WELCOME!

For technical questions, contact Bridger Wineman

(bwineman@enviroissues.com or call mobile: 503.267.9688)

Science and

Traditional Ecological

Knowledge

(S-TEK) working group

Framing Workshop

July 15, 2014

S-TEK Strategy process overview

“Short list”

Science priorities

Evaluation criteria and

balancing factors

Guiding Principles

Inventory and “Long list” of LCC-wide needs

Science needs Management needs

S-TEK Strategic Plan

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Future Implementation

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

…the evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment

Todd Hopkins

Approach to Integrating TEK

Dialogue on shared conservation goals

Exchange of traditional and western science to directly benefit tribal issues and circumstances

Models for engagement of tribal membership and traditional practitioners of TEK

Protocols to ensure protection of TEK

Strategies to protect treaty rights and trust resources

Todd Hopkins

FY 2014 RFP Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Projects

Todd Hopkins

Sensitivity of Tribal Knowledge

Respect the need for sensitivity and heightened awareness

Work with tribes to identify issues and find a path forward that meets tribal needs as well as providing reasonable access to non-sensitive data and products

Proposals must include methods to protect sensitive TEK

Todd Hopkins

TEK Projects funded by other LCCs

Todd Hopkins

Gathering Our Thoughts: Tribal recommendations on a traditional knowledge management framework for the NPLCC - Tulalip Tribe

Preserving Tribal Self-Determination and Knowledge Sovereignty While Expanding Use of Tribal Knowledge and Management in Off Reservation Lands in the Face of Climate Change - Karuk Tribe

See more at www.northpacificlcc.org/Resources/Projects

Draft Guidelines Considering TEK in Climate Change Initiatives

Prepared for DOI Climate Change Advisory Committee (ACCCNRS)

Examine the significance of TEK in relation to climate change and the potential risk to indigenous peoples for sharing TEK

Promote the use of TEK: to benefit indigenous peoples, promote greater collaboration between federal agencies and

tribes increase tribal representations in federal climate initiatives

Todd Hopkins

Working Group Participants Karletta Chief, University of Arizona

Ann Marie Chischilly, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals

Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Commission

Mike Durglo, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Preston Hardison, Tulalip Tribes

Joe Hostler, Yurok Tribe

Kathy Lynn, University of Oregon

Gary Morishima, Quinault Management Center

Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council

Jim St. Arnold, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Kyle Powys Whyte, Michigan State University

Daniel Wildcat, Haskell Indian Nations University

Sue Wotkyns, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals

Todd Hopkins

Draft guidelines for considering traditional knowledges (DOI ACCCNRS)

1. Understand key concepts and definitions related to TKs.

2. Recognize that indigenous peoples and holders of TKs have a right NOT to participate in interactions around TKs.

3. Understand and communicate risks for indigenous peoples and holders of TKs.

4. Establish an institutional interface between indigenous peoples, TK holders, and government for clear, transparent and culturally appropriate terms-of-reference, particularly through the development of formal research agreements.

Draft guidelines for considering traditional knowledges, cont.

5. Provide training for federal agency staff working with indigenous peoples on initiatives involving TKs.

6. Provide direction to all agency staff, researchers and non-indigenous entities.

7. Recognize the role of multiple knowledge systems.

8. Develop guidelines for review of grant proposals that recognize the value of TKs, while ensuring protections for TKs, indigenous peoples, and holders of TKs.

TEK priorities: Southern Rockies LCC example

Integrating TEK to the strategic plan

Adopting in whole, or in part, the DOI ACCCNRS draft guidelines for considering traditional knowledges as part of our guiding principles

Identify high-level priority resources with cultural/TEK value to Great Basin tribes

Criteria/balancing factors

Strategic Plan implementation and adaptation

Guiding Principles

Great Basin LCC Goals

Provide leadership and a framework linking science and management to address shared ecological, climate, and social and economic issues across the basin.

Focus science and management actions to sustain natural resources in the context of changing environmental conditions.

Enhance collaboration to integrate science and management among Great Basin LCC partners particularly as related to climate change and other landscape-scale change agents.

Promote communication and education.

Todd Hopkins

Provide leadership and a framework linking science and management to address shared ecological, climate, and social and economic issues across the basin.

Objective: Develop landscape‐level information that can be used to focus conservation programs on the priority elements of the landscape most sensitive to change.

Objective: Evaluate and synthesize existing technical information, and identify and support the generation of information needed to fill gaps.

Objective: Support the development of scientific information, tools and technical products to inform and augment conservation decisions and actions by natural resource managers.

