1

A. Proposal Cover Page Project title: Informing implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee’s (GYCC) Whitebark Pine (WBP) Strategy based on climate sciences, ecological forecasting, and valuation of WBP-related ecosystem services. Principal investigator: Andrew Hansen, 406 994 6046, hansen@montana.edu Fiscal contact: Leslie Schmidt, 406 994 2381, lschmidt@montana.edu Names/Affiliations Project Team: GYCC WBP Subcommittee: Karl Buermeyer (Bridger Teton NF); Kristen Legg (NPS I&M); Dan Reinhart, (YNP) GYCC: Virginia Kelly (Executive Coordinator) USGS Rocky Mountain Science Center: Greg Pederson Great Northern LCC: Tom Olliff (Co-coordinator) NPS I&M: John Gross, Bill Monahan University of Montana: Helen Naughton (Economics Dept.) Montana State University: Virginia Iglesias, Todd Kipfer, Cathy Whitlock (Institute on Ecosystems); Nathan Piekielek (Ecology Dept.); Elizabeth Shanahan (Political Science Dept.) Proposed start date and estimated duration. 1 July 2013, 36 months Total project funding requested from the CSC: $447,079 Funding for related studies: NASA Applied Sciences ($1,834,000), MT EPSCoR ($114,124), NCCSC ($214,000) Keywords. ecosystem services valuation, management implementation, whitebark pine. Summary. The goal of this project is to inform implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC) Whitebark Pine (WBP) subcommittee’s “WBP Strategy” based on the climate science and ecological forecasting. Objectives are: 1. Forecast ecosystem processes and WBP habitat suitability across the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) under alternative IPCC future scenarios; 2. Improve understanding of possible response to future climate by analyzing WBP/climate relationships in past millennia; 3. Develop WBP management alternatives; 4. Evaluate the alternatives under IPCC future scenarios in terms of WBP goals, ecosystem services, and costs of implementation; and 5. Draw recommendations for implementation of the GYCC WBP strategy that consider uncertainty. WBP is a keystone and candidate endangered species that has undergone high levels of mortality related to climatic warming. The GYCC WBP Subcommittee has developed over the past decade a strategy for WBP in the GYA, but without adequate information on climate change. The subcommittee is participating in this project because of their high interest in using climate science to enhance implementation of the strategy. Ecosystem processes and WBP habitat suitability are being forecast under downscaled future scenarios to 2100 with existing funding. Paleo data from GYA will be used to quantify WBP/climate relationships over the past 15,000 years and growth rates during extreme climate events over the past 800 years. Four WBP management alternatives will be developed in a workshop at the NCCSC RAM, consistent with the GYCC WBP Strategy. These alternatives will be evaluated relative to WBP status (viability and ecosystem function), costs of implementation, and public valuation of change in ecosystem services using conjoint analysis and public surveys. Recommendations will be derived in a scenario planning workshop based on both the results and uncertainty in the results. These recommendations can thus be immediately acted upon by the GYA management community and the approach and methods will be readily applicable to the several other tree species that are undergoing die-offs under changing climate.

2

B. Proposal Body Objectives/Justification The goal of this project is to inform implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC) Whitebark Pine (WBP) subcommittee’s “WBP Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA)” (1) based on the latest climate science and ecological forecasting capabilities and on public valuation of WBP-related ecosystem services. Objectives are as follows. 1. Summarize potential future climate and the resulting possible effects on ecosystem processes and WBP habitat suitability across GYA through ecological forecasting under alternative IPCC climate and land use scenarios. 2. Improve understanding of possible response to future climate by analyzing WBP response to climate and extreme climate events over the past 15,000 years. 3. Based on the GYCC WBP strategy and knowledge produced by #1 and #2 above, develop plausible spatially explicit WBP management alternatives. 4. Evaluate the benefits and costs of management alternatives under IPCC future climate scenarios in terms of WBP goals, ecosystem services derived from WBP, and cost of implementation. 5. Based on results and uncertainty, draw recommendations for implementation of the GYCC WBP strategy under future climate change. Background Human-induced climate change is projected to cause the loss of some ecological system types and keystone species from US public lands (2). This process is already underway in some arid and alpine habitats in the western US where dominant vegetation types are dying (3). Efforts to develop climate adaptation strategies for these “early responders” to climate change may facilitate more effective management of the widespread vegetation change expected in future decades (4). WBP (Pinus albicaulis) may be the greatest conservation concern among the early climate responders.

