The North Cascadia Adaptation Partnership: A Science-Management Collaboration for Responding to Climate Change

Abstract

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) have highlighted climate change as an agency priority and issued direction to administrative units for responding to climate change. In response, the USFS and NPS initiated the North Cascadia Adaptation Partnership (NCAP) in 2010. The goals of the NCAP were to build an inclusive partnership, increase climate change awareness, assess vulnerability, and develop science-based adaptation strategies to reduce these vulnerabilities. The NCAP expanded previous science-management partnerships on federal lands to a larger, more ecologically and geographically complex region and extended the approach to a broader range of stakeholders. The NCAP focused on two national forests and two national parks in the North Cascades Range, Washington (USA), a total land area of 2.4 million ha, making it the largest science-management partnership of its kind. The NCAP assessed climate change vulnerability for four resource sectors (hydrology and access; vegetation and ecological disturbance; wildlife; and fish) and developed adaptation options for each sector. The NCAP process has proven to be a successful approach for implementing climate change adaptation across a region and can be emulated by other land management agencies in North America and beyond.

Similarities and Differences in Barriers and Opportunities Affecting Climate Change Adaptation Action in Four North American Landscapes

“…Priorities for conservation action in the face of climate change within a particular region must include an understanding of how climate change interacts with the myriad other forces affecting conservation of wild landscapes, and how adaptation can most effectively be carried out within the social, political, and cultural contexts that influence governance and adaptation decisions in that region. Fortunately, some frameworks have successfully helped practitioners integrate climate change planning into management actions (e.g., Gleeson et al 2011 ; Poiani et al 2011 ; Cross et al 2013 ; Raymond et al 2013 ; Janowiak et al 2014 ). Some decision-support tools, such as scenario planning (e.g., Weeks et al 2011 ; Rowland et al 2014 ), are useful for integrating climate change alongside other stressors and land uses, facilitating collaborative planning across disciplines and organizations.…”

Modeling intrinsic potential for beaver (Castor canadensis) habitat to inform restoration and climate change adaptation

“…This varying geomorphic context allows for a more thorough assessment of geomorphic conditions (e.g., gradient and valley width) as suitability predictors. Additionally, the Snohomish Basin is a priority area for regional salmonid recovery work as well as a focus area for regional climate-change research, environmental monitoring, and intensive beaver population surveys [ 8 , 22 , 23 ]. The basin is representative of other watersheds in the region in terms of habitat conditions, importance for regional aquatic species, and potential climate refugia for wildlife [ 23 – 25 ].…”

Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire severity and spatial pattern in the northern Cascade Range, USA

“…Allowing wildfires to burn for resource benefit may be implemented with the least risk during years with mild climate, which probably would have the added benefits of burning with lower severity and more spatial heterogeneity. Other more specific actions include altering road infrastructure so that it is less vulnerable to erosion, removing nonnative species so that native communities can reestablish after high-severity fire, and incorporating future climate to determine the density, species, and genotypes of planted propagules (Peterson et al 2011, Raymond et al 2013.…”