Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ProjectedFutureClimaticandEcologicalConditionsinSanLuisObispoCounty
MarniE.Koopman,RichardS.Nauman,andJessicaL.Leonard
TheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicy
April,2010
2
Acollaborativeeffortby:
The MAPSS Team at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station
Acknowledgements:RayDrapekandRonNeilsonattheUSDAForestServicePacific
NorthwestResearchStationprovidedclimateprojectiondataaswellaslogistical
support.StacyVynneoftheClimateLeadershipInitiativeandCindyDeaconWilliamsof
NCCSPofferedassistancewithwording.Wealsoappreciatetheinsightsonclimate
projectionsprovidedbyPhilMotewiththeOregonClimateChangeResearchInstitute.
ThephotooftheYuccaflowerisfromDenisKearnswhiletheotherthreecoverpictures
weregenerouslysuppliedbyJimZimmerlin.
2
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Introduction 2
Modelsandtheirlimitations 2
Globalclimatechangeprojections 4
SanLuisObispoCountyclimateprojections 5
Temperature 7
Precipitation 14
Vegetationandwildfire 22
Sealevelrise 25
SupportingStudies 28
Conclusions 32
LiteratureCited 33
2
INTRODUCTION
SanLuisObispoCountyisrichinhistory,culture,andbiologicaldiversity.Thecountyextendsfromsemi‐desertintheeast,acrosstheSantaLuciaMountains,throughtherollinghillsandoakwoodlandsandfinallytotheruggedcoastlinealongthewesternborder.Changestothislandscapeduetoclimatechangearelikelytoaffectnaturalecosystemsaswellaslocalresidentsandtheirlivelihoods. ClimaticchangesarealreadyunderwayacrosstheCountyandarelikelytoincreaseinthecomingdecades.Changestothelocalclimatearelikelytoincludemorefrequentandintensestormsandfloods,extendeddrought,increasedwildfire,andmoreheatwaves.ThelocalcommunitiesintheCountywillneedtoplanforsuchchangesinordertopreventpotentiallycatastrophicconsequences.Thisreportprovidescommunity‐membersanddecision‐makersinSanLuisObispoCountywithlocalclimate
changeprojectionsthatarepresentedinawaythatcanhelpthemmakeeducatedlong‐termplanningdecisions.TheclimatechangemodeloutputsinthisreportwereobtainedfromtheUSDAForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStationandmappedbyscientistsattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicy. ClimateprojectionAmodel‐derivedestimateofthefutureclimate.ClimatepredictionorforecastAprojectionthatishighlycertainbasedonagreementamongmultiplemodels.ScenarioAcoherentandplausibledescriptionofapossiblefuturestate.Ascenariomaybedevelopedusingclimateprojectionsasthebasis,butadditionalinformation,includingbaselineconditionsanddecisionpathways,isneededtodevelopascenario.
MODELSANDTHEIRLIMITATIONS Climatechangepresentsuswithaseriouschallengeasweplanforthefuture.Ourcurrentplanningstrategiesatallscales(local,regional,andnational)relyonhistoricaldatatoanticipatefutureconditions.Duetoclimatechangeanditsassociatedimpacts,however,thefutureisnolongerexpectedtoresemblethepast.
Todeterminewhatconditionswemightexpectinthefuture,climatologistscreatedmodelsbasedonphysical,chemical,andbiologicalprocessesthatformtheearth’sclimatesystem.Thesemodelsvaryintheirlevelofdetailandassumptions,makingoutputandfuturescenariosvariable.Differencesamongmodels
3
stemfromanincompleteunderstandingofmanyofEarth’sprocessesandfeedbacks.Takenasagroup,however,climatemodelspresentarangeofpossiblefutureconditions.
