Informing Adaptation of British Columbia’sForest and Range Management Frameworkto Anticipated Effects of Climate Change:

A Synthesis of Research and PolicyRecommendations

prepared for the

BC Future Forest Ecosystem Scientific Council (FFESC)

by

Sybille Haeussler, Smithers, BC

Evelyn H. Hamilton, Nanaimo, BC

November, 2012

i.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1.

2. Global Overview of Climate Change Adaptation Science and Management 3.

3. Synthesis of FFESC Science Findings 5.

3.1 Approach and Methods 5.

3.2 Decision Making under Uncertainty 7.

3.3 Ecosystem Vulnerabilities 9.

3.4 Evolving Economies and Communities 22.

3.5 Research Needs 25.

4. Summary of Recommendations from FFESC Research Reports 26.

5. Key Messages from the Science Synthesis 36.

6. References 38.

Tables

Table 1. Themed list of FFESC research projects 2.

Figures

Figure 1. The iterative process of climate change adaptation science 4.

Figure 2. Climate change adaptation process in forest and range management 6.

Appendices

Appendix I. FFESC research project summaries

Appendix II. Detailed FFESC policy implications and recommendations

1

1. Introduction

Global anthropogenic climate change is perhaps the most complex management challenge facing humanity and the biosphere because it touches almost every aspect of our lives, respects no political boundaries, and operates mostly in subtle and indirect ways. Among human enterprises, forest and range management are almost uniquely sensitive to climate change because they are long-term endeavours, fully exposed to the weather, that rely to a greater degree than most other economic enterprises on minimally regulated, healthy ecosystems for their productivity, sustainability and success.

In British Columbia, the management challenges posed by climate change to our forests and rangelands came to the forefront in the early 2000s as a result of a series of environmental shocks that included the unprecedented mountain pine beetle outbreak and our most damaging fire season ever in 2003. BC’s Chief Forester created the Future Forest Ecosystem Initiative (FFEI) in December 2005 to start the process of adapting BC’s forest and range management framework to a changing climate and in March 2008 his Ministry established the Future Forest Ecosystems Scientific Council (FFESC) to guide the allocation of a $5.5 million grant-in-aid for research supporting the FFEI objectives. The FFESC is a cooperative council with representatives of the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO), the University of British Columbia (UBC), the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) and, since 2011, BC’s Ministry of Environment (MoE). Its term of operation ends in 2012.

Between 2008 and 2012 the FFESC undertook a program of 25 direct awarded and competitively awarded research projects in the natural and social sciences, encompassing a full range of topics related to adaptation of BC forest and range management framework to anticipated effects of climate change (Table 1; Appendix I)1.

This report presents a summary of the results and recommendations of the FFESC’s program of research. It was prepared to coincide with the FFESC final conference and workshop held at UBC, Vancouver, BC, June 11-13, 2012. The report was finalized after the workshop and complements two other FFESC summary documents posted on the FFESC website: (1) FFESC Closing Conference Summary; and, (2) FFESC Research Program Executive Summary.

1 Throughout the report, references may be followed by a project code, for example, Haughian et al. (2012, B1). B1 refers to the FFESC Project Number. See Appendix I for an alphabetical list and project details.

2

Table 1. Themed list of FFESC research projects. Black and gray shading indicate major and minor themes, respectively. Refer to Appendix I for an alphabetical list with project details.

monitoring risk analysis

structured decision-making

A5 Peter Duinker, Dalhousie Univ.

Indicators of sustainable forest management in a changing climate

National (CCFM)

C3 Peter Bradford, MFLNRO

Climate change monitoring strategy for BC Provincial

B10 Emina Krcmar, UBC Case study of uncertainty in forest management adaptation

central Interior

B1 Alan Wiensczyk, FORREX

Adaptation response framework for changing natural disturbance regimes

Provincial

B14 Dave Spittlehouse, MFLNRO

High resolution spatial climate data for BC Provincial

A3 Lyle Gawalko, MFLNRO

Climate change and fire management research strategy

Provincial

A6 Allan Carroll, UBC Forest insect disturbance under climate change

Provincial

B13 Todd Redding, FORREX

Synthesis of watershed science for BC Provincial

B16 Rita Winkler, FLNRO Effects of climate and forest cover on water supplies in the Okanagan

Dry S Interior

C1 Chuck Bulmer, Will Mackenzie FLNRO

Improving accessibility to soil and BEC data for predictive modeling

Provincial

B7 Lauchlan Fraser, TRU Managing climate change impacts on BC rangelands

Dry Interior

B8 Rachel Holt, Veridian Resilience & adaptation of forest management in the West Kootenays

Wet S Interior

B4 Darwyn Coxson, UNBC

Vulnerability of old growth inland temperate rainforests

Wet S Interior

A1 Sally Aitken, Tongli Wang, UBC

Tree species & ecosystem distributions under climate change

Provincial

A4 Mark Johnston, Sask. Res. Council

Tree species vulnerability to climate change

National (CCFM)

C2 Alvin Yanchuk, FLNRO'

Climate-based seed transfer modeling Provincial

A2 Craig Nitschke, Univ. Melbourne

Tree species regeneration vulnerability assessment for the central Interior of BC

central Interior

B5 Craig Delong, UNBC Stand/landscape level decision-support to reduce drought & disturbance risks

mostly central Interior

B12 Harry Nelson, UBC Kamloops Future Forest Strategy II Dry S Interior

B6 Louise deMontigny, MFLNRO

Using red alder as a climate adaptation strategy

Coast

B3 Ann Chan-McLeod, UBC

Integrating timber supply and biodiversity management under climate change

central Interior

B2 Dirk Brinkman, Brinkman Assoc.

Climate change adaptation plan for Northwest Skeena communities

North Coast

B11 Don Morgan, MoE & BV Research Centre

Transdisciplinary vulnerability assessment, Nadina Forest District

central Interior

B9 John Innes, UBC Climate change adaptation & resiliency in the South Selkirks

Wet S Interior

B15 Tracy Summerville, UNBC

Integrating scientific predictions into community planning & governance

central Interior

Project Number Project Leader Project Topic Scope

Decision-Making under Uncertainty Evolving Economies & Communitesclimate disturbance trees biodiversityterrestrial

ecosystemswater

Ecosystem Vulnerabilities

3

2. Global Overview of Climate Change Adaptation Science and ManagementThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for assessment of climate change. It builds the scientific foundation, sets international standards, and defines a common vocabulary for climate change science and management. The IPCC began its work in 1988 and released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. The research carried out through the FFESC for BC’s forests and rangelands and the human communities that depend on them builds upon the framework laid down in the AR4 and earlier IPCC reports. This scientific foundation includes:

1) a set of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenarios based on alternative assumptions about future population growth, economic and technological developments;

2) a suite of Global Climate Model (GCM) scenarios that use the world’s best climate models to simulate how the global climate will respond to each of the GHG emissions scenarios from the 1980s to the 2080s;

3) a framework and vocabulary for assessing the impacts of climate change and the vulnerability of affected ecosystems and societies;

4) an approach that emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration among natural and social scientists and encourages active engagement of scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers in a shared process of learning and decision making.

Since 2007, the IPCC has been preparing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), scheduled for completion in 2013-2014. Updates from AR5 that summarize

emerging issues and new directions in climate change science and policy have been released (Field et al. 2011, 2012). These updates are of considerable

importance to the FFEI/FFESC process because of the accelerating pace of knowledge generation and innovation in climate change since 2007. It is evident, moreover, that emerging issues in the science and management of climate change adaptation in BC mirror those being discussed and debated at the international level. Compared to earlier assessments, AR5 will have a greater focus on:

1) climate extremes and variability; 2) consistent and transparent documen-

tation of uncertainties;3) integrating climate change mitigation

with adaptation, including an emphasis on co-benefits2;

4) shifting from a hard science perspective to a transdisciplinary perspective that considers human behaviour, ethics and beliefs;

5) integrating traditional knowledge and perspectives of indigenous and rural peoples, and allowing for participation of local stakeholders in learning, adapting and decision making.

The science and management of climate change adaptation is an integrated system with feedback loops that proceeds in an iterative fashion whereby each stage in the process undergoes continuous improve-ment based on information from within that stage itself and from other components in the process (Figure 1).

Simulation models are used in most stages of the scientific process and an array of decision support tools or frameworks are

2 Co-benefits are short-term improvements in the local environment that accompany efforts to combat climate change. Examples include reducing air pollution, protecting streambanks from erosion, enhancing wildlife populations and increasing local employment. These are also known as “win-win” or “no-regrets” strategies.

4

Figure 1. The iterative process of climate change adaptation science. Traditional domains of the natural and social sciences are shaded in blue and green, respectively. Each component of the scientific process uses models to make projections which undergo continuous improvement and validation through research and monitoring, and respond to feedbacks from other components of the system. used to interpret the science and guide management. Real world data collected through scientific research and operational monitoring of management indicators are essential for model validation and improve-ment. All stages of the process are characterized by high levels of uncertainty and risk.

Essentially, the primary purpose of adaptation is to reduce uncertainty and risk. Thus a large part of the scientific and management enterprise involves activities that improve the ability of scientists, managers and others to describe and quantify uncertainty and risk. These methods are somewhat generic and can be applied to all stages of the adaptation process. One important implication of the iterative nature of adaptation science is that there will always be a lag in the transfer of

information from one component of the process to another, so some details will be out-of-date by the time they are employed at other levels. This does not invalidate the work, but stresses the need for timely and frequent communication of “best available science” among the varied participants in adaptation science.

The process of climate change adaptation in the policy and practices arena follows closely and develops collaboratively from the scientific framework. In an ideal world, the entire process is one of adaptive co-management where there is no longer a clear boundary between science and practice, or between scientist, decision-maker, practitioner and stakeholder. In the business of climate change adaptation, all of us are stakeholders. Everyone has a role to play in informing the science and participating in science-based decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

Natural Sciences

Social Sciences

GHG emissions

Global climate

Regional climate

Ecosystems

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem management

Livelihoods

Societal adaptation/mitigation

5

3. Synthesis of FFESC Science Findings3.1 Approach and Methods

The scientific basis for adapting BC’s forest and range management framework to the anticipated effects of climate change follows the general process outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated more fully in Figure 2.

The upper three tiers of the process lie principally within the domains of the IPCC and climatological institutions such as BC’s Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC), based at the University of Victoria. PCIC has worked closely with FFESC and MFLNRO researchers to interpret the climate science for BC’s forests, rangelands and communities at the provincial, regional and local scale.

Traditionally, forest and rangeland scientists working with the MFLNRO have concentrated on the middle tiers of the systems diagram (i.e., Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services and Ecosystem Management). This is where BC has a large body of scientific expertise at the universities and in regional centres throughout BC.

The FFESC approach has been innovative in placing a much greater emphasis than prior MFLNRO sponsored research on the lower tiers of the diagram −the traditional domains of the social sciences− and by encouraging integration among the upper, middle and lower tiers of the system.

This has been a learning process for all involved as there are institutional, methodological and communication barriers to overcome when natural and social scientists begin to work together. There has been a shortage of research capacity (for example in forest economics), particularly in the regions. There are also relatively few of the well-established scientific relationships that allow research to get underway quickly and function efficiently within a compressed time-frame.

Because of the short time frame for its competitive research program (Dec 2009 – Dec 2011) and the objective of producing results that could quickly inform policy and practices, FFESC forest research focussed on incorporating existing field data into models and decision-support frameworks, with few new field studies. The range and social sciences components included significant new fieldwork and data collection because much less prior work had been done.

In the following pages, research findings are summarized under three themes that conform to workshop sessions at the FFESC closing conference: (1) Decision Making under Uncertainty, (2) Ecosystem Vulnerabilities, and (3) Evolving Economies and Communities. Inevitably, there is some overlap and lack of fit in pigeon-holing the interdisciplinary research into these topic headings.

6

Unce

rtai

nty &

Risk

Ana

lysis

Mon

itorin

g &

Val

idati

onIPCC emissions scenarios

(global change scientists, engineers)

Global climate models (GCMs)(climatologists, etc.)

Regional climate models (RCMs) & downscaling tools

(climatologists, etc.)

Ecosystem & dynamic vegetation models (DVMs)

(ecologists, ecophysiologists, etc.)

Tree growth & regeneration models

(silviculturists, mensurationists, etc.)

Hydrological models (hydrologists, etc.)

Timber Supply Analysis

(foresters, etc.)

Biodiversity Analysis

(biologists, etc.)

Water Supply Analysis

(hydrologists, etc.)

Rangeland Analysis

(agrologists, etc.)

Community Livelihoods Assessment

Habitat Supply Analysis

(biologists, etc.)

Land & Water Use Planning(varied stakeholders)

Economic Planning & Development(varied stakeholders)

Social & Cultural Planning(varied stakeholders)

Climate Change Adaptation & Mitigation Strategy

Figure 2. The process of climate change adaptation in forest and range management. Each component of the process undergoes continuous improvement or regular updating. Parentheses indicate those leading the process.

7

3.2 Decision Making under Uncertainty

“For forest managers, climate change re-presents a dramatic increase in uncertainty about the future that complicates planning.”

