Decision Analysis Framing and Structuring for the Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Summary of Workshop held February 16-17, 2011

Transcription

1 Decision Analysis Framing and Structuring for the Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative Summary of Workshop held February 16-17, 2011 Prepared by Karen E. Jenni, Ph.D., Insight Decisions, LLC and Timothy L. Nieman, Decision Applications, Inc Final Report 2 March 2012

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Decision Analysis Framing Workshop Framing Results Decision makers and stakeholders Decision types Objectives Next steps: Using the decision framework to set boundaries for the science workshop References Appendix 1: Western Alaska LCC Mission, Guiding Principles, and Goals... A-1 Appendix 2: Workshop Agenda... A-2 Appendix 3: Workshop Participants... A-4 Appendix 4: Brainstorming: Identification of decision makers and stakeholders... A-5 Appendix 5: Brainstorming: Decisions and decision types... A-7 Appendix 6: Brainstorming: Objectives... A-9 Appendix 7: Brainstorming: Attributes or metrics... A-11 Figures Figure 1. Overview of Decision Analysis Steps... 3 Figure 2. Decision process, and the relationship of the framing workshop, the science workshop, and ongoing decision making about what LCC science priorities will be pursued Figure 3. Schematic of the decision framework developed during the workshop Figure 4. Detailed attributes that can be used as proxies or to represent the management objectives Tables Table 1. A sample of decision makers for resource management in the Western AK LCC region... 8 Table 2. A sample of agencies, groups, and individuals who exercise significant influence on resource management decisions in the Western AK LCC region, but which may not have ultimate decision-making authority

3 Executive Summary The Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) held two workshops in the spring of 2011, a Framing Workshop with the Steering Committee in February, followed by a Science Workshop with very broad participation from the scientific community in April. The main goal of the Framing Workshop described in this report was to clearly define a decision support context for the LCC that could be used to structure and guide discussions about data and information needs at the Science Workshop. Having this explicit decision context also provides a basis for logically evaluating and prioritizing the identified science needs. The mission of the Western Alaska LCC is to promote coordination, dissemination, and development of applied science to inform landscape level conservation, including terrestrialmarine linkages, in the face of changing climate and related stressors. Identifying the most useful applied science requires beginning with the end in mind. Here that meant starting by developing a clear understanding of what kinds of resource management and conservation decisions are being and will be made in Western Alaska for which future climate is relevant, and what the desired outcomes of those management decisions are. Understanding the broad management goals of LCC partners leads naturally to identification of common management or conservation outcomes of interest: these become outcomes that LCC science should be designed to measure, estimate, or predict. The Framing Workshop began with Steering Committee members listing the various resource management agencies and stakeholders (partners) who will potentially benefit from LCC-supported science. Primary decision makers were identified as (i) agencies that have land and resource management responsibilities, and the authority to make specific decisions about how those resources are utilized (e.g., US FWS National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, among others), as well as (ii) agencies who have responsibilities and make decisions which have physical impacts on the landscape that can affect conservation (e.g., Federal and State Departments of Transportation, etc.). These are organizations whose decision making could be directly influenced by LCC science. As such, they represent the main audience for that science and those whose information needs will most strongly direct LCC priorities. Decision influencers (agencies, groups, or individuals) were identified as those having a significant role in land and resource management, but whose role is exercised mainly through influence on the primary decision makers. Workshop participants next identified a variety of decisions that they considered illustrative of the types of conservation and land and resource management decisions the agencies identified above make on a regular basis. The goal was not to develop a comprehensive list of every decision that each management agency makes, but instead to identify the types of decisions which may be of interest to multiple LCC partner agencies. For example, several of the agencies identified above have land and resource management responsibilities for specific i

