VERSION 021410a

ADAPTATION GUIDEBOOK:

A HANDBOOK FOR DEVELOPING ADAPTATION OPTIONS

IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

ON U.S. NATIONAL FORESTS (AND NATIONAL PARKS?)

WestWide Climate Initiative

USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountain Research Stations

Lead Authors
Micheal Furniss, Jessica Halofsky, Linda A. Joyce, Constance I. Millar,
Toni Lyn Morelli, David L. Peterson, Ronald Nielson

Contributing Authors
Steven McNulty, SRS
Chris Swanston, NRS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[boldface font below indicates a draft is included in 021410 version]

i. Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Scale Issues: Models, Monitoring, and Assessments

4. Facilitating Adaptation on National Forests and National Parks (new sections)

5. Developing Adaptation Options: A Toolbox Approach (new Boxes)

6. Conclusions: Lessons and Synthesis

7. Supporting Reference Materials

A. Climate Change Resource Center

B. Bioclimatic Models for Western North America

C. Using and Assessing Access Scientific Materials

D. [Dueling Scientists]

E. Watershed Vulnerability Analysis for Changing Climates

8. References Cited

9. Glossary

10 Appendices

A. Literature review from Shoshone National Forest

B. Report from Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park

C. Reports from Inyo National Forest and Devil Postpile National Monument

i. Climate Workshops
ii.Eastern Sierra Digital Bibliography
iii.Climate Scientific Advisory Boards
iv.Climate Primer for Eastern Sierra Nevada
v.Aspen Health Survey and Report

2
 D. Climate Project Screening Tool

E. Short Subjects No. 1,2,3

Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Vs 020410 Peterson-Joyce

Introduction

In 2007, the Westwide Climate Initiative (WWCI) was funded by the U.S. Forest Service

to develop tools and guidelines for adaptation to climate change on national forests. This

collaboration among the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Rocky Mountain Research

Stations has initiated science-management partnerships in the western U.S. in order to develop

the scientific basis for adaptation and find the best ways to communicate and implement this

knowledge. The WWCI builds on existing principles of adaptation to climate change, such as

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4 (Joyce et al.

2008), Millar et al. (2007), and Bosworth et al. (2008) to provide more concrete and tactical

ways for resource managers to adapt to climate change.

The WWCI has worked with national forests, national parks, and other stakeholders to:

(1) educate resource managers on climate change science, (2) identify potential vulnerabilities of

natural resources to a warmer climate, (3) develop options that facilitate adaptation to the effects

of a warmer climate, and (4) communicate adaptation tools and strategies in order to advance

thinking and practice. The above steps are all intended to directly inform resource management
3
and planning and to facilitate preparation for a warmer climate, with the understanding that the

condition of resources in the future will be variable and uncertain.

Adaptation to climate change presents organizational and cultural challenges in addition

to ecological ones. Even if good scientific information and financial resources are available,

regulations (e.g., U.S. Endangered Species Act), policy (e.g., forest harvest restrictions), and

litigation (e.g., lawsuits from advocacy groups) can prevent or reduce the effectiveness of

proposed adaptation activities. As with past shifts in management foci, successful adaptation

may require institutional and policy changes. To date, no consistent framework or portfolio of

operational strategies has been available to guide adaptation planning on federal lands, and

mandates by federal agencies to begin the process of adaptation have been slow in coming (GAO

2007, 2009). Despite these challenges, leadership is being provided by individual national

forests in which managers have volunteered to develop adaptation plans (e.g., Joyce et al. 2008,

Littell et al. in review) and by ad hoc workshops and dialogues that are occurring on national

forests across the U.S. We anticipate that the demonstrated value of focused scientist-manager

partnerships will motivate national forests and other natural resource agencies to emulate this

approach and start preparing for climate change.

To date, no consistent framework or portfolio of operational strategies has been available

to guide adaptation planning on federal lands, and mandates by federal agencies to begin the

process of adaptation have been slow in coming (GAO 2007, 2009). Nevertheless, in our

experience, resource managers at local administrative units (e.g., national forests, national parks)

have a strong interest in understanding the effects of climate change on resources, have

demonstrated grass-roots leadership on this issue, and have a keen interest in implementing

science-based options for adaptation to climate change.

4
 This adaptation guidebook is a summary of knowledge on climate-change adaptation

from educational syntheses, specific tools, facilitated dialogues, workshops, and case studies

developed by the WWCI. The guidebook is focused specifically on topics and approaches that

are relevant to and compatible with resource management on national forests and other federal

lands. Indeed, all adaptation options developed for case studies to date were conceived by

resource managers and disciplinary specialists from national forests and national parks.

The guidebook is sufficiently inclusive that managers, decision makers, and policy

makers can find most of the information they need to guide the process of developing a plan that

addresses climate change, but is not intended to be comprehensive of all scientific and

management efforts in this area. The guidebook is intended to be dynamic and will continue to

evolve as new knowledge becomes available, adaptation options on federal lands are

implemented and evaluated, and the effects of a warmer climate are documented more

extensively. This is part of the normal adaptive management process.

Although incorporating climate change thinking in resource management is a significant

new requirement for national forests (USFS 2009), it does not imply thatat this point, major

modifications do not appear to be are needed in strategic or tactical management. Rather, iIt is

simply one of many considerations for sustainable resource management and will be more

important for some resources and landscapes than others. Managing for resilience to climate

change is often compatible, and sometime synonymous, with managing for resilience to other

stressors such as fire and insects. Climate change effects on natural resources may be uncertain,

but so are the effects of many other factors. Nearly all landscapes on federal lands have multiple

and concurrent management objectives, of which climate change resilience may be a new but not

necessarily dominant objective.

5
 The adaptation guidebook is one of many sources of scientific information and guidance

that can be used by federal land managers to guide decision making and planning. This

guidebook, and is intended to ease the transition to a new paradigm in resource management.

We anticipate that implementation of climate change thinking will be easier than past transitions

necessitated by policy shifts related to ecosystem management, conservation of endangered

species, reduced commodity production, ecological restoration, and application of prescribed

burning. Starting the process of adaptation in a timely way increases the likelihood that this

transition will be successful and that resource management objectives can be attained in a

warmer climate.

6
 Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 2: Background

Vs 021210 Joyce-Peterson

Background

Planning and managing for the anticipated effects of climate change on natural resources

is in its infancy on public lands in the United States (U.S.). Despite the fact that over 20 years of

data are available from federally funded research programs, federal agencies have been slow to

integrate climate change as a factor in projected future conditions of resources, future planning

strategies, orand on-the-ground applications. This slow response has been due to lack of local

information on climate change effects; the magnitude of potential effects on ecosystem structure,

process, and function; and uncertainty associated with those effects.

Awareness of the need to incorporate climate change into resource management and planning

increased in association with the Fourth Assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC 2007) and in western North America in association with well-publicized reports

on regional climate and hydrologic trends (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Mote et al. 2005, Knowles et al.

2006). Recent efforts on adaptation to climate change have focused primarily on conceptual

issues addressed through general scientific discussion (MacIver and Dallmeier 2000, Wilkinson

et al. 2002, Hansen et al. 2003, Easterling et al. 2004, FAO 2007), social and economic

adaptation (Kane and Yohe 2000, Smith et al. 2000), proposed actions by governmental

institutions (Rojas Blanco 2006, Joyce et al. 2007, IPCC 2007, Ligeti et al. 2007, Snover et al.

2007), individual resources (Slaughter and Wiener 2007, Sadowski 2008), and biological

7
diversity (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Recent information on climate change adaptation for

natural resources provides general adaptation strategies (Millar et al. 2007, Joyce et al. 2008,

Innes et al. 2009). Only a few sources contain information on adaptation to climate change that

is relevant and usable for natural resource managers from a tactical or operational perspective

(Ogden and Innes 2007a, 2007b, 2008).

Efforts to develop strategies that facilitate adaptation to documented (e.g., altered

hydrologic systems [Barnett et al. 2008]) and expected (e.g., increased area burned by wildfire

[Westerling et al. 2006]) responses to climate change are now beginning in earnest by the U.S.

federal government. In the most substantive effort to date, the U.S. Climate Change Science

Program developed a summary of adaptation options for federal land management agencies

(Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4; Julius and West 2008), with one chapter devoted to

adaptation on U.S. Forest Service lands (Joyce et al. 2008) and one chapter devotd to USDI

National Parks (Baron et al. 2008). Recent discussions on adaptation emphasize the importance

of implementing adaptive management (in a general sense, as opposed to adaptation to climate

change), with resource monitoring as a critical feedback to evaluation of management strategies

(Millar et al. 2007, Bosworth et al. 2008, Joyce et al. 20098).

The U.S. Forest Service administers over 78 million ha of land in 155 National Forests

and 20 National Grasslands. The Forest Service also advises and partners with a wide range of

public and private land managers, stakeholders, and the international community. The National

Forest System encompasses a wide range of different ecosystems and much of the country’s

terrestrial biodiversity. In addition to biodiversity, other ecosystem services provided by the

National Forest System include timber, grazing, municipal and agricultural water supplies,

8
recreation, and aesthetics. Climate change will affect all of these ecosystem services provided by

National Forests, perhaps most importantly, water supplies.

The Forest Service is responsible for restoring, sustaining, and enhancing forests and

grasslands while providing and sustaining benefits to the American people. Climate change will

affect all of these ecosystem services provided by National Forests, perhaps most importantly,

water supplies. Because of these responsibilities, federal scientists and land managers are tasked

with reducing the negative effects of climate change on ecosystem function and services, while

promoting and enabling beneficial aspects. Guidance to Forest Service managers stated that

“Climate change is a factor to be considered in the delivery of our overall mission.” Managers

are directed to use the “best available science on climate change that is relevant to the planning

unit and the issues being considered in planning” (USFS January 13, 2009). Guidance

addressing climate change consideration in project level NEPA analysis describes agency

authority to propose projects to increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems it manages, mitigate

climate change effects on those ecosystems, or to sequester carbon (USFS 2009). Timely

implementation of strategic and tactical adaptation options, with an emphasis on practical

approaches that can be applied within the broader context of sustainable resource management,

will be critical to meet the goals of restoring and enhancing ecosystems while providing and

sustaining ecosystem services and benefits (Innes et al. 2009).

Guidance addressing climate change consideration in project level NEPA analysis

identifies two types of climate change effects to be considered:

1. The effect of a proposed project on climate change (GHG emissions and carbon

cycling). Examples include: short-term GHG emissions and alteration to the carbon

cycle caused by hazardous fuels reduction projects, GHG emissions from oil and gas

field development, and avoiding large GHG emissions pulses and effects to the

9
 carbon cycle by thinning overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease

the potential for large scale wildfire.

2. The effect of climate change on a proposed project. Examples include: effects of

expected shifts in rainfall and temperature patterns on the seed stock selection for

reforestation after timber harvest and effects of decreased snow fall on a ski area

expansion proposal at the marginal geographic location, such as a southern aspect of

low elevation (USDA Forest Service January 13, 2009).

The first type of climate change effect focuses on alterations or enhancements of the carbon

cycle as affected by Forest Service management. This area is under continued discussion in the

management and the policy arena. There is need to address the potential interactions between

management actions that propose to enhance carbon sequestration to ensure that adaptation

options are not foregone. Similarly adaptation options can impact the potential carbon

sequestration of ecosystems.

