Terwilliger june 2013 nctc meeting tuesday 1 pm


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • My pleasure to present these 2 NE projects that are focused on regional data sharing and informing 2015 SWAP revisions
  • Synthesis of 30+ Regional plans- Prioritized by states themselves Unique regional funding approach
  • 2 separate projects Both needed common terms
  • Apples to apples Better data in- better data out Power of your data is greater with the consistency of your input
  • Adaptive management Intention to roll up SWAP plans into a database It’s all about: how we do things, - to do it right it begs the planning framework –order of things s important, lexicon hardest! But needed first , how we need to do things for effective conservation across state lines *1
  • Infers planning framework/process
  • Infers planning framework/process
  • Infers planning framework/process
  • States agreed they would use these methods/ criteria/terms, and likeley go beyond for their own state
  • Remember we set these priorities 10 yrs ago, and we reassess annually
  • Be sure to refer back to wheel of future- so each step feeds the others most efficiently and effectively
  • Step 1 compile all projects and code Just to show the visual
  • Crosswalked IUCN and TRACS
  • For user friendliness- 2 quick references-
  • The document itself
  • Point out links to broad planning frameworks and how each porjcet fits in
  • Captrues the general- broad projects as well as the specific ones
  • Terwilliger june 2013 nctc meeting tuesday 1 pm

    1. 1. and Lexicon for Northeast State Wildlife Action Plan Revisions Northeast Regional Synthesis
    2. 2. Synthesis of What?  30+ Regionally prioritized projects by states totaling $2 million + match  Since 2007, 13 States + DC agreed to pool 4% of their State Wildlife Grant funding for Regional Conservation  Annual process administered by WMI and involves NEAFWA administrators, Directors, and technical committees - $500k/ year + match
    3. 3. 2 Regional Data Sharing Projects to inform State Plan Revisions 1- NE Synthesis- roll down  Compile 30+ Regional projects for states  Organize by Plan Element different terms and scales for each project 2- State Action Plan Database= roll up  Compile 14 State Action Plans  Organize by Plan Elements different terms and processes for each state Needed to find and agree on common terminology and processes for both projects to be meaningful and effective
    4. 4. Spatial Data Library 14 State Action Plans Regional Plans Data SourcesNE SYNTHESIS and DATABASE PROJECTs for Plan REVISIONS STATE PLAN
    5. 5. Lexicon Approach Prerequisites:  Adapt and Rename : State Action Plan DATABASE and re-phase:  1- Common planning framework/ lexicon, 2- database  Find a balance between state autonomy regional consensus  Challenge of finding and agreeing on a least common denominator (LCD) for each Element
    6. 6. Approach to Develop Lexicon (1) State Survey  What might we each agree to for each Plan Element?  Provided a basis for meetings and discussion
    7. 7. Approach to Develop Lexicon (2) Literature Search for commonly used Terms and Criteria for describing/ranking each element Systems Variables Used by Different Systems NatureServe April 2012 Scope Severity Timing (immediacy) Impact Magnitude IUCN 2012 Scope Severity Impact TNC CAP 2007 Scope Severity Contribution Irreversibility TNC’s SE Division 2003 Extent (% targets) Severity TNC 5-S (precursor to CAP) 2000 Scope (spatial) Severity Contribution Irreversibility CMP. 2007. Open Standards Scope Severity Permanence/ Irreversibility Urgency WWF Project & Programme Standards 2007 Scope Severity Irreversibility Permanence WWF RAPPAM 2002 Extent Permanence Probability Impact & Trend WWF Root Causes Scope Permanence Impact Ecoregional Assessments: Standard 10. 2006 Scope Severity Time WCS Living Landscapes Proportion Severity Recovery Time Probability Urgency Salafsky et al. 2003 Scope Severity Contribution Reversibility Likelihood Timing Magnitude (Scope and Severity) Bunnell et al.2009 Immediacy Magnitude Salafsky & Margoluis 1999 Area Intensity Urgency Wisdom et al. 2003 Spatial Extent Timeframe required Case Study: Caribbean Persistence Florida WAP Scope Severity Irreversibility Degree to which they contribute Draft NE Lexicon Spatial Extent Intensity Reversibility Likelihood of Impact and Occurrence Cumulative and Compounding Immediacy Duration Persistence
    8. 8. Approach to Develop Lexicon (1) State Survey  What might we each agree to for each Plan Element? (2) Literature Search  Commonly used Terms and Criteria for describing each Element (3) Meetings- ID preferred terms and processes-in review (4) Report-In process of summarizing and writing recommended set of common terms and criteria for states review- to use in 2015 but not required
