Results of LCCVP Collaborator Pre-project surveys
May 22, 2013
Yellowstone National ParkRocky Mountain National ParkGYCC Whitebark Pine SubcommitteeGreat Smoky Mountains National ParkAppalachian Highlands I&MDelaware Water GapShenandoah National Park
Q#1: Level of knowledge about past and projected climateand land use change?
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?
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 change4 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 consideractive interventionandcooperative planningfor border areas (Barriers: land use outside park)DEWA: “Park has identifiedconnectivity corridorsbetween Park and other protected lands” (Barriers: funding)GSMNP: “Encouraging and supportingnew research” (Barriers: funding)APP I&M: “Besidesdocumenting current conditionsandconserving 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?
Everybody needs down-scaled data4 of 6 said data needs to be at < 1km2scale; prefer 250M1 of 6 said data should be at annual, not decadal, scale3 of 6 expressed desire for data regarding seasonal variation (espwith 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 assessmentROMO: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.
Q6&7: Current access to and relevance of data that will be produced by this project?
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.”