 Good afternoon, everyone. Hope everyone is having a nice Thursday so far. It's a little unseasonably chilly in D.C. today, like I would now as if I'd been outside today. Maybe take a venture out a little bit later this afternoon. Thanks for joining us today for day four of our Climate Adaptation Data Week online briefing mini-series. I am Dan Versette, the Executive Director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. This mini-series is part of our work to highlight coastal resilience issues for policymakers and the general public, and highlight climate change solutions and resilience strategies. On Monday, we heard from two experts about data needs in the state of Washington. Tuesday, we heard about the use of vulnerability and sensitivity analyses to evaluate the risks to our national parks. Yesterday, we were treated to a presentation about cultural heritage sites. If you are unable to join us for any of the briefings so far this week, or if you've missed any of our briefings to date, be sure to visit us at www.esi.org for video recordings and written summaries. And our mini-series will have two more installments. Today, we have bridging the gap between science and decision-making, followed tomorrow with weather and social data to inform participatory planning initiatives. After this week, in combination with the rest of our briefing series, our audience, and that includes policymakers, will have a complete picture about coastal community resilience, or at least as complete as possible. Be on the watch for briefings on two more areas coming up in the near future. Alaska, coastal resilience, the next Tuesday, April 21, and later in the month, TBD on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. When you visit our website, www.esi.org, take a moment to sign up for our bi-weekly climate change solutions newsletter. It really is the best way to stay informed about all of our briefings coming up. As I described yesterday, this briefing mini-series format is new to us, and it's an innovative way to provide briefings and stay focused on the urgency of climate change. Our goals for this week-long, regularly scheduled briefing mini-series are to explore a topic in greater detail and then recreate online the more conversational dynamic that we would have in person. You can find a complete schedule in this briefing mini-series, like I said, and catch up on those that you've missed at www.esi.org. And while you're there, please also take a moment to complete our survey. Thanks to everyone who's already shared your feedback about this format. It's been extremely helpful. The topic of today, bridging the gap between science and decision-making. After the presentation, as we've done all week, my colleague Amber Todoroff and I will co-moderate a discussion with our expert speaker. And you can participate too by following us on Twitter at EESI online or by sending us your questions by email at EESI or to EESI at EESI.org. And to help us learn how to bridge that gap, today we will hear from Dr. Amy Snover. Amy connects science and decision-making to help society prepare for the impacts of climate change. And she leads innovative efforts to link climate adaptation science with the work of resource managers, planners, and policy makers. People whose day-to-day decisions can help reduce climate risks facing people in nature in the Northwest. Amy's the director of the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University director of the Department of the Interior Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center. And she was recognized as a White House Champion of Change for Climate Education and Literacy in 2015. We are really happy to have you with us today, Amy. I can't wait for your presentation. I'll turn it over to you. I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks so much. Thank you very much, Dan. I am very excited to be here, to be with everyone. I would call it this morning. You can call it this afternoon, since I'm from sitting here on the West Coast. So I'm very honored to have the opportunity to share my perspective and some recent examples of the work we're doing here in the Northwest to connect science and decision-making to facilitate climate resilience. So as we all know, the urgency of addressing climate change, both the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the impact has never been greater. The window of time for avoiding dangerous human interference with Earth's climate continues to narrow at an alarming rate. At the same time, continued emissions commit us to increasingly severe global and local impacts. And I'm going to share some stories from the two programs that I direct that aim to improve our preparation for and ability to cope with the changes in climate that are already underway. I need to mention that the work I'm presenting here actually represents the efforts of many individuals, both on my team and beyond. It represents deep and collaborative partnerships across academia and with federal, state, local governments, with tribal entities, with nonprofit organizations and others. Some of whom are listed here. So I want to begin by introducing you to the Climate Impact Group. The Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington is a non-partisan, non-advocacy, academically-based boundary organization. We have been working since 1995 as an integrated research and engagement team. We work across sectors and across disciplines to build climate resilience in the U.S. and in particular in the Northwest. And we do this by advancing awareness of climate risk and enabling science-based action to manage those risks. The Climate Impact Group was the first NOAA-RISA, and now we are the host of the Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center. The Climate Adaptation Science Center is one of eight regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers that are joint federal university partnerships. On the federal side, it's the Department of the Interior, USGS. And on the university side in the Northwest, we are a consortium of six universities hosted by the Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington. So our partners are Western Washington University, Washington State University, Oregon State University, Boise