Download National Park Service

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Climate Change Scenario Planning for
Southeast Alaska Parks
Glacier Bay, Klondike, Sitka, and Wrangell-St. Elias
Natural Resource Report NPS/XXXX/NRR—20XX/XXX
ON THE COVER
Salmon, Glacier Bay National Park
Photo by NPS Photo - Craig Murdoch http://www.nps.gov/glba/photosmultimedia/Wildlife-Gallery.htm
Climate Change Scenario Planning for Southeast
Alaska Parks
Glacier Bay, Klondike, Sitka, and Wrangell-St. Elias
Natural Resource Report NPS/CCRP/NRR—2012/XXX
Robert Winfree, Bud Rice, John Morris and Don Callaway (retired)
National Park Service Alaska Region
240 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jeff Mow, Superintendent
Kenai Fjords National Park
P.O. Box 1727
Seward, Alaska 99664
Nancy Fresco and Lena Krutikov
Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning
3352 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99709-3707
Don Weeks
National Park Service, National Resource Stewardship and Science
Water Resources Division
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 80225
June 2013
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Fort Collins, Colorado
iii
The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins,
Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and
applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource
management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public.
The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource
management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse
audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management
applicability.
All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the
information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended
audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly
involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not
necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
This report is available from NPS Alaska Regional Office Climate Change website
(http://www.nps.gov/akso/nature/climate/index.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications
Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/).
Please cite this publication as:
Winfree, R., B. Rice, N. Fresco, L. Krutikov, J. Morris, D. Callaway, J. Mow, and D. Weeks,
2013.. Climate Change Scenario Planning for Southeast Alaska Parks: Glacier Bay, Klondike,
Sitka, and Wrangell-St. Elias. Natural Resource Report NPS/CCRP/NRR—2013/XXX. National
Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
NPS XXXXXX, Month 2013
iv
Contents
Page
Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii
Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ x
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... xii
List of Terms & Acronyms .......................................................................................................... xiii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 14
Project Rationale .................................................................................................................... 14
Scenario Planning Process ..................................................................................................... 14
Pre-Workshop Webinars ........................................................................................................ 18
Models, Data, Maps, and Other Information ......................................................................... 19
Additional Workshop Documents, Maps, & Reference Materials ........................................ 21
Plenary Sessions .................................................................................................................... 22
Workshop Work Group Products.................................................................................................. 23
Marine Group......................................................................................................................... 23
Marine Climate Driver Selection ...................................................................................... 23
Marine Bio-physical Scenarios Developed from Selected Drivers .................................. 25
Marine Scenarios nested into a socio-political quadrant .................................................. 28
Terrestrial Group ................................................................................................................... 33
Terrestrial Climate Driver Selection ................................................................................. 33
Terrestrial Biophysical Scenarios Developed from Selected Drivers............................... 33
Terrestrial Nested Scenarios and Implications ................................................................. 37
Narratives ............................................................................................................................... 40
v
Regional Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop for SE AK ............................... 40
Alaska National Parks on Facebook ................................................................................. 41
Ranger Ray and the Raven ................................................................................................ 42
Closeup in Washington D.C. ............................................................................................ 43
Common Implications, Actions and Needs .................................................................................. 46
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix A: Participant Agenda .................................................................................................. 51
Appendix B: Workshop Participant List ....................................................................................... 55
Appendix C: SNAP Tools for Planners ........................................................................................ 56
Appendix D: Climate Summary Reports ...................................................................................... 57
Appendix E: Southeast Alaska Modeled Climate Variables ........................................................ 65
Appendix F: Climate Drivers Table .............................................................................................. 70
vi
Figures
Figure 1: Southeast Alaska Network (SEAN) parks......................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2. Difference between forecasting and scenario planning. Forecasts assume that the
future is fairly predictable, at least within some range of variability. Scenarios on the other hand,
are hypotheses, not predictions about the future. Scenarios can use modeling output, but they
recognize the inherent unpredictability of complex systems. Scenarios envision a range of
plausible, relevant, divergent and challenging futures and then ask the question “What if this
were to happen?”. Consequently they provide a richer background for planning and decision
making. Diagram courtesy of GBN. ............................................................................................ 15
Figure 3. Stages in the scenarios building process. Diagram provided by the Global Business
Network (GBN). ........................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Creating a primary scenarios matrix. Two key climate-related drivers of change are
crossed to create four possible futures. ......................................................................................... 17
Figure 5: General design for a socio-political framework that incorporates the degree of societal
concern in the future and the nature of future leadership. Adapted from the Global Business
Network (GBN). ........................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Categorizing options to help set strategy. Adaptive planning depends on weighing
choices based on their short-term and long-term comes. Diagram adapted from the Global
Business Network (GBN). ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 7: Mean summer season length. These maps show the projected number of days between
the date on which the running mean temperature crosses the freezing point in the spring, and date
on which when that point is crossed again in the fall. Large areas of southeast Alaska are likely
to be primarily unfrozen by the end of the century. See Appendix E for additional maps of
projected thaw and freeze dates, ground temperature, growing season, and precipitation by
season. ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Mean annual ground temperature at one meter depth. Based on SNAP climate data and
GIPL permafrost modeling, these maps depict likely ground temperature conditions. Extensive
permafrost thaw is likely by the end of this century. .................................................................... 21
Figure 9: Primary matrix of climate drivers produced by the Marine group. Each quadrant
represents a different combination of potential future temperature and extreme precipitation and
storm events. Details of each quadrant are described in the text. ................................................ 25
Figure 10: Nested scenarios selected by the Marine group. The selected scenarios are indicated
by blue stars. The “Bad News” scenario (major increases in ocean acidification and a large shift
in natural stream flow) is nested in “Big Problems, Big Solutions” (strong and coordinated
support for climate change at the local and institutional levels). “Clusterflood” (only minor
increases in ocean acidification but a large shift in natural stream flow with a cool–phase PDO)
is nested in “Riots and Revolutions” (strong local concerns but limited institutional support).
The implications, management actions, research needs, and narrative associated with these two
scenarios are elaborated upon below. ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 11: Primary drivers selected by the Terrestrial group. When crossed, these drivers create
four divergent biophysical scenarios. ........................................................................................... 34
Figure 12: Terrestrial Nested Scenarios. The “Southeast Identity Crisis” scenario (abnormal
stream flow and a 20% decrease in extreme events) is nested in “Is Anyone Out There?” (little
social or institutional support for climate change adaptation efforts). “Disaster Zone” (abnormal
stream flow and increased storms) is nested in “Big Problems, Big Solutions” (strong and
coordinated support for climate change at the local and institutional levels). .............................. 37
Tables
Table 1: Rankings of climate drivers for the Marine work group. Group members discussed the
impact and uncertainty of each potential driver. Selected drivers are highlighted. ...................... 24
Table 2: Climate Driver assessment by the Terrestrial group. Selected drivers are highlighted:
extreme precipitation and storm events were combined into one category. ................................. 33
Executive Summary
Changing climatic conditions are rapidly impacting environmental, social, and economic
conditions in and around National Park Service areas in Alaska. With over 50 million acres of
parklands to administer, Alaska park managers need to better understand possible climate change
trends in order to better manage Arctic, subarctic, and coastal ecosystems and human uses of
these areas. National Park Service (NPS) managers have been exploring scenario planning as an
alternative approach for science-based decision-making in the face of an uncertain future.
Climate change scenarios will help prepare NPS Alaska park managers for impending changes to
make informed decisions with least regrets for future outcomes.
In 2010, the National Park Service national and Alaska Regional offices released climate change
response strategies for the National Park System and the Alaska Region, respectively (NPS
2010a, NPS 2010b). Scenario planning was identified in both strategies as a high priority for
understanding potential climate change impacts to park resources, assets and operations. As a
result, the NPS and University of Alaska’s Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning
(SNAP), a research group focused on climate change modeling and adaptation, embarked on a
three-year collaborative project to help Alaska NPS managers, cooperating personnel, and key
stakeholders develop plausible climate change scenarios for all NPS areas in Alaska. Final
products include climate change scenario planning exercises, reports and other information
products for all the NPS units in Alaska, with efforts organized around each of the four inventory
