Climate Change Science 

Applications and Needs 

in Forest Ecosystem Management

Northern

Research Station

United States 

Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

General Technical

Report NRS-95

2012
Climate change is leading to direct and indirect impacts on forest tree species and 

ecosystems in northern Wisconsin. Land managers will need to prepare for and 

respond to these impacts, so we designed a workshop to identify forest management 

approaches that can enhance the ability of ecosystems in northern Wisconsin to cope 

with climate change and address how National Forests and other lands could be used 

to test these approaches. The workshop had three major themes: (1) adaptation of 

forest management to current and expected climate change, (2) forest management to 

support greenhouse gas mitigation, and (3) monitoring of climate change impacts and 

the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation strategies. A group of nearly 60 experts 

in the fi elds of forest science, policy, and forest resource management identifi ed placebased management approaches and new research directions that addressed these major 

themes. One concept that emerged was the need to adapt not only ecological systems 

but social systems as well, and research to adapt social systems was identifi ed as a key 

knowledge gap. Participants were cautious about the potential for northern Wisconsin 

lands to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration through 

forest management. The experts identifi ed the need for more research to quantify that 

potential, especially for non-forested lands and greenhouse gases other than carbon 

dioxide. Participants also agreed that mitigation strategies will not be effective in the long 

term unless they are carried out in conjunction with adaptation strategies. According to 

participants, current monitoring efforts in northern Wisconsin are insuffi cient to detect 

climate change impacts at spatial scales relevant to land management and are not as 

well-integrated with each other as they could be. However, participants identifi ed several 

regional and national programs that could serve as models for integration. Outcomes 

from this workshop emphasized the importance of a place-based response to climate 

change. Forest managers in northern Wisconsin will need to establish and articulate 

clear goals for adaptation, mitigation, and monitoring, as well as ensure these goals are 

integrated with one another, in order to be effective at responding to climate change.

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

April 2012 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication October 2011

Cover Photo

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. Photo by Maria Janowiak,

U.S. Forest Service.

ABSTRACT
Climate Change Science 

Applications and Needs 

in Forest Ecosystem Management

A workshop organized as part of the 

Climate Change Response Framework Project 

in northern Wisconsin

April 27-28, 2010, Madison, WI

Leslie Brandt, Chris Swanston, Linda Parker, 

Maria Janowiak, Richard Birdsey, Louis Iverson, 

David Mladenoff, and Patricia Butler
LESLIE BRANDT is a climate change specialist with the Northern Institute of Applied Climate 

Science, U.S. Forest Service, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, lbrandt@fs.fed.us

CHRIS SWANSTON is a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, and director of the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, 410 MacInnes Drive, 

Houghton, MI 49931, cswanston@fs.fed.us

LINDA PARKER is a forest ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service, Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, 1170 4th Avenue S., Park Falls, WI 54552, lrparker@fs.fed.us

MARIA JANOWIAK is a climate change adaptation and carbon management scientist with 

the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, U.S. Forest Service, 410 MacInnes Drive, 

Houghton, MI 49931, mjanowiak02@fs.fed.us

RICHARD BIRDSEY is program manager, Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Sciences, with 

the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200, 

Newtown Square, PA 19073, rbirdsey@fs.fed.us

LOUIS IVERSON is a landscape ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015, liverson@fs.fed.us

DAVID MLADENOFF is a professor with the University of Wisconsin, Department of Forest and 

Wildlife Ecology, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, djmladen@wisc.edu

PATRICIA BUTLER is a climate change outreach specialist with the Northern Institute of 

Applied Climate Science, Michigan Technological University, School of Forest Resources and 

Environmental Science, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931, prbutler@mtu.edu

Authors
Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Opening Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Plenary Talks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

 Climate Projections for Northern Wisconsin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

 Regional Impacts of Climate Change on Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

 Climate Change, Management, and Disturbance in Northern Wisconsin Forests . . . . . . . .13

Breakout Session 1: Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

 Application of Current Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

 Additional Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Breakout Session 2: Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

 Application of Current Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

 Additional Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Breakout Session 3: Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

 Monitoring Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Workshop Themes and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Literature Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Appendix 1. Climate Change Response Framework Project Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Appendix 2. List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Appendix 3. Biographies of Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Appendix 4. Programs Mentioned in Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Executive Summary

The two objectives of our workshop were 

(1) to identify management approaches 

that can enhance the ability of ecosystems 

in northern Wisconsin to cope with climate change 

and (2) to address how National Forests and 

other lands may be used to test new approaches. 

Workshop sessions were centered on adapting 

to current and projected climate change impacts 

(adaptation), reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

and enhancing carbon storage (mitigation), 

and monitoring climate change impacts and 

the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation 

strategies. We asked participants to identify 

existing science that could infl uence current 

management decisions, as well as information 

gaps that could be addressed scientifi cally in 

northern Wisconsin.

Participants suggested potential strategies that 

could be considered for forest management in 

northern Wisconsin. The suggested strategies are 

not a comprehensive list of every action that could 

be taken, nor are they recommendations. Rather, 

they serve as a starting point for conversation 

when developing plans for climate change 

response in northern Wisconsin.