WBP is a keystone species in the subalpine of the Rocky Mountains and Cascades (1). It is often the initial colonizer on sites with difficult growing conditions. Once established, it ameliorates site conditions, enabling other plant species to colonize (5). WBP regulates the capture and retention of snow, thus increasing the quantity and duration of summer runoff (6). The WBP’s large, protein-rich seeds are an important food source for birds, squirrels, and black and grizzly bears (7). The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) was recently relisted as a threatened species, in part, over concern that climate-induced loss of WBP would further reduce grizzly population viability (8).

Wide-spread loss of WBP has occurred throughout its range due to extensive mortality from native mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (MPB) that began in approximately 1999 and damage from the exotic white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) (9). MPB attacks and can kill reproductive-sized WBP trees. The intensification of MPB within its historical range and expansion into high elevations over the past decade is unprecedented and attributable to uncharacteristic climate warming (9). By 2009, 46% of WBP stands in the GYA had suffered severe mortality, 36% moderate mortality, and 18% low or trace mortality (10) (Fig. 1). Concern over this die-off led to the listing of WBP as a candidate endangered species (11).

An exceptional opportunity for climate-science informed management exists in the GYA. The interagency GYCC serves to coordinate management of core federal lands in the area. The GYCC WBP Subcommittee has worked since 1999 to develop a GYA-wide management strategy to protect and restore WBP under the threat of mountain pine beetles and blister rust (1). This impressive effort developed strategic objectives, obtained critical data on WBP distribution through synthesis of existing data, aerial mapping, and field sampling, identified high priority stands for protection and restoration and developed specific treatments. An initial three-year

Fig. 1. Mortality of WBP in GYA in 2009. From (10).

3

spatially explicit action plan is now being implemented. Managers continue to develop intermediate time scale implementation plans. Throughout this process, little information was available to the subcommittee about how future climate change may influence the effectiveness of these treatments. The strategy (pg 24) states, “As scaled regional [climate] models or more detailed predictive mapping become available, this information will be incorporated into the annual work plan and future revisions of the WBP Strategy.” Accordingly, the subcommittee is participating in this project because of their high interest in using climate science to guide the placement of these treatments across the GYA to best achieve their goals under future climate. This project is specifically designed to inform implementation of the GYCC WBP Strategy based on the climate science, consistent with the NCCSC Solicitation.

Concern over the effects of climate change has led to rapid advances in approaches to downscale global climate projections and forecast ecological response (e.g., 4). A promising framework for climate adaptation planning was recently developed by an inter-organizational committee (12) and has been embraced by the US Department of Interior (13), including the NCCSC (see solicitation). The four steps of the framework are to: 1) identify conservation targets; 2) assess vulnerability; 3) identify management options; and 4) evaluate and implement management options. Our project is designed to use this climate adaptation framework and to meet the specific needs of the GYCC WBP Subcommittee.

Potential shifts in WBP distribution under climate change have been projected with statistical models across its range by previous investigators (14). These efforts suggested that climate suitability for this species will largely shift out of the contiguous US by 2100 under many climate scenarios. Such projections raise questions about the utility of implementing the GYCC WBP strategy if future climate will not support the species in the GYA. These range-wide modeling efforts, however, make a number of simplifying assumptions related to geographic scale and thus may not be as applicable at local or regional scales, such as the GYA.WBP demography is known to vary at fine spatial scales with elevation, aspect, and soils (9). For example, reproductive adults are largely in the subalpine zone where many have undergone recent mortality due to MPB. WBP establishes, however, at lower elevations and is thought to be prevented from reaching maturity there by competing vegetation. Thus, planting blister-rust resistant stock and controlling competing vegetation may be viable strategies for creating reproducing populations under future climates. Clearly, fine-scale modeling is needed to inform the WBP strategy in GYA. Species distribution modeling based only on contemporary climate, however, may generate misleading conclusions about tree species that respond to decadal to century scale variation in climate (15). WBP adults may persist for decades to centuries under conditions that do not allow regeneration and reestablish the populations after climate improves. Models of WBP based on contemporary climate are not calibrated for such climate dynamics and forecasts made by them may over predict extinction. Fortunately, relevant paleoecological data exist for the GYA (e.g., 15) and offer the opportunity to quantify long-term WBP climate relationships.