and monitoring (I&M) networks.
The effort began in August 2010, when the NPS Climate Change Response Program partnered
with Jonathan Star of the Global Business Network (GBN) to initiate a series of scenario
planning training workshops across the National Park System. A team of NPS Alaska Region
and SNAP employees participated in the Alaska training workshop, learning how to develop
scenarios based on nested frameworks of critical uncertainties, and fleshing out the beginnings of
climate change scenarios for two pilot parks.
Building from that learning experience, Southeast Alaska was the third area in Alaska to be
examined by the NPS through a scenarios workshop on February 21-24, 2012. This workshop
was based on the framework introduced by the GBN, and led by a core team who had
participated in at least one workshop. This workshop focused on Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve, Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, Sitka National Historic Park, and
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.
Participants included representatives from the parks in question, NPS staff from the Anchorage
and Denver offices, SNAP personnel, and key individuals from other agencies, nongovernment
organizations, and communities with a stake in this region. These individuals contributed a wide
range of perspectives and expertise to the inputs and outcomes of the workshop.
Participants identified key issues facing the parks in this particular region of the state. These
included the many possible effects of ocean acidification, changes in storms and extreme events,
and alterations in seasonal timing leading to hydrologic shift. More specifically, future scenarios
in coastal regions focused on potential impacts to marine ecosystems and to the humans who rely
on them, as potential changes in pH and hydrology alter species assemblages. Inland, future
scenarios focused on the impacts to vegetation, fish, wildlife, and subsistence species engendered
by radical shifts in seasonal stream flow and associated hydrology.
General findings included the need for increased traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in
planning; increased co-management, cooperation at local level, place-based education and valuebased planning; risk assessment and increased monitoring, particularly water quality and stream
flow; invasive management; and budgeting for uncertain futures.
The climate change scenario planning process does not end with these workshops, reports, and
presentations. Rather, this living process is intended to stimulate creative thinking to address
changing but still undetermined future environmental and socio-political future conditions. The
process should be refreshed periodically as important new information becomes available. In
summary, park managers, park neighbors, and stakeholders can learn from the future by using
the best available scientific information and climate projections to create plausible, divergent,
relevant, and challenging future climate change scenarios. These scenarios can help us all better
prepare for uncertain future conditions in face of climate change.
Acknowledgments
All the National Park Service Scenario Planning Workshops were highly participatory, relying
on input from every attendee. We would like to thank each of the participants (listed in
Appendix B), as well as the organizations and communities that made it possible for them to
attend by allowing them the time to do so.
List of Terms & Acronyms
Climate driver
A climate variable that drives changes in weather, vegetation, habitat,
wildlife, etc. Also referred to as a critical force and a scenario driver.
Climate effects
Existing or potential consequences, outcomes, or results of changes in
climate. Can appear beneficial or deleterious, depending on perspectives.
Critical force
A climate variable that drives changes in weather, vegetation, habitat,
wildlife, etc. Also referred to as a scenario driver.
ENSO
El Nino-Southern Oscillation. A climate pattern that occurs across the
tropical Pacific Ocean on an approximately 5-year time scale, which can
cause extreme weather events in many regions of the world.
Impact
A forceful or particularly significant consequence. An effect that is likely
to warrant a response.
Narrative
In scenario planning, a story, in any variety of formats, used to visualize
potential future circumstances.
Nested scenario
A set of projected future environmental conditions “nested” within a
sociopolitical framework.
Potential effects
Inherently possible, likely, or expected, but not necessarily certain.
Scenario
A projected course of events or situations, used to understand different ways
that future events might unfold.
TEK
Traditional Ecological (or Environmental) Knowledge. A cumulative body
of knowledge built up by a group of people over generations of close contact
with nature. Sometimes distinguished from other forms of local knowledge,
developed through fewer years or generations of experience.
PDO
Pacific Decadal Oscillation. A pattern of Pacific Ocean climate variability
that shifts between a cool (negative) phase and warm (positive) phase on a
20-30 year time scale.
xiii
1
Introduction
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Project Rationale
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The focal question of this workshop was
“How can NPS managers best preserve
the natural and cultural resources and
other values within their jurisdiction in
the face of climate change?” Although
parks were a primary focus, participants
were invited from affiliated communities,
other areas for broader perspectives.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Climate change is already occurring in Alaska (Chapin et al. 2005). We can no longer manage
for old goals and priorities that assume a static climate. Given the complexity and multiple
disciplines involved with climate-change challenges, collaboration and knowledge sharing are
necessary. Scenario planning is an educational process that helps park employees and others to
understand climate trends; anticipate future changes that may affect resources, assets, and
operations in parks and surrounding areas; and to help identify a range of possible climate
change response strategies. Not only did this effort address the climate change response
strategies of NPS, it also was in line with the mission of the Scenarios Network for Alaska and
Arctic Planning (SNAP), which is to connect planners and other individuals with credible data,
in order to provide useful advice about adaptation to climate change.
In the workshop described in this report,
the focus was largely on examples from
southeast Alaska parks (Error!
Reference source not found.). However,
concerns and effects of climate change
are clearly not limited by property lines.
The results from this scenario planning
workshop can be equally relevant to
residents and managers of surrounding
areas.
Figure 1: Central Alaska Network (CAKN) parks. Black
dots indicate climate monitoring sites.
Scenario Planning Process
Scenario planning, as outlined by the Global Business Network (GBN) has been used
successfully by corporations, government and nongovernmental organizations, and was selected
as the most effective way to create management tools and frameworks that would be both useful
and flexible in the face of uncertainty. Unlike forecasting, scenario planning emphasizes
multiple possible futures (Figure 2). Forecasts assume that the future is fairly predictable, at least
within some range of variability. Scenarios on the other hand, are hypotheses, not predictions
about the future. Scenarios can use modeling output, but they recognize the inherent
unpredictability of complex systems. Scenarios envision a range of plausible, relevant,
divergent and challenging futures and then ask the question “What if this were to happen?”
Consequently they provide a richer background for planning and decision making. These
scenarios should be created and selected to be relevant, plausible, divergent and challenging.
14
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Figure 2. Difference between forecasting and scenario planning.
This planning process asks participants to orient on a focal question; explore and synthesize
potential scenarios; act, by identifying and implementing actions appropriate to address potential
outcomes; and monitor the results of these actions (Figure 3). The latter two steps (Act and
Monitor) occur after the workshop.
Scenario synthesis is dependent on a multi-step process in which participants select two key
drivers of change that are both important (likely to cause multiple significant effects) and
uncertain (in terms of the magnitude or direction of the change). These drivers, when intersected,
yield four possible futures (Figure 4). In this workshop, these primary drivers were biophysical
drivers of climate change. After fleshing out some of the details of the four outcomes suggested
by these primary drivers, participants took the scenarios process to a higher level by examining
each possible future in a sociopolitical framework that incorporated a wide range of societal
concern and an equally wide range of institutional support (Figure 5). Selected divergent
scenarios from this framework were fully described in both summary and narrative forms, and
management actions were suggested based upon each of them.
Scenario planning offers participants the opportunity to search for actions that perform well
under all scenarios (often called “no-regrets” or “robust” actions); current actions the park should
continue doing (often called “no-brainers” actions), and actions that are unlikely to make sense
in any future scenario (often called “no-gainer” actions). These actions are often among the
immediate and powerful scenario outcomes. There are also a variety of other strategic
approaches that offer different levels of risk when developing a range of actions as illustrated in
Figure 6
15
71
72
73
74
Figure 3. Stages in the scenarios building process. Diagram provided by the Global Business
Network (GBN).
16
Driver B
Combining two
selected drivers
creates four
possible futures
Each future combines
the endpoints of the
drivers in a novel
manner
Driver A
These endpoints often
– but not always –
represent “low” and
“high” plausible
extremes.
75
76
77
78
79
Endpoint values
are estimated
based on the
best available
science
Figure 4: Creating a primary scenarios matrix. Two key climate-related drivers of change are crossed
to create four possible futures.
Broad understanding
heightened urgency
“Riots and
revolution”
Lack of senior commitment,
varied approaches/
alignment, short term
concerns
“Is anyone
out there?”
“Big problems, big
solutions”
Senior commitment,
international alignment,
long term perspectives
Widespread indifference
Competing concerns
80
17
“Wheelspinning”
81
82
83
Figure 5: General design for a socio-political framework that incorporates the degree of societal
concern in the future and the nature of future leadership. Adapted from the Global Business Network
(GBN).
Robust: Pursue only those options that would
work out well (or at least not hurt you too
much) in any of the four scenarios
Bet the
Farm
Core
Hedge
Your
Bets
OR
Bet the Farm / Shaping: Bet the Farm /
Shaping: Make one clear bet that a certain
future will happen — and then do everything
you can to prepare for that scenario becoming
a reality
Hedge
Your
Bets
Robust
OR
Satellite
Hedge
Your
Bets
Hedge
Your
Bets
Hedge Your Bets / Wait and See: Make
several distinct bets of relatively equal size
OR
Satellite
Core / Satellite: Place one major
bet, with one or more small bets as a hedge
against uncertainty, experiments, and real
options
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Figure 6: Categorizing options to help set strategy. Adaptive planning depends on weighing choices
based on their short-term and long-term outcomes. Diagram adapted from the Global Business Network
(GBN).
Pre-Workshop Webinars
Prior to the workshop, participants were invited to take part in three one-hour webinars. The
goals of these webinars were to orient participants on the scenario planning process, introduce
climate change maps and data, and share existing knowledge among the group. These webinars
contained information summarized from scenarios planning training conducted in August 2010
by Jonathan Starr of the Global Business Network (GBN).
Webinar 1, led by Nancy Fresco of SNAP, covered an introduction to scenarios planning.
Webinar 2, also led by Nancy Fresco, focused on climate drivers (key forces driving climate
change) in the Southeast Alaska parks. (See Appendix F for a table of Northwest Alaska climate