Mostclimatemodelsarecreatedatglobalscales,butaredifficulttoapplyatlocalorregionalscalesbecauseglobalmodeloutputdoesnotreflectregionalorlocalvariationinclimate.Formanagersandpolicymakerstomakedecisionsatthesefinerscales,theyneedinformationabouthowclimatechangewillimpactthelocalarea.TheMAPSS(MappedAtmosphere‐Plant‐SoilSystem)TeamatthePacificNorthwestResearchStationadjustedglobalmodelresultstolocalandregionalscales.TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)usesnumerousmodelstomakeglobalclimateprojections.Themodelsaredevelopedbydifferentinstitutionsandcountriesandhaveslightlydifferentinputsorassumptions.Fromthesemodels,theMAPSSTeamchosethreeglobalclimatemodelsthatrepresentedarangeofprojectionsfortemperatureandotherclimatevariables.ThesethreemodelsareHadley(HADCM,fromtheUK),MIROC(fromJapan),andCSIRO(fromAustralia).Whilethespecificinputsarebeyondthescopeofthisreport,theyincludesuchvariablesasgreenhousegasemissions,airandoceancurrents,iceandsnowcover,plantgrowth,particulatematter,andmanyothers(Randalletal.2007).Thethreemodelschosenincludedspecificvariables,suchaswatervapor,thatwereneededinordertoruntheMC1vegetationmodel.Modeloutputswereconvertedtolocalscalesusinglocaldataonrecenttemperatureandprecipitationpatterns.TheclimatemodeloutputwasappliedtotheMC1vegetation
Howcertainaretheprojections?
HIGHCERTAINTY:Highertemperatures–Greaterconcentrationsofgreenhousegasestrapmoreheat.Measuredwarmingtracksmodelprojections.Lowersnowpack–Highertemperaturescauseashiftfromsnowtorainatlowerelevationsandcauseearliersnowmeltathigherelevations.Shiftingdistributionsofplants&animals–Relationshipsbetweenspeciesdistributionsandclimatearewelldocumented.MEDIUMCERTAINTY:Morefrequentstorms–Changestostormpatternswillberegionallyvariable.Changesinprecipitation–Currentmodelsshowwidedisagreementonprecipitationpatterns,butthemodelprojectionsconvergeinsomelocations.LOWCERTAINTY:Changesinvegetation–Vegetationmaytakedecadesorcenturiestokeeppacewithchangesinclimate.Changesinrunoff–Currentmodelsofrunoffareunsophisticatedandbasedonhistoricalconditions.Uncertaintyinprecipitation,landuse,andshiftingvegetationalsocontributetotheuncertaintyinrunoffpatterns.Wildfirepatterns–Manyuncertaincomponents,includingvegetation,treepestsanddisease,andprecipitationwillimpactfirepatterns.
4
model(Bacheletetal.2001),whichprovideddataonpossiblefuturevegetationtypesandextentofwildfire.Theutilityofthemodelresultspresentedinthisreportistohelpcommunitiespicturewhattheconditionsandlandscapemaylooklikeinthefutureandthemagnitudeanddirectionofchange.Becausemodeloutputsvaryintheirdegreeofcertainty,theyareconsideredprojectionsratherthanpredictions(seeboxonpage2).Somemodeloutputs,suchastemperature,havegreatercertaintythanotheroutputs,suchasvegetationtypeorrunoff(seeboxonpreviouspage).
Weurgethereadertokeepinmindthatthesemodelresultsarepresentedtoexplorethetypesofchangeswemaysee,butthatactualconditionsmaybequitedifferentfromthosedepictedinthisreport.Uncertaintyassociatedwithprojectionsoffutureconditionsshouldnotbeusedasareasonfordelayingactiononclimatechange.Thelikelihoodthatfutureconditionswillresemblehistoricconditionsisverylow,somanagersandpolicymakersareencouragedtobegintoplanforaneraofchange,eveniftheprecisetrajectoryofsuchchangeisuncertain.
GLOBALCLIMATECHANGEPROJECTIONS
TheIPCC(2007)andtheU.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram(2009)agreethattheevidenceis“unequivocal”thattheEarth’satmosphereandoceansarewarming,andthatthiswarmingisdueprimarilytohumanactivitiesincludingtheemissionofCO2,methane,andothergreenhousegases,alongwithdeforestation.Averageglobalairtemperaturehasalreadyincreasedby0.7°C(1.4°F)andisexpectedtoincreaseby2°‐6.4°C(11.5°F)withinthenextcentury(Figure1).TheIPCCemissionscenariousedinthisassessmentwasthe“business‐as‐usual”trajectorythatassumesthatmostnationsfailtoacttoloweremissions.Thecurrentgrowthinemissionsactuallyexceedstheassumedgrowthinthismodeled
Figure 1. The last 1000 years in global mean temperature, in comparison to projected temperature for 2100. Drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to an increase of about 2ºC by 2100 while the current trajectory will lead to an increase closer to 4.5º C and as high as 6º C (adapted from IPCC 2007).
