Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management December 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491‐7331 Report Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Recommended Citation: Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP]. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management. K. Decker, L. Grunau, J. Handwerk, and J. Siemers, editors. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Individual chapters may be cited as suggested below. Front cover: Knowles Canyon, photo © Peggy Lyon. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado Bureau of Land Management Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 December 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which administers 8.4 million acres of Colorado’s surface acres, and more than 29 million acres of sub‐surface mineral estate, has been charged with developing a climate adaptation strategy for BLM lands within the state. The assessments presented herein present a statewide perspective on the potential future influences of a changing climate on species and ecosystems of particular importance to the BLM, with the goal of facilitating development of the best possible climate adaptation strategies to meet future conditions. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program conducted climate change vulnerability assessments of plant and animal species, and terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (“targets”) within a time frame of mid‐21st century. Our assessments 1) evaluate the potential impact of future climate conditions on both species and ecosystems by identifying the degree of change expected between current and future climate conditions within the Colorado range of the target, and 2) address the potential impact of non‐climate factors that can affect the resilience of the target to climate change, or which are likely to have a greater impact due to climate change. Climate change vulnerability assessments are not an end unto themselves, but are intended to help BLM managers identify areas where action may mitigate the effects of climate change, recognize potential novel conditions that may require additional analysis, and characterize uncertainties inherent in the process. Ecosystems Sixteen terrestrial ecosystem types and six freshwater ecosystem groups were assessed under a high radiative forcing scenario (RCP8.5) for their relative vulnerability by mid‐century. Terrestrial types included six forest or woodland types, four shrubland types, four herbaceous or grassland types, and riparian and wetland areas. Four terrestrial types (pinyon‐juniper woodland, shortgrass prairie, and riparian and wetland areas of the eastern plains) were ranked with high vulnerability, and a single type (riparian woodland and shrubland of lower elevation west slope areas) was ranked with very high vulnerability. Most terrestrial ecosystems were ranked with low or moderate vulnerability to the effects of climate change by mid‐century. The majority of terrestrial ecosystems were evaluated as currently having low to moderate resilience to climate impacts. Actions that increase ecosystem resilience and enhance the adaptive capacity of these targets will cushion their vulnerability to changing climate conditions, and should be a primary focus of management efforts. For forest and woodland ecosystems, adaptation actions are likely to focus on disturbance factors such as fire and insect outbreak, while for shrubland and herbaceous ecosystems, reducing the impacts of anthropogenic fragmentation and disturbance is central to adaptation management. Freshwater ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs) were evaluated in relation to a modeled transition zone between warm and cool‐ to cold‐water habitats that compared current ii Colorado Natural Heritage Program © 2015 reach extent in each zone to what could be expected under warmer future conditions. Results were summarized by three regions (eastern plains, mountain, and western valleys). Overall vulnerability of freshwater ecosystems was noticeably higher than for terrestrial types. Four of the evaluated freshwater ecosystems, primarily those of lower elevations, had vulnerability ranks of high or very high. Only streams of higher elevations were considered to have low vulnerability. Nearly all freshwater ecosystems have moderate to high exposure to potential impacts from climate change, and generally moderate levels of resilience or adaptive capacity. As a result, most of these types will remain moderately vulnerable at best, even under conditions of improved resilience. Actions that maintain or increase hydrologic connectivity and reduce non‐climate impacts are the primary means by which adaptive capacity in freshwater ecosystems can be maintained or increased. Species Ninety‐eight species (36 animals and 62 plants) were evaluated for vulnerability by mid‐century using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index, under a high cumulative carbon emission scenario (SRES A2). Animal species included four amphibians, thirteen birds, nine fish, one insect, six mammals, and three reptiles. Five species were ranked as extremely vulnerable to climate change. Overall, 42% of the evaluated animal species were ranked with high to extreme vulnerability to climate change by mid‐century. Fish, in particular, were ranked on the high to extremely vulnerable end of the range; other taxonomic groups were generally more evenly distributed between presumed stable to highly vulnerable. Nearly all of the vascular plant species (59 of 62) evaluated were ranked with extremely high vulnerability to climate change by mid‐century, generally due to their highly restricted distributions, natural barriers to movement and relatively limited dispersal ability and/or pollinator specificity. Restriction to a particular physiological hydrological niche, or to uncommon geologic features and substrates also tend to increase the vulnerability of most of Colorado’s rare plants. Conclusions The climate change vulnerability assessments presented herein provide a basic foundation for the development of adaptation strategies going forward. Together with clearly articulated goals and objectives for the conservation of important BLM‐managed resources, the information included in these assessments highlighting the potential impacts of climate change and species‐ or ecosystem‐ specific key vulnerabilities can be linked to specific management actions that are intended to address changing climate conditions. It is important to recognize that species assemblages are very likely to change from what has been seen in the historic past, so that the investigation of shifting distributions, altered ecological Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Colorado BLM iii functions, and critical thresholds that are tied to a warming climate will provide essential tools for adaptation strategies. Because earlier action allows for greater impact and influence on management challenges both now and in the future, we suggest: Use of structured decision making techniques to focus and clarify BLM goals and objectives for climate change adaptation targets Moving ahead with the development of adaptation strategies for key species and ecosystems Prioritizing adaptation efforts for species and ecosystems, taking into consideration both the vulnerability level of the target, practical criteria of time and resource availability, and trade‐offs or constraints that may be present Developing and implementing methods for monitoring or measuring the results of adaptation actions Potentially revisiting climate change vulnerability rankings as new information becomes available or additional concerns become apparent. iv Colorado Natural Heritage Program © 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Bureau of Land Management Colorado Office, who provided funding for this effort. We thank the BLM staff who shared their extensive professional experience and knowledge throughout the process. Bruce Rittenhouse (Branch Chief, Natural Resources), Jay Thompson (Fishery Biologist), and Carol Dawson (Botanist) acted as coordinating liaisons for the project. Additional BLM personnel who participated in the review process include Robin Sell (Wildlife Biologist), and BLM interns Phil Krening and Colleen Sullivan. Megan Friggens (Research Ecologist) with the USDA Forest Service Grassland, Shrubland and Desert Ecosystems Program of the Rocky Mountain Research Station provided valuable review and input regarding the resilience rankings of forest and woodland ecosystems, as well as review of the document as a whole. We continue to appreciate the help of Jeff Morisette and the North Central Climate Science Center staff, especially Colin and Marian Talbert, who provided us with essential technical tools for accessing and using climate projections. Shannon McNeely of the NCCSC also provided feedback on the preliminary results of the assessment. Finally, at CNHP, Joanna Lemly provided critical review and information about wetland