    9. 9. Lexicon Summary  Lexicon agreement points:  Element 1- Use our RSGCN list and process  Element 2- Use NE terrestrial and aquatic habitat classifications  Element 3- Use simple ranking threats, IUCN (or TRACS) coding  Element 4-8-TRACS- Use simple scoring for consistency  Element 5- Use our NE Monitoring and Performance Measures  Need progress – on language for actions, strategies, goals objectives, desired outcome, i.e. population goals for species  Lexicon should provide enough detail to allow the development of a regional plan and recommendations for above  Partnership with NALCC in co-developing these important planning frameworks
    10. 10. Lessons Learned  Order and Process matter!  Adaptive management- re-phase database to common planning framework/lexicon  Consensus involved LCD that allow state autonomy and flexibility to go beyond at the local scale  Link to the NE conservation planning framework  Regional process of setting regional priorities reminds states it was their highest priority
    11. 11. Consensus built from the unique process for setting regional priorities Numbers in the box refer to the conservation action as listed in the list of 73 actions at Albany 2006 meeting. However, only the top 41 actions are included in the flow chart. Bold and underlined numbers refer to the top eleven priority conservation actions. GIS Data Analyses and Mapping for NE SGCN #4, 12, 18, 19, 40, 60, 63 RCN 4 RCN 5 Design and Implement Conservation Strategies for NE SGCN #15, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 43, 44, 49, 57, 67, 68 RCN 6 Design and implement Monitoring Programs for NE SGCN #2, 13, 46, 54, 64, 73 Develop NE Base Maps #47, 56, 71 ID High Priority NE SGCN #3, 8, 20, 28 ID NE SGCN Data Gaps, Design Data Collection Protocols, and Collect Data #6, 10, 45, 46, 50, 54, 59, 64, 66 RCN 1 RCN 2 RCN 3 Identify and Address Emerging Threats Contributing to the Regional Declines of NE SGCN Climate change, White Nose Syndrome, etc. RCN 7
    12. 12. Northeast Conservation Framework
    13. 13. Northeast Regional Synthesis Regional Synthesis for Northeast State Wildlife Action Planning Status and Progress
    14. 14. How can the Regional Projects be used to Inform 2015 Plan Revisions ? Roll down of regional 30+ projects = the Synthesis  provide the regional context- plans, projects and frameworks to inform State Wildlife Action Planning (and beyond – partner use, etc.)  compiled and user-friendly so states can cut and paste all for the regional context of their State Wildlife Action Plan or pull into each Plan Element
    15. 15. Regional collaboration 30 + funded RCN projects Regional species conservation plans Products from regional meetings and workshops Organize by PLAN Element Species Habitats Threats Actions Monitoring, etc. Extract and standardize relevant data for each Element Analyze and summarize extracted data Regional Synthesis Document Conservation planning PLAN updates Northeast Regional Synthesis
    16. 16. Northeast Regional Synthesis Approach Prerequisites:
    17. 17. Regional Project Compilation and Coding: RCN Project Summary Example  #6: Identifying Relationships between Invasive Species and SGCN in the Northeast (RCN2007-03)  Status: Completed (January 2012)    Principal Investigator: Scott D. Klopfer and Glen N. Stevens, Ph.D. Title: Director and Research Scientist Organization: Conservation Management Institute, College  of Natural Resources and Environment, Virginia Tech Email: glsteven@vt.edusklopfer@vt.edu and glsteven@vt.edu Address: 1900 Kraft Drive, Suite 250 MS0534,  Blacksburg, VA 24061  Phone: 540-231-7348  Link: http://rcngrants.org/content/identifying-relationships-between-invasive-species-and-species-greatest-conservation-need  Citation:  Klopfer, S. 2012.  Final  Report: Identifying Relationships between Invasive Species and SGCN in the Northeast. Conservation Management Institute.  18 pp.   Summary: This project provides a series of data tables and the methodology necessary for assessing the impact of invasive species on SGCN. The process  is open-ended and flexible to allow users to modify the criteria for customized results within each state. The metrics range from simply the number of SGCNs  impacted by each invasive species to more complex analysis incorporating invasive characteristics, impacts, or weighting values. The project report provides  background information on how the data tables of SGCN and invasive species were developed and how they should be interpreted for prioritizing and ranking  invasive species threats to SGCNs.  A detailed example of an assessment for Pennsylvania SGCN is provided. This file contains a document that walks the user  through the process.  RCN Topic: ID Invasive Species   Related Projects: None   States - ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, WV, VA   Species- PLAN Element 1-SGCN   Habitats- PLAN Element 2-All   
