Report ASMT LCD#2 - GC

- no slides -

Date / September 9, 2015
Host / Greg Wathen
Participants
todd / 260 522 02# (Julie Whitbeck)
Mark Woodrey / John Tirpak
JJ Apodaca / Jeff Duguay
Brian Branciforte / Cynthia
Report ASMT LCD#2 - GC / 1(9)

Contents

Contents

Report ASMT LCD#2 - GC / 1(9)
4 Top-down Assessment / 4.2.1.T0 Top-Down Criteria (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

1 LCD Process Overview

1.1 Overview(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

  • Slide Number 1

·test (#1)

2 Priority Habitats

2.1 Habitat(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

  • Slide Number 5

·in addition to seagrasses oysters are a big focus of many gulf states - high priorities for RESTORE funding. Not sure where these would fit in from a habitat classification perspective... (#1)

2.2 Rating: Habitat Systems

2.2.1.T0 Habitat Systems(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

7 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 2.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

-1 = No / 1 = Yes
Habitat Systems (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order
Criterion "Best Fit". 8 items.
Scale: -1-1. Abstentions permitted. Item list not randomized.
Nr / Item / -1 / 1 / Mean / SD / n
1 / Do think Grasslands (e.g. Coastal Prairies) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 0 / 5 / 1.00 / 0.00 / 5
2 / Do think Shrublands (e.g. maritime scrub) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 1 / 5 / 0.67 / 0.37 / 6
3 / Do think Hardwood Forests (e.g. Upland Mesic Forest) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 6 / 0 / -1.00 / 0.00 / 6
4 / Do think Forested Wetlands (e.g. Bottomland Hardwoods, Riparian) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 1 / 5 / 0.67 / 0.37 / 6
5 / Do think Pine Woodlands (e.g. longleaf forests) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 1 / 5 / 0.67 / 0.37 / 6
6 / Do think seagrass beds should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 1 / 3 / 0.50 / 0.43 / 4
7 / Do think marine systems (i.e. open water) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 4 / 0 / -1.00 / 0.00 / 4
8 / Are there other habitat systems you would split up or add to the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO? / 0 / 4 / 1.00 / 0.00 / 4
  • Do think Grasslands (e.g. Coastal Prairies) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Coastal prairies have been greatly diminished and remaining tracts should be enhanced and restoration conducted where possible. (#1)

-good connectonbeteen beach and dune systems (#2)

-Only if this includes the pine savannas. Otherwise, there's not enough grasslands to be worth the effort in the GCPO. (#4)

-Functional coastal prairie habitats have declined significantly and need restoration attention. IN addition, existing prairies are in need of disturbance management. (#5)

  • Abstention "Best Fit"

-Excepting marshes, coastal prairie type grasslands do not compose much of Gulf Coast sub-geographical region. (#3)

  • Do think Shrublands (e.g. maritime scrub) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Very limited and threatened habiat (#1)

-Maritime scrub may not be best botanical descriptor for these associations in this sub-geography, but shrub systems are an important association in this landscape. (#2)

-Maritime scrub provides critical stopover habitat for landbird migrants along the entire Gulf coast (#4)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-How many focal systems can you reasonably do? I'd like to see an assessment of just how much maritime scrub there is. Are you including scrub dunes in this or are they in beach/dune systems? I just don't know. Need more information. (#3)

  • Do think Hardwood Forests (e.g. Upland Mesic Forest) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Not much cover in this sub-geography. (#1)

-Where? Perhaps some in AL, but like maritime scrub, largely a system with little acreage. (#2)

  • Do think Forested Wetlands (e.g. Bottomland Hardwoods, Riparian) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Not really coastal but it is a good connection to running water and estuaries (water quality, etc). Is it already a focus in the other part of the LCC? (#1)

  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Substantial cover in this sub-geography; loss rates are exceptionally high; from an animal-centric perspective (not my perspective), bottomland hardwood associations provide essential habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, etc. (#2)

-Absolutely....particularly for Pearl, Pascagoula, and Mobile watersheds. Can you extend what you did in the Mississippi to the other Gulf watersheds? (#3)

-These ecosystems are keysonte habitats in the Gulf of Mexico region. They provide a variety fo critical ecosystems functions including water quality protection, hydrologic regualtion, and habitat for wildlife. (#4)

  • Do think Pine Woodlands (e.g. longleaf forests) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Especially well managed longleaf restoration efforts. (#1)

-see answer from above with regard to grasslands. Yes, these systems are important in the Gulf Coast region...particularly in Florida panhandle. Can you extend what you did in the Coastal Plain to the Gulf? (#3)

