Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Inaugural Meeting

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Contents

1.1 Foundational Materials 1 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter 2 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289 15 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter 19 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter 31 1.1.5 Overview of Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council 36 convening process 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries 44 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: 142 Assessment Findings and Recommendations 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - Department of Interior 160 and National Partners Assessment

1.2 Council Member Information 172 1.2.1 Council list 173 1.2.2 Council member biographies 174

1.3 Background Materials 182 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions 183 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team Charter, Vision 187 and Mission 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team Charter, 195 Vision and Mission

1.4 Meeting Materials 201 1.4.1 Meeting agenda 202 1.4.2 Issue papers and decision points 206 • Communications • Charter and Council membership • Operational Guidelines 1.4.3 Informational materials associated with agenda topic “Council relationship 210 with other national conservation efforts” • President Obama’s Climate Action Plan 210 • Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To 230 Address Management Priorities • The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and 234 Department of Interior Climate Science Centers - Progress Report (Summer 2013) • Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science 255 Charter • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regional Integrated 258 Sciences and Assessments Factsheet • National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy 260 • Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate 262 Change Adaption Science for Conservation 1.1 Foundational Materials

1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter 1.1.5 Overview of Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council convening process 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations – Department of Interior and National Partners Assessment

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

MEMORANDUM

Date: June 17, 2013

To: LCC Network and Partners

From: U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Subject: LCC National Council Final Charter

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) were established as a network of partnerships to collaboratively address conservation at a landscape-scale across North America, the Caribbean, and Western Pacific Islands. The existing LCC network is comprised of twenty-two regional LCCs, which are self-directed partnerships whose work is guided by an LCC Steering Committee. Currently, there is a network-wide coordinating team comprised of LCC Coordinators, but this group cannot address critical national-level needs for coordination and support across the LCC network. Ever since the LCC effort was initiated in 2009, multiple parties have pointed toward the need for an LCC National Council to serve the LCC network. During the November 2010 LCC workshop at the National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia, a working group was convened to develop the initial concepts for a National Council.

In response to these efforts and ongoing discussions about the value of an LCC National Council, in 2011 the U. S. Department of the Interior (DOI) engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) to conduct an independent, third-party neutral assessment of national partners and DOI leadership to gauge potential support, concerns, and suggestions for convening an LCC National Council. The assessment findings indicated there were national-level needs that could not be met through the existing LCC enterprise, but were critical to the long-term viability of the LCC network.,

Given the expressed need and broad support for such a body, the U.S. Institute convened a representative national “strategy team” to collaboratively develop a path forward and create a proposal for a national body that would balance the broadly recognized tension between the need to preserve and protect the self-directed nature of the LCCs with the need for an integrated, interdependent network. The strategy team identified key needs for the LCC National Council, which included: (1) overarching coordination of LCC efforts; (2) consistency between LCCs for coordination and communication to support a cohesive purpose; (3) articulation of shared outcomes; (4) support for collaboration across geographies; and (5) advocacy for LCCs. Members of the strategy team were selected to represent the broad array of partners interviewed for the assessment. Strategy team participants are listed below.

i 2 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

Federal Agencies LCC Staff Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Doug Austen, National LCC Coordinator Cat Hawkins-Hoffman, National Park Service Ben Thatcher, Assistant National LCC Doug Parsons, National Park Service Coordinator Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Dave Cleaves, U.S. Forest Service Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands CCC Doug Beard, U.S. Geological Survey Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Robin O’Malley, U.S. Geological Survey Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC

Non-Governmental Organizations Tribal and Indigenous Mark Humpert, Association of Fish and Wildlife Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Agencies Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Gary Taylor, Association of Fish and Wildlife Ulalia Woodside, Pacific Islands CCC/ Agencies* Kamehameha Schools* Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation States Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation Doug Vincent-Lang, Alaska Department of Fish Mary Klein, NatureServe and Game Leslie Honey, NatureServe Josh Avey, Arizona Game and Fish Department* Mark Kramer, The Nature Conservancy Larry Voyles, Arizona Game and Fish Christie McGregor, The Nature Conservancy Department Christy Plumer, The Nature Conservancy* John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Resources* Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Zach Cockrum, Trout Unlimited Wildlife and Fisheries Jad Daley, Trust for Public Land Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Breece Robertson, Trust for Public Land* Resources Commission Bob Broscheid, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Over the course of four meetings and numerous conference calls1, the strategy team delved deeply into the issues of unmet needs and whether additional support was needed for the LCC Network. The strategy team discussed needs for coordination, guidance, and support that cannot be fully met by the existing LCC network structure. Through their deliberations, the strategy team, working via consensus, reached the conclusion that there was strong need for a National Council to serve and advance the LCCs and the LCC network. Recognizing that the LCCs are self-directed partnerships and that participants come from agencies, organizations and tribes with their own inherent authorities, the LCC National

1 Organizational representatives shifted over the course of the Strategy Team’s work due to staff changes and scheduling conflicts. *Strategy team members marked with an asterisk departed prior to finalization of the Charter.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 ii 3 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

Council will respect such authorities and work collaboratively to provide coordination, strategic guidance, and recommendations. As such, the National Council will have no authority over individual LCCs.

The strategy team developed an initial draft charter that identified proposed structure, membership, purpose, goals, and objectives for the LCC National Council to meet these identified needs. The strategy team then (1) distributed the draft charter to the LCC network, as well as current and potential partners, and (2) hosted three webinars to solicit feedback on the charter. After collecting and reviewing all comments received, the strategy team revised the draft charter to produce the attached final LCC National Council charter. This document will be used to convene the LCC National Council.

iii 4 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

LCC National Council Charter

Introduction Conservation challenges facing today’s natural and cultural heritage, including the impacts of climate change, are enormous. They represent a force of change more consequential than any previously encountered. The magnitude of the challenge is so unprecedented and great that it requires us to come together, harness our collective power and approach conservation in ways we never have before.

Existing governance structures struggle with landscape-scale management and the multiple scales of collaboration and coordination required. A network of 22 self-directed Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) was established to help address these complex conservation and collaboration challenges. This network is working across geographies and jurisdictions at a new regional scale, and is delivering unprecedented regional collaboration. The LCC network is helping to enable conditions to support the success of conservation efforts and initiatives underway across the landscape. The vision, mission, and guiding principles of the LCC network are outlined in an appendix to this charter.

The LCC National Council will serve the LCC network by learning from them and helping to identify the ecological and institutional challenges faced by the LCCs that should be addressed at the national scale. Serving as the national voice for the LCC network, the Council will seek to support changes that can be made at the national level to facilitate the work of the LCCs. The Council will provide a platform for highlighting LCC successes and challenges. Sustained funding is needed for the LCC network, and the Council will work to ensure that local and regional partnership efforts are supported at the highest levels. To achieve these goals, the Council will meet at a minimum biannually to identify and consider high-priority issues and to make recommendations to support the LCC network. Every member of the Council has an equal seat at the table, and consensus will be sought for any decision or recommendation the Council endorses. National Council composition is meant to be reflective of the LCC network as a whole.

Looking inward, the LCC National Council will provide national-level coordination to identify opportunities to reduce duplication, leverage resources and capacities, and improve efficiencies and conservation outcomes across the LCCs.

While the Council will not serve as an umbrella entity to coordinate and oversee all landscape-level initiatives, strategies, national plans or coordination efforts, members will strive to seek input from all partners and to remain informed on key opportunities for collaboration. Communication is recognized as a critical component for success, and the Council will seek dialogue with agencies, tribes, environmental organizations, educational institutions, and other partners to maximize the goals, objectives and success of the LCC network. The National Council should prioritize the development of a strategy to maximize opportunities for input and information-sharing between the LCCs and the LCC National Council.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 1 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 5 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

This is an interim Charter that will serve as guidance to convene the LCC National Council. All elements of this Charter, including Council membership, will be revisited by the LCC National Council within the first two years of operation. The Council will revise the Charter as needed moving forward.

Purpose The LCC National Council will support the cooperative, large-scale conservation efforts of the LCC network by working with them to enhance coordination among the LCCs and to identify ecological and institutional challenges such as climate change and other landscape-scale stressors2 that should be addressed on the national and international scale. Serving as the national voice for the LCC network, the Council will seek to support actions that can be taken at the national level to facilitate the work of the cooperatives. The LCC National Council will support all self-directed LCCs and their diverse individual missions, some of which include cultural resources. Once established, the LCC National Council will establish operations and implementation frameworks as needed.

Goals The following LCC National Council goals emerged from the LCC network and from national-level partners. These goals identify needs essential to sustaining the viability of the LCCs that the existing LCC network cannot address without additional national-level support: • Integrate national conservation initiatives and partnerships (i.e. State Wildlife Action Plans, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, National Fish Habitat Partnerships, and The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Assessments) with the LCC network and provide a venue for higher-level conversations about reducing programmatic duplication and improving efficiency. o The Council’s goal is not to integrate all national initiatives under one umbrella, but to promote coordination of the LCC network with relevant national conservation initiatives. • Promote, support and ensure recognition of the LCCs as an effectively-functioning, coordinated, and connected network that enhances landscape-scale conservation. • Build a national-level constituency for the LCCs that: o Focuses on strategic policy engagement o Shares LCC achievements o Promotes the LCCs within federal agencies and Congress o Catalyzes greater commitment by partners to the regional LCCs • Communicate consistent messages about the LCC enterprise at the national level • Increase tribal, Alaska Native, Canada First Nation, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Caribbean, and other indigenous peoples’ engagement in the LCCs.

Organizational Structure

2 This term is used in the context of broad spatial scales that may encompass coastal or marine systems, freshwater systems, and terrestrial systems, depending on the scope defined by the individual LCCs.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 2 6 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

LCCs: There are 22 individual, self-directed LCCs. Each LCC is governed by a voluntary steering committee with members typically representing conservation and resource management partners from a wide variety of federal, state, territorial and international agencies; tribal and other indigenous governments, non-governmental organizations, and others located within the LCC geographic region. Each LCC also has a staff Coordinator and Science Coordinator. At the national level, there is a National LCC Coordinator and an Assistant National LCC Coordinator.

LCC Network: The LCC network is composed of the twenty-two individual LCCs and their linkages, including Steering Committees, staff, partners, and other individuals, organizations, and agencies associated with the LCCs.

LCC Network Operations: To enable the LCCs to function as a coordinated network, the core staff from the LCCs have organized an LCC Coordinators Team (LCT), comprised of the Coordinators from each of the 22 LCCs and the National LCC Coordinators, and an LCC Network Science Coordinators Team that is comprised of the Science Coordinators from each of the 22 LCCs and the National LCC Coordinators. The LCT has selected an Executive Committee to work directly with the National LCC Coordinators and the LCT collectively on aspects of LCC network operations, and other matters as appropriate, while respecting individual LCC steering committee governance authority.

LCC National Council: The Council will coordinate, collaborate, and provide strategic guidance to the LCC network and all its partners. Additionally, the Council will work to engage other organizations, agencies, tribes, and NGOs to further support collaborative landscape-scale conservation.

LCC National Council Working Groups: When the Council has identified a high-priority issue, action, or product, they may form a workgroup to conduct discussions and prepare recommendations for consideration by the Council. Workgroups will carry out tasks as assigned by the Council. Workgroups may be permanent or non-permanent, and may disassemble when an issue is resolved or a product is completed.

Membership3 Selection Criteria The following are characteristics the LCC National Council seeks in all members. Individuals selected for the council will be collectively evaluated relative to these required characteristics: • Be an active participant and an advocate for the LCC mission. • Have a commitment and willingness to collaborate. • Be able to think beyond the boundaries of his/her agency, organization, or tribe. • Be able to represent a broad array of natural and cultural resources.

3 Note that the selection process and criteria will differ slightly for each type of member. The full National LCC strategy team will review and approve all potential members nominated for the National Council prior to extending invitations.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 3 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

• Have decision-making authority/influence within their agency, organization, or tribe. • Be committed to soliciting input from and reporting back to their agencies, organizations, tribes, and colleagues. • Have experience in collaborative processes at different scales. • Be involved with an agency, organization, or tribe that: o Is engaged in the LCC enterprise. o Has resources and/or a mission that aligns with the LCC mission. Has science knowledge/capacity and/or is actively engaged in resource management activities.

The following overarching characteristics are desirable in some of the members to ensure that the LCC National Council has these attributes: • Be able to represent a North American perspective that includes international interests (i.e. it is recommended that the Council select a member(s) that come from the non-contiguous United States, Mexico, Canada and/or other nations within the LCC geography).4 • Have science knowledge/communications capacity.

Participation: All members (or their designated alternate) are expected to be present at a majority of the meetings, conference calls, or other forums in which discussion and/or decision-making occurs.

Alternates/designees: The LCC National Council will be effective only with consistent and engaged participation. Members should designate alternates who are fully informed, can act on behalf of their member, and can participate consistently.

Composition The LCC National Council will consist of twenty-seven participants as outlined below: • 6 Federal agency directors o The participating federal agencies were selected based on their authority to make natural resource management decisions about large landscapes. o Federal agency directors from the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will hold permanent seats on the council. • 3 U.S. Federally-Recognized Tribal participants o Tribal participants include both tribal leadership as well as participants from tribal organizations. Participation will not be limited to tribal leadership, but can also come from tribal organizations that represent these sovereign tribes. o Tribal participation is limited to U.S. federally-recognized Native American Tribes and Alaska Natives.

4 The intent is for the National Council to reflect the composition of the LCC network, which includes international, indigenous, and Island communities.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 4 8 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

o Selection entity: Initially, Tribal participants on the strategy team will develop a selection process and an initial call for applications, and will convene a panel to review and select members. Thereafter, review and selection will be the responsibility of the LCC National Council. • 1 Indigenous participant o Participant will be drawn from First Nations, Pacific Islanders, Caribbean peoples, Native Hawaiians, as well as other indigenous peoples within the geography of the LCCs. o Selection entity: Initially, strategy team members will work with LCC coordinators who have indigenous members to develop a selection process and initial call for applications, and will review and select member. Thereafter, review and selection will be the responsibility of the LCC National Council. • 4 State agency directors o State agencies will be nominated by each of the four respective regional fish and wildlife associations. o Target participants are U.S. state agency directors. o Selection entity: Each regional state fish and wildlife association’s executive committee (i.e. Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) will review and select its respective participant. • 4 NGO participants o Selection entity: Participating NGOs on the strategy team will conduct the initial call for applications, will review applications, and will make recommendations to the strategy team on final selections. Thereafter, review and selection will be the responsibility of the LCC National Council. • 1 LCC participant o The LCC participant could be a steering committee member or LCC staff member, and will be selected by the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT). The LCC participant should have the ability to speak for broader LCC issues. In addition, attendance from the LCT Executive Committee is expected. o Selection entity: The LCT will recommend an individual for participation. If the LCT cannot reach consensus, then their list of recommendations will be forwarded to the LCT Executive Committee for final selection. • 2 “Major partnership” (MP) participants o MP participants will include participants from major partnerships such as Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, Fish Habitat Action Partnerships, and other relevant partnerships. o Selection entity: The strategy team has determined that, initially, MP participants will come from the Joint Ventures and the Fish Habitat Partnerships. Future Major Partnership participants will be determined by the LCC National Council. The Joint Ventures participant will be selected by the Joint Venture Management Board. The Fish Habitat Partnership participant will be selected by the National Fish Habitat Partnership.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 5 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

• 4 International participants o International seats will be filled from all nations participating in the LCC enterprise, as defined by the geography of the LCCs. A minimum of one participant from Canada and one from Mexico will be included in these four seats. o Selection entity: Initially, strategy team members will work with LCC coordinators who have international members to develop a selection process and initial call for applications, and will review and select members. Thereafter, review and selection will be the responsibility of the LCC National Council. Additionally, LCC staff and strategy team members will reach out to international conservation entities such as the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Management, the North American Free Trade Agreement’s Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Caribbean Foresters, and other international conservation organizations within the LCC geography to seek participation. • 2 “At Large” participants o An additional two member seats are designated as “at large” and will be filled at a future date by the LCC National Council. o “At large” participants may come from organizations and interests not currently represented, such as U.S. territories, commonwealths, local governments industry, the philanthropic community, and other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Geological Survey.

In addition to the above-designated voting members, the LCC National Council is encouraged to actively invite participation from other strategic partners as appropriate. Though they will not be voting members, other partners involved in landscape-scale conservation are also encouraged to attend and participate in the LCC National Council.

The strategy team recognizes the direct tie between the LCCs and the Climate Science Centers and encourages attendance by an appropriate National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center participant.

Terms Initial term lengths: The National Council’s first participants will be selected for either a 3-year or 2-year term to initiate a staggered term rotation. After the first 3-year terms are served, all terms will be two years in length.

Initial term durations are as follows: • Federal agencies – Permanent members • Tribal participants – two 3-year terms and one 2-year term • Indigenous participant—2-year term

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 6 10 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

• State agencies – two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms • NGO participants – two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms • LCC participant – 2-year term • Major Partnership participant – 2-year terms • International participants—two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms • “At large” seats – 2-year terms

Term limits: Term limits apply to all members except federal agency participants, who have standing seats. Following initial term lengths, non-federal participants will be subject to a two-term limit.

Roles & Responsibilities The LCC National Council is responsible for reporting to Congress, States, tribes, and other partners on the status and accomplishments of the LCCs. Recognizing that the LCCs are self-directed partnerships and that participants come from agencies, organizations, and tribes with their own inherent authorities, the LCC National Council respects such authorities and will work collaboratively to provide coordination, strategic guidance, and recommendations. As such, the LCC National Council will have no authority over individual LCCs.

Specific key roles are outlined below.

Chair – The Chair of the LCC National Council holds the following responsibilities: • Prepare a written meeting agenda for all matters to be addressed by the Council. • Prepare and issue all notices, including meeting notices, which are required to be given to the Council and public. • Preside at all meetings of the LCC National Council, and unless otherwise directed by the Council, present items of business for consideration by the Council in the order listed on the meeting agenda. • Appoint working groups as required. • “Call the vote” when consensus is not achieved. • Represent the LCC network to the Administration, Congress, and other key decision-makers.

Vice chair – The Vice-chair will fulfill all the responsibilities of the Chair in his/her absence. Staff - The National LCC Coordinator, or his/her designee, will provide staff support for the LCC National Council and assist the Chair in finalizing meeting arrangements, tracking votes, documenting meeting discussions, distributing council notes and products, and identifying opportunities to speak on behalf of the LCC network.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 7 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

Decision-making The LCC National Council’s decision-making process will consist of the following elements:

Quorum: Two-thirds of the LCC National Council must be present for decision-making to occur.

Decision-Making Process: The LCC National Council will seek consensus for all decisions. This implies thoroughly exploring issues and working actively and constructively to find mutual agreement. If full consensus is not possible, then the LCC National Council will move to the decision-making model as outlined below: • In the absence of consensus, a teleconference or in-person meeting is needed to make decisions. Email conversations may only be used to make decisions where consensus exists. • If a quorum has been reached, agreement must come from 75% of the number of participants present. • Minority opinions and concerns will be recorded so that they may be revisited when and where relevant.

Meetings: The LCC National Council will meet quarterly (two in-person meetings and two web/conference call meetings), particularly as the Council is becoming established. The LCC National Council may elect to meet more or less frequently as needed. The Council may reduce the number of in- person meetings to once per year if travel restrictions or funding is a barrier for achieving quorum. Decision-making as noted above can occur via email or conference calls between quarterly meetings if actively facilitated by the Chair.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 8 12 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

Appendix: Mission, Vision, and Guiding Principles of the LCC Network

This appendix presents the mission, vision, and guiding principles of the LCC Network. The following text was copied directly from the LCC Coordinators Team charter.

Preamble

The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network5 (LCC Network or Network) desires to establish a unifying agenda for furthering the conservation of natural and cultural resources in the 21st Century;

The Network is striving to establish an organizational framework and approach for pursuing opportunities to inform natural and cultural resource conservation and sustainable6 resource management in the face of unprecedented challenges facing these resources;

We recognize that the need to understand the science of global climate change, and mount an integrated response for adapting to this threat, is a foundational principle for the establishment of LCCs and the Network;

We recognize that, in addition to climate change, there are a variety of other landscape-scale stressors7 that require mutual understanding and effective responses to conserve the natural and cultural resources within the Network’s geography;

We recognize that a functioning Network will require pursuit of certain fundamental approaches by each LCC;

We recognize that it is important that each LCC have flexibility to adapt to local conditions; the intent of this document is not to prescribe how things are done by individual LCCs, but to identify the anticipated responsibilities each LCC will need to fulfill in support of the Network vision.

Therefore, the twenty-two Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, in coordination with their steering committees have adopted this document to unify the individual Cooperatives into a Network.

Vision

Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.

5 The LCC Network is composed of the twenty-two individual LCCs and their linkages (i.e., steering committees, staff, partners and others associated with the LCCs). 6 The use of the terms sustainable, sustaining, and sustainability do not intend to imply maintenance of status quo. 7 This term is used in the context of broad spatial scales that may encompass coastal or marine systems, freshwater systems, and terrestrial systems, depending on the scope defined by the individual LCCs.

LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 9 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 13 1.1.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council Charter

Mission

A network of cooperatives depends on LCCs to:

• Develop and provide integrated science-based information about the implications of climate change and other stressors for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources; • Develop shared, landscape-level, conservation objectives and inform conservation strategies that are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape, including the implications of current and future environmental stressors; • Facilitate the exchange of applied science in the implementation of conservation strategies and products developed by the Cooperative or their partners; • Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LCC conservation strategies in meeting shared objectives; • Develop appropriate linkages that connect LCCs to ensure an effective network.

Guiding Principles

• Consider and respect each participating organization’s unique mandates and jurisdictions. • Add value to landscape-scale conservation by integrating across LCCs and other partnerships and organizations to identify and fill gaps and avoid redundancies. • Conduct open and frequent communications within the LCC network and among vested stakeholders and be transparent in deliberations and decision-making. • Focus on developing shared landscape-level priorities that lead to strategies that can be implemented. • Develop and rely upon best available science. • Develop explicit linkages and approaches to ensure products are available in a form that is usable by partners delivering conservation. • Use a scientifically objective adaptive management approach in fulfilling the mission.

14 LCC National Council Final Charter- 6/17/2013 LCC National Council Inaugura10l Meeting 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 15 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289

16 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 17 1.1.2 Secretarial Order 3289

18 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

LCC NATIONAL COUNCIL – DRAFT CHARTER

General Webinars – October 2012

Background

 2009: LCC effort initiated.  April 2010: Need for national body to serve the LCC network identified during LCC workshop in Arlington, Virginia.  November 2010: LCC workshop at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in West Virginia. Working group engaged to develop initial concepts for a national body.  July 2011: The U.S. Department of the Interior engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to assess if there was a need for a national body and the level of interest in helping to create such a body.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 19 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Background

 Fall 2011: The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution interviewed 49 executive-level leaders with almost all interviewees stating a national body is needed.  December 2011: The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution held 3 open webinars to share assessment findings and recommendations and solicit feedback.

National Strategy Team Work

 January 2012: U.S. Institute convened representative National Strategy Team for initial meeting in Washington, D.C.  February – July 2012: Strategy Team participated in 2 in-person meetings and multiple conference calls to identify national-level needs and develop a draft charter.  September 2012: Strategy team drafted charter proposal at final meeting in Denver.

20 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Strategy Team Members

Federal Agencies Non-Governmental Organizations LCC Staff Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Mark Humpert, Association of Fish and Doug Austen, National LCC Network Wildlife Agencies Cat Hawkins-Hoffman, National Park Service Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Gary Taylor, Association of Fish and Wildlife Doug Parsons, National Park Service Agencies Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Service Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Dave Cleaves, U.S. Forest Service Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands CCC Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Doug Beard, U.S. Geological Survey Federation Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Robin O’Malley, U.S. Geological Survey Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Tribal Mary Klein, NatureServe States Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Leslie Honey, NatureServe Doug Vincent-Lang, Alaska Department of Ulalia Woodside, Pacific Islands Fish and Game Mark Kramer, The Nature Conservancy CCC/Kamehameha Schools Josh Avey, Arizona Game and Fish Christie McGregor, The Nature Conservancy Department Christy Plumer, The Nature Conservancy Larry Voyles, Arizona Game and Fish Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Department Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Zach Cockrum, Trout Unlimited Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Jad Daley, Trust for Public Land Wildlife and Fisheries Breece Robertson, Trust for Public Land Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Participating LCC Coordinators

6 Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands CCC Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 21 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Strategy Team Agreements

 National Needs - critical to long-term viability of LCC enterprise

 National Council - Team members committed to populating and convening LCC National Council to meet national needs.  Recognizing that the LCCs are self-directed partnerships and that participants come from agencies, organizations and Tribes with their own inherent authorities, the National Council respects such authorities and will work collaboratively to provide coordination, strategic guidance and recommendations. As such, the National Council will have no authority over individual LCCs.

LCC Network Structure

8 The strategy team has agreed specific national needs exist that exceed the current capacity of the LCC enterprise.

22 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

National Needs

 Team evaluated list of potential national needs and narrowed focus to the following key needs.

 Coordination and integration  Across the LCC network  With key national conservation initiatives and partnerships  With national monitoring & inventory programs

 Support for and engagement in LCCs  Build national-level constituency for the LCC enterprise  Promotes the LCCs within federal agencies and Congress  Communicate consistent messages about LCC enterprise  Increase tribal and indigenous peoples’ engagement

“Supra-LCC” needs

 Address larger “supra-LCC” policy, funding, and programmatic issues  Improve coordination on landscape-level conservation efforts nationwide  Address national policy issues related to landscape- scale conservation  Coordination across federal conservation programs  Identify, coordinate, and leverage funding needs and priorities

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 23 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

LCC National Council – Draft Charter

 Purpose  Goals  Organizational Structure  Membership  Selection Criteria  Participation  Composition  Terms  Roles & Responsibilities  Decision-making

Purpose

 The LCC National Council will support the cooperative large-scale conservation efforts of the LCC network by working with them to enhance coordination among the LCCs and to identify ecological and institutional challenges that should be addressed at the national scale. Serving as the national voice for the LCC network, the council will seek to support actions that can be taken at the national level to facilitate the work of the cooperatives.

24 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Goals

 Integrate national conservation initiatives and partnerships (i.e. State Wildlife Action Plans, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, National Fish Habitat Partnerships, and The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Assessments) with the LCC network and provide a venue for higher level conversations about reducing programmatic duplication and improving efficiency.  Promote, support and ensure recognition of the LCCs as an effectively functioning, coordinated, and connected network that enhances landscape-scale conservation.  Build a national-level constituency for the LCCs that:  Focuses on strategic policy engagement  Shares LCC achievements  Promotes the LCCs within federal agencies and Congress  Catalyzes greater commitment by partners to the regional LCCs  Communicate consistent messages about the LCC enterprise at the national level  Increase Tribal government, Alaska Native, First Nation, and indigenous peoples’ engagement in LCCs.

Organizational Structure

 LCCs – Twenty-two individual, self-directed LCCs  LCC staff – LCT, Science Coordinators team, National Coordinator & Assistant Coordinator  LCC Network  LCC National Council

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 25 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Membership – Selection Criteria

 Potential members will be considered based on their ability to:  Be an active participant and an advocate for the LCC mission.  Have a commitment and willingness to collaborate.  Be able to think beyond the boundaries of his/her agency, organization, or Tribe.  Be able to represent a broad array of natural and cultural resources.  Have decision-making authority/influence within their agency, organization, or Tribe.  Be committed to soliciting input from and reporting back to their agencies, organizations, Tribes, and colleagues.  Have experience in collaborative processes at different scales.  Be involved with an agency, organization, or Tribe that:  Is engaged in the LCC enterprise.  Has resources and/or a mission that aligns with the LCC network.  Has science/knowledge capacity and/or is actively engaged in resource management activities.

Membership – Selection Criteria

 Characteristics desirable in some members:  Be able to represent a North American perspective that includes international interests (i.e. It is recommended that the Council select a member(s) that come from the non-contiguous United States).  Have science/knowledge communications capacity.

26 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Membership - Participation

 All members (or their designated alternate) are expected to be present at a majority of the meetings, conference calls, or other forums in which discussion and/or decision making occurs.

 Members should designate alternates who are fully informed, can act on behalf of their member, and can participate consistently.

Membership - Composition

 6 Federal agency directors – Agency directors from BLM, USFWS, NPS, USFS, NRCS, and NOAA will hold permanent seats.  4 tribal participants – may be from tribal leadership or tribal organizations  4 State agency directors – State agencies will be nominated by each of the four AFWA regions.  4 NGO participants - NGO members of strategy team conduct process to select initial participants.  1 LCC participant - LCT will make recommendation.  LCT Executive Committee participation encouraged in a non- membership capacity.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 27 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Membership - Composition

 2 “major partnership” participants – Initial participants from JVs and NFHAPs.  4 international participants – 2 from Canada and 2 from Mexico.

 2 “At Large” participants – will be filled at a future date by the LCC National Council.

Membership - Terms

 Initial term durations to initiate staggered rotation:  Federal agencies – Permanent members  Tribal representatives – two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms  State representatives – two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms  NGO representatives – two 3-year terms and two 2-year terms  LCC representative – 2-year term  Major Partnership representatives – 2-year terms  International representatives – TBD  At large seats – 2-year terms

28 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Roles & Responsibilities

 Chair  Prepare agendas  Issue meeting notices  Preside at all meetings  Appoint working groups  Call votes  Represent the LCC network to key federal leaders  Vice-Chair – Act as chair in chair’s absence  Staff – National LCC Coordinator or designee provides staff support.

Decision-making

 Quorum: Two-thirds of the LCC National Council must be present for decision-making to occur.  Consensus sought first.  In the absence of consensus:  Teleconference or in-person meeting required.  Quorum needed.  Agreement from 75% of participants present.  Quarterly meetings at first (two in person and two web/conference calls).

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 29 1.1.3 Presentation: Outreach webinar on draft charter

Next Steps

 October 15, 16 and 18, 2012 – Host webinars to solicit feedback from general conservation community on draft charter proposal. (10:30 – noon Pacific time)  November 2012 – Strategy team reconciles comments.  December 1, 2012 – LCC National Council interim charter finalized and member recruitment begins.  Early 2013 – Convene National Council

 Maggie McCaffrey U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (520) 901-8524; [email protected]

 Penny Mabie EnviroIssues (206) 269-5041; [email protected]

30 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter

LCC National Council Charter Review: Response to Comments

Background

In late 2012, the LCC National strategy team sought feedback on the proposed purpose, goals, organizational framework, and composition outlined in the draft charter for the LCC National Council. To obtain partner input, the draft charter was broadly distributed through a series of webinars and via email communication. Partners and other interested parties were encouraged to submit comments.

The strategy team received written submissions from the following organizations: California LCC, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Department, National Park Service, New Mexico Game and Fish Department, NOAA Fisheries Caribbean Field Office, North Atlantic LCC, Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC, Practitioners’ Network for Large Landscape Conservation, Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, comments and questions were received via three public webinars with approximately 80 attendees, and a webinar for the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT).

Feedback was received on multiple aspects of the draft charter. The table below outlines the number of comments received on different components of the draft charter.

Comment Category Number of Comments Purpose 7 Goals 14 Selection Criteria 7 Council Composition 18 Other Comments 20

This document provides a broad synthesis of themes that were heard and indicates how the strategy team chose to respond to suggested changes. In general, the strategy team did not respond to detailed, editorial comments because the team was looking for broader, conceptual feedback on the primary components of the draft charter.

Purpose

Comments received on the LCC National Council purpose called for increased specificity and a clarification of the Council’s focus and structure.

The strategy team responded to comments on Council purpose in the following ways:

• A description of the Council’s purpose to support the LCC network in all its diversity was included in the LCC National Council Final Charter. The Charter now clarifies that although the LCC network is focused on fish and wildlife conservation and climate change, individual LCCs may have different regional focus areas that include cultural resources and broader natural

LCC National Council Charter Review – Response to Comments 1

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 31 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter

resource issues. The LCC National Council will address these issues as they arise within the context of individual LCCs. • The draft charter was revised to clarify that the LCC National Council is not meant to be an umbrella organization for all landscape-scale initiatives. Rather, the Council is meant to support the mission of the LCC network and engage with other landscape-scale initiatives to better support the network. • The strategy team chose not to include additional specificity about the Council’s function and how Council decisions will be implemented. Strategy team members felt that Council operations and implementation were best left for the Council itself to determine, and will be codified in operating guidelines. • One commenter suggested that a forum approach could be more useful than a Council structure. Throughout a year of discussion about potential structures, the strategy team developed the Council model that is outlined in the Final Charter. Following the discussion that took place over that time period and the agreements that emerged from those discussions, the strategy team decided to remain with the Council model as it is currently reflected in the Charter. The strategy team also emphasized that the Council is intended to facilitate and support the LCC network, and as such, all interested partners are encouraged to attend meetings. • In response to concerns about the need to coordinate with other conservation initiatives, the strategy team reaffirmed that the LCC National Council is intended to help coordinate between LCCs and other place-based conservation efforts by including other Major Partnership participants on the Council.

Goals

Comments received on LCC National Council goals focused on (1) clarifying the Council’s relationship to national conservation initiatives and (2) clarifying the function and scope of the LCC National Council.

The strategy team did not change any of the goals outlined in the Charter, but did choose to:

• Clarify that the Council’s goal is not to integrate all national initiatives under one umbrella. • Emphasize in the introduction that development of a strategy to maximize opportunities for input and information sharing between the LCCs and the LCC National Council is one key topic that the Council should address when convened. • Include the LCC network vision, mission, and guiding principles as an appendix to the Final Charter to clarify LCC network goals that the LCC National Council will support. • Clarify that (1) the LCC network was established to address landscape-scale stressors such as climate change, as well as other freshwater, coastal, and marine issues, and (2) the LCC National Council will consider a wide range of such issues to support the LCC network in all its diversity. • Clarify that the LCC National Council will address cultural resource and heritage preservation issues when those issues arise within individual LCCs working on such issues.

LCC National Council Charter Review – Response to Comments 2

32 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter

The strategy team’s responses to other comments and questions regarding Council goals include the following:

• One commenter suggested deleting the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) as an example of a national conservation initiative. The strategy team felt the SWAPs are an important conservation initiative both regionally and nationally, so the team chose not to delete them as an example. • The strategy team chose to forward several specific suggestions to the LCC National Council for consideration once the Council has convened, including: (1) inclusion of National Ocean Policy as a national conservation initiative with which to coordinate; (2) engaging national boards of major conservation initiatives; (3) developing a process for responding to conflicts; (4) leveraging science and technology capabilities; (5) adding more specific goal statements to the Charter; and (6) suggesting activities for the LCC National Council to consider.

Selection Criteria

Comments received on selection criteria called for 1) a balance of national and regional representation, and 2) consideration of Island perspectives when selecting members.

Through development of detailed selection processes and adjustments to the composition of the Council (see below), the strategy team seeks to populate the LCC Council in a way that represents the entire geographic area of the LCC network, including national, regional, international, and Island perspectives.

Composition

Comments received on LCC National Council composition called for additional representation on the Council, clarification of existing seats, and term limits.

After careful consideration of suggested changes to Council composition, the strategy team agreed to keep the size at 27 participants, but changed the composition to include additional tribal, international, and indigenous perspectives. The strategy team collectively agreed that 27 participants is a maximum number of participants that can work together effectively, so compromises were made to increase the inclusiveness of the Council without exceeding that number.

In the final Charter, the strategy team specifically:

• Clarified that the at-large membership category may include Commonwealths and U.S. territories as potential members. • Clarified that the “Tribal representative” category is meant to include only U.S. federally- recognized tribes and Alaska Natives, and changed the number of tribal participants from four to three. • Created a new Indigenous category for First Nations, Pacific Islanders, Caribbean peoples, Native Hawaiians, and other indigenous peoples.

LCC National Council Charter Review – Response to Comments 3

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 33 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter

• Changed the composition of the international participants to include one from Canada, one from Mexico, and two from any non-U.S. nation within the LCC geography, including Canada and Mexico. • Clarified that the target representatives for state agencies are U.S. state agency directors.

The strategy team’s responses to other comments received on Council composition include:

• A complete listing of all potential organizations, governments, and agencies that could apply for at-large positions was not included in the final Charter, as the strategy team felt this was unnecessarily detailed for the Charter. • Whether or not the U.S. Caribbean will be included as one of the state agency director seats will be decided by the relevant regional fish and wildlife association. • The recommendation that a different state selection process be used will be forwarded to the LCC National Council for future consideration. • The strategy team recognizes that having additional LCC representation would be useful, and encourages LCC chairs and others to attend meetings to ensure their voices are heard.

Other Comments

Other comments received on the draft charter included (1) a call for clarification of how the LCC National Council will work and communicate with partners, (2) a question of whether participation on the Council is voluntary or if funding will be provided, (3) a call for federal agencies to coordinate landscape-scale conservation efforts beyond the LCCs, (4) the recommendation of a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) advisory group format for the LCC National Council, and (5) minor adjustments to the proposed decision-making process.

In response, the strategy team revised the final Charter in the following ways:

• Clarified, in general terms, how the LCC National Council will work and how it will communicate with partners. Details about these processes will be left for the Council to determine once it has been convened. • Revised decision-making process to establish a mechanism for recording minority opinions and concerns.

The strategy team’s responses to other comments received include the following:

• The strategy team prepared a draft “white paper” outlining the need for improved federal-level coordination across agencies on the wide array of landscape-scale conservation issues. This white paper will be forwarded to the LCC National Council for their consideration. • Travel funding will be provided on an “as needed” basis for federally-recognized tribal participants. Once convened, the LCC National Council may expand the travel funding policy, but at this time, all other Council participants are responsible for funding their own travel. • The strategy team developed the Charter with the assumption that the LCC National Council would be a partnership of partnerships, and not a FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act)

LCC National Council Charter Review – Response to Comments 4

34 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.4 Summary of comments and responses to the draft charter

advisory committee. Since that time, the Department of Interior Office of the Solicitor reviewed the Charter and confirmed that FACA does not apply to the work of the LCC National Council.

Conclusion and Next Steps

After collecting and reviewing all comments received, the strategy team produced the attached final LCC National Council Charter. This document will be used to convene the first LCC National Council.

All elements of this Charter, including Council composition and membership, will be revisited by the LCC National Council within the first two years of operation. During this time, the Council will revise the Charter as needed and appropriate to create a final operating document.

LCC National Council Charter Review – Response to Comments 5

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 35 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process 1

LCC National Council: Chartering and Convening Strategy Team Timeline

TIMELINE July 2011 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) conduct a third‐party, neutral assessment to clarify and analyze needs for a national body and to determine the level of interest among partners in creating a national body.

August 2011 – November 2011 The U.S. Institute, in partner with its neutral contractor, EnviroIssues, conducted an assessment. Sixteen leaders within the Department of the Interior (DOI) were interviewed, as well as 33 national leaders from outside of the DOI, which included federal, state, and non‐governmental organizations (NGO), as well as leaders with tribal affiliations.

January 2012 The assessment highlighted strong partner interest in creating a national body. With the consent of all the parties, the U.S. Institute neutrally convened a representative national “Strategy Team” to collaboratively develop a path forward for establishing a national body. Members of the Strategy Team included leaders from LCC staff, federal and state agencies, NGOs, and tribal organizations.

February 2012 – September 2012 Over the course of a year and a half, the strategy team met to determine the need for a national body and how that body would best be constituted. The strategy team developed a draft charter.

October 2012 – December 2012 Once the draft charter was developed, the strategy team sought approval from its respective agencies and organizations. With that approval, the strategy team sought partner feedback from the broader conservation community on the proposed purpose, goals, organizational framework, and composition outlined in the draft charter for the LCC National Council.

April 2013 The strategy team reviewed and discussed the feedback. They made revisions based on the comments and then unanimously agreed to adopt the LCC National Council Charter. A comment summary was produced and distributed to the conservation community to highlight aspects of the charter that were changed as a result of the feedback received. July 2013 The strategy team began recruitment of members for the first LCC National Council members.

November 2013 – December 2013 The strategy team affirmed the Council nominees in November 2013 and announced the inaugural members of the LCC National Council in early December 2013.

36 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process Landscape Conservation Cooperative National Council: Chartering and Convening Strategy Team Overview

Background In July 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) conduct a third‐party, neutral assessment to clarify and analyze needs for a national body identified in earlier Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) organizational meetings, and to determine the level of interest among partners in creating a national body.

Assessment The U.S. Institute, in partner with its neutral contractor, EnviroIssues, conducted phone interviews with 16 leaders within the Department of the Interior (DOI) involved with the LCCs. Thirty‐three national leaders outside of the DOI involved with LCCs, including federal, state, and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as leaders with tribal affiliations were also interviewed.

The assessment brought to light the differing views that exist with regards to the overarching purpose, goals, and roles of a national body. Assessment participants overwhelmingly agreed that an LCC national body would be valuable. The differing views captured in the assessment cautioned that the success of such a body would depend on its ability to balance the need to respect the independence and autonomy of the individual LCCs with the need to strengthen the capacity of the network to function as an integrated, interdependent whole. Other potential barriers to success identified in the assessment included any perception that one agency or entity is driving agendas and/or priorities, and concern with regards to sustained funding.

Specific national needs identified by the assessment included 1) overarching coordination of LCC efforts; 2) consistency between LCCs in terms of coordination and communication to support a cohesive purpose; 3) articulation of shared outcomes; 4) support for collaboration across geographies; and 5) advocacy for LCCs.

Convening A National Strategy Team The assessment highlighted strong partner interest in creating a national body. With the consent of all the parties, the U.S. Institute neutrally convened a representative national “strategy team”1 to collaboratively develop a path forward for establishing a national body. Members of the strategy team were selected from entities involved in the LCC network who had voiced an interest in participating, which included leaders from LCC staff, federal and state agencies, NGOs, and tribal organizations. Over the course of a year and a half, the strategy team (see Members) held a series of in‐person meetings, webinars, and conference calls to determine the need for a national body and how that body would best be constituted.

1 NOTE: Organizational representatives shifted over the course of the strategy team’s work due to staff changes and scheduling conflicts. Strategy team members marked with an asterisk departed prior to finalization of the Charter.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 37 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

National Strategy Team Members

Doug Austen, National LCC Network Christie McGregor, The Nature Conservancy* Larry Voyles, Arizona Game and Fish Amanda Reed, The Nature Conservancy Department* Mark Kramer, The Nature Conservancy Doug Beard, U.S. Geological Survey Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Dave Cleaves, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Seth Mott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Fisheries Jad Daley, Trust for Public Land Breece Robertson, Trust for Public Land* Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Service John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, National Park Service Resources* Zach Hoffman, Trout Unlimited Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Leslie Honey, NatureServe Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Mark Humpert, Association of Fish and Wildlife Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands LCC Agencies Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Gary Taylor, Association of Fish and Wildlife Mary Klein, NatureServe Agencies Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Resources Commission Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Doug Vincent‐Lang, Alaska Department of Fish Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council and Game Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Ulalia Woodside, Pacific Islands Robin O’Malley, U.S. Geological Survey CCC/Kamehameha Schools* Doug Parsons, National Park Service

Strategy Team Authority and Operational Guidelines Members of the strategy team operated by consensus and worked together under a unifying goal: to serve and advance individual LCCs and the LCC network. The strategy team acknowledged that LCCs are self‐directed partnerships and that LCC participants come from other organizations with their own inherent authorities. The Charter they developed states that the LCC National Council will recognize and respect these authorities, and will have no authority over individual LCCs.

National Strategy Team Process Meetings Meeting 1: Arlington, VA (January 2012) The strategy team first met in Arlington, VA in January 2012 to discuss the suite of LCC enterprise needs at a national level. The concept of developing an LCC National Council had emerged in the U.S. Institute assessment as a way to address national‐level needs. At their initial meeting, the strategy team discussed how a national body could be best constituted and developed a rough draft proposal for a National LCC Council. It became apparent through the team’s discussions during and after the meeting that there was not full consensus and understanding of the national‐level needs, and whether a national council was the right configuration to address those needs.

38 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

Meeting 2: Denver, CO (March 2012) The strategy team reconvened in Denver, CO, in March 2012. They refined their purpose to be: To understand if there are national‐level needs for the LCC enterprise, and if so, to develop a path forward to address those needs. To meet that purpose, the strategy team evaluated a list of national‐level needs that had been identified earlier at previous LCC organizational meetings, through the assessment conducted by the U.S. Institute, and through LCC network conversations. The strategy team refined and separated the list of needs into those that could be addressed by the existing LCC network and those that could not. Additionally, the strategy team developed a list of potential organizational configurations that would best meet the identified national‐level needs or functions.

Meeting 3: Arlington, VA (June 2012) The strategy team met again in June 2012 in Arlington, VA. At this meeting, the list of national LCC needs was further refined and clarified, and then divided into two types of needs: those that were specific to the LCCs and met the goal of best supporting the LCC network at the national scale, and others that applied more generally to landscape‐scale conservation and would likely need to be addressed at a broader national level. During this meeting, the strategy team reached consensus on the following two major items: (1) there should be a national LCC body to focus on a suite of national needs. The body should be focused on supporting the LCC enterprise (inwardly looking) but also serve as an important link in coordinating overarching, nation‐wide landscape scale programs. They determined the best configuration for this national body would be a council that represents a “partnership of partnerships” rather than an advisory body; and (2) there is a strong need for coordination of landscape‐ level conservation efforts among federal agencies, tribes, states, and NGOs that supersedes the LCCs that does not seem to be occurring. This coordination is beyond both the scope of the LCC network and that of the proposed national LCC body.

Meeting 4: Arlington, VA (September 2012) At the strategy team’s final in‐person meeting in September 2012, a proposed Charter for an LCC National Council was developed. This Charter outlines the structure, membership, purpose, goals, and decision processes that best addresses their vision for this council. The team also agreed on a process for sharing and obtaining feedback on the proposal from the LCC and conservation community.

Soliciting Feedback Once the draft charter was developed, the strategy team sought approval from its respective agencies and organizations. With that approval, the strategy team sought partner feedback from the broader conservation community on the proposed purpose, goals, organizational framework, and composition outlined in the draft charter for the LCC National Council. The draft charter was distributed widely through a series of webinars and via email communication. Partners and other interested parties were encouraged to submit comments.

Comments on the draft charter were received from various conservation organizations, including California LCC, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Department, National Park Service, New Mexico Game and Fish Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Caribbean Field Office, North Atlantic LCC, Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC, Practitioners’ Network for Large Landscape

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 39 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

Conservation, Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, comments and questions were received via three public webinars and one webinar with the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT) members in late 2012.

Reviewing and Finalizing Charter In April 2013, the feedback received was reviewed and discussed by the strategy team on a conference call. They revised the charter based on the comments and unanimously agreed to adopt the LCC National Council Charter (See 1.1.1 in Briefing Booklet). A comment summary (See 1.1.4 in Briefing Booklet) was produced and distributed to the conservation community to highlight aspects of the charter that were changed as a result of their feedback. Initiating Recruitment and Affirming LCC National Council Members In July 2013, the strategy team began recruitment of members for the first LCC National Council members. For more details on the recruitment and selection process, please see Appendix A (LCC National Council Recruitment Process Overview). The strategy team affirmed the Council nominees in November 2013 and announced the inaugural members of the LCC National Council in early December 2013. The first LCC National Council meeting is scheduled for February 4‐5, 2014 at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C.

Additional Strategy Team Roles In addition to playing a primary role in developing the Charter, strategy team members played several additional key roles in the LCC National Council convening process, including: 1) Sharing/distributing recruitment materials with their respective networks, including agencies, organizations, and tribes. 2) Recruiting for Council positions by speaking at conferences, distributing materials to relevant listservs, and otherwise actively recruiting within members’ respective networks. 3) Participating on review committees (i.e. NGO, tribal, international, and indigenous) 4) Working with agencies and organizations to facilitate the nominations (i.e. federal, state, LCC, Major Partnership) 5) Affirming the final LCC National Council member selections. With the LCC National Council named, primary responsibility for the work of the LCC National Council will shift over to the new Council members. Once the Council is seated, strategy team members who are not Council members are encouraged to attend and participate in LCC National Council meetings.

40 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

Appendix A: LCC National Council Recruitment Process Overview

General Recruitment Process The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) conducted the recruitment process designed by the National Strategy Team to fill the 27 seats from nine participant categories as defined in the LCC National Council Charter. These nine categories include: Federal, State, Federally‐ recognized Tribal organizations, International, Indigenous, Non‐governmental Organizations (NGOs), Major Partnership, At Large, and an LCC representative. In general, the recruitment process consisted of:  Distributing recruitment materials  Gathering applications and nominations  Establishing review panels and facilitating the nomination process for NGO, indigenous, tribal, and international seats  Facilitating Strategy Team review of final nominations and affirmation of members

Distributing Recruitment Materials Prior to recruitment, the U.S. Institute distributed the LCC National Council announcement, the final Charter, and a summary of responses to the comments on the Charter to the Strategy Team, the LCC Coordinator’s Team (LCT), and the conservation community at large. The LCC National Council announcement included the notice of intent to begin recruiting for the National Council seats. Recruitment materials were then distributed as appropriate for the following categories, with instruction to submit applications and nominations to the U.S. Institute.

Federal: The six federal agency directors were nominated by their respective agencies. Directors of the following agencies received solicitations for nominations:  Bureau of Land Management  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  National Park Service  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service  USDA Forest Service  USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service State: The four state agency nominations were determined by the executive committees of the respective regional Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). Chairs of these executive committees received solicitations for nominations. Major Partnership: The two “Major Partnership” entities identified by the Strategy Team were the National Fish Habitat Partnership Board and the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. The Chairs for each of these respective programs received a solicitation for nomination. “At Large”: Two “at large” members will be selected by the LCC National Council from organizations and interests not currently represented on the Council (e.g. local governments, territories, commonwealths, other federal agencies, philanthropic community), after the Council is convened.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 41 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

LCC: The LCC representative (steering committee member or LCC staff) was nominated by the LCC Coordinator’s Team (LCT). The Executive Committee of the LCT received a solicitation for nomination. LCC staff members on the Strategy Team worked with the LCT to develop and facilitate this recruitment process. Tribal, Indigenous, NGO, and International: Nominations for these categories came from the review panels (see processes below). Solicitations for applicants were sent to the conservation community and the LCT, with the request that the solicitation be distributed broadly within their LCCs. Coordinators were asked to identify individuals they felt met the criteria set by the Strategy Team and encourage those individuals to apply. Establishing and Facilitating Review Committees The U.S. Institute convened four review panels comprised of Strategy Team members (some of whom were LCC coordinators) or persons they recommended. To review and rank applicants for their respective panel, the panel members used the criteria below.

Criteria  Be an active participant and an advocate for the LCC mission.  Have a commitment and willingness to collaborate.  Be able to think beyond the boundaries of his/her agency, organization, or tribe.  Be able to represent a broad array of natural and cultural resources.  Have decision‐making authority/influence within their agency, organization, or tribe.  Be committed to soliciting input from and reporting back to their agencies, organizations, tribes, and colleagues.  Have experience in collaborative processes at different scales.  Be involved with an agency, organization, or tribe that: o Is engaged in the LCC enterprise. o Has resources and/or a mission that aligns with the LCC mission. o Has science knowledge/capacity and/or is actively engaged in resource management activities.

Panel members also considered the overarching goal that the Council membership ensure broad geographic representation. The general nomination processed entailed convening a panel of 4 to 8 individuals to review and rank proposals. Through a facilitated conference call, the panel members discussed their rankings, and selected a nominee(s). The individual nomination processes are outlined below: Tribal: These seats are designated for federally‐recognized Native American tribes and affiliated organizations and Alaska Native corporations. Members of the Strategy Team helped identify additional review panel members. The panel reviewed and ranked all applications and selected two nominees from among the applicants. The panel left the third seat open, recommending that the National Council seek additional applicants to increase geographic diversity.

42 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.5 Overview of LCC National Council convening process

Indigenous: This seat is to be filled by First Nations, Pacific Islanders, Caribbean peoples, Native Hawaiians, and other indigenous peoples within the geography of the LCCs. Members of the Strategy Team worked with a group of LCC coordinators with indigenous participation in their LCCs to develop and facilitate this review process. The review panel nominated one indigenous participant. NGO: The eight NGO members of the Strategy Team divided into two teams of four. Both teams reviewed and ranked each of the applications received. Panel members recused themselves from ranking their own or their organizations application. The panel discussed the rankings, and nominated the four applicants who best met the Strategy Team criteria. International: These four seats are to be filled by any nation (other than the U.S.) participating in the LCC enterprise, as defined by the geography of the LCCs. A minimum of 1 participant from Canada and 1 participant from Mexico is to be represented in these seats. Members of the Strategy Team worked with LCC coordinators who have international participation in their LCCs to develop and facilitate the recruitment process. The review panel selected three nominees and recommended the National Council recruit to fill the seat from Mexico.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 43 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National Landscape Conservation Cooperative Strategy Session Meeting Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office Arlington, VA January 9-10, 2012

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Doug Beard, U.S. Geological Survey Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Service Cat Hawkins-Hoffman, National Park Service Zach Hoffman, Trout Unlimited Mark Humpert, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Robin O’Malley, U.S. Geological Survey Doug Parsons, National Park Service Christy Plumer, The Nature Conservancy Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands LCC Gary Taylor, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Doug Vincent-Lang, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Facilitation Team: Marsha Bracke, Bracke & Associates Raquel Goodrich, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Jacquelyn Wallace, EnviroIssues

Note to the reader: This meeting summary presents key points of discussion that emerged during a two-day meeting to develop a path forward for an LCC National Council. This document does not represent the final purpose, goals, and models that were proposed during this meeting, but rather provides insight into the conversations that occurred throughout the meeting. The National Council proposal that was produced from this meeting can be found in a separate document.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 1

44 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS Penny welcomed the group to the meeting and introductions followed. Penny explained the purpose of the meeting was to use the findings and recommendations from the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution’s (U.S. Institute) Assessment Report to develop a path forward to establish an LCC National Council. Maggie clarified that the U.S. Department of the Interior established an agreement with the U.S. Institute to provide third-party neutral services to determine the support for a national body and design and convene a process for establishing a national-level body for the LCCs. To that end, The U.S. Institute contracted with a neutral facilitation team at EnviroIssues to work in partnership with the U.S. Institute. They conducted an independent assessment of key stakeholders at the national level to determine their interest in establishing a national body for the LCCs. Based on the broad support voiced for creating a national body, Maggie continued, the U.S. Institute is now convening, facilitating and documenting meetings with a broadly representative group to develop a proposal and process for establishing an LCC National Council.

The question of whether a decision had been made to have a national body was posed. Doug and Maggie responded with the following key points:

 According to the assessment findings, most interviewees feel a National Council is needed.  If the assessment had shown a National Council was not desired, we would not be moving forward with this discussion. But because only a very small minority questioned the value of a National Council, we are moving forward with the general recommendation to develop a proposal for such a body.

STRATEGY SESSION HOPES AND EXPECTATIONS Penny asked participants to describe what a successful strategy session would look like. Responses included:

 Sketch out what a National Council and process to develop a council might look like.  Define specific roles and responsibilities of a National Council.  Discuss the relationship between this council and other bodies/councils/committees.  Clarify roles of federal partners in the National Council.  Decide how the council will be governed.  Discuss whether a National Council is really needed and whether they will tell individual LCCs what to do.  Decide what functions should be the responsibility of the LCC Coordinator network, and what functions a National Council could adopt.  Develop a body that ensures the Department of Interior’s cooperative conservation initiatives involve meaningful collaboration with partners.  Identify what partners and organizations should be on a National Council, and how a National Council can help communicate about LCCs on “the Hill”. Because individual LCCs are headed in

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 3

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 45 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

many different directions, a cohesive definition and measure of success for LCCs is needed to provide this communication.  Discuss how to create a National Council as a bottom-up effort, similar to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.  Build a National Council to help LCCs address tough questions, give advice to individual LCCs, build the political support necessary for LCCs to survive administration changes, and help LCCs function better individually.  Stay true to the secretarial guidance on LCCs, which seems to be to focus on climate change.

ASSESSMENT FINDINGS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Penny reviewed the U.S. Institute’s Assessment Report presentation and key questions raised during the two Assessment Report webinars. Penny pointed out that any proposal emerging from this strategy session should build on what was discovered during the assessment.

Discussion about the assessment findings ensued. Questions and key points of discussion included:

 What are the implications of setting up a national body when some LCCs have international partners?  A National Council has the potential to act as a clearinghouse for the LCC network.  Two additional functions that were not mentioned in the presentation: 1) the need for LCCs to communicate information across the LCC network, and 2) the need for LCCs to coordinate nationally on research and science.  LCC terminology was reviewed and clarified. The “LCC Network” refers to the 22 LCCs. The network is a working body with a series of operational roles, and the LCC Coordinators have been meeting since April 2011. The individual LCCs are different from the “LCC Network.”  Tasks identified in the assessment that could be roles for a National Council are already being worked on by LCC Coordinators.  If the 22 LCCs don’t embrace what we propose, then a National Council will not succeed.  Has a decision been made to establish a National Council? Does the LCC network want a National Council?

NATIONAL COUNCIL PURPOSE AND GOALS Penny introduced the need to craft preliminary purpose and goals for a National Council, and discussion followed. Key points of discussion included:

 The potential functions for a National Council outlined in the assessment may be one-time functions. Given that possibility, perhaps we need to create an entity that does some things up front and then goes away.  The purpose of a National Council could be to help define LCCs within the context of the entire conservation world.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 4

46 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 How will the purpose and goals of a National Council affect purpose and goals already established for individual LCCs?  Should the primary purpose of a National Council be to help individual LCCs achieve their goals?  Could a National Council help bring people together to collaborate across major programs? o Fiscal year 2012 legislative appropriations language (see Appendix A) directs the DOI agencies to better coordinate the LCCs with other programs, but currently, no forum exists in Washington to achieve this function. o For example, there is no forum where the US Forest Service can sit down with various Bureaus in the Department of the Interior and decide how to collaboratively use conservation funds to achieve outcomes on the ground. o Another example is that DOI and USFS received funds for climate change work and were told by OMB they needed to measure performance. There is no forum through which DOI and USFS can coordinate to collaboratively develop such performance measures. A National Council could help with this.  We need to be careful to stay away from the dichotomy of “no coordination” vs. “micromanagement.” We do not have to micromanage to achieve effective coordination.  LCCs are weak in their outreach and in connecting with Tribes. Improving this weakness should be a goal of a National Council.  The purpose of a National Council should be to meet the vision of the LCC Network.  Could the AFWA process of helping states coordinate across Wildlife Action Plans be used as a model for an LCC National Council?  The Council could help provide direction to national agency leadership about coordinating across federal agencies, but should not let this function detract from a primary purpose of serving individual LCCs.  Use the term “large-scale conservation” instead of “landscape scale conservation” since ocean issues are dominant for many LCCs.  One participant felt LCCs are not supposed to get involved in management, and are only supposed to be involved with climate change, so suggested adjusting the purpose to negate management across the board and limit National Council activity to climate change. o Other participants responded that LCCs address both science and management issues because the two types of issues are not separate. o One participant remarked “To the extent that managing information is critical to managing climate change, it will involve both science and management to do the job right.”

Penny broke the participants into small groups to craft a purpose and goals statement for the national body. Groups were instructed to refer to 1) U.S. Institute’s Assessment Report, 2) feedback from the webinar presentations on the assessment, 3) an early draft of vision, mission, and guiding principles developed by the LCC Coordinators, and 4) individual LCC mission/vision/purpose statements to inform their discussions.

Small groups then reported the purpose and goals they crafted to the larger group.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 5 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 47 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Individual group purpose statements were:

 Group 1: Help large-scale conservation be more efficient and effective.  Group 2: To support, champion, and leverage a cost-effective approach to large-scale cooperative conservation.  Group 3: To support large-scale conservation efforts by promoting national coordination, engagement, accountability and success of the LCC network.

Each group presented a list of goals they felt would help a National Council achieve these purpose statements.

Penny then facilitated a discussion to merge the purpose statements developed by small groups into one common purpose statement. Key points of discussion included:

 The group liked the notion of listing what the National Council will “do” in the purpose statement.  The term LCC “network” may be better than the term “national” so we do not exclude international partners.  The group agreed on the following purpose statement, with wording to be finalized with input after this meeting: To support cooperative large-scale conservation efforts by promoting nationwide coordination, engagement, and effectiveness of the LCC network.

Once agreement was reached on the purpose statement, Penny facilitated a discussion to help the group identify commonalities among small group goals, and begin to craft a common list of goals for a National Council.

The following possible goals were presented and key points were raised during discussion about each goal:

 Goal: Facilitate development of shared priorities, procedures, and practices across the LCC network. o This goal must imply that a National Council will not necessarily do all of the work outlined for each goal. o Should this goal be split into a priorities goal and a procedures goal?

