Transcript Project_survey_results.ppt

May 22, 2013
 Yellowstone
National Park
 Rocky Mountain National Park
 GYCC Whitebark Pine Subcommittee
 Great
Smoky Mountains National Park
 Appalachian Highlands I&M
 Delaware Water Gap
 Shenandoah
National Park
Q#1: Level of knowledge about past and projected climate
and land use change?
Level of Knowledge of past
climate and land use
change
Level of Knowledge of future
climate and land use change
# of Responses
# of Responses
3
3
2
1
0
Limited
Moderate
Extensive
Knowledge level
2
1
0
Limited
Moderate
Extensive
Knowledge level
Comments by collaborators:
• “We have very little knowledge of past climate change and land use surrounding [our
unit].”
• “Significant opportunities exist to have explicit examples of the interactions between
climate change and land use change as we look towards the future.”
• PALMS project very useful; Climate Wizard tool used sporadically
Q#2: Established or systematic approach to managing under change?
Established approach to
managing under change?
# of Responses
3
2
1
0
No
Somewhat
Response
Yes
No’s:
• “We are currently managing the same as in the past
• “Managers are cognizant of potential impacts, but not ready to commit to
altering management practices given uncertainties, and the logistical
implications of large-scale alterations in a cumbersome bureaucracy.”
Somewhat’s:
• Assessing likely impacts of climate change in NEPA analyses
• “Sound Science -> Adaptive Management -> Managing for Resilience”
Q#3: What adaptation options do you currently use? Any
barriers to their use?
5 of 6 have identified priority resources to manage under change
4 of 6 have no identified adaptation options, or are still considering
available options
****************************************************************
YCR: “Likely will use limited to no intervention in Wilderness areas (95%
of park), but will consider active intervention and cooperative planning
for border areas (Barriers: land use outside park)
DEWA: “Park has identified connectivity corridors between Park and
other protected lands” (Barriers: funding)
GSMNP: “Encouraging and supporting new research” (Barriers: funding)
APP I&M: “Besides documenting current conditions and conserving
genetic material, I don’t know that there’s much we can do but watch as
these communities disappear.” (Barriers: lack of good options)
Q4: What data and tools would be most useful?
Most useful data and tools?
# of Responses
6
5
4
Down-scaled How-to Guides User-friendly
data
Tools
Realistic
Approaches
Everybody needs down-scaled data
• 4 of 6 said data needs to be at < 1km2 scale; prefer 250M
• 1 of 6 said data should be at annual, not decadal, scale
• 3 of 6 expressed desire for data regarding seasonal variation (esp
with regard to precipitation)
Q5: What would improve your ability to
manage under change?




YCR: Cooperative approaches with neighboring jurisdictions;
“Perhaps the most difficult decision managers will face is whether to
intervene with active management”
GSMNP: Policy direction about what actions are appropriate with the
NPS framework – active versus passive management; the best scales
for vulnerability assessment
ROMO: Better information and realistic approaches to begin and
enhance scenario planning efforts that lead to true adaptive
management approaches that can be continually evaluated over time,
and which are realistic and can be funded.
DEWA: We don’t know what resources or species we can likely
maintain, and which are very likely be “lost causes” (hemlock? brook
trout?). We don’t have species and/or habitat distribution models for
the area. DEWA needs a CC vulnerability assessment and adaptation
plan. There are too many unknowns to help give us a place to start.
Relevance of data generated by
this project to managers
# of Responses
5
4
3
2
1
0
Low
Medium
Strength of response
High
Current availability to
collaborators of data to be
generated by this project
# of Reponses
Q6&7: Current access to and
relevance of data that will be
produced by this project?
5
4
3
2
1
0
Low
Medium
Current availability
High
In general, the metrics
appear to be conceptually
in alignment with
management issues;
however, our experience
suggests that the data sets
are at a scale not
commensurate with
protected area-level
management issues, as it
relates to actionable items.
“This assessment is a first of it’s kind for GRSM. It will be
important and help us into the future understand changes to the
vegetation communities from possible climate change.”
“We value this opportunity.”
“An assessment of this nature will provide important
information at a scale we hope will help answer what’s
happened, what’s happening, and what future changes in
vegetation communities can be expected.”