Adaptation 

Participants identifi ed the following adaptation 

strategies to be relevant to northern Wisconsin 

forests and worthy of further consideration:

Resistance strategies (resisting change to 

preserve current conditions)

 A-1. Identify and maintain potential refugia for 

threatened species and ecosystems. 

 A-2. Reduce existing stressors.

Resilience strategies (returning ecosystems 

to prior conditions after disturbance)

 A-3. Maintain and increase species and genetic 

diversity.

 A-4. Maintain or improve hydrologic 

conditions in lowland ecosystems.

 A-5. Manage to increase and maintain edaphic 

conditions and structure.

 A-6. Restore fi re to ecosystems that previously 

depended on it.

Response strategies (assisting the transition 

of ecosystems to new environmental states)

 A-7. Increase the pool of genetic diversity 

when planting.

 A-8. Preserve and improve connectivity across 

the landscape.

 A-9. Assess the viability of current forest types.

 A-10. Position infrastructure to support response 

to climate change.

 A-11. Plan for disturbance.

 A-12. Identify newly suitable habitats.
2 Executive Summary

Organizational capacity

 A-13. Develop adaptive policies.

 A-14. Integrate upscaling and downscaling of 

information into adaptation strategies.

 A-15. Increase information transfer with people 

in the surrounding landscape and manage 

social expectations.

 A-16. Create a prioritization process for 

implementing adaptation strategies.

 A-17. Develop and utilize templates or tools 

to systematically assess climate change 

impacts and management activities. 

Additional research needs to help inform these 

adaptation strategies were:

• Understand what factors contribute to refugia 

(Strategy A-1). 

• Increase research in plant genetics (Strategies 

A-3, A-7). 

• Develop better models to predict changing 

hydrologic regimes (Strategy A-4). 

• Assess the quality or viability of ecosystem 

services from existing and novel forest types 

(Strategies A-9, A-12). 

• Find analogs (or identify the lack thereof) 

that represent a range of future climates 

in order to predict future species ranges 

(Strategies A-9, A-12).

• Conduct experiments with species to test 

model predictions on the ground (Strategies 

A-9, A-12).

• Determine the feedbacks of management and 

disturbance on climate (Strategy A-11).

• Based on ecological assessments, undertake a 

social/economic assessment with the affected 

public to explore the idea of managing with 

uncertainty and short-term and long-term 

consequences of climate change (Strategies 

A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16).

Mitigation

Participants identifi ed the following mitigation 

strategies and considerations to be relevant to 

northern Wisconsin forests:

Enhanced sequestration 

 M-1. Evaluate practices that have mitigation 

potential and align with strategies for 

adaptation and general ecosystem health.

 M-2. Include both wetlands and forests in 

carbon management strategies.

 M-3. Consider extending northern hardwood 

rotation periods for carbon storage, but 

be mindful of carbon sequestration rates 

among various age classes. 

 M-4. Consider increasing stocking, but be 

mindful of increased susceptibility to fi re. 

 M-5. Account for age structure and composition 

at multiple temporal and spatial scales 

when developing a carbon storage and 

sequestration strategy. 

 M-6. Weigh other values when devising 

management strategies to increase carbon 

sequestration. 

 M-7. Consider the role of both public and 

private lands in carbon sequestration 

strategies. 

 M-8. Identify high-priority areas for 

sequestration activities. 

Bioenergy and substitution 

 M-9. Be aware of the limitations of bioenergy.

 M-10. Consider marginal agricultural lands and 

alternative species mixes for bioenergy 

production.

 M-11. Monitor where the demands are likely to 

increase with respect to bioenergy.
 Executive Summary 3

Additional research needs to help inform these 

mitigation strategies were:

• Increase understanding of management 

effects on belowground processes and soil 

carbon sequestration effects (Strategy M-1).

• Address the role of other greenhouse gases 

such as methane and nitrous oxide and nonforest landscapes such as wetlands (Strategy 

M-2).

• Mine data on carbon and management 

activities from the past to direct future 

management of carbon (Strategies M-3, 

M-4, M-5). 

• Conduct research on carbon mitigation 

across ownership boundaries (Strategy M-7). 

• Provide information to public managers 

and private landowners interested in carbon 

markets on how much sequestration they 

can obtain under different management 

scenarios (Strategy M-7).

• Assess the ecological consequences 

of carbon mitigation, with a particular 

emphasis on tradeoffs related to biomass 

energy and other resources (Strategies M-9, 

M-10). 

• Conduct an economic analysis of ways 

to offer incentives for carbon mitigation 

activities across the landscape (Strategies 

M-6, M-7, M-11).

• Develop a research consortium to evaluate 

different strategies for carbon management 

under a changing climate (All strategies).

Monitoring

Participants identifi ed the following monitoring 

strategies to be relevant to northern Wisconsin 

forests:

Monitoring impacts

• Develop a network of existing monitoring 

networks. 

• Monitor species and ecosystem processes 

that are sensitive to climate change and could 

serve as early indicators, keeping cost in 

mind.

• Monitor climate directly. 

• Consider a research-management partnership.