4 areas (e.g, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, State-owned lands). The types of decisions that each agency makes with regard to lands under their regulatory purview are likely to be similar, and to benefit from similar information regarding the impacts of climate change on those lands. The list of examples was organized into seven broad types of decisions, shown at the right. The next step in the framing process was to clearly identify the broad management objectives of the identified decision makers. Objectives as used here describe the outcomes that the decision maker hopes to achieve more of (or conversely, to avoid) when making management and conservation decisions. Specification of objectives thereby provides a framework for determining the type of information that would help them make an informed choice. Just as each partner organization has unique decisions, each also has its own unique set of objectives driven by its various roles, responsibilities, mission and history. At a high level, though, organizations making similar types of decisions often share the same or very similar general objectives. Workshop participants generated a list of specific objectives for various agencies, and then grouped and reorganized them into a set of eight highlevel objectives or outcomes of management interest, as shown on the bottom right. LCC science is intended to add to the understanding of how climate will impact each of these objectives, in order to provide that information to the decision-making agencies so that they can consider it in carrying out their missions. The final step of this Framing Workshop, to be continued in the Science Workshop, was to identify and develop attributes: potentially measureable indicators of the impact of climate change on the high-level objectives (e.g, the species composition at different trophic levels is a potential indicator of ecosystem function). These attributes will then provide a tangible link between data and information needs as identified by scientists, and the information and data that decision-makers truly feel they need to make better, more informed decisions. This structure, particularly the identified outcomes of management interest common to LCC partners was used to guide discussions at the Science Workshop (documented separately). Seven types of decisions commonly made by LCC partner agencies Decisions about land and water use Decisions directly affecting habitat Decisions directly affecting species Decisions about setting quality standards Decisions about industry oversight Decisions about infrastructure and community development Decisions about cultural resources Eight broad outcomes of management interest common to LCC partner agencies Ecosystem function Habitat quality Population health (for individual species) Public health and safety Economic benefits Protection of culture Community stability Quality of outdoor experience ii

5 1. Introduction The Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) is planning a Science Workshop in April of The Science Workshop will bring together a group of about 150 scientists and resource managers working on issues in the Western AK LCC region to identify science and information needs on which the LCC will focus their research efforts over the next 5 years. In preparation for that workshop, a framing workshop was held with the LCC Steering Committee in mid February The purpose of the framing workshop was to define a decision context for the Science workshop. The decision context, or framing, will help the Science workshop focus on identifying science questions directly related to issues that are important both to land and resource managers in their decision making and to stakeholders for those decisions. Having an explicit decision context will also provide a basis for logically evaluating and prioritizing the science needs identified at the Science workshop. This report summarizes the framing workshop and sets the stage for the use of the framework to set guidelines for the upcoming science workshop. 1.1 Background The overarching mission of the Western AK LCC is to promote coordination, dissemination, and development of applied science to inform landscape level conservation, including terrestrial-marine linkages, in the face of a changing climate and related stressors. (See Appendix 1 for a the LCC Mission Statement). More generally, LCCs have been defined by the US Department of Interior as Management-science partnerships that inform integrated resource-management actions addressing climate change and other stressors across landscapes. A key aspect of both these definitions is that LCCs perform a decision support function. The Western AK LCC is not a decision-making body, but rather aims to provide support, in the form of data, information, and science that will inform decisions made by the LCC partner agencies/entities. To provide useful information, the LCC must explicitly link its science activities to the needs of resource management and conservation decision makers. Climate-relevant information may include data, models, and projections of future climate, as well as projections of the impacts of climate change in the LCC area. Connecting science to on-the-ground decision making can increase the utility of the science promoted, developed or encouraged through the LCC ( LCC science ) and provide better, more practical support for local governmental and private sector entities as they consider how best to respond to the impact of climate change on infrastructure, ecosystems, and society. 1.2 Decision Analysis Understanding and predicting the effects of climate change (and other landscape-scale stressors) is a complex and important problem, and requires careful consideration of integrated 1

6 science across multiple disciplines. Decision Analysis (DA) (Smith and von Winterfeldt, 2004, Keefer et al. 2004) is a broadly accepted and widely-used process and tool that the USGS has been testing and using as a method to help integrate science and policy, and to support its own science planning and research (Coleman et al., 2006). The USGS has found that the DA approach is particularly useful in integrating the science disciplines and providing insight into how to enhance the value of its science and information in reducing uncertainty and in evaluating risk. Figure 1 illustrates the major steps of the DA process. The framing workshop covered only the first major step ( problem framing ); the full process is described here simply for context and to indicate some ways in which this process could be extended, if desired, by agencies with decision-making responsibilities. Each step in a DA project builds on the previous steps, the process is iterative and there is often some overlap in the steps. The initial model that is identified in the framing step is continually refined throughout the process. Problem Framing. Problem framing includes identification and specification of the decision context, identification of potential decision-makers and stakeholders, and the scope of decisions to be considered. It also includes preliminary identification of all the components of the decision problem: decision-maker objectives, available alternatives, and relevant uncertainties. This was the main focus of the framing workshop. Decision and Uncertainty Modeling. Usually the most time-consuming and dataintensive part of the DA process, the modeling step involves refinement of the objectives and alternatives identified during framing, as well as construction of a quantitative model of all the components of the identified issue. The ultimate goal of this step is to develop a model that can be used to understand or predict the impact of alternative decisions that are under consideration (e.g, alternative land use authorizations) on objectives that are important to the decision-makers (e.g., on the population health of species of management interest) given current levels of scientific understanding and uncertainty (e.g., about future climate and its impacts on the location of suitable habitats for those species). 2

