climate change adaptation planning in british columbia adap… · british columbia mountains and...

Compass Resource Management Ltd. in collaboration with the Canadian Institute for Climate Studies

Contract report submitted by Compass Resource Management Ltd.

in collaboration with the Canadian Institute for Climate Studies

April, 2005

Climate Change Adaptation Planning

in British ColumbiaA case study investigation of ecosystem

management in Mount Robson Provincial Park


Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Problem Statement, Objectives and Decision-making Criteria

Chapter 3 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Chapter 4 Climate Change Scenarios

Chapter 5 Forest Ecosystem and Disturbance Scenarios

Chapter 6 Options Identification and Appraisal

Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Mount Robson Provincial Park

Chapter 1Introduction

In this chapter, we:• Provide an overview of the project.• Introduce the UKCIP framework, the guiding framework applied in this case study.


Project Overview

This presentation-style report describes a case study application of climate change adaptation planning in British Columbia, Canada. Compass Resource Management Ltd., in collaboration with the Canadian Institute for Climate Studies, developed this case study under contract to the Climate Change Section of the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

The project applies a planning framework that was developed in the UK to guide climate adaptation planning. The focus of the framework in on how to approach problems that at their core must address questions of risk management and, ultimately, make decisions in the face of multiple uncertainties. As will be evidenced in this case study, such situations almost always require the combined use of objective – quantitative, and subjective – qualitative tools and techniques.

The case study investigates ecosystem management planning in Mount Robson Provincial Park. This case study was selected based on criteria that included broad policy relevance within the Ministry, general interest and replicability across disciplines, and the availability of information. In this last respect, the Park has a good base of existing knowledge and reports. While none of the past reports cited herein explicitly took climate change into account, they did provide the factual and informational basis for the development of this case study. Where this study differs from existing management planning reports is in the specific exploration of climate change and impact scenarios. This study should not be considered as a formal part of the management planning process for Mount Robson Provincial Park.

The overall aim of the project is to explore a realistic climate adaptation planning problem, and in the process to test the suitability of the framework and approach for use on a wider basis within the Ministry and BC. To that end, we highlight how climate adaptation planning for ecosystem management in Mount Robson Provincial Park involves the assessment of a wide range of risks and uncertainties, which affect endpoint management objectives of concern in complex ways. This is a common feature of many environmental planning problems faced by the Ministry.


The UKCIP Framework

The report “Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making” (Willows and Connell, 2003) provides a structured framework and associated guidance for undertaking climate impacts and adaptation studies. It’s particular focus is on identifying and treating the risk and uncertainty associated with decisions where climate change may be a significant factor. That said, many of the approaches recommended come from standard tools and techniques applied within the fields of science and management; this helps to facilitate the integration of climate adaptation planning into other planning, policy and decision-making efforts of governments and industry.

The report was developed in the United Kingdom under the guidance of a steering committee that included the UK Climate Impacts Programme, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Environment Agency’s Centre for Risk and Forecasting. As the lead agency responsible for dissemination of the report, UKCIP is currently involved in a process of developing adaptation case studies.

The report, which we will refer to as the “UKCIP framework” in this case study, is available online by registering at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk

Figure 1: The UKCIP report cover


The UKCIP Framework, cont’d

Figure 2 shows the eight generic steps that comprise the decision-making framework recommended in the report. Key features include:

– Flexibility: The emphasis on iteration and feedback within the framework acknowledges the need to re-visit individual steps over time as new information comes to light. It is also generic enough to be applicable to a wide range of problem types.

– Tiering: The tiered approach to risk assessment (steps 3, 4 and 5) promotes the efficient use of resources, as the evolution from initial risk screening efforts to advanced quantitative assessment of risks and management options are only pursued to the extent warranted by the particular problem context.

– Process: The framework encourages making explicit the principles and approaches upon which climate change risk management decisions are based (i.e., technology-based, utility-based, or rights-based). It further advocates for the active engagement of stakeholders in the decision-making process, noting that, at a minimum, documentation of the rationale for climate change decisions using the framework will aid external stakeholders in the own evaluations.

Unfortunately to date, few comprehensive case study application of the framework exist for reference purposes.

Figure 2: The UKCIP framework for climate change decision-making(extracted from page 7 Willows and Connell (2003))


Method

Implementation of this case study involved the following steps:

1. Review of the UKCIP framework report, case studies and key references

2. Review of previous reports and analyses undertaken for Mount Robson Provincial Park• We highlight the use of existing information, general research reports and other information that most

resource management professionals have ready access to.

3. Development of climate change and impact scenarios • We explain how to generally derive climate change trends and uncertainties from global circulation

models, and highlight the scope and limitations of various approaches. • We use a combination of research and assessment techniques to derive plausible forest ecosystem and

disturbance scenarios for the Park.

4. Presentation of findings • We re-cast Park-specific planning information and climate scenario findings in a manner consistent with

the UKCIP framework


Chapter 2Problem Statement, Objectives and Decision-making CriteriaIn this chapter, we:• Provide an overview introduction to Mt. Robson Provincial Park• State the broad climate adaptation ecosystem management problem• Provide background context for the key ecosystem management challenges• State the planning problem and associated management objectives and decision-

making criteria


Mt. Robson Provincial Park

Established in 1913, Mount Robson Provincial Park is one of British Columbia’s best-known and oldest parks. Together with Jasper and Banff National Parks, it has achieved the designationas a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The significant roles of the Park, as stated in the 1992 Master Plan (BC Parks, 1992), include:

– Maintaining a large undisturbed natural landscape for wilderness conservation,

– Providing significant outdoor recreation opportunities for both remote backcountry and readily accessible facility-oriented uses,

– Supporting a nationally significant transportation and travel route through the Rocky Mountains.

Recent efforts directed toward ecosystem management within the Park date back to mid 1990s. The stated ecosystem management goal for the Park is “to provide an area for the conservation of biological diversity of natural forested and non-forested ecosystems, and, as much as possible, to permit their natural ecological processes to occur unchecked” (BC Parks, 2001). That said, it is recognized that the constraints posed bypast management actions, adjacency issues, critical wildlife andvegetation habitats, potential wildfire and beetle epidemics, and public safety concerns all need to be addressed within the context of ecosystem management planning.

This report focuses on ecosystem management challenges in the Park in the context of the potential for climate change.

Phot

o C

redi

t:G

ail R

oss,

BC

Par

ks

Figure 3: Mount Robson


Ecosystem Management Challenges

The conceptual model (Figure 4) at left provides an overview of the current ecosystem management challenges within Mt. Robson Park in the context of climate change.

Climate drives the type and composition of forest ecosystems and the disturbance regimes that shape them. In particular, mountain pine beetle outbreaks and wildfire interact in a dynamic pattern over long time scales within lodgepole pine dominated forests.

Within this system model, management is viewed as an independent driver, where conscious decisions can be undertaken to directly affect both disturbance regimes and resultant forest ecosystem characteristics. These, in turn, are directly linked to the fundamental management objectives for the Park.

In this context, current ecosystem management challenges1 that exist within the Park include:

– How forest ecosystems are managed for 1) representation of ecosystem types and age classes, and 2) providing wildlife habitat.

– How disturbance is managed (i.e., MPB outbreaks and wildfires) in the context of multiple management constraints.

Additional background and context for these challenges is provided on the following pages.

Figure 4: Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Management in Mt. Robson Park

Exposure Pathways & Intermediate Effects

Drivers

Disturbance Regimes

Climate

Forest Ecosystems

Age ClassStructure MPB

Wildfire

Management

Management Objectives

SpeciesComposition

Financial / Strategic

Cost

Risk / Liability

Social

Recreation

Aesthetics

Biodiversity

Representation

Wildlfie Habitat

1 For demonstration purposes, this report focuses on a subset of ecosystem management issues in the Park. Other issues, such as the management of invasive plant species, or wildlife management strategies in the travel corridor are not addressed.


Background: Location and Context

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Mt. Robson Provincial Park covers an area of nearly 220,000 hectares, lying on the west slope of the Rocky Mountains along the Alberta-British Columbia border (Figure 5). The Park is bisected by the valley of the Fraser River, and one large side valley, that of the Moose River, which flows into the Fraser River from the north. Elevation ranges from about 800 m in the valley bottom up to the top of the highest peak in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, Mount Robson at almost 4000 m (BC Parks, 2001).

The main travel corridor extends from Yellowhead Pass at the provincial boundary to the western boundary of the Park at the confluence of the Robson and Fraser rivers. Encompassing the Yellowhead Highway 16, the Canadian National Railway line and the Trans-Mountain Oil Pipeline, this corridor is an area of special management concern for the park.

The protected area of Jasper National Park abuts Mt. Robson Park along the entire Alberta border from the northeast to the southeast boundary. In contrast, the area along the northwest to southwest boundaries is almost entirely timber supply Crown Land under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

Figure 5: Overview Map of Mt. Robson Park


Background: Climate

Figure 6: Canadian climate regions

Sour

ce: E

nviro

nmen

t Can

ada

web

site

:ht

tp://

ww

w.m

sc-s

mc.

ec.g

c.ca

/ccr

m/b

ulle

tin/fi

gclim

ate_

e.ht

ml

Lying along the continental divide, between the southern British Columbia Mountains and Northwestern Forest Canadian climate regions (Figure 6), the area’s climate is variously determined by the long-term frequency of air masses originating from the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. In the case of the latter source, it is only important in winter when extremely cold air masses build up on the east side of the Rockies and penetrate the region along gaps in the Rockies.

Historical trend analysis undertaken by CICS for the province of BC (BC MWLAP, 2002) indicate a general trend toward higher annual average temperature (Figure 7) and higher annual precipitation (Figure 8) in the ecoprovince in which the park resides.

In Chapter 5, we further explore potential future changes in these and other climate variables.

Figure 7: Historical trend in annual average temperature for the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince.Statistically significant at the 5% level.

Figure 8: Historical trend in annual average precipitation for the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince.Statistically significant at the 5% level.


Background: Forest Ecosystems“Climate is the most important determinant of the nature of

terrestrial ecosystems” (Pojar et al., 1991). The existing range and distribution of forest ecosystem types and tree species that exist today in the Park are a result of long term patterns of primary climate variables such as temperature and precipitation, as well as compound variables such as soil moisture and growing season length.

The existing ecosystem management plan describes the current forest ecosystems using the BC Biogeoclimatic Ecological Classification (BEC) system, which is a hierarchical classification system based on primary climate, soil and vegetation data (Meidingerand Pojar, 1991). BEC subzones delineate major forest types with homogeneous macroclimate.