This Handbook focuses on the second type of climate change impact: adaptation. A

primary premise for adaptive approaches is that vulnerability to climate change, uncertainty,

complexity, and the uniqueness of individual situations are expected to define the future context

for planning and management. Rapid changes that are expected in physical conditions and

ecological response suggest that management goals and practices will be most successful when

they emphasize ecological processes, rather than focusing primarily on structure and

composition. Information needs will vary in availability and accuracy at local spatial and

temporal scales. Thus, strategic flexibility and willingness to work in a context of varying

uncertainty will improve success at every level. Learning from experience and iteratively

10
incorporating lessons into future plans—adaptive management in the broadest sense—is an

appropriate lens through which natural-resource management is conducted.

Given the nature of climate and environmental variability, the inevitability of novelty

and surprise, and the range of management objectives and goals, a central dictum is that no

single approach will fit all situations. This Handbook presents a tool box where adaptation

options (with modifications) can be selected and combined to fit the situation. We define tools as

resource management practices, educational and reference modules, decision-support aids, and

qualitative or quantitative models that address the adaptation of natural and cultural resources to

climate change. Tools include the application of existing management practices but in new

locations, in different seasons, or in a slightly different context, as well as new tools, distinct

from past management practices and strategies. This Handbook provides a framework for

building management strategies in the face of climate change, processes to start the science-

management dialogue about climate change and adaptation, and examples of specific, on-the-

ground adaptation recommendations identified by land managers in the various case studies. The

toolbox approach recognizes that management strategies may vary based on the spatial and

temporal scales of decision making.

This Handbook is to be an evolving document where new information and understanding

about climate change will facilitate new adaptation options in a variety of situations. The

development of management practices for adapting to and mitigating the effects of an uncertain

and variable climate, and other stressors on natural resource outputs and ecosystem services will

require experimentation. Management strategies for adaptation may need to be established as

small-scale pilot efforts, to determine the efficacy of such proactive approaches to adapting to

climate change in various ecosystems and climates. The sources of uncertainty—sensitivity of

11
resources, climate projections, resources (staff, time, funds), and public and society support--may

influence the decision on whether it is best to develop reactive responses to changing

disturbances and extreme events in order to protect the current resources, or to develop proactive

responses anticipating climate change in order to facilitate ecosystem change and maintain

ecosystem processes. The community of practice by sharing and experimenting will facilitate

information sharing and the evolution of resource management under climate change.

Facilitation of a learning environment where novel approaches to addressing climate

change impacts and ecosystem adaptation are acknowledged by the agency will support USFS

employees as they attempt to achieve management goals in the face of climate uncertainty and

change. Scientists and managers will sometimes be called upon to sift through apparently

conflicting approaches to understanding climate impacts on ecosystems and the management

responses to the changing climate. What may appear as “mistakes’ are in fact opportunities to

learn the technical issues, the underlying ecosystem processes, and successful management

approaches under a changing climate.

Where federally managed land encompasses large landscapes, increasing collaboration

will facilitate the accomplishment of common goals, as well as adaptation and mitigation that

can only be attained on larger connected (or contiguous) landscapes. Common goals might

include protection of threatened and endangered species habitats, integrated treatment of fuels or

insect and disease conditions that place adjacent ownerships at risk, and developing effective

strategies to minimize loss of life and property in the wildland-urban interface. While

collaboration logically makes sense, and seems conceptually like the only way to manage

complex ownerships, large landscapes, and across multiple jurisdictions, there are many

challenges to such an approach. Attempting to collaborate multi-institutionally across large

landscapes scales can bring into focus unexpected institutional barriers, and focus unanticipated

12
societal response. Further, if collaboration is taken to mean equal participation and that each

collaborator has an effective voice, then potential mismatches among laws, regulations, resources

and staffing capacities can lead to situations in which collaboration by different groups is uneven

and possibly unsuccessful. There is an urgent need for policy makers, managers, scientist,

stakeholder and the broader public to share the specific evidence of global climate change nand

its projected consequences on ecosystems, as well as their understanding of the choices, future

opportunities, and risks. Although we focus on the National Forests, the recommendations of this

Handbook are relevant to land and resource managers on privately owned or other publicly

managed lands who must balance and actively manage for a suite of objectives and goals, in

consideration of external influences on their lands. We hope that the processes for starting the

dialogue can engage, not only NF managers, but also this larger group in the development of a

tool box for resource management under a changing climate.

13
 Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 4:

Facilitating Adaptation through Science-Management Partnerships

Vs 021410 Peterson

Introduction
Our experiences in working with National Forests and National Parks to prepare for

climate change have varied according to organizational structure, level of engagement in

climate change issues, local involvement in planning processes, local emphasis on different

resource objectives, and personal preferences regarding communication and collaboration.

This variation is normal, and one would not expect that a single process or framework

would necessarily work for all organizational units. However, we found that several

components are necessary to develop a successful adaptation strategy or plan.

Develop a science-management partnership. A science-management

relationship is critical in order to have both the scientific basis for proposed

adaptation options and the expertise to develop those options (Littell et al., in

review). In our case, this typically took the form of initial discussions between

Forest Service research station scientists and National Forest resource managers,

followed by an agreement to work together. In some cases, key university

scientists were involved in initial discussions, then included in the partnership. The

initial commitment to work together is critical, because a year or more of

workshops, individual dialogues, and writing may be necessary to complete the

process.

14
Provide scientific education on climate change. All personnel involved in the

adaptation process need a fundamental, consistent understanding of physical and

biological phenomena affected by a changing climate. As scientific information

about climate change becomes more widespread, resource managers in federal

agencies are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about specific aspects of

climatology and climate change effects, although it should not be assumed that

everyone at a particular location has the same knowledge about climate change. A

one- or two-day session on climate change science can get people thinking about

how climate change may affect the lands they manage. An educational event with

a series of speakers, including lots of discussion time, can be particularly helpful.

In addition, some may wish to use the “Climate Change Short Course” (cite) or

other Web-based materials instead of or in addition to a live event.

Develop a vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability of a particular landscape to a

warmer climate is determined by assessing the sensitivity of resources to change

and their capability to respond to a change. This is a challenging feature of the

adaptation process, and will typically be led by a small scientific team in

cooperation with resource specialists for the National Forest. It is usually

unrealistic to try to assess the vulnerability of all resources for any particular

location. Therefore, it is helpful for local resource managers to identify those

resources that are considered to be highest priority, regardless of the criteria used to

determine priorities. Resource categories can be as broad as “wildlife” or as

narrow as a specific watershed. The finer the resolution of interest, the more

15
information and time will be needed for vulnerability assessment. Detailed

scientific documentation for the vulnerability assessment is needed to support

adaptation options.

Develop adaptation options. Adaptation options can be developed after

vulnerability assessments have been completed and are thoroughly understood by

scientists and managers. Adaptation options will typically be generated for

individual resource disciplines (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, water, recreation, etc.),

although it is also reasonable to focus on adaptation for individual biogeographic

entities (e.g., watersheds, subalpine forests, coastal ecosystems, etc.). The best

approach for eliciting adaptation options is to have scientists challenge resource

managers with questions, such as “Which management approaches can be used to

adapt to potentially rapid change in climate and resource conditions?” Managers,

who are the experts on local landscapes, can then respond with various options—

either strategic or tactical—that provide a potential pathway for achieving desired

resource conditions in the future.

Implement climate change information in planning. Each management unit

needs to decide exactly how they want to use vulnerability assessments and

adaptation options. National Forests in the process of revising their Land

Management Plan may want to customize this information for various sections of

the Plan. Others may want to incorporate climate change information in specific

long-term plans (e.g., fire management plan), project plans (e.g., forest thinning),

and permitting processes (e.g., ski areas). Increasingly, climate change information

16
 will need to be included in Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental

Assessments, and other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, so

thorough documentation of scientific concepts and management approaches will be

critical.

Techniques for Developing Adaptation Options

Several different processes and techniques can be implemented by federal land

management units that want to develop options for adapting to a warmer climate.

Selecting a process that works for a specific management unit is a critical first step in

ensuring a productive effort. For example, we found that organizational structures in large

(e.g., Inyo; management directed from Ranger Districts) versus small (e.g., Olympic;

management directed from the Supervisor’s Office) National Forests affected preferences

for number and kinds of workshops. It is better to customize a process to match

preferences of people in a given location, rather than impose an off-the-shelf process that

may be poorly suited to local objectives or working styles. In addition to a specific process

for organizing and facilitating the compilation of information and ideas, the science-

management partnership must have good communication, a consensus on specific

objectives, and an established schedule.

Through recent collaborations with individual National Forests and National Parks, we

identified processes and techniques that can facilitate climate change adaptation. Many

kinds of collaborative approaches can be used to convene groups and elicit information for

specific applications, and our efforts represent only a small sample. The value of

collaborative approaches is enhanced by effective leadership, well organized sessions, and

17
a strong commitment by all parties to participate. Collaborative processes will typically be

successful if these characteristics are established early in the project.

A research scientist, postdoctoral scientist, or similar highly trained person located

within or near a management unit is needed to provide scientific leadership and interact

with resource management staff during the adaptation effort. A resource staff director or

similar person with oversight of resource management is needed to provide management

leadership, coordinate with the scientific leader of the adaptation effort, and ensure that

local managers fulfill commitments for the adaptation effort. Frequent discussions

between the scientific and management leaders will ensure that activities and writing are

proceeding according to schedule. Opportunities may also exist to include university

scientists, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders in the collaboration,

depending on the preferences of participants in the science-management partnership.

Olympic Case Study: Using workshops and facilitated dialogues

The Olympic Case Study (see full report in appendix) was a partnership among

Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, the Forest Service Pacific Northwest

Research Station, and the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. Scientists

from the latter two organizations provided scientific information on climate change and

climate change effects, including a leadership role on vulnerability assessment, while the

federal resource managers provided adaptation options.

Initial educational sessions were convened by local scientific experts for a large

number of resource managers at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park.

These sessions focused broadly on climate change and climate change effects as a means

18
of ensuring a scientific foundation prior to the next steps in the process. Forest Service

and National Park Service managers jointly requested that the adaptation effort focus on

hydrology and roads, vegetation, wildlife, and fish. All subsequent efforts were focused on

these topics.

A series of paired workshops allowed scientists and managers to develop vulnerability

assessments and adaptation options. For each disciplinary topic (hydrology and roads,

vegetation, etc.), a one-day workshop explored the vulnerability of each resource to a

warmer climate. Vulnerability assessment workshops consisted of several scientific

presentations followed by facilitated discussion through which a list of potential effects

was compiled. A subsequent adaptation workshop was convened a week or more later to

develop adaptation options based on the prior vulnerability assessment. Adaptation

options were elicited through a structured facilitated dialogue between scientists and

managers, with scientists asking questions and managers giving responses (Littell et al., in

review). This dialogue resulted in a list of adaptation options for management issues

within each disciplinary topic. Consensus was reached on most adaptation options.

All aspects of the workshops, scientific information, vulnerability assessments, and

adaptation options were documented and compiled in a report. This report represents a

unified statement on adaptation for Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park,

with full support of the Forest Supervisor and Park Superintendent, respectively. The

report is a reference for management, not an “official” planning document. The Forest and

Park chose to develop mostly strategic adaptation options, as opposed to specific actions at

specific places, because they wanted to retain flexibility for individual projects and plans.

19
 A strong collaborative relationship between Forest Service and National Park Service

personnel contributed to the success of the Olympic Case Study. These resource managers

were accustomed to working together on issues of common interest, so they could quickly

engage with each other, as well as with the topic of climate change. The availability of

scientific expertise on climate change science at the University of Washington provided

high credibility to the scientific component of the case study. All scientists made an effort

to communicate information in a manner that was accessible to managers. Finally, a

commitment by all parties to writing and reviewing individual sections of the report was

essential in documenting the workshop deliberations in a timely manner. Resource

managers were initially concerned about the time required for the adaptation process, and

eight workshops may seem like a large time investment. However, all sessions were

designed to efficiently communicate and elicit information in deference to the small

amount of time most managers had available. Follow-up conversations with individual

managers were used to fill information gaps and clarify topics from the workshops.