drivers). Webinar 3, led by Robert Winfree of NPS, was focused on climate change effects in
the Southeast Alaska parks. Participants were asked to help rank the relative importance of these
effects. (See Appendix G for the Northwest Alaska ranked climate change effects table.)
PowerPoint presentations and recordings of each webinar are available in the “Webinar 1,”
“Webinar 2” and “Webinar 3” folders at:
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/
18
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Models, Data, Maps, and Other Information
Information regarding climate change, including drivers of change and effects of those drivers,
were shared prior to and during the webinars, as well as at the workshop. This information was
drawn from multiple sources. Prior to embarking on the project, NPS had already prepared
regional summary documents on climate change impacts, including talking points on impacts to
Alaska’s Maritime and Transitional regions:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/MaritimeTransitionalTalkingPoints.pdf.
(Appendix D: Climate Summary ReportsAdditional background knowledge was drawn directly
from project participants, including NPS employees and local residents, who were familiar with
the landscapes and the management issues facing those landscapes. More quantitative
assessments of ongoing change and projected future change to multiple climate variables were
obtained from SNAP data and from the available literature.
Partnering with SNAP allowed NPS access to cutting-edge climate data, maps, and models.
SNAP employs a variety of modeling and research methods that have been approved by the
scientific community through large-scale research programs and peer-reviewed publications.
Core SNAP climate data are derived from historical Climate Research Unit (CRU) data and from
the five Global Climate Models (GCM) that have been shown to perform best in Alaska and the
Arctic. Outputs from these models are then downscaled using PRISM data—which accounts for
land features such as slope, elevation, and proximity to coastline. A more complete description
of SNAP methods is available at http://www.snap.uaf.edu/methods.php. SNAP also brought to
this project links to sources available via their many partners and collaborators, such as those at
the UAF Geophysical Institute Permafrost Lab
(http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/content/modeling)
In particular, SNAP provided data summaries from climate models (contained within the Climate
summary reports for individual parks, and incorporated into the Climate Drivers table in
Appendix F). SNAP also provided maps depicting baseline (recent historical) climate and
projections of future change to key variables, including monthly mean temperature, monthly
mean precipitation, date of freeze, data of thaw, summer season length (Figure 7), and mean
annual ground temperature at one meter depth (Figure 8). Updated versions of a subset of these
maps are available in Appendix E, and the complete set is available in the SNAP maps folder at
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/
19
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
Figure 7: Mean summer season length. These maps show the projected number of days between the
date on which the running mean temperature crosses the freezing point in the spring, and date on which
when that point is crossed again in the fall. Large areas of southeast Alaska are likely to be primarily
unfrozen by the end of the century. See Appendix E for additional maps of projected thaw and freeze
dates, ground temperature, growing season, and precipitation by season.
20
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
Figure 8: Mean annual ground temperature at one meter depth. Based on SNAP climate data and
GIPL permafrost modeling, these maps depict likely ground temperature conditions. Extensive
permafrost thaw is likely by the end of this century.
Additional Workshop Documents, Maps, & Reference Materials
Before the workshop, a reading list was provided to orient participants on regional climate
change observations and concepts on planning and management into uncertain futures (Schwartz
1996, Cole and Yung 2010, Jezierski et al. 2010, and Marris 2011). Further details about the
workshop described in this document are contained in the summary PowerPoint “Southeast
Alaska Climate Scenarios,” available in the Reports and Products folder at
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/. Workshop
documents are also posted online at: http://www.nps.gov/akso/nature/climate/scenario.cfm
Additional documents will be added to the site as they are produced.
171
21
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
Plenary Sessions
188
189
190
Jeff Mow of the National Park Service discussed park management implications, decisions and
actions. Jeff presented various ways that park managers can use insights from scenario planning,
as well as tips on communicating scenarios and formulating no-regrets actions.
191
192
193
These presentations are available at the above NPS site and as PowerPoint or PDF files in the
“Workshop documents southeast Alaska” folder at:
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/
Three plenary talks were given by workshop organizers in order to flesh out topics introduced by
the pre-workshop webinars, explain and clarify the available background information, and
introduce new topics. Plenary sessions were interspersed with collaborative (working group)
sessions, which comprised the bulk of the workshop.
Nancy Fresco of the Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP) presented scientific
information relevant to climate change, climate drivers and uncertainties, including climate
modeling, downscaling, and available SNAP data for the parks. Nancy also introduced the
project background and scenario planning process. This information familiarized participants
who did not attend the pre-workshop webinars, and served as review and elaboration for those
who did.
Don Calloway of the National Park Service described the sociopolitical framework relevant to
Alaska, and provided examples of nested scenarios and narratives derived from nested scenarios.
22
194
Workshop Work Group Products
195
196
197
198
199
Workshop participants divided into two work groups for breakout sessions. Participants divided
based on primary ecological zones, meaning that they formed a Marine group and an Terrestrial
group. Work group efforts included several stages of analysis, discussion, brainstorming, and
creative effort, covering both the “explore” and “synthesize” components of the scenarios
planning process.
200
201
202
203
Participants first assessed the relative importance and uncertainty of climate-related scenario
drivers, and then selected two drivers with relatively high importance (in order to maximize the
relevance of resulting scenarios) and relatively high uncertainty (in order to maximize
divergence).
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Crossing these two drivers produced four quadrants, each representing a different future or
scenario. The biophysical effects or implications of all four different scenarios were fleshed out
by workshop participants. Next, the four scenarios were nested in a social/institutional matrix
(Figure 5), which yielded sixteen different scenarios that take into account the future sociopolitical environment as well as the biophysical effects of future climate. The participants in
each group then selected two of the most divergent, plausible, relevant and challenging futures
out of the sixteen nested scenarios and developed a narrative – as a story, play, song, skit, etc. –
to describe the selected nested scenarios. These full-fledged scenarios were then assessed in
terms of their management implications. Participants were asked to list appropriate management
actions and research opportunities for each selected future. Finally, these actions and research
opportunities were examined across all selected scenarios, in order to find what robust choices
might be common to all the selected futures.
216
217
218
Climate drivers, scenarios, and the implications, research needs and actions that emerged from
each group’s discussion are presented below, followed by management implications and actions
that were common to both groups.
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
Marine Group
Marine Climate Driver Selection
The Marine group first assessed the relative importance and uncertainty of climate-related
scenario drivers (Table 1, Appendix F). These drivers had been presented and discussed during
the pre-workshop webinars, and were reintroduced in workshop plenary sessions. For the
purposes of scenario planning, the goal was to select two drivers with high importance (in order
to maximize the relevance of resulting scenarios) and high uncertainty (in order to maximize
divergence).
229
23
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
Table 1: Rankings of climate drivers for the Marine work group. Selected drivers are highlighted.
High Uncertainty
High Confidence
High Impact
Temperature
X
X
Form: Rain & Snow
X
X
(changed)
Timing and magnitude of
stream flow (added by
X
X
group)
Freeze up date
X
Length of growing season
X
X
River/stream temperatures
X
X
Sea Level rise
X
(rebound?)
Water availability (soil
X
moisture)
Relative humidity
X
Wind speed
X
X
PDO
X
X
Extreme: Higher Temps
X
X
Extreme: Precipitation
X
X
Extreme: Storm
X
X
Ocean temperature
X (but not degree)
X
increasing (added)
Ocean Acidification (added
X
X
by group)
Importance has multiple dimensions. A driver can be important because it causes effects across
a broad area (oceans, rivers, uplands); because it affects multiple sectors (tourism, subsistence,
cultural sites) or because the effects in any one sector could be potentially catastrophic or
profound.
The group discussed details of drivers at length, including the timing and magnitude of stream
flow, ocean acidification, extreme storm events, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), ocean
temperature, extreme precipitation events, and ocean currents or upwellings. Points of
discussion included the question of how to define endpoints or extremes for each potential driver
and how to define changes in timing and seasonality in terms of end points. The group tried
several matrices of paired drivers, including stream flow crossed with ocean acidification, ocean
acidification crossed with extreme storm events, and PDO crossed with ocean acidification.
Ultimately, the group decided that the most plausible, relevant, divergent, and challenging
scenarios were created by crossing stream flow and ocean acidification (Figure 9).
24
Shift from historic
variability
A
-0.1 pH (slightly
more acidic)
”Bad News”
Stream Flow
“Clusterflood”
B
-0.4 pH (much
more acidic)
Ocean Acidification
“Trying to Do
More with Less”
“Acceptable
Losses”
C
D
Near historic
variability
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Figure 9: Primary matrix of climate drivers produced by the Marine group. Each quadrant
represents a different combination of potential future temperature and extreme precipitation and storm
events.
Marine Bio-physical Scenarios Developed from Selected Drivers
Each quadrant resulting from selected drivers represents a different scenario of potential future
temperature and storm/precipitation conditions (Figure 9). The resulting scenarios for the
Marine group were:
A = low acidification + large shift in stream flow volume and/or timing (+ cool PDO) = “Cluster
Flood”
B = high acidification + large shift in stream flow volume and/or timing = “Bad News”
C = high acidification + status quo in stream flow = “Trying to do more with less”
D = low acidification + status quo in stream flow = “Acceptable losses”
In order to flesh out each of these scenarios, participants referred back to the effects tables
derived during the pre-workshop webinars, as well as the scientific literature, maps, and other
information shared during both the webinars and plenary sessions. The diversity of each
working group also allowed for expert knowledge input from those with first-hand knowledge of
the parks, the surrounding area, and climate impacts already occurring.
25
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
The potential effects of each of the four future biophysical scenarios, as defined by the group, are
fleshed out below.
Marine scenario A: “Cluster Flood”
The “Cluster Flood” scenario envisions a future with only minor increases in ocean acidification
but a large shift in stream flow in terms of volume and/or timing, with a cool–phase PDO.
Potential effects of such conditions include:











Biological
o Mismatch with life stage events (recruitment/spawning)
o Different volumes of water/different times
o Salmon coming up, smolts missing bloom
o Decrease in overall productivity
Social/Cultural
o Can’t assume same fishing patterns—increase in turbidity
o People may move to cities because they cannot depend on resources
o Potential for higher flooding-safety issue
o Loss of cultural resources
o Impact on rafting companies
Infrastructure
o Need to build new bridges
o Erosion of trails
o Less stable hydropower potential
Glaciated:
o Glacial dams bursting—increase in flash floods
o Broaden the flow—more spring and fall—whole magnitude may raise in the
middle
o Longer periods of turbid water-decrease the productivity
o More flow later in the year
Non-glaciated:
o Less high peak in the spring
o Lower summer flow
o Higher fall flow because of greater rains
o Flow later in the year
Temperature (cool/warm) has a huge impact-warm—lots of different animals, cool
(snowpack to protect plants)
Freshwater—stratification patterns. Reduction in melt—lower plankton blooms
Herring other fish—more variability—can’t recover from a crash
Most of SE parks are heavily glaciated—do we need to focus on this?
PDO off for A (masking acidification-dampen variability), on for C (high acidification)—
look at compounding events.
PDO
o Greater impact on temperature than precipitation
 Cold PDO: masking, more similar to historical, moderated stream flow,
higher salmon, more snow, more productive
26
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358



