian O lden
T u l a l i p T r i b e sJ ason Sch illingMik e SevignyMolly AlvesDavid BaileyT erry WilliamsJ osh K u bo
NOAA NWFSCMich ael PollockJ ason H all
US Forest ServiceK ent Woodru ffJ oe NealAndy Bry denSonny Paz
B e a v e r s N o r t h w e s tAbby H ookJ ak e J acobsonEly ssa K errSh awn Beh ling
P r oj ec t T eam & C ollab or ator s
Snohomish CountyMik e Ru staySnohomish Cons. DistrictCindy DittbrennerAlex Pittman
W D F WBob EverittJ amie Bails
C R E O iMich elle Wainstein
Research Crew (AKA Beaver Believers): Chris Tran, Susan Priest, Zoe Hayes, Desirae Belcher, David Hagopian, Olivia McGrath
NW Climate Science CenterAmy SnoverMeade Crosby
K i n g C o u n t yJ osh L atterellL au ra H artemaJ en V anderh oofw
UN IVERSlTY of WASHINGTON
~USGS -lo,•dlilllf/Jllwotld
w King County
CREOi Conse1vall0n, Resea«:ti and Education Opportunllles lnlematJonal
We’d like to thank all of the people from a wide range of organizations who have contributed to the project thus far and are committed to helping us move forward.
Ex tras:
D o F rogs H av e a F u tu re?Climate change, amp hibians, and d isease
K imberly CookWash ington State U niversity
1. How does climate change impact montane amphibians?
2. How can we translate research into conservation strategies?
L ee et al. 2015 . PLoS OneMcMenamin et al. 2008 . PNAS
19 9 8204 0208 0
Day of y ear
• Sh ort h y droperiod
• L ow tadpole su rvival
Climate threats to montane amp hibians
-~ 0 --(l)
0 (b)
> (l) 0 - - -------~ _J ~ \ I
I,... I (l)
\ ( -~ \ "O \ C ro 0 \ - l{)
~ \ C \ (/) (I) \ 0) C
Pal5 \ ro 0 ..c (.)
• Short hydroperiod
• Low tadpole survival
Climate threats to montane amphibians
• Ch y trid fu ngal path ogen ( Bd)
D isease threats to montane amp hibians
• H igh temperatu res redu ce Bd infection
• T h ermal stress affects h ost immu ne development
I nteractions betw een d isease and climate
• H igh temperatu res redu ce Bd infection
• T h ermal stress affects h ost immu ne development
I nteractions betw een d isease and climate
1. How does climate change impact montane amphibians?
2. How can we translate research into conservation strategies?
Cascad es f rog
• Declines at sou th ern end of rangeo First noticed in th e 19 8 0s
• WA popu lations persisting with diseaseo L atitu dinal comparison
• L ength en effective h y droperiod
Conserv ation strategies
Anand V arma
H ardy et al. 2015 Diseases of Aquatic Organisms
L arvaY ear 0
Bdpr
eval
ence
J u venileY ear 1 Su badu lt
Y ears 2- 3
A
• Develop effective treatments for Bdo Fu ngicide
Conserv ation strategies
0.8
0 .6
0.4
0 .2
Conclusions1. Multiple interactive threats to montane
amphibians• Climate and disease
2. Conserving Cascades frogs requires an understanding of these interactions• Cascades frogs as a case study
A ck now led gements
• Many field and lab tech nicians
• K aren Pope• J onah Piovia- Scott• Dede O lson
WASHING~ro STATE P<a UNIVERSITY '1t!l!JvANCOUV£R
Tribal Engagement at Three Scales
Ch as J ones, Ph .D.T ribal L iaisoncejones@ u sgs.gov
( 5 4 1) 75 0- 1023
2
Climate Science Center Regional NationalIntroduction
• H ired by AT NI via BIA grant
• Past research– T ribal lands: H ow does predicted h y drologic beh avior ( in th e nex t centu ry )
fall ou tside of h istoric observations since 19 00s? ( i.e. precipitation, su rface water, grou ndwater, streamflow)
– H ow are ru ral and native Alask ans impacted by ch anges in driftwood availability associated with flooding?
– H ow h as travel on rivers in winter become more dangerou s du e to grou ndwater flow into rivers resu lting from permafrost degradation?
– Dam removals and h abitat restoration
Chas JonesT ribal L iaison with th e NW Climate Science Center
NWCSC ,orth"~..,t Clirn,th' Sc:-il'11lr C,;-nt1•r Chas Jones
3
Climate Science Center Regional NationalIntroduction
L earn from NW tribes• Wh at resou rces are important?
• H ow are resou rces at risk ?
• Wh at projects wou ld improve tribal resilience?
• H ow can NW CSC h elp tribal resilience projects su cceed?