California Case Studies

In California we conducted climate case studies on two USFS units, the Tahoe National

Forest (TNF, northern Sierra Nevada) and Inyo National Forest (INF, south-eastern Sierra

Nevada), and a NPS unit, Devils Postpile National Monument (DEPO, central Sierra Nevada

crest) (Appendix C). We used similar overall approaches as in the Washington case studies,

although these were tailored to specific resource conditions, resource staff capacity and priority,

and general readiness of the units. An important conclusion is that differences among the units in

these latter conditions resulted in quite different approaches to each case study.

20
 Conversations about climate with the TNF began during a prior project for the U.S. Climate

Change Science Program. This first phase was launched by hosting a one-day climate science

and applications workshop. Subsequent dialog involved group and individual interviews with

resource and planning staff about climate-related issues on the forest (Joyce et al. 2008,

Appendix X; Littell et al. in review). Combined, these communications resulted in a list of

challenges, opportunities, and barriers to incorporating climate-change on the TNF [Table 4.1

DAVE: This list could be made into a table; perhaps best if combines TNF & ONF – such

as from Littell et al Tables 2 & 3; I haven’t done this yet]. A second phase TNF case study

followed under the auspices of the WestWide Climate Initiative (WWCI). Two USFS

presidential management fellows from the WWCI worked on the TNF for a eight-month period,

during which time they embedded in ongoing resource projects and engaged dialog about

climate-impacts on specific TNF resource issues. Specifically they developed a prototype

Climate Project Screening Tool, initially considered a rapid-audit checklist for projects on the

TNF Schedule of Project Actions (SOPA) list (Appendix C – xx). This effort was expanded on

the INF case study and elaborated below.

We engaged a second national-forest in California, the INF, to broaden the geographic and

resource scope of our climate dialog with USFS units. Whereas the TNF historically has been a

timber-water-grazing unit focused on managing productive mid-elevation conifer forests and

critical watersheds, the INF encompasses alpine and semi-arid mountainous terrain with large

amounts of Wilderness. Resource issues are dominantly recreation-based with diminishing

amounts of livestock grazing. At the onset of our case study, the 11 national forests of the Sierra

Nevada including the INF were embarking on revisions of national forest land-management

plans (LMP). Climate concerns were to be central in these revisions, and our case study was

21
planned to incorporate climate into the INF-LMP revision process. Due to court-ordered appeal

of the national Planning Rule, however, the revision process was put on hold indefinitely, and we

shifted the case study objective to adaptation planning for resource projects.

Science leadership for the INF case study was provided primarily by a WWCI post-doctoral

scientist. The case study began by convening two ½-day climate-education workshops about 6

months apart (Appendix C -- xx), during which time WWCI scientists presented basic climate-

science background information, interpreted global and regional climate and impacts trends, and

engaged dialog on issues of potential climate concern for INF responsibilities. From the latter we

compiled a list of tasks that INF staff requested of us and subsequently completed. These

included 1) compiling a reference background document that summarized climate trends and

adaptation options relevant to the eastern Sierra Nevada region (Appendix C – xx contains the

document, which is a template of what could be developed for other national forests); 2)

developing a climate- and climate-impacts digital bibliography

(www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/climate_change/wwci_toolkit/escc_bib/; Appendix C -- xx contains

instructions for creating and maintaining a similar regional bibliography for other regions); 3)

establishing a Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) that includes federal climate- and climate-impact

scientists conversant in eastern Sierra regional issues and willing to serve as a consulting and

review group (Appendix C –xx gives the charter for the SAB; see Fig. 5.2 for a flowchart of

options for consulting with science in addition to an SAB); preparing a report and field survey

form for a potentially novel climate threat to aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands in the eastern

Sierra (Appendix C – xx includes the survey form, instructions for use, and aspen report); 4)

participating as team member representing climate in the INF public-collaboration process

intended as preliminary to the aborted LMP revision process (Appendix C – xx); 5) developing

22
the Climate Project Screening Tool beyond the scope conducted on the TNF (see section below;

full report in Appendix C – xx); and 6) convening a 2-day climate-applications workshop that

concluded the case study (Table 4.2 and Appendix C – xx, which gives the workshop agenda,

notes, and key lessons learned). These projects constituted the education, communication,

collaboration, and resource-review elements of the INF case study. The steps for the INF

beyond the WWCI are to implement new and modified resource treatments in response to case-

study discussions and products, and to incorporate climate considerations into the eventual LMP

revision process.

A third California case study involved Devils Postpile National Monument, a small high-

Sierra national-park unit surrounded by USFS lands administered by the INF. Collaboration

between the INF and DEPO staffs is strong, and hence the combined DEPO and INF case studies

are similar to Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain WWCI case studies where adjoining park

service and forest service units shared landscapes, resource issues, and adaptation concerns. As

with the INF at the outset of the project, DEPO was similarly embarking on development of a

General Management Plan (GMP), an effort that, unlike the USFS situation, remains underway.

This 3-year process continues beyond the scope of WWCI, but the critical foundation work of

the initial year enabled climate issues to be established in central focus of the evolving GMP.

As in other case studies, the DEPO effort launched with a science workshop that focused on

the DEPO landscape and resources, and included climate- and climate-impacts presentations,

presentations by resource staff that addressed specific resource concerns, and group discussion to

elaborate science gaps and potential adaptation options (Appendix C – xx). Early in the

conversations two climate-related elements surfaced that continue to be central in the DEPO

GMP process: the need for high-resolution climate monitoring of the DEPO landscape, and the

23
potential role of DEPO as located in an important cold-air pool that could serve as a climate

refugium. Interest in the latter prompted a request by WWCI scientists to develop an analysis of

cold-air pooling in the upper watershed that contains DEPO (Appendix C – xx contains the

analysis). The role of refugia as a climate adaptation option will be written as a separate WWCI

contribution (Millar and Morelli in prep).

A second Science-Day workshop highlighted ongoing climate-and climate-related science

projects at DEPO. This was a combined field- and classroom format that involved scientists

working at DEPO as well as DEPO and INF resource and planning staff. Abstracts of ongoing

research were compiled and distributed, and a concluding discussion surfaced key research and

monitoring efforts needed to guide future development of management and climate adaptation at

DEPO (Appendix C – xx includes the agenda, abstracts, and notes from adaptation discussion).

As a means to ensure that climate-issues remain central in development of the GMP, a

WWCI scientist continues as a full member of the GMP planning team, a situation that allows

climate- and science input to be embedded in the process. Further, an independent DEPO

Science Technical Committee (nearly identical to the INF SAB but with a preferred name

change) was convened to serve as a broader consulting and review group (charter is in Appendix

C – xx) both for the GMP development and to advise during subsequent implementation of

adaptation treatments.

Climate Project Screening Tool: A rapid assessment for projects and plans

An ideal decision support system for climate change adaptation promotes adaptation

thinking, as well as specific adaptation options that can be implemented in resource

management. The Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST) was developed to address this

24
need and to formalize the process for incorporating climate change information (Morelli et

al., in press). The CPST is a process-oriented, priority-setting tool that allows users to

consider effects of different actions and direct management. The tool also attempts to

reduce uncertainty in decision making by identifying the range of effects that management

actions may have on resource conditions.

The CPST is a straightforward, structured approach for evaluating specific kinds of

projects for federal lands (fig. xx). For each project activity, the CPST: (1) summarizes

climate change trends and local effects (vulnerability assessment), (2) poses key questions

to resource managers regarding how those effects might influence the project activity, (3)

requires managers to complete a narrative that summarizes responses to the questions in

#2, and (4) concludes with a judgment to continue the project without modification,

continue the project with modification, or not continue the project.

The CPST is flexible with respect to which project activities can be considered.

Morelli et al. (2010) cite the following examples of potential activities: thinning for

hazardous fuels management, prescribed fire, postfire timber harvest operations,

reforestation, aspen restoration, meadow restoration, stream restoration, aquatic and

wildlife species restoration, grazing, road maintenance and construction, road

decommissioning, and recreation planning. These activities can be addressed by the CPST

at large spatial scales (e.g., national forest) or smaller spatial scales (e.g., small watershed).

They can be addressed for general and strategic cases (e.g., forest thinning) or for specific

applications (e.g., forest thinning in a specific management unit).

A structured approach like the CPST makes the adaptation process more tangible for

resource managers. It can be applied directly to a Land Management Plan, general

25
strategic plan (e.g., fire management plan), or a specific project. It is especially useful

prior to the preparation of NEPA documents, because the CPST can evaluate the effects of

alternative activities in a warmer climate. Although not required within the CPST,

scientific documentation (i.e., references from the scientific literature) can strengthen the

rationale for each decision. This documentation would be required by NEPA documents,

so compiling this information during the decision-making process of the CPST may save

time in the long run.

The amount of detail included in each category of the CPST (fig. xx) may vary

according to the preferences of individual users. In some cases, the specific climate

change trends and effects may be uncertain, or there could be multiple outcomes. In these

cases, it is helpful to summarize all possibilities if the selection of one outcome is not

possible. Then multiple key questions and multiple responses can be summarized. An

accurate representation of uncertainty is a valuable part of the decision-making process and

should not be considered ambiguous.

TACCIMO (McNulty)

Climate change education (Swanston)

LINDASENT TO

American people. Because of these responsibilities, federal scientists and land

managers are tasked with reducing the negative effects of climate change on ecosystem

26
function and services, while promoting and enabling beneficial aspects. Timely

implementation of strategic and tactical adaptation options, with an emphasis on practical

approaches that can be applied within the broader context of sustainable resource

management, will be critical to meet both goals (Innes et al. 2009).

The U.S. Forest Service administers over 78 million ha of land in 155 National Forests and

20 National Grasslands. The Forest Service also advises and partners with a wide range of

public and private land managers, stakeholders, and the international community. The

National Forest System encompasses a wide range of different ecosystems and much of the

country’s terrestrial biodiversity. In addition to biodiversity, other ecosystem services

provided by the National Forest System include timber, grazing, municipal and agricultural

water supplies, recreation, and aesthetics. Climate change will affect all of these

ecosystem services provided by National Forests, perhaps most importantly, water

supplies. The Forest Service is responsible for restoring, sustaining, and enhancing forests

and grasslands while providing and sustaining benefits to the Efforts to develop strategies

that facilitate adaptation to documented (e.g., altered hydrologic systems [Barnett et al.

2008]) and expected (e.g., increased area burned by wildfire [Westerling et al. 2006a])

responses to climate change are now beginning in earnest by the U.S. federal government.

In the most substantive effort to date, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program developed

a summary of adaptation options for federal land management agencies (Synthesis and

Assessment Product 4.4; Julius and West 2008), with one chapter devoted to adaptation on

U.S. Forest Service lands (Joyce et al. 2008). Recent discussions on adaptation emphasize

the importance of implementing adaptive management (in a general sense, as opposed to

adaptation to climate change), with resource monitoring as a critical feedback to evaluation

of management strategies (Millar et al. 2007, Bosworth et al. 2008, Joyce et al. 2008).

27
relevant and usable for natural resource managers from a tactical or operational perspective

(Ogden and Innes 2007a, 2007b, 2008).

