* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download National Park Service
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
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/