Landscape Conservation Design Community of Practice (LCD‐COP) Online Roundtable Discussion April 1, 2015 A Summary Report Statement of Need and Purpose
With the conservation community increasingly engaging in discussion about the benefits and challenges associated with taking an integrated, collaborative, and holistic landscape conservation design (LCD) approach to conserve sustainable landscapes for current and future generations of Americans, there is an increasing need for that discussion to be had in open and transparent venues. The purpose of the Landscape Conservation Design Community of Practice (LCD‐COP)’s Online Roundtable Discussion is to provide the conservation community with a forum to gather and discuss landscape conservation design processes and products. Agenda See Appendix A: Agenda Participation Forty‐nine individuals registered to attend the Roundtable; twenty‐nine participants attended (see Appendix B: Participants). Identifying Existing Resources, Methods, and Means (Small Breakout Groups) Participants were divided up into four small breakout groups; identified a facilitator, a recorder, and a reporter; and discussed the following question: “What concepts, principles, processes and/or frameworks are important to know/use in partnership‐driven landscape conservation design?” A detailed list of the groups’ findings can be found in Appendix C. A categorized summary follows. Category headings are derived from the LCD manuscript (under development) and targeted for publication in Landscape and Urban Planning. The linear/hierarchical nature of the categories does not mean to imply the LCD process is linear/hierarchical. 1 Convene Stakeholders:  Conduct literature review; LCD is a learning process (Groups #1, #4)  Convening Entity/Bridging Organization/Backbone Organization: Facilitators of processes; respect diverse agency/organization missions and authorities, provide “neutral turf” for LCD development (e.g., LCCs) (#1, #3)  Use key leaders to identify other stakeholders; utilize existing partnerships/don’t reinvent the wheel (e.g., conservation fund, DU, JV, etc); LCD “influential champion” may suggest stakeholders and/or geography to consider; consider FACA compliance (#2, #3)  Convene diverse stakeholders including those that have the ability to influence landscape conditions and those with conflicting interests; work across political boundaries (international, national, regional, state, local) and multi‐jurisdictional sectors (federal/state/local/tribal; private; NGO, academic, etc); private landowners, urban audiences (#1, #2, #4)  Consider how to organize/engage stakeholders during different but relevant times of the LCD process (e.g., decision‐makers vs technical teams) (#2, #4)  Recognize there may be a need to expand stakeholder diversity/participation as the process unfolds over time (#2)  Clarify/Create/Utilize procedural processes/rules to guide conversations/decision‐
making (e.g., “collective impact”, structured decision making, etc) (#2, #3, #4)  Address on the front end the concept of adaptive management (i.e., the need to implement on‐the‐ground actions that are derived from LCD processes/products that are developed from imperfect data/models) (#2)  Articulate the LCD’s goals/scope (e.g., social plan or conservation plan) (#1)  Identify the stakeholders’ geography of interest (#2)  Identify human values and needs, targets, objectives, issues (#1, #2)  Identify focal/surrogate species to drive the LCD’s development (#1)  Identify data needs and how to proceed given data gaps (#1, #2)  Consider development of human dimensions technical team (#1)  “Nested conservation design”: different group engagements occurring within the larger conservation design process can lead to a diversity of products being developed and projects being implemented (e.g., small‐scaled products/projects are of more interest to local stakeholders than regional stakeholders) (#2)  Identify organizations’ contributions to the LCD effort (#3) Assess Landscape Conditions  Conduct a literature review (#4)  Identify temporal and spatial scale the LCD is to be developed; consider how the design can be scaled up or down (and or link to adjacent LCDs) (#2)  Use new technologies (e.g. data sharing; spatial prioritizations, etc) (#1, #4)  Assess biological and ecological processes, surrogates (#1, #3)  Utilize existing frameworks/don’t reinvent the wheel (#3, #4) 2 