Only a few sources contain information on adaptation to climate change that is general

adaptation strategies (Millar et al. 2007, Joyce et al. 2008, Innes et al. 2009). ), and

biological diversity (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Recent information on climate change

adaptation for natural resources provides Slaughter and Wiener 2007, Sadowski 2008.

Recent efforts on adaptation to climate change have focused primarily on conceptual issues

addressed through general scientific discussion (MacIver and Dallmeier 2000, Wilkinson

et al. 2002, Hansen et al. 2003, Easterling et al. 2004, FAO 2007), social and economic

adaptation (Kane and Yohe 2000, Smith et al. 2000), proposed actions by governmental

institutions (Rojas Blanco 2006, Joyce et al. 2007, IPCC 2007, Ligeti et al. 2007, Snover et

al. 2007), individual resources (and in western North America in association with well-

publicized reports on regional climate and hydrologic trends (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Mote et

al. 2005, Knowles et al. 2006)Awareness of the need to incorporate climate change into

resource management and planning increased in association with the Fourth Assessment by

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) uncertainty associated with

those effects.

; andthe magnitude of potential effects on ecosystem structure, process, and

functionPlanning and managing for the anticipated effects of climate change on natural

resources is in its infancy on public lands in the United States (U.S.). Despite the fact that

over 20 years of data are available from federally funded research programs, federal

agencies have been slow to integrate climate change as a factor in projected future

28
conditions of resources, planning strategies, and on-the-ground applications. This slow

response has been due to lack of local information on climate change effects;

Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 5:

Developing Adaptation Options: A Toolbox Approach

Vs 021410a millar

Chapter Four summarized approaches for engaging discussion and education on climate

change and its implications to resource management. In this chapter we present a conceptual

framework for developing adaptation options in a national-forest context. The strategic and

tactical steps and examples outlined here were developed in dialog with scientists, managers, and

decision-makers. We take a toolbox approach, offering an array of options from which a

manager can select approaches that are most effective and appropriate for projects, landscapes,

time-scales, resource-areas, or budgets in question. Whereas Forest Service organization is

organized traditionally by resource areas (timber, range, recreation, wilderness, etc.), in this

chapter we move beyond disciplinary organization to introduce process-oriented approaches. In

so doing, we hope to provoke innovative thinking about the challenges and opportunities that

climate change brings, and to stimulate dynamic and effective solutions. We include examples in

text boxes throughout the chapter to demonstrate the relationship of familiar resource areas to the

conceptual framework presented here.

Ecosystem Management – The Basis for Action

29
 The groundswell of attention and explosion of new scientific understanding in recent years

appropriately and decisively brought the issue of climate change to center stage in resource

management arenas. This heightened attention simultaneously triggered concern and question in

resource circles on what to do about it. Such magnitude of novel stresses, it seemed, surely must

demand overhaul of traditional resource-management practices, and replacement with entirely

new paradigms. Fortunately, in all but specific cases, the foundations of ecosystem management

(EM) as adopted and practiced in land-managing agencies since the late 1980s (e.g., Grumbine

1994, Kaufmann et al. 1994, Kohm and Franklin 1997, Lackey 1995, USDA FS 1995) remain

adequate as a general basis for addressing anthropogenic climate change. This follows because

EM acknowledges that natural systems are continuously changing (Kohm and Franklin 1997,

Millar and Woolfenden 1999, Tausch et al. 2004); recognizes that such dynamics bring high

levels of uncertainty (Williams and Jackson 2007); stresses interconnections of natural processes

with structure and composition (Kohm and Franklin 1997, USDA FS 1993, 1995; Heinimann

2010); embraces the integrated nature of watersheds and entire ecosystems (Folke et al. 2004,

Heathcote 1998); focuses on species interactions with each other and their environment

(Christensen et al. 1996, Costanza et al. 1992); and emphasizes disturbance processes as essential

to species and ecosystem health (Folke et al. 2004, Kohm and Franklin 1997).

Natural climate change is one of the drivers of ecological change that EM has long

recognized (Millar and Woolfenden 1999, Swetnam et al. 1999, Tausch et al. 2004), although

resource attention to this has been mostly missing in operational practice. In the broadest terms,

managing for climate change has been in need of attention for decades, as natural changes at

interannual and interdecadal scales brought unrecognized and unaddressed challenges to

managers even before the current climate-change era. Incorporating anthropogenic climate

change is an extension of this imperative. As outlined in this chapter, situations where

30
traditional EM concepts may require renovation or abandonment include those where the past is

assumed to be similar to the future – and thus where historic conditions has been used as a target

for management -- and in general any situation where environmental and ecologic conditions are

assumed to be static or in successional equilibrium.

One of the most challenging perspectives facing managers as a result of anthropogenic

climate change is the prospect of continuous climate change interacting with complex – and in

many cases unknowable --responses in the environment. Some ecological impacts of climate

change are expected to be gradual, such as increasing density of western conifer forests. Some

may be episodic and reversible, such as exotic invasions or periods of catastrophic wildfire.

Others yet may be entirely unexpected and novel due to complex ecological responses to climate

change (Jackson 1987, Jackson and Overpeck 2000, Williams and Jackson 2007), interacting

with micro-climatic processes that remain poorly understood.

Because change is a most likely constant for the future, an emphasis in climate adaptation

strategies is to manage for ecological process and ecosystems services rather than for structure or

composition (Chambers et al. 2004, Millar and Brubaker 2006). This might mean, for instance,

working with disturbance events (fire or insect/pathogen outbreaks) to create dynamic landscape

mosaics of forest patches, rather than designating specific, static and fixedand static land units

and expecting these to remain over time. Encouraging natural regeneration post-disturbance is

another example of managing for process, even if the species-mix or life-form (tree vs. shrub vs.

grassland) differs from former vegetative cover. Or, if artificial regeneration is imperative,

planting with broader mixes of species and germplasm than formerly, and allowing natural

selection to cull, is an approach to managing for climate change.

In the short term, impacts of changing climate are affecting national forest species and

ecosystems most commonly through altered disturbance regimes (Joyce et al. 2008). Compound

31
stresses that involve changes in behavior, timing, and interaction of fire, insects and disease,

invasive species, flood, and wind, for instance, are among the first impacts of climate change that

are affecting forest and rangelands now. Thus, addressing and managing multiple stresses and

novel disturbance impacts is the first line of defense for climate adaptation. Maintaining

ecosystem services, such as watershed protection, water delivery, clean air, recreation

opportunities, or visual quality become increasingly critical priorities. Monitoring and adaptive

management, also time-honored EM practices although rarely implemented, must become

routine in a climate-adaptation context.

One of the obvious adjustments to routine resource management brought by changing

climates is a reshuffling of priorities. Vulnerability assessments (see for example –point to the

Watershed Vulnerability Assessment text in the Handbook) highlight relative risks that can guide

development of appropriate management priorities. Although climate change is only one of

many forces influencing decisions about priority, it is one that has not been addressed routinely

or adequately in the past.

The conceptual framework and strategic steps outlined below offer a process for how to get

started with integrating climate adaptation into routine resource-management work. This is by no

means the only effective framework; many other approaches have been suggested and some

might work better in specific cases or for particular regions. What follows is also not a cookbook

approach for incorporating climate, but an invitation to think about strategies that have proven

useful for resource managers. Ultimately this approach may evolve, or other approaches,

different reference terms, and changes in emphases may prove more useful. Effective

approaches lead to the same end: comprehensive understanding of the influence of climate

change on natural resources and effective development of adaptation actions to address them.

Steps for Developing Adaptation Options

32
 Described below are four primary steps, suggested by a USFS resource manager engaged in

WWCI case studies on climate change, to organize action when addressing climate-related

resource conditions, assessments, plans, or projects (Fig. 5.1; Michele Slaton, Inyo National

Forest, 2009). These include 1) review, that is, educate oneself, staffs, ID teams, and/or the

public about climate science and climate impacts to ecosystems and especially on potential

implications of climate change to a project or issue under consideration, 2) rank, that is, assess

vulnerabilities and develop short- and long-term priorities, 3) resolve, that is, develop solutions

and implement conservation, management, and/or monitoring practices, and 4) observe response

to treatment and modify appropriately. Each step is developed below.

Step 1: Review

. Table 5.1 specific. Managers and decision-makers cannot be expected to incorporate

climate impacts effectively in resource work unless they have the opportunity to become

educated about these topics. Because forestry and natural-resource college curricula did not

include climate sciences until very recently, most resource staff do not have a background in

these fields. A widespread need across national forest system, thus, is to raise the general level of

knowledge and awareness about climate science and climate impacts. Chapter Four in this

Guidebook outlined useful approaches for bringing general scientific information about climate

and ecological responses to managers through workshop and short-course approachesclimate

education, both general anda call for basically The review step is content of this education should

include modules on basic principles of climate science (e.g., “Climate 101”: meteorological and

climatic processes; historic climate; future projections); ecologic and environmental interactions

and responses to climate change (historic and projected future responses); and management

approaches (reviews of literature such as this Guidebook). The geographic scope of education

33
should be tiered from the general scale (global, regional) to the most specific available for the

local area. Appropriate policy and legal documents also should be consulted.

website (Chapter 7, A) is a useful first step. Science-management partnerships, details and

special assignments, mentorships, literature reviews, climate-change courses, and climate-

scenario exercises all provide useful means for attaining both general and locally-relevant

background climate information. The Climate Change Resource Centerlists other opportunities

for securing this basic educational background. Consulting the After attaining general

background knowledge about climate change and ecological responses to climate, Tthe next

review step is to bring knowledge into specific project analyses and planning efforts. At the

onset of any resource project – involving a small or large area; short- or long term; planning

process, project development, inventory, or monitoring effort – the project leader needs to

determine whether climate change is affecting or likely to affect the project. There are several

ways to help determine this, from discussion with specialists and targeted literature review to in-

depth assessments and vulnerability analyses (Chapter 7, E). A useful guide for near-term and

projects soon to be implemented is the Climate Project Screening Tool (see Figure 4.1, also

Appendix D), developed for use with WWCI case-study units. This tool addresses projects on

the national forest SOPA (Schedule of Proposed Actions) lists, and, through a question-answer,

interview format, provokes discussion and thinking about the role of climate in a specific

proposed action. If it is determined that climate change will likely affect the project, then this

would be identified as needing further attention in a climate perspective, and those aspects most

likely influenced would be highlighted for specific consideration.

In situations where conditions are complex, long-term, have high uncertainty, and/or involve

multiple resource areas, consultation with a scientific technical committee may be needed to

34
comprehend the relevant background conditions. Consultation can range from one-time

discussion with local scientists to interaction with established and dedicated regional science

advisory boards (Fig. 5.2, and see Appendix C for example of a charter). These advisory boards

can serve to address questions and reviews on case-by-case basis, or be chartered to undertake

specific analyses and evaluations. For large-scale and long-term projects, comprehensive

evaluations are likely to be necessary. Existing protocols, such as those developed for watershed

assessment (Furniss et al. In press, Heathcote 1998, Hornbeck et al. 1992), ecoregional

assessments (Johnson et al. 1999), and climate vulnerability analyses (Turner et al. 2003)

typically address the role of climate, although they might need to be modified for emphasis on

climate effects. These assessments can be conducted by resource specialists alone; in

consultation with science partners; or completed by scientist collaborators, such as a science

advisory board.

Step 2: Rank

Once climate-related background materials have been adequately reviewed, projects need to

be ranked, that is, relative priorities for action determined. This step is especially important in a

climate context. Whereas after review of potential climate impacts on a project details of

management treatment might not differ from what would be done otherwise, relative priorities of

projects are likely to change because of climate concerns. Typical national forests have long lists

of projects on the SOPA lists, as well as many future and long-term plans and projects in queue.