There are four major BEC subzones within the Park (Figure 9) (BCParks, 2001) including:

– The Interior Cedar – Hemlock (ICH) (mm variant), which occurs at the lower to middle elevations at the western end of the park.

– The Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) (dh variant), which occurs throughout the main Fraser River valley of the Park, below 1350 m.

– The Englemann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF) (mm variant), which occurs in the sub-alpine between approximately 1350 m to 1950 m.

– The Alpine Tundra (AT), which occurs above the ESSF and is characterized by a mosaic of non-forested communities that reflect the interactive effects of harsh mountain climate.

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Figure 9: Current BEC Sub-zones in Mt. Robson ParkThe ICH, SBS and ESSF subzones are all dominated by coniferous forests. Major tree species include lodgepole pine and

hybrid white spruce, with some long-lived Douglas-fir and western redcedar (in the ICH). There is particular interest in the management of the ICH, since it has the highest diversity of tree species of any zone (Ketcheson et al. 1991), and only 3% of this ecosystem type is protected in BC.


Background: Forest Ecosystems cont’d

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

The current landscape-level forest age class distribution, or seral stage distribution, provides important insights into historical human intervention in the park (Figure 10).

During the construction of the railway line through the Park area in 1913-1915, much of the lower elevation travel corridor was burned. This, coupled with successful forest fire suppression during the 1940–1990s period, has produced an extensive, contiguous area of even-aged mid seral stage forests that are slowly maturing. Many of these stands, which lie in both the SBS and ICH subzones, have a high percentage of lodgepole pine (BC Parks, 2001).

Elsewhere in the Park, the extensive areas of old forest that exist primarily in the ESSF reflect very low levels of stand-replacing disturbance,which again reflects a period of successful forest fire suppression.

Two key forest ecosystem management challenges exist, primarily as a result of past fire management:

– Generally, there is an unnaturally low percentage of early seral stages in the Park. Literature elsewhere within the greater Rocky Mountain Parks region similarly reports that the current distribution of seral stages is outside its historic range (White 1985; Tande1979; Mackenzie 1973; Masters 1989).

– Specifically, there is a need to recruit more old forest seral stages in the ICH (due to its rarity Province-wide) and in certain portions of the ESSF where it provides caribou winter range (see Background: Wildlife Management).

Figure 10: Current Seral Stages in Mt. Robson Park


Background: Mountain Pine Beetle

Having evolved with its host, the mountain pine beetle (MPB) – in association with fire – has played an integral role in the development and maintenance of coniferous lodgepole pine forests in British Columbia (Safranyik, 2004; Carroll and Safranyik, 2004; Amman and Baker, 1972).

MPB plays both a direct and indirect role in the functioning of forest ecosystems. At endemic levels, the insect preferentially attacks and kills older, weaker trees often leading to important effects such as the provision of wildlife habitat. However, during epidemic outbreaks that can span years or decades, the insect can cause significant tree mortality spread over vast areas (which in turn can provide the fuel accumulations required for large-scale fires that regenerate entire landscapes).

Such an epidemic is currently underway in BC (Figure 11). Recent surveys indicate the size of the current outbreak at approximately 4.1 million hectares, making it the largest infestation of MPB ever documented (Ebata, 2004).

The most significant factors contributing to the current outbreak in BC are generally believed to be (BCMOF, 2005):

Figure 11: 2004 Provincial aerial overview of of the MPB outbreak

– The extensive availability of host lodgepole pine forests in preferred mature age classes (80–150 years). The effective protection of forests from wildfire throughout the province over past decades is felt to be the primary cause of the current age class configuration.

– A lack of extreme cold weather in recent winters that would normally kill mountain pine beetle larvae. Sustained temperatures of -25 Celsius in the early fall or late spring, and -40 Celsius in the winter are needed to control populations.

– Recent hot and dry summers have left pine drought-stressed and more susceptible to attack by the mountain pine beetle.

Map

Cre

dit:

MO

F, F

ores

t Pra

ctic

es B

ranc

h; h

ttp://

ww

w.fo

r.gov

.bc.

ca/h

fp/fo

rsite

/ove

rvie

w/2

004m

aps.h

tm


Background: Mountain Pine Beetle cont’d

Phot

o C

redi

t: G

ail R

oss,

BC

Par

ks

In Mt. Robson Park, careful consideration has been given to the progression of the MPB over recent years. MPB has been active along the western boundary since 1997. Over the past 3 years, the infestation has increased significantly in size, spreading eastward along the main valley corridor all the way to the border with Jasper National Park. Figure 13 provides an aerial overview of MPB spot detections (red points) near the eastern end of the park.

From the perspective of protected area management in general, MPB and related dynamics are considered a natural part of ecosystem functioning, especially at endemic levels. Active management is usually not required, unless park management objectives or key ecosystems are threatened.

In Mt. Robson Park, one area for concern is the potential for impacts on recreation values and viewscapes. Park managers also have an obligation to consider active management options if there is the potential for impacts on adjacent landowners, including timber management areas to the west and Jasper National Park (and Alberta timber management areas) to the east. Indeed, the Yellowhead Corridor that connects Alberta and BC through Mt. Robson Park – Jasper Park is noted as one of only a handful of corridors that might facilitate significant eastward spread of the MPB into the major pine forest areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan (Carroll et al., 2004).

Figure 12: Photo of “red-attacked” trees in Mt. Robson Park

Figure 13: 2003 aerial overview of MPB detections at east end of the Park


Background: Wildfire Management

The inter-relationship between MPB and wildfire in the natural succession of lodgepole pine forests has been well documented (Blackwell, 2000). In basic terms, fire regulates forest regeneration in space and time, which is necessary for the survival of the MPB, while the generation of large patches of dead trees by MPB attack provides the fuel for major wildfires. Lodgepole pine forests have adapted to this natural cycle, which tends to repeat every 100 – 500 years depending on the particular ecosystem (Brown, 1975).

Interruption of the frequency and extent of wildfire in this cycle has been widely noted as a major cause of the current MPB epidemic in BC (Taylor and Carroll, 2004). At the provincial scale, decades of active wildfire suppression has resulted in an increase in the average age of pine stands that are in age classes considered susceptible to MPB attack (i.e., from approximately 17% in 1900 to 55% today).

Ultimately, fire is the major disturbance agent that effects the landscape-level seral stage structure as discussed earlier. Ecologically, the role of fire includes the creation ofyounger habitats (required by some species of fauna for forage), the release of nutrients into the soil, and the regulation of forest disease and insects (like the MPB).

Managing forests to mimic the natural disturbance pattern of fire is now widely accepted, particularly within parks and other protected areas.

Phot

o C

redi

t: G

ail R

oss,

BC

Par

ks

Figure 14: Post-burn aerial photo of the 1998 wildfire in the Moose River drainage showing the diverse range of post-fire vegetation structure


Background: Wildfire Management cont’d

Phot

o C

redi

t: S

prin

g Po

ulse

n ht

tp://

cast

anet

.fire

wat

ch.n

et/

Phot

o C

redi

t: S

teve

Dev

ries

http

://ca

stan

et.fi

rew

atch

.net

/

But at the same time that wildfire is seen as natural and beneficial, particularly in a park setting, concern over the possibility of major conflagrations is very real. The Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park fire during the summer of 2003 serves as a vivid example of this possibility (Figure 15). Burning an area of over 25,000 hectares, this fire spilled out of park boundaries, burned 240 homes and caused the largest single evacuation in BC’s history.

For Mt. Robson Park, concern is highest along the travel corridor in the eastern end of the park where wildfires would be difficult to control given the current stand type characteristics, steep topography and lack of natural fire breaks (BC Parks, 2001). The forests through the Yellowhead Pass are contiguous all the way to the town of Jasper, where Park and Town officials have embarked on an extensive long-term plan of forest fuels management.

The key wildfire management challenge boils down to the need to balance the beneficial aspects of wildfire to the ecosystem with the threat of major, uncontrollable conflagrations.

Figure 15: Okanagan Mountain Park Fire


Background: Wildlife ManagementThe Park is home to a variety of ungulate species

including woodland caribou, moose, mountain goats, Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer, as well as large carnivores such as wolf, black and grizzly bears. As a large protected area that is contiguous with Jasper National Park along its entire eastern border, the Park serves a critical function particularly in terms of providing migration routes and critical habitat areas (BC Parks, 2001).

Since habitats for wildlife populations are completely dependent on the distribution and composition of ecosystems, the management of forest disturbance patterns toward the long term maintenance of representative seral stage distributions at the landscape level is seen as the primary means of wildlife management.

However, special circumstances do require more site level management consideration. For example, because of their threatened status in British Columbia and Alberta, woodland caribou are provided with specific management attention in the Park. Woodland caribou do not respond well to changes in the environment due to their relatively low productivity and very specific habitat requirements. In particular, caribou are very reliant on old-aged, lichen-producing forest ecosystems to provide primary winter habitat.

Phot

o C

redi

ts:

Car

ibou

: http

://w

etbe

lt.un

bc.c

a;

Moo

se &

Bea

r: w

ww

.can

adia

nfau

na.c

om;

Wol

f: ht

tp://

anim

als.t

imdu

ru.o

rg

Figure 16: Wildlife species in Mt. Robson Park


Statement of Management Objectives

From this description of ecosystem management challenges in Mt. Robson Park, it is evident that decisions regarding the management of forest disturbance regimes and forest ecosystem characteristics are strategically important for achieving long-term management objectives. Climate is significant driver of forest ecosystem evolution, including disturbance regimes, and changes to future climate pose additional risks and uncertainties that require investigation.

In the context of the UKCIP framework, we can generally state the management problem as the requirement to manage long-term forest ecosystem and disturbance regimes within the Park. The broad management objectives that further define this management problem can be summarized as:

Biodiversity:– To create and maintain target seral stage distributions by BEC zone within a natural range of variation– To protect identified wildlife habitats

Social:– To maintain recreation opportunities– To protect scenic values and to maintain aesthetics in the travel corridor

Financial / Strategic:– To minimize management costs– To protect public safety, primarily by reducing the risks and liability associated with major forest disturbance


Decision-making Criteria

Decision-making criteria are required to “operationalize” stated management objectives. The UKCIP framework emphasizes that the development of decision-making criteria may take into account many factors, including constraints imposed by the regulation, the organization’s decision-making process, and the requirements for formal risk assessment. In the latter case, they emphasize how the development of specific indicators as risk assessment endpoints will often be determined by the availability of relevant data, scenarios and tools.