• The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 

(CNNF) could develop a research-monitoring 

team to help the Forest better integrate 

monitoring data into management and could 

appoint a research liaison.

• Increase the spatial and temporal scale of 

monitoring in key areas on the landscape.

• Ensure that organizations complement one 

another’s monitoring efforts. 

• Outline monitoring goals and protocols well 

before monitoring begins.

Monitoring the effectiveness of 

adaptation and mitigation strategies

• Identify cost-effective indicators or suites 

of indicators to streamline effectiveness 

monitoring.

• Consider conducting a purposeful outside 

review of Forest Service monitoring 

protocols. 
4 Executive Summary

• Capitalize on collaboration and partnerships 

with other organizations.

• Set mitigation goals and monitor carbon 

storage.

• Use monitoring data to infl uence institutional 

behavior.

• Close the loop on the adaptive management 

circle: lessons from effectiveness monitoring 

should feed back into management actions.

Major Workshop Themes

 1. In order to be effective at responding 

to climate change, forest managers in 

northern Wisconsin need to establish 

clear goals for adaptation, mitigation, and 

monitoring and make sure these goals are 

articulated and integrated. 

 2. Land managers and scientists alike need to 

remember that all management decisions 

will ultimately be made in a social and 

economic context. 

 3. Change in the way forests are managed in 

response to climate change requires a large 

investment of time and resources from a 

diverse group of experts and stakeholders.

 4. Science and management need to be much 

better integrated to effectively respond to 

climate change in forest management.
Introduction

There is overwhelming evidence that 

global mean temperatures are increasing 

and will continue to do so, largely as a 

result of rising greenhouse gases concentrations 

in the Earth’s atmosphere (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007, National 

Research Council [NRC] 2010). This increase 

in temperature, in turn, is leading to changes in 

precipitation and disturbance regimes at local 

and regional scales in the United States (U.S. 

Global Change Research Program [USGCRP] 

2009). Changes in temperature, precipitation, 

and disturbance regimes are projected to have 

direct and indirect effects on forest tree species 

and ecosystem processes (for example, Dale et al. 

2001, Iverson et al. 2008, Scheller and Mladenoff 

2008, Woodall et al. 2009, Xu et al. 2009), 

creating a pressing need for changes in ecosystem 

management to adapt to these changes. Forest 

management also has the potential to mitigate 

greenhouse gas emissions to some extent, as 

forests store carbon in above- and belowground 

biomass and soil (Rhemtulla et al. 2009, Ryan et 

al. 2010). 

The U.S. Forest Service’s mission is to “sustain 

the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs 

of present and future generations” (U.S. Forest 

Service 2008). Maintaining healthy, diverse, 

and productive forest ecosystems for future 

generations is important for the multiple benefi ts 

they provide, including supplying ecosystem 

services such as clean drinking water, supporting 

an economically viable timber industry, helping to 

support alternative energy from biofuels, providing 

recreation opportunities, and providing habitat for 

fi sh and wildlife, including many threatened and 

endangered species (Barnes et al. 2009, Loomis 

and White 1996, National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Program 2010, Skog and Rosen 1997). Managing 

National Forests for multiple uses and benefi ts 

could become increasingly diffi cult under a rapidly 

changing climate unless local action is taken in the 

near future to adapt ecosystems and management 

systems to climate change and mitigate the amount 

of greenhouse gases that are released to the 

atmosphere (Joyce et al. 2008). However, most 

guidance to date on responding to climate change 

in forest ecosystem management has been quite 

broad, making it diffi cult for land managers to act 

locally. 

Several broad strategies for ecosystem 

management in response to climate change have 

been suggested (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Millar 

et al. 2007, Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). A 

few place-based approaches to forest ecosystem 

management have also been developed with a 

primarily academic focus (Fissore et al. 2009, 

Galatowitsch et al. 2009, Nitschke and Innes 

2008). Recently, some approaches have involved 

direct input from land managers and policymakers (Aubry et al. 2011, Littell et al. 2011, 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences & 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

[Manomet and DFW] 2010). However, these 

place-based approaches remain few, and so far 
6 Introduction

1

Defi nitions of words in bold print can be found in the 

Glossary.

have covered only a limited number of geographic 

areas, specifi cally western Washington (Aubry 

et al. 2011, Littell et al. 2011) and Massachusetts 

(Manomet and DFW 2010). 

Previous attempts at developing climate change 

strategies have tended to emphasize either 

mitigation approaches1

, which focus on 

increasing carbon storage or reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, or adaptation approaches, which 

focus on increasing the ability of an ecosystem 

to resist or respond to climate change. However, 

mitigation and adaptation approaches are best 

considered together, since the degree of mitigation 

affects the amount of climate change for which 

forest managers will need to adapt, and adaptation 

is necessary to ensure that forests will continue to 

sequester carbon in the future (Joyce et al. 2008). 

It is also critical to consider these approaches 

across a broad range of spatial and temporal scales 

when evaluating them for effectiveness. 