Consider landscape ecology and conservation biology concepts: anthropogenic change agents (e.g., non‐point source contamination, climate change, resource extraction) (#3) Prototype a Designed Landscape  Conduct a literature review (#4)  Seek to achieve human values and needs, socio‐economic goals, and multi‐species objectives (#1)  Utilize existing frameworks/don’t reinvent the wheel (#3)  Utilize landscape ecology and conservation biology concepts: island biogeography, fragmentation, corridors and connectivity  Develop products that enable landscape stakeholders to “see” themselves in them (#2) Participate in Strategy Design and On‐the‐Ground Action  Conduct a literature review; utilize existing frameworks/don’t reinvent the wheel; “collective impact” (#3, #4)  Consider how various elements of the LCD process/products lead to strategy development (#1)  Consider temporal and spatial application of on‐the‐ground implementation strategies (#3)  Develop a communications plan (#4) Evaluation of Discussion Participants were asked to provide response to the following question: “Have we adequately addressed this topic of interest (i.e., identify LCD principles and concepts) or should we devote another Roundtable to this discussion?” The majority of participants (80%) felt we had, but 20% felt we should devote additional time to the issue. A future Roundtable may loop back around to this issue for further discussion. 3 Identifying Interests Participants were asked to provide response to the following question: “What LCD‐related topics/questions would you like us to discuss in the future?” The results were combined with last month’s results. No. Discussed Topics / Questions of Interest Italicized terms were specifically identified in the brainstorming session. Interested How are a diversity of stakeholders/partners (including states) engaged, maintained, and coordinated in a collaborative and ‐ January 22, 2015
integrated landscape conservation design process? What processes, frameworks, principles, terminology, and definitions (e.g., vulnerability assessments) are important to know/use in landscape conservation design? ‐ April 1, 2015 How are priorities (e.g., targets, surrogate species) and measureable objectives set/identified in landscape conservation design? 18 How can landscape conservation design processes and products be of value to stakeholders, reduce duplication of effort and be efficiently implemented/delivered at large landscape scales (e.g., multi‐regional, and trans‐boundary)? 13 What is the LCD product(s) and do they need to be consistent across geographies? 12 How do we shift our language, make this a grassroots movement, and/or which policies are in place/are needed to support designing sustainable social‐ecological landscapes not just broad‐
11 What is the role of monitoring in landscape conservation design?
9 What is the relationship between landscape conservation design and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives? 8 What is the role of landscape conservation design in incorporating and addressing both conservation and resource development‐oriented interests? What topics/ issues are best addressed in LCDs and which are best left to local planning teams? 2 2 What is the best/latest thinking on LCD sequential steps/ products/tasks, including at what stage NEPA is incorporated into the process? How will LCD be fortified to withstand challenges? 4 How do stakeholders view LCD? How are landscape conservation designs actually being used? Can we hear from stakeholders? 2 How are landscape‐scale change agents (e.g., climate change) addressed in landscape conservation design? 1 What is the role of identifying a desired future condition in landscape conservation design and how is it best identified? 1 What is the relationship between LCD processes and agency/organization adaptive management processes (e.g., FWS’s Strategic Habitat Conservation)? 1 How are we going to staff/implement development of a multi‐
jurisdictional, multi‐objective (i.e., integrated) LCD processes? Consider cost, location in the discussion. 1 Plus‐Delta Evaluation Participants evaluated the quality of the Roundtable experience by identifying what worked well (“plus”) and what needed to be improved upon for the next gathering (“delta”): Plus (what worked well) Delta (what can be improved) 
Structure / Agenda / Moderator 
Share summary/notes 
Technology / Technical Facilitation 
Clarify how to join the LCD‐COP 
Small break out groups and discussion 
Share “collective impact” principles 
Large group report out and discussion 

Everything! Frame questions at the beginning more in context of expected outcomes Next Online Roundtable Discussion: Thursday, May 28, 2015 @ 2:00 PM Topic: How are priorities (e.g., targets, surrogate species) and measureable objectives set/identified in landscape conservation design? Registration information will be posted on the Landscape Conservation Design Community of Practice (LCD‐COP) site on Griffin Groups. LCD‐COP: Registration Information 1. Register for Griffin Groups: https://griffingroups.com/register 2. Validate your registration by clicking the link in the automated email you receive. 3. Log into Griffin Groups: https://griffingroups.com/login 4. Navigate to the LCD group: https://griffingroups.com/groups/profile/50095/landscape‐
