Integrating Climate Change into Northeast and Midwest ... · 1. Overview of report development 2....

Michelle D. Staudinger Toni Lyn Morelli Alexander M. Bryan

Integrating Climate Change into Northeast and Midwest State Wildlife Action Plans

NE CSC Webinar October 7, 2015

Acknowledgements Ray Bradley Chris Caldwell Ethan Coffel Elizabeth Crisfield Tony D’Amato Bill DeLuca Eleonora Demaria Colton Ellison Fanxing Fan Evan Grant Laura Hilberg Radley Horton

Steve Jane Maria Janowiak Ambarish Karmalkar Rachel Katz Olivia LeDee Steve Matthews Chris Neil Liang Ning Keith Nislow Richard Palmer Ken Potter Erika Rowland

Chris Swanston Karen Terwilliger Frank Thompson Kris Winiarski NA, ETGBR, GCPO, & UMGL LCCs NEAFWA, MAFWA

Talk Outline 1. Overview of report development 2. Climate change in the Northeast

and Midwest U.S. 3. Biological responses to regional

climate impacts 4. Species and habitats at greatest risk

and most vulnerable to climate impacts

5. Scale-appropriate adaptation strategies and actions

6. Applications of synthesis

NE CSC Strategic Science Objectives

To identify science that best informs management needs in a changing climate, and helps translate science results into management decisions, and adaptation strategies.

“To achieve success, affect a plan you must”

– Shawn Carter (NCCWSC)

• Stakeholder-driven science • Co-production of science • Actionable science

State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs)

• Revised every 10 years • Deadline October 1, 2015 • Challenged to incorporate climate change

into current revisions • Proactive, comprehensive wildlife

conservation strategies that asses the health, challenges, and potential actions each State would like to accomplish

• Mandate by Congress to receive funding through Wildlife Conservation and Restoration and State Wildlife Grants Programs

Barriers to Incorporating Climate Change

• Too much information, too little information, information at the wrong scale

• Lack of guidance, expertise, decision support

• Capacity – financial and personnel constraints

• Overwhelmed by uncertainty

• Making connections • “Tell us what you want” vs. “tell us

what we need” • Co-production of an outline

Report Challenges

Climate Data Menu It’s what’s for dinner

• Air temperature • Precipitation • Solar radiation • Surface runnoff • Snow melt • Growing degree days • Frost days • Consecutive dry days • Extreme wet days

• Regional scope of the NE CSC region • Timing

Report Timeline

• Author teams assembled

• Literature reviews start

• Write, write, write!

• First draft completed

• USGS FSP expert review conducted

• Courtesy review copy delivered to the States

January 2015

September 2014

May 2015

• Final report released

• Promotion • Outreach and

engagement with States

• Co-development of report outline

• Content scoping

June 2015

Hurricane Sandy

NASA Earth Observatory image by Robert Simmon with data courtesy of the NASA/NOAA GOES Project Science team

Climate Data Menu

60+ variables

Getting at the climate needs… Vernal pools and salamanders How will climate change affect the “timing of pool filling during the fall and the duration of pool inundation through the spring?” Where in MA will pool hydrology be inadequate?

Breeding migration How will the “frequency of rain events during March, April, August, and September” change?

NH Fish & Game

CT Dept. Energy & Env. Protection

“I was given very little time to choose which variables to request, and so I took the approach of requesting just about everything that would affect pool hydrology and migratory opportunity and hoping

that the details could all be sorted out later! Is this helpful?”

Contents I. MANAGING IN AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE: GUIDELINES FOR

INTERPRETING THIS DOCUMENT II. WIDESPREAD CHANGES IN THE NORTHEAST AND MIDWEST

I. Surface air temperature II. Precipitation III. Atmospheric moisture IV. Wind V. Surface hydrology VI. Extreme events VII. Biological indices

III. SUB-REGIONAL ANALYSES I. U.S. Atlantic coast II. Great Lakes III. Appalachians

Guidance on interpretation • Clarification of terms

– Projections, predictions, forecasts, scenarios

– Likely, unlikely, certain, uncertain, may, etc.

• Sources of uncertainty, briefly!

• Not everything is uncertain

• Strategies for overcoming uncertainty paralysis

Term Likelihood of the Outcome

Very likely 90 – 100% chance

Likely 66 – 100% chance

About as likely as not 33 – 66% chance

Unlikely 0 – 33% chance

Very unlikely 0 – 10% chance

Numerical definitions of terms used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

Adapted from Mastrandrea et al. 2010

Widespread Changes USGS National Climate Change Viewer

Ning et al. 2015

Widespread Changes

Groisman et al. 2013

Heavier rainfalls

Longer dry spells

NCA

U.S. Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, Appalachians Storm surge damage from Hurricane Sandy

DOI

NASA Earth Observatory

Great Lakes Ice Coverage

NPS

Higher warming at higher elevations?