Climate change response strategies seldom include 

an explicit focus on monitoring, even though it 

is essential for informed decisionmaking (Marsh 

et al. 2009). Monitoring, both on-the-ground and 

remote sensing, allows us to detect changes in 

climate and its impacts, and evaluate management 

decisions’ effectiveness in adapting to climate 

change (NRC 2010). In addition, extensive 

monitoring is necessary to estimate the amount 

of carbon stored in forest systems and assess 

potential changes in carbon stocks over time 

(Birdsey et al. 2009). 

Climate change introduces a new level of 

uncertainty to land management. Global climate 

models vary widely in their projections, especially 

with respect to seasonal precipitation patterns 

(Bader et al. 2008). In addition, future greenhouse 

gas emissions are a major controlling factor of 

climate change, but will depend largely on future 

political, economic, technological, and social 

conditions that are diffi cult to predict (IPCC 

2007). However, many management actions can 

be taken today. In fact, many decision frameworks 

already exist that are designed to incorporate 

uncertainty of future outcomes. The uncertainty of 

climate change fi ts well into the ideas of adaptive 

management and risk management. These 

approaches, taken either together or separately, 

can provide a framework for decision-making and 

action even as we cope with the uncertainties of 

climate change and forest response (NRC 2010).

Recognizing the management challenges 

associated with uncertain future conditions, the 

U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region identifi ed the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) 

and the surrounding landscape of northern 

Wisconsin (defi ned by Ecological Province 

212, Mixed Laurentian Forest; Fig. 1) as a 

“Climate Change Model Forest for Landscape 

Management.”2

 Northern Wisconsin possesses 

a convergence of three major biomes: eastern 

deciduous forest in the southeast, boreal forest in 

the north, and tallgrass prairie in the southwest. 

The area also has a large concentration of wetlands 

with organic soils that store large amounts of 

carbon. The southern border of the area is marked 

by a climatic tension zone which has markedly 

distinct temperature and precipitation regimes 

on the northeast and southeast sides, resulting in 

a large differentiation in plant communities on 

2

For a more detailed description of the CNNF, its 

ownership patterns, and its ecology, see the Ecosystem 

Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis (Swanston et al. 

2011, Appendix 1).
 Introduction 7

either side (Curtis 1959). Northern Wisconsin is 

also bordered by Lake Superior to the northwest 

and Lake Michigan to the east, which have 

strong effects on local precipitation regimes and 

mitigate temperature extremes to some extent. 

Northern Wisconsin is a heavily forested area with 

multiple ownerships: the majority of the forested 

land is privately owned (59 percent; Swanston et 

al. 2011), with the remainder comprising State 

(6 percent), county/town (17 percent), tribal (4 

percent), and Forest Service lands (13 percent). 

The CNNF is dispersed across northern Wisconsin 

and is surrounded by local government-owned and 

private lands. The economy of northern Wisconsin 

relies heavily on forest ecosystems for timber and 

recreational purposes.

We designed a workshop to identify management 

approaches that can enhance the ability of 

ecosystems in northern Wisconsin to cope 

with climate change and address how National 

Forests and other lands may be used to test 

new approaches. The workshop also initiated a 

Climate Change Science Roundtable for northern 

Wisconsin, with a goal to increase cooperation 

between the research and forest management 

communities. This workshop was part of a larger 

effort to develop a “Climate Change Response 

Framework” (CCRF) for northern Wisconsin 

with a goal of serving as a model for climate 

change adaptation and mitigation for National 

Forests and other public and private forest 

lands both regionally and nationally. We took 

an integrated approach to responding to climate 

change in northern Wisconsin, focusing on 

the intersection of adaptation, mitigation, and 

monitoring from scientifi c, management, and 

policy perspectives (Fig. 2). In addition to the 

workshop described here, the initial development 

of the Framework consisted of an ecosystem 

vulnerability assessment (Swanston et al. 

2011), a greenhouse gas mitigation assessment, 

and a Shared Landscapes Initiative to engage 

stakeholders and develop partnerships in the 

Figure 1.—This map 

of Wisconsin shows 

the borders of the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, along 

with the dominant forest 

types in the surrounding 

area as described by the 

Forest Service’s Forest 

Inventory and Analysis 

program. The workshop 

focused on the area 

north of the diagonal 

black line intersecting 

the state. (Illustration 

used with permission of 

Patricia Butler, Michigan 

Technological University 

and Northern Institute of 

Applied Climate Science.)
8 Introduction

surrounding landscape (Appendix 1). The CCRF 

will provide information and resources to better 

adapt ecosystems to changing climate, mitigate 

carbon emissions, respond to climate change 

impacts across ownership boundaries, and rapidly 

incorporate science and monitoring information 

into management activities on the CNNF and other 

forests in northern Wisconsin. This workshop and 

the other three components helped inform the 

CCRF, and provided input into Forest Adaptation 

Resources: Climate Change Tools and Approaches 

for Land Managers (Janowiak et al. in press), 

a document that describes adaptation strategies 

and approaches and assists land managers with 

developing tactics (Appendix 1).

Figure 2.—Workshop 

participants discussed 

adaptation, mitigation, 

and monitoring 

approaches for 

responding to 

climate change 

from science, policy, 

and management 

perspectives. 

