Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 1/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Regional Landscapes Rethinking Landscapes, Ecosections and Biogeoclimatic Classification

in the face of Climate Disruption

Greg Utzig, P.Ag. g13utzig@telus.net

www.kootenayresilience.org

DRAFT March 25, 2019

1) Context

Due to the complex physiography of BC, regional and local climates are primarily the result of complex seasonal interactions between air masses moving across the province and major mountain ranges. Pacific air masses cross from west to east bringing moist air off the Pacific Ocean, while arctic air masses occasionally move south bringing cold winter outbreaks, and continental air masses occasionally enter from the east and southeast bringing cold air in the winter and hot dry air in the summer. The classic illustration is the wet coastal climates and dry rain shadow of the interior plateau and Okanagan valley resulting from interactions between Pacific air masses and the Coast Mountains.

Physiography, climate and vegetation patterns have traditionally been used to describe and classify the landscape diversity of British Columbia. In the 1960s Holland’s classic “Landforms of British Columbia – A Physiographic Outline” became the standard reference for describing regional landscapes of the province – identifying key features such as mountain ranges, plateaus and plains (Holland 1964). In the 1960s and 1970s Krajina and his students developed the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) system for BC, which focused on the distribution of climax vegetation and soil development as surrogates for regional climate (Meidinger and Pojar 1991, Pojar et al. 1987). In the 1980s Demarchi and others developed and Ecoregional Classification (EC) system that combined elements of both physiography and vegetation zonation (Demarchi 2011). Examples are shown below in Figure 1.

Over the past few decades, most biodiversity conservation work in BC has utilized elements of both BEC and EC systems, especially the biogeoclimatic subzone/variant and ecosection levels of classification respectively. They have played an important role in designing our conservation network as a mechanism

Figure 1. Holland’s physiographic landform mapping, Biogeoclimatic Zones of BC and Ecoprovinces and Ecosections of BC’s Ecoregional classification.

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 2/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Figure 2. An example of draft RLs (black outlines), and current BEC units (various coloured polygons).

for measuring coarse filter ecosystem representation in the Protected Areas Strategy in the 1990s and the design of old growth management areas (Prov. of BC 1993).

Both BEC and EC implicitly assume that regional climate has been, and will continue to be relatively stable – or at least in equilibrium – and varying within definable limits. However as climate disruption continues to proceed, species distributions will respond species-by-species, depending on their individual tolerances and responses to changing conditions (Bunnell and Kremsater 2012, Foden et al. 2008, Jackson and Overpeck 2000). As this occurs, many species assemblages and ecosystems within BEC units will begin to disaggregate. New combinations of species will evolve that are adapted to the emerging climate envelopes (e.g. due to unique environmental tolerances of each species, changing predator/prey and pest/host relationships).

Because this process will continue to develop over the coming decades and/or centuries, it may be more appropriate to use a more mechanistic approach to defining landscape units – one based on environmental factors that will remain relatively constant as climate change proceeds. Both the BEC system and more detailed classification levels of the EC system will have to be adapted to the changing climate, and associated changes in vegetation patterns.

2) A New Paradigm for Regional and Landscape Zonation

An alternative for landscape classification is to abandon vegetation, soil development and climate themselves as differentiating components of a classification system, and simply rely on “enduring features”, physical components of the landscape that are not affected by climate, and that will remain a relatively constant factor for the time scales under consideration (decades and centuries). Instead of these features being determined by climate, they in fact play an important role in determining the distribution of climate envelopes in BC. At the regional and landscape scales these include mountain ranges and their elevations, aspects, and juxtaposition/ orientation in relation to regional air mass movements.

A new classification and mapping unit with boundaries predominantly defined by enduring features, the Regional Landscape (RL) is proposed to fill the need for adapting BEC and EC to the evolving realities of climate disruption. Each RL is defined as an area within which the climate envelopes are relatively uniform within elevation bands across the unit.

Current mapping of subzonal BEC units has been shown to accurately represent the distribution of a suite of climate variables relevant to the distribution of ecosystems (Wang et al. 2012). Macro-topography, and existing distributions of regional climate as represented by elevational sequences of BEC units, can be employed to define RLs (see Fig. 2). It is assumed that individual RL areas have relatively unique and homogeneous landscape level climates today due to their unique and consistent elevational sequences of BEC units. The topographic features occurring within them and/or surrounding them ensure that interactions with seasonal air masses are relatively predictable, resulting in climates with definable limits, recognizing that there is variation seasonally and year to year.