-have declined in extent across the Gulf region and should be one of the highest priorities. Exisiting forests are in need of management - mostly prescirbed fire. (#4)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Is it already a focus in the other part of the LCC? If so, lets keep the Gulf Coast more abou the coasts. (#2)

  • Do think seagrass beds should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Very important for primary productivity, high biodiversity (#1)

-Yes, with the caveat that these seem difficult to manage from a manipulative perspective becuase water quality and clarity drive therepopulations. Thus, indirect effects of broad-scale water quality management (#4)

  • Abstention "Best Fit"

-too marine (#2)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-How many focal systems can you do? I just don't know. Need more information. (#3)

  • Do think marine systems (i.e. open water) should be a focal habitat system for the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Stick to the coasts. Depends on what the LCC wants to take on though. (#1)

-How far out into the Gulf does the GCPO go? Are these marine or estuarine? Where would Grand Bay fit? I just don't know. Need more information. (#2)

  • Are there other habitat systems you would split up or add to the Gulf Coast region of the GCPO?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-karst and cave systems (#1)

-marshes (especially fresh [including peat substrate 'flotant'] and brackish, but also salt); swamps of all sorts (not just bottomland hardwood, including baldcypress and cypress-tupelo); fresh coastal wetland aquatic systems (natural distributaries and man-made canals) (#3)

-Oyster reefs are a good one. Perhaps maritime forest. These would be live oak forest, not necessarily forested wetlands. (#4)

-Wet pine savanna - very large declines in this habitat across the region. Host to many priority plant and animal species (#5)

  • Abstention "Best Fit"

-Salt marsh? (#2)

3 Bottom-Up Assessment

3.1 Bottom-up(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

3.2 Rating: Bottom-Up Assessment

3.2.1.T0 Bottom-Up Assessment(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

7 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 3.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

-1 = No / 1 = Yes
Bottom-Up Assessment (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order
Criterion "Best Fit". 3 items.
Scale: -1-1. Abstentions permitted. Item list not randomized.
Nr / Item / -1 / 1 / Mean / SD / n
1 / Is the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO a useful exercise for understanding the state of the current Network of Lands & Waters? / 1 / 5 / 0.67 / 0.37 / / 6
2 / Do you think it would be useful to restrict our definition of the "current Network of Lands & Waters" to only include Reference Sites, existing restoration projects, &/or initiative areas for each habitat system (i.e. restrict the definition to where we are investing resources now)? / 4 / 2 / -0.33 / 0.47 / / 6
3 / Do you think the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO would be useful for identifying the best areas for Collaborative Conservation (i.e. the top-down assessment of the GCPO)? / 0 / 6 / 1.00 / 0.00 / 6
  • Is the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO a useful exercise for understanding the state of the current Network of Lands & Waters?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Seems like they are all at different scales with different objectives. Putting them together out of context doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (#1)

  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Yes, but I wonder if breaking down the priority conservation action to be taken - i.e., resotration/creation vs habitat management might make these maps more useful and instructive...oty (#2)

  • Do you think it would be useful to restrict our definition of the "current Network of Lands & Waters" to only include Reference Sites, existing restoration projects, &/or initiative areas for each habitat system (i.e. restrict the definition to where we are investing resources now)?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Where we are spending resources now may not be driven by whats priority (#1)

-Include long-term research and/or monitoring sites. (#2)

-I think this would skew it towards groups or habitats that have funding (e.g. birds), rather than areas that truly need conservation (#3)

-Again, the difference between a project and an intiative area are pretty stark. How do you define reference sites...are there any on the Gulf? (#4)

  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-This would give a broad-scale sense ofwherecurrent efforts are focused and possibly allow us to identify GAPS in our current efforts (at least from a geographically-balanced perspective (#5)

  • Do you think the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO would be useful for identifying the best areas for Collaborative Conservation (i.e. the top-down assessment of the GCPO)?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Potentially...but it must be done thoughtfully, not just willy-nilly. Answe is a "Yes, but...." (#1)

-possibly.... although I wonder of these partnerships already exist and we just need to find them... (#2)

4 Top-down Assessment

4.1 Top-Down(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

4.2 Rating: Top-Down Criteria

4.2.1.T0 Top-Down Criteria(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

7 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 4.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