Daust and Morgan (2012, B11)

“Agriculture—including ranching—is among the most climate-sensitive sectors in most national economies and climate variability increases the uncertainty associated with agriculture and rural livelihoods”

Fraser et al. (2012, B7)

Adaptation describes the process whereby humans acquire information about a changing environment and respond by changing their behaviour in order to increase certainty, reduce the risks of negative outcomes and take advantage of new opportunities to succeed. Uncertainty, cyclical behaviour and directional change have always characterized forest and range management, and to a significant extent the approaches for making good decisions about climate change are the same as those used to deal with uncertainty arising from other sources. Climate change makes existing uncertainties (e.g., wildfire, global markets) more acute while also challenging those attributes of forest and range management that were previously assumed to be most predictable.

While the objective of science has long been to improve predictions, the current scientific perspective acknowledges that complex adaptive social and ecological systems are inherently unpredictable (Levin 2003, Folke 2006). We can make forecasts about more-likely and less-likely outcomes, and those forecasts will improve as events draw nearer. But we simply cannot predict with a high degree of certainty what the future will hold. With better understanding of how complex systems operate, careful monitoring of how systems are behaving, pro-active initiatives and timely reactive responses to that behaviour, we can also help to direct the future towards outcomes that are likely to be more sustainable for

ecosystems and for human society. Thus, much of the research effort in climate change adaptation aims at developing new and better methods for structured decision making under conditions of deep uncertainty. Examples of approaches used in FFEI/FFESC research projects include:

1) Operational monitoring of climate and other biophysical indicators:a) BC’s FREP program is pilot-testing a

set of indicators for climate change monitoring (Project C3);

b) the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) is adapting its sustainable forest management (SFM) indicators to account for climate change (Project A5);

c) regional projects have made recom-mendations to improve monitoring of specific system components (e.g., Project B11 recommendations on Watershed Monitoring Trusts).

“We are not doing enough monitoring and, as a result, we do not have a clear picture of the state of our resources.”

Innes et al. (2012, B9)

1) Scenario analysis to allow stakeholders to envision alternative futures:a) to guide policy makers through a

provincial vulnerability analysis (Project C4);

b) in a community livelihoods workshop (Project B11).

2) Qualitative structured decision-making frameworks:a) BC’s Forum for Research and

Extension in Natural Resources (FORREX) prepared a decision- support framework with 3 components (evidence, adaptive capacity, competing pressures) to help managers implement post-disturbance adaptation policies and strategies at provincial to site scales (Project B1; Swift 2012).

8

3) Map-based risk analysis:a) drought-risk maps to guide silvi-

cultural decision making (Project B5).

4) User-directed quantitative decision-support tools:a) a spreadsheet that assesses site-

level drought risk based on BEC soil moisture regimes (Project B5).

5) Quantitative models run by modellers: a) the TACA tree regeneration risk

model (Nitschke and Innes 2008) was upgraded to accommodate varying soil moisture regimes (Project A2) and parameterized for much of the BC interior (Projects B3, B5, B11);

b) the LPJ-GUESS dynamic vegetation model was parameterized to project future ranges of 19 tree species under a range of climates (Project B2).

6) Structured decision making using a suite of quantitative simulation models:a) a linked suite of models (meta-

model) compared quantitative pro-jections for the Kamloops Timber Supply Area (TSA) to the mostly qualitative expert opinions of the 2009 Kamloops Future Forest Strategy (Project B12).

7) Statistical or probabilistic tests of model robustness:a) a Bayesian belief network approach

analysed timber supply and biodiversity tradeoffs and future MPB risk in the Quesnel TSA (Project B3);

b) a robustness approach selected a “good enough” strategy for timber supply management in the Quesnel TSA that produces acceptable results under the widest possible range of future climates (Project B9).

“[D]ecision net analyses, which factored in uncertainties relating to climate change, MPB risk, and stand mortality, indicated that the benefits of a climate-change adaptation strategy in 2020 outweighed those of conventional silviculture by 1.8 and 1.6 fold in the case of all-species merchantable volume, and by a factor of 3.0 and 3.5 fold in the case of Douglas-fir merchantable volume.”

Chan-McLeod et al. (2012, B3)

“We are now living in a world where models cannot produce numbers that are thenrefined to get growth rates and AACs – the world is no longer predictable enough.Rather we know directions of change and locations of more change. The issue now ishow to manage in an uncertain world.”

Nelson et al. (2012, B12)

“Rather than looking for optimal plans assuming that future conditions are known, the robust approach searches for “good enough” plans under a range of unknown future conditions.”

Krcmar et al. (2012, B10)

“Adaptive management is vital to managing forests in a changing climate because it focuses on the recognition and reduction of uncertainty… through a cyclical process of research, forecasting the consequences of alternative forest management strategies, implementation and monitoring, and management review and re-evaluation.

Steenburg et al. (2012, A5)

“There is a lot of uncertainty about the future nature of climate change and about the effects that it will have, but this is not grounds for inaction. We have a number of strategies that we could be taking.”

Innes et al. (2012, B9)

9

3.3 Ecosystem Vulnerabilities

3.3.1 ClimateBC has excellent capacity in climate science. All FFESC research teams benefited from decision-support tools developed in the province to allow the IPCC global climate change projections to be downscaled and interpreted for BC’s exceptionally rugged terrain.

Four widely-used climate decision-support tools for BC that were updated and improved through FFEI/FFESC-funded collaboration among MFLNRO, PCIC and UBC’s Centre for Forest Conservation Genetics are: (1) PCIC’s Regional Analysis Tool and (2) Plan2Adapt tool which generate high-resolution maps, graphs and data tables using an ensemble of IPCC GCM and SRES emissions scenario combinations; (3) the ClimateWNA model (Wang et al. 2012b, B14) which provides high resolution spatial climate data and projections for western North America; and (4) an updated version of Hamann and Wang’s (2006) climate-envelope modeling for BC’s biogeoclimatic zones (Wang et al. 2012a, A1). Many other climate tools exist for specialized applications (Murdock and Spittlehouse 2011, B14).

Seasonal climate projections up to the 2080s are available for the entire province, for regions, and for local sites in written, map, graphical and tabular formats. Under-standably, there is much uncertainty and variability in all of these forecasts. Guided by Murdock and Spittlehouse (2011, B14), FFESC research groups approached this uncertainty in a variety of ways: some chose to work with an overall mean or consensus projection, some adopted the worst-case scenario, others chose to depict as many alternative GCM/SRES scenario combin-ations as possible, and still others selected a few scenarios that reasonably encompass the range.

“Global climate models (GCMs) project a 1 to 3 degree Celsius increase in annual temperature and a 2 to 10 percent increase in annual precipitation for British Columbia by the 2050’s. A recent report from the [IPCC] indicated that what is currently a 20-year return period warm extreme event could be-come a 5 year event; while a 20-year return period extreme precipitation event could have a 10-year return interval.”

Spittlehouse (2011, B14)

“Temperatures are expected to warm, with BC becoming less cool (minimum temperatures are expected to rise more than maximums) and winters warming more quickly than summers. Precipitation is predicted to shift to warmer, wetter years, more frequent wet years, greater year-to-year variability, and more extreme precipitation events. More precipitation is expected to fall as rain and less as snow. In some areas of the Province, notably the southern Interior and northeastern BC, summer droughts are expected to increase even though annual precipitation may increase.”

Kremsater and Innes (2012, C3)

“Although the magnitude of regionally specific changes may be difficult to predict, several trends are becoming clear for BC. The northeastern and southern parts of the province will become much hotter and drier over the next century, indicating the potential for an increased frequency and severity of wildfires, droughts, and insect outbreaks. Western parts of the province will become wetter and warmer, suggesting increased incidence of some fungal tree pathogens, with the potential for more flooding and slope failures.“

Haughian et al. (2012, B1)

10

3.3.2 Disturbance“A recent report from the [IPCC] concludes, with very high confidence, that in the com-ing decades the frequency and severity of wildfire, insect outbreaks, drought, and ex-treme weather events will increase in North America as a result of climate change… A regional assessment of Canada’s vulner-ability to climate change reached the same conclusions, [noting] that the highest certainty of shifting disturbance regimes will very likely be in… BC.”

Wiensczyk (2012, B1)Increased variability in climate places stresses on physical and ecological systems. In the short term, climate change will be experienced mainly as an increase in the frequency, severity and extent of disturbances including storms, flooding, mass wasting, fires and pest outbreaks (Haughian et al. 2012, Wiensczyk 2012, B1; Carroll 2012, A6). A 25-yr flood could be-come a 5-yr flood (Spittlehouse 2011, B14).

As time goes on, the effects of directional change in the climate will become more apparent as physical or biological thres-holds are crossed. Crossing thresholds can lead to sudden disturbances, sustained shifts in the environment, or both. We have seen how the loss of regular -40oC winter chilling can cause an outbreak of the mountain pine beetle as well as the more sustained presence of this insect in northeast BC and at higher elevations than formerly (Carroll et al. 2004). Sustained melting of glaciers has caused an increase in mass wasting (Geertsema et al. 2006).

Both unstable weather and the crossing of thresholds cause instability in ecosystems. More extreme phenomena can be expected, including events occurring outside of their typical season, maladaptation of organisms to their environment causing declines in ecosystem health, and uncoupling of formerly synchronized events such as the seasonal rhythms of prey and predator organisms that regulate species abun-dances, helping to keep pests in check.

Among plant-eating insects ─the most important source of disturbance in North American forests─ changes in phenological synchrony may cause either increases or decreases in regional and species-specific pest abundance (Carroll 2012, A6) but overall there is a very high level of confidence that the frequency and severity of insect outbreaks will increase in coming decades (Johnston 2010, A4; Wiensczyk 2012, B1).

“[D]isturbance by bark beetles is more likely to be exacerbated by climate change than defoliators, mainly because of the former’s positive response to host tree stress and lack of a requirement for strict phenological synchrony… Vigilance toward native innocuous, native invasive and alien invasive species should also be stressed…Although … defoliators may be less predictable compared to bark beetles, their potential to cause disturbances over vast areas of forest cannot be ignored.”

Carroll (2012, A6)FFESC research has increased predictive capabilities and improved decision support for variety of ecosystem disturbances at provincial and regional scales, including the following products:1) a wildfire research strategy (Project A3);2) models of forest insect dynamics under

climate change (Project A6);3) FORREX disturbance topic summaries

and decision support (Project B1);4) Forestry Canada disturbance database

and synthesis (Project B1);5) extreme weather & related disturbances

synthesis (Project B5);6) hydrology compendium (Project B13);7) drought and fire severity projections for

southeast BC (Project B14);8) monitoring indicators of ecosystem

disturbance and stress (Project C3 ).

“In British Columbia, fire records show that the wildfire season has been increasing in length by one to two days a year since at least 1980.”

Wildfire Management Branch (2009, A3)

11

3.3.3 WaterOf all the stresses that ecosystems and human communities may face under climate change, lack of water is the most serious (Fagan 2008). Drought threatens water supplies that humans, other organisms, our industries and our livelihoods depend upon.  It kills trees directly through lack of water and indirectly by making them more vulnerable to insects and disease.  It diminishes forage production and turns grasslands into deserts and wastelands. Drought also causes firestorms. 

Fortunately, BC is projected by the great majority of GCM-scenario combinations to become generally wetter over the next century. Drought stress is nonetheless predicted to be a significant source of vulnerability in certain regions (southern interior, most notably the Okanagan; southeastern Vancouver Island; perhaps the Peace Region), on certain site types (xeric to submesic, south-facing, glacial or snowmelt-dependent) and in other areas for short periods of time as the temperature warms and climate becomes increasingly variable.

FFESC research projects described the impacts of drought on:1) water supplies (Pike et al. 2010a, B13,

Boon et al. 2012, B16; Redding et al. 2012, B1);

2) soils (Delong 2012, B5; Smith et al. 2010, C1);

3) wildfire risk (Van der Kamp et al. 2011, B14)

4) tree growth in dry regions (Nelson et al. 2012, B12);

5) tree growth on dry sites in moist regions (Nitschke 2010, A2; Delong 2012, B5)

6) growth of cedar in snowmelt-dependent rainforest sites (Coxson 2012, B4);

7) rangeland productivity, carbon storage, and the spread of invasive species in rangelands (Fraser 2012a, B7).

“In most climatic areas absolute soil moisture regime for drier site types was predicted to become drier by one class under projected future climate…. (M)oist to wet site types were never estimated to be in moisture-deficit situation, suggesting that these sites are the most stable sites from a drought perspective under a changing climate and … warrant extra consideration for forest conservation”.

Delong et al. (2012, B5)

“Groundwater supply from melting snowpack is hypothesised to be a key factor in supporting cedar-dominated forests in the inland rainforest. The loss or disruption of this snowmelt could lead to much greater incidence of stand destroying fire and insect mortality in future years.”

Coxson (2012, B4)

While most of these studies warned of the significant risk of increased drought under a warmer climate, some analyses, such as the fire severity modelling of Van der Kamp et al. (2011) found that projected increases in precipitation could offset some effects of a longer, warming growing season in southeastern BC.

