ProjectedFutureClimaticandEcologicalConditionsinSanLuisObispoCounty

MarniE.Koopman,RichardS.Nauman,andJessicaL.Leonard

TheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicy

April,2010

2

Acollaborativeeffortby:

The MAPSS Team at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Acknowledgements:RayDrapekandRonNeilsonattheUSDAForestServicePacific

NorthwestResearchStationprovidedclimateprojectiondataaswellaslogistical

support.StacyVynneoftheClimateLeadershipInitiativeandCindyDeaconWilliamsof

NCCSPofferedassistancewithwording.Wealsoappreciatetheinsightsonclimate

projectionsprovidedbyPhilMotewiththeOregonClimateChangeResearchInstitute.

ThephotooftheYuccaflowerisfromDenisKearnswhiletheotherthreecoverpictures

weregenerouslysuppliedbyJimZimmerlin.

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Introduction 2

Modelsandtheirlimitations 2

Globalclimatechangeprojections 4

SanLuisObispoCountyclimateprojections 5

Temperature 7

Precipitation 14

Vegetationandwildfire 22

Sealevelrise 25

SupportingStudies 28

Conclusions 32

LiteratureCited 33

2

INTRODUCTION

SanLuisObispoCountyisrichinhistory,culture,andbiologicaldiversity.Thecountyextendsfromsemi‐desertintheeast,acrosstheSantaLuciaMountains,throughtherollinghillsandoakwoodlandsandfinallytotheruggedcoastlinealongthewesternborder.Changestothislandscapeduetoclimatechangearelikelytoaffectnaturalecosystemsaswellaslocalresidentsandtheirlivelihoods. ClimaticchangesarealreadyunderwayacrosstheCountyandarelikelytoincreaseinthecomingdecades.Changestothelocalclimatearelikelytoincludemorefrequentandintensestormsandfloods,extendeddrought,increasedwildfire,andmoreheatwaves.ThelocalcommunitiesintheCountywillneedtoplanforsuchchangesinordertopreventpotentiallycatastrophicconsequences.Thisreportprovidescommunity‐membersanddecision‐makersinSanLuisObispoCountywithlocalclimate

changeprojectionsthatarepresentedinawaythatcanhelpthemmakeeducatedlong‐termplanningdecisions.TheclimatechangemodeloutputsinthisreportwereobtainedfromtheUSDAForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStationandmappedbyscientistsattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicy. ClimateprojectionAmodel‐derivedestimateofthefutureclimate.ClimatepredictionorforecastAprojectionthatishighlycertainbasedonagreementamongmultiplemodels.ScenarioAcoherentandplausibledescriptionofapossiblefuturestate.Ascenariomaybedevelopedusingclimateprojectionsasthebasis,butadditionalinformation,includingbaselineconditionsanddecisionpathways,isneededtodevelopascenario.

MODELSANDTHEIRLIMITATIONS Climatechangepresentsuswithaseriouschallengeasweplanforthefuture.Ourcurrentplanningstrategiesatallscales(local,regional,andnational)relyonhistoricaldatatoanticipatefutureconditions.Duetoclimatechangeanditsassociatedimpacts,however,thefutureisnolongerexpectedtoresemblethepast.

Todeterminewhatconditionswemightexpectinthefuture,climatologistscreatedmodelsbasedonphysical,chemical,andbiologicalprocessesthatformtheearth’sclimatesystem.Thesemodelsvaryintheirlevelofdetailandassumptions,makingoutputandfuturescenariosvariable.Differencesamongmodels

3

stemfromanincompleteunderstandingofmanyofEarth’sprocessesandfeedbacks.Takenasagroup,however,climatemodelspresentarangeofpossiblefutureconditions.