 Goal: Identify and provide engagement opportunities to support the evolution of the LCC network. o A National Council is needed to tap leaders at the national level to stimulate their engagement at a variety of scales. o For instance, the National Council could engage the Department of Defense at a national level and stimulate DOD involvement with LCCs at a local level.

 Goal: Provide a forum for out-year planning and performance reporting for the LCC network.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 6 48 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o This goal implies the LCC network needs a way to discuss shared goals and to increase program alignment and efficiency. o From an NGO perspective, the terms “out-year planning and performance reporting” may be too wonky. Could we reframe these terms as measures of success? o Is this related to identifying common performance metrics that can help LCCs report on accomplishments at a national scale? o Current reporting metrics are not very effective. A window of opportunity currently exists within which feedback can be given to OMB on more effective metrics, but coordination of new suggested metrics must occur soon, or this window will be lost. o Should we split this goal into the following separate goals? . New goal: Identify common performance metrics to report at a national scale and help LCCs report on accomplishments. . New goal: Provide a forum for proactively discussing potential future opportunities to leverage resources. . New goal: Coordinate with other large-scale landscape initiatives and regional partnerships to reduce duplication.

 Goal: Promote shared learning and progression of large-scale conservation approaches.

 Goal: Develop a consistent national communication/outreach message. o Should we separate these into two new goals? . New goal: Develop a communication strategy for the LCC network. . New goal: Deliver effective communication and advocate for the LCC network.

 Goal: Support individual LCCs in achieving their goals.

NATIONAL COUNCIL WORK

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2012 Based on these goals, Penny facilitated a discussion to identify what “work” a National Council would undertake to implement each goal. As part of this discussion, the group also identified work “not to do,” or work that would not be appropriate for a National Council to undertake related to each goal. As the discussion proceeded, the goals were reworked.

Goals statements that reflect all revisions can be found in a separate “proposal” document that maps the “path forward” drafted during this meeting. This “proposal document” also captures all “work to do” and “work not to do” for each goal. Key points of discussion that emerged during the development of these goals are summarized below:

Goal 1: Facilitate development of shared priorities. Key points of discussion about work to achieve this goal included:

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 7

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 49 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 The intent of this goal should be to foster and encourage mechanisms for LCCs to compare their priorities – to see where common priorities exist and to identify opportunities for collaboration on regional priorities.  This goal should not stipulate priorities that LCCs must follow at the local level.

Goal 2: Facilitate development of procedures and operational business practices across the LCC Network. Key points of discussion about work to achieve this goal included:

 How can we coordinate long term monitoring and data needs across the network?  National Council can act as a forum for evaluating existing models/regional tools to see if they can be applied nationwide (such as CHATs).  National Council can identify practices that would improve collaboration and engagement across LCCs, such as coordinating RFP releases.  National Council should be careful not to dictate monitoring protocols across the network. 

Goal 3: Identify and provide engagement opportunities to support the evolution of the LCC network. Increase levels of collaboration at all levels of partners. Provide national, executive level engagement with those partners who are engaged at the local LCC level. Key points of discussion about work to achieve this goal included:

 The National Council must engage other federal agencies, particularly the USDA, at the executive level. To help engage agencies, a consistent message about what LCCs are must be developed. At the moment, multiple concepts and messages about the LCCs exist, which is causing confusion and dampening support.  The National Council should piggyback on existing engagement opportunities.  The National Council can reach out to non-traditional partners that may not be involved with the LCC effort but could benefit from LCC outcomes or could inhibit effectiveness. Engaging such partners (including Federal Highways Administration, Homeland Security, Department of Defense) at the national level can help “grease the skids” and make it easier for individual LCCs to engage these partners at the local level.

Goal 4: Advise on the development of a framework to identify measurable outcomes that can be reported at the national scale and help LCCs report on accomplishments. Key points of discussion about work to achieve this goal included:

 The National Council should collect information about reporting systems from all potential partners and identify similarities.  The Alaska Department of Fish and Game was not in complete agreement with this goal.  The National Council could facilitate a dialogue among LCC partners working across the network to help inform voluntary development of measurable outcomes that any LCC could voluntarily adopt.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 8

50 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Individual LCCs reporting outcomes based on similar metrics could help demonstrate value and success in a meaningful way across the network and at a national scale.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 Penny opened the second day of the strategy session by returning to the U.S. Institute’s Assessment Report. She asked the group to review the purpose, goals, and work being proposed thus far and evaluate whether these items are in alignment with key recommendations from the assessment.

Penny then reviewed the purpose, goals, and work being done thus far and asked for feedback. Key points of discussion included:

 Reduce the number of goals developed to 5 goals.  One participant asked “What’s broke?” “Why we are trying to develop a National Council?” Other attendees pointed out processes that are “broke” that justify a National Council, such as 1) individual LCCs designing habitat maps that are not in alignment, and 2) individual LCCs located in adjacent eco-regions releasing RFPs for the same service and not coordinating on RFPs.  Suggested action item: Articulate the downside of not having a national council.

After refining and combining goals to produce the five goals listed here, discussion about work to be pursued in alignment with each of these goals continued.

Goal 5: Deliver effective communication and champion/advocate for the LCC network, including effective feedback mechanisms. Key points of discussion about work to achieve this goal included:

 Is the word “advocate” too strong? Should a National Council be advocating?  A National Council will speak on behalf of and promote/support LCCs to whomever needs convincing, such as Congress. A National Council provides an opportunity to have a “national- level megaphone” about LCCs.  A National Council can help frame a national dialogue about the LCC network.  The USFWS has not done the best job of articulating a consistent message about LCCs, and must do better at articulating what LCCs are all about.

NATIONAL COUNCIL MODELS Penny asked the group to think about what kind of structure, authority, and makeup would help a National Council meet the purpose and goals as outlined. Penny reviewed a few other national-level councils that could be used as models, such as the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Participants mentioned both the National Ecosystem Indicators Project and the National Wildfire Coordinating Council as other possible models that could be followed.

Penny split participants into small groups to develop a possible model for a National Council. Participants were asked to both draw and describe 1) how the Council will interact with other entities, 2)

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 9

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 51 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

who would fund and sponsor a Council, and 3) proposed authority and points of influence for a National Council.

The groups generated two types of models: 1) a model with a standard committee structure, and 2) a roundtable model. Each model is depicted and described below, followed by key comments received from the larger group on each model.

Model 1: This model proposes a committee of 20-33 members, with a structure similar to an LCC steering committee.

Specific proposed details include:

 20-33 members, with equal representation from 6 groups: 1) states, 2) tribes, 3) federal agencies, 4) NGOs, 5) industry, and 6) LCC steering committee chairs.  Staff and funding will be needed to support the committee.  The Council will be endorsed through a joint letter signed by representatives (at the highest executive level) of each organization/agency on the Council.  Options for sponsorship considered include: 1) AFWA and 2) multiple sponsors. If the Council has multiple sponsors, then all sponsors will be expected to contribute resources (in-kind resources count), and Council meetings will be convened by a rotating host.  The U.S. Institute could act as a neutral convener.  Comments on this proposal included: o The group generally liked the idea of multiple sponsors and shared resources supporting a National Council. o The sponsorship letter idea was well received, and the group liked the idea of everyone involved formally “signing on” to the LCC enterprise at a national level.

Model 2: This model proposes a committee composed of 20 members, and self-selected “ex-officio” representatives from individual LCCs. The model was drawn to reflect partners who composed a “ring of pearls” around the council.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 10

52 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Specific proposed details include:

 The Council will be advisory only, with no inherent authority, and will not be a FACA committee.  The Council will operate by consensus.  The Council will consist of 5 members from each of the following groups: 1) states (AFWA regional associations +1), 2) NGOs (such as The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Land Trust Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, NatureServ, and potentially Trout Unlimited or Ducks Unlimited) 3) tribes (ensuring the Pacific Island cultures are represented), and 4) federal agencies (Department of the Interior, USDA, EPA, Department of Commerce, and Department of Defense). Representatives will be sought from different geographic areas.  A self-selected subset of LCC coordinators and steering committee members will be “ex-officio” representatives.  The DOI will act as the voice for the LCCs to request that the U.S. Institute serve to convene the initial meeting of the National Council.  Funding and staffing support will be needed. Funding could potentially come from the LCC network, and member organizations could possibly pay for their own participation.  LCC coordinators will bring issues to the Council as they arise.  The Council will meet frequently at the outset, but eventually will meet once per year coinciding with an annual LCC national workshop.  The Council may form ad hoc working groups depending on tasks or issues that need attention.  Comments on this proposal included: o The group generally felt the structure was representative.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 11 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 53 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Specific proposed details include:

 The executive committee would consist of the following members: 1 state representative, 1 federal representative, 1 tribal representative, 1 NGO representative, 1 industry representative, and 1 LCC steering committee chair.  The executive committee would be co-chaired, and these chairs would rotate.  The executive committee would invite the conservation community to attend meetings as “members,” so the remaining membership would be undefined.  The roundtable would have no authority, but would be a sounding board where issues that affect LCCs would be laid on the table.  Comments on this proposed model included: o Some participants felt a small executive committee could become exclusive, and were concerned this type of hierarchy could lead to trust issues. At the same time, a few participants articulated the value of a smaller group. o A National Council needs to have structure in the beginning, and questions were raised as to whether a roundtable could provide this needed structure. As trust and confidence in the effort builds, the Council structure could loosen and potentially evolve into the roundtable option.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 13

54 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

After each small group presented the details of their proposed model(s), the group considered all models collectively. Penny asked how the group would like to move forward to advance a particular model in the National Council proposal. Suggestions included:

 Soliciting advice from a governance specialist on what structure would best help a National Council achieve the proposed purpose and goals.  Be bold in developing the council. We must create an innovative and forward-thinking body to reflect the way the LCC endeavor is striving to be innovative and forward-thinking.  Consider the proposed National Fish, Plant, and Wildlife Adaptation Strategy steering committee. This steering committee could potentially serve a dual purpose and also act as an LCC National Council.  Steer away from the North American Bird Conservation Initiative model.  How will we merge the LCC National Council with any Climate Science Center and National Climate Change Wildlife Science Center bodies that are formed?  We need to be sure we are not creating a bureaucracy.  The group generally agreed to combine the best of both models and propose a hybrid of the 2 basic models (roundtable model + advisory committee model). This could help create a body that can be responsive to changing political environments. The group agreed they could take a hybrid proposal back to their organizations to solicit feedback and support for the model as long as the hybrid was described in detail.

PROPOSED PROCESS FOR BUILDING A NATIONAL COUNCIL Penny then asked the group to consider the steps that need to be taken to build this National Council. Key comments included:

 LCC coordinators and steering committee members must be involved in a consultative process to refine this proposal. If LCC coordinators are not given the opportunity to revise and endorse this proposal, it could implode.  Other partners also must be consulted, but individual LCCs need to be engaged before external partners, and individual LCCs may need to be given a stronger voice.  All state fish and wildlife directors should be given the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. AFWA can manage the feedback loop with state fish and wildlife directors.  This proposal must clarify that a National Council will be established. The proposal is not whether a National Council will be convened, but instead proposes a structure and function for the National Council that will be established.  The proposal should include a background paragraph to lay the foundation for this National Council and clarify this is not a new idea. This background should include the following points: 1) the need for a National Council has been noted by participants at LCC workshops over the past 2 years, 2) The U.S. Institute heard from a majority of 50 interviewees contacted through their neutral assessment that a Council would be useful, 3) the DOI recently received language from Congress directing the LCC network to operate cohesively, 4) based on these general

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 14

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 55 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

recommendations and direction, the U.S. Institute has convened a representative group to move forward and produce the attached proposal.  This group needs to determine how to address the management vs. science, and climate vs. non-climate issues that have arisen throughout this strategy session. Is it possible for the group to address these knots up front so they do not become problems down the road for this Council?  The group determined an “interim organizing group” should be established to digest broad feedback and fully develop the proposal for a national council, including identification of appropriate representatives for the council.  In particular, the interim organizing group needs to make final decisions on who will pay for the national council, and who will host it.  Concern was expressed about rushing the development of a national council.  The timing of tribal feedback is important. Do we need formal tribal consultations? o Monique Fordham is advising the USGS on their tribal consultation process, which senior officials will undertake. Contact her for advice on how to proceed with tribal review.

DRAFT PROCESS TIMELINE Through group discussion, consensus was reached on the following general timeline for building the LCC National Council.

 Jan 30, 2012: A draft National Council proposal, along with a meeting summary, will be complete and sent to the strategy session participants for review and comments.  Feb 3, 2012: Feedback from the strategy session group is due back to the U.S Institute/EnviroIssues  Feb 8, 2012: U.S Institute/EnviroIssues will produce a revised proposal based on feedback from strategy session participants, and will distribute to the LCC network.  Feb 15-17, 2012: U.S Institute/EnviroIssues will host one or more webinars to present the group’s initial draft proposal to LCC coordinators and steering committees and solicit feedback.  Late February 2012: Proposal will be released to Tribes. Proposal will also be released to the states and feedback from the states will be collected during the AFWA North America meeting on March 11-15. Late February 2012: Consultation with and outreach to Joint Ventures and other partners will occur.  Late March: NGOs will provide information about the LCC enterprise and National Council concept at public witness day.  March 29: The U.S Institute/EnviroIssues will compile all comments received. A compilation of comments will be brought to an “interim organizing group” to produce a revised proposal. The “interim organizing group” will consist of strategy session participants and other missing representatives. This “interim organizing group” will reflect the desired makeup of the National Council. This group will be convened following the LCC National Workshop on March 29.  April: The interim organizing group will work through April to refine the draft proposal.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 15

56 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 May: U.S Institute/EnviroIssues will facilitate a second review period in May to present the group’s final draft proposal and solicit broad feedback (potentially through a webinar).  Late May/early June: U.S. Institute/EnviroIssues will compile comments received through the second review period and bring them back to the interim working group to incorporate into the final draft.  June: U.S. Institute/EnviroIssues will host and convene the initial Interim National Council meeting in which the members will review/amend/adopt the proposal for working together.

MEETING WRAP-UP To close the meeting, Penny revisited the strategy session hopes and expectations the group outlined at the beginning of the meeting. She asked if the group thought it was a successful meeting and whether their hopes had been met. The group agreed the strategy session had been useful as an initial step; however, continued work needs to be done to define the LCC National Council.

APPENDIX A. LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE – FISCAL YEAR 2012 Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.-The bill includes $32,250,000 for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science. The conferees recognize that fish and wildlife conservation organizations are facing increasingly complex ecological and fiscal challenges that require resource threats to be addressed in a more efficient and effective way. In light of these challenges, the Service has established a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) with other Federal, State, local and tribal partners to better leverage conservation resources and better prioritize and coordinate research and program delivery. The conferees support these efforts but also expect the Service to establish clear goals, objectives and measurable outcomes for LCCs that can be used as benchmarks of success of the program. Further, the conferees direct the Service to clearly articulate how it plans to integrate its LCCs with other successful regional partnerships, including its Joint Ventures and Fish Habitat Partnerships programs, as well as with other Federal and non-Federal partners, including the U.S. Geological Survey's regional Climate Science Centers, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, and the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units.

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 16

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 57

National LCC Strategy Session Meeting Summary 17 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives National Strategy Team Meeting Summary Sheraton Downtown Hotel * Denver, CO March 29, 2012

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Josh Avey, Arizona Game and Fish Department Doug Beard, US Geological Survey Dave Cleaves, US Forest Service Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, National Park Service Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Robin O’Malley, US Geological Survey Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Breece Robertson, Trust for Public Land John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands CCC Gary Taylor, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Monica Tomosy, US Forest Service Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Doug Vincent‐Lang, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation Madeleine West, Western Governors’ Association Ulalia Woodside, Pacific Islands CCC/Kamehameha Schools

Observer: Seth Mott, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Facilitation Team: Raquel Goodrich, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Jacquelyn Wallace, EnviroIssues

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 1

58 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

BACKGROUND/SETTING THE STAGE Penny opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda. She clarified that, unlike the January strategy team meeting, there is no assumption there will be a LCC national body at this point. The purpose of this meeting is to take a step back and identify whether there are national needs and, if so, what a path forward would look like to meet those national needs.

Maggie outlined the U.S. Institute’s process, referring to the diagram below. Maggie clarified that the U.S. Institute was brought on to conduct a neutral, third party assessment and process to develop a strategy based on national needs that had been identified in earlier meetings. She explained that the Institute has a specific process they follow to provide neutral, third party collaborative services which can be seen in the upper section of the pink box. She noted that in this particular LCC national strategy process, we are currently in the green box, which consists of hosting and convening the strategy group. Maggie clarified that the outcome, or end product, from this process must be defined by the group.

Penny clarified that the group that met in January realized that they needed to back up from the National Council proposal they developed and work under the following purpose: To assess national‐ level needs of the LCC enterprise and develop a path forward to meet those needs.

GROUP PURPOSE, OPERATING EXPECTATIONS, AND GROUND RULES Penny asked the group if they agreed with this purpose, and everyone agreed.

Points of further discussion around the purpose included:  Whether the purpose should be revised to focus on “supra‐level” needs instead of “national” needs.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game expressed concern about assumptions that there are national‐level needs.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 3

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 59 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Based on this discussion, the group decided to change the purpose to the following: To understand if there are national‐level needs for the LCC enterprise and develop a path forward to meet those needs.

Penny reviewed the operating expectations that members of the “January group” proposed, which include:  Represent the LCC Needs from your perspective.  Listen and respect others’ LCC needs.  Work collaboratively and constructively to find a way to best meet LCC needs.  Commit to this process.  Support the process even while not fully agreeing to the outcome of the process.

She explained that group members were selected to represent their respective entity and also their group (for instance, if you are a state, your responsibility is to represent the general state perspective). She asked for group agreement on all operating expectations, and everyone agreed to abide by group expectations.

The group then worked to develop ground rules.  Actively participate  Listen respectfully  Share air time  Stay focused  Start/end on time  Explore differences/seek common ground  No hitting

Penny explained her responsibility was to help the group follow these ground rules, and everyone agreed they would follow these ground rules.

DEFINING AGREEMENT The group discussed how “agreement” would be defined moving forward. Penny pointed out that a path forward does not mean needing to decide and agree upon one thing. The path forward could be a suite of options. The purpose of defining “agreement” is to determine how decisions will be made about a proposed suite of options.

Key questions and points of discussion included:  What decision will be made, so what will we be asked to decide upon?  Consensus is important, but there may be minority views. Notes should capture minority views, and clarify those views.  Won’t the decision be made somewhere between Doug Austen and David Hayes because they control the resources?  Penny clarified the group should not assume DOI will be the body making decisions about whatever comes out of the strategy team.  Yet others suggested that DOI was the ultimate decision maker because they currently have the money that would be needed to support a national body.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 4

60 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Others supported the idea that the group should not assume DOI is making the decision or the only source of funding. This group is a partnership, not a single entity. In partnerships, partners make decisions and can bring money to the table.  If another federal body is set up to limit states, then states will not participate in this effort. So, that needs to be kept in mind when crafting a proposal.  A suggestion was made to develop a body comprised of respective chairs of steering committees.

Penny reminded the group to focus on deciding how to make decisions. Key points that followed included:  This group should feel empowered to make decisions on a path forward.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game articulated the need to have a clear idea of what authority this group has, and if no authority, then who has the authority. At the same time, ADF&G expressed agreement with making decisions by consensus with minority views expressed.  One participant pointed out that decision makers will vary depending on what is developed as a path forward. There could be multiple decision makers evaluating recommendations.  Dave Cleaves articulated that the USFS purpose in being involved is to go back to their leadership and report on prospects of being more deeply involved in the LCC effort. One of the issues from the USFS perspective is that the entire LCC enterprise is housed in DOI when it really needs to be beyond DOI. Based on what USFS representatives report back to their administration, they will make decisions about allocating USFS resources to this effort. He expressed his hope that there would not be a single decision maker about this path forward at this point.

Penny asked if everyone in the group could agree to make decisions by consensus with an opportunity for carrying forward minority views. She defined consensus as 1) not agreeing with 100% of a proposal but being able to live with it, 2) agreeing to stand behind the process, and 3) not standing in the way of consensus if you have a minority view. Everyone agreed.

Responses to this proposed decision‐making process included:  Alaska Department of Fish and Game pointed out that minority views were not adequately incorporated into prior meeting minutes.  Penny clarified minority views will be carried forward.

CLARIFYING LCC ENTERPRISE STRUCTURE Doug Austen drew and presented the existing LCC enterprise structure, depicted in the diagram below.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 5

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 61 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Key points from Doug’s presentation included:  Each LCC has a steering committee, a coordinator, and a science coordinator. Each steering committee has a chair, and chairs generally rotate every year or every other year.  The LCC Coordinators’ Team (LCT) consists of LCC coordinators. The LCT has a provisional charter that defines what the LCT should and should not do.  The LCT also has work teams that address specific issues, such as conference planning, communications, and science integration with the CSCs. These work groups operate at a national level and are composed of individuals both inside and outside of the LCC network. The work groups are dynamic and come and go as needed. The LCT acts as a hub that assigns tasks to work groups. An LCC coordinator has been assigned to each work group.  The “LCC Network” consists of all of this arrangement.

Responses to Doug’s presentation included:  The Native American Land Conservancy expressed that a reason Tribes don’t come to LCC meetings is because they don’t want to operate by consensus but also don’t want to sit at the table and be part of the minority report. Tribes want government‐to‐government relationships. At this time, the proper forum that respects their sovereign status does not exist. o Doug Austen pointed out that the LCCs are reaching out to the Tribes and that the U.S. Institute is helping to develop a process to engage Tribes in a more official way. He acknowledged the LCC network does not have THE solution at this point, but they are working on it. o Alaska Department of Fish & Game noted that states share sovereign concerns with the Tribes.

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed concern that 1) steering committees were not involved in developing policy documents like the LCT charter, and 2) lack of clarity over what happened to comments previously submitted on national guidance documents. o Doug Austen explained that time has been spent developing the LCT structure and decision making process, and that process is still being decided. o Penny reminded the group this topic was not the purpose of today’s meeting.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 6

62 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 USGS pointed out there is currently resistance to agreeing to common standards within the data management work group. He suggested that this group needed to rise above a fear of imposition to come to some level of agreement.

 Questions emerged about the role of the LCC steering committees. Doug Austen clarified that a steering committee is like a Commission in that they provide guidance to staff but do not make management decisions.

 Discussion about the Congressional intent of the LCC network emerged. Key questions and points included: o Congress has established that the LCCs should act as a network, but has not specifically defined what that looks like. To meet their requirement that LCCs “integrate” with other efforts, the LCC enterprise is working to coordinate with JVs and NFHAP efforts. o OMB has called for the LCC enterprise to develop performance measures and demonstrate how LCCs have enhanced the government’s ability to conserve landscapes. o The LCC enterprise often gets caught up in boundaries, but to be truly effective, must work as a network. o The USFS expressed that if they want to connect a USFS enterprise (like CFLRP) to the LCC enterprise, then that needs to be done on an enterprise to enterprise basis, not a project to individual LCC basis.

DISCUSSING AND DEFINING NEEDS Penny then reminded the group of their purpose, and shifted the discussion to needs. The needs matrix (see Appendix A) was distributed to the group, and Penny provided an overview of the matrix. Penny then proposed the group go through the matrix collectively and pull out national needs that are not currently being met.

Initial key points of discussion included:  Whether the group should focus on categories of needs instead of each individual need.  Whether the needs were categorized properly.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game felt the only category that should qualify as a national‐ level need is network coordination.  USGS proposed the group determine what on this list the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT) could tackle first.

Based on these suggestions, Penny asked the group to spend ~15 minutes individually or in small groups identifying where there’s a national‐level need, and which of those can or cannot be met by LCC coordinators and LCC steering committees. The group then broke into self‐selected small groups and worked on the matrix.

When the group reconvened, Penny asked the group for their impressions on the category of needs identified as “provide support and services to individual LCCs.” Responses included:  Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries felt items 1, 3, and 6 were a need.  The LCC coordinators thought item 1 was too ambiguous, that item 3 could be met by the LCT  North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission commented the only thing that cannot be done by the LCT is the advocacy role, and suggested the group consider the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition model when considering how to develop such a role for the LCC network.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 7

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 63 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny then asked the group if it would be helpful to hear from the LCC coordinators first, and the group agreed that would be useful.  LCC coordinators shared their perspective on needs that were beyond the network, which included items 6, 9, 10, possibly 11, 12, possibly 20, possibly 22, 23, 24, and possibly 25, 28, 29, and 30‐33.  LCC coordinators crossed out 14 as the network has evolved beyond that need.

Penny walked the group through each of these needs and asked how the rest of the group felt about the needs LCC coordinators identified. Key points of discussion and questions that surrounded each need follow the corresponding need below.

NEED #6: NEED FOR AN ENTITY TO IDENTIFY NATIONAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COORDINATE FUNDING NEEDS.  National Wildlife Federation said that Bureau of Indian Affairs has never gotten direct external funding for climate issues. There is a need for the way funding is acquired and allocated to be discussed.  In addition, many agencies are duplicating efforts and not coordinating their outreach to Tribes. Climate change issues are supposed to be addressed as a government‐to‐government consultation with Tribes, but it’s become agency‐to‐government consultation, and Tribes are getting consultation fatigue. There needs to be a mechanism for agencies to align when they consult Tribes on climate change.  If we are proactive, USFS funding at the national level could be leveraged for the LCC network. The individual LCCs don’t have the ability to make that happen, it needs to happen nationally.  Trust for Public Land remarked they are trying to build national datasets that could be used by the LCC network, but a national entity to leverage that data is needed.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game did not see the need for a national body.  Others felt there’s a need to coordinate and leverage resources despite whether there is an official body or not.  Several expressed the need for a venue where organizations and agencies can identify shared priorities and opportunities and coordinate funding to meet those priorities.  Trout Unlimited expressed that the funding need is the most important need since funding is the “oxygen for the enterprise.”

NEED #9: NEED FOR A FORUM WHERE 1) COLLABORATION ACROSS MAJOR PROGRAMS AT A NATIONAL LEVEL CAN OCCUR, 2) WHERE USFS AND VARIOUS BUREAUS IN THE DOI COORDINATE FUNDING DECISIONS, AND 3) WHERE DOI AND USFS CAN COLLABORATIVELY DEVELOP PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO REPORT ON OUTCOMES FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WORK TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB).  USGS pointed out that OMB does not distribute money without performance measures.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game will not be supportive of having national performance measures.  Arizona Game and Fish Department hoped the funding discussion was to pursue new money, not take money from existing programs.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 8

64 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Penny clarified she was hearing the need for funding coordination, not for moving funds from one program to another.  USFS stated the importance of demonstrating that landscape scale conservation, not just LCCs, is important. To do so, conversations need to take place at a high level, inside the beltway, among people with the survival skills to succeed in that conversation. The wildland fire leadership council is dealing with the same level of issues as this group.  Doug Austen remarked he would like to validate Dave Cleaves’ point. Although there is a tremendous amount of potential for programs doing landscape level work at a federal level to coordinate, there’s no body to tie those programs together. The LCT is not at the level to provide this level of coordination. There’s a great benefit to identifying those programs and bringing them together to provide a greater efficiency of resource allocation. This is a huge niche and gap that we need to fill.  Performance measures will not address species population level objectives, but should measure how this entire process is moving forward.  BLM stated that the promise of the LCCs is that they will help us integrate efforts so as to get more bang for the buck on the ground, and that is why OMB is interested in the effort. The fear on the part of OMB and the Hill is that LCCs will end up duplicating efforts. There is a need for a serious conversation in Washington about how to begin to integrate program activities to support the LCCs. That conversation will need to include turf discussions. The agencies must put in place a conversation that’s long term about how to integrate landscape scale activities across agencies. It’s critical that a mechanism to do this is developed.  Arizona Game and Fish Department asked whether individual steering committees could set objectives for OMB. USGS responded that individual LCCs cannot come to OMB, those priorities have to come from a federal entity.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked what other Department of Interior activities would be coordinated and wrapped into the LCC network, and asked whether there was an existing climate body. o Doug Austen responded that he was recognizing other activities exist within multiple departments (not just Interior) that are working toward landscape level conservation. The challenge is to create synergy across all of these programs. o USGS responded that the USGS Global Change Research Program exists, but only focuses on science, which is not the national‐level coordination being discussed.

NEED #11: NEED FOR NATIONAL‐LEVEL COORDINATION WITH THE CSC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.  USGS remarked they are creating a Federal Agency Committee Act (FACA) advisory committee for the CSC network, which will have representation from many groups, including LCCs. However, there needs to be a mechanism for LCC representatives to report back to the network on what happens in this advisory committee. There have been discussions of converting this advisory committee into something larger – if the LCC network thought a national body of this sort could serve their purposes as well, that could be an option.  Penny clarified that it sounded like #11 could happen within the LCT, but the process is not yet determined, and USGS agreed with this clarification, so it could be removed from the list.

NEED #12: NEED FOR A BODY TO ADDRESS NATIONAL‐LEVEL POLICY ISSUES.  Western Governors’ Association asked for clarification on this item.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 9

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 65 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 LCC coordinators responded there is a need to align resources at a policy level that cannot be handled by the coordinators.  Defenders of Wildlife suggested there is a need to avoid duplication across landscape‐level conservation efforts, which is vitally important, and that is what this item implies to them.  National Park Service stated there is a need to integrate monitoring programs across agencies at the federal level, and this is not something the LCC network leadership can address.  U.S. Institute remarked the need was originally around funding and authorities.

NEED #14: NATIONAL BODY NEEDED TO INTERACT WITH THE LCC NETWORK.  The group agreed to delete this need.

NEED #20: NEED TO ADDRESS LCC REGIONAL BOUNDARY ISSUES.  The group agreed to delete this need.

NEED #22: NEED TO BUILD A NATIONAL‐LEVEL CONSTITUENCY FOR THE LCC EFFORT.  Some group members asked for clarification on this need.  Other group members remarked there is a need for a constituency outside the network to support the network – to bring resources, information, and ideas to make the network more effective.  There is a need for stories about LCCs to get out beyond this conference.  There’s a need for national conservation players, such as Ducks Unlimited, to have a forum where they can go and “plug in” to this effort. This will build a constituency.  It would be helpful to have an external advocate for LCC funding.  Advocacy needs to happen beyond Congress. Many conservation players are out there that the LCC network could reach and serve, but advocacy and outreach need to happen for that to become a reality.  The general public doesn’t know about LCCs. This larger enterprise needs a public face. There is a need for the general public to understand LCCs can do something about landscape level conservation, and also a need to know landscape‐level conservation is not “somebody else’s problem,” but their problem as well.  Should needs 22, 23, and 24 be lumped together?  Alaska Department of Fish and Game remarked 1) that government should not be advocating, and 2) and expressed support for the LCC effort as long as it stays within the research realm. If LCCs become more management‐oriented, that support will decline.  The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated that everyone needs to advocate individually and collectively for the LCC enterprise, particularly at these early stages. If we think our interests are advanced by being part of this large body, then we must advocate or it will fail.  USFS suggested using the word “champion” instead of “advocate.”

NEED #25: NEED TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE LCC EFFORT AS A WHOLE TO CATALYZE GREATER COMMITMENT BY PARTNERS TO REGIONAL LCCS.  LCC coordinators feel the network is already doing this, but it could be enhanced by having an outside group taking it on as well.  The proposal was made to lump 22, 23, 24, and 25 together, and the group agreed.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 10

66 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

NEED #26: NEED TO DEVELOP CLEAR MESSAGE ABOUT THE LCC NETWORK’S PURPOSE, FUNCTION, AND RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EFFORTS, INCLUDING CSCS AND OTHER PARTNERSHIPS.  USFS stated they are tentative about the LCC enterprise, and need a message to be crafted and delivered to USFS executives. If executives buy into the enterprise, then field staff will be more committed to the effort.  North Carolina Wildlife Resources felt this need could be met within the LCT by establishing an ad‐hoc working group.  It was decided to leave #26 to the LCT and network.

NEED #28: NEED COMMON DEFINITION AND CONSISTENT MESSAGE FOR THE LCC ENTERPRISE AT A NATIONAL LEVEL.  LCCs need a clear purpose that articulates how they add value for existing collaboratives.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed nervousness about this item since a national mission statement could be construed to suggest individual LCCs are not abiding by national mission statement.  LCC coordinators felt the LCT could develop the mission, but delivery of the mission is needed at a higher level.  Others remarked this mission needed to be delivered at the executive level, via peer‐to‐peer messaging among executives.  There needs to be a sales pitch about the LCC network that should be delivered to the American public. An NGO could deliver that message.  Penny suggested restating the need as “Once the common definition of the LCC enterprise is developed, then it needs to be communicated.”  Everyone agreed they could live with #28 as restated.

NEED #29: NEED TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR COORDINATED NATIONAL MONITORING.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game suggested program monitoring can be done internally by steering committees.  USGS thinks this need is about monitoring resources on the ground, not monitoring performance, which is a huge task that is bigger than the LCC enterprise. Others expressed support for this sentiment.  Monitoring needs to happen to recognize differences across the country.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated that there is not a need to advance a national approach to vulnerability assessments and modeling, so is very uncomfortable with monitoring needs listed in the matrix.  Pacific Islands CCC pointed out that if a conversation about how to coordinate landscape level monitoring is not happening nationally, then this need is very valid and the LCC network can fill this gap.  Others agreed that the LCC network can identify needs and opportunities for monitoring coordination, particularly at the policy level.  LCCs can provide a voice for landscape level issues that need to be incorporated into individual monitoring programs, and the network as a whole should present a coordinated voice.  Others reinforced there is a national level need associated with monitoring that the LCC network could help improve. LCC network leadership can provide direction and influence to some

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 11

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 67 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

extent, but many decisions that will need to be made are beyond the capacity of the LCC network. o Others felt the network may not have the capability to work on needs 29‐33. o Trout Unlimited proposed someone with the ability to better articulate data and monitoring needs tackle these items. o USFS suggested not underestimating the ability of the LCC network to advance monitoring and data coordination. If the network does not, then these programs go into their usual “stovepipes.” If the LCC network presents the need for better information on certain resource issues, then that perspective can be incorporated into various monitoring programs across the board.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated that the LCCs can’t be everything, the “landscape‐ scale end all be all.” He perceives LCCs as drifting into a wide variety of issues, and doesn’t believe LCCs can be the monitoring entity.  Karen Murphy suggested rewriting 29 as “Express the opportunity for greater integration/collaboration to national monitoring/inventory programs,” and the group agreed to that rewrite.

Penny then asked what needs others beyond the LCC coordinators’ list should be added.

Proposals were made to add needs #5, 8, 15, and 17. Key points of discussion about these needs are listed below each need.

NEED #5. NEED A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION.  Defenders of Wildlife pointed out that it makes sense to have a central place for landscape‐scale conservation tools, and the development of this database needs to happen above the LCC network level.

NEED #8: NEED TO INTEGRATE NATIONAL CONSERVATION INITIATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS (SWAPS, JVS, NVHAP, TNC ECO‐REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS) INTO THE LCC NETWORK.  Defenders of Wildlife thinks this is the most important need, and is not clear on how the existing network will ensure integration occurs.  Others felt this could be worked out within the LCC network.  Penny asked the group if #8 could be woven into #12. The group said yes, but to retain all language and add language about multiple scales.

NEED #15: NEED TO PROVIDE A DC‐LEVEL BODY THAT CAN ENSURE A SEAMLESS NETWORK OF LCCS, AND NEED #17: NEED FOR NATIONAL‐LEVEL COORDINATION ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EFFORTS.  USFS expressed the need for cross‐checking at the national level.  Arizona Game and Fish Department stated hope that the network would evolve to the point of seamlessness.  Trust for Public Land expressed they see RFPs coming out of LCCs all the time that are duplicating efforts, and a way to cross‐check and coordinate efforts is needed to make sure the same products aren’t being developed for LCCs.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 12

68 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Doug Austen did not think this needed to happen at the executive level, but could consist of another entity outside the LCC community cross‐checking LCC RFPs.  Western Alaska LCC expressed the need for someone to examine needs that extend beyond regions, for example, needs that have been identified in multiple locations across 1/3 of the continent. There is skepticism that the LCC network could handle this on its own.  Pacific Islands CCC stated that they have not had a problem pulling LCC partners together to avoid duplication, but they are consistently surprised by other national efforts (such as US Department of Defense efforts) that are duplicating CCC efforts. This duplication needs to be addressed, and it is beyond the work of the LCC network leadership.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed concern with the word “seamless” in need 15. o Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated that seamless does not mean you have to be uniform, just that you are operating in a coordinated way. o North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission suggested rephrasing “seamless” as “coordinated and connected.”  Doug Austen suggested the term “seamless” originated from the false boundaries that were created when the LCCs were delineated. Despite the boundaries set by Bird Conservation Regions, LCCs have to work across boundaries because species and ecosystems move across boundaries.  Group decided to keep 15 and 17 separate, but rephrase 15 to say “Function as a network and get feedback from outside the network to ensure it’s functioning as a network.”

Penny suggested moving needs # 30‐33 to the side and resolving later.

National Wildlife Federation suggested the following new needs be added to the list:

 Encourage LCCs to have tribal and indigenous engagement.  LCCs need to have an oversight function to ensure that meaningful Tribal engagement occurs across the network of LCCs, and that engagement seeks to meet Tribal needs.

National Wildlife Federation also reiterated that higher level coordination with Tribes is needed to avoid consultation fatigue.

 Others pointed out this fatigue is also an issue for NGOs and states.  Native American Land Conservancy articulated that the consultation is completely different for Tribes than for states because Tribes are consensus‐based communities, so you have to move slowly with them.  Pacific Islands CCC pointed out that any need involving Tribes should be expanded to include indigenous communities.

Penny reviewed all needs that had been discussed and asked the group if they wanted to spend time categorizing needs or brainstorming options for meeting those needs. The group decided to brainstorm mechanisms to meet national needs, which included:

 Convene a national landscape coordinating roundtable that would deal with issues related to landscape scale planning and management that are limited to LCCs.  Organize a committee of all chairs of respective steering committees.  Sponsor periodic workshops or gatherings of executive level groups (such as a one‐time workshop of monitoring executives).

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 13

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 69 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Leverage the National Practitioners’ Network – BLM noted a parallel conversation is ongoing to set up a National Practitioners’ Network that will be a professional society for landscape‐scale conservation (equivalent to the Land Trust Alliance). The practitioners’ network could take on some of the advocacy work.  Maintain existing work groups but create an executive level structure for those groups that would be brought in periodically for feedback and knowledge sharing. This would build on and expand an already existing structure.  Develop an LCC network steering committee.  Expand the CSC FACA committee to include LCCs.  Convene a gathering of Tribal representatives from the 22 LCCs to ask them their needs and determine how best to engage Tribes. In addition, gather Tribal liaisons from various agencies to start a higher level agency conversation for how coordination with Tribes can best occur.  Build on existing committees, such as climate change task force, and redefine roles.  Engage the philanthropic community (such as the Council of Foundations).  Develop an executive interagency work group that includes NGOs and other native peoples.  Search for people with new ideas who can bring a fresh, creative perspective to this effort.  Track how the National, Fish, Wildlife, Plant Climate Adaptation Strategy evolves to discern whether there could be overlap between that effort’s steering committee and these national LCC needs.  Take existing boards (JV, NFHAP, WGA wildlife council, etc…) and create a joint landscape‐level steering committee by merging them together.  Use existing network leadership to meet needs.

NEXT STEPS Penny reviewed the group’s progress to date, and the group discussed next steps. Points of discussion included:  Crosswalking the mechanisms (forms) with needs will be difficult without better understanding the mechanisms.  BLM pointed out the need to coordinate program, policy, and budgets for landscape‐scale conservation; in other words, to get our act together with 1) monitoring, 2) data management, 3) Tribal issues, and 4) advocating for the landscape‐scale approach. These needs exist whether we have LCCs or not, and the mechanisms identified can help meet these needs regardless of LCCs. I propose this group 1) identify these as needs that must be met regardless of LCCs , 2) propose a body outside of the LCCs meet these needs, and 3) forward this recommendation to Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce. o Several people agreed with this idea, and thought it would be a huge step forward. o Pacific Islands CCC suggested this was a great idea but the group also should not lose focus on needs of LCC network.  What will the process of moving forward look like?  We should flesh out the needs and mechanisms outside of a face‐to‐face meeting and then meet to crosswalk them.

Penny asked the group if they were willing to stick with this process and remain on the strategy team. Everyone agreed.

The group agreed next steps are:

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 14

70 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

1. Wordsmith and agree on list of national needs. 2. Flesh out list of possible mechanisms to understand general thinking about the concept (i.e. the how, what, and who). 3. Crosswalk list of national needs (functions) with possible mechanisms (forms). 4. Develop priority recommendations for the Department of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce about the need to coordinate programs, policy, and budgets working toward landscape‐scale conservation on the following fronts: 1) monitoring, 2) data management, 3) Tribal issues, and 4) advocating for the landscape‐scale approach.

ACTION ITEMS 1. Deanna Spooner, Breece Robertson, Mallory Martin, Doug Austen, and Robin O’Malley will work together to flesh out the list of potential mechanisms for meeting national needs. 2. The U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues will wordsmith needs based on today’s discussion and distribute to the group for review. 3. The U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues will distribute a contact list with everyone’s contact information.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 15

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 71 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

APPENDIX A. LCC NATIONAL NEEDS: WHAT WE’VE HEARD This matrix captures national needs for the LCC enterprise that were identified in the following reports:

 April 2010 NCTC report: Workshop Report from the LCC National Network workshop held at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) from March 30 – April 1, 2010.  November 2010 NCTC report: Facilitator’s Summary Report from the LCC National Workshop II held at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) from November 2‐4, 2010.  National LCC Assessment findings: November 2011 report and interview notes from the 2011 National LCC Network assessment.  January 2012 Strategy Session summary: Meeting summary from the National LCC strategy session held in Washington, DC on Jan 9‐10, 2012.

Need Where need Are the LCC Is there a was coordinators national identified collectively role? doing this?

Provide Support and Services to Individual LCCs

1. Need national–level support for the system of LCCs Nov 2010 NCTC 2. Need a forum for best practices and a resource for Nov 2010 questions and answers NCTC

3. Need a body that can provide support and services to Nov 2010 assist local LCCs, such as improving efficiency, NCTC marketing, guidance on governance, facilitating the process of information sharing

4. Need for a body to develop common products all the Nov 2010 LCCs need NCTC

5. Need a clearinghouse for information Nov 2010 NCTC

6. Need for an entity to identify national funding sources Assessment and coordinate funding needs findings

7. Need for a “brain trust” to capture best practices, look Assessment broadly at the issues of landscape conservation, and findings provide a space for dialogue, sharing, and learning

National‐Level Engagement

8. Need to integrate national conservation initiatives and April 2010 partnerships (SWAPS, JVs, NFHAP, TNC Ecoregional NCTC

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 16

72 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Assessments) into the LCC network

9. Need for a forum where collaboration across major Jan 2012 programs at a national level can occur. For example: strategy session  Need for a forum where USFS and various Bureaus in the DOI can sit down and collaboratively decide how to use funds.  Need for a forum through which DOI and USFS can collaboratively develop performance measures to report on outcomes from climate change work to OMB.

10. Need to engage federal agencies and national‐level Jan 2012 organizations at the executive level. strategy session

11. Need for national‐level coordination with the CSC Assessment national committee. findings

12. Need for a body to address national policy‐level issues. Assessment findings

Network Coordination

13. Need for LCCs to function as an integrated national April 2010 network since many natural and cultural resources NCTC exceed the boundaries of any single LCC.

14. National body needed to interact with the LCC national Nov 2010 network ‐ “We could push up to them what our needs NCTC are and ask for a response.”

15. Need to provide a DC‐level body that can ensure a Nov 2010 seamless network of LCCs. NCTC

16. Need for information to be communicated across the Jan 2012 LCC network. strategy session

17. Need for national‐level coordination on research and Jan 2012 science efforts. strategy session

18. Need for coordination and communication between the Assessment individual LCCs to support a cohesive purpose and core findings message.

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 17

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 73 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

19. Need to articulate shared outcomes of the LCCs and Assessment support collaboration across geographies. findings

20. Need to address LCC regional boundary issues. Assessment findings

National‐Level Advocacy

21. Need to define relevance of LCCs to NGO and state Nov 2010 agency partners. NCTC

22. Need to build a national‐level constituency for the LCC Nov 2010 effort. NCTC

23. Need for a body focused on strategic policy Nov 2010 engagement – budget formulation, policy analysis, and NCTC reporting to the Hill.

24. Need to advocate for the LCCs and share their success Jan 2012 stories within federal agencies and Congress – “We strategy need to justify what LCCs are doing on the Hill.” session + Assessment findings

25. Need to establish the value and sustainability of the Assessment LCC effort as a whole to catalyze greater commitment findings by partners to regional LCCs.

Communications

26. Need to develop clear message about the LCC Nov 2010 Network’s purpose, function, and relationship to other NCTC efforts, including CSCs and other existing partnerships.

27. Need to develop interactive communications strategy Nov 2010 to raise awareness of LCCs. NCTC

28. Need common definition and consistent message for Jan 2012 the LCC enterprise at a national level – “It is hard to strategy advocate for LCCs at a national level because they are session heading in different directions.”

Monitoring

29. Need to develop a strategy for coordinated national April 2010 monitoring. NCTC

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 18

74 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

30. Need National LCC inventory and monitoring database April 2010 and/or a database of all relevant annual monitoring NCTC programs nationwide.

Data Needs

31. Need to coordinate national‐ level data needs, such as: April 2010 NCTC  Need for a consistent protected lands spatial data system.  Need for updated, complete, and coordinated National Land Cover Data, National Wetlands Inventory, and other datasets.  Need for a national data sharing network that includes minimum data and modeling standards for all LCCs.

32. Need to advance a national approach to vulnerability April 2010 assessment. NCTC

33. Need to advance a national approach to predictive April 2010 modeling. NCTC

LCC National Strategy Team Meeting Summary – 3/29/12 19

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 75 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team Meeting June 6‐7, 2012 NatureServe Arlington, VA

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Zach Cockrum, Trout Unlimited Jad Daley, Trust for Public Land Roger Griffis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Leslie Honey, NatureServe Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Mary Klein, NatureServe Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Doug Parsons, National Park Service Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands LCC Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Doug Vincent Lang, Alaska Department of Fish & Game Larry Voyles, Arizona Game & Fish Department

Facilitation Team: Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Jacquelyn Wallace, EnviroIssues

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6TH

Introductions

Penny opened the meeting with a round of introductions and reviewed operating expectations and ground rules. Penny reviewed the work of the strategy team thus far. She explained that for the group’s January meeting in Washington DC, there was an assumption a National Council would be convened. Following the January meeting, there was concern with the notion of and clear need for a National Council, so the group took a step back. At the group’s March meeting in Denver, CO, the group went through national needs and brainstormed possible forms to meet those needs. Following the March meeting, a small subgroup put flesh on the bones of those forms.

National LCC Strategy Team 1 June 2012 meeting notes

76 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny outlined proposed outcomes of this meeting – 1) to finalize the list of needs, 2) to develop a succinct list of forms to meet those needs, 3) to match forms to functions and to 4) identify next steps – process, product, and audiences – for the strategy team.

Penny reiterated up front that there is not an assumption any particular body will be established.

LCC Enterprise Structure

Doug Austen reviewed the existing LCC enterprise structure depicted in the above diagram. He clarified that an LCT (LCC Coordinating Team) charter has been developed and that the LCT charter assumes certain needs cannot be addressed by the LCT.

Doug clarified that the LCT executive committee, which consists of Deanna Spooner, Genevieve Johnson, John Mankowski, Rick Nelson, Ken McDermond, Ben Thatcher, and Doug Austen, is the one entity not displayed on the diagram, so it was added (and has been included above).

One participant asked what role the LCT executive committee has in relationship to the steering committee chairs. Doug Austen responded that there’s an assumption the LCC coordinators and steering committee chairs are communicating and are “on the same page.”

National LCC Strategy Team 2 June 2012 meeting notes

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 77 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed concerns about the self‐directed versus nationally directed operations of the network.

Doug Austen explained the diagram was not a final document and is relatively fluid. He asked the group what was missing and what other pieces would complete the network that are not being addressed.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked whether documents coming out of the LCT are seen as “opportunities” for LCCs or mandates to LCCs.

Doug Austen clarified that the LCCs have no authority yet the money allocated to LCCs is tied to certain expectations. Whether or not a particular LCC decides to meet those Congressional expectations is their decision.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed concern that any LCC national entity will focus on mandates instead of opportunities. For instance, a recent guidance document that emerged at a national level became a mandate for Alaska not an opportunity.

Doug Austen responded that there’s a tremendous amount of latitude by LCCs to determine what’s of most importance and relevance to them.

One participant asked whether the other working groups are permanent, temporary, or a mixture of both. Doug Austen responded these groups are a mixture of both. Some working groups form to tackle particular tasks, such as the National Workshop. Others are engaged in longer term work.

The Pacific Island Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC) coordinator clarified that the draft LCT charter states that individual workgroups will have a purpose, serve that purpose, and then disband. The draft LCT charter does not call for any standing workgroups.

National Needs

The group then moved to discuss the working list of national needs. Key questions and points of discussion are captured below.

Need #9 – Need for a forum where collaboration across major federal programs can occur.

 The group proposed adding the point that this need pertains not only to climate change work but also to larger resource conservation efforts.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game expressed concern with adding this point because he feels it is not appropriate for federal agencies to set performance measures for all conservation issues and that it would lead to development of performance measures on issues such as mining and timber harvest.

National LCC Strategy Team 3 June 2012 meeting notes

78 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responded that the point is to identify needs, not automatically point to LCCs as a forum for meeting that need. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has told federal agencies that they must work to develop performance measures across federal programs.  North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) responded that this need exists regardless of what forum is established. The South Atlantic LCC’s focus is broader than climate change. Failure to recognize and adopt a forum to deliver performance measures means they will be developed without our input.  The discussion continued over whether the focus of this need was to develop a forum or to focus on development of performance measures.  The group decided to delete the performance measures aspect of this need.

Need #12 + 8 ‐ Need to integrate national conservation initiatives and partnerships (State Wildlife Action Plans, Joint Ventures, National Fish Habitat Action Plan, The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Assessments) with the LCC network. Need for a venue to address national policy‐level issues.

 The group discussed whether to add Need #9 to this need, but the decision was made to keep them separate to clarify the need for a forum to coordinate across federal conservation programs, which is articulated in Need #9.  A few participants asked for clarification on the term “national‐level policy issues.” Doug Austen responded with an example: When the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rolls out their all‐lands approach, there is a need for a forum to discuss how this approach fits into similar Department of the Interior (DOI) efforts to ensure programs are aligned and not duplicative.  National Wildlife Federation remarked that national policy issues are a distinct topic. For instance, there are national level policy issues that can promote landscape scale conservation but are not part of landscape scale conservation issues per se at this moment, such as the Farm Bill.  Some members of the group expressed concern about articulating needs that are beyond the LCC network.  BLM remarked that trying to develop dedicated streams of funding for landscape conservation is an issue, and because the Farm Bill is one venue for doing that, there’s a direct link for the LCCs. This is the kind of policy issue we need a forum for discussing.  National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) remarked that the reason we need a national body is so they can address policy issues we may not even be able to envision right now.  The group discussed whether the word “address” as stated in the need was too prescriptive.  The tribal representatives present remarked that the Tribes aren’t getting money for the LCCs from the federal government. Tribes have to piece together other programmatic funding to provide support for LCCs. So, having this forum to raise this issue is an important item for the Tribes.  One participant asked: “Do we want to pass policy level issues relevant to landscape scale conservation on to others? It’s important for us to look at issues that have a landscape scale context, raise them up, and say ‘This needs to be addressed.’”

National LCC Strategy Team 4 June 2012 meeting notes

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 79 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 The group decided to keep Needs #9, #12, and #8 separate, and to reword #12 to read “Need for a venue to address/consider/discuss/identify and understand national policy‐level issues relevant to landscape‐scale conservation.”

Need #15 ‐ Need to get feedback from outside the LCC network to ensure the network functions as a coordinated and connected network.

 The decision was made to switch the emphasis from feedback to functioning as a network, so the new need reads “We will ensure the network functions as a coordinated and connected network and will get feedback from outside the network to do so.”

Need #17 ‐ Need for national‐level coordination on research and science efforts. (Need feedback from outside the network.)

 The group decided to add a new bullet to the description of this need that states: “This need should be emphasized specifically as a collaborative effort to focus on recommendations.”  After discussing the fact that some LCCs, PICCC in particular, are working internationally, the group decided to rephrase the need as “network‐wide” instead of “national‐level.”  The group decided to drop the parentheses around the second sentence.

Need #22 ‐#25 ‐ Need to build a national‐level constituency for the LCC effort.

 One participant remarked this could be seen as a marketing plan for the LCCs.  The group agreed to reframe this as “nationwide” instead of “national‐level.”

Need #29 ‐ Express the opportunity for greater integration/collaboration to national monitoring/inventory programs.

 The group agreed to change the word “express” to “identify opportunities.”  The group agreed to include the note that “this need should indicate a collaborative intent rather than a directive” in the description of this need.

Need #30 – Need National LCC inventory and monitoring database and/or a database of all relevant annual monitoring programs nationwide.

 The group agreed to delete need #30.

Need #34 ‐ A) Need to encourage each LCC to have tribal, first nation and indigenous peoples’ engagement and B) need an oversight function to ensure this is happening.

 The group agreed to rephrase this need as “Need to increase Tribal, First Nation, and Indigenous peoples’ engagement.”  National Wildlife Federation remarked that they are supportive of Tribal governments as well as NGO (nongovernmental) tribal organizations and intertribal organizations. They would not want to

National LCC Strategy Team 5 June 2012 meeting notes

80 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

limit this need to a government‐to‐government issue, but would want to engage these other tribal groups as well.

Proposed Forms to Meet National Needs

The forms subgroup walked through the forms table and outlined how they had defined each potential form. The subgroup pointed out they organized forms into three categories: 1 ) national policy forms (or “national forms”), 2) special purpose groups, and 3) forms addressing operational issues. Key questions and points of discussion on proposed forms included:

 The group agreed to delete the word “policy” from “national policy forms”, so the first category became “national forms.”  The group discussed the fact that each form could be construed or “built” to occur along a spectrum of possible definitions for that particular form.  Western Alaska LCC expressed that any entity, if developed, should not develop a “self‐defined” charter. They need to take into consideration the topics that have been discussed as a strategy team when developing a charter.  The point was made that the Lincoln Institute is leading the charge to develop the National Practitioners’ Network.  The group discussed the implications of the potential form of expanding the Climate Science Center Federal Advisory Committee Act (CSC FACA) committee to include LCCs. Doug Austen remarked that the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) has been working to develop a FACA charter for their entity and, at this point, they have a simple charter in place identifying a few key themes the body will address. The CSC FACA is moving forward and Deputy Secretary Hayes would like to piggyback on it or move forward with an LCC FACA if he sees that as a viable option. It is up to this group to make a recommendation if we think that’s not a good option, but we must do so in a timely fashion.  The group asked whether a joint venture management board exists. Doug Austen responded that a joint venture management board does exist, but it was set up to provide coordination on lobbying efforts, so it is relatively ineffective.  The group asked Doug Austen whether there is a group of LCC committee co‐chairs. Doug responded that there is not.  The group identified the need to consider the existing LCC network structure when deciding how to move forward with any of these forms.  The group added “LCC steering committee” to the list of potential forms. This form would be structured like an LCC steering committee, but at the national level. Its role would be to develop national policy guidance.

Penny charged the group with going through the forms overnight and identifying which forms don’t hold much promise. Comments to this charge included:

National LCC Strategy Team 6 June 2012 meeting notes

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 81 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Three questions we can ask when reviewing these forms are: 1) who do we think needs to be involved in that need, 2) how do they need to be involved, and 3) what structure do we need to enable meeting the needs.  Trust for Public Land responded that these needs could be organized according to three categories: 1) A national body to help LCCs address how they relate to larger landscape scale conservation programs, 2) Finding efficient ways for the LCC network to link with other entities that aren’t involved (such as engaging with tribal representatives, connecting with funders, and the nonprofit practitioner network), and 3) Needs that relate to having LCCs function as coherent network.

THURSDAY, JUNE 7TH

Crosswalk of National Needs to Proposed Forms

A revised version of the needs table was distributed, reflecting all the changes that were discussed on Wednesday. To begin the second day of the meeting, Penny broke the large group into small groups. She asked the small groups to crosswalk the revised list of needs with potential forms and post their suggestions on the blue sticky wall.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked what authority each form had. Doug Austen clarified that none of the forms had authority.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game also remarked that the larger coordination function is what needs to be addressed. He is not sure what that would look like and is not convinced that a body could be created with enough authority to make decisions, but the need exists.

When the strategy team reconvened as a large group, each small group reported on their individual discussions and explained their arrangement of sticky notes on the blue wall, depicted below.

Figure 1. Needs and Forms Crosswalk

KeyNational points of discussionLCC Strategy included: Team 7  JuneOne 2012 group addedmeeting a National notes Council, similar to the proposal the strategy team developed in January, to the list of potential forms. This Council would be somewhere in between a roundtable and a steering committee. The purpose would be counseling and coaching, as opposed to a steering

committee (which implies a more directive body) and a roundtable (which consists more of people LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 82 talking than achieving results.) This National Council would be externally focused with some internal focus as well.  One participant pointed out that such a structure could be similar to the executive interagency work group listed on the forms table.  One group remarked that the question of whether a body’s role is a formal role that involves oversight guidance or a purely advisory role for LCCs is a critical question to answer. It is particularly important to answer this question when defining the inward‐looking forms.  One group discussed the scope of the LCCs. At this point, the LCCs seem to have settled into science and planning roles, not on‐the‐ground implementation. The implications of this role may need to be discussed when defining these forms further.

Discussion of Needs & Forms

National LCC Strategy Team 8 June 2012 meeting notes 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries Figure 1. Needs and Forms Crosswalk

Key points of discussion included:  One group added a National Council, similar to the proposal the strategy team developed in January, to the list of potential forms. This Council would be somewhere in between a roundtable and a steering committee. The purpose would be counseling and coaching, as opposed to a steering committee (which implies a more directive body) and a roundtable (which consists more of people talking than achieving results.) This National Council would be externally focused with some internal focus as well.  One participant pointed out that such a structure could be similar to the executive interagency work group listed on the forms table.  One group remarked that the question of whether a body’s role is a formal role that involves oversight guidance or a purely advisory role for LCCs is a critical question to answer. It is particularly important to answer this question when defining the inward‐looking forms.  One group discussed the scope of the LCCs. At this point, the LCCs seem to have settled into science and planning roles, not on‐the‐ground implementation. The implications of this role may need to be discussed when defining these forms further.

Discussion of Needs & Forms Penny noted that the small groups seemed to agree that some sort of body was needed and that there are several forms that could meet individual needs. Penny then facilitated a discussion to identify points of agreement from the small groups and to begin to identify which needs and forms held the most Nationalpromise. LCCKey Strategy points of Team discussion included: 8 June 2012 meeting notes  Alaska Department of Fish & Game articulated that he could not express an opinion until he better understands what authority these bodies would have. To him, authority means there is some degree of control over self directed partnerships. Further, it concerns him if this body(ies) “sets policy,” or “sets direction.” To him, that implies the body will tell the LCCs what to do.  National Park Service remarked that his basic assumption is that this body will have no authority, particularly at first.  The National Wildlife Federation articulated that there is a need for benchmarks and baselines while retaining the self‐directed nature of the partnerships. He remarked that the way a network is successful is to have some sideboards, with individual units operating within those sideboards with some flexibility.  Arizona Game & Fish Department stated that whatever framework is built must be a network in which the individual LCCs are willing to participate. He believes there is a way to do this without a prescriptive, top down approach.

Penny asked the group for suggestions on how to move forward on commonalities.

 The group moved into a discussion about who needs to be involved as a way to begin to narrow down forms. A few participants stated there should be broad representation from government, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), Tribes, internal LCC representatives and external conservation representatives.  Trust for Public Land commented that there’s an intense need for high level coordination across the “federal family” on landscape‐scale conservation. That coordination needs to include how the “federal family” partners with Tribes, NGOs, and others. In addition, the needs we’ve identified on refining the LCC enterprise are key. The people best suited to advise on those two things are not the Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 83 same. So he favored developing two different efforts: 1) a body that helps refine LCCs, and 2) a higher‐level body.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game agreed that there are two types of needs and so two different bodies: 1) a body focused on internal coordination and 2) a body or effort focused on coordination of landscape level efforts.  National Wildlife Federation asked whether there were really three tiers of needs/bodies: 1) federal coordination, 2) broader than federal coordination, and 3) LCC management coordination.  The Wildlife Society commented that we could also consider creating one body that could have the potential to evolve into two separate entities.  A few participants remarked that all of these needs have been identified specifically for the LCC network. If there’s a forum that can be built for broader landscape level conversations, then that would be helpful, but we as a group need to focus on how to meet these LCC network needs.

