®
NPLCC
Science and TEK Subcommittee
Meeting
Dial 866 628-1318
Participant Code: 6959549
August 10, 2012
2
Today’s Goals: the 2013-2017 S-TEK Strategy
Agree on draft, flexible Strategy outline
Strategy Focus Areas: results of our priority scoring
exercise
Additional or refined Focus Areas?
– Draft National Wildlife Federation Findings now out
– Process to incorporate additional priorities
Priority recommendations to the Steering Committee
as the basis for the Strategy
– Process for updates if necessary
Schedule for remaining work
– Recommendations to Steering Committee late August
– Process for S-TEK Strategy review during drafting
– Additional (optional) S-TEK calls prior to final strategy
3
Steps in developing the S-TEK Strategy
4
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
NPLCC Strategy for Science and Traditional
Ecological Knowledge: FY2013-2017
Overall Organization:
Introduction and Background
Purpose / goals of the S-TEK Strategy
Process Used to Develop the Strategy
Key Principles
2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas
Implementing and Updating the Strategy
Appendices to include details
5
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Introduction and Background
– Climate change, uncertainty, and issues of scale
– LCC’s, NPLCC, S-TEK roles and history
– The LCC ecosystems: overview and unique issues
Purpose / goals of the S-TEK Strategy
– Purpose and goals defined by the S-TEK in June
– Who the strategy is for
Process Used to Develop the Strategy
– Brief overview of the steps, meetings, scoring
exercises, etc.
– Details in Appendices
6
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Key Principles
– LCC products will go beyond enhanced
understanding of climate change influences, to
encompass support for climate change adaptation
– Strategy actions may be undertaken by the NPLCC or
by individual NPLCC or outside partners; emphasis is
on usefulness and filling gaps
– Balance will be built into the Strategy, considering the
breadth of partner/stakeholder needs and the
geographic diversity of the LCC
– Approaches to include the full range of research,
syntheses of existing information, coordination and
collaboration on tools, and decision support
(depending on the issue)
7
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Implementation: 4-year Strategy, Annual
Implementation Plans
Strategy Annual Implementation Plans
Broadly identifies high-priority focus
areas to guide NPLCC Science and
TEK efforts over 4 years.
Describes different types of
information and support that may be
useful for different topics at different
points in time
Specifies (steps down) priorities for
actions during a single year:
• Topics to be addressed
• Most useful types of information
and support needed
• Approaches to be taken to
address the topic (e.g, NPLCC
directed funding; open RFPs;
workshops & collaboration
support , Partner actions, etc)
• Describes specific projects
8
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
2013-2017 Priority Focus Areas (the “meat”)
– One section for each identified focus area:
Description of the focus area
Why it is important to the LCC
Brief summary of any current or ongoing work
Preliminary discussion of the types of work
that might be useful within the focus area
Example topics within the focus area
9
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Annual Implementation Plans
– Identify available resources to support work
– Identify a subset of Strategy topics for annual effort
Consider overall importance, urgency of information
need, and opportunities to collaborate with other
science-support organizations or efforts
– For each topic, identify (and prioritize) the types of
information and support that would be most useful to
the NPLCC Partners
Focus on information gaps not being filled by others
– Determine what specific projects to pursue and how
best to pursue / fund those efforts.