Evaluation of potential outcomes of management alternatives is a critical step for resource management (12). The GYCC WBP Strategy (1) has integrated strategic objectives, treatments, and criteria for stand prioritization. The treatments (Table 1) vary from “passive” (e.g., monitor mortality) to “active” (e.g., apply pesticides). The placement of treatments in the landscape is prioritized based on ecosystem services, land status, and access. The acceptability of treatments differ among federal agencies, land status types, and units within an agency. Active management is fully embraced on most national forest lands but is discouraged or prohibited in wilderness areas. Similarly, individual national parks differ in philosophy on the use of active management. Costs of implementation differ as a function of access and land status. Currently unknown for GYCC WBP Strategy implementation and other more costly management alternatives is how effective they might be under future climate change. Thus, ecological forecasting of management alternatives under possible future climates is critically needed.

Management alternatives are best evaluated using metrics that are highly relevant to decision makers. The GYCC WBP subcommittee identified relevant metrics for this project as WBP status (viability and ecosystem function), costs of implementation, and public valuation of change in ecosystem services. These ecosystem services include hydrologic regulation, provisioning for other species, and wilderness aesthetics (1). Determining the benefits from

4

Table 1. Treatments identified in the GYCC WBP Strategy.

Goal/Action Treatment Protection

Reduce mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. Apply carbaryl and/or verbenone on annual basis.

Protect seed-bearing WBP trees from fire. Discourage fire inseed-producing areas.

Pruning for fire protection. Pruning.

Thinning for fire protection. Thinning.

Restoration Create nutcracker openings Remove overstory to facilitate natural regeneration.

Daylight understory to release regeneration. Remove overstory.

Planting Plant genetically diverse and rust resistant seedlings.

ecosystem services requires the use of special methods developed by environmental economists. Conjoint analysis (e.g., 16) is appropriate for valuing ecosystem services such as aesthetics of wilderness because a large share of their value comes from passive values, which are the values that people place on elements of nature for their existence rather than use (17). The advantage of using conjoint analysis is that it considers both direct and passive use values in its estimation of total economic benefits. Net benefits of management alternatives can then be estimated by considering public values and costs of management treatments as determined by managers.

Results of evaluation of management alternatives then lead to selection of management actions. When considering a changing climate, however, managers are confronted with decisions in the face of uncontrollable, irreducible uncertainty. Surprises are inevitable, and the past is an increasingly unreliable guide to the future (18). In these circumstances, scenario planning (19) is appropriate (Fig. 2). The goal of scenario planning is to develop a small set of plausible accounts of the future. Managers can then consider how to allocate resources relative to these potential

futures. They may decide, for example, to invest in actions that are robust (“OK”) to all futures, but are not optimal for any future. Alternatively, they could “bet the farm” and invest in a strategy that’s optimal for one future, but will fail under all other conditions. The scenarios, thus, provide a context for identifying actions most appropriate to meet resource objectives given an uncertain future. NPS has conducted 29 scenario planning workshops tailored to needs of the participants (20). The GYCC WBP Subcommittee has largely used an adaptive management approach for the last decade. We plan to bring in elements of scenario planning near the end of this project so uncertainty is considered in developing management recommendations.

Procedures/Methods The project will focus on the GYA (1) but have implications for WBP adaptation strategies range wide and for other “early responder” tree species, especially other species of five-needle pine, which face many of the same challenges as WBP and for which aspects of the results generated here are anticipated to be informative. Objective 1. Ecological Forecasting. Under current funding (see cover page), we are hindcasting (1950-2010) and forecasting (2010-2100) trends in ecological processes, ecosystem types, and dominant tree species under climate and land use change using NASA and other data and models across the Great Northern (GN) and Appalachian LCCs. We are using downscaled IPCC CMIP5/AR5 climate scenarios and the Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model (SERGoM) land use change model (21) to drive the NASA Ames Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (TOPS)

Fig. 2. Appropriate management responses based on uncertainty and controllability. From (19).