7 Iterate as necessary Frame Problem Identify decision-makers, stakeholders, and scope of decisions to be addressed Define components of the decision(s): Objectives, alternatives, uncertainties Build Decision Model Structure the model Identify how components fit together Identify what analysis outputs are useful Quantify model Define relationships; assess uncertainties Decide and Execute Conduct analysis and sensitivity analyses Results structured to inform decision-makers, but not to make the decision Flexible models allow exploration of different assumptions, scenarios, etc Decision-makers act Figure 1: Overview of Decision Analysis Steps Use the Model to Support Decision-Making. The goal of a complete DA process is to create a model that will help decision-makers make better informed decisions and thereby increase decision-maker confidence that they are making an appropriate decision in light of their own objectives and the current state of scientific knowledge. To accomplish this, the previous steps (framing and modeling) focus significant attention on creating links between decisions under consideration, decision-maker objectives, and science. An effective decision support model presents information to the decision-maker in terms of his or her fundamental objectives, and makes clear what contributes to any uncertainty about the outcomes of alternative decisions. A flexible decision model allows the interested decision maker to explore the implications of different assumptions and learn about the sensitivity of alternative decisions to those assumptions and inherent uncertainties. The DA process in intended to be iterative, but we have found that careful attention to detail in the framing step as well as active engagement with decision-makers and stakeholders at this initial stage in the process helps to streamline the analysis and reduces the chances of developing a decision support model that is disconnected from the actual decisions it is intended to support. 3

8 1.3 Framing Workshop At the framing workshop held in Anchorage, Alaska on February 16 and 17, 2011, trained DA facilitators led the participants through several of the framing steps typical of a decision analysis process. As mentioned above, the goal of the framing workshop was to define a decision context for the upcoming science workshop that will help focus the identification of science questions on issues that are important both to land and resource managers in their decision making and to stakeholders for those decisions, and to provide a basis for logically evaluating and prioritizing those science needs. Figure 2 illustrates the DA process as it is being applied here (upper diagram) and the relationships between the DA process and the two workshops (lower diagram). In practice, agencies make resource management decisions (upper diagram, rectangle on the left); the physical, ecological, and biological system change over time, and as a result of both the decisions and the system changes, certain outcomes are reached (upper diagram, hexagon on the right). Wise decisions are made by considering what resource managers are trying to achieve (their broad management objectives), and what the current scientific understanding predicts will happen (upper diagram, oval of applied science ). The applied science that will be most useful is that which will help resource managers understand how climate change and their management decisions will affect the outcomes of interest. Identification of resource management decisions and the outcomes of interest were the focus of the Framing workshop (lower diagram, top box on left) and will be described in the remainder of this report. Identifying what information is available or would be desirable to help understand how both climate change and management decisions will affect the outcomes of interest is the main goal of the Science Workshop (lower diagram, box on right). This is an area of shared responsibility and roles, involving resource managers, scientists and the LCC. Ultimately, the LCC will use the results of both the Framing and the Science Workshop in developing a Science Plan outlining the LCC priorities over the next several years. The workshop participants were members of the Western Alaska LCC Steering Committee, chosen both as representatives of agencies with responsibility for on-the-ground conservation decision-making, and to provide perspective on the relationship between the three activities shown in Figure 2 and described above. The agenda for the Framing workshop is reproduced in Appendix 2, and participants are listed in Appendix 3. 4

9 Agencies/Entities Primary domain Time Shared domain Agencies/Entities Primary domain Resource management decisions Physical, Biological, and Ecological Processes Outcomes of interest (Management objectives) Resource management decisions require consideration (grey curved arrows) of both management objectives and current scientific understanding in order to assess their potential outcomes of interest. Resource management decisions Broad Management Objectives Outcomes of Interest Applied Science Current understanding of physical, biological, and ecological processes Framing Workshop (Feb 16-17) LCC Science Plan science goals, strategy, & activities Information / Science Needs to advance understanding of how climate change and resource management decisions will affect outcomes of interest. 5 Science Workshop (April) Figure 2. Decision process (upper diagram) and relationship of the framing workshop, science workshop, and ongoing LCC decision making regarding science priorities (lower diagram).