    18. 18. RCN Project Summary Example Threats- PLAN Element 3 Threat:  Impact of invasive species on SGCN  TRACS Threats Level 2:  Invasive and other problematic species and genes (1.5) TRACS Threats:  Invasive non-native/alien species (1.5.1) IUCN Threats Level 1:  Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases (8) IUCN Threats:  Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species/Diseases (8.1.2) Information:  threat severity   Actions-PLAN Element 4 Recommendation for Regional PLAN revision:  Whenever feasible, use these methods o assess the threat of invasive species on state SGCN. TRACS Actions Level 1:  Planning (9) TRACS Actions:  State Wildlife Action Planning (9.4) IUCN Actions Level 1:  None   IUCN Actions:  None Responsibility:  states  Monitoring-SWAP Element 5-None  Regional Review and Coordination (Elements 6-8)-None Project Tools Tool:  Tables and tools to assess threats to SGCN wildlife from invasive species Description:  This tool consists of a set of Excel tables that can be used to assess the impact of invasive species on SCGN wildlife. Several different metrics for doing  such an assessment were compiled to provide users with customized ranking criteria to meet specific needs. A detailed example of an assessment for Pennsylvania  SGCN is provided. The example files contain a word document that walks the user through the process.   File Type:  Excel Workbook Potential Uses:  Species Status Assessment, Species Threat Assessment Primary Users:  Biologists
    19. 19. TOC and Quick Reference Table by State and PLAN Element  Organized 3x by Project, Year and Element  Each project’s PLAN elements captured using  “Common Lexicon” terms  Meetings/workshops- states added fields like  tools, users, responsibility, related projects  Links to each project if they need details asap  Reviewed by committee-= States and PIs  Placed as an Appendix in the document and woven  into the text by topic- “cliff notes”
    20. 20. Synthesis Report  Organized by the 8 required Elements  Provides regional context, priority needs and processes Makes data useful at various scales and formats   Provides states with assistance with conservation adoption  Intended audience/use  Plan coordinators and all implementing partners
    21. 21. Northeast Conservation Planning Framework, Strategic Habitat Conservation & the 8 Elements Element 2: Habitat status assessment Element 4: Prescribe actions Element 3: Evaluate problems & solutions Elements 7&8: Coordinate implementation Element 5: Manage data to: -detect changes Elements 5 and 6: -assess effectiveness -adapt management Element 1: Species status assessment Element 4: Prioritize actionsElement 5: Monitor species, habitats, outcome of actions
    22. 22. Northeast Regional Synthesis CHAPTER I. Priority RGCN Species  Regional Summary of SGCN Species and Condition  Regional lists,  assessment and prioritization of SGCNs by taxa  Vulnerability assessments CHAPTER 2. Habitats  Regional Summary of Habitats and Condition  Terrestrial & Aquatic Habitat Maps  Guide to Habitat Classifications  Composite Habitat Condition  Vulnerability/ecological integrity index – UMASS and TNC
    23. 23. Northeast Regional Synthesis CHAPTER 3. Threats  Compilation of regional threats from RCN projects (IUCN/TRACS)  Assessments of landscape change-UMASS   Climate change  and vulnerability assessments- NWF CHAPTER 4. Regional Actions  Compilation of regional actions from regional plans- TRACS  Northeast Conservation Framework and Components  Albany II and other priority regional needs  Tying regional information to actions by partners  NFWF keystone initiatives, NRCS focal species
    24. 24. Northeast Regional Synthesis Chapter 5. Monitoring and Evaluation  Northeast Performance Monitoring Framework    7 key habitats &  key SGCN   SWG Effectiveness Measures  Applies the Conservation Framework and Assessment with  results chains (linkages) and highlight specific regional plans   Taxa-specific Surveys (e.g., bird and frog shrubland monitoring)  Protocols and databases from RCN projects
    25. 25. Northeast Regional Synthesis Chapter 6. Regional Coordination and Partnerships  RCN, LCC  Regional I&M  Competitive SWG  Highlights the web of groups involved at the regional scale in the RCN program
    26. 26. Northeast Regional Synthesis Lessons Learned • Consistency in coding PLAN elements at different scales- hierarchically rollup Actions in meaningful way i.e. species plans, research vs. frameworks • Need to link to the broader NE processes context (CPF and MPMF) • Allowed us to ID gaps and tell larger story and to set stage for regional plan
    27. 27. Time for Reflection  Look at our progress in the last 10+ yrs  Evolution in terms and processes and how we do things  Agencies  Divisions  We and these Action Plans are broadening the breath and depth of conservation and engaging a broader audience  Present the NE attempt to share data and set priorities and conservation as a region
    28. 28.  NEFWDTC- 13 States and DC reps  NEAFWA and Directors, WMI  TCI TEAM  Partners for RCN projects  NWF and conference sponsors PROGRESS and Perseverance Acknowledgements:
    29. 29. Need Filter of a Common Lexicon and Database