10
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Updates: Strategy will be reviewed and
updated every four years unless one of the
following occurs to trigger an update:
– Results from FY12 funded TEK work raise issues that
LCC partners agree should be incorporated
– New information is developed or a new need is
identified that would alter the relative priority scoring
of topics
11
DRAFT S-TEK Strategy Outline
Appendices:
The S-TEK Subcommittee and responsibilities
Development of Purpose and Goals
Potential needs identified in initial “laundry list”
Impact Matrix exercise establishes the “short list”
Prioritizing exercise to refine/rank focus areas
Assuring balance: “portfolio criteria”
The annual planning process and schedule
Terminology and definitions
12
S-TEK Strategy Development
Steps to Date:
Steering Committee Framing Workshop (Oct. 2011)
NWF Projects begun before the S-TEK convened:
Freshwater, Coastal Marine (2011)
NWF Current work: Terrestrial (2012)
S-TEK develops Strategy purpose, goals (June 2012)
S-TEK ecosystem calls yield “long list” (June 2012)
Impact Matrix exercise yields “short list” (July 2012)
Today: Ranking “short list” for priority and balance
– Results of workgroup ranking exercise
– Crosswalk with latest draft NWF findings
– Portfolio balance considerations
– Product: Strategy Focal Areas for recommendation to Steering
Committee
13
Priority Scoring Results
Summary of process and expectations
Overview of S-TEK member response
Analysis
– Logic used
– Single-criteria results
– Combined analysis
Group discussion
14
Process
22 Resource-driver pairs evaluated in detail using
defined scales
Four criteria define overall importance of LCC
support for potential focus area
– Value of information for decision-making
– Partnership needs
– Importance of LCC-level participation
– Timing of need
Four factors relate to portfolio balance
– Relevance to three ecosystems
– Relevance of the topic to States, Provinces, Tribes/First Nations
– Relevance of the topic to outcomes of interest
– Geographic scale of the issue
15
S-TEK overall response
23 S-TEK members submitted evaluations (more
than half))
Each scored only topics for which they had
expertise
Group 1 (Effects of ocean/coastal changes)
Group # # of driver-
resource
pairs in group
# of
responses
1 – Effects of ocean / coastal changes 6 8
2 – Effects on forests 4 9
3 – Effects of stressors on
anadromous fish
2 7
4 – Hydrology, extreme events,
freshwater habitats
4 7
5 – Effects on rivers and stream (4
items)
4 7
6 – Effects of specific stressors on
biological communities (2 items)
2 5
16
S-TEK overall response
Average scores for all items, all criteria are
on the high side
– High average scores not surprising given that these
were the top 22 of over 400 items considered!
– Within each group, the full range of scores was used
for value of information & importance of LCC
participation
– Largest variance in scoring for:
Value of information for decisions about the protection
of cultural and historic resources
# of partners who have an interest, and the importance
of LCC support, for topics within for Group 2 (effects on
forests)
17
S-TEK overall response (cont’d)
Group differences?
– Each group was scored by a subset of the 23
evaluators
– There is some overlap – most people scored more
than one group
– Group 1 scores are (slightly) lower than for other
groups
Group 1 had the 6 items, other groups had 2 or 4 items
Potential for Group 1 scores to be more “diluted” by averaging?
6 people scored both Group 1 and at least one other
group
4 of the six scored Group 1 items (on average) lower than they
scored other groups
18
Analysis logic (1)
Three of the criteria used multiple metrics
Value of information
– Averaged the scores across the 6 decision types to yield a single
metric
– Will consider the “sensitivity” scores in describing the chosen
priority focus areas and developing implementation plans
Importance of LCC participation
– Weighted the score for “Importance of LCC support” 2x the
weight for “work currently being done”
– Considered both the maximum (combined) score across the four
types of information and support and the average (combined)
score
Timing of need
– Timing scores will be used to inform selection of annual priorities
rather than Strategic priorities
19
Detail: Value of information for decision-making
6 decision types
– Protection, mitigation, and restoration of habitats
– Species management
– Land use and management
– Water use and management
– Protection of cultural and historic resources
– Management / response to disturbances
1– 4 scale (1 = not important, 4 = critical)
Equal weights imply that it is equally
important to provide support for any of the 6
decision types
21
Detail: Importance of LCC participation
For each of 4 types of information and
support that could be needed / provided
– Are you aware of relevant work of this type that is
already being done (i.e., how large is the information
and support gap?)
– How important is it that the LCC support additional
work of this type? (i.e., role of LCC in filling the
information and support gap)
22
Detail: Importance of LCC participation
Overall importance is some combination of:
– The size of the information/support gap
– Whether the work can be done without the LCC
Topic A Topic B
Size of the
gap
Not aware of activities of this
type being conducted;
anticipate significant
additional would be
necessary to fully address
this topic
Significant activity of this type
is underway; some gaps
remain where additional work
could be helpful
LCC
contribution
Some gaps are known or
suspected; those gaps could
be addressed by existing
entities
Clear gaps exist that require
multi-entity and/or cross-
boundary work; the LCC is
uniquely suited to providing
this type of information or
support
23
Detail: Importance of LCC participation
Overall importance is some combination of:
– The size of the information/support gap
– Whether the work can be done without the LCC
Topic A Topic B
Size of the
gap
Not aware of activities of this
type being conducted;
anticipate significant
additional would be
necessary to fully address
this topic
Significant activity of this type
is underway; some gaps
remain where additional work
could be helpful
LCC
contribution
Some gaps are known or
suspected; those gaps could
be addressed by existing
entities
Clear gaps exist that require
multi-entity and/or cross-
boundary work; the LCC is
uniquely suited to providing
this type of information or
support
If it is more valuable to
address Topic B (all else
equal) than Topic A, we
should weight “LCC
contribution” > “size of
the info/support gap”
25
Detail: Types of information and support
Key principle of the S-TEK strategy is that the
NPLCC will provide / support any whatever type of
information that is most useful
Is the key question whether there is SOME type of
information / support need for which LCC
participation is important?