Mostclimatemodelsarecreatedatglobalscales,butaredifficulttoapplyatlocalorregionalscalesbecauseglobalmodeloutputdoesnotreflectregionalorlocalvariationinclimate.Formanagersandpolicymakerstomakedecisionsatthesefinerscales,theyneedinformationabouthowclimatechangewillimpactthelocalarea.TheMAPSS(MappedAtmosphere‐Plant‐SoilSystem)TeamatthePacificNorthwestResearchStationadjustedglobalmodelresultstolocalandregionalscales.TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)usesnumerousmodelstomakeglobalclimateprojections.Themodelsaredevelopedbydifferentinstitutionsandcountriesandhaveslightlydifferentinputsorassumptions.Fromthesemodels,theMAPSSTeamchosethreeglobalclimatemodelsthatrepresentedarangeofprojectionsfortemperatureandotherclimatevariables.ThesethreemodelsareHadley(HADCM,fromtheUK),MIROC(fromJapan),andCSIRO(fromAustralia).Whilethespecificinputsarebeyondthescopeofthisreport,theyincludesuchvariablesasgreenhousegasemissions,airandoceancurrents,iceandsnowcover,plantgrowth,particulatematter,andmanyothers(Randalletal.2007).Thethreemodelschosenincludedspecificvariables,suchaswatervapor,thatwereneededinordertoruntheMC1vegetationmodel.Modeloutputswereconvertedtolocalscalesusinglocaldataonrecenttemperatureandprecipitationpatterns.TheclimatemodeloutputwasappliedtotheMC1vegetation

Howcertainaretheprojections?

HIGHCERTAINTY:Highertemperatures–Greaterconcentrationsofgreenhousegasestrapmoreheat.Measuredwarmingtracksmodelprojections.Lowersnowpack–Highertemperaturescauseashiftfromsnowtorainatlowerelevationsandcauseearliersnowmeltathigherelevations.Shiftingdistributionsofplants&animals–Relationshipsbetweenspeciesdistributionsandclimatearewelldocumented.MEDIUMCERTAINTY:Morefrequentstorms–Changestostormpatternswillberegionallyvariable.Changesinprecipitation–Currentmodelsshowwidedisagreementonprecipitationpatterns,butthemodelprojectionsconvergeinsomelocations.LOWCERTAINTY:Changesinvegetation–Vegetationmaytakedecadesorcenturiestokeeppacewithchangesinclimate.Changesinrunoff–Currentmodelsofrunoffareunsophisticatedandbasedonhistoricalconditions.Uncertaintyinprecipitation,landuse,andshiftingvegetationalsocontributetotheuncertaintyinrunoffpatterns.Wildfirepatterns–Manyuncertaincomponents,includingvegetation,treepestsanddisease,andprecipitationwillimpactfirepatterns.

4

model(Bacheletetal.2001),whichprovideddataonpossiblefuturevegetationtypesandextentofwildfire.Theutilityofthemodelresultspresentedinthisreportistohelpcommunitiespicturewhattheconditionsandlandscapemaylooklikeinthefutureandthemagnitudeanddirectionofchange.Becausemodeloutputsvaryintheirdegreeofcertainty,theyareconsideredprojectionsratherthanpredictions(seeboxonpage2).Somemodeloutputs,suchastemperature,havegreatercertaintythanotheroutputs,suchasvegetationtypeorrunoff(seeboxonpreviouspage).

Weurgethereadertokeepinmindthatthesemodelresultsarepresentedtoexplorethetypesofchangeswemaysee,butthatactualconditionsmaybequitedifferentfromthosedepictedinthisreport.Uncertaintyassociatedwithprojectionsoffutureconditionsshouldnotbeusedasareasonfordelayingactiononclimatechange.Thelikelihoodthatfutureconditionswillresemblehistoricconditionsisverylow,somanagersandpolicymakersareencouragedtobegintoplanforaneraofchange,eveniftheprecisetrajectoryofsuchchangeisuncertain.

