integrating climate change considerations into aac...

Integrating Climate Change Considerations

Into AAC Determinations in British Columbia Recommendations based on the FFESC Kamloops Future Forest Projects

For: Christine Fletcher, Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources Operations

By: Cam Brown, Bryce Bancroft, Dr. Harry Nelson and Donald C.E. Robinson1

Final Version

May 16, 2013

1 Forsite Consultants Ltd, Symmetree Consulting Group Ltd, UBC Resource Economics Group and ESSA

Technologies Ltd., respectively.

Integrating Climate Change into TSR ii | P a g e

Contents

Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 1

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) Determinations ................................................................................. 1

TSR Linkages with Changing Climate .............................................................................................. 2

Suggested Structure for Incorporating Climate Change into TSR ................................................... 3

1. Introduction into the Rationale .................................................................................... 3

2. Climate Change - Information Needs ........................................................................... 4

3. Incorporating Climate Change into Forest Estate Modeling. ....................................... 7

Interpretation and Use ................................................................................................................. 11

Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 12

Next Steps: .................................................................................................................................... 13

References ................................................................................................................................ 14

Appendix 1. Addressing Uncertainty: Examples of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 16

Appendix 2 –Examples of Related Guidance and Discussion .................................................. 23

Example detail for output on timber production ................................................................. 24

West Kootenay Climate Vulnerability and Resilience project example output ................... 25

Appendix 3. Additional Issues to be Considered in Acting on CC guidance ............................. 26

Climate change and TSR a Wicked Problem: ........................................................................ 26

Integrating Climate Change into TSR 1 | P a g e

Climate Change There is clear evidence that British Columbia’s climate is changing and will continue to change into the future. These changes will interact with our current forest ecosystems (e.g., Wang 2012)2 and produce both expected and unexpected changes (e.g., Woods 20113). Changes in the rates of tree growth, seedling survival, and the rate/scale of natural disturbance events across the landbase are all anticipated.

Recent TSA-level climate change vulnerability assessments (e.g., Kamloops, West Kootenays, Nadina4) all indicate changes that could impact our future timber supply (e.g., increased and/or decreased growth, increased wildfire, increased tree stress which will likely manifest itself as added mortality from insects and disease).

BC’s Timber Supply Review (TSR) process has historically not explicitly considered climate change during forest estate modeling or as an influencing factor in the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) determination. This document provides an initial attempt at creating a strategic framework for incorporating Climate Change into the Timber Supply Review process. It is expected that further tactical refinements of this framework, with more detailed direction, will be required during implementation and as new information becomes available. It is also quite plausible that climate change will be a motivating issue in reassessing the current structure and role of TSR in BC - however this paper is largely devoted to working within the current structure. We emphasize two important aspects of the TSR process: 1) the systematic generation of information that is used in the AAC determination; and 2) forest estate modeling that draws upon that information. We offer recommendations on how climate change can be incorporated into both aspects.

As a next step it would be useful to estimate the resource needs for the various recommended or possible approaches. Additionally some kind of pilot or hypothetical decision process to explore what the process might look like should be conducted that looks at how risks and opportunities are assessed combined with an evaluation of the outcomes from alternative adaptive actions.

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) Determinations BC’s Chief Forester is required to determine an AAC for each of the province’s Timber Supply Areas (TSA) and Tree Farm License (TFL) areas at least once every 10 years (Forest Act Section 8). The AAC establishes an upper limit on short-term harvest levels and is reassessed periodically as a means to address the uncertainty inherent with the projection of natural systems and our interaction with them over long time frames.

2 http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/BEM.html

3 Is the health of British Columbia’s forest being influenced by climate change? If so, was this predictable? By Alex Woods, 2011

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/07060661/v33i0002/117_ithobcciswtp.xml 4 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/future_forests/council/

http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/BEM.html

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/07060661/v33i0002/117_ithobcciswtp.xml

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/future_forests/council/


Much of the information used in AAC determinations comes from forest estate modeling completed as part the province’s Timber Supply Review (TSR) process. Models are built to represent the land base of interest, its forests, rates of growth and disturbance, and assumptions around current management practices. These models allow assessment of potentially sustainable rates of harvest over long periods of time (200-300 yrs) subject to alternative harvest rates in the short and midterm. However, the act of setting of the AAC is not a mathematical calculation. It is a determination made by the Chief Forester after considering the model forecasts relative to a wide range of factors and uncertainties that often cannot be adequately addressed in analytical models (e.g. social implications of different AAC’s).

While the Chief Forester has applied significant effort toward the issue of climate change, to date climate change considerations have not formally been a part of the AAC determination process; and as of early 2013, the subject has not yet been discussed in any AAC rationale documents. As information on how climate change is expected to influence forests has improved in recent years, it now appears possible – and important – to include such information in the process. This document is designed to provide recommendations for incorporating climate change considerations into the Timber Supply Review and AAC determination processes.

