Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) & Session Moderator

1. LCC Scope: from Identifying Science Needs, to Addressing Immediate Needs, to Investing in our Future Needs. Three Cases Studies on the Process & Evolution Western Alaska LCC Appalachian LCC Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) & Session Moderator

2. LCCs - Self-Directed, Science-Management Partnerships …each is unique 1. Decision-Making - Structure / Governance 2. History - Partnership (Relationships) / Trust 3. Capacity - both in terms of Science and Management 4. Threats – many are similar, vary in terms of relative proportion / degree of impact, some shared regionally, …some more unique 5. Landownership – % Public v. Private Ownership / Cultural or Historic Lands / Resources 6. Energy / Infrastructure / Commercial & Extractive Industries

3. N/A: This level refers to existing Governmental bodies - limited to the Pacific Islands and Arctic LCCs Exec. level Decision-Makers – Staff - Partners - Stakeholders Decision-Making/Oversight Committee level Sub-committee of the main Committee with expedited decision making authority Exec. subComm Communications; GIS/Data Mgmt; Socio/Cultural; Ecologist / Biologist; Staff to Coord/Implement LCC operations Coordinator Staff /Team level Science Coordinator Partners with some expected input to LCC processes or products Managers Researchers Partnership at large -level (Technical) Groups established to address specific topics or issues System or Issue -based Adv Group TechGroup level Taxonomic Advisory Group Broader societal representation (LCC report out to this broad representation and solicit feedback). Stakeholder level

5. Science Needs --- Immediate Needs --- Future Needs Jean Brennan PhD Coordinator jean_brennan@fws.gov Bridgett Costanzo Science Coordinator bridgett_costanzo@fws.gov

6. Identify Science Needs – Workshop Participants …Who do you engage and Why? ….(what’s the historic relationships / partnerships?) Committee level Stakeholders Partners WAK Executive Management Research Executive Staff /Team level App PPP Technical Technical Partnership at large -level Technical Technical TechGroup level Technical Technical Stakeholder level

7. Identify Science Needs – Workshop Participants Workshop Planning Team Repr. = 5 State / 6 Federal / 6 Other (NGOs, University, Partnerships)

8. 15 States(NY-AL; IL-VA) Fed. Listed (170) Candidate (35) Proposed (3) 1. • Federally listed species • 14 NFs • 9 NP Areas • 6 NWRs 2. flowering plants 29% 3. mussel- clam 31% 62% forest fish 16% Major Threats Energy: NG / Hydro- “fracking” Energy: Mt Top Mining Water Stress / Extreme Events Urban Expansion 4. 26% Ag Lands crops 8 pasture 18

9. Goals of the Workshop: 1. Survey Science Capacity => Directory of Expertise (COP) 187 Aquatics: Ecological flows, species-habitat relationships at multiple scales & effects of alterations Human Dom. / Economic Lands: Resource extraction & demands for energy Terrestrial: Species / habitat distribution trends (incl. all terrestrial habitats – forest, grasslands, wetlands) Climate Change & Drivers: Vulnerability assessments (climate + non-climate stressors) Photo Source: B. Smith

10. ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- Human Dim. Northern Northern Aqx2 Terrx2 DAY 1- Thematic (Expertise) Groups Southern Southern Climate Change

11. Goals of the Workshop: 2. Full Portfolio 3. Top-Ranked (Immediate FY$) • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- DAY 3 – Synthesis / Writing Team } DAY 2- Interdisciplinary(x6) x6 Northern Northern • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- • ------- Southern Southern => a transparent and defensible way of selecting science needs / support

12. Science Needs --- Immediate Needs --- Future Needs Rick Nelson PhD Coordinator Richard_d_nelson@fws.gov Mike Olson Science Coordinator Michael_olson@fws.gov

13. Plains and Prairie Potholes Our Fundamental Objective:Increase conservation delivery by reducing scientific uncertainty associated with landscape level stressors which are important to our partnership Accomplishments - first 18 months • Funded 27 projects (over 5 rounds of funding) • Formed Steering & Technical Committees (more than 2 dozen active members) • Draft Charter - soon to be finalized • Conducted Science Needs Workshop • Sci Webinars, Website, Initial Op’s Plan • Working to develop a seamless national network • Our Initial List of Urgent Needs / Issues • Agriculture • Energy • Climate Change • Regional Understanding of Habitat Condition • (spatial analysis) • Land and Water Management Planning • Water We are ….“a work in progress”

14. From humble beginnings…Immediate needs in year two…and preview of “coming attractions” • PPP-LCC WALCC ALCC _____ • DA/Science Needs Workshop Two separate events Science Needs workshop • Early RFP’s Broad Broad RFP (Data, Fundamental 6 Specific RFA’s(Ecological flows, • Information, TEK, tools/training Aquatic habitat, Energy, Rare Endemics, for resource managers Climate Change, Terrestrial Landscapes) • Later RFP’s more specific 1st RFA • Combination of immediate needs Combination of immediate needs • and long-term issues and long-term issues • Technical Team review/rank Steering Committee review/rank Addressecommon impacts/threats • Scientific rigor, link to needs, unique, Transportable/Scalable Enhances planning decision making • Scalability/transportability, short term, Add to conservation/adaptation decision making Supports adaptive management • Management tie, leverages resources Add to building of partnership Enhances risk management • Address cross-partnership need Leveraging Test promising proof of concept • Unique approach or opportunity • “Connections” workshop upcoming

15. Refining/Improving Planning – year 2 • Decision analysis workshop Main focus of workshop Where we left things

16. Continue to quantifying relationships between decisions, needs and outcomes Example scenarios

17. PPP-LCC “Connections” Workshop Terrific idea “borrowed” from UMGLLCC… Moving from individual projects to an even more comprehensive view of the landscape – Will discuss targets, objectives, gaps. Oriented on 4 themes (potholes, rivers, sage-steppe, human dimensions) Bringing PI’s, Technical and Executive committee members together for the first time.

18. LessonsLearned LCC’s must embrace principles of adaptive management – We’re a process of constant improvement Need for well understood review criteria Identify those willing to do some of the “heavy lifting” - sub-group approach was helpful Time management vs. embracing a sense of urgency Science needs must drive the RFP process not the other way around. PPP-LCC Integration of fun and opportunity to be creative is important to the success of the group. Collaboration across LCC network important to the landscape approach…

19. Identifying Science Needs -to Science Planning -to Activities