Recognizing limited staff and budgets, a key element of decision-making, thus, is to rank

projects for priority of implementation.

Three strategic junctures for incorporating climate change in resource priorities are

defensible (Joyce et al. 2008). An obvious opportunity comes after major disturbance, such as

fire, flood, or mortality events. By taking advantage of disturbance, ecological trajectories can

35
be reset by management decision along new, climate-adapted directions. In so doing, the

manager mimics historic processes by which species have adapted to natural climate change.

Planting with new species mixes or new germplasm combinations, or assisting development of

new animal habitats after disturbance, are examples for this opportunity.

A second juncture for incorporating climate-sensitive actions is in planning proactive

adaptation that enables species and ecosystems to shift gradually to new states. Examples would

be to prescribe fire, to introduce new species mixes, or to move species’ propagules to new

locations. A final point of decision is when priority-setting exercise has deemed that no climate-

related action is warranted. While no action in response to climate impacts may often – and

rightly – appear to be denial or avoidance of apparent needs and responsibilities, there are many

situations where no action is defensible. These might include, for instance, resources deemed

after vulnerability analysis to be at low risk, species that have stable and buffered populations,

and refugial areas that appear to have low response to regional climate change effects. Additional

guides for taking action or postponing action are given in Fig. 5.3.

Priorities in a climate-change context usually will differ for short- versus long-term projects.

This is the case for several reasons. First, uncertainties increase over time, and thus our ability to

rank projects for the long term demands more risk-taking. As described elsewhere in this

Guidebook (Chapter 7, B), managers and decision-makers routinely address many types of

uncertainty. To these are now added uncertainties related to how climate will change locally,

and how local species and ecosystems will respond. These uncertainties are smaller in the near

term because there are fewer unknown variables. As well, because climate change is relatively

gradual, environmental and ecological responses in 10-20 years due to climate are anticipated to

be relatively small compared to magnitudes of change anticipated in 50-100 years. In the near

term, natural interannual and decadal climate modes such as the El-Niño/La Niña cycle (Diaz

36
and Markgraf 2007) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Mantua et al. 1997) will continue to

drive variation that affects natural systems and tend to swamp longer term trends. Over time –

potentially a few decades for some situations and longer for others – interaction of anthropogenic

climate trends with natural climate mechanisms will become stronger and dominate. Finally as

mentioned above, climate-change effects will be expressed most dramatically in the short term in

changes to disturbance regimes (e.g., increase in extreme fire or flood events) and driving novel

multiple-stress situations (e.g., pest-pathogen-fire-invasive-mortality).

For these reasons, ranking adaptation options in the short term is based on higher certainty

and effects of multiple-stressors while long-term priorities will be determined in context of

greater uncertainty yet more direct effects of anthropogenic climate change. In the short term,

managers can effectively and adequately address climate concerns by minimizing and reducing

detrimental human effects; taking actions to improve forest and ecological health; managing

impacts of disturbance and multiple stresses; and withdrawing or assigning low priority to

projects that are likely to be unsuccessful because of long-term climate trends (Table 5.2a).

Examples of minimizing human effects include prescribing fuel reduction and managed fire in

areas affected by fire suppression; restoring rangelands, meadows and riparian corridors affected

by overgrazing; and removing exotic species. Many of these satisfy a goal to improve species

and ecosystem health regardless of climate impacts. Examples of actions that address multiple

stresses include removing or mitigating offending conditions jointly such as projects that

combine removal of exotic invasives, reduction of forest stand densities, and lessening disease

risks. Other examples might be administrative, such changes in hiring schedules of fire-control

or forest-health staff to accommodate increasingly severe fires, fires in novel landscape regions,

new types of insect and pathogen outbreaks, and year-round control needs. An example of a

project that has low probability to succeed is restoration of species into habitats that are unlikely

37
to be suitable in the future due to effects from climate. Reintroducing salmon into rivers at the

southern end of their distribution range, where water temperatures are likely to be too high to

support fish populations, is a decision that might be reconsidered.

The Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST, Chapter 4 and Appendix C) was developed in

conjunction with western case-study forests as a guide to setting priorities from SOPA lists. In

addition to its value as a background review tool, the CPST is intended to result in decisions

about which projects deserve further attention for climate adaptation, and which are unlikely to

be affected by climate and thus can proceed without further ranking.

Over longer time, as climate trajectories deviate significantly from natural variability, direct

effects are expected on species and ecosystems. Species migrations, changes in vegetation and

faunal assemblages, conversion of community types, and major shifts in watershed condition are

anticipated. At this scale, management priorities should focus on minimizing significantly

disruptive ecological conversions and on guiding and assisting transitions to desired new

functions (Table 5.2b). Examples of actions include aggressive planting to maintain desired

cover types; planting novel mixes of species after fire or in restoration sites; using germplasm

from non-local sites in regeneration and re-introduction projects; and assisting species migration

to novel locations.

Because the role of uncertainty looms greater for ranking long-term projects, in-depth risk-

assessment and uncertainty analyses are most important in these contexts. These are most likely

revealed in comprehensive watershed analysis evaluations (see XX where WVA is addressed in

this handbook, and also Furniss et al. in press, Heathcote 1998), ecoregional assessments

(Johnson et al. 1999), and vulnerability assessments (Turner et al. 2003, Yohe 2000). Further

UNCERTAINTY TOOLS?

38
 There are many tools and guides available to help in overall ranking exercises (IPCC 2001,

Moser and Luers 2008). Prioritizing no-regret adaptation actions is one method. This approach

highly ranks measures and practices that are justified under all plausible future climate scenarios,

even if anthropogenic climate change does not have an effect. A no-regret action is one that

benefits other resources than those affected by climate and would continue to be beneficial in the

future irrespective of climate change. Related to this are low-regret adaptation options. These

include situations where project costs are relatively low, where project effectiveness is likely

high even given future uncertainties, and where under anticipated future climates, anticipated

benefits are potentially great. Win-win adaptation options imply actions that provide benefits to

many resources under climate-change threats, and also confer benefits for non-climate reasons.

In all cases, these imply situations where actions might are proposed, for instance, to reduce

catastrophic fire, enhance species of concern, restore watershed health, or improve forest

productivity yet the action also improves adaptation to climate impacts. One way that climate-

related projects can be ranked is to piggy-back the locations and scale of climate treatments on

other high-ranking projects. For example, if fuel-reduction projects are high-priority on a

national forest, and budgets are available to implement these, for example, in wildland-urban

interface (WUI) zones, climate-targeted projects that coincide with targeted forest types and

locations in the WUIs would be implemented in tandem.

Triage is another systematic approach to setting priorities (Mitchell 2008, Millar et al. 2007,

Yohe 2000). Often misinterpreted as a unreasoned reaction to crisis, triage is, by contrast, a

rigorous, process-based, and methodical approach to treating emergency situations where

capacity to respond adequately is less than the immediate need. Triage comes from the French

word, triare, meaning to sort, was developed initially for battlefield situations, and has been

widely adapted for civil disaster and emergency-response situations. Under a triage approach,

39
projects (“patients”) are sorted into categories based on their need for immediate attention,

urgency of condition, capacity for treatment to be implemented (budget, staff, skill), and

likelihood of treatment-success given available capacity. Sorting gives categories for priority of

treatment (Fig. 5.43). With medical triage each situation (patient) is valued equally when ranked.

Because this is rarely the case in resource contexts, however, a weighting could be added, or

projects of similar value could be evaluated in separate triage exercises.

When values differ greatly, stakes are high, uncertainties are large with outcomes interpreted

differently by staff or groups of interest, and treatments are costly, collaborative approaches to

ranking and priority setting are called for. Many collaborative frameworks exist within resource

contexts (Cortner and Moote 1999), and most can be adapted for application to climate contexts.

Key to the success of collaborative processes is that all stakeholder positions are represented; all

positions and appropriate input are evaluated and reviewed; ground-rules and constraints of law,

policy, and decision-making are clearly defined from the outset; and implementation of actions is

consistent from collaborative decisions.

Step 3: Resolve

Once the impacts of climate change have been reviewed and project priorities ranked, a third

step is to resolve decisions about appropriate actions, prescribe treatments, and implement

management actions. Appropriate treatments are determined by the conditions and context of the

resource; social and ecological values; time-scales for management; and feasible goals for

treatment relative to climate impacts. Adaptation literature most commonly focuses on resilience

as a primary goal to address these factors (Hansen et al. 2003). We expand this framework to

address potential adaptation strategies along four options: resistance, resilience, response, and

realignment (Fig. 5.1). These are developed to encourage thinking about the range and kinds of

options possible. The strategies are described from most conservative tactics and short-term

40
applicability to proactive and long-term approaches. Offering four options does not imply that a

treatment must – or will -- fit into one specific category. While some treatments will reflect only

one strategy, others appropriately combine goals. The overriding objective is to construct

effective management solutions that fit the situation at hand.

The four adaptation strategies are briefly outlined below; for detail see Joyce et al. 2008 and

Millar et al. 2007.

Promote resistance to climate change. This most conservative strategy includes actions and

treatments that enhance the ability of species, ecosystems, or environments (including social) to

resist forces of climate change and that maintain status quo. This may seem counter to the

imperative of working with change, focusing on dynamics, and moving beyond static solutions

that we encourage throughout this guidebook. Realistically and defensibly, however, there are

situations and times when the goal must be to resist effects of climate. These almost always

involve situations or resources of highest social or ecological value that are extremely vulnerable

to direct or indirect effects of climate change.

Adaptation examples include: constructing heroic fuel breaks around the last-remaining and

highly vulnerable population(s) of a particularly unusual or charismatic endangered plant species

to prevent extinction from climate-aggravated wildfire, drought, or insect/pathogen; rescuing a

highly valued and climate-vulnerable animal species by captive propagation (e.g., California

condor, Gymnogyps californianus); prescribing methods otherwise socially undesired (e.g.,

mechanical harvest, insecticides) to aggressively combat insect mortality that threatens high

value resources (e.g., insect- and pathogen-infected young bristlecone pine forests in the White

Mtns that surround and threaten pine Methuselah and adjacent ancient trees that are the oldest

living organisms on earth); requesting more than otherwise allotted water rights to maintain a

41
unique and ecologically critical aquatic ecosystem (e.g., Mono Lake, CA and water delivery to

Los Angeles for human use); or managing species in refugial locations.

Treatments that attempt to resist climate change almost always are successful as interim or

short-term options only, and become increasingly ineffective over time as impacts of climate

change accumulate. Further, as climate pressure increases, not only does it become more difficult

to resist change, but when change occurs it may be catastrophic (wildfire, massive forest

dieback, species extinction). Thus, decisions that involve resisting change should be entered in

cautiously, and alternatives available for implementation if conditions worsen. These approaches

also are almost always very expensive and require intensive staff time, therefore opportunity

costs should be considered – i.e., what could be done with the time and money otherwise? Some

resistance approaches, however, such as managing high value species in designated refugial

networks, involve relatively low risk or investment. An example is refugial networks proposed

for American pika (Ochotona princeps), a charismatic, small mountain mammal that lives

primarily in alpine Wilderness and is considered at risk from climate change (Millar and Westfall

2010).

Another interpretation of the resistance strategy is to resist proposed (even approved) projects

that are unlikely to succeed because of increasing climate pressure and future conditions.

Examples include removing lodgepole pine seedlings that invade alpine meadows such as

Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite National Park, re-introducing salmon into streams where future

water temperatures will be too high to support them, and chaining (removing) junipers that are

recruiting into Great Basin sagebrush steppe communities.

