Bridging the Gap: Getting from Climate Projections to Decisions, A Marin County Case Study

1. Bridging the Gap:Getting from Climate Projections to Decisions,A Marin County Case Study NBWA April 1, 2011 Sara S. Moore, Zavaleta Lab, UC Santa Cruz Red-Legged Frogs.John Sullivan/Ribbit Photography

2. Bridging the Gap: Getting from climate projections to decisions, a Marin County Case Study • Background on adaptation • The California study • The Marin County case study • Conclusion

3. “Adaptation” consists of... • Actions to realize gains from opportunities or to reduce the damages that result from climate change. p. 11, Agrawala, S. & S. Fankhauser (Eds.) (2008). Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments. Office of the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

4. How is adaptation related to mitigation? • Mitigation is driving a Prius. • Adaptation is driving your Prius to higher ground.

5. The Building Blocks of Climate Adaptation 1. Emergency Services Impact planning horizon (near to long term) 2. Safety Measures / Disaster Prevention 3. Protecting human systems 4. Protecting natural systems Fire, flood, heat, storms 5. Protecting clean air and water supply (forests, rivers, groundwater) 6. Mitigation of GHGs

6. You might need a car to get to safety https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/maps/PDFs/vehicle_access.pdf

7. Promoting healthy forests and urban green spaces reduces both GHGs andthe impacts of climate change “Co-benefits” http://www.seedsdream.org/Volunteering.html

8. “No Regrets” Adaptation Approach • Has benefits even in the absence of climate change. • Popular (cheap, OK for skeptics). • It looks a lot like business as usual.

9. “Mainstreaming” Adaptation Approach • Climate change impacts considered within existing plans. • Theoretically the best way to prepare. • Tends to produce “no regrets” actions. • It looks a lot like business as usual.

10. “Ecosystem-Based” Adaptation • Using natural systems as a basis for adaptation strategies. • Popular among resource mgrs. • Most natural– effective? Cost-effective? • More flexible than infrastructure • Example: wetlands v. sea wall. • Needs more research to sell it to politicians.

11. “Top Down” v. “Bottom Up” Approaches • Describes where direction for action originates. Funding, Guidance, Coordination Pilot project feedback, Critical variables for decisions, Knowledge of local history of change

12. What makes adaptation choices hard? • Uncertainty • Costs • Perception of “giving up”

13. What do you do when people won’t move? http://assets.knowledge.allianz.com/img/natural_disasters_dangerous_building_eroding_cliffs_landslide_q_16958.jpg What is the state’s responsibility to the people of Pacifica?

14. Bridging the Gap: Getting from climate projections to decisions, a Marin County Case Study • Background on adaptation • The California study • The Marin County case study • Conclusion

15. Global Vulnerability Map Global Climate-Demography Vulnerability Index (CDVI): Red = really bad Samson, et al. (2011) “Geographic disparities and moral hazards in the predicted impacts of climate change on human populations,” Global Ecology and Biogeography.

16. California’s Climate Vulnerability http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/CA.climate.change/documents/california-climate-stress-reports/view.html- posted by Kirk Klausmeyer, TNC, 2009

17. “Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Study for California” http://www.popstarsplus.com/politicians_arnoldschwarzenegger.htm

18. How can we bridge the data-decision gapfor resource managers? • Public natural resource management context • California case study • Using scenario planning (workshop, technical memo) • To support decision-making around the state

19. Bridging the Gap: Getting from climate projections to decisions, a Marin County Case Study • Background on adaptation • The California study • The Marin County case study • Conclusion

20. Case Study “Futures of Wild Marin” West Marin Protected Areas: Bolinas Lagoon, Muir Woods NM (GGNRA), Point Reyes NS, Marin Municipal Water District, Samuel P. Taylor and Mt. Tam SPs

21. Collaborators, Informers • Erika Zavaleta, UCSC • Rebecca Shaw, TNC / EDF • NPS facilitators from the Global Business Network • Reps from 15 agencies invited to one day workshop on Jan. 28, 2011

22. Audubon Canyon Ranch • Bolinas Community Public Utility District - BCPUD • California Dept of Fish and Game • California State Parks - Marin District • Department of Water Resources - North Central Region Office • Marin Agricultural Land Trust - MALT • Marin County Fire Department • Marin County Parks and Open Space • Marin County Planning Department • Marin Municipal Water District - MMWD • Marin Resource Conservation District • NPS / GGNRA • Pepperwood Preserve • Point Reyes Bird Observatory - PRBO • Point Reyes NS http://img.geocaching.com/cache/83860819-e06c-44ff-be04-c68eaabcc438.jpg

23. Decision-making under climate uncertainty • “Ensemble” • Majority of available studies agree it will be warmer, drier, etc. • Scenario planning • Inevitabilities + uncertainties • Factors that put you in a new decision-making environment