“Based on an ensemble of future climatologies provided by the CGCM3 and ECHAM5 models, there was no obvious, region-wide projected change in fire weather or drought severity based on projections… [O]ur estimates in drought projections are accompanied by large uncertainties which originate from a number of sources.”

Van der Kamp et al. (2011, B14)

General hydrological impacts were examined in several regions of the province including the Nadina Forest District in west central BC where it was concluded that changes in stream temperature and consequent effects on fish populations are likely to be most ecologically important.

12

“In the Nadina, increased winter tempera-tures, increased precipitation and reduced snowfall in the spring …will likely shift the hydrological regime from snowmelt driven to hybrid rain/snow driven, leading to more frequent rain on snow events and smaller spring snowpacks. While these changes will affect sediment loads and channel stability, the most obvious ecological effect may be reduced summer flow levels and a longer low flow period, with consequent increased risk to fish.”

Price and Daust (2011, B11)

Water issues are most acute in the Okanagan Basin where arid conditions and a rapidly growing population already place significant stress on water supplies. Here, the effect of climate change on water management has been studied for some time (Cohen and Kulkarni 2001) and can serve as a pilot for issues that may develop later in other regions of BC. FFESC research used data from a long-term MFLNRO field installation to develop models examining the influence of climate, forest health and forest management on snowmelt-dominated headwater streams that provide water to Okanagan communities.

“Reductions in and earlier delivery of snowmelt runoff will require adaptations in forest and aquatic resource management, water storage, delivery and allocation and in community development, to ensure contin-ued security of water supplies.”

Boon et al. (2012, B16)

There is still much to learn about how diminishing snowpacks will affect such streams, how wildfires and forest insects will interact with climatic effects, and how forest practices such as clear-cutting, partial cutting and salvage logging must adapt to mitigate streamflow issues. The modeling of Boon et al. (2012, B16) demonstrates just how complex these dynamics are, but underscores the value of long-term stream monitoring and indicates that forest

practices will become increasingly important as a management tool for ensuring sustainable water supplies.

In recognition of the huge importance of watershed processes in forest and land management and the challenges to future water supplies under climate change, FFESC supported the completion and publication of the landmark Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia (Pike et al. 2010a, B13) and delivery of many related extension activities.

“The transformation of local air temperature and precipitation regimes will drive changes in groundwater and the magnitude and timing of both low and high streamflows…. Many areas will see accelerated snowmelt and increased water levels in the winter.

“Projected warming coupled with altered streamflows will likely increase stream temperatures affecting water quality and, consequently, fish in many areas. Glaciers and permafrost will to continue to melt, and landslide regimes will ultimately respond to all of these drivers. The associated effects will have many important implications for the fisheries, agriculture, forestry, recreation, hydroelectric power, and water resource sectors. …Effects at a local scale will be complex and vary in importance according to the sensitivity of local watersheds conditions to climatic changes.

“[E]ffective climate change management responses will likely involve local-level strategies that result in both short- and long-term benefits to ecosystems and society beyond climate change applications. The selection of such a suite of approaches may be the best chance to ensure the effective stewardship of watershed resources and associated values in the future.”

Pike et al. (2010b, B13)

13

3.3.4 Terrestrial EcosystemsHamann and Wang’s (2006) well-known “flying BEC” model depicting the climate envelopes (or ecosystem climate niches) of each of BC’s biogeoclimatic zones in the 1990s and how those climate envelopes could shift by the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s set the stage for modelling ecosystem shifts in response to climate change. FFESC supported an updated version of this modelling exercise (Wang et al. 2012a, A1) whose results were more precise and also projected less dramatic shifts than the 2006 approximation.

“Consensus projections for future periods (2020s, 2050s, 2080s) indicated climates suitable for grasslands, dry forests, and moist continental cedar-hemlock forests would substantially expand; climate habitat for coastal rainforests would remain relatively stable; and habitat for boreal, subalpine and alpine ecosystems would decrease substantially…. These changes suggest British Columbia could contribute to increased forest productivity and carbon sequestration through reforestation activities, provided suitable tree species and populations are planted to match up with the new climatic conditions”

Wang et al. (2012a, A1)

Climate envelopes, no matter how sophisticated the technical analysis, are a first step in comprehending how ecosystems may respond to climate change. This approach assumes that eco-systems respond instantaneously to climatic signals, and holds constant other factors that may influence ecosystem composition, structure or dynamics. This what-if exercise lays down a foundation for further work.

Further work includes considering the effects of other ecosystem drivers such as wildfire (Haughian et al. 2012, B1) which can delay or accelerate shifts, or the multiple factors that influence soil formation (Smith et al. 2012, C1) since soils are likely to be a major source of ecological inertia. These other factors can be assessed

qualitatively (e.g., Bunnell and Kremsater 2012) or added to climate envelope modelling, as was done by Schneider et al. (2009). Alternatively, the outputs of inde-pendent ecosystem-level simulation models such as the FORECAST family (Kimmins et al. 2010), or the cellular automaton approach described by Haeussler (2011) can be compared to BEC climate envelope projections.

Many FFESC research projects used the BEC climate envelope approach to make a first cut assessment of ecosystem vulnerability under climate change. The climate envelopes give a very good indication of the degree of mismatch between current distributions of organisms and future climate, highlighting the potential for maladaptation and allowing ecosystem vulnerabilities to be ranked or quantified. Such an approach was used by Holt et al. (2012, B6) in the West Kootenays, and Daust and Morgan (2012, B11) in the west central Interior. Holt et al. (2012, B6) expanded Wang et al.’s (2012a) climate envelopes to locate present-day climate analogues found throughout western North America.

“[R]eference period (1961-90) locations of the bioclimate envelopes that are projected for the [West Kootenay] study area in the 2080s are currently found as far south and east as Colorado and Kansas, through BC and north to coastal Alaska.”

Holt et al. (2012, B6)

In the Kamloops TSA, the original K1 project used BEC envelope modelling whereas the K2 project used an ensemble of five models (Nelson et al. 2012, B12). In the lower Skeena watershed, Brinkman et al. (2012, B2) employed a combination of Wang et al.’s (2012a) BEC climate envelopes and the LPJ-GUESS digital vegetation model (Hickler et al. 2004) to model ecosystem shifts.

14

It is too early to generalize how these “second-generation” approaches differ from BEC climate-envelope projections. Most other models do not describe a whole-ecosystem response, focussing on specific ecosystem components such as trees or grasses, or processes such as carbon sequestration (Melton et al. 2012, B2; Coxson 2012, B4) rather than on BEC units. Use of different climate scenarios, ecological units and output variables hindered comparison of the K1 and K2 projections for the Kamloops TSA (Nelson et al. 2012, B12).

“The [northwest Skeena] region has primarily acted as a carbon sink through the historical period and the region is expected to continue as a carbon sink until at least 2040 when it may become a carbon source, depending on the climate/emissions scenario the world will follow. …Any attempts to manage the region’s forests for carbon sequestration will become riskier into the future due to the large, and unpredictable, influence that climate and pests can have on forest ecosystems (unless the climate adjusted seed zone modelling gets it right).”

Brinkman et al. (2012, B2)

Intuitively, a model that takes into account rates of species migration will show less change than “flying BEC” envelopes, but mechanistic or multi-factor models can generate non-linear regime shifts (threshold changes) that may be more severe than those projected by Wang et al. (2012a, A1).

For example, insect epidemics followed by wildfire could shift an SBS forest to grassland or scrub even if the climate envelope projects a moist ICH-like climate. A diminishing snowpack could cause western redcedar decline in the wet ICH despite no decrease in total precipitation (Coxson 2012, B4). Novel ecological units that have no present or past analogue in BC, or south of the border, are an important possibility considered by Holt et al. (2012, B6) and Roberts and Hamann (2012).

To summarize, cumulative environmental stress results in increasing uncertainty and deterioration in the services that humans have come to expect to receive from ecosystems, including the provision of a reliable supply of clean water from streams, a steady flow of timber from healthy forests, and nutritious forage for livestock and wildlife from healthy rangelands. A generally warmer and wetter climate is likely to increase rates of tree growth, forage and wildlife production, and supplies of fresh water for some species and in some geographic areas. Nonetheless, the broad scientific consensus from FFESC research is that the cumulative environmental stresses associated with the rapid rate of ecological and social change will outweigh these local benefits, causing a high risk of overall decline in the provision of ecosystem services at the provincial level.

15

3.3.5 Trees Understandably, more FFEI/FFESC research projects focussed on tree species distributions, tree regeneration, growth and yield, tree health and timber supply than any other aspect of ecosystem vulnerability (Table 1). For economic reasons, we know more about trees than just about any other non-human organism in BC. It is also much simpler to project single species dynamics than more complex whole-ecosystem responses.

BC is fortunate to have a world-class network of provenance studies for most of its major commercial tree species. This rich source of experimental data, showing how populations taken from the across the range of a tree species perform across a full range of climates, has served as the basis for seed-transfer modelling under a warming climate (O’Neill et al. 2008, Wang et al. 2010) and complemented the correlative species distribution mapping of Hamann and Wang (2006) and Wang et al. (2012a, A1). The work has generally shown that genotypes can survive across a wide range of non-local climates, but that growth falls off substantially outside of the optimal range of temperature and precipitation. Provenance research has emphasized tree growth and form, but other aspects of tree health are also assessed.

The results indicate that “local” populations and species are no longer the best or even the lowest-risk option for reforestation and supported recent amendments to the Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Transfer (MLNRO 2008, 2010) expanding upper elevation seed transfer limits and allowing plantations of western larch outside their natural range. Provenance research also provided empirical data in support of the recommendation that red alder be planted across a wider elevational range distribution on the BC Coast (Farnden et al. 2012, B6). Wang et al. (2012a, A1 & C2) propose a shifting climate envelope-based seed transfer system rather than a static system

based on existing biogeoclimatic unit boundaries and fixed elevation limits. The FFEI was able to expand the provenance trial network by establishing of a comprehensive assisted migration adaptation trial comprising 48 sites and 15 tree species from Oregon to Yukon (O’Neill et al. 2011) whose results will feed into the climate-based seed-transfer system and will also support FFEI‘s climate-based tree species selection tool (Mah and Astridge 2012).

A second major body of FFESC-sponsored tree-growth research improves on the original TACA model (Nitschke and Innes 2008). The model has now been parameterized for much of the southern and central Interior. It models the risk of tree regeneration failure on dry, mesic and moist site types, was linked to the SORTIE-BC forest dynamics model (Nitschke 2010, A2) and was used as to underpin the Drought Risk Analysis tool and maps of Delong (2012, B5) as well as timber supply modeling in the Quesnel (Chan-McLeod et al. 2012, B3) and Kamloops TSAs (Nelson et al. 2012, B12). It isn’t readily apparent to what extent TACA parameter estimates are based on field and laboratory data rather than on correlations between tree species distributions and climate variables (e.g., Burton and Cumming 1995), but additional empirical data from provenance and assisted migration trials and dedicated experiments will undoubtedly further improve the model, particularly if they quantify within-species variability in temperature, frost, drought and other regeneration tolerances.

Nitschke (2010, A2) compared TACA regeneration niche results to Hamann and Wang’s (2006) tree species distribution modelling results and found good agreement for some species (Douglas-fir; paper birch on all but dry sites), but moderate discrepancies for others (interior spruce, lodgepole pine, black cottonwood, subalpine fir).

16

Brinkman et al. (2012) used LPJ-GUESS (HIckler et al. 2004) to model the current and future distributions of 19 coastal tree species under several climate change scenarios, apparently based on niche characteristics derived from mapped distributions and known silvical characteristics. This model produces interesting dynamics because it also considers the effects of shade tolerance on competitive abilities over time in the absence of disturbance. The results mostly show dominance by the tallest and most shade tolerant of the tree species. The LPJ-GUESS simulations must be considered as preliminary, but are a welcome addition to the suite of available models and warrant further refinement and validation.

“Common species in the [northwest Skeena] study region, such as western hemlock and amabilis fir will likely become more dominant as the proportion of lesser species decreases…. In the lower elevation regions, the forest will likely experience increased growth due to CO2 fertilization, increased moisture and higher growing season temperatures.”

Brinkman et al. (2012, B2)

The FORWADY, FORECAST family of models used by Nelson et al. (2012, B12) are evolved from models with a long track-record of use in BC (Kimmins et al. 2010) that are just beginning to be applied to climate change questions. Their K2 exercise was labour- and data-intensive, but learnings from this pilot study should soon be transferable to operational timber supply analyses in other study areas and with various climate scenarios.

[R]esults from FORECAST Climate suggest…both positive and negative impacts on stand-level productivity…The warming of air temperatures generally led to a lengthening of the growing season,…

increases in the decomposition of dead organic matter and the associated release of nutrients. In contrast, climate change consistently led to an increase in mid-growing season water stress which had a negative impact on growth rates and often resulted in increased mortality. The net impact of these competing effects on long-term stand productivity depended on a number of factors including: stand age at the time of the climate change simulation, species composition, soil edaphic condi-tions, and ecozone.”