Develop resilience to climate change. Resilience is the strategy most often recommended for

adaptation (Folke et al. 2004, Hansen et al. 2003). Resilience can have broad or narrow

interpretations. As mentioned above, agreement on definition is less important than how the

42
range of meanings informs development of effective adaptation plans. Resilience in an

engineering context refers to the capacity of a system or condition to return to its prior state after

disturbance (Holling 1996). A bridge or building’s ability to withstand shaking from an

earthquake is a structural example of resilience. In ecological contexts, a forest that faithfully

regenerates and restores its former vegetation structure, composition, and function after wildfire

is resilient (Holling 1996). Resilience in climate contexts also refers to the capacity of a system

or environment to withstand or absorb increasing impact without changing state (Chapin et al.

2006). In that climate change is anticipated to exert directional change (e.g., increasing

temperature, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels) over time, a resilient system is one that

retains its original character and function in the face of such pressure. By contrast, a non-

resilient, or vulnerable, system would rapidly change state in the face of only minor pressure.

Examples of resilient systems include conifer forests that regenerate to forest rather than

converting to shrub or grasslands following repeated severe wildfire (e.g., pine forests of the

Colorado Plateau); animal species that retain viable populations despite persistent and increasing

climate-induced habitat degradation; and watersheds that retain erosion-control and water-

holding capacities despite climate-influenced floods, fires, insect epidemics or exotic invasions.

In lieu of direct evidence for species showing resilience, such as paleoecological studies, life-

history characteristics shed clues to whether a species might be buffered to changes in climate.

For plants, long-lived and perennial species have proven capable of persisting through many

natural and historic climate change (e.g., bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva); species that have

long-lived seeds that persist in soil banks may be more resilient; and species with high and

annual fecundity (high seed production), wind-pollinated and wind-dispersed seeds that have

long dispersal ranges also are candidates for high resilience. For animals, species that are more

vagile likely have an advantage (birds, bats, flying insects) over those that must move within the

43
constraints of physically connected habitat; seasonal migrants also are likely to be pre-adapted

(e.g. deer, hoary and silver-haired bats, neotropical migrants); and those species that are better at

behavioral thermoregulation, or can store copious amounts of fat, are candidates for higher

resilience to climate (Bill Zielinski, pers. comm., 2/2010). Studies on direct effects of climate

change over the past 100 years, such as the Grinnell resurveys in California (Moritz et al. 2008)

corroborate that these life-history elements confer resilience to species such as California ground

squirrel (Spermophilous beecheyi) and yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris).

Similarly, characteristics can be described for physical systems (e.g., groundwater), whole

ecosystems, and watersheds that help a manager to determine which might be resilient and which

vulnerable. Traditional approaches to watershed assessments have been modified to add analyses

about impacts of climate (Furniss et al. in press), and these point to characteristics that confer

resilience. Those features that buffer watersheds and hydrologic systems against loss of natural

function and ecosystem services relate primarily to geologic substrate and history of disturbance.

Some ecosystems experience considerable disturbance at present, such as desert landscapes that

release enormous sediments during routine rainstorms. These systems, however, may change in

overall processes far less over time (i.e., be more resilient) that systems adapted to less

disturbance at present. MORE HERE FROM FURNISS.

Adaptation treatments that have a goal of increasing resilience are actions that lower species

or system vulnerability to acute or chronic stress. Examples include treatments to reduce forest

densities (thereby minimizing water stress, lowering fire risk, and, in some cases, reducing risk

of insect epidemic) such as mechanical thinning and prescribed fires; efforts to increase stocking

of seed banks maintained for post-disturbance regeneration; enhancing and widening riparian

zones; and projects to remove exotic species where their invasion reduces health of native flora

or faunal or ecosystem function. In a recreation context, resilience is conferred to ski resorts that

44
have snow-making equipment. In regions where climate-change leads to lower snowpacks and

shorter ski seasons, snow-making can both carry a resort through dry spells and extend ski

season length. This capacity can make the difference between a resort continuing as a ski area or

having to convert to another recreation basis, hence snow-making is a means of improving

economic resilience.

As is the situation for the resistance strategy, adaptation options that focus on improving

resilience should be considered short-term solutions. With time and increasing pressure from

accumulated climate change and chronic stress on ecosystems and social communities, major

changes in state are likely inevitable. Managers should be prepared for this likelihood, and have

plans on the shelf for easing transitions when that time comes.

Assist response to climate change. The most proactive strategic actions are those that managers

take to work directly with the changes that climate is provoking, that is, to assist transitions to

future states, and to mitigate and minimize undesired and disruptive outcomes. Projections of

future climate at regional scale (Chapter 7), both downscaled (global-down) and process

(ground-up) models provide the core of understanding potential futures. Downscaled models are

most useful in describing potential futures at large landscape scales and for average climate and

ecological trends. By contrast, local and micro-climatic processes dominate at smaller scales,

especially in heterogeneous environments such as mountains. These often cause local conditions

to be de-coupled with regional climate (Pepin and Lundquist 2008), and thus projecting future

climates or ecological conditions at project scales, which are more commonly the focus of

management concern, is extremely difficult.

Adaptation options that follow this strategy include all those actions that ease transitions in

response to climate. Examples include assisting migration, whereby species (individuals or their

propagules) are moved to locations currently outside native ranges and projected to be favorable

45
future habitat (McLachlan et al. 2007); planting novel species mixes in regeneration or

restoration projects; modifying gene transfer and restoration rules so as to incorporate germplasm

likely more adapted in the future than local germplasm; enhancing riparian habitats and other

dispersal corridors to encourage natural migration; minimizing habitat fragmentation (e.g.,

“checkerboard ownership”) and encouraging collaborative, ecoregional management to promote

natural movements and natural selection; working with disturbance to encourage transitions to

new community conditions; and in rural community context easing economic transition from

dependence on narrow bases such as downhill skiing toward diverse and novel recreation

opportunities (“4-season resorts”).

Realign highly disturbed ecosystems. When ecosystems have been disturbed beyond ranges of

natural variability, restoration goals are often prescribed to return structure, composition,

process, and/or ecosystem services to prior states. Conditions of the project area prior to

disturbance are often used to describe goals for restoration. This approach remains sensible

where disruption has been so severe (e.g., urban development) that restoration is deemed

successful if it returns the site to any quasi-natural condition (e.g., surfacing a stream). In other

cases, however, historic and pre-disturbance conditions make inappropriate targets for restoration

because climate change has and will create significant differences from historic condition (Millar

and Brubaker, 2006). Old-growth forests of western North America, for instance, that

established 300 -500 years ago and grew under the cold climates of the Little Ice Age, are

unlikely to be appropriate examples of forests that will be adapted to warmth and drought

anticipated of the 21st century. In such situations, rather than restoring back to conditions of the

past, a climate-centric strategy is to realign these disrupted systems to present and future

conditions. An example comes from the Mono Lake ecosystem, a unique inland sea ecosystem

that is critical for migrating waterfowl (Millar and Woolfenden 1999). Tributary streams were

46
first diverted to serve water needs of metropolitan Los Angeles in the early 1940s. Continued

diversions led to extreme lowering of late levels, excessive lake salinity, and collapse of the

unique ecosystem and habitat values. Water-balance models that incorporated current and future

precipitation, evaporation, snowpack, and air temperatures were used to develop adaptation and

realignment goals. These continue to be modified as information about future climates and

impacts to Mono Lake’s water status become better known.

Step 4: Observe and Modify

A final step to incorporating adaptation strategies is to observe the effects of implemented

treatment, assess their efficacy, and modify treatments as appropriate. This is, in essence, a step

to inject adaptive management into the climate toolbox. Many existing treatises and guidebooks

for formal adaptive management are available (e.g., Margoluis and Salafsky 1998, Walters 1986)

that are readily modified for climate contexts. Although intuitively reasonable, adaptive

management projects rarely are completed successfully in real-world contexts due to their long-

term nature, staff and analytic requirements, difficulty of attributing cause and effect in resource

conditions, and excessive costs. The suggestion here to observe and modify is meant in a looser

sense than adaptive management – that is, low-technology observations such as repeat-photos are

of equal or greater value than intensive monitoring if they can be implemented successfully. The

key is to observe responses over time in all ways possible and however anecdotally, to learn

from successes, surprises, novelty, and failure, and to use this knowledge to modify future

actions.

47
 Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 7, Pt a

Climate Change Resource Center -- A Reference Websites

Vs 021410a Furniss

Introduction

The Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC) provides land managers with an online

portal to easily access credible, science-based, and relevant information and tools

concerning climate change and ecosystem management options.

delivers original science-based content focused on ecosystem response to climate change,

and on the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies.

CCRCLand managers and practitioners need information and tools to consider climate

change in project planning and implementation. To address this need, the Management

responses to climate challenges depend on access to adequate decision- making tools.

Climate change science is rapidly evolving as data are collected and analyzed and as

changing climate contributes to ecosystem changes throughout the United States. Although

a wealth of online information is available concerning climate change, it can be difficult to

determine which sources are current and scientifically sound. The Climate Change

Resource Center (CCRC) provides land managers with an online portal to easily access

credible, science-based, and relevant information and tools concerning climate change and

ecosystem management options.The CCRC draws together the best scientific knowledge

and expertise to present a coherent picture of how different climate change scenarios affect

48
land management planning and practices. The website highlights existing resources that are

scientifically credible, peer-reviewed and relevant to managers, with regularly updated

content.

Goals
The CCRC has the following goals:
• Literature focused on ecosystem response, adaptation and mitigation.

• Present current scientific research that has practical applications for land managers and

practitioners of public and private lands.

• Support different ways of approaching information through a user-friendly design and

interface and the appropriate use of multimedia.

Scope

The CCRC focuses on scientific research and how it can be applied in the practice of

ecosystem management under climate change. The primary audience of the CCRC is land

managers and practitioners on public lands in the U.S., with small private U.S. landowners and

international ecosystem managers emerging as additional audiences. Although it is not itself a

research institution, the CCRC works with scientists to develop and produce original

presentations of scientific content. The CCRC is not intended as a broad, all-inclusive USDA

Forest Service site on climate change or as an internal working site. It does not provide policy

recommendations.

Organization

The CCRC is a nationwide, collaborative effort of USDA Forest Service Research and

Development, and includes input from the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), Pacific

Southwest Research Station (PSW), Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), Northern

Research Station (NRS), Southern Research Station (SRS); the Western Wildland Environmental
49
Threat Assessment Center (WWETAC), the Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment

Center (EFETAC), and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF).

An editorial board comprised of at least one representative from each research station, each

threat center (WWETAC, EFETAC), and IITF will regularly review a list changes of made to the

CCRC for appropriateness and scientific integrity. The editorial board may also be called upon

by the implementation team to address special questions or concerns with CCRC content

changes and additions as the need arises. [The editorial board will identify any policy concerns

for new materials and will seek further policy review if they deem it necessary].

A design team formed of USDA Forest Service staff interested in the development of the

CCRC will identify and contribute content for the CCRC and will assist with special issues or

projects as needed. The design team includes but is not limited to scientists, land managers and

practitioners, and communications professionals. The implementation team is responsible for the

continued expansion and improvement of the CCRC and is the driving force behind content and

interface changes or additions. Led by two chairs representing both the western and eastern

regions, the implementation team includes technology specialists and communications and

science delivery professionals. Decisions concerning the CCRC will be made by the consensus

of the team chairs. The implementation team has the following responsibilities:

• Develop and maintain the CCRC website. Make improvements to site organization,

navigation and layout.

• Organize and assemble groups of scientists and experts to write and review, or to create

and present via multimedia, original content for the CCRC.