National LCC Strategy Team 9 June 2012 meeting notes Penny noted that the small groups seemed to agree that some sort of body was needed and that there are several forms that could meet individual needs. Penny then facilitated a discussion to identify points of agreement from the small groups and to begin to identify which needs and forms held the most promise. Key points of discussion included:

 Alaska Department of Fish & Game articulated that he could not express an opinion until he better understands what authority these bodies would have. To him, authority means there is some degree of control over self directed partnerships. Further, it concerns him if this body(ies) “sets policy,” or “sets direction.” To him, that implies the body will tell the LCCs what to do.  National Park Service remarked that his basic assumption is that this body will have no authority, particularly at first.  The National Wildlife Federation articulated that there is a need for benchmarks and baselines while retaining the self‐directed nature of the partnerships. He remarked that the way a network is successful is to have some sideboards, with individual units operating within those sideboards with some flexibility.  Arizona Game & Fish Department stated that whatever framework is built must be a network in which the individual LCCs are willing to participate. He believes there is a way to do this without a prescriptive, top down approach.

Penny asked the group for suggestions on how to move forward on commonalities.

 The group moved into a discussion about who needs to be involved as a way to begin to narrow 1.1.6 Strategydown Team forms. meeting A few participants summaries stated there should be broad representation from government, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), Tribes, internal LCC representatives and external conservation representatives.  Trust for Public Land commented that there’s an intense need for high level coordination across the “federal family” on landscape‐scale conservation. That coordination needs to include how the “federal family” partners with Tribes, NGOs, and others. In addition, the needs we’ve identified on refining the LCC enterprise are key. The people best suited to advise on those two things are not the same. So he favored developing two different efforts: 1) a body that helps refine LCCs, and 2) a higher‐level body.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game agreed that there are two types of needs and so two different bodies: 1) a body focused on internal coordination and 2) a body or effort focused on coordination of landscape level efforts.  National Wildlife Federation asked whether there were really three tiers of needs/bodies: 1) federal coordination, 2) broader than federal coordination, and 3) LCC management coordination.  The Wildlife Society commented that we could also consider creating one body that could have the potential to evolve into two separate entities.  A few participants remarked that all of these needs have been identified specifically for the LCC network. If there’s a forum that can be built for broader landscape level conversations, then that would be helpful, but we as a group need to focus on how to meet these LCC network needs.  BLM responded that the LCC network may be insufficient to meet larger coordination needs. In Washington, we don’t have any physical realities like the LCCs have. All we have is turf. If we can National LCC Strategy Team 9 propose what LCCs need, then that should be our primary focus. But if we’re going to report out, June 2012 meeting notes then we should at least include a footnote stating there’s a huge need for coordination among federal agencies, Tribes, States, and NGOs, and at this point that coordination is not taking place. One thing that’s complicating the work of the LCCs right now is that there’s no budget coordination occurring, which is affecting funding sources for LCCs.  A few participants remarked that the group should clearly articulate a proposed two‐way feedback connection between an inwardly focused LCC coordination body and a higher level inter‐ organizational body to effectively address issues both affecting LCCs and the larger landscape conservation world.  Penny asked the group if there was agreement for: 1) A nationwide body that’s primarily inwardly focused on LCCs but has a link to the broader conservation world, and 2) an externally focused body that focuses primarily on larger landscape issues but is also connected to the LCC network. o Penny asked each member of the group, and everyone responded yes.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked whether some internal issues could be handled by the LCC coordinators.  The group agreed that the inwardly focused LCC body would be connected to the LCC network in some way. The group also agreed that some needs could be met within the existing LCC framework.

Penny posted two different pieces of flip chart paper to represent 1) the proposed LCC body, and 2) an LCC “supra‐group.” The group then discussed and fleshed out which needs may fit into each type of body.

84 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

Figure 2. LCC Proposed Body and “Supra‐Group”

The group agreed that the following needs would be included under the proposed LCC body: Needs #8, #15, #22‐25, #28, #34. Needs #9, #6, #17, & #29 were also added to this list but these four needs were included to be considered only within the context of having a specific “LCC focus.”

Alaska Department of Fish & Game clarified that for Need #17, research needs should be provided by the LCCs to this proposed LCC body, and that research needs should not be presented as guidance from this proposed body to the LCCs. The group agreed with this point.

National LCC Strategy Team 10 June 2012 meeting notes  BLM responded that the LCC network may be insufficient to meet larger coordination needs. In Washington, we don’t have any physical realities like the LCCs have. All we have is turf. If we can propose what LCCs need, then that should be our primary focus. But if we’re going to report out, then we should at least include a footnote stating there’s a huge need for coordination among federal agencies, Tribes, States, and NGOs, and at this point that coordination is not taking place. One thing that’s complicating the work of the LCCs right now is that there’s no budget coordination occurring, which is affecting funding sources for LCCs.  A few participants remarked that the group should clearly articulate a proposed two‐way feedback connection between an inwardly focused LCC coordination body and a higher level inter‐ organizational body to effectively address issues both affecting LCCs and the larger landscape conservation world.  Penny asked the group if there was agreement for: 1) A nationwide body that’s primarily inwardly focused on LCCs but has a link to the broader conservation world, and 2) an externally focused body that focuses primarily on larger landscape issues but is also connected to the LCC network. o Penny asked each member of the group, and everyone responded yes.  Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked whether some internal issues could be handled by the LCC coordinators.  The group agreed that the inwardly focused LCC body would be connected to the LCC network in some way. The group also agreed that some needs could be met within the existing LCC framework.

Penny posted two different pieces of flip chart paper to represent 1) the proposed LCC body, and 2) an 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries LCC “supra‐group.” The group then discussed and fleshed out which needs may fit into each type of body.

Figure 2. LCC Proposed Body and “Supra‐Group”

NationalWestern LCCAlaska Strategy outlined Team a proposed approach for integrating the two groups, particularly from the 10 June“supra 2012‐group” meeting perspective. notes She proposed a membership for this “supra‐group” that consists of leaders from major partnerships, NGOs, LCC leadership (which would consist of representation from the existing LCC framework), Washington office‐level federal leaders, state representation, and Tribal/Indigenous representation. From that group, a subgroup of federal members would be convened to address Needs #6, #9, #12, and #29. There would also be a tribal subgroup – composed of Tribal and LCC staff – to better tackle Need #34 engagement issues. Finally, a breakout group of partnership entities could be convened to address issues associated with Need #8.

A few participants remarked that the Western Alaska “supra‐group” proposal could fit better with the proposed LCC body. Some disagreed with the federal subgroup, and Doug Austen proposed that this “supra‐group” could potentially be a FACA body.

Penny confirmed there was agreement in the group for some sort of “supra‐group,” and the group agreed.

The group agreed to insert Needs #5 and 8 within the existing LCC framework.

The group then discussed who should compose the proposed LCC body. Key points of discussion included:  Some felt the LCC body and the “supra‐group” should represent similar interests/organizations/agencies, but the groups should be populated with individuals at different scales.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated he did not want to break the linkage between steering committee chairs and the proposed LCC body.  Penny asked the group whether the LCC network, represented by steering committee chairs, Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 designees, or LCC staff, should be the proposed LCC body. 85  Others stated they felt that steering committee chairs should be represented on the body, but that representation on the body should not be constrained solely to steering committee chairs.  Trust for Public Land pointed out that there is no NGO chairing a steering committee in the country, and that NGOs should be represented on the proposed LCC body.  One participant suggested posing the question of what kind of representation would be best to the LCC network.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated he was comfortable with more diverse representation (major partnerships, NGOs, LCC network, Federal, Tribal, and State/territorial/commonwealth) as long as the representative was very familiar with the LCCs and their needs.  The group agreed that a requirement for participation in the body should be an understanding of LCCs and familiarity with local LCC needs.  US Forest Service (USFS) pointed out that the group should identify characteristics, such as influence, engagement, and advocacy, for the LCC mission that could be requirements for

National LCC Strategy Team 11 June 2012 meeting notes

Western Alaska outlined a proposed approach for integrating the two groups, particularly from the “supra‐group” perspective. She proposed a membership for this “supra‐group” that consists of leaders from major partnerships, NGOs, LCC leadership (which would consist of representation from the existing LCC framework), Washington office‐level federal leaders, state representation, and Tribal/Indigenous representation. From that group, a subgroup of federal members would be convened to address Needs #6, #9, #12, and #29. There would also be a tribal subgroup – composed of Tribal and LCC staff – to better tackle Need #34 engagement issues. Finally, a breakout group of partnership entities could be convened to address issues associated with Need #8.

Penny confirmed there was agreement in the group for some sort of “supra‐group,” and the group agreed.

The group agreed to insert Needs #5 and 8 within the existing LCC framework.

The group then discussed who should compose the proposed LCC body. Key points of discussion included: 1.1.6 Strategy Some Team felt the meeting LCC body summaries and the “supra‐group” should represent similar interests/organizations/agencies, but the groups should be populated with individuals at different scales.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated he did not want to break the linkage between steering committee chairs and the proposed LCC body.  Penny asked the group whether the LCC network, represented by steering committee chairs, designees, or LCC staff, should be the proposed LCC body.  Others stated they felt that steering committee chairs should be represented on the body, but that representation on the body should not be constrained solely to steering committee chairs.  Trust for Public Land pointed out that there is no NGO chairing a steering committee in the country, and that NGOs should be represented on the proposed LCC body.  One participant suggested posing the question of what kind of representation would be best to the LCC network.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated he was comfortable with more diverse representation (major partnerships, NGOs, LCC network, Federal, Tribal, and State/territorial/commonwealth) as long as the representative was very familiar with the LCCs and their needs.  The group agreed that a requirement for participation in the body should be an understanding of LCCs and familiarity with local LCC needs.  US Forest Service (USFS) pointed out that the group should identify characteristics, such as influence, engagement, and advocacy, for the LCC mission that could be requirements for participating in the body. There is a need to identify people who know what LCCs are about, who Nationalare motivated LCC Strategy to show Team up, and who can be influential. 11 June Doug 2012 Austen meeting pointed notes out that steering committee chairs are often middle managers that can’t fulfill the needs this group has identified. Having a separate forum for steering committee chairs could have value, but that would not meet the needs this group has identified.  The Intertribal Timber Council suggested that tribal representation could be made up of a rotating pool of people from the “Our Natural Resources” group.  The group discussed the value of not being too prescriptive about populating the body with exact people.  Penny added a list of “required characteristics” that potential members of the body would need to meet: engaged, authority/influence, advocacy for mission, organization active in an LCC.

Penny asked if everyone agreed that the proposed LCC body should be composed of: major partnerships, NGOs, LCC network representatives, Federal, Tribal, and State/territorial/commonwealth representatives – as long as the individual representatives met the above required characteristics.  Everyone agreed.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game clarified he was supportive of that decision point, but nothing beyond it.

Crafting the Path Forward

Penny asked the group how they wanted to present this recommendation and to whom this recommendation should be presented. Key suggestions and points of discussion included the following:

 Several participants suggested a small subgroup develop a narrative recommendation for the LCC “supra‐group”.  Roger, Kit, Sara, Monica/Dave Cleaves, and Jad agreed to develop the recommendation for the LCC “supra‐group.” The strategy team directed this small group to describe what the “supra‐group” 86 would do but not address FACA in their narrative. LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting  Penny asked whether the strategy team was the appropriate group to develop a proposal for the LCC body. NOAA responded that the strategy team was convened by the U.S. Institute and so he felt they should flesh out these recommendations and pass it back to the U.S. Institute to hand off to whomever it will go to next.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated the proposal must go to the steering committees.  The group agreed that the proposal should go to the steering committee leadership and LCC coordinators first. Then, it should go to the federal agencies, particularly David Hayes and Secretaries or appropriate representatives in USDA, Commerce (Eric Schwab, Deputy Assistant Secretary), Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Defense.  Doug Austen stated that he needed to inform David Hayes about the status of this group’s work before the full proposal was fleshed out. Penny proposed that a brief status report be developed that everyone could take back to their agencies and that could be shared with David Hayes. This status report would capture what has been agreed upon thus far.

National LCC Strategy Team 12 June 2012 meeting notes participating in the body. There is a need to identify people who know what LCCs are about, who are motivated to show up, and who can be influential.  Doug Austen pointed out that steering committee chairs are often middle managers that can’t fulfill the needs this group has identified. Having a separate forum for steering committee chairs could have value, but that would not meet the needs this group has identified.  The Intertribal Timber Council suggested that tribal representation could be made up of a rotating pool of people from the “Our Natural Resources” group.  The group discussed the value of not being too prescriptive about populating the body with exact people.  Penny added a list of “required characteristics” that potential members of the body would need to meet: engaged, authority/influence, advocacy for mission, organization active in an LCC.

Crafting the Path Forward

Penny asked the group how they wanted to present this recommendation and to whom this recommendation should be presented. Key suggestions and points of discussion included the following:

 Several participants suggested a small subgroup develop a narrative1.1.6 recommendation Strategy Team formeeting the LCC summaries “supra‐group”.  Roger, Kit, Sara, Monica/Dave Cleaves, and Jad agreed to develop the recommendation for the LCC “supra‐group.” The strategy team directed this small group to describe what the “supra‐group” would do but not address FACA in their narrative.  Penny asked whether the strategy team was the appropriate group to develop a proposal for the LCC body. NOAA responded that the strategy team was convened by the U.S. Institute and so he felt they should flesh out these recommendations and pass it back to the U.S. Institute to hand off to whomever it will go to next.  Alaska Department of Fish & Game stated the proposal must go to the steering committees.  The group agreed that the proposal should go to the steering committee leadership and LCC coordinators first. Then, it should go to the federal agencies, particularly David Hayes and Secretaries or appropriate representatives in USDA, Commerce (Eric Schwab, Deputy Assistant Secretary), Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Defense.  Doug Austen stated that he needed to inform David Hayes about the status of this group’s work before the full proposal was fleshed out. Penny proposed that a brief status report be developed that everyone could take back to their agencies and that could be shared with David Hayes. This status report would capture what has been agreed upon thus far.  The group agreed that 1) the status report will be developed and available to the “world,” and 2) National LCC Strategy Team 12 the strategy team would continue to work with the U.S. Institute to develop details about the LCC June 2012 meeting notes body, including composition, operating assumptions, and relationships between this body and the rest of the LCC network.  The group agreed to task a small subgroup to draft initial details for the proposed LCC body and bring it back to the strategy team for review and discussion. Terra and Penny will be the “point people” for this small group. This small group’s charge is to: o Review materials from the January meeting. o Review individual LCC charters. o Review/propose possible decision‐making models with pros/cons. o Review the various models that we fleshed out in January. o Ensure the body is structured to adequately meet identified needs. o Propose size. o Propose representation.  Other suggestions for this group included: o Consider the structure of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group o Make it clear that this group will be advisory only with no inherent authority. o Set up a Basecamp or Google site so documents can be shared.

Next Steps and Action Items

 The LCC “supra‐group” small subgroup will send their draft recommendation to Penny by July 13th. Penny will distribute this document to the strategy team for review and comment.  The strategy team will reconvene in late August/early September in Denver, Seattle, Portland, or another western city.  The U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues will produce a brief status paper by June 21st.  The U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues will produce a meeting summary by early the week of June 17th.  The proposed LCC body small group will develop recommendations for the LCC body for the strategy team to review and discuss during the next strategy team meeting.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 87

National LCC Strategy Team 13 June 2012 meeting notes 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team August 20, 2012 Webinar Summary

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Dan Ashe, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Laura Bies, The Wildlife Society Gabriela Chavarria, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service David Hayes, U.S. Department of the Interior Leslie Honey, NatureServe Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Jen Mock‐Shaffer, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Sara O’Brien, Defenders of Wildlife Robin O’Malley, U.S. Geological Survey Doug Parsons, National Park Service John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Facilitation Team: Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Mitch Chrismer, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Penny welcomed everyone to the call and introduced the agenda, which included 1) hearing from David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and 2) providing time for questions and discussion about the strategy team’s process moving forward.

David Hayes thanked everyone for joining the call and spoke with the strategy team about his perspective on the LCC enterprise and path forward for a National LCC body. Key points from his initial remarks included:  The LCCs have a lot of variation with all parties at the table helping to define them.

National LCC Strategy Team August 2012 Webinar 1

88 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 The LCC model is the model for conservation for the future. It is also a revolutionary initiative in that it is revolutionary for the federal government to finance an effort where it is only one of a number of partners deciding the future of the LCCs.  He appreciates all the effort that has gone into thinking about the LCCs from a national perspective and whether there should be a National LCC Council, what it might look like, and how we might proceed with such a council.  He thanked the U.S. Institute for conducting the Assessment and noted the Assessment clearly suggested a need existed for an LCC National Council, but did not indicate a specific structure for a National Council.  In addition to the needs for a National Council that were outlined in the assessment, his perspective is that another function of the National Council would be to provide a higher profile for the LCCs, which is absolutely needed in this political and budget environment. We cannot assume that DOI funding will continue for LCCs.  We need clearer messaging and communication about the successes of LCCs. Funding and support on the Hill for LCCs is in jeopardy unless we can more clearly communicate on a more cohesive, national level about why LCCs are so important.  In talking with Gaby, Doug, Dan, and others internally, we are aware this group is planning to close on this issue of a National Council, but on a schedule that is too slow given the reality of Washington politics. We need to close on this question of a National LCC Council in the shorter term. Not without the opportunity for full discussion, but we do need to close on this soon.  My recommendation is that the Council should be sensitive to the self‐directed nature of the LCCs but also speaks to the broader aims and accomplishments of the LCC enterprise as well as the many partners that are committed to using this structure in collaborating on regional conservation issues.

Questions from webinar participants followed David Hayes’ remarks. Key questions and responses included are summarized below.

Question: Would Deputy Secretary Hayes advocate for this national body to be structured as a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)‐type committee?  Response: It is difficult for federal agencies to engage outside of FACA for this kind of an activity. FACA committees have advantages as well as disadvantages – you have a formal opportunity for everyone to participate in the meeting, but FACA committees can also be constraining. I would be supportive of a FACA committee as a way to formalize an LCC National Council, but there may be some functions (such as helping LCCs on administrative matters) that would not have to be run through the FACA.

Question: As a member of the NGO world, it is hard to engage in these processes outside of formal FACA. I know there has been some discussion about whether a joint FACA committee (with the Climate Science Center (CSC) FACA committee) might be appropriate, and I’m curious about your thoughts on the status of the USGS CSC FACA committee.

National LCC Strategy Team August 2012 Webinar 2

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 89 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Response: We did think about whether we might do a joint FACA. I asked the USGS to slow down their process as we considered that question. Through that process, I learned about the U.S. Institute’s process and the strategy team’s schedule, which is on a much slower track than the USGS effort. At that time, I did not feel we could hold up the USGS effort for this group’s timeline. However, if the group thinks we should revisit that, then it may not be too late to consider a joint FACA with USGS. We would just need this group to reach closure quickly to create a joint committee. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that there are somewhat different issues involved in each effort. The USGS effort is more oriented to universities and is addressing different issues than LCCs. If we do approach them separately, then we just need to make sure there is good communication.

Question: Do you have an understanding of the needs our strategy team has addressed that a national body will undertake? I am curious if this suite of needs would make an awkward match between the National LCC body and the CSCs.  Response: I am not familiar enough with the needs identified by this group to properly answer that question.

Question: There has been minimal involvement of Tribes in the LCC effort, and more involvement is needed. However, financial resources are a significant limitation for Tribes. Do you have any ideas on how to address that limitation?  Financial resources are a root concern broadly and why I’m concerned about the urgency of getting an LCC Council identified. I worry about the sustainability of the LCC effort because financing of the effort has been far too oriented on one Bureau, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There has been some funding from other agencies and states, but only to a limited extent. There have also been terrific in‐kind contributions, but if we are to have a sustained effort, we need a more unified financial commitment from all partners.

Question: Can you give us specific thoughts about timing for the near term?  I think we should close on this effort in the next 30‐60 days. I don’t know if we will have a lame duck session of Congress or not, but it will be important to have this issue buttoned up to the extent possible by early November.  Question: Is that a recommendation for a national body? Or the actual standing up of a national body?  We will want the recommendation and will want to work with you to stand it up. I am not expecting the group to be stood up in 60 days.

Question: I really appreciate you clarifying the need in the near‐term to establish a mechanism to provide a higher profile for the LCCs and a way to communicate about their work at the national level. Are there other ways in the short term this strategy team can work to help support you in that way?  The biggest need is to identify case studies about what LCCs are doing and to spread the word about their good work. We need an educational effort to help a broader constituency

National LCC Strategy Team August 2012 Webinar 3

90 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

understand the significance of the LCCs. A National Council would be in a very good position to do this educational outreach, but we shouldn’t wait for the formation of the Council to tell the story of LCCs and work that issue from multiple angles.

Penny then provided Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, with an opportunity to respond to the discussion thus far. Dan remarked that he thought it was important to move as smartly as possible on development of the national body. He reinforced that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service continues to be committed to the effort and hopes we can move as quickly as possible.

Penny then asked the strategy team to provide any input on the discussion thus far. A brief discussion about FACA evolved, and key points from this discussion included:  USGS remarked that within the last 2 weeks, they received word that the USGS should go forward with a FACA proposal covering the CSC headquarters and agency CSCs. It is possible legally for them to modify their charter to include the LCC National Council. Yet because the LCCs system is a major client and partner, the USGS FACA committee will certainly consider LCCs in decision‐making. So, as it is currently envisioned, this FACA committee will not address the internal dynamics of LCCs but will retain a focus on delivery of science to support the LCCs.  Dan Ashe responded that it is important for the CSC network to move ahead. We had not envisioned a FACA structure for the LCC effort because the purpose of a FACA is to give advice to the federal government, and our vision for the LCC effort is that it is not a federal entity. So we don’t see the need to use a FACA framework because we envision an LCC steering committee for the network itself.  Ken McDermond commented that he also did not see the LCC national body as a FACA committee as it is an overly complex structure.  Penny reminded the group that they decided in June to set the issue of FACA aside until the national body proposal was more fleshed out.  Dave Cleaves commented that there seems to be a dissonance between two possible pathways. The first pathway, having a FACA body providing advice to self‐directed LCCs and to the federal agencies, seems a bit dissonant versus having a National Council which is a partnership of entities providing advice to LCCs at a national level. The second pathway is a partnership of true partnerships, and the USFS involvement in LCCs has been enthusiastic about this second pathway. He remarked that a Council can develop the higher profile, provide financial support for the effort and garner greater support if you take the second pathway and raise the national body up to a partnership council that is not a FACA committee. In addition, taking it slow and easy, while keeping in mind the political realities David Hayes laid out, may result in quicker success with a higher level of overall enthusiasm than pushing the accelerator down the wrong road.  Mallory Martin remarked that he thought we should look to identify the needs for a national body and let the pathway remain open to FACA if it meets those needs.

National LCC Strategy Team August 2012 Webinar 4 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 91 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Maggie asked what recommendations the strategy team members had for the September meeting in Denver, particularly given that several strategy team members were unable to make today’s webinar. Responses included:  I think the FACA discussion will be very quickly resolved. I think we are ready to pull the proposal together. If we can respond to the proposals that are being worked on right now, this may be the last meeting the group needs.  We are at the point where we can make a final decision on the national body and, given what David and Dan mentioned earlier, we need to get the proposal out for comment and put a timeline on a comment period.  I would like to have a commitment that we are only moving forward and we will not move backward. I do not want to revisit the question of whether or not there should be a national body.  Penny responded that the group came to consensus at each step of the way during the last meeting, which means that we should not revisit the question of whether there should be a national body.

Penny clarified that the U.S. Institute will distribute notes from the webinar for the strategy team to review. She pointed out that both subgroups are reviewing draft proposals, and those proposals will be distributed to the larger strategy team soon. She also noted that the facilitation team will ask for reactions from the full strategy team on remarks received from Dan Ashe and David Hayes during today’s webinar.

National LCC Strategy Team August 2012 Webinar 5

92 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 93 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Denver, CO Meeting Summary

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Doug Beard, U.S. Geological Survey Dave Cleaves, U.S. Forest Service Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, National Park Service Leslie Honey, NatureServe Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Mark Kramer, The Nature Conservancy Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Kurt Russo, Native American Land Conservancy Debra Schlafmann, California LCC Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Facilitation Team: Mitch Chrismer, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution J.R. Bluehouse, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Jacquelyn Wallace, EnviroIssues

Wednesday, September 5th

After a welcome and introductions, Penny reviewed the group’s work to date. Maggie reminded the group of the U.S. Institute’s role and the process through which this group is being convened. Penny reminded the group of the decision‐making process that had been agreed upon previously.

Doug Austen noted that the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) meeting would occur the following week, and suggested that the group may want to convey outcomes of this strategy team meeting to their organizational representatives ahead of the AFWA meeting.

Penny reviewed what was discussed during the August webinar with David Hayes, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and Dan Ashe, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Doug Austen reiterated that both David Hayes and Dan Ashe are sensitive to the fact that the original schedule had this group completing their work in June 2012. In addition, political realities are such that there could be a change in administration in November that could change levels of support for the LCCs.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 94 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting Meeting Summary 1 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Key points of discussion about the webinar included:

 One participant remarked that both David and Dan’s perspectives were different. David’s perspective was that we need to get partnership buy‐in and organize financial support, and Dan’s perspective seemed to be more about organizing support for the collaboration and partnerships needed for the LCC enterprise.  Another participant remarked that David and Dan presented differing perspectives on whether or not the national LCC body should be a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee.

Penny asked the group how they would like to respond to David Hayes and Dan Ashe’s plea for urgency. One participant remarked that if a response is drafted for David Hayes and Dan Ashe, then it should also go to other agencies beyond U.S. Department of the Interior.

Penny then asked the group to review the National Body proposal. General key points and questions included:

Purpose Statement  How to differentiate this “thing” (body/council) from other entities such as the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT) in the purpose statement.  A few participants remarked they thought the purpose statement did not need to clarify this distinction, but a table of roles and responsibilities could serve this function instead.

Name The group began to discuss whether the body could be called a “National Council.” Key points of discussion included:  Whether the term “council” implies decision‐making capability or an advisory body.  Whether the word “National” was inclusive of international participants in the LCCs.  This body is advisory to the conservation community as a whole, not just to federal agencies, which is why a FACA committee is likely not appropriate for this body.

Composition The group then discussed composition. The group engaged in discussion about general membership characteristics as well as specific composition from different types of members. In addition to discussion about how many and who should be represented, the group discussed what characteristics individuals should have to be considered for the Council. Comments received via email from strategy team members who were not present were reviewed and discussed during the large group discussion. Key questions and points of discussion are summarized below. Further discussion about composition, including the number of representatives and selection process, can be found on page 10 of this meeting summary.

 General membership issues o Participants agreed that the types of decisions this group will make consists primarily of recommendations to the LCC network. Participants agreed a voting process is necessary to support making good recommendations when consensus does not exist. o The group discussed whether to involve some representatives in a voting role and some in an advisory role.

National LCC Strategy Team Tuesday,September February 4 and 5‐6, Wednesday, 2012 February 5, 2014 95 Meeting Summary 2 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o Participants noted that the National Council should support the LCCs by being in the best position to support the LCC network. The network needs the most proper, influential players at the table. o One participant asked if the group should focus on participation instead of representation since there is no way to have all of the representation needed without making the Council an unmanageable size. o One participant asked if the group should think about this Council as participation in the network instead of participation in governance. If the desire is to have a council focused on governance, have no more than three representatives. If the desire is for a council focused on participation, have twenty representatives and a National Assembly once a year. o Others agreed with the notion of a yearly National Assembly. o One participant noted that the group has gotten caught up in a balancing issue but, ultimately, needs to pick the right people to represent conservation programs. o One participant asked who will fund people to participate in this Council. o Another participant remarked that strategy team members need to get outside of their own territories and return to the vision of the group to truly grow the LCC enterprise. o Other key questions included: 1) How should at‐large, unspecified seats be handled, 2) How to engage local governments in the National Council since they play a large role in land use across the United States, and 3) How to design this Council for growth so that new agencies and organizations that enter the fold can participate? o The group discussed overarching characteristics that members should exhibit, which included: o Commitment and willingness to collaborate o Capacity for participation – are resources available to participate o Participants cover a broad array of natural resources o The requirement to be involved with a specific LCC is limiting, and this should be revisited. o International or North American perspective

 LCC representatives o Participants discussed whether there should be LCC representatives on the Council, and whether the representatives should be federal or partner representatives. o LCC coordinators felt strongly that there should be LCC participation on the Council and at meetings. The purpose of the Council is to serve the LCCs, and if there is no coordinator/staff voice, then it may not be successful. o Participants discussed whether LCC representatives could participate in meetings without necessarily needing to be on the Council. o One participant remarked that the National Fish Habitat Action Partnership (NFHAP) board does not include members of the underscoring partnerships. Instead, partnership representatives attend meetings. o One participant noted that this Council is making up the spirit of the LCCs. This body can reflect the spirit of the LCCs by being a partnership of partnerships. This is not really a steering committee but is a higher level body of the LCC network as it matures. If this is a council of councils, then the responsibility for a representative is to help guide the LCC network and go back to the head of their organization and promote the LCC network in their organization/agency. This embodies a “partnership of partnerships” approach. o One participant suggested considering members as advocates, and pointed out that advocates from within the LCCs are not needed. From this perspective, the LCCs should be present but not necessarily voting members. National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012

96 Meeting Summary LCC National Council Inaugural3 Meeti ng 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o The group discussed whether to include one or three LCC representatives. o The group agreed to include one LCC representative but noted the importance of ensuring at least three LCC representatives are present during meetings to provide that needed perspective. The group noted that these representatives would ideally come from the LCT‐ EC (LCC Coordinators Team Executive Committee). o The group also agreed that this representative must go back to the LCT (LCC Coordinators Team) and act as liaison.

 Federal representatives o One participant commented that a rotating membership model is not very effective and it is important to consider particular individuals who need to be present because that impacts the effectiveness of a body. o Which agencies should be represented? Many agencies are important to have at the table, and how do we balance that with the need to keep the Council size manageable so that it is an effective and functional body? o One participant suggested having one representative from each relevant department to keep the decision making process sleek. o The group discussed the importance of including the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as they are a direct link to the private landowner community. o One participant noted that if we decide to have the four primary departments represented (i.e. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Defense), then the representatives should be from an operating bureau instead of from the department. This person should also understand they are representing all of the operating bureaus within the department. Others agreed that these four departments should be represented yet another participant remarked this would be difficult for one person to achieve since there are so many national programs and it may be impossible for one person to know about the full range of programs. o Should we think about representatives as individuals who can “preach the good news” of the LCCs and create new advocates for the enterprise? o What about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? The EPA is particularly useful for Tribes because much Tribal funding, such as for the National Tribal Environmental Council, originates within the EPA. o What if individual federal agencies have work groups that then report to a small number of federal representatives on the Council? o Many expressed concern with not having broad federal representation at the table since coordination across agencies is one of the reasons why the LCCs were formed. o A problem within federal agencies is that no funding goes toward cross‐program coordination. o The reality of federal agencies is that if they don’t have representation, then they won’t participate, so perhaps consider six seats for federal agencies. o Since federal land management agencies (specifically the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service) manage ¼ of the U.S. land area, should they have permanent seats? o Another participant remarked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is also a key player that should have a seat. o What characteristics should federal representatives bring to the table? . Money National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 4 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 97 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

. Willingness to collaborate . Large land ownership . Expertise . Significant authority in land and water management decision‐making o Penny proposed that the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration have permanent federal seats as the National Council “starts up.” Everyone said they could live with this proposal for the first couple of years, but that it should be revisited by the Council within the first two years. Particular concern was expressed that the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Defense were not included in this permanent list.

 Tribes o Penny reviewed comments sent in via email about State and Tribal representation. o The Intertribal Timber Council noted that Tribes have a concern with the term “interest group” as Tribes do not perceive themselves as an interest group. The Tribal governments should be recognized as more than an interest group. o The Western Alaska LCC Coordinator noted that if Tribal governments are representatives on the Council, then they may have difficulty representing other Tribal interests. This conflict occurs in the Western Alaska LCC. o Tribal experts in the room noted that organizations like the National Tribal Environmental Council, the Intertribal Timber Council, and the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals can represent many tribes. o Tribal experts suggested that Tribes should have equal representation as federal agencies and that travel should be covered for Tribes. o Should the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs be added to the list of potential federal agencies? This could be an important agency to include since State‐Tribal trust resources are involved in LCCs. o Suggested tribal organizations to consider include: the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, the Intertribal Timber Council, and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. o Does having six Tribal representatives add value for landscape scale conservation? o One participant recommended having seats for two national Tribal organizations then have other Tribal organizations participate focused on topical issues (such as salmon). o What characteristics should Tribal representatives bring to the table? . National perspective – some level of engagement with national level issues . Broad membership base (ex: NTEC and NCI)

 States o Should other state agencies that engage in conservation at landscape level beyond fish and wildlife agencies be included? Participants noted that this would be useful but fish and wildlife agencies at the state level are particularly involved at this point, which must be recognized and acknowledged. o What characteristics should state representatives bring to the table? . Authority for and ability to do conservation but also have a science capacity and resource management mentality.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012

98 Meeting Summary LCC National Council Inaugural5 Meeti ng 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

. Be able to adopt a national perspective (i.e. a willingness and orientation to think nationally). . Be able to think beyond the boundaries of their organization. For instance, it would be helpful to have an individual who understands how the State Wildlife Action Plans work and how that knowledge can be leveraged for the benefit of LCCs. . Have an interdisciplinary perspective. o Suggested state organizations to consider for membership include the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Western Governors’ Association. o Regional governors’ associations could facilitate the selection process, which would increase governors’ association buy‐in into the Council and the LCC enterprise. This could also help get away from the issue of being too wildlife‐focused and adopt a more general natural resource focus. o At least one state should be occupied by a non‐contiguous state or territory (this also goes for Tribes). o How many state representatives should be included? Suggestions included: . Down the road, this Council will have to wrestle with whether they want to focus primarily on fish and wildlife or whether they want to have a broader focus. The individual LCCs are struggling with this now. We need to let the Council know that this is something to be wrestled with, but we should not try to resolve that today. In the interim go with four Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies regions and two other state representatives. . Six representatives– one from each of the four regional governors’ associations and two at‐large seats. . What about four from the Association of Fish and Wildlife regions and two from other state organizations? . The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission stated that there is a risk of not recognizing the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies connection at this point. There is a reality that this started as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) effort by USFWS engaging with state wildlife agencies. The risk is that at this juncture in the development of the LCC enterprise, anything that lessens the opportunity for success has a great potential for serious damage and repercussions. If there’s not enough attention paid to fish and wildlife agencies, then we will have a real problem. o The group agreed to include four state representatives, one nominated by AFWA from each of their regions and two at‐large seats that would come from solicitations from governors’ associations and other relevant organizations.

 NGOs o What characteristics should NGO representatives bring to the table? . A natural view of the world. . An ability to advocate for landscape scale conservation. . Science capacity and/or be actively engaged in resource management o Should environmental advocacy groups be considered? If those groups have influence over the appropriations process, then that could be valuable. o Note that the Native American Land Conservancy is an NGO, not a Tribal entity. In addition, the Native American Land Trust Alliance has just formed as an NGO that represents collective Native American land conservancies. National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 6 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 99 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o How many NGO participants do we need? . One participant suggested that the number of NGOs be doubled and federal participation reduced. . It would be ideal for NGOs to have equal representation to states and Tribes. The participant suggested a minimum of three representatives and up to six representatives. o Regardless of the number, we want NGO participants to hold an open webinar for everyone in the NGO community to participate and provide input prior to a Council meeting. This webinar would also require staff resources, so resources would be needed to make this happen. o Participation in this Council is where the NGO side of the conservation community will be able to shine.

 LCCs o What characteristics should LCC representatives bring to the table? . Someone with a good understanding of the LCC enterprise and an ability to speak to broader LCC issues. o How many LCC representatives are needed? . 1 representative, with the requirement/request that the LCC Coordinators Team, particularly the LCT Executive Committee, attend meetings. . The LCC Network should decide who participates.

 Major partnerships o Do we need major partnerships? Is it duplicative of groups already represented? o One participant noted that because Congressional language calls for coordination with major partnerships, representatives are needed on the Council. Doug Austen noted that this language was taken out of last year’s appropriations language and was not included, to date, in any of the drafts seen for the 2013 appropriations. o Is this Council the most appropriate place to address this Congressional concern? o Could a goal statement of the Council be to address efficiency, redundancy, etc. instead of populating them with actual individuals from each partnership? o Multiple participants noted the need to be mindful that Congress is a key audience and the need to send the message that they are being heard, especially in tight budget times. o Should we include the language from Congress as a goal in the National Council charter? o Penny asked the group what major partnerships would bring to the table that would not be obtained from any other group. . A few participants thought major partnerships were unnecessary. . Others noted that by engaging these groups, it increases the ability to remove duplicative processes and increases the opportunity for cross‐collaboration of partnerships on national landscape‐level activities. o What other major partnerships should be considered? What about the Federal Highways Administration Ecological Process, the Lincoln Institute National Practitioners’ Network, and the Climate Science Centers (CSCs)? Or are only Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (JVs) and National Fish Habitat Action Partnerships (NFHAP) being considered? o One participant noted that CSCs are needed to ensure we can answer questions from Congressional staff about the integration between LCCs and CSCs. Another participant responded that the CSC‐LCC relationship is joined by design and in practice, and this National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 7 100 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Council may not be the mechanism for ensuring the LCC – CSC relationship persists. On the other hand, the group may want to consider including the Cooperative Research Units or Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units with the U.S. Geological Survey. o How many major partnership representatives should be included? . Participants suggested representation ranging from one to three representatives. . What about adding an overarching criterion that all representatives have experience in major partnerships and then not have major partnerships as a separate category? . Penny asked if the group could live with two major partnership representatives, and then make a list of all major partnerships and select two from that large list. . Following this question, the group turned to a larger conversation about numerical representation.

 Number of representatives ‐ The group discussed how many representatives should be on the Council. Key points of discussion included: o How big is too big? What is the most effective number? o How large are the LCC steering committees? The largest committee has thirty three representatives, and smaller ones have fifteen representatives. o One participant noted that the Council should be a collaborative group, so there should be a requirement of active participation. o Is twenty‐seven too big? Several participants thought this was too large. o When the Native American Land Trust consortium was formed, research was conducted on an optimal consortium size. Researchers found that fifteen individuals was a good makeup for a council. This size would allow for a lean, active board which could be expanded over time. o One participant noted that larger groups have fewer individuals willing to take on work. Yet others remarked that the Council was supposed to be a collaborative, strategic guidance group, and the national needs list includes more coordination, dialogue, message carrying, etc. than actually doing things. The LCCs are the entities doing things. o The group agreed to begin the Council with the following representation: six federal representatives, four state representatives, four tribal representatives, four NGO representatives, one LCC representative, two major partnership representatives, and two at‐large seats.

The group then discussed a suggestion received via email from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to require a majority within each voting block to move a proposal forward. In other words, if a majority of states (or other blocks) are not in favor, the proposal should not pass.

The group agreed that if there is a decision that a minority disagrees with, then they need to propose an alternative. The group also agreed the purpose is to collaborate, not to “sink each other’s battleships.” The group agreed that communication and collaboration should be a primary objective explicitly stated in the proposal. Therefore, the group decided against including block majority constraints.

To wrap up the day, Penny noted that the facilitation team would pull everything discussed from this first day into a draft proposal charter to facilitate small group work in the morning. The group then broke for the day.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 8 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 101 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Thursday, September 6th To start the morning, Penny broke the group into two small working groups to draft text for the proposal charter. One group worked on the background section, and one worked on the “nuts and bolts” section that outlines the operational components of the National Council proposal. When the full group reconvened, Penny reviewed the draft components of the proposal and engaged in live editing. Key points of discussion included:  The larger group was pleased with the draft introduction.  The group agreed the initial charter will be reviewed within the first two years.  The group was generally ok with the needs being converted to goals, but they also wanted the needs to be explicitly identified as needs, along with an explanation that these needs came from a series of assessments and a rigorous process.  Everyone agreed that a small group needed to work on the purpose and goals section.  The organizational structure diagram was revised to include the National Council, and the group discussed this diagram. Key points included: o The group discussed pathways between the National Council, LCC staff, and individual LCCs. The group clarified that the diagram suggests the National Council has a role in identifying issues that may come from other entities and interests than the LCCs. o One member thought the diagram may be confusing to include in the proposal document. An alternative proposal was to include a table that outlined the roles and responsibilities of the various involved parties to provide clarity. o Penny asked if this diagram was necessary to include. The group discussed ways to simplify the diagram to make it more palatable to a reader while also communicating the central concepts in the diagram. o One participant suggested the diagram be included as an appendix with a more detailed explanation instead of including it up front. o Another participant felt the arrows coming from/leading to the National Council were the most important components of the diagram since they place the National Council in context. o One participant noted that the diagram presents the National Council as separate, so the National Council box should be within the center of the diagram since it’s a “stewardship council of ourselves,” not some other source of power we go to and draw from.

 The group agreed to include working group language in the proposal.  The group discussed the role of alternates or designees in the Council.  One participant asked who we would see as our “dream team” on this Council, and noted that he would like to see director‐level positions represented, particularly since there is currently no formal way for directors to wrestle with LCC concepts. o The group agreed to add this as an expectation within the charter as well as list the permanent seats as “Director of USFWS,” etc. o The group recognized that the Directors may not be available to attend so representatives would become his/her designee, but that designee could then be directly connected and speak with the Director as needed.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012

102 Meeting Summary LCC National Council Inaugural9 Meeti ng 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

The group discussed further changes to the composition section of the document. Key points of discussion included:

 Tribal composition o The Western Alaska LCC Coordinator noted that there may need to be an identified seat for an Alaska Native and other indigenous peoples. o Participants suggested that Our Natural Resources (ONR) could help develop a process for including Alaska Natives and other indigenous peoples by engaging with their respective boards. o The National Wildlife Federation did not think there should be a required seat for Alaska Natives and First Nation peoples. o The group suggested asking the Pacific Islands CCC coordinator to review and help with tribal composition language in the charter proposal. o The group agreed that the tribal representatives on the strategy team will initially develop a selection process and seek nominations for the National Council.

 State composition o The group agreed to list the membership as four state agency directors.

 NGO composition o The Wildlife Society remarked that Executive Directors in the NGO world are often not the proper representatives to include on the Council. o The NGO participants agreed and the group agreed to allow participating NGOs to help make the initial call on proper representatives. o The group agreed that future review and selection of NGO members would be the responsibility of the National Council.

 LCC participation o Everyone agreed with what was drafted in the proposal. o One participant noted that, ultimately, the Council should select representatives instead of organizations selecting their own representatives and sending them to the Council.

 At‐large participants o Everyone agreed that at‐large participants will be filled at a later date.

 Terms o The group agreed with the proposal as it is written, and noted that NGO terms should be limited because there is such a vast breadth of NGO groups.

 Roles and responsibilities o The group agreed to include a vice‐chair to serve when the chair is absent. o One participant suggested that the chair should provide staff to help while they are chair. One of the key roles of staff is to provide continuity with a membership based board. Staff provide the institutional memory and that must be recognized. o Others suggested this level of detail could be developed by the Council once it is convened, and the group agreed to include a clause that the Council will develop bylaws to govern itself.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 10 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 103 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Decision‐making o Is there a need for a clause that says if a participant is unable to attend, then they assign a designee to relay their vote? The group agreed this was not needed since alternates will fulfill this role. o The group discussed whether or not to include permanent alternates in order to support consistent attendance and continuity of knowledge, but ultimately agreed this was not necessary. o It was questioned if direction on using Robert’s Rules of Order should be included? The group agreed this was too much detail.

 Meetings o Should we add in that strategy team participants will attend the first meeting? The group agreed this level of detail is not needed in the charter. o How many meetings are realistic with director‐level participation? o One participant noted that the more process and prescription that is included, the more disincentives there are to participate. o The group agreed to add that the meetings will be open to the general public.

 Assembly o The group agreed to delete the assembly language from the draft proposal.

 Travel support o The group agreed to include a formal statement that this body will seek the resources to support travel, as that is an issue for participation of some members.

 Authority o The group agreed to edit the statement about inherent authority in the proposal introduction to read as it currently does. A few participants were concerned about the explicit statement about the National Council having no inherent authority as it could be a disincentive for director‐level individuals to participate. The Council certainly has no authority over organizations or the LCCs, and will respect self‐directed organizations and partnerships. That respect is where its authority is derived.

 Purpose and Goals o The group reviewed the purpose statement as currently drafted and agreed to the statement. o The group then reviewed the needs as they had been slightly reworded to be presented as goals in the draft proposal. Some in the group had more significant changes to offer, but Penny reminded the group that these needs were agreed upon in June and the group should be careful about changing them. The group acknowledged this and made few substantial changes.

 Diagram of LCC Enterprise Structure o Do we need the diagram? o Some participants like it and some do not.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 11 104 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o Doug Austen proposed the diagram be taken out so that communications staff can work on it and it becomes a future communication tool for the LCC Network. In the meantime, the table developed by the Western Alaska LCC Coordinator could be included in the appendix. o Penny suggested including a small narrative about the LCC Network structure that could be written up instead of the diagram, and the group agreed with this approach.

 Name o The group discussed what to call the body. Options presented included: . LCC National Council . LCC Council . LCC Partnership . LCC Partnership Team . LCC Partnership Network . LCC Network Council . LCC Network Leadership Team o Other key points of discussion included: . Network Council doesn’t imply as much importance and stature as National Council. . Some are worried the word “Council” will imply something legislative yet others felt the term National Council is more empowering. o The group agreed to call the body the LCC National Council.

The group then discussed the process for proposal review and “rolling it out” to the greater conservation community. Key questions and points of discussion included:

 Who receives the proposal? o The group agreed that the strategy team should agree on a final draft document prior to sending it out to anyone else. o Some group members wanted it to be a tiered review cycle and go to the LCC Coordinators Team and Steering Committees before anyone else. One participant emphasized that there needs to be sensitivity to the steering committees because the steering committees may fear this will turn into an oversight group. We need to be sure the steering committees have bought into this before we move ahead. o One participant noted that the LCC Steering Committees have a process in place to handle review documents. o Others noted that once this document goes out to the LCC community, it is essentially out to the world. o When should David Hayes and his counterparts see this? The group agreed director‐ level positions would receive the proposal when it is sent out to all partners. o The group discussed the sense of urgency presented by David Hayes on the August webinar, and one participant noted that it is important not to push the accelerator to the detriment of the final product. This review process is not just a simple matter of moving a document along. This is part of the overall collaboration and partnership process. The words we have on paper are the results of thousands of agreements this group has come to, and we need a little time to let the document soak in.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 12 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 105 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o The Bureau of Land Management remarked that the team has worked through some good things in their four meetings. It has become clear that this cannot be owned by one of the departments. It needs to be a partnership effort. o The U.S. Geological Survey noted that when the charter was completed for the National Fish Habitat Action Partnership board, it was not shared with the existing partnerships. The more people involved in review, the longer it will take. The debates from the last four meetings will happen all over again. o The group agreed to set up a series of two to three webinars to review the proposal verbally instead of engaging in an extensive written review. o The group agreed to express the amount of effort that has gone into this proposal through the proposal cover letter. The group also asked to limit comments to fatal flaws and concerns, and to pass concerns on to the National Council. o The LCC coordinators noted that it would be helpful if LCC coordinators could introduce the proposal to their steering committees prior to the general webinars, and if one of the five LCC coordinators on the strategy team could be present on the general webinars to answer any questions from LCC steering committee members. o Another participant suggested providing a “canned webinar” that could be used by any strategy team member to roll out the proposal. The group agreed that this could become complicated. o Penny asked the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to suggest when states need to receive the proposal. The NCWRC representative suggested that it would be important to alert the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Tribal organizations that the proposal will be coming to them soon. He also suggested introducing the idea informally during the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies meeting in South Carolina next week. o The LCC Coordinator asked if it would be helpful for personal webinars for each LCC steering committee to occur after the general webinars. If so, the chair could facilitate a dialogue with their steering committee to gather focused input on the proposal. The Western Alaska LCC coordinator agreed with this approach. o The Assistant LCC Coordinator suggested developing talking points to distill the meat of the proposal that could be used by anyone to introduce and discuss the proposal with others.

 How to manage the review cycles? o One participant suggested that if a steering committee member has fatal flaw comments to submit, then the respective LCC coordinator should be responsible for following up with the steering committee member to explain what happened to the comments. o Another participant suggested writing an issue paper presenting the unresolved comments and major concerns. o One participant asked how to respond if we are asked during a webinar if this is a FACA committee, and the group agreed to say no, it is not intended to be. The group also agreed that legal review of the charter was not needed at this time. o A few participants recommended explaining during the webinar or in individual conversations that the Council will contribute to improved coordination and advocacy which could result in more financial resources for the enterprise.

 How to respond to David Hayes? National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012

106 Meeting Summary LCC National Council Inaugura13l Meeti ng 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

o The group agreed to update the June 2012 briefing paper with a short memo from the Institute. o One participant suggested stating that the Strategy Team recognizes it is time for this National Council to be put together because the LCC network has reached a level of maturity. In some ways, the LCCs are reaching a ceiling where things cannot be solved at the LCC network level. In addition, the network needs time to respond appropriately to this urgency.

The group then discussed next steps for the National Council charter proposal and agreed on the following timeline moving forward:  Monday, September 10th – EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will send the final proposal, draft cover letter, supra‐group proposal, and timeline to strategy team members.  Monday, September 17th – EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will send the draft response to David Hayes and Dan Ashe to strategy team members for their review.  Monday, September 17th – Strategy team participants will submit comments on the final proposal and cover letter.  By Monday, September 24th – EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will facilitate comment reconciliation via a conference call or email.  Monday, September 24th – EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will send out customized invitations to the general webinars.  During the weeks of September 24th and October 8th, specific strategy team members will conduct personal “roll‐outs” of the proposal to key federal executives.  During the week of October 1st, EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will host a webinar to present the proposal to the LCC Coordinators Team.  During the weeks of October 8th and 15th, EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will host three general webinars to present the proposal and solicit feedback.  Friday, November 9th – All comments on the proposal are due back to EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute.  By Monday, November 26th – EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will facilitate comment reconciliation with the strategy team (via conference call, email, or an in‐person meeting).  Friday, November 30th – The LCC National Council charter will be finalized.

The group closed the meeting with a brief discussion about the “supra‐group’s” draft white paper. Key comments and questions included:  The lack of coordination of natural resource activities at the federal level is a great source of frustration. One of the messages we should communicate is that if this Council is going to work, there needs to be better coordination at the federal level among agencies involved in natural resource management. If are going to work at a landscape scale, then there has to be more coordination among the parties than there has been previously. The Council is an effort to move in that direction and, depending on the focus of the LCCs over time, there may be a need for something beyond the Council.  There are groups in Washington working on landscape level issues in different topical areas (i.e. fish and wildlife, energy, and water). We need to bring these networks together. For instance, within the U.S. Department of the Interior, the LCCs are working on climate change. Then, there is a second group working on America’s Great Outdoors. There is also a third group working on renewable energy. These initiatives are not coordinated, are working on similar landscapes with different sets of timelines, and are not together at the secretarial level.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 14 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 107 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 One participant suggested that the Council receive this white paper when it is established. This paper will give them recommendations that can then be distributed to the agencies.  Another participant pointed out that under Dave Cleaves’ leadership, there is an ad hoc agency group emerging that involves people from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration that are examining how to coordinate inventory and monitoring, vulnerability assessment and planning, training, and policy.  One participant remarked that the LCCs are going to reach a ceiling if the agency structure that supports them is not tied to some kind of landscape‐scale conservation vision. The LCCs and conservation community need a business case, a government case, and a conservation case for landscape‐scale conservation. We need this case so the effort will fly through wave after wave of political inversions. There has to be an aspirational visionary front to this enterprise. Climate change is not going to go anywhere unless it is attached to landscape scale conservation. The business/economics case is particularly important because if, as agencies, we were Conservation Inc., we would think about integration that is not happening. We do not have a common vision of landscape scale conservation at this point and that is a problem.  The group agreed the supra group document could be enhanced by adding a better business case for conservation to it.  Penny asked strategy team members if they wanted to continue to work on the document and convert it into a white paper, and several members indicated they would like to do so.

Penny closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their time and effort and reviewing next steps for the group.

National LCC Strategy Team September 5‐6, 2012 Meeting Summary 15 108 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team November 29th, 2012 GoToMeeting Call Summary Meeting Summary

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, National Park Service Leslie Honey, NatureServe Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Facilitation Team: Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Mitch Chrismer, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Jacquelyn Wallace, EnviroIssues Aoife Blake, EnviroIssues

After a welcome and introductions, Penny reviewed the group’s work to date and introduced the agenda for the meeting.

Doug Austen informed the group that he received a comment from NOAA yesterday and will send it to Penny to be included in the comment spreadsheet and summary. He noted that there was nothing of major concern in it.

Penny reviewed the comment summary and asked if there were any surprises from the comments received. Penny highlighted 4 key tensions that were noted throughout the comments:  Purpose – Some commenters called for more specificity in the Council’s purpose (such as refining its focus to fish and wildlife) while others felt the council was too “fish and wildlife heavy” and the scope should be broadened beyond natural resources and include cultural resources.  Structure – One commenter felt the Council should be a FACA‐based advisory group yet others suggested that the Council should be structured as a forum to avoid a top‐down approach.  Composition – Some commenters felt 27 participants will be too cumbersome, yet many suggestions were made to broaden representation, particularly including additional LCC representation.

National LCC Strategy Team

Tuesday,11/29/12 February 4 Call and Wednesday,Summary February 5, 2014 1 109 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Representation – Several commenters felt that it was important to include representatives with a regional perspective yet others felt Council members, particularly NGO members, should come from national organizations to ensure a continental perspective.

Scope and Purpose of the Council The group discussed the conflicting comments received regarding the scope of the council being too broad and too fish and wildlife heavy. Key points of discussion included:  The group agreed to include a paragraph clarifying that the Council is meant to support the LCC network.  One participant highlighted that the focus of the LCC network was initially climate change and other large scale stressors, so how these factors impact resources at the landscape scale differs in each LCC and therefore the council needs to be reflective of that diversity.  The group agreed that the council is not trying to be the umbrella for all landscape scale conservation efforts. The group agreed to revise the introduction to include the mission of the LCCs and how the council will align with the network.  The group acknowledged that there has not been sufficient communication at the agency director level about the council.

Goals  The group agreed that there needs to be a clearer description about how the council will work, including pointing toward development of a communication strategy as an example of the type of work the group expects of the Council.  One participant suggested not deleting State Wildlife Action Plans as an example of a key conservation initiative since they are an important conservation initiative regionally and nationally.

Structure of the Council Two key points that were raised about structure included 1) whether the Council should be a FACA based group, and 2) whether the Council should adopt a forum format. Key points of discussion that emerged as the group talked through these comments included:  Whether the group should conduct an assessment to determine whether a FACA body is needed for the National Council. The group agreed to table this discussion to a later date.  A forum would avoid the issue of FACA.  One participant pointed out that the group agreed in an earlier meeting that this body be called a Council. Consensus from the group that this topic had been discussed at length, and call participants agreed this should not be revisited.  The group clarified that it is the council’s intention that meetings are open to broad participation. The Council wants to engage and hear from many partners and this should be clearly stated in the charter.

National LCC Strategy Team 11/29/12 Call Summary 2 110 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Composition Comments about composition raised concern about the number of participants on the Council. The main points discussed by call participants were:  The Council should not be made any larger than 27 participants.  The group agreed that term limits apply to the organization. Term limits of two terms will apply to all parties except federal agencies.  The group agreed the proposed composition included in the charter is a starting place. The Council will need to review this initial composition and revise as appropriate within the first two years.  The state agency membership applies only to U.S. states. International seats are open to Canada and Mexico and the “at large” seats are open to Commonwealth and Territories. These distinctions need to be explicitly stated.  The group agreed naming the Practitioners’ Network as a potential “at large” participant too detailed.  The group agreed to include language listing the full range of possible Tribal and indigenous representatives more frequently where appropriate throughout the charter. The group agreed to leave the NGO composition flexible and see who applies. NGO composition can be revised by the Council at a future date if necessary.

General Comments on Draft Charter and its Contents  The group agreed to include in the decision‐making section of the charter a process to record minority opinions.  The group agreed that having the Council meet in conjunction with the annual meeting(s) of LCC Coordinators must be practical to do so and have a clear purpose and function to ensure effective collaboration and interaction. The group agreed to leave this suggestion out of the charter as it is too prescriptive.

ACTION ITEMS:  All strategy team members will review the comment summary and highlight anything in the summary that should be definitely included or definitely not included in a revised charter. To be completed by Tuesday 12/4.  Doug Austen & EnviroIssues will draft text for the introduction explaining 1) that this is an initial charter and the Council will need to revise the Charter as needed moving forward, and 2) that the Council composition is meant to be reflective of the LCC Network as a whole and not act as an umbrella for all landscape‐scale initiatives.  Terra Rentz and Garritt Voggesser will draft text for the introduction outlining 1) how the council will work, and 2) how it will get input from and communicate with partners.  Based on comments received, EnviroIssues and US Institute will update and revise the charter.  EnviroIssues will convene subgroups to develop more detailed recruitment and selection processes.  The next strategy team call will take place on or near Monday, December 17.

National LCC Strategy Team 11/29/12 Call Summary 3 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 111 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team December 17th, 2012 GoToMeeting Call Summary Meeting Summary

Participants: Robin O’Malley, US Geological Survey Doug Austen, National LCC Network Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Leslie Honey, NatureServe Garritt Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Mallory Matin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Bob Broscheid, Arizona Game and Fish Department Doug Parsons, National Park Service Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Service

Penny welcomed all, reviewed the group’s work to date and introduced the agenda for the meeting. Penny reminded all that the intent for the December 17th, 2012 strategy team conference call was to finalize selection processes and set a target date for first National Council meeting, currently scheduled to occur by March 29th. Penny questioned whether to continue on this schedule as there is little feedback on comment summary changes to the charter and recruitment for the Council will likely take place after the holidays, once the charter is completed.

Penny reminded all of the assignments from the 11/29 strategy team call. Garritt Voggesser and Terra Rentz were to draft text for the introduction outlining 1) how the council will work, and 2) how it will get input from and communicate with partners. Garritt acknowledged that there has been scheduling issues in trying to complete this task.

National LCC Strategy Team 12/17/12 Call Summary 1

112 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Doug Austen was to draft text for the introduction explaining 1) that this is an initial charter and the Council will need to revise the Charter as needed moving forward, and 2) that the Council composition is meant to be reflective of the LCC Network as a whole and not act as an umbrella for all landscape‐scale initiatives. This is a work in progress.

Penny highlighted that there are multiple steps to be completed before finalizing the charter. Some members of the strategy team want to see all language before giving final approval. Doug Austen also noted that Department of the Interior (DOI) leadership want to be briefed on the charter and have discussions about it. He acknowledged that there is difficulty in scheduling this meeting. No specific date and time has been set and it will likely be pushed to the New Year but needs to happen before the final stage of acceptance of the charter.

Roger Griffis reported he had circulated the draft charter around high levels in NOAA and the general feedback was positive that a Council is happening; it triggered some questions and comments which were submitted. The general perspective is that it is a good thing as long as it is useful to the network and recognizes that the council will focus on the network.

Penny highlighted that it is important for the group to review the comment summary, reflect on the comments submitted and be able to say why/why not the comments were included. The team discussed key comments and determined how to respond.