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 3/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Figure 3. Regional Landscapes and Climate Subregions of southeast BC.

Figure 4. Climate Regions of southeast BC.

While the distribution of RLs is based on the present distribution of regional climate, the boundaries of individual RLs are mainly defined by enduring features that control climatic variables and associated vegetation zonation, rather than climatic variables and the distribution of vegetation species at any given time. The existence of RLs does not require an assumption of a stable climate or persistent zonal climax vegetation. The distribution of RLs in southeast BC is shown in Figure 3 (see the Appendix for more details on individual RLs).

The implicit assumption that makes RLs useful in a world with a changing climate, is that because the major topographic features are not changing, each RL will still maintain a relatively homogeneous climate within its boundary as it responds to climate change1. The actual climate in each RL will be changing, but it will be changing relatively evenly across each RL. Although boundaries defined by major mountain ranges (e.g., the spine of the Purcells) will likely be fixed, whereas gradational boundaries, typically on plateaus or across major valley systems, may shift somewhat with changing patterns of air masses.

3) Regional Landscapes and Landscape Hierarchy

The RL system can be adapted at multiple scales and for multiple end-uses. For broader more regional applications the RLs can be grouped into Climate Subregions and Climate Regions (see Figs. 3 and 4). For finer units, rather than using BEC units to differentiate elevational bands of climate, it has been proposed to use selected elevation breaks. For southeastern BC, 500m bands have been utilized, as they generally approximate present BEC unit breaks (see Fig. 5a). For finer subdivisions, site level enduring features can be utilized as differentiating characteristics such as bedrock composition, landform, parent material texture, aspect, slope position and seepage presence/absence. These would be similar to the lowest levels of BEC and EC utilized today, however the differentiating characteristics would focus on abiotic factors of moisture regime and parent material, rather than vegetation associations and soil development (see Fig 5b).

1 This assumption may not be valid under a severe climate change scenario where there are significant shifts in the patterns of weather systems, such as continental vs. maritime influences or the long-term seasonal patterns of the jetstream.

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 4/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Figure 5. Subdivisions of Regional Landscapes based on elevational bands and edaphic characteristics (e.g., slope position, parent material, seepage).

Figure 6. (a) Regional Landscape 15, Columbia-Windermere Lakes, with proposed conservation mapping; (b) representation by management zone based on elevation bands within RL 15 (from

Utzig and Holt 2014).

4) Applications for Regional Landscapes

Recently, RLs have been used as analysis units for climate change vulnerability assessments in the West Kootenays (see Holt et al. 2012). RLs have been employed as ecological planning units for representation analysis associated with climate change conservation planning in southeastern BC (see Fig 6 and Utzig and Holt 2014). Climatic Regions consisting of groups of RLs have been employed by Columbia Basin Trust and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium for reporting regional climate change projections (see Fig. 4 and Murdock et. al. 2013). By making minor boundary adjustments of RLs and Climate Regions to match watershed boundaries, RLs have been adapted to define Hydrologic Regions for assessing past and future trends in streamflow (see Fig. 7 and Carver 2017). In addition to work in southeast BC, an early version of draft RLs has also been elaborated for the Stikine, Nass and Skeena watersheds in northwest BC (Utzig and Carver 2013). Development of the RL classification system is ongoing.

(b) (a)

(b) (a)

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 5/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Figure 7. Hydrologic Regions of the Canadian portion of the Columbia – Kootenay River systems, with selected climatic variables for selected regions (from Carver 2017).

5) Previous Version Cross-References

Previous drafts of southeast BC Regional Landscapes were based on older versions of BEC, and had different boundaries in a few cases (prior to 2019). Earlier versions also employed an earlier numbering system, and some previous reports refer to the older numbers. The following table provides a cross-reference between the current and older numbers.

New Old New Old New Old New Old New Old

1 50 8 56 15 9 22 20 29 26

2 1 9 55 16 8 23 21 30 25

3 2 10 4 17 16 24 23 31 51

4 3 11 6 18 15 25 19 32 51

5 11-12 12 5 19 14 26 18 33 57

6 53 13 7 20 17 27 22

7 54 14 10 21 13 28 24

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 6/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

6) References

Bunnell, F. and L. Kremsater. 2012. Migrating Like a Herd of Cats: Climate Change and Emerging Forests in British Columbia. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(2):1–24. http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/131/122

Carver, N. 2017. Water Monitoring and Climate Change in the Upper Columbia Basin: Summary of Current Status and Opportunities. Report publ. by Columbia Basin Trust. 68pp.