State University, and University of Montana. As I mentioned, these Climate Adaptation Science Centers serve every state in the nation. And our objective is to support sound resource management in the face of changing climate conditions. And we do this by advancing understanding of the implications of climate change and variability for fish, wildlife, water, land, and people. So both the Climate Impact Group and the Northwest CAST produce relevant and accessible science on climate change impacts and adaptation action. Both of our groups develop science that is not only useful, but is actually used. And this means that we need to work directly with stakeholders and partners in the community to develop shared understanding of why climate matters to local ecosystems and communities, to co-identify knowledge gaps that impede climate risk management, and to co-produce the needed additional scientific research data products and resources that are necessary for effectively managing this risk. We focus... I want to say one more thing about our focus on climate resilience and adaptation. And we do this for the simple reason that every single day people are making decisions and investments that will either exacerbate or ameliorate the impact of climate change for decades to come. So we're working with today's professionals to enable inclusion of the best available climate and climate impact science and climate resilience thinking in those decisions. So people every day are shaping our future and we are acting to help them shape that future in a way that builds climate resilience into it. Between the Climate Impact Group and the Northwest CASC, we do virtually... We do research and engagement across virtually all climate-sensitive sectors in the Northwest. We work on coast, as I'll be describing today, but we also work in inland deserts. We work in remote wilderness ecosystems and we also work in our urban communities. So despite this variety of efforts and variety of stakeholders and partners, we have a handful of common approaches that we use for connecting science and decision-making. So first of all, we focus on educating key actors about climate risks and response options. We do this by developing succinct user-friendly briefings on major issues. We develop state-of-the-knowledge synthesis and reference documents, and we brief elected officials and policymakers, and we train current practitioners and educators in the current science of climate impact. We also work to enable the use of climate science in risk assessment and management. And my examples that I'm going to be providing today are good examples of that. We do targeted research. We translate science for use. We innovate with science delivery, and we support local adaptation. Our third E here, educating, enabling, and embedding. We also work to embed scientists in management context and science in management processes. We have lots of good examples we could describe another time about how science has been embedded in ongoing processes for toxic waste site cleanups in Washington state and how it's beginning to be embedded in funding criteria for major capital investments in recreation and conservation. So that's enough for the background. Let's get to the real stories here. And I have two specific stories to tell you about. So first, I want to talk a little bit about Washington state sea level rise planning toolkit, the work that we've done to develop that. So this story is about the Washington coastal resilience project, which was a three year multi-partner effort to rapidly increase our state's capacity to prepare for coastal hazards, such as flooding and erosion that are related to sea level rise. So for this work, the climate impact group partnered with a large number of other entities. You saw their logo on the second slide, but they included Washington Sea Grant, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Fish and Wildlife. This project was funded by NOAA's National Ocean Services Regional Coastal Resilience Grant Program, and the overall aim of it was to improve risk projections, provide better guidance for land use planners, strengthen capital investment programs for capital restoration and infrastructure. But more simply put, the project aimed to help coastal communities, planners, and decision makers better answer these three questions. What will happen here in my place because of sea level rise? What is my specific risk? And how does that change depending on how greenhouse gas emissions evolve, my desire for confidence in the answer? And what can I do about it? And talk you through each one of these. So when we started this project, there was incomplete and confusing sea level rise data that was available to communities. There was a 2012 National Academies Report that developed sea level rise projections for California, Oregon, and Washington, but it wasn't sufficiently detailed to inform local planning. So you may not know, but we have a complex coastline here on the west coast that is actually moving vertically up or down at different rates in different places because of complex tectonic processes. So despite the fact that sea level rise along the Washington coast will be significantly different in different places, the National Academy study only provided one point specific projection for the entire state of Washington. After the National Academies Report also, there was more emerging science on the rapid disintegration of the polar ice sheets and lots of questions from communities about how that would affect local risk. So the sea level rise projections that were developed under this study are now currently the best available sea level rise science for Washington and they have four significant innovations. They were the first to incorporate the science on changing polar ice sheets for Washington. They are highly localized. They account for local differences in relative sea level rise along the coastline. They are probabilistic. This is in advance over our previous approaches where we just were able to give people ranges of potential future sea level rise. Now we can give ranges with estimates of the probability of the various rates of rise. And they're also long term. They don't stop in 2100. We developed projections through 2150 in