5

(22) to forecast snow dynamics, runoff, and vegetation productivity and phenology. The AR5 scenarios were downscaled to an 800-m spatial resolution via a bias correction spatial disaggregation approach (23) to produce the downscaled WCRP CMIP5 representative concentration pathways (RCPS) 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5, which represent lower, intermediate and high levels of projected climate change. Climate, land use, and the ecological process outputs from TOPS serve as inputs for statistical habitat suitability models for ecological system types and individual tree species to forecast vegetation response to climate and land use projections. Details on the project are available at (24). Our ability to execute this work was demonstrated in previous applications (25). The WBP ecological system type is one of five we are modeling in the GNLCC. We are using a hierarchical approach where predictors include first climate, then habitat suitability (soils, topography), and finally connectivity. Models are being developed for individual life history stages (establishment, growth, reproduction, mortality). The modeling techniques include regression-based mixed models, Classification and Regression Trees, and Random Forests, with which we have considerable experience (26). These models are being calibrated with the detailed climate data and vegetation field data that are available in the GYA (1). Objective 2. Paleo Relationships. Pollen and plant macrofossil records from lake sediments are available from 10 sites in the GYA and provide information on WBP presence/abundance at a watershed scale and multi-decadal to centennial time resolution over the past 15,000 years (15). Paleoclimate reconstructions have been independently derived from stable isotopic, diatom, and geochemistry data and from paleoclimate model simulations (e.g. 27). We will model the regional trend in WPB presence/absence/abundance using Generalized Additive Models (GAMS). We will visually compare GAMS results to the paleoclimate data and identify qualitative climate/WPB relationships (e.g., cold/abundant WBP; warm/less abundant WBP). We will also explore how and why each site deviates from the regional trend by comparing the residuals from each time series to charcoal (i.e., fire history) data, which are available for some sites (28). WBP growth rates over the past 800 years in GYA have been derived from tree-ring data (29). We will correlate WBP growth rates with independent climate data for this period to determine the response of WBP growth to extreme climate fluctuations, specifically megadroughts during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (~800-1200 years ago) and the cooler conditions in the Little Ice Age (~100-500 years ago) (29, 30). We will use the results of these analyses to draw inference about potential WBP response to future climates that are analogous to those in the paleo record. Objective 3. Management Alternatives. Four spatially explicit management alternatives will be developed (Table 2). These will represent a range from no action to low, moderate, and high-level effort (effort defined by dollars required, access constraints and constraints associated with land status), and will be distinguished by differences in treatment type (Table 1) and intensity, location of treatments, and area treated. The no-action alternative will serve as a benchmark for comparison. An intermediate scale implementation plan developed by the WBP subcommittee aligns treatments in areas where they are compatible with existing monetary, access, and land allocation constraints, as well as ecological criteria. The higher-effort alternatives will focus primarily on where treatments will be most efficacious, with less emphasis on constraints. “Protection”-related strategies will be emphasized in areas where existing distribution and projected distribution overlap, indicating climate “refugia”, and in areas where existing distribution provides connectivity to areas of future distribution and the stand is relatively healthy. “Restoration”-related strategies will be emphasized in areas where existing distribution provides connectivity to areas of future distribution and stock is currently affected by or Table 2. The management alternatives that will be developed and the climate scenarios they will be evaluated under.

Climate Scenarios

WBP Management Options

No Action Low (GYCC 3-yr plan) Medium High

RCP 4.5

RCP 6.0

RCP 8.5

6

vulnerable to invasive pathogens or native pests. “Managed relocation/planting” will also be considered where future distribution is expected, but not currently located, and is necessary to meet distribution goals. “Areas of low management priority” will detail where WBP is likely to be lost on the landscape under projected climate and land use. This approach is designed to reveal the likelihood of success in achieving WBP goals under management options that differ in costs and institutional constraints under potential future climates. The management alternatives will be developed in workshops at the NCCSC RAM facility and in the GYA. Objective 4. Evaluation of Management Alternatives. For each management alternative we will evaluate the area of GYA that will be suitable for WBP seedling establishment and for reproductive adult age classes under each of the three climate scenarios. Criteria for suitability for each of these life history stages includes predicted presence of the age class, and adequate survival and growth rates. Projected habitat suitability will be quantified as proportion of area currently occupied by these age classes. In these analyses, we will assume current levels of pest infestation because consideration of climate/infestation dynamics introduces very high levels of uncertainty. Such uncertainty will be considered in the scenario planning phase of the project.

Each management alternative will be subjected to cost-benefit analyses. For estimation of costs, we will rely on input from managers on implementation costs by treatment type, land status, and access. Sensitivity analyses will be used to quantify the effects of uncertainty about these costs. To estimate total economic benefit of each alternative we will use the conjoint analysis. The conjoint analysis (16) survey involves several rounds of choices for each respondent. Respondents choose between two management alternatives at a time with varying levels of ecosystem services and hypothetical costs. These hypothetical costs are varied randomly across surveys. Tradeoffs between ecosystem services and hypothetical costs across management alternatives are used to determine the marginal value of individual ecosystem services. Knowing these values would assist managers target provision of high-value ecosystem services. Conjoint analysis also allows estimation of total economic value of each management alternative. Using a form of logistic regression, the binary survey responses are estimated as a function of ecosystem services, hypothetical costs and individuals’ characteristics. The regression results are used to calculate the mean per-person willingness to pay for each management alternative. Total economic value is obtained by aggregating the per-person willingness to pay over the full population. Finally, we will explore ways of introducing uncertainty in ecosystem outcomes into the surveys to determine how people balance uncertainty versus costs.