Warm PDO: less advantage for productivity, more rain, more flashy
events, drying of system, increase in fire frequency
Another thing to toggle: uncertainty/variability—simplifying habitat
Defining stream flow end points:
o Change about the mean of peak flow
o Higher or lower variability from the current hydrograph
o Difference between glacial/non-glacial systems
Marine scenario B: “Bad News”
The “Bad News” scenario envisions a future with major increases in ocean acidification and a
large shift in stream flow volume and/or timing. Potential effects of such conditions include:









Increase in invasive species
Reduction in salmon and fish
Loss of food web diversity
Decrease in land/marine mammals, birds
Loss in habitat structure
Increase in disease
Cultural losses
Social pathology increase (commercial, tax base, culture, tourism decrease)
Stranding of marine mammals
Marine scenario C: “Trying to do more with less”
The “Trying to do more with less” scenario envisions a future with major increases in ocean
acidification but no shift in natural stream flow. Potential effects of such conditions include:











Higher acidification is driving the scenario
Lower ocean productivity
Less fish available
More competition for fewer resources
Decrease in sound absorption (noisier)
o Change management of cruise ships
o Larger impact on marine mammals
Decrease in large mammals
Increase in desire for subsistence in NPS
Gradual and difficult to see = lack of awareness/delayed perception
Change in bird populations
Loss in habitat complexity—shellfish impact
Visitation might be stable—bigger cruise ships
D: “Acceptable losses”
The “Acceptable losses” scenario envisions a future with only minor increases in ocean
acidification and no shift in natural stream flow. Potential effects of such conditions include:
27
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382




Moderate reduction in salmon and smaller biomass
More variable in effects—less predictable
Shift in available food—all marine populations
Lower carrying capacity for all life forms—less life
Marine Scenarios nested into a socio-political quadrant
The Marine group nested the four climate scenarios in the social/institutional matrix (Error!
Reference source not found.). This framework explores how each story might play out in a
world with greater or lesser degrees of societal concern and institutional commitment.
This yields 16 scenarios, which are too many futures to manage for. Thus, through additional
discussion and voting, the group selected three nested scenarios that fit the selection criteria of
being 1) Plausible, 2) Relevant, 3) Challenging and 4) Divergent. These two scenarios are
marked by blue stars in Error! Reference source not found..
The “Bad News” scenario (major increases in ocean acidification and a large shift in natural
stream flow) is nested in “Big Problems, Big Solutions” (strong and coordinated support for
climate change at the local and institutional levels). “Clusterflood” (only minor increases in
ocean acidification but a large shift in natural stream flow with a cool–phase PDO) is nested in
“Riots and Revolutions” (strong local concerns but limited institutional support).
After fleshing out the potential effects and future implications for each selected nested scenario,
the Marine group assessed possible management actions and research needs to address those
implications.
383
28
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
Figure 10: Nested scenarios selected by the Marine group. The selected scenarios are indicated by
blue stars. The implications, management actions, research needs, and narrative associated with these
two scenarios are elaborated upon below.
First Marine nested scenario: “Bad News” in “Big Problems/Big Solutions”
The following were identified by the Marine group as potential impacts, implications, and
management actions in the event that the “Bad News” scenario (major increases in ocean
acidification and a large shift in natural stream flow) were to occur under the conditions
described for the “Big Problems/Big Solutions?” quadrant (strong and coordinated support for
climate change at the local and institutional levels).
Implications
 High effort to green operations—green certification
 Climate-tours increase
 Federal capacity focused on FDR approach—restore fish habitat/aquaculture
 Increase outreach programs with personal perspective—build awareness and take
advantage.
 Collaborative efforts are the status quo—more efficient and landscape scale management
 High focus on community participation
 Increase hydropower efforts
29
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
Management Actions
Natural
 Setting up co-management structures for harvested/non-harvested species (protocol, plan,
set thresholds, allocation issues) Working group—what are local challenges? Need to
think about transaction costs
 Exploring invasive management options and prioritizing actions
 Proactive planning around aquaculture planning
 Consider designated wilderness in planning
 Increased coordination between agencies/communities/local governments/federal
government/state
 Proactive Park level leadership in coordination at a local level
Cultural
 Increased outreach and education to communities
 Risk assessment for vulnerable cultural resources & recovery plan
 Document oral histories and make accessible
 Assessment and management of newly recovered cultural resources
Facilities
 Designing more energy efficient and adaptable infrastructure
 Utilizing renewable energy resources
 Address climate change in new infrastructure development
 Risk assessment of existing infrastructure
 Promoting telecommuting for reduced infrastructure footprint
 Reducing fixed costs for Park
Social & Economic
 Proactive water rights planning
 Participation in the travel industry/travel planning (also research need)
 Explore ongoing value-based decision making or co-learning processes
Interpretation and Education
 Redevelopment of interpretation and education programs
 Need to bring the future to the table
 Interpret changed conditions and values (loss of glaciers)
Visitor Protection
 Increased need for visitor protection resources and communications
 Increased concerns about liability and how to respond (new technology)
 Protecting new cultural/natural resources that are exposed
Research Needs
 River gauging data
 Long term acidification monitoring
 Comprehensive baseline social surveys of skills bank, household income, sharing
networks and subsistence with economic indicators (Baseline economic and social
surveys with focus on subsistence)
 Infrastructure risk/vulnerability assessment
 TEK in defensible framework
30
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461





Monitor either harvest or escapement and ecosystem diversity
Monitoring primary/secondary productivity
Presence and distribution of invasive species
Robust atmospheric monitoring in usable form for Park management
Revisit the vital signs for the Park
Other Issues
 Prioritization with budget constraints
 Increased lawsuit costs
 New risks for visitors and employees
462
Second Marine nested scenario: “Clusterflood” in “Riots & Revolution”
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
The following were identified by the Marine group as potential impacts, implications, and
management actions in the event that the “Clusterflood” scenario (only minor increases in ocean
acidification but a large shift in natural stream flow with a cool–phase PDO) were to occur under
the conditions described for the “Riots & Revolution?” quadrant (strong local concerns but
limited institutional support).
Implications
 Development pressure in bigger cities—loss of rural community membership, higher
gas prices
 More competition for fishing resources
 Boom and bust of resources (unpredictable resources)
 Increase in restricted areas—more critical habitats
 Reliance on outside imports—increase food costs
 Creating more marine protected areas
 Pursuit of alternative energy (tide/air power)
 Loss of identity, self-reliance and sense of intact community
 Increase in restoration efforts
 Increase demand for co-management
 Global water demand is up
 Potential coastal management plan
 Increased mineral/energy development
 Increase in invasive species
Major Impacts to the Bioregion:
 Loss of history and sense of pride/tradition
 Loss of communities in general
 Decreased habitat quality
 Seasonal tourism less predictable (Change in traditional recreation opportunities)
 Flooding and erosion increase—may influence habitat
Implications for Management:
31
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518




















Need for restoration
Increase in hatcheries/aquaculture—potential loss in income (not wild caught)
Increase in lawsuits
Increase in demand for adaptive co-management
Planning needs to account for threat to infrastructure
Conflict in mandates
Increase in maintenance costs—how to prioritize limited resources
Dated policy and mandates-increased rigidity
Need for increased landscape and international management
Need for coordinating agency
Subsistence vs. tourism-increased visitation
Increase in resource extraction management
Increased visitation
Increase in civil disobedience
Increase in emergency response
How to assign value and prioritize?
How to keep up with research needs?—scenario planning needs continual
updating/revision
New technologies—access/use/etc…
Funding to respond
Monitoring needs, but no funding
32
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
Terrestrial Group
Terrestrial Climate Driver Selection
The methods and procedures for the Terrestrial group were nearly identical to those described for
the Coastal group. However, the group’s preferences and discussions resulted in a few
differences, including a slightly different format for assessing certainty and importance, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Climate Driver assessment by the Terrestrial group. Selected drivers are highlighted: extreme
precipitation and storm events were combined into one category.
High uncertainty
Important
Extreme Events –
Precipitation
Yes
Yes
Extreme Events –
Storms
Precipitation
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Water availability –
changed to
“seasonality of
water flow”
Yes
Yes
PDO – certain that it
does occur, but
timing is highly
uncertain
Yes
No
Increased
temperature
No
Yes
Increased growing
season
No
Yes
Increased length of
ice-free season
No
Yes
Extreme Events –
Temperature
No
Yes
The group also added a new driver to those previously presented, seasonality of water flow,
which was judged to be highly uncertain, and important. Next, the group selected the top three
drivers, which were concluded to be seasonality of water flow, PDO, and precipitation and
storms. Ultimately, they opted to consider PDO an amplifier instead of a driver, thus choosing
as the two primary drivers Extreme Weather Events (storms/precipitation), ranging from a 20%
decrease to a 20% increase; and Seasonality of Water Flow, ranging from historical flow/timing
to “abnormal” flow/timing.
Terrestrial Biophysical Scenarios Developed from Selected Drivers
Each quadrant resulting from the selected drivers represents a different scenario of potential
future temperature and extreme storm events (Error! Reference source not found.). The
resulting scenarios for the Terrestrial group were:
33
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
A = historical flow rates/timing + higher extreme events = “Yo-yo Snow & Blow”
B = abnormal flow rates/timing + much more extreme events (+50%) = “Disaster Zone”
C = historical flow rates/timing + lower extreme events (-20%) = “Calm Before the Storm”
D = abnormal water flow rates/timing + less extreme events (-20%) = “SE Identity Crisis”
General assumptions/certainties for all quadrants included the fact that the climate would be
expected to be warmer, although the magnitude of the warming may be either dampened or
amplified by the PDO. A slight increase in precipitation (5-16% based on SNAP projections)
was also assumed.
Other considerations included the fact that river and stream temperatures may increase, but
glacial feeding could make temperatures decrease. This could also affect nutrient influx.
As glaciers retreat, new species (vegetation and animals) would move into newly vacated areas
The potential effects of each of the four future biophysical scenarios, as defined by the group, are
fleshed out below.
558
More extreme
events (+50%)
”Disaster
Zone”
A
B
Events
“Yo-yo Snow
and Blow”
Historical flow
rates/timing
Abnormal flow
rates/timing
“Calm Before
the Storm”
Extreme
Seasonality of Water Flow
“SE Identity
Crisis”
C
D
Fewer extreme
events (-20%)
559
560
561
562
563
Figure 11: Primary drivers selected by the Terrestrial group. When crossed, these drivers create four divergent
biophysical scenarios.
34
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
Terrestrial scenario A: “Yo-yo Snow & Blow”
The “Yo-yo Snow & Blow” scenario envisions a future with historical stream flow but a 50%
increase in extreme events. Potential effects of such conditions include:
