TSR Linkages with Changing Climate Under Section 8 of the Forest Act (provided below), the Chief Forester must determine an allowable annual cut (AAC) for the Crown land in each of the province’s timber supply areas and tree farm license areas at least once every 10 years. The Forest Act is clear (8)(a)(vi)5 that the Chief Forester must consider all issues relating to the capability of lands to produce timber.

(8) In determining an allowable annual cut under subsection (1) the Chief Forester, despite

anything to the contrary in an agreement listed in section 12, must consider

(a) the rate of timber production that may be sustained on the area, taking into account

(i) the composition of the forest and its expected rate of growth on the area,

(ii) the expected time that it will take the forest to become re-established on the area

following denudation,

(iii) silviculture treatments to be applied to the area,

(iv) the standard of timber utilization and the allowance for decay, waste and

breakage expected to be applied with respect to timber harvesting on the area,

5 [RSBC 1996] Chapter 157, Part 2, Section 8 (Allowable annual cut):

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/--%20F%20--/Forest%20Act%20RSBC%201996%20c.%20157/00_Act/96157_02.xml




(v) the constraints on the amount of timber produced from the area that reasonably

can be expected by use of the area for purposes other than timber production, and

(vi) any other information that, in the Chief Forester's opinion, relates to the capability

of the area to produce timber,

As a changing climate is anticipated to influence many of the above points, it is clearly a relevant consideration in determining AAC’s.

Suggested Structure for Incorporating Climate Change into TSR

1. Introduction into the Rationale

It is recommended that AAC rationale documents begin to include a section on climate change considerations. This section would outline the information considered and how it influenced the determination (e.g., anticipated risks, benefits, etc.). Initially, this section may be a narrative about projected climate trends for major zones in the management unit and a high level discussion on how forests are expected to be influenced over time (e.g., short – 2020 midpoint, mid – 2050 midpoint, and long term – 2080 midpoint). For example, it may include a simple table such as the following (generalized from the Kamloops K2 project)6:

Table 1 – Example narratives of plausible changes over time – a non exhaustive list.

Consideration 2020’s 2050’s 2080’s +

Forest Growth and Regeneration

Little change expected beyond minor increases in regeneration failures in dry IDF/MS, but this is offset by expected increases in productivity at higher elevations due to longer growing seasons.

Longer growing seasons expected to improve growth rates in the wetter/cooler ecosystems. Dry IDF and MS sites are expected to be under significant stress and more prone to natural disturbance agents (particularly Pl stands).

Disturbance Rates

(losses from natural causes)

Potential for increased losses of existing growing stock from slightly elevated levels of wildfire and pest outbreaks.

Landscape level losses from wildfire, pests and disease are anticipated to increase significantly (+25%) and require focused salvage efforts / increased non recoverable losses.

Non Timber Values

No specific concerns identified.

Increased disturbance levels may put some watersheds at risk of elevated peak flows and/or reduced habitat availability.

6 www.k2kamloopstsa.com


As information is improved over time, and ideally integrated to some degree into forest estate modeling, more detail can be added into this section of the rationale (examples of the kind of information that can be generated and its use in offering management guidance or direction can be found in Appendices 1 and 2). At this time the decision to incorporate climate change into forest estate modeling will be something to determine on a case-by-case basis. Presently it is technically possible to incorporate climate shifts, alternative growth rates, and disturbance rates into models; however the levels of uncertainty and variability in projections make it such that expert opinion and qualitative information from previously completed climate change specific modeling exercises may provide sufficient direction for near term determinations. This is an area for added discussion, use of scenarios and additional research. Integrating climate change into a base case scenario is not yet prudent, but consideration of a sensitivity analysis using scenarios may be possible where enough information and resources exist.7

Guidance on management practices aimed at mitigating negative impacts would be put forward in this section of the rationale and then repeated in the implementation section of the document. This type of discussion in AAC rationales could be an important way of promoting continued consideration and implementation of adaptive management actions.

If there is sufficient evidence for the Chief Forester to recommend altering the AAC as a result of climate change, the rationale would be provided here. See the Implications on Timber Supply and AAC’s subsection of the Interpretation and Use section below for more discussion on this idea.

Since AAC determinations are revisited on an ongoing basis, and climate change effects will progress over time, there is an opportunity to implement a basic framework for considering climate change now, which can be refined as better information becomes available. This will help to ensure harvest levels and management direction remain in step with the expected outcomes from climate change.