response to our tribal partner's desire for scenarios that would support their longer term planning. So to make the information even easier for community planners to use, we've developed an online data visualization tool that allows users to easily select their online location. There are 171 specific locations along the coast. Determine how the anticipated amount of sea level rise depends on future greenhouse gas emissions. And then they can visualize the range of plausible future amounts of rise, including the likelihood of any specific amount of sea level rise occurring. So for example, this would allow a user to answer the question, well, how likely is it that we will see a foot and a half of sea level rise here by 2050? In order to support risk-based decision making, we developed a second way of visualizing these data that allows users to easily determine when they might experience a specific problematic amount of sea level rise at various levels of confidence. So for example, a user might know that their development or infrastructure would be able to withstand up to a foot and a half of sea level rise. And then they might ask the question, when am I likely to experience one and a half foot of sea level rise here? And they can see the answer for different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, as I've shown here, or different levels of confidence, which I have not. So a common theme across our work is that we shape the science we do by the evolving needs of our community partners. But we also recognize that supporting the use of that science is just as important and requires just as significant an investment as does developing that science in the first place. And so therefore, as part of this coastal resilience project, in addition to developing and delivering these data and tools I was just describing, we also deliver technical advice on how to evaluate and decide among the different scenarios. How do I know which greenhouse gas scenario to use in my planning? How do I know what level of confidence to use? Well, there's actually ways to think through this, depending on the decision context. And so that's our how to choose guidance. We also provided information about how to use these data in GIS mapping of sea level rise impacts and how to use these projections in coastal ecosystem restoration projects. I want to highlight just one actual application of the sea level rise data here. This is a really interesting story from Metro Park, the city of Tacoma, south of Seattle. So they were in the process of redeveloping a coastal park and they had done the development plans not considering sea level rise. But when we were working with them to share these sea level rise projections, they redesigned their redesign of the park. They relocated new buildings away from the future shoreline. They re-oriented access and park design to accommodate the rising seas and even more importantly to demonstrate how important planning for coastal resilience is to Metro Park. And so construction on the park renovation is scheduled for later this year. And in the information that I've provided the EESI site about this talk, I've provided a bunch of links to all of these tools, but also to some of the media stories about things like this Metro Park redevelopment. So example number two is about co-producing tribal resources for climate change vulnerability assessment. So this work was developed as a direct response to a survey that was completed in 2015 by the affiliated tribes of Northwest Indians. AT&I surveyed Columbia Basin tribes to assess their capacity to respond to climate change. They found that there were significant disparities among tribes in their capacity for climate change response with some making significant progress already and others having difficulty getting started. They identified a bunch of different barriers to preparedness that some were social, some were political and some were technical. And the technical barriers were ones that the Northwest Cask and Climate Impact Group were able to step into provide on a project that was led by Mead Crosby and funded by the Northwest Cask. So this project aimed to help Northwest and Great Basin tribes answer these questions. What will happen here due to climate change? What can I do about it? And what are some best practices amongst my peers who are also facing similar challenges? This scope of work was designed in partnership with a tribal advisory board including representatives from tribal organizations that were affiliated with a Northwest Cask stakeholder advisory committee. So at the time this project started the only climate data being delivered specifically to Northwest and Great Basin tribes was information about how annual average temperature and precipitation might change and provided average over tribal reservations. However, tribes are concerned like all of us about a great deal of diverse climate impacts, not just how average temperature will change but impacts on plants and animals wildfire, heat waves water availability and they evaluate climate risks and make decisions across multiple geographic areas not just reserved lands but also the watersheds in which they are living counties their traditional territories and their seeded lands. So based on input from 84 tribes choosing to participate in the tool development Meade Crosby and her team developed an online tool that provides climate summaries and climate information that was specifically tailored to the needs of tribes. It provides spatial information about where impacts are smaller and larger across the specific geographies of interest that were defined by each tribe. It provides summaries of information about changes expected for each geography of interest and even more importantly, I think it provides the information in multiple formats. It provides it in data it is data and it provides it in a map format in graphical format and in text format. Another innovation is that the tool provides a downloadable custom reports that summarizes all of the changes. So a key to the success of this tool was the heavy focus on soliciting iterative user testing and feedback and revising the tool along the way. And it's also I think one of the things that makes this a little different than some other resources