10 To meet the workshop goals, participants focused on three elements of the DA framing process: (1) identifying decision makers and stakeholders whom LCC science should be designed to inform, (2) identifying the types of conservation-related decisions those decisionmakers and stakeholders make and for which data, information, and science regarding climate change could be useful, and (3) identifying general resource management objectives of the decision-makers and stakeholders, as a means for identifying the types of science activities that will yield information most directly useful to the decision-makers. Step 3 was further broken down into the identification of more detailed attributes or potentially measureable outcomes that can be used to evaluate the impact of climate change and management actions on those objectives. Section 2 of this report describes the outcomes of the framing workshop, and Section 3 closes with a brief discussion of how the results of the framing will be used to provide sideboards or guidelines for the identification of relevant science needs during the science workshop planned for late April, Framing Results The scope of the issue being discussed, climate change and its impacts on conservation decision-making in the Western Alaska LCC region, is sufficiently broad that it was not possible to have all the relevant decision-makers participate in the framing exercise. Neither was it possible to develop a comprehensive list of all the individual decision makers and stakeholders, their various decisions, and the objectives of each group relative to each decision. Fortunately, that level of detail is not required to develop a meaningful decision context and framework to guide LCC science. The workshop participants instead aimed to identify a representative set of decision-makers, decisions, and management objectives, and to group each of these into meaningful categories such that any specific decision or objective could be represented or reasonably approximated by one or more of these larger decision types or overall objectives. This level of specification of the decision framework is particularly appropriate for the context in which the DA process is being used here: not as a way to develop and advise on a specific decision, but as a way to identify and, ultimately, to prioritize the science needed to support a wide range of conservation decisions. Decision context. To develop an effective decision support tool, the first step is to define the decision context: what types of decisions are being made for which climate science-based decision support could be useful? The Western AK LCC mission statement provides the highlevel description of the decision context within which identification of decision-makers and stakeholders, decision types, and management objectives were defined: to promote coordination, dissemination, and development of applied science to inform landscape level conservation, including terrestrial-marine linkages, in the face of a changing climate and related stressors. 6

11 2.1 Decision makers and stakeholders In order to maximize the usefulness of those science activities to land and resource managers in the Western Alaska LCC region, it is important to understand who those decision makers are, and what types of decisions they make that could potentially be affected by better knowledge and information about climate. There are a large number of such organizations, as well as numerous stakeholders who are interested in, can affect, and are affected by those decisions. Workshop participants brainstormed a list of relevant decision makers and stakeholders, and the results are summarized and discussed below. The full list from the brainstorming is included as Appendix 4. Primary decision makers Primary decision makers were identified as (i) agencies that have land and resource management responsibilities, and who have the authority to make specific decisions about how those resources are utilized (e.g., US FWS National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, among other), as well as (ii) agencies who have responsibilities typically driven by needs not related to conservation but which have physical impacts on the landscape that can affect conservation (e.g., Federal and State Departments of Transportation, etc.). These are organizations whose decision making could be directly influenced(?)by LCC science. As such, these agencies and entities represent the main audience for that science and those whose information needs will most strongly direct LCC priorities. Table 1 lists the agencies identified during brainstorming as being primary decision makers. This is intended to be an illustrative sampling of agencies and groups that make resource management decisions in the region, not a comprehensive listing of every such agency. Decision influencers Workshop participants identified decision influencers as agencies, groups, or individuals who have a significant role in land and resource management, but whose role is exercised mainly through influence on the primary decision makers. For example, most conservation groups and industry groups were identified as decision influencers: they may carry out their own science and research activities, and engage in spirited advocacy for issues that they are concerned about, and through that research and advocacy have an influence on the resource management decisions that are ultimately made. Some Federal and State regulatory agencies also fall into this category of decision influencers. For example the EPA was identified as a decision influencer because they do not have direct management responsibility for the land and resources in the region, but they have the ability to establish requirements that the primary decision-makers must meet, and through that authority they have an influence on the decisions. 7