conservation‐design 5. Click the "Join Group" button. 5 Appendix A: Agenda Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Time: 2:00 PM (ET) Location: Online via Adobe Connect Invitees: Members of the LCD‐COP on Griffin Groups; Registration required: https://doilearn.webex.com/doilearn/k2/j.php?MTID=t22f003b3422221ec7844869481bf478b Facilitator: Rob Campellone, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Assistance: Shayna Carney, National Conservation Training Center Purpose: To provide a forum for the conservation community to gather and discuss landscape conservation design processes and products. Topic: What processes, frameworks, and principles are important to know/use in landscape conservation design? Desired Outcome: A list of processes, frameworks, and principles applicable to landscape conservation design processes. Special Note: The input obtained from this Roundtable may be incorporated into an LCD‐related manuscript targeted for publication in Landscape and Urban Planning. Agenda: 2:00 – 2:10 Welcome, Background Info, and Intro to Adobe Connect (Rob, Shayna) 2:10 – 2:25 Ice Breaker/Introductions (Shayna, All) Process and Products: Introductions by region 2:25 – 2:55 Identifying Existing Resources, Methods, and Means (Rob, All) Process and Products: Breakout into small groups; Identify facilitator/recorder/reporter; Discuss questions; Record answers  Assumption: Design processes are inherently stakeholder‐driven regardless of topic and scale. Likewise, landscape conservation design processes are multi‐stakeholder driven and should include states and development‐oriented stakeholders to be most effective in achieving landscape goals.  Question: What concepts, principles, processes and/or frameworks are 6 2:55 – 3:30 3:30 – 3:40 important to know/use in partnership‐driven landscape conservation design? Reporting Existing Resources, Methods, and Means (Facilitators/Recorders) Process and Products: Report small group findings to the larger community and discuss. Evaluation of Discussion (Rob, Shayna, All) Question: Have we adequately addressed this topic of interest or should we devote another Roundtable to the discussion? Follow‐Up Survey (if necessary): Question: What topic(s) of interest should we specifically discuss as it relates to concepts, principles, processes and/or frameworks? 3:40 – 3:45 Identifying Interests: What LCD‐related topics/questions would you like us to discuss in the future? (Rob, Shayna, All) Process and Product: Respond to an interactive poll and short answer question via Adobe Connect 3:45 – 3:55 Plus‐Delta Evaluation (Rob, Shayna, All) Process and Product: Respond to interactive polls and short answer question via Adobe Connect 3:55 – 4:00 Wrap‐Up (Rob) Process: Facilitator’s summary of the day’s discussion. 4:00 PM Adjourn
7 Appendix B: Participants BLM
Lisa Bye
New Mexico
Ron McCormick
Washington, DC
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Tim Breault
Peninsula Florida LCC
Cynthia Edwards
Gulf Coast Prairie LCC
Rick Kearney
Great Basin LCC
John Mankowski
North Pacific LCC
David Payer
Arctic LCC
Brad Potter
Upper Midwest & Great Lakes LCC
John Rice
Southern Rockies LCC
Glen Salmon
Eastern Tallgrass Prairie / Big Rivers LCC
Gwen White
Eastern Tallgrass Prairie / Big Rivers LCC
Edward Laurent
Connecting Conservation/Griffin Groups
John Gallo
Conservation Biology Institute
Laura Brewington
East-West Center
Elaine Vaudreuil
Washington, DC
Christina Sloop
Blue Earth Consultants
Cindy Loeffler
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Mark Davis
Illinois Natural History Survey
NGO
NOAA
Other
States
USFWS
8 Sean Blomquist (NWRS – Biological
Resources)
Ohio
Rob Campellone (NWRS – Planning & Policy)
Virginia
Shayna Carney (National Conservation
Training Center)
West Virginia
Bridgett Costanzo (Partners)
Virginia
Laura Housh (NWRS – Planning)
Florida
Tamar Hogan (NWRS – Realty)
Virginia
Phillip Hughes (NWRS – Biological Resources)
Florida
Brad Milley (NWRS – Human Dimensions)
Colorado
Aaron Mize (NWRS – Planning & Policy)
Virginia
Natalie Sexton (NWRS – Human Dimensions)
Colorado
Lisa Van Alstyne (Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration)
Virginia
Tina Chouinard (NWRS – Planning)
Tennessee
Lisa Van Alstyne (Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration)
Falls Church, VA
