Sections

Personal tools

You are here: Home › TRB Network › Goals for Stakeholder Engagement in Focal Landscape

Goals for Stakeholder Engagement in Focal Landscape

[Author] Paul Leonard

Background:

The Appalachian LCC is engaging in an integrated, multi-scale conservation planning exercise throughout its geography. Phase I of this exercise has resulted in a concentration on 5 different conservation design elements. The largest design element is made up of regionally connected cores. These cores are broad areas of regional significance (i.e., irreplaceability) that have high internal landscape connectivity. The LCC has strategically decided to target two of these core areas as part of the ongoing effort in phase II of the design process to reach out to local partners working in these cores. These two areas include the Tennessee River Basin and Pennsylvania.

Phase II Science Goals/Objectives:

Phase II aims to improve the overall design of Phase I by including, among other things, a focus on aquatic priorities. Most notably, the design will focus broadly on aquatic integrity and specifically on aquatic connectivity.

Phase II Outreach Goals/Objectives:

Phase II aims to begin the conservation dialogue in two regional cores with relevant conservation planning partners. This dialogue will inform Phase II science products but is not limited to that conversation. Illuminating synergistic goals (both LCC-wide and regional core

level) the conversation seeks to highlight opportunity areas for science delivery, conservation action, or science needs.

Phase II Stakeholder Meeting Vision:

1. Translational /Local Decisions (LCC Broad Focus)

a. Review Priority Resources for LCC. Are these individual data layers useful to partners in your geography?

b. Review LCD Phase I Design Elements. Opportunity to refine local cores and local build-outs to maximize cultural resonance and identify additional opportunity areas (both geographically and with partners of existing projects).

c. Gather comprehensive list of threats to these design elements and best available data on threats.

d. Discuss framework for how best to mitigate these threats

i. Conservation Actions

ii. Planning Horizon

2. Model Development & Engagement (Science Team Focus in Cores)

a. What are the existing freshwater metrics partners are using to address fish & mussel diversity in this area?

i. Data availability

b. Discuss multiple available metrics of aquatic integrity. Which, if any of these are partners using?

i. Strengths/weaknesses

c. What is missing from Phase I design process (spatially & conceptually)

d. What are the major barriers to aquatic connectivity in this region?

i. Structural, Hydrological, Geomorphic

ii. Gather best available barrier datasets

Things Needed From Regional Coordinators:

1. Census of Projects / Data that address meeting component #2

a. Summary provided to participants and science team in advance

b. Recommendations (if possible) based on conservation inertia

i. Perhaps a webinar here?

2. Identifying Stakeholders for meeting component # 1 (managers) and # 2 (technical) to form working group

3. Meeting Planning / Facilitation

4. Continued interaction with working group

Proposed Timeline:

NW PA: Week of Feb. 22nd
TN River Basin: Week of Feb. 29th

Expertise to Invite:

LCD Phase I technical team members working in area (Spreadsheet – I Think JB has copy)
Mix of species level and systems level experts
Partners with existing spatially-explicit prioritization projects underway or completed in geography
Expertise in Aquatic Connectivity and/or Integrity metrics at Broad Spatial Extents!
Managers who use conservation plans to make local decisions
Conservation Planners / Landscape Ecologists
Data managers / technical experts for organizations
Systems-level, big thinkers

The vision for Regional Cores in the Future:

LCC-wide conservation planning must be iterative, integrative, and multi-scaled. While the LCC as a whole can and should continue to refine its conservation design at the landscape scale, the regional cores in this geography are known important areas and considered foundational to conservation efforts for the LCC. Thus, it is important that similar and synchronous conservation planning and design efforts be nested within each regional core. These efforts will operate across the finer scales necessary to inform local decisions. Locally informed, these nested conservation designs and planning efforts can simlultaneously aid in the refinement of the landcape-scale prioritization by working with the LCC to update needs and identify opportunities.