Objective: Coordinate application of geospatial and other information management technologies as necessary to plan, monitor, and evaluate activities and outcomes at various eco‐regional scales.

Todd Hopkins

Focus science and management actions to sustain natural resources in the context of changing environmental conditions.

Objective: Identify and facilitate the development, integration, and application of social and natural scientific information needed to inform water, land, fish, wildlife, and cultural heritage management decisions.

Objective: Monitor landscape scale indicators, test scientific assumptions, and evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions to inform adaptive management

Todd Hopkins

Support the exchange of western and traditional science to further basin conservation priorities and directly benefit tribal issues and circumstances.

Objective: Encourage dialogue on shared conservation goals between indigenous and non-indigenous agencies, institutions, and traditional practitioners, informed by the DOI ACCCNRS guidelines for considering traditional knowledges and other best practices

Objective: Develop models for engagement of tribal membership and traditional practitioners of TEK

Objective: Apply Protocols to ensure protection of TEK and strategies to protect treaty rights and trust resources

Todd Hopkins

Science and management needs

Defining the long list

Valued resources (focal species, key

habitats)

Drivers of change, related to climate or

climate change, affecting these resources

Management actions to address these drivers

Source docs and needs inventory

Online exercises

24

6/12/2014GBLCC S-TEK Working Group

Ecoregional organization

•Central Basin &

Range

•Northern Basin &

Range

•Snake River Plain &

Middle Rockies

•Sierra Nevada

•Eastern Cascades

Primary Climate Drivers Secondary Climate Drivers

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Climate Change Impact Matrix

Valued natural and

cultural resources Atm

osph

eric C

ompo

sitio

n

Air

tem

pera

ture

Pre

cipi

tatio

n

Sea

Lev

el

Sto

rms

Oce

an C

onditio

n

Flood

s/Dro

ughts

Hyd

rolo

gic

Reg

ime

Mar

ine C

urre

nts

Mar

ine W

ater

Qua

lity

Fresh

Wat

er Qual

ity

Glacier

Mas

s Balanc

e

Geo

mor

phic C

hange

Inva

sive

s, D

iseas

e, P

ests

Fire R

egim

e

Phe

nolo

gy

Total

Valued natural and

cultural resources

Habitats Forest 2 9 11 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 4 12

Alpine 1 6 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 6

Lowlands 0 3 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 4

Islands 0 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5

Riparian 1 3 5 1 0 0 7 9 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 9

Lake/Wetland 1 6 6 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6

River/Stream 1 7 7 0 1 0 8 15 0 0 9 3 6 1 2 1 15

Marine Shoreline 0 1 0 12 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 12

Marine Nearshore 0 1 1 7 4 3 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 7

Estuaries 1 0 3 12 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 1 5 0 0 0 12

Groundwater 0 1 5 1 0 0 4 10 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 1 10

SpeciesMarine Mammals 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

PopulationsLand Mammals 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 5

Seabirds 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Land/water birds 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

Anadromous Fish 1 3 2 1 1 4 5 12 3 4 10 0 1 1 2 0 12

Forage fish 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 2 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3

Ground/rockfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Herps 0 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 3

Shellfish/Invertebrates 0 1 1 3 1 6 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 6

Epiphytes 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

OtherBiological Communities 2 8 5 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 3 6 8

Food Webs/Productivity 2 5 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 6 1 4 6

Connectivity 1 5 4 2 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 5

Carbon Storage 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 0 6

Traditional Resources 2 4 5 5 1 2 2 4 0 2 3 1 0 2 4 2 5

Sites 1 2 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 6

Total 2 9 11 12 6 6 8 15 4 4 10 4 6 11 12 6Courtesy North Pacific

LCC

Low scores are RED, high scores are

GREEN

Impact matrix example

Courtesy North Pacific LCC

Impact matrix results

(“short list”)

RED, shows total points,

BLUE shows scoring

participation

27

6/12/2014GBLCC S-TEK Working Group

Change agents/drivers

Val

ue

d r

eso

urc

es

“Impacts Matrix” exercise:Identify important topics for NPLCC to address (criteria focused on resource management relevance)

Phase 2: prioritization

“Long list” of needs

“Short list”

“Short List”:Top Ranked Driver- Resource Pairs

S-TEK Working Group evaluates all pairs using criteria/balancing factors

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Topic X

Topic DTopic CTopic BTopic A

Priority Score

Phase 3: determine priority topics

Science priorities

“Short list”