– Use the maximum importance score across the
information types
Is the key question whether the LCC can provide
multiple types of useful information / support?
– Use the average importance score across the information
types
26
Analysis logic (2)
Now we have four metrics, corresponding to
the four main criteria
– Value of information for decision support
– Importance of LCC participation
– Partnership need
– Timing of need
Intend to use timing and “opportunity”
scores in deciding on what to include in
annual implementation plans rather than
strategic priorities
– Only 2 focus areas had average scores suggesting
work could be delayed beyond four years
27
Analysis logic (3)
We will present & consider two types of
results
– Combining scores to yield a single ranking
Weighting value of information for supporting decisions
2x the other metrics (with sensitivity analysis on the
weights)
– Rankings by individual criteria
We will then look at several ways to choose
Priority Focus Areas
– Ranked list by combined score
– Items that are in the “top 10” on all individual criteria
– Portfolio considerations
28
Ranking by
combined score
29
Ranking by value
of information for
decisions
30
Ranking by
importance of
LCC support
31
Ranking by
Partnership
interest
4 = Information is relevant to the
decisions of a large majority
(almost all) NPLCC stakeholders
3 = Information is relevant to the
decisions of most NPLCC
stakeholders
2 = Information is relevant to the
decisions of a limited number of
NPLCC stakeholders
1 = Information is not relevant to
NPLCC stakeholder decisions
32
Comparing the single-criteria and combined
evaluations in one graphic…
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Sho
relin
e
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Nea
rsh
ore
Sea
Leve
l -
Estu
arie
s
Sto
rms
- M
arin
e Sh
ore
line
Oce
an C
on
dit
ion
- S
hel
lfis
h/I
nve
rteb
rate
s
Sea
Leve
l -
Site
s
Fire
Reg
ime
- Fo
rest
Pre
cip
itat
ion
- F
ore
st
Inva
sive
s, D
isea
se, P
ests
- F
ore
st
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Fo
rest
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
- A
nad
rom
ou
s Fi
sh
Fres
h W
ater
Qu
alit
y -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
- R
ipar
ian
Flo
od
s/D
rou
ghts
- R
iver
/Str
eam
Flo
od
s/D
rou
ghts
- R
ipar
ian
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
- G
rou
nd
wat
er
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
- R
iver
/Str
eam
Pre
cip
itat
ion
- R
iver
/Str
eam
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Riv
er/S
trea
m
Fres
h W
ater
Qu
alit
y -
Riv
er/S
trea
m
Inva
sive
s, D
isea
se, P
ests
- B
iolo
gica
l
Co
mm
un
itie
s
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Bio
logi
cal C
om
mu
nit
ies
Value of information for decisions3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0
Sensitive? (at least one type of sensitivty > 1.5)yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes
Parterships 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.1 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2
Importance of LCC participation
Maximum 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5
2* avg VOI + Parter + max imp 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3 3 3.3 3 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2
33
Sensitivity analyses (1)
How sensitive are the results to the various
assumptions describe previously?