For the Park, the decision-making process can broadly be described as “utility-based”, where specific indicators that focus on the outcomes of management options should be developed for a specific decision context. For example, any consideration of management options that would influence landscape-level biodiversity can utilize the GIS database capabilities to derive suitable indexes of BEC by age class (i.e., using the spatial information shown in Figures 9 and 10). Similarly, site-level management decisions that might influence specific wildlife habitats could draw upon available spatial databases. Cost and social criteria can also be developed to suit a given decision context. Given the primary role that forest disturbance has across management objectives in the Park, detailed hazard indicators have been developed and are described on the following page. In Chapter 6, we describe a decision context using defined criteria for all management objectives.


Forest Disturbance Hazard Ratings

FireHazard

BiologicalBECSeral Stage

Species CompositionCrown Closure Class

TopographySlopeAspect

Figure 17: Fire hazard rating system

A spatial wildfire hazard rating system has been developed for Mt. Robson Park to represent stand-level susceptibility to fire on a landscape level, relative to other polygons (BC Parks, 2001). The system combines biological and topographical data generated from the forest cover databases into fire hazard class ratings at the stand level (Figure 17). Ratings for BEC subzones are based on historical fire evidence found in the literature and other studies, while seral stage, species composition, and crown closure class are all stand levelvariables describing the fuel complex. Ratings for topographicalvariables are based on the effects of fire spread for slope and the climatic influence of aspect.

A spatial MPB hazard rating system has also been developed for the Park using a modified version of the Shore and Safranyik (1992)susceptibility model (BC Parks, 2001). This stand-based analysis of tree form, elevation and stand density provides hazard ratings that can be interpreted as an estimate of the percentage of trees that could be killed during a bark beetle outbreak (Figure 18).

Both stand-based hazard rating systems are implemented using class ratings (e.g., low, moderate, high), which can be analyzedspatially at a landscape-level. MPB

Hazard

% Pine

Age Factor

Density Factor

Location Factor

Figure 18: MPB hazard rating system


Chapter 3Preliminary Risk Assessment

In this chapter, we:• Describe the development of ecosystem management zones in the Park as a form of

preliminary risk assessment


Introduction

The UKCIP framework emphasizes the benefits associated with taking a “tiered” approach to risk assessment, where preliminary screening type assessments are followed by more detailed assessments only as required by the given decision context. The intention of lower tier or preliminary assessments is to generally gauge the significance of hazards as they relateto management objectives and decision-making. Although no specific management actions may be taken on the basis of a preliminary risk assessment, the results can often be useful for:

– Ranking risks,– Screening what types or classes of management action are most appropriate,– Providing a clear indication of where addition data collection efforts would prove most useful.

In this chapter, the delineation of ecosystem management zones within the Park as part of the development of the existing ecosystem management plan (BC Parks, 2001) is presented as a form of preliminary risk assessment. The spatial distribution of MPB and fire disturbance hazards are a primary input to the zones, as is a consideration of specific wildlife management requirements – these are presented and discussed first.

Assessing the types of management actions appropriate across the park is the key distinction across ecosystem management zones. The basic management question posed in this preliminary assessment, the most fundamental of all ecosystem management questions in a park setting, is whether or not to allow natural processes to proceed unchecked. The result of this assessment is a re-statement of zone specific management objectives that guide the type and extent of management actions to be considered.


Landscape-level MPB Hazard

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Figure 19 shows the distribution of MPB hazard classes in lodgepole pine stands within the Park developed using the MPB hazard rating system described in Chapter 2. Only those stands that are made up of 20% or more lodgepole pine are depicted. The stands rated as high or extreme are those that could suffer up to 50% tree mortality and, more importantly, support a large-scale outbreak (BC Parks, 2001).

At the present time, the distribution of high and extreme hazard stands is somewhat discontinuous. However, the current forest age class structure (Figure 10) means that many more pine stands will enter the high and extreme hazard categories in the next 15-20 years.

The key MPB management considerations include:– The significant and growing percentage of forests that

are currently rated from moderate to extreme MPB hazard.

– The increasing degree of MPB incidence since 1998, moving from west to east through the corridor toward the Jasper Park boundary (Figure 13).

Figure 19: MPB Hazard Rating in Mt. Robson Park


Landscape-level Fire Hazard

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Within the Park, the historical use of fire during the development of the travel corridor, followed by the subsequent exclusion of fire for many decades, has resulted in extensive, contiguous forests areas that are currently rated as moderate to high wildfire hazard (Figure 20).

Managing wildfire in Mt. Robson Park poses a significant dilemma for park managers. One the one hand, there is a strong desire to allow natural wildfires to burn in order to achieve a more natural age class structure and to realize all of the beneficial ecological effects – including MPB management. On the other hand however, this desire must be balanced against the risks of major wildfires in a high use travel and recreation corridor.

The key wildfire management considerations include:– The significant and growing percentage of forests that

are rated with a moderate to high wildfire hazard, particularly in the lower elevation travel corridor.

– The desire to minimize the potential for major, uncontrollable wildfires that could impact Park values or escape Park boundaries.

Figure 20: Wildfire Hazard Rating in Mt. Robson Park


Wildlife Management

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Current woodland caribou habitat use within the park appears to be limited, with animals from the West Jasper herd making only occasional use of the area south of Yellowhead Lake in the eastern end of the park (Keystone, 1998). Nonetheless, preservation of all potential caribou winter range remains an important conservation aim, and specific areas of capable habitat in the ESSF in eastern portions of the park have been identified (Figure 21).

In addition to the specific habitat management requirements for caribou, a 47 km2 “Biodiversity Conservation Area” has been designated at the eastern end of the travel corridor. This area supports moose, deer, and elk summer range and a goat range. It also contains some of the greatest biodiversity in the Park due to the mix of coniferous and deciduous forests.

The key wildlife management considerations include:– The long-term maintenance of capable caribou habitat

in old forests of the ESSF.– The long-term maintenance of a suitable combination

of structural stages and deciduous-coniferous forests in the Biodiversity Conservation Area.

Figure 21: Important Wildlife Management Zonesin Mt. Robson Park


Ecosystem Management Zones

Map

Cre

dit:

Fio

na S

teel

e, B

lack

wel

l & A

ssoc

.

Four distinct Ecosystem Management Zones have been delineated inMt. Robson Park based on a detailed spatial consideration of:

– The risks posed by landscape-level MPB and fire disturbance,– Management constraints posed by i) adjacency issues (Jasper

Park to the east, timber management areas to the west), ii) recreation and visitor safety, iii) travel corridor aesthetics.

– Biodiversity management objectives, including wildlife and specific seral representation goals.

Zone boundaries have been chosen based on prominent landmarks such as lakes, rivers or topographic breaks. The basic rationale for each management zone, which allows for a consistent vegetation management approach to be developed, is provided below (BC Parks, 2001).

The Suppression Zone: The suppression zone is bounded by the Swift Current drainage to the east, the Travel Corridor to the south and a boundary running north - south from the Coleman Glacier (Figure 22). The zone includes the ESSF, SBS, and ICH subzones. A policy of letting natural disturbances occur unchecked in this zone is complicated by public safety issues, visual objectives, and the relative rarity of old forest stands inthe SBS and ICH zones in the Park. The overall management approach in the Suppression Zone is to action and extinguish all fires and MPB outbreaks as rapidly as possible.

Figure 22: Ecosystem Management Zones for Mt. Robson Park


Ecosystem Management Zones

The Prescription Zone: The prescription zone includes the Moose River and Brock Creek drainages up to the Travel Corridor and the east side of the Fraser River down from Yellowhead Lake (Figure 22). A policy of allowingdisturbance to proceed unchecked in the zone is constrained by the importance of certain old forest ecosystems as caribou habitat, and by the presence of certain lodgepole pine stands that represent a very high risk for originating a mountain pine beetle epidemic. Wildfires will be permitted in the zone under certain weather conditions, and prescribed fires will be evaluated as necessary to reduce MPB hazard or and to achieve biodiversity objectives.

The Natural Zone: The natural zone includes includes the area south of the Travel Corridor and runs along the easternboundary of the Fraser River south of Yellowhead Lake (Figure 22). Because of the low potential for fires or pest epidemics spreading out of the Park within these boundaries, the general management objective of preserving biodiversity and ecosystem processes can proceed relatively unconstrained in this zone. Consideration of unique ecosystems, rare old forest types, and rare or endangered plant and animal species will be the major managementconstraints to allowing natural processes to occur.

The Travel Corridor: The travel corridor is a narrow, approximately 400-metre wide strip on containing Highway 16 and railway right-of-ways (ROWs) through the centre of the Park (Figure 22). A management approach of permitting natural disturbances to occur unchecked is heavily constrained in this zone by concerns for visitor safety, the potential for damage to park and ROW infrastructure, and by the even-aged nature of the forests in the zone. Forests in the zone are primarily young forest stands dominated by lodgepole pine that have resulted from railway fires of the early 1900s. Early seral stages of Park ecosystems are also maintained along ROWs by vegetation management procedures. The management approach in the Travel Corridor is to immediately suppress all fires and MPB outbreaks.


Refined Management Objectives

Table 1 presents a set of refined management objectives for each ecosystem management zone based on a preliminary assessment of forest disturbance hazards, overall Park objectives, and management constraints. These objectives largely dictate the degree of management action (or non-action) that is appropriate in each zone.

• Suppress all fires to protect public safety and infrastructure.

• Allow wildfires.• Monitor progress toward biodiversity objectives.

• Allow wildfires and utilize prescribed fires under specified fire weather conditions. • Monitor progress toward biodiversity objectives.

• Suppress all fires to protect public safety, infrastructure, and rare Old Forest types.

Wildfire

• Contain MPB outbreaks.• Decrease landscape-level hazard.




Forest Health

• Reduce the potential for future invasion of non-native plant species

• Target ‘natural’ ratios of forest seral stages.

• Maintain or increase the quantity and quality of caribou winter range• Maintain at least 60% OF in the ungulate summer range.• Maintain the present combination of structural stages and deciduous/ coniferous forests in the BCA

• Re-establish relatively Old Forest stands in the ICH and SBS.

Biodiversity / Wildlife

Travel CorridorNatural ZonePrescription ZoneSuppression Zone

Table 1: Summary of refined management objectives for each ecosystem management zone


Chapter 4Climate Change Scenarios

In this chapter, we:• Present future projections for key climate variables based on a range of global

climate models runs using a range of future global greenhouse gas emission scenarios.