5
scenario,meaningthattheresultspresentedinthisreportcouldunderestimateactualimpacts.Duetoclimatesysteminertia,restabilizationofatmosphericgaseswilltakemanydecadesevenwithdrasticemissionsreductions.ReducingemissionsisvitaltopreventtheEarth’sclimatesystemfromreachingcertaintippingpointsthat
willleadtosuddenandirrevocablechanges.Inadditiontoemissionsreductions,planningforinevitablechangestriggeredbygreenhousegasesalreadypresentintheatmospherewillallowresidentsofSanLuisObispoCountytoreducethenegativeimpactsofclimatechangeand,hopefully,maintaintheirquality‐of‐lifeasclimatechangeprogresses.
SANLUISOBISPOCOUNTYCLIMATEPROJECTIONS VariablesmodeledusingHADCM,CSIRO,andMIROC,andthevegetationmodel(MC1)includetemperature,precipitation,vegetationtypeanddistribution,andannualpercentofthelandscapeburned.Thesevariableswerecalculatedbasedonhistoricaldataformakingbaselinecomparisons,andwereprojectedoutto2100.Again,theseprojectionsareuncertain,becauseofthedifferentassumptionsbythemodels,buttheyrepresentalikelyrangeofpossiblefutureconditionsinSanLuisObispoCounty.Asclimatechangeplaysout,wearelikelytogainabetterunderstandingofinteractionsandtheclimatesystemsandbeabletomakemore
certainprojections‐however,wemayalsoseesurprisesandunforeseenchainsofcause‐and‐effectthatcouldnothavebeenprojected.Climatechangeprojectionsareprovidedhereinthreedifferentformats–asoverallaverages,astimeseriesgraphsthatshowchangeovertime(averagedacrosstheCounty),andasmapsthatshowvariationacrosstheCounty,butaveragedacrossyears.Wemappedclimateandvegetationvariablesforthehistoricalperiod(1961‐1990)andfortwofuture11‐yearperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85).
6
Figure2.LandownershipinSanLuisObispoCounty.
7
TEMPERATURETheprojectionsfromallthreemodelsagree,withhighcertainty,onawarmerfutureforSanLuisObispoCounty(Table1).
Table1.ProjectedincreaseinaveragetemperatureinSanLuisObispoCounty,fromthreedifferentglobalclimatemodels,basedonahistoricannualaverageof58.3°F(14.6°C)from1961‐1990,ahistoricsummeraverageof69.9°F(21.1°C),andahistoricwinteraverageof47.3°F(8.5°C)
TEMPERATURE 2035‐2045 2075‐2085AnnualJun‐AugDec‐Feb
+2.1to+3.9°F(+1.2to+2.2°C)+1.8to+4.7°F(+1.0to+2.6°C)+1.7to+3.6°F(+1.0to+2.0°C)
+4.1to+7.6°F(+2.3to+4.2°C)+4.3to+8.9°F(+1.0to+2.6°C)+3.4to+7.0°F(+1.9to+3.9°C)
Figure4.AveragemonthlytemperatureacrossSanLuisObispoCounty.Futureprojectionsareaveragedacrossthethreeglobalclimatemodelsfortwodifferenttimeperiods:2035‐45(purpleline)and2075‐85(redline).Thefullrangeofprojectionsfromallthreemodelsisshowninorange.
Figure3.AverageannualtemperatureacrossSanLuisObispoCountyfrom1901to2000(measuredhistorical)andprojectedthrough2100usingthreeglobalclimatemodels.
8
Figure5.Januarytemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
9
Figure6.Apriltemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
10
Figure7.Julytemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
11
Figure8.Octobertemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
12
Figure9.Temperaturechange(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJanuaryandApril.
13
Figure10.Temperaturechange(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJulyandOctober.
14
PRECIPITATIONProjectionsforfutureprecipitationvariedsubstantiallyamongthethreemodels,withMIROCgenerallyprovidingdrierprojectionsthanHADCMandCSIRO.InaseriesofreportsreleasedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,asetofsixmodelsshowedconsensusonadrierclimateforCentralCalifornia(Westerlingetal.2009).Further,evenwithsubstantialincreasesinprecipitation,soilmoistureisexpectedtodeclineduetoincreasedtemperatureandevaporation. Table2.ProjectedchangeinprecipitationinSanLuisObispoCounty,fromthreeglobalclimatemodels,basedonahistoricannualaverageof395.9mmfrom1961‐1990,ahistoricsummeraverageof1.4mmpermonthandahistoricwinteraverageof70.6mmpermonth.Precipitation 2035‐2045 2075‐2085
AnnualJun‐AugDec‐Feb
‐106.7to+38.6mm(‐27%to+25%)‐0.4to+0.0mm(‐26%to+2%)
‐14.6to+33.5mm(‐21%to+47%)
‐120.2to+22.4mm(‐30.4%to+5.6%)‐0.4to+0.3mm(‐29%to+24%)
‐26.1to+10.7mm(‐37%to+15%)
Figure11.Averageannualprecipitation(mm)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.Onaverage,HADCMshowsaslightlywetterfuturewhileMIROCandCSIROshowadrierfuture.