50
 • Assess content submissions to the site and decide if further review is needed. Pass

materials to groups of subject experts or to the Editorial Board as appropriate.

• Maintain a log of changes to the CCRC.

• Seek outside feedback and evaluation to determine if the needs of the target audiences are

being met.

• Communicate on the progress of the CCRC to the general public, stakeholders, land

managers, and leaders of key agencies and institutions. Develop new communication

avenues and tools where appropriate.

Guiding Principles of the CCRC

The following guiding principles govern development of the CCRC:

1) We facilitate access to scientifically credible, peer reviewed resources and to primary

literature within our focus area of climate change and ecosystem response, ecosystem

adaptation and mitigation.

2) We filter through a profusion of climate change information to select resources that are

relevant to land managers and practitioners, are tied to articulated needs, are difficult to

access elsewhere and that fall within our focus area.

3) We present materials in compelling and varied ways, using multimedia and featuring case

studies that demonstrate management actions under climate change. We offer an interface

that allows users to easily navigate the site and to find desired information via multiple

channels and at multiple levels of specificity.

4) We provide timely and fresh information on a rapidly changing subject, using periodic

updates to fulfill the information needs of a returning audience.

5) We openly disclose the limitations of and assumptions of the resources we provide.

51
 6) We seek outside feedback and evaluation to determine if we are meeting the needs of our

audience.

7) We work with other websites and organizations to share information fluidly and

complement the resources they provide.

Examples of Content

Videos???

Shortcourse???

52
Add figures, table of short subjects, etc.

Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 7, Pt C

Using and Assessing Scientific Information

Vs 021410 Peterson

A large amount of literature is available on climate change phenomena (e.g., IPCC

2007), most of which is at regional and larger scales, although an increasing amount of

information is becoming available at sub-regional scales (e.g., Elsner et al. 2009). Finding

and evaluating scientific information that is relevant for a particular topic can be

challenging, and working with local scientific experts is often necessary. Because climate

change science is a young discipline, predicted effects of climate change can be uncertain

and conflicting, which requires users to consider the scientific credibility and applicability

of different sources.

Several actions are recommended to determine the best available science for a

particular application (Peterson et al. 2007):

Keep processes objective and credible. First, summarize the array of principles,

information, and tools available for a particular topic, then determine if appropriate

peer review has been conducted according to specific standards for the application

of scientific information in resource management on public lands (Federal Register

2002, Office of Management and Budget 2004). Many of the tools currently in use

by federal agencies have not been objectively (and anonymously) peer reviewed

and published in scientific outlets other than in-house federal series. User guides

53
are helpful but do not imply scientific credibility. Lack of peer review does not

mean that tools or information have no utility, but that they have lower scientific

stature and do not meet the normal standard for scientific rigor. Documents that

rely on information without peer review are more likely to be successfully

challenged through appeals and litigation. Including a short description of

limitations and uncertainty associated with various tools and information is often

appropriate.

Look for success stories. If you can identify cases in which tools and information

have been successfully applied to a situation similar to yours, then you have a good

recommendation for your application. This may be an actual management

situation, or in the case of a recently developed technique, it could be a “beta test”

or demonstration in which positive feedback was received. In either case, other

users are available from whom you can obtain insight.

Consult with experts. It can be helpful to directly contact the developer of a

particular tool or technique for additional information and insight on principles and

applications. If you are considering an application somewhat outside the scope

described for a particular technique (e.g., a simulation model), get some feedback

first. Although few tools are fully supported by technical personnel, a few experts

on design and application are typically available. Seek them out for a consultation,

and consider inviting them to work with you and your staff.

Compare alternatives. Even if you have a preferred source of scientific

information for a particular application, it is usually best to compare it with other

sources. Although no single information source or model may be more “correct”

54
than another, it is helpful to know the differences between approaches. You may

need to defend the value of your preferred choice, and documentation of alternative

approaches allows for ready comparison and development of rationale for your

preferences.

Document the selection process. Take good notes as you go through the process

of reviewing and selecting appropriate tools and approaches. Keep a file with

appropriate documentation of publications, user guides, scientists consulted,

managers consulted, etc. Having a structured approach to selecting the scientific

tools you use will improve overall credibility of planning activities and proposed

management actions.

Consult outside reviewers. After you have selected specific sources of

information for a particular application, have technical experts review any plans or

reports that cite those sources. Reviewers can include scientists, managers,

planners, and policy makers– basically anyone within the broader user community

who has some technical knowledge about the topic of interest. Review comments

will help you determine if your selection and use of scientific information are

appropriate and if planning documentation contains sufficient justification.

Consult potential stakeholders. After you are confident that you have addressed

relevant technical issues, it is often valuable to “preview” the approach with

stakeholders who may be affected by your management actions. This requires

nontechnical language to explain and justify your selection. Straightforward

graphics and tables are often the best way to convey your ideas to interested parties

who do not have technical expertise in natural resources.

55
 Implementing these additional steps can require considerable time and effort, but

they improve the scientific credibility of the final product and are a valuable investment in

the long run. If local resource managers are not familiar or comfortable with this sort of

scientific review, it can be useful to consult with another management unit that has

experience with the process.

[Linda said she has something on this topic from the WO]

NOTE: The two FS guidance documents do not specifically address scientific

information other than to suggest drawing on the existing synthesis and assessments

prepared by the IPCC, and the US CCSP SAP reports, as well as FS Research.

56
 Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTER 7, Pt E

Watershed Vulnerability Analyses for Changing Climates

Vs 021410a Furniss

Introduction

A reliable, clean water supply is critical to national security, public health, and economic

stability, and undeveloped public lands are a major source of clean water in the United States.

However, a major hurdle in planning for climate change is uncertainty about the nature of likely

changes and resulting impacts at a local scale, given the complexity of interactions between

physical, biological, and sociological processes. Climate changes influence vegetation, water,

and disturbance frequencies, and these changes, in turn, influence one another. A change in one

aspect causes a cascade of responses that in some cases counter-act and in others magnify the

initial change. Under these conditions, the utility of deterministic and probabilistic models for

predicting outcomes of climate change is relatively limited—we simply do not know enough

to develop reliable models that can be applied to individual watersheds. Instead, the most widely

applicable tools are those that guide users through construction of a logic trail that allows locally

relevant information to be identified and used to develop locale-specific actions. Planning

for mitigation is also problematic because we do not yet know what magnitudes of change—or

even what kinds of changes—will occur in what areas.

An analytical process called “watershed analysis” has been widely and successfully used to

guide interdisciplinary teams through the uncertainties to a robust understanding and basis for

land-use planning. A watershed analysis describes conditions, processes, and interactions at

57
intermediate scales, adapting large-scale guidance, analysis, and approaches to ecosystem

management to particular places at management-relevant scales. (Refs:

Design of useful strategies for mitigating the effects of climate change on watershed goods

and services will require 1) the ability to identify the watersheds of highest priority

for protecting watershed amenity values (such as domestic and industrial water supplies,

endangered species, and recreational uses); 2) the ability to identify the watersheds in which

climate-related risk to those amenity values is greatest and least; 3) the ability to detect evidence

of the nature and likely magnitudes of change as early as possible; and 4) the ability to select

mitigations appropriate for the impacts likely in particular watersheds.

The Forest Service is currently developing a procedure for watershed vulnerability

assessment that would be capable of providing these kinds of information over large areas for

relatively small outlays of time and effort. The proposed tool will provide watershed-specific

information needed to prioritize and design strategies for mitigating the impacts of climate

change on watershed-sourced goods and services, and will be applicable both in the context of a

Forest Service watershed condition assessment and as a stand-alone assessment procedure for

use by anyone concerned about watershed change.

Why Conduct Watershed Vulnerability Assessments?

Watersheds differ important ways at intermediate scales, such as the subbasin, watershed, and

subwatershed scales in the national hydrologic unit system (Ref). These differences will often be

crucial in understanding the effects of climate changes, and how landscape components and

ecosystem services are affected. At the watershed scale, for example, most watersheds will differ

in important characteristics such as: the exposure to atmospheric changes; values and services at

stake; the sensitivities of the soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife to changes and disturbances; the

58
level of human stressors, environmental alterations, and cumulative effects; the primary causes

of waterbody impairments; the reversibility of the impairments; and the ownership and

administrative status of the land that governs what activities are allowed and feasible. All of

these are relevant to understanding the impacts of climate change and to designing adaptive

responses that are most effective an appropriate (Box 7.1).

Ideally, the analysis would begin at a broad “landscape-scale” such as the HUC4 scale

(subbasins –1800 sq. km average). This analysis will inform managers and interested parties of

the compatibility of existing and planned management with ecological, social, and economic

objectives. Broad-scale analysis will provide a context for finer scale analysis units, such as for

watersheds; will set priorities for more detailed analysis and program planning; and will identify

issues requiring further work. At the watershed scale, the analysis is tiered to the broad scale, is

more detailed, and will display opportunities to adapt to rapidly changing climates. Detailed

analysis at the watershed scale over the entire national forest may not be necessary. Rather,

detailed analysis can be focused initially on those watersheds identified by the broader analysis,

where likely vulnerabilities are expected to be most important based on public issues and

ecological needs, and where site conditions indicate higher priorities (Table 7.1).

Why use Hydrologic Units or Watersheds as Analytic Units?

Federal public lands are expected to be managed as ecosystems – all components and species

– to protect and sustain the natural systems that society depends on. To do this we must

understand how the requirements of various species and human values overlap and affect one

another in particular areas before we can develop management plans for a sustainable ecosystem.

Species vulnerability assessments may be necessary to develop the full range of effects and

responses, but vulnerability assessments for individual species or habitats would take far too long

and result in an unintegrated approach that can readily overlook the important ecological and

59
human interactions. Components of ongoing watershed vulnerability analyses will often include

assessing the vulnerability of individual species, but within the context of a particular place

selected for collaborative analysis.

Further, to effectively collaborate, an interdisciplinary team must select a unit of analysis to

examine and report on. Analytical considerations for a particular domain will usually extend

beyond the watershed, or focus on a sub-area of the watershed, while the collaborative unit

remains fixed to facilitate collaboration, data gathering and record keeping, reporting, and to

maintain the focus necessary to produce useful results. A nationally consistent system of

hydrologic units has been established (Ref) with robust definition and database support.

Hydrologic units are unambiguous, non-debatable, and do not change within the timeframes of

land management planning.

60
 Adaptation Guidebook

CHAPTERs 1, 4, 5, 7: References Cited

Vs 021410a, millar, peterson, joyce

Barnett, T.P.; Pierce, D.W.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Bonfils, C.; Santer, B.D.; Das, T.; Bala, G.;

Wood, A.W.; Nozawa, T.; Mirin, A.A.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2008. Human-

induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States. Science. 319: 1080–1083.

Bosworth, D.; Birdsey, R.; Joyce, L.; Millar, C. 2008. Climate change and the nation’s forests:

challenges and opportunities. Journal of Forestry. 106: 214–221.

Bradshaw, A.D. 1983. The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20: 1-17.

Bradshaw, A.D. 1984. Ecological principles and land reclamation practice. Landscape Planning.

11: 35-48.

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R.; Germanoski, D.; Weixelman, D.A. 2004. Chapter 9. Process-

based approaches for managing and restoring riparian ecosystems. In: Chambers, J.C.;

Miller, J.R., eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems. Island Press. Washington D.C.: 261-

292.