Nelson et al. (2012, B12)

The tenure of the FFESC also coincided with a rapid increase in dendrochronology publications that correlate tree diameter growth rates and tree health with climatic data or proxies (e.g., Greisbauer and Green 2010, 2012; Lo et al. 2010; Greisbauer et al. 2011; McLane et al. 2011; Chavardès et al. 2012a,b).

In the BC Interior, forest modelling results indicate significant vulnerabilities for many important commercial tree species and increased risk of damage from forest insects and pathogens. Johnston (2009, A4) highlights the southern BC Interior as one of the most vulnerable areas for tree growth in all of Canada. It may become too difficult to regenerate trees in some of the hottest, driest climates, but modified silvicultural practices adapted from warmer climates outside Canada could help to address reforestation challenges. Lodgepole pine, which is adapted to cool climates and frost-prone locales, is expected to become increasingly vulnerable in southern BC. Increased use of Douglas-fir, Ponderosa pine, western larch and other temperate species better adapted to hot weather is recommended for many sites currently being reforested with lodgepole pine (Zielke et al. 2012, B12).

17

In the central Interior, by contrast, lodgepole pine is projected to continue to be a suitable silvicultural choice except on especially exposed, dry sites (Nitschke 2010, A2; DeLong 2012, B5), while spruce and subalpine fir are considered more vulnerable (Johnston 2009, A4; Nitschke 2010, A2). Nitschke (2010) differentiates between Engelmann spruce (considered highly vulnerable) and Interior spruce (only moderately vulnerable) in the central Interior. Since pure Engelmann spruce and hybrid Interior spruce are generally not differentiated operationally, this result draws attention to the fact that the early models treat tree species as uniform entities whereas future models and reforestation choices will increasingly incorporate data on how genetic variability among populations of a species affects vulnerability to future climates (e.g., Rehfeldt et al. 2001; Wang et al. 2006).

“[M]esic to moist sites within the majority of the region’s ecosystems may offer managers the ability to continue management under a business as usual scenario whereas new policies may be required to ensure that dry (xeric to submesic) sites are able to be reforested successfully under climate change, particularly in the southernmost portions ofthe Central Interior.”

Nitschke (2010, A2)

Douglas-fir is viewed as a suitable choice for reforestation over a much wider range of subzones and sites in central and northern interior BC than previously because of its tolerance of warm temperatures and drought. Concerns persist over its frost sensitivity and how to balance current risks (of frost damage) against future risks (too hot for frost-tolerant species). Selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems, avoidance of frost-prone topographic positions, and mixed species plantings that use fast-growing hardwoods as nurse crops to provide shelter against climatic extremes are well-documented solutions for reducing exposure risks. Western larch, which does

not grow naturally in the central interior, has performed well in species trials across the region (e.g., LePage and McCulloch 2011) and is recommended as minor component of species mixes to increase the diversity of choices available for silviculture (MFLNRO 2010).

FFESC research did not extend to boreal forests of northern BC.

Along the Coast, because of the moderating effect of the Pacific Ocean and the mountainous terrain, tree species modelling generally predicts less vulnerability than in the Interior, with important commercial tree species such as Douglas-fir (Wang et al. 2012a, A1), red alder (Farnden et al. 2012, B6), western hemlock and amabilis fir (Melton et al. 2012, B2) projected to remain viable within their current ranges and capable of expanding their ranges upwards and northwards, at least with silvicultural assistance.

“Common species in the [northwest Skeena] study region, such as western hemlock and amabilis fir will likely become more dominant as the proportion of lesser species decreases…. In the lower elevation regions, the forest will likely experience increased growth due to CO2 fertilization, increased moisture and higher growing season temperatures.”

Brinkman et al. (2012, B2)

“[I]n the Campbell River Forest District where alder is currently common, changes to climatic factors affecting productivity suggest 7 to 10% increases in alder growth rates by the 2050s.”

Farnden et al. (2012, B6)

As in the Interior, Douglas-fir is projected to be a good reforestation choice in coastal silviculture for a much wider range of sites because of its tolerance of warm and dry extremes (Wang et al. 2012a, A1). Minor, high-elevation and non-commercial tree species were found to be at greater risk. The CDF biogeoclimatic zone, not studied

18

under FFESC, is a notable exception to the rest of the Coast because important CDF tree species (western redcedar, grand fir, western hemlock, even Douglas-fir) are considered vulnerable to increased drought, fire, and other stress-related mortality in this dry coastal zone (see e.g., Brown and Hebda 2002; Klassen 2012).

In general, quantitative species modelling in the CWH and MH zones is in early stages and does not adequately consider projected increases in climatic extremes, storm events, insect and disease disturbance. Other than extreme precipitation events, expert opinion and historical tracking suggests that forest health concerns will continue to be less severe on the Coast than inland, but current modelling extrapolates from climate correlations and past events and does not take account of ecological surprises such as emerging diseases and invasive alien insects (see, e.g., Woods et al. 2010). As noted by Melton et al. (2012, B2) current models are also unable to project complex climate-ecological relationships such as yellow-cedar decline (Wooton and Klinkenberg 2011; Hennon et al. 2012), which has been

shown to result from diminished snowpacks failing to insulate shallow roots against winter freezing on poorly drained sites. This explanation for the decline resulted from over 20 years of dogged field investigations by a US Forest Service research team. Like the research program in the BC’s inland temperate rainforest, the work on yellow-cedar illustrates the value of long-term interdisciplinary research and monitoring and the folly of simplistic predictions in complex but poorly understood systems.

“[M]anagers should avoid plans that are too tightly dependent on historical disturbance patterns and other assumptions. Using more diverse seed sources or species mixes when planting, altering rotation times, and facilitating species migration will likely play important roles in adapting to altered climates over the next century. But perhaps most importantly, a time of change and uncertainty calls for a greater emphasis on risk analysis than on optimizing productivity, with conscious efforts to manage for flexibility and resilience.”

Haughian et al. (2012, B1)

19

3.3.6 RangelandsThe FFESC research program included a single umbrella project examining climate change and BC range, coordinated at Thompson Rivers University and involving 39 research partners (Fraser 2012a, B7). This multi-pronged collaboration included: (a) review of past and ongoing climate change experiments; (b) field exper-imentation; (c) socio-economic analysis of rangeland goods and services; (d) a survey of the ranching community to determine perceptions of climate change; and (e) a pilot study incorporating the ecological and socio-economic findings into an integrated range management plan.

Rangelands in BC, especially grassland ecosystems, are threatened by urban development, agricultural conversion, tree encroachment and infill, inappropriate grazing and invasive species (Fraser 2012b, B7). The interactions of global climate change with these other stressors are poorly understood but are unlikely to be uniform across different types of rangelands. Forage production is projected to decline in some areas and increase in other areas. Range stakeholders and the sector as a whole will need to adapt grazing management activities in response to changing ecosystems and greater uncertainty. The range sector has considerable experience in dealing with cyclical variability in climate along with other sources of volatility. Stakeholder opinions are understandably varied regarding the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

“The successful adaptation of range management to climate change in BC will require…range managers at all levels to develop a culture that recognizes and expects constantly changing abiotic and biotic environments.”

Newman et al. (2012, B7)

Variation in climate change impacts on rangelands is expected between northern and southern latitudes of the province and among species, including invasives. Furthermore, the response of a species will depend on its local environment including soil and site conditions. Rangeland managers and scientists have used topographic sequences of low, middle and upper elevation grasslands in southern and central BC and artificial watering experiments as a proxy for the effects of warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation on grassland ecological processes.

This field research shows that carbon and nitrogen storage in soils and surface crusts generally increase from lower to upper grasslands, likely corresponding to levels of moisture availability. Simple extrapolation suggests that C and N storage could decline as the climate warms; however, the effects of a changing climate are unlikely to be so straightforward. For one thing, seques-tration levels in the ecosystem can be significantly influenced by grazing management. Early modeling results suggest that there may be significant opportunities to alter grazing practices to help offset the considerable greenhouse gas emissions produced by cattle and other livestock.

“While beef cattle do produce greenhouse gas emissions, especially from the enteric CH4 produced by … mature beef cows …, grasslands of the central interior have huge potential to offset those emissions through carbon sequestration.”

Church et al. (2012, B7)

20

3.3.7 BiodiversitySeveral FFESC projects examined biodiversity in a general sense as part of an overall vulnerability or resilience assessment (e.g., Daust and Morgan 2012, B11; Holt et al. 2012, B7) or used specific indicators of biodiversity as part of a modeling exercise examining tradeoffs between timber supply and habitat management under climate change (e.g., bird species, Chan-McLeod et al. 2012, B3; epiphytic lichens, Coxson 2012, B4; old growth patches, broadleaf species, coarse woody debris and ungulate winter range, Nelson et al. 2012, B12).

General biodiversity concerns associated with forest harvesting under a changing climate included (Daust and Morgan 2011):1) the loss of old forest habitat and

connectivity due to increased tree mortality;

2) loss of suitable microhabitat and soil conditions for a variety of organisms due to forest harvesting and other disturbances on exposed, dry sites;

3) loss of forest vigour, species and structural diversity due to maladaptation to climate, salvage and conventional harvesting, and reforestation practices;

4) faster spread of invasive species due to stress reducing the resistance to invasion and increased disturbance creating opportunities for colonization;

5) loss of alpine and high elevation species and habitats due to reduced winter snowpacks.

Biogeographic evidence suggests that sheltered, moist sites can act as climate refugia, whereas more exposed sites have greater vulnerability. Such sheltered forests should therefore be assigned priority for conservation under climate change (Coxson 2012, B4; Delong 2012, B5). At the same time, there is recognition that threshold changes in precipitation, snowpacks (e.g.,

Coxson 2012, B4), glacial mass, fire, insect and pathogen regimes could make some previously stable ecosystems unusually vulnerable to rapid change.

“Future land use management decisionsshould give a high priority to conserving lichen communities in topographic positions where they are potentially buffered from the impacts of climate change, such as in wet toe-slope positions.”

Coxson (2012, B4)

A very high degree of consensus can be found in the FFESC research and other scientific literature about the need for improvements in current forest and land management practices to avoid losses of biodiversity under a changing climate. These strategies were repeatedly stressed in FFESC program deliverables and do not differ markedly from well-established best practices for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem-based forest management.

Where they do differ is in greater recognition of how cumulative ecosystem stresses reduce opportunities to maintain old forests and sensitive species and open up opportunities for invasion. For example, partial cutting and retention of large woody materials will become even more important as a lifeboating strategy that may allow cool temperate and boreal species to persist as the climate warms. Connectivity corridors become even more important to allow species migration northwards and upwards and should be designed and expanded to facilitate such migration. The need to maintain and enhance species and structural diversity across multiple spatial scales becomes even more important as a risk-management strategy under a rapidly changing climate.

“Building in extra areas of old [forest] across the landscape may be necessary to maintain the desired amount of old growth.”

Nelson et al. (2012, B12)

21

Two strategies for biodiversity maintenance that do differ substantially between standard ecosystem management principles and climate-change adaptation principles are: (1) the role of assisted species migration in biodiversity conservation; and (2) the need to move away from emulation of historic natural disturbance regimes towards accommodating and even designing novel ecosystems that maintain genetic, species and ecosystem diversity and provide ecosystem services (Seastedt et al. 2008).

Chan McLeod et al.‘s (2012, B3) modelling scenarios showed, for example, that changing reforestation practices to introduce less vulnerable tree species helped to maintain bird habitat that would have been lost by emulating natural forest dynamics. In a similar vein, Morgan (2011) showed that changing forest practices to capitalize on salvage opportunities rather than distributing the harvest according to accepted natural disturbance guidelines better maintained grizzly habitat and remnant old forest.

There is still considerable and necessary scientific debate about the merits of these two emerging strategies: assisted species migration (For. Chron. 2011; Schwartz et al. 2012; Pedlar et al. 2012) and novel or

designed ecosystem management (Sea-stedt et al. 2008; Suding 2011). Both approaches remain mostly untested. The scientific debate weighs the positive roles that introduced and invasive genotypes, species and novel species assemblages play in supplying vital ecosystem services such as timber, soil stabilization and wildlife cover in disturbed, rapidly changing environments (Hobbs et al. 2011) against the unintended, often harmful conse-quences of human intervention into complex, poorly understood systems (Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009a,b). There appears to be a place for low to higher risk versions of these interventions within an adaptive co-management framework for diversifying forest and range practices. The scope of intervention could range from active biodiversity-by-design in heavily modified peri-urban landscapes, to varying forms of assisted tree migration (Pedlar et al. 2012) in timber production landscapes, to actively resisting change in some minimally impacted landscapes, to passively allowing Nature to take its course in other remote landscapes. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for biodiversity or ecosystem management under climate change. Instead, a full spectrum of context-appropriate adaptive management is almost certainly required.

22

3.4 Evolving Economies and Communities

There is a high degree of consensus among FFESC researchers that enhancing forest and rangeland management along the lines of accepted best practices will go a long way toward reducing ecosystem vulnerabilities and increasing resilience to climate change. These include scientifically well-documented beneficial measures such as enhancing species and structural diversity and improving connectivity across spatial scales, improved forest and rangeland environmental monitoring, invasive species control, soil conservation measures to enhance carbon storage and minimize erosion, streambank habitat protection to reduce stream temperatures, fuels management around communities and so on. All of these measures also offer short- and medium-term environmental co-benefits. On top of that, there are a variety of new climate change adaptation practices and policy measures, such as assisted species migration, that have less of a scientific track record, but which offer important potential benefits and should certainly be explored within an adaptive co-management framework.