-1 = No / 1 = Yes
Top-Down Criteria (rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order
Criterion "Best Fit". 7 items.
Scale: -1-1. Abstentions permitted. Item list not randomized.
Nr / Item / -1 / 1 / Mean / SD / n
1 / Do you think the GCPO should prioritize landscapes based on Current Condition and Future Threats alone? / 3 / 2 / -0.20 / 0.49 / 5
2 / Do you think the GCPO should include biodiversity data in our selection of priority landscapes? If so, how do we avoid potential redundancies with habitat condition? / 2 / 4 / 0.33 / 0.47 / 6
3 / If we decide to use biodiversity criteria, should we prioritize species for inclusion (i.e. use select species, not all SGCN)? If yes, how so (e.g. identify representative species, known locations, only species with survey data)? / 2 / 4 / 0.33 / 0.47 / 6
4 / Do you think the GCPO should include partner priority areas in our selection of priority landscapes? If so, how do we avoid potential redundancies with other criteria and double counting of priority areas? / 1 / 5 / 0.67 / 0.37 / 6
5 / Do you think it would be useful to have a map of priority conservation actions (e.g. maintenance and restoration) based on current condition and future threats? / 0 / 6 / 1.00 / 0.00 / 6
6 / Are there other threats to habitat systems besides urbanization & climate change that we should include (e.g. invasive species)? If so, what are they & do you know of data sets we can access? / 2 / 4 / 0.33 / 0.47 / 6
7 / Would an optimization analysis (i.e. identifying the least amount of area required to meet all our conservation targets) be a useful effort? / 1 / 4 / 0.60 / 0.40 / 5
  • Do you think the GCPO should prioritize landscapes based on Current Condition and Future Threats alone?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Yes, this is appropriate for this higher level scale. Keep it simple. (#1)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Should also include partner priorities/where partners working. (#2)

  • Do you think the GCPO should include biodiversity data in our selection of priority landscapes? If so, how do we avoid potential redundancies with habitat condition?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-I think that is a risk worth taking, especially given that the point of all of these excercises is to conserve biodiversity. p (#1)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Is biodiversity conservation the goal of the LCC? (#2)

-Ilike the idea of using biodiversity as a validation approach rather than selection criteria. (#3)

  • If we decide to use biodiversity criteria, should we prioritize species for inclusion (i.e. use select species, not all SGCN)? If yes, how so (e.g. identify representative species, known locations, only species with survey data)?
  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Avoid the "surrogate species" discussions (#1)

-If use biodiversity criteria, DON'T use further prioritization. (#4)

  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-In my experience this helps refine patterns and helps eliminate the fact that contact zones between biogeographic regions tend to have the highest diversity, but may not be a high conservation priority. (#2)

-yes...use representative species. we can't save it all. (#3)

-I would focus on a few priority species as well as more common species that might serve as indicators of ecosystem health. (#5)

-Some states have quite a few SGCN, therefore select species would be a better option. Known and historic locations could be used - may be a need to verify historic locations. (#6)

  • Do you think the GCPO should include partner priority areas in our selection of priority landscapes? If so, how do we avoid potential redundancies with other criteria and double counting of priority areas?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Perhaps a seperate map to highlight the biggest overlaps. Partners will want to see themselves in your products. (#1)

-again, worth the risk of redundancy. (#2)

-Ongoing effort is important and including partner priorities likely will (#4)

  • Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-Isn't this the bottom up approach? (#3)

  • Do you think it would be useful to have a map of priority conservation actions (e.g. maintenance and restoration) based on current condition and future threats?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-Perhaps if the actions are at a level to be meaningful (#1)

-Particularly in a structured decision modeling framework (#2)

-Evaluation of condition is a critical step, as well as independent evaluation of condition through biodiversity meausres (a science/research need here...) (#3)

  • Are there other threats to habitat systems besides urbanization & climate change that we should include (e.g. invasive species)? If so, what are they & do you know of data sets we can access?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-fragmentation, particularly from transportation and utilities infrastructure (#1)

-use the threats taxonomy ( Energy production, transportation, agriculture, loss of fire, etc. (#2)

-invasive species; management impacts (i.e. forestry/agriculture/fisheries). Nope, I don't have dataset suggestions. (#3)

  • Would an optimization analysis (i.e. identifying the least amount of area required to meet all our conservation targets) be a useful effort?
  • Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-yes, but down the road. Need to see the first prioritizations first. (#1)

-I like the idea of using some sort of optimization analysis to avoid making arbitrary decisions based on who is at the table... I think this would make decisions a bit to a lot more objective. (#3)

-Would this be likely to result in the "least amount of area" being the target? (#4)

  • Abstention "Best Fit"

-Might be useful, but likely to lag real-time condition enough to lack utility in GCP&O's Gulf Coast sub-geography. (#2)

Report ASMT LCD#2 - GC / 1(9)