Goals

Function of the National Council  One comment suggested that the council should have a role in responding to differences or conflicts that might arise between LCCs. Doug Austen highlighted that this was something that was originally intended to resolve boundary change issues. However, none of those have turned out to be major disputes and this issue has not been realized. All agreed to let the Council address this if it becomes an issue.  Comments suggested that the goals focus on the need to identify areas of overlap/ensuring coordination of the LCC network, ensuring that the LCCs actually are "an effectively functioning, coordinated, and connected network.” The group discussed that the Council is not an oversight committee, but a Council that promotes the opportunity for connectivity and supports the LCC network. It is up to the network to be effective.  One comment highlighted the de‐emphasis of climate change in the proposed charter. Garritt Voggesser acknowledged that climate change is addressed in the introduction as a problem statement. It was also acknowledged that climate change is not equally addressed by all LCCS exist. The group agreed to add to the 2nd goal ‘………to prepare for and adapt to climate change and other stressors’.  One comment suggested that the Council should look for new partnership opportunities, promoting LCCs within all partner organizations and highlighting accomplishments with the

National LCC Strategy Team 12/17/12 Call Summary 2

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 113 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

public. This is considered to be included already in the charter through the communications goal.  One comment proposed that the Council bring attention to science and technology capabilities. While there is some hope that this will happen, the team saw no need to explicitly state this.  One commenter suggested that the Council promote a balance between national policies and the flexibility necessary to implement place‐based conservation across individual LCCs. The team deemed this to be something that the Council decides upon.

Scope of the National Council:  Comments suggested to include reference to heritage, preservation, cultural resources, etc. or a new goal added that recognizes and advances the inter‐related nature of cultural and natural resources. The team acknowledged that the introduction specifically states this and it is not necessary to expand on it further. The group decided that the mission and vision of the LCC network should be included in the document to give some context.  Comments sought to include the following goals: 1) Identifying and communicating progress across the LCC network, and 2) Identifying opportunities for collaboration. The team decided not to modify language to reflect this.  One commenter felt that goals should relate to land and seascape conservation to reflect island‐ based LCCs. The team decided that reiterating in the introduction that landscape conservation is meant as the approach that relates to either land of sea would address this. The LCT Charter uses a footnote to clarify this and the group agreed to use a similar footnote in the introduction.  Comments suggested that the goal for increasing indigenous and tribal engagement is vague. Don Motanic noted the vaguer this is, the more latitude there is for the people who are actually participating. The team decided to leave this goal as is and allow representatives to decide the best way for tribal engagement

Council Purpose:  A comment suggested that the National Council maintain the focus on fish and wildlife conservation. This was discussed by the team highlighting that narrowing the focus to just fish and wildlife risks excluding agencies that do not do fish and wildlife conservation. It was suggested while it is not the role of the Council to decide what LCCs do, it needs to have a focus to maximize efforts. The team decided that this comment applies to the philosophy and mission of LCCs, not Council.

NGO Member Recruitment and Selection Process Penny briefly described the NGO Member Recruitment and Selection Process. She invited comments from the strategy team on the process of selecting participants. Garritt Voggesser shared a view expressed by Bruce Stein on ranking someone in regards to their geographical focus. The team decided that geographic coverage would inform the final decision, not as a ranking criteria but a balancing one.

National LCC Strategy Team 12/17/12 Call Summary 3

114 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Doug Austin expressed concern surrounding a small number of people selecting representatives for the Tribes and NGOs, as these groups are quite diverse. He suggested including some affirmation by the strategy team to ensure there is some validation that the process is wide open. Maybe the NGOs could submit something to the strategy team to illustrate that the selection is wide open and inclusive. Maggie echoed this including the need for transparency, nominations relevant to the set criteria and the ability to demonstrate the process and why. Noting that some NGOs on the strategy team are represented by multiple people, the team decided that the selection panel should consist of one representative from each NGO on the strategy team. The final selection and the process will be reviewed and affirmed by the strategy team.

State Member Selection Process Penny briefly described the state member selection process. The team decided that the seats should not be limited to state agency directors, but be open to people who have similar influence within the agency and can speak on behalf of the director. The invitation should outline the expectation as in the charter. In the interest of fairness, the team decided that the selection of state members should be also be affirmed by the strategy team.

Tribal Member Selection Process In progress – Penny will share the process that the North Pacific LCC is using to fill a tribal seat as potential guidance.

Supra‐Group Draft Memo Penny briefly highlighted the supra‐group memo which will identify the issues which are above or broader than LCC National Council scope and the need for them to be addressed. The supra‐group team has asked that once the memo is finalized, any strategy team member can forward on or use the memo to inform discussions in which they are engaged. This would be in addition to the already agreed upon step of providing the memo to the National Council once it is convened. The team agreed that this memo should be finalized by the strategy team before being shared.

ACTION ITEMS:  EnviroIssues will revise strategy team schedule.  EnviroIssues and US Institute will update and revise the charter.  EnviroIssues will revise the recruitment and selection processes from State and NGO representatives.  EnviroIssues will work with Doug Austen to draft text for the introduction explaining 1) that this is an initial charter and the Council will need to revise the Charter as needed moving forward, and 2) that the Council composition is meant to be reflective of the LCC Network as a whole and not act as an umbrella for all landscape‐scale initiatives.  EnviroIssues will work with Terra Rentz and Garritt Voggesser who will draft text for the introduction outlining 1) how the council will work, and 2) how it will get input from and communicate with partners.

National LCC Strategy Team 12/17/12 Call Summary 4

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 115 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team February 20th, 2013 GoToMeeting Call Summary Meeting Summary

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Network Doug Beard, USGS Dave Cleaves, U.S. Forest Service Jad Daley, The Trust for Public Land Roger Griffis, NOAA Fisheries Service Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, National Parks Service Leslie Honey, NatureServe Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Genevieve Johnson, Desert LCC Mark Kramer, The Nature Conservancy Mallory Matin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Robin O’Malley, US Geological Survey Doug Parsons, National Park Service Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands LCC Ben Thatcher, National LCC Network Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Facilitation Team: Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Brooke Williams, EnviroIssues

Welcome and Introductions‐ Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Penny reviewed the agenda and explained how the Strategy Team members are being identified.  She noted that some members have left the team due to job changes (Josh Avey, John Rogner, and Gary Taylor). Their departures will be noted, but their names will remain on the LCC National Council Charter and other documents to reflect their participation.  Introduction of Brooke Williams (EnviroIssues), who is taking over for Jacquelyn Wallace

Penny also advised the team of the concerns of Doug Vincent‐Lang regarding the Supra‐group white paper. Doug noted he was unhappy with some language in the white paper and said he was tired of having to carry

116 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

the same message over and over during the LCC National Council Chartering process. He asked to be removed from the group and to have his name taken off of the resulting documents.  Penny clarified the difference between the white paper and the charter, but has not heard a response yet from Doug. She was trying to determine if he was indeed withdrawing or not.

There are two major agenda items for this call:  White Paper: Monica Tomosy, Dave Cleaves, Kit Muller, and Sara Vickerman will discuss their small group work on the Supra‐group memo. The Supra‐group memo is the first agenda item today, because the Strategy Team usually begins with the Charter discussion, which then leaves no time to consider this document.  Final Draft Charter: Penny will lead a discussion about proposed changes to the Final Draft Charter which may end with approval of the Charter.

Supra‐Group White Paper‐ Sara Vickerman Supra‐Group Background The Strategy Team identified a need for coordination of efforts to collect information on ecological, social, and economic resources to inform landscape‐scale conservation planning that goes above and beyond the scope of the LCCs and the LCC National Council.  Sara noted that the Strategy Team responded to this identified need by drafting this “white paper”, which refers to similar efforts in other sectors (i.e., water basin planning, transportation planning) and demonstrates a need to develop more consistent planning efforts across different scales/sectors/jurisdictions.  Dave Cleaves added that he saw the white paper serving as a “centering device”, or a communications tool about landscape‐scale conservation to help everyone speaking about the needs, challenges, and approaches moving forward to speak from the same set of words. He noted that the white paper could be aspirational and could help move the conversation forward.

Proposed changes to the Supra‐Group memo language: Procurement/ Contracting: Robin O’Malley suggested striking the section on the third page where the Strategy Team makes a contracting suggestion to the LCC National Council, saying that the white paper should not make this type of recommendation (e.g. suggesting a contract with the U.S. Institute).  Group agreed with this change; Penny flagged it for editing to create more general language.

“A Clear Need” section: Ben Thatcher was concerned that the “A Clear Need” section could be construed as suggesting that many of the coordinating functions mentioned are already supposed to be done by the LCCs. He wondered whether some readers may ask “Aren’t the LCCs already doing this? Isn’t that why they were created?”  Kit Muller responded that the list of coordination needs applies to more than just the LCC community of practice, as was stated earlier in the piece.  Language was suggested to makes sure that notion was clear in the section.

What does “approval” of the memo mean?: Garrit Voggesser asked whether the Strategy Team members approve the language in their personal capacities, or whether they need to get approval from their respective agency heads.  Garrit wants to know more about signing authority for both the memo and the Draft Charter.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 117 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Target audience and purpose of the memo Garrit Voggesser asked for clarity on the target audience of the white paper: Is it intended for federal agencies or for a broader audience? There is a clear need for larger scale collaboration between communities of practice, but the target audience for the current Supra‐group memo is not clear.  Sara responded that initially it would be the federal agencies, although ultimately she would like to see it broader than that. Garrit also asked if the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be included in the discussions suggested in the memo.  Monica noted that the impetus for the Supra‐group discussion was a sense that the large federal landscape conservation programs that go beyond LCCs are not coordinated, noting a number of specific big vision projects in monitoring and assessment that lack coordination.  Monica also noted that the white paper was an attempt to recognize the need to address social and economic sustainability, not just biological sustainability.  Deanna suggested drafting multiple versions of the memo, adapting it to fit with each community of practice (NGO, federal government, states, tribes).

Penny reminded the group of the origin of the white paper. The document was created by the Strategy Team’s recognition that there was a need for landscape‐scale conservation coordination beyond the National Climate Centers and the LCCs. The paper has gone through some changes as it has been worked on, and the question of target audience is probably a good discussion to have.  The last time the team talked about distribution, the team agreed the white paper would be finalized and forwarded to the LCC National Council when it is formed, and used by individual members of the Strategy Team as they participate in conversations about landscape‐scale coordination needs throughout the conservation community.  There is an open question about which agencies should be targeted in the memo, and who is being asked to convene a workshop‐ DOI? The President? LCC National Council?

Dave Cleaves noted that there is currently no interagency statement about landscape‐scale conservation; He said that it is currently a fuzzy concept that people can interpret how they wish. The white paper provides a way for strategy team members to go back to their organizations to talk about landscape conservation and where it’s going.

Doug Austin said he recalled the genesis of this paper was the recognition that people who serve on the LCC National Council could address certain level of policy issues but there were things happening at the cabinet/ deputy secretary level that the Council couldn’t address.  This paper addresses the sense that some felt different programs were being planned and implemented in isolation. It also notes the desire to avoid having different agencies/cabinet‐level programs addressing these issues from different perspectives, leading to lack of collaboration, efficiency, etc.

Doug noted the original notion of recommending a “supra‐group” doesn’t exist in the document as written. However, the name has remained to address a different issue: Needs unmet by the LCCs and the LCC National Council.  Penny noted that keeping the name supra‐group around has probably caused some challenges. While there was a suggestion that the white paper might propose a “supra‐group”, she does not recall that suggestion being adopted by the strategy team as a central tenet of the white paper.  It was noted that an interagency group of folks may not be meeting now (as they had previously), but the need is still there across initiatives and programs (America’s Great Outdoors, LCCs, REAs, etc.) for high level coordination.

118 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 It was also noted that a GAO report is being drafted about the financial risks of how the federal government is handling climate change.

Timing and distribution of the memo Cat asked a question about the timing of the Supra‐group memo. Specifically, she noted that the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy document is scheduled to be released soon, and this document might accomplish some of the goals set out in the Supra‐group memo.  The group should think about timing and viability of this paper if it’s being sent to the federal agencies who might be asked to step up on a national climate strategy.  Kit noted that the practitioners’ network for large landscape conservation is conducting a survey of communities of practice to understand what the different communities are doing. It’s a survey, not convening, but could be related to the first step of the Supra‐group memo.

Roger suggested initially targeting federal government agencies. He suggested that the working group change the paper to direct it to key senior people at federal agencies to see if they want to take steps to convene such a group. That would allow the language in the paper to be clearer. He recommended against broadcasting the white paper, and rather making it much more targeted.  Dave Cleaves agreed with the idea and noted it could be used as a starting point for a conversation (new administration, etc.) at agencies.  While the memo could reach a much larger audience in its current form (or in multiple versions targeted to governments, NGOs, tribes, etc), the group seemed to agree that the first intended audience is federal agencies.

Tribal, indigenous and territorial recruitment and membership Don Motanic expressed a concern about how tribal governments and other non‐U.S. recognized indigenous groups (First Nation, Pacific Islanders, etc) are lumped together in both the white paper and the charter. The issue was tabled until the charter was under discussion.

In the interest of time, Penny called for tabling discussion of the Supra‐Group memo.  The supra‐group working group will work on the memo to tighten up the language, hone it, and get it ready for distribution to the federal government. They asked those who had concerns with the paper to please join the group so as to be sure their comments were considered in a re‐write before bringing it back to the full team.  This small group will work together to make proposed edits to get the document ready for discussion during the next full Strategy Team call.

Final Draft Charter Review‐ Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Proposed linguistic edits Penny noted that the only comments received on the circulated draft were from Ben Thatcher. He noted his proposed edits did not materially change the content of the Final Draft Charter; rather, he wanted the language of the charter to be consistent with other documents from the LCTs, science coordinators and other LCC bodies.

Goals and Purpose edits Mark Kramer was concerned about the phrase “the group cannot address critical national‐level needs”. He thought there needed to be more specificity in the charter regarding what the National Council can do that individual LCCs cannot. He suggested adding a few more words in the “purposes” or “goals” section, and to add another purpose to roll up common challenges and urge willing participants to take action.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 119 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

 Mark and Genevieve are drafting proposed language and will send it to Penny for possible incorporation into the “purposes” section of the Charter.

Department of the Interior concerns about the LCC National Council Cat advised the team that the National Parks Service has requested a DOI‐wide meeting to discuss how the agency will interact with the LCC National Council. The Director thinks there needs to be a greater discussion so that DOI can speak with a unified voice before standing up a Council.  While this is not an issue for the Strategy Team, Cat wanted the team to be aware of it.  Doug Austen and Cat will deal with this offline and will report back to the group.

Tribal, Indigenous, and Territorial participation in the Council As discussed earlier in the meeting, Don Motanic raised concerns about the definition of “tribal” used in the Supra‐group memo and the Draft Charter. He was concerned that the documents are mixing government entities (Tribes and Alaska Natives), International indigenous groups (First Nations), and “’territorial entities” (e.g. Pacific Islanders and Caribbean populations) together into a single category, but they need to be separate in both documents.  Don clarified that the term is “Tribes and Alaska Natives” in federal regulations, and they are the only groups that have nation‐to‐nation status with the United States.  He expressed concern both about the language (using the term “tribal” to encompass more than Federally‐recognized tribes), and about the fact that these groups may be included in the “Tribal” category for recruitment to the LCC National Council.  Other groups (e.g. Pacific Islanders, territorial groups, First Nations) are technically not “Tribes”, so Don thinks they should be put in a separate category for description and recruitment.  He said that the lumping of tribes with other indigenous groups that don’t have the same rights is an area of sensitivity, and he anticipates negative feedback from the tribes if it is left as is.

This opened up a larger question about how to address and classify several different groups:

Territories Territories are not equal to tribes; They don’t have government‐to‐government relationships with the U.S. because they’re quasi‐states. We’ve been combining “territories” with “tribal governments”, but federal government works differently with these different bodies, so they shouldn’t be lumped together  For example, the Pacific Islands CCC is an NGO, so Ulalia doesn’t technically represent a tribe.  Deanna clarified that Ulalia works for a private interest that is representative of a Native Hawaiian organization. Technically, her organization is an NGO, but while Native Hawaiians don’t have the same recognition that mainland Tribes do, they share many common concerns.

AFWA works with territories differently from tribes and states, but Mark Humpert didn’t have a lot of specifics.  The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are part of the Southeast region, and Washington D.C. is represented by the Northeast, but Mark was not sure about the Mariana Islands.  Deanna said that the Pacific Islands territories are not active in WFWA, but she is not sure if they’re not active or if they weren’t invited.  The WFWA roster from states and Canadian provinces doesn’t include anyone from Hawaii.

International Indigenous Groups

120 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny recognized the difficulty inherent in finding the correct words to describe the group, but reiterated the importance of doing it properly and sensitively. She asked Don to help the group figure out a way through this process.  The LCC enterprise goes beyond 50 states into territories, foreign countries, and non‐recognized groups (Pacific Islanders, First nations, etc), so how can this be an inclusive, international effort without running afoul of the groups that do have nation status?

Don raised the question about First Nations in the Canadian provinces, and Penny added that there will be international participants from Mexico and Canada as well.  Don suggested writing First Nations into the “International” section and said that the four “Tribal” participants should be from federally‐recognized tribes.  Maggie suggested making “First Nations and Territories” a separate category from “Tribes and Alaska Natives”, and observed that inclusiveness doesn’t seem to be the issue at hand. Rather, the group is struggling with definitions.

The group noted that tribes may be sensitive about this grouping, but there were also concerns that if the “Tribal” representatives are limited to only those from Federally‐recognized tribes, a lot of potential voices in the LCC National Council recruitment process will be missed  It was noted that the team has made pragmatic decisions to limit the number of entities involved in the LCC National Council, so it would be a shame to have the group lack a broad range of indigenous representation.

Size and Composition of the Council Penny asked whether the team needs to consider expanding the LCC National Council.  If “Tribal” participants are limited to Tribes and Alaska Natives and “International” participants include First Nations, this leaves no place for territorial/ Pacific Islanders/ Caribbean peoples  Garrit suggested that the group not revisit the question of expanding the council, and rather just expand the name of the “Tribal” group to include the other indigenous representatives.

Deanna clarified that territories in Caribbean and Pacific Islands have similar legal status to states, so it doesn’t make sense to lump them in with the tribes.  The Strategy Team was disinclined to include territories with states in previous discussions.  There was a proposal that the first LCC National Council could deal with this question, but not sure if this is an appropriate decision for the Strategy Team.  There are other groups that are not being represented in this first version of the Council, but this solution doesn’t help the Strategy Team deal with the issues of indigenous peoples who are not currently recognized by the governments of the U.S., Mexico and Canada  Genevieve said that she doesn’t think the Strategy Team will be able to “bulletproof” itself against all possible objections. She suggested this could be an “ask” when team members reach out to Tribal leaders during the recruitment process.

Karen suggested putting indigenous participants who are not part of a federally‐recognized tribe in the “at large” category.  Penny asked for clarification regarding the “Other Entities” described in the Draft Charter. The Strategy Team already punted selection of the “At Large” participants to the LCC National Council, so the team may need to clarify the Draft Charter language in order to include non‐recognized indigenous groups in the “organizations and interests not currently represented” list.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 121 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny clarified the current proposal on the table regarding the “Tribal” category  The four “Tribal” positions on the LCC National Council will come from federally‐recognized Tribes and Alaska Natives.  The four “International” positions on the LCC National Council would include applicants from First Nations and other indigenous people from Canada and Mexico.  Caribbean, Pacific Islanders, and other indigenous people would be included in the “At Large” participant category.

Don likes the proposal that Penny described; He needs to be “arrow proof” in dealing with Tribal leaders.  Penny asked for objections, and proposed clarifying all linguistic references to “tribes” in the Draft Charter and the Supra‐group memo.

Penny noted that there was also an open question as to whether “State Agency Directors” includes territorial agency directors. The language could be changed to say “State or Territorial Agencies”  “State or Territorial Agencies” is confusing. The team would like this to be an inclusive document, but if the group is fine with “State Directors”, the language can remain unchanged.

There was a question about where state foresters fit within the LCC National Council roles. They’re not included in “State Agency Directors”, so where would they be included?  Penny said that the selection process is coming from AFWA, but doesn’t specifically exclude other directors (e.g. state foresters). Rather, each regional Fish and Wildlife Association will have to determine this on its own.  Karen said that there was no intent to limit government or NGO participation in this way. Rather, the team could add the word “Initially” to the Draft Charter language, which would allow other state directors to submit their nominations through that way as well.  Cat said that the National Parks Service had a similar question, and was concerned regional Fish and Wildlife Associations could exclude parks, foresters, and cultural heritage directors.

Cat requested that a document be forwarded to the first LCC National Council with things the team struggled with either in the charter (e.g. “initially”) or in an appendix.  Penny said the team needs to keep a list of items “kicked down the road” to the Council for them to handle at a later time, and said that EnviroIssues and the U.S. Institute will create a list like this during the convening process.  Mallory said that the language of the Charter is sufficient along with a list of items that goes to the LCC National Council. The change of putting “initially” may be overkill, because the language of the Charter specifies that the language of the document will be examined for revision, as well as the criteria for Council membership.  Cat agreed with this change.

Doug was concerned that this substantial change will disenfranchise some major groups (Tribes, Alaska Natives), and wondered whether the team should make this type of change at this stage of the process.

Garrit responded by saying that the team is over thinking the Charter, and it is time to convene the first Council. He recommended that the team add the question about First Nations and other indigenous groups to the list for future Council consideration in order to move forward.  Sara agreed that the Strategy Team is over thinking the Charter.

122 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny asked Doug if he would agree to having the question of Tribal/ First Nations/ Pacific Islanders being pushed to the first LCC National Council.  Doug said that he found the current Draft Charter language to be fair and equitable, but will live with the change if the Strategy Team makes it now. It is very late in the day to make a change like this, which will not be a minor change to groups who worked on this process.  Robin said he was comfortable with “lumping” full suite of Tribes/First Nations/Pacific Islanders into one group to make sure we have some representation across that group. He understands the difference in legal status, but supports Doug in his angst about splitting it apart.

Penny asked Don if it would work to break the “Tribal” category into three positions for Tribes and Alaska Natives and one position for other indigenous groups.  Don said that he was not comfortable with this change, and that he could already feel the potential objections from his Tribal leaders.

Maggie suggested increasing the number of “at large” participants by changing it to a range of 2‐4 positions, and suggesting that two of the positions include indigenous representation.  Several members of the group requested not expanding the Council beyond 27 members.

Penny asked if the team could agree to the adjustments made to the documents on today’s call.  Deanna raised a concern that Ulalia was not on this call, and that she doesn’t feel like she can answer fully the question about Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander participation in the Council.  Doug requested feedback from Don, Deanna, Garrit, and others to provide feedback on the options regarding tribal recruitment.

Timeline and Next Steps: Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues The Strategy Team is not ready to finalize the Draft Charter at this time; More work needs to be done on the language of the tribal recruitment section in order to move toward a final version of the Charter.  The Strategy Team will work in small groups on the Supra‐group memo and tribal recruitment, and will plan to reconvene in a few weeks to finalize the LCC National Council Charter.

ACTION ITEMS: All Strategy Team Members:  Look closely at the Final Draft Charter with Ben Thatcher’s proposed edits.

Supra‐group team:  Set up a call to discuss the proposed changes to the Supra‐group white paper with any additional Strategy Team members who are interested and/or have specific concerns about the scope, content and audience for this memo.

EnviroIssues and the U.S. Institute:  Create list of unresolved action items for the first LCC National Council.

Tribal, Indigenous and Territorial working group:  Discuss tribal, territorial and indigenous recruitment provisions in the Final Draft Charter on a small group call.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 123 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

National LCC Strategy Team April 9th, 2013 GoToMeeting Call Summary Meeting Summary

Participants: Doug Austen, National LCC Coordinator Bob Broscheid, Arizona Game and Fish Department Jad Daley, The Trust for Public Land Leslie Honey, NatureServe Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Mallory Martin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ken McDermond, South Atlantic LCC Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Karen Murphy, Western Alaska LCC Kit Muller, Bureau of Land Management Robin O’Malley, US Geological Survey Doug Parsons, National Park Service Terra Rentz, The Wildlife Society Deanna Spooner, Pacific Islands CCC Bruce Stein, National Wildlife Federation Ben Thatcher, Assistant National LCC Coordinator Monica Tomosy, U.S. Forest Service Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife Doug Vincent‐Lang, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Facilitation Team: Mitch Chrismer, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Brooke Williams, EnviroIssues

Welcome and Introductions‐ Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Penny welcomed Strategy Team members to the call and gave a brief overview of the agenda and process.

Goal of the call: Finalize the Draft Charter to the fullest extent possible. This will require a discussion of ‐ Unresolved issues ‐ Interests that have been overlooked and/or not fully considered

National LCC Strategy Team 04/09/2013 Call Summary

124 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Process reminder: The group agreed to operate by consensus at the Denver meeting. ‐ Agreed that if the team could not find consensus that they’d have the opportunity to reflect the issue in a “minority report” ‐ Want to continue with that process today

Unresolved Issues in the Draft Charter Three substantive issues were raised on the last call, all of which were raised when the charter was sent out to the conservation community for comment. 1) Inclusivity with regard to US federally recognized tribes 2) Inclusivity with regard to Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, Caribbean peoples and indigenous peoples 3) And inclusivity with regard to international participants

Other interests expressed included: 4) In December, the Strategy Team decided they did not want to increase the size of the council 5) Tension between timing of issues that were raised with the desire to finalize the charter and move into convening the National Council.

Penny reminded the Strategy Team of the Council goals (See “Goals” slide1 from PPT). She noted this language is straight from the charter; the Strategy team has been working with these all along.

In addition to the issues regarding participation in the council, one outstanding issue from the previous call also needs to be discussed – a suggested addition to the goals section of the Charter.

Issue #1: Tribal Seats There are three proposals on the table for dealing with these unresolved issues (See “outstanding issues: Tribal and international” slide2 from PPT) ‐ Current charter language ‐ Proposal #1: last call ‐ Proposal #2: sent by email

Current Charter Language: Definition of “Tribal” is very open in language that is currently in the charter ‐ Issue in the last call was with this broad definition (inclusion of non‐federally recognized tribes) ‐ Penny asked Don to share his interests and why this seat needs to be defined differently in either proposal #1 or #2

Don thanked the group for patience and understanding what he’s going through ‐ Representing 560 tribes. This is an important process, and why it’s taken longer ‐ His organization is a coalition of other organizations, which requires going back to many, many other groups. This has taken time, appreciates the team’s patience ‐ Appreciates value of inclusivity but sovereignty is also important ‐ Has worked with national organizations before on numbers. Numbers aren’t most important part of this discussion. Rather, he needs to ensure that tribes are at the table

1 The LCC National Council Goals are attached as Appendix 1. 2 The “Outstanding Issues: Tribal and International” table is attached as Appendix 2.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 125 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

‐ Example: Nat’l wildfire coordinating group: 2 state members, 1 tribal member

Don offered an alternative option – to decrease the number of tribal seats and change the definition

Penny clarified the current makeup in the Draft Charter and Don’s proposal: ‐ Current language: o 4 tribal participants, broadly defined o 4 international ‐ Penny asked Don if he’s proposing 3 seats for tribes, 1 seat for other indigenous groups? o Don said yes and clarified that the important part is that these three seats would be from federally recognized tribes

Bruce Stein noted that when the team has been talking about tribal seats, they’ve been described as coming from tribal sovereign governments or from organizations representing tribal interests (e.g. Intertribal Timber Council). How does this new proposal fit into this concept?

Penny clarified the charter language currently stated “Will not be limited to tribal leadership, but can also be participants from tribal organizations.” Penny asked Don if this is still acceptable and he concurred, as long as the organizations represent tribal government interests. He provided two examples: ‐ Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission has a mandate from sovereign member tribes ‐ Could be from Navajo nation or someone representing a larger group of sovereign tribes

Penny summed up the proposed change as the category language would be “Tribal participation will include federally‐recognized tribes and Alaska Natives. Tribal participants will not be limited to tribal leadership.” This category will have three seats. A new category, Indigenous Peoples, would be added with one seat. Participants will be drawn from First Nations, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, Caribbean peoples, and other indigenous representatives.

Garrit asked Deanna if this would be acceptable to her member organizations. If it’s not, this should be captured in a minority opinion. Deanna noted that all of PICCC’s concerns have been captured and will be forwarded to the National Council and they will ask the Council to look to expand participation by indigenous people in the future. With that, she was accepting of the proposed change.

Robin O’Malley noted a similar selection process will need to be developed for the indigenous grouping. Penny said the selection process will essentially be similar to the others, but there is a need to identify how to seek this participation. EnviroIssues will develop a proposed process and will coordinate with Deanna and Bill Gould on it.

Penny noted that group has reached consensus on this option and she thanked Don for coming up with this solution.

Issue #2: International Seats Penny gave an overview of the proposals on the table (see Appendix 2): ‐ Current charter language includes 4 international participants‐ 2 from Mexico, 2 from Canada

126 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

‐ The proposed change would expand definition of “International” to include all nations in the LCC geography.

Deanna noted a language correction. The three independent island nations are in the “Western Pacific” not the “south Pacific”

Garrit noted he appreciates hearing from Deanna on the international seats. He inquired if anyone else has international participation in their respective LCCs. ‐ Doug Vincent‐Lang said his LCCs are trying to get Canadian representatives involved, but they’ve decided to have observer status ‐ Penny noted that the North Pacific LCC has Canadian participants on the Steering Committee, and that the charter calls for one of the co‐chairs to be from Canada.

Garrit suggested not naming specific countries in the proposed option. Instead, say anyone in the geography of the LCC enterprise. He thinks it will be hard to find 4 people, no matter how “international” is defined. Based on current LCC participation, there will be no problem with the Canadian side, but more difficulty with Mexico. It will be a challenge to balance this out.

Deanna noted virtually half of the geography in PICCC is composed of independent but affiliated nations, including Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands

Bruce asked if there are there specific collaborations with any of those three and Deanna noted PICCC is funding projects and working with executive level individuals from the nations.

Bruce asked if there’s a similar relationship in the Caribbean LCC? It was noted the Caribbean LCC has only been up and running for about a year. Once they get established, the intent is to expand to other islands in the Caribbean.

Garrit observed it is good for the document to be forward‐looking; for the first couple of terms of the National Council, perhaps no one from those areas will be on the council, but could be in the future.

Penny added that currently, there are about 7 LCCs that include parts of Canada and engage with Canada regularly, and 3 that engage with Mexico.

Doug Vincent‐Lang suggested removing names of nations in the proposal.

Penny noted that as this moves forward and the LCCs mature (especially in the Caribbean and Pacific Islands), the Council will have to wrestle with the issue of balance between nations. This will be included in the “NOTES FOR COUNCIL” document the Strategy Team is preparing.

Ben Thatcher noted he thought the Strategy Team originally called out Canada and Mexico because they could substantially meet the needs of the goals of the National Council, as there are existing treaties and other agreements between the nations. ‐ Will this have other implications if the Charter doesn’t call out Canada and Mexico when the Strategy Team stands up the Council?

Penny recalled that the mention of treaties was to help fill the seats.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 127 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Doug Austen noted that given the geography of the LCCs, Canada and Mexico have particular significance and was concerned not calling out Canada and Mexico would diminish their role (or potential role) in the council. ‐ Maybe the team could take a similar approach to tribal representation, and highlight at least 1 from Canada, 1 from Mexico and the other two from the full LCC geography. Additional seats could also be Canada and Mexico ‐ An alternative would be to specify the four geographies (Canada, Mexico, Pacific, Caribbean), but this would be more prescriptive than the team wants to be right now.

Bruce liked emphasizing the significance of the role of Canada and Mexico, but leaving it inclusive.

Penny paraphrased Doug’s suggestion – that the International group includes 1 participant from Canada, 1 from Mexico, 2 seats are undefined but could include Canada, Mexico or other nations in the LCC geography.

Deanna expressed her willingness to live with the proposed change.

Penny noted the Strategy Team had reached consensus on International, tribal and indigenous seats. Thank you to all for flexibility and creativity. ‐ EnviroIssues will adjust the language of the Charter as it pertains to the selection processes ‐ EnviroIssues will also develop draft selection processes and everyone will get a chance to look at them.

Issue #3: Refining “Goals” Penny advised the team that on their last call, Mark Kramer had suggested including more language in the goals section, in response to comments heard during the public charter review. He promised to develop some language that would be pulled directly from other sections of the charter.3 (See “Goals PPT slide) ‐ This is not new language, it was discussed in the last meeting, but the team ran out of time to talk about it because the Team was busy with the tribal/indigenous/international issue.

Doug Austen asked if the goal was to add these goals to the charter now.

Penny noted that yes, the comments that came back when the Charter was circulated was that the goals didn’t reflect a few things.

Doug observed it was a little late to be adding new goals to this document. Penny agreed, but also noted that 20 members of the strategy team were on the last call when this was discussed and the group was still trying to respond to public comments on the charter.

Robin noted he respected Doug’s process point. On the merits of these proposed goals, he thinks this is the kind of thing he would have hoped the Council would do to implement the vaguer goals. Some of the council goals cannot be done without these things.

3 The proposed Goals language is included as Appendix 3

128 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Bruce observed they’re not goals, but rather things that the Council should do to achieve things that the council has already set out. Mallory agreed with what Bruce said and noted they seem to be implicit in addressing other goals we’ve laid out.

Penny clarified that Mark did draw these “goal statements” from language that was already in the charter. He pulled them out and suggested turning them into succinct goals statements

Garrit asked if this could be a “suggested activity” in the memo to the Council as to how to move forward.

Robin observed that he is a step and a half ahead of this on the FACA committee for the Climate Science Centers. In that process, these types of actions are in a work plan for the first Council. At some point, these things will come out once we get to the next stage of the process.

Doug Austen noted the LCT will be talking about how these issues will be brought to the LCC National Council. ‐ What are the issues the LCCs are struggling with? How does the LCT present them to the national council in an actionable way for them to discuss and deliberate upon?

Penny observed she felt it was due diligence to bring them up but it sounds like the group is saying that since these statement exist in other places in the charter, they don’t need to be added as goal statements.

Timeline and Next Steps Penny: The Strategy Team has addressed all outstanding issues. ‐ The next step is that EnviroIssues will clean up the Charter and make necessary changes based on today’s call. ‐ After that, the Charter will go back out to the Strategy Team for final “fatal flaw” review ‐ Please note that final “fatal flaw” review does not involve changing any concepts, just making sure it says what the Team thinks it should say.

Doug Vincent‐Lang asked about the need to set a schedule for the Council meeting? He asked if the Strategy Team wasn’t just giving this document to USFWS. The team had a conversation about the US Institute’s role in convening the council. When asked who was funding the council, Maggie noted it’s a neutrally‐convened process, so the funding source is irrelevant.

Maggie noted the funding is secured through interagency agreement and the U.S. Institute was asked to facilitate to remove the tag of USFWS as the sponsoring agency. The agreement includes resources in to fund the first couple of meetings. Doug Austen noted there do need to be some additional steps at Interior to see if travel will be funded. Also, a FACA review will start this week. He noted David Hayes is

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 129 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

invested, wants to move this forward. Doug also noted the concerns with sequestration and how that might impact the spending for the council.

Maggie noted the Institute will, on behalf of these partners, move this forward. She explained the Institute was not wedded to a date, but it’s good to have a target to move forward as quickly as possible, recognizing that the timeline will likely slip and that we’re behind about a year from our initial stage.

Doug Vincent‐Lang noted the Strategy Team was set up to create a charter. He doesn’t want to back USFWS into a corner with a date. Maggie clarified that the Strategy Team was not set up just to create a charter and send it back to USFWS. Rather, the Strategy Team is also charged with going out to solicit members for the Council.

Bruce noted that this document isn’t setting a firm date. Finalizing the charter is the first stage of the process, not the end. He thought the team should try to set a date. He noted the dates in red were very tentative and that reasonably, the earliest a meeting could happen is July. Penny added that the suggested July or September was because she didn’t think a first meeting in August was reasonable.

Garrit noted he supports the draft timeline but wondered how long the FACA review would take. Doug Austen said he would know more on Thursday. Gaby is meeting with DOI solicitors who will be doing the review. He may get more idea of this time frame from that meeting. He believes the FACA review will have some impact on the schedule. He noted the team will have to keep this schedule flexible, but it is good to have something written down.

Doug Austen was asked if individuals participating will be doing so at their own cost. He said yes, noting that, for example, DOI can’t provide support for NGOs. He explained that is due to the way DOI is funding/prioritizing things right now, but it can change. They have funded NGOs in the past.

Maggie noted the U.S. Institute has regulations as a federal agency that they can only pay for any member of the public to attend if they’re bringing a unique role to the presentation/meeting (e.g. invited speaker)

When asked if a voting member of the national council would be the same as a presenter/speaker, Maggie noted it is a very gray area, and she will have to check with the Institute’s legal counsel.

Bruce noted the travel funding question will impact when the National Council could hold its first meeting and that this needs to be clarified during the recruitment and selection process. Travel reimbursement will definitely affect who is willing to step forward and serve. He is disappointed about decision on NGOs, and thinks this will hinder NGO participation

130 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny reviewed the timeline and the steps included.4 ‐ Finalize interim charter ‐ Distribute the charter along with “what we heard and how we changed the charter” summary ‐ Sub‐groups finalize selection processes, specifically, international, tribal & indigenous ‐ Hope to begin recruitment April/May but this could get pushed based on some of the DOI decisions ‐ Member subgroups conduct the selection processes ‐ Participants will be affirmed by the full Strategy Team; the strategy team will need to come together again to do this.

Penny noted that given that there are unresolved issues and work to be done, we should perhaps change the target to September.

Monica asked if there will still be a conversation within federal leadership. She also expressed concern with the delay in the first council meeting, thinking it would happen in May or June. She expressed interest in having conversations soon. ‐ Penny noted this is not something the Strategy Team has control over. It is up to folks at the agencies to have conversations with executive leadership sooner.

Monica thought the wait until September was counterproductive. The sooner the leadership has this conversation the better. Kit acknowledged Monica’s concerns, but noted the schedule only provides six weeks to make non‐federal participant selections. He doesn’t see how this can be speeded up.

Doug was asked about the timeline for the federal conversation. He noted LCCs were a topic at the climate change meeting, but didn’t get to this issue. The discussion was more discussion about whether to have a larger federal caucus and issues it might present to show that the feds are getting together to overwhelm other partners. It could be interpreted more in a conspiracy way rather than in a good way. He noted again, David Hayes wants this council to go forward. And he also noted there is a request for Dan Ashe to visit with NOAA and other meetings are on the agenda

Doug Austen noted he doesn’t want to slow things down, but thinks this is a fast recommendation. The leadership of USWFS needs to make some decisions on travel funding. He also expressed nervousness that the Strategy Team is setting a schedule that starts recruitment on April 29th. He thinks this group has done the best it can to get a charter up and running. He said we can encourage fast implementation, and can recommend this to USFWS and U.S. institute.

Penny reminded the Strategy Team that their work isn’t done yet. The team needs to affirm all subgroup recommendations. The schedule will be left as tentative and we will drive towards meeting this as best we can.

4 Timeline is included as Appendix 4

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 131 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Doug Vincent‐Lang asked if the Strategy Team was going to vote on members. He commented he never saw this group as selecting the actual members of the committee. Penny noted that that this group, operating by consensus, will affirm the recommendations made by subgroups.

Bruce expressed a strong feeling that the subgroup recommendations will stand, absent a strong opposition. He noted that the full group is not making a selection, but rather is providing oversight.

Penny added there will be an appropriate set of steps that led to selection and the process will be open and transparent. That is why it is termed “affirmation” in the selection process.

Penny reviewed the documents that will be worked on in order to meet the timeline. She noted the Strategy Team is ready to hit the button and move from “chartering” to “convening”. She observed this was a huge step for the team and congratulated them on coming up with a consensus‐based document. Congratulations to all.

NEXT STEPS: ‐ Recruitment processes ‐ Recruitment package: Materials we’ll need for recruitment o Invitation letter o Overview PPT o Application/nomination form (where appropriate) o LCC FAQ‐ work with Doug Austen o Strategy Team Process Overview‐ One page fact sheet ‐ Key issues memo to Council: o Issues discussed along the way that are best left to Council to decide.

132 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Appendix 1: LCC National Council Goals

 Integrate national conservation initiatives and partnerships (i.e. State Wildlife Action Plans, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, National Fish Habitat Partnerships, and The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Assessments) with the LCC network and provide a venue for higher level conversations about reducing programmatic duplication and improving efficiency. o The Council’s goal is not to integrate all national initiatives under one umbrella, but to promote coordination of the LCC network with relevant national conservation initiatives.

 Promote, support and ensure recognition of the LCCs as an effectively functioning, coordinated, and connected network that enhances landscape‐scale conservation.

 Build a national‐level constituency for the LCCs that: o Focuses on strategic policy engagement o Shares LCC achievements o Promotes the LCCs within federal agencies and Congress o Catalyzes greater commitment by partners to the regional LCCs

 Communicate consistent messages about the LCC enterprise at the national level

 Increase Tribal, Alaska Native, First Nation, Pacific Islander, Caribbean peoples, and other indigenous peoples’ engagement in LCCs.

10 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 133 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Appendix 2: Outstanding Issues‐ Tribal and International

Current Charter Language Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Tribal: Participation may Only Federally‐recognized Tribes Only Federally‐recognized Tribes include Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Alaskan Natives and Alaskan Natives First Nations, Pacific Islanders, Caribbean peoples, and other indigenous people. International: Participants will Canada encouraged to consider 4 international seats to be filled include two from Canada and including First Nations from all nations participating in the two from Mexico. LCC enterprise, as defined by the geography of the LCCs A minimum of 1 Canadian and 1 Mexican participant will be included in these 4 seats. Including Canada, Mexico, and independent island nations in the Western Pacific and Caribbean. At‐Large: Participants may Include Pacific Islanders, Native As in current Charter language come from organizations and Hawaiian organizations and interests not currently Caribbean indigenous peoples represented, such as U.S. territories, commonwealths, local governments, international partners, industry, the philanthropic community, and other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. N/A N/A 2 new seats to include Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiian organizations and Caribbean indigenous peoples.

134 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Appendix 3: Goals‐ Recommended Additions

 Solicit input from LCCs to identify the ecological and institutional challenges faced by LCCs that should be addressed at the national scale.

 Facilitate LCC partner engagement in efforts to develop and implement ways of addressing those challenges.

 Work with LCCs to identify opportunities to leverage resources and capacities to improve efficiencies and conservation outcomes across the LCCs.

Appendix 4: Timeline

Task Due Date Who Strategy Team finalizes charter content Tuesday, April 9th Strategy Team and set target date for first LCC National Council meeting. Final fatal flaw language review of Friday, April 19th Strategy Team charter EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute will widely Wednesday, April 24th EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute distribute the final interim charter and “what we heard and how we changed the charter” summary Sub‐groups finalize selection processes Friday, April 26th Subgroups & EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute

Strategy Team “subgroups” and Monday, April 29th Strategy Team subgroups & EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute initiate EnviroIssues/U.S. Institute recruitment and selection process.

Member subgroup selection processes Friday, June 14th Subgroups & EnviroIssues/U.S. complete. institute

Member affirmation by Strategy Team Wednesday, June 19th Strategy Team complete. Formal invitations sent Friday, June 21st First meeting of the LCC National July or September??? LCC National Council Council.

12 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 135

1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Summary LCC National Council – Strategy Team Affirmation Call November 18, 2013 – 12:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Pacific

Participants  Strategy Team: Amanda Reed, Ben Thatcher, Bruce Stein, Cat Hawkins‐Hoffman, Dave Cleaves, Deanna Spooner, Debra Schlafmann, Don Motanic, Elsa Haubold, Garritt Voggesser, Jad Daley, Karen Murphy, Ken McDermond, Kenny Ribbeck, Kit Muller, Laurie McGilvary, Leslie Honey, Mallory Martin, Mark Humpert, Mary Klein, Monica Tomosy, Sara Vickerman, Seth Moth, Terra Rentz.  Facilitation/Neutral: Penny Mabie and Aoife Blake, EnviroIssues; Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Key Discussion Points Welcome and introductions Penny welcomed the strategy team and highlighted the goal of the call is to affirm membership for the LCC National Council and to share meeting objectives and potential agenda topics for the first Council meeting.

Penny advised the participants that the call was being recorded for archive purposes. The recording is available if anyone has questions in the future about how the candidates were affirmed. There were no questions or concerns from the group regarding the recording. Penny reminded the strategy team of the composition of the Council, as outlined in the charter. She reminded them of the different selection processes and noted that the selection criteria for each category also differed.

 Federal, State, Major Partnerships and LCC all had their own process as determined by the charter.  Applications were sought for Tribal, NGO, International and Indigenous seats and review panels made recommendations to the strategy team. Nominated Federal Council Members Penny reminded the strategy team that the federal participants have been nominated from the six agencies outlined in the charter. She announced the nominees and explained the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) participant will be Chief Weller for the first meeting and then the seat will be upheld by Associate Chief Jordan. The strategy team had no questions regarding these nominated council members.

Page | 1

136 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Dan Ashe Director US Fish and Wildlife Service Dr. Herbert Frost Associate Director, Natural Resource of National Parks Service Stewardship and Science Ed Roberson Assistant Director, Renewable Bureau of Land Management Resources and Planning Dr. Mark Schaefer Assistant Secretary for Conservation National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Management Administration Mary Wagner Associate Chief USDA Forest Service Jason Weller/ Chief/ Associate Chief for Conservation USDA Natural Resources Conservation Leonard Jordan Service

Nominated State Council Members

Penny reminded the strategy team that the state participants have been nominated by the four regional Associations for Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and West, NEAFWA, SEAFWA, MAFWA and WAFA), as outlined in the charter. Penny noted that only two nominations have been received to date, from MAFWA and SEAFWA. NEAFWA was expected to forward their nomination soon, and WAFWA is not submitting a nomination at this time. One strategy team member asked why WAFWA was not putting forward a nominee. Mark Humpert shared that this was discussed at the WAFWA manager’s meeting, but was unsure as to why they are not putting forward a nominee. The strategy team had no questions regarding these nominated council members.

Marc Miller (midwest) Director Illinois Department of Natural Resources Mallory Martin Chief Deputy Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources (southeast) Commission Vacant (northeast) Vacant (west)

Nominated Major Partnerships Council Members

Penny repeated that the major partnerships participants have been nominated by the Association of Joint Ventures Management Board and the National Fish Habitat Board, as per the charter. The strategy team had no questions regarding these nominated council members.

Jeff Raasch Wetland and Joint Venture Association of Joint Ventures Management Program Leader Board Kelly Hepler Chairman National Fish Habitat Board

Nominated LCC Council Member

Page | 2

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 137 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Penny explained to the strategy team that the LCC Network lead their own application and review process to nominate a participant for the LCC seat on the Council. The strategy team had no questions regarding the nominated council member.

Ken McDermond Coordinator South Atlantic LCC

Penny provided a brief recap of the selection processes for the following four categories:  Indigenous  International  Tribal  Non‐governmental organization (NGO)

Nominated Indigenous Council Member

Penny gave an overview of the qualifications sought in indigenous applicants and noted that only one application was received for this seat. The indigenous review team agreed to recommend the applicant to the strategy team for affirmation. The strategy team had no questions regarding the nominated council member.

Ulalia Woodside Regional Assets Manager, Natural and Cultural Kamehameha Schools Resources Land Assets Division, Endowment Group

Nominated International Council Members

Penny identified the qualifications sought in international applicants and presented the review team’s recommendation of filling three of the four seats, as no application from Mexico was received. A strategy team member highlighted concern over having two Canadian candidates, who are both from nearby provinces, when there are other applicants who would add greater geographic diversity. Penny summarized that the review team scored each candidate and those forwarded to the strategy team scored higher. Another strategy team member proposed doing further outreach to Mexico to secure a participant. The strategy team discussed doing additional outreach to Mexico but agreed that there wasn’t enough time to carry out a fair and equitable recruitment process prior to the first Council meeting.

It was agreed to forward the review team’s recommendation of filling three seats with the nominated council members and suggesting the Council do further outreach to fill the vacant seat with a Mexican participant.

Madeline L. Maley Executive Director Regional BC Provincial Government (Ministry of Forests, Operations South Area Lands and Natural Resource Operations) Eric Schroff Director Yukon Government, Department of EcologyPage | 3 Willy Kostka Executive Director Micronesia Conservation Trust Vacant

138 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting Nominated Tribal Council Members

Penny gave an overview of the qualifications sought in tribal applicants and noted that five applications were received for these seats. Penny highlighted the geographical location of applicants and explained that for this reason the review team’s recommendation has two parts. They recommend:  Two tribal seats be filled and suggest the Council consider future recruitment to gain additional geographic diversity.  Affirm their recommendation for three tribal seats.

However, if the strategy team wishes to seat three tribal representatives, they recommend a third candidate for that seat. A strategy team member clarified that if the strategy team fills only two seats, that the third recommendation for the tribal seat would still remain as a potential candidate in future recruitment, along with additional applicants. A member of the strategy team suggested affirming all three tribal seats as the lack of geographic diversity in this category was acceptable given there was no representative from WAFWA and it would balance the geographic diversity of the overall council membership.

The strategy team agreed to affirm two tribal seats and recommend the Council recruit wider for the third seat but retain Charles Hudson from the Columbia River Inter‐Tribal Fish Commission as a candidate for the third tribal seat in future recruitment.

Terry Williams Fisheries and Natural Tulalip Tribes Resources Commissioner Karen Pletnikoff Community, Environment Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. and Safety Manager Vacant*

Nominated NGO Council Members

Penny identified the qualifications sought in NGO applicants and reminded the strategy team of the two‐ tiered review process. She clarified that members of the review panel who applied did not score their own application. The second stage of review involved the review team establishing a cut‐off point and

Page | 4

Madeline L. Maley Executive Director Regional BC Provincial Government (Ministry of Forests, Operations South Area Lands and Natural Resource Operations) Eric Schroff Director Yukon Government, Department of Ecology Willy Kostka Executive Director Micronesia Conservation Trust Vacant 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries

Nominated Tribal Council Members

Terry Williams Fisheries and Natural Tulalip Tribes Resources Commissioner Karen Pletnikoff Community, Environment Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. and Safety Manager Vacant*

Nominated NGO Council Members

The NGO review team recommended four candidates. However, the review team noted that there were Page | 4 four more applicants that were also acceptable to sit on the Council, if the strategy team wanted to look further at geographical diversity or topical focus.

The strategy team discussed the lack of geographical diversity in the four nominees recommended. However, one strategy team member acknowledged that although the physical location of the NGO may be in Washington D.C., some of these NGOs have a broader reach across the country.

A strategy team member highlighted that the NGO review team suggested that Amanda Stanley from the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity/ Wilburforce Foundation be forwarded to the Council for Tuesday,the February “at large” 4 and Wednesday, seat as Februaryher organization 5, 2014 does not fall into the “typical” NGO category. It was noted that 139 this could represent an important funding partner for the LCCs. The strategy team discussed recommending one particular applicant versus recommending a suite of organizations/agencies that could fill the “at‐large”seat. The strategy team agreed to forward to the Council a list of potential organizations/agencies including Consultative Group on Biological Diversity/ Wilburforce Foundation to be considered for the “at‐large” seat.

The strategy team agreed to affirm the review team’s recommendation of the following four candidates:

Dr. Gary M. Tabor Executive Director Center for Large Landscape Conservation P. Lynn Scarlett Managing Director, Public Policy The Nature Conservancy

Jad Daley Climate Conservation Program The Trust for Public Land Director Leslie Honey Vice President of Conservation NatureServe Services

Penny stated all the nominations for each category and asked the strategy team if anyone had any objections to the proposed Council members. No objections were raised and the Council members were affirmed, with the clarification that the Council will conduct additional recruitment for State, Tribal and International vacancies.

National Council meeting

Penny explained to the strategy team the next steps in terms of:  Notifying successful and unsuccessful applicants

Page | 5

further discussing the nominees who received above a certain score. Penny stated that 17 applications were received for four seats.

The NGO review team recommended four candidates. However, the review team noted that there were four more applicants that were also acceptable to sit on the Council, if the strategy team wanted to look further at geographical diversity or topical focus.

1.1.6The Strategy strategy Team team meeting discussed summaries the lack of geographical diversity in the four nominees recommended. However, one strategy team member acknowledged that although the physical location of the NGO may be in Washington D.C., some of these NGOs have a broader reach across the country.

A strategy team member highlighted that the NGO review team suggested that Amanda Stanley from the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity/ Wilburforce Foundation be forwarded to the Council for the “at large” seat as her organization does not fall into the “typical” NGO category. It was noted that this could represent an important funding partner for the LCCs. The strategy team discussed recommending one particular applicant versus recommending a suite of organizations/agencies that could fill the “at‐large”seat. The strategy team agreed to forward to the Council a list of potential organizations/agencies including Consultative Group on Biological Diversity/ Wilburforce Foundation to be considered for the “at‐large” seat.

The strategy team agreed to affirm the review team’s recommendation of the following four candidates:

Dr. Gary M. Tabor Executive Director Center for Large Landscape Conservation P. Lynn Scarlett Managing Director, Public Policy The Nature Conservancy

Jad Daley Climate Conservation Program The Trust for Public Land Director Leslie Honey Vice President of Conservation NatureServe Services

National Council meeting

Penny explained to the strategy team the next steps in terms of:  Notifying successful and unsuccessful applicants

 Announcing the Council members  Announcing the first meeting date (first week in February) and location (Washington, D.C.) Page | 5 A strategy team member asked if Council member’s availability would dictate the meeting date. Penny noted that in response to her request to the strategy team for any conflicts, there was support for an early February meeting rather than January or late February.

A strategy team member asked what the critical level of attendance for the meeting is. Penny reminded the strategy team that a quorum of two‐thirds is needed at the meeting, as outlined in the charter, and suggested having good representation in all categories of participants. There was further discussion on how to determine if the meeting goes ahead if certain members unavailable. It was suggested that a few possible meeting dates be put forward, however, the time needed for RSVPs was recognized as a constraint.

There was some discussion about attendance and joining the meeting remotely but the strategy team 140 acknowledged that the first meeting is intended to be in‐person to enhance engagementLCC Nationa lof Cou Councilncil Inaugura l Meeting members. While some strategy team members knew of potential conflicts surrounding the first week in February, the majority of the strategy team agreed to go with the approach of announcing the Council members and the meeting date (Tuesday and Wednesday, February 4th and 5th, 2014), and then evaluate the level of respondents. It was suggested a “fall‐back” date be furnished in case the planned date does not get a quorum.

Agenda for Council Meeting

Penny shared the potential meeting objectives and agenda topics that were received from members of the strategy team for the first council meeting. A strategy team member asked how the agenda for the first council is being developed and who will make the decision about topics to bring to the Council? Penny explained that the agenda is being developed by the U.S. Institute with input from the LCC Coordinator’s Team (LCT) and the LCC Science Coordinator’s Team (LSCT) and will be reviewed by the strategy team before sharing a draft with the council members for their input ahead of the meeting. A strategy team member emphasized the importance for the Council to have an opportunity to make comments on the agenda before being finalized. Another strategy team member echoed the desire of having the LCT and LSCT provide feedback and engage with the agenda development process.

Penny explained that other materials and briefing booklets will be prepared for the meeting to provide context and background on the LCCs and the need of the National Council, and will be shared with Council members ahead of the meeting, instead of a background call.

Page | 6

 Announcing the Council members  Announcing the first meeting date (first week in February) and location (Washington, D.C.)

A strategy team member asked if Council member’s availability would dictate the meeting date. Penny 1.1.6 Strategy Team meeting summaries noted that in response to her request to the strategy team for any conflicts, there was support for an early February meeting rather than January or late February.

There was some discussion about attendance and joining the meeting remotely but the strategy team acknowledged that the first meeting is intended to be in‐person to enhance engagement of Council members. While some strategy team members knew of potential conflicts surrounding the first week in February, the majority of the strategy team agreed to go with the approach of announcing the Council members and the meeting date (Tuesday and Wednesday, February 4th and 5th, 2014), and then evaluate the level of respondents. It was suggested a “fall‐back” date be furnished in case the planned date does not get a quorum.

Agenda for Council Meeting

Penny congratulated the strategy team for all their time and effort put in to the development of the LCC National Council. Maggie McCaffrey echoed these sentiments.

Page | 6 Next Steps:

 Successful Council members will be notified this week of seat on the Council  Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in the coming weeks  Meeting location and date will be confirmed  Meeting agenda will be developed and draft will be sent to strategy team members

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 141

Page | 7 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

November 2011

Prepared by:

Penny Mabie EnviroIssues

for the

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

142 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Background

Over the last few years, the federal natural resource agencies have undertaken numerous landscape‐ scale conservation initiatives, including the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and its “all lands” approach to planning, and Department of the Interior’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), Climate Science Centers (CSCs), and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) landscape approach/Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs). The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force under the direction of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is also promoting coastal and marine spatial planning processes. In addition to these federal initiatives, a multitude of landscape conservation collaboratives are underway – at many different scales, and with many different missions and models – addressing a broad range of ecological issues. An underlying premise of landscape‐scale conservation is that it cannot be accomplished or undertaken by any one agency or organization – the scale of the effort demands collaboration and partnerships at a nearly unprecedented scale. As a result, partnerships are being established at multiple levels, across multiple organizations – including within and outside the federal government. National leaders of tribes, states, non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, and academic institutions are participating in these many efforts.

With the signing of Secretarial Order No. 3289 on September 14, 2009, Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar launched one of these landscape‐scale conservation efforts through the formation of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. This order expanded a conservation program initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) into a department‐wide effort to better integrate science and management in addressing the impacts from climate change and other landscape‐scale disturbances. LCCs are applied conservation science and management partnerships between the DOI bureaus, other federal agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, universities and stakeholders within a geographically defined area.

In broad terms, the LCCs are intended to link and integrate DOI’s proposed CSCs with resource managers and science users. The LCCs are intended to bring additional DOI resources to bear on landscape‐scale issues and opportunities, and to help coordinate a wide range of efforts to respond to climate change, invasive species, wildfires, human development, and other change agents across the landscape.

A total of 22 regional LCCs, with boundaries established by DOI, are in various stages of formation across the country. Each regional LCC is intended to be a self‐directed, stand‐alone partnership. Individual LCC steering committees will evaluate regional needs and develop initial sets of proposed objectives and priorities as well as establish their own structure and direction.

The areas for DOI’s LCCs intersect with many other landscape‐scale conservation efforts already being undertaken. The LCCs are not intended to replace these existing organizations or programs already accomplishing conservation work in the LCC areas. The aim is to facilitate, enhance, and expand that work. Specific objectives and priorities will be determined by the partnerships themselves.

As part of this national DOI initiative, an LCC National Council is being proposed to provide support and guidance to the LCCs and to provide a mechanism to maintain consistency and coordination at both regional and national scales. In addition, an LCC National Network comprised of representatives from the LCC staff would serve the role of providing coordination at the LCC management level.

3 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 143 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Purpose of this Assessment

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) to assist with determining the interest of national partners in participating in a national council, and in developing a strategy to engage partners at the national level in establishing a national council. The U.S. Institute retained EnviroIssues to conduct an independent, third‐party neutral assessment of national partners and DOI leadership to gauge potential support, concerns and suggestions for establishing an LCC National Council that could provide national perspective while maintaining the self‐directed quality of the 22 LCCs.

Overarching assessment objectives: • To gauge pre‐existing knowledge, challenges and level of support for an LCC National Council. • To identify an effective approach for leadership and direction of an LCC National Council and coordination with the Climate Science Centers. • To identify common understandings and potential goals for an LCC National Council. • To inform a proposed framework that meets the needs of all in order to work together efficiently.

Objectives specific to the DOI leadership assessment: • To identify the critical elements for a solid internal structure. • To identify existing oversight and direction in the DOI.

Objectives specific to the national partner assessment: • To identify level of interest of partners to engage in the LCCs and identify who might want to be involved in an LCC National Council.

Methods

EnviroIssues developed an assessment plan that included interview objectives and questions and a proposed list of interviewees. The U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues accepted feedback on the assessment plan from a core group of LCC staff, including the LCC National Coordinator and other key people/positions.

Nineteen potential DOI leaders were identified, with a total of 16 interviews completed by the end of the assessment. Forty‐five potential national partner interviewees were identified, and a total of 33 interviews were conducted. The full set of interview questions can be found in Appendix A. Prior to scheduling interviews, a memo from Deputy Secretary David Hayes was sent to the identified DOI leaders describing the purpose of the assessment. Once an interview was scheduled, interviewees received the LCC fact sheet, a brief overview of the effort, and the interview questions.

EnviroIssues and U.S. Institute staff conducted phone interviews in September, October and November of 2011 to provide the basis for this assessment. Interviews were conducted by Penny Mabie of

4 | Page 144 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

EnviroIssues and Marsha Bracke of Bracke & Associates. Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute, also participated in a number of the interviews. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. A synthesis and analysis of the interview findings are provided in the following sections.