Demarchi, D.A. 2011. The British Columbia Ecoregion Classification – 3rd edition. Ecosystem Information Section, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecology/ecoregions/index.html

Foden, W., Mace, G., Vié, J.-C., Angulo, A., Butchart, S., DeVantier, L., Dublin, H., Gutsche, A., Stuart, S. and Turak, E. 2008. Species susceptibility to climate change impacts. In: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Holland, S.S. 1964. Landforms of BC: A Physiographic Outline. BC Dept. of Mines and Petroleum Resources Bulletin No. 48. Queens Printer, Victoria BC. 138pp. Maps.

Holt, R.F., G. Utzig, H. Pinnell and C. Pearce. 2012. Vulnerability, Resilience and Climate Change: Adaptation Potential for Ecosystems and Their Management in the West Kootenay – Summary Report. Report #1 for the West Kootenay Climate Vulnerability and Resilience Project. Available at www.kootenayresilience.org

Jackson, T. and J. Overpeck. 2000. Responses of Plant Populations and Communities to Environmental Changes of the Late Quaternary. Paleobiology 26(4):194-220.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar (compilers and editors). 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series No. 6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria BC. 330 pp.

Murdock, T. Q., S. R. Sobie , F. W. Zwiers and H. D. Eckstrand. 2013. Climate Change and Extremes in the Canadian Columbia Basin, Atmosphere-Ocean, 51:4, 456-469, DOI:10.1080/07055900.2013.816932

Province of British Columbia (1993). A Protected Areas Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Queens Printer.

Utzig, G. and M. Carver. 2013. Hydrologic Analysis and Decision-Support Tool for Cumulative Effects Assessment in the BC Northwest – Draft. Unpl. Rpt. by Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd., Nelson BC for BC MoFLNRO and MoE, Smithers, BC. 60pp.

Utzig, G. and R.F. Holt. 2014. Conservation Planning in Two Regional Landscapes (RLs): Windermere-Columbia Lakes (RL 9) and Horesthief-Skookumchuck Creeks (RL 10). Unpl. Rpt. by Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd. Nelson, BC. 5pp. Available at: www.kootenayresilience.org

Wang, T. E. Campbell, G. O’Neill and S. Aitken. 2012. Projecting Future Distributions of Ecosystem Climate niches: Uncertainties and Management Applications. For. Ecol. Mgmnt. 279:128–140.

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 7/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

Appendix – SE BC Regional Landscape Characteristics

# Regional Landscape Total Area (ha) Forested Area (ha) Climate Subregion

Climate Region

1 Lower Granby River 705 704 Moist-Dry Transition

West Kootenay- Shuswap

2 Lower Arrow-Christina-Pend'Orielle 4,012 3,889 Moist 3 West Arm-Salmo River 4,012 3,704 Moist 4 Goat-Moyie Rivers 4,099 3,842 Moist-Dry Transition 5 Mid Arrow-Slocan-North Kootenay Lakes 10,524 7,813 Moist 6 Upper Kettle-Granby-Inonoaklin 2,660 2,408 Moist-Dry Transition 7 Bissette-Mission Creeks 1,794 1,774 Moist-Dry Transition 8 Salmon Arm-Lower Shuswap River 2,127 2,108 Moist 9 Northern Mabel Lake-Lower Eagle Creek 2,035 1,795 Moist 10 Tobacco Plains-Kootenay River 5,788 5,515 Dry

Southern East

Kootenay

11 Lower Elk-Bull Rivers 1,476 1,197 Moist 12 Flathead-Southern Rockies 3,624 2,751 Dry 13 White River-Bull-Elk Headwaters 3,846 2,317 Dry 14 Horsethief-Dutch-Skookumchuck Rivers 3,046 1,497 Dry 15 Columbia-Windermere Lakes 1,895 1,758 Dry 16 Kootenay-Palliser Rivers 1,710 1,217 Dry 17 Kootenay River Headwaters 3,754 1,972 Dry 18 Columbia-Blaeberry River 3,484 2,454 Moist-Dry Transition Northern