Chapin III, F.S.; Hoel, M.; Carpenter, S.R.; Lubchenco, J.; Walker, B.; Callaghan, T.V.;

Folke, C.; Levin, S.A.; Mäler, K.G.; Nilsson, C.; Barrett, S.; Berkes, F.; Crépin, A.S.;

Danell, K.; Rosswall, T.; Starrett, D.; Xepapadeas, A.; Zimov, S.A. 2006. Building

resilience and adaptation to manage arctic climate change. Ambio. 35(4): 198–202.

Christensen, N.L.; Bartuska, A.M.; Brown, J.H.; Carpenter, S.; D'Antonio, C.; Francis, R.;

Franklin, J.F.; MacMahon, J.A.; Noss, R.; Parsons, D.J.; Peterson, C.H.; Turner, M.G.;

Woodmansee, R.G. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on

the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications. 6( 3): 665-691.

61
Cortner, H.J.; and Moote, M.A. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press,

Washington, D.C. 178 p.

Costanza, R.; Norton, B.; Haskill, D.G. 1992. Ecosystem health. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

269 p.

Diaz, H.F.; Markgraf, V. 2000. El Niño and the southern oscillation: Multiscale variability,

global, and regional impacts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 512 p.

Easterling, W.E.; Hurd, B.; Smith, J. 2004. Coping with global climate change: the role of

adaptation in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Adaptation%2Epdf.

Elsner, M.M.; Littell, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. 2009. The Washington climate change impacts

assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study

of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington.

Federal Register. 2002. Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility,

and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. 67: 8452–8460.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmquist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling,

C.S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 35: 557-581.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. Adaptation to

climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities.

Rome, Italy: FAO Information Division.

Furniss, M.J..; Staab, B.P.; Hazelhurst, S.; Clifton, C.F..; Roby, K.B..; Ilhadrt, B. L.;

Larry, E. B.; Todd, A,H.; Reid, L.M,; Hines, S. J.; Bennett, K.A.; Luce, C.H.; Edwards,

P.J. In press. Water, climate change, and forests: Watershed stewardship for a changing

62
 climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-812. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007. Climate change: agencies should develop

guidance for addressing the effects on federal land and water resources. Report to Congress

GAO 07-863. Washington, DC: United States Government.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M; Greene, S. eds. 1999. Bioregional assessments:

Science at the crossroads of management and policy. Island Press, Washington D.C. 392 p.

Füssel, H.M. 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches,

and key lessons. Sustainability Science. 2: 265-275.

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 8(1): 27-38.

Hansen, L.J.; Bringer, J.L.; Hoffman, J.R., eds. 2003. Buying time: A user’s manual for

building resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. World Wildlife Fund.

Berlin, Germany. 244 p.

Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Maurer, E.P.; Miller, N.L.; Moser,

S.C.; Schneider, S.H.; Cahill, K.N.; Cleland, E.E.; Dale, L.; Drapek, R.; Hanemann,

R.M.; Kalkstein, L.S.; Lenihan, J.; Lunch, C.K.; Neilson, R.N.; Sheridan, S.C.;

Verville, J.H. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 101: 12422–12427.

Heathcote, I. 1998. Integrated watershed analysis. Principles and practice. Wiley and Sons. New

York, NY. 415 p.

Heller, N.E.; Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a

review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation. 142: 14–32.

63
Holling, C.S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In National Academy of

Engineering, eds. Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C. 215 p.

Hornbeck, J.W.: Swank, W.T. 1992. Watershed ecosystem analysis as a basis for multiple-use

management of eastern forests. Ecological Applications 2(3): 238-247.

Innes, J.; Joyce, L.A.; Kellomäki, S.; Louman, B.; Ogden, A.; Parrotta, J.; Thompson. I.

2009. Management for adaptation. In: Seppälä, R.; Buck, A.; Katila, P., eds. Adaptation of

forests and people to climate change: a global assessment report. IUFRO World Series

Volume 22. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations: 135–

169.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the

physical science basis. In: Summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the

fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva,

Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological Organization.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate Change 2001. Third

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group III.

Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, UK. 753 p.

Jackson, S.T. 1987. Documenting natural and human-caused plant invasions using

paleoecological methods. In: Luken, J.O.; Thieret, J.W., eds. Assessment and management of

plant invasions. Spring-Verlag: 37-55.

Jackson, S.T.; Gray, S.T.; Shuman, B.N. 2009. Paleoecology and resource management in a

dynamic landscape: case studies from the Rocky Mountain headwaters region. In: Dietl, G.;

Flessa, K.W., eds. Paleontological Society Papers. 15: 61-80.

64
Jackson, S.T.; Overpeck, J.T. 2000. Responses of plant populations and communities to

environmental changes of the late Quaternary. Paleobiology. 25: 194-220.

Joyce, L.; Haynes, R.; White, R.; Barbour, J. 2007. Bringing climate change into natural

resource management. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PNW-932. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; Neilson,

R.P.; O'Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. Chapter 3. Adaptation options for climate-

sensitive ecosystems and resources: National Forests. In: Julius, S.J.; West, J.M., eds.

Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources.

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4, U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 126 pgs.

Julius, S.J.; West, J.M., eds. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options of climate-

sensitive ecosystems and resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kaufmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T; Boyce, D.A.; Moir, W.H.; Perry, L.; Reynolds, R.T;

Bassett, R.L.; Mehlop, P.; Edminster, C.B.; Block, W.M.; Corn, P.S. 1994. An ecological

basis for ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-246. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 22 p.

Knowles, N.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in

the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.

Kohm, K.A.; Franklin, J.F. 1997. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. The science of

ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Lackey, R.T. 1995. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning.

40(1/3): 21-30.

Lele, S.; Norgaard, R.B. 1996. Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. Conservation Biology.

10: 354-365.

65
Ligeti, E.; Penney, J.; Wieditz, I. 2007. Cities preparing for climate change: a study of

six urban regions. Clean Air Partnership. http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/

cities_climate_change.pdf.

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; O’Halloran, K. In review. U.S. national forests

adapt to climate change through science-management partnerships. Climatic Change.

MacIver, D.C.; Dallmeier, F. 2000. Adaptation to climate change variability: adaptive

management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 61: 1–8.

Mantua, N.J.; Hare, S.R.; Zhang, Y.; Wallace, J.M.; Francis, R.C. 1997. A Pacific

interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society. 78: 1069-1079.

Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success. Designing, managing, and

monitoring conservation and development projects. Island Press, Washington.

McLachlan, J.S.; Hellmann, J.J.; Schwartz. 2007. A framework for debate of assisted

migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology. 21: 297-302.

Millar, C.I. 1997. Comments on historical variation and desired condition as tools for terrestrial

landscape analysis. In: Sommarstrom, S. ed. What is watershed stability? Proceedings 6th

Biennial Watershed Management Conference, Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, October 23-

25, 1996. Centers for Water and Wildland Recources, University of California Water

Resources Center Report No. 92, University of California, Davis, CA: 105-132.

Millar, C.I. 2003. Climate change as an ecosystem architect: Implications to rare plant ecology,

conservation, and management. In: Brooks, M. ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Rare

Plants, Ecology, and Conservation, 9-13 Feb 2002, Arcata, California. California Native

Plant Society: 139-157.

66
Millar, C.I.; Brubaker, L.B. 2006. Chapter 15. Climate change and paleoecology: New

contexts for restoration ecology. In: Palmer, M.; Falk, D.; Zedler, J., eds. Restoration science.

Island Press, Covelo, CA: 315-340.

Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D. In press. Distribution and climatic relationships of American pika

(Ochotona princeps) in the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin, USA; Periglacial

landforms as refugia in warming climates. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research.

Millar, C.I.; Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. The role of climatic change in interpreting historic

variability. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1207-1216.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145-2151.

Mitchell, G.W. 2008. A brief history of triage. Disaster medicine and public health

preparedness. 2(S1): S4-S7.

Morelli, T.L.; Yeh, S.; Smith, N.: Hennessy, M.B.; Millar, C.I. 2010. Climate Project

Screening Tool. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-xxx. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Moritz, C.; Patton, J.L.; Conroy, C.J.; Parra, J.L.; White, G.C.; Beissinger, S.R. 2008.

Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National

Park, USA. Science. 322: 261-264.

Moser, S.; Luers, A.L. 2008. Managing climate risks in California: the need to engage resource

managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic Change. 87: S309-S322.

Mote, P.W.; Hamlet, A.F.; Clark, M.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack

in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 86: 39–49.

Office of Management and Budget. 2004. Final information quality bulletin for peer review.

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf. (accessed 10 February 2010).

67
Ogden A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2007a. Incorporating climate change adaptation considerations into

forest management and planning in the boreal forest. International Forestry Review. 9: 713–

733.

Ogden A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2007b. Perspectives of forest practitioners on climate change

adaptation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada. Forestry Chronicle. 83: 557–

569.

Ogden, A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2008. Climate change adaptation and regional forest planning in

southern Yukon, Canada. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 13: 833–861.

Pepin, N.C.; Lundquist, J.D. 2008. Temperature trends at high elevations: Patterns across the

globe. Geophysical Research Letters. 35: L14701, doi: 10.1029/2008GL034026.

Peterson, D.L.; Evers, L.; Gravenmier, R.A.; Eberhardt, E. 2007. A consumer guide:

tools to manage vegetation and fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-690. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Rojas Blanco, A.V. 2006. Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. Disasters. 30: 140–

147.

Sadowski, M. 2008. An approach to adaptation to climate changes in Poland. Climatic Change.

90: 443–451.

Slaughter, R.; Wiener, J.D. 2007. Water, adaptation, and property rights on the Snake and

Klamath Rivers. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43: 308–21.

Snover, A.K., Whitely Binder, L.C.; Lopez, J.; Willmott, E.; Kay, J.E.; Howell, D.;

Simmonds, J. 2007. Preparing for climate change: a guidebook for local, regional, and state

governments. Oakland, CA: ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.

68
Swetnam, T.C.; Allen, C.; Betancourt, J. 1999. Applied historical ecology: Using the past to

manage the future. Ecological Applications. 9: 1189-1206.

Tausch, R.J.; Nowak, C.L.; Mensing, S.A. 2004. Chapter 2. Climate change and associated

vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: The paleoecological record. In: Chambers, J.C.;

Miller, J.R. eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems. Island Press: 24-48.

Turner, B.L.; Kasperson, R.E.; Matson, P.A.; McCarthy, J.J.; Corollo, R.W.; Christianson,

L.; Eckley, N.; Kasperson, J.X.; Luers, A.; Martollo, M.L.; Polsky, C.; Pulsipher, A.;

Schiller, A. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS.

100(14): 8074-8079.

USDA FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1993. A first approximation of

ecosystem health. National Forest System lands. Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1995. Sustaining ecosystems; A

conceptual framework. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-EM-TP-001. 216p.

USDA FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2009a. Climate change

considerations in land management plan revisions.

www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_land_mgmt_plan_rev.pdf

USDA FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2009b. Climate change

considerations in project level NEPA analysis.

www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York.

Welling, L. 2008. Responding to the challenge of climate change: NPS strategies [Presentation].

In: Climate ecosystems and resources of eastern California (CEREC) conference; November

2008; Bishop, CA.

69
Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan; D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313: 940–943.

Wilkinson, R.; Clarke, K.; Goodchild, M.; Reichman. J. 2002. Preparing for climate change:

the potential consequences of climate variability and change for California. The California

regional assessment: a report of the California Regional Assessment Group for the U.S.

Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/CA_Report.pdf.

Williams, J.W.; Jackson, S.T. 2007. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological

surprises: past and future. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 5: 475-482.

Yohe, G. 2000. Assessing the role of adaptation in evaluating vulnerability to climate change.

Climatic Change. 46: 371-390.

70