1. Restoring whitebark pine ecosystems in the face of climate change pine Bob Keane, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory Bob Keane, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory

2. Whitebark Pine Ecosystems Keystone and Foundation Species  Covers over 15 % landscape  Protects snowpack  Delays snowmelt  Provides high quality water  Provides critical habitat  Unique plant communities  Adds to landscape diversity  Provides important food  Covers over 15 % landscape  Protects snowpack  Delays snowmelt  Provides high quality water  Provides critical habitat  Unique plant communities  Adds to landscape diversity  Provides important food Glacier National Park

3. Whitebark Pine Decline Great Burn Roadless Area, Idaho Decline a result from the complex interactions of many factors Our ability to address these interactions will dictate rangewide restoration success

4. Whitebark Pine Interactions

5. A rangewide restoration strategy for whitebark pine Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; Smith, C. M. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 108 p.

6. The WBP Rangewide Strategy: Guiding Principles Possible Actions

7. Whitebark Pine Decline Climate Change Why treat whitebark pine?  Won’t it decline anyway?  Why invest the money?  Won’t disturbances render treatments ineffective?  Won’t it decline anyway?  Why invest the money?  Won’t disturbances render treatments ineffective? Consider the alternative  Doing nothing will ensure whitebark pine’s demise  Whitebark pine forests may be the most resilient under future climates  Without assistance, the species will find it difficult to remain on the landscape Consider the alternative  Doing nothing will ensure whitebark pine’s demise  Whitebark pine forests may be the most resilient under future climates  Without assistance, the species will find it difficult to remain on the landscape

8. Rangewide restoration strategy for whitebark pine Missing important information on restoring whitebark pine communities under new climate and management regimes

9. A new report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Bitterroot National Forest Funded by GNLCC Authors: Keane, Holsinger, Tomback, Mahalovich Due out next spring Funded by GNLCC Authors: Keane, Holsinger, Tomback, Mahalovich Due out next spring

10. Management recommendations and climate change considerations are given for each of the guiding principles and management actions New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Companion document to the Rangewide strategy

11. New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Developed based on a integration of literature syntheses and simulation modeling §Summarized research findings §Simulated landscapes §Summarized research findings §Simulated landscapes

12. New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Literature search and expert evaluation §Used existing knowledge and data to make projections of whitebark pine under future climates

13. FireBGCv2: A research simulation platform for exploring fire, vegetation, and climate dynamics Keane, Robert E.; Loehman, Rachel A.; Holsinger, Lisa M. 2011. The FireBGCv2 – a landscape fire and succession model: a research simulation platform for exploring fire and vegetation dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-255. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 137 p.

14. §Climate §Historical §RCP4.5-warm moist §RCP8.5-hot, dry §Fire management §No suppression §High suppression (92%) §Restoration treatments §None §Low (10 ha/yr) §High (100 ha/yr) §Planting §None §Low (10 ha/yr) §High (100 ha/yr) §Climate §Historical §RCP4.5-warm moist §RCP8.5-hot, dry §Fire management §No suppression §High suppression (92%) §Restoration treatments §None §Low (10 ha/yr) §High (100 ha/yr) §Planting §None §Low (10 ha/yr) §High (100 ha/yr) FireBGCv2 Simulation Experiment Simulated levels of four important factors on three landscapes

15. Simulation results EFBR upper subalpine landscape composition Simulation results EFBR upper subalpine landscape composition §Historical climates §PIAL gone if no action §Just a little action helps §Aspen increases §Future climate §PIAL does better §Need restoration §Makes resilient forests §Historical climates §PIAL gone if no action §Just a little action helps §Aspen increases §Future climate §PIAL does better §Need restoration §Makes resilient forests

16. Simulation results Whitebark pine basal area in EFBR upper subalpine Simulation results Whitebark pine basal area in EFBR upper subalpine

17. Simulation results Subalpine fir basal area in EFBR upper subalpine Simulation results Subalpine fir basal area in EFBR upper subalpine

18. Management Action: Plan Activities Recommendations: 1.Avoid treatments at the lower elevational ranges in local areas 2.Prioritize mid- and upper elevational stands in planning processes 3.Ensure fuel treatments minimize damage to living whitebark pine trees with increasing fires 4.Augment treatments with planting rust- resistant pine to increase regeneration potential with drier and warmer site conditions 5.Allow longer times for site mediation 6.Create heterogeneous landscapes Management Action: Plan Activities Recommendations: 1.Avoid treatments at the lower elevational ranges in local areas 2.Prioritize mid- and upper elevational stands in planning processes 3.Ensure fuel treatments minimize damage to living whitebark pine trees with increasing fires 4.Augment treatments with planting rust- resistant pine to increase regeneration potential with drier and warmer site conditions 5.Allow longer times for site mediation 6.Create heterogeneous landscapes New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Document Structure

19. Reference document for restoration activities Other sources of interest: NRAP Climate change vulnerability assessment Reference document for restoration activities Other sources of interest: NRAP Climate change vulnerability assessment New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” Document Purpose

20. Which endangered species is more important?  Whitebark pine (Listed but precluded)  Canadian Lynx  Grizzly Bear  Whitebark pine (Listed but precluded)  Canadian Lynx  Grizzly Bear What FS policy is more important?  Wilderness (48% whitebark range in wilderness)  Wildfire Cohesive Strategy  Ecosystem Restoration initiative  Wilderness (48% whitebark range in wilderness)  Wildfire Cohesive Strategy  Ecosystem Restoration initiative New report… “Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change” What it doesn’t cover… A clash of policies

21. Restoring whitebark pine in the face of climate change Collect putative rust-resistant seed Grow rust-resistant seedlings Allow wildfire and WFU to do most of the work Plant as much as you can Save the relics and rust-resistant individuals Patch in the holes with proactive restoration Measure and then measure again Collect putative rust-resistant seed Grow rust-resistant seedlings Allow wildfire and WFU to do most of the work Plant as much as you can Save the relics and rust-resistant individuals Patch in the holes with proactive restoration Measure and then measure again Here we can make a difference