Assessment Findings

How knowledgeable were the respondents about LCCs and how supportive were they of the LCCs in general and specifically of a National Council? In more than 15 interviews with leaders and senior managers within DOI, respondents were aware of the LCCs and the notion of an LCC National Council. Support for a national council was broad among DOI leadership, although the suggested level of responsibility and authority of a national body over the LCC network was not evenly shared. Similarly, most of the non‐DOI leadership of national and state organizations interviewed had a good grasp of the existence of LCCs, though many expressed uncertainty about their value and relevance. Several national partner interviewees had no knowledge of the possibility of a national council, and expressed some concerns about the premise, which will be addressed later in the findings.

Key points: • DOI leaders associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were most knowledgeable about LCCs. Other respondents inside the DOI strongly associated the LCC effort with the FWS, although they recognized that the Secretary of the Interior has attempted to broaden the effort by charging other bureaus with LCC responsibilities. Many national partners assumed the LCC effort was a FWS‐led initiative. Several said it would be very challenging to develop broad support for goals and priorities identified by the LCC National Council unless membership was inclusive and representative of all partners – inside and outside of the federal government. • Most national partners were participating in or had heard of the LCCs, and indicated support for them. They were, however, often vague about the relevance of the LCCs. Many seemed unclear on the leadership of and mission for the LCCs, or what was expected in terms of outcomes. And, they were concerned with the sustainability of the LCCs without significant demonstration of value.

A clear picture emerged that many national partners and some DOI leaders are very focused on their own missions. While they may see potential value in the LCCs and recognize that landscape‐scale conservation is essential, they are guarded in their willingness to commit scarce resources or prioritize LCCs unless and until the value and sustainability of the effort is proven. State representatives, in particular, mentioned that if faced with choosing where to direct limited resources, they would focus on the effort providing the greatest value.

In summary, there was broad support for creating a national council, with the hope that it could provide the needed definition and establish consistency, goals and expectations for the LCCs.

What specific purpose, goals and roles were suggested for the National Council? In general, most DOI leaders and managers acknowledged the potential value of a national council to complete the LCC network. Similarly, most national partners also supported a national council, although

5 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 145 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

not all for the same purposes as those within DOI. Key shared themes regarding the potential purpose and goals of a national council included: Focus on coordination and communication between the individual LCCs to support a cohesive purpose and core message. Articulate shared outcomes of the LCCs and support collaboration across geographies. Operate in a bottom‐up and top‐down model, with two‐way communication flow. Advocate for the LCCs and share their success stories within federal agencies and Congress.

Key points: • The most striking commonality was the expression by almost every respondent that a national council should not micro‐manage or attempt to dictate to the LCCs. Many observed the tension created by developing, from the ground up, a set of self‐directed partnerships, and then attempting to meld them together as a network. An additional challenge noted was adding what some perceived as an additional layer of a national body over the top, and establishing it without undermining the self‐directed nature of the individual LCCs. • This core tension between a desire for a national council that could provide consistency and direction for the LCCs, while not being too directive was reflected in interviewees’ responses about setting priorities and conservation goals. There was no clear consensus; either within DOI or the national partners, on whether setting LCC priorities was a key role for the national council. Some partners suggested the national council should influence the direction and priorities of the LCCs in terms of science and the scientific agenda. Opinions also diverged between segments of the national partners regarding whether the national council should develop national conservation goals and/or priorities. Many of the NGOs expressed a keen desire for national‐level conservation goals or priorities to provide commonality and a national voice for conservation. Some respondents articulated a need for the council to work from the ground up, beginning with individual LCCs and seeking commonalities to inform national priorities. Others suggested that top‐down priorities could help achieve some of the needed consistency between LCCs. Many potential state partners expressed, either directly or indirectly, a concern that a national council could end up attempting to set not only national priorities, but dictating priorities or management decisions to the states. Individuals expressed views along a continuum that ranged from seeing the threat as a distant possibility to seeing it as a clear and present danger. In sum, this core tension and lack of consensus will pose a significant challenge to the development of a national council. Having a national council to provide greater definition and consistency in national goals or priorities could provide greater clarity and potentially help partners better understand how and where to participate in the LCCs and would likely help them determine if they should participate. On the other hand, if the council attempts to dictate goals and priorities, it poses a threat to the individual LCCs and many of the partners. There is agreement that involving tribes, states, and NGOs in the development of the national council is important. However, negotiating this fine line on setting national goals and priorities will require significant collaboration and trust‐building with national partners. To walk this fine line, partners will have to determine how an integrated, interdependent network can emerge from this foundation. To be a successful network, it must be more than a confederation of

6 | Page LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 146 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

individual LCCs. Council members will have to determine what type of guidance, oversight, advice, and framework will be accepted and supported by the individual LCC partners. Those will be significant issues faced in determining the governance, mission and membership of a national council and will drive its success (or failure).

What issues should a National Council address? Not address? In general, interviewees agreed that the national council should concern itself with more policy‐level issues. However, there was disagreement on what specific issues a national council should or should not address – which appears to be related to the lack of a clearly articulated mission for the LCCs, and the need to support an LCC network without undermining the local, bottom‐up development of each LCC’s organization and priorities.

Key points: • Climate change emerged as one of the issues, with a range of views within DOI and among national partners. Several DOI respondents and national partners noted that climate change was an original driver for establishment of the LCCs as well as for landscape‐scale conservation. They said that keeping climate change a primary focus of the LCCs was an imperative issue for the national council to address. Others noted that while climate change was a landscape‐scale stressor, there were many other stressors that should be of equal importance. And some noted that given the political associations often attached to climate change; it might be best if it was not directly addressed. Others suggested that individual LCCs should have the latitude to determine the degree of emphasis on climate change. This discussion has occurred in several LCCs, and it will be an issue of significant challenge for a national council. • Funding for LCCs was also a commonly mentioned issue. DOI leaders suggested development of sustainable funding was an important issue for a national council to address. Some national partners suggested a national council could coordinate funding, identify a national funding source, and advise each LCC on how this money should be spent. However, once again, the tension between a national council and the self‐directed nature of LCCs arose regarding funding. Several national partners, including NGOs and states, expressed concern that a national council providing any kind of guidance or structure for how funds should be allocated to the LCCs would potentially result in pitting LCCs against each other and/or competing for funding from the council. Others believed that addressing issues such as coordination of funding would support the consistency they desired across the LCC network. Some concern was expressed that staffing or budgetary support for the national council should not be taken from existing LCC resources. • LCC regional boundaries, particularly pertinent to those states that have multiple LCCs, emerged as an issue from DOI leaders and from national partners. Most states with multiple LCCs identified boundary issues as a significant challenge that should be addressed at the national level. Yet not all states believed it was a national issue; they thought the LCCs should be able to negotiate among themselves to make adjustments to boundaries, since the boundaries had local implications. Most DOI leaders thought that boundaries were clearly an issue to be addressed at the national level.

Similarly, when queried specifically about issues the national council should NOT address, the answers were reflective of the strong desire to retain the independent and self‐directed nature of the individual LCCs. Interviewees said a national council should not be concerned with micro‐managing operational issues or get drawn into regional controversy. Yet some suggested the national council could have a

7 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 147 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

conflict resolution role for the LCC network. Several stated that LCCs should not pick or use a specific management approach from any one agency.

One DOI leader noted that addressing climate change, determining national conservation goals and priorities, and coordinating funding was beyond the purview of a national council for the LCCs. It required coordination at the highest levels of leadership across the multiple landscape‐scale initiatives. Nevertheless, this individual saw a role for the LCC national council in providing top‐level leadership with input and advice on policy issues.

How might a national council be structured? Who should participate in it?

Key points: • Size: When discussing structure of a national council, size was a consistent issue. The “not too big but totally representative” challenge was expressed by many, but few had substantive suggestions to solve the challenge. One proposed suggestion to bridge the challenge was to divide the network of LCCs into four distinct regions and have representatives from each region selected by the region’s LCCs and assigned to the national council to represent that region’s needs and interests. However, a few national partners, primarily states or state associations, suggested that all LCCs should have a representative on the national council, even while admitting it would make the council unwieldy. • Representation: By and large, all respondents recommended representation should include tribes, states, national‐level NGOs, LCCs, and industry. There were diverging opinions as to whether academics, scientists, and local level organizations that do not have national representation should be included. Balancing the size versus representation issue will be a significant challenge in order to achieve buy‐in and avoid establishing a council of such a size that it can accomplish little more than ongoing discussion. Although all those interviewed felt the council should not be directive, some DOI respondents suggested federal representation should be at the assistant director level to demonstrate commitment and bring decision‐authority to the council. An interesting suggestion from a few respondents was that representatives should be highly‐placed but more importantly, should be champions for landscape‐scale conservation who bring needed vision and clarity to the effort. An important DOI observation was if bureau heads are members, but they begin to send lower‐ level surrogates instead of themselves, they have lost faith in the council being productive and/or effective. • Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA): FACA questions emerged fairly frequently, mostly from NGOs and federal respondents. Some believed that establishing the body under FACA was clearly required; others worried that it could add complexity and rigidity to the process. Most who raised the concern recognized that until the mission and composition of the council was established, the FACA question could not be resolved. This issue will need to be carefully considered as the national council structure is determined. Establishing the national council under FACA could institutionalize the notion that the council is a federal agency construct, designed to advise the federal government on LCC issues, not a national‐level partnership. This could very likely increase the tension and the defensiveness of individual LCCs striving to maintain their self‐directed identity. If chartered under FACA, the mechanisms for bringing issues to the national council and communicating national council

8 | Page 148 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

recommendations through the federal agency to LCCs would need to be very carefully developed in conjunction with all the LCCs and the national council. • Advisory or Brain Trust: Some DOI leaders and national partners pondered whether a council should be structured to be an advisory body to DOI or to be more of a “brain trust” and a place to capture best practices, look broadly at the issues of landscape conservation, and provide a space for dialogue, sharing and learning, with no clear consensus emerging or expected. They expressed concern that there does not seem to be a collective definition of landscape‐scale conservation. They noted there was a significant lack of awareness, coordination and collaboration among the many landscape‐scale efforts currently underway, and suggested a national council could perhaps fill that significant void. • Meeting Frequency and Locations: Suggestions about frequency and location of meetings were varied with only two clear themes emerging: 1) the structure should be as inclusive as possible and 2) all meeting locations and schedules should be coordinated and contiguous with other significant meetings so as to minimize travel expenses and maximize participation. • Coordination with Climate Science Centers (CSCs): Although unaccompanied by suggested solutions, one key structural issue mentioned was the need for cross‐coordination with the CSCs, and clarity and connection of the LCC national council and the CSC’s Federal Advisory Committee Act national committee, including mission, participants in common, and collaboration in meeting schedule and topics. • Resources and Staffing: A consistent theme across all respondents was the need for significant and consistent support for a national council in terms of resources and staffing. Some suggested an executive director‐type position was needed, while others thought the current FWS National LCC Coordinator could staff the council. Regardless of how the staffing support is provided, all who mentioned it, both within and outside DOI, said that the support could not be a “side job” or additional responsibility; it needed to be a dedicated position.

Are there barriers that would inhibit the success of a national council? DOI leaders and national partners expressed concerns regarding the overall success of the LCC National Council, and the LCCs in general. Nearly all interviewees cited barriers, many of which were related to the council’s purpose and goals and a consistent call for clarity and focus. The barriers stated typically revealed the underlying concerns that had already emerged, including; • Self‐directed vs. top‐down tension. • Representative and inclusive partnership at the national level. • Diverting funding from the local LCCs or from agency or organizational missions.

Key points: • In addition to those concerns already noted, some DOI leaders were very concerned about the success of a national council and, more importantly, the entire LCC effort, if leaders at the highest level of federal government do not come “Right now we have 1,000 points together and establish a coordinated and of light on climate change. We collaborative approach to landscape‐scale need to tighten our focus.” conservation and climate change. They expressed certainty that leadership needed to be able to

9 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 149 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

prove that landscape‐scale conservation is a better, more effective and efficient way to address broad‐scale conservation challenges. While this barrier may be beyond the achievable scope of a national council, it may pose a fundamental roadblock to the success of a national council if not addressed. • DOI leaders and national partner interviewees also stated a concern that the LCC initiative has resulted in redirection of resources from the field or from other important local, regional or landscape‐scale initiatives. Given the current funding picture, and the reality that budget cuts are almost inevitable, this perception will likely persist, or even gain strength, if a national council moves forward. In the short term, this perception could undermine important partners’ willingness to participate in the establishment of a national council, which may mean that key voices are not included. That, in turn, could jeopardize long‐term success, if parties who chose not to come to the table early, withhold their support or seek to sabotage the reputation or work of a national council. • A separate, but related concern was noted regarding how funding from DOI (or other agencies) comes to the LCCs, and what controls or expectations are placed on them. Funds that come with individual bureau expectations of the LCCs, can, in actuality or perception, undermine the locally‐driven determination of LCC priorities, work plans and even partner participation. Funding agencies or bureaus must find a way to balance the need for funding accountability with the need for maximum flexibility in allocating resources to an LCC’s self‐identified priorities. This demonstrates another need for a national council to establish success metrics to which funding agencies can peg their expectations while allowing LCCs maximum flexibility. • Many national partners voiced concern about the perception that a DOI bureau was “driving” the agenda(s) or priorities of the LCCs it “stood “We need coordination at a national up.” This perception is likely to persist unless level that’s not just the FWS, but other careful attention is paid to the way bureaus agencies.” engage with the LCCs they “support”, including funding and/or providing staff. • NGOs worried that the council will lack diversity, but also noted that their resources to participate are stretched extremely thin, and they would be reluctant to participate unless it appeared the national council would make significant impacts. States feared a command and control approach from the federal government, and want a clear articulation of what they stand to gain from their participation. However, they are also concerned about the consequences of not participating. Tribal representatives questioned the sincerity of desire for their full participation and expressed concerns about the ability to participate without funding support. DOI leaders expressed concern over a bureaucratic and cumbersome council that could be ineffective and expensive.

The repetition of these concerns – whether as council goals, roles, issues, barriers, or structural suggestions – continues to highlight the significant and challenging expectations that will be placed on a national council. In the eyes of this group of respondents, a national council must define the overarching LCC mission, clarify the value, identify the outcomes, demonstrate success, and make the LCCs worth the time and investment. It should help to prioritize efforts, but not get in the way of the regional needs and perspectives. It must provide clear direction from high‐level leadership, but it must not be DOI or other federal agency‐driven.

10 | Page LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 150 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Recommendations

“If LCCs are going to endure – they have to be able to articulate what they have done to enhance conservation at multiple scales. In order to say that, they have to have some commonality in how to define success, what the outcomes are, and what we measure. We have trouble articulating successes and goals at a national level. It’s a collective failure of being able to talk about conservation at this scale. That’s a key role for the national level body.”

As stated in the introduction to this assessment, conservation partnerships are being established at multiple levels, across multiple organizations – including within and outside the federal government. National leaders of tribes, states, non‐governmental organizations and industry are being invited to participate in these many efforts. To bring the needed clarity of purpose for landscape‐scale conservation, as well as define goals, priorities and measures of success needed for the LCCs, leadership at the highest levels in the federal agencies will need to coordinate with each other and their partners across these multiple initiatives. Coordination at this level is also critical for aligning priorities and funding across agencies and building public‐private partnerships to support landscape‐scale efforts.

In addressing the role of a national body for the LCCs, leaders within DOI are not always clear about what is and should be the federal government’s role in landscape conservation. National partners question how and when to participate; what will bring the most benefit, address the issues most effectively and ultimately result in improved conservation. All wonder about the connective tissue for landscape‐scale conservation from policy to science to field activities.

A clear and unequivocal message from all those interviewed was that the national council should not be established as a body to give direction to the self‐governing LCCs. What should the role of the national council be if they do not give direction? What value can the council bring to the LCCs and to landscape conservation? These are the questions our recommendations address.

Key Recommendations Based on Findings • National‐level coordination, including definition of landscape‐scale conservation, identification of clear outcomes and role of the LCC network, should be a key initial focus of the national council. • The process for convening the council should be open, inclusive and adaptive. • The national council structure should be broadly inclusive and representative of all potential interests and constituencies. • Goals and roles of the national council should be nationally focused, champion landscape‐level conservation, and provide clarity and focus to the LCC network while respecting and supporting self‐governing and self‐directed LCC partnerships. • DOI should consider addressing internal barriers to the success of individual LCCs, a national council, and landscape‐scale conservation in general.

11 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 151 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Detailed Recommendations National level coordination • National coordination of landscape‐scale conservation initiatives and of the LCCs emerged as a key challenge to be addressed and one that we recommend should be an early focus of the national council. Some ways the council might address national coordination would be to explore how LCCs fit into the national picture, to seek a common definition of landscape‐scale conservation, or to consider how landscape‐scale conservation is to be assessed and success measured on a consistent basis. • The multitude of different landscape‐level efforts in which federal agencies and other partners are seeking participation by tribes, states and national partners is another challenge the council should tackle. Additionally, the challenge of answering the frequently heard question – what value is being provided by the LCCs – should be taken on by the national council. Ways the council could address these challenges could include taking a role in identifying and delineating the different landscape‐scale initiatives; seeking to add clarity to a catalog of different landscape‐ scale efforts; or by aiming to tie the LCC network’s goals and purpose to a more common, national understanding of the value of landscape‐scale conservation.

Proposed structure of the national council • We recommend the national council include very broad representation of constituents across all levels of the public and private sectors in order to address the lack of trust and buy‐in that surfaced during the assessment. Potential categories of representation could include: Senior level federal agency leaders, both within and outside of DOI, who can commit resources, are visionary and can effect change. Tribal and state governments – either through national organizations, such as the Native American Land Conservancy, or American Fish and Wildlife Association, or direct representatives from tribal or state governments. NGOs with national organizations and representatives. LCC Steering Committee chairs (at least six). Representatives from academia, industry, and private landowners. • The national council will face significant challenges with non‐federal participation and development of national partner trust. Concerns of top‐down or dictatorial federal involvement or infringement on states’ individual authorities may inhibit full participation. One way to address this would be to consider tribal, state or NGO involvement in council leadership. • Another issue we recommend the national council deal with is the perception that DOI or one of its bureaus is the driver of the LCC effort. A potential strategy to reduce this perception could be for the council to be underwritten by as many of the partners as possible to demonstrate collaborative partnerships and investment. • Clear and improved communications between agencies and LCCs and between LCCs was deemed essential to the success of the LCC network and the national council. We recommend the national council consider what means and methods it will use to support improved communications. A dedicated website, email address, contact person, webinars, distribution of interim updates, issue papers, etc. are only a few of the possibilities.

12 | Page 152 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

• Many interviewees noted the national council will need dedicated staff to ensure its work is clearly guided and scheduled, and accountability is preserved. We recommend this discussion occur early in the formation of a council.

Proposed process for establishing the national council • Establishment of a national council that can address the critical tensions identified in this assessment will be a significant undertaking. We recommend DOI convene a strategy team whose membership represents the diverse array of partners who have demonstrated strong interest and willingness to tackle these challenges. We recommend this group address the following key issues: Who should convene a national council? How can a national council be fully representative without size being a significant stumbling block? How can a national council provide guidance and consistency to a network of LCCs that are self‐directed and self‐governing? Should a national council be chartered under FACA? What should be the mission of a national council, as informed by the assessment findings? What roles should a national council fill, as informed by the assessment findings – advocacy, national priority‐setting, seeking funding, etc.? Potential ways to address these key issues could include meeting in a workshop to develop recommendations for each of these issues; developing an overall recommendation by way of a straw man charter; or develop a suite of different alternatives for convening and chartering a national council. • As a strategy group struggles with the oft‐mentioned dilemma of a fully representative council that is not too large in size, one option could be to consider a phased approach to the council size and representation. It may be that seat rotation, organizational rotation, and other structural mechanisms could maximize representation with fewer representatives at some point in the national council’s development. • Regardless of how a strategy group decides to proceed, we recommend it consider and decide if and how broadly it will seek input on its recommendations from potential partners. The group will have to wrestle with how much involvement is needed in the convening of the national council to set the stage for inclusivity and demonstrate a commitment to partnering, not directing. Means for seeking input span a wide continuum and include: Broadly share the group’s recommendations as they are developed and seek and consider input. Request input from a few key partners and then convene and charter a council based on that input. Develop a fully‐fleshed out charter package and advise national partners of the impending convening process.

Goals and roles of the national council Goals that have the most support across the national partners and within DOI revolve around consistency of vision and mission and the need to provide clarity and vision without attempting to

13 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 153 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

drive the operation or governance of individual LCCs. The roles assumed by the council could help to strike a balance of allowing self‐directed LCCs to determine their own path while remaining within the parameters developed in partnership at the national level. Such a role could enable the council to provide guidance on shared national priorities and an overarching vision that the LCCs cannot provide, as their primary focus must be on their regional collaborative efforts. These goals and roles could include: Potential goals: Develop a crisp and focused vision and mission for the LCC network. Articulate shared outcomes of the LCCs and support collaboration across geographies. Develop a shared set of national priorities for landscape‐scale conservation. Collaborate and coordinate seamlessly with the USGS Climate Science Centers network. Potential roles: Serve as a champion for landscape‐scale conservation and for the LCC network. Advocate for the LCCs and share their success stories within federal agencies and Congress. Seek sustainable funding for the LCC network. Provide guidance to the LCC network regarding national landscape‐scale conservation initiatives, opportunities and challenges, regional (cross‐LCC) collaboration opportunities, and developing or emerging issues of national or regional importance.

DOI internal barriers We recommend the DOI consider addressing barriers that were mentioned by interviewees. These barriers were discussed in association with how the department’s organizational structure supports landscape‐scale coordination and collaboration. As identified by numerous interviewees, an opinion (real or perceived) that a particular bureau is the owner or driver of the LCC effort is counter‐ productive to successfully working in partnership across the department and with regional and national partners in addressing landscape‐scale issues and supporting the LCC network. Restrictions on LCC funding due to a bureau’s specific mission(s) may inhibit the collaborative and self‐directed nature of an LCC. Different bureaus may have varying levels of understanding of the unique nature and value of cross‐boundary collaboration.

Final Note The LCC Coordinators were informed about the National LCC Network Assessment and its purpose and objectives. They requested the opportunity to provide their feedback and input into the assessment. While not included in the assessment findings, their input includes many of the key themes and concerns heard from DOI and national level partners, particularly regarding the clarity of vision and mission, avoiding undermining the self‐directed nature of the LCCs, and ensuring that governance and operational issues remain at the local LCC level.

Some of their suggestions are very specific and reflective of the intrinsic value of going to the field to seek input. For example: • Use the term “continental” rather than “national” (e.g. national network, national council) so as to be inclusive of our Canadian and Mexican partners.

14 | Page 154 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

• Be open to adaptation. The council should be a reflection of the LCCs – a self‐directed entity and driven by needs of partnership or connection at a larger level. • Serve as a clearinghouse of best practices and approaches to novel issues. Just as LCC steering committees provide a regional forum for collaboration, the national [continental] council could do the same at the national [continental] level. Examples of organizations fulfilling such a role include the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Trout Unlimited.

In general, the LCC coordinators supported establishment of a national council, with many of the same suggestions regarding goals and roles as was gleaned from the formal assessment. We recommend the inclusion of their input and recommendations in subsequent steps of the convening process.

15 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 155 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Appendix A. Interview Questions

Interview purpose 1. The main goals of this assessment are: a) To gather input for the development of an LCC National Council. b) To understand how a coordinating body could best help you/your organization.

Project knowledge and background 2. Are you familiar with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and have you had a chance to review what we sent you?

Involvement with LCCs 3. How involved are you/your organization with the LCCs and what does this involvement entail?

LCC National Council purpose 4. How would you describe your vision for an LCC National Council? Or in other words, what does a successful LCC National Council look like to you? 5. What do you think should be the purpose of a LCC National Council? 6. We have identified two goals for the Council: to engage partners at the national level, and to improve coordination within and across partner organizations. What additional goals would you like to see the LCC National Council achieve? 7. Is there any way, apart from an LCC National Council, to get these goals fulfilled with a degree of certainty? 8. What types of issues might an LCC National Council address? a) Are there types of issues that an LCC National Council should not address? 9. What opportunities do you see for an LCC National Council?

LCC National Council structure 10. Do you have any suggestions on how to develop a streamlined approach for communication from multiple agencies to the LCCs and vice versa? a) Should that be a key role of an LCC National Council? 11. What are your ideas regarding an LCC National Council structure? 12. Do you have experience with another similar organization that would provide a good model? a) If so, which one(s)? 13. Who should be part of an LCC National Council? a) Do you see a role for your organization? 14. Are there barriers you see to an LCC National Council being successful? If so, what? 15. Do you see any barriers or challenges within your organization that influence or affect your willingness or ability to participate? Recommendations on how to address them?

Next steps 16. Would you like to be engaged in the development of an LCC National Council? a) Participate in strategy sessions b) Review draft recommendations c) Stay informed d) Other 17. Do you have any other thoughts / comments?

16 | Page

156 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Appendix B. DOI Interviewees

DOI Organization Interviewee Title Bureau of Indian Affairs William Walker Southwest Regional Director

Bureau of Land Management Carl Rountree Director, National Landscape Conservation System Bureau of Land Management Ed Roberson Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning Bureau of Reclamation Mike Connor Commissioner

Department of the Interior Elizabeth Klein Counselor to the Deputy Secretary

Land and Minerals Management Marcilynn Burke Acting Assistant Secretary

National Park Service Jonathan Jarvis Director

National Park Service Leigh Welling Climate Change Coordinator

National Park Service Gary Machlis Science Advisor to the Director

Office of Policy Analysis Joel Clement Director

Policy Management and Budget Rhea Suh Assistant Secretary

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Daniel Ashe Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Greg Siekaniec Deputy Director for Policy

U.S. Geological Survey Suzette Kimball Deputy Director

U.S. Geological Survey Anne Kinsinger Director, Ecosystems

U.S. Geological Survey Matt Larsen Associate Director, Climate and Land Use Change

17 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 157 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Appendix C. National Partner Interviewees

Partner Organizations Interviewee Title Alaska Department of Fish and Game Doug Vincent‐Lang Coordinator

Arizona Game and Fish Department Larry Voyles Director

Association of Fish and Wildlife Ron Regan Executive Director Agencies Audubon Society Greg Butcher Director

Ducks Unlimited Rebecca Humphries Director

Illinois Department of Natural Mark Miller Director Resources Intertribal Agricultural Council Ross Racine Executive Director

Intertribal Timber Council Don Motanic Technical Specialist

Kamehameha Schools Ulalia Woodside Regional Assets Manager

Massachusetts Department of Fish and John O'Leary Comprehensive Wildlife Wildlife Conservation Strategy Coordinator Michigan State University Dr. Kyle Pows Whyte Associate Professor

National Association of Counties Lenny Eliason President

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Roger Griffis Climate Change Coordinator Administration National Recreation and Park Barbara Tulipane CEO Association National Water Resources Association Wade Noble President

National Wildlife Federation Bruce Stein Director

Native American Fish & Wildlife Society Fred Matt Executive Director

Native American Land Conservancy Dr. Kurt Russo Director

New York Department of Environmental Patricia Riexinger Director Conservation North Carolina Wildlife Resources Mallory Martin Executive Director Commission

18 | Page

158 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.7 National Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network: Assessment Findings and Recommendations

Partner Organizations Interviewee Title North Dakota Game and Fish Steve Dyke Conservation Supervisor Department Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Ed Carter Executive Director

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Carter Smith Executive Director

The Nature Conservancy Christy Plumer Director, Federal Lands Program

The Nature Conservancy David Mehlman Director, Migratory Bird Program

The Wildlife Society Michael Hutchins Executive Director

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chip Smith Office of Assistant Secretary to the Army U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Anne Neale Landscape Ecology Scientist

U.S. Forest Service Cal Joyner Director

U.S. Forest Service David Cleaves Director

U.S. Forest Service Jim Pena Acting Deputy Chief for NFS

Virginia Department of Game and Dave Whitehurst Director, Bureau of Wildlife Inland Fisheries Resources Western Governors' Association Madeleine West Program Manager Wildlife Council

19 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 159 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

DOI and National Partners LCC National Council Assessment

Key Findings and Recommendations

National Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network Coordination

Presented by Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues Maggie McCaffrey, USU.S. Institute December 2, 2011

Introduction

 Assessors ‐ Neutral Facilitation Team:

 Penny Mabie, EnviroIssues (Seattle, WA)

 Marsha Bracke, Bracke & Associates (Boise, ID)

 Maggie McCaffrey, U.S. Institute  Neutral Services Through:

 Interagency agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute)

 Contract between the U.S. Institute and EnviroIssues to provide neutral services in support of developing a broad‐based National LCC Network and Leadership

160 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Purpose of the Assessment

 To gggauge pre‐existing knowledgg,e, challenges and level of support for an LCC National Council  To identify an effective approach for leadership and direction of an LCC National Council and coordination with the Climate Science Centers  To identify common understandings and potential goals for an LCC National Council  To inform a proposed framework that meets the needs of all in order to work together effic ient ly

MethodsMethods

 Phone interviews with 16 leaders within the Department of the Interior whose responsibilities would cause them to have interaction with LCCs  Phone interviews with 33 national leaders who reflect key interests and perspectives regarding LCCs including:  Federal agencies  Tribes  States  NGOs

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 161 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Awareness and support for LCCs and/or a natilional council Purpose, goals and roles Issues to address / not address Structure Barriers to long term success

Awareness and Support for LCCs and a National Council

 Broad awa re ness o f LCCs across ttehe spectru m  Vagueness about relevance, leadership and mission for LCCs  Uncertainty about expected outcomes of LCCs and of a national council  Wide‐ranging support for creation of a national council to address vision, mission, and outcomes – to demonstrate value

162 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Purpose, Goals & Roles for a National Council

No clear consensus on setting national priorities or goals:  National priorities are needed to add consistency, commonality and a national voice for conservation (NGO concern)  National priorities could result in dictating priorities or management decisions (State concern)  National priorities should emerge from the LCCs  Top down national priorities could help achieve needed consistency between LCCs

Purpose, Goals & Roles for a National Council (cont’d)(cont d)

 Should not micro‐manage or attemp t to dictate to the LCCs (outside DOI)  Complete the national LCC network (inside DOI)  Common to all:  Coordinate and communicate to support a cohesive purpose  Articulate shared outcomes; support collaboration across geographies  Advocate for LCCs; share success stories

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 163 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Purpose, Goals & Roles for a National Council (cont’d)(cont d)

 Manag ing tethe ten si on betwee n self‐directed LCCs aadnd a need for an integrated, interdependent network will be a significant and essential challenge for a national council  Establishing governance, mission, membership, roles and purpose w ill all be didriven by an d success will be defined by the balancing of this significant concern

Issues to Address/Not Address

 Clim ate ccagehange – no conse nsus wheth er coun cil shou ld drive climate change as a focus  LCC regional boundaries – no consensus whether national council should provide guidance and arbitrate:  Some states concerned that boundaries should be addressed at the local level  Funding – concerns with council exerting control:  Some partners concerned LCCs end up competing for funding  Concern with redirecting funds from field, other initiatives

164 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Issues to Address/Not Address (cont’d)(cont’d)

 Avoid issues that would undermine the independent and self‐directed nature of the individual LCCs (consensus)  Consider leaving issues that may be beyond the purview of a national council to coordination at the highest levels of leadership across multiple landscape‐ scale initiatives:  Climate change  National conservation goals/priorities  Funding coordination

Structure for a National Council

 SSeize – not too bbgig but fuyully represe ntat iv e  Representation – Federal, tribes, states, national‐level NGOs, LCCs (all or some), and industry  Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) – Needs to be determined; pros and cons identified  Resources and staffing – Dedicated staff and resources  Climate Science Centers (CSC) – Ensure cross‐ coordination and efficient participation

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 165 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Barriers to Long‐‐term Success

 Barriers consistently heard and critical to address:  Self‐directed vs. top‐down tension  Representative, inclusive pppartnership at the national level  Diverting funding from local LCCs or organizational missions  Lack of nationally coordinated and collaborative approach to ldlandscape‐scale conservat ion and c limate ch ange (DOI and national partners)  Perception of DOI or particular bureau driving agendas or priorities of the LCCs (national partners)  Ability / willingness to commit resources to national council balanced with potential consequences of not participating 13

Barriers to Long‐‐term Success (cont’d)(cont’d)

 Barriers represent a sig nificant need and desire for national council to define:  Overarching mission  Clarify value  Identify outcomes  Demonstrate success without getting in the way of regional needs/perspectives  Council must provide clear direction from high‐level leadership but must not be DOI or other federal agency‐driven

166 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

National Level Coordination National Council Structure Establishing a National Council Goals & Roles of a National Council DOI Internal Barriers

National Level Coordination

 Fundamental recommendations:  Focus initially on national‐level coordination, including definition of landscape‐scale conservation and identification of clear outcomes and role for LCC network  Other options:  Explore how LCCs fit into the national picture  Seek a common definition of landscape‐scale conservation  Consider how landscape‐scale conservation could be consistently assessed and measured  Identify/catalogue ongoing landscape‐scale initiatives  Add clarity to different landscape‐scale efforts  Tie LCC network’s goals and purposes to a more common, national

understanding of the value of landscape‐scale conservation 16

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 167 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

National Council Structure

 Fundamental recommendation:  Broad representation across all levels of public and private sector  Other options:  Consider tribal, state or NGO involvement in council leadership to address fears of federal dominance  Seek broad sponsorship of council across federal and national partners  Adopt multiple and transparent means and methods to improve communications cross‐network  Consider dedicating staffing and support to demonstrate commitment and accountability 17

Establishing a National Council

 Fundamental recommendations:  Convene a strategy team representative of the array of partners strongly interested and willing to tackle the foll ow ing key issues an d ch all enges:

 Who convenes the council

 Size vs. representation

 Providing guidance and consistency without being directive

 Appropriate mission of a national council

 Roles a national council should assume

168 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Establishing a National Council (cont’d)(cont’d)

 Other options:  Develop a straw man charter that addresses the key issues and challenges  Consider a phased approach to size and representation; potentially downsizing based on development of trust and commitment to the national council over time  Consider how broadly to involve the conservation community in establishing a national council

Goals and Roles of the National Council

 Fundamental recommendations:  Establish goals that revolve around consistency of vision and mission and the need to provide clarity and vision without attempting to drive operation or governance of individual LCCs  Assume roles that strike a balance of allowing LCCs to determine their own path while remaining within parameters developed in partnership at the national level

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 169 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

Goals and Roles of the National Council (cont’d)

 Other 0ptions:  Develop a crisp and focused vision and mission for the LCC network  Articulate shared outcomes of the LCCs; support collaboration across geographies  Develop a shared set of national priorities for landscape‐scale conservation  Collaborate and coordinate seamlessly with the USGS Clima te SSicience CtCenters netktwork

Goals and Roles of the National Council (cont’d)

 Optional roles:  Serve as a champion for landscape‐scale conservation and for the LCC network  Advocate for the LCCs and share their success stories within federal agencies and Congress  Seek sustainable funding for the LCC network  Provide guidance to the LCC network regarding national landscape‐scale conservation initiatives, opportunities and challenges, regional (cross‐LCC) collaboration opportuniti es, and deve liloping or emerging issues of national or regional importance 22

170 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment 1.1.8 Presentation: Key Findings and Recommendations - DOI and National Partners Assessment

DOI Internal Issues

 Fundamental recommendation:  Consider addressing (perceived or real) internal issues noted as inhibiting de partmental support for landscape‐ scale coordination and collaboration  Other options:  Consider assessing structural mechanisms such as bureau assignments or mission‐associated funding restrictions to determine if unintended barriers exist and if so, seek to reduce them

DOI and National Partners LCC National Council Assessment

National Landscape Conservation Cooperative Networ k Coor dinati on

For more information, contact: Penny Mabie, [email protected] Maggie McCaffrey, [email protected]

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 171 1.2 Council Member Information

1.2.1 Council list 1.2.2 Council member biographies

172 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.2.1 Council list

List of Council Members List of Council Members Name List of Council MembersTitle Organization Term List of Council Members List of Council Name MembersTitle Organization Term Federal Name Participants Title Organization Term EdFederal Name Roberson Participants TitleAssistant Director, Organization Bureau of Land Management Term Permanent Name Ed Federal Roberson ParticipantsTitle RenewableAssistant Director, Resources and BureauOrganization of Land Management Permanent Term FederalEd Roberson Participants RenewablePlanningAssistant Director, Resources and Bureau of Land Management Permanent EdDr. RobersonMark Schaefer AssistantPlanningRenewable SecretaryDirector, Resources for and NationalBureau of Oceanic Land Management and Atmospheric Permanent Federal ParticipantsDr. Mark Schaefer ConservationAssistantRenewablePlanning Secretary Resources and for and NationalAdministration Oceanic and Atmospheric Permanent Ed Roberson Dr. Mark SchaeferAssistant ConservationManagementAssistantPlanning Director, Secretary and for NationalAdministrationBureau Oceanic of Land and AtmosphericManagement Permanent Permanent Dr. Mark Schaefer Assistant Secretary for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Permanent Jon Jarvis RenewableConservationDirectorManagement Resources and and NationalAdministration Parks Service Permanent JonMary Jarvis Wagner ConservationDirectorManagementAssociate Chief and NationalAdministrationUSDA Forest Parks Service Service Permanent MaryJonJason Jarvis WagnerWeller Planning DirectorManagementAssociateChief Chief NationalUSDA ForestNatural Parks Service Resources Service Permanent Dr. Mark SchaeferMaryJonJason Jarvis WagnerWeller Assistant DirectorAssociateChief Secretary Chief for NationalUSDAConservationNational ForestNatural Parks OceanicService ServiceResources Service and AtmosphericPermanent Permanent Mary Wagner Associate Chief USDA Forest Service Permanent JasonDan Ashe Weller Conservation ChiefDirector and USDAConservationUSAdministration Fish Natural and Wildlife ServiceResources Service Permanent JasonDan Ashe Weller ChiefDirector ConservationUSDAUS Fish Natural and Wildlife ServiceResources Service Permanent DanState Ashe Participants Management Director USConservation Fish and Wildlife Service Service Permanent Jon Jarvis State DanMarc Ashe ParticipantsMiller Director Director USIllinoisNational Fish Department and Wildlife Parks of Service Service Natural ThreePermanent year Permanent MarcState(midwest) ParticipantsMiller Director IllinoisResources Department of Natural Three year Mary Wagner Marc(midwest)MalloryState MillerParticipants Martin Associate DirectorChief Chief Deputy Director ResourcesIllinoisNorthUSDA Carolina Department Forest Wildlife Service of Natural Resources ThreeTwo year year Permanent Jason Weller Mallory(midwest)(southeast)Marc Miller Martin Chief ChiefDirector Deputy Director NorthResourcesCommissionIllinoisUSDA Carolina Department Natural Wildlife ofResources Natural Resources TwoThree year year Permanent Mallory(southeast)David(midwest) K. Martin ChiefDirector, Deputy Bureau Director of Wildlife NorthCommissionVirginiaResourcesConservation Carolina Department Wildlife Service of ResourcesGame and TwoThree year year (southeast)DavidWhitehurstMallory K. Martin Director,ResourcesChief Deputy Bureau Director of Wildlife VirginiaCommissionInlandNorth CarolinaFisheries Department Wildlife of GameResources and ThreeTwo year year Dan Ashe DavidWhitehurst(northeast)(southeast) K. DirectorDirector,Resources Bureau of Wildlife VirginiaInland CommissionUS Fish Fisheries Department and Wildlife of Game Service and Three year Permanent Whitehurst(northeast)VacantDavid K. ‐ to be filled ResourcesDirector, Bureau of Wildlife Inland Virginia Fisheries Department of Game and ThreeTwo year year Whitehurst Resources Inland Fisheries State Participants(northeast)Vacantby the Council ‐ to be filled Two year Vacantby(northeast) the Council ‐ to be filled Two year Marc Miller byUS Vacant theFederally Council ‐ to beDirector Recognized filled Tribal Participants Illinois Department of Natural Two year Three year (midwest) TerryUSNameby theFederally Williams Council Recognized TitleFisheries Tribal Participantsand Natural OrganizationTulalipResources Tribes TermTwo year Name Title Organization Term Mallory MartinUSTerry Federally WilliamsChief Recognized DeputyFisheriesResources Tribal Director Participantsand Commissioner Natural TulalipNorth Tribes Carolina Wildlife ResourcesTwo year Two year Terry NonVacant NameUS Federally‐Government Williams ‐ to be Recognized filled Organization FisheriesTitle Resources Tribal ParticipantsParticipantsand Commissioner Natural Organization Tulalip Tribes TermTwo Three year year (southeast) Non byName Dr.VacantTerry the Gary‐Government Williams Council ‐ M.to beTabor filled Organization ResourcesTitleExecutive Fisheries Participantsand Director Commissioner Natural Organization CenterTulalipCommission Tribesfor Large Landscape Term ThreeTwo year year David K. NonVacantName Dr.by the Gary‐Government Council ‐ M.to beDirector,Tabor filled Organization Title SeekingExecutiveResources Bureau to Participants Director Commissionerenhance of Wildlife Organization CenterConservationVirginia for Large Department Landscape of GameTerm Three and year Three year Non byNameDr.LeslieVacant the Gary‐Government HoneyCouncil ‐ M.to beTabor filled Organization TitleExecutivegeographicViceSeeking President to Participants Director enhance diversity of of OrganizationCenterNatureServeConservation for Large Landscape TermTwoThree year year Whitehurst Non Dr.VacantLeslieby the Gary‐Government Honey Council ‐ M.to beResourcesTabor filled Organization ExecutivecandidateSeekingViceConservationgeographic President to Participants Director poolenhance diversity Services of of Center NatureServeConservationInland for Fisheries Large Landscape ThreeTwo year year (northeast) Dr. NonbyLeslieP.Vacant Lynnthe Gary‐Government Honey Council ‐ Scarlett M.to beTabor filled Organization ExecutiveManaginggeographicViceConservationcandidateSeeking President to Participants Director poolDirector,enhance diversity Services of Public of CenterNatureServeConservationThe Nature for Large Conservancy Landscape TwoThree year year by the Council geographic diversity of Vacant ‐ to beDr.LeslieP. filled Lynn Gary Honey Scarlett M. Tabor ExecutivecandidatePolicyManagingViceConservation President DirectorpoolDirector, Services of Public CenterNatureServeConservationThe Nature for Large Conservancy Landscape TwoThree year year Two year Jad LeslieP. Lynn Daley Honey Scarlett ClimatePolicyManagingViceConservationcandidate President Conservation Director,pool Services of Public The NatureServeConservation TrustNature for Conservancy Public Land ThreeTwo year year by the CouncilLeslieJadP. Lynn Daley Honey Scarlett ClimateProgramVicePolicyManagingConservation President Conservation Director Director, Services of Public TheNatureServe TrustNature for Conservancy Public Land ThreeTwo year year JadP. Lynn Daley Scarlett ClimateProgramConservationPolicyManaging Conservation Director Director, Services Public The TrustNature for Conservancy Public Land ThreeTwo year year

US Federally Recognized InternationalP.Jad Lynn Daley Scarlett Participants Tribal Managing ClimateProgramPolicy Participants Conservation Director Director, Public The TrustNature for Conservancy Public Land ThreeTwo year year International MadelineJad Daley L. Maley Participants Policy ExecutiveClimateProgram Conservation Director Director Regional TheBC Provincial Trust for PublicGovernment Land (Ministry Three year Terry Williams InternationalMadelineJad Daley L. FisheriesMaley Participants Climate ExecutiveOperationsProgram and NaturalConservation Director Director South Area Regional TheBCofTulalip Forests, Provincial Trust for TribesLands PublicGovernment and Land Natural (Ministry Three year Two year

InternationalMadeline L. ResourcesMaley Participants ProgramExecutiveOperations Commissioner Director Director South Area Regional BCofResource Forests, Provincial Operations) Lands Government and Natural (Ministry Three year

MadelineInternational Willy Kostka L. Maley Participants ExecutiveOperations Director South Area Regional BCofResourceMicronesia Forests, Provincial Operations) Lands Conservation Government and Natural Trust (Ministry Three year Vacant ‐ to be filled Three year MadelineInternationalWillyEric Schroff Kostka L. Maley Participants OperationsExecutiveDirector Director South Area Regional ofResourceBCMicronesiaYukon Forests, Provincial Government, Operations) Lands Conservation Government and Department Natural Trust (Ministry of ThreeTwo year year by the CouncilMadelineWillyEric Schroff Kostka L. Maley OperationsExecutiveDirector Director South Area Regional ResourceofBCMicronesiaYukonEcology Forests, Provincial Government, Operations) Lands Conservation Government and Department Natural Trust (Ministry of ThreeTwo year year Vacant ‐ to beWillyEricVacant filled Schroff Kostka‐ to be Seeking filled OperationsSeekingExecutiveDirectorto enhance Mexico Director South participation Area ofMicronesia ResourceYukonEcology Forests, Government, Operations) Lands Conservation and Department Natural Trust of Three Two year year Three year byVacant Council‐ to be filled Seeking Mexico participation Ecology by the CouncilWillyEric Schroff Kostka geographic ExecutiveDirector diversity Director of MicronesiaResourceYukon Government, Operations) Conservation Department Trust of ThreeTwo year year Ericby WillyVacant Council Schroff Kostka‐ to be filled DirectorSeekingExecutive Mexico Director participation Yukon EcologyMicronesia Government, Conservation Department Trust of Two Three year year IndigenousbyVacantEric Council Schroff‐ to be Participantcandidate filled SeekingDirector pool Mexico participation Ecology Yukon Government, Department of Two year VacantbyIndigenous Ulalia Council Woodside‐ to be Participant filled SeekingRegional Mexico Assets participationManager, KamehamehaEcology Schools Two year by UlaliaIndigenousVacant Council Woodside‐ to be Participant filled RegionalNaturalSeeking andMexico Assets Cultural participationManager, Kamehameha Schools Two year IndigenousUlaliaby Council Woodside Participant RegionalNaturalResources and Assets Land Cultural AssetsManager, Kamehameha Schools Two year IndigenousUlalia Woodside Participant RegionalDivision,NaturalResources and EndowmentAssets Land Cultural Manager,Assets Group Kamehameha Schools Two year Ulalia Indigenous Woodside Participant RegionalNaturalDivision,Resources and EndowmentAssets Land Cultural Manager,Assets Group Kamehameha Schools Two year LCCUlalia Participant Woodside NaturalResourcesDivision,Regional and EndowmentAssets Land Cultural AssetsManager, Group Kamehameha Schools Two year LCC Ken ParticipantMcDermond Division,ResourcesCoordinatorNatural and Endowment Land Cultural Assets Group South Atlantic LCC Two year LCCKen ParticipantMcDermond Division,CoordinatorResources Endowment Land Assets Group South Atlantic LCC Two year LCCKenMajor ParticipantMcDermond Partnerships ParticipantsCoordinatorDivision, Endowment Group South Atlantic LCC Two year LCCKenMajor Jeff RaaschParticipantMcDermond Partnerships ParticipantsCoordinatorWetland and Joint Venture SouthBird Habitat Atlantic Joint LCC Venture Two year Ken JeffMajorLCC RaaschParticipantMcDermond Partnerships ParticipantsCoordinatorWetlandProgram andLeader Joint Venture SouthBirdPartnership Habitat Atlantic Joint LCC Venture Two year MajorJeffKellyKen RaaschMcDermond Hepler Partnerships ParticipantsProgramWetlandChairmanCoordinator andLeader Joint Venture PartnershipBirdNationalSouth Habitat Atlantic Fish Joint Habitat LCC Venture Board Two year MajorJeffKelly Raasch Hepler Partnerships ParticipantsChairmanWetlandProgram andLeader Joint Venture NationalBirdPartnership Habitat Fish Joint Habitat Venture Board Two year Jeff AtKellyMajor Large Raasch Hepler Partnerships Participants Participants WetlandChairmanProgram andLeader Joint Venture BirdPartnershipNational Habitat Fish Joint Habitat Venture Board Two year KellyAtVacant Jeff Large Raasch Hepler ‐ Participantsto be filled ChairmanProgram Wetland andLeader Joint Venture PartnershipNational Bird Habitat Fish Joint Habitat Venture Board Two year Kelly byAtVacant Largethe Hepler Council ‐ Participantsto be filled Chairman Program Leader National Partnership Fish Habitat Board Two year AtVacantbyKelly Largethe Hepler Council ‐ Participantsto be filled Chairman National Fish Habitat Board Two year AtbyVacant Largethe Council ‐ Participantsto be filled Vacant byAt Largethe Council ‐ Participantsto be filled by Vacant the Council ‐ to be filled Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 173 Vacantby the Council ‐ to be filled byVacant the Council ‐ to be filled by the Council

1.2.2 Council member biographies Council Member Bios Federal Participants and Technology Foundation (2006-2007), president and CEO of NatureServe, a nonprofit conservation science organization (2000- Ed Roberson 2006), and director of the Washington Office of the Carnegie Bureau of Land Management Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (1989-1993). Ed Roberson was selected in August, 2007 Early in his career he was a congressional science fellow and later as the Assistant Director for Renewable an analyst in the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Resources and Planning. Prior to his Congress (1987-1989). He also served for several years as a staff selection he was the Las Cruces District member in the Office of Research and Development in the U.S. Manager. During his tenure as manager of Environmental Protection Agency (1977-1983). the Las Cruces District, Roberson oversaw the completion of the Schaefer served on the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Otero and Sierra Counties Fluid Minerals Resource Management of the National Research Council within the National Academy Plan Amendment. Roberson also serves on the BLM’s national of Sciences, and on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall budget strategy team. While in the Roswell Field Manager position, Foundation. For several years he taught an environmental policy Roberson was named 2001 BLM New Mexico Manager of the seminar for Stanford University’s Stanford in Washington program. year. His office received the 2002 President’s award by the Wildlife A biologist by training, he received a bachelor’s degree from the Management Institute. In his 34-year BLM career, he has served University of Washington, and a doctorate (neurosciences) from at the project, field, district, state, and national office levels of the Stanford University. Bureau. During his tenure as AD, Roberson has led several national initiatives including the National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy; the move of the BLM to a Landscape Approach to Jonathan Jarvis Conservation, Restoration and Development, including completion National Parks Service of numerous Ecoregional Assessments; the development of a Jonathan B. Jarvis began his career with the National Socio-Economic Strategic Plan; the Geospatial Services National Park Service in 1976 as a seasonal Strategic Plan; and a Wild Horse and Burro Strategy. Roberson interpreter in Washington, D.C. Today, has a Bachelor of Science in Business, and Masters of Urban and he manages that agency whose mission Regional Planning from Auburn University. He has been married to is to preserve America’s most treasured wife Mary for 33 years. landscapes and cultural icons. Jarvis’ 37-year career has taken him from ranger to resource Mark Schaefer management specialist to park biologist to superintendent of parks National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration such as Craters of the Moon, North Cascades, Wrangell-St. Elias, and Mount Rainier. Before being confirmed as the 18th Director of As Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the National Park Service on September 24, 2009, Jarvis served as Conservation and Management, Dr. Mark regional director of the bureau’s Pacific West Region. Schaefer is responsible for oceans and fisheries activities at the National Oceanic Today, he is responsible for overseeing an agency with more than and Atmospheric Administration. Throughout his career, he served 22,000 employees, a $3 billion budget, and 401 national parks that in a variety of positions in the federal government and private attract more than 280 million visitors every year who generate $30 sector including, most recently, as director of the U.S. Institute for billion in economic benefit across the nation. Environmental Conflict Resolution. The National Park Service brings the park idea to virtually every Schaefer previously served as deputy assistant secretary of the county in America. Grants from the Land and Water Conservation interior for water and science (1996-2000), acting director of the and Historic Preservation Fund help communities preserve local U.S. Geological Survey (1997-1998), and assistant director for history and create close-to-home recreational opportunities. Since environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive 1976, the Service’s tax credit program has leveraged more than Office of the President (1993-1996). He served for several years $60 billion in private investment in historic preservation to help as co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council’s revitalize downtowns and neighborhoods across the country. Ecological Systems Subcommittee, responsible for coordinating ecosystem science activities across federal agencies. In the Jarvis has also reinvigorated the National Park Service’s role as an private sector, Schaefer was CEO of the Global Environment international advocate for protected areas and recognized world leader in cultural and natural resource management.

174 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.2.2 Council member biographies

Managing the National Park Service on the eve of its centennial in and Scenic Rivers and served as Assistant Director for Recreation, 2016, Jarvis has focused on several key areas that are critical for Heritage, and Wilderness Resources. the future: enhancing stewardship of the places entrusted to the Service’s care; maximizing the educational potential of parks and Wagner was born in Monett, Missouri, and raised in southern programs; engaging new generations and audiences, and ensuring California, where her love for the outdoors grew in the San the welfare and fulfillment of National Park Service employees. Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. She graduated from Humboldt State University with a degree in Forest Management Jarvis speaks frequently about climate change, sustainability, the and received a Masters’ degree in Public Administration from the outdoors as a source of public health, and the parks as a unifying, University of Utah. inspirational force for the nation. His blueprint for the agency’s second century, A Call to Action, calls for innovative, ambitious, Jason Weller yet practical ways to fulfill the National Park Service’s promise to USDA Natural Resources Conservation America in the 21st century. Service Jason Weller has served as Chief of NRCS From a seasonal interpreter in the year of our nation’s bicentennial since July 2013. As Chief, he oversees to the head of an internationally known institution on the eve of its programs that help protect the environment, 100th birthday, Jarvis has gained a thorough knowledge of these preserve our natural resources and improve great American treasures, the national parks. agricultural sustainability through voluntary, private-lands “America’s National Park System is a gift from past generations conservation. He leads a staff of 11,500 employees across the to this and succeeding generations,” said Jarvis. “And while the country and manages a budget of about $4 billion. challenges we face today – like climate change, shrinking open From December 2012 to July 2013, Weller served as Acting Chief space, habitat destruction, non-native species, and air and water of NRCS. Before assuming this role, he served as Acting Associate pollution – could not have been imagined when this agency was Chief for Conservation and as Chief of Staff where he worked established in 1916, our mission remains the same: to preserve this alongside Chief Dave White and the agency’s national and state nation’s natural and cultural heritage, unimpaired for the enjoyment leaders to plan and implement strategic conservation initiatives and of this and future generations.” conduct the annual business operations of the agency.