Structured decision-making processes can help to identify the most cost-effective adaptation strategies and identify ways to implement them, but the degree of planning required to carry out a comprehensive adaptation planning exercise similar to the Kamloops TSA’s K1 and K2 pilot projects in other parts of the province and to continue these processes forward to implementation and monitoring stages will require substantial new funding.

It is evident that BC’s resource-based economy is evolving in new directions. The province, regions, First Nations and other local communities will need to develop forest and range climate change adaptation strategies that reflect this evolving economy. The restructuring of BC’s

resource ministries into the MFLNRO is part of this evolution and reflects a new orientation where natural resources are no longer managed on a sector-by-sector basis but where the demands of mining, forestry, rangeland, energy, agricultural, tourism and other economic sectors on the lands, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the province are considered in an integrated fashion. Accompanying this shift in management structuring is a downloading of costs and responsibilities for environmental and resource management from the federal and provincial governments to the private sector, local governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals.

The FFESC research program included numerous projects that addressed the issues of evolving economies, communities and natural resource management obligations in a variety of ways. The cross-cutting or unifying theme of the social sciences components of these research projects was: how can we overcome barriers to effective climate change adaptation that do not result from a lack of biophysical knowledge? There is a consensus within the research program that scientific understanding of the problem is not the major barrier to moving forward, because adaptation invariably involves learning as we go. As described above, we already know a great deal about how to effectively manage forest and rangeland resources to reduce their vulnerability to climate change. What we don’t know how to do very well is to motivate individuals and organizations to adapt to and mitigate climate change in a world where there are so many other, more immediate, pressures competing for their money, time and energy.

“64% of 227 respondents either “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed with the statement: Human activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur.”

23

Fraser et al. (2012, B7)

Eleven FFESC research teams undertook opinion surveys of project participants, stakeholders or the public. While the majority of individuals familiar with forest or range management expressed concern about climate change and the need for adaptive action, climate change was often not among their highest priorities.

“Most respondents [in the northwest Skeena region] acknowledge climate change as an actual phenomenon that is occurring, but they do not see it as having immediate or significant impacts on the local region, relative to other forces of change. Pollution, over-harvesting, and mismanagement of natural resources were frequently mentioned as resource impacts that must be dealt with before the broader (and potentially more daunting) challenge of climate changes can be dealt with.”

Tesluk et al. (2012, B2)

In Prince George, participants engaged in a sustainable community planning exercise did not rate climate change within their top 10 issues (Summerville et al. 2012, B15), despite having experienced the mountain pine beetle outbreak, a major downtown flood event and a rash of regional wildfires in the years just before the survey. It was evident in this study, as in others, that for effective adaptation to occur there needs to be a direct connection between the concept of climate change and routine priority activities.

“Mainstreaming” and “co-benefits” are key concepts in this regard because they change an abstract idea into something concrete. In the Prince George study, Summerville et al. (2012, B15) used visualization methods to make the connection between abstract scientific information and day-to-day reality. In the Skeena Valley, Brinkman et al. (2012, B2) found that diverse respondents shared a deep concern about salmon but didn’t

necessarily consider climate change as a major threat to this treasured resource.

“As climate visualizations move from distant/aerial scales towards the localized/street scale, the impact they have on individuals moves from a low level awareness towards visceral responses that can stimulate behavioural change. People must be able to ‘see themselves’ in the visualizations they are presented with, and genuinely relate to the science conveyed in them in order to perceive a sense of importance.”

Summerville et al. (2012, B15)

Provincial policy makers have important roles to play in setting the legislative and policy framework that makes adaptation happen, but most adaptation occurs from the ground up, in communities and within families, or among practitioners, when the conditions are favorable to them to make a concrete link between climate and behaviour. There are some interesting examples from the FFESC research program of how this top down – bottom up interaction can work. In the picturesque Robson Valley, for example, the traditional forest industry has been in decline for a long period of time and those local residents who have stayed put despite mill closures have found many ways to adapt, including embracing ecotourism and engaging in small-scale forestry activities. A community workshop concluded that provincial “use-or-lose it” policy attached to the Dunster Community Forest tenure, specifying the minimum volume of cut, was more of a barrier to climate change adaptation than the upper harvest limit, because it constrained their ability to manage the forest for a desired balance among timber production, carbon credits and other non-timber values.

The mid-term timber supply crisis in BC’s central interior provides a particularly poignant example. Climate change adaptation strategies were developed in the Nadina Forest District with the collaboration

24

of forest management stakeholders (Daust and Morgan 2012, B11) shortly before the Babine Forest Products mill was destroyed in an explosion and fire in January 2012. The District has experienced an extremely high level of MPB salvage harvest over the past 10 years and is entering a period of timber supply falldown and ecosystem recovery.

The climate change adaptation strategy outlines a variety of operational measures to sustain ecosystem services (timber supply, biodiversity, hydrology). Almost all of these measures conflict with the desire rebuild a new mill because the mill owner requires a higher level of cut than allowed under the AAC to make a new mill viable.

As the BC Special Committee on Timber Supply (Legislative Assembly 2012) consultation process unfolded it was instructive to observe how top-down political and local pressures to restore resource revenues and employment played out against legislative, professional and local obligations to protect long term sustainability. Although the Special Commit-tee’s terms of reference, background documents and discussion paper (Rustad and Macdonald 2012) did not mention climate change, the Committee subsequently heard from a variety of presenters, including FFESC researchers, about its importance to timber supply. Its final report concludes: “While growing more fibre is a desired outcome, this needs to be achieved within the context of growing resilient forests in the face of a changing

climate.” (Special Committee on Timber Supply 2012).The FFESC research results and other scientific literature point to several important conclusions about evolving economies and communities. These are:

1) Climate change adaptation, let alone mitigation, will not occur without co-benefits and full-cost accounting for ecosystem services provided by forests and rangelands. Full cost accounting means finding ways to value not just carbon, but other services such as fresh water and erosion control. In the bustling Okanagan Basin, for example, there must be some economic integration between forestry practices that influence headwater stream-flow and fire safety, and the profits of water-using wineries, golf courses, retirement homes and restaurants in the valley below.

2) Adaptation is a shared learning enterprise among scientists, policy makers, resource professionals, local government, stakeholders and the public. It can’t be achieved by delivering technical solutions on a platter and expecting them to be implemented. Support is needed for a wide spectrum of learning opportunities, decision making frameworks and governance mechanisms.

3) Local communities require strong higher-level legislation that mandates sustainability, but in order to adapt they must be allowed greater opportunity and responsibility to co-manage local resources, collect revenues and allocate benefits.

25

3. 5 Research Needs1) Improve model robustness by validating

with empirical data (e.g., physiological and provenance experiments to improve and test TACA parameter estimates; historical and palaeoecological back-casting of simulations) and by comparing the results of alternative modelling approaches (e.g., BEC climate envelope projections with process-oriented digital vegetation model projections). Compare expert opinion with model simulations.

2) Develop systematic approaches for scaling up results from detailed research study areas to broader operational forest landscapes including District-level timber and habitat supply analyses and watershed-scale cumulative effects assessments.

3) Collaborate with neighbouring juris-dictions to improve databases, learn about fresh approaches, and build the capacity to assess climate impacts and vulnerabilities and take adaptive actions.

4) Prioritize research on how climate change affects water supply management and hydrologic processes on forest and agricultural land, including collaborations that are not limited to Crown land issues (i.e., municipalities, private land, industrial water use) and draw on experience in arid regions outside BC.

5) Broaden the scope of assisted tree migration research to include whole-ecosystem and social system perspectives and integrate findings with invasive species research.

6) Build capacity in economics, particularly ecological economics.

7) Improve documentation and communication of uncertainties, following IPCC guidelines where possible.

8) Build on the FFESC initiative of improving collaboration in natural and social sciences

9) Continue participatory research with local communities, other stakeholders, practitioners and policy makers as adaptation occurs through shared learning.

10) Study how human behaviour and beliefs influence risk perception and decision making in forest and rangeland management.

11) Develop culturally-appropriate methods (such as visualization) for framing information, data-sharing, and customizing concepts and messages that encourage non-scientists to participate more fully in the adaptation process.

12) Provide financial support for the publication process to ensure FFESC-supported research is completed, peer-reviewed and distributed.

26

4. Summary of Recommendations from FFESC Research Reports

The following section provides an overview of topic-specific and general recommendations that were made in FFESC research reports. Appendix II provides a more detailed summary of the recommendations, organized by topic and project.

Topic Specific Recommendations

1) Rethink land and resource planning and use in the face of climate change Update existing regional, sub-regional and landscape scale land use plans (e.g. TSA level) to

incorporate climate change adaptation; use scenario analysis to consider different futures. Base planning on the fact that vegetation types and communities will be forced by nature to

become more dynamic as assemblages erode and accrete. Undertake detailed assessment of implications of climate change for key values, including TSR

and AAC determination and key habitat types at risk. Use Bayesian models to allow for management planning and refinement of adaptation schemes. Identify key areas of risks to people particularly with respect to fire. Incorporate ecological function and biodiversity conservation issues at all planning tables

(community, agriculture, energy, etc.). Develop climate-sensitive land management plans with respect to protected areas, biodiversity,

riparian management and watershed values. Design comprehensive strategies to manage the composition, density (biomass) and age classes

of stands and landscapes to increase resilience. Develop a strategic plan for species deployment and landscape diversity, including landscape

targets for tree species diversity. Undertake strategic planning, hazard mapping and fuel management priority ranking around

communities. Plan corridors to facilitate species migration and for fire control (include deciduous and old forest

fire breaks as appropriate). Address access management. Plan for land use conversions (e.g. forest to rangeland). Maintain some unharvested naturally disturbed areas.

2) Develop a climate-change based monitoring and inventory framework; review existing efforts and develop collaborative approaches Monitor reforestation success and environmental conditions past free growing. Monitor growth and yield to recognize changes due to climate. Monitor stands at high risk for drought induced mortality. Monitor problem forest types so they can be harvested in a timely manner. Monitor forest heath, invasive species, etc. Monitor fire hazards and fuel loads by treatments. Monitor range communities to determine climate change impacts, and to detect drought and

forage supply changes. Monitor biodiversity – using key indicators. Monitor condition of high value fish spawning areas. Monitor hydrologic conditions including air and stream temperature, precipitation and stream flow

to improve models.

27

Monitor ECA (equivalent clearcut area), road density and burned areas. Monitor road conditions (e.g., assess bridges, culverts, ditches, stream crossing quality index). Monitor erosion, slides, and deep‐seated earth flows.

3) Undertake risk analysis, modeling and mapping Do ASMR (absolute soil moisture regime) and drought risk mapping, especially in the drier, hotter

BGC zones such as IDHxh and dh. Complete frost risk mapping where assisted migration is proposed - especially for larch. Develop better modeling tools, especially dynamic vegetation models that will allow better long-

term planning.

4) Develop climate-sensitive growth and yield models and use them to set AAC levels Project timber supply under different scenarios in consideration of predicted mortality and growth

rates. Allow for increased loss of timber supply due to insects, disease and fire. Remove most vulnerable stands from THLB unless scheduled for harvest. Plan for increased productivity in areas where climate suitability for tree growth will improve. Ensure determination of hardwood cut levels in TSR. Adopt a process where determination of the least amount of timber to be harvested is done by the

community forest, while the province remains responsible for determining the maximum harvest level.

5) Develop strategies for timber harvesting and silvicultural systems that are consistent with expected climatic conditions Identify harvesting priorities based on decision support tools such as soil moisture predictors and

models that predict forest stress and health. Avoid harvesting sensitive areas to conserve biodiversity (e.g. wet areas); this could entail

providing policy direction to regions and districts as to how they should assign harvest priority and how to balance timber supply management against other goals such as hydrologic recovery, regeneration, biodiversity etc. (e.g. how FRPA considerations should be altered).

Harvest the most susceptible stands (including conversion of stressed forests to range lands) – provided other values are not impacted.

Shorten rotation ages as appropriate. Plan for increased salvaging. Maintain some naturally disturbed stands. Develop a strategy for silvicultural systems that includes the use of partial cutting, stand tending,

and thinning to maintain resilient forests.

28

6) Design comprehensive reforestation strategies to manage composition, density (biomass), and age classes of stands and landscapes to increase resilience Promote resiliency at all scales by increasing stand age and species diversity (e.g., wrt

hardwoods, diverse seral stages). Ensure appropriate landscape pattern and composition (e.g., mix of hardwoods and conifers). Develop and use tree species selection decision support tool to guide appropriate choices of tree

species, populations and densities to improve productivity and reduce risks. Focus management on currently productive sites and those likely to remain more productive

under future climates, and reduce efforts on poor sites. Use site preparation to enhance species survival and growth (e.g. increase moisture availability

where appropriate). Develop appropriate fertilization strategies that help ensure crop trees reach rotation age,

increase carbon storage, etc. Ensure future seed supply - particularly of more resilient species that will be in greatest demand

and where intermittent seed crops and extreme weather may limit seed supply.