Chas JonesT ribal L iaison with th e NW Climate Science Center
NWCSC ,orth"~..,t Clirn,th' Sc:-il'11lr C,;-nt1•r Chas Jones
4
Climate Science Center Regional NationalIntroduction
• NW CSC T ribal Projects
• Regional efforts
• National efforts
Tribal Engagement at Three Scales
T ribal L iaison Regions
NW CSC & T ribal Reservations
NWCSC ,orth"~..,t Clirn,th' Sc:-il'11lr C,;-nt1•r Triba~ Engagement at Three Sca~es
• \t~ . • ~ .__
• -- • ' *• ,. ' ,I •
5
Introduction Regional NationalClimate Science Center
• Since 2011, fu nded 13 tribal research projects ( ~ $ 700k ) [ NPL CC, NCCWSC, AK CSC]
• Assessing th e capacity of Colu mbia River Basin tribes to address CC ( Sampson 2015 )
• Bu ilding tribal capacity to assess vu lnerability to CC ( K rosby 2016 ) [ GBL CC]
• T ribal Climate Camp ( 2016 & 2017) [ BIA, AT NI]
• Will climate affect availability of food sou rces from native sh ru bs? ( H arrington 2017)
NW CSC Tribal Projects
NW CSC & T ribal Reservations
NW CSC Triba~ Projects
• \t~ . .__ • ~
-•
- • ' *• ,. ' ,I •
----------------,------ ~----r--1---~
6
RegionalIntroduction Climate Science Center National
Engaging Tribes Regionally
• Fu nding‒ NW Climate Conference
‒ AT NI T ribal L eaders Su mmit on CC
• L iaison‒ BIA: Righ ts Protection Initiative proposal review
‒ Federal Cau cu s of T ribal L iaisons in CRB‒ NPL CC T ribal Climate Su mmit
‒ AT NI Fall Annu al Convention
‒ PNW T ribal CC Network ( K . L y nn)
RegionalNW CSC Region
tl.~ .. ~.~c~ Engaging Tribes Regiona~~y
*
I
7
Introduction Climate Science Center Regional National
BIA / CSC National T ribal L iaison network• Contribu te to national tribal CC adaptation• Developing webinar series
‒ Introdu ction to T ribal L iaisons‒ V A’ s & Adaptation plan training‒ Writing competitive proposals
• Collaborative opportu nities across CSCs
Engaging Tribes Nationally
National
T ribal L iaison Regions
Engaging Tribes Nationa~~Y
* * * * *
Tribal Engagement at Three Scales
Ch as J ones, Ph .D.T ribal L iaisoncejones@ u sgs.gov
( 5 4 1) 75 0- 1023
Gustavo Bisbal, Director
Science Agenda for 2018-2023
SAC F2F meeting – Seattle, WA – November 29, 2017
NWCSC Northwest Clin1ate Science Center
2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7
• Created by ESAC• Based on “ science needs”• Focu s on research produ cts• Random, diffu se, open- ended• No social science• No evalu ation modu le• No assessment of cu rrent state
of k nowledge
2 0 1 8 - 2 0 2 3
• Co- produ ced by SAC & SAP• Based on management priorities• Focu s on actionable science• Focu sed, deliberate, goal- oriented• Social science recogniz ed• Evalu ation modu le inclu ded• Assessment of cu rrent state of
1. L et resou rce management priorities drive science opportu nities
2. Focu s on climate adaptation science
3 . Su pport co- produ ced actionable science
4 . Emph asiz e sy nth esis and interpretation
5 . Capitaliz e on partnersh ips and leveraging
6 . Encou rage innovation
7. Maintain flex ibility
Guiding Principles
• Introdu ction• Ack nowledgements• Gu iding Principles• Climate Ch ange in th e NW• K ey Science O pportu nities based on
Management Priorities
The 2018-2023 Science Agenda at a glance
1. Aq u atic resou rces
2. At- risk species and h abitats
3 . Invasive species and diseases
4 . Forest ecosy stems
5 . Sh ru bland ecosy stems
6 . Work ing lands and waters
7. H u man dimensions of climate adaptation
Management Priorities
S A CM A N A G E M E N T
P R I O R I T I E S
S A PS C I E N C E
O P P O R T U N I T I E S
A Regional Experiment…
0
-
Example: Management Priority (aquatic resources)
Management Goal 1.2: P r o t e c t a n d e n h a n c e h a b i t a t f o r n a t i v e s a l m o n a n d t r o u t , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r f o c u s o n m a i n t a i n i n g s u i t a b l e s t r e a m t e m p e r a t u r e s
K e y S c i e n c e O p p o r t u n i t i e s K nowledge Category
1.2.1. Identify cu rrent and fu tu re fresh water refu gia to protect migrating and resident native fish popu lations from h igh temperatu res and ex ceptionally h igh or low streamflows
3
1.2.2. Project fu tu re stream temperatu res for major North west rivers, inclu ding estu aries 3
1.2.3 . Describe h ow aq u atic plant and animal commu nities may ch ange if environmental tolerances for water temperatu re, water ch emistry , and streamflow are ex ceeded 4
1.2.4 . Evalu ate meth ods of controlling stream temperatu re and oth er water q u ality measu res ( e.g., H ow long does it tak e to realiz e th e benefits of enh anced riparian h abitat? H ow mu ch can stream temperatu res be influ enced by riparian sh ade? )