Fascinating Findings Lake effect snow

NASA Earth Observatory

NatureServe

Net drying? More dry (high AET:PET ratio)

Less dry (low AET:PET ratio)

Great Unknowns Hawkins & Sutton 2009

Peterson et al. 2013

Dan Hocking

Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need

• 367 species • Identified by the Northeast Fish & Wildlife Diversity Tech Comm • Based on

o conservation status o listing in SWAPs o % of range in the NE

Also searched precipitation, flood, storm, & drought

Species Name Climate

Biological Responses to Climate Change in the NE and MW

• Climate change will have cascading effects • Shifts in timing, distribution, abundance, & interactions • Montane birds, salamanders, cold-adapted fish, and

freshwater mussels could be particularly sensitive • Don’t forget indirect effects • Strategies for increasing resilience:

– ↑ Habitat connectivity – ↑ Water quality – ↓ Invasives

Common Name Scientific Name Model Predictions Common Loon Gavia immer ↓ Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ↓↓ Blue-winged Teal Anas discors (↑) Canada Goose Branta canadensis (↓) White Ibis Eudocimus albus ↑ Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias (↓) Great Egret Ardea alba ↑↑ Snowy Egret Egretta thula (↑) Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea ↑↑ Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago ↓↓ Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia ↓ Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus ↑↑ Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus ↓ Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus ↓↓ Rock Dove Columba livia ↓↓ Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura ↑

Predictions of Species-Specific Habitat Shift Due to Climate Change

Matthews et al. 2007, www.fs.fed.us/nrs/atlas/

Kevin T. Karlson

Kevin T. Karlson

Change in Landscape Capability McGarigal and DeLuca (2014)

Species Δ LC by 2080 American woodcock -9% Blackburnian warbler -71% Blackpoll warbler -66% Eastern meadowlark +17% Wood turtle -2% Louisiana waterthrush +14% Marsh wren +40% Moose -3% Northern waterthrush -70% Prairie warbler -18% Ruffed grouse -54% Saltmarsh sparrow -59% Wood duck +37% Wood thrush -1%

http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/dsl/dsl.html Gerritt Vyn

Flying Squirrels: A Model of the Indirect Effects of Climate Change

Glaucomys sabrinus

http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/atlas/ Prasad et al.

Climate Change Tree Atlas Potential Future Forest Type Changes

Flying Squirrels: A Model of the Indirect Effects of Climate Change

Don Chernoff

Glaucomys volans USFS

Roger Barbour Krichbaum et al. 2010

UNH HCGS

Smith 2012

NORTHEAST AND MIDWEST REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS AT GREATEST RISK AND MOST

VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE IMPACTS

Michelle Staudinger (USGS, NE CSC) Laura Hilberg (UMass, EcoAdapt)

Maria Janowiak (NIACS, USFS) Chris Swanston (NIACS, USFS)

Adaptive capacity

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact

Vulnerability

Figure adapted from Glick et al. 2011

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments

• Tools used as an initial step in adaptation planning

• Identify species and habitats at greatest risk from climate change

• Descriptions of why species/habitats are vulnerable

• Provide index of relative vulnerabilities

• Inform conservation strategies designed to reduce those vulnerabilities

Synthesis of Regional Vulnerability Assessments

• Information from 21 vulnerability assessments • Most common frameworks:

o Species: NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) o Habitats: The Climate Change Response Framework (CCRF)

• 31% of all fish and wildlife species assessed multiple times (e.g., by location or life cycle phase) • 35% of habitats assessed multiple times (e.g., across or within areas, studies)

Icons courtesy of ian.umces.edu/symbols/

Vulnerability Ranking Categories

Framework 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Natureserve CCVI Extremely Vulnerable

Highly Vulnerable:

Moderately Vulnerable

Presumed Stable

Increase Likely

Manomet & MADFW 2010

7 6 5 3 3 2 1

Manomet & NWF 2013

Critically Vulnerable

Highly Vulnerable

Vulnerable Less Vulnerable

Least Vulnerable

Tetratech, Inc. 2013

Extremely Vulnerable

Highly Vulnerable

Moderately Vulnerable

Slightly Vulnerable

Not Vulnerable /

No effect

Increase Possible or

LikelyWhitman et al., 2014

High Vulnerability

Medium Vulnerability

Low Vulnerability

ASGSCCC 2010: Habitats

High Vulnerability

Medium Vulnerability

Low Vulnerability

ASGSCCC 2010: Species

Large Decrease

Moderate Decrease

Minimal Decrease

No Change Minimal Increase

Moderate Increase

Large Increase

Galbraith et al. 2014

Critical Highly Imperiled

High Concern Moderate Concern

Low Concern Not at Risk

CCRFHigh Moderate-

HighModerate Low-

ModerateLow

Extremely vulnerable Least vulnerable

0

100

200

300

400

500

Bird

Fish

(Fre

shw

ater

)

Inse

ct

Mam

mal

Fish

(Mar

ine)

Fres

hwat

er M

usse

l

Inve

rteb

rate

(Oth

er)

Rept

ile

Amph

ibia

n

Inve

rteb

rate

(Mar

ine)

# of

Ass

essm

ents

Vulnerability Assessments by Taxonomic Group

Icons courtesy of ian.umces.edu/symbols/

• 14 studies (4 ongoing) • 999 species • 1,524 assessment records

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fres

hwat

er M

usse

l

Amph

ibia

n

Fish

Inse

ct

Rept

ile

Inve

rteb

rate

(Oth

er)

Mam

mal

Bird

% o

f CCV

I ran

king

s

Taxonomic group

Vulnerable Fish and Wildlife

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fish

(Mar

ine)

Inve

rteb

rate

(Mar

ine)

Amph

ibia

n

Fish

Bird

Mam

mal

Rept

ile

Fres

hwat

er M

usse

l

Inse

ct

Taxonomic group

CCVI studies (N = 6) Non-CCVI studies (N = 4)

Extremely vulnerable Least vulnerable

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Forest FreshwaterWetland

FreshwaterAquatic

Coastal Cliffs &Rocky

Outcrops

Heathland&

Grassland

Tundra

# of

Ass

essm

ents

Habitat type

Vulnerability Assessments by Habitat Type

Icons courtesy of ian.umces.edu/symbols/

• 11 studies • 82 habitats • 224 assessment records

Vulnerable Habitats

CCRF studies (N = 5)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tund

ra

Fres

hwat

erAq

uatic

Coas

tal

Fres

hwat

erW

etla

nd

Fore

st

Heat

hlan

d an

dGr

assla

nd

Cliff

s and

Roc

kyO

utcr

ops

Habitat type

Non-CCRF studies (N = 5)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Appa

lach

ian

Nor

ther

n…

Low

-Ele

vatio

n Sp

ruce

-Fir

Fore

st

Low

land

Con

ifer F

ores

t

Red

Pine

-Whi

te P

ine

Fore

st

Aspe

n-Pa

per B

irch

Fore

st

Jack

Pin

e Fo

rest

Low

land

and

Rip

aria

n…

Cent

ral M

esic

Har

dwoo

ds F

ores

t

Oak

-Pin

e W

oodl

and

Fire

-Dep

ende

nt F

ores

t

Laur

entia

n-Ac

adia

n N

orth

ern…

Jack

Pin

e-Re

d Pi

ne B

arre

ns a

nd…

Nor

ther

n O

ak-P

ine-

Hard

woo

d…

Cent

ral H

ardw

oods

Oak

-Pin

e…

Fres

hwat

er W

etla

nd -

Bogs

and

…

Heat

hlan

d an

d Gr

assla

nd -

Glad

e

% V

ulne

rabi

lity

rank

ings

Appa

lach

ian

Nor

ther

n Ha

rdw

ood

Fres

hwat

er w

etla

nd –

Bog

s & fe

ns

Habitat type

Extremely vulnerable Least vulnerable

Vulnerability Assessment Synthesis Appendices

Additional Resources and Future Directions

Michelle Staudinger (USGS; NE CSC) Laura Hilberg (UMass; EcoAdapt)

Maria Janowiak (NIACS, USFS) Chris Caldwell (CMN, NE CSC)

Anthony D’Amato (UVT, UMN, NE CSC) Evan Grant (USGS)

Radley Horton (Columbia Unv, NE CSC) Rachel Katz (USGS)

Chris Neiil (MBL, NE CSC) Keith Nislow (USFS, UMass, NE CSC)

Ken Potter (Unv. WI, NE CSC) Erika Rowland (WCS)

Chris Swanston (NIACS, USFS) Frank Thompson (Unv MO, NE CSC)

Kristopher Winiarski (UMass, NE CSC)

SCALE-APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS IN THE NORTHEAST AND

MIDWEST UNITED STATES

Climate Change Adaptation: Managing for Change

• “Stationarity is dead” → managing for change

• Consideration of uncertain future projections as well as historic conditions

• Emphasis on landscape-scale conservation, connectivity among protected habitats, and ecological functioning

• Identify and assess risks and vulnerabilities that are likely to affect an ecosystem or community

• Develop goals and actions to minimize impacts

• Establish a process to implement actions

• Take action • (Re)assess the effectiveness of

those actions

Adaptation Concepts and Frameworks

Figure from Janowiak et al., 2014. J. Forestry.