12 Table 2 lists the agencies identified as being decision influencers. As with the primary decision makers, this list is not intended to be comprehensive. Table 1. A sample of decision makers for resource management in the Western AK LCC region. Federal agencies, including: o Dept of Transportation (FAA, FHWA) o US Army Corps of Engineers o FWS o BLM o NPS o NOAA o DoD o BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement o BIA o Federal Subsistence Board Local agencies, including: o Municipalities o Boroughs Conservation and other groups, including: o The Nature Conservancy o Conservation Fund o Denali Commission State agencies, including: o Dept of Transportation o Dept of Fish and Game o Dept of Environmental Conservation o Dept of Natural Resources o Dept of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development o Dept of Transportation Tribal representatives, including: o Tribes o Traditional councils o Regional Native Corporations Appointed Boards and Councils: o AK Board of Fisheries, Board of Game o North Pacific Fisheries Mgmt Council o Pacific Flyway Council o AK Migratory Bird Co-management Commission 8

13 Table 2. A sample of agencies, groups, and individuals who exercise significant influence on resource management decisions in the Western AK LCC region, but which may not have ultimate decision-making authority. Federal agencies, including: o EPA o USGS o Natural Resources Conservation Service Local agencies, including: o Regional advisory councils o Coastal districts Conservation groups, including: o The Wilderness Society o Audubon Society o Trustees for AK o Nat Parks & Conservation Assoc o World Wildlife Fund o Sierra Club o Defenders of Wildlife o Natural Resources Defense Council o Center for Biological Diversity o AK Center for Environment o Ducks Unlimited o AK Friends of Refuges State agencies, including: o Health and Social Services Tribal representatives, including: o Tribal councils o Native associations Industry groups, including: o Commercial fishing and hunting o Recreational fishing and hunting o Tourism o Resource extraction (mining, logging, oil and gas, etc.) o Transportation o Construction o Infrastructure o Environmental consultants o Alaska Miners Association o National Rifle Association o Charter boat associations Other groups, including: o AK Natural Heritage Program o Arctic Research Commission o Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group o Eskimo Walrus Commission o Eskimo Whaling Commission o Sea Otter Commission o Alaska Ocean Observing System Many of the agencies listed as primary decision makers can also have a role as decision influencers. The FWS, for example, is the primary decision maker for how National Wildlife Refuges are managed, but also has an influence on how other lands are managed, through its 9

14 authority to manage specific trust species and to designate species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Agencies, groups, and individuals affected by land and resource management decisions A third category of decision makers and stakeholders was also identified: those who will be affected by the land and resource management decisions made by others and those who will be affected by climate change in the region, but who do not directly make decisions that would be informed by LCC science. This list is substantially shorter than the other two lists, and there is the potential for any of those affected by decisions to become decision influencers in the future. They are included here for the sake of completeness, but at this point the interests of this group are unlikely to play a major role in determining LCC priorities. Those affected by climate change and the decision of others include Federal agencies such as Housing and Urban Development, State Agencies such as Health and Human Services, Local agencies such as the Community Development Quota Program, individual residents of the Western Alaska LCC region, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and the Alaska SeaLife Center. 2.2 Decision types Through brainstorming and discussion, the workshop participants identified a wide variety of decisions that they considered illustrative of the types of conservation and land and resource management decisions the agencies identified above make on a regular basis. The goal was not to develop a comprehensive list of every decision that each management agency makes, but was instead to identify and group, where possible, the types of decisions which may be of interest to multiple management agencies. For example, several of the agencies identified above have land and resource management decisions for specific areas (e.g, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, State-owned lands). The types of decisions that each agency makes with regard to lands under their regulatory purview are likely to be similar, and to benefit from similar information regarding the impacts of climate change on those lands. The list of example decisions have been sorted and organized into seven types of decisions, summarized below. The full list of examples generated during the workshop is shown in Appendix 5. Decisions about land and water use Decisions directly affecting habitat Decisions directly affecting species Decisions about setting quality standards Decisions about industry oversight Decisions about infrastructure and community development 10