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Precipitationinm
m
Historic
HADCM
CSIRO
MIROC
‐100
‐80
‐60
‐40
‐20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Percen
tcha
ngeinprecipitation
HADCM CSIRO MIROC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Precipitationinm
m
Historic
HADCM
CSIRO
MIROC
‐80
‐60
‐40
‐20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jan FebMarAprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NovDec
Percen
tcha
ngeinprecipitation
HADCM
CSIRO
MIROC
Figures12‐13.Totalmonthlyaverageprecipitation(below)andpercentchangeinprecipitation(right)forthetimeperiodof2035‐2045,ascomparedtohistoric(1961‐1990).
Figures14‐15.Totalmonthlyaverageprecipitation(below)andpercentchangeinprecipitation(right)forthetimeperiodof2075‐2085,ascomparedtohistoric(1961‐1990).
2035‐2045
2075‐2085
16
Figure16.Januaryprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
17
Figure17.Aprilprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
18
Figure18.Julyprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
19
Figure19.Octoberprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.
20
Figure20.Precipitationchange(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJanuaryandApril.
21
Figure21.Precipitationchange(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJulyandOctober.
22
VEGETATIONandWILDFIRETheMAPSSteamvegetationmodel(MC1)providedprojectionsforpredominantvegetationtypes(Figure22)andproportionoftheareaburnedannuallybywildfire(Figure23).Projectionsforchangesinvegetationtypesincludealossofneedleleafforestathigherelevations,alossoftemperateshrublandineasternportionsoftheCounty,andexpansionofsubtropicalgrasslands.(Themodeldoesnotreflectthedominanceofnon‐nativegrassesinthearea.)Despitechangedgrowingconditions,vegetationcantakedecadesorcenturiestoadjust.Mechanismsforvegetationchangearelikelytobedrought,fire,invasivespecies,insectsanddisease.AccordingtoMC1output,theannualpercentageoftheCountyburnedbywildfireisexpectedtoincreasefromahistoricalaverageof3.7%to6.8‐7.3%by2035‐45and8.1‐8.5%by2075‐85.Thistranslatestoupto311mi2burned,onaverage,peryear(Figure23).Similarly,Westerlingetal.(2009)alsoprojectedsubstantialincreasesinareaburnedbywildfire,withmuchofSanLuisObispoCountyexpectedtoexperience200‐350%increaseinacreageburnedby2085ascomparedtothehistoric(1961‐1990)amount.
23
Figure22.Suitablegrowingconditionsfordominanttypesofvegetation.
24
Figure23.Averageproportionofeachgridcell(8kmx8km)burnedannuallyinSanLuisObispoCounty,shownforthehistoricalperiod(1961‐1990)andprojectedfortwofutureperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85),usingtwoglobalclimatemodels(MIROCandHADCM;resultsfromCSIROwereunavailable).
25
SEALEVELRISESealevelhasrisennearlyeightinchesalongtheCaliforniacoastoverthepastcentury.Climatemodelsprojectfurtherincreasesof3.3–4.6feet(1.0–1.4meters)bytheyear21001(Cayanetal.2009).Theprimarythreatsassociatedwithsealevelriseincludeflooding,erosion,andlossofvaluablecoastallandanduniquehabitats.Hebergeretal.(2009)conductedaroughGISexercisethatidentifiedsomeareasofpotentialhighriskfromsealevelrisealongtheentireCaliforniacoast.Basedonthisanalysis,whichhasnotbeenground‐truthed,SanLuisObispoCountysupports6.1mi2ofexistingcoastalwetlands.Assealevelrises,thesewetlandsareexpectedtomigrateinland,potentiallycovering1.1mi2ofnewterrain.ThePacificInstitutemappedtheareawherewetlandsareexpectedtomigrate,anddeterminedthat69%isviableformigratingwetlandsandshouldbeprotectedtoallowforsuchshifts.Anadditional7%oftheareawherewetlandsmightmigrateisviablebutwillexperiencelossofotherfunctions,suchaspasture,parks,oropenspace.Theremaining24%oftheareahasinfrastructuremakingitunfeasibleforwetlandstomigrate.ThePacificInstitutemappedareasofpotentialflooding,erosion,andwetlandmigrationalongtheentirecoastofCalifornia.Thesemapscanbefoundontheirwebsite(http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/maps/index.htm).Substantialareasofthecoastareatriskoferosion,includingMorroRockBeach(Figure24)andAvilaBeach(Figure25).TheGISassessmentofsealevelriseisavaluablefirststeptowardsidentifyingareasatriskalongthecoast.Moredetailedspatialanalysesthatincludeactualwetlandareaandtypedataareneededtobetteridentifyareasandresourcesatrisk.Betterprojectionsofsealevelrisearealsoneeded,assealevelrisemodeloutputishighlyvariable.