9 Appendix C: Break Out Group Notes GROUP 1 (Cindy Loeffler, Brad Potter, Phillip Hughes, John Mankowski) Some participants still learning about LCD Draft manuscript has been used as framework in Great Lakes LCC for coastal wetlands, in general working well so far. Manuscript comprehensive, provides steps to follow, so far no big gaps. Converted manuscript into excel file to create framework steps. This can be shared. North Pacific ‐ several efforts underway, one by Refuges to bring in other conservation partners. Want to use LCD method and facilitator to bring stakeholders together, use manuscript to guide process. In the early stages of identifying stakeholders, still need to scope out issues, identify targets and objectives. How does this flow into conservation strategies? Eventually will develop work plan and action plan. One thing we found ‐ LCCs good place to do LCD since they represent "neutral turf". Don't have one entity driving process, avoids turf wars. We may struggle with incorporating human values, social and economic goals, due to lack of info. One LCC just formed a panel of HD experts to give advice. North Columbia/Cascades working with Canada. Created online conservation planning atlas. Would like to demonstrate as data management platform and way to display spatial information. Multi species objectives in Great Lakes LCC, also consider ecological processes and human needs. Will be messy, multi objective process but that’s what we want to share with stakeholders, some of whom are not members of conservation planning community. Small piece of what LCC is doing. Great Lakes LCC effort with aquatic habitat connectivity is headed in this direction, not as developed as an LCD example yet. In Florida also difficulties with HD piece, hard to get good sampling of folks feelings on the issues. Once you start soliciting HD info sometimes you don’t know where to stop, when does it become a social plan and not a conservation plan? TNC has had experience with this, agree it can be difficult to define appropriate scope for conservation. Great Lakes LCC has defined list up front, may find it is too narrow. Information needed during grants process. Stakeholders include conservation‐oriented types like NOAA, Seagrant, states, NGOs. Identified other key stakeholders that need to be brought in like township planning boards, industry, etc. Who you bring in will influence outcome since their input drives process. This is why you need players that influence landscape e.g. funders. 10 Cindy ‐ Texas ‐ Gulf Coast Prairie LCC has science strategy with focal species identified, now diving in to LCD. Fairly new to structured process, but has been involved in like work in the past.  Key question is geographic scale to frame this work. Any advice?  Needs of species, political boundaries of interested partners, Great Lakes focused first on smaller areas than all Great Lakes cost. Needed to start small somewhere.  97% of Texas is private land; needs lots of private landowners need to be engaged. Need to rely on past positive relationships. Listed fish cause stressed relationships.  LCC can be a neutral forum for leading LCD in some places... GROUP 2 Facilitator: Rick Reporter: Natalie Recorder: Laura & Tina What concepts, principles, processes, or frameworks are important to know/use in partnership‐driven LCD? Rick: Reaching out to diverse partner’s key to strategic mission, particularly stakeholders outside of conservation community. Cynthia: Gulf Coast Prairie engaging private land owner groups (97% TX land private). Natalie: Urban wildlife conservation program partnering with non‐traditional groups to think beyond traditional LCD/like‐minded partners with similar objectives. Conducted research to find barriers and strategies for engaging urban audiences, snowball approach to identify gaps and new partner opportunities. Snowballing ‐ ID key leaders and ask them for recommendations and ID other groups Another LCC reached out to groups they anticipated resistance from to understand concerns and address them early on, rather than post‐design. Create procedural rules to guide conversations, agree to disagree. Slowed down the process and had some sub‐optimal outcomes, but was important to understand these groups they otherwise wouldn't have heard from until late in the game. Diverse geography has created difficulties due to differing habitats ‐ high endemism, marine env. and island Scale as a foundational concept ‐ managers and the regions don't always match, must be clear about what scale you're working on, and what issues arise trying to scale projects up or down. Cynthia: beginning to tackle Gulf Coast Prairie scale, trying to clarify that regardless of the scale of management (local/county, regional, etc) that products are developed that allow people to "see" themselves in them, so the collaborative LCD process includes discussions at various scales ‐ it's not designed for one scale at the expense of others. Identifying what scale is the most important for a particular project and how to develop decision support tools that can be scaled up or down is key. Rick: 11 there's a disconnect between the data/models, the products we prepare and deliver, and the activities we implement. Timeframe is similar to the scale issue: lining up SLR models at 2050, 2075 time steps are challenging to incorporate into management plans etc., for example. How do you organize your stakeholders, and when? Planning modeling approaches might require more technical input, for example, but important not to exclude others in the process. If members of steering committees or other participants don't see how a design