2
1. K nowledge/ tools already ex ist, need to be pu bliciz ed
2. Relevant k nowledge already ex ists, bu t req u ires sy nth esis, assessment, interpretation, translation and/ or tool development
3 . Relevant k nowledge cou ld be developed in contex t of a 5 y r science agenda
4 . Relevant k nowledge cou ld be developed in 2022- 2027 if th e stage is set
5 . Developing relevant k nowledge not feasible with in scope of CSC
Knowledge categories
• Introdu ction• Ack nowledgements• Gu iding Principles• Climate Ch ange in th e NW• K ey Science O pportu nities based on
Management Priorities• Data Management and Information Sh aring• Measu ring Ach ievement
• Introdu ction• Ack nowledgements• Gu iding Principles• Climate Ch ange in th e NW• K ey Science O pportu nities based on
Management Priorities• Data Management and Information Sh aring• Measu ring Ach ievement• Implementation
The 2018-2023 Science Agenda at a glance
$ $ $E S A C
N C C W S CA C C C N R S
D O I
S t a f f
C o n g r e s s
W H
Implementation
• Introdu ction• Ack nowledgements• Gu iding Principles• Climate Ch ange in th e NW• K ey Science O pportu nities based on
Management Priorities• Data Management and Information Sh aring• Measu ring Ach ievement• Implementation• Partners and Stak eh olders• References• 3 Appendices
The 2018-2023 Science Agenda at a glance
BA
?
?
EXSAC
PI MGR
Program level
Project level
SAP EX
PI MGR
SAC
?
?
NW CSC Staff
NW CSC Staff
From DeCrappeo, N.M., G.A. Bisbal, and A.M. Meadow. 2017.
Evaluation of the NW CSC
Science Agenda: Accountability, Learning, and
ImpactAlison M. Meadow
University of Arizona – Institute of the Environment
Why Evaluate the Science Agenda?
The Agenda expresses and sets the goals and expectations for how the NW CSC will meet the science information needs of resource managers and stakeholders in the Northwest region.
A strategic evaluation of activities outlined in the Agenda will help the NW CSC leadership identify successes, learn from challenges, and demonstrate impact.
Goals of the 2017 – 2022 Science
Agenda
The Agenda will be produced in collaboration with the SAC
Scientists and Managers will work together throughout projects
Science will be directly related to stakeholder priorities
Projects will be policy and practice relevant, not prescriptive
Products and tools will be accessible to stakeholders
Mapping Goal and Activities
Too!sCS"""'°Pld
S-.lc llec;s;or,s M
~"""5
IYl>o/you-,lddo(j-/ta.
To what extent was the
Agenda developed collaboratively with the
SAC?
Activity: Survey SAC members to gather their perspectives on the process of developing the Agenda
Logistics:
Will be administered electronically just after this meeting
Responses will be anonymous
Responses will go to NW CSC leadership
Frequency – one survey
Have resource managers been active participants in NW CSC-funded research
projects; how has their participation influenced
outcomes and impacts? Activity: Survey of all resource managers who were identified as
participants (or potential participants) in NW CSC-funded projects
Logistics:
Online survey or email
Responses can be anonymous
Responses go to NW CSC leadership
Frequency: surveys administered immediately post-project and yearly thereafter (up to a total of 3 times) to trace uses and impacts
Are projects designed to include stakeholders
throughout and to focus on stakeholders’ science
needs?
Activity: Proposal review guidance for external proposal reviewers
Logistics:
NW CSC leadership will supply all external proposal reviewers with a set of guidelines to consider how well a proposal has planned for the inclusion and collaboration of resource managers
The guidelines are not prescriptive; they ask reviewers to consider an additional set of questions relating to the practices associated with collaborative research and development of actionable science
Are products and
tools accessible to (and used by)
resource managers?
Activity: Use (citation) of outputs from the projects can be traced through online search engines to see where they are used beyond the immediate project participants
Logistics
Enter each project publication into Google Scholar and Altmetric search tools
Sort citations of each publication into: academic, agency documents, grey literature, and other categories
Altmetric tracks mentions of specific researchers or projects in traditional and social media
NW CSC staff regularly (yearly) search publications and update database
Is the research being funded by the NW
CSC having an impact on resource management decisions in the region?