Episodic events = reduced resources
Floods
Forest blowdown
Extreme fluctuation in fisheries/wildlife – depends on species = which are able to adapt?
Some might flourish or become more stable? (Fluctuation vs destruction)
More snow = deer die off? But then recover in subsequent years.
Big flood = wipes out salmon, invertebrates. But then recover in subsequent years.
Structural damage to facilities/infrastructure (historical/cultural)
Transportation disruptions
Heavier snowfall events (=avalanches) – large snow loads & blizzards
Heavier rainfall events (=floods)
More snow = grows glaciers at higher elevations? – not really “stable”, rather continued
retreat of lower elevation glaciers while upper elevation glaciers get thicker (as
temperatures increase, warmer air masses bring more moisture = more snow at higher
elevation, more rain at lower elevations)
More snow = more successful small rodents (subnivian)
Slight increases in river and stream temps
Salmon population unaffected
Little opportunity for human adaptation (too yo-yo)
Less focus on preservation and health because people are too focused on responding to
immediate disasters (compared with “ID crisis”)
Terrestrial scenario B: “Disaster Zone”
The ““Disaster Zone”” scenario envisions a future with abnormal stream flow and a 50%
increase in extreme events. Potential effects of such conditions include:















Natural disasters/catastrophic events more frequent
Floods
Fire – highest fire risk of 4 quadrants
Drought
Glacial dams fail or develop
Landslides
Avalanches
Blizzards
Earthquakes
Forest pests
Forest blowout
Riverbank erosion (with trees getting cut down)
Water availability affected
Tourism affected
Movement or loss of species/migration affected
35
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652



Berries affected -> which affects bears
River and stream temps
Drastic loss of salmon – local extinction
Terrestrial scenario C: “Calm Before the Storm”
The “Calm Before the Storm” scenario envisions a future with historical stream flow and a 20%
decrease in extreme events. Potential effects of such conditions include:









Calm/moderate weather
People attracted to area = more visitors/tourism
Increase in invasive species (species move north and up in altitude)
Glacial retreat continues
More conflicts for use of resources
Increased tourism = economic boost
Slight increases in river and stream temps
Salmon population unaffected
More opportunity for human adaptation as changes happen at a more steady pace
Terrestrial scenario D: “SE Identity Crisis”
The “SE Identity Crisis”scenario envisions a future with abnormal stream flow and a 20%
decrease in extreme events. Potential effects of such conditions include:




















flooding
drought
disrupted fisheries
glacial loss/gone at lower elevations
coastal salinity issues
habitat change, food availability
Increased coastal access, more fjords
Vegetation and wildlife changes --- changes may be slow and steady ---habitat shifts of
mobile species. Shift in species composition.
Yellow cedar die
Subnivian animals decline
More fire
Vegetation migration from south
Wetlands impacted
Riverbank erosion, houses lost
Watershed loss -> cisterns, small ponds
Insects an disease
Ecological tipping point
Decreased tourism or shift to Hubbard?
Different marketing?
Change is more predictable
36
653
654
655
656
657
658
Terrestrial Nested Scenarios and Implications
659
660
661
662
663
The “Southeast Identity Crisis” scenario (abnormal stream flow and a 20% decrease in extreme
events) is nested in “Is Anyone Out There?” (little social or institutional support for climate
change adaptation efforts). “Disaster Zone” (abnormal stream flow and increased storms) is
nested in “Big Problems, Big Solutions” (strong and coordinated support for climate change at
the local and institutional levels).
The Terrestrial group nested the four above climate scenarios in the social/institutional matrix in
much the same way as that the Marine group did, producing 16 nested scenarios. From these 16
scenarios, the group used the selection criteria of being 1) Plausible, 2) Relevant, 3) Challenging
and 4) Divergent. This resulted in selecting two nested scenarios to further develop, as shown by
blue stars in Figure 12.
664
665
666
667
668
669
Figure 12: Terrestrial Nested Scenarios. Selected scenarios are marked by blue stars, and described in full in the
text.
670
671
672
The following were identified by the Terrestrial group as potential impacts, implications, and
management actions in the event that the “Southeast Identity Crisis” scenario (abnormal stream
flow and a 20% decrease in extreme events) were to occur under the conditions described for the
First Terrestrial nested scenario: “Southeast Identity Crisis” in “Is Anyone Out There?”
37
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
“Is Anyone Out There?” quadrant (little social or institutional support for climate change
adaptation efforts).
Political/Social/Economic Implications
 What’s happening now will continue. No major disasters, and no one can directly link
these changes to climate change. Our political atmosphere will continue, i.e. competing
concerns.
 Big economic drivers could make climate change drop out of the picture… other political
concerns overshadow concerns of climate change.
 Thrust for smaller gov’t continues. Agencies are not funded to deal with issues lower
than national security. Some agencies dissolved.
 Increased corporate control. Corporate influence increases. Multinational corporations
are the dominant interest in local communities.
 With great corporation influence and less federal influence, communities will be more
responsible for social services (including environmental issues)?
 Corporations in SEAN specifically = logging (biofuels), tourism, fisheries, mining.
 Adaptation is not happening (Is Anyone Out There?)
 Higher fuel costs and less ability to supply
Major Impacts on the Bioregion
 Increasing temperatures
 Reduced flows
 Retreating glaciers
 Hibernation for bears shorter
 Salmon and fish = low productivity
 Vegetation shifts – including yellow cedars which advance north and up
 Habitat loss – changes in habitat – more disturbance to younger
 Habitat loss forces wildlife populations to adapt or move.
 Reduced habitats include wetlands, riparian zones, alpine & old growth forests.
 Areas vacated by deglaciation creates habitat for deer and new vegetation.
 Potential wildfires
 Wetlands and muskegs (35-40% of landscape is wetlands) – lower water tables
 Increased incidence of peat fires = affects habitat, berries
 Changes in wildlife populations, habitat, fisheries
 Tree die off in riparian areas (around streams) from disease, pests, etc., exposes streams
to sun, results in warmer stream temperatures = affects fish
 Dying forests create poor salmon and other fish productivity
 Deer population shifts
 Loss of glaciers – in 20 years, Tracy Arm will not have glaciers, but Glacier Bay will still
have the tidewater glaciers. Example:: Portage Glacier = huge visitor’s center built, but
now you can’t see the glacier from the visitor’s center!
 Biomass productivity? (logging?)
Issues Facing Management:
38
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760






