U.S. National Forests adapt to climate change through Science–Management partnerships

Abstract

Developing appropriate management options for adapting to climate change is a new challenge for land managers, and integration of climate change concepts into operational management and planning on United States national forests is just starting. We established science-management partnerships on the Olympic National Forest (Washington) and Tahoe National Forest (California) in the first effort to develop adaptation options for specific national forests. We employed a focus group process in order to establish the scientific context necessary for understanding climate change and its anticipated effects, and to develop specific options for adapting to a warmer climate. Climate change scientists provided the scientific knowledge base on which adaptations could be based, and resource managers developed adaptation options based on their understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and management. General adaptation strategies developed by national forest managers include: (1) reduce vulnerability to anticipated climateinduced stress by increasing resilience at large spatial scales, (2) consider tradeoffs and conflicts that may affect adaptation success, (3) manage for realistic outcomes and prioritize treatments that facilitate adaptation to a warmer climate, (4) manage Climatic Change (2012) 110:269-296 dynamically and experimentally, and (5) manage for structure and composition. Specific adaptation options include: (1) increase landscape diversity, (2) maintain biological diversity, (3) implement early detection/rapid response for exotic species and undesirable resource conditions, (4) treat large-scale disturbance as a management opportunity and integrate it in planning, (5) implement treatments that confer resilience at large spatial scales, (6) match engineering of infrastructure to expected future conditions, (7) promote education and awareness about climate change among resource staff and local publics, and (8) collaborate with a variety of partners on adaptation strategies and to promote ecoregional management. The process described here can quickly elicit a large amount of information relevant for adaptation to climate change, and can be emulated for other national forests, groups of national forests with similar resources, and other public lands. As adaptation options are iteratively generated for additional administrative units on public lands, management options can be compared, tested, and integrated into adaptive management. Sciencebased adaptation is imperative because increasing certainty about climate impacts and management outcomes may take decades.

Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review

“…However, Nilsson et al (2012) found that institutionalising of knowledge and knowledge exchange regarding climate change adaptation in Sweden was weak and that improved mechanisms are required for feedback from the local to the national level. Recent studies have described stronger relationships between scientific research and forest management to assess trade-offs and synergies, for participatory decision making and for shared learning Littell et al 2012;Klenk et al 2011).…”

The magnitude and spatial patterns of historical and future hydrologic change in California's watersheds

“…Third, if a process-based model is calibrated to historical conditions it can be useful in climate change studies because it can potentially better represent local and regional future responses to change than statistical or rule-based models (Cuddington et al 2013). Relevant to all hydrological models, natural resource managers often require finer spatial scale data than are generated by GCMs, therefore requiring downscaling of GCM outputs for use in resource planning (Littell et al 2012).…”

Climate change effects on vegetation in the Pacific Northwest: a review and synthesis of the scientific literature and simulation model projections

“…Material in this document overlaps somewhat with other recent reviews of potential vegetation responses to climate change in the Pacifi c Northwest (Aubry et al 2011, Bachelet et al 2011, Chmura et al 2011, Halofsky et al 2011, Littell et al 2010 but is intended to be more general and cover a wider range of vegetation types. We provide minimal guidance on developing adaptation plans or other management strategies related to climate change, as these topics are well covered in other recent publications (e.g., Glick et al 2011, Halofsky et al 2011, Littell et al 2012, Peterson et al 2011, Swanston and Janowiak 2012. Figure 2.2-Schematic of the Earth's orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that drive ice age cycles.…”

“…al. 2011, Halofsky et al 2011, Littell et al 2012, Peterson et al 2011, other forested ecosystems in the United States (Rice et al 2012, Swanston andJanowiak 2012), and the United States in general (Vose et al 2012). Much literature focuses on generalizable "toolbox approaches" (Joyce et al 2009, Millar et al 2007, Peterson et al 2011, Spies et al 2010.…”