1 Meansealevelmayactuallybemuchhigher,asmostclimatemodelsfailtoincorporateGreenlandandAntarcticicesheetmeltintotheirprojections.
26
Figures24and25.Examplesofareasatriskoferosion(green)from4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(Hebergeretal.2009).
27
Figures26and27.Examplesofareasatriskoffloodingcurrently(lightblue)andwith4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(magenta)(Hebergeretal.2009).
28
Figures28and29.Examplesofareaswherewetlandsmaymigrate(blue)with4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(Hebergeretal.2009).
29
SUPPORTINGSTUDIES
TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsponsoredalargebodyofresearchintothepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeacrossthestate.Manyofthereportsfromthiseffortwerereleasedin2009.Forconsistency,authorsofthesereportsallusedthesamesetofglobalclimatemodelsformakingtheirprojections,butthesemodelsweredifferentthanthethreethatweusedearlierinthisreport.Evenwithdifferentmodels,however,theresultsfrommanyofthesereportsagreewithorcomplementourresults,givingusevengreaterconfidenceintheprojections.Usingthesamevegetationmodel(MC1)butdifferentclimatemodelsthanours,Shawetal.(2009)alsoprojectsadeclineinconiferousforestinSanLuisObispoCounty.Inaddition,theirstudyprojectedsteepdeclinesinforageproductioninthenortheasternandeasternportionofthecounty(Figure30).Inanotherstudy,independentoftheCECreports,Loarieetal.(2008)modeledpotentialrangeshiftsofendemicplantspeciesthroughoutCalifornia.Themodelingexerciserevealedthatupto1/3ofallspecieswillbeextirpatediftheyareunabletomovetonewareas,butthatthecoastalrangesofCentralCalifornia,includingsubstantialareasofSLOCounty,areexpectedtobeimportantrefugesfornumerousspecies(Figure31).Kueppersetal.(2005)modeledshiftsinrangefortwospeciesofoak:blueoakandvalleyoak,throughoutthestate,usingtwodifferentclimatemodels(oneregionalandoneglobal).Theirresultsindicatedthatvalleyoakhasahigherlikelihoodofpersistencethanblueoak(Figure32).BothoaksexperiencedrangecontractionsinSanLuisObispoCountyby2080‐2099,accordingtothemodels,withvalleyoakexperiencingalmostcompletedeclineinoneofthetwomodelscenarios.
30
Figure30.Netchangeinforageproductionby2070‐2099,basedontwoclimatemodelsundertheA2emissionsscenario.Orangeorbrownrepresentadeclineinforageproductionwhilebluerepresentsandincreaseinforageproduction.(FigurefromShawetal.2009)
Figure31.Projectedpresentplantdiversity(left)andplantdiversity80yearsfromnowbasedontwoclimatemodels(PCM–middleandHADCM3–right)usingtheA1F1emissionsscenarioandassumingthatplantswillbeabletodispersetonewareas.Coastalareas,suchasthoseinSLOCounty,maybeespeciallyimportantforharboringdiversity.(FigurefromLoarieetal.2008)
31
Figure32.ShiftsindistributionfortwospeciesofoakinCalifornia:valleyoakandblueoak.Blueoak(AandB)isexpectedtodeclinethroughoutSanLuisObispoCounty,accordingtobothmodels,withsteeperdeclineswiththeClimateSystemModel(CSM)GCM(B)ascomparedtotheregionalmodelRegCM2.5(A).Valleyoak(CandD)isexpectedtocontractinSanLuisObispobutstillpersistacrossmuchofitscurrentrangeaccordingtoboththeregional(C)andglobal(D)models.FigurefromKueppersetal.(2005).