GLOBALCLIMATECHANGEPROJECTIONS

TheIPCC(2007)andtheU.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram(2009)agreethattheevidenceis“unequivocal”thattheEarth’satmosphereandoceansarewarming,andthatthiswarmingisdueprimarilytohumanactivitiesincludingtheemissionofCO2,methane,andothergreenhousegases,alongwithdeforestation.Averageglobalairtemperaturehasalreadyincreasedby0.7°C(1.4°F)andisexpectedtoincreaseby2°‐6.4°C(11.5°F)withinthenextcentury(Figure1).TheIPCCemissionscenariousedinthisassessmentwasthe“business‐as‐usual”trajectorythatassumesthatmostnationsfailtoacttoloweremissions.Thecurrentgrowthinemissionsactuallyexceedstheassumedgrowthinthismodeled

Figure 1. The last 1000 years in global mean temperature, in comparison to projected temperature for 2100. Drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to an increase of about 2ºC by 2100 while the current trajectory will lead to an increase closer to 4.5º C and as high as 6º C (adapted from IPCC 2007).

5

scenario,meaningthattheresultspresentedinthisreportcouldunderestimateactualimpacts.Duetoclimatesysteminertia,restabilizationofatmosphericgaseswilltakemanydecadesevenwithdrasticemissionsreductions.ReducingemissionsisvitaltopreventtheEarth’sclimatesystemfromreachingcertaintippingpointsthat

willleadtosuddenandirrevocablechanges.Inadditiontoemissionsreductions,planningforinevitablechangestriggeredbygreenhousegasesalreadypresentintheatmospherewillallowresidentsofSanLuisObispoCountytoreducethenegativeimpactsofclimatechangeand,hopefully,maintaintheirquality‐of‐lifeasclimatechangeprogresses.

SANLUISOBISPOCOUNTYCLIMATEPROJECTIONS VariablesmodeledusingHADCM,CSIRO,andMIROC,andthevegetationmodel(MC1)includetemperature,precipitation,vegetationtypeanddistribution,andannualpercentofthelandscapeburned.Thesevariableswerecalculatedbasedonhistoricaldataformakingbaselinecomparisons,andwereprojectedoutto2100.Again,theseprojectionsareuncertain,becauseofthedifferentassumptionsbythemodels,buttheyrepresentalikelyrangeofpossiblefutureconditionsinSanLuisObispoCounty.Asclimatechangeplaysout,wearelikelytogainabetterunderstandingofinteractionsandtheclimatesystemsandbeabletomakemore

certainprojections‐however,wemayalsoseesurprisesandunforeseenchainsofcause‐and‐effectthatcouldnothavebeenprojected.Climatechangeprojectionsareprovidedhereinthreedifferentformats–asoverallaverages,astimeseriesgraphsthatshowchangeovertime(averagedacrosstheCounty),andasmapsthatshowvariationacrosstheCounty,butaveragedacrossyears.Wemappedclimateandvegetationvariablesforthehistoricalperiod(1961‐1990)andfortwofuture11‐yearperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85).

6

Figure2.LandownershipinSanLuisObispoCounty.

7

TEMPERATURETheprojectionsfromallthreemodelsagree,withhighcertainty,onawarmerfutureforSanLuisObispoCounty(Table1).

Table1.ProjectedincreaseinaveragetemperatureinSanLuisObispoCounty,fromthreedifferentglobalclimatemodels,basedonahistoricannualaverageof58.3°F(14.6°C)from1961‐1990,ahistoricsummeraverageof69.9°F(21.1°C),andahistoricwinteraverageof47.3°F(8.5°C)

TEMPERATURE 2035‐2045 2075‐2085AnnualJun‐AugDec‐Feb

+2.1to+3.9°F(+1.2to+2.2°C)+1.8to+4.7°F(+1.0to+2.6°C)+1.7to+3.6°F(+1.0to+2.0°C)

+4.1to+7.6°F(+2.3to+4.2°C)+4.3to+8.9°F(+1.0to+2.6°C)+3.4to+7.0°F(+1.9to+3.9°C)

Figure4.AveragemonthlytemperatureacrossSanLuisObispoCounty.Futureprojectionsareaveragedacrossthethreeglobalclimatemodelsfortwodifferenttimeperiods:2035‐45(purpleline)and2075‐85(redline).Thefullrangeofprojectionsfromallthreemodelsisshowninorange.