24. What are scenarios? Narratives outside the norm Multiple, plausible futures Navigation tool to get past paralysis Not predictions: no probabilities attached

25. Pros and Cons of Scenarios Pro Interactions, extremes, secondary impacts Ideas, experience,managementpriorities drive the process (informed by science) Action-oriented Encourages broad, collaborativethinking Gets past paralysisfrom not having all facts Con Plausible futures = no more probable than climate model output

26. Project Design 1.Select case study site 2. Create scenario development team 3. Develop scenarios • August 2010: 13 sites considered • Criteria for selection: • High feasibility • Has good climate data • "Significant" to state • Human & natural systems interact • Land use types mixed • Land management jurisdictions mixed • 100% within state (this excluded Lake Tahoe) • Minimally 1 sq. mile (not too small) • Mainly terrestrial • Includes State Parks

27. Project Design 1.Select case study site 2. Create scenario development team 3. Develop scenarios • October 2010: Team of 10 selected based on these criteria: • Work or worked in the case study site • Involved in long-term planning within their agency or organization • Consume or produce climate change data for decision-making • Available for 3 one hour phone calls in Nov., Dec., and Jan. + workshop

28. Project Design 1.Select case study site 2. Create scenario development team 3. Develop scenarios Top Drivers of Change • Air temperature up. • Sea level up. • Seasonal extremes more prevalent. • Reduced biodiversity. More Easterly 2. Direction of Strong Wind More Northerly Earlier 1. Onset of Dry Season Later Same or lesser 3. Capacity to Respond Significantly greater

29. Two Climatic Variables Direction of Strong Wind Onset of Dry Season Nature of Leadership Degree of Societal Concern

30. The Climatic Scenarios More Easterly Wind • Warm Air, Dry Soil • Loss of life due to wildfire • Flood control deprioritized • Water supply critically low • Warm Air, Wet Soil • New invasives become dominant, new diseases • Erosion and flooding plus plant disease devastate farmers Direction of Strong Wind Earlier Dry Season Later Dry Season Onset of Dry Season Nature of Leadership Degree of Societal Concern • Cool Air, Wet Soil • Redwood population maintains well in refugia • Erosion and flooding destroy coastal infrastructure • Cool Air, Dry Soil • Landscapes less productive • Disease and invasives curtailed More Northerly Wind

33. “Fryin’ and Cryin’” • Defined by: • Earlier dry season, • Stronger easterlies, • Same/ less capacity • Headlines/ Events: • Big forest die-off on Mount Tam • Lost wetlands, vernal pools • State Parks lose funding • Big fires we can’t fight • ESA suspended, Coho locally extirpated • Top Actions: • Institutional coordination • Mandatory water rationing • Communication campaign/ volunteer science

34. Common Definition of Adaptationby scenario development team • Maintain key ecosystem functions (to provide the benefits of nature to human populations); • Facilitate a gentler transition under climate change, based on natural systems; • Maintain bioregional native biodiversity. Climate change adaptation should:

36. After Brainstorming Actions by Scenario:Criteria for Prioritization • Flexible/ robust to multiple scenarios • Collaborative/ doesn’t duplicate efforts • Uses adaptive management: uses monitoring, correct scale of design, best science, pilot programs, etc. • Cost-effective/ sustainable • Has clarity of design and transparency of implementation process

37. Sample Priorities for Action Create a regional and collaborative approach to adaptation. Create a Ready-to-go Rapid Response Team – climate events, invasives, etc.

38. Concrete Next Steps • Inter-agency Statement of Agreement on climate change adaptation for Marin County. • Downscaled climate vulnerability analysis for Marin County. • Integrate into state efforts.

39. One Small Decision http://k41.pbase.com/g4/50/673150/2/61465176.DSC02201.jpg

40. Bridging the Gap: Getting from climate projections to decisions, a Marin County Case Study • Background on adaptation • The California study • The Marin County case study • Conclusion

41. Lessons Learned • Keep it mixed: orgs, agencies • Make geography smaller for specificity • Attach to existing planning effort • Science team: response to top variables before workshop • Webinar: impacts/ adaptation 101 • 2 days: (1) “certainties,” (2) “uncertainties” and scenarios • All participants select final variables

42. Possible Next Site • Smaller scale within Marin County: Bolinas/ Stinson Beach (part of Our Coast- Our Future effort) • Resource managers, public utilities • DPW • Office of Emergency Services

43. Thank you! Questions? Sara S. Moore - sasmoore@ucsc.edu Erika Zavaleta - zavaleta@ucsc.edu UC Santa Cruz/ Zavaleta Lab Environmental Studies Department University of California Red-Legged Frogs.John Sullivan/Ribbit Photography