is that it actually helps provide some interpretation and language describing the impacts that are easily used in reports and analyses. We provided a curated online collection of available tool guides, data system approaches for tribal vulnerability assessments. So there's a ton of information out there as everyone working on climate adaptation knows. And trying to find resources can feel like drinking out of a fire hose. And so this effort to actually provide a drinking fountain instead of a fire hose with a curated high quality examples of every different stage and different aspects of climate vulnerability assessment by tribal communities. And finally, as I said before providing information on its own isn't enough is really important to provide support in order to ensure its use. And so another part of this project was the provision of what we call the tribal climate technical support staff which was a hotline and email and a phone that tribal community members could call for help on any aspect of their vulnerability assessment work or their use of the data. This tribal technical support desk remains open and this is another really important part in building climate resilience is providing sustained support for climate data interpretation and use even long after the funded project that developed that data and maybe develop those partnerships in the first place is over. So I want to wrap up by commenting on some key roles for both the federal government and regional boundary organizations like the climate impacts group and the climate adaptation science center and some key roles that both level play as they are both essential partners in the effort to build climate resilience for the people and ecosystems of this nation. So if I was going to say one thing about the important role of federal government right now, I would say that it is to both motivate sophisticated climate-based decision making and also prepare to enable this decision making. So by that I mean on the motivation side that the federal government has a role in both requiring and incentivizing science-based action to address climate risk. There are plenty of places where as I said before, decisions are made, investments are being made that are still based on the climate of the past. It's a simple matter to remind people and in some cases to implement requirements that they do consider how the climate is already changing and how the landscape will differ as their decision or investment plays out. So in order to support that kind of work it's important to promote large-scale and targeted research, especially observation and modeling at all scales. The federal government has a very important role in building and sustaining regional and local capacity to connect science and practice. And I also think it's very and so for that one I'm thinking about things like the climate adaptation science centers and the NOAA-RISA program and the local partnerships that they support and enable. And it's also important to recognize the local specificity of needs and to relinquish somewhat these expectations that all projects will be universally transferable to other places, other communities, other sectors because it's really in the heterogeneity and specificity that climate resilience will be developed. Regional boundary organizations like the CASPs and the RISAs and the Climate Impacts Group their important role is to leverage federal resources and science programs for local benefit and to provide a conduit for information about local needs back to the federal level. So our job is to develop and sustain mutually beneficial long-term relationships with local partners to elicit local knowledge needs and adaptation priorities and innovate to meet these needs to develop, deliver and support the use of actionable climate information and to develop capacities for both researchers and practitioners to apply this information in planning and implementation activities across the region. So with that I am ready to move on to questions and answers and I thank you again for the opportunity to share this work with you. Great. Thanks Amy and that was a really excellent presentation. One thing that stuck out to me on your acknowledgement slide were the two names of our Monday panelists, Ian Miller and Nicole Fagin of Washington Sea Grant and one thing I really like about this mini-series format is that it lends itself to callbacks and that really helps us round out the story of climate change and coastal community resilience and it's indicative not just of the Washington and the Pacific Northwest but also the incredible amount of great work and research being done there by you and your colleagues and your partners and how aimed it is at finding solutions which of course is what ESI is all about so I'm happy to see their names it's only been a couple of days but I kind of missed them. If anyone else missed Ian and Nicole on Monday just a quick reminder that video recordings and written summaries will be online already online at ESI.org and there's lots of detail in their presentations just like at Amy's so please if you've missed anything go back. Now we're going to move to Q&A if our audience would like to participate in Q&A you can email us at EESI.org or you can follow us on Twitter at EESI online and ask us questions that way and for the Q&A I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Amber Todorov. Amber is on our policy team with us and is going to get us started so Amber looking forward to the Q&A. Thanks. Thanks Dan and thank you Amy I'm just completely blown away by the breath of the climate impacts groups work seems like you got a lot of work cut out for you but you guys are doing an amazing job. So one thing that struck out to me was your work with the tribes could you elaborate on some of the resilience actions being taken with the tribes with CIG's assistance? Certainly they're so as I mentioned when affiliated tribes in Northwest Indiana did their survey they discovered that tribes are at all different levels like all communities right or at all different levels of engaging in climate change so there are stories of examples that sort of reflect that whole range. One of our longest standing partners is the Swinomish Indian tribal community north of Seattle