(Illustration by Leslie 

Brandt, U.S. Forest 

Service.)

Workshop Structure 

and Approach

Our workshop sessions were centered on climate 

change adaptation, mitigation, and monitoring 

with a specifi c focus on forest types in northern 

Wisconsin and the CNNF. We asked participants 

to identify existing science that could infl uence 

current management decisions, as well as 

information gaps that could be addressed 

scientifi cally in northern Wisconsin and within 

the CNNF in particular. The nearly 60 participants 

were regional and national experts in forest 

science, policy, and forest resource management, 

and represented state, federal, non-governmental, 

and educational institutions (Appendix 2). Since 

participants varied in their expertise on each of 
 Introduction 9

the three focus areas (adaptation, mitigation, and 

monitoring) and in their expertise on northern 

Wisconsin forests in general, they were provided 

with climate change mitigation and vulnerability 

assessments for northern Wisconsin prior to 

the workshop and were given breakout session 

questions ahead of time. A workshop launching 

the Shared Landscapes Initiative (SLI) was held 2 

months prior to the science workshop (Appendix 

1). That workshop was primarily attended by 

federal, state, local, and private landowners and 

managers in northern Wisconsin, who helped to 

provide a perspective on the management concerns 

related to climate change in the surrounding 

landscape of Province 212 of Wisconsin. A 

summary of the SLI workshop was also provided 

to the participants of the science workshop. 

The workshop began with opening remarks from 

Forest Service leaders that provided context on 

science, policy, and management integration, 

and plenary talks on climate change in northern 

Wisconsin forests.3

 Conceptual framework talks 

prior to each breakout session on adaptation, 

mitigation, and monitoring set the stage and 

provided a common language for breakout 

sessions. 

Breakout sessions followed each conceptual 

framework talk and addressed:

 1. How can our current knowledge be 

applied to management activities in 

northern Wisconsin?

 2. What additional research or data are 

needed to move forward?

Participants were divided into three randomly 

assigned groups for each theme (approximately 

20 people per group). A facilitator for each group 

led a brainstorming session aimed at addressing 

questions specifi c to the theme. Overarching ideas 

from each group were shared among groups and 

are synthesized below. Ideas generated in the 

breakout sessions outlined potential approaches 

that could be adopted by managers, policy-makers, 

or scientists on the CNNF or the surrounding 

landscape of northern Wisconsin. These 

approaches will be assessed for their potential 

for incorporation into the CCRF based on their 

benefi ts, feasibility, and other considerations. 

3

Biographies of speakers are provided in Appendix 3.
Opening Remarks

Chris Swanston, Director of the Northern 

Institute of Applied Climate Science 

and a research ecologist for the Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, outlined 

the goals and objectives of the workshop and 

explained how the workshop fi ts into the larger 

CCRF Project. Swanston laid out the expectations 

for the workshop participants: that they be fully 

engaged and contribute to frank and forthright 

discussion. Swanston also invited all participants 

to become part of the Climate Change Science 

Roundtable for northern Wisconsin, which has a 

goal to increase cooperation between the research 

and forest management communities and to 

help facilitate research activities and technology 

transfer related to climate change impacts on 

northern Wisconsin forests. 

David Cleaves, Climate Change Advisor to the 

Chief of the Forest Service, set the national 

context for the Forest Service’s response to climate 

change. He emphasized that increasing resilience 

to climate change is one of four “pillars” of the 

Forest Service’s vision for America’s forests. He 

emphasized fi ve things the Forest Service must do 

in responding to climate change:

• Assess risks (vulnerabilities) under future 

scenarios.

• Invest in strategies, not just practices.

• Prioritize investments according to 

vulnerability and likelihood of success.

• Build trust and teamwork among agencies, 

citizens, and organizations.

• Build skill, capacity, and fl exibility across 

institutions.

Cleaves said the focus on climate adaptation is a 

priority because: (1) it is required for sustained 

carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas 

mitigation, (2) the warning signs are clear, and (3) 

it is the mission of the Forest Service to “sustain 

the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs 

of present and future generations” (U.S. Forest 

Service 2008). He noted that adaptation does not 

mean starting from scratch or shifting priorities. 

The Forest Service could build on what is already 

known about ecosystems and incorporate climate 

change into existing plans and programs. Cleaves 

encouraged participants to take action immediately 

because one “can’t steer a bicycle unless it’s 

moving.” According to Cleaves, the Forest 

Service could be a leader in climate adaptation 

because of its complementary mission areas, 

body of proven knowledge and skill, mission 

and authorities, geographic diversity, world-class 

research, network of partners, and energetic and 

professional workforce.

Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester for the 

Eastern Region of the National Forest System, 

talked about the goal of using the CNNF and 

the surrounding forests of northern Wisconsin 

as a “model landscape” for climate response in 

the East. Connaughton emphasized the need to 

conserve forests in the United States and view 

eastern National Forests and the public and private 

forests that surround them as instruments of public 

policy. The challenge, Connaughton stated, is 

how to assess the outcome over a long period of 

time. Faced with a lack of information, managers, 
 Opening Remarks 11

scientists, and policy-makers need to be nimble 

in dealing with uncertainty. Confronting a lack of 

governance on climate change, federal personnel 

need to align their research and managerial 

priorities with state priorities. However, 

Connaughton urged the Forest Service not to 

let the past dictate the future. The boundaries 

between science and land management cannot be 

distinguished, and these two areas need to work 

together to address climate change. 