Pressure to reduce the size of federal government will force consolidation of agencies and
less capacity overall (what they refer to as “streamlining”). Also, as agencies merge,
potential for merging disparate interests = institutional chaos, inability to manage climate
change. Administrative distraction…
o e.g. fisheries: FWS, NOAA
o e.g. climate: USGS, NWS
Competition for fish resources between commercial fishing, sport fishing, and
subsistence needs intensifies.
Agencies and communities need to adapt to changing tourism patterns/demands. Shifting
tourism … NPS is a tourism agency.
Lack of education about science, environment, climate change.
Impacts of loss of subsistence means and TEK. Loss of native culture.**
Fuel costs and economic conditions produce challenges for Alaska ferry system. (SE
transportation plan).
Second Terrestrial nested scenario: “Disaster Zone” in “Big Problems, Big Solutions”
The following were identified by the Terrestrial group as potential impacts, implications, and
management actions in the event that the “Disaster Zone” scenario (abnormal stream flow and
increased storms) were to occur under the conditions described for the “Big Problems, Big
Solutions?” quadrant (strong social and institutional support for climate change adaptation
efforts).
Political/Social/Economic
 More and more annual disasters are striking SE AK, and govt and people are working
together to deal with major issues and to find and coordinate responses.
 Community health and economic health are both emphasized, meaning not just solutions
such as starting a hatchery, but also finding holistic solutions to maintain ways of life.
 If fisheries and forestry are lost, what is replacing them? Sustainable tourism? Selective
logging? Renewable energy, Biomass? Tidal? Wind? Geothermal? Hydro? All these
resources are so close together, it’s unusual.
 Individuals all feel interdependence and feel their important role in the communities.
 A combination of fire and floods destroy the cultural resources in Skagway and it
becomes a ghost town and a more remotely managed park
 50% of the small communities have to evacuate due to natural disasters, and are
reabsorbed into other communities.
 Reduced potable water availability
 Loss of life – or shifting from death from social ills to death via disaster.
 Transportation disruptions with ferries, airports.
 Energy, buildings, waste disposal, social health networks, communications
 Willingness and ability to create and pay for engineered solutions, eg hatcheries
 Mariculture?
 Logging out the dead trees, but planting something that matches new ecosystem
conditions
 More flightseeing to see reduced glaciers
39
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
Major Impacts on the Bioregion
 Major shifts in habitats, species, and tourism. Recolonization by willow in deglaciated
areas, attracts moose and deer. Forest becomes grassland of engineered forests. Might
attract elk, bison, grouse. Mountain goats and other species more higher.
 Reduction in timber productivity
 Invasive species that may wipe out local species, in addition to more benign range shift.
 Seasonal crop failures balanced by other crops – shifting resources rather than eliminated.
 Collapse of commercial fishery
Issues Facing Management
 Decide how to switch from wilderness to more managed areas mixed with areas of
dynamic change
 Parks are now managed for different resources. There used to be glaciers in Yosemite,
but people still go there. Different visitor experience is being managed in different parks
– to see new energy sources, to see glaciers in Wrangell St Elias., from soft adventure to
extreme adventure.
 Management faces infrastructure upgrades, need to be more disaster resistant
 Health emergencies help spark adaptations and change.
781
782
783
784
785
786
Narratives
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
Regional Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop for SE AK
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
Climate change scenarios can be used to create multiple outreach tools to assist land managers
and to educate the public. One such product is a set of narratives or stories that help to visualize
and synthesize a range of plausible yet divergent futures. The following imaginative narratives
were created to synthesize these climate change scenarios.
The following narrative (couched as the proceedings of a planning workshop) was developed by
the Marine group based on the “Bad News” scenario (major increases in ocean acidification and
a large shift in natural stream flow) under the conditions described for the “Big Problems/Big
Solutions?” quadrant (strong and coordinated support for climate change at the local and
institutional levels).
Feb. 2030 – 4th Regional Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop for SE AK
Juneau, AK Centennial Hall – 255 attendees (Public Welcome)
(Notes from the First Day Proceedings)
Theme for Day One: “You Look Lost – We Can Help”
8:00am Keynote Panel discussion: “The Next Big Thing”
Panelists: James Balog, First Director, US Department of Reason
Melinda Nelson, Honorable Governor of Alaska,
Ray Wilson, Andy Gambel, and Ed Kuntz,Village elders
40
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
This spirited discussion outlined the current plans about to be finalized for an innovative regional
distribution network serving all of SE Alaska. This multi-partner collaboration should provide
transportation and delivery of food, fuel and supplies to communities through the region at lower cost and
twice the frequency as present practices. A prime example of the benefits this new agency (analogous to
the Homeland Security) is enabling through coordination of federal, state, local gov’t, businesses and
NGOs.
10:30am: Progress update – Habitat Restoration Projects
Presenters: Regional Subcommittee for Habitat Integrity
As you know, salmon fisheries and other fish stock are in decline, and in recent years, there has been
significant loss in habitat structure. Amongst other things, this subcommittee has been tasked with
helping the region’s communities develop new economic and subsistence alternatives. We’re happy to
report that 90% of the backlog of young growth clearing has been accomplished as of this Spring. Project
manager Seth Anderson says that all of the crews have made excellent progress. In addition to providing
funding support, agencies have actively engaged the youth in these communities as active agents in
increasing and maintaining browse for deer and moose populations – reaping expanded harvests. Seth,
who started his career in 2010 as a YCC work leader, noted that agencies have enjoyed high retention of
enrollees (many becoming permanent staff) and they are also experiencing a boom of interest in citizen
science research activities associated with this project. (Looks like the CCC is alive and well for a new
generation.)
Lunch
1:30pm: Special event - The 2030 “Fireside Chat for Climate”
Live Video chat presenting community and tribal leaders from communities across the region – including:
Kake, Hydaberg, Klawock, Angoon, Petersburg, Wrangell, Haines, Klukwan, Gustavus, Craig, and many
others.
This multimedia event was developed to discuss recent shifts occurring in the region’s tourism patterns as
a result of changing climate. Recent growth in the package-tour market, coupled with the new larger
cruise ships serving the region, provide opportunity to collaborate on new climate-inspired strategies for
eco-tourism as well as for interpretive and education products and services. The focus of discussion
included a wide range of options: sharing tradition ecological knowledge and expanding opportunities for
eco-tourism by villages, embracing newer technologies and mobile devices by growing our products and
services around a “personalized” perspective, and addressing the need to raise awareness about the
current extreme conditions with key climate-related messages about adaptation strategies and concerns.
The session concluded with a region-wide multi-venue rendition of “Alaska’s Flag” – the first time ever, we
believe!
3:30pm: Progress update – Energy Development and “Greening” Projects
Presenters: Regional Subcommittee for Energy Conservation
Several energy-related efforts have made good progress through this partnership over the past few years.
Most notably, significant strides in bringing together communities via the grid have seen completion.
Funding has been secured for installation of salt water transmission cables, the Thayer Lake hydro
project has been operational since 2020, and there has been a concerted effort to reduce demand while
increasing availability during peak periods. All the region’s national parks have completed their Climate
Friendly Parks Action plans and are making progress towards their reduction targets. Several partners
have invested in plug-in hybrids for their fleets, and LEED certification standards are the standards for all
new construction.
Finally – The Highlight from the Evening Reception – the 10th annual “Big Black Boot“ award presentation
to Hoonah for excellence in reducing their community’s carbon footprint. The trophy is accompanied by a
generous cash incentive, so competition has been fierce for this prize – congratulations to all the
nominees!
Alaska National Parks on Facebook
The following narrative (in the form of a series of Facebook posts) was developed by the Marine
group based on the “Clusterflood” scenario (only minor increases in ocean acidification but a
41
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
large shift in natural stream flow with a cool–phase PDO) were to occur under the conditions
described for the “Riots & Revolution?” quadrant (strong local concerns but limited institutional
support).
In the story, a marine reserve was established and new technologies (jetpacks) were used. There was an
additional post about aquaculture in waters adjoining the park and responses from community members.
Another post discussed ice harvest and its impact on seals, emergency response and safety. To view the
narrative, see http://www.nps.gov/akso/nature/documents/SEAK_Narratives.pdf
Ranger Ray and the Raven
The following narrative (in the form of a children’s story) was developed by the Terrestrial
group based on the “Southeast Identity Crisis” scenario (abnormal stream flow and a 20%
decrease in extreme events) under the conditions described for the “Is Anyone Out There?”
quadrant (little social or institutional support for climate change adaptation efforts).
The novice Ranger Ray proudly dressed in his new agency uniform of the National Parks and Forests
and prepared for his first day on the job. While on his walk to work he begins to ponder why some things
he sees don’t add up. The sights, sounds, and people surrounding the park do not seem to match what
42
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
the National Geographic TV specials and Imax movies had portrayed about Southeast Alaska. He stops
to take in the surroundings and sips his coffee along the river, or what is now more like a creek.
932
933
934
935
936
Closeup in Washington D.C.
Lost in thought he was suddenly startled by a raven that fluttered close to him and landed on a branch
just inches away from his shoulder. Ray looks into the Raven’s eye and contemplated what the Raven
and his ancestors knew about Alaska. He had an urge to ask the Raven what had happened to Southeast
Alaska? Where were the famous salmon he had heard about, why did the glaciers seem smaller? Why
were the evergreens trees so bare? If only ravens could talk he thought…..and with a strange squawk he
was startled again. Had the Raven heard him? “Raven will you tell me more about what happened to
Southeast Alaska and its people?”
Raven nodded and hopped excitedly.
“No one is talking about it. The other rangers at work didn’t even mention the receding glaciers, the
infested forest, the burning muskeg, or the missing salmon. Where did they go?”
Raven makes a motion, a sweeping away with his wing, as to say, “They are just gone.”
Ranger Ray looks baffled by the response and ponders the response. How could these changes have
happened and the world missed it? It is as if they were distracted with the national reorganization of
natural resource agencies, deficit problems, downsizing of the federal government. The people were
consumed with daily life, basic needs, and in the end they just ignored it.
“But Raven what will the native cultures, fishermen, bears and whales do with so few fish? Won’t the
people argue about the salmon and who gets how many?”
Raven nods in agreement and cocks his eye in concern.
“Who will decide? The new agencies are in chaos right now. The local governments and tribes have so
much to worry about now, with the floods from the glacial dams breaking and muskeg fires.”
Raven shrugs his wings as to say “Who knows?”
Ray asks, “What about the Tlingit people Raven? They cared for the land for so long and they know it so
well. Can they help?”
Again Raven makes his sad sweeping motion towards the big city of Juneau. The indigenous people are
suffering as well.
Many have been displaced by floods, lack of salmon and limited subsistence opportunities and some
have even relocated to the cities. Tribal communities are a trying to cope with a disruption of cultural
practices and take of their families. Ray is bewildered and again thinks how this could have gone
unnoticed.
Ranger Ray is in denial and is dazed when he suddenly notices the time and realizes that he is almost
late to board the newly developed Princess/ Holland America ferry that transports visitors to the park for a
fee. “Raven I have to go, but I thank you for your ancient insight. Can we meet again?”
The following narrative (in the form of a conversation between a local resident and her U.S.
Representative ) was developed by the Terrestrial group based on the “Disaster Zone” scenario
(abnormal stream flow and increased storms) under the conditions described for the “Big
43
937
938
Problems, Big Solutions?” quadrant (strong social and institutional support for climate change
adaptation efforts).
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
The year is 2030. Young Jennie, aged 16, a resident of a Southeast Alaska village, has travelled to
Washington D.C. as part of the well-known Closeup program. There she is meeting with Representative
B. Gladd, Senator I. M. Responsive, and Senator U. R. Adaptive. Below is her conversation with B.
Gladd.
B. Gladd: I’m so pleased to be meeting a young lady from your community. The Senators and I have
been hearing so much about the efforts you’ve been making to welcome the folks who had to evacuate
when the village of [x] washed away after the last series of river floods. I hope the funding from the
Relocation Bill is helping.
Jennie: Thank you, it is – although moving was so hard for a lot of people from [x]. Still, we all knew it
was coming. We made plans, built homes, found ways to reconnect with distant family from [x] and to
make new connections – so it’s not all bad. Besides, a lot of people from [x] helped us out, in the big fire
three summers ago, and in the blizzard year, when I was in fourth grade. So it’s nice to be able to do
something in return.
B. Gladd:
Yes -- you’ve certainly had a lot of fires, and what with that and the pest outbreaks, we all know the forest
industry can’t last. Senator Adaptive and I have been talking to the village councils from your area about
adaptation strategies.
Jennie:
Oh, I know. I’ve been taking part in some of those initiatives in school, as part of the Hands-On-Learning
program. I’m a tidal energy specialist now! And my cousin Susie is a hydro-power technician. Also,
she’s teaching me to cure bison hides. We never had bison until grasslands started coming in after the
fires. It’s pretty tasty. I do miss salmon, though.
B. Gladd:
A hatchery is still a possibility – but only if the local people agree to it, of course. The funding could be
channeled to other initiatives as well, such as the redwood plantations.
Jennie:
I don’t know. The Councils have been meeting to talk these ideas over. My friends and I go to the
meetings – it’s part of our school, and the elders like having us there. They say that if we are to plan for
the future, we need the future to be in the room. I know everyone worries about jobs, and about
traditions. We’ve had to change pretty quickly, and that can be hard on people, but we’re doing it
together, and that helps. There are still some good jobs. My uncle is an interpretive ranger, in the Park.
B. Gladd:
You know, there were people who said the visitors would stop coming, now that the glacier has almost
disappeared, but it seems like the Dynamic Change Program that Senator Responsive championed is
really working.
Jennie:
Yeah. Visitors used to come to see things that hadn’t changed in millennia. Now they come to see things
that are disappearing, and new things that are showing up – like the bison, and all the wildflowers, and
our combined Geothermal and Wind plant. Pretty soon we’ll start selling energy to British Colombia.
B. Gladd:
That’s wonderful. I was proud to sponsor the International Intertie to make that power marketable.
Jennie:
44
991
992
993
994
It’s not the same as the old ways, and sometimes I really wish things hadn’t changed so fast. The older
people talk a lot about everything they’ve lost – but they look to the future, too. I guess my people have
always adapted, and always will.
45
995
Common Implications, Actions and Needs
996
997
998
A good set of common needs can be an excellent starting point for responding to change through
“no regrets actions”, that would make good sense under any conditions, such as when
determining safe locations for new facilities.
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
Scenario planning enables participants to assess potential vulnerabilities (effects and
implications) and identify appropriate responses to address the implications and manage risks.
Divergent scenarios typically yield different effects and implications. Serious differences in
implications typically warrant different responses, especially when the effects could potentially
be catastrophic. When the same actions are listed for multiple scenarios, either a suite of no
regrets actions has been identified, or the scenarios were not sufficiently divergent.
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
If the recommended actions appear to closely reflect current practices, then lack of meaningful
changes leads to complacency and a false sense of security. It is important to revisit the
implications for the individual scenarios, and to flag any that could potentially be catastrophic if
they were to occur (such as rapid erosion near critical facilities). Such effects warrant careful
consideration of appropriate monitoring and responses. As shown in Figure 6, robust strategies
are not the only ones that make sense, in terms of policy selection. In many cases, the potentially
negative results of climate change effects that appear in only one, two, or three of the outlines
scenarios many nonetheless be serious enough to warrant some hedging of bets.
1013
1014
Management actions and research needs identified by both work groups and common to all four
nested scenarios selected for this planning workshop are outlined below.
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
Cooperation and Information Sharing
 TEK in planning
 Co-management
 Invasive management
 Cooperation at local level
 Collaborative process: bring communities to the table
 Need to develop deep relationships and build trust
 Bring in other groups, e.g. tourism industries, fisheries, logging, other landowners in AK
(SeaAlaska, tribal groups, etc.), Parks Canada
 Importance of place-based education and collaboration between groups
 Value-based management
o How to make hard decisions?
o Values are changing—need a transparent decision process
Increased Monitoring
 Important variables to monitor include the scenario drivers selected, in order to validate
over time that the futures are still plausible…or to make changes when monitoring
suggests otherwise.
 Importance of water monitoring and stream flow
 Parks as living laboratories
 Potential problems with wilderness areas
Planning for emergencies and disasters
46
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041