Introduction

The starting point in the development of climate change scenarios is to document the potential change in key climate variables. Based on an understanding of the main ecosystem management issues in Mt. Robson Park, we conclude that we are most interested in future climate effects on:

• the type, range and distribution of forest ecosystems and tree species, and • the characteristics of forest disturbance regimes (i.e., wildfire and mountain pine beetle).

The UKCIP framework suggests the use of a general checklist approach to determining which climate variables to include in a climate change risk assessment. In our case, we reviewed a list of climate variables generally available from global circulation models (GCMs) and selected those thought to have the largest driving influence on forest ecosystems and disturbance regimes. These include:

• Mean Temperature (annual and by season)• Mean Extreme Minimum Temperature (by month during the cold season)• Mean Precipitation (annual and by season)• Mean Soil Moisture (annual and by season)• Mean Wind Speed (annual and by season)• Mean Relative Humidity (annual and by season)

In the following pages we present the projected changes in these climate variables over the next century for the Mt. Robson Park area.


MethodologyFuture change projections in the selected climate

variables were derived from the results of a range of GCMs run under a range of future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. This approach, which applies methods generally in accordance with the IPCC Data Distribution Center guidelines on the use of scenario data for impacts and adaptation assessments (IPCC-TGCIA, 1999), provides an opportunity for identifying both potential trends and the full range of uncertainty around them.

All data was extracted using tools provided by the Canadian Climate Impacts and Scenarios project website at: www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/. This source provides access to a range of GCM results [Box 1]. For each climate variable analyzed, the following inputs were used:

National Centre for Atmospheric ResearchNCAR-PCM

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryGFDL-R30

Max-Planck Institute for MeteorologyECHAM4

Center for Climate System Research / National Inst. for Env. StudiesCCSR/NIES

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org.CSIRO-Mk2

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and ResearchHADCM3

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and AnalysisCGCM2

Box1: Global Climate Change Models / Centres

The main suite of SRES scenarios are differentiated using primary assumptions along two axes: Economic / Environmental and Global / Regional. The storylines for each family of SRES scenarios describe alternative future global development patterns:

A1: Very rapid economic growth and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies.

A2: Regionally-oriented economic development and technological change more fragmented and slower.

B1: Rapid change toward a global service / information economy based on clean and resource-efficient technologies.

B2: Intermediate levels of economic development and less rapid and more diverse technological change; emphasis on local level.

Box 2: The SRES Scenarios• Geographic Reference: The tool extracts results from GCM

model grid cells containing a specific geographic reference. We used 53oN 199oW, which represents a central location within Mt. Robson Park. The procedure used is the recognized method of scenario application, which simply assumes that grid cell changes can be applied equally to any specific location within the grid cell (i.e., no spatial or temporal downscaling of global climate model information was undertaken).

• Time of Year: The time period can be specified over which results are averaged. Depending on the variable, we selected monthly, seasonal or annual results.

• Emissions Scenarios: We chose to extract the modeling results from the most recently available “SRES” emission scenarios that were developed for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (Nakicenovic et al., 2000). The SRES scenarios cover a wide range of the main driving forces of future emissions, from demographic to technological and economic developments [Box 2].


Methodology cont’dFrom the overall database of downloaded results – which varies from 8 to 25 predictions depending on the climate

variable since not all GCMs calculate all variables – we chart the full “envelope” of scenario results for each time slice (Figures 23 and 24). We then examine each climate variable range envelope over time in order to interpret both potential trends and the magnitude of uncertainties.

The GCM results comprise 30-year monthly mean changes (i.e., no information is presented about changes in inter-annual or inter-daily variability.) All data is extracted as change values, expressed either in absolute or percentage terms, with respect to the 1961-1990 model-simulated baseline period. Results are therefore generally reported as the change between the 1961-1990 30-year mean period, and the future 30-year mean period (e.g., 2020s, 2050s or 2080s). These time periods represent 30-year mean fields centred on the decade used to name the time period, e.g., the 2020s represent the 30-year mean period 2010-2039, the 2050s represent 2040-2069 and the 2080s represent 2070-2099.

Projected Change in Spring(Mar, Apr, May)

Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080Te

mpe

ratu

re C

hang

e (o

C)

Figure 24: Example of simplified chart used for summary purposes. In this case, only the change is presented, therefore the 1975 point of reference is placed at zero. The upper and lower lines representthe highest and lowest possible scenario results at each time slice.

Figure 23: Example chart of change field data extracted for mean temperature change during the spring time period. In this case,a total of 25 different results are available from the combinationof GCMs run over various SRES scenarios.


Chart Interpretation

Figure 25 presents further information regarding the interpretation of the climate envelope projections that are are shown on the following pages.

Projected Change in Spring(Mar, Apr, May)

Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

The expanding envelope shows the full range of available GCM model results for all SRES scenario runs. The general envelope projection over time is used to interpret general trends. A greater range within the expanding envelope indicates greater uncertainty. Consistent with IPCC guidance, we interpret that there is an equal probability of the actual future value being at any point within the projected range.

The units may be reported in either absolute (e.g., oC) or relative (e.g., %) terms depending on the variable

The title provides the Climate Variableand the reported Time Period.

The historical baseline, or climate reference point, is based on the period 1961-1990 and is plotted in 1975. A baseline of “0” is used in cases where only relative changes are reported.

Figure 25: Interpretation of the climate projection envelope line charts


Mean Temperature: Annual and SeasonalProjected Change in Spring

(Mar, Apr, May)Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

Projected Change in Summer(Jun, Jul, Aug)

Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

Projected Change in Fall(Sep, Oct, Nov)

Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

Projected Change in Winter(Dec, Jan, Feb)

Mean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

Projected Change in AnnualMean Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

1975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

Cha

nge

(oC

)

Figure 26: Projected change in mean temperature

Summary:• Mean temperature is generally predicted to rise steadily over time annually and across all seasons in Mt. Robson Park.• By 2080, the increase over the baseline mean temperature is predicted to be in the range of:

• +2.2 to +7.9 oC on an annual basis • +1.6 to +8.2 oC in the spring months• +2.2 to +7.4 oC in the summer months• +1.7 to +6.9 oC in the fall months• +1.5 to +9.8 oC in the winter months


Mean Extreme Minimum Temperature: MonthlyProjected October Extreme

Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Projected November Extreme Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Projected December Extreme Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Projected January Extreme Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Projected February Extreme Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Projected March Extreme Minimum Temperatures

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

01975 2020 2050 2080

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Figure 27: Projected mean extreme temperature

Summary:• Mean extreme minimum temperature results are presented in absolute terms by adding the extracted change values to

observed historical data from weather stations in the Mt. Robson area (see Table 4 of Chapter 5). • Extreme average cold season temperatures are generally predicted to rise over time in Mt. Robson Park.• By 2080, the extreme average minimum monthly temperature during the cold season is predicted to rise by anywhere from

only +0.4 oC (lowest scenario prediction in November) to nearly +12 oC (highest scenario prediction in March).


Mean Precipitation: Annual and SeasonalProjected Change in Spring

(Mar, Apr, May)Mean Precipitation

-50

-25

0

25

50

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in Summer (Jun, Jul, Aug)

Mean Precipitation

-50

-25

0

25

50

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in Fall (Sep, Oct, Nov)

Mean Precipitation

-50

-25

0

25

50

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in Winter (Dec, Jan, Feb)

Mean Precipitation

-50

-25

0

25

50

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in AnnualMean Precipitation

-50

-25

0

25

50

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Figure 28: Projected change in mean precipitation

Summary:• Mean precipitation may either rise or fall over time in Mt. Robson Park depending on the season and timeframe of interest. Over

the long term, there is greatest uncertainty in the summer, where results indicate there may be either a rising or falling trend.• By 2080, the change in mean precipitation is predicted to be in the range of:

• +2% to +17% on an annual basis• +2% to +24% in the spring months• –28% to +13% in the summer months• +1% to +19% in the fall months• +3% to +45% in the winter months


Mean Soil Moisture: Annual and SeasonalProjected Change in Spring

(Mar, Apr, May)Mean Soil Moisture

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Cap

acity

Fra

ctio

n (%

)


Mean Soil Moisture

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Cap

acity

Fra

ctio

n (%

)


Mean Soil Moisture

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Cap

acity

Fra

ctio

n (%

)


Mean Soil Moisture

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Cap

acity

Fra

ctio

n (%

)

Projected Change in AnnualMean Soil Moisture

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Cap

acity

Fra

ctio

n (%

)

Figure 29: Projected change in mean soil moisture

Summary:• Mean soil moisture is generally predicted to drop over time across all seasons in Mt. Robson Park.• By 2080, the change in soil moisture capacity fraction (percent) is predicted to fall by:

• –1% to –5% on an annual basis• 0% to –11% in the spring months• –1% to –4% in the summer months• –1% to –2% in the fall months• 0% to –5% in the winter months


Mean Wind Speed: Annual and SeasonalProjected Change in Spring

(Mar, Apr, May)Mean Wind Speed

-20

-10

0

10

20

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)


Mean Wind Speed

-20

-10

0

10

20

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)


Mean Wind Speed

-20

-10

0

10

20

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)


Mean Wind Speed

-20

-10

0

10

20

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in AnnualMean Wind Speed

-20-15-10-505

101520

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Figure 30: Projected change in mean wind speed

Summary:• Mean wind speed may either rise or fall over time in Mt. Robson Park depending on the season.• Of all climate variables investigated, wind speed displays the greatest uncertainty as results indicate that there may either

be a rising or falling trend both annually and across all seasons. • By 2080, the change in mean wind speed is predicted to be in the range of:

• +5% to –7% on an annual basis• +5% to –11% in the spring months• 0% to –16% in the summer months• +6% to –3 % in the fall months• +13% to –10% in the winter months


Relative Humidity: Annual and SeasonalProjected Change in Spring

(Mar, Apr, May)Mean Relative Humidity

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)


Mean Relative Humidity

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)



-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)



-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Projected Change in AnnualMean Relative Humidity

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1975 2020 2050 2080

Perc

ent C

hang

e (%

)

Figure 31: Projected change in mean relative humidity

Summary:• Mean relative humidity may either rise or fall over time in Mt. Robson Park depending on the season.• By 2080, the change in mean precipitation is predicted to be in the range of:

• 0% to –4% on an annual basis• +1% to –4% in the spring months• +1% to –13% in the summer months• 0% to –5% in the fall months• +3% to –0% in the winter months


Summary and Discussion

Table 2 provides a summary of climate change scenario results for key climate variables that influence forest ecosystems and disturbance regimes in Mt. Robson Park. The trends and envelope ranges found here are generally consistent with those reported by the IPCC for northern hemisphere (IPCC, 2001a). They are also generally consistent with the results reported in a screening level assessment of climate change impacts on Jasper, Banff and other national parks (Scott and Suffling, 2000).