The relevant population for this study is the US population, given Yellowstone’s national prominence and the significance of federal funding sources for the team’s land managers. A subset of surveys will be targeted to GYA residents who would likely be willing to pay more for these ecosystem services than the average US citizen. The initial survey will be designed cooperatively with the team’s managers, ecologists, and social scientists. Based on the WBP analyses described above, the team will evaluate the potential influence of the management alternatives and climate futures on ecosystem services derived from WBP, specifically relating to hydrology, provisioning for other species, and aesthetics. The survey will begin with a discussion of the ecological threats to WBP and a description of each ecosystem service in layman’s terms. We will pilot the survey with several rounds of focus groups with non-experts to improve the instrument (e.g., use of photos, different payment vehicles, incorporating uncertainty, etc.). A combination of mail and online surveys will be used to garner a national sample (~n=3000). To ensure strong response rates, we will follow the best practices described by (31).

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will use the estimated costs and benefits to identify management alternatives with largest net benefits (total benefits minus total costs) (32). For most large public investment projects CBA is used to rank alternatives. With ecosystem benefits so difficult to measure, the CBA is often foregone for investments in ecosystem services. The proposed conjoint analysis would provide the estimated benefits necessary to complete a CBA and offer economic support for particular management alternatives.

7

Objective 5. Recommendations for Implementation. A workshop will be held with the team and the full GYCC WBP Subcommittee to make recommendations for implementation of the GYCC WBP strategy under future climate change. The results of the evaluation of alternatives and uncertainty in these results will be summarized. Workshop participants will then develop scenarios or story lines of plausible futures (e.g., Fig. 4) and identify recommendations for implementation of the WBP strategy in the context of these scenarios and uncertainty in the probability of realization of each scenario. To expand the impact of the project, participation will include managers of other portions of the WBP range (see 33) and from places where other tree species are undergoing climate induced die-off. Expected Results and Products The project will be a state-of-the-science assessment of WBP response to climate change in paleo, current, and projected future times in the GYA and the potential costs and benefits of management alternatives under future climates. Current knowledge is insufficient to state expected results. Many range-wide modeling efforts predict extinction of WBP in the GYA but those efforts were at too coarse a scale to be applicable to the GYA and did not consider the potential effectiveness of management actions. It is conceivable that the results will suggest that future climates will be outside the range of tolerance of WBP and no management actions will be effective. It is equally conceivable that the results will identify management alternatives that may allow for the persistence of WBP in the GYA. Such uncertainty about the future of a keystone and candidate endangered species is evidence of the high level of need for this project. The key product will be recommendations on implementing the GYCC WBP Strategy under future climate change developed in the context of the GYCC WBP Subcommittee’s operating structure and history. These recommendations can thus be immediately acted upon by the GYA management community. These recommendations will also be of high interest to WBP managers elsewhere in the range of the species (summarized in 33). Importantly, our approach and methods will be readily applicable to the several other tree species that are undergoing die-offs due to changing climate. Documentation of Management Application / Relevance Managers from the GYCC WBP Subcommittee are integral members of the project team. A subgroup of the subcommittee will engage directly with this project, ensuring coordination and communication with the full Subcommittee. Virginia Kelly will represent a larger GYCC management and coordination context. Sustained personal interactions and mutual learning among team members will likely enable the most effective transfer of real knowledge during the project. The managers on the project team participate in: developing the proposal; tracking, understanding, evaluating science progress; developing management alternatives; developing management recommendations; being early adopters of the project products; and helping to share the science with the broader community. The primary audience for products of this project is the WBP Subcommittee of the GYCC. An additional audience is the GNLCC Rocky Mountain Forum. The RM Forum has selected WBP as a conservation target; this project will support cross-ecosystem discussions on the future and management of WBP. Workshops and training sessions will engage collaborators, including the full WBP Subcommittee, to develop, analyze, and/or interpret the products, including: Pre-implementation workshop to apply a “feasibility filter” to review and refine the methodology, climate scenarios, and management alternatives, and to establish training criteria and schedules; Workshop in the NCCSC RAM facility to develop management alternatives with technical support from the RAM; Results workshop to review the management alternatives, science results, understand uncertainly associated with results, and to define management recommendations; Targeted meetings with select groups of managers (large and small teams; meeting with individual

Figure 4. Hypothetical example of possible storylines on

WBP in the GYC under climate change.