East Kootenay

19 North Purcells 1,663 702 Moist 20 Bush River 2,438 1,448 Moist 21 Upper Arrow-Trout-Duncan Lakes 7,596 5,003 Wet

North Columbia

22 Akolkolex River-Shuswap Headwaters 1,824 1,301 Wet 23 Cairnes Creek-Perry Headwaters 2,098 1,477 Very Wet 24 Seymour Arm-Cariboo Mountains 6,560 4,673 Wet 25 Northern Selkirks-Scrip Range 7,732 4,058 Very Wet 26 Wood-Sullivan-Lower Beaver Rivers 4,904 2,271 Very Wet 27 Fortress Lake 199 62 Moist 28 North Thompson Headwaters 3,009 1,477 Very Wet 29 Canoe-Upper Fraser Rivers 8,451 4,343 Moist Sub-Boreal Canoe-

Upper Fraser 30 Fraser Headwaters 1,855 711 Moist Sub-Boreal 31 Lower Kettle-Boundary Creek 1,494 1,478 Dry

Okanagan-Kettle 32 West Kettle-Kettle Rivers 2,727 2,657 Dry

33 Okanagan Valley 9,966 9,768 Very Dry

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 8/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

# Sub-Region Regional Landscape Current Distribution of Forested and Other Non-alpine BEC Unit Groupings (%)*

GS PP D IDF W IDF MSD D ESSF D ICH M ICH W ESSF W ICH MSB

1 M-D Lower Granby River 0 0 35 0 0 2 31 29 3 0 0

2 M Lower Arrow-Christina-Pend'Orielle 0 0 0 0 0 11 46 25 16 0 0

3 M West Arm-Salmo River 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 24 46 0 0

4 M-D Goat-Moyie Rivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 38 0 0

5 M Mid Arrow-Slocan-North Kootenay Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 39 45 0 0

6 M-D Upper Kettle-Granby-Inonoaklin 0 0 0 0 0 33 9 28 29 0 0

7 M-D Bissette-Mission Creeks 0 0 6 27 20 22 0 22 0 0 0

8 M Salmon Arm-Lower Shuswap River 0 0 0 16 0 0 42 29 11 0 0

9 M Northern Mabel Lake-Lower Eagle Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 37 29 9 0

10 D Tobacco Plains-Kootenay River 0 0 53 0 23 17 4 0 0 0 0

11 M Lower Elk-Bull Rivers 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 51 42 0 0

12 D Flathead-Southern Rockies 0 0 0 0 36 63 0 0 0 0 0

13 D White River-Bull-Elk Headwaters 0 0 0 0 28 61 0 0 8 0 0

14 D Horsethief-Dutch-Skookumchuck Rivers 0 0 0 0 34 57 0 0 7 0 0

15 D Columbia-Windermere Lakes 0 0 56 0 26 18 0 0 0 0 0

16 D Kootenay-Palliser Rivers 0 0 0 0 44 42 0 15 0 0 0

17 D Kootenay River Headwaters 0 0 0 0 41 41 0 0 16 0 0

18 M-D Columbia-Blaeberry River 0 0 13 0 24 10 0 35 18 0 0

19 M North Purcells 0 0 0 0 9 34 0 0 57 0 0

20 M Bush River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 32 0 0

*excludes woodland, parkland and alpine BEC units; as a percentage of forested/non-alpine area; areas

Regional Landscapes Draft 3/25/19 9/9 Kutenai Nature Investigations Ltd.

# Sub-Region Regional Landscape Current Distribution of Forested and Other Non-alpine BEC Unit Groupings (%)*

GS PP D IDF W IDF MSD D ESSF D ICH M ICH W ESSF W ICH MSB

21 W Upper Arrow-Trout-Duncan Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 47 26 0

22 W Akolkolex River-Shuswap Headwaters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 41 30 0

23 VW Cairnes Creek-Perry Headwaters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 39 44 0

24 W Seymour Arm-Cariboo Mountains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 40 34 0

25 VW Northern Selkirks-Scrip Range 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 48 0

26 VW Wood-Sullivan-Lower Beaver Rivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 42 44 0

27 M Fortress Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0

28 VW North Thompson Headwaters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0

29 MSB Canoe-Upper Fraser Rivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 47 0 18

30 MSB Fraser Headwaters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 28

31 D Lower Kettle-Boundary Creek 0 0 53 0 26 7 0 13 0 0 0

32 D West Kettle-Kettle Rivers 0 0 16 0 54 18 0 9 0 0 0

33 VD Okanagan Valley 3 15 37 4 27 12 0 2 0 0 0

*excludes woodland, parkland and alpine BEC units; as a percentage of forested/non-alpine area; areas