Table 2: Summary of change scenarios for selected climate variables

0% to –11%–1% to –4%

Spring seasonSummer season

0% to –16%Summer seasonMean Wind Speed

1% to –13%Summer seasonMean Relative Humidity

+2% to +17 % AnnualMean Precipitation

–28% to +13%Summer season

Note: Long-term trends (i.e., the 2080 results) are used as the basis of this summary and the specific focus periods selected for each variable are those hypothesized to have a significant influence on forest ecosystems and disturbance regimes.

– 1% to – 5% AnnualMean Soil Moisture

+1oC to +11oC Cold season months(Dec, Jan, Feb)

Mean Extreme Minimum Temp

+2.2oC to +7.4oCSummer season

+2.2oC to +7.9oCAnnualMean Temperature

Range of Magnitude / Direction of changeFocus PeriodVariable


Summary and Discussion, cont’d

While some comfort can be found in the consistency of the climate variable envelope predictions found for the Mt. Robson Park region and those of other studies, we must stress the limitations that face the application of ANY GCM-derived results for impact and adaptation planning.

For example, the spatial resolution of most GCMs is between about 250 and 600km. This coarse scale clearly presents a challenge for the interpretation of results in BC, where the complex mountain terrain has a significant effect on local and regional climate. Fortunately, improvements in spatial (and temporal) resolution scale problems are underway on several fronts. The CICS scenarios project website (http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/) provides an overview of both statistical downscaling and regional climate modeling approaches that show some promise. However, here again, limitations often remain such as the need for a solid record of observational data, and the need to make additional assumptions beyond those of the base GCMs.

It is recognized that the probability of occurrence of extreme events may be influenced by a change in mean conditions, a change in variance, or a simultaneous change in both (Figure 32). At present, predictions of extreme events are limited to changes in the statistics of likelihood of occurrence of extremes. In our case, application of the results for extreme minimum temperature during the cold season months must taken this added uncertainty into account.

We can generally have greater confidence in the primary outputs of GCMs such as temperature and precipitation, than in the derived variables such as soil moisture (a climate variable dependant on the interaction of temperature, precipitation and evapotranspiration).

In the end, from an adaptation planning perspective, the primarychallenge is to incorporate the potential trends in key climate variables while simultaneously recognizing the inherent uncertainties associated with GCM-derived predictions.

Figure 32: Schematic diagram showing effects on extremetemperature when (a) the mean increases, (b) the variance increases, and (c) both the mean and variance increase. (Figure from IPCC, 2001b)


Chapter 5Forest Ecosystem and Disturbance Scenarios

In this chapter, we:• Hypothesize future scenarios for forest ecosystems and disturbance patterns based

on the climate change scenario results and relevant research studies.


Introduction

In this chapter we explore the potential implication of future climate change on ecosystem management in Mt. Robson Park. Specifically we explore potential climate change scenarios for:

• Forest ecosystems,• Mountain pine beetle disturbance• Wildfire disturbance.

While changes to ecosystems and tree species are expected to occur over long periods of transition, changes to forest disturbance regimes may occur much more frequently. The CFS states that the changes in disturbance regimes will likely have a greater effect on Canadian forests than the direct effects of climate change on the distribution and migration of forest species (CFS, 1999).

In our case, which emphasizes management in a park setting, forest disturbance is recognized as an integral part of the regular functioning of the ecosystem. However as previously said, major MPB outbreaks and major wildfires are of significant concern given the multiple uses in the Park, and concern over adjacency issues. The scenarios developed here therefore focus primarily on the potential for such major disturbances.

In each case we begin by outlining the general state of knowledge in each topic area. We then develop the key trends (and uncertainties) given the climate change scenarios described in Chapter 4. Depending on the availability of information, the tools and techniques applied range from:

• Inferring results from research conducted in similar circumstances,• Extrapolating results from broader provincial-scale assessments,• Applying subjective professional judgments.


Forest Ecosystem Change ScenariosGeneral State of Knowledge:

There has been a great deal of research conducted into the potential changes in forest ecosystems as a result of climate change (Lemmen and Warren, 2004; Iverson and Prasad, 2002; Lenihan and Neilson, 1995). Based on the predicted ‘warmer-wetter’ scenario, such as we have shown for the Park region, some of the most commonly cited predictions are that forest ecosystems and individual tree species will migrate northward and to higher elevations. This general trend is supported by evidence of tree line shifts in the Canadian Rockies during the warming over the last century (Luckman and Kavanagh, 2000).

These general trends must be tempered by the understanding that other factors – including topography, soils, migration barriers and inter-species competition to name but a few – play a significant role in ecosystem responses at a site level. For example Zolbrod and Peterson (1999) found that climate change impacts on forests in mountainous areas differed significantly depending on mesoscale (e.g., wet vs. dry climatic regime) and microscale (e.g., north vs. south aspect) factors.

Potential Climate Change Impacts on Forest Ecosystems in the Park:As reported in Table 2 (Chapter 4), the Park is expected to experience a long term increase in mean annual temperature in

the range of +2.2oC to +7.9oC, and an increase in mean annual precipitation in the range of +2% to +17 %. These can be considered in the context of the 30-year normals for subzones within in the Park (Table 3) as a first step toward hypothesizing potential ecosystem boundary shifts.

417.0354.3280.5237.3Mean Summer Precipitation (mm)

11.014.715.5Mean Temperature of Warmest Month (oC)

1031.0881.0645609.4Mean Annual Precipitation (mm)

-1.51.04.23.7Mean Annual Temperature (oC)

Table 3: Summary of Climate Data for BEC subzones in Mt. Robson ParkData extracted directly from Table 6 in BC Parks (2001). Data are summaries of means of 30-yearnormals for all recording stations in the subzone, and are not based on data from within the Park.

ATESSF (mm)ICH (mm)SBS (dh)Climate Variable


Forest Ecosystem Change ScenariosBased on a basic understanding of regional climate trends

(i.e., warmer-wetter), general ecosystem response trends (e.g., migration to higher elevations) and in consideration of site specific considerations in the Park, practitioners familiar withthe BEC system and the Park were asked to hypothesize the potential for forest ecosystem boundary shifts. The generally response (shown conceptually in Figure 33), is that we should expect to see:

– A general expansion of all forested BEC subzones to higher elevations.

– ICH: A general increase in area, including both elevation gains and eastward expansion.

– SBS: A net increase in area, with gains in elevation more than off-setting losses at the western end of its range.

– ESSF: A net increase in area, with gains in elevation more than off-setting losses at lower elevations

– AT: A general decrease in area, caused by encroachment of forested subzones.

Two key points to be emphasized in these hypotheses are that 1) changes will occur very slowly over time, and 2) given the overlap in tree species across all forested zones, the actual areal representation of any species at any point in the future is more a function of disturbance-driven forest age class distribution.

Figure 33: Conceptual representation of the potential expansion of the ICH, SBS and ESSF zones


Forest Ecosystem Change ScenariosTo augment these initial hypotheses, researchers at the UBC Department of

Forest Sciences were asked to share their recent results from a provincial-scale modeling study of the potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution. They kindly agreed, and extracted results specific to Mt. Robson Park. In very simple terms, the bioclimate envelope modeling methodology employed in their analysis involved (Hamann and Wang):

1. Developing a spatial database of elevation-adjusted baseline climate data, up-sampled to a 400m resolution.

2. Extracting climate change predictions from a range of GCMs under a range of emission scenarios, and up-sampling the results to the same 400m resolution as the baseline dataset.

3. Establishing a spatial BEC database, rasterized at 400m resolution.4. Using standard discriminant analysis to classify BEC variables based on

climate variables.5. Applying the climate change predictions to the baseline dataset and

repeating the BEC classification.Figure 34 shows how the climatic envelope of ecosystems would shift

according to the SRES A2x emission scenario. The basic trends of a shift to higher elevations is consistent with initial hypotheses. Some of the specific results however are more pronounced, including:

– The major expansion of the ICH, fully replacing the SBS in the lower valley bottoms by 2085.

– Elimination of the AT zone, except in the very highest elevations.– Occurrence of Interior Douglass Fir (IDF) zone in the eastern end of the

travel corridor.It is important to stress that these results have been extracted from a larger

scale analysis and simply reflect the potential for ecosystem shifts given a stated shift in climate. The actual shift, of course, would depend on numerous local biological and physiographic factors and require a sustained period of realized climate shift. Nevertheless, this type of bioclimate envelope modeling can be very instructive for adaptation planning as a first approximation of potential changes (Pearson and Dawson, 2003).

IDFICHSBSESSFAT

Figure 34: BEC zone climate envelope shift for Mt. Robson Park according to the SRES A2x CO2 emission scenario


Forest Ecosystem Change ScenariosA second component of the UBC study involved an evaluation of predicted tree species distributions under climate

change. Maps of species distribution and frequencies were generated by simply replacing current and predicted BEC variants with known species frequencies for these variants using a methodology that coupled a botanical sample database of 34,000 sample plots (that includes % ground cover) with the provincial BEC database (resolution 1:250,000). The resulting species frequency maps are range maps that delineate the potential habitat of a species with an expected frequency (Hamann et al).

Figure 35 provides example results for two species, again as extracted from the larger scale province-wide analysis. The conclusion to be drawn is that both western redcedar and lodgepole pine would likely have an increase in climatically suitable habitat in the Park. As before, the actual ability of these species to migrate and utilize the additional habitat is beyond the scope of the study.

Figure 35: Potential frequency shift for western redcedar and lodgepole pine for Mt. Robson Park according to the SRES A2x CO2 emission scenario

Current - Inventory Current - Modeled 2085 predicted

western redcedar(Cw)

lodgepole pine(Pl)


MPB Scenarios

Sour

ce: h

ttp://

ww

w.p

fc.fo

rest

ry.c

a/en

tom

olog

y/m

pb/o

utbr

eak/

inde

x_e.

ht

Sour

ce: h

ttp://

ww

w.p

fc.fo

rest

ry.c

a/en

tom

olog

y/m

pb/o

utbr

eak/

inde

x_e.

htm

l

ml

General State of Knowledge:It is widely believed that the current unprecedented MPB epidemic

being experienced in BC is at least partially climate driven, with most pointing to the lack of cold winters (BCMOF, 2005).