2. Climate Change - Information Needs and Generation

In order to inform the Chief Forester and Ministry staff on the technical aspects of climate change and its impacts on BC’s forests, it will be necessary to gather and summarize key information from a number of sources. It is recommended that the ministry establish a structured approach (See figure 1) to provide direction on climate change impacts within broad geographic regions or ecological zones which can then be drawn upon as source information in the TSR process (and other management programs). One way in which this information can be used is to identify critical thresholds under different climate futures and associated risks (for example pest

7 For an example of output provided by the LPJ-Guess model for the Skeena FFESC project see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR-VYtSgAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR-VYtSgAU


outbreaks). This should be considered as a key responsibility of FLNRO with dedicated staff tasked with providing input on the following:8

Figure 1 – Suggested structured approach for incorporating climate change into Forest Management in BC

1. Expected changes in climate based on IPCC scenarios and downscaled GCM model outputs.

2. Expected regeneration success for key species in broad geographic regions or BEC zones. The use of models which predict regeneration success such as TACA (Nitschke and Innes. 2008) could be used to help understand potential critical thresholds and the risks/benefits associated with alternative regeneration strategies moving forward. It could also help to understand if THLB will ultimately become non-productive in dry ecosystems such as portions of the IDF. Climate Envelope models could also provide similar guidance–e.g. Wang et al 2012, along with Rehfeldt et al 2010, Iverson and Prasad 1998 which are adaptable for BC.

8 Note that to achieve this, it is key to identify what staff positions are necessary and to provide them with

adequate training and resources.


3. Expected changes in growth rates for key species within the present Biogeoclimatic units with updated climate envelopes or data. The use of growth models that explicitly include climate variables (e.g. FORECAST Climate - see Seely et al. 2011, Climate-FVS – Crookston et al. 2010, LPJ-Guess – Smith et al. 2002) could be used to provide percentage changes by time period that could ultimately be used in forest estate modeling to conduct sensitivity analyses. Greater understanding of the use of different provenances is also key to understanding future growth potential within a changing climate (e.g., Leites et al. 2012).

4. Expected increase in natural disturbance levels (e.g., fire, pests, disease) in broad geographic regions or BEC zones using expert opinion and/or models (e.g. P3 fire model) to identify present probabilities incorporated with climate data to project future risk. Work to date suggests this is the hardest issue to anticipate - but it is also expected to be the issue with the largest influence on future timber supply from BC’s forests. At a minimum, a refined effort to estimate forest losses from natural disturbance should be put in place. The prediction of natural losses from our forests is key to determining sustainable rates of harvest.9 This may lead to putting additional resources into improved stand and fuel inventory; increased investment in models that can predict fire consequences;10 and even without modeling using scenarios or threshold-based approaches to assess the risks associated to achieving management outcomes under high levels of disturbance.

5. Expected impacts and associated risks to key timber and non timber values, for example: habitat, aesthetics, social values, fire security for communities and other ecosystem services such as provision of clean water should each have a narrative with expected impacts. Values that are currently at risk and expected to be impacted by the changes characterized above would be prioritized for risk and addressed accordingly with recommended actions.

Within this structured approach, it is necessary to start with predicted climate changes (GCM’s and emissions scenarios). Presently FLNRO is working with the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) to develop Regional Summaries that will provide a starting point for discussion and further guidance.

The structured approach should also consider timeframes for the issues discussed above, as relevant timeframes may vary with what is being assessed or analyzed. Short-term harvest forecasts are heavily influenced by the volume of existing growing stock that must be metered out over the next 10-40 years, so short-term projections (e.g., 2020 projections) may be the most useful to identify additional risks that should be considered in the determination. Another example would be increased fire risk based on the 2020 climate projection.

9 See also Appendix 3 – Additional thoughts regarding time frames and uncertainty.

10 Prognosis

BC 10 is being linked to the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS)

10.


Regeneration success may also require a short-term assessment for feasibility, but be linked to longer-term growth and yield projections for silvicultural appropriateness. Longer-term projections (e.g., 2050) and associated uncertainty will weigh more heavily in projecting managed stand growth and yield.

As the various considerations mentioned above have provincial and regional specialists, it is recommended that they be involved in any projections regarding their area of expertise (e.g., growth and yield, fire risk, forest health risk, etc) and the identification of where critical boundaries/thresholds might exist. One approach could be an internal one where FLNRO forms a climate change assessment team with technical experts that could periodically review and update predictions of forest changes /risks associated with current projections of climate change at appropriate scales; e.g. a risk review board that would also include those with experience-based knowledge (practitioners). An alternative would be to constitute a process by which other experts and practitioners could be brought in periodically to work with FNLRO staff.

3. Incorporating Climate Change into Forest Estate Modeling.

As mentioned previously, FLNRO must assess its capacity and adjust accordingly to address the impacts of climate change into its management process.

Initially climate change guidance may simply be a narrative (as per Table 1 above) based on existing information sources (e.g. regional summaries, local vulnerability reports). However, if climate change is to be incorporated into timber supply models, in an effort to provide more explicit / quantitative predictions, the following discussion provides suggestions on approaches. It should be noted that the current TSR framework is limited to forecasting the outcomes associated with ‘status quo’ management and would provide little toward developing climate change strategies for management units.

Factors considered by the Chief Forester are presented below along with the ‘levers’ that are presently used in the Timber Supply Review Process. A short discussion on plausible impacts is presented. Additionally, examples of the level of detail presently available on the subject are provided as Figures within Appendix 1.