15 Decisions about cultural resources Purposely excluded from the above list are decisions about how to perform monitoring or data collection activities. While these are important decisions, often made by the same set of agencies, they are not considered to be resource management decisions per se, but rather decisions about how to collect information needed to better make resource management decisions. Defining first what information (science) activities to prioritize is the primary goal of the science workshop. Maintaining this distinction is important; understanding first the resource management decisions to be made and then identifying the key information required to make those decisions allows us to prioritize the information needed. Once science priorities are established, decisions about how to monitor and collect the information will naturally follow. There can be some ambiguity in the decision types identified above; for any specific decision being considered, it may be reasonable to consider it as representative of more than one decision type. For example, decisions about whether and how to carry out a habitat restoration activity on a specific managed land could be considered a decision directly affecting habitat, which is the most direct decision driver, but could also be considered a land use decision, as it is, broadly speaking, a decision about the use to which that particular area will be put. Land and water use decisions include decisions made on a regular basis about how to manage specific areas (e.g., National Wildlife Refuges, BLM, National Parks, State-owned lands, Native corporation lands), and decisions about the location of infrastructure that affects either specific areas or broader regions (e.g., road construction, transmission right of ways). Examples of types of land and water use decisions that are made by a variety of different primary decision-makers include: Use and access permitting and authorizations. Can include o Local planning and zoning decisions Land management plans (updated periodically) to establish constraints, regulations, and allowable land uses within a managed areas. May include, among other issues: o Recommendations for wilderness / wild and scenic river designations o Wetland designations (USACE) o Instream flow reservations o Creation of special areas and their plans (incl. permitting policies) Fisheries management plans and associated permitting Navigability decisions Land disposition (acquisition, transfers, rights designations) Decisions about relocating communities Land use decisions linked to relocating communities Decisions directly affecting habitat are generally decisions with a somewhat smaller scope than the land and water use decisions described above. These decisions focus specifically on 11

16 conservation decisions aimed at managing a habitat considered important for some species of interest. Habitat and species are so closely linked that it would be reasonable to consider the two as part of the same decision type, but due to the differences in the examples developed, we present them here as two types of decisions. Examples of decisions that directly affect habitat include: Decisions about activities on managed lands o Fire management o Invasive species management o Restoration activities o Human use patterns Habitat / migration corridor protection Designation of critical habitat and special areas Decisions directly affecting species are, similarly, decisions with a narrower scope than the land and water use decisions described above. Habitat and species are so closely linked that it would be reasonable to consider the two as part of the same decision type, but due to the differences in the examples developed, we present them here as two types of decisions. Examples of decisions that directly affect species include: State wildlife action plans Species translocation decisions (e.g., re-introductions, relocations) Species designations, for example o What species to manage for o Endangered species designations o Designations of sensitive species Establishment of species population goals, for example: o ESA recovery goals o State-specified goals (AK) o North Pacific Fisheries Management Council optimal population goals o Marine Mammal Protection Act stock goals o Pacific Flyway Council management and population goals o Partners in Flight population goals Permitting, authorizations, and enforcement of protection for designated species, for example o Permitting for endangered species studies, collection, migratory bird studies, animal care and handling o Marine Mammal Protection Act enforcement/authorization/deciding appropriate uses Harvest levels (different decision makers for different species, locations, etc) Determining / enforcing cultural sanctions on behaviors related to fish and wildlife (Tribes) 12

17 Setting quality standards represents a different type of decision than the three decision types discussed above. Standards have the potential to affect the entire Western AK LCC region, rather than being specific to a single area, habitat type, or species. Although fewer examples of standard-setting decisions were identified, each can have far-reaching implications. Examples of this type of decision include: Hazardous material clean-up levels Designations of air and water quality standards Water quality listings and standards Fish contamination levels Superfund clean-up priorities Industry oversight decisions are those made by regulatory agencies that affect where, whether, and under what conditions various industry activities may take place. These may include decisions that have a direct affect on industrial activities, such as permitting of facilities, as well as decisions that have an indirect effect on how those activities are undertaken, such as the establishment of financial mechanisms, such as fees and bonding authorities. Industries themselves are also making decisions, and should benefit from LCC produced science, but because the land and resource management agencies are the primary customers for LCC science, we approach these industry decisions through the lens of industry oversight. Examples of this type of decision include: Bonding authority for mines Permitting for activities which impacts air and water quality NEPA recommendations Sub Area Contingency Plan for shipping Siting recommendations for communities, infrastructure, developments, etc. Establishment of fees and taxes affecting industry Infrastructure siting and development decisions are decisions about whether, where, and how to develop necessary infrastructure. This may include decisions about the siting and construction of a variety of facilities, including roads, community and rural infrastructure (e.g., water and sewage treatment facilities), visitor centers for National Parks and Refuges, where to locate monitoring equipment and so on. Infrastructure development decisions also include the location and details of energy developments, including biomass, wind, hydropower, and geothermal power. These types of decisions can be made at a community, regional, state or Federal level. Decisions related to cultural resources include whether and how to protect identified physical resources (e.g. archaeological sites, historic structures), how best to maintain traditional cultural practices, and how to use traditional ecological knowledge to increase understanding and 13