A good overall summary of MPB bionomics is provided by Carroll and Safranyik (2004) and summarized in a readily understood fashion at: http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/entomology/mpb/outbreak/index_e.html.

As a cold-blooded insect, almost all aspects of the MPB biology are dependent on climate effects. Two important aspects of the MPB outbreak cycle that are particularly linked to climate include:

1) Summer emergence, where adequate daily high temperatures are required to trigger flight and thus dispersion of beetle populations (Figure 36), and

2) Cold tolerance, where extreme cold thresholds are known to causesignificant larval mortality and thus outbreak collapse (Figure 37).

Potential Climate Change Impacts on MPB in the Park:For summer emergence, one hypothesis is that the predicted increase

in mean summer temperatures in the Park region of between +2.2oC to +7.4oC will increase the chances of future major outbreaks. A second hypothesis is that the increase in mean summer temperatures might cause sufficient heat accumulation to trigger partial multi-voltinism (segments of the population having more than one generation per year), thus interrupting overall emergence and flight synchrony and, ultimately lowering the chances of future major outbreaks (see description and references in Carroll et al., 2004). This second possibility appears to be more probable in southern ranges of the MPB and hence arguably less likely in the Park region.

Figure 36: MPB emergence and flight

Figure 37: MPB larval mortality at low temperatures


MPB Scenarios

In order to explore the issue of MPB cold tolerance in more detail, CICS undertook a preliminary analysis of extreme cold temperatures in the region. Table 4 shows the extreme minimum temperature by month on record at eight weather stations in the vicinity of Mt. Robson Park as extracted from Environment Canada’s database. (Unfortunately, this information represents only the minimum number of episodes as only the extreme records were available and not the complete records.)

Comparing these data to the 100% threshold level for larval mortality as inferred from Figure ??, we see that there have been historical episodes of cold weather in the region during each of the cold months of the year (October through April) capable of causing the collapse on an MPB outbreak. However, an examination of the dates of these events over the 60 years of record (on average), revealed that no new extreme episodes have occurred since 1989, which is consistent with the trend that theperiod since 1990 is one of the warmest on record globally and in BC.

The average of these extreme temperatures on record was plotted as the baseline in Figure 27 (Chapter 4). As stated in that section, GCMs predict a general warming trend in winter season extreme temperatures. As Figure 27 shows, if the current trends continue, the occurrence of minus 40oC is likely to be a rare event by the end of the 21st century. This leads to the hypothesis that the reduced frequency of extreme cold weather events in the region will increase the chances of future major outbreaks of MPB.

Table 4: Historical record of extreme minimum temperatures on record at eight weather stations near Mt. Robson Park

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBlue River A -44.0 -37.8 -30.0 -15.6 -6.1 -2.7 0.6 -3.5 -7.2 -20.0 -36.9 -44.8

Columbia Icefields -41.1 -30.0 -35.0 -22.8 -17.8 -12.2 -9.4 -7.5 -15.0 -26.1 -32.0 -36.0

Dome Creek -46.1 -40.0 -36.7 -19.0 -10.0 -4.0 -1.0 -2.5 -8.0 -15.6 -38.5 -47.0

Entrance AB -51.2 -47.0 -42.8 -35.6 -12.2 -6.7 -2.8 -4.5 -19.4 -26.7 -39.0 -47.2

Jasper -46.7 -43.3 -36.7 -28.9 -13.9 -6.7 -1.7 -2.8 -11.1 -28.7 -38.8 -42.2

Jasper East Gate -48.3 -45.0 -44.0 -22.2 -11.0 -8.5 -4.5 -6.5 -13.0 -33.0 -42.0 -45.5

McBride N -41.0 -38.0 -32.0 -15.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 -4.0 -7.0 -28.0 -38.0 -41.0

Mica Dam -33.9 -26.7 -23.3 -11.5 -3.9 0.0 1.0 1.1 -4.4 -13.5 -26.0 -37.2

Average Extreme -44.0 -38.5 -35.1 -21.3 -10.1 -5.5 -2.2 -3.8 -10.6 -24.0 -36.4 -42.6

100% mortalitythreshold -37.5 -37.5 -30.0 -22.5 -20.0 -20.0 -27.5 -37.5 -37.5


MPB ScenariosThese initial hypotheses were compared with a recent study of the effects of climate change on MPB range

expansion in British Columbia undertaken by researchers at the Canadian Forest Service (Carroll et al., 2004). In very simple terms, the modeling methodology employed in their analysis involved:

1. Defining an index of climatic suitability classes (CSCs) for MPB based on critical aspects of climate on the beetle and its host trees.

2. Developing a database of historic daily weather for BC covering the period 1920-2000.3. Generating a series of maps depicting the distribution of CSCs as a function of climate normals derived from

the historic daily weather data in 10-year intervals from 1921-1950 to 1971-2000.4. Comparing the CSC maps with historic maps of MPB infestations as recorded by the Canadian Forest

Service, Forest Insect and Disease Survey.The results indicate that during the latter half of the last century there has been a substantial shift in climatically

suitable habitats for MPB. And, most importantly, there has been an increase in the number of infestations since 1970 into these newly climatically suitable habitats. The researchers conclude that “given the rapid colonization by mountain pine beetles of former climatically unsuitable areas during the last several decades, continued warming in western North America associated with climate change will allow the beetle to further expand its range northward, eastward and toward higher elevations” (Carroll et al., 2004).

By looking at the both the trends in this broader province-wide study, and the potential for climate change effects specifically on MPB emergence and cold tolerance in the region, our main conclusion is that from a climate perspective, the mountain pine beetle will not be habitat limited in Mt. Robson Park over the long-term.


MPB Scenarios

For a major MPB outbreak to occur, two primary conditions must be met (Carroll et al., 2004; Taylor and Carroll, 2004). First, there must be a sustained period of climatic suitability. As just discussed, it appears that summer heat accumulation and a reduced frequency of extreme cold weather events point towards an increase in the probability of future outbreaks in the Park from a climate suitability perspective.

Second, there must be an abundance of host trees that are susceptible to attack. CFS researchers report that stand age is a key factor in determining the resistance of lodgepole pine trees to MPB attack (Figure 39). As stand age passes 60 years, there is a continuing decline in ability to resist MPB attack, and hence anincreasing probability of a major outbreak.

Given the projected future increase in climatic suitability for MPB in Mt. Robson Park, it is clear that overall forest age-class structure will be the primary determinant of the scale and severity of future outbreaks. Therefore, the focus on managing for future major MPB outbreaks should be directed toward managing the overall landscape-level MPB hazard.

Landscape-levelMPB Hazard

ClimateSuitability

Major MPBOutbreak

Figure 38: Primary factors influencing the probability of major MPB outbreak

Sour

ce: h

ttp://

ww

w.p

fc.fo

rest

ry.c

a/en

tom

olog

y/m

pb/o

utbr

eak/

inde

x_e.

htm

l

Figure 39: Effect of stand age on host resistance


Fire ScenariosGeneral State of Knowledge:

Climate is a primary determinant of wildfire impact, along with fuels, topography and ignition sources. Throughout Canada, the Fire Weather Index (FWI) system is used as an indicator of the conditions conducive to fire growth. Climate variables used within the FWI include temperature, precipitation, wind and relative humidity (Figure 40).

Researchers at the Canadian Forest Service are currently involved in numerous studies into the potential effect of climate change on the fire weather environment (CFS, 2005). In one study, researchers developed future fire weather scenarios for North America based on coupling the FWI with outputs from two GCMs, concluding that most regions of the continent may experience a significant increase in fire activity.

Unfortunately, downscaling of such results for interpretation at a reduced scale is not possible. Researchers are quick to point out that coarse spatial and temporal scale GCM results are inadequate for most fire weather prediction analyses. At present we are forced to acknowledge that “there is relatively high uncertainty associated with most studies of climate change and forest fires, due largely to our limited understanding of future changes in precipitation patterns” (Lemmen and Warren, 2004).Potential Climate Change Impacts on Fire in the Park:

This difficulty in applying GCM trends in general, and precipitation trends in particular, to fire management problems can be shown in this case study of the Park. For example, Table 5 reports the change scenarios for the four primary input variables to the FWI system during the main summer fire season. Although increased temperatures and reduced relative humidity might point to increased fire activity in the future, decreased wind speeds and increased precipitation might point to reduced fire activity.

Given the limitation of using GCM results for fire management purposes, CFS researchers are involved in research aimed at improving the ability of regional climate models to accurately generate realistic fire weather.

Figure 40: The Canadian fire weather index system

Table 5: Summary of summer season change scenarios for selected climate variables (extract from Table 2)

–28% to +13%Mean Precipitation

0% to –16%Mean Wind Speed

1% to –13%Mean Relative Humidity

+2.2oC to +7.4oCMean Temperature

Range of Magnitude / Direction of change

Variable


Fire ScenariosThe opportunity to apply impact modeling techniques or to

derive future fire scenarios from basic GCM results for the Park are currently limited. We therefore demonstrate the potential to apply an alternative probability-based technique.

A primary fire management concern in the Park is the risk posed by major, uncontrollable wildfire. This falls into a class of “low probability – high consequence” risk management problems that are often encountered in environmental management. This type of risk management problem is well-suited to be examined with the use of a probability network model (also known as a Bayesian belief network). In short, we define the “high consequence” event as a major conflagration in the park in the future (say year 2080), and explore the factors that can influence the probability of the event occurring.

We begin with the influence diagram in Figure 41, which shows four main factors that drive the probability of a major conflagration: fire weather, ignition, suppression response, and the fuels hazard. We also show how climate change can influence bothfire weather and the biological conditions that determine fuels hazard (e.g., tree species). In the influence diagram, most nodes are shown as “probabilistic” or chance nodes, meaning that their exact nature at any point in the future is unknown. The sole “decision” node is shown as management, where decisions can be made to influence the landscape-level fuels hazard (e.g., through the use of prescribed burning) and suppression response.

To examine this problem in a probability network model requires specifying each possible node state and causal dependency in probabilistic terms. For the purposes of this example, the simplified format of Figure 42 will be used, which shows climatechange as influencing fire weather, and management decisions required as to whether or not to alter landscape-level fuel hazard (although simplified, this influence diagram still largely reflects the real decision).