7) Develop appropriate hardwood management strategies Implement effective policies that will promote appropriate management actions to shape the

future alder resource. Management policies need to go well beyond the current non-binding guidelines established for hardwood management in the Coast Forest Region.

Set targets for the desired size of a future hardwood industry, and implement policies to ensure an adequate supply of raw materials for that industry.

Ensure appropriate landscape pattern and composition (i.e. mix of hardwoods and conifers).

8) Develop a fire management strategic plan to increase landscape resilience to fire Allow for the ecological role of natural disturbance such as fire where feasible. Develop fire management strategies that consider carbon management implications. Incorporate knowledge of fire behavior in different stands into better modelling and decision

support tools to predict risks and inform subsequent treatments. Implement wildfire management and community wildfire protection actions. Monitor and reduce hazards and address fuel management priorities Update and refine fire risk mapping. Plan to maintain or develop large strips of deciduous trees and/or locally atypical seral stage (e.g.

old coniferous forests) for fire breaks. Incorporate fuel management and prescribed burning into fire suppression strategies. Undertake fuel manipulation (thinning, piling, prescribed burning, etc.) near communities to

reduce the hazard of wildfires. Reduce fuels on cutblocks by burning and other site prep techniques, mulching, piling and

chipping for biofuels. Undertake strategic planning around timber harvesting, addressing site hazards and necessary

equipment for fire suppression and increase suppression equipment at logging site in high fire hazard areas.

Capture water in man‐made reservoirs across the landscape to increase fire control potential. Plan road access in consideration of future fire risks. Control access better via gates during fire season to reduce ignition risk. Seed grass mixes to retard soil erosion and alien species invasions after wildfires using

appropriate mixes.

29

9) Develop a forest health strategy that addresses anticipated changes due to climate change Maintain or increase forest diversity at all scales (e.g., species and age class diversity and

particularly deciduous versus coniferous diversity) to reduce the spread of insects and disease. Identify the role of silvicultural treatments in mitigating stand vulnerability to insects and disease. Reduce lodgepole pine dominance and improve tree species diversity, as this will increase

landscape resilience to future insect infestations. Harvest the most susceptible stands, including sanitation cutting of affected stands, if important

other values are not impacted. Maintain some habitats derived from insect/disease infestations for wildlife where possible. Allow for loss of timber supply due to insects and disease in resource analysis and AAC

determinations. Develop tree genotypes that resist insects and disease. Undertake more research to better understand climate-forest insect interactions and possible

tipping points for key impacts in various ecological landscapes. Acquire better information on insect physiology and the coupling of insect and host tree

phenology and changes under future climates. Develop models combining physiology, phenology and climatic data to allow some general

predictions of effects of insect distributions.

10) Develop a strategy to deal with invasive species that is integrated with forest management strategies Implement early detection (monitoring) and control. Maintain vegetation cover on susceptible sites. Minimize site disturbance, particularly multiple disturbance. Minimize roads, seed roadsides and control access. Control grazing in high risk areas.

11) Develop a comprehensive approach to rangeland management that addresses climate change Promote revised expectations for rangelands including a culture that expects changing

conditions. Encourage range managers to increase their awareness of environmental changes through

observation and quantitative monitoring. Monitor changes in rangelands. Update higher level plans in light of climate change (e.g. with respect to guaranteed access to

forage). Make any needed changes in legislation and grazing plans to account for changes in forage

supply with a changing climate and review AUM allocations and adjust as needed. Plan range infrastructure (e.g. water, fencing) in consideration of climate change. Control invasive species.

Implement assisted migration for key forage species as required.12) Make fundamental changes in how we collectively arrange for ecosystem

conservation through a system of protected areas

30

Incorporate ecological function and biodiversity conservation issues at all planning tables (e.g. community, agriculture, energy).

Ensure conservation of forests with large legacies of carbon. Conserve areas buffered from climate change (e.g. old growth cedar forests).

13) Plan to maintain biodiversity values in the face of climate change by managing for structural diversity, habitat diversity, and landscape connectivity Clarify ecological sensitivities to climate change. Identify high risk sites (e.g., alpine). Avoid interfering with natural recovery processes and be aware of the potential cumulative effects

of coupled human and natural disturbances. Maintain or reinstate natural disturbance patterns where possible, emulate them in forest

harvesting activities and leave some naturally disturbed areas Maintain or increase diversity at all scales - e.g., tree species and age class diversity including

late seral forest and particularly deciduous versus coniferous diversity. Manage harvesting in anticipation of an increased rate of natural disturbance to increase

probability of staying within appropriate ECA limits. Avoid harvesting sites with shallow water tables that connect to stream systems. Avoid harvesting bogs and dry sites and retain climate-resistant refugia (e.g. larger riparian

buffers). Plan for corridors and “percolating landscape” to facilitate species migration. Increase the area of reserves, wildlife tree patches and partial retention cuts and retain green

trees, snags, woody debris, dying trees, and deciduous species, where possible. Maintain riparian areas including buffers and interior forests. Retain patches of shrubland and grassland habitat in dry Douglas-fir types. Manage OGMAs in a flexible manner over time. Vary thinning intensity across the landscape and leave unthinned patches to provide a range of

habitats.

14) Plan management activities at the site, watershed and landscape scales to maintain resilient watersheds Assess options for addressing climate change including over‐engineering structures or accepting

different risk levels after examining the costs and benefits. Design management activities to maintain natural hydrologic and ecosystem function wherever

possible. Use hydrology models (e.g. Winkler’s) to forecast suitability of sites for different tree species (e.g.

in consideration of anticipated soil moisture levels), to plan where and how to harvest timber (e.g., to predict snow cover for winter logging), as inputs into dynamic vegetation models (e.g. GY models), and to forecast impacts of natural disturbances on forests (e.g. to forecast drought and fire hazard).

Undertake Watershed Assessment Procedures maintain riparian areas especially in fisheries sensitive watersheds and temperature sensitive watersheds.

Identify “flashy” watersheds and plan accordingly. Identify areas that feed water into streams (i.e., warm water sources) and manage accordingly. Monitor hydrologic regimes to improve predictive models of snow melt, run off, peak flows, etc. Retain riparian areas and improve riparian management practices. Determine appropriate practices for each watershed.

31

Design drainage structures meant to last for long periods to account for a climate change (e.g. higher probability of flooding, increased bed load).

Control erosion and minimize the introduction of fine sediments into surface water bodies. Develop integrated inland‐offshore fisheries management including reducing fishing pressure,

managing access to fish and monitoring fish populations.

15) Plan road systems, infrastructure and access in consideration of anticipated climate change Use available models to forecast changes to slope stability and develop appropriate management

regimes. Identify future risks of climate change such as flooding and terrain instability due to permafrost

thawing and increased rainfall and fires. Assess options for addressing climate change including over‐engineering structures or accepting

different risk levels after examining the costs and benefits. Upgrade the most susceptible bridges and culverts to climate‐appropriate standards as

appropriate. Control erosion using grass seeding, surfacing and suitable ditches Surface high‐hazard roads. Ensure appropriate deactivation of roads in temperature sensitive watersheds.

16) Develop carbon management strategies that help ensure crop trees increase carbon storage Develop projections of climate and vegetation changes and use model outcomes to project

impacts of alternative scenarios on carbon. Identify areas to apply new management scenarios, and measure carbon pools and sequestration

over time under a variety of current management scenarios to evaluate effectiveness and tailor future management plans.

Develop fire management strategies that consider carbon management implications. Ensure conservation of forests with large legacies of carbon. Provide information on carbon implications to stakeholders and solicit opinions on plausible and

realistic management options. Continue to develop carbon offset markets, disseminate the results of future research and receive

stakeholder feedback. Approach accountants and economists to identify a carbon offset aggregator.

17) Develop a flexible legislation and policy framework that capitalizes on new climatic environments and reduces the risk of catastrophic socio-economic losses Develop a framework that facilitates a varied portfolio of activities. Update existing legislation and other major policy instruments and decision support tools to

incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation. Use models and decision support tools to assist in development of legislation and regulations. Legislate and enforce protective planning, practices, and monitoring for fisheries sensitive

watersheds. Make any needed changes in legislation, regulations and practices, including grazing plans, to

allow for replacing tenures when lower authorized use is warranted to account for reductions in forage supply with a changing climate (e.g. repeal Section 25 of the Range Act which requires 20 years of forage supply to be guaranteed before a replacement tenure is offered).

32

18) Determine if changes in tenure and pricing systems are needed Evaluate and, as appropriate, make changes to systems governing tenures and property rights,

and pricing, since the current systems are based on the expectation of continued timber harvesting, which may not be sustainable.

19) Reduce community vulnerability and increase community resilience to climate change Improve communication and participation by all parties involved in resource management

activities. Extend and diversify the range of people aware of and engaged in climate change and forest

management. Encourage changes in society’s expectations about future forest values and benefits so they

account for vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change. Evaluate the risk and opportunities that shifts in natural disturbance may bring to our ecological

and human systems at all scales to help ensure that future plans can adapt or mitigate these potential risks and take advantage of the opportunities that may present themselves.

Develop and maintain skills, knowledge, and creativity in communities. Encourage a culture of learning through the use of a variety of mechanism to support people in

adapting to climate change. Develop strong relationships between community members that foster trust and productivity. Ensure diverse sources of local income, local access to natural resources, and local control of

natural resource-based businesses. Promote localized research and extension of results so that there is an increase in awareness

and dialogue of these localized effects and the potential solutions developed to address them. Query the non-participants in the community based projects and, in particular, senior government,

industry managers and practitioners, to better understand their barriers and find ways they can become involved.

Expand research and knowledge transfer on social dimensions of adaptation.

20) Engage First Nations in the process of adapting to climate change, and utilize their local, traditional knowledge Develop a consistent set of human resiliency measures or indicators (e.g., measures on

language, laws, governance, lands, community health and well-being and economic diversification) for climate change adaptation to effectively monitor human systems and sustainability as the climate changes in the region.

Integrate cultural values into clearly defined climate change adaptation objectives – including resources (human and financial) for Elder and Youth engagement, language preservation and cultural revitalization.

Work with Aboriginal communities to engage Knowledge Keepers as local observers for climate change and related ecological monitoring initiatives and aid in prioritizing monitoring needs in the region.

Broaden the understanding and research on climate change to include localized knowledge (a.k.a., traditional knowledge) and indigenous science alongside and equal to western science to expand adaptive capacity.

33

Localize decision-making and adaptation strategies to maximize community engagement and access to traditional knowledge to ensure that cultural values and practices inform decision-making in the region.

Utilize existing communication methods in Aboriginal communities to enhance their adaptive capacity.

21) Develop a comprehensive plan to build adaptive capacity through communication, extension and training Increase capacity to adapt to climate change at all levels (e.g., government, professions,

educational institutions, stakeholders) through shared learning. Initiate comprehensive dialogue with various stakeholders to determine desired conditions and

uses of forests and improve communication between forest managers and local communities. Make available information on potential climate change impacts to a range of knowledge users

including industry associations, local economic development agencies, provincial ministries, local groups and local government to develop broad societal understanding and buy-in of the future risks and issues.

Make presentations and hold webinars and workshops with smaller groups. Continue information sharing, conversation forums and structured decision approaches with local

practitioners. Create training programs about integrative and adaptation resource management including new

tools and methods. Focus on ‘what to do’ as practitioners identified not knowing ‘what to do’ as one of the highest

priority gaps. Use visualizations to help the public understand expected changes. Promote Plan2Adapt. Develop a catalogue of decision support tools and reports. Create a series of adaptation extension notes.

22) Develop an economic development strategy that addresses the likely changes to the land base as a result of climate change Identify the potential for new products. Diversify and increase resiliency of forest products sector. Use information from community consultation to guide economic development actions (e.g.

evaluating ecotourism opportunities, fisheries). Set targets for the desired size of a future hardwood industry, and implement policies to ensure

an adequate supply of raw materials for that industry.

34

23) Plan to diversify existing markets and develop new markets and technology to match changing supplies of forest resources Develop new markets (e.g. for salvaged timber, bio products) to match anticipated supplies of raw

materials. Develop new technology to use future wood supply (e.g. smaller size wood). Develop an open and transparent alder log market - to support development of a thriving

domestic hardwood manufacturing sector.

24) Continue work to provide needed climate data and projections Continue work on the effect of climate change on indices of climate extremes and on time series

analysis and evaluation of weather generators. Include the new prism data base and the regional climate model projections in ClimateWNA and

ClimateBC and release recent versions with monthly output of derived variables.

25) Develop a comprehensive research plan Improve understanding of climate change and potential impacts. Include all aspects of forest management (e.g., genetics, tree species selection, harvesting,

silvicultural systems, forest health, fire management, roads and infrastructure, socio-economic aspects such as community involvement, product development, legislation and other needs).

Expand research and knowledge transfer on social dimensions of adaptation.

General Recommendations

1) Rethink approaches to resource management

Make fundamental changes in how we collectively allocate forest resources to specific organizations and user groups (i.e., tenure, property rights and legal system), how we educate resource professionals, and how we arrange for ecosystem conservation through a system of protected areas.