Thomas Schmidt, Assistant Director of Research 

for the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station, 

emphasized the support that the Northern Research 

Station had for utilizing National Forests as “living 

laboratories.” Such living laboratories as the 

CNNF are necessary for incorporating science into 

decisionmaking. Schmidt stated that the research 

community must be integrated into management 

and cited the northern Wisconsin CCRF project as 

an outstanding example of that process.
Plenary Talks

Climate Projections for 

Northern Wisconsin 

Michael Notaro described how climate 

is projected to change in Wisconsin 

over the next century using statistical 

downscaling and debiasing of 14 global climate 

models under three emission scenarios. His 

results indicated that mean daily temperature 

in Wisconsin was projected to increase by an 

average of 6.1 °F (3.4 °C) by 2055 compared to 

the 30-year average from 1950-1980. Warming 

was projected to increase more at night and 

inland from lakes Superior and Michigan. The 

models projected a general increase in annual 

precipitation, especially during the winter 

months, but models tended to be inconsistent on 

projections of precipitation during the summer 

months. Therefore, Notaro cautioned that current 

projections of summer precipitation should not be 

used in decisionmaking for northern Wisconsin, 

but he also said that moisture availability will 

likely decrease during the summer because higher 

temperatures will increase evapotranspiration. 

Notaro showed that shifts in temperature and 

precipitation will lead to continued lengthening 

of the growing season, a northward shift in plant 

hardiness zones, and a northward movement of 

Wisconsin’s climatic tension zone (Fig. 3). By the 

end of the century, heavy precipitation events were 

projected to increase in frequency and snowfall 

and snow depth were projected to decrease. 

Regional Impacts of Climate 

Change on Forests

Louis Iverson presented the results of a modeling 

effort to examine climate change impacts on 

potential habitat ranges of tree and bird species. 

Iverson and his team developed statistical models 

based on current climate, current bird and tree 

species distributions, and other environmental 

factors such as soil characteristics and elevation. 

These models are then adjusted for modeled future 

climate, and potential future habitats are identifi ed. 

The results of this modeling effort, presented in 

an online Climate Change Atlas4

 (Iverson et al. 

2008), showed potential “winners and losers” 

under climate change. For northern Wisconsin, 

tree species at the southern extent of their range 

with very narrow habitat ranges, such as black 

spruce (Picea mariana) and balsam fi r (Abies 

balsamea), were projected to have the greatest 

loss of suitable habitat. Species that were adapted 

to disturbance or had a wide range of tolerances, 

such as red maple (Acer rubrum), or were at the 

northern extent of their range, such as several oak 

(Quercus) species, fared better. 

Iverson cautioned that the models of suitable 

habitat did not take into account lag times in 

the ability of trees to migrate or the effects of 

4

Links to more information on programs and websites 

(in italics throughout the document) can be found in 

Appendix 4. 
 Plenary Talks 13

Present Day M id-21st Century (A1B) Late-21st Century

Mean temperature ( rC) April -June

Figure 3.—Michael 

Notaro showed that 

Wisconsin’s tension 

zone (depicted in 

gray), determined 

largely by spring 

temperatures, is 

projected to move 

northward, and may 

move out of the state 

entirely by the end 

of the century, even 

under a mid-range 

greenhouse gas 

emission scenario 

(A1B). (Illustration 

used with permission 

of the University of 

Wisconsin Press 

and David Lorenz, 

University of 

Wisconsin.)

other “modifying factors” that could make some 

species fare better or worse than models predict 

(Fig. 4). For example, while oaks are likely to 

have more suitable habitat in northern Wisconsin 

in the next 100 years, migration of the species 

into the new habitat may be slow, or prevented 

altogether across the fragmented landscape. In 

another example, several ash (Fraxinus) species 

would normally be projected to persist, albeit 

at lower levels, in northern Wisconsin under a 

changing climate, but the probable future impacts 

of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) 

are likely to overwhelm any effects of climate 

change. Iverson addressed limited dispersal 

ability using a model called SHIFT, and addressed 

modifying factors using a qualitative ranking 

system through a literature review. The results are 

a major component of the Ecosystem Vulnerability 

Assessment and Synthesis (Swanston et al. 2011). 

Climate Change, Management, 

and Disturbance in Northern 

Wisconsin Forests

David Mladenoff showed that in order to truly 

understand climate change impacts, scientists 

and managers must also understand how the 

interactions among management, disturbance, 

and climate have infl uenced ecosystems of 

northern Wisconsin in the past, and how they 

will continue to do so in the future. Prior to 

European settlement, the landscape of northern 

Wisconsin was heavily infl uenced by fi re and 

wind disturbances. These disturbance regimes 

resulted in multi-cohort stands in the forests of 

northern Wisconsin, dominated by white pine 

(Pinus strobus), oak, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 

and mixed hardwoods. Management and land 

use change after European settlement led to a 
14 Plenary Talks

Figure 4.—Louis 

Iverson showed 

that some species 

projected to decrease 

in importance value 

under climate change 

(large decreasers) 

may fare better than 

predicted over the 

next century because 

of “modifying factors.” 