3.1 Growth Rates / Productivity

Change in regeneration success

o Where ecosystems are becoming more problematic to regenerate post harvest (e.g. dry IDF), it may be necessary to lengthen regeneration delays or increase operational adjustment factor (OAF) values to account for the increased plantation failures and/or fill planting.

o Process based models can provide direct information on drought stress by species (e.g., TACA or ForWaDy/FORECAST). However there is no direct quantitative linkage between drought levels and mortality, thus this must be added through expert opinion.


o Where regeneration success becomes extremely problematic, it may be appropriate to remove some stand types/ecosystems from the THLB altogether – although adaptive practices are likely available to avoid this. Where shifts toward grassland ecosystems are indicated by projected climate change, it is prudent to identify actions to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services. This could include identifying and managing refugia to maintain species within areas where considerable change is identified. See Appendix 2 for additional commentary from Sub-regional Vulnerability assessments

Change in growth rates for existing and future stands.

o Different ecosystems are expected to react differently to climate change, with some declining in productivity and others improving. Those that decline typically are moisture limited and increased temperature causes increased drought stress, while those that improve have sufficient moisture and are taking advantage of longer growth seasons, faster rates of soil decomposition, etc.

o Information on this can come from various sources and past studies.

Climate envelope modeling – where species suitability and possible site index shifts can be predicted based on modeled future BEC units (e.g., Wang et al 2012). This approach requires expert opinion and was used recently to update the Chief Foresters Species Selection Guidelines.

Process based growth models (e.g. FORECAST Climate) - for example the Kamloops Future Forest Strategy (K2) - utilized process based modeling with explicit climate parameters as inputs. See Figure 1 (Appendix 1) for example output. This method appears to provide the most consistent/credible estimates of relative productivity shifts at the current time.11

Ongoing work to integrate climate change considerations into TASS/TISPY - which is focused on adjusting height growth (site index) based on existing relationships for geographic shifts of orchard seed (see also Climate-FVS).

o Once growth rate changes (%’s) are available for G&Y strata by time period, analysis units (AU’s) – that is, forest type groups – can be designed to implement the shifts in productivity. This is a complex exercise that requires stratifying the landbase with age cohorts as well as

11 See “An assessment of alternative methods for evaluating the potential impact of climate change on forest

growth rates in BC” by Brad Seely, Cam Brown, and Craig Nitschke 2013. Draft document available from the authors.


traditional AU criteria of leading species and Site Index. It is important to recognize the changing influence of climate over time (less short term, more long term) and that timber productivity in younger vigorously growing stands is impacted differently than in older less active stands.

o It may also be necessary to adjust OAF values to reflect increased plantation losses from drought, pests, disease (discussed below).

3.2 Disturbance

Increase in mortality due to fire, drought, pests, disease:

o Will impact growing stock on the THLB over time (increased salvage logging and an increase in Non Recoverable Losses) and the age class composition of the NTHLB (higher levels of natural disturbance).

o This is an area of considerable importance and significant uncertainty. Presently there is output from each of the regional vulnerability assessments on expected increases in extent and frequency of fire (see Figures 2 & 3 – Appendix 1). The Wildfire Management Branch is also creating maps with present return probabilities using Burn P3 (Parisien et al. 2003) that they are planning on modifying based on climate change projections. It is recommended that Wildfire Management Branch staff be involved in providing the most up to date fire return interval estimates incorporating climate change to staff tasked with predicting changes in landscape level disturbance rates for TSR.

o Whether this level of detail will be sufficient to modify present harvesting levels is up for discussion. However, it may show a high enough risk of losing growing stock that alternative management action is promoted or required to mitigate the risk. This goes beyond what is presently found in TSR and would likely require modifications to create a planning process (that potentially would be partnered with TSR) to require harvesting to mitigate the risk.

o Insect/disease/biotic damage changes may be very difficult to project due to the inherent difficulties with predicting these factors and the lack of data on climate influences. See West Kootenay example (Figure 4 – Appendix 1).

o Other approaches for assessing long-term productivity and survival can be used where available. For example, it is possible to incorporate approaches that recognize the increasing likelihood of loss as stands age. The longer you hold a stand on the landbase, the greater the likelihood is that some event will result in a partial or full loss. This is one of several ways of looking at NRLs.


o Projected impacts may lead to potential management actions to reduce risk (e.g., reduce reliance on lodgepole pine in some ecosystems, targeted harvesting of at-risk or stressed stands).

3.3 Impacts on other values

Changes in values that determine management direction.

o As climate changes, various ecological services may become at higher risk, elevating their importance in managing the forest. Presently Species at Risk or Cumulative Effects Assessments are not specifically part of the TSR process unless they are addressed by specific regulated set asides such as those provided in higher level plans or GAR orders. Assessment of ecological services at higher risk is not being done. An example is in areas with high human population levels and low precipitation, where forest management to affect water flow and storage may trump direction on maximizing yield. This type of directional change is something that TSR may need to recognize and address under a broader mandate that includes developing future management guidance. The current paradigm of extrapolating ‘current practice’ long into the future is likely to prove less useful in a changing climate: instead a process to explore ‘what if’ questions will be required. This could be accomplished in a separate process but would ideally be rolled into an expanded TSR like process that links harvest levels with management direction through objectives, indicators and targets (see Appendix 3 for additional discussion on the topic).