Mary Wagner Prior to joining NRCS, Weller served as a staff member for the USDA Forest Service U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture where he Since assuming the position of Associate provided oversight and crafted bills to fund USDA programs and Chief for the Forest Service in January 2011, activities. He also served on the U.S. House Budget Committee Wagner has worked energetically on a wide where he helped construct the annual congressional budget for range of both external and internal issues for agriculture, environment and energy programs. Before that, Weller the agency. Her main priorities have involved worked with the White House Office of Management and Budget connecting people to their public lands through partnerships, where he assisted with the development and implementation of the restoration activities and connections with urban communities. budget for USDA conservation programs. Internally, she continues to work with Forest Service leadership on Before coming to Washington, DC, Weller worked for several finding ways to streamline and reduce agency operating costs while years with the California State Legislature where he provided providing a progressive, modern workplace that more closely reflects fiscal and policy recommendations on a variety of natural resource the civilian labor workforce. conservation and environmental protection issues. Wagner has spent 28 years with the Forest Service in a variety of Weller is a native of northern California. He earned his positions. Before becoming Associate Chief, Wagner served as undergraduate degree from Carleton College in Northfield, Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region in Portland, Ore. Minnesota, and a graduate degree in public policy from the She has spent more than 20 years in key leadership positions in the University of Michigan. Intermountain West, as deputy regional forester, forest supervisor on the Dixie National Forest in Utah; deputy forest supervisor on the

Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada; district ranger on the Carson Ranger District, Carson City, Nev.; and district ranger on the Vernal Ranger District in Utah. At the national headquarters level, she was the Forest Service’s first Director of Wilderness and Wild

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 175 1.2.2 Council member biographies

Daniel Ashe affairs, research coordination, and state grants-in-aid. During his US Fish and Wildlife Service tenure in this position, the Service restructured and broadened Daniel M. Ashe was confirmed on June 30, its communications programs and capacities, incorporating 2011 as the 16th Director of the U.S. Fish communications expertise into all of its program areas and and Wildlife Service, the nation’s principal employee training. The agency implemented a forward vision Federal agency dedicated to the conservation for Congressional relations, which led to several groundbreaking of fish and wildlife and their habitats. His legislative accomplishments, including enactment of the National appointment by President Obama is the culmination of a lifetime Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. spent within the Fish and Wildlife Service family. From 1982 until 1995, Ashe was a Member of the Professional Staff Ashe was born and spent his childhood in Atlanta, Georgia, where of the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in the his father began his 37-year career with the Service. Much of Ashe’s U.S. House of Representatives. In 13 years on Capitol Hill, Ashe childhood was spent on national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries served in several capacities, advising the Committee’s Chairmen in the Southeast, where he learned to band birds, fish, hunt and, and Members on a wide range of environmental policy issues, most importantly, simply enjoy the outdoors. including endangered species and biodiversity conservation, ocean and coastal resources protection, the National Wildlife Refuge Prior to his appointment as Director, Ashe served as the Service’s System, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, the Clean Deputy Director for Policy beginning in 2009, where he provided Water Act, wetlands conservation, fisheries management and strategic program direction and developed policy and guidance to conservation, and offshore oil and gas development. support and promote program development and fulfill the Service mission. Ashe’s journey to the Nation’s Capitol was made possible by the National Sea Grant College Program, in 1982, when he was Ashe also served as the Science Advisor to the Director of the Fish awarded a National Sea Grant Congressional Fellowship. and Wildlife Service. Appointed to this position in March, 2003, he advised the Service Director and provided leadership on science Ashe earned a graduate degree in Marine Affairs from the policy and scientific applications to resource management. As University of Washington, where he studied under a fellowship Science Advisor, Ashe led an organizational renaissance for science from the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation. His Master’s thesis, on and professionalism, leading the Service’s efforts to respond to estuarine wetland mitigation, was published in the Coastal Zone changes in the global climate system; shaping an agency agenda for Management Journal, in 1982. change toward a science-driven, landscape conservation business Ashe is very active in local civic affairs in Montgomery County, model; defining an agency Code of Scientific and Professional Maryland, where he and his family reside. He is an avid waterfowl Conduct; authoring new guidelines for scientific peer review hunter, angler and tennis player. Ashe’s father, William (Bill) C. and information quality; building state-of-the-art, electronic Ashe, also a career employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, literature access for employees; and reinstituting internal scientific retired in 1990, and now resides in Harvard, Massachusetts. publication outlets. He was also responsible for leading efforts to build stronger relationships with the U.S. Geological Survey, and scientific professional societies. State Participants From 1998 to 2003, Ashe served as the Chief of the National Marc Miller Wildlife Refuge System, directing operation and management of the Illinois Department of Natural 150 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Service’s Resources land acquisition program. During his tenure as Chief, the Refuge Marc Miller was appointed director of the System experienced an unprecedented and sustained period of Illinois Department of Natural Resources budget increases for operations, maintenance, construction and land (IDNR) by Governor Pat Quinn in February acquisition. The Refuge System also saw vastly expanded public 2009. Miller has focused on professional visibility, and partner and community involvement. Ashe also led management and science-based decision making at the IDNR, the Service’s migratory bird management and North American restoring communication with agency constituents, and working wetlands conservation programs from 1998 to 2000, contributing to with a broad-based coalition of natural resources supporters to win significant advances in both programs’ impact and effectiveness. approval of a sustainable funding initiative for the IDNR. From 1995 to 1998, Ashe served as the Fish and Wildlife Service’s During Miller’s tenure, the IDNR has developed new programs Assistant Director for External Affairs, where he directed the for youth involvement in outdoor activities, provided for increased agency’s programs in legislative, public, and Native American public access to outdoor recreation opportunities, and advanced

176 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.2.2 Council member biographies natural resources and recreation-based economic development and David Whitehurst job-creation programs. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Miller has served as Commissioner and State Delegation chair on David Whitehurst has 39 years of experience the Great Lakes Commission, has represented Illinois as a board with the Virginia Department of Game and member and committee chair with the Association of Fish and Inland Fisheries and 41 years of experience Wildlife Agencies, has served as president/board member of the as a fish and wildlife biologist. Whitehurst Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and serves as is currently Director of the Department’s Bureau of Wildlife chairman of the board of the Illinois Conservation Foundation. Resources. He has held a number of positions within the Department Miller has received numerous conservation and natural resources including Director of Fisheries, Funding Initiative Coordinator, awards from organizations including the Illinois Chapter of Ducks Deputy Director of Operations, and Director of the Wildlife Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Friends of Wildlife Prairie Park, Diversity Division for the Agency and has been active in legislative United Bowhunters of Illinois, Migratory Waterfowl Hunters, Inc., initiatives at the state and federal level. Whitehurst led the legislative and Friends of the Fox River. component for two major funding initiatives of the Department in 1994 and 1998 that provided significant new sources of funding Miller, who grew up in Mattoon, Illinois, received his B.A. in and was actively involved in the Wallop Breaux expansion and the Political Science from Eastern Illinois University and his M.A. CARA/State Wildlife Grants funding efforts. Whitehurst currently in Environmental Administration from the University of Illinois serves as Chair of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, as Springfield. Prior to joining the IDNR, Director Miller served as Chair of the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn as the Partners-in-Flight representative to the North American (June 2004-February 2009); Watershed Organizer for Prairie Rivers Bird Conservation Initiative, as a member of the Southeastern Network (May 1999-May 2004), and Environmental Compliance Conservation Adaptation Strategy and the Board of Directors for the Specialist/Intern for Kal Kan Foods, Inc. (May 1998-April 1999). Fishing Education Foundation/National Fishing in Schools Program. He also served as a research and production intern in the CNN Whitehurst has also served as President of the Southern Division of Environmental Unit in 1995 and as an intern/volunteer for the the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the President of the Fisheries Illinois Environmental Council in 1993-94. Administrators Section of AFS, and President of the Fisheries Management Section of AFS. He has received a number of awards Miller is an avid sportsman and conservationist, and enjoys and recognitions at the state, regional, and national levels including Illinois’ outdoors heritage. When time permits, he likes to fly the Coastal America Partnership Award from President Bush in fish; waterfowl, upland and deer hunt; shoot sporting clays, paddle 2004, the C.W. Watson Award from the Southeastern Association of canoes, bird watch and hike. Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Southeast Section of The Wildlife Society, and the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Mallory Martin Society in 2012, and the Seth Gordon Award from the Association of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Fish and Wildlife Agencies in 2013. Commission

Mallory G. Martin is Chief Deputy Director US Federally Recognized Tribal Participants of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. His primary responsibilities Terry Williams include oversight of the Wildlife Tulalip Tribes Management, Inland Fisheries, Law Enforcement, Conservation Education, and Engineering Services divisions of that agency. Terry R. Williams graduated with a BA in For more than two decades, Martin was a fisheries biologist and Law and Justice from Central Washington program supervisor for the Wildlife Resources Commission in University. He is currently Commissioner western NC. Martin holds degrees from NC State and VA Tech, and of the Treaty Rights Office for the Tulalip is certified as a Fisheries Scientist by the American Fisheries Society Tribes, and has exercised leadership over and as a Public Manager by the National Certified Public Manager the Fisheries and Natural Resources Department for 25 years. Consortium. He is a 2011 fellow of the National Conservation During that time Williams has also acted as Commissioner at Leadership Institute. the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Southern Panel Member of The Pacific Salmon Commission. Williams was on loan to EPA Headquarters in Washington DC in 1995 and 1996 acting as the first Director of the American Indian Environmental Office. Williams has held positions in the State of Washington on numerous

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 177 1.2.2 Council member biographies commissions and committees within forestry, agriculture and Puget Conservation. Tabor is a Henry Luce Scholar and a 2013 recipient Sound planning and recovery over the past 26 years. of one of two Australian American Fulbright Scholar awards in Williams is currently appointed to federal programs for review and Climate Change and Clean Energy. assessment. These programs include the National Environmental Policy Act, President’s Forest Plan, Secretarial Order on the Leslie Honey Endangered Species Act, Northwest Straits Commission, and NatureServe Federal Climate Advisory Teams. Leslie Honey, Vice President of Conservation Services at NatureServe has Williams has participated in negotiations and served on UW over 23 years experience in biodiversity delegations at the United Nations Convention on Biological conservation throughout the Western Diversity and the World Intellectual Property Organization for the Hemisphere. In her current role Honey past 15 years, advancing Tribal rights to and self-determination over advises government agencies, conservation organizations, and natural resources and traditional knowledge. private companies in natural resources and land use planning Williams work at the Tulalip Tribes focuses on tribal jurisdiction, at regional, national, and international scales. Honey oversees the advancement of tribal governance and the continued the management of a highly effective community of practice on sustainability of Tribal culture. ecosystem-based management, and has played an essential role in building cohesion within the NatureServe network for delivery of Non-Government Organization Participants highly-credible data, tools and expertise. In addition to her work at NatureServe, Honey currently serves on the Global Biodiversity Gary M. Tabor Information Facility Governing Board and the iMapInvasives Center for Large Landscape Executive Committee. Conservation Honey earned her Masters of Science in Environmental Science Gary M. Tabor, conservation biologist and Policy from Johns Hopkins University. Her master’s thesis and wildlife veterinarian, (B.Sc. Cornell, focused on water quality conditions and the resulting threats to V.M.D. U Penn, M.E.S. Yale) is Executive the South Florida ecosystem. Honey previously earned a B.A. in Director of the Center for Large Landscape Sociology from Northeastern Illinois University and a B.S. from Conservation based in Bozeman, Montana and has an appointment the University of Alaska, Anchorage where she conducted research at the University of Montana (the one in Missoula). Tabor has on the ecological succession at Portage, Byron, and Byrne Glaciers worked on behalf of large scale conservation internationally for over near Portage, Alaska, and was part of a scientific team analyzing 30 years with 12 years as a leader within the U.S. environmental the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the benthic community philanthropic community. Tabor has served as Program Officer of of Prince William Sound. the Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Associate Director of the Henry P. Kendall Foundation, and Yellowstone to Yukon Program Director for the Wilburforce Foundation. His work in P. Lynn Scarlett The Nature Conservancy philanthropy also includes the design of international conservation trusts for USAID, and the World Bank. Tabor’s conservation Former Deputy Secretary and Chief achievements include the establishment of Kibale National Park Operating Officer of the U.S. Department of in Uganda; establishment of the World Bank’s GEF Mountain the Interior, Lynn Scarlett is now Managing Gorilla Conservation Trust; co-founding the Yellowstone to Yukon Director for Public Policy at The Nature Conservation Initiative; pioneering the field of Conservation Conservancy (TNC). Prior to joining TNC, Medicine and Ecohealth and starting the Consortium of she was Co-director of the Center for Management of Ecological Conservation Medicine with Tufts Veterinary School, Harvard Wealth at Resources for the Future. She also co-chaired the Large Medical School and Ecohealth Alliance; co-designing the Western Landscape Conservation Practitioners’ Network. During her eight Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative; co-founding years at the Interior Department, Scarlett initiated a multi-agency Patagonia Company’s Freedom to Roam wildlife corridor campaign Cooperative Conservation Task Force and chaired the Department’s and co-founding the Roundtable of the Crown of the Continent Climate Change Task Force. She served on the Executive and the Practitioners’ Network for Large Landscape Conservation. Committee of the President’s Management Council and also co- Tabor serves on the boards of the Society for Conservation Biology chaired the First Lady’s Preserve America initiative on historic (eight years) and the Heart of the Rockies Land Trust collaborative. preservation. She is author or co-author of recent publications In 2007, Tabor received a leadership grant from the V. Kann on climate change adaptation; urban greening; large landscape Rasmussen Foundation to establish the Center for Large Landscape conservation; and science and decision making. Scarlett serves on

178 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.2.2 Council member biographies the National Research Council Sustainability Linkages Committee International Participants and their U.S. Global Change Research Program Committee. Scarlett received her M.A. in political science from the University Madeline L. Maley of California, Santa Barbara, where she also completed her Ph.D. BC Provincial Government (Ministry coursework and exams in political science. of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) Jad Daley Madeline Maley is the Executive Director The Trust for Public Land Regional Operations for the South Area of Jad Daley is the Director of The Trust the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural for Public Land’s Climate Conservation Resource Operations for the Province of British Columbia and Program, which he founded and has led since is located in Kamloops, British Columbia. Maley is a Registered its inception, and holds the endowed position Professional Forester, with undergraduate and graduate forestry of Martha Wyckoff Fellow. Daley coordinates degrees from Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario. The Trust for Public Land’s development of Climate Smart Cities Maley has held a number of operational positions within the and landscape-scale conservation initiatives targeted to climate provincial government focusing on operational programs such change objectives. This work integrates GIS planning, partnership as forest stewardship, research and forest health, compliance and facilitation, state and federal policy, and conservation transactions to enforcement, resource management, and strategic initiatives such as advance systems-level change in urban areas and natural landscapes. organization effectiveness, implementation of the proposed Water Sustainability Act, and strategic staffing/financial management. Daley also leads The Trust for Public Land’s climate policy efforts, including his role as founding co-chair of the Forest-Climate William Kostka Working Group and co-chair of the Landscape Practitioners’ Micronesia Conservation Trust Network Policy Working Group. Daley has also served on the William Kostka was born and raised on steering committees of the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation the island of Pohnpei, in the Federated Cooperative, Adaptation Coalition, Forests in the Farm Bill States of Micronesia (FSM). In 1998, he Coalition, and the Healthy Headwaters Working Group of Carpe helped found and became the first Board Diem West. Chairman and Executive Director of the Daley has a long history in strategic landscape conservation. From Conservation Society of Pohnpei, the leading local conservation 2000 to 2008, he led the 22-state Eastern Forest Partnership, a joint NGO in the nation. In 2002, Kostka also co-founded and currently federal policy effort among a “coalition of coalitions” all pursuing serves as Executive Director of the Micronesia Conservation Trust, large landscape efforts from Mississippi to Maine. In parallel during a charitable and irrevocable corporation organized to support that period, he helped to lead multi-state landscape conservation biodiversity conservation and related sustainable development for efforts in the Northern Forest of New England (2004-2008) and the people of Micronesia by providing long term sustained funding Highlands Region of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and and capacity building support. Kostka serves as Coordinator of Connecticut (2002-2004). In these roles he helped to author two the IUCN-WCPA Micronesia Program and also sits on the Pacific federal programs enacted within the 2008 Farm Bill, the Community Advisory Panel of the Global Green-grants Fund. In 2006, Kostka Forest and Open Space Conservation Program and Community became a Pew Marine Fellow and used his fellowship grant to help Wood Energy Program, led lobbying efforts to enact the federal launch and further the implementation of the Micronesia Challenge Highlands Conservation Act, and served as founding Chair of the Initiative, a common commitment by the countries and territories of Friends of Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Micronesia to a comprehensive system of resilient protected areas networks. This commitment will see at least 30% of the nearshore Daley is a graduate of Peddie School, Brown University, and marine and 20% of the forest resources across Micronesia under Vermont Law School where he earned an M.S.E.L. degree effective conservation by 2020. summa cum laude. He also has a long history as a competitive athlete, having represented the United States on four occasions in international duathlon (run-bike-run) competitions and twice finishing in the top 150 finishers in the New York City Marathon.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 179 1.2.2 Council member biographies

Eric Schroff Woodside holds Bachelor’s degrees in Political Science and Yukon Government, Department Hawaiian Studies, a Certificate in the Hawaiian Language, and of Ecology completed her graduate coursework in Urban and Regional Eric is the Director of Yukon Parks where Planning from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. In 2012, he is responsible for the management, Woodside completed all the requirements to become a certified operation, and maintenance of Yukon’s planner and member of the American Institute of Certified Planners wilderness parks and protected areas, (AICP). Heritage Rivers and an extensive network of campgrounds and recreation sites. Through local and national networks, Woodside has collaborated to advance the research and discourse of cultural ecosystem services In his prior role as Director of Yukon’s Climate Change Secretariat, and the unique relationship of indigenous peoples to natural Schroff was responsible for furthering Yukon Government’s resources management. She is a contributing author to a text book contribution to global climate change efforts and providing and several journal articles on ecosystem services through her leadership in the coordination of action on climate change. Schroff involvement with The Natural Capital Project case study for the served as Yukon government’s designee to the Federal-Provincial- InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) Territorial negotiating committees for national and international model, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and climate change discussions. Synthesis working group on cultural ecosystem services. Schroff has extensive public service and private sector experience In 2013 Woodside was appointed to serve a four year term on the in natural resource management, operations, conservation and State on Hawaiʻi Natural Area Reserves System Commission and business gained over 35 years of working and playing in forests and a two year term as the indigenous participant to the Landscape boardrooms in British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Washington Conservation Cooperative National Council. She is also a dedicated State and Yukon. supporter of Hawaiian bio-cultural landscapes and serves on the boards of Kauahea Inc., Lalakea Foundation and Kaʻupulehu Schroff has a BSc in Forest Management and a MSc in Forest Foundation, three organizations dedicated to the advancement of Planning and Administration, both from Oregon State University. Hawaiian cultural practices and the preservation of the Hawaiian relationship to the environment. Indigenous Participant LCC Participant Ulalia Woodside Kamehameha Schools Ken McDermond South Atlantic LCC Ulalia Woodside is currently the Regional Manager for Kamehameha Schools’ Ken McDermond is currently the Natural and Cultural Resources unit of the Coordinator for the South Atlantic Land Assets Division. Her responsibilities Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Prior include the land management of over to taking on this dream job, McDermond 200,000 acres on Hawaii, Oahu and Kauai. In addition, her team served as the Deputy Regional Director of is also responsible for the development and implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Southwest Region from programs to steward natural resources (Malama ‘Aina), and 2002 to 2010. McDermond led National Wildlife Refuge operations increase understanding and preservation of cultural resources (Wahi for four years as refuge chief for the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Kupuna) on the more than 340,000 acres of KS’ agriculture and Region, headquartered in Denver. McDermond has also served the conservation lands. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Division of Refuges in Washington, D.C. and worked as a biologist and later Refuge Manager for Woodside is a Kumu Hula completing the uniki (formal graduation) eleven years at the Pacific/Remote Island National Wildlife Refuge rites of her family’s genealogical hula tradition under the direction Complex in Hawaii. McDermond began his career as a biologist at of her maternal relatives. She also incorporates and continues Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge near Olympia, Washington in her training in the disciplines of Hawaiian cultural practices as a 1984. McDermond graduated with a B.S. in environmental sciences student of Lua; Hawaiian warrior arts. She was raised with strong from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, in 1984. native Hawaiian and conservation values instilled by her mother who was raised in a rural, subsistence Hawaiian life-way, and by her father, a recognized naturalist and wildlife manager for State and Federal government agencies.

180 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.2.2 Council member biographies

Major Partnerships Participants Kelly Hepler National Fish Habitat Board Jeff Raasch Kelly Hepler began working at ADF&G in 1979 Bird Habitat Joint Venture Partnership as a fisheries biologist and has held increasingly Jeff Raasch received a bachelor degree from complex positions throughout his career. Hepler Texas A&M University in Wildlife Ecology served as director of the Division of Sport Fish and a master degree from the University and, most recently, as a special assistant for the of Missouri - Columbia with an emphasis previous commissioner. He represents the department in numerous national on Wetlands and Waterfowl ecology and forums and is presently chair of the National Fish Habitat Board. Hepler is management. He worked for almost 5 years at Arkansas Game and a seasoned budget manager and has strong team and administrative skills Fish Commission developing and implementing the Arkansas Wetland that enable him to be a sound policy advisor. Hepler holds a B.S. in Fish Strategy as Coordinator of the Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team. and Wildlife Management from Montana State University. In February 2000, Raasch made the move to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) where he had responsibility for statewide wetland conservation issues. Over time his main job focus developed in to a unique position that allows him to represent TPWD in many different conservation partnerships. For well over a decade, Raasch have been directly involved in the five Joint Ventures (JV) that take in Texas and have played a direct role in helping get the four Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) started that include Texas. He currently sits on the Management Boards of the Lower Mississippi River, Gulf Coast, Oaks and Prairie and Rio Grande JVs and is the long time Chair of the Rio Grande and Gulf Coast JVs. Raasch oversaw the successful creation and development of the Oaks and Prairie and Rio Grande JVs conservation partnership and staff since their inception. Raasch has been deeply involved in the discussions and development of the LCCs at a national level. Raasch has participated in National LCC workshops and was invited to give a presentation on the State Perspective on LCCs at a Special Session of the North American Wildlife Conference. He played a leadership role (at the Steering Committee and Science Team levels) in helping the four Texas LCCs get off the ground and moving down a positive path, and continues to work to make sure TPWD’s involvement is value added. Raasch is a strong advocate for JVs and conservation partnerships and will work to demonstrate the strong linkages that have been forming across the country between LCCs and JVs and show how each is benefiting from the other for better science and conservation.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 181 1.3 Background Materials 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team Charter, Vision and Mission

1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team Charter, Vision and Mission

182 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions Conservation in Action November 2013 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Frequently Asked Questions

1) Why are Landscape Conservation 2) How did LCCs come about? and to facilitate efforts across and Cooperatives being established? In signing Secretarial Order No. 3289 among individual LCCs. Protecting North America’s natural on Sept. 14, 2009, Interior Secretary and cultural resources and landscapes Ken Salazar directed Department The role of an LCC partner is: to is essential to sustaining our quality of the Interior bureaus to stimulate define and share individual landscape- of life and our economy. Native fish the development of the LCC network scale priorities; to help shape a and wildlife species depend on healthy as a response to landscape-scale common landscape-scale conservation rivers, streams, wetlands, forests, stressors, including climate change. framework for science and conservation grasslands and coastal areas to thrive. The cooperatives are intended to work actions; and to provide feedback to Managing these natural and cultural interactively with DOI Climate Science the LCC on the effectiveness of LCC resources and landscapes, however, Centers to help coordinate regional products and approaches. has become increasingly complex. adaptation efforts. Land use changes and impacts 4) How do LCCs meet unfilled such as drought, wildfire, habitat While LCCs are integral to climate conservation needs? fragmentation, contaminants, pollution, change adaptation efforts, they are North America’s landscapes, and invasive species, disease and a rapidly not climate-centric. They will provide the fish, wildlife, plants and cultural changing climate can threaten human science support for conservation heritage they support, are increasingly populations as well as native species activities that address a variety of impacted by threats that affect more and their habitats. broad-scale land use pressures and than isolated places or single species. landscape-scale stressors—including They tend to threaten multiple Landscape Conservation Cooperatives but not limited to climate change— that resources and entire landscapes. Often, (LCCs) are public-private partnerships affect wildlife, water, land and cultural these threats are beyond the scope and composed of states, tribes, federal resources. reach of any one partner, partnership, agencies, non-governmental or program. LCCs provide a forum for organizations, universities and others. 3) What is the role of an LCC? partners and partnerships to integrate LCCs recognize these challenges The role of an individual LCC efforts. transcend political and jurisdictional is: to leverage funding, staff and boundaries and require a more resources; to develop common goals; 5) How does the LCC network add value networked approach to conservation— to develop tools and strategies to to existing conservation efforts? holistic, collaborative, adaptive and inform landscape-scale planning and LCCs combine the collective science grounded in science—to ensure the management decisions; to link science capacity, infrastructure, creativity, sustainability of North America’s land, to management; and to facilitate perspectives and, sometimes, financial water, wildlife and cultural resources. information exchange among partners. resources of existing partnerships and programs to address decision support The LCC network is composed of 22 The role of the national LCC network needs on a comprehensive scale. They individual LCCs, several of which have is: to provide a forum for national and are a forum for developing a common relationships with conservation entities international conservation planning; to understanding of landscape change and in Canada or Mexico. integrate the efforts of the 22 LCCs; a common vision for adaptation.

6) How are LCCs unique? LCCs look at whole landscapes and involve a diverse community of conservation partners working on a given landscape. Because many conservation challenges are so complex and interconnected with numerous issues, conservation agencies and organizations increasingly must work together across jurisdictional lines to inform management of North America’s natural and cultural resources. LCCs are well-positioned to enable conservation organizations to do that on a landscape scale. Catskill Mountains, New York. USFWS

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 183 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions

7) How do LCCs improve data sharing? LCCs work with partners to determine what information is needed at what scale and in what format to help them make conservation decisions. LCCs are then building shared information management systems that link to all relevant data that decision-makers need.

8) How do LCCs help improve communication and coordination across and within agencies? LCCs bring together conservation programs and partners working in the same geographic areas to agree on a shared vision for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources. LCCs provide a mechanism for diverse partners to identify where they can take action to address shared challenges while understanding how LCCs are forums for partnerships that allow a region’s private, state and federal those actions contribute to their own conservation infrastructure to operate as a system rather than as independent organizations’ objectives. entities. Photo by Brian Jonkers/USFWS

9) How do LCCs help coordinate future activities and assist partners in 13) Will LCCs divert attention and science? focusing their management decisions. resources from other efforts, such as LCCs work with partners to compile state wildlife grants or joint ventures? information and develop decision 11) Why is it important for LCCs to No. LCCs recognize joint ventures support tools useful to land managers address cultural and tribal resource and the National Fish Habitat Action in addressing pressing science and issues? Plan (NFHAP) structure as important, management needs. They incorporate Through their conservation planning independent efforts. The excellence of science needs and project information efforts, cultural and tribal resource these programs is vital to the overall in conservation frameworks that enable managers identify threats to resources success of American conservation LCC partners to understand how protected through federal, state, or efforts. Maintaining or increasing projects fit together and to prioritize local statutory law. LCCs provide funding to the states through the State next steps. science and resource management and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program decision-support tools to assess the is fundamental to that collective 10) How do LCCs and DOI Climate condition and needs of these trust effort. Without the expertise and Science Centers work together? resources as well as multiple resources funding of these three programs, it The Department of the Interior is across a landscape. would be difficult for LCCs to develop establishing eight Climate Science sustainable landscapes. LCCs are Centers. Their scope includes the full 12) How do LCCs work with and build intended to support these programs range of natural and cultural resources, off of conservation partnerships such by identifying and funding the mutual and their focus is on information as joint ventures and fish habitat science needs of these organizations needed to manage these resources partnerships? while integrating that science and in the face of climate change. LCCs LCCs synthesize and build on the partner goals to develop a vision for are the CSCs’ primary clients. LCCs current science and conservation work conservation action. By doing so, LCCs will use this information provided of existing partnerships, such as fish are intended to reduce redundancy of by the CSCs to support existing or habitat partnerships, migratory bird effort in the science development arena, develop new landscape-scale resource joint ventures and flyway councils, as thus saving resources for the effective management plans that will inform well as water resources, land, coastal, implementation of conservation. marine and cultural partnerships. 14) How do LCCs coordinate across They combine federal conservation efforts? the expertise LCCs function as forums to align of existing large-scale federal conservation conservation effort by sponsoring and promoting partnerships dialogue on specific issues common and programs to many conservation efforts (e.g., to increase and climate change, invasive species, land integrate collective use and sage grouse) both within an science capacity to LCC and across LCCs. A key focus is make planning for identifying potential redundancies and multiple resources opportunities to leverage resources across large across conservation efforts. LCCs Mule deer and wind turbines in the Columbia Hills of landscapes possible. also serve and interpret data; identify Washington State. Photo by Mike Schroeder regional monitoring needs; identify

184 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions regional science needs including establishing LCCs and continue to hydrologists, outreach specialists and research, modeling and syntheses contribute significant capacity for other technical/decision support staff. of existing research; and evaluate/ national coordination at all of the Such staffing promotes collaboration facilitate decision-support tools. 22 LCCs. DOI agencies serve on and communication among LCCs individual LCC steering committees in regarding GIS, spatial data application, 15) How do LCCs support the efforts equal standing with all other members. population modeling, statistics, of natural and cultural resource All major federal conservation agencies conservation genetics, landscape conservation or land management are engaged as LCC partners. ecology, etc. organizations? LCCs develop science-based 18) How do LCCs relate to one another? 20) How are LCCs funded? conservation plans across a large The LCC network is composed of The Department of the Interior geographic scale. The plans are individual LCCs organized, governed is contributing significant funding developed to support the vision and operated in a consistent manner through its agencies to support staff, of a broad diversity of partners that promotes landscape conservation science and operational capacity. It is and incorporate a mutual and nationally and internationally. expected that this initial investment will comprehensive understanding of support the startup of most of the 22 change on the landscape. The intent LCCs are self-directed partnerships. LCCs and begin to demonstrate their of this planning component of LCCs is However, their governance, structure benefits for conservation. Several other to inform actions by partnerships and and operation are consistent so that federal, state and private organizations organizations that add up to something they function as seamlessly as possible already have contributed significant more than any one organization could to support geographically defined resources toward LCC operations. accomplish on its own. landscapes.

16) How do LCCs coordinate with and It is largely the responsibility of among regional conservation efforts the LCC staff in each region, in that cross their boundaries as well as consultation with the steering those of other jurisdictions (e.g. BLM committees (see next question), to Rapid Ecoregional Assessments), and ensure coordination of LCCs that share how does this contribute to the total mutual interests and/or boundaries. conservation effort? LCCs can 1) facilitate conversations 19) How are LCCs staffed or Humboldt Bay National Wildlife among tribal, state, federal and non- coordinated? Refuge in northern California is taking governmental organizations about Each LCC has a steering committee, part in a Landscape Conservation emerging regional challenges and composed of executive-level Cooperative-facilitated study of opportunities as well as the potential and management-level partner sea level rise. Photo by Tupper Ansel Blake effects of climate change on agriculture representatives. States, Tribes, and and municipal water supplies; 2) NGOs with a natural/cultural resource 21) How are LCC boundaries develop regional conservation, management focus, all within a given determined? development and adaptation strategies LCC’s geographic area are invited to The LCCs’ geographic areas were to help inform and guide land and sit on its steering committee. developed by a team of U.S. Fish and water use planning and other decision- Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological making processes; and 3) serve as Steering committees, which are Survey scientists and experts by a clearinghouse to share personnel, tailored to the needs of the individual aggregating Bird Conservation funding and other resources to LCCs, emphasize building on existing Regions. BCRs are biologically implement these regional strategies. partnerships. Member organizations based units that represent long- Partners in many LCCs already are expected to dedicate time and standing partnerships that facilitate participate on management teams energy to developing a shared vision conservation planning and design at facilitating the development of BLM’s of conservation and coordinating their landscape scales. Some BCRs (e.g., Rapid Ecoregional Assessments otherwise independent actions in the Hawaii) were not aggregated and (REAs). When the assessments are cooperative pursuit and implementation stand-alone as geographic areas. The completed, LCC partners may help of the LCC. geographic areas also incorporate federal and state resource managers standard units. For aquatic species step-down REA information into A scientific and technical staff with considerations, the Freshwater land use planning and day-to-day an adaptive resource management Ecoregions of the World was the management activities by: 1) serving focus forms the core of an LCC. The standard unit used. That is the same regional information to resource specifics of how each LCC is staffed are framework adopted by the National managers and helping them understand determined by its steering committee Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP). implications and utility of the in consultation with federal agencies To account for terrestrial species’ information and 2) conducting focused, with dedicated funding. needs, Omernick’s Level II and other finer grained assessments following the existing ecological units were used. regional assessments. LCC core staff members typically The resulting geographic framework include landscape and population identified large regions that crossed 17) Is there a lead agency for LCCs? modelers, geographers and geographic state and federal administrative No. LCCs are intended to be self- information system (GIS) specialists, boundaries. In most geographic areas, directed partnerships. The U.S. Fish terrestrial and aquatic ecologists, the boundaries of key partnerships and Wildlife Service and Department of cultural resource specialists, are left intact to preserve existing the Interior played key roles in initially quantitative fish and wildlife biologists, conservation and science capacities.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 185 1.3.1 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Frequently Asked Questions

For more information on the national LCC network, visit: http://www.lccnetwork.org Contact: Elsa Haubold National LCC Coordinator 703/358-1953 [email protected]

Northwest Boreal

November 2013

186 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

Preamble

In 2010 a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs or Cooperatives) was formed across North America, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean. Largely emerging out of a Department of the Interior (DOI) initiative and DOI Secretarial Order 3289, the network of LCCs (Network) strove to establish a more effective approach to large-scale conservation of natural and cultural resources. DOI recognized that such an approach required the Cooperatives to be self-directed organizations that could adjust to local conditions; thus, each LCC is governed by a voluntary steering committee with members representing conservation and resource management partners from a wide variety of federal, state, territorial, and international agencies, tribes, indigenous and non-governmental organizations, and others within the Cooperative’s geography. While the twenty-two LCC areas provide spatial context for landscape-scale conservation and resource management, and a means for allocating fiscal and human resources, the intention was for these LCCs to function as a seamless international network. Clearly, populations, communities, and ecosystems transcend LCC boundaries and many existing conservation frameworks frequently cross multiple LCCs (e.g., Joint Ventures and National Fish Habitat Partnerships). Only as a Network can the LCCs appropriately support and lead the development of broader-scale approaches to conservation and resource management (including information systems, tool development, and planning).

Collectively, these various interests require the LCCs to establish effective governance at several levels to support, but not constrain, individual LCC conservation and resource management efforts while also leading to efficient regional and Network-wide solutions. These levels of governance range from simple organizational matters to establishment of policy recommendations and guidance that may affect conservation and resource management program development at the most fundamental levels.

Therefore, in furtherance of the LCC Network’s “Vision, Mission, Roles, and Guiding Principles” (see Exhibit A), the LCC Coordinators as staff representing their respective LCCs have assumed responsibility for providing leadership on operational aspects of Network governance, and other matters as appropriate, while respecting individual LCC steering committee governance authority. The LCC Coordinators further recognize that the Network may need to seek guidance on national or international conservation and resource management policies from other authorities. Lastly, the LCC Coordinators recognize that as a relatively new and evolving endeavor, this governance model will need to evolve as the Network matures.

Purpose

The purpose of this Charter is to establish an LCC Network (Network) governance body to be known as the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT) and to define its role and decision-making procedures in support of the LCC Network’s Vision, Mission, Roles, and Guiding Principles.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 1 of 8

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 187 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

It is expected that flexibility will be needed in order to accommodate the innovative and evolving nature of LCCs. As such, this Charter will be reviewed annually for its applicability and effectiveness and will be adjusted as needed. Substantive changes to this Charter must adhere to the decision framework for Cooperative Decisions as described below.

Role

The role of the LCT is to establish the necessary and appropriate levels of consistent communication, collaboration, and other unifying actions across the LCCs to ensure that the Network’s vision and mission are being fulfilled.

Such areas of action include but are not limited to the following: 1. Development of performance measures and other metrics for characterization of Network accomplishments and progress. 2. Development of best practices and other standards or operating procedures necessary for trans- LCC or Network-wide conservation actions. 3. Identification and development of inter-LCC and national or international science and data needs. 4. Development and management of national communications tools including reports, updates, newsletters, and workshops, conferences, or other forums for inter-LCC coordination and information dissemination. 5. Development and adoption, or support for the development, of monitoring protocols.

Composition of the LCT and Relationship to Other Groups

LCT For the purpose of this Charter, the LCT is composed of LCC Coordinators from the twenty-two LCCs and the National LCC Coordinators. By joining together, the LCC Coordinators are representing their individual LCCs in the interests of ensuring an effective Network. It is expected that Coordinators will be affirmatively recognized within their LCCs as fulfilling this role. Other LCC staff, such as the LCC Science Coordinators, and representatives of various Network workgroups or LCC member organizations will provide support as needed and requested. These individuals will be identified on an as needed basis to serve as non-voting members of the LCT.

LCC Network

The LCC Network is composed of the twenty-two individual LCCs and their linkages, including steering committees, staff, partners, and others associated with the LCCs.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 2 of 8

188 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee (EC) will provide focused support to lead the LCT. The EC will include five LCC Coordinators and the LCC National Coordinator and Assistant National Coordinator. The EC members will be selected from the pool of LCT members based on voluntary agreement to serve, and will reflect the organizational and geographical diversity of the Network. In the event that more than five individuals volunteer, the LCT will elect these members by simple majority vote. The LCC National Coordinator is a permanent member of the EC and serves as permanent chair. The LCC Assistant National Coordinator also is a permanent member. Elected EC members are expected to serve at least one year. For continuity’s sake, one EC representative is encouraged to voluntarily serve for two consecutive years.

The EC’s role is to ensure that the priorities identified by the LCT are carried forward and administrative needs of the LCT (e.g., agenda development, meeting logistics, and work planning) are efficiently addressed. The EC will establish and track progress of workgroups and request assistance from LCC Coordinators or others within the LCC community if needed. The EC will receive recommendations from workgroups and present them to the full LCT for a vote, as appropriate.

LCC Network Staff

Organizations interested in the mission of the LCC Network may choose to assign or dedicate staff to the Network. These Network staff would serve in roles similar to those of the individual LCC staff and would be led by the LCC National Coordinator. Network staff may be required to support the needs of the Network as determined by the LCT.

Workgroups

When the LCT has identified a high-priority issue, action, or product, the EC will form a workgroup to conduct discussions and prepare recommendations for consideration by the LCT, the Network, or others. Workgroups will carry out tasks as assigned by the EC. Workgroups are non-permanent and will disassemble when an issue is resolved or a product completed.

A workgroup’s structure will be defined by the knowledge and skill sets needed to complete the task at hand. All workgroups will have a member of the LCT serving as lead. The EC will ask for volunteers and/or invite qualified individuals to serve on a work group. Workgroup members may be recruited from any source. Workgroups will be established via a written document that describes specific tasks, deliverables, time frames, decision processes, and proposed composition. The EC will review all workgroups at least annually for relevancy, progress, and composition.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 3 of 8

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 189 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

Establishment of a Quorum

All decisions, whether by consensus or by vote, require a quorum of LCT members. For a quorum to be established, two-thirds (15) of the LCC Coordinators must be present either in person or via electronic means. LCC Coordinators can designate an alternate or proxy provided that the designation is made in writing to the EC at least 24 hours prior to a scheduled decision.

LCT Decision Making

The types of actions and issues the LCT will address may range from simple administrative matters, such as how to hold meetings, to highly complex matters, such as the hypothetical concept of a nationwide conservation objective. The LCT recognizes that the issues it addresses will have ramifications that vary in their impact upon individual LCCs, the work of the Network, and possibly national or international conservation policy. It is also recognized that the LCT should not act in a way that limits the autonomy of individual LCC Steering Committees nor obligates any organization to an action that is not acceptable to that organization.

The following fundamental tenets will be used in determining decision-making of the LCT: 1. Issues relevant to only one individual LCC or best addressed by an individual LCC Steering Committee will not be addressed by the LCT unless requested by the affected LCC. 2. The LCT will encourage and support regional groupings of LCCs to address issues that are only regionally relevant. 3. The LCT will provide guidance to LCCs on issues where there is a clear agency mandate or Congressional direction that affects LCC funding, reporting, or other action necessary for the continued operation of the LCCs. 4. The LCT will provide protocols and guidance relevant to the overall LCC Network on administrative and operational issues that do not obligate any individual LCC partner to undertake any action. 5. The LCT will seek full engagement and consent of LCC steering committees on issues that will require individual LCCs to substantially modify, develop, or support actions that are necessary to the overall success of the LCC Network but are not characterized as agency mandates or Congressional directions as described in #3. 6. Where appropriate and necessary for the success of the LCC Network mission, the LCT will identify and develop recommendations on national policy or related issues that will be provided to other authoritative bodies for discussion or adoption.

To stay flexible and yet continue to move forward, all issues or actions brought to the attention of the LCT will be characterized into four different decision categories, which are: (1) Organizational, (2)

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 4 of 8

190 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

Guidance, (3) Cooperative, and (4) Policy. The EC will make a recommendation to the LCT regarding the appropriate decision category for each identified issue or action. The LCT will then confirm the appropriate decision category.

Issues or action items brought forward to the LCT for a decision or recommendation will be presented to the LCCs with enough lead time for LCT members to review and consult with their respective steering committees, as needed.

The LCT will strive to make all decisions by consensus. For the LCT, consensus is defined as general agreement, which means that members present or represented at the time a decision is made either agree with or at least do not oppose the decision.

In the event consensus cannot be reached, a 2/3-majority will decide, depending on the nature of the decision. For voting purposes, each LCT member has one vote. This vote may be cast by an alternate or proxy identified on a case-by-case basis by the LCT member.

Decision Types:

1. Organizational Decisions: Organizational decisions are those that address the normal operational functions of LCCs as a Network and include but are not limited to: voting about LCT leadership; logistics; meeting dates and times; agenda revisions; schedules; and communications. Organizational decisions do not impose changes on individual LCCs but are items that can improve collaboration and coordination across LCCs in order to help meet the purpose, goals, and priorities of the Network. These are decisions for which the LCT is the fully authorized body. Decision method: If consensus cannot be reached, all organizational decisions and recommendations will be made by a 2/3-majority vote by the affected members to complete and memorialize the action. Those with dissenting votes will go on record, along with the reason for their dissent. 2. Guidance Decisions: These are actions or issues that stem from national or international programmatic mandates, Congressional directives, specific guidance tied directly to funding, or other authoritative sources that require compliance by the LCC network in order to ensure continued operational support. As such, guidance decisions are generally translations or interpretations of directives provided to the LCC from the authoritative source. Decision method: If consensus cannot be reached, all guidance decisions and recommendations will be made by a 2/3-majority vote by the affected members to complete and memorialize the action. Those with dissenting votes will go on record, along with the reason for their dissent.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 5 of 8

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 191 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Charter Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Coordinators Team 7/9/12

3. Cooperative Decisions: Cooperative decisions include matters such as the identification of national or international science needs, advisory issues such as the development of best practices, or other coordinated efforts necessary to ensure an efficient and effective LCC Network. Individual LCCs are not required, but will be encouraged, to support or adopt cooperative decisions. Cooperative decisions do not impose changes on individual LCCs; rather, they are decisions designed to improve collaboration and coordination across LCCs in support of the Network’s purpose, goals, and priorities. Decision method: If consensus cannot be reached, all guidance decisions and recommendations will be made by a 2/3-majority vote by the affected members to complete and memorialize the action. Those with dissenting votes will go on record, along with the reason for their dissent. 4. Policy Decisions and Recommendations: These are decisions and recommendations that further the support of the purpose, goals, and priorities of LCCs through development or modifications of national policy or other official mandates. The LCT recognizes that authority to make changes to policy or other official mandates rests with the responsible nation, state, territory, commonwealth, province, federal agency, or other authority, acting individually or collectively. It is anticipated that the recommendations developed through this decision process will be provided to other bodies for consideration. Policy decisions and recommendations will be vetted by each individual LCC steering committee. Decision method: As policy decisions may be far reaching and precedent setting, it is the LCT’s desire to seek consensus of the LCC Steering Committees and LCT. If consensus cannot be reached, the issue will be assigned to a workgroup to refine or develop an alternative for future decision making.

Timeliness of Decisions

The LCT recognizes the need to make collective decisions swiftly to progress with the mission and purpose of LCCs and the LCC Network. The LCT will decide on the appropriate length of time for review and consensus decision or vote depending on the category and the complexity of each item, taking into consideration the twenty-two individual LCCs are at different stages of development that may limit their ability to engage in Network decisions. The LCT will strive to move forward in a manner that is efficient and effective to further the goals of the LCC Network and Community while honoring the self-directed nature of the individual LCCs.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 6 of 8

192 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

Exhibit A. Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network 7/9/2012

Preamble

The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network1 (LCC Network or Network) desires to establish a unifying agenda for furthering the conservation of natural and cultural resources in the 21st Century;

The Network is striving to establish an organizational framework and approach for pursuing opportunities to inform natural and cultural resource conservation and sustainable2 resource management in the face of unprecedented challenges facing these resources;

We recognize that, in addition to climate change, there are a variety of other landscape-scale stressors3 that require mutual understanding and effective responses to conserve the natural and cultural resources within the Network’s geography;

We recognize that a functioning Network will require pursuit of certain fundamental approaches by each LCC;

Therefore, the twenty-two Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, in coordination with their steering committees have adopted this document to unify the individual Cooperatives into a Network.

Vision

Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.

1 The LCC Network is composed of the twenty-two individual LCCs and their linkages (i.e., steering committees, staff, partners and others associated with the LCCs). 2 The use of the terms sustainable, sustaining, and sustainability do not intend to imply maintenance of status quo. 3 This term is used in the context of broad spatial scales that may encompass coastal or marine systems, freshwater systems, and terrestrial systems, depending on the scope defined by the individual LCCs.

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 7 of 8

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 193 1.3.2 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission Exhibit A. Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network 7/9/2012

Mission

A network of cooperatives depends on LCCs to:

Guiding Principles

Adopted by the LCT on March 26, 2012 Page 8 of 8

194 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

LCC Network Science Coordinators Team Charter – Adopted March 14, 2013

Preamble

The complexity of addressing landscape scale conservation challenges requires the LCC Network to establish effective governance and operational structures at several levels to support, but not constrain, individual LCC conservation and resource management efforts while also leading to efficient regional and LCC Network‐wide solutions.

The LCC Science Coordinators will function in the best interest of conservation science and delivery if they work as an integrated and cohesive science team in support of the LCC Network vision and mission. By functioning as a science team all LCC Science Coordinators will be more effective at their jobs, more efficient at conserving priority natural and cultural resources, and more responsive to our partners, decision‐makers, funders, and tax‐payers by being better able to identify and address the science needs emerging from issues operating at multi‐LCC scales.

Therefore, the LCC Science Coordinators, as staff representing their respective LCCs, hereby formalize a body to more efficiently and effectively achieve the LCC Network’s “Vision, Mission, Roles, and Guiding Principles” (see Appendix A), while respecting individual LCC steering committee governance authority. The LCC Science Coordinators recognize that as an evolving endeavor, the function and roles of this team will need to evolve as the LCC Network matures.

Purpose of the Charter

This Charter establishes an LCC Network science and technical advisory group, known as the LCC Network Science Coordinators Team (LSCT), and defines its roles and decision‐making procedures in support of the LCC Network’s Vision, Mission, Roles, and Guiding Principles.

Purpose of the LCC Network Science Coordinators Team

The purpose of the LSCT (or “Science Team”) is to strengthen the scientific foundations of the LCCs and the LCC Network in pursuit of landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.

Roles

The LSCT serves as a forum for communication and collaboration on technical and scientific matters among the LCCs and between the LCC Network and other science partners. In addition, the LSCT provides the core capacity for identifying and collaborating on approaches to strategically address science and technical issues that are relevant to multiple LCCs or the LCC Network as a whole.

Actions include, but are not limited to:

1. Developing a strategic science framework and a LCC Network Science Agenda with an associated work plan;

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 195 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

2. Ensuring coordination and information sharing among LCCs on topics such as LCC operations, best practices, data management, science needs, conservation tools, and partner engagement;

3. Providing recommendations to the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT) and the LCC National Council on approaches, best practices, tasks, timing, and projects to meet LCC Network challenges;

4. Communicating new and emerging science and technology to enhance conservation and partnership practices (e.g., use or novel application of modeling approaches [scenario planning], software packages, and datasets [connectivity and urbanization layers], etc.), and;

5. Maintaining and enhancing strong working relationships with science partners (such as the Climate Science Centers) to leverage resources and to ensure that science activities and programs are coordinated and complementary.

Composition / Membership

LCC Network Science Coordinators Team (LSCT)

For the purpose of this Charter, the LSCT is composed of the LCC Science Coordinators from the twenty‐ two LCCs, the National LCC Coordinator, and the Assistant National LCC Coordinator. It is expected that the Science Coordinators are affirmatively recognized within their LCCs as fulfilling this role.

Other LCC staff, such as the LCC Coordinators, and representatives of various LCC Network workgroups or LCC member organizations, will be asked provide support as needed and requested and are welcome to participate in LSCT meetings and activities (but not as formalized LSCT members).

LCC Science Coordinators Leadership Team (SCLT)

The Science Coordinators Leadership Team (SCLT; “skillet”) will serve as the “Executive Team” for the LSCT. The SCLT includes 6 LCC Science Coordinators, the National LCC Coordinator, and the Assistant National LCC Coordinator. The National LCC Coordinator and the Assistant National LCC Coordinator are permanent members of the SCLT. The other six SCLT members will be selected from the pool of LSCT members based on voluntary agreement to serve. SCLT members are determined by a simple majority vote of the LSCT. SCLT appointments are for two years, with three new members appointed annually. A pair of co‐chairs for the LSCT will be selected from among the Science Coordinators on the SCLT, with one co‐chair selected from within each cohort.

The SCLT’s role is to provide strategic thinking and recommendations to the LSCT, to ensure that the priorities identified by the LSCT are carried forward, and to ensure that the administrative tasks (e.g., agenda development, meeting logistics, and work planning) are efficiently addressed. The co‐chairs work with the National LCC Coordinators to run meetings of the LSCT and SCLT.

Relationship to Other Groups

The LCC Network is composed of the twenty‐two individual LCCs and their linkages, including Steering Committees, staff, partners, and other individuals, organizations, and agencies associated with the LCCs.

196 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

A variety of organizational structures have been established to support the individual LCCs and to enable the 22 LCCs to function as a coordinated and seamless international network. These structures include the individual LCC Steering Committees, the LCC Coordinators Team (LCT), the LCT Executive Committee (LCT‐EC), and the LCC National Council (see Figure 1). The LSCT functions within and as part of this organizational structure, providing the entire Network science and technical support.

Process

The LSCT operates under the guidance and direction of the LCC Coordinators Team and its Executive Committee. While serving the broader LCC Network, individual LSCT members continue to represent the interests of their LCCs as expressed by their Steering Committees, LCC Coordinators, or other LCC‐ specific practices.

Establishment of a Quorum

All decisions, whether by consensus or by vote, require a quorum of LSCT members, and only official LSCT members may vote. A quorum is established when two‐thirds of the official LSCT representatives are present in person, by proxy, or electronically. Proxies must be designated in writing to one of the co‐chairs of the LSCT at least 24 hours prior to a scheduled decision.

Decision Making

The LSCT strives to make all decisions by consensus. For the LSCT, consensus is defined as general agreement, which means that members present or represented at the time a decision is made either agree with or at least do not oppose the decision.

In the event consensus cannot be reached, a two thirds‐majority will decide. For voting purposes, each LSCT member has one vote (note: to address cases in which an LCC has more than one science coordinator, only one LSCT member per LCC may vote). This vote may be cast by an alternate or proxy identified by the LSCT member.

Issues or action items brought to the LSCT for a decision or recommendation will be presented to the LCCs with enough lead time for LSCT members to review and consult with their respective LCC Coordinators or LCC steering committees, as needed. The LSCT strives to move forward in a manner that is efficient and effective to further the goals of the LCC Network while honoring the self‐directed nature of the individual LCCs.

Operational Context

The types of actions and issues the LSCT addresses range from administrative matters, to the challenge of identifying and prioritizing multi‐LCC or LCC Network‐wide needs, to highly complex matters, such as addressing scientific and technical challenges related to a nationwide conservation objective. The LSCT recognizes that the issues it addresses have ramifications that vary in their relevance to individual LCCs, the work of the LCC Network, and possibly national or international conservation efforts. The LSCT cannot act in a way that limits the autonomy of individual LCC Steering Committees nor that obligates

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 197 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

any organization to an action that is not acceptable to that organization. The LSCT works with the LCT and the LCT‐EC to ensure that issues recommending individual LCCs to substantially modify, develop, or support actions receive full engagement and consent of LCC Steering Committees, as appropriate.

Annual Updates

It is expected that flexibility will be needed in order to accommodate the innovative and evolving nature of LCCs. As such, this Charter will be reviewed annually for its applicability and effectiveness and will be adjusted as needed using the decision process described in this document.

Figure 1. LCC Network Organizational Structure.

198 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

Appendix A. Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Network 7/9/2012

Preamble

The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network1 (LCC Network or Network) desires to establish a unifying agenda for furthering the conservation of natural and cultural resources in the 21st Century;

The Network is striving to establish an organizational framework and approach for pursuing opportunities to inform natural and cultural resource conservation and sustainable2 resource management in the face of unprecedented challenges facing these resources;

We recognize that, in addition to climate change, there are a variety of other landscape‐scale stressors3 that require mutual understanding and effective responses to conserve the natural and cultural resources within the Network’s geography;

We recognize that a functioning Network will require pursuit of certain fundamental approaches by each LCC;

Therefore, the twenty‐two Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, in coordination with their steering committees have adopted this document to unify the individual Cooperatives into a Network.

Vision

Landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.

1 The LCC Network is composed of the twenty‐two individual LCCs and their linkages (i.e., steering committees, staff, partners and others associated with the LCCs). 2 The use of the terms sustainable, sustaining, and sustainability do not intend to imply maintenance of status quo. 3 This term is used in the context of broad spatial scales that may encompass coastal or marine systems, freshwater systems, and terrestrial systems, depending on the scope defined by the individual LCCs.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 199 1.3.3 Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Coordinators Team, Vision and Mission

Mission

A network of cooperatives depends on LCCs to:

 Develop and provide integrated science‐based information about the implications of climate change and other stressors for the sustainability of natural and cultural resources;  Develop shared, landscape‐level, conservation objectives and inform conservation strategies that are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape, including the implications of current and future environmental stressors;

 Facilitate the exchange of applied science in the implementation of conservation strategies and products developed by the Cooperative or their partners;

 Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of LCC conservation strategies in meeting shared objectives;

 Develop appropriate linkages that connect LCCs to ensure an effective network.

Guiding Principles

 Consider and respect each participating organization’s unique mandates and jurisdictions.  Add value to landscape‐scale conservation by integrating across LCCs and other partnerships and organizations to identify and fill gaps and avoid redundancies.

 Conduct open and frequent communications within the LCC network and among vested stakeholders and be transparent in deliberations and decision‐making.  Focus on developing shared landscape‐level priorities that lead to strategies that can be implemented.  Develop and rely upon best available science.  Develop explicit linkages and approaches to ensure products are available in a form that is usable by partners delivering conservation.  Use a scientifically objective adaptive management approach in fulfilling the mission.

200 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4 Meeting Materials 1.4.1 Meeting agenda 1.4.2 Issue papers and decision points • Communications • Charter and Council membership • Operational Guidelines 1.4.3 Informational materials associated with agenda topic “Council relationship with other national conservation efforts” • President Obama’s Climate Action Plan • Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To Address Management Priorities • The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and Department of Interior Climate Science Centers - Progress Report (Summer 2013) • Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Charter • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Factsheet • National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

• Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 201 1.4.1 Meeting agenda

NationalLCC National Council Council Inaugural Meeting Meeting Wednesday,Tuesday, February February 4th 5, 2014and Wednesday, February 5th National Museum of the American Indian, Rooms 4018/19 10:45a.m.Fourth Street agenda & Independence item Ave., S.W. COUNCILWashington, COMMUNICATIONS, DC 20560 COORDINATION AND SUPPORT FOR THE LCC ENTERPRISE Issue Name

MeetingIssue: AgendaEstablish effective internal coordination and ensure strong communication and coordination across the LCC Network Meeting Objectives: Background 1.TheDevelop charter compelling highlights communicationshared vision and as purpose a critical for component the National for Council success, and specifies that the 2.CouncilEstablish will seekclear dialogueinternal and with external agencies, working tribes, relationships environmental organizations, educational 3.institutions,Establish effectiveand other organizational partners to maximizeframework the goals, objectives and success of the LCC network. 4. Identify key areas of focus for the Council During the comment period on the draft Charter, the strategy team heard concern around the

Council’s communicationsth process. Questions were asked on how the LCC National Council will Tuesday,communicate February with4 , 2014 the LCC enterprise. The strategy team chose to let the Council determine the 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. details of their communications processes. Meeting Room: 4018/19

Issues to Consider th Wednesday, February 5 , 2014 9:00 a.m. to How3:00 p.m.will the Council report action items and areas of agreement on recommendations to Meeting Room:the 4018/19 LCC Network?  How will the Council ensure they are receiving broad input from across the LCC Network to inform Council agendas, deliberations and proposed actions to support the LCC Network? Time Topic Objective Background Lead  How will Council members communicate with their interestMaterials groups across the individual 8:30 a.m. LCCs?Meet & Greet 9:00 a.m. Welcome & Develop Shared Vision Penny Mabie,

Introductions Council members each share: EnviroIssues Proposed Process Requiring Approval1) their (if vision applicable) for the Council Facilitator  Determine mechanism to2) ensure reasons Council for participating decisions and actions are formally communicated to LCC community 3) desired outcomes ‐ or their  Determine process to supportvision ongoing of success two ‐way communications between the Council and partners across the LCC Network4) key factors for success

10:15Council a.m. ActionsBreak  Direct staff to develop communications plans for the Council

Page | 1 Tuesday & Wednesday, February 4‐5, 2014

1 | Page

202 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.1 Meeting agenda

10:30 a.m. Overview and history Develop Shared Framework LCC vision, Elsa Haubold, of LCCs (20 minutes)  Better understand the LCC mission, goals LCC National Vision and development of Coordinator the LCC Network to realize

the existing LCC Vision Overview of  Be informed about the Overview of ‐Maggie McCaffrey, National Council assessment and convening National U.S. Institute for Convening (20 process of the Council Council Environmental minutes)  Learn about the Strategy Conflict Resolution Team’s work to identify ‐Mallory Martin, needs and develop the North Carolina foundation of the Council Wildlife Resources Commission ‐Strategy Team Members Discussion (50 Develop Shared Purpose LCC National Mallory Martin minutes)  Develop a shared vision of Council Charter the Council’s purpose that addresses the needs and interests of participants and the LCC network 12:00 noon Lunch on your own (lunch locations list provided) 1:15 p.m. Issues/topics for Examine Proposed Council Strategy Team ‐Penny Mabie Council Issues Needs ‐Strategy Team consideration  Review Council issues Document members  Issues identified proposed by the Strategy LCT briefing ‐Jad Daley, The Trust by Strategy Team Team, the LCC papers for Public Land during chartering Coordinators Team (LCT) ‐Ken McDermond  Additional issues and the LCC Science ‐LCT Executive from Strategy Coordinators Team (LSCT), Committee Team members and by Council members.  Issues identified by LCC Coordinators and Science Coordinators  Listing of Council issues captured during morning session Page | 2 Tuesday & Wednesday, February 4‐5, 2014

3:00 p.m. Break 3:15 p.m. Council discussions Identify Council Issues Penny Mabie  What issues might the Council address?  How should the Council address the issues presented?  Develop initial areas of focus for the Council 4:20 p.m. Recap of the day and Penny Mabie overview of Day 2 4:30 p.m. Opportunity to spend time in the museum 5:30 – 7:00 Evening reception in the Patrons Lounge (4th Floor) p.m.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 203

Page | 3 Tuesday & Wednesday, February 4‐5, 2014

1.4.1 Meeting agenda

Wednesday, February 5

Time Topic Objective Background Lead Materials 9:00 a.m. Review Day 1 Gather reflection on key take‐ aways from Day 1 discussions 9:30 a.m. Council relationship Establish effective external Informational ‐Robin O’Malley, US with other national coordination material (see Geographic Survey conservation efforts  Learn about cross Section 1.4.3 in ‐Adam Parris, organizational initiatives Briefing book) National Oceanic  Hear about existing and and Atmospheric future coordination Administration opportunities  Discuss and define Council’s relationship and involvement with other national conservation efforts 10:00 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. Council Establish effective internal Issue paper #1 Penny Mabie Communications, coordination coordination and  Ensure strong support for the LCC communication and enterprise coordination across the LCC Network  Determine mechanism to ensure Council decisions and actions are formally communicated to LCC community  Consider means for council members to be able to communicate with their interest groups across the individual LCCs 11:30 a.m. Leadership selection Establish roles and LCC National Penny Mabie responsibilities Council Charter  Identify Chair and Vice‐ chair Page | 4 Tuesday & Wednesday, February 4‐5, 2014

204 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.1 Meeting agenda

Time Topic Objective Background Lead Materials 12:00 noon Lunch on your own 1:00 p.m. Charter, draft Establish Operational LCC National Penny Mabie operational Guidelines Council Charter guidelines and  Review suggested/ Issue paper #2 Council membership needed operational and #3 guidelines  Validate Council membership as defined in Council Charter  Determine next steps on membership vacancies and noted concerns  Endorse Council Charter 2:00 p.m. Council Action Items Identify Next Steps Proposed Penny Mabie  Identify topics for next meeting meeting schedule  Review action items  Determine Council meeting schedule 2:30 p.m. Last Thoughts  Reflections from Council members 3:00 p.m. Adjourn

Page | 5 Tuesday & Wednesday, February 4‐5, 2014

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 205 1.4.2 Council Communications, Coordination and Support for the LCC Enterprise

National Council Inaugural Meeting Wednesday, February 5, 2014

10:45a.m. agenda item COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION AND SUPPORT FOR THE LCC ENTERPRISE Issue Name

Issue: Establish effective internal coordination and ensure strong communication and coordination across the LCC Network

Background The charter highlights communication as a critical component for success, and specifies that the Council will seek dialogue with agencies, tribes, environmental organizations, educational institutions, and other partners to maximize the goals, objectives and success of the LCC network.

During the comment period on the draft Charter, the strategy team heard concern around the Council’s communications process. Questions were asked on how the LCC National Council will communicate with the LCC enterprise. The strategy team chose to let the Council determine the details of their communications processes.

Issues to Consider  How will the Council report action items and areas of agreement on recommendations to the LCC Network?  How will the Council ensure they are receiving broad input from across the LCC Network to inform Council agendas, deliberations and proposed actions to support the LCC Network?  How will Council members communicate with their interest groups across the individual LCCs?

Proposed Process Requiring Approval (if applicable)  Determine mechanism to ensure Council decisions and actions are formally communicated to LCC community  Determine process to support ongoing two‐way communications between the Council and partners across the LCC Network

Council Actions  Direct staff to develop communications plans for the Council

1 | Page

206 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.2 Charter and Council Membership

National Council Inaugural Meeting Wednesday, February 5, 2014

1:00 p.m. agenda item CHARTER AND COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Issue Name Issue: Validate Council membership as defined in Charter and determine next steps to fill membership vacancies and address remaining membership issues. Charter The membership section of the LCC National Council Charter defines the size, composition, and selection process for the Council. It was developed by the strategy team to guide convening the first LCC National Council, with the understanding that the Council composition and the selection processes may change at the discretion of the Council.

Issues to Consider Changes on Council composition were recommended by the conservation community (including the LCCs) during the comment period on the Charter and after publication of the final Charter, calling for additional and/or different representation on the Council and clarification on the nature of existing seats. (See Section 1.1.4 in the briefing booklet).

 Local government representation and industry representation – Concerns were submitted suggesting these partners should be represented on the Council  Selection of state participants – concerns raised that the selection process (using regional Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) omitted other potential conservation agencies (e.g., Forests, Cultural Resources and Parks), and potentially limited territorial participation.  At‐large Seat recommendation: During the Non‐governmental Organization selection process, strategy team members recommended the applicant/organization from the Wilburforce Foundation / Consultative Group on Biological Diversity be considered for an At‐large seat due to the nature of the organization’s mission and goals.

Council Vacancies Council seats left vacant during recruitment will also need to be considered.  State vacancy – The regional Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies conducted the recruitment and selection. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies choose not to propose a representative at the time of recruitment.  Tribal vacancy – The tribal review panel nominated two participants, and recommended soliciting additional applications to better meet the criteria for geographic diversity. One of the selected tribal participants recently withdrew, leaving two vacancies. If additional recruitment occurs, the strategy team recommends the non‐selected original applicants be included in the applicant pool.

1 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 207 1.4.2 Charter and Council Membership

 International vacancy – The strategy team recommended soliciting applications from LCC participants in Mexico to meet composition requirements, as no applications were received during recruitment.  “At‐large” vacancies – The strategy team elected not to fill the two “at‐large” seats, leaving them to be filled by the LCC National Council.

Proposed Process Requiring Approval (if applicable)  Conduct greater outreach for tribal and Mexico participants  Identify a recruitment period to seek applications for tribal and Mexico participants  Determine when to fill at‐large seats and a recruitment process/strategy to fill the seats

Proposed Council Actions  Validate Council membership structure  Direct staff to conduct recruitment / review process for tribal and Mexico seats  Decide schedule for filling “at‐large” seats, and direct staff to conduct a recruitment process for filling “at‐large” seats

208 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

2 | Page

1.4.2 Operational Guidelines

National Council Inaugural Meeting Wednesday, February 5, 2014

1:00 p.m. agenda item DRAFT OPERATIONAL GUIDLINES Issue Name Issue: Consideration of additional operational guidelines for the Council not specified in the Charter

Background The LCC National Council Charter provides broad operational guidelines for the Council in terms of membership, roles and responsibilities and decision‐making. The strategy team intended for the Council to adopt, revise, or expand these operational guidelines when the Council convened.

Issues to Consider The following are issues that are not addressed in the Charter and may merit some consideration by the Council:  Facilitation – How will the Council manage meeting and process facilitation? Do they see the need and value of continued third‐party facilitation and support?  Internal Communications ‐ How will the Council communicate and share documents with each other?  Documentation ‐ How will the Council document meetings, discussion points and action items?

Proposed Process Requiring Approval (if applicable)  Identify any needed edits or additions to the operational guidelines  Determine the Council’s facilitation and documentation support needs and identify a process for fulfilling these needs

Proposed Council Actions  Establish Council Operational Guidelines  Direct staff to secure facilitation and documentation support

1 | Page

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 209 1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

Executive Office of the President

June 2013

210 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure -- our forests and waterways, our croplands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”

-- President Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 2013

THE CASEFOR ACTION

While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged. Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children’s health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment.

