ࡱ> dfc'` 'bjbj .:f%   8T h 4Tj " !&! !%T'T'T'T'T'T'T$VhxXKT!!!!!KT `Ty%y%y%!  %Ty%!%Ty%y%KsN uV1 "L"%TvT0TLY#<YDsNsNYUO!!y%!!!!!KTKT$!!!T!!!!  Emerging Themes from Day 1 MOUNTAINS GROUP Challenges Capturing Positive Impacts WHERE in the process to capture Human Responses(not in KEAs) How specific to make the causal relationshipswithin the HoC (there was a preference for more simple) Accounting for extreme events Effect of predicted CC on microclimates Accounting for offsite effects / spillover Uncertainty of Data Best Practice suggestion have two ratings: likelihood of climate factor occurring confidence in HoC for the prioritization of strategies Need mechanism for clarifying the interrelationships between multiple factors (i.e., use result chains) the processes are not linear Managing for Resilience and Resistance ARIDLANDS/GRASSLANDS Nested targets may respond differently to climate change and therefore may neebd to be a focal target Direct and indirect impacts of climate change need to be considered. Example: What if predator is reduced, then prey possibly benefit? How to consider human response to climate change? Example: Wind and solar development. Will it be adequately captured in threats? Might this is the HoC. Will there be winners and how to capture that? Examples: Species moving into a protected area; expanded habitat. Marine and Coastal What degree of emphasis do we need to place on the interstitial landscape connectivity among, as well as within, portfolio sites? Painful decisions will have to be made in the face of climate change. Will we have to give up on entire landscapes? Where can we make the biggest impact? Where do we cut our losses? Human responses to climate change are at least as important (and threatening) as direct impacts, for most projects. Are we hamstringing our own ability to develop ecosystem-based adaptation strategies by insisteing on ecosystems firs? Concern about cumulative and synergistic relationship of threats. Estuaries, Lakes and Wetlands Any HoCs with positive outcomes? Historical condition and baseline important to defining success Regional context important to decisions about targets What are the important attributes to new systems that emerge? Regional Scale How to handle human response? In HoC? As threat? Needs defining, what are we talking about? Time Frame CAP vs. CC models vs. 50 years Can we have variable time frames in one CAP? Models and Catastrophic Events/Variability Strategies need to consider impacts of extreme events, not just averages Adaptation, Invasives and Evolution When is an invasive no longer an invasive? Most common threats Water (too much, too little, wrong kind) Fire (drier, hotter, more fuel) Connectivity, ability of species to move Seasonality (altered seasonal timing) Sea Level Rise Emerging Themes from Day 2 Coastal/Marine Make closer links between communities and science. This means community perceptions having an opportunity to influence science, but also explaining science to communities. But be aware that theres a chance the community wont believe theres a problem where scientists will. (came up related to viability rating and selection of targets) Threshold ranges may change (e.g., good now may be fair due to climate change), so we may have to stretch ourselves more to devise strategies that jump a target 2 rankings, instead of one (e.g., move from fair to very good, rather than to good). Regional Projects Resilience and Targets Erika talked about maintaining conditions for resilience we need to be more specific about defining targets in order to know what those conditions should be. Directs us to anticipate what the new state will be for our targets. Re-emphasizes the critical importance of target selection and definition to the whole process. Can we convert Erikas talk into a tool that we can