3.4 Operational Implications

o The recent (March 2013) ABCFP survey of its members on climate change related issues in forest management identified a perception that climate change related events were resulting in business interruptions more frequently (e.g., road closures, reduced operating seasons, fires/floods, etc).

o The THLB may be modified by changes in winter freeze-thaw conditions, limiting harvesting to specific periods that may limit access and the area available for management. Trend information should be collected to detect if this is presently occurring.

o As described by Kimmins et al (2005). “The period of frozen soil is a key factor in timber harvesting in many northern forests because logging on unfrozen soil creates too much soil damage or is simply not possible. Winter logging using ice bridges may be the only way to access flat to gently rolling forest landscapes that have many small streams or areas of saturated soils. In contrast, excessive snow depth and duration and extreme cold may limit winter logging in some areas.


Interpretation and Use When presented with information on climate change and its impacts on BC’s forests, the Chief Forester can evaluate the risks and uncertainty and then choose to provide management guidance (adaptive practices and/or monitoring programs) and/or recognize changes in future timber supply. AAC implications would arise if there were factors that impacted short term harvest availability.

Management Guidance12

Within the TSR process, sensitivity analyses may be able to book-end the potential consequences of climate change scenarios. Where implications are considered significant, the sensitivity analysis output would be highlighted in the rationale, and potentially worthwhile management responses discussed. An example may be that a certain species would be considered outside of the climate envelope by 2050. Sensitivities could explore early harvest or reduced volume as stands deteriorate due to stress. New regeneration modeling of alternative species and appropriate provenance that are better adapted to the projected future conditions would be an option to explore.

While there is uncertainty regarding the future it is prudent to point out that some future climate scenario model outcomes depart so far from the present that developing concrete action plans to address them in the short term is either impractical or impossible due to ecological feasibility constraints. For example, future climates may suggest planting tree species that would not survive under current conditions – e.g., Fd in much of the ESSF.

Implications on Timber Supply and AAC’s

Where forecasts showing different timber supply outcomes associated with climate change are produced, they should be considered relative to their level of uncertainty and the magnitude of risk associated with not acting.

Impacts to growing stock from increased stress and natural disturbance appear to be the largest risk factors to future timber supply. The risk of losses will almost certainly increase, but the amount and timing of increases is highly uncertain.

There are three possible responses to this increase in risk when determining AAC levels:

i. Increase AAC’s to capture ‘at-risk stands’ before they are lost (or salvage impacted stands).

ii. Decrease AAC’s in anticipation of higher NRL’s in the future and a need to retain more mature stands on the THLB when the NHLB is less able to provide these stand types to meet objectives for biodiversity, habitat, etc.

12

See Appendix 3 for additional thoughts regarding Timber Supply and climate change.


iii. Maintain AAC’s as they would be without consideration of climate change because:

1. Anticipated risks are not expected to influence short-term harvest availability (longer term impacts or impacts offset by increased productivity in the management unit)

2. The need to address at-risk stands is balanced by the need to anticipate higher NRL’s – leaving timber supply unchanged relative to when climate change is not explicitly factored in.

3. Uncertainty is significant and further research/monitoring is required. This response is the simplest option, but is the least likely to inspire confidence in the government’s management of BC’s forests unless clear directions on research projects and timelines are included. The current process consistently requires assumptions to be made in the face of uncertainty (i.e., scale of NRL’s over next 100+ yrs). Climate change simply adds another element of uncertainty. Failure to be explicit about how we expect climate change to impact our forests substantially reduces the likelihood of developing a management response. An adaptive management13 approach with hypotheses and active monitoring / feedback loops will increase the likelihood of learning and making good management choices. It is recommended that this be part of any further pilot or exploration of this topic.

Management response to the anticipated risks is unlikely to be purely a technical decision and thus fits well into the determination process. As confidence in predicting climate change impacts on forests increases, the level of influence on the AAC decision-making process will evolve.

Summary and Conclusions The following key points are offered:

1. There is currently enough information available to begin to inform TSR. A group of technical experts, with a regional focus, should be tasked with developing and maintaining a structured approach to the key issues of forest growth, regeneration, and disturbance including an Adaptive Management approach to resolve questions as they emerge. Staffing and capacity issues will need to be assessed within this process.

2. Prudent risk management requires us to use existing information to explore future outcomes and prudent management responses including the

13

Note that adaptive management is not synonymous with adaptation to climate change impacts. Adaptive management involves an explicit experimental approach to management whereby information is collected in a systematic manner, allowing for robust, scientifically defensible conclusions.


identification of where critical thresholds might exist that would compromise the ability to achieve forest management goals.