Sensitivity to differential weighting of decision types
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Sho
relin
e
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Nea
rsh
ore
Sea
Leve
l -
Estu
arie
sSt
orm
s -
Mar
ine
Sho
relin
e
Oce
an C
on
dit
ion
-
Shel
lfis
h/I
nve
rteb
rate
s
Sea
Leve
l -
Site
s
Fire
Reg
ime
- Fo
rest
Pre
cip
itat
ion
- F
ore
st
Inva
sive
s, D
isea
se,
Pes
ts -
Fo
rest
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Fore
stH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Fres
h W
ater
Qu
alit
y -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Rip
aria
nFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Riv
er/S
trea
mFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Rip
aria
nH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
Gro
un
dw
ater
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Riv
er/S
trea
m
Pre
cip
itat
ion
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mA
ir t
emp
erat
ure
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mFr
esh
Wat
er Q
ual
ity
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mIn
vasi
ves,
Dis
ease
,
Pes
ts -
Bio
logi
cal
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Bio
logi
cal C
om
mu
nit
ies
Protection, mitigation, and
restoration of habitats 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.0 4.0 3.4 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.0
Species management 3.0 2.8 3.4 2.5 3.6 2.0 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 2.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2
Land use and management 3.6 2.3 3.4 3.6 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.0 3.2
Water use and management 2.1 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.7 3.6 2.6 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.0
Protection of cultural and historic
resources 2.9 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.6 3.7 2.7 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.4 2.6Management / response to
disturbances 3.6 2.7 3.1 3.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.3 2.2 3.6 3.6 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.8
average (across all decision types) 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0
With differential weighting of the decision types
2x wgt on Protection, mitigation, and 26.6 20.2 25.8 25.1 21.3 21.5 23.6 24.8 23.6 22.9 27.9 24.4 26.2 27.7 28.2 22.3 28.7 25.9 22.3 26.1 24.6 24.0
2x wgt on Species management 25.7 19.6 25.4 24.2 21.6 20.8 23.4 24.8 23.8 23.1 27.6 24.4 25.6 27.5 28.0 22.0 28.6 26.0 22.4 26.1 24.6 24.2
2x wgt on Land use and management 26.3 19.1 25.4 25.3 20.0 21.8 23.8 25.1 23.9 22.9 27.1 24.0 25.5 27.2 28.2 22.3 28.1 25.9 21.7 26.0 24.2 24.2
2x wgt on Water use and management 24.8 18.1 24.3 23.7 19.6 20.4 23.3 25.2 23.2 22.9 27.9 24.3 25.5 27.7 27.8 22.6 28.7 26.1 22.1 26.4 24.2 24.0
2x wgt on Protection of cultural and historic
resources25.6 19.1 24.8 24.7 20.6 22.5 23.3 23.7 22.9 21.8 26.3 23.3 24.9 26.7 27.6 21.5 27.1 24.7 21.3 25.4 23.6 23.6
2x wgt on Management / response to
disturbances26.3 19.6 25.2 25.3 20.7 21.7 24.1 24.7 24.1 22.7 27.0 23.6 25.5 27.6 27.8 21.5 28.3 26.1 21.6 25.6 24.2 23.8
34
Sensitivity analyses (2)
Changing the weights on the importance of
LCC role vs. size of the information gap Se
a Le
vel
- M
arin
e
Sho
relin
e
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Nea
rsh
ore
Sea
Leve
l -
Estu
arie
sSt
orm
s -
Mar
ine
Sho
relin
e
Oce
an C
on
dit
ion
-
Shel
lfis
h/I
nve
rteb
rate
s
Sea
Leve
l -
Site
s
Fire
Reg
ime
- Fo
rest
Pre
cip
itat
ion
- F
ore
st
Inva
sive
s, D
isea
se,
Pes
ts -
Fo
rest
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Fore
stH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Fres
h W
ater
Qu
alit
y -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Rip
aria
nFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Riv
er/S
trea
mFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Rip
aria
nH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
Gro
un
dw
ater
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Riv
er/S
trea
m
Pre
cip
itat
ion
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mA
ir t
emp
erat
ure
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mFr
esh
Wat
er Q
ual
ity
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mIn
vasi
ves,
Dis
ease
,
Pes
ts -
Bio
logi