Modifying factors can be 

biological characteristics, 

such as dispersal and 

regeneration ability, or 

disturbance, such as fi re 

or insect damage. Black 

ash, for example, has 

a negative modifying 

factor because it has a 

highly specialized habitat 

and is susceptible to 

the emerald ash borer. 

Aspen species have 

positive modifying factors 

because they reproduce 

clonally and respond 

positively to disturbance. 

(Illustration by

Louis Iverson, 

U.S. Forest Service.)

Large Decreasers

Losers

Better

Worse

Em ission

S cen ario

(Importance Values)

Populus

grandidenta

Acer saccharum

Populus

tremuloides

Picea glauca

Larix laricina

Thuja occidentalis

Fraxinus nigra

Tsuga canadensis

Betula

alleghaniensis

Betula papyrifera

Picea nigra

Abies balsamea

decrease in the amount of forested land, a shift to 

dominance of even-aged stands, and increases in 

aspen (Populus spp.) and other hardwood species 

(Scheller and Mladenoff 2008). 

Mladenoff presented the results of his simulation 

model, LANDIS-II, which examined the 

interactions among climate change, disturbance, 

and management on tree species distribution. His 

models showed that landscape fragmentation and 

management will affect the ability of trees to 

move to suitable habitats in a changing climate 

(Fig. 5). These results showed that southern 

species, such as oak and hickory (Carya spp.), 

would be slow to arrive and take advantage 

of a warmer climate with potentially drier soil 

and a greater potential for fi re. The results of 

Mladenoff’s work also served as a key component 

of the Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and 

Synthesis (Swanston et al. 2011). 
 Plenary Talks 15

Figure 5.—David 

Mladenoff showed that 

while climate change is 

occurring rapidly, tree 

growth and migration 

will not be able to keep 

up, due to natural 

inability to disperse 

and grow rapidly, or 

because landscape 

fragmentation by 

human development 

creates barriers. 

The boxes represent 

landscapes with 

different levels of 

fragmentation. Blue 

squares represent 

areas where a tree 

could potentially 

migrate (forested 

areas), while white 

squares represent 

uninhabitable areas. 

Arrows indicate 

potential tree dispersal. 

(Illustration used with 

permission of David 

Mladenoff, University 

of Wisconsin.)
Breakout Session 1: Adaptation

Conceptual Framework Talk: 

Climate Change, 

Resource Management, and 

Adaptation 

Linda Joyce presented a conceptual 

framework for adaptation that could be 

applied to forest ecosystem management 

in northern Wisconsin. First, she outlined four 

general strategies for responding to climate 

change: resistance, resilience, response, and 

realignment (Millar et al. 2007):

• Resistance is an adaptation option intended 

to improve the defenses of a forest against 

anticipated changes or directly defend the 

forest against disturbance in order to maintain 

relatively unchanged conditions.

• Resilience is an adaptation option intended 

to accommodate some degree of change, but 

allow for a return to prior conditions after 

a disturbance, either naturally or through 

management.

• Response is an adaptation option to 

accommodate change and enable ecosystems 

to adaptively respond to changing and new 

conditions.

• Realignment is the process of tuning 

ecosystems or habitats to present and 

anticipated future conditions in such a way 

that they can respond adaptively to ongoing 

change.

Joyce said that all of these strategies can be part of 

a toolkit for adapting forests to climate change and 

can be mixed and matched or adjusted between 

the short term and long term. She emphasized that 

all approaches require a prioritization process; 

she used triage as an example. Evaluating an 

organization’s adaptive capacity and timing in its 

response was also cited as an important component 

of any adaptation efforts (Fig. 6). Joyce stated that 

land managers will have to decide when it would 

be best to take no adaptation actions, when to take 

adaptation actions associated with current goals, 

and when to plan or act for change. 

Adaptation Breakout Session 

Goals

The overall goal of the adaptation breakout session 

was to identify approaches and activities to help 

forests in northern Wisconsin adapt to climate 

change.

Participants were asked the following specifi c 

questions: 

 1. How can our current knowledge be 

applied to adaptation strategies for 

northern Wisconsin forests? 

 2. What additional research activities 

would help us fi ll in our current gaps in 

understanding that impede progress in 

adaptation?
 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation 17

Figure 6.—Linda 

Joyce emphasized 

the need to make 

decisions on timing 

of adaptation actions. 

Actions can be 

associated with current 

goals and objectives, 

can be proactive, or 

can be a planned 

action in response 

to a disturbance. 

(Illustration by 

Linda Joyce, U.S. 

Forest Service.)