3. In the short term, a narrative discussion of climate change considerations should be included in the AAC Rationale document to clarify current thinking on trends and implications on timber and non-timber values. Where and when more quantitative information is available, incorporation into forest estate modeling could occur to provide additional detail on potential outcomes.

4. Consider expanding the mandate of TSR to be broader than simply setting AAC’s, by establishing a separate forest management planning process designed to look forward and identify changes to management practices that may be necessary to achieve a desired future forest condition. This is the desired approach to promote action moving forward.

Next Steps: 1) Pilot the inclusion of climate change discussion text in an AAC determination report

incorporating ideas from this report; (Note this is already a requirement in the USFS planning process, q.v.14.)

2) Assign responsibility to ministry staff to provide technical guidance to the TSR process on forest growth rates, regeneration success, and natural disturbance/losses associated with climate change. Identify technical experts to participate in ad hoc technical/risk review boards. Note that these steps will require an assessment of capacity and would likely require more staff or additional use of consultants.

3) Systematically identify and highlight information that will be important (e.g. assumptions about rates of disturbance) and review of those assumptions (this could be combined with 1 or done as stand-alone);

4) Redesign the TSR process to explicitly integrate climate change information and expertise in TSR assessments.

These are ordered by increasing amount of effort and resources required, where (4) could have regulatory and policy implications depending on the level of change.

14

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/


References

Crookston N. L., G. E. Rehfeldt, G. E. Dixon and A. R. Weiskittel. 2010. Addressing climate change in the forest vegetation simulator to assess impacts on landscape forest dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 260, Issue 7, pp 1198-1211.

Iverson, L.R. and A.M. Prasad. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol. Monogr. 68:465-485.

Kimmins, J. P., Seely, B., Welham, C. and A. Zhong. 2005., Possible Forest Futures: Balancing biological risks in Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemics. Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2005-11. Canadian Forest Service Pacific Centre, Victoria, BC. 59 p.

Leites, L.P., G.E. Rehfeldt, A.P. Robinson, N.L. Crookston, B. Jaquish. 2012. Possibilities and limitations using historic provenance tests to infer forest growth responses to climate change. Natural Resource Modeling 25(3): 409-433. http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41324

Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW, Lettenmaier DP, Stouffer RJ (2008) Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573–574

Nitschke, C.R., and J.L. Innes. 2008. A Tree and Climate Assessment Tool for Modelling Ecosystem Response to Climate Change. Ecological Modelling 210 (3): 263–277

Parisien, M.A., V.G. Kafka, K.G. Hirsch, J.B. Todd, S.G. Lavoie, and P.D. Maczek. 2005. Mapping Wildfire Susceptibility with the Burn-P3 Simulation Model. Information Report NOR-X-405, CFS, Northern Forestry Center.

Perez, D. 2012. Reforestation and climate change in British Columbia an institutional assessment. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. UBC Faculty of Graduate Studies Vancouver, B.C.

Polasky, S., S. Carpenter, C. Folke, C, and B. Keeler. 2011. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution August (26) 8: 398-404.

Rehfeldt, G.E., Crookston, N.L., Warwell, M.V and J.S. Evans. 2006. Empirical analyses of plant-climate relationships for the western United States. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167:1123-1150. (http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/whatis/climate-fvs.shtml)

Seely, B., C. Welham, J.A. Blanco. (2011). Representation of climate change impacts on forest growth in FORECAST. Final Technical Report #G117109. British Columbia Forest Sciences Program. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2011/FSP_G117109.pdf

Smith. B., I.C. Prentice, M.T. Sykes. 2002. Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modeling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Article first published online: 19 APR 2002 http://www.nateko.lu.se/lpj-guess/lpj_guess_main.html

US EPA (Region 9) and California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. November. Available at http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/CCHandbook.cfm

http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41324

http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/whatis/climate-fvs.shtml

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2011/FSP_G117109.pdf

http://www.nateko.lu.se/lpj-guess/lpj_guess_main.html


Wang, T., Campbell, E.M., O'Neill, G.A., Aitken, S.N., 2012. Projecting future distributions of ecosystem climate niches: uncertainties and management applications. Forest Ecology and Management, 279:128–140

Woods, A., 2011. Is the health of British Columbia's forests being influenced by climate change? If so, was this predictable? Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 33 (2), pg. 117-126.


Appendix 1. Decision-making and Information Generation under Uncertainty

Polasky et al (29011) offer a systematic overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to decision-making under uncertainty. They fall into four main categories (although different approaches can be combined): 1) using decision theory in a structured approach to evaluate risk and benefits and the selection of options; 2) a threshold approach which identifies critical thresholds at which point boundaries are crossed and systems change; 3) scenario planning utilizing the creation of alternative futures (based on data and other sources of information) to explore possible future states; and 4) resilience thinking that looks at critical thresholds and the capacity of systems to adapt and transform themselves (including both biological and socio-economic systems).