8

land management units) to share results and science products; GNLCC Science Webinars with results from this project. Printed materials will include: methods and results documented in the format of NPS I&M Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Resource Briefs and peer-reviewed publications. Data Transfer and Management Forecasting tools, data, maps, and analytic methods described above will be available through Ecocast and the NPS Servers. Most final products (documents, maps, data summaries, etc.) will be archived in the NPS data system (34) to ensure a long-term ability to discover and retrieve project products. Data, maps, and forecasting tools will also be discoverable and usable through LC-MAP, the Landscape Conservation Management and Analysis Portal developed by the GNLCC, in cooperation with the USGS, which provides a collaborative virtual workspace allowing partners of the GNLCC to securely share, access, and analyze common datasets. Roles of Team Members and Cooperators (affiliations and contact information are under CVs) Buermeyer, Kelly, Legg, Reinhart - as defined above for managers; Olliff – liaison to GNLCC; Gross/Olliff - management alternatives and scenarios; Whitlock, Pederson, Iglesias (post doc) – paleo analyses; Hansen, Monahan, Piekielek (post doc) – ecological forecasting; Naughton, Shanahan, Kipfer, 2 Ph.D. students ecological and economic consequences. NCCSC staff J. Morisette, S. McNeeley, C. Talber, and M. Talbert- guidance and technical support. Facilities/Equipment (labs of the project team members and the NCCSC RAM) Schedule

Schedule Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Task 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

Study Design

Pre-implementation Workshop

Objective 1

Ecological forecasting

Objective 2

Paleo analyses

Objective 3:

Management alternatives workshop

Objective 4: Evaluate alternatives

Analyze mgt alternatives on WBP status

Conduct benefits surveys

Analyze cost/benefits of alternatives

Objective 5

Workshop to define recommendations

Data Transfer and Archive

Targeted meetings to share results and science products

GNLCC Science Webinar

Finalize all data products

Archive all materials

Qualifications of Project Personnel (see CVs below) Legal and Policy-sensitive Aspects (none) Animal Use or Human Subjects (Policies the Montana University System will be followed)

9

E. Budget Justification Senior Personnel (all salaries are consistent with regular practices at Montana State University

0.25 months of salary for P.I. Hansen. Dr. Hansen's is a paid academic-year salary: his salary for the proposed work is for services beyond normal university duties and this extra compensation is in accordance with Montana State University policy. Hansen will lead the activities in the project, participate in the ecological forecasting and supervise the Ph.D. student working on ecological response to management treatments. 0.5 months of salary for Shanahan. Dr. Shanahan will co-supervise the Ph.D. student working on economic analysis. 6 months salary for Iglesias, who will work under the supervision of Drs Whitlock and Pederson on paleoecological analyses. 12 months research assistantship for a Ph.D. student who will be recruited to work on economic analyses. 3-12 month research assistantship for Ph.D. student Regan Nelson (also an Montana EPSCoR graduate fellow) who will work on ecological response to management treatments.

Fringe Benefits (calculated with standard rates for Montana State University Benefits are calculated as 24% for senior personnel; 36% for the postdoc positions; and 4% for graduate students.

Travel

Venue and travel costs for annual team workshops. Year 1. Initial workshop in GYA ($300 x 7 team and WBP subcommittee members), $500 for venue. ($2600) Year 2. Management alternative workshop in Fort Collins ($700 x 4 team members) and companion workshop GYA ($300 x 7 team and WBP subcommittee members), $500 for venue. ($5400) Year 3. Final workshop in GYA ($300 x 7 team and WBP subcommittee members), $500 for venue. ($2600)

Travel to field sites by post doc and students.

$2000/year (8 trips at $250/trip)

Other Direct Costs $15,000 in each of years 2 and 3 for social surveys $3,000 - 5,000 per year for supplies (one desktop computer for Ph.D. student, software upgrades and licenses, office supplies, photocopying, telecommunications, lab supplies) $ 1,000 for publication costs of the synthesis paper in year 3

10

$6500 - $13,000 per year for tuition for Ph.D. students.

Subcontract University of Montana

1.0 month salary and benefits per year for Dr. Naughton who will co-lead the economic analyses and co-supervise a Ph.D. student. IDCs (44.5%) of the UM are included in the subcontract.