will benefit them, or offer them a clear role in the larger collaborative effort, they may drop out. And changing partners through the process may be needed ‐ adding groups may also be appropriate, but important to ensure new groups have a sense of ownership of the project. Some initiatives will require change over time of the partners ‐ can do this at the steering committee/science team level, and at the project on‐the‐ground level. Different organizational structures result in different products that can be viewed as nested conservation design. Products and projects can be directed by different group engagements within the whole design. A nested design can lead to nested partnerships. Can potentially address challenges with the partnerships and engagement. Are there resources out there from examples of this kind of nested design? Recognize that things emerge at smaller scales that are more important to a local group than they might be to a regional group ‐ related to emergent ecosystem properties: different group members and interests and actions also emerge as you scale up geographically. How you get up to a design for the Great Basin ‐ made up of 5 states ‐ is different from how it would be done anywhere else, with other diverse interests and parties. What are the socioeconomic and data needs to be incorporated into the design? Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains considered the political and economic consequences of their design. GROUP 3 Concepts: Capitalize on existing frameworks, don't re‐invent the wheel (e.g. utilize existing partnerships: conservation fund, DU, Joint Ventures, other) (find people that owe you money!) Who is the driving force behind an LCD? Varies: e.g., 1. partner‐driven, 2. LCC‐driven in response to steering committee, 3. refuge‐based. How does this come about? Someone has to provide initial support esp. for GIS work, this identifies leadership roles. Depends on geography and what partners are already active. Might or might not involve steering committee members in leadership role. Geographic scale of LCD varies, drives membership. So, identify scale of the LCD at the outset. Note: importance of GIS products at outset to frame the problem and approach. LCC is a natural facilitator for this process. Concepts and principles: identify biological underpinnings. Concepts are those of landscape ecology and conservation biology, e.g., island biogeography, fragmentation/connectivity, role of corridors, anthropogenic forcings: e.g., non‐point source contamination, climate change, exploitation of resources. 12 Principles of SHC, use of surrogates. FACA compliance: what is the implication? In the LCC world, these are ad hoc steering committees and are advisory, but be cautious about the money decisions! Partnerships: what works for engaging people? ‐basis of LCCs is to be respectful of diverse authorities and missions. Don't overstep boundaries. It’s the same for LCDs‐ don't ask people to do anything outside of their boundaries. "Collective impact" What about if the collective pushes boundaries of individual partners...problem of individual partners wielding veto power vs. informed consent. How is "consensus" defined? Be explicit in establishing charters. Membership of SC varies by LCCs. LCCs are "self‐directed but not independent". Conceptually reasonable but difficult in practice. Keep in mind that LCD could involve temporal as well as spatial approaches, e.g., timing of land management practices. GROUP 4 Structured Decision Making ‐ lays biological & socioeconomic objectives on same page Collective Impact ‐ steps for aligning stakeholders in complex problems Use of standards ‐ Military Grid Reference System, Land Cover (e.g., Landfire), Data Schemas (e.g., Bird Monitoring Data Exchange) Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) ‐ planning, design, delivery, monitoring, research Integrate when possible. Create something new only when needed. Review of existing projects is very important. Open standards for conservation – lots of overlap with SHC Is there a cookbook/prescription for who needs to be at the table? And when? – Difficult part of problem Who is making decision for doing something? Who is affected by the decision or action? ‐ involve these folks at the objective setting and alternatives assessment steps Preliminary step ‐ Need to do literature review prior to project being done – have others done this first Think about audiences and how to communicate with them (and different audiences) ‐ may need a facilitator & may need to tailor messages ‐ important at every stage of interaction ‐ have different versions of same publication 13 Do we agree with having decision maker at table at beginning? ‐ Not necessarily because may not have time ‐ may need to do some of this ahead of time; decision makers need to empower champions AKN (avian knowledge network) ‐ build bird data management system ‐ Ed's example 14