The TSR process aligns naturally with the structured decision-making theory approach. However it requires not only that the link between actions and outcomes be established in different states but also the identification of probabilities for each state. This then allows the comparison of outcomes across different states and the selection of the one that best meets the decision-makers objectives. However the threshold-based approach can also inform the identification of unacceptable outcomes and hence risks that can influence the AAC determination.

In terms of generating information under uncertainty there are two ways these can be done-through either a qualitative or quantitative approach (although these can also be combined). Quantitative approaches involve the quantitative representation between climate and the variables of interest-this can be done through process-based models or regression-based models. Qualitative-based approaches can involve surveying local experts or the development of conceptual models to think through the impacts of climate change or even “back of the envelope’ calculations. Figure 1 below shows the relationship between different climate change projection methods and the analysis of impacts. Generally there is a tradeoff-more quantitative approaches require more information and more resources. Further discussion on the different approaches can be found in the Climate Change Handbook on Regional Water Planning (US EPA 9 and California DWR 2011).


Figure 1. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Climate Change Analysis. From US EPA and California DWR 2011.

These different approaches have been used in BC. The Kamloops Future Forest Project (K2) used both a quantitative climate change projection with a quantitative analysis to look at the broad impact across timber flows and forest conditions. The climate envelope approach utilizes a quantitative climate change projection with a qualitative analysis; and similar approaches were used in other FFESC projects to highlight possible future outcomes (see, for example, West Kootenay project that looked at changes in area burned).

Below we provide examples of these different approaches form BC. Appendix 2 then shows the type of management guidance and discussion based on the information that was generated.

Section 5 Measuring Regional Impacts

5-6 Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning

Planners are

encouraged to use

analysis methods that

are consistent with the

region’s p

r

ioritization of

climate change

vulnerabilities (see

Section 4), and the

quality of data and GCM

projections available.

Figure 5-3 shows

various analysis

methods (vertical axis)

and climate projection

applications (horizontal

axis) and how

quantitative they can be.

Each of the sector analysis

methods and climate

change projection methods

shown in the figure are

discussed in this section. The sections below are broken up into Quantitative Approach Tools

(Section 5.2.2) and Qualitative Approach Tools (Section 5.2.3). This distinction is made between

approaches that rely on very specific data or projections, like time series of future daily

temperatures, and approaches that rely on more general data or projections, like an assumption such

as “droughts will become 20 percent more common or more severe in the future.” Many of the tools

described below can be combined in various ways to generate hybrid approaches as well. Hybrid

approaches are descibed in Section 5.2.4.

For some water resources concerns, such as flooding and other extreme events, GCM projections are

not accurate enough to yield high-accuracy analysis results. In these cases, it may be more effective

to use qualitative methods. The Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA) produced a whitepaper in

which they identified the relative appropriateness for applying climate model results to various

management decisions. The table is repeated here for reference as Table 5-1.

ThresholdAnalysis

Shift Historical

Record with Continuation of Observed

Trends

Relative Change Analysis

Shift Historical

Record with GCM-

derived Changes

Direct Use of GCM

data

Survey Local Experts

Develop Process or Statistical Model of System

Develop Conceptual

Model of SystemSe

cto

r A

nal

ysis

Met

ho

d

Climate Change Projection Method

Quantitative Analysis

Qualitative Climate Change Projection

Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative Climate Change Projection

Qualitative Analysis

Quantitative Climate Change Projection

Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative Climate Change Projection

less

q

uan

tita

tive

mo

req

uan

tita

tive

morequantitative

lessquantitative

SensitivityAnalysis

Figure 5-3: Quantitative versus Qualitative Climate Change Analysis.


Figure 2 Example K2 process-based modeling output indicating growth changes from present

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Nelsonfinalreport.pdf

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/Nelsonfinalreport.pdf


Figure 3 Projected impacts from fire with Climate Change – Kamloops example


Figure 4 – Modeled future fire trends from the West Kootenay project

Note that all projections show a greater area burned than the recent past. The future levels are near or above historical levels. This example indicates the importance of generating new information. Currently this is treated as a technical detail through the use of NRL’s. First this shows that the present approach of using historical averages in defining NRL in the NTHLB may not be sufficient. Second, it raises the broader question of how this might create other risks on the landscape (Wildland Urban interface) and the impact of higher rates of fire on meeting other forest management objectives.


Note the projected increases vary by location. This is important when modeling and projecting impacts within TSR. Subunits will need to be identified to allow meaningful interpretation.