Figure3.AverageannualtemperatureacrossSanLuisObispoCountyfrom1901to2000(measuredhistorical)andprojectedthrough2100usingthreeglobalclimatemodels.

8

Figure5.Januarytemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

9

Figure6.Apriltemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

10

Figure7.Julytemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

11

Figure8.Octobertemperature(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

12

Figure9.Temperaturechange(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJanuaryandApril.

13

Figure10.Temperaturechange(indegreesC)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJulyandOctober.

14

PRECIPITATIONProjectionsforfutureprecipitationvariedsubstantiallyamongthethreemodels,withMIROCgenerallyprovidingdrierprojectionsthanHADCMandCSIRO.InaseriesofreportsreleasedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommission,asetofsixmodelsshowedconsensusonadrierclimateforCentralCalifornia(Westerlingetal.2009).Further,evenwithsubstantialincreasesinprecipitation,soilmoistureisexpectedtodeclineduetoincreasedtemperatureandevaporation. Table2.ProjectedchangeinprecipitationinSanLuisObispoCounty,fromthreeglobalclimatemodels,basedonahistoricannualaverageof395.9mmfrom1961‐1990,ahistoricsummeraverageof1.4mmpermonthandahistoricwinteraverageof70.6mmpermonth.Precipitation 2035‐2045 2075‐2085

AnnualJun‐AugDec‐Feb

‐106.7to+38.6mm(‐27%to+25%)‐0.4to+0.0mm(‐26%to+2%)

‐14.6to+33.5mm(‐21%to+47%)

‐120.2to+22.4mm(‐30.4%to+5.6%)‐0.4to+0.3mm(‐29%to+24%)

‐26.1to+10.7mm(‐37%to+15%)

Figure11.Averageannualprecipitation(mm)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.Onaverage,HADCMshowsaslightlywetterfuturewhileMIROCandCSIROshowadrierfuture.

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Precipitationinm

m

Historic

HADCM

CSIRO

MIROC

‐100

‐80

‐60

‐40

‐20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Percen

tcha

ngeinprecipitation

HADCM CSIRO MIROC

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Precipitationinm

m

Historic

HADCM

CSIRO

MIROC

‐80

‐60

‐40

‐20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan FebMarAprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NovDec

Percen

tcha

ngeinprecipitation

HADCM

CSIRO

MIROC

Figures12‐13.Totalmonthlyaverageprecipitation(below)andpercentchangeinprecipitation(right)forthetimeperiodof2035‐2045,ascomparedtohistoric(1961‐1990).

Figures14‐15.Totalmonthlyaverageprecipitation(below)andpercentchangeinprecipitation(right)forthetimeperiodof2075‐2085,ascomparedtohistoric(1961‐1990).

2035‐2045

2075‐2085

16

Figure16.Januaryprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

17

Figure17.Aprilprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

18

Figure18.Julyprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

19

Figure19.Octoberprecipitation(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCounty.

20

Figure20.Precipitationchange(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJanuaryandApril.

21

Figure21.Precipitationchange(inmillimeters)acrossSanLuisObispoCountyinJulyandOctober.