all use to help define targets and discern those that are suitable for Resilience strategies vs. Transformation strategies? Ecological processes as a target? Usually a KEA instead. If the outcome we want is overall resilience, perhaps we should be focusing on processes more. We are die-hard optimists which is why we have trouble letting go of targets. But do we want to spend 90% of our dollars on targets that we are going to lose? Do need to make those decisions, can a tree like this help us through those decisions? Think about what we want in the end. We are thinking about the world as it is, an evolving, changing system instead of as something that doesnt change. Use this as an opportunity to re-examine targets and assumptions. Viability natural range of variability underscores everything we are talking about including KEAs and indicators. Slew of papers about to come out asking us to re-examine RONV, will have to re-think all of our CAP approaches. MOUTAINS GROUP Saving the stage vs saving the actors where we focus our efforts Some good debate over whether its better to develop strategies using the target by target analysis vs a systemic analysis (aka a supertarget approach) which begs the question of what is the right scale to look at climate change. Every increase in scale leads to different strategies that may or may not link back to the targets correctly. Target by target analysis is frustrating and seems to decrease the robustness of this process you lose the value of the overall systemic analysis (as long as you have someone with a good understanding) which makes the development of strategies better. Scale can pose a challenge when there is a very particular affect of climate change to a small area over a very large landscape. (Example, specific area of matrix forest (north facing slopes) will be affected even though it is nested within the whole matrix KEA) Need to capture the difference between a completely new threat that appears for the whole project verse a threat that is new for a particular target/KEA but not new for the project itself. Example: higher elevations will become suitable for ag which was a threat for lower elevations but is just now becoming a new critical threat for high elevations now vs. a threat that was never previously a threat in the project area UNCERTAINTY When dealing with ecosystem targets, we dont know if fragmentation is bad or good; dont know who the winners and loser are. Some effects: whether the climate effect is good or bad is based on societal values Ex: whether lake mixing is (which will change with climate change) a good or bad thing Estuaries, Lakes and Wetlands Issue in process withreconciling time scales. Most threats we think about on a 10 year horizon. Climate change weare asked to think of on 50 year horizon. Has implications for the viability table and definition of critical threat Decisions about target revisions shouldrequire revisiting regional prioritizations. Is this project the best place to conserve the target occurrence or are there better places that are more viable, easier to conserve, less likely to be impacted, etc? Grasslands Letting go of targets somewhere too early in the process? Erika we need throughout the process, a target purgatory ----- Not remove. Too much danger that something will fall of the table in the process. Ask at regional scale where is most viable place that you can protect this target. You will have to have some regional analysis before answering this question. Think about whats the level of ecoregional (or other) assessment that is reasonable. Decision tree - where you decide to only focus on targets in only a subset of resilient areas You let go of targets in other areas. Is that ok? You just let them go? Yes. This is a refocusing, a reprioritization this IS a strategy; It is a way to do implementation. You can anticipate trends but you cant anticipate variables (more specifically: what will spring rain levels be, what will groundwater levels be . . . .?) that are most important to our targets ( in their lifecycle) You could put the targets on the watchlist. We know what are target needs, and we anticipate these changes, so lets watch and adjust as we learn more      PAGE  PAGE 1 *+5h   _{|}~}~S !!