Processes for Adaptation Planning and Implementation

Scenario Planning

Present

Possible future #1

#2

#3 #4

Structured Decision Making

National-Scale Broad scale goals

Landscape / Ecoregional Scale Partnerships and connections

across large landscapes; diffuse actions

State-Scale

Strategies; planning

Local-Scale

Implementation; monitoring

• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs)

• Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS)

• Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS)

National Fish, Wildlife & Plants Climate Adaptation

Strategy (NFWPCAS)

State Adaptation

Plans

NIACS Adaptation Workbook

Adaptation Strategies: From Conception to Implementation

• Aquatic systems • Forests • Terrestrial wetlands • Coastal habitats • Tribal lands

• Landscape Conservation Design

• Conservation Opportunity Areas

• Climate Change Resource Center

• Climate Change Response Framework

• CT • MA • NH

• VT • RI

• 7 overarching goals; ~25 sub-strategies

Local Case Studies in Regional Adaptation

Headwater stream species of special conservation concern include

brook trout & stream salamanders Potomac and Merrimack Watersheds

Project is using decision theory and tools to help stakeholders collaboratively create adaptive strategies that protect headwater ecosystems from climate and other stressors

Landscape Scale Decision Making for Headwater Stream Ecosystem Conservation PIs: E. Grant, R. Katz, M. Runge, A. Roy, B. Letcher

Synthesis of Adaption Strategies and Actions

Target Resource

Target Species or Habitat Climate Stressor

Source Document Descriptor Location

G1: Conserve habitat

G2: Protect ecosystem functions

G3: Enhance capacity

Coastal, Marine Sea-level Rise Land protection MA

Terrestrial Wetland Freshwater Marsh Multiple

Policy, flexible regulation, planning, and funding NH 3

Forest Multiple

Policy, flexible regulation, planning, and funding Northwoods 3

Freshwater Aquatic

Freshwater Fish and Other Aquatic Species Multiple

Management and restoration MA 1 2

General Multiple Conserve areas US 1

Appendix 4.1: Synthesis of over 960 adaptation strategies by scale, target resource, and climate stressor from nine regional adaptation studies.

Example Adaptation Strategy: Identify and prioritize protection of migration corridors between wetland areas and between wetlands and the associated upland habitat including large resilient parcels connected by migration corridors. Planning should include both aquatic and terrestrial connectivity.

The SWAPs and Beyond

• A regional guide and resource on: o What has already been done o Ongoing adaptation work o What is known / not known

How did we envision the report being used? • Guide for SWAP writing and revisions on climate change • Direct use of text and figures • Demonstration of the applicability of existing climate and

adaptation tools

Affecting Plans “The report is exactly what states needed for our Plans” –PA Game Commission; Bureau of Wildlife Management “(The report) has really helped us think more clearly in this - AND

definitely helped us in making the decision to separate climate change from the threats chapter into its own Chapter” – MD Department of Natural Resources

“I'm sure this report will have great utility even beyond the SWAP revision process…we may put together a similar report in (our region) and this will serve as a useful template” – USGS reviewer

“We will be producing a regional threat assessment…based on the 2015 SWAPs…(the) report will be an important reference as we move into regional planning and state-level implementation.” – Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.

Report available at http://necsc.umass.edu/

Questions?

Acknowledgements Ray Bradley Chris Caldwell Ethan Coffel Elizabeth Crisfield Tony D’Amato Bill DeLuca Eleonora Demaria Colton Ellison Fanxing Fan Evan Grant Laura Hilberg Radley Horton

Steve Jane Maria Janowiak Ambarish Karmalkar Rachel Katz Olivia LeDee Steve Matthews Chris Neil Liang Ning Keith Nislow Richard Palmer Ken Potter Erika Rowland

Chris Swanston Karen Terwilliger Frank Thompson Kris Winiarski NA, ETGBR, GCPO, & UMGL LCCs NEAFWA, MAFWA