18 improve management decision making. Many of these decisions are made at a local level and understanding whether and how climate change will impact those cultural resources may be an important factor in making such decisions. 2.3 Objectives In order to understand how science activities can support better decision making by land and resource managers (and potentially other stakeholders), it is important to clearly understand the objectives of those decision makers when they select from among different alternative approaches to land and resource decisions. The term objective as used here is rather specific and requires some clarification. An objective refers the outcomes of fundamental value or interest that the decision maker hopes to affect when making management decisions. Defining these outcomes of interest helps to identify the types of information that would help the decision maker make an informed choice. Objectives are most commonly described in terms of an object of value, a direction of preference, and a context. For example, one objective of a land manager might be: Maximize the population health of caribou over the extent of the refuge. The object of value is population health of caribou, the direction of preference is positive (maximize), and the context is over the extent of the refuge. While most objectives will have a clear direction of preference (e.g., more is better), some may have a preferred range of values. Note that objectives refer to the decision maker s value structure and are not the same as goals or desired activities. For example, to state that an objective is to protect species migration corridors is not consistent with the definition as used here. This may be a desirable activity, but it would be classified as a management decision, not a management objective. The decision is likely intended to achieve a fundamental objective; i.e. to maximize population health of the species. Clear identification of objectives allows us to more directly link potential changes in climate to the outcomes that are most important to decision-makers. It also allows consideration of the potential impacts of land and resource decisions, in conjunction with climate change, on decision maker objectives. Each organization will have its own unique set of objectives driven by its various roles, responsibilities, mission and history. At a high level, though, organizations making similar types of decisions often share the same or very similar general objectives. Differences become more apparent in the lower level details when defining specific attributes or measurable outcomes. Each organization represented in the framing workshop was asked to identify 5-10 objectives used by the organization in making typical decisions for that organization. The details from each organization are included as Appendix 6. The objectives identified by each workshop 14

19 participant were then grouped and reorganized into a set of 8 high-level objectives believed to represent the main objectives of land and resource managers in the Western Alaska LCC region. For each of the eight high-level objectives listed below, achieving more of each of these is preferable to less if they are considered independently. However, it is important to recognize that a suite of objectives like these are seldom achieved without making trade-offs to meet the goals of the decision maker. For example, an agency may have a mandate to protect habitat quality for a variety of species: given that overarching goal the agency may then consider which actions would also maximize economic benefits without notably diminishing the ability to maximize habitat quality. A different decision would be made if maximizing economic benefits were the primary objective. Ecosystem function Habitat quality Population health (for individual species) Public health and safety Economic benefits Protection of culture Community stability Quality of outdoor experience Ecosystem function, habitat quality and species population health are closely linked. It would be reasonable to group these differently or to consider some as subsets of others. The group felt there were enough differences in the details of the attributes under each type to warrant listing them as separate objectives. LCC science is intended to add to the understanding of how climate will impact each of these objectives, in order to provide that information to the decision-making agencies so that they can consider it in carrying out their missions. To enable that, the final step of the workshop was to begin to develop attributes, or potentially measureable indicators that can be used to measure, estimate, and/or predict the impact of climate change on the high-level objectives. These attributes will be the concrete link between the science workshop and the decision framework Preliminary identification of measureable attributes For each of the objectives identified above, the workshop participants identified several potential attributes that could be used as indicators of how well the objective is being met, and then highlighted those attributes they felt would be the most useful indicators. Appendix 7 includes the full list of potential indicators identified; the attributes identified as being the most useful and most practical indicators for each objective are described briefly below. For each 15