Vulnerability and risk assessments (cultural resources/infrastructure)
Emergency preparedness teams
Staff with multi-interdisciplinary skills
Budget issues
No regrets actions might not be enough if trending in one direction
47
1042
Discussion
1043
1044
1045
The scenario planning process is not prescriptive; it does not set or determine policy. However,
it does offer useful information for policymakers, land managers, and other stakeholders as they
face the task of planning for an uncertain future.
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
The Southeast Alaska project began with the focal question, ““How can NPS managers best
preserve the natural and cultural resources and other values within their jurisdiction in the face of
climate change?” Through the workshop process described in this report, not only was this
question addressed, but so too was the broader question of protecting the natural and cultural
landscape in which the Southeast Network parks exist.
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
Two important factors enriched and strengthened the process. First, the group that came together
-- first via teleconference and later in the workshop itself -- represented a broad range of
interests, experiences, and knowledge. Not only was NPS represented at the park, regional, and
national levels, but these experts were joined by modelers and climate researchers from SNAP;
representatives of Native subsistence, and other local interests; representatives from nonprofit
conservation organizations; and experts from other government agencies. All participants were
fully engaged in the process, and contributed to the inputs, the analysis, and the outcomes.
Second, although representation of uncertainty is built into the scenarios process – and is indeed
integral to interpretation of the outputs – the analysis performed by workshop participants was
based on the best available science. SNAP’s maps, data, and tools offer cutting-edge climate
science in formats that help stakeholders connect raw data to real landscape changes and
pertinent environmental and human effects. Moreover, the maps created specifically for this
project have uses and implications that extend beyond the limits of this project, since they are
publicly available and have direct pertinence for any stakeholder region-wide who is concerned
about issues ranging from construction and development to ecological diversity to human health
and safety. (For all maps, including region-wide and park-specific maps, see Appendix E and
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/)
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
SNAP’s website (www.snap.uaf.edu) offers further insights into the inherent uncertainties
associated with climate modeling, including unknown future emissions rates of greenhouse
gases; the complexity of creating and interpreting global circulation models (GCMs) that fully
account for the distribution of heat and moisture via atmosphere and oceans; and the challenges
of scaling down GCMs to the local level. Forecasts for precipitation are particularly challenging,
because of the innate variability of rainfall and snowfall across fairly small-scale landscapes and
short time periods. Given these uncertainties – but also given the existence of some clear trends,
and ongoing evidence of climate change -- the scenarios process creates a unique way of
exploring possible futures.
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
Because Alaska is such a geographically large and diverse state, spanning many cultures and
many ecosystems, project outputs from climate change scenario planning workshops vary by
region, although some recommended management actions may be applicable true across the
board. Holding these workshops on a regional basis proved an effective means of providing
regional focus within a statewide framework.
48
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
Climate change impacts of particular concern in the Southeast Alaska, as identified via this
process, include ocean acidification and terrestrial hydrologic change, and associated effects on
cultural and historical resources, natural resources (particularly fisheries), communities,
subsistence, and even Park mandates. Potential hydrologic change is primarily driven by
changes in seasonality that may cause large shifts in water availability and stream flow. Ocean
acidification is difficult to predict with current information. Such changes may threaten NPS
infrastructure and drastically alter human experience for both visitors and locals. New economic
opportunities and shifting local livelihoods are likely to complicate management choices, both
inside and outside our National Parks.
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
As shown in Figure 3, the scenarios process is multi-step and iterative. The 2012 Southeast
Alaska workshop took the process through the orienting, exploring, and synthesizing steps, and
offered suggestions to promote or direct action. Near the end of the workshop process,
participants referred back to the strategy-setting diagram provided by the Global Business
Network (Figure 6). As outlines, the group assessed which management strategies and
information needs were robust – common to all scenarios. However, discussion of strategies that
offer ways to hedge bets or plan for uncertain but potentially catastrophic effects is also valuable,
and should not be overlooked. An immediate “bet the farm” approach may be needed in places
where severe effects from coastal erosion are a near certainty. “Wait and see” may be the
preferable approach (and consistent with NPS policy) for dealing with range shifts in native
species. Hedging might be the appropriate solution for exotic species: education, prevention,
control where the risks are high, and for low-risk species perhaps acceptance.
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
The climate change scenario planning process does not end with these workshops, reports and
presentations. Rather, they are intended to stimulate creative thinking to address changing but
still undetermined future environmental and socio-political future conditions. Post-workshop,
long-term monitoring and feedback to the process are still necessary. Scenarios are a learning
process, and new or unexpected information can make it important to revisit or repeat the
scenario planning process. The process should be refreshed periodically as important new
information becomes available, to validate existing scenarios or to create new ones.
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
One of the most useful outcomes from this process can be the development of a suite of tools that
can be used to communicate climate change impacts, choices, and potential outcomes to a wide
range of stakeholders, including park staff, park visitors, administrators, schoolchildren, and the
general public. Potential products include video productions, podcasts, displays, posters, fact
sheets, interactive web sites, and more.
1115
1116
1117
1118
In summary, park managers, park neighbors, and stakeholders can learn from the future by using
the best available scientific information and climate projections to create plausible, divergent,
relevant, and challenging future climate change scenarios. These scenarios can help us all better
prepare for uncertain future conditions in face of climate change.
1119
1120
49
Literature Cited
Chapin III, F. S., M. Sturm, M. C. Serreze, J. P. McFadden, J. R. Key, A. H. Lloyd, A. D.
McGuire, T. S. Rupp, A. H. Lynch, J. P. Schimel, J. Beringer, W. L. Chapman, H. E.
Epstein, E. S. Euskirchen, L. D. Hinzman, G. Jia, C.-L. Ping, K. D. Tape, C. D. C.
Thompson, D. A. Walker, and J. M. Welker, (2005). Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic
Summer Warming. Science. 310 (5748) 657-660.
Cole, David N. and Laurie Yung. 2010. Beyond Naturalness, Rethinking Park and Wilderness
Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Island Press.
Fresco, N. 2011. University of Alaska, Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning with Climate
Briefs, Climate Drivers Table, Climate Projections, and other documents.
http://bit.ly/jYBKxs
Jezierski, C., A. Schramm, and R. Loehman. 2010. Understanding the Science of Climate
Change – Talking Points Impacts to Alaska Maritime and Transitional Zones”
(NPS/NRPC/NRR 2010).
Marris Emma. 2011. Rambunctious Garden; Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Bloomsbury,
New York, NY.
National Park Service. 2010a. National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy.
National Park Service Climate Change Response Program. National Park Service, Fort
Collins, Colorado. http://www.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/NPS_CCRS.pdf (accessed 10
June 2012)
National Park Service. 2010b. Alaska Region Climate Change Response Strategy 2010-2014.
National Park Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.nps.gov/akso/climatechange.html (accessed 10 June 2012)
Schwartz, P. 1996. The Art of the Long View: Planning for the future in an uncertain world.
Doubleday, New York, New York.
50
Appendix A: Participant Agenda
For videos and presentations from the workshop, see
http://www.nps.gov/akso/nature/climate/scenario.cfm
Southeastern Alaska National Parks
Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop
Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center, Juneau AK
February 21-24, 2012
FINAL AGENDA
Tuesday February 21st
12:30
ARRIVAL and COFFEE
p.m.
1:00 pm
Plenary
 Welcome: Include: restrooms, snacks, coffee, eateries, group
dinner, vehicles/transportation, lodging etc.
 Introductions & Participant Expectations
 Workshop Objectives, Agenda, Ground Rules
1:30 am
Plenary
 Explain Scenario Planning, Review Scenario Process, and
Introduce the Focal Question(s) (Address scale: park &
bioregion) Feedback from group on how to narrow the focal
question
2:00 am
Plenary
 Present science information / overview / present a case study to
illustrate scenario process
o General insights
o Climate drivers / uncertainties -> handouts and input
from group
o Potential effects/impacts -> handouts and input from
group
o How to create scenarios using uncertainties, drivers, and
effects table (examples from other CC Scenario
Workshops)
BREAK
3:00
3:15 pm
Plenary
Groups
4:45 pm
Plenary
 Video of CC Scenario, break into 2 groups
 Identify key climate drivers with “high uncertainty” but “high
impact and importance” leading to challenging, plausible,
relevant, and divergent futures. Keep in mind the effects tables
when identifying “high impact.” Also identify relatively certain
climate drivers.
ADJOURN – Final thoughts for the day
51
Wednesday February 22nd
8:00 am
ARRIVAL, COFFEE and LIGHT BREAKFAST
8:15 am
Plenary
 CC Video
 Second thoughts and overnight insights
 Re-cap process (what we did and where we are going, including
the next step to build a matrix with climate drivers)
8:45 am
Groups
10:00 am
10:15 am
Groups
11:30
Plenary
12:00 pm
1:00 pm
Plenary
1:30 pm
Groups
3:00 pm
3:15 pm
Groups
 Select climate drivers and test matrix combinations. Draw from
impacts table to detail implications for each scenario (e.g. natural
& cultural resources, facilities, interpretation)
BREAK
 Continue to detail implications for each scenario
 Report-out: Groups share draft climate driver frameworks with key
characteristics of scenarios
LUNCH
 Describe Socio-Political Framework relevant to Alaska
 Explain nested scenarios
 Explore Socio-Political drivers and implications.
Combine selected “bioregional climate drivers” and “sociopolitical” frameworks to develop nested scenarios leading to
challenging, plausible, relevant, and divergent futures. Discuss all
4 climate driver scenarios within each quadrant of the sociopolitical framework.
BREAK
 Continue to create nested scenarios. Select 2 nested futures to
develop and build robust narratives for these scenarios. Draft two
scenario narratives. (Groups may wish to subdivide into 2
scenario teams)
4:15 pm
 Groups report out internally the process for climate driver
selection and nested scenario selection and describe the selected
nested climate futures (stories) and refine, as needed for report out
to larger group
4:45 pm
Plenary
FINAL THOUGHTS / QUESTIONS/ADJOURN for Day
52
Thursday February 23rd
8:00 am
ARRIVAL, COFFEE, and LIGHT BREAKFAST
8:15 am
Plenary
 Video of Climate Change Scenario
 Overnight Insights
8:30 am
Plenary
10:00 am
10:15 am
BREAK
Plenary
Groups
 Identify potential actions for each of 3-4 chosen nested scenarios
based on management implications. Focus on no-regrets actions
that apply to all selected climate futures, when possible.
LUNCH
12:00 pm
1:00 pm
 Explain management implications & actions
 Presentation: From implications to recommended actions to
management decisions: various ways to use insights from
scenarios; tips on communicating scenarios and formulating no
regrets actions
10:30 am
10:45 am
 Groups share process for selecting 2-3 nested scenarios for
challenging, plausible, relevant, and divergent futures and re-cap
selected scenarios and narrative storylines (15 min each, plus
discussion)
Groups
3:00 pm
 Continue to identify potential actions. Consider the best way to
communicate the issues.
BREAK
3:15 pm
Groups
 Groups finalize management implications, and if time permits,
work on scenario narratives
3:45 pm
Plenary
 Groups present management implications to the larger group, and
discuss.
4:45 pm
Plenary
FINAL THOUGHTS / THANKS/ADJOURN
53
Friday, February 24th
8:00 a.m.
ARRIVAL, COFFEE, and LIGHT BREAKFAST
8:15 pm
Plenary
 Overnight Insights – additional thoughts on management
implications
8:30 am
Plenary
 NEXT STEPS How do we use this work and where do we go with
it?
 What actions apply to all scenarios => least regrets actions?
 Incorporate scenario planning into landscape-scale collaboration
and adaptation (working with neighbors and across jurisdictions)
 Need for follow-up discussions/teleconferences to flesh out
scenarios and actions for up to 3 examples for each administrative
unit
 Draft report from SNAP, web links and access to data
 Public Outreach and sharing CC scenarios within and outside NPS
units.
10:15 am
Plenary
FINAL THOUGHTS / THANKS/ADJOURN
54
Appendix B: Workshop Participant List
Lead team
Bob Winfree: Regional Science Advisor-NPS Regional Office
Bud Rice: Environmental Protection Specialist-NPS Regional Office
John Morris: Interpretation-NPS Regional Office
Nancy Fresco: SNAP
Lena Krutikov: SNAP
Don Calloway: NPS Cultural Anthropologist (retired)
Don Weeks: NPS NRSS, Climate Change Resource Planner
Participants
Susan Kasinger: WCA tribe
Lisa Etherington: Chief of Resources, Glacier Bay NP
Tahzay Jones: NPS AKRO Coastal Resources
Pat Warren: Environmental Planner, Chilkat Indian Village
Kris Nemeth: Chief of Interpretation at Glacier Bay NP
MaryAnn Porter: Yakutat Tribal Environmental Coordinator
Randy Larson: Sitka Superintendent
Cassie Hauser: MS student in TN
Greg Killinger: Fish/water/soils in Tongass NF
Mike Goldstein: AK coastal rainforest center/USFS/vulnerability
Susan Boudreau: Superintendent at Glacier Bay
Jim Thomas: regional planner for USFS in Juneau
Chris Sargeant: SE NPS
Brandon Moynahan: data collection for SE
Steve Gray: USGS Climate Science Center
Leilani Knight-McQueen: Tlingit Cultural Director
Raymond Paddock: Tlingit council-education and youth outreach
Corrie Knapp: UAF graduate student
Eric Veach, Chief of Resources, Wrangell-St Elias NP
Miranda Terwilliger – NPS, Wrangell-St Elias National Park
Barbara Schrader – USFS
Jessica Wilbarger – NPS, Klondike Gold Rush NHP
Amanda McCutcheon – NPS, Klondike Gold Rush NHP
Craig Smith – NPS, Sitka NHP
Kelly Smitherman - NPS, Sitka NHP
55
Appendix C: SNAP Tools for Planners
56
Appendix D: Climate Summary Reports
Appendix E: Southeast Alaska Modeled Climate Variables
The set of maps included in this appendix were produced by SNAP. All maps represent projected data
averaged across five downscaled GCMs and additionally averaged across decades (the 2010s, 2050s,
and 2090s), in order to represent long-term trends. For a full description of SNAPs methods, see
www.snap.uaf.edu.
Maps included in this set include seasonal maps (three-month averages) for precipitation, as well as
several temperature-linked maps, including projections for date of freeze, date of thaw, length of
summer season, and ground temperature at once meter depth.
These maps show all Arctic Network Parks. They rely on a midrange (A1B) emissions scenario, as
defined by the IPCC. For maps of individual parks, as well as maps depicting the more severe A2
climate change scenario, see
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/
Appendix F: Climate Drivers Table
Appendix G: Climate Effects Table
The table below outlines some of the possible effects of climate change in Southeast Alaska. These
effects are drawn from model data, expert observations, and the existing literature, and were one of the
primary references during upcoming workshop. In addition, prior to the workshop, participants were
invited to take some time to answer a survey regarding the potential effects of climate change in the
area. Results of this survey can be found in the Webinar 3 folder here:
http://www.snap.uaf.edu/webshared/Nancy%20Fresco/NPS/2012_Southeast_Alaska/