22

VEGETATIONandWILDFIRETheMAPSSteamvegetationmodel(MC1)providedprojectionsforpredominantvegetationtypes(Figure22)andproportionoftheareaburnedannuallybywildfire(Figure23).Projectionsforchangesinvegetationtypesincludealossofneedleleafforestathigherelevations,alossoftemperateshrublandineasternportionsoftheCounty,andexpansionofsubtropicalgrasslands.(Themodeldoesnotreflectthedominanceofnon‐nativegrassesinthearea.)Despitechangedgrowingconditions,vegetationcantakedecadesorcenturiestoadjust.Mechanismsforvegetationchangearelikelytobedrought,fire,invasivespecies,insectsanddisease.AccordingtoMC1output,theannualpercentageoftheCountyburnedbywildfireisexpectedtoincreasefromahistoricalaverageof3.7%to6.8‐7.3%by2035‐45and8.1‐8.5%by2075‐85.Thistranslatestoupto311mi2burned,onaverage,peryear(Figure23).Similarly,Westerlingetal.(2009)alsoprojectedsubstantialincreasesinareaburnedbywildfire,withmuchofSanLuisObispoCountyexpectedtoexperience200‐350%increaseinacreageburnedby2085ascomparedtothehistoric(1961‐1990)amount.

23

Figure22.Suitablegrowingconditionsfordominanttypesofvegetation.

24

Figure23.Averageproportionofeachgridcell(8kmx8km)burnedannuallyinSanLuisObispoCounty,shownforthehistoricalperiod(1961‐1990)andprojectedfortwofutureperiods(2035‐45and2075‐85),usingtwoglobalclimatemodels(MIROCandHADCM;resultsfromCSIROwereunavailable).

25

SEALEVELRISESealevelhasrisennearlyeightinchesalongtheCaliforniacoastoverthepastcentury.Climatemodelsprojectfurtherincreasesof3.3–4.6feet(1.0–1.4meters)bytheyear21001(Cayanetal.2009).Theprimarythreatsassociatedwithsealevelriseincludeflooding,erosion,andlossofvaluablecoastallandanduniquehabitats.Hebergeretal.(2009)conductedaroughGISexercisethatidentifiedsomeareasofpotentialhighriskfromsealevelrisealongtheentireCaliforniacoast.Basedonthisanalysis,whichhasnotbeenground‐truthed,SanLuisObispoCountysupports6.1mi2ofexistingcoastalwetlands.Assealevelrises,thesewetlandsareexpectedtomigrateinland,potentiallycovering1.1mi2ofnewterrain.ThePacificInstitutemappedtheareawherewetlandsareexpectedtomigrate,anddeterminedthat69%isviableformigratingwetlandsandshouldbeprotectedtoallowforsuchshifts.Anadditional7%oftheareawherewetlandsmightmigrateisviablebutwillexperiencelossofotherfunctions,suchaspasture,parks,oropenspace.Theremaining24%oftheareahasinfrastructuremakingitunfeasibleforwetlandstomigrate.ThePacificInstitutemappedareasofpotentialflooding,erosion,andwetlandmigrationalongtheentirecoastofCalifornia.Thesemapscanbefoundontheirwebsite(http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/maps/index.htm).Substantialareasofthecoastareatriskoferosion,includingMorroRockBeach(Figure24)andAvilaBeach(Figure25).TheGISassessmentofsealevelriseisavaluablefirststeptowardsidentifyingareasatriskalongthecoast.Moredetailedspatialanalysesthatincludeactualwetlandareaandtypedataareneededtobetteridentifyareasandresourcesatrisk.Betterprojectionsofsealevelrisearealsoneeded,assealevelrisemodeloutputishighlyvariable.

1 Meansealevelmayactuallybemuchhigher,asmostclimatemodelsfailtoincorporateGreenlandandAntarcticicesheetmeltintotheirprojections.

26

Figures24and25.Examplesofareasatriskoferosion(green)from4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(Hebergeretal.2009).

27

Figures26and27.Examplesofareasatriskoffloodingcurrently(lightblue)andwith4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(magenta)(Hebergeretal.2009).

28

Figures28and29.Examplesofareaswherewetlandsmaymigrate(blue)with4.6ft.(1.4m)sealevelrise(Hebergeretal.2009).