Figure 41: Conceptual model of the probability for a major fire

ClimateChange

Landscape-levelFire Hazard

SuppressionResponseIgnitionFire Weather

WindRHPrecipTemp

MajorConflagration

BiologicalConditions Topography

Management

ClimateChange

Landscape-levelFire HazardFire Weather

MajorConflagration

Management

Figure 42: Simplified conceptual model


Fire Scenarios

Figure 43: No climate change, No fuels management

LandscapeFuelHazardVeryLowLowModerateHighVeryHighExtreme

5.0010.020.040.024.0 1.0

ManagementDoNoth...PlanA

0 0

ClimateChangeTrueFalse

0 100

FireWeatherVeryLowLowModerateHighVeryHighExtreme

25.050.020.02.002.00 1.0

ConflagrationTrueFalse

1.0199.0

Management

DoNothing PlanAFigures 43 through 46 show the implementation and application of

the probability network using Netica software. In practice, initial forcing or conditional probabilities for each node can be established based on i) experimental results (e.g., actual climate scenario outputs), ii) observational data (e.g., historic fire weather index records) or iii) expert scientific judgment. For the purposes of this example, all probabilities are simple estimates.

Interpretation of the model and its use begins with Figure 43. Here the Climate Change node is set as “False” indicating that no climate change effect is being considered, and Management is set as “DoNothing” indicating that no active intervention is undertaken over time. The intermediate FireWeather and LandscapeFuelHazard nodes reflect a distribution of possible future states from very low to extreme. Given the model as initially parameterized, the resultant probability of major fire, Conflagration, calculates out at approximately 1% (a reasonable estimate given the fire return intervals for the forest types in the park).

In Figure 44, the Climate Change node is set as “True” indicating a predicted climate change scenario effect is being considered. Because all nodes in the model are inter-related probabilistically, new “posterior” probabilities are immediately calculated. In this case, theFireWeather node reflects a distribution that is shifted towards higher class states (e.g., a 5% probability of experiencing extreme fire weather rather than a 1% in the non-climate change scenario). As a result, the probability of Conflagration now calculates out at 1.88%.


5.0010.020.040.024.0 1.0


0 0


100 0


15.020.040.010.010.05.00


1.8898.1

Figure 44: With climate change, No fuels management

Management

DoNothing PlanA


Fire Scenarios

Figure 45: No climate change, With fuels management


10.048.030.010.02.00 0


0 0


0 100


25.050.020.02.002.00 1.0


0.3099.7

Management

DoNothing PlanAAs a second example of the application of the probability network

model, we can explore how management activities can be evaluated. In Figure 45, the Climate Change node is re-set to “False” indicating that no climate change effect is being considered, and the Management node is now set as “PlanA” indicating a stated management program is being considered. In the case of the Park, PlanA might consist of an aggressive program of prescribed burns or MPB treatment activities that collectively aim at reducing the future fuel hazard. This time theLandscapeFuelHazard node reflects a distribution that is shifted towards lower class states, and as a result, the probability of Conflagration now drops to 0.3%. In Figure 46, PlanA is re-evaluated again under the climate change scenario.

The effort required to fully parameterize a probability network model such as this would be far less than required for a mechanistic model aimed for instance at predicting actual fire sizes, frequencies and distributions. And the resultant graphical interface and rapid ability to execute scenarios would have particular relevance for interactions between scientists, stakeholders and decision-makers.

Although clearly simplified, this example demonstrates the use of probability-based approaches for questions such as fire management in the Park. We can easily see how a range of future climate scenarios and a range of possible management actions could be simulated using the model. It is important to emphasize that the management problem itself – “what is the future probability of a major fire in the park” – is framed in terms that are intuitive to decision-makers and directly relevant to the management decisions at hand (i.e., should a program of landscape-level fuels management be undertaken).

Figure 46: With climate change, With fuels management


10.048.030.010.02.00 0

ManagementClimateChange

TrueFalse

100 0


15.020.040.010.010.05.00


0.8499.2

Management

DoNothing PlanA


SummaryWe have not undertaken comprehensive predictive modeling of forest ecosystem and disturbance regimes in the Park

under conditions of climate change. In fact, we have highlighted many of the challenges to be faced in applying global climate change scenario predictions to scale-dependent questions such as forest evolution in a mountainous region.

We have, however, reviewed the current state of the science for forest ecosystem and disturbance regimes under climate change, drawn from recent research efforts when and where possible, and applied professional judgments to best understand the potential changes in key management issues facing the Park. This “multiple lines of evidence” approach is expected to be common among climate change adaptation practitioners faced with addressing multiple, inter-related planning issues.

In summary, Table 6 highlights the key long-term trends and key uncertainties in forest ecosystem and disturbance scenarios for Mt. Robson Park.

The rate of change.Future fire season precipitation.

Likely Increase in high fire weather indexes

The frequency of future outbreaks, which will be increasingly determined by host availability.

PossibleIncrease in the probability of major outbreaks.

The extent to which tree species are able to utilize new habitat.

LikelyIncrease in climatically suitable habitat for lodgepole pine andwestern redcedar.

Increase in the probability of major fires.

Increase in climatic suitability for the mountain pine beetle.

Increase in forested area, with ICH, SBS and ESSF subzones all migrating to higher elevations. Decrease in the AT zone.

Key Long-term Trends

The extent of changes to ecosystem zones (SBS has a shorter fire return interval), tree species, and major MPB outbreak frequency.

The rate of change.

The rate of change.The extent to which ICH replaces SBS.

Major Uncertainties

Possible

Very Likely

Very Likely

Confidence

Note: The subjective confidence rating scales are based on UKCIP framework guidance as follows: Virtually certain (> 99%), Very likely (90–99%), Likely (66–90%), Possible (33–66%).

Fire Disturbance

MPB Disturbance

Forest Ecosystems

Issue

Table 6: Summary of forest ecosystem and disturbance scenarios


Implications

As stated in Chapter 3, ecosystem management issues primarily related to landscape-level forest age class management and the probability for major disturbance are already a concern in the Park. The findings of this investigation into possible climate change induced impacts on forest ecosystem and disturbance regimes re-enforce the primacy of these issues. Some of the most important implications for long-term ecosystem management planning in the Park are:

– The long-term ecosystem subzone representation goals should be re-visited in light of predicted changes in ICH, SBS, ESSF and particularly AT boundaries.

– Host species management should take on an even greater focus if a reduction in the probability of major MPB outbreaks is to be reduced.

– The probability of major wildfire should be assessed more rigorously in concert with overall fire management planning in the Yellowhead corridor.


Chapter 6Options Identification & Appraisal

In this chapter, we:• Summarize an options identification and appraisal process aimed at targeting

prescribed fire treatments.• Provide a brief postscript regarding current implementation and monitoring efforts.


Introduction

The Mt. Robson Working Group has identified and evaluated a range of management options over a period of several years. Guided initially by the original findings of the Ecosystem Management Plan (BC Parks, 2001), the process has evolved as the province-wide MPB epidemic expanded into the Park, and policy changes expanded the range of available vegetation management treatments. The currently approved suite of vegetation management tools available for use in BC Parks that have been formally evaluated in the Park include:

Prescribed Fire: The preferred tool for altering the landscape-level age class distribution, MPB susceptibility and resultant wildfire hazard.

Single Tree Treatments: An effective forest health management tool involving the use of falling and burning individually infested trees.

Selective Tree Removals: Used either as a substitute for, or as a pre-treatment for, prescribed burning in areas where site-level public safety, ecosystem restoration, or forest health management requirements dictate.

Fire management has always played a central role as the primary tool for controlling the long-term processes that underlie the Park’s ecosystem management challenges. The extensive Natural Zone (Figure 22, Chapter 3) established to allow fire (and other disturbance) to proceed unencumbered is a key part of the overall fire management strategy for the park (Table 1, Chapter 3). Within the Prescription Zone, prescribed burning has been identified as the primary management tool to address the legacy of past management in the travel corridor, the current expanding MPB issues. It also supports the management of long-term climate change risks as described in Chapter 5.

This chapter provides a synopsis of the prescribed fire options assessment exercise undertaken in a workshop setting by the Mt. Robson Ecosystem Working Group. The purpose of the exercise was to identify, evaluate and prioritize sites within the Park that are suitable for prescribed burning.


Options Identification

Moose West

Swift Current

Moose Lake

Y-Head West

Y-Head South

Upper Fraser

The preliminary assessment described in Chapter 3 described the management challenges that exist within the lower elevation valley extending through the Park, and delineated the Prescription Zone where options should be actively evaluated. Prescribed fire is viewed as the primary tool available for addressing the inter-related risks, and, offering the following benefits (Blackwell, 2003):

– Disruption of even age class forests that dominate the lower elevation landscape, contributing to overall

– Enhancement of natural barriers that reduce the horizontal continuity of fuel loads.

– Reduction in the area of lodgepole pine forests susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack .

– Regeneration of younger forest age classes that contribute to biodiversity and regional ecosystem health and improved wildlife habitat.

A total of six sites and adjacent contingency areas were identified as potential areas for prescribed burning (Figure 47). These sites were selected based on a preliminary analysis of forest cover (i.e., % pine), stand age and burn feasibility.Table 7 provides a brief synopsis of each site.

Figure 47: Ortho-photo showing six potential prescribed burn and adjacent contingency areas


Options Identification

256 yrs31 %Prescription = 4,700 haContingencies (8) =2,950 ha

Upper Fraser

149 yrs40 %Prescription = 3,700 haContingencies (7&8) = 4,800 ha

Yellowhead South

112 yrs69 %Prescription = 3,100 haContingencies (6) = 650 ha

Yellowhead West

128 yrs66 %Prescription = 2,300 haContingencies (4&6) = 950 ha

Moose Lake

113 yrs53 %Prescription = 1,900 haContingencies (3&5) = 750 ha

Moose West

158 yrs.56 %Prescription = 2,200 haContingencies (1&2) = 330 ha

Swift Current

Average Stand AgeForest Cover (% pine)

AreaSite

Table 7: Summary of potential prescribed burn sites in Mt. Robson Park


Evaluation CriteriaThe criteria used to evaluate and prioritize the potential prescribed burn locations build on the framework and information first presented in Chapter 3. They include:

Financial Cost: An expected cost for each site was developed taking into consideration the fixed and variable costs for the prescription area, as well as the additional variable costs that might occur should the fire enter into the contingency area or become an escape fire.