cal
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Bio
logi
cal C
om
mu
nit
ies
2xLCC 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5
equal wgts 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.4
2xgap 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4
3xLCC 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5
35
Sensitivity analyses (3)
Modest changes in the criteria weights have
small (negligible?) effects on the ranking by
combined score Se
a Le
vel
- M
arin
e
Sho
relin
e
Sea
Leve
l -
Mar
ine
Nea
rsh
ore
Sea
Leve
l -
Estu
arie
sSt
orm
s -
Mar
ine
Sho
relin
e
Oce
an C
on
dit
ion
-
Shel
lfis
h/I
nve
rteb
rate
s
Sea
Leve
l -
Site
s
Fire
Reg
ime
- Fo
rest
Pre
cip
itat
ion
- F
ore
st
Inva
sive
s, D
isea
se,
Pes
ts -
Fo
rest
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Fore
stH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Fres
h W
ater
Qu
alit
y -
An
adro
mo
us
Fish
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Rip
aria
nFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Riv
er/S
trea
mFl
oo
ds/
Dro
ugh
ts -
Rip
aria
nH
ydro
logi
c R
egim
e -
Gro
un
dw
ater
Hyd
rolo
gic
Reg
ime
-
Riv
er/S
trea
m
Pre
cip
itat
ion
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mA
ir t
emp
erat
ure
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mFr
esh
Wat
er Q
ual
ity
-
Riv
er/S
trea
mIn
vasi
ves,
Dis
ease
,
Pes
ts -
Bio
logi
cal
Air
tem
per
atu
re -
Bio
logi
cal C
om
mu
nit
ies
2* avg VOI + Parter + max imp 3.09 2.61 2.93 2.91 2.6 2.6 2.92 3.22 2.99 3.04 3.33 3.02 3.24 3.53 3.38 2.93 3.54 3.23 2.86 3.24 3.28 3.15
Avg VOI + Partner + Max Imp 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2
Avg VOI + Partner + Max Imp + Timing 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.9
Avg VOI + Partner + max imp + avg imp 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2
2*Avg VOI + Partner + max imp + avg imp 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2
36
Two ways to look at the results
Top half of ranking by combined
score
– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological
Communities
– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream
– Precipitation - River/Stream
– Precipitation - Forest
– Air temperature - Biological
Communities
– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
5 items rank in the top 10
for all three criteria (and
by combined score)
– Hydrologic Regime -
River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts -
River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts –
Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime –
Riparian
– Precipitation - Forest
37
What’s missing?
Other potential focus areas or topics not
evaluated in detail
– Review NWF focus group results
– Other topics?
Consider portfolio balance
NWF work - Overview
Phase I Aquatic Reports
(Oct 2010-Aug 2011)
Phase II Survey & Web-based Focus Groups
(Jan/Feb 2012, May 2012)
Phase II In-person Workshops
(Feb 28, Apr 20, June 2012)
Final Products (Aug 2012, March-May 2013)
*March 2012: New funding to complete terrestrial work
*2 Aquatic Reports. 1 Terrestrial Report. 1 Focus Groups Report
79 web surveys returned and analyzed
13 web-based focus groups; 107 participants
3 workshops; 108 participants
39
NWF Draft synthesis report
Synthesis of survey, focus groups & workshops with
195 resource managers, conservation practitioners
& researchers
10 “opportunities, needs and potential priorities”
identified in the Executive Summary
23 focal areas in 7 groups
– NPLCC-wide needs that transcend specific ecosystems,
habitats, and species
– Identified needs for
coastal ecosystems and habitats
freshwater ecosystems and habitats
terrestrial ecosystems and habitats
rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone species
invasive species, pathogens, and disease
indigenous natural and cultural resources
40
NWF -- Types of information and support
Five of the 10 “opportunities, needs and potential priorities” in
the Executive Summary relate directly to the different types of
information and support that the NPLCC can provide
– Develop decision-support systems and tools
– Facilitate collaboration to build capacity
– Support the generation of new or different science, data, or
information: Emphasize compatibility with existing sources of
information and an organized approach to store and access the
information.