29

SUPPORTINGSTUDIES

TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsponsoredalargebodyofresearchintothepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeacrossthestate.Manyofthereportsfromthiseffortwerereleasedin2009.Forconsistency,authorsofthesereportsallusedthesamesetofglobalclimatemodelsformakingtheirprojections,butthesemodelsweredifferentthanthethreethatweusedearlierinthisreport.Evenwithdifferentmodels,however,theresultsfrommanyofthesereportsagreewithorcomplementourresults,givingusevengreaterconfidenceintheprojections.Usingthesamevegetationmodel(MC1)butdifferentclimatemodelsthanours,Shawetal.(2009)alsoprojectsadeclineinconiferousforestinSanLuisObispoCounty.Inaddition,theirstudyprojectedsteepdeclinesinforageproductioninthenortheasternandeasternportionofthecounty(Figure30).Inanotherstudy,independentoftheCECreports,Loarieetal.(2008)modeledpotentialrangeshiftsofendemicplantspeciesthroughoutCalifornia.Themodelingexerciserevealedthatupto1/3ofallspecieswillbeextirpatediftheyareunabletomovetonewareas,butthatthecoastalrangesofCentralCalifornia,includingsubstantialareasofSLOCounty,areexpectedtobeimportantrefugesfornumerousspecies(Figure31).Kueppersetal.(2005)modeledshiftsinrangefortwospeciesofoak:blueoakandvalleyoak,throughoutthestate,usingtwodifferentclimatemodels(oneregionalandoneglobal).Theirresultsindicatedthatvalleyoakhasahigherlikelihoodofpersistencethanblueoak(Figure32).BothoaksexperiencedrangecontractionsinSanLuisObispoCountyby2080‐2099,accordingtothemodels,withvalleyoakexperiencingalmostcompletedeclineinoneofthetwomodelscenarios.

30

Figure30.Netchangeinforageproductionby2070‐2099,basedontwoclimatemodelsundertheA2emissionsscenario.Orangeorbrownrepresentadeclineinforageproductionwhilebluerepresentsandincreaseinforageproduction.(FigurefromShawetal.2009)

Figure31.Projectedpresentplantdiversity(left)andplantdiversity80yearsfromnowbasedontwoclimatemodels(PCM–middleandHADCM3–right)usingtheA1F1emissionsscenarioandassumingthatplantswillbeabletodispersetonewareas.Coastalareas,suchasthoseinSLOCounty,maybeespeciallyimportantforharboringdiversity.(FigurefromLoarieetal.2008)

31

Figure32.ShiftsindistributionfortwospeciesofoakinCalifornia:valleyoakandblueoak.Blueoak(AandB)isexpectedtodeclinethroughoutSanLuisObispoCounty,accordingtobothmodels,withsteeperdeclineswiththeClimateSystemModel(CSM)GCM(B)ascomparedtotheregionalmodelRegCM2.5(A).Valleyoak(CandD)isexpectedtocontractinSanLuisObispobutstillpersistacrossmuchofitscurrentrangeaccordingtoboththeregional(C)andglobal(D)models.FigurefromKueppersetal.(2005).