Rethink paradigms of forest management, such as sustained yield, and new ones too, such as emulation of natural disturbance, as climate change invalidates our assumptions about managing forests in a stable atmospheric future.

Address conflicting policy initiatives that serve as a disincentive for long term planning, and deter collaboration among land-users.

Develop a climate change adaptation strategy that is integrated with regional ecological and socioeconomic objectives.

2) Embrace uncertainty Expect the unexpected and assimilate uncertainty associated with an array of plausible future

climates into management planning.

35

3) Adopt a flexible policy framework and revise policies and processes as needed

Develop a flexible policy framework that facilitates a varied portfolio of management activities (including some new ones) that capitalize on new climatic environments and reduce the risk of catastrophic socio-economic losses.

Continually identify key knowledge gaps, institutional arrangements, and policies that pose significant barriers to adaptation, and take actions to rapidly address them.

4) Mainstream climate change into all aspects of forest management

Mainstream climate change into all aspects of forest management using a systems approach. Update existing legislation, plans, reports and other major policy instruments and decision support

tools to incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation.

5) Incorporate vulnerability analysis, risk analysis, and adaptive management into practices

Undertake vulnerability assessments to guide decision making. Develop adaptation recommendations. Incorporate knowledge of vulnerability in all forest management decision-making.

6) Develop and use decision-support tools for integrated adaptive co-management

Use the decision support frameworks developed by FFESC project teams to determine appropriate actions.

Invest in tools to support integrated adaptive co-management across the land-base. Use models, decision support tools and outcomes from models to assist in decision-making and

development of legislation. This includes:o understanding and considering recommendations for integrating climate change adaptation; o examining case study results and comparing the explicit ecological and socioeconomic

consequences of adopting a silvicultural regime based on climate change adaptation; and, o changing the input values in Bayesian decision support tools and using them to ‘game’ and

evaluate the impacts of uncertainties in GCM scenarios.

7) Develop partnerships

Explore potential for partnerships between local resource managers, First Nations, and colleges to engage local residents and students in developing adaptation strategies and monitoring.

Continue funding of academic-practitioner partnerships to improve reliability of modelling tools and to pilot adaptation strategies.

8) Identify champions and funding Identify champions and appropriate funding to continue FFESC work locally as this will be key to

ensuring that maximum value is extracted from this work, and that effective adaptation strategies are identified.

.

36

5. Key Messages from the Science Synthesis

5.1 Climate change is already impacting BC ecosystems. Anthropogenic climate change and its effects on forest and rangeland ecosystems, including water supplies, are well underway in British Columbia and are expected to accelerate over coming decades regardless of what is done to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Changes will not be linear (e.g., El Nino/Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and will involve more ecological surprises similar to what happened with the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Warming is expected to be most pronounced in the winter months. Most of the province is forecast to experience increases in total precipitation, but drought stresses on forest and rangeland health and water supplies will increase nonetheless, most notably in the southern Interior. Climatic extremes are forecast to increase and will likely lead to greater ecological instability (e.g., more fires, floods, insects, diseases and invasive species outbreaks, sudden ecological shifts).

5.2 Lack of scientific data is not a significant barrier to moving forward with adaptation. The general direction of climate change and the scope of impacts that a warming world will have on ecosystems are increasingly well understood. A wide array of climate, ecosystem and forest management models exist and are continually being improved and updated. There is sufficient understanding of the issues that lack of scientific data should not prevent us from moving forward on climate change adaptation.

5.3 Most of the significant barriers to successful climate change adaptation lie within the realm of social choice. The most significant barriers to climate change adaptation are issues related to economics and ethics rather than technical issues that can be solved through the natural sciences

or by natural resource practitioners. These include such issues as: full-cost valuation of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation options; decision making under uncertainty; the effect of differing world views and beliefs on human behavior and risk perception; and equity versus efficiency in distributing the burden and benefits of climate change adaptation. The FFESC has taken a significant first step towards addressing these barriers by including a social sciences component in all of its major research projects.

5.4 Successful adaptation to climate change requires three important actions: monitor changing ecosystems, advocate practices that enhance ecosystem resilience, and strengthen the adaptive capacity of land managers. From a technical perspective, the three most important things that policy makers and practitioners can do to reduce the negative effects of climate change on forest and rangeland ecosystems and to capitalize on opportunities are to:

1) establish and maintain high-quality monitoring systems that reduce uncertainty and allow for proactive as well as timely reactive management;

2) retain and enhance the capacity of ecosystems to recover and adapt by reducing stresses that compound the damaging effects of climate change. Manage for diversity, connectivity and redundancy across a range of spatial and temporal scales, and take measures to lessen the cumulative impacts of resource development and natural disturbance; and,

3) improve capacity at all levels to make robust management decisions under uncertain and rapidly changing conditions.

The natural and social sciences provide abundant guidance for moving forward.

37

5.5 Strong governance and leadership, and a willingness to transform institutions, are essential to successful adaptation to climate change. BC is well-positioned to take advantage of opportunities presented by climate change. This will however, require strong governance and leadership, a willingness to transform institutions and measures to ensure that costs, risks and benefits are equitably shared among rural and urban populations, First Nations and non-native populations. Institutional transformation requires moving beyond incremental policy changes to rethinking traditional approaches to resource management that were based on the assumption of a stable climate. Managing for uncertainty and integrating adaptive co-management principles and approaches into the resource management framework are key examples.

5.6 Adaptation should focus on strong natural resource and environmental management. There is already evidence in BC (and elsewhere) that individuals, communities and societies will seek to adapt to climate change by reducing dependency on renewable, natural resources and natural ecosystem services that are sensitive to climate (e.g., forests, rangelands) and increasing their reliance on less climate-dependent resources. Such a tendency will lead to deterioration in ecosystem health and can be counteracted through strong natural resource and environmental management. BC’s cultural identity and its comparative economic advantage in the world are built on strong, healthy and diverse ecosystems. Neglecting them will put our future at risk.

5.7 Climate change adaptation and mitigation activities must be closely integrated within a context of overall resource stewardship. Some of the greatest scientific uncertainty surrounds the issue of carbon sequestration and climate mitigation by ecosystems. Should our

management favor young stands that rapidly sequester carbon or old growth stands that maintain large carbon pools in soils and organic debris? How will absorption and reflection of solar radiation by snowpacks, soil surfaces and vegetation canopies offset the effects of carbon sequestration? These are extremely complex scientific questions for which no short-term, simple solutions can be expected. It is clear, however, that managing forests and rangelands to help regulate climate must be done within a broader context of sound resource stewardship and climate change adaptation and should emphasize co-benefits (i.e., immediate win-win strategies). These interdependent activities rely on healthy, well-informed communities and a healthy resource base.

5.8 Development of resilient communities is key to adaptation to climate change. While the provincial government sets the policy framework that enables adaptation, most adaptation occurs at the local or community level. It is therefore essential that communities develop the capacity and resilience to adapt to a changing environment. The actions most important to developing resilient communities include: development and maintenance of skills, knowledge, and creativity for community members; enabling community planning that involves local citizens; development of strong relationships between community members that foster trust and productivity; and, ensuring diverse sources of local income, local access to natural resources, and local influence over natural resource-based businesses.

38

6. References

Boon, S., R. Winkler, J. Pomeroy and D. Spittlehouse. 2012. Effects of climate and forest cover change on snowmelt dominated watershed in the Okanagan. FFESC Project B16 Final Report. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/ffesc/reports/Winklerfinalreportwebversion.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Brinkman, D. (project leader). 2012. Climate change adaptation in Northwest Skeena communities. Final Report for FFESC Project B2, Brinkman Forest Ltd., Vancouver, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Brinkmanfinalreportrevised.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012]

Brown, K.J., Hebda, R.J., 2002. Origin, development, and dynamics of coastal temperate rainforests of southern Vancouver Island, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 353-372.

Bunnell, F. L. and L.L. Kremsater. 2012. Actions to promote climate resilience in forests of British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(2):1–10.

Burton, P.J. and S.G. Cumming. 1995. Potential effects of climatic change on some western Canadian forests, based on phenological enhancements to a patch model of forest succession. Water, Air & Soil Poll. 82: 401-414.

Carroll, A.L. 2012. Predicting insect disturbance under climate change. Final Report for FFESC Project A6, University of BC, Vancouver, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Carrollfinalreport.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Carroll, A. L., S.W. Taylor, J. Régnière and L. Safranyik. 2004. Effects of climate change on range expansion by mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In: T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (eds.). Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. Oct. 30-

31, 2003, Kelowna, BC, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. pp. 223-232. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/MPB/ carroll _2004_effects.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Chan-McLeod, A.A, A. Moy and T. Wang. 2012. Climate change adaptation strategies with sustainability and socioeconomic objectives for the Quesnel Timber Supply Area. Final Report for FFESC Project B3. University of BC, Vancouver, BC.

Church, J., D. Veira, P. Tsigaris, G. Penfold, J. van Hamme, A. Iwaasa and A. Raymond. 2012. Cattle methane emissions: Project overview. Climate Change and BC Range website, Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC. http://climatechangeandbcranching.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/team-7-draft-2.pdf [accessed Oct 11, 2012].

Chavardès, R.D., L.D. Daniels, P.O. Waeber, J.L. Innes and C.R. Nitschke. 2012a. Did the 1976–77 switch in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation make white spruce in the southwest Yukon more susceptible to spruce bark beetle? For. Chron. 88(5): 513-518. Chavardès, R.D., L.D. Daniels, P.O. Waeber, J.L. Innes and C.R. Nitschke. 2012b. Unstable climate−growth relations for white spruce in southwest Yukon, Canada. Climatic Change DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0503-8.

Cohen, S. and T. Kulkarni (eds.) 2001. Water management and climate change in the Okanagan Basin. Environment Canada and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. http://www.waterbucket.ca/okw/?sid=6&id=115&type=single [accessed May 30, 2012].

Coxson, D. 2012. Climate change vulnerability of old-growth forests in BC’s inland temperate rainforest. Final Report for FFESC Project B4, University of Northern BC, Prince George, BC.

39

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/ffesc/reports/Coxsonfinalreportwebversion.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Daust, D. and D. Morgan. 2012. Projected climate change impacts in the Nadina Forest District. Unpublished Appendix to Final Report for FFESC Project B11, Bulkley Valley Research Centre, Smithers, BC. http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/Nadina_CC_Impacts.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012]

Delong, C. 2012. Risk Analysis and Decision Support Tool. Final Report for FFESC Project B5, Univ. of Northern BC, Prince George, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/future_forests/council [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Delong, S. C., H. Griesbauer and C. Nitschke. 2012. Assessing the risk of drought in British Columbia forests using a stand-level water balance approach. Appendix I of Final Report for FFESC Project B5, Univ. of Northern BC, Prince George, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/future_forests/council/ [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Fagan, B. 2008. The Great Warming: Climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations. 1st Ed., Bloomsbury, New York. 304 p.

Farnden, C., L. deMontigny and B.C. Larson. 2012. A climate change strategy for red alder in British Columbia. Final Report for FFESC Project B6, UBC, Vancouver, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/ffesc/reports/deMontignyfinalreport120607.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Field, C.B., V.Barros, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, C. von Stechow. (eds.) 2011. IPCC Expert Meeting on Economic Analysis, Costing Methods and Ethics. 23-25 June 2011, Lima, Peru. IPCC Workshop Report, Stanford, CA. http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/supporting-material-1/CostingEM-Report-FINAL.pdf [accessed Oct 12, 2012].

Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley. (eds.) 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1075 pp.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253–267.

For. Chron. 2011. Special collection of articles on assisted tree migration and climate change. The Forestry Chronicle, 87(6): 723-777.

Fraser, L., R. Androkovich and S. Cox. 2012. Climate change and cattle ranching in BC. Website for FFESC Project By, Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC. http://climatechangeandbcranching.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/team-8-draft-3.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Fraser, L. 2012a. Managing for the ecological and socioeconomic effects of climate change on BC rangelands. Final Report for FFESC Project B7, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/future_forests/council/ [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Fraser, L. 2012b. Climate Change and BC Range. Website for FFESC Project B7. Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC. http://climatechangeandbcrange.net/ [accessed June 4, 2012].

Geertsema, M., J.J. Clague, J. Schwab. 2006. An overview of recent large catastrophic landslides in northern British Columbia. Engineering Geology 83: 120-143.

Greisbauer, H.P., and D. S. Green. 2010. Assessing the climatic sensitivity of Douglas-fir at its northern range margins in British Columbia, Canada. Trees - Structure and Function 24(2): 375-389.

40

Greisbauer, H.P. and D. S. Green. 2012. Geographic and temporal patterns in white spruce climate–growth relationships in Yukon, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 267: 215–227.

Greisbauer, H.P., D.S. Green and G. A. O’Neill. 2011. Using a spatiotemporal climate model to assess population-level Douglas-fir growth sensitivity to climate change across large climatic gradients in British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 261(3): 589–600.