In 2009, President Obama made a pledge that by 2020, America would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well. Today, the President remains firmly committed to that goal and to building on the progress of his first term to help put us and the world on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Thanks in part to the Administration’s success in doubling America’s use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy and in establishing the toughest fuel economy standards in our history, we are creating new jobs, building new industries, and reducing dangerous carbon pollution which contributes to climate change. In fact, last year, carbon emissions from the energy sector fell to the lowest level in two decades. At the same time, while there is more work to do, we are more energy secure than at any time in recent history. In 2012, America’s net oil imports fell to the lowest level in 20 years and we have become the world’s leading producer of natural gas – the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.

While this progress is encouraging, climate change is no longer a distant threat – we are already feeling its impacts across the country and the world. Last year was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat. The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.

These changes come with far-reaching consequences and real economic costs. Last year alone, there were 11 different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. Taken together, these 11 events resulted in over $110 billion in estimated damages, which would make it the second-costliest year on record. 4

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 211

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

In short, America stands at a critical juncture. Today, President Obama is putting forward a broad-based plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects public health. Cutting carbon pollution will help spark business innovation to modernize our power plants, resulting in cleaner forms of American-made energy that will create good jobs and cut our dependence on foreign oil. Combined with the Administration’s other actions to increase the efficiency of our cars and household appliances, the President’s plan will reduce the amount of energy consumed by American families, cutting down on their gas and utility bills. The plan, which consists of a wide variety of executive actions, has three key pillars:

1) Cut Carbon Pollution in America: In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions fell to the lowest level in two decades even as the economy continued to grow. To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic – so we protect the health of our children and move our economy toward American-made clean energy sources that will create good jobs and lower home energy bills.

2) Prepare the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change: Even as we take new steps to reduce carbon pollution, we must also prepare for the impacts of a changing climate that are already being felt across the country. Moving forward, the Obama Administration will help state and local governments strengthen our roads, bridges, and shorelines so we can better protect people’s homes, businesses and way of life from severe weather.

3) Lead International Efforts to Combat Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts: Just as no country is immune from the impacts of climate change, no country can meet this challenge alone. That is why it is imperative for the United States to couple action at home with leadership internationally. America must help forge a truly global solution to this global challenge by galvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions (particularly among the major emitting countries), prepare for climate impacts, and drive progress through the international negotiations.

Climate change represents one of our greatest challenges of our time, but it is a challenge uniquely suited to America’s strengths. Our scientists will design new fuels, and our farmers will grow them. Our engineers to devise new sources of energy, our workers will build them, and our businesses will sell them. All of us will need to do our part. If we embrace this challenge, we will not just create new jobs and new industries and keep America on the cutting edge; we will save lives, protect and preserve our treasured natural resources, cities, and coastlines for future generations.

What follows is a blueprint for steady, responsible national and international action to slow the effects of climate change so we leave a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. It highlights progress already set in motion by the Obama Administration to advance these goals and sets forth new steps to achieve them.

212 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

CUT CARBON POLLUTION IN AMERICA

In 2009, President Obama made a commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The President remains firmly committed to achieving that goal. While there is more work to do, the Obama Administration has already made significant progress by doubling generation of electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal, and by establishing historic new fuel economy standards. Building on these achievements, this document outlines additional steps the Administration will take – in partnership with states, local communities, and the private sector – to continue on a path to meeting the President’s 2020 goal.

I. Deploying Clean Energy

Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants: Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, together accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. We have already set limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead, but there is no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much carbon pollution as they want. Many states, local governments, and companies have taken steps to move to cleaner electricity sources. More than 35 states have renewable energy targets in place, and more than 25 have set energy efficiency targets.

Despite this progress at the state level, there are no federal standards in place to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. In April 2012, as part of a continued effort to modernize our electric power sector, the Obama Administration proposed a carbon pollution standard for new power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal reflects and reinforces the ongoing trend towards cleaner technologies, with natural gas increasing its share of electricity generation in recent years, principally through market forces and renewables deployment growing rapidly to account for roughly half of new generation capacity installed in 2012.

With abundant clean energy solutions available, and building on the leadership of states and local governments, we can make continued progress in reducing power plant pollution to improve public health and the environment while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth. By doing so, we will continue to drive American leadership in clean energy technologies, such as efficient natural gas, nuclear, renewables, and clean coal technology.

To accomplish these goals, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. In developing the standards, the President has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to build on state leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies including many actions in this plan.

Promoting American Leadership in Renewable Energy: During the President’s first term, the United States more than doubled generation of electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal sources. To ensure America’s continued leadership position in clean energy, President Obama has set a goal to double renewable electricity generation once again by 2020. In order to meet

6 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 213

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

this ambitious target, the Administration is announcing a number of new efforts in the following key areas:

• Accelerating Clean Energy Permitting: In 2012 the President set a goal to issue permits for 10 gigawatts of renewables on public lands by the end of the year. The Department of the Interior achieved this goal ahead of schedule and the President has directed it to permit an additional 10 gigawatts by 2020. Since 2009, the Department of Interior has approved 25 utility-scale solar facilities, nine wind farms, and 11 geothermal plants, which will provide enough electricity to power 4.4 million homes and support an estimated 17,000 jobs. The Administration is also taking steps to encourage the development of hydroelectric power at existing dams. To develop and demonstrate improved permitting procedures for such projects, the Administration will designate the Red Rock Hydroelectric Plant on the Des Moines River in Iowa to participate in its Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard for high-priority projects. Also, the Department of Defense – the single largest consumer of energy in the United States – is committed to deploying 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, by 2025. In addition, federal agencies are setting a new goal of reaching 100 megawatts of installed renewable capacity across the federally subsidized housing stock by 2020. This effort will include conducting a survey of current projects in order to track progress and facilitate the sharing of best practices.

• Expanding and Modernizing the Electric Grid: Upgrading the country’s electric grid is critical to our efforts to make electricity more reliable, save consumers money on their energy bills, and promote clean energy sources. To advance these important goals, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum this month that directs federal agencies to streamline the siting, permitting and review process for transmission projects across federal, state, and tribal governments.

Unlocking Long-Term Investment in Clean Energy Innovation: The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget continues the President’s commitment to keeping the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment by increasing funding for clean energy technology across all agencies by 30 percent, to approximately $7.9 billion. This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors – to clean coal. To continue America’s leadership in clean energy innovation, the Administration will also take the following steps:

• Spurring Investment in Advanced Fossil Energy Projects: In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will issue a Federal Register Notice announcing a draft of a solicitation that would make up to $8 billion in (self-pay) loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy projects under its Section 1703 loan guarantee program. This solicitation is designed to support investments in innovative technologies that can cost-effectively meet financial and policy goals, including the avoidance, reduction, or sequestration of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed solicitation will cover a broad range of advanced fossil energy projects. Reflecting the Department’s commitment to continuous improvement in program management, it will take comment on the draft solicitation, with a plan to issue a final solicitation by the fall of 2013.

• Instituting a Federal Quadrennial Energy Review: Innovation and new sources of domestic energy supply are transforming the nation’s energy marketplace, creating economic 7

214 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

opportunities at the same time they raise environmental challenges. To ensure that federal energy policy meets our economic, environmental, and security goals in this changing landscape, the Administration will conduct a Quadrennial Energy Review which will be led by the White House Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy, supported by a Secretariat established at the Department of Energy, and involving the robust engagement of federal agencies and outside stakeholders. This first-ever review will focus on infrastructure challenges, and will identify the threats, risks, and opportunities for U.S. energy and climate security, enabling the federal government to translate policy goals into a set of analytically based, clearly articulated, sequenced and integrated actions, and proposed investments over a four-year planning horizon.

II. Building a 21st-Century Transportation Sector

Increasing Fuel Economy Standards: Heavy-duty vehicles are currently the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector. In 2011, the Obama Administration finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for Model Year 2014-2018 for heavy-duty trucks, buses, and vans. These standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons and save 530 million barrels of oil. During the President’s second term, the Administration will once again partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders to develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption through the application of advanced cost-effective technologies and continue efforts to improve the efficiency of moving goods across the United States.

The Obama Administration has already established the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history. These standards require an average performance equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, which will save the average driver more than $8,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle and eliminate six billion metric tons of carbon pollution – more than the United States emits in an entire year.

Developing and Deploying Advanced Transportation Technologies: Biofuels have an important role to play in increasing our energy security, fostering rural economic development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. That is why the Administration supports the Renewable Fuels Standard, and is investing in research and development to help bring next-generation biofuels on line. For example, the United States Navy and Departments of Energy and Agriculture are working with the private sector to accelerate the development of cost-competitive advanced biofuels for use by the military and commercial sectors. More broadly, the Administration will continue to leverage partnerships between the private and public sectors to deploy cleaner fuels, including advanced batteries and fuel cell technologies, in every transportation mode. The Department of Energy’s eGallon informs drivers about electric car operating costs in their state – the national average is only $1.14 per gallon of gasoline equivalent, showing the promise for consumer pocketbooks of electric-powered vehicles. In addition, in the coming months, the Department of Transportation will work with other agencies to further explore strategies for integrating alternative fuel vessels into the U.S. flag fleet. Further, the Administration will continue to work with states, cities and towns through the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency to improve transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.

8 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 215

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

III. Cutting Energy Waste in Homes, Businesses, and Factories

Reducing Energy Bills for American Families and Businesses: Energy efficiency is one of the clearest and most cost-effective opportunities to save families money, make our businesses more competitive, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the President’s first term, the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed efficiency upgrades in more than one million homes, saving many families more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone. The Administration will take a range of new steps geared towards achieving President Obama’s goal of doubling energy productivity by 2030 relative to 2010 levels:

• Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products. Through 2030, these standards will cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years. To build on this success, the Administration is setting a new goal: Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings set in the first and second terms combined will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 – equivalent to nearly one-half of the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. energy sector for one year – while continuing to cut families’ energy bills.

• Reducing Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency upgrades bring significant cost savings, but upfront costs act as a barrier to more widespread investment. In response, the Administration is committing to a number of new executive actions. As soon as this fall, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service will finalize a proposed update to its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program to provide up to $250 million for rural utilities to finance efficiency investments by businesses and homeowners across rural America. The Department is also streamlining its Rural Energy for America program to provide grants and loan guarantees directly to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.

In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s efforts include a $23 million Multifamily Energy Innovation Fund designed to enable affordable housing providers, technology firms, academic institutions, and philanthropic organizations to test new approaches to deliver cost-effective residential energy. In order to advance ongoing efforts and bring stakeholders together, the Federal Housing Administration will convene representatives of the lending community and other key stakeholders for a mortgage roundtable in July to identify options for factoring energy efficiency into the mortgage underwriting and appraisal process upon sale or refinancing of new or existing homes.

• Expanding the President’s Better Buildings Challenge: The Better Buildings Challenge, focused on helping American commercial and industrial buildings become at least 20 percent more energy efficient by 2020, is already showing results. More than 120 diverse organizations, representing over 2 billion square feet are on track to meet the 2020 goal: cutting energy use by an average 2.5 percent annually, equivalent to about $58 million in energy savings per year. To continue this success, the Administration will expand the program to multifamily housing – partnering both with private and affordable 9

216 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

building owners and public housing agencies to cut energy waste. In addition, the Administration is launching the Better Buildings Accelerators, a new track that will support and encourage adoption of State and local policies to cut energy waste, building on the momentum of ongoing efforts at that level.

IV. Reducing Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Curbing Emissions of Hydrofluorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are primarily used for refrigeration and air conditioning, are potent greenhouse gases. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are expected to nearly triple by 2030, and double from current levels of 1.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions to 3 percent by 2020.

To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions. In fact, the Administration has already acted by including a flexible and powerful incentive in the fuel economy and carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks to encourage automakers to reduce HFC leakage and transition away from the most potent HFCs in vehicle air conditioning systems. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. In addition, the President has directed his Administration to purchase cleaner alternatives to HFCs whenever feasible and transition over time to equipment that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives.

Reducing Methane Emissions: Curbing emissions of methane is critical to our overall effort to address global climate change. Methane currently accounts for roughly 9 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions and has a global warming potential that is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide. Notably, since 1990, methane emissions in the United States have decreased by 8 percent. This has occurred in part through partnerships with industry, both at home and abroad, in which we have demonstrated that we have the technology to deliver emissions reductions that benefit both our economy and the environment. To achieve additional progress, the Administration will:

• Developing an Interagency Methane Strategy: The Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Transportation will develop a comprehensive, interagency methane strategy. The group will focus on assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce methane emissions.

• Pursuing a Collaborative Approach to Reducing Emissions: Across the economy, there are multiple sectors in which methane emissions can be reduced, from coal mines and landfills to agriculture and oil and gas development. For example, in the agricultural sector, over the last three years, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture have worked with the dairy industry to increase the adoption of methane digesters through loans, incentives, and other assistance. In addition, when it comes to the oil and gas sector, investments to build and upgrade gas pipelines will not only put more Americans to work, but also reduce emissions and enhance economic productivity. For example, as part of the Administration’s effort to improve federal 10 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 217

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

permitting for infrastructure projects, the interagency Bakken Federal Executive Group is working with industry, as well as state and tribal agencies, to advance the production of oil and gas in the Bakken while helping to reduce venting and flaring. Moving forward, as part of the effort to develop an interagency methane strategy, the Obama Administration will work collaboratively with state governments, as well as the private sector, to reduce emissions across multiple sectors, improve air quality, and achieve public health and economic benefits.

Preserving the Role of Forests in Mitigating Climate Change: America’s forests play a critical role in addressing carbon pollution, removing nearly 12 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. In the face of a changing climate and increased risk of wildfire, drought, and pests, the capacity of our forests to absorb carbon is diminishing. Pressures to develop forest lands for urban or agricultural uses also contribute to the decline of forest carbon sequestration. Conservation and sustainable management can help to ensure our forests continue to remove carbon from the atmosphere while also improving soil and water quality, reducing wildfire risk, and otherwise managing forests to be more resilient in the fact of climate change. The Administration is working to identify new approaches to protect and restore our forests, as well as other critical landscapes including grasslands and wetlands, in the face of a changing climate.

V. Leading at the Federal Level

Leading in Clean Energy: President Obama believes that the federal government must be a leader in clean energy and energy efficiency. Under the Obama Administration, federal agencies have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent – the equivalent of permanently taking 1.5 million cars off the road. To build on this record, the Administration is establishing a new goal: The federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 – more than double the current goal of 7.5 percent. In addition, the federal government will continue to pursue greater energy efficiency that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and saves taxpayer dollars.

Federal Government Leadership in Energy Efficiency: On December 2, 2011, President Obama signed a memorandum entitled “Implementation of Energy Savings Projects and Performance-Based Contracting for Energy Savings,” challenging federal agencies, in support of the Better Buildings Challenge, to enter into $2 billion worth of performance-based contracts within two years. Performance contracts drive economic development, utilize private sector innovation, and increase efficiency at minimum costs to the taxpayer, while also providing long- term savings in energy costs. Federal agencies have committed to a pipeline of nearly $2.3 billion from over 300 reported projects. In coming months, the Administration will take a number of actions to strengthen efforts to promote energy efficiency, including through performance contracting. For example, in order to increase access to capital markets for investments in energy efficiency, the Administration will initiate a partnership with the private sector to work towards a standardized contract to finance federal investments in energy efficiency. Going forward, agencies will also work together to synchronize building codes – leveraging those policies to improve the efficiency of federally owned and supported building stock. Finally, the Administration will leverage the “Green Button” standard – which aggregates energy data in a secure, easy to use format – within federal facilities to increase their ability to manage energy consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and meet sustainability goals.

11 218 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

PREPARE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

As we act to curb the greenhouse gas pollution that is driving climate change, we must also prepare for the impacts that are too late to avoid. Across America, states, cities, and communities are taking steps to protect themselves by updating building codes, adjusting the way they manage natural resources, investing in more resilient infrastructure, and planning for rapid recovery from damages that nonetheless occur. The federal government has an important role to play in supporting community-based preparedness and resilience efforts, establishing policies that promote preparedness, protecting critical infrastructure and public resources, supporting science and research germane to preparedness and resilience, and ensuring that federal operations and facilities continue to protect and serve citizens in a changing climate.

The Obama Administration has been working to strengthen America’s climate resilience since its earliest days. Shortly after coming into office, President Obama established an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and, in October 2009, the President signed an Executive Order directing it to recommend ways federal policies and programs can better prepare the Nation for change. In May 2010, the Task Force hosted the first National Climate Adaptation Summit, convening local and regional stakeholders and decision-makers to identify challenges and opportunities for collaborative action.

In February 2013, federal agencies released Climate Change Adaptation Plans for the first time, outlining strategies to protect their operations, missions, and programs from the effects of climate change. The Department of Transportation, for example, is developing guidance for incorporating climate change and extreme weather event considerations into coastal highway projects, and the Department of Homeland Security is evaluating the challenges of changing conditions in the Arctic and along our Nation’s borders. Agencies have also partnered with communities through targeted grant and technical-assistance programs—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency is working with low-lying communities in North Carolina to assess the vulnerability of infrastructure investments to sea level rise and identify solutions to reduce risks. And the Administration has continued, through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, to support science and monitoring to expand our understanding of climate change and its impacts.

Going forward, the Administration will expand these efforts into three major, interrelated initiatives to better prepare America for the impacts of climate change:

I. Building Stronger and Safer Communities and Infrastructure

By necessity, many states, cities, and communities are already planning and preparing for the impacts of climate change. Hospitals must build capacity to serve patients during more frequent heat waves, and urban planners must plan for the severe storms that infrastructure will need to withstand. Promoting on-the-ground planning and resilient infrastructure will be at the core of our work to strengthen America’s communities. Specific actions will include:

Directing Agencies to Support Climate-Resilient Investment: The President will direct federal agencies to identify and remove barriers to making climate-resilient investments; identify and remove counterproductive policies that increase vulnerabilities; and encourage and support smarter, more resilient investments, including through agency grants, technical assistance, and other programs, in sectors from transportation and water management to conservation and 12

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 219

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

disaster relief. Agencies will also be directed to ensure that climate risk-management considerations are fully integrated into federal infrastructure and natural resource management planning. To begin meeting this challenge, the Environmental Protection Agency is committing to integrate considerations of climate change impacts and adaptive measures into major programs, including its Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and grants for brownfields cleanup, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development is already requiring grant recipients in the Hurricane Sandy–affected region to take sea-level rise into account.

Establishing a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness: To help agencies meet the above directive and to enhance local efforts to protect communities, the President will establish a short-term task force of state, local, and tribal officials to advise on key actions the federal government can take to better support local preparedness and resilience- building efforts. The task force will provide recommendations on removing barriers to resilient investments, modernizing grant and loan programs to better support local efforts, and developing information and tools to better serve communities.

Supporting Communities as they Prepare for Climate Impacts: Federal agencies will continue to provide targeted support and assistance to help communities prepare for climate- change impacts. For example, throughout 2013, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration is working with 19 state and regional partners and other federal agencies to test approaches for assessing local transportation infrastructure vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather and for improving resilience. The Administration will continue to assist tribal communities on preparedness through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including through pilot projects and by supporting participation in federal initiatives that assess climate change vulnerabilities and develop regional solutions. Through annual federal agency “Environmental Justice Progress Reports,” the Administration will continue to identify innovative ways to help our most vulnerable communities prepare for and recover from the impacts of climate change. The importance of critical infrastructure independence was brought home in the Sandy response. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Energy are working with the private sector to address simultaneous restoration of electricity and fuels supply.

Boosting the Resilience of Buildings and Infrastructure: The National Institute of Standards and Technology will convene a panel on disaster-resilience standards to develop a comprehensive, community-based resilience framework and provide guidelines for consistently safe buildings and infrastructure – products that can inform the development of private-sector standards and codes. In addition, building on federal agencies’ “Climate Change Adaptation Plans,” the Administration will continue efforts to increase the resilience of federal facilities and infrastructure. The Department of Defense, for example, is assessing the relative vulnerability of its coastal facilities to climate change. In addition, the President’s FY 2014 Budget proposes $200 million through the Transportation Leadership Awards program for Climate Ready Infrastructure in communities that build enhanced preparedness into their planning efforts, and that have proposed or are ready to break ground on infrastructure projects, including transit and rail, to improve resilience.

Rebuilding and Learning from Hurricane Sandy: In August 2013, President Obama’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force will deliver to the President a rebuilding strategy to be implemented in Sandy-affected regions and establishing precedents that can be followed 13 220 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

elsewhere. The Task Force and federal agencies are also piloting new ways to support resilience in the Sandy-affected region; the Task Force, for example, is hosting a regional “Rebuilding by Design” competition to generate innovative solutions to enhance resilience. In the transportation sector, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is dedicating $5.7 billion to four of the area’s most impacted transit agencies, of which $1.3 billion will be allocated to locally prioritized projects to make transit systems more resilient to future disasters. FTA will also develop a competitive process for additional funding to identify and support larger, stand-alone resilience projects in the impacted region. To build coastal resilience, the Department of the Interior will launch a $100 million competitive grant program to foster partnerships and promote resilient natural systems while enhancing green spaces and wildlife habitat near urban populations. An additional $250 million will be allocated to support projects for coastal restoration and resilience across the region. Finally, with partners, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a $20 million study to identify strategies to reduce the vulnerability of Sandy-affected coastal communities to future large-scale flood and storm events, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will strengthen long-term coastal observations and provide technical assistance to coastal communities.

II. Protecting our Economy and Natural Resources

Climate change is affecting nearly every aspect of our society, from agriculture and tourism to the health and safety of our citizens and natural resources. To help protect critical sectors, while also targeting hazards that cut across sectors and regions, the Administration will mount a set of sector- and hazard-specific efforts to protect our country’s vital assets, to include:

Identifying Vulnerabilities of Key Sectors to Climate Change: The Department of Energy will soon release an assessment of climate-change impacts on the energy sector, including power-plant disruptions due to drought and the disruption of fuel supplies during severe storms, as well as potential opportunities to make our energy infrastructure more resilient to these risks. In 2013, the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior released several studies outlining the challenges a changing climate poses for America’s agricultural enterprise, forests, water supply, wildlife, and public lands. This year and next, federal agencies will report on the impacts of climate change on other key sectors and strategies to address them, with priority efforts focusing on health, transportation, food supplies, oceans, and coastal communities.

Promoting Resilience in the Health Sector: The Department of Health and Human Services will launch an effort to create sustainable and resilient hospitals in the face of climate change. Through a public-private partnership with the healthcare industry, it will identify best practices and provide guidance on affordable measures to ensure that our medical system is resilient to climate impacts. It will also collaborate with partner agencies to share best practices among federal health facilities. And, building on lessons from pilot projects underway in 16 states, it will help train public-health professionals and community leaders to prepare their communities for the health consequences of climate change, including through effective communication of health risks and resilience measures.

Promoting Insurance Leadership for Climate Safety: Recognizing the critical role that the private sector plays in insuring assets and enabling rapid recovery after disasters, the Administration will convene representatives from the insurance industry and other stakeholders to explore best practices for private and public insurers to manage their own processes and

14 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 221

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

II. Protecting our Economy and Natural Resources

14 222 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

investments to account for climate change risks and incentivize policy holders to take steps to reduce their exposure to these risks.

Conserving Land and Water Resources: America’s ecosystems are critical to our nation’s economy and the lives and health of our citizens. These natural resources can also help ameliorate the impacts of climate change, if they are properly protected. The Administration has invested significantly in conserving relevant ecosystems, including working with Gulf State partners after the Deepwater Horizon spill to enhance barrier islands and marshes that protect communities from severe storms. The Administration is also implementing climate-adaptation strategies that promote resilience in fish and wildlife populations, forests and other plant communities, freshwater resources, and the ocean. Building on these efforts, the President is also directing federal agencies to identify and evaluate additional approaches to improve our natural defenses against extreme weather, protect biodiversity and conserve natural resources in the face of a changing climate, and manage our public lands and natural systems to store more carbon.

Maintaining Agricultural Sustainability: Building on the existing network of federal climate- science research and action centers, the Department of Agriculture is creating seven new Regional Climate Hubs to deliver tailored, science-based knowledge to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. These hubs will work with universities and other partners, including the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to support climate resilience. Its Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation are also providing grants and technical support to agricultural water users for more water-efficient practices in the face of drought and long-term climate change.

Managing Drought: Leveraging the work of the National Disaster Recovery Framework for drought, the Administration will launch a cross-agency National Drought Resilience Partnership as a “front door” for communities seeking help to prepare for future droughts and reduce drought impacts. By linking information (monitoring, forecasts, outlooks, and early warnings) with drought preparedness and longer-term resilience strategies in critical sectors, this effort will help communities manage drought-related risks.

Reducing Wildfire Risks: With tribes, states, and local governments as partners, the Administration has worked to make landscapes more resistant to wildfires, which are exacerbated by heat and drought conditions resulting from climate change. Federal agencies will expand and prioritize forest and rangeland restoration efforts in order to make natural areas and communities less vulnerable to catastrophic fire. The Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture, for example, are launching a Western Watershed Enhancement Partnership – a pilot effort in five western states to reduce wildfire risk by removing extra brush and other flammable vegetation around critical areas such as water reservoirs.

Preparing for Future Floods: To ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended, federal agencies will update their flood-risk reduction standards for federally funded projects to reflect a consistent approach that accounts for sea-level rise and other factors affecting flood risks. This effort will incorporate the most recent science on expected rates of sea-level rise (which vary by region) and build on work done by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, which announced in April 2013 that all federally funded Sandy-related rebuilding projects must meet a consistent flood risk reduction standard that takes into account increased risk from extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and other impacts of climate change. 15 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 223

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

III. Using Sound Science to Manage Climate Impacts

Scientific data and insights are essential to help government officials, communities, and businesses better understand and manage the risks associated with climate change. The Administration will continue to lead in advancing the science of climate measurement and adaptation and the development of tools for climate-relevant decision-making by focusing on increasing the availability, accessibility, and utility of relevant scientific tools and information. Specific actions will include:

Developing Actionable Climate Science: The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget provides more than $2.7 billion, largely through the 13-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program, to increase understanding of climate-change impacts, establish a public-private partnership to explore risk and catastrophe modeling, and develop the information and tools needed by decision-makers to respond to both long-term climate change impacts and near-term effects of extreme weather.

Assessing Climate-Change Impacts in the United States: In the spring of 2014, the Obama Administration will release the third U.S. National Climate Assessment, highlighting new advances in our understanding of climate-change impacts across all regions of the United States and on critical sectors of the economy, including transportation, energy, agriculture, and ecosystems and biodiversity. For the first time, the National Climate Assessment will focus not only on dissemination of scientific information but also on translating scientific insights into practical, useable knowledge that can help decision-makers anticipate and prepare for specific climate-change impacts.

Launching a Climate Data Initiative: Consistent with the President’s May 2013 Executive Order on Open Data – and recognizing that freely available open government data can fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, scientific discovery, and public benefits – the Administration is launching a Climate Data Initiative to leverage extensive federal climate-relevant data to stimulate innovation and private-sector entrepreneurship in support of national climate-change preparedness.

Providing a Toolkit for Climate Resilience: Federal agencies will create a virtual climate- resilience toolkit that centralizes access to data-driven resilience tools, services, and best practices, including those developed through the Climate Data Initiative. The toolkit will provide easy access to existing resources as well as new tools, including: interactive sea-level rise maps and a sea-level-rise calculator to aid post-Sandy rebuilding in New York and New Jersey, new NOAA storm surge models and interactive maps from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that provide risk information by combining tidal data, projected sea levels and storm wave heights, a web-based tool that will allow developers to integrate NASA climate imagery into websites and mobile apps, access to the U.S. Geological Survey’s “visualization tool” to assess the amount of carbon absorbed by landscapes, and a Stormwater Calculator and Climate Assessment Tool developed to help local governments assess stormwater-control measures under different precipitation and temperature scenarios.

16 224 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

LEAD INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The Obama Administration is working to build on the actions that it is taking domestically to achieve significant global greenhouse gas emission reductions and enhance climate preparedness through major international initiatives focused on spurring concrete action, including bilateral initiatives with China, India, and other major emitting countries. These initiatives not only serve to support the efforts of the United States and others to achieve our goals for 2020, but also will help us move beyond those and bend the post-2020 global emissions trajectory further. As a key part of this effort, we are also working intensively to forge global responses to climate change through a number of important international negotiations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I. Working with Other Countries to Take Action to Address Climate Change

Enhancing Multilateral Engagement with Major Economies: In 2009, President Obama launched the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a high-level forum that brings together 17 countries that account for approximately 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, in order to support the international climate negotiations and spur cooperative action to combat climate change. The Forum has been successful on both fronts – having contributed significantly to progress in the broader negotiations while also launching the Clean Energy Ministerial to catalyze the development and deployment of clean energy and efficiency solutions. We are proposing that the Forum build on these efforts by launching a major initiative this year focused on further accelerating efficiency gains in the buildings sector, which accounts for approximately one-third of global carbon pollutions from the energy sector.

Expanding Bilateral Cooperation with Major Emerging Economies: From the outset, the Obama Administration has sought to intensify bilateral climate cooperation with key major emerging economies, through initiatives like the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, the U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy, and the Strategic Energy Dialogue with Brazil.

We will be building on these successes and finding new areas for cooperation in the second term, and we are already making progress: Just this month, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China reached an historic agreement at their first summit to work to use the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of HFCs, a highly potent greenhouse gas. The impact of phasing out HFCs by 2050 would be equivalent to the elimination of two years’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources.

Combatting Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Pollutants such as methane, black carbon, and many HFCs are relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, but have more potent greenhouse effects than carbon dioxide. In February 2012, the United States launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollution, which has grown to include more than 30 country partners and other key partners such as the World Bank and the U.N. Environment Programme. Major efforts include reducing methane and black carbon from waste and landfills. We are also leading through the Global Methane Initiative, which works with 42 partner countries and an extensive network of over 1,100 private sector participants to reduce methane emissions.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 225

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, agriculture, and other land use constitute approximately one-third of global emissions. In some developing countries, as much as 80 percent of these emissions come from the land sector. To meet this challenge, the Obama Administration is working with partner countries to put in place the systems and institutions necessary to significantly reduce global land-use-related emissions, creating new models for rural development that generate climate benefits, while conserving biodiversity, protecting watersheds, and improving livelihoods.

In 2012 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s bilateral and regional forestry programs contributed to reducing more than 140 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, including through support for multilateral initiatives such as the Forest Investment Program and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. In Indonesia, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is funding a five-year “Green Prosperity” program that supports environmentally sustainable, low carbon economic development in select districts.

The Obama Administration is also working to address agriculture-driven deforestation through initiatives such as the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020, which brings together governments, the private sector, and civil society to reduce tropical deforestation related to key agricultural commodities, which we will build upon.

Expanding Clean Energy Use and Cut Energy Waste: Roughly 84 percent of current carbon dioxide emissions are energy-related and about 65 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to energy supply and energy use. The Obama Administration has promoted the expansion of renewable, clean, and efficient energy sources and technologies worldwide through:

• Financing and regulatory support for renewable and clean energy projects • Actions to promote fuel switching from oil and coal to natural gas or renewables • Support for the safe and secure use of nuclear power • Cooperation on clean coal technologies • Programs to improve and disseminate energy efficient technologies

In the past three years we have reached agreements with more than 20 countries around the world, including Mexico, South Africa, and Indonesia, to support low emission development strategies that help countries to identify the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing their economies. Among the many initiatives that we have launched are:

• The U.S. Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative, which aligns grant-based assistance with project planning expertise from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and financing and risk mitigation tools from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation to unlock up to $1 billion in clean energy financing.

• The U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, which has identified $6 billion in U.S. export credit and government financing to promote clean energy development in the Asia-Pacific region.

Looking ahead, we will target these and other resources towards greater penetration of renewables in the global energy mix on both a small and large scale, including through our

226 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

participation in the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative and accelerating the commercialization of renewable mini-grids. These efforts include:

• Natural Gas. Burning natural gas is about one-half as carbon-intensive as coal, which can make it a critical “bridge fuel” for many countries as the world transitions to even cleaner sources of energy. Toward that end, the Obama Administration is partnering with states and private companies to exchange lessons learned with our international partners on responsible development of natural gas resources. We have launched the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program to share best practices on issues such as water management, methane emissions, air quality, permitting, contracting, and pricing to help increase global gas supplies and facilitate development of the associated infrastructure that brings them to market. Going forward, we will promote fuel-switching from coal to gas for electricity production and encourage the development of a global market for gas. Since heavy-duty vehicles are expected to account for 40 percent of increased oil use through 2030, we will encourage the adoption of heavy duty natural gas vehicles as well.

• Nuclear Power. The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises international partners on safety and regulatory best practices, and the Department of Energy works with international partners on research and development, nuclear waste and storage, training, regulations, quality control, and comprehensive fuel leasing options. Going forward, we will expand these efforts to promote nuclear energy generation consistent with maximizing safety and nonproliferation goals.

• Clean Coal. The United States works with China, India, and other countries that currently rely heavily on coal for power generation to advance the development and deployment of clean coal technologies. In addition, the U.S. leads the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which engages 23 other countries and economies on carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Going forward, we will continue to use these bilateral and multilateral efforts to promote clean coal technologies.

• Energy Efficiency. The Obama Administration has aggressively promoted energy efficiency through the Clean Energy Ministerial and key bilateral programs. The cost- effective opportunities are enormous: The Ministerial’ s Super-Efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment Initiative and its Global Superior Energy Performance Partnership are helping to accelerate the global adoption of standards and practices that would cut energy waste equivalent to more than 650 mid-size power plants by 2030. We will work to expand these efforts focusing on several critical areas, including: improving building efficiency, reducing energy consumption at water and wastewater treatment facilities, and expanding global appliance standards.

Negotiating Global Free Trade in Environmental Goods and Services: The U.S. will work with trading partners to launch negotiations at the World Trade Organization towards global free trade in environmental goods, including clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, hydro and geothermal. The U.S. will build on the consensus it recently forged among the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies in this area. In 2011, APEC economies agreed to reduce tariffs to 5 percent or less by 2015 on a negotiated list of 54 environmental goods. The 19 Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 227

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

APEC list will serve as a foundation for a global agreement in the WTO, with participating countries expanding the scope by adding products of interest. Over the next year, we will work towards securing participation of countries which account for 90 percent of global trade in environmental goods, representing roughly $481 billion in annual environmental goods trade. We will also work in the Trade in Services Agreement negotiations towards achieving free trade in environmental services.

Phasing Out Subsidies that Encourage Wasteful Consumption of Fossil Fuels: The International Energy Agency estimates that the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies – which amount to more than $500 billion annually – would lead to a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below business as usual by 2050. At the 2009 G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the United States successfully advocated for a commitment to phase out these subsidies, and we have since won similar commitments in other fora such as APEC. President Obama is calling for the elimination of U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies in his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget, and we will continue to collaborate with partners around the world toward this goal.

Leading Global Sector Public Financing Towards Cleaner Energy: Under this Administration, the United States has successfully mobilized billions of dollars for clean energy investments in developing countries, helping to accelerate their transition to a green, low-carbon economy. Building on these successes, the President calls for an end to U.S. government support for public financing of new coal plants overseas, except for (a) the most efficient coal technology available in the world’s poorest countries in cases where no other economically feasible alternative exists, or (b) facilities deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies. As part of this new commitment, we will work actively to secure the agreement of other countries and the multilateral development banks to adopt similar policies as soon as possible.

Strengthening Global Resilience to Climate Change: Failing to prepare adequately for the impacts of climate change that can no longer be avoided will put millions of people at risk, jeopardizing important development gains, and increasing the security risks that stem from climate change. That is why the Obama Administration has made historic investments in bolstering the capacity of countries to respond to climate-change risks. Going forward, we will continue to:

• Strengthen government and local community planning and response capacities, such as by increasing water storage and water use efficiency to cope with the increased variability in water supply

• Develop innovative financial risk management tools such as index insurance to help smallholder farmers and pastoralists manage risk associated with changing rainfall patterns and drought

• Distribute drought-resistant seeds and promote management practices that increase farmers' ability to cope with climate impacts.

Mobilizing Climate Finance: International climate finance is an important tool in our efforts to promote low-emissions, climate-resilient development. We have fulfilled our joint developed country commitment from the Copenhagen Accord to provide approximately $30 billion of climate assistance to developing countries over FY 2010-FY 2012. The United States contributed approximately $7.5 billion to this effort over the three year period. Going forward, we will seek 20 228 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

1.4.3 President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

to build on this progress as well as focus our efforts on combining our public resources with smart policies to mobilize much larger flows of private investment in low-emissions and climate resilient infrastructure.

II. Leading Efforts to Address Climate Change through International Negotiations

The United States has made historic progress in the international climate negotiations during the past four years. At the Copenhagen Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2009, President Obama and other world leaders agreed for the first time that all major countries, whether developed or developing, would implement targets or actions to limit greenhouse emissions, and do so under a new regime of international transparency. And in 2011, at the year-end climate meeting in Durban, we achieved another breakthrough: Countries agreed to negotiate a new agreement by the end of 2015 that would have equal legal force and be applicable to all countries in the period after 2020. This was an important step beyond the previous legal agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, whose core obligations applied to developed countries, not to China, India, Brazil or other emerging countries. The 2015 climate conference is slated to play a critical role in defining a post-2020 trajectory. We will be seeking an agreement that is ambitious, inclusive and flexible. It needs to be ambitious to meet the scale of the challenge facing us. It needs to be inclusive because there is no way to meet that challenge unless all countries step up and play their part. And it needs to be flexible because there are many differently situated parties with their own needs and imperatives, and those differences will have to be accommodated in smart, practical ways.

At the same time as we work toward this outcome in the UNFCCC context, we are making progress in a variety of other important negotiations as well. At the Montreal Protocol, we are leading efforts in support of an amendment that would phase down HFCs; at the International Maritime Organization, we have agreed to and are now implementing the first-ever sector-wide, internationally applicable energy efficiency standards; and at the International Civil Aviation Organization, we have ambitious aspirational emissions and energy efficiency targets and are working towards agreement to develop a comprehensive global approach.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 229 1.4.3 Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To Address Management Priorities

DOI Climate Science Centers— Regional Science To Address Management Priorities

Our Nation’s lands, waters, and ecosystems and the The Right Science in the Right Place living and cultural resources they contain face myriad Climate Science Centers will do research to determine the impacts challenges from invasive species, the effects of changing of climate change on key natural and cultural resources in their land and water use, habitat fragmentation and degradation, regions. CSC scientists will and other influences. These challenges are compounded • predict how fish, wildlife, habitats, water, cultural, and other by increasing influences from a changing climate—higher resources will change in response to climate change; temperatures, increasing droughts, floods, and wildfires, and • assess the vulnerability of these resources to climate change; overall increasing variability in weather and climate. • link projections of climate change (such as expected alterations in The Department of the Interior (DOI) has established temperature and precipitation) with models that predict how climate eight regional Climate Science Centers (CSC) (fig. 1) that will will affect resources; provide scientific information and tools to natural and cultural • work with partners to develop standardized approaches to monitoring resource managers as they plan for conserving these resources and link existing monitoring efforts to models of climate and in a changing world. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) resource response; and National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center • ensure that data generated at NCCWSC and the CSCs are shared and (NCCWSC) is managing the CSCs on behalf of the DOI. can be combined with other data sets.

8( 7 1 20 ^ 6 ¬2 NORTHWEST ¬1 NORTH CENTRAL 31 32 30 ^36¬ ALASKA 33 ( 22 ( 35 10 ( 17 29 11 ( 14 ( 21 NORTHEAST ¬ ( 15 ^ SOUTHWEST 16 18 34

JAPAN 37 12 ( 25 Hawaii 23 ( 13 ( 27 ( SOUTHEAST ¬5 ( 24 26 3 9 Guam ^¬4 SOUTH CENTRAL 28 Samoa PACIFIC ISLANDS

BaseBase fromfrom ESRI, ESRI, 2009, 2009, Albers Albers Equal Area Equal Conic Area Projection, ConicNorth Projection, American North Datum American of 1983 Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION National Climate Change Northwest CSC 17. Iowa State University Northeast CSC and Wildlife Science Center 6. Oregon State University 18. Kansas State University 30. University of Massachusetts Amherst 7. University of Idaho 19. Montana State University 31. University of Minnesota CSC Lead Institutions 8. University of Washington 20. University of Montana 32. College of Menominee Nation Southwest CSC 21. University of Nebraska - Lincoln 33. University of Wisconsin - Madison CSC Institutions 9. University of Arizona 22. University of Wyoming 34. University of Missouri Columbia Alaska CSC 10. Desert Research Institute (Nevada) South Central CSC 35. Columbia University 1. University of Alaska - Fairbanks 11. University of California - Davis 23. University of Oklahoma 36. Marine Biological Laboratory 2. University of Alaska - Anchorage 12. University of California - Los Angeles 24. Texas Tech University Southeast CSC Pacific Islands CSC 13. Scripps Institute of Oceanography 25. Oklahoma State University 37. North Carolina State University 3. University of Hawaii at Manoa 14. University of Colorado 26. Chickasaw Nation 4. University of Hawaii at Hilo North Central CSC 27. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 5. University of Guam 14. University of Colorado 28. Louisiana State University 15. Colorado State University 29. NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 16. Colorado School of Mines

Figure 1. Locations of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Center (CSC) lead institutions and consortia partners.

U.S. Department of the Interior Fact Sheet 2012–3048 U.S. Geological Survey Printed on recycled paper April 2012

230 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To Address Management Priorities

Frio River near Concan, Texas. Photograph taken by Erin Sewell, U.S. Geological Survey.

Natural and cultural resource managers will identify CSC entities whose mandate is to work collectively to identify key science priorities. DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives resource issues and provide information and other support for are primary sources of science needs, along with other integrated, landscape-scale conservation planning. management entities and stakeholders in a CSC region. In turn, While CSCs specialize in providing the fundamental the scientists undertaking the research will work cooperatively science to support decision-making, LCCs apply that science to with those managers who identified results that can be applied specific management challenges. directly to real-world problems. CSCs also will disseminate CSCs and LCCs ensure strong communications between the information gleaned from their research and assist in scientists and managers, and enable the creation of the ensuring effective management and dissemination of the large necessary regional scale science to address climate change amounts of data needed for regional climate science. Finally, challenges. Through both formal committees and informal CSCs will provide access, information, and guidance for networking, CSCs and LCCs will expand the cross-agency, using “downscaled” or localized projections of future climatic Federal-state, and public-private dialogue needed to respond conditions. The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science effectively to these challenges. Center can assist and foster partnerships with agencies such as In addition to the strong ties with LCCs, CSCs will seek the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) input from a wide variety of regional partners. Each CSC will to provide services across multiple regions. convene a Stakeholder Advisory Committee with representation CSCs will be able to access a wide range of scientific from Federal, state, and tribal management agencies, in addition capabilities, through the network of university partners (fig. 1), to formal membership from each LCC in the region. These as well as through other USGS and Federal agency scientists. advisory committees will include regional representation from This leveraging of capabilities will ensure effective and efficient agencies with scientific assets relevant to LCC and CSC science use of public funds. needs, such as NOAA and the Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service Partners in Conservation: Climate Science Centers, (NRCS) and Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Stakeholder Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and Regional Advisory Committees will provide a forum for the development Stakeholders of regional science priorities derived from individual LCC and management agency needs, and for coordination among Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are critical science providers to address regional priorities. Coordination partners of CSCs and will help define the regional priorities across CSC regions will ensure that issues are addressed of each CSC. LCCs are partnerships consisting of natural and on an ecological basis, and are not limited by regional or cultural resource managers, from Federal, state, tribal, and other administrative boundaries.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 231 1.4.3 Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To Address Management Priorities

Climate Science Center Locations, Partners, and Key Personnel

Alaska Climate Science Center USGS Director: Dr. Steven Gray University Principal Investigator (PI): Dr. Scott Rupp Host: University of Alaska Fairbanks (in Anchorage)

http://www.doi.gov/csc/alaska

Photograph taken by Ed Josberger, U.S. Geological Survey

North Central Climate Science Center USGS Director: Dr. Jeffrey Morisette University PI: Dr. Dennis Ojima, Colorado State University Host: Colorado State University, with University of Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, Iowa State University, University of Montana, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Kansas State University, Montana State University, and University of Wyoming http://www.doi.gov/csc/northcentral Photograph taken Brian Tangen, U.S. Geological Survey

Northeast Climate Science Center USGS Director: To be determined University PI: Dr. Richard Palmer Host: University of Massachusetts, with College of Menominee Nation, Columbia University, Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri – Columbia, and University of Wisconsin – Madison

Photograph taken by John Tracey, U.S. Geological Survey http://www.doi.gov/csc/northeast

Northwest Climate Science Center USGS Director: Dr. Gustavo Bisbal University PI: Dr. Phil Mote, Oregon State University Host: Oregon State University, with University of Washington, and University of Idaho http://www.doi.gov/csc/northwest

Photograph taken by U.S. Geological Survey

Pacific Islands Climate Science Center USGS Director: To be determined University PI: Dr. Kevin Hamilton Host: University of Hawaii – Manoa, with University of Hawaii – Hilo, University of Guam http://www.doi.gov/csc/pacific

Photograph taken by Melissa Roth, U.S. Geological Survey

232 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Department of Interior Climate Science Centers—Regional Science To Address Management Priorities

South Central Climate Science Center USGS Director: To be determined University PI: Dr. Berrien Moore Host: University of Oklahoma, with Texas Tech University, Louisiana State University, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory http://www.doi.gov/csc/southcentral Photograph taken by U.S. Geological Survey

Southeast Climate Science Center USGS Director: Dr. Gerard McMahon University PI: Dr. Damian Shea Host: North Carolina State University http://www.doi.gov/csc/southeast

Photograph taken by U.S. Geological Survey

Southwest Climate Science Center USGS Director: To be determined University PI: Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona Host: University of Arizona, with University of Colorado, University of California – Davis, University of California – Los Angeles, Desert Research Institute, and Scripps Institute of Oceanography

Photograph taken by Kristin Pitts, U.S. Geological Survey http://www.doi.gov/csc/southwest

For additional Information contact: Director National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20192 703-648-6016 http://nccwsc.usgs.gov Bald eagle chicks. Photograph taken by Dave Menke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Author: Robin O’Malley

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Tacoma Publishing Service Center

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 233 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers

Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science

234 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Executive Summary

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) are being implemented based on input from a wide range of partners, guidance from the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of the Interior’s climate strategy, and with strong Congressional oversight. The enterprise is intended to:

 be strongly partner-driven  respond directly to the needs of natural and cultural resource managers for science to address ongoing and future climate change  leverage the intellectual capabilities of the nation’s academic sector and the substantial scientific talent and assets of the federal government  provide science on a regional basis to support decision making

The role of the NCCWSC and CSCs is to provide scientific information to support management decision making. The scientific niche is intermediate between very large scale, often investigator-driven science that explores how earth systems function and the immediate tactical information needs of managers. Specifically, the NCCWSC and CSCs work to identify key uncertainties about how systems function, spur research to meet those gaps, synthesize and translate information from multiple disciplines, and deliver it to users in forms (including models, decision support tools, etc.) that they can apply to decisions.

The scientific agenda for the enterprise consisting of the NCCWSC and CSCs is being built from the bottom up with input from resource managers. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and other management entities identify their science needs, these are reconciled at the regional CSC level to provide regional priorities, and these are further aggregated and distilled to identify national scale gaps and needs. At all levels, dialogue between managers and scientists ensures the priority questions are both relevant and scientifically tractable.

Implementation of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise is ongoing. All eight CSCs have been formally established, and permanent directors hired for seven of these1. Initial science agendas are also in place2, with increasing focus on the highest priority regional needs and integration of science planning across CSCs and up to the national level. CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs) are in place and informal collaboration between LCCs, CSCs, and other partners is growing daily. A national science agenda, derived from the CSC regional agendas, is in its initial stages. The establishment of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS) is a milestone for the program. Interactions between NCCWSC, CSCs, and other major entities and initiatives such as the National Climate Assessment, National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, and others are being clarified to ensure minimal duplication and maximum effectiveness.

1 Neither a permanent director nor a science plan is in place at the Pacific Islands CSC. 2 The Pacific Islands CSC plan is in draft form. Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 2 Page 2 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 235 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Key Facts about NCCWSC and CSCs

 NCCWSC was established by Congress in 2008 to provide scientific information to assist managers of the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and their habitats in responding to climate change.  Climate Science Centers were originally planned as “hubs” of NCCWSC, but their mission was expanded by former Secretary of the Interior Salazar. They are now Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers, managed by the USGS NCCWSC. There are eight such centers. See Figure 1.  The NCCWSC and CSCs are envisioned as integral parts of a climate science planning enterprise (NCCWSC-CSC enterprise). Together, the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and other management partners make up a broader climate science and conservation planning initiative.  LCC-identified science needs form the core of the science agendas at CSCs; LCCs and other management entities are represented on CSC stakeholder committees, and CSCs are represented on LCC steering committees.  CSCs take steps to ensure that science conducted in response to these needs is managed so that outputs are of maximum use to the original intended users.  Each CSC stakeholder advisory committee includes representation from the region’s natural and cultural resource managers as well as regional scientific partners. These committees establish priorities for needed science, and match and leverage scientific responses to ensure the most efficient use of limited government funds.  CSCs are federal-university collaboratives. USGS has a small staff at each CSC and can access scientific capabilities and expertise across the lead university or consortium. Federal- university research collaboration is encouraged.  CSCs support moderate numbers of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, both to support needed research and to build a “pipeline” for training future employees.  Based on LCC and other expressed scientific needs, each CSC has or will develop a strategic science agenda with a five-plus year horizon, and annual project funding plans. Stakeholders are and will continue to be engaged in both levels of decision making.  Based on the eight regional CSC science agendas, NCCWSC is developing a national scale agenda for climate science to support natural resource adaptation. Key research needs will be communicated to agencies that support scientific research for consideration as priorities.  USGS and the Department of the Interior have established a federal advisory committee, the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS), to provide input and guidance to the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. An initial meeting is planned for September 2013.

USGS and The Department of the Interior are committed to the success of this enterprise as a partnership effort. The Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science is an important element in achieving this partnership goal.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 3 Page 3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

236 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Map: CSC Locations, Partners, and Leadership

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 4 Page 4 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 237 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Introduction

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers are moving forward to provide answers to key questions about how natural and cultural resources of the U.S. will be affected by climate change, and how managers may plan for adapting to these changes.

At geographic scales ranging from local to national, the enterprise consisting of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and the eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) brings together scientists and managers to conduct research and scientific activities to address key priorities related to the adaptation of natural and cultural resources to climate change. Work completed by the NCCWSC and CSCs considers the larger context of ongoing global change (including changing patterns of land-use, invasive species, hydrology etc.) and provides information to managers working to consider current and future climate impacts.

The mission of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center is to provide natural resource managers with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that address the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

The mission of the DOI Climate Science Centers is to provide natural and cultural resource managers with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that address the impacts of climate change on a broad range of natural and cultural resources.

This progress report describes the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise – its key framing principles, its history and development, structure and intended goals. It is being written in Summer 2013, as the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise refines and perfects its implementation of the core ideas identified in an extensive stakeholder consultation process in 2008 and 2009:

 a network of eight regional centers (“hubs”)  a scientific focus on the impacts of projected climate change on fish, wildlife, ecosystems and other natural and cultural resources,  heavy emphasis on the science needs of land and resource managers, and  extensive science-management dialogue and stakeholder engagement at multiple geographic scales.

With the convening of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS), NCCWSC is seeking input on its implementation of this ambitious vision.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 5 Page 5 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

238 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Mandate and Core Principles

In 2008, amid mounting observations of changes in drought, wildfire, precipitation, and temperature, and projections that these trends would continue, Congress established the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center3. The aim was to provide a focus for scientific activities that would enable resource managers to predict and cope with these changes.

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) now manages a network of eight regional Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and an expanding portfolio of scientific activities intended to inform management of natural and cultural resources.

This enterprise has been shaped by the following principles:

 Meet the scientific needs of resource managers. NCCWSC and CSCs receive their scientific direction from consultations with those whose work involves decisions about natural and cultural resources. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are primary partners, along with other federal, state, tribal, local, and nongovernmental partners.  Foster partnerships aggressively. Effectively responding to landscape-scale changes requires ongoing engagement of multiple management partners (e.g., federal and state) as well as collaboration among science providers to ensure efficient use of resources. These partnerships require conscious development and dedicated resources.  Maximize resources for science. NCCWSC and CSCs have been implemented in ways that minimize staff and facilities costs and devote the maximum amount of funding to science.  Utilize the strengths of both university and government. The scientific expertise required to address climate change is growing and changing rapidly, and strong government- university collaborations enable the public to access state-of-the-science tools and expertise.  Focus on ecosystems, not jurisdictions. Management of natural resources can only truly be effective if it is based on a rich understanding of the full setting, context, and extent of a species, habitat, or other ecological element.

Meet the scientific needs of resource managers. The NCCWSC-CSC enterprise is designed to respond to the scientific needs identified by resource managers. Thus, the scientific agenda for the collective efforts of NCCWSC and CSCs is not driven by an a priori national science agenda. Rather, this science agenda is being built up from the bottom, beginning with the needs identified by Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and other land, water, wildlife and other natural and cultural resource managers. These landscape-level needs are reviewed by each CSC and its Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) – which has strong management representation – to identify key regional priorities. CSC funds are directed to these needs, in order of priority as defined by the partners. Regional priorities are similarly reconciled to build a

3 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161. In this bill, the center was referred to as the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center. Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 6 Page 6 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 239 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

higher level national-scale agenda, with input from the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science, a national-level federal advisory committee. This committee will provide a vehicle for management partners to have substantive input to a national agenda and to communicate any concerns about the need for improved coordination or communication.

Foster partnerships aggressively. The What is “Actionable Science”? scientific work of the NCCWSC and CSCs is Actionable Science: Actionable science at the scales of embedded within partnerships that identify decision making includes the theories, data, analyses, priorities, leverage resources, and ensure and other information that are available, relevant, regional and national integration. The core partnerships for the CSCs are those with reliable, and sufficiently understandable to support Landscape Conservation Cooperatives multiple scales of decision making, including capital (LCCs) and other management entities. As investment decision making. It is one output from noted previously, science needs identified by “science translation” in which decision makers and these managers will drive CSC scientific science producers interact to describe the decisions and activities. In addition, the actual delivery of actions requiring science support and the relevant, scientific information must involve reliable, and applicable science available for translation partnerships between scientists and managers into that support (United States Global Change Research to ensure the maximum utility and applicability of the results. CSC scientists are Program working definition). committed to working directly with managers Actionable science is processed information that can be to ensure useful outcomes. readily used by engineers, planners, and decision makers.

LCCs identify needed science, and have some David Raff, Levi Brekke, Kevin Werner, Andy Wood, and Kathleen of their own resources to acquire scientific White, January 2013. Short-Term Water Management Decisions: User Needs for Improved Climate, Weather, and Hydrologic support. Thus, CSCs and LCCs – and other Information. Joint USCOE, BOR, NOAA Technical Report science providers in a region – will collaboratively allocate needed scientific activities among various providers, matching tasks to resources and mandate to efficiently use public funds. CSCs are also partnerships between the federal government and universities, ensuring that the most appropriate scientific expertise is available and extending the reach of existing federal capabilities. Finally, NCCWSC and the CSCs are involved in many internal partnerships – leveraging the capabilities of USGS scientists to deliver needed results.

Maximize Resources for Science. In a time of fiscal restraint, NCCWSC and the CSCs are being implemented carefully to ensure maximum availability of funds for science. As part of the federal-university partnerships, office space for CSCs is being provided at little or no cost. Administrative support (purchasing, budget/fiscal management, etc.), originally purchased regionally from nearby USGS facilities, will move towards administrative services provided by 2 or 3 full-time USGS staff for all CSCs.

Beyond basic management and administration, hiring of new scientific staff is being undertaken strategically, and only after it is clear that the needed expertise does not reside in the relevant region. And scientific activities are increasingly being coordinated to maximize the benefit from each investment – in such important and expensive assets such as downscaled climate

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 7 Page 7 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

240 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

projections – as well as in specific projects. A key role for the CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committees will be to provide a venue for leveraging of scientific assets in this way.

Utilize the strengths of both university and government. The scientific challenges associated with a changing climate are extraordinary, and solving these challenges will require input from a broad and rapidly changing intellectual spectrum. By establishing partnerships with key academic institutions and consortia, USGS and DOI have greatly expanded the operational capacity to answer key questions and deliver the results directly to managers. In this regard, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units were a key model for the CSCs.

Focus on ecosystems, not jurisdictions. It is now a truism of conservation science and practice that management of natural resources must involve multiple jurisdictions, ownerships, and management responsibilities. The scale of many existing problems demands such cross- jurisdictional action – and the science to support landscape scale action. A changing climate simply reinforces and strengthens the necessity of landscape-to-regional scale science and action. The effects of climate change are expected to play out at large regional scales, with similar influences across broad regions. With this in mind, the guidance to CSCs is that the science they undertake should be bounded by ecological limits – the extent of a species range, watershed divides, vegetation coverage, etc. – rather than administrative boundaries or jurisdictional lines.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 8 Page 8 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 241 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report Defining a Role – The “Operating Space” for the NCCWSC and DefiningCSCs a Role – The “Operating Space” for the NCCWSC and CSCs Defining The role of the a NCCWSC Role –- CSCThe enterprise “Operating is driven Space”by its mandate for to the support NCCWSC the scientific and needs Theof managers. role of the This NCCWSC role can- CSCbe viewed enterprise as part is drivenof a continuum by its mandate that begins to support with verythe scientific high level needs ofCSCsscience, managers. which This provides role can basic be viewedunderstandings as part of about a continuum how atmospheric that begins and with ecological very high systems level science,operate andwhich interact. provides This basic basic understandings knowledge must about be synthesizedhow atmospheric and aggregated and ecological and often systems Theoperateincorporated role and of theinteract. into NCCWSC decision This -basic supportCSC knowledgeenterprise tools, and is must drivencan bebe synthesizedbycomplemented its mandate and toand aggregated support made themore and scientific usefuloften by needs ofincorporatedeffective managers. translation intoThis decision role and can support supportbe viewed for tools, application as partand canof aby becontinuum managers complemented thaton the begins andground. made with Inverymore this high usefulview, level theby effectivescience,NCCWSC which translation and providesCSCs and conduct basicsupport newunderstandings for science application or assembleabout by managers how results atmospheric on from the othersground. and ecological’ work, In this develop view, systems the operatemodels orand other interact. application-oriented This basic knowledge tools, andmust work be synthesized with managers and aggregatedto ensure appropriate and often NCCWSC and CSCs conduct new science or4 assemble results from others’ work, develop modelsincorporatedapplication. or other Theinto application-oriented Jointdecision Fire support Science tools, Program tools, and and can is work an be excellent complemented with managers model and forto ensure themade kind moreappropriate of management- useful by orientedapplication.effective sciencetranslation The and Joint anddelivery Fire support Science effort for envisionedProgramapplication4 is for byan themanagersexcellent NCCWSC modelon the and forground. CSCs. the kind In thisof management- view, the oriented NCCWSC science and CSCs and delivery conduct effortnew science envisioned or assemble for the NCCWSC results from and others CSCs.’ work, develop models or other application-oriented tools, and work with managers to ensure appropriate 4 application.Basic ScienceThe Joint and Fire its ApplicationScience Program to Management is an excellent Concerns model for the kind of management- oriented science and delivery effort envisioned for the NCCWSC and CSCs. Basic Science and its Application to Management Concerns

Basic Science and its Application to Management Concerns

Conceptual model illustrating the spectrum from basic science to the application of that scienceConceptual for specificmodel illustrating management the matters. spectrum CSCs from access basic andscience foster to basicthe application science then of thatuse it in developing tools and techniques for use by managers. LCCs and other natural and cultural science for specific management matters. CSCs access and foster basic science then use it in resourcedeveloping managers tools and are techniqu primaryes partners for use byfor managers. application LCCs of science and other to management. natural and cultural Conceptual model illustrating the spectrum from basic science to the application of that resource managers are primary partners for application of science to management. science for specific management matters. CSCs access and foster basic science then use it in developing tools and techniques for use by managers. LCCs and other natural and cultural A second way of describing the role for Climate Science Centers involves the development and resource managers are primary partners for application of science to management. Aimplementation second way of of describing adaptation the plans role – for management Climate Science strategies Centers designed involves to assist the development ecosystems orand their components in coping with the effects of changing climate. The continuum described implementation of adaptation plans – management strategies designed to assist ecosystems or theirabove components involves the in NCCWSC-CSC coping with the enterpriseeffects of aschanging well as climate.several other The continuumentities. The described NCCWSC Aaboveand second CSCs involves wayact as of the sources describing NCCWSC-CSC of scientific the role enterprisefor information Climate as Science welland tools,as severalCenters Landscape other involves entities. Conservation the development The NCCWSC and implementationCooperativesand CSCs act actas of sourcesas adaptation venues of wherescientific plans science – informationmanagement and management and strategies tools, intersect,Landscape designed enabling to Conservation assist developmentecosystems or of theirmulti-partyCooperatives components landscape-scale act asin venuescoping wherewithplans the basedscience effects on and strongof managementchanging scientific climate. intersect,foundations, The enablingcontinuum and, finally, development described federal, of state, multi-partyabove tribal, involves local, landscape-scale privatethe NCCWSC-CSC and nongovernmental plans based enterprise on strong partners as well scientific asapply several foundations,the scientificother entities. and, information finally, The NCCWSC federal,and 4 See http://www.firescience.gov tools and to CSCs implement act as elements sources of of scientific the adaptation information plans. and These tools, three Landscape groups have Conservation obvious individual strengthsProviding4Cooperatives See http://www.firescience.gov and Science areas act for ofas Climate specialvenues Adaptation expertise, where science but the and entire management continuum intersect, requires enabling close collaboration development Pageof 9 Page 9 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers betweenProvidingmulti-party the Science various landscape-scale for entitiesClimate Adaptationto plansensure based success. on strong scientific foundations, and, finally, federal,Page 9 Page 9 Progress Report – SUMMER 2013 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress4 See http://www.firescience.gov Report – SUMMER 2013 Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 9 Page 9 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers 242 Progress Report – SUMMER 2013 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 10 Page 10 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Scientific Focus of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and Climate Science Centers

The initial five year strategic plan for NCCWSC and the CSCs included five key themes for the enterprise’s scientific focus:  Use and create high resolution climate modeling information and derivative products in order to produce key information that is needed to forecast ecological and population response at national, regional, and local levels.  Integrate physical climate models with ecological, habitat, and population response models.  Forecast fish and wildlife population and habitat changes in response to climate change.  Assess the vulnerability and risk of species and habitats to climate change.  Develop standardized approaches to modeling and monitoring techniques, to facilitate the linkage of existing monitoring efforts to climate models and ecological/biological response models.