32

CONCLUSIONS

Thepurposeofthisreportistoprovideup‐to‐dateclimateprojectionsforSanLuisObispoCountyatascalethatcanbeusedincommunityplanningefforts.Byprovidingtheinformationthatlocalmanagers,decision‐makersandcommunitymembersneedtomakeday‐to‐daydecisionsandlong‐termplans,wehopetospurproactiveclimatechangepreparationplanning.Manyoftheimpactsofclimatechangearealreadyprogressingandwillcontinuetoacceleratethroughoutthenextfewdecades,regardlessoffutureemissions.Forinstance,ourprojectionsforthetimeperiodof2035‐2045arehighlylikelytobecomereality.Whetherwelimitclimatechangetothislevelorcontinuetoprogresstowardsthelevelprojectedfor2075‐2085,andbeyond,willdependonwhethertheU.S.andotherkeynationschoosetoloweremissionsdrasticallyandimmediately.TheprojectionsprovidedinthisreportareintendedtoformthefoundationforSanLuisObispoCountyadaptationplanningforclimatechange.Ourprogram,calledtheClimateWiseprogram,strivestobuildco‐beneficialplanningstrategiesthatarescience‐based,aredevelopedbylocalcommunitymembers,andincreasetheresilienceofbothhumanandnaturalcommunitiestoclimatechangeinacohesivemanner.Thisprocesswilltakeplaceinaseriesofworkshopsinvolvingexpertsinthefollowingsectors:naturalecosystems(bothterrestrialandaquatic),built(infrastructure,culverts,etc.),human(health,emergencyresponse,etc.),economic(agriculture,business,etc.)andcultural(NativeAmericantribalcustomsandrights,otherculturallydistinctlocalcommunities).TheClimateWiseprogramisstructuredtobegintheplanningprocessinlocalcommunities,butthento“scaleup”managementstrategiestothestateandfederallevelbyidentifyingneededchangesinpolicyandgovernancestructure.Duringthelocalplanningprocess,expertsfromdifferentsectorswillidentifybarrierstosoundmanagement,allowingustoaddresstheselimitingfactorsbyeducatinglawmakersandinfluencingpolicydecisions.PleasecontactMarniKoopmanattheNationalCenterforConservationScienceandPolicyformoreinformation(marni@nccsp.org;541‐482‐4459x303).

33

LITERATURECITED

Bachelet,D.,J.M.Lenihan,C.Daly,R.P.Neilson,D.S.Ojima,andW.J.Parton.2001.MC1:Adynamicvegetationmodelforestimatingthedistributionofvegetationandassociatedcarbon,nutrients,andwater‐atechnicaldocumentation.Version1.0.GTR‐508.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.Cayan,D.,M.Tyree,M.Dettinger,H.Hidalgo,T.Das,E.Maurer,P.Bromirski,N.Graham,andR.Flick.2009.ClimateChangeScenariosandSeaLevelRiseEstimatesforCalifornia2008ClimateChangeScenariosAssessment.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐014‐F.Heberger,M.,H.Cooley,P.Herrera,P.H.Gleick,andE.Moore.2009.TheImpactsofSeaLevelRiseontheCaliforniaCoast.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐024‐F.IPCC.2007.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.ContributionofWorkingGroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress.Kueppers,L.M.,M.A.Snyder,L.C.Sloan,E.S.Zavaleta,andB.Fulfrost.2005.ModeledregionalclimatechangeandCaliforniaendemicoakranges.PNAs102:18281‐18286.Loarie,S.R.,B.E.Carter,K.Hayhoe,S.McMahon,R.Moe,C.A.Knight,andD.D.Ackerly.2008.ClimatechangeandthefutureofCalifornia’sendemicflora.PloSONE3:1‐10.Randall,D.A.,R.A.Wood,S.Bony,etal.2007.ClimateModelsandTheirEvaluation.InClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Solomon,S.,D.Qin,M.Manning,etal.,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Shaw,M.R.,L.Pendleton,D.Cameron,B.Morris,G.Bratman,D.Bachelet,K.Klausmeyer,J.MacKenzie,D.Conklin,J.Lenihan,E.Haunreiter,andC.Daly.2009.TheImpactofClimateChangeonCalifornia’sEcosystemServices.CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter.CEC‐500‐2009‐025‐F.USGCRP.2009.GlobalClimateChangeImpactsintheUnitedStates.T.R.Karl,J.M.Melillo,andT.C.Peterson,Eds.CambridgeUniversityPress.Westerling, A. L., B. P. Bryant, H. K. Preisler, T. P. Holmes, H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S. R. Shrestha. 2009. Climate Change, Growth, and California Wildfire. California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2009-046-F.