##ĹĮ{t{mm hIf?hIf? hchJhIf?hJCJOJQJaJ hIf?hJ hz=5 h whJhJ hJ>*h2NhJ>* hPhJhIf? hH hIf?hchzih\hwch<h#hUhy &hhv5CJOJQJ\^JaJhhvhj'+6Q = h |  4 z  & FgdU & FgdU  & Fgd  & Fgd & Fgd  & Fgd#gdgdzif'' U \ @A_78Gf* & Fgdwc & Fgdwcgdwc & Fgd< & Fgd<gdgd< & FgdU & FgdU*sHn}~ & F gdJgdJgdhC & F gdIf?gdIf?gdzigdzi & Fgdwc & Fgdwcmn~"S !"###K# & F gdIf? & F gdIf?gdIf? & F gdJ & F gdJgdJ & F gdJgdJ##K#%.&c'd'e'f'g'i'j'l'm'o'p'r's'y'z'{'|'}'~''''''''''h}T0JmHnHuh(hH hH0JjhH0JUh#ajh#aU jh-h#a<CJUaJ hIf?hJ hIf?hIf?hIf?hIf?5hIf?hIf?OJQJ^J K##$=%%%&c'd'f'h'i'k'l'n'o'q'r'{'|'}''''h]hgdH &`#$gd(gdJ & F gdIf? & F gdIf? & F gdIf?'''gdJ,1h/ =!"#$% DdV  C $A msoB6"@@bP @]p8UwD nP @]p8UwPNG  IHDR exsRGBPLTE';bRQxx,+yy;bqpbbuvZZLLxwjjNNA@zzmm^_ywyxxwRR,*++X6 cmPPJCmp0712tRNS0JIDAT]= PԘc FF??!*pkjjp $i( w?ѹ|L Յ{Qd:$~9lwVİCSLQE|18RK篽CPגZd?۵*$`IENDB`@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH \@\ zi Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJV@V j Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No ListbOb JList Paragraphd^m$CJOJPJQJaJ4 @4 HFooter  !.)@. H Page Number^O!^ Heading 3 Char*5CJOJQJ\^J_HaJmH sH tH :+6Q=h|4zU\@A_78Gf* s  H n } ~    mn~"SK=cdfhiklnoqr{|}0(0( 0 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++( 0( 0( 0|( 0|( 0( 00(0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0U0(0 0 0 0 0(0(0 0A 0A 0A 0A0A(0 08 0G8 08 08 08 08 08 0s 8 08 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8080(0~ 0 0 0 (0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0~ 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n0n 0n 0n0n(0~ 0 00(0~ 0 0 0K 0 0 0 0 000@000@000@000@000@0@0@0@0@0@000+6Q=h|4zU\@A_78Gf* s  H n } ~    mn~"SK=cdf{0(0( 0 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++ 0++( 0( 0( 0|( 0|( 0( 00(0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0U0(0 0 0 0 0(0(0 0A 0A 0A 0A0A(0 08 0G8 08 08 08 08 08 0s 8 08 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8080(0~ 0 0 0 0 00 (0~ 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! (0~ @0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00(0~ 010 01001(0~ 09 0D9 0~9 0D9 0D9 0D9 09 0#90909@0@0 0%0$ $$$'#' *K#'''  '!!8@0(  B S  ?_PictureBulletsdePSchil ')FQdeffhhiiklnoqrhrdeffhhiiklnoqr33333333+Q=|>UA_8G* s H  deffhhiiklnoqr~    "#de6O r=QK܅8,(s3=>='FBcuE}G9`Us%CdlkUs%h#r>=iuv}.-^ziOh M  ) |I (KeLz:Gt$\Q^n.V$v4hmxr=.[)yR_pvD7$OqE5bk!L"#$*$%R&r$(6)3*H8*l*.)-/O/5@Z5a56n#7?8R8g9T8:JL:h;z=F>kw> 4?If?+@0P@wm@A\C|/D EWEvESFtGIhIJ&HJ]WJ$L%LILUMgM xNO7Os?OQ} Q"RS<>T U;U7V MVQlV&W0wX"Y6Z"^S^`#a5`a/bIfLhfMSgsiwi4j8kt|l"mZpnjpi.syukKuIwbzD|W|x4Lg~ K WaAHS2O^;9AazZoghCTq6>@@Kjc b'H%`.i6,&`+cYU"xX'5_H a8O<I#ax-1=J^\M9jrR.~5! {Sy 1&O eQ2\SfE1oPPW} }W,W@lP.N#D-W `b'PJdy!Z >tyJc>jrA2KSrWWmt(R$y}T`U,KrR|>rbUh\V0m#vLd|sAB$pHjN2@'9vjv!J715!wcm:v@C `@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&{ @Calibri?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hfLf!88!4dVV 2qKX ?dv2,Emerging Themes from Day 1  MOUNTAINS GROUP krichards krichardsD         Oh+'0 0< \ h t0Emerging Themes from Day 1 MOUNTAINS GROUP krichards Normal.dot krichards14Microsoft Office Word@,@ M,@9S1՜.+,0( hp  The Nature Conservancy8V' -Emerging Themes from Day 1 MOUNTAINS GROUP Title  !"#$%'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ\]^_`abeRoot Entry FV1gData 1Table&bYWordDocument.:SummaryInformation(SDocumentSummaryInformation8[CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q