CFE agenda 100917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ing conservation targets need to be adjusted? 3) Do boundaries or project scope need to be adjusted? 4) Should conservation targets be addressed elsewhere? 5) Do new conservation targets need to be identified and addressed? 6) Does a conservation target need to be removed because we cannot envision a feasible strategy to maintain target viability or because it will increase due to climate change? (Game et al. 2010). Working through questions like these will allow managers to assess and revise current conservation approaches and design new strategies. Adaptation to climate change is fundamentally linked to the concept of vulnerability. Vulnerability assessments can play an important role in identify- ing which species or habitats to target or prioritize, which management actions may be most effective given projected impacts, and what areas on the land- scape might be suitable for facilitating wildlife adap- tation. To design effective adaptation strategies and prioritize limited conservation resources, practitio- ners need to determine which species, habitats, and ecosystems will be most vulnerable, and what aspects of their ecological and evolutionary biology deter- mine their vulnerability. In 2009, AFWA produced a useful guide for incorporating climate change into State Wildlife Action Plans or other management plans (AFWA 2009). This guide serves as a valuable reference for evaluating current conservation activi- ties and identifying where vulnerability assessments may fit in the planning process. The greatest challenge to wildlife managers in plan- ning for climate change adaptation may lie in deal- ing with the uncertainty inherent in future climate change projections. Although reducing uncertain- ty is routinely identified as an important reason for implementing adaptive management, the AM process will not be particularly valuable if not used to improve management actions over time. Thus, AM should be used to target key uncertainties that will improve an agency's ability to achieve management objectives. Identifying these uncertainties will be an important part of the planning process, and can be explicitly incorporated into formal decision analysis tools, such as those in structured decision - making (Runge et al. 2009). To date, managers have relied on trends in historical data or sustainability paradigms to identify manage- ment goals and objectives (Lackey 1995, Landres et al. 1999 in Millar et al. 2007). However, rapid shifts in climate may make management actions based on past conditions obsolete, or even create new prob- lems where wildlife or habitat are more susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Millar et al. 2007). As suggested in Millar et al. (2007), Accepting that the future will be different from both the past and the present forces us to manage [forests] in new ways ". Some conservation actions are likely to be benefi- cial under a range of future climate conditions. For example, enhancing habitat connectivity is regularly identified to reduce the impact of fragmentation on wildlife. Not surprisingly, habitat connectivity has also been suggested to facilitate range shifts in response to new climate patterns, as species will need well - connected natural landscapes to be able to adapt (Mawdsley et al. 2009). In addition to connectivity, actions such as restoring natural processes, protect- ing large and representative natural areas, or restoring stream buffers, are all considered `no regrets' actions, in that they are generally beneficial for conservation with or without the threat of climate change (Mawd- sley et al. 2009). The effectiveness of other climate change adapta- tion actions may be more sensitive to the uncertain- ties associated with climate projections. For example, translocation or managed relocation has been identi- fied as a potential intervention for facilitating species adaptation (e.g. Mawdsley et al. 2009). However, the relative risks associated with moving species outside