Indirect Costs

44.5% Research-Federal rate at Montana State University CSU Indirect costs (31.3%) of first $25,000 per distribution

11

G. Literature Cited 1. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Whitebark Pine Subcommittee. 2011. Whitebark Pine Strategy for the

Greater Yellowstone Area. 41 p. 2. Chen, I.C., JK Hill, R. Ohlemueller, D Roay, and C Thomas. 2011. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with

High Levels of Climate Warming. Science 333. Hansen, A.J., N. Piekielek, C. Davis, J. Haas, D. Theobald, J. Gross, W. Monahan, T. Olliff. 2013. Exposure of US

National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change 1900-2100. In Prep for PNAS. 3. Allen, C., et al. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change

risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259:660–684. 4. Rehfeldt, G.E., N.L. Crookston, C. Saenz-Romero, E.M. Cambell. 2012. North American vegetation model for land-

use planning in a changing climate: a solution to large classification problems. Ecological Applications, 22(1):119–141.

5. Callaway, R.M. 1998. Competition and facilitation on elevation gradients in subalpine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Oikos 82:561–573.

6. Arno S.F., and R.J. Hoff. 1990. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.). In R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala , eds. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654 (2). Washington, D.C., USDA Forest Service. 877 p.

7. Lorenz, T.J., C. Aubry, and R. Shoal. 2008. A review of the literature on seed fate in whitebark pine and the life history traits of Clark’s nutcracker and pine squirrels. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station PNW-GTR-742.

Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane. 2001. The compelling case for management intervention. In Whitebark pine communities. Edited by D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane. Island Press, Washington D.C. pp. 4–25.

8. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Reinstatement of Protections for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Compliance with Court Order. Federal Register: March 26, Volume 75, Number 58, pgs 14496-14498

9. Logan, J., W. Macfarlane, and L. Willcox. 2010. Whitebark pine vulnerability to climate-driven mountain pine beetle disturbance in the Greater Yellowstone. Ecological Applications 20(4):895–902.

10. Macfarlane, William W., Jesse A. Logan, and Wilson R. Kern. 2013. An innovative aerial assessment of Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem mountain pine beetle-caused whitebark pine mortality. Ecological Applications 23:421–437.

11. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 138, July 20.

12. Glick, P., B. Stein, and N. Edelson. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

13. National Park Service. 2010. National Park Service climate change response strategy. National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Ft Collins, CO.

14. Warwell, M.V.,Rehfeldt, G.E.,and Crookston, N.L. 2007. Modeling Contemporary Climate Profiles of Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) and Predicting Responses to Global Warming. Proceedings of the Conference Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective. USDA Forest Service R6-NR-FHP-2007-01.

Potter, K. M., W. W. Hargrove, and F. H. Koch. Predicting climate change extirpation risk for central and southern Appalachian forest tree species. Pages 179-189 Proceedings from the Conference on the Ecology and Management of High-Elevation Forests in the Central and Southern Appalachian Mountains.

12

Coops, N.C., Waring, R.H., 2011. Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree species under changing climate in northwest North America. Ecological Modelling 222, 2119–2129.

McKenney, D. W., J.H. Pedlar, R.B . Rood, D. Price. 2011. Revisiting projected shifts in the climate envelopes of North American trees using updated general circulation models. Global Change Biology (2011) 17, 2720–2730.

15. Whitlock, C. 1993. Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton and southern Yellowstone National Parks. Ecological Monographs 63: 173-198.

Krause, T.R, and Whitlock, C. 2013. Climate and vegetation change during the late-glacial/early Holocene transition inferred from multiple proxy records from Blacktail Pond, Yellowstone National Park, USA. Quaternary Research, in press.

16. Farber, S., and B. Griner. 2000. “Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis,” Ecological Economics, 34, 63-76

17. Krutilla, John V. (1967). “Conservation Reconsidered,” American Economic Review, 57(4), 777-786. 18. Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. J.

Stouffer. 2008. Climate change - stationarity Is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573-574. 19. Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an

uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358-366. 20. Weeks, D., P. Malone, and L. Welling. 2011. Climate change scenario planning: A tool for managing parks into

uncertain futures. Park Science 28:26-33. 21. Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society

10(1): 32. 22. Nemani, R., H Hashimoto, P., Votava, F. Melton, W., Wang, A., Michaelis, L., Mutch, C., Milesi, S., Hiatt, M.,

White. 2009. Monitoring and forecasting ecosystem dynamics using the Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (TOPS). Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 1497–1509.

23. Maurer, E. P., Brekke, L., Pruitt, T., Duffy, P.B. 2007. Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies, Eos Transactions of American Geophysical Union, 88(47): 504.

