Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
A Geospatial Approach for Managing Public Lands in the Face of Climate Change ESRI Federal User Conference 2012 Bo Wilmer
Climate Change and National Forest Management National Forests must address Climate Change under new planning rule – but HOW? • Geospatial analysis can inform much, but not everything. • Landscape managers must recognize uncertainty and adopt an experimental design. • This experimental design can be informed by geospatial analysis. A worked example from the Sierra Nevada. © 2011 Critigen
2
Documenting Climate Change? No problem.
© 2011 Critigen
3
Geospatial Analysis can inform MUCH… Mapping Polar Ice
Modeling Sea Level Rise
Modeling Snow pack Drought / Flooding Increased Fire
Modeling Changes in habitat © 2011 Critigen
4
Geospatial Analysis can inform MUCH… But not ALL. • What we know: • How to document, monitor and map trends. • How to map impacts and visualize scenarios.
• What we don’t know: • How to render forecasts at management scales. • The effects of human management. • What we don’t know.
© 2011 Critigen
5
What we don’t know: How to render forecasts at management scales.
2007 IPCC Report
© 2011 Critigen
6
The Downscaling Challenge
?
© 2011 Critigen
7
What we don’t know: Global effects at local scales • Real landscapes are influenced by natural and human disturbance. • This is where management decisions are made.
© 2011 Critigen
8
So even if the landscape does look this way… How should we manage it?
© 2011 Critigen
9
For example: The Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
© 2011 Critigen
10
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
© 2011 Critigen
11
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
This is an example: • Not intended to represent comprehensive assessment In this instance, we are balancing objectives between community wildfire protection and fisher habitat assuming there will be more fire across the landscape.
Stanislaus National Forest
Yosemite National Park
National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands
Sierra National Forest
BLM
© 2011 Critigen
12
The Sierra Nevada Landscape Objective 1: The Wildland-Urban Interface: Design Resilient Communities
© 2011 Critigen
13
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
Objective 2: Protect/Restore Pacific Fisher Habitat *
* Conservation Biology Institute (2010)
© 2011 Critigen
14
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
800,000
Breakdown of Frequent Fire Forest Types by Distance from Community
700,000
600,000
500,000 Very High High
400,000
Moderate Low
300,000
Very low 200,000
100,000
128,545
219,735
307,948
691,241
Within 1/2 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Within 1.5 Miles
Within 5 Miles
© 2011 Critigen
15
The Sierra Nevada Landscape Objective 1: The Wildland-Urban Interface: Design Resilient Communities
Objective 2: Protect/Restore Pacific Fisher Habitat *
* Conservation Biology Institute (2010)
© 2011 Critigen
16
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
© 2011 Critigen
17
What we don’t know: What works
We need to address uncertainty and adopt an experimental design to learn what works.
© 2011 Critigen
18
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
19
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
20
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
21
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Resist Change
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
22
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests Guide Change Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Resist Change
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
23
Designing a solution for land management • Don’t avoid downscaling, BUT recognize limitations. • Rely on intuitive assumptions about data that are mappable. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Increased fire requires efficient, spatial, fire planning. More rain-on-snow events mean increased flooding, and the need for floodplain mapping and preparedness. Habitat pressure upslope and northerly The need for Connectivity. What is currently vulnerable, will be.
• Address uncertainty explicitly – apply a diversity of approaches © 2011 Critigen
24
© 2011 Critigen
25
© 2011 Critigen
26
Please get in touch! [email protected] 208-867-9011
Climate Change and National Forest Management National Forests must address Climate Change under new planning rule – but HOW? • Geospatial analysis can inform much, but not everything. • Landscape managers must recognize uncertainty and adopt an experimental design. • This experimental design can be informed by geospatial analysis. A worked example from the Sierra Nevada. © 2011 Critigen
2
Documenting Climate Change? No problem.
© 2011 Critigen
3
Geospatial Analysis can inform MUCH… Mapping Polar Ice
Modeling Sea Level Rise
Modeling Snow pack Drought / Flooding Increased Fire
Modeling Changes in habitat © 2011 Critigen
4
Geospatial Analysis can inform MUCH… But not ALL. • What we know: • How to document, monitor and map trends. • How to map impacts and visualize scenarios.
• What we don’t know: • How to render forecasts at management scales. • The effects of human management. • What we don’t know.
© 2011 Critigen
5
What we don’t know: How to render forecasts at management scales.
2007 IPCC Report
© 2011 Critigen
6
The Downscaling Challenge
?
© 2011 Critigen
7
What we don’t know: Global effects at local scales • Real landscapes are influenced by natural and human disturbance. • This is where management decisions are made.
© 2011 Critigen
8
So even if the landscape does look this way… How should we manage it?
© 2011 Critigen
9
For example: The Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
© 2011 Critigen
10
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
© 2011 Critigen
11
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
This is an example: • Not intended to represent comprehensive assessment In this instance, we are balancing objectives between community wildfire protection and fisher habitat assuming there will be more fire across the landscape.
Stanislaus National Forest
Yosemite National Park
National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands
Sierra National Forest
BLM
© 2011 Critigen
12
The Sierra Nevada Landscape Objective 1: The Wildland-Urban Interface: Design Resilient Communities
© 2011 Critigen
13
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
Objective 2: Protect/Restore Pacific Fisher Habitat *
* Conservation Biology Institute (2010)
© 2011 Critigen
14
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
800,000
Breakdown of Frequent Fire Forest Types by Distance from Community
700,000
600,000
500,000 Very High High
400,000
Moderate Low
300,000
Very low 200,000
100,000
128,545
219,735
307,948
691,241
Within 1/2 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Within 1.5 Miles
Within 5 Miles
© 2011 Critigen
15
The Sierra Nevada Landscape Objective 1: The Wildland-Urban Interface: Design Resilient Communities
Objective 2: Protect/Restore Pacific Fisher Habitat *
* Conservation Biology Institute (2010)
© 2011 Critigen
16
The Sierra Nevada Landscape
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
© 2011 Critigen
17
What we don’t know: What works
We need to address uncertainty and adopt an experimental design to learn what works.
© 2011 Critigen
18
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
19
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
20
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
21
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests
Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Resist Change
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
22
Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests Guide Change Fisher Habitat within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Resist Change
Do Nothing/ Control
Wilderness National Forest National Park Service Non-federal lands BLM
© 2011 Critigen
23
Designing a solution for land management • Don’t avoid downscaling, BUT recognize limitations. • Rely on intuitive assumptions about data that are mappable. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Increased fire requires efficient, spatial, fire planning. More rain-on-snow events mean increased flooding, and the need for floodplain mapping and preparedness. Habitat pressure upslope and northerly The need for Connectivity. What is currently vulnerable, will be.
• Address uncertainty explicitly – apply a diversity of approaches © 2011 Critigen
24
© 2011 Critigen
25
© 2011 Critigen
26
Please get in touch! [email protected] 208-867-9011