Gustafsson, L., S. C. Baker, J. Bauhus, W. J. Beese, A. Brodie, J. Kouki, D. B. Lindenmayer, A. Lõhmus, G. M. Pastur, C. Messier, M. Neyland, B. Palik, A. Sverdrup-Thygeson, W. J. A. Volney, A. Wayne, and J. F. Franklin. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience 62(7):663-645.

Haeussler, S. 2011. Rethinking biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification for a changing world. Environ Rev. 19: 254-277.

Hamann, A. and T. Wang. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystems and tree species distributions in British Columbia. Ecology 87(11): 2773-2786.

Haughian, S.R., P.J. Burton, S.W. Taylor and C.L.Curry. 2012. Expected effects of climate change on forest disturbance regimes in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management Research Report 13(1). 24 p. http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/152 [accessed June 4, 2012].

Hennon, P. E., D. V. D’Amore, P. G. Schaberg, D. T. Wittwer, and C. S. Shanley. 2012. Shifting climate, altered Niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in the north Pacific coastal rainforest. BioScience 62(2): 147-158.

Hickler, Thomas, Benjamin Smith, Martin T. Sykes, Margaret B. Davis, Shinya Sugita, and Karen Walker. 2004. Using a generalized

vegetation model to simulate vegetation dynamics in northeastern USA. Ecology 85: 519–530.

Hobbs, R. J., L. M. Hallett, P.R. Ehrlich and H. A. Mooney. 2011. Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the twenty-first Century. BioScience 61(6): 442-450.

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. Final Report for FFESC Project B8, West Kootenay Resilience, Nelson BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/future_forests/council/ [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Innes, J.L., N. Caverley and H.W. Harshaw. 2012. Climate change adaptation research for forest and rangeland ecosystems: resiliency implications at the landscape level. Final Report for FFESC Project B9, University of BC, Vancouver, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Innesfinalreport.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Johnston, M. 2009. Vulnerability of Canada’s tree species to climate change and management options for adaptation: an overview for policy makers and practitioners. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, ON. Final Report of FFESC Project A4. http://www.ccfm.org/pdf/TreeSpecies_web_e.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Legislative Assembly. 2012. Website of the Special Committee on Timber Supply, Legislative Assembly, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www.leg.bc.ca/timbercommittee/ [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

LePage, P. and L. McCulloch. 2011. Assessment of Off-Site Tree Plantations in the Northwest Interior of British Columbia -Project Summary. Contract report prepared for Forest

41

Genetics Council of British Columbia. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HTI/external/!publish/Jack_Woods/Off-Site_Species_Assessment-Final_Report-opt.pdf [accessed Oct 10, 2012].

Levin, S. A. 2003. Complex adaptive systems: exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40(1): 3-19.

Lo, Y.-H., J.A. Blanco, B. Seeley, C. Welham and J.P. Kimmins. 2010. Relationships between climate and tree radial growth in interior British Columbia, Canada. For. Ecol. Manage. 259(5): 932–942.

Kimmins J.P., Blanco J.A., Seely B., Welham C., Scoullar K. 2010. Forecasting Forest Futures: A Hybrid Modelling Approach to the Assessment of Sustainability of Forest Ecosystems and their Values. Earthscan Ltd. London, UK. ISBN: 978-1-84407-922-3.

Klassen, H. 2012. Potential Impacts of Climate Change in Dry Coastal Ecosystems of British Columbia. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of Northern BC, Prince George, BC. April 2012.

Kremsater, L. and J. Innes. 2012. Monitoring forest and rangelands to anticipate and respond to climate change, Phase 4, Part 2: Applying Abiotic indicators to the South Selkirks Study Area. Unpublished Report for FFESC project C3. University of BC, Vancouver, BC. 45p.

Mah, S. and K. Astridge. 2012. Tree species selection project: preview of the climate-based tree species selection tool for the Interior of BC. Northern Silviculture Committee 2012 Winter workshop, Prince George, BC, Feb. 21, 2012. http://www.unbc.ca/assets/continuingstudies/events/nsc_2012_winter_speaker_presentations/tree_species_selection_project_for_northern_interior_of_bc_shirley_mah_and_kevin_astridge.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Melton, J., J. Kaplan and D. Robinson. 2012. Chapter 6: Vegetation modeling, harvest scenarios and projected impacts on the landscape. In: Brinkman, D. (project leader)

Climate change adaptation in Northwest Skeena Communities. Final Report for FFESC Project B2, Brinkman Forest Ltd., Vancouver, BC. pp: 100-137. http://brinkmanforest.com/ffesc/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-6-Vegetation-Modelling-Harvest-Scenarios-and-Projected-Changes-to-the-Landscape.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

MFLNRO. 2008. Climate Based Upward Elevation Changes. Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Transfer, Amendments to the Standards – November 2008. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, Victoria, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/cfstandards/amendmentNov08.htm [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

MFLNRO. 2010. Assisted Range and Population Expansion of Western Larch for Use as a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in British Columbia. Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Transfer, Amendments to the Standards – June 2010. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, Victoria, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/cfstandards/amendmentJun10.htm [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Morgan, D. G. 2011. Exploring the social-ecological resilience of ecosystem services. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. 163 p.

Murdock, T.Q. and D.L. Spittlehouse, 2011: Selecting and Using Climate Change Scenarios for British Columbia. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, 39 pp.

Nelson, H., K. Zielke, B. Bancroft, C. Brown, S. Cohen, R. Davis, M. Gerzon, L. Kremsater, C. Nitschke, D. Perez, B. Seely, and C. Welham 2012. Validating Impacts, Exploring Vulnerabilities, and Developing Robust Adaptive Strategies under the Kamloops Future Forest Strategy. Final Report for FFESC Project B12, University of BC, Symettree Consulting Group, Forsite Consultants Inc, Vancouver, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!

42

publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Nelsonfinalreport.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Nitschke, C. 2010. Regeneration vulnerability assessment for dominant tree species in the central interior of British Columbia. Final Report for FFESC Project A2. Bulkley Valley Research Centre, Smithers, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/ffesc/reports/FFESC-Technical-Report_ProjectA2_Nitschke.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Nitschke, C. R. and J. Innes. 2008. A tree and climate assessment tool for modelling ecosystem response to climate change. Ecological Modeling 210(3): 263–277.

O’Neill, G., V. Berger, M. Carlson, and N. Ukrainetz. 2011. Assisted migration Bulletin. B.C. Min. For., Lands and Nat. Resource Operations, Tree Improve. Branch, Victoria, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HRE/forgen/interior/AMAT_Bulletin_01.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Pedlar, J.H., D.W. McKenney, I. Aubin, T. Beardmore, J. Beaulieu, L. Iverson, G. A. O’Neill, R. S. Winder, and C. Ste.-Marie. 2012. Placing forestry in the assisted migration debate.

Pike, R.G., T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winker and K.D. Bladon (editors). 2010a. Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. B.C. Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, B.C. and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Manag. Handb. 66. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm [accessed May 30, 2012]

Pike, R.G., K.E. Bennett, T.E. Redding, A.T. Werner, D.L. Spittlehouse, R.D. Moore, T.Q. Murdock, J. Beckers, B.D. Smerdon, K.D. Bladon, V.N. Foord, D.A. Campbell and P. J. Tschaplinski. 2010b. Climate change effects on watershed processes in British Columbia. Chapter 19 in: R. G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winker and K.D. Bladon (editors). Compendium of forest hydrology and

geomorphology in British Columbia. B.C. Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, B.C. and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Manag. Handb. 66. Pp: 699-747. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch19.pdf [accessed May 30, 2012].

Price, K. and D. Daust. 2011. Projected Climate Change Impacts in the Nadina Forest District. Appendix to the Final Report for FFESC Project B11. Bulkley Valley Research Centre, Smithers, BC. http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/Nadina_CC_Impacts.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Redding, T., S. Lapp and J. Leach. 2012. Natural disturbance and post-disturbance effects on selected watershed values. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(1): 63-76.

Rehfeldt, G.E., W.R. Wykoff and C.C. Ying. 2001. Physiological plasticity, evolution, and impacts of a changing climate on Pinus contorta. Climatic Change 50(3): 355-376.

Ricciardi, A. and D. Simberloff. 2009a. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(5): 248-253.

Ricciardi, A. and D. Simberloff. 2009b. Assisted colonization: good intentions and dubious risk assessment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(9): 476-47.

Roberts, D.R. and A. Hamann. 2012. Predicting potential climate change impacts with bioclimate envelope models: a palaeoecological perspective. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 121–133

Rustad, J. and N. Macdonald (chairs). 2012. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Special Committee on Timber Supply, Discussion Paper. Victoria, BC. http://www.leg.bc.ca/timbercommittee/docs/SC_Timber_Supply_Discussion_Paper.pdf

Schneider, R.R., A. Hamann, D. Farr, X. Wang and S. Boutin. 2009. Potential effects of climate

43

change on ecosystem distribution in Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 1001-1010.

Schwartz, M.W. et al. 2012. Managed relocation: integrating the scientific, regulatory and ethical challenges. BioScience 62(8): 732-743.

Seastedt, T. R., R. J. Hobbs and K. N. Suding. 2008. Managment of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Front. Ecol. Environ. 6: 547-553.

Smith, S., C. Bulmer, E. Flager, G. Frank and D. Filatow. 2010. Digital soil mapping at multiple scales in British Columbia, Canada. In: Program and Abstracts, 4th Global Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping, 24-26 May 2010, Rome, Italy. 9 p. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/misc/misc085.pdf [accessed June 4, 2012].

Special Committee on Timber Supply. 2012. Growing Fibre, Growing Value. Final Report, August 2012, Legistlative Assembly, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/39thparl/session-4/timber/reports/PDF/Rpt-TIMBER-39-4-GrowingFibreGrowingValue-2012-08-15.pdf [accessed Oct. 13, 2012].

Spittlehouse, D. 2011. Climate change information for British Columbia. BC Institute of Agrologists,Newsletter. Winter 2011/12 p. 6.

Steenburg, J. W. N., P. N. Duinker, L. Van Damme and K. Zielke. 2011. Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in a Changing Climate. Final Report for FFESC Project A5. Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, NS. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/ffesc/reports/CI-SFM-ClimateChange_FinalReport_111017.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Suding, K.N. 2011. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42: 465-487

Summerville, T., K. Eggar, S. Green, K. Wilkening and L. Lavallee. 2012. Integrating FFEI scientific predictions into community

planning and governance. Final Report for FFESC Project B15, University of Northern BC, Prince George, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Summervillefinalreportrevised.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Swift, K. 2012. Decision support framework: a mental model for integrating the environmental and human dimensions into decision-making related to changes in natural disturbance events. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 15(1). http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/185 [accessed June 4, 2012].

Tesluk, J., R. Matthews, G. Piggot and R. Sydneysmith. 2012. Drivers of Change, Visions of the Future and Assessing Adaptive Capacity. Chapter 4 in: Brinkman, D. (project leader) Climate change adaptation in Northwest Skeena Communities. Final Report for FFESC Project B2, Brinkman Forest Ltd., Vancouver, BC. pp: 52-74. http://brinkmanforest.com/ffesc/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-4-Drivers-of-Change-Visions-of-the-Future-and-Assessing-Adaptive-Capacity.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Van der Kamp, D., G. Bürger, T. Q. Murdock. 2011. Projections of Future Drought and Fire Weather Severity in Southeast British Columbia Using Statistical Downscaling. Draft Appendix to FFESC Project B14. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Wang, T., A. Hamann, A. Yanchuk, G.A. O’Neill and S.N. Aitken. 2006. Use of response functions in selecting lodgepole pine populations for future climates. Global Change Biology 12(12): 2404–2416.

Wang, T., G. A. O’Neill and S. N. Aitken. 2011. Integrating environmental and genetic efforts to predict responses of tree populations to climate. Ecol. Appl. 20(1): 153-163.

Wang, T., E. Campbell, G.A. O’Neill and S. A. Aitken. 2012a. Projecting future distributions of

44

ecosystem climate niches: uncertainties and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manage. 279: 128-140.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., and Murdock, T. N. 2012. ClimateWNA - High-Resolution Spatial Climate Data for Western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 61: 16-29.

Wiensczyk, A. 2012. Reducing vulnerabilities and promoting resilience of British Columbia’s natural and human systems through adaptation of post-disturbance land management options. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(1): vii.

Wildlife Management Branch. 2009. Climate Change and Fire Management Research Strategy. Final Report of FFESC Project A3. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. http://bcwildfire.ca/Weather/Climate/docs/Climate%20change%20forum%20report_final.pdf [accessed Oct. 12, 2012].

Woods, A. J., D. Heppner, H. H. Kope, J. Burleigh and L. Maclauchan. 2010. Forest health and climate change: a British Columbia perspective. For. Chron. 96(4): 412-422.

Wooton, C.E. and B. Klinkenburg. 2011. A landscape level analysis of yellow- cedar decline in coastal British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 41(8): 1638-1648.

Zielke, K., B. Bancroft, H. Nelson, B. Seely, L. Kremsater, C. Brown, C. Welham, M. Gerzon, R. Davis, C. Nitschke. 2012. Guidance to adapt forest management for climate change in southern Interior of BC. FFESC Project B12, unpublished report. University of BC, Vancouver BC. 42 p.