32
CONCLUSIONS
Thepurposeofthisreportistoprovideup‐to‐dateclimateprojectionsforSanLuisObispoCountyatascalethatcanbeusedincommunityplanningefforts.Byprovidingtheinformationthatlocalmanagers,decision‐makersandcommunitymembersneedtomakeday‐to‐daydecisionsandlong‐termplans,wehopetospurproactiveclimatechangepreparationplanning.Manyoftheimpactsofclimatechangearealreadyprogressingandwillcontinuetoacceleratethroughoutthenextfewdecades,regardlessoffutureemissions.Forinstance,ourprojectionsforthetimeperiodof2035‐2045arehighlylikelytobecomereality.Whetherwelimitclimatechangetothislevelorcontinuetoprogresstowardsthelevelprojectedfor2075‐2085,andbeyond,willdependonwhethertheU.S.andotherkeynationschoosetoloweremissionsdrasticallyandimmediately.TheprojectionsprovidedinthisreportareintendedtoformthefoundationforSanLuisObispoCountyadaptationplanningforclimatechange.Ourprogram,calledtheClimateWiseprogram,strivestobuildco‐beneficialplanningstrategiesthatarescience‐based,aredevelopedbylocalcommunitymembers,andincreasetheresilienceofbothhumanandnaturalcommunitiestoclimatechangeinacohesivemanner.Thisprocesswilltakeplaceinaseriesofworkshopsinvolvingexpertsinthefollowingsectors:naturalecosystems(bothterrestrialandaquatic),built(infrastructure,culverts,etc.),human(health,emergencyresponse,etc.),economic(agriculture,business,etc.)andcultural(NativeAmericantribalcustomsandrights,otherculturallydistinctlocalcommunities).TheClimateWiseprogramisstructuredtobegintheplanningprocessinlocalcommunities,butthento“scaleup”managementstrategiestothestateandfederallevelbyidentifyingneededchangesinpolicyandgovernancestructure.Duringthelocalplanningprocess,expertsfromdifferentsectorswillidentifybarrierstosoundmanagement,allowingustoaddresstheselimitingfactorsbyeducatinglawmakersandinfluencingpolicydecisions.PleasecontactMarniKoopmanattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicyformoreinformation([email protected];541‐482‐4459x303).
33
LITERATURECITED
Bachelet,D.,J.M.Lenihan,C.Daly,R.P.Neilson,D.S.Ojima,andW.J.Parton.2001.MC1:Adynamicvegetationmodelforestimatingthedistributionofvegetationandassociatedcarbon,nutrients,andwater‐atechnicaldocumentation.Version1.0.GTR‐508.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.Cayan,D.,M.Tyree,M.Dettinger,H.Hidalgo,T.Das,E.Maurer,P.Bromirski,N.Graham,andR.Flick.2009.ClimateChangeScenariosandSeaLevelRiseEstimatesforCalifornia2008ClimateChangeScenariosAssessment.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐014‐F.Heberger,M.,H.Cooley,P.Herrera,P.H.Gleick,andE.Moore.2009.TheImpactsofSeaLevelRiseontheCaliforniaCoast.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐024‐F.IPCC.2007.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.ContributionofWorkingGroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress.Kueppers,L.M.,M.A.Snyder,L.C.Sloan,E.S.Zavaleta,andB.Fulfrost.2005.ModeledregionalclimatechangeandCaliforniaendemicoakranges.PNAs102:18281‐18286.Loarie,S.R.,B.E.Carter,K.Hayhoe,S.McMahon,R.Moe,C.A.Knight,andD.D.Ackerly.2008.ClimatechangeandthefutureofCalifornia’sendemicflora.PloSONE3:1‐10.Randall,D.A.,R.A.Wood,S.Bony,etal.2007.ClimateModelsandTheirEvaluation.InClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Solomon,S.,D.Qin,M.Manning,etal.,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Shaw,M.R.,L.Pendleton,D.Cameron,B.Morris,G.Bratman,D.Bachelet,K.Klausmeyer,J.MacKenzie,D.Conklin,J.Lenihan,E.Haunreiter,andC.Daly.2009.TheImpactofClimateChangeonCalifornia’sEcosystemServices.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐025‐F.USGCRP.2009.GlobalClimateChangeImpactsintheUnitedStates.T.R.Karl,J.M.Melillo,andT.C.Peterson,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Westerling, A. L., B. P. Bryant, H. K. Preisler, T. P. Holmes, H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S. R. Shrestha. 2009. Climate Change, Growth, and California Wildfire. California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2009-046-F.