and in the mid 2000s they embarked on a very detailed vulnerability assessment based using as the approach the guidebook had written for local governments for preparing for climate change and they really showed what a gold standard of really thoughtful detailed analysis of vulnerability could be and followed it up with an adaptation plan and then have since then been thinking about all kinds of things from relocating some of their important infrastructure to developing really innovative community health programs that think about climate change impacts on community and individual health really large so that's an example of a huge effort that the Swinomish embarked on and actually provide as an example to their tribal colleagues. Another great example is an inland one even though we're on the coast of the story, the Calville Nation developed a really interesting set of materials for educating youth on climate change and so they have a bunch of different brochures and activities for students to think about impacts of climate change on many of the species that they tend to collect and rely on and so they have a whole handful of like summaries of tribal impacts on wildlife but also activities and brochures for tribal youth at different levels that they're using in some of the schools. So it really runs the gamut. That's cool might be cool to get some of that information to link to for our web page when this is done. So one of the big issues with this planning process is communicating risk and science to these decision makers. So how does climate impacts group overcome those barriers with the people that need it? So I could tell you maybe one sort of general story and then a very specific one. So in general the way that we handle this is that we work on being really clear to ourselves and then to our partners what we know really well with certainty and what we are less sure about. And so for example in the Northwest I didn't tell you a lot about the impact we're facing but a big one like a lot of the western US is impacts on water supply and we depend on mountain water and mountain snowpack right for our summer water and we know it's going to get warmer every single scenario shows warming means every single scenario shows less snowpack and then less natural summer water. And so the question is just sort of how much and how fast that happens not whether it happens. Then there are other kinds of impacts that are less easy to predict with specificity that maybe have to do with how much rain changes in the spring and we just don't know as much about that there's more possible future. And so if we're really about what we know well and what we don't know well then we really focus our communication on that and help people focus their their planning on that plan with certainty for some certain risks and plan more generally for the opportunity opportunities the wrong word but the possibility that multiple futures could happen and we have to be prepared for both. So that's the general way and then in the sea level rise example we actually have this projection of a range of sea level rise curves that are for example if you want to be 99% sure that the sea level rise I told you to expect is going to happen then I can tell you what number to plan for. But if you're really worried because you have very extensive infrastructure on the coast and you want to know the 0.1% chance that that billion dollar investment is going to be at risk then I can tell you that too and so that's the big innovation in the sea level rise work is being able to quantitative probabilities on it. I have a question for you. You've talked about and on your slides you even had some slides that showed your partners to the south and the east of Washington but what about your partners to the north? Does the climate impacts group work with Canadian partners and are there any ongoing projects that help build climate resilience where there are benefits that accrue to in the U.S. as well as in Canada? That's a great question. I think I showed a map that had a hard line north of us didn't I? We have long worked across the region and we define the recent that we've worked on based on the problem we're working on not based on lines on a map. We actually began in 1995 by focusing on Columbia Basin water resource impacts right and so something like 60% of the water in the Columbia River I made that up that's probably the wrong number originates in Canada. There's no way to study a massive watershed like that without looking across the border so we continue to do that kind of work for both water resources and salmon and other things. We have really strong partnership with a similar organization to ours that's in British Columbia called the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium. We have traded all kinds of things over the years and collaborated on projects and then we have another specific example that was also led by Dr. Meade Crosby who's leading the tribal work to look at transboundary wildlife habitat connectivity. That's another example, wildlife don't know political borders right and as climate changes we need to have wildlife habitat not just connected today it's already fragmented and people are trying to reconnect it but we need to have the habitat of today connected to the habitat of tomorrow and so that involves lots of collaborations across countries including the Canada U.S. border but also across federal lands and tribal lands and state lands. Cool, thanks. We have a question that came in by email that I'm going to have. I think it's pretty interesting I'm going to ask it. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the tools and services that you provide to decision makers? Are there things that you look at that are in your work that tell you that one approach or one service or one tool is more effective than others? How do you and your colleagues evaluate your approach on an ongoing basis? That is a wonderful question. So first of all I would say that we work on being really clear upfront about trying to achieve with a tool or a resource. Who is it for? For what purpose? What are we trying to achieve? Because there's a whole range of reasons right? I think I often, I think a lot of climate tools that are out there right now are very, are still very focused on the raising awareness stage. They allow people to explore like oh does climate change really matter to me and how warm might it get? But they're not designed in a way to actually inform decision making like what is the basis for the information that went into this and what is the actual range of possibilities and can I download actual numbers that I could put in a model? And that's not to say it's a failure to say that that wasn't the purpose right? And so we work on being really clear. Who are we trying to inform to do what? And we tend not to do a lot of exploratory sort of public focus visualization tools because we're so focused on working with the people making decisions now. And so we tend to evaluate our tools and resources based on whether they're being used. And so you can tell in the development stage with the testing and the feedback of like okay we think we're making something that's easy to use and that clearly you would be able to make these inferences and go from this page to that page and get the data and then we sit down with people and watch them try to use it and that's a humbling experience right when you realize that it doesn't make any sense to them that it may be used. So that's part of the evaluation right is that rigorous testing. And another big part of it is that you have to set it up early in the stage. So when we did our first major development of downscaled hydrologic scenarios for use in Colombian basin watershed management and planning the audience and partners were technical federal agencies. And so we have a fairly technical website right that actually other people don't find very user friendly and I don't find that a failure because it was designed to meet the technical needs. So it's a complicated story of like actually defining the purpose defining the user well and seeking the iterative feedback from them that in the near term is how is it working and in the longer term is are the data showing up in an analysis that they've done are the data being reported or the tool being used in plans that they are publishing. So we see that evolve over time too. That's great. Thanks. Amber, I think you may have the last question of the session. Great, great. And this more involves your role as director with the University of Washington of the Climate Climate Adaptation Science Center. We've had a couple speakers before from Climate Adaptation Science Centers. I think they're super interesting to see how these work. So in organizations, so if you could kind of tell our audience like how these regional centers work together and maybe if there's like a top three things that policy makers should know about what these centers do. That would be a great way to end this series or in this talk. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Amber. Thank you, Amber. So the National Science Center program consists of eight regional tasks. We are the one for the Northwest, but there's also Alaska, Pacific Island, Southwest, North Central, South Central, Northeast, Southeast. And there's a regional, I mean, I'm sorry, there's a national office at each of the regional centers is home, is at home in a region is an organization that already has deep roots and connections with stakeholders, managers and folks on the ground to understand what the needs are because they're very different region from region. The reasons that climate change matter on the ground are different for different ecosystems. They're different for different science is really different in different parts of the country, and so you really need to have this local partnership to understand what we know now, what could we know next, what are the needs. So the centers collaborate to share our approaches to talk about best practices in connecting science and decision making. All of us play a big role in educating graduate students and early career folks to engage not only in applied climate science, but more importantly in the co-production in the working across practice and academia. I think that maybe some of the most important things to share about the network right now are that we are, I mean, we are your ears to the ground, right. We are the ones who are seeing the need. I mean, in my last slide about federal rules and like prepare to prepare to be able to meet there's rapidly increasing need for decision-relevant science. That need is exploding. We are underwater trying to meet it. There are so many people from our federal to state to tribal agencies, the first management agencies, cities, towns businesses calling us up saying what is happening? What are the projections? How do I use it? There is more demand than we can meet. We are your ear to the ground telling you that that need is there, but also telling you that the opportunity is right now to meet that need and to really help support is really, is better aligned to the emerging kind of realities that we're facing. Very good. Well, Amy, we've come to the end of our 45 minutes, but really tremendous talk, so informative, and your perspective is really, really helpful. I learned a lot, and I really, really appreciate taking some time during your morning, even though it's afternoon here, right, time is relative. So thank you very much, and let me also compliment you on your background and your flowers. It's a little bit nicer than my sort of dark blue, but thanks so much. This was really great. Before we wrap up, I'm just going to say another reminder, tomorrow noon Eastern, I guess 9th Pacific, weather and social data to inform participatory planning initiatives. It's the last of our five online briefings from this week, so hopefully everyone will come back to us tomorrow same time and join us to wrap up this mini-series. Thank you to our audience, but special thanks to everyone at EESI who wants to pull these off in addition to Amber, Anna, Ellen, Omri, Daniel, Brian, Abby, Sydney, Uma. It's a big team, and we're really lucky to have them, and they do such a great job, and this briefing series has been so great, and we owe it all to them. Thanks everyone. Hope everyone has a great rest of your day, and hope to see you back tomorrow on Friday for weather and social data to inform participatory planning initiatives. Thanks so much. Have a great one.