Resource management participant survey
Citation tracking
Project annual and final reports
Next Steps
Finalize the evaluation plan (SAC, NW CSC Leadership, Meadow)
Finalize implementation plan (NW CSC Leadership)
Determine information use strategy (SAC, Leadership)
Collect the data (Leadership, Staff)
Use data to inform program decisions; re-assess as needed (SAC, Leadership)
Respond to high priority natural and cultural resource management challenges and foster substantive, sustained engagement between scientists and managers
Advance the understanding of the impacts of climate change and variability on fish, wildlife, land, and people to support sound resource management and adaptation
Build a community of researchers and managers and foster their leadership in science-based resource management
Understand and respond to information needs and support the integration of climate adaptation in resource management through usable, useful products and tools
Gustavo Bisbal, Director
Strategic Plan 2018-2023:Our next endeavor
SAC F2F meeting – Seattle, WA – November 29, 2017
NWCSC Northwest Clin1ate Science Center
The plan for the plan
P R O D U C T Written plan ( 15 - 20 pages) with a 5 y ear h oriz on
C O R E T E A M Gu s Bisbal, Amy Snover, Meade K rosby , Part- time detailee
S T E E R I N G T E A M NW CSC Staff and h ost consortiu m
C O N S U L T A T I O N / Stak eh older Advisory CommitteeA D V I C E
I N P U T M O D E Calls, emails, webinars, F2F meetings
T I M E L I N E J anu ary 2018 – J u ne 2018
1 . S t r a t e g i c E l e m e n t sMissionV isionPlanning Process
2 . B a c k g r o u n da. H istoryb. Stru ctu rec. Partners & Stak eh oldersd. Core Strength se. Accomplish ments
3 . P i l l a r s / T h e m e sa. Scienceb. Capacity Bu ildingc. Partnersh ipsd. Commu nications
4 . C o r e S e r v i c e s a n d P r o d u c t sa. Researchb. Sy nth esis/ Assessmentc. T ech nical Assistance
5 . E v a l u a t i o n
6 . A p p e n d i c e sa. Network H istoryb. CSC T imelinec. Strategic Plan Processd. Governance
Strategic Plan : Nuts-n-bolts
Our Mission
O u r mission is to deliver science to h elp fish , wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a ch anging climate.
G O A L A statement of aim or pu rpose articu lating wh at we need to ach ieve to advance ou r mission.
O B J E C T I V E S More detailed statements of th e ou tcomes or management impact we are try ing to ach ieve with each goal.
S T R A T E G I E S Approach es we will tak e to accomplish th e objectives.
Definitions: Goals, Objectives, Strategies
G O A L A c h i e v e t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d s o f i n t e g r i t y , t r a n s p a r e n c y , a n d s e r v i c e i n a l l r e g i o n a l o p e r a t i o n s .
O B J E C T I V E S
1 . C o m m u n i c a t i o n s / C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e : Be pro- active in ou r commu nications and provide responsive and efficient service to internal and ex ternal parties.
2 . F i s c a l I n t e g r i t y : Implement processes and tools for accou ntability and th e responsible management of pu blic fu nds.
3 . I n t e r n a l A l i g n m e n t : Create an integrated, organiz ed, and coordinated regional office to su pport staff, max imiz e resou rces, and improve Center ou tcomes.
4 . S t a f f : Invest in staff growth and development to create a resilient organiz ation.
An Imaginary Example: Goal & Objectives
O B J E C T I V E ( 1 o f 4 )C o m m u n i c a t i o n s / C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e : Be pro- active in ou r commu nications and provide responsive and efficient service to internal and ex ternal parties.
S T R A T E G I E S
1. Provide timely and th orou gh responses to information req u ests.
2. Maintain and improve online tools to meet cu stomer needs.
3 . Provide docu mented data sets, inclu ding geospatial data, for internal and ex ternal cu stomers.
4 . Maintain a u ser- friendly website with u sefu l and accessible information to su pport stak eh older u nderstanding and engagement.
5 . Develop web stories, fact sh eets, and oth er materials, u se social media, and participate in ou treach events to inform stak eh olders abou t, accomplish ments, and stewardsh ip opportu nities.
![[PPT]Satellite Communications - Missouri State Universitycourses.missouristate.edu/HuiLiu/csc690/slides/Satellite.ppt · Web viewSatellite Communications CSC 490: Wireless Networking](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b47664c7f8b9a5e5f8c15f6/pptsatellite-communications-missouri-state-web-viewsatellite-communications.jpg)