NCCWSC intentionally did not elaborate on this strategic agenda. Rather, the development of an overall science agenda for the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise is being managed as a bottom-up affair, beginning with input from partners, which feed into CSC Science Agendas, which in turn will tier to multi-CSC climate change phenomena and national assessment and synthesis.

NCCWSC hopes and believes that a national agenda created in this management-driven process will be of utility in several ways. Its primary role will be to assist NCCWSC in designing its national science strategy – projects undertaken at the national level to complement, knit together or contribute to regional science. A second role, however, will be to communicate to those agencies with national science assets and programs the most important and large scale questions arising as the natural and cultural resource management community confronts climate change – with the expressed intent of enlisting these agencies to assist in answering these large/difficult questions. This process of engagement is in its early stages, and it is likely that the roster of scientific questions will evolve over time. The periodic updating of the national science agenda will allow this evolution to be communicated to science agencies.

The scientific work of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise can be categorized into two bins: science infrastructure and capacity and thematic science projects.

Science infrastructure and capacity is the added value and tangible by-products of conducting science. It includes objectives such as communication and translation of scientific results, coordination of science across multiple organizations, training and education, development of data and information infrastructures, and the provision of a long term evaluation process (akin to adaptive management frameworks) that allows us to build on success and modify our objectives to meet the current needs of the stakeholder community. Thematic science projects are the backbone of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise, and this body of state, tribal, local, private and nongovernmental partners apply the scientific information and work adheres to mission-relevant areas of research. Projects should contain a mix of strategic tools to implement elements of the adaptation plans. These three groups have obvious individual and tactical science, coordinate across boundaries to assure added value of the enterprise, and strengths and areas of special expertise, but the entire continuum requires close collaboration between the various entities to ensure success. Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 11 Page 11 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 243

provide national multidisciplinary expertise to assure science performed meets the needs of DOI. Further these projects must occur across a scalar gradient, meeting the tactical needs of the resource manager while providing regional, national, and global advancements on understanding climate change impacts on fish, wildlife and their habitats within the larger context of ongoing global change (including changing patterns of land-use, invasive species, hydrology etc.). The NCCWSC-CSC enterprise is also a vehicle for decision support. Science conducted within the enterprise should provide credible information about climate impacts with the end result being actionable decisions.

NCCWSC and CSC Science Goals The scientific work of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise can be categorized into two bins, science infrastructure and capacity and thematic science projects. Science infrastructure and capacity is the added value and tangible by-products of conducting science. Thematic science projects are the backbone of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise and adhere to mission- relevant areas of research. Science conducted within the enterprise should be encompassed by relevant themes of research that provide credible information about climate impacts with the end result being actionable decisions.

Science Infrastructure and Capacity Goals Science Capacity Goal 1: Collaborate, communicate and translate science results to managers, stakeholders and the public interested in climate change science. Science Capacity Goal 2: Create and maintain shared information and data management platform. Science Capacity Goal 3: Educate and train a core of climate scientists that will provide expertise in the future. Science Capacity Goal 4: Evaluate the impacts of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. Thematic Science Goals and Outcomes Thematic Science Goal 1: Assess and synthesize our state of knowledge about climate change impacts to DOI natural and cultural resources within the larger context of ongoing global change (including changing patterns of land-use, invasive species, hydrology etc.). Thematic Science Goal 2: Perform vulnerability assessments of species and ecosystems. Thematic Science Goal 3: Understand the social-ecological impacts of climate change. Thematic Science Goal 4: Understand the interactions between climate and the physical, biological, and chemical forces that influence the structure and functioning of ecosystems and the goods and services they provide.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 12 Page 12 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

244 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

History and Development

As this report is written, the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise is moving from an early infrastructure- building phase, in which CSC host locations were identified and agreements put in place with university consortia, initial stakeholder advisory consultations held, staffing and science planning initiated, and early rounds of science activities funded. The next phase might be termed strategic alignment, in which CSCs focus more tightly on a modest number of high priority themes, building toward deeper and more consequential outcomes, link together to address common large-scale phenomena, such as sea level rise and extended drought, and connect to national synthesis and assessment activities.

2008 – First Steps. In the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations act5, Congress provided $1.5 million for establishment of what was then called the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center, which became NCCWSC.

With this initial seed funding, USGS identified and funded five demonstration projects that illustrated the nature of the science to be undertaken by the new Center6. In addition, it began a stakeholder consultation process that drove the eventual structure and function of the new entity. This process was chaired by the Ecological Society of America and The Wildlife Society, ably assisted by the Meridian Institute, a public policy facilitation organization. A major national meeting in December 2008 was followed by four regional listening and strategy development meetings, capped by a smaller, final national meeting in July 20097.

This process identified key elements of the new National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center. These include:

 A small headquarters office and a network of eight regional centers (called “hubs” at the time).  Extensive partner involvement in decision making – such as the concept of a stakeholder committee to shape the agenda for each CSC.  A science program focused on bridging the distance between atmospheric science and conservation action: conducting research, synthesizing and aggregating research findings, developing tools for managers, and helping to effectively manage and enable access to the extensive data needed for both science and decision making.

2009-2010 – A Broader Mission and the First CSCs. Fiscal years 2009 and 2010 brought significantly increased resources -- $10.0 million and $15.0 million, respectively, enabling serious implementation to begin. Because Climate Science Centers were in the planning and early startup stages, NCCWSC undertook a national level request for proposals to begin scientific activities in support of climate adaptation planning. A total of 23 individual research

5 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161. 6 See https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/projects-list/5050cb9ce4b0be20bb30eac5 7 A report of this process and its recommendations can be found at https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TWS-ClimChgReportFINAL.PDF Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 13 Page 13 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 245 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

projects8 (generally 3 years in duration) were funded, addressing a wide range of geographic areas and ecosystems, and focusing on both broad questions of ecosystem response as well as on specific aquatic and terrestrial species.

In addition, in September 2009, Interior Secretary Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (SO3289), which, among other things, recognized CSCs as assets of the entire Department of the Interior (DOI), with a mission to provide science to support adaptation decision making for all natural and cultural resources within the purview of DOI.

SO3289 raised concerns that the expansion of the CSC mission might result in dilution of the effort devoted to fish and wildlife and their habitats, as CSCs were asked to address broader concerns of DOI bureaus. USGS believes this concern is less problematic than it may seem, for several reasons. First, effectively addressing fish and wildlife concerns demands an ecosystem approach, in which a full range of ecological context and settings are considered. This approach can and indeed should be a basic element in a wide range of natural and cultural resource management decisions, meaning that the core science undertaken by CSCs is in fact applicable to a wider range of concerns. Second, the decision making process of CSCs is managed such that USGS NCCWSC funds – which are appropriated to address fish, wildlife, and ecosystems – will be applied only to science activities consistent with the appropriations mandate. In practice – acknowledging a relatively short history – USGS has not been presented with science demands that would go beyond the breadth of NCCWSC’s funding.

The broader departmental mandate was also intended to encourage provision of additional resources to match the mandate and address broader questions. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) had planned to station social scientists in at least two and perhaps three CSCs, increasing the CSCs’ intellectual breadth and capacity, and supporting NPS decision making on cultural and related resources. Budget reductions have required NPS to scale this back to one scientist assigned part time to a CSC. Other bureau and agency external resources are likewise limited during this period.

In Fiscal Year 2010, USGS began the process of establishing CSCs with the identification of the University of Alaska as the location for the first CSC, and initiated competitive selection of host institutions for four additional Centers. The Alaska, Northwest, and Southeast Centers were formally established in September 2010, with Fiscal Year 2010 funds. Implementation of the Southwest and North Central CSCs was delayed by the late passage of appropriations legislation for Fiscal Year 2011, and these centers were established in June 2011. The final three CSCs were established formally in March 2012 (Northeast, South Central, and Pacific Islands), completing the planned suite of eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers.

The CSC host selection process emphasized two key criteria – the strength of both climate and ecosystem impact science capabilities the university could provide access to, and demonstrated orientation to delivering science for natural resource decision making. Proposals were reviewed by a Technical Review Panel with representation from all Department of the Interior bureaus as well as the U.S. Forest Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with

8 https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/display-csc/5050cb0ee4b0be20bb30eac0 Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 14 Page 14 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

246 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

USGS as a non-voting chair. The resulting host institutions and consortia provide an extremely strong and deep source of scientific capabilities, across a wide range of subject areas that complement and extend USGS and other government science assets.

2009 and 2010 also saw the hiring of key headquarters/NCCWSC staff, moving from a skeleton crew of detailees to a small core of permanent staff.

2011 — Implementation and Planning. With the initial suite of CSCs “on the ground,” efforts turned to development of the core institutional elements needed to make these centers successful. NCCWSC and CSC development focused on several key elements:

 Strong linkages to partners, Membership on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for especially LCCs. Each CSC has a the Southwest Climate Science Center formal advisory committee, with USGS Pacific Southwest Area (chair) representation from their region’s FWS - Pacific Southwest Region Landscape Conservation FWS - Southwest Region Cooperatives, other management BOR Lower Colorado Regional Office BIA Pacific Regional Office entities, and other government NPS - Pacific West Region science providers in the region. BLM California State Office Stakeholder Advisory Committees USFS - Pacific Southwest Region (SACs) provide broad input on a USFS - Research Pacific Southwest Research Station strategic level and on the specific USFS - Research; Rocky Mountain Research Station annual work plans of the CSC. This NOAA - Southwest Fisheries Science Center formal mechanism is being DOD - Navy Region Southwest augmented by strong informal links California - Natural Resources Agency California - Department of Water between the CSC staff and partners. California - Department of Fish and Game Climate Science Stakeholder Advisory Committees and Renewable Energy Branch have been established in all regions Nevada - Department of Conservation and Natural (see box for representative Resources; Natural Heritage Program membership). In most cases, the Nevada - Department of Wildlife; Wildlife Diversity SAC will be chaired by the relevant Division USGS Regional Director. Utah (currently vacant) Arizona - Game and Fish Department  Transparent science planning – both Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake strategic and tactical. CSCs have or Hopi Tribe will develop, on a roughly five-year California LCC Steering Committee Chair (USFS) basis, a regional science plan that is Desert LCC Steering Committee Chair (AZ Game and Fish) intended to identify the key Southern Rockies LCC Steering Committee Chair (USFWS) Great Basin LCC Steering Committee Chair (USFWS) scientific questions arising from the challenges faced by natural and cultural resource managers in the region. This plan will necessarily be broader than the agenda for NCCWSC funds9, facilitating a broad regional dialogue about priorities and how to efficiently meet these science needs, leveraging CSC funds and scientists with those of other agencies/science providers. Tiering from this strategic view of the management-driven science needs, each CSC will develop an annual project plan,

9 As noted, NCCWSC funding is intended by Congress to be applied to fish, wildlife and ecosystems. Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 15 Page 15 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 247 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

identifying its funding targets as part of the larger regional dialogue.

In addition, by the end of 2011, USGS had hired permanent directors for the five established CSCs. NCCWSC (“headquarters”) is at near-final configuration, with four senior staff, two post- doctoral researchers, and administrative support.

Finally, as the new CSCs are gaining their footholds, the initial, nation-wide FY2009 research funding projects are nearing completion. In FY12 and beyond, these funds have largely been allocated to CSCs to be directed to regionally-identified high priority topics, rather than being directed through national funding opportunities.

2012 and Beyond – Strategic Integration. The basic infrastructure for CSCs is in place – partners, initial plans, staff, science directions, and community visibility. NCCWSC and the CSCs are now moving to a more strategic and integrated strategy, with the following key elements:

 CSC science directions: fewer, more high impact activities: CSCs will increasingly establish priorities with their partners to enable work to focus on a smaller number of higher priority, longer term science focal areas, with correspondingly higher impact products. Supporting Decisions with Basic Science The Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Model (AK-IEM) is an example of large scale basic science and modeling directly linked to the needs and decisions of managers. This work explores the connections between climate and fire, permafrost, vegetation, and hydrology in a climate-changed Alaska. It will provide the basis for more detailed species- or region-specific models, at scales appropriate to specific decisions. While not directly addressing decision needs, the AK-IEM clearly responds to these needs in a clear and transparent manner.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 16 Page 16 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

248 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

 Focus on decisions: CSCs will increasingly expect researchers to engage directly with the management partners they expect to serve, and to ensure that their results are in fact not simply relevant to these needs, but used by these partners. Where scientific activities do not result in directly applicable tools or knowledge, but rather provide a basis for future science that is applicable, those future applications should be explicit and designed in collaboration with management partners.  Focus on impacts: Projections of changes in climate are a crucial base for the work of NCCWSC and the CSCs. However, the primary emphasis for research is upon the impacts to natural and cultural resources. Increasingly, CSCs will focus on communicating the needs of those studying these impacts to those providing physics- based climatic and hydrologic models and projections, rather than directly conducting the modeling and physics-based work.  Multi-region and national integration: CSCs were designed to address large scale climate phenomena, and as such must work effectively across large areas. CSCs will increasingly work together on issues that span geography, such as sea level rise, extended drought, and issues such as island weather and climate (Pacific, Caribbean). NCCWSC will complement multi-region work with national-level synthesis and assessment activities. For example, NCCWSC scientists just completed a major national assessment of the effects of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services, as part of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we- do/assessment); an upcoming issue of the journal, Frontiers in Ecology and Environment will also highlight the key findings from this effort.

Climate Science Centers – Basic Structure and Operations

 Federal-university joint enterprise. A CSC is comprised of a small Federal staff, aligned with key principal investigators from the host university/consortium. Administrative arrangements enable funding to flow to scientists in any part of the university/consortium and their external partners.  Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). As described above, stakeholders from both management and science perspectives are engaged in setting priorities and identifying efficient ways to meet identified needs. Legal constraints preclude formal membership by nongovernmental parties on this committee, but each CSC will solicit input from nongovernmental organizations, landowner groups, etc.  Strategic science agenda and annual science plan. As noted above, each CSC (except Pacific Islands) has developed a long range (5-10 year) strategic agenda. All CSCs will periodically refine these long range agendas, and will develop annual plans based on this larger perspective.  Commitment to co-development. The framing of science questions and the conduct of the research itself is not viewed by CSCs as “their” job – rather it is a joint enterprise with the management entities that requested the information and will use it in their work. CSCs are committed to ensuring that this vital translation and assistance approach is a part of every project.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 17 Page 17 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 249 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

How NCCWSC and CSCs Relate to Other Programs and Partners

The following short notes illustrate the breadth and nature of the interactions between CSCs, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and many other federal, state, and other partners. This is not, and cannot be a complete list – new linkages are forged daily and weekly.

 Native American/Indian Tribes: Several CSCs have initiated activities with or to benefit tribes, including strategic priority setting, as well as scientific activities related to tribal resources of concern. NCCWSC seeks to expand this base of interactions, and has offered both formal consultation as well as direct ongoing interactions to ensure that tribal management needs are addressed. Two tribes/nations and one tribal college are formal partners in CSC consortia. Each CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committee will include tribal representatives10.  National Climate Assessment (NCA): USGS and NCCWSC are strongly supportive of the NCA. NCCWSC is leading the biodiversity and ecosystem services component, and several CSCs have initiated activities in support of the NCA. However, the majority of funds from both NCCWSC and CSCs will be directed to activities identified by LCCs and other management partners. A longer term role for CSCs in the NCA requires additional discussion.

10 In Hawaii, where natives do not have tribal status, the (state) Office of Hawaiian Affairs provides a link to native concerns. Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 18 Page 18 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

250 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

 U.S. Forest Service (FS): The FS is a major land management partner of DOI, and shares many landscapes and issues. Forest Service representatives will be on regional CSC stakeholder bodies, helping to set priorities and to identify common research activities, and on the federal advisory committee for NCCWSC and the CSCs. Forest Service researchers are partners on projects led by both USGS and CSC-university Principal Investigators, and the Forest Service devoted a full time staff member to ensure smooth initial integration of CSCs and FS activities.

Advisory Mechanisms for CSCs and NCCWSC As part of its commitment to partnership-driven science, DOI and USGS are establishing a number of advisory mechanisms to ensure that partners have the formal access necessary to communicate management-related science needs. CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committee – established at each CSC, with representation from both regional management entities and science providers. Function is to both reach agreement on regional science priorities and to leverage the assets of regional science providers to effectively provide the needed knowledge. At present, these committees may include only federal, state, tribal and other governmental representatives, to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science – DOI has established a formal federal advisory committee to provide guidance and input to the overall NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. Federal, state, tribal, nongovernmental and other partners will be included. The first meeting will be held in September 2013. Informal and ad hoc Mechanisms—CSC Directors and staff interact regularly with their peers and partners in both management and science agencies. Groups are convened to address specific science topics, to participate in review of proposals, and the like.

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): NOAA is a major science and management partner of DOI, and shares many issues and concerns. DOI and the Department of Commerce have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pledging collaboration on climate science and services. Several CSCs were (intentionally) co-located with or have common Principal Investigators with NOAA Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) programs, to leverage common interests and minimize duplication.  Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): LCCs are primary partners of CSCs and the NCCWSC. Their identification of conservation priorities and resulting science needs will form the core of the science agenda for each CSC. CSCs have made a strong commitment to working closely with LCCs and management entities on the framing of research plans, conduct of the work, and delivery of the result (and ensuring our university partners do as well). Both groups will invite the other’s participation on relevant stakeholder and priority-setting bodies.  State governments: States are primary natural resource management partners with DOI. CSCs will invite state participation on their stakeholder committees, in addition to states’ engagement with LCCs. CSCs are also frequently associated with Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, and there are already multiple examples of joint activities.  National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (NFWPCAS): Staff from USGS (although not CSCs) are contributing significantly to the NFWPCAS, and

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 19 Page 19 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 251 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

NCCWSC has been involved at the Steering Committee level. This strategy should serve as a common reference for federal, state, and other partners concerned with adaptation.  Nongovernmental organizations, including conservation advocates, science/professional societies, and producer/landowner advocates: Nongovernmental organizations and private sector (business, landowners) are also key partners. Such entities can be members of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science, but may not be formal members of CSC Stakeholder Advisory Committees. However, each CSC will develop outreach mechanisms to ensure adequate opportunity for these stakeholders to provide input.  The Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS), chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act: A Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was recently established to provide guidance and input to the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. The ACCCNRS has 25 members from federal, state, tribal, nongovernmental and private sectors and academia. The duties of the Committee include: o Advising on the contents of a national strategy to advance the management of natural resources in the face of climate change. o Advising on the nature, extent, and quality of relations with and engagement of key partners at the regional/CSC level. o Advising on the nature and effectiveness of mechanisms to ensure the identification of key priorities from management partners and to effectively deliver scientific results in useful forms. o Advising on mechanisms that may be employed by the NCCWSC to ensure high standards of scientific quality and integrity in its products, and to review and evaluate the performance of individual CSCs, in advance of opportunities to re- establish expiring agreements. o Coordinating as appropriate with any federal advisory committee established for the DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

The ACCCNRS charter and related information may be found at: https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/content/advisory-committee-climate-change-and-natural- resource-science-acccnrs

Again, this list is illustrative. NCCWSC and CSCs are moving forward to build collaborative relationships to ensure the right science gets done efficiently and effectively, and the right people get and are able to use the results.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 20 Page 20 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

252 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

A Partnership Driven Enterprise

The enterprise consisting of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and Climate Science Centers, working closely with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and other natural and cultural resource managers, is committed, in its structure and operations, to a partnership-driven model.

LCCs at a “landscape” scale, CSCs at the regional level, and NCCWSC at the national scale – will be guided by interlocking stakeholder entities. LCCs have Steering Committees with broad membership, which will include representation from the relevant CSC. Each CSC has a stakeholder body, which although limited in formal membership, will solicit input from a wide range of partners, and will include formal membership from LCCs and other managers. USGS and DOI have established a federal advisory committee for the NCCWSC and CSCs, which will include federal, state, tribal, NGO, academic, and private interests.

This structure is intended to ensure that the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise focuses on the right scientific questions in the right places, and delivers the answers in an effective and efficient manner.

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 21 Page 21 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 253 1.4.3 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers - Progress Report

Climate Science Center Locations, Partners, and Leadership Alaska Climate Science Center North Central Climate Science Northeast Climate Science Center Northwest Climate Science Center Center USGS Director: USGS Director: USGS Director: Dr. Stephen Gray USGS Director: Dr. Mary Ratnaswamy Dr. Gustavo Bisbal 907-786-6780 Dr. Jeffrey Morisette 413-545-3424 541-737-2525 [email protected] 303-968-8986 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] University Director: University Director: University Director: Dr. T. Scott Rupp University Director: Dr. Richard Palmer Dr. Phil Mote 907-474-7535 Dr. Dennis Ojima 413-545-2508 541-737-5694 [email protected] 970-491-1976 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Host: University of Alaska Fairbanks Host: University of Massachusetts - Host: Oregon State University with (in Anchorage) Host: Colorado State University - Fort Amherst with College of Menominee University of Washington and Collins with Colorado School of Nation, Columbia University, Marine University of Idaho Mailing Address: Mines, Iowa State University, Kansas Biological Laboratory, University of 4210 University Drive State University, Montana State Minnesota, University of Missouri - Mailing Address: Anchorage, AK 99508 University, University of Colorado, Columbia, and University of 326 Strand Hall – Oregon State www.doi.gov/csc/alaska University of Montana, University of Wisconsin – Madison University Nebraska - Lincoln, and University of Corvallis, OR 97331 Wyoming Mailing Address: 233 Morrill Science Center www.doi.gov/csc/northwest Mailing Address: 611 North Pleasant Street NC CSC c/o Natural Resource Ecology University of Massachusetts Lab Amherst, MA 01003-9297 Dept. 1499 Colorado State University www.doi.gov/csc/northeast Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499 www.doi.gov/csc/northcentral Pacific Islands Climate Science South Central Climate Science Southeast Climate Science Center Southwest Climate Science Center Center Center USGS Director: USGS Director: USGS Interim Director: USGS Director: Dr. Gerard McMahon Dr. Stephen Jackson Dr. David Helweg Dr. Kim Winton 919-515-2229 307-760-0750 808-985-6409 405-325-1272 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] University Director: University Director: Dr. Gustavo Bisbal (for FY13 science University Director: Dr. Damian Shea Dr. Jonathan Overpeck funding/proposal process) Dr. Berrien Moore III 919-515-4663 520-626-4364 541-737-2525 405-325-3095 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Host: North Carolina State University Host: University of Arizona - Tucson Host: University of Oklahoma with with University of California - Davis, University Director: Louisiana State University, The Mailing Address: University of California - Los Angeles, Dr. Kevin Hamilton Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Department of Biology Desert Research Institute, Scripps 808-956-8327 Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State 127 David Clark Labs Institution of Oceanography, and [email protected] University, NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid North Carolina State University University of Colorado – Boulder Dynamics Laboratory, and Texas Raleigh, NC 27695-7617 Host: University of Hawai`i - Manoa Tech University Mailing Address: with University of Hawai`i - Hilo and www.doi.gov/csc/southeast 1955 E. 6th St. University of Guam Mailing Address: Tucson, AZ 85719 301 David L. Boren Blvd, Suite 3030 www.doi.gov/csc/pacific Norman, OK 73019 www.doi.gov/csc/southwest

www.doi.gov/csc/southcentral National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center Director: Mailing Address: Dr. Douglas Beard, Jr. USGS Headquarters 703-648-4215 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 400 [email protected] Reston, VA 20192 http://nccwsc.usgs.gov

Providing Science for Climate Adaptation Page 22 Page 22 The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and DOI Climate Science Centers Progress Report – SUMMER 2013

254 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Charter

Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Charter

1. Committee’s Official Designation. Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (Committee).

2. Authority. The Committee is in the public interest in connection with the responsibilities of the Department of the Interior (DOI) under Section 2 of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262), as amended, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-161, Division F, Title I. The Committee is established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

3. Objectives and Scope of Activities. The Committee advises the Secretary of the Interior on the establishment and operations of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and the DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs).

4. Description of Duties. The duties of the Committee shall include:

A. Advising on the contents of a national strategy identifying key science priorities to advance the management of natural resources in the face of climate change.

B. Advising on the nature, extent, and quality of relations with and engagement of key partners at the regional/CSC level.

C. Advising on the nature and effectiveness of mechanisms to ensure the identification of key priorities from management partners and to effectively deliver scientific results in useful forms.

D. Advising on mechanisms that may be employed by the NCCWSC to ensure high standards of scientific quality and integrity in its products, and to review and evaluate the performance of individual CSCs, in advance of opportunities to re-establish expiring agreements.

E. Coordinating as appropriate with any Federal Advisory Committee established for the DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

5. Official to Whom the Committee Reports. The Committee reports to the Secretary through the Director, USGS, or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).

6. Support. The USGS will provide administrative and logistical support to the Committee.

7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years. The annual operating costs associated with supporting the Committee’s functions are estimated to be approximately $500,000, including all direct and indirect expenses and .50 FTE staff year.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 255 1.4.3 Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Charter

8. Designated Federal Officer. The DFO is a full-time Federal employee appointed in accordance with Agency procedures. The DFO will approve or call all Committee and subcommittee meetings, prepare and approve all meeting agendas, attend all Committee and subcommittee meetings, adjourn any meeting when the DFO determines adjournment to be in the public interest, and chair meetings when directed to do so by the Secretary.

9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings. The Committee will meet approximately 2-4 times annually, and at such other times as designated by the DFO.

10. Duration. Continuing.

11. Termination. The Committee will terminate 2 years from the date the Charter is filed, unless, prior to that date it is renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the FACA. The Committee will not meet or take any action without a valid current Charter.

12. Membership and Designation. The members of the Committee shall be composed of approximately 25 members from both the Federal Government, and the following interests:

 State and local governments, including state membership entities  Non-governmental organizations, including those whose primary mission is professional/scientific and those whose primary mission is conservation and related scientific and advocacy activities  American Indian tribes and other Native American entities  Academia  Individual landowners  Business interests

Within these categories, it is expected that one or more individuals will be directly associated with Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC), as Coordinator, Science Coordinator, or Steering Committee member. In addition, the Committee may include scientific experts, and will include rotating representation from one or more of the institutions that host the DOI Climate Science Centers.

Alternate members may be appointed to the Committee. Alternate members must be approved and appointed by the Secretary before attending meetings as representatives. Alternate members shall have experience and/or expertise similar to that of the primary member.

Members of the Committee will serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, non-Federal members, including alternate members, engaged in Committee, or subcommittee business, approved by the DFO, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government service under Section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

256 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Charter

Members may be appointed as regular Government employees, special Government employees, or representative members. Members appointed as special Government employees are required to file on an annual basis a confidential financial disclosure report.

Members will be appointed for 2 or 3 year terms. A vacancy on the Committee will be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. Members serve at the discretion of the Secretary.

The Secretary will appoint the Committee Chair.

13. Ethics Responsibilities of Members. No Committee or subcommittee member will participate in any specific party matter including a lease, license, permit, contract, claim, agreement, or related litigation with the Department in which the member has a direct financial interest. In addition, the Department of the Interior will provide materials to those members serving as special Government employees, explaining their ethical obligations with which members should be familiar. Consistent with the ethics requirements, members will endeavor to avoid any actions that would cause the public to question the integrity of the Committee’s operations, activities, or advice. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.

14. Subcommittees. Subject to the DFO’s approval, subcommittees may be formed for the purposes of compiling information or conducting research. However, such subcommittees must act only under the direction of the DFO and must report their recommendations to the full Committee for consideration. Subcommittees must not provide advice or work products directly to the Agency. The Committee Chair, with the approval of the DFO, will appoint subcommittee members. Subcommittees will meet as necessary to accomplish their assignments, subject to the approval of the DFO and the availability of resources. At least one subcommittee, to provide expert scientific advice to the Committee, will be established.

15. Recordkeeping. The records of the Committee, and formally or informally established subcommittees of the Committee, shall be handled in accordance with General Records Schedule 26, Item 2 or other approved Agency records disposition schedule. These records shall be available for public inspection and copying, subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

Signed, Secretary Salazar, September 25, 2012

______Secretary of the Interior Date

______Date Filed

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 257 1.4.3 NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments

United States Department of Commerce • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Climate Program Office Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments

How might climate variability and change affect decision making in my community?

NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program supports research teams that help build the nation’s capacity to prepare for and adapt to climate variability and change. Central to the RISA approach are commitments to process, partnership, and trust building. The experimental structure and management of RISA teams are important for responding to natural disasters, environmental and institutional changes, and climate-related challenges to society.

RISA’s Objectives Center East-West Participants gather at the East-West Center in Honolulu for a Pacific RISA RISA teams work with public and private user workshop on climate change impacts on freshwater resources in Hawai‘i. communities to: using available information. Findings indicate that stake- • Understand decision contexts for using climate holders face challenges making decisions that integrate information uncertain information (e.g., projected rainfall) with more • Develop interdisciplinary knowledge through certain information, and managing trade-offs between interdisciplinary research different factors (e.g., costs versus cultural values). • Maintain diverse, flexible networks for sharing knowledge Stakeholders are also interested in learning about impacts • Innovate climate services to enhance the use of of projected water demand on sustainable yield, and how science in decision making to separate natural variability from long-term climate change. Generally, policy makers want the most-probable Understanding Decision Contexts and worst-case scenarios. The Pacific RISA is now conducting research on climate impacts on water resources. Climate information can inform decisions to adapt to a changing environment, but only if the climate research Developing Interdisciplinary Knowledge community and decision makers work together to understand each other’s needs and limitations. For exam- RISA teams use their understanding of different decision ple, Pacific Island communities need guidance to assess contexts to develop knowledge tailored to suit specific future water resources in a changing climate. needs across different timescales of climate and across different sectors of society. The Consortium for Climate Risk in the To support partnerships between scientists and deci- Urban Northeast (CCRUN), in partnership with New York City sion makers in the Hawaiian Islands, the Pacific RISA and Philadelphia, is assessing the cost-effectiveness of green uses a multi-method approach of interviews, work- infrastructure strategies for reducing runoff and adapting to shops, and surveys to characterize what climate infor- climate in urban watersheds. This assessment utilizes a free, mation decision makers need and why they are not web-based LIDRA (Low-Impact-Development Rapid Assess- Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program http://cpo.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/risa Email: [email protected]

October 2012 http://cpo.noaa.gov

258 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments

ment) tool developed by CCRUN member Drexel Univer- sity to identify the economic and environmental benefits of green infrastructure, including the co-benefits of using trees for stormwater retention and energy savings. Initial field findings show that green infrastructure can reduce greenhouse gas emissions thirty-fold over a 50-year span while also reducing combined sewer outflows.

Maintaining Knowledge Networks

RISAs work at the interface of science and society to increase capacity for making decisions in a rapidly

changing environment. RISA processes and products Southeast Climate Consortium are designed as systems for learning and knowledge- Tools on the AgroClimate website help decision makers anticipate probable exchange sustained through lasting relationships crop yield outcomes and risks under different climate conditions. between researchers and organizations or individuals pating in the drought webinars and impact reporting. In engaged in climate-related decision making. A drought a follow-up survey, 79 percent of respondents indicated of strong intensity and vast geographical extent that they had forwarded information from a webinar to gripped the South Central United States in 2011. another person or organization.

To respond to these severe ongoing conditions, mul- Innovating Climate Services tiple efforts were launched to engage decision makers from the region in a conversation about drought. The As societal awareness of climate risk grows, climate infor- Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP), mation is being infused into public spheres in richer ways, along with the National Integrated Drought Informa- placing more emphasis on innovative methods for delivering tion System (NIDIS) and other NOAA regional partners, actionable knowledge. The Southeast Climate Consortium used a four-pronged approach supporting regional (SECC) uses advanced climate sciences, including seasonal workshops, state drought planning, a series of webi- climate forecasts, to provide scientifically sound information nars, and local impact reporting. and decision support tools for agriculture in the Southeast USA. AgroClimate is an interactive web site with climate, ag- The net effect of these efforts is that interaction be- riculture, and forestry information that allows users to assess tween these arenas and between the academic and resource management options with respect to their proba- practitioner communities increased substantially. Many ble outcomes under forecast climate conditions. AgroClimate decision makers participated in more than one effort, uses crop simulation models along with historic and forecast such as state drought planners attending the regional climate data to allow decision makers to compare changes in workshops or local Farm Service Agency offices partici- probable outcomes under different climate conditions. “The NOAA-funded Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program offers a notable demonstration model. These university-based partnerships... have benefited many stakeholders that have had the good fortune to work with them and bring the multidisciplinary conversations and a science-meets- policy-meets-decision making focus that we need.”

—David Behar, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Utility Climate Alliance

October 2012 http://cpo.noaa.gov

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 259 1.4.3 National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

Shared solutions to protect shared values

fact sheet

our climate is changing, and these changes are already impacting the nation’s valuable natural resources and the people, communities and economies that depend on them. Changes are expected to significantly increase over time, challenging our ability to manage and sustain these resources and the essential services they provide Americans every day. By taking steps now to help safeguard the nation’s natural resources against the impacts of climate change, we will be better able to limit future damages and their associated costs, and more effectively take advantage of beneficial opportunities.

The Strategy identifies seven goals to help fish, wildlife, plants and GOALS ecosystems cope with the impacts of climate change. These goals VISION Ecological systems will were developed collectively by diverse teams of federal, state, and tribal technical sustain healthy, diverse, and abundant populations of fish, wildlife and experts, based on existing research and understanding regarding the needs of plants. Those systems will continue these valuable resources. to provide valuable cultural, economic Goal 1 Goal 3 and environmental benefits in a world impacted by global climate change. Conserve habitat to support healthy Enhance capacity for effective fish, wildlife and plant populations management in a changing climate. and ecosystem functions in a changing Goal 4 climate. Support adaptive management in a Goal 2 changing climate through integrated Manage species and habitats to protect observation and monitoring and IsE

ecosystem functions and provide improved decision support tools. ry w sustainable cultural, subsistence, gA Goal 5 recreational, and commercial use in a PURPOSE The purpose of the Increase knowledge and information on changing climate. Strategy is to inspire and enable impacts and responses of fish, wildlife natural resource professionals and and plants to a changing climate. other decision makers to take action Edith’s checkerspot to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and Goal 6 ecosystem functions, as well as the Increase awareness and motivate action human uses, values and benefits to safeguard fish, wildlife and plants in a these natural systems provide, in a changing climate. The Strategy provides changing climate. a basis for sensible actions that can Goal 7 be taken now, as well as guidance on climate adaptation measures to Reduce non-climate stressors to help safeguard natural resources against fish, wildlife, plants, and ecosystems future climate change impacts. It also adapt to a changing climate. describes mechanisms for encouraging collaboration among all levels of

s/N wF government, conservation organizations

y Ell I and private landowners.

ll E Please visit www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov hE s

260 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

WHAT IS IT? The National Fish, wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation strategy is a comprehensive, multi-partner response to the threat of climate change in the United states. It is a call to action — a framework for effective steps that can be taken, or at least initiated, over the next five to 10 years based on climate change projections for the next century. It is designed to be a key part of the nation’s larger response to a changing climate, and to guide responsible actions by natural

resource managers and other decision-makers at all levels of government. s jord AN jAmE

How the Strategy is structured Chapter 3: Goals & Strategies lays out the BACKGROUND during the goals, strategies, and actions that can help past decade there has been an The Strategy has five major chapters natural systems become more resilient in increasing number of calls by supported by ecosystem-specific the face of climate impacts. government and non-governmental background papers: entities for a national effort to Chapter 4: Opportunities for Multiple Sectors Chapter 1: Introduction explains the better understand, prepare for and describes opportunities for multiple origins, vision, guiding principles, and address the impacts of climate sectors to increase the resilience of fish, development of this effort. change on natural resources and wildlife and plants while promoting the communities that depend on Chapter 2: Impacts of Climate Change adaptation of infrastructure, businesses them. These calls helped lay the describes major current and projected and communities. foundation for development of impacts of climate change on the eight Chapter 5: Implementation discusses this Strategy. major ecosystems of the United States, and implementation and integration, on the fish, wildlife and plant species they outlining how stakeholders at all levels In 2009, Congress urged the support. of government can use this Strategy as white house Council on a resource. Environmental Quality and the department of the Interior (doI) to WHO IS INVOLVED? develop a national, government- wide climate adaptation strategy The U.s. Fish and wildlife service (UsFws), the National oceanic and Atmospheric to assist fish, wildlife, plants, and Administration (NoAA), and the New york division of Fish, wildlife, & marine related ecological processes in resources (representing state fish and wildlife agencies more broadly) co-led becoming more resilient, adapting development of the Strategy. The Association of Fish and wildlife Agencies also to, and surviving the impacts of provided support for the effort. climate change as part of the Fiscal year 2010 department The Strategy was developed with An intergovernmental Steering of the Interior, Environment and input from a wide variety of federal, state, Committee has provided input and related Agencies Appropriations and tribal representatives, along with oversight for development of the Strategy. Act Conference report. active engagement and input from Co-chaired by USFWS, NOAA, and non-government organizations, industry the State of New York, the Steering groups, and private landowners. Committee consisted of representatives from 15 federal agencies with management authorities for fish, wildlife, plants, or habitat, as well as representatives from five state fish and wildlife agencies and two inter-tribal commissions. The Steering Committee was supported by a Management Team composed of staff from the co-chairing organizations, as well as five Technical Teams of sh ANd wIldlIFE Ag ENCIE s I

managers and researchers who were F F primarily responsible for drafting o the Strategy. oN AssoCIATI

IC d. moor E Please visit www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov Er

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 261 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on

Climate Change Adaptation Science for Conservation

1. Production a. R&D Research Stations b. Threat Assessment Centers: 1) Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center 2) Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center c. R&D Wildlife and Fish Program Area 1) Aquatic Ecosystem & Fisheries 2) Terrestrial Ecosystem and Wildlife

2. Delivery a. Treesearch b. Resource Planning Act Assessment Reports c. Climate Change Resource Center 1) Tools 2) Research Round-Up 3) Climate Projections FAQ

3. Management Integration a. Structured Mechanisms for Climate Change Adaptation Decision Making Processes 1) Climate Change Response Framework 2) Climate Change Adaptation Guidebook 3) Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options b. Climate Change Advisor’s Office c. Regional Partnerships: 1) Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science 2) Northern Cascadian Adaptation Partnership

Background: The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) manages 193 million acres of public National Forests and Grasslands, and shares responsibility for the stewardship of roughly 500 million acres of non- federal forests with States, Tribes and private landowners. The Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency’ mission is implemented by three divisions: the National Forest System (NFS), State & Private Forestry (S&P), and Research & Development (R&D). R&D established a Global Change Research Program in the late 1980s and has collaborated extensively with other research partners and with

262 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

land managers to understand the nature of climate change, its impacts on natural resources, and to produce practical tools that facilitate climate change adaptation.

Forest Service Wildlife and Fish research provides managers and decision-makers with the tools and knowledge to help protect, enhance, and restore fish and wildlife habitats and minimize the effects of disturbances such as fire, urbanization, disease, and climate change. Forest Service ecologists have built on years of research and a wealth of long-term data to: model the landscape variables influencing habitat change at multiple scales; assess the interacting effects of disturbances such as invasive species, fire, and climate; and assess population responses to these habitat changes This research improves management efficiency, identification of the highest priority habitats for protection, approaches and management tools for restoring resilient habitats and populations, as well as strategies for protecting unique species and ecosystems.

1. Science Production

a. Research Stations: Research is conducted at over 67 Forest Service research laboratories nationally. The labs are organized around five regional research stations plus the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The laboratories are complemented by a network of 80 experimental forests. Each Station has leaders in climate change, landscape conservation, fish, and wildlife science. Each Program or Research Work Unit has a 5 year Charter focused on how they will provide relevant outcomes. Check with the research station in your region for any climate adaptation projects that may apply to your work. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 263 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Northern Research Station http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/locations/

Pacific Northwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/labs.shtml

Pacific Southwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/locations/

International Institute of Tropical Forestry http://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/

Rocky Mountain Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/staff/laboratory-directory.php

Southern Research Station http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/locations/

b. Threat Assessment Centers

1) Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center (EFETAC) http://www.forestthreats.org/

The goal of EFETAC is to generate, integrate, and apply knowledge to predict, detect, and assess environmental threats to the public and private forests of the east, and to deliver this knowledge to managers in ways that are timely, useful, and user friendly. Center staff members are located in North Carolina but have regional, national, and international responsibilities.

The EFETAC scientists are evaluating the effects and consequences of multiple interacting stresses on eastern forest health; increasing knowledge and understanding of the risks, uncertainties, and benefits of multiple environmental stresses on eastern ecological conditions and socioeconomic values; providing science-based decision support tools for policy formulation and land management; and providing land managers with credible predictions of potential severe disturbance in the East with sufficient warning to take preventative actions.

Example: “Detecting recent broad-scale changes in forest biodiversity” - http://www.forestthreats.org/research/projects/project-summaries/forest-biodiversity-changes This project uses Forest Inventory and Analysis data at a variety of spatial scales to characterize forest tree phylogenetic diversity, a measure of community composition that incorporates evolutionary relationships among species. The results of this work can be used by other natural resource managers to assess the condition of and threats to existing habitats.

2) Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center (WWETAC)

http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/

The goal of WWETAC is to generate and integrate knowledge and information to provide credible prediction, early detection, and quantitative assessment of environmental threats in the western United States. The website provides information on ongoing and completed projects under the “Environmental Change” tab. For example “Probabilistic risk models for multiple disturbances: an example of forest insects and wildfires”

264 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

(http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/projects/preisler.html). Users can browse through the results of all of the WWETAC studies. Natural Resource managers in the west can check this website for information on the status of and projected climate impacts to existing habitats.

c. R&D Wildlife and Fish Program Area

Forest Service climate change wildlife and fish adaptation scientists:

1) Link climate change, landscape ecology, habitat, demographic, and genetic analyses to plan for habitat connectivity and species movement. 2) Integrate data across wildlife, vegetation, climate, water, fire, and invasive species to provide interdisciplinary information for complex management decisions. 3) Provide and Transfer Tools: risk assessment, adaptation planning, species and ecosystem vulnerability assessments, and habitat connectivity model development that incorporates climate change.

Research results include:

 Clear choices of benefits and risks of management actions to conserve biological diversity through a long era of instable climates.  Improved management efficiency.  Identification of the highest priority habitats for protection.  Approaches and management tools for restoring resilient habitats and populations.  Strategies for protecting unique species and ecosystems.

Wildlife and fisheries research scientists continue to provide expertise and tools land managers need to integrate needs of wildlife and fish into all aspects of management. Forest Service scientists build on years of research and a wealth of long-term data to: Model the landscape variables influencing habitat change at multiple scales, assess the interacting effects of disturbances such as invasive species, fire, and climate, and assess population responses to these habitat changes.

1) Terrestrial Ecosystem and Wildlife Examples:

Examples of Accomplishments at Each Level of Biological Research: Biome: “Climate Change in Grasslands, Shrublands and Deserts of the Interior American West: A Review and Needs Assessment”: A comprehensive product for an arid region natural resource professionals. Topics include: Projections; Restoration for Mitigation; Arthropod, Pollinators, Herbivores, Animal Species; Genetic and Habitat Adaptation; Disturbance and Invasive Species Relationships to Climate Change; Decision Support for Vulnerability, Conservation, and Restoration.

Ecosystem: “Changing climate, changing forests: The impacts of climate change on forests of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada”: A synthesis of recent research from the northeastern United States and eastern Canada; gives a full exploration of changes to processes, functions, and species compositions for this region, including implications to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 265 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Landscape Analyses: “Evaluating the sufficiency of protected lands for maintaining wildlife population connectivity in the U.S. northern Rocky Mountains “

Communities: “Temperature can interact with landscape factors to affect songbird productivity: Analyzed weather variables with landscape variables; used 20 years of nest-monitoring data across a gradient of habitat fragmentation to assess the influence of temperature and precipitation and landscape factors on the number of young produced per nest attempt songbirds. Most thorough consideration of community ecology in the development of models of climate impacts on wildlife.

Species: Effects of climate change on the federally endangered Indiana Bat.

Examples of Current Research:

Great Basin: Sagebrush habitat restoration, post wildfire: Climate change has already brought more and bigger fires. We are determining how to re-establish the diversity of native understory plants into the environment.

Southeast: Bird, reptile, amphibian, and small mammal community response effects of climate change along with forest management actions. Evaluating impacts of climate change with site conditions, forest communities, environmental gradients, topography and geology. Includes determining production of forest food resources (native fleshy fruit and hard mast) in relation to climate change; how nuts and native fruits of Upper Coastal Plain and the southern Appalachians may change with forest type and age with climate change.

Central Hardwoods and Appalachians: Evaluating projected changes in vegetation across the central hardwoods and Appalachians due to climate change to inform wildlife viability assessments, conservation planning, and management decisions.

North Cascades: More wolverines were captured last winter for the long-term study examining movement, home range, and habitat use. The development of a spatially explicit model of wolverine habitat for all components of the population during all seasons of the year can be used for both management and conservation, as well as provide an empirical basis for predicting effects of global warming on wolverine distribution globally.

2) Aquatic Ecosystem & Fisheries Examples:

Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers - This report describes the framework of how fire and climate change work together to affect forest and fish communities. Learning how to adapt will come from testing, probing, and pushing that framework and then proposing new ideas. The western U.S. defies generalizations, and much learning must necessarily be local in implication. This report serves as a scaffold for that learning. It comprises three primary chapters on physical processes, biological interactions, and management decisions, accompanied by a special section with separately authored papers addressing interactions of fish populations with wildfire. Any one of these documents could stand on its own. Taken together, they serve as a useful reference with varying levels of detail for land managers and resource specialists.

266 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

“NetMap”: A platform for rapidly conducting cost-effective watershed analysis (netmaptools.org), this decision support tool aids climate smart management by identifying areas of watershed that are most likely to warm, are susceptible to erosion and mass wasting from wildfires and floods, and are currently most productive for fish.

“NorWest”: The Forest Service has one of the largest and most valuable stream temperature monitoring networks, from years of landscape-scale stream temperature monitoring, covering the best cold water fisheries habitat in high-elevation areas where the effects of climate change were already being measured. The research is made more useful by incorporating the network of Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges, with climate and stream data of the past 50 to 100 years. Made accessible: Decades of stream temperature monitoring data worth an estimated $10,000,000, collected by more than 60 state, federal, tribal, and private resource agencies. Ultimately: NorWest will facilitate better climate vulnerability assessments, enable coordinated management responses, and improve the efficiency by reducing redundancies.

Mapping the genetic diversity of fish biodiversity. This research is important in understanding the potential impacts that climate change will have on fish populations and what managers can do to support survival and reproduction

A summary of recent USFS climate related tools and research to support management of fish and aquatic habitats can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/wildlife-fish/themes/

2. Communication of Products and Providing Services

a. “Treesearch”

Treesearch is an online system for locating and delivering public domain publications by Research and Development scientists in the US Forest Service. Publications in the collection include research monographs published by the agency as well as papers written by our scientists but published by other organizations in their journals, conference proceedings, or books. Research results behind these publications have been peer reviewed to ensure the best quality science. Treesearch lets you search listings by author, keyword, originating Station or date. Keyword searches examine both the title and abstract. Once you have selected a publication, you can view and print the entire publication online. That's because all publications listed in Treesearch have their full text available online, usually in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF). In some cases, the publications have been scanned from the original, a process that can result in errors. For this reason some publications offer two PDF versions, a compact file with captured text plus a larger pristine version where text is represented graphically. Either way, your computer will need Adobe Acrobat Reader installed to view and print the document.

Some Notable Examples:

“Climate Change in Grasslands, Shrublands and Deserts of the Interior American West: A Review and Needs Assessment”: A comprehensive product for an arid region natural resource professionals. Topics include: Projections; Restoration for Mitigation; Arthropod, Pollinators, Herbivores, Animal Species; Genetic and Habitat Adaptation; Disturbance and Invasive Species Relationships to Climate Change; Decision Support for Vulnerability, Conservation, and Restoration. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41171

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 267 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Changing climate, changing forests: The impacts of climate change on forests of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada”: A synthesis of recent research from the northeastern United States and eastern Canada; gives a full exploration of changes to processes, functions, and species compositions for this region, including implications to wildlife and wildlife habitat.http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41165

“Temperature can interact with landscape factors to affect songbird productivity” Analyzed weather variables with landscape variables; used 20 years of nest-monitoring data across a gradient of habitat fragmentation to assess the influence of temperature and precipitation and landscape factors on the number of young produced per nest attempt songbirds. Most thorough consideration of community ecology in the development of models of climate impacts on wildlife. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/43991

Water Erosion Prediction Project Climate Assessment Tool - WEPPCAT is a web-based erosion simulation tool that allows for the assessment of changes in erosion rates as a consequence of user-defined climate change scenarios. This tool is based on the USDA-ARS Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) erosion model. It has the capability of taking into account the the erosion-affecting processes. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/40464

b. “Resource Planning Act” (RPA) Assessment Reports The Forest Service prepares an assessment of renewable natural resources on the nation’s forests and rangelands every 10 years, with five-year updates. The RPA Assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest and rangeland conditions and trends on all ownerships, identifies drivers of change, and projects conditions 50 years into the future. The latest RPA Assessment’s projections are influenced by a set of scenarios linked to the 4th IPCC Assessment that have varying assumptions about U.S. population and economic growth, global population and economic growth, global wood energy consumption, U.S. land use change, and global climate change from 2010 to 2060. The report summarizes Assessment findings about the status, trends, and projected future of forests, rangelands, wildlife and fish, water supply, biodiversity, outdoor recreation, wilderness, land cover patterns and urban forests, and the effects of climate change on these resources. (Recommended selections: “Wildlife population and harvest trends in the United States”, “Fish and other aquatic resource trends in the United States”, “Vulnerability of U.S. water supply to shortage”. While the focus of the RPA Assessment is national, the results are available at finer scales. The data for the driving forces (population, land use change, economic change, and climate) are all available at the County level. The data, supporting publications, and contacts for the RPA Assessment can be accessed at the RPA website: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/

c. “Climate Change Resource Center” http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/ The Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC) provides natural resource managers with access to science based information and tools concerning ecosystem management and climate change. Its online portal offers original syntheses of land management topics written by scientists and resource specialists, in-depth video presentations that cover a wide range of climate change adaptation and mitigation topics, and access to a variety of tools and recommended literature.

268 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

The website compiles and creates educational resources, climate change and carbon tools, video presentations, literature, and briefings on management relevant topics, ranging from basic climate change information to details on specific management responses.

1) CCRC Tools: The website also offers a useful list of climate change focused or relevant assessment and analysis products: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/tools/

Examples: a) “Climate-Forest Vegetation Simulator” http://gis.fs.fed.us/ccrc/tools/fvs.shtml/ The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is a family of forest growth simulation models that can simulate a wide range of silvicultural treatments for most major forest tree species, forest types, and stand conditions. FVS answers questions about how forest vegetation will change in response to natural succession, disturbances, proposed management actions, and how such changes affect ecosystem values. FVS provides a synthesis of scientific knowledge about important ecosystem components and a means for integrating the knowledge in a format useful to resource managers. The Climate Extension for FVS (Climate-FVS) simulates the effects of climate change by modifying (rather than replacing) the growth, mortality, and regeneration components found in the basic version. This allows users to access the features of the basic version of FVS, and in addition model the effects of changing climate conditions.

b) “Seed Selection Tool” http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/tools/seedlot.shtml The Seedlot Selection Tool (SST) is a web-based decision-support tool designed to help resource managers match seedlots (seed collections from a known origin) with planting sites based on climatic information. The SST can be used to map current climates, or future climates based on selected climate change scenarios. It can help wildlife habitat managers and planners match an appropriate planting site with an appropriate plant seed collection under both current and future climates, and to calculate seed transfer distances based on climatic information. The tool allows the user to control many input parameters so the results can reflect the management practices, climate change assumptions, and risk tolerance of the user. With this site, end-users can view and acquire data on seed zones for use in plant material development, gene conservation and native plant restoration activities. Users can also evaluate seed zones in relation to other map services and wildland threats published by WWETAC such as climate change projections or wildfire risk. Client applications range in functionality from a simple geobrowser to ArcGIS ArcMap, a full-feature GIS software platform that allows the user to integrate their own data and create map layouts.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 269 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

2) “Research Round-Up” http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/roundup/index.php

This website offers summaries of scientific research and collaborations on climate change questions being addressed. It offers a complete overview of the climate change work happening at the Forest Service research stations. Users can browse the research synopses by specific Forest Service Research Station, topic, or using a search function. There is also an option to contact the scientists involved in each project for more information.

3) “Climate Projections Frequently Asked Questions”

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr277.pdf This FAQ serves as a plain-language introduction to the concepts embedded in downscaled climate projections. This online document serves as a handy reference that allows users to skip around within the content, depending on their particular questions and needs. It covers basic information about what climate projections are, how they are produced, and what their strengths and limitations are.

3. Integrating Science into Management

a. Structured Mechanisms for Climate Change Adaptation Decision Making Processes

The Forest Service developed science for climate change adaptation planning integration and decision making processes from 2008 through today. The methods have been used for wildlife habitat land management planning and decision making, including on federal, State, private, and Tribal lands.

1) “Climate Change Response Framework” http://www.climateframework.org/

The Climate Change Response Framework is a collaborative, cross-boundary approach among scientists, managers, and landowners to incorporate climate change considerations into natural resource management. It provides an integrated set of tools, partnerships, and actions to support climate-informed conservation and forest management.

270 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

Includes an “Adaptation Workbook”….these actually work managers through the various considerations for building adaptation plans.

There are three ongoing regional projects that encompass nine states, including 11 National Forests and millions of acres of forestland. Each regional project interweaves four components: science and management partnerships, vulnerability assessments, adaptation resources, and demonstration projects. Consult the individual partnerships for more on the products or activities that may be relevant to your planning process

2) “Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options” (Climate Change Adaptation Guidebook)

This guidebook provides principles, processes, and tools to assist vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning. Identifies conservation and management strategies and tactics. Science-management partnerships are the foundation for all activities. The outcomes include information upon which managers can decide on conservation and management strategies for planning purposes, and on tactics for on-the-ground actions. This happens in two ways: Use of past or joining current Adaptation Guidebook efforts for the landscapes and habitats in for a specific landscape, or initiating the use of the Adaptation Guidebook technique, tailoring the techniques for the particular area and needs. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39884

3) “Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options” (TACCIMO) http://www.forestthreats.org/research/tools/taccimo TACCIMO is a web-based tool that connects natural resource planning to current climate change science literature. It accesses the most current climate change projections and science, including the likely range of projected future climate for any state, county, or National Forest and dynamically linked peer-reviewed scientific statements describing effects and management adaption options. It outputs detailed, custom reports based on user-defined criteria. Several LCCs have already utilized TACCIMO for their information needs.

The literature based science assessments include quotations from peer reviewed literature describing direct impacts of climate change and potential management options. The report generator produces an exportable report from the science literature content based on a series of user-defined selections of the subject, location, and type of information requested. This can include reports as detailed as one county and published reports on one species or as broad as all reports on all mammals in one state.

The climate reports offer a full range of potential future climate from different combinations of Global Climate Models and scenarios depending on the scale, location, and variable (precipitation or temperature) selected. The climate report function generates a standard report describing national, regional, and location specific (state, county, or National Forest) trends and boundaries in projected climate.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 271 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

b. Office of the Climate Change Advisor http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/advisor/

The Climate Change Advisor’s Office (CCAO) in the Chief’s Office has been improving the Forest Service organization for climate change response in four areas: getting connected, taking responsibility, providing direction, and coordinating information and services. The office serves the field to take on climate-related issues through existing national program structure, not create a separate program. Through the CCAO, the personnel regularly utilize a wide variety of means to make connections among networks to share news, results, ideas and opportunities so that we may all grow our understanding to this most important, complex, consequential issue. As a group we work across agencies, across disciplines, across geography and boundaries: we are a well-meshed box of gears. The CCAO climate newsletter is one example of the efforts made by Forest Service scientists and resource professionals to communicate the latest information and technological developments within the global climate change community. Anyone in or out of the Forest Service can sign up to receive the CCAO updates via email. The purpose of the CCAO updates are to help us keep us focused on healthy and functioning ecological, social, and economic systems as the climate around them changes. Through the Climate Change Advisor, we bring climate change knowledge into our organizational expectations and actions. We are learning by doing and learning from each other.

d. Regional Partnerships – 2 Examples: 1) “Northern Cascadian Adaptation Partnership” http://northcascadia.org/mission.php The North Cascadia Adaptation Partnership (NCAP) is a Forest Service – National Park Service collaboration on climate change adaptation. NCAP addresses adaptation at a large scale – the region that includes Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, North Cascades National Park Complex, and Mount Rainier National Park – a land area of 6 million acres. The primary objectives of NCAP are to:

 Synthesize published information and data on climate change science to develop an educational program for resource managers and stakeholders.  Assess the vulnerability of natural and cultural resources (e.g. water, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, roads, high-elevation ecosystems) to a warmer climate.  Develop science-based adaptation strategies and tactics that will increase ecosystem resilience to climate change while maintaining other management objectives.  Ensure that science-based adaptation options are effectively incorporated into relevant planning documents

2) “Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science” http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs//

The Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS) has been designed as a collaborative effort among the Forest Service, universities, and forest industry to provide information on managing forests for climate change adaptation, enhanced carbon sequestration, and sustainable production of bioenergy and materials. As a regional, multi- institutional entity, NIACS builds partnerships, facilitates research, and synthesizes information to bridge the gap between carbon and climate science research and the information and management needs of land owners and managers, policymakers, and

272 LCC National Council Inaugural Meeting 1.4.3 Forest Service Science: Opportunities for Coordination on Climate Change Adaption Science for Conservation

members of the public. NIACS sponsors a climate change short-course every year to assist managers in learning basic climate change science relevant to their role.

Summary: The DOI and the Forest Service both embrace a landscape-scale approach to conservation in the face of a changing climate to provide conservation science that will support natural resource managers facing new and challenging decisions. Forest Service scientists and managers work to expand the level of cross-agency interactions and enhance collaborative activities, especially in areas identified as joint priorities. Through the Forest Service’s existing institutions, partnership culture, and expertise, the Forest Service embraces interagency coordination in science production, delivery, and management integration for landscape scale conservation in the face of unstable climates.

Tuesday, February 4 and Wednesday, February 5, 2014 273