– Promote improved science communication and outreach
– Determine if/how to incorporate TEK with Western science and
build capacity for Tribes, Native Alaskans, and First Nations
One of the 7 main groups also focuses on different types of
information and support (“NPLCC-wide needs that transcend
specific ecosystems, habitats, and species”)
41
“Opportunities, needs, and potential priorities”
Two (or three) of the 10 areas identify
potential priorities that are similar to those
evaluated by the S-TEK
– Assess the vulnerability and resiliency of the intertidal
zone, especially wetlands and estuaries
– Assess the vulnerability of Pacific salmon, other
anadromous fish, and their habitat to climate change
effects and related stressors
– Think of the NPLCC region as a corridor for wanted
and unwanted species movement, and determine
needed priority assessments and actions as a result
42
“Opportunities, needs, and potential priorities”
Two (or three) of the 10 areas suggest on-
the-ground management priorities
– Increase the resiliency of the hydrologic regime to
climate change and other stressors
– Collaborate across ecosystems to address invasive
species, pests, pathogens, and disease
– Think of the NPLCC region as a corridor for wanted
and unwanted species movement, and determine
needed priority assessments and actions as a result
Suggest a need for better information and
support on availability and effectiveness of
adaptation approaches
43
Cross-walk: Coastal ecosystems and habitats (1)
Potential focus area –
NWF report
Related driver-resource
pairs from impact matrix
Disposition
Address potential changes
to phenological
relationships and food
webs as a result of
acidified and low-oxygen
conditions
Ocean conditions were a primary climate driver;
phenology a secondary driver – not possible in
the matrix to evaluate the interaction
Ocean conditions - food
webs/productivity
Not selected for
detailed evaluation
Closest pair evaluated:
Ocean conditions –
shellfish/inverts
Ranked #21 of 22
items evaluated in
detail
44
Cross-walk: Coastal ecosystems and habitats (2)
Potential focus area –
NWF report
Related driver-resource
pairs from impact matrix
Disposition
Generate research results
and maps to inform cost
estimates and vulnerability
assessments associated
with altered coastal
flooding regimes
Effects of Floods/droughts
on:
Marine Shoreline
Marine Nearshore
Estuaries
Not selected for
detailed evaluation
Storms - Marine Shoreline
Storms - Estuaries
Not selected for
detailed evaluation
Storms - Marine
Nearshore
Ranked #18 of 22
focus areas
evaluated
Sea level - Marine
Shoreline
Ranked #11
Sea level - Marine
Nearshore
Ranked #16
Sea level - Estuaries Ranked #20
45
Cross-walk: Coastal ecosystems and habitats (3)
Potential focus area –
NWF report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Research, modeling,
capacity-building, and
decision-support in the
intertidal zone, with a
focus on wetlands and
estuaries
(all stressors) – Marine
Nearshore [intertidal
zone]
(all stressors) --
Estuaries
Sea level – Marine
nearshore evaluated in
detail (#20 of 22)
Sea level – Estuaries
(#16)
Research and capacity-
building to characterize
eelgrass and kelp
habitats and identify
priority areas
(all stressors) – Marine
Nearshore [eelgrass
and kelp habitats]
(see above for Marine
Nearshore)
46
Cross-walk: Freshwater ecosystems and habitats
Potential focus area –
NWF report
Related driver-resource
pairs from impact
matrix
Disposition
Increase the resiliency of
the hydrologic regime to
climate change and
other stressors
“Hydrologic regime” identified as a secondary driver – it
was not possible in the matrix to evaluate the interaction
between primary and secondary drivers
Impacts of five specific
stressors on Rivers &
Streams were evaluated
in detail
Hydrologic Regime (#1 of 22)
Floods & Droughts (#2)
Freshwater quality (#7)
Precipitation (#8)
Air temperature (#19)
Impacts of hydrologic
regime on multiple
resources were
evaluated; four were
selected for detailed
evaluation
HR – Rivers & Streams (#1 of
22)
HR – Anadromous fish (#4)
HR – Riparian (#6)
HR – Groundwater (#15)
47
Cross-walk: Terrestrial ecosystems and habitats (1)
Potential focus area – NWF
report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Improved understanding of
altered fog patterns and
implications for coastal
temperate rainforest
hydrologic regimes
Precipitation –
Forests [description
of precipitation
includes “fog”]
Ranked #9 of 22 –
highest of the
stressor-Forest
interactions
Research, scenario
development, and decision-
support to address whole-
scale landscape change with
a focus on changes in
vegetation composition
(all stressors) –
Biological
communities
Air temp – Biological
communities
evaluated in detail
(#13)
Invasives, diseases,
pest – Bio. Comm.
also evaluated in
detail (#18)
48
Cross-walk: Terrestrial ecosystems and habitats (2)
Potential focus area – NWF
report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Improved understanding of the
relationship between fuels, fire,
other disturbance regimes, and
forest management
implications
Fire regimes – Forests Ranked #17 of 22
evaluated in detail
Floods/droughts –
Forests
Not evaluated in detail
Ranked #14 Invasives, diseases,
pests - Forests
Research, data coordination,
and decision-support to
improve connectivity and
refugia networks
(all stressors) -
Connectivity
Nothing related to
connectivity evaluated in
detail. In impact matrix
scoring, connectivity was
14 of 27 valued resources
Support cross-boundary
collaboration, public outreach,
and development of guidance
and scenarios in the Willamette
Valley
Geographically-specific focus areas were not
evaluated as potential focus areas for the Strategy
(case studies could be considered as part of annual
implementation)
49
Cross-walk: Rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone
species (1)
Potential focus area – NWF
report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Research and decision-
support to identify climate-
resilient focal indicators and
assess management options
Not clear there a
parallel exist for this
topic. Closest might
be impacts on
Biological
Communties?