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report4_Fire_Final.pdf

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report4_Fire_Final.pdf


Figure 5 Generalities and limitations regarding insects and disease (West Kootenay Example)

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report6_ForestHealth_Final.pdf

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report6_ForestHealth_Final.pdf


Appendix 2 –Examples of Related Guidance and Discussion

Beyond the description of possible impacts, a number of FFESC studies also offered management guidance. Below are two examples of the direction and level of detail provided, the first from the Nadina Multi-Scale Trans-Disciplinary Vulnerability Assessment and the second from the Kamloops Future Forest Project (K2): (http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/ManagementStrategies-ClimateChangeNadina-Nov15.pdf)

http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/ManagementStrategies-ClimateChangeNadina-Nov15.pdf

http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/ManagementStrategies-ClimateChangeNadina-Nov15.pdf


Example detail for output on timber production

From K1 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/ffs/KFFS_Appendix4_June8.pdf

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/ffs/KFFS_Appendix4_June8.pdf


West Kootenay Climate Vulnerability and Resilience project example output

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report1_Summary_Final.pdf

http://www.kootenayresilience.org/Report1_Summary_Final.pdf


Appendix 3. Additional Issues to be Considered in Acting on CC guidance

Climate change challenges the notion of stationarity - the idea that underlying ecological processes are stable- that has underlain long-term planning for environmental resources such as water (Milly 2008). The same is true for TSR as we now know it, where projections are typically made out to 250 years assuming no change in the underlying ecological processes and natural disturbances. Even with the climate uncertainty, average temperature increases in the order of 4 to 6 degrees C are now being suggested by the IPCC (Kurz pers. com. 2013), where we have no understanding how these ecosystems will respond. We also do not know how we may adapt our forest management objectives in the future: objectives for timber supply management may be modified from the concept of maximizing yield through sustained yield practices to promote carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services (e.g., maintenance of hydrological processes, reduction of fire hazard in high risk areas). This change in objectives could result in harvests recommended beyond or below present harvest levels, promoting harvesting of at-risk stands, and reforesting them with species mixes where the emphasis may not be on productivity but on resiliency. Thus incorporating climate change into TSR is not simply a technical add-on as another factor to be considered in the harvest determination; instead there are likely to be more fundamental shifts in our perception of management values and how to achieve them that may also lead to more fundamental changes in the TSR process itself.

Climate change and TSR: a Wicked Problem

The following description of Forestry issues being considered ‘wicked problems’ is relevant to the incorporation of Climate Change into a Timber Supply Review process. There is no one right answer and there is no way to determine after the fact if you were completely successful. Thus there is a need for adding in prediction and assessment of risk based on values as described below.

“Forestry, one of the most interdisciplinary of human endeavors, is characterized by complexity. As a consequence, issues in forestry tend to belong to the category known as “wicked problems”. Amongst other things, these have no single correct “answer” or solution; have no “stopping rule” (it is often difficult to tell when the issue has been resolved); and they tend to be unique, so that experience is an incomplete basis for the design of acceptable solutions.

Selection from amongst a range of policy options to deal with a complex issue requires a foundation in both social and biophysical sciences and experience. However, science has frequently failed to satisfy society’s expectations concerning its ability to help solve complex problems. Much of contemporary science is disciplinary in nature and is limited to the first two of the three main components of science – knowing and understanding. The third component, prediction (which is indispensable for the development of decision-support systems that are essential for the design of effective policy and practice in resource management) has received much less attention. While decision-support


systems and their underlying modeling frameworks cannot be developed in the absence of knowing and understanding, these first two components of science generally do not provide an adequate basis for selecting effective policy solutions and management strategies for problem issues. They are necessary but not sufficient. There must be synthesis at the level complexity and the temporal and spatial scales of the issue in question if policy is to serve the multiple interests and values involved.”

“Adaptation to risk involves the ability to predict the future occurrence of risk in sufficient time to make the necessary social, economic and technical adjustments. Where risk is closely related to stand structure and species composition and to landscape patterns of stand variation, acceptably accurate predictions should be possible using pest population dynamics and risk models at stand and landscape scales. Where risk is largely related to climate change, the ability to predict risk will be much lower, with negative consequences for adaptation planning. However, as climate change modeling becomes more sophisticated, predicting the climatic component of MPB risk may become more reliable.”

Kimmins et al 200515

There are other factors that will influence the feasibility and acceptance of proposed adaptive actions. This means that despite recommendations by the Chief Forester, uptake may be limited. One example of this are the higher costs associated with planting certain species such as Douglas-fir relative to lodgepole pine, as illustrated below. Absent recognition under the stumpage system, individual licensees would be unlikely to implement a wide-scale change voluntarily.

15 Possible Forest Futures: Balancing Biological and Social Risks in Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemics (2005) J. P. (Hamish) Kimmins, Brad Seely, Clive Welham and A. Zhong, Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry University of B.C. Vancouver – Publication available from Brad Seely on request.


http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/ffs/KFFS_Appendix4_June8.pdf

In other research, Perez (2012) identified different perspectives on who should bear the risk (in addition to the cost) of alternative regeneration strategies (outside of those normally employed) and identified the liability around meeting free-to-grow obligations as a critical factor influencing replanting strategies.

integrating climate change considerations into aac...

Documents