20 major objective, one or more attributes have been identified as potential metrics, and in several cases, the same attribute was identified as an indicator for multiple objectives. The relationships will be explored and illustrated in Section 3. In determining what attributes are most useful and practical, workshop participants considered both how closely related the attribute is to the objective, and whether the attribute is directly affected by climate and climate change. As will be discussed below, for several objectives most of the attributes originally identified were only indirectly sensitive to climate change. Although they may be important indicators for the objective, the more distant the connection between climate changes and the attribute, the more difficult the assessment of climate change impacts becomes. Where possible, the participants chose attributes where the impact of climate change could be measured directly. These attributes will be used to guide the Science Workshop discussions (see Section 3 for more discussion) and can be used to help guide science planning for the LCC. Measuring ecosystem function Identifying attributes that will provide measures of ecosystem function is particularly challenging. The workshop participants identified four primary attributes, but also suggested that the scientists participating in the upcoming Science workshop may be able to propose additional or better sets of attributes than those listed here. Each of the four attributes listed below is either a measure of ecosystem function, or is a factor that can change ecosystem function, and each is directly affected by climate change. Species composition at different trophic levels, measured by the numbers and health of those species. Natural services provided by the ecosystem, including o Water quantity, quality, and availability o Ability to support subsistence species o Carbon sequestration capacity o Biogeochemical cycling Resiliency of the ecosystem. Resiliency refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate or recover from disturbances. Resilience can be thought of in terms of the time required for the system to return to its natural functioning state after a disturbance, and/or by the ability of the system to continue to provide the same level of natural services after disturbance than it provided before the disturbances. In this latter measure, the details of what species the ecosystem supports may change, but its basic functioning may remain intact. It is unclear whether scientists have sufficient knowledge at this point to estimate how the resiliency of an ecosystem will change under different future climates. But the resiliency concept is sufficiently important that workshop participants chose to identify it as a preliminary metric 16

21 Frequency and intensity of natural disturbances, including flooding and fires. Such disturbances affect ecosystem function, and their frequency is likely to change under different climate conditions. Measuring habitat quality and population health for individual species As discussed above, the objectives of ensuring ecosystem function, high quality habitats and robust populations of identified species are closely inter-related. Habitat, for example, is typically valued as habitat for identified species populations or groups of species, making it difficult to separate attributes that define a healthy habitat from attributes that define healthy populations of the species that habitat supports. Accordingly, in identifying attributes, we have combined the discussion. Population health for identified species o Abundance and spatial distribution within the Western AK LCC region o Stock structure Habitat quality for identified habitat types o Quantity and spatial distribution of the habitat type o Quality and connectivity of habitats One important issue that remains to be resolved is the issue of which species, species assemblages, and habitats are of the most interest and most relevance for understanding the impacts of climate change. A species and its habitat may be of interest because they are of direct management concern (e.g., a species important for subsistence or an endangered species), because they are essential in supporting those managed species (e.g., key food source), because they are important components of overall ecosystem function, and /or because they are important early indicators of climate change effects. Addressing this issue is one of the goals of the upcoming Science Workshop. Measuring public health and safety As can be seen in Appendix 7 a large number of potential attributes were identified related to measures of public health and safety. Participants identified three attributes that either affect human health directly or are important indicators of health, and which are expected to be affected directly by climate and the type of resource management decisions discussed above. Abundance of disease vectors linked to harvested resources Frequency and intensity of natural disturbances and extreme/dangerous events (Note that this attribute is also called out as an important attribute for measuring ecosystem function) Availability of subsistence foods (Note that the ability to support subsistence species is also called out as an important natural service provided by a functioning ecosystem) 17

22 Measuring economic benefits The majority of potential attributes identified as ways to measure economic benefits were also factors only indirectly affected by climate change, leaving two primary economic indicators. Food costs related to subsistence (Note that this is related to the availability of subsistence foods identified as an attribute relevant to measuring human health and safety Contribution of Natural Services (an attribute identified above as relevant for measuring ecosystem function) to local economies Both of these economic attributes are closely related to attributes identified for other objectives, and may simply require translation from those fundamental attributes into the economic measures. Although that translation is not necessarily simple, it is independent of the impacts of climate change. Measuring cultural resources or values Three attributes were identified as key metrics of the impacts of climate change and conservation decisions on cultural resources or values; the first two are closely related to attributes also identified as indicators for other objectives described above. Ability to meet subsistence needs (related to subsistence species abundance) Species population health for species of cultural value (becomes an identified species for population health for identified species ) Number of culturally important sites impacted or at risk Measuring human community stability In discussions of human community stability and how it could be measured, all the attributes that were proposed overlapped with the economic attributes and the attributes for measuring impact on human health and safety. Rather than propose additional or separate attributes for measuring community stability, we will simply highlight that those attributes which positively or negatively affect the local economy and human health similarly affect community stability. Measuring the quality of outdoor experience The final objective discussed at the framing workshop which could be affected by climate change is the subjective quality of outdoor experiences. Several types of outdoor experience were discussed, and all were considered important to consider: (1) tourism, mostly involving visitors to the area and having economic benefits through the use of commercial guides and outfitters, (2) recreation, consisting of local residents participating in outdoor activities for pleasure and having impacts on community stability and, perhaps, on human health, and (3) subsistence, clearly affecting several of the objectives described above. 18