Impacts of Air Temp
(ranked #10 of 22)
and Invasives,
diseases, and pests
on Biological
Communties (#5)
evaluated in detail
Research and capacity-
building to assess vulnerability
of Pacific salmon, other
anadromous fish, and their
habitat to climate change
effects
(all stressors) –
Anadromous fish
Hydrologic regime –
Anadromous fish,
and Freshwater
quality –
Anadromous fish
evaluated in detail
(#4 and #13)
50
Cross-walk: Rare, endemic, vulnerable, and keystone
species (2)
Potential focus area
– NWF report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Research and
modeling for forage
fishes
(all stressors) –
Forage fish
Not evaluated in detail. In
the impact matrix, highest
ranked item related to forage
fish was #59 (of 242
receiving any votes)
Modeling and
decision-support for
other key fish
species
(all stressors) –
Ground / Rock fish
Not evaluated in detail. In
the impact matrix, highest
ranked item related to
ground/rock fish was #88 (of
242 receiving any votes)
51
Cross-walk: Invasive species, pests, pathogens, and
disease
Potential focus area
– NWF report
Related driver-
resource pairs from
impact matrix
Disposition
Identify corridors for
invasive species,
pests, pathogens,
and disease
Invasives, diseases,
pests – (all resources)
Invasives, diseases, pest –
Biological communities
ranked #5 of 22 items
evaluated in detail
Collaborate across
ecosystems and
specialties to
address invasive
species, pests,
pathogens, and
disease
No clear parallel – suggests an information and
support need related to improved understanding of
how to manage invasive species, pests, diseases and
their impacts
52
Cross-walk: Indigenous natural and cultural resources
NWF work identified three potential focal areas
related to indigenous natural and cultural resources;
no clear parallel for these exists in the impact matrix
or evaluations
– Research to understand and assess climate change effects on
the indigenous Way of Life
– Identify if and how to incorporate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Western science and the NPLCC’s work
– Provide capacity-building and decision-support to build and
enhance the ability of Tribes and First Nations to address climate
change effects
53
Discussion: Possible gaps or disconnects
A few items were mentioned in the NWF report that
the S-TEK did not consider or evaluate directly
– Effects of some primary climate drivers on some secondary
drivers (i.e., ocean conditions on phenology)
– Understanding climate change effects on Indigenous Ways of
Life
Four of the potential focus areas from the report did
not score well enough in the impact matrix to
warrant detailed evaluation
– Effects of changing ocean conditions on food webs
– Effects of any climate-related drivers on connectivity
– Climate impacts of forage fish
– Climate impacts on “other key fish species” (not including
anadromous fish, which were evaluated)
54
What now?
Need to narrow down to a list of Priority
Focus Areas for the S-TEK Strategy
– Based on work to date
– Starting from the results of the scoring and NWF work
just reviewed
55
Reminder for discussion…
Top half of ranking by combined
score
– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological
Communities
– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream
– Precipitation - River/Stream
– Precipitation - Forest
– Air temperature - Biological
Communities
– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
5 items rank in the top 10
for all three criteria (and
by combined score)
– Hydrologic Regime -
River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts -
River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts –
Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime –
Riparian
– Precipitation - Forest
56
Discussion: Overlap or redundancy?
Top half of ranking by combined
score
– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological
Communities
– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream
– Precipitation - River/Stream
– Precipitation - Forest
– Air temperature - Biological
Communities
– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
Is there overlap in the
highlighted items?
Can they be defined more
clearly or succinctly?