Mountain Pine Beetle Management: An MPB hazard reduction potential criterion was calculated to identify the potential improvement in using fire to return areas of extreme and high MPB hazard ratings to low ratings. The total area of extreme and high MPB rating in each area was calculated and reported as a percentage of the total reduction potential across all sites and contingency areas.

Fire Hazard Management: A fire hazard reduction potential criterion was calculated to identify the potential improvement in using fire to return areas of high and moderate fire hazard ratings to low ratings. The total area of high and moderate fire rating in each area was calculated and reported as a percentage of the total reduction potential across all sites and contingency areas.

Biodiversity: An age class distribution criterion was calculated to identify the potential improvement in landscape-level age class distribution by setting mature seral stage areas back to early seral stage areas, particularly in the SBS BEC zone. For each site, a weighted area index score was calculated both pre & post fire, and the final rating was reported as a percentage of the total improvement potential across all sites and contingency areas.

Social: A social impact rating scale (0 – 10) was developed in the workshop to judge the relative differences across sites in terms of smoke management, visual quality impact, public safety risk and other social considerations.

Major Escape Risk: A major fire escape risk rating scale (0 – 10) was developed in the workshop judge the relative risk across sites.


Option Appraisal

Figure 48 presents the summary evaluation of results for each individual potential burn site location. A thorough discussion of these results in a workshop setting led participants to screen out the Swift Current, Yellowhead South and Upper Fraser sites as inferior options with relatively higher costs, lower benefits and higher risks. Using detailed site maps and spreadsheet tools to re-calculate results, the remaining options were re-evaluated in various combinations and compared to a “do nothing” option. In the end, an expanded area of the Moose Lake site was selected as having the best balance of costs, benefits and risks.

Figure 48: Summary matrix for the Mt. Robson park prescribed burn site evaluation


Summary & Discussion

The UKCIP framework emphasizes several key considerations when developing options for climate change adaptation, including:

– Develop options that increase adaptive capacity, that is, options that best increase the opportunity to cope with changes as a result of future climate (or other factors).

– Seek out ‘no-regret’ or ‘low-regret’ options that are relatively low cost, easily implemented, and clearly suitable across the full range of plausible future scenarios.

– Incorporate a ‘do nothing’ option to serve as a benchmark for the possible consequences of not taking action given future climate change forecasts.

– Consider using an adaptive management approach as a strategy toward incorporating improved information regarding climate risks over time.

Within this context, the primary management goal of altering the landscape-level age class structure in the Park can be viewed as increasing the adaptive capacity of the Park, as the climatic suitability for both MPB and wildfire disturbance are expected to increase in the future (Chapter 5). At the same time, the application of prescribed fire treatments can be viewed asa low-regret type option, since the overall biodiversity objectives for the Park support adjustments to the landscape-level age class structure. Finally, the implementation and monitoring of prescribed fire and other vegetation management treatments over time will allow for an adaptive management approach to be adopted.


Postscript: Implementation & MonitoringImplementation:

The Moose Lake prescribed fire was successfully implemented during August of 2004 meeting all of the stated objectives within the prescription (Blackwell, 2003), including:

1. To enhance natural barriers with a strategic break in both fuel continuity and MPB susceptible stands.

2. To increase the area of young seral vegetation to improve landscape biodiversity and available wildlife habitat.

3. To provide a foundation for future fire management operations in the travel corridor.

Interestingly, the objective of providing a landscape level fuel break was tested immediately by containing a lightening caused wildfire that flared up and ran into the prescribed burn area a day after completion. This wildfire was contained from reaching the highway corridor without any fire suppression action (Harvey, 2004).

Other implementation activities continue in the Park including an ongoing winter program of falling and burning MPB infested trees. A pilot tree removal trial was also implemented during the winter of 2004-05 and results are now being assessed

Figure 49: Photo of 2004 prescribed fire near Moose Lake in Mt. Robson Park

Monitoring:A comprehensive monitoring program is currently under development aimed at providing an improved means of assessing

long-term ecosystem and vegetation management effects at both the landscape and site level (Beaudry, 2004a&b). The program will define specific landscape-level management targets for objectives such as seral stage distribution by BEC zone. It will also specify stand-level targets for both MPB and prescribed fire treatment sites.


References


References

Amman, G.D. and B.H. Baker. 1972. Mountain Pine Beetle Influence on Lodgepole Pine Stand Structure. Journal of Forestry. 70:204-209.

BC Ministry of Forests. 2005. Mountain Pine Beetles in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/facts.htm

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia, 2002. Report available at http://www.gov.bc.ca/wlap

BC Parks. 1992. Master Plan for Mount Robson Provincial Park. Prepared by Prince George District, Northern B.C. Region, Prince George, B.C.

BC Parks. 2001. Mount Robson Park Ecosystem Management Plan: Occasional Paper #6. Prepared by Blackwell, B.A. and Associates Ltd., Keystone Wildlife Research, Hugh Hamilton Ltd., Laing and McCulloch Forest Management Services Ltd., Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., and Phero Tech Inc.

Beaudry, L. 2004a. Clarification of Mount Robson Park Management Objectives for Monitoring and Review of the US Parks Fire Monitoring Handbook for monitoring the Tree Removal Prescription. Contract report submitted to Omineca Region –Ecosystems, Environmental Stewardship – Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection.

Beaudry, L. 2004b. Stand level monitoring program proposed for Mount Robson Provincial Park. Contract report submitted toOmineca Region – Ecosystems, Environmental Stewardship – Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection.

Blackwell, B.A. and Associates Ltd. 2000. Mount Robson Provincial Park Fire Management Plan Update. Contract report submitted to Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Prince George District.

Blackwell, B.A. 2003. Mount Robson Provincial Park Moose Lake Burn Prescription Update. Contract report submitted to Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Omineca Regional Office.

Brown, J.K. 1975. Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Pages 429-456 in: D.M. Baumgartner, ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Pullman, WA.

Carroll, A.L. and L. Safranyik. 2004. The bionomics of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests: establishing a context. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (editors). Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. 298 p.


References

Carroll, A.L., S.W. Taylor, J. Régnière and L. Safranyik. 2004. Effects of Climate Change on Range Expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (editors). Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. 298 p.

CFS. 1999. Climate Change and Forests: Science Program Context Paper. Published by the Science Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.

CFS. 2005. Fire Research Website: Fire and Climate Change. http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/research/climate_change/climate_change_e.htm (Accessed March 2005)

Ebata, T. 2004. Current Status of Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (editors). Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. 298 p.

Ketcheson, M.V., T.F. Braumandl, D. Meidinger, G. Utzig, D.A. Demarchi, and B.M. Wikeem. 1991. Chapter 11: Interior Cedar – Hemlock Zone. In: Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests Special Report Series No. 6. 330p.

Hamann, A. and T. Wang. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution in British Columbia. Draft manuscript provided by author.

Hamann, A., P. Smets, S.N. Aitken, A.D. Yanchuk. Does a coarse filter conservation approach protect forest genetic resources in situ? Draft manuscript provided by author.

Harvey, S. 2004. Moose Lake Prescribed Burn, Mt. Robson Provincial Park: Post Burn Summary Report. BC Forest Service file report.

Iverson, L. R., and A. M. Prasad. 2002. Potential redistribution of tree species habitat under five climate change scenarios in the eastern US. Forest Ecology and Management 155:205-222.

IPCC-TGCIA, 1999: Guidelines on the Use of Scenario Data for Climate Impact and Adaptation Assessment. Version 1. Prepared by Carter, T.R., M. Hulme, and M. Lal, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group on Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment, 69pp.

IPCC. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.


References

IPCC. 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 398 pp.

Keystone Wildlife Research. 1998. Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Winter Range in Mount Robson Provincial Park. Appendix 8 in: Mount Robson Park Ecosystem Management Plan: Occasional Paper #6. Prepared by Blackwell, B.A. and Associates Ltd., Keystone Wildlife Research, Hugh Hamilton Ltd., Laing and McCulloch Forest Management Services Ltd., Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., and Phero Tech Inc.

Lemmen D.S. and F.J. Warren (Eds.). 2004. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective (Forestry Chapter). Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Report available at: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/perspective_e.asp

Lenihan, J. and R. Neilson. 1995. Canadian Vegetation Sensitivity to Projected Climatic Change at Three Organizational Levels. Climatic Change (30), 27-56.

Luckman, B. and T. Kavanagh. 2000. Impact of climate fluctuations on mountain environments in the Canadian Rockies.Ambio, 29(7): 371–380.

MacKenzie, G.A. 1973. The fire ecology of the forests of Waterton Lakes National Park. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Calgary.Masters, A.M. 1989. Forest fire history of Kootenay National Park, British Columbia. Environment Canada, Canadian Parks

Service.Meidinger, D., and J. Pojar (compilers and editors). 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests Special

Report Series No. 6. 330p.Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Jung, T.Y., Kram, T.,

La Rovere, E.L., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H.-H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R., van Rooijen, S., Victor, N., Dadi Z. (2000): IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 599pp.

Pearson, R.G., and T. P. Dawson. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology and Biogeography (12), 361-371.

Pojar, J., D. Meidinger and K. Klinka. 1991. Chapter 2: Concepts. In: Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of ForestsSpecial Report Series No. 6. 330p.


References

Safranyik, L. 2004. Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemiology in Lodgepole Pine. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (editors). Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. 298 p.

Scott, D. and R. Suffling (Eds.). 2000. Climate change and Canada’s national park system: A screening level assessment. Report prepared for Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage by the Adaptation & Impacts Research Group, Environment Canada and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo.

Shore, T.L. and L. Safranyik. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating systems for the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Forestry Canada Report BC-X-336.

Tande, G.F. 1979. Fire history and vegetation pattern of coniferous forests in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 57; 1912-1931.

Taylor S.W. and A.L. Carroll. 2004. Disturbance, Forest Age, and Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Dynamics in BC: A Historical Perspective. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. T.L. Shore, J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (editors). Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-399, Victoria, BC. 298 p.

White, C.A. 1985. Wildland fires in Banff National Park. 1880-1980. National Parks Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada. Occasional Paper No.3.

Willows, R.I., and R.K.E. Connell (Eds.), 2003. Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report. United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Zolbrod, A. and D. Peterson. 1999. Response of High-Elevation Forests in the Olympic Mountains to Climatic Change.Canadian Journal of Forest Research (29), 1966-1978.

climate change adaptation planning in british columbia adap… · british columbia mountains and...

Documents