24. http://www.montana.edu/lccvp/documents/PROJECTPLANHansenetalLCC_VP.final.pdf 25. Gross, J.E., A.J. Hansen, S.J. Goetz, D.M. Theobald, F.M. Melton, N.B. Piekielek, and R.R. Nemani. In press

(2011). Remote sensing for inventory and monitoring of the U.S. National Parks. Pages 29-56 in Y.Q. Yang (ed.), Remote sensing of protected lands. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL

Theobald, D.M., S.J. Goetz, J.B. Norman, and P. Jantz. 2009. Watersheds at risk to increased impervious surface cover in the conterminous United States. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 14:362-368.

Theobald, D.M. 2010. Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US. Landscape Ecology 25: 999-1011.

Piekielek, NB and AJ Hansen. 2012. Extent of fragmentation of coarse-scale habitats in and around US National Parks. Biological Conservation 155:13-22

Davis, C.R. and A.J. Hansen. 2011. Trajectories in land-use change around US National Parks and their challenges and opportunities for management. Ecological Applications 21(8) 3299-331.

26. Parra and Monahan 2008, Phillips et al. 2008, Monahan 2009, Tingley et al. 2009, Hansen et al. 2011 Monahan, W. B. 2009. A mechanistic niche model for measuring species’ distributional responses to seasonal

temperature gradients. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7921. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007921. Parra, J. L., and W. B. Monahan. 2008. Variability in 20th century climate change reconstructions and its

consequences for predicting geographic responses of California mammals. Global Change Biology 14: 2215-2231.

13

Phillips, L.P., A.J. Hansen, C.H. Flather. 2008. Evaluating the species energy relationship with the newest measures of ecosystem energy: NDVI versus MODIS primary production. Remote Sensing of the Environment. 112: 3538-3549.

Tingley, M., W. B. Monahan, S. Beissinger, and C. Moritz. 2009. Biogeography, changing climates, and niche evolution Sackler colloquium: birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901562106.

Hansen, A.J., L.B. Phillips, C.H. Flather and J. Robison-Cox. 2011. Carrying capacity for species richness as a context for conservation: A case study of North American breeding birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20, 817-83.

27. Whitlock, C., Dean, W.E., Fritz, S.C., Stevens, L.R., Stone, J.R., Power, M.J., Rosenbaum, J.R., Pierce, K.L., and Bracht-Flyr, B.B. 2012. Holocene seasonal variability inferred from multiple proxy records from Crevice Lake, Yellowstone National Park, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 331-332: 90-103.

28. Whitlock, C., Marlon, J., Briles, C., Brunelle, A., Long. C., and Bartlein, P.J. 2008a. Long-term relations among fire, fuels, and climate in the northwestern U.S. based on lake-sediment studies. Journal of International Wildfire Research 17 (1): 72-83.

29. Gray, S.T., Graumlich, L.J., Betancourt, J.L. 2007. Annual precipitation in the Yellowstone National Park region since AD 1173. Quaternary Research, 68 (1): 18-27.

30. Cook, E.R et al. 2004. Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science 306: 1015-1018. Whitlock, C., Dean, W., Rosenbaum, J., Fritz, S., Bracht, B., and Power, M. 2008b. A 2650-year-long record of

environmental change from northern Yellowstone National Park based on a comparison of multiple proxy. Quaternary International 188: 126-138.

31. Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth and L.M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John, Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

32. Boardman, A. E., D.H. Greenberg, A.R. Vining, and D.L. Weimer. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis Concepts and Practice, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

33. Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; Smith, C.M. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Shoal, R, T. Ohlson, C. Aubry. 2008. Land Managers Guide to Whitebark Pine Restoration in the Pacific Northwest Region 2009–2013. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

34. IRMA, https://irma.nps.gov/

14

H. Letters of Support I. Public Summary. The goal of this project is to inform implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee’s (GYCC) Whitebark Pine (WBP) subcommittee’s “WBP Strategy” based on the climate science. WBP is a keystone and candidate endangered species that has undergone high levels of mortality related to climatic warming. The GYCC WBP subcommittee has developed a strategy for WBP in the GYA, but without adequate information on climate change. The subcommittee is participating in this project because of their high interest in using climate science to enhance implementation of the strategy. WBP habitat suitability is being forecast under future scenarios to 2100. Paleo data from GYA will be used to quantify WBP/climate relationships over the past 15,000 years. Four WBP management alternatives will be developed consistent with the GYCC WBP Strategy. These alternatives will be evaluated relative to WBP status, costs of implementation, and public valuation of change in ecosystem services. Recommendations will be derived in a workshop based both the results and uncertainty in the results. These recommendations can thus be immediately acted upon by the GYA management community and the approach and methods will be readily applicable to the several other tree species that are undergoing die-offs under changing climate.