57
Discussion: proposed modification (1)
Top half of ranking by combined
score
– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - River/Stream
– Floods/Droughts - Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological
Communities
– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream
– Precipitation - River/Stream
– Precipitation - Forest
– Air temperature - Biological
Communities
– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
For purposes of these topics,
include floods and droughts as
part of the hydrologic regime
Note that the impact of
precipitation on rivers and
streams is captured through
the hydrologic regime
Definitions of “rivers &
streams” and “freshwater
quality” have siginficant
overlap
Consolidate 6 topics to 2:
– Effects of changes in the
hydrologic regimes on Rivers
and streams (instream flow,
habitat, water quality)
– Effects of changes in the
hydrologic regimes on Riparian
habitats
58
Discussion: Portfolio balance
Revised list of potential Priority
Focus Areas
– Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
– Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
– Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
– Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological
Communities
– Fresh Water Quality - River/Stream
– Precipitation - Forest
– Air temperature - Biological
Communities
– Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
This list is dominated by
topic primarily related to
freshwater ecosystems
– Look at balancing criteria
included in the evaluation
59
Discussion: terrestrial ecosystems
Revised list of potential Priority
Focus Areas
A. Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
B. Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
C. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
D. Invasives, Disease, Pests -
Biological Communities
E. Precipitation - Forest
F. Air temperature - Biological
Communities
G. Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
Topics D and F are cross-
ecosystem
Topic E is primarily
terrestrial
Next highest ranking
terrestrial topics:
– Air temperature – Forest
(#12)
– Invasives – Forests (#14)
– Fire – Forests (#17)
Proposed modification
– Combine air temperature and
precipitation as climate
effects on forests
– Consider prioritizing a focus
on invasives, diseases, and
pests in terrestrial ecosystem
within annual planning (a
subset of topic D)
60
Discussion: Marine/Coastal ecosystems
Revised list of potential Priority
Focus Areas
A. Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
B. Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
C. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
D. Invasives, Disease, Pests -
Biological Communities
(emphasizing terrestrial/forest
communties
E. Precipitation and air temperatures -
Forest
F. Air temperature - Biological
Communities
G. Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
Topic F is cross-
ecosystem (Topic D is
less-so if modified)
Topic G is primarily
marine/coastal
Next highest ranking
marine/coastal topics
– Sea level – estuaries (#16)
– Storms – marine shoreline (18)
– Sea level – Marine shoreline
(20)
– Ocean conditions –
shellfish/inverts (21)
– Sea level – sites (22)
61
Discussion: Proposed modification
Revised list of potential Priority
Focus Areas
A. Hydrologic Regime - River/Stream
B. Hydrologic Regime - Riparian
C. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous
Fish
D. Invasives, Disease, Pests -
Biological Communities
E. Precipitation and air temperatures -
Forest
F. Air temperature - Biological
Communities
G. Sea Level - Marine Shoreline
Remember the NWF
identified coastal flooding
as a potential focus area
Note that coastal flooding
combines sea level change
and storms
Expand Topic G:
– Effects of sea level and storms
on the Marine shoreline,
estuaries, and nearshore
habitats
(Is a focus area for the
Western AK LCC too)
62
Discussion: 6 Priority Topics for the Strategy
A. Hydrologic Regime – Rivers, Streams, and Riparian
habitats
B. Hydrologic Regime - Anadromous Fish
C. Invasives, Disease, Pests - Biological Communities
D. Precipitation and air temperatures - Forest
E. Air temperature - Biological Communities
F. Effects of sea Level changes and storms on the
marine shoreline, nearshore, and estuaries
63
Key Dates for S-TEK Strategy
Presentation/discussion at August 29 & 30 -
Steering Committee Meeting
– Present process used by S-TEK for selection of
principles and priorities – including matrix, criteria &
evaluations
– Presentation by NWF their findings
– Lists of initial draft Principles and Priority Focus Areas
recommendations
Sept 25 S-TEK Meeting – discuss draft
Strategy
64
Next Steps for S-TEK Strategy
Frank, Karen and Mary will draft (for SC
Mtg):
– Key Principles
– Priority Focus Areas
Drafts will be based on:
– S-TEK Discussions (7/10 and 8/10 meetings)
– Results from Evaluations
– Results from NWF’s efforts
65
Next Steps for S-TEK Strategy
Optional call before Steering Committee Mtg:
– Preview presentation for 8/29 Steering Committee
Meeting
– Aug. 23, 24 or 27 (doodle will be sent)
Optional call after Steering Committee Mtg:
– Week of Sept. 3rd (doodle will be sent)
Frank, Mary and Karen will prepare draft S-
TEK Strategy to send prior to the S-TEK 9/25
meeting