Participants identifi ed approaches and activities 

falling under the general strategies of resistance, 

resilience, and response presented by Joyce that 

could be applied to northern Wisconsin forests 

given our current scientifi c understanding (specifi c 

realignment approaches were not identifi ed). They 

also identifi ed some changes that would need to be 

made to the adaptive capacity of organizations to 

better prepare for climate change. It is important 

to note that these strategies have not been vetted 

across disciplines or scrutinized for viability and 

sustainability; they could include some strategies 

that will ultimately be deemed unsuitable in many 

landscapes or for particular land uses. Additional 

research needs were identifi ed to address gaps 

in understanding. Strategies are numbered in 

no particular order. For each research need, the 

corresponding strategy numbers that they help 

address are listed in parentheses. 

Application of 

Current Knowledge

Resistance strategies

 A-1. Identify and maintain potential refugia 

for threatened species and ecosystems. 

• Managers could work with researchers 

to determine which landform, 

atmospheric, and associated species 

indicators determine refugia and 

incorporate these factors into a 

predictive model. Using these models, 

managers and scientists could identify 

the coolest and wettest sites that may 

act as potential refugia for lowland 

conifer and lowland hardwoods, two 

forest types that are projected to be 

vulnerable under a changing climate. 
18 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation

• Conifers provide a key habitat for 

threatened and endangered bird species, 

so enhancing conifer components in 

systems where they are projected to 

persist could be an option for providing 

refugia for bird species. 

• Since deer herbivory poses a threat 

to many plant species now and into 

the future, Forest Service staff could 

work with the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources to identify areas 

with low deer populations; these 

areas could act as refugia for species 

sensitive to herbivory. 

• Hemlock and yellow birch (Betula 

alleghaniensis) are two species 

projected to decline under climate 

change. Using a triage process, 

managers could make these species 

a conservation priority and identify 

refugia for them. 

• Building small dams or retention ponds 

in areas where high soil moisture needs 

to be maintained locally could be 

considered in order to preserve refugia. 

This option needs to be weighed 

against potential negative impacts 

on organism passage and sediment 

loading, but could be considered in 

cases where preservation of threatened 

and endangered species is a goal. 

 A-2. Reduce existing stressors.

• Managers could work to prevent the 

establishment of invasive plant species 

in newly disturbed areas, especially 

low-lying areas. For example, 

invasion of reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea) can be a problem in 

lowland hardwood systems. Managers 

could consider experimental plantings, 

under-plantings, and manipulations 

in lowland systems to minimize 

colonization by reed canary grass.

• Fire suppression could be targeted in 

areas that are extremely susceptible to 

drying, such as coarse-textured glacialfl uvial areas. 

• Minimizing disruption to forest canopy 

within the watershed of ephemeral 

ponds could help buffer them against 

hydrologic and temperature changes. 

Canopy cover can reduce evaporation 

and maintain temperatures that are 

cooler than the surrounding landscape. 

Resilience strategies

 A-3. Maintain and increase species and 

genetic diversity.

• Managers could work to maintain 

and restore diversity of native tree 

species, focusing on regenerating rare, 

uncommon, or declining species such 

as hemlock. 

• Restoration of a rich native ecosystem 

composition in the short term could 

help ensure that potential long-term 

winners (species, genotypes) are 

present.

 A-4. Maintain or improve hydrologic 

conditions in lowland ecosystems.

• Managers could re-establish or 

maintain natural fl ow patterns in 

streams. Some areas may fare better if 

dams or other man-made structures are 

removed to allow water to reach some 

low-lying areas or to allow migration 

of aquatic species to more suitable 

habitats. 
 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation 19

• Increased monitoring of hydrologic 

fl ows and conditions could help 

identify “trigger points” (thresholds) 

where climate change is affecting local 

hydrology. 

 A-5. Manage to enhance and maintain 

edaphic conditions and structure.

• Harvesting trees only when soils 

are frozen can help prevent soil 

compaction. This period will be shorter 

in a changing climate, making timing 

even more critical. 

 A-6. Restore fi re to ecosystems that 

previously depended on it.

• Promoting fi re-dependent ecosystems 

can help slow homogenization of 

ecosystems. Suitable habitat for oak 

species may substantially increase in 

northern Wisconsin forests in a warmer, 

drier climate, but fi re suppression 

currently favors red maple (Acer 

rubrum). As another example, jack pine 

(Pinus banksiana) systems historically 

depended on fi re and provide habitat 

for Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica 

kirtlandii), an endangered species. 

Managers can promote diversity by 

encouraging oak species or jack pine 

through controlled burning. 

Response strategies

 A-7. Increase the pool of genetic diversity 

when planting.

• Managers could incorporate genotypes 

from areas south of northern Wisconsin 

that may be more adapted to future 

climates while keeping the same 

species composition. 

 A-8. Preserve and improve connectivity 

across the landscape.

• Connectivity can enable species to 

disperse on their own to more suitable 

habitats. Land managers could utilize 

existing mechanisms of land protection, 

such as working forest conservation 

easements or certifi cation programs, 

to improve connectivity. Research 

Natural Areas could also be explored to 

set aside areas for connectivity. 

• If managers pursue increased landscape 

connectivity, the potential increased 

risk of fi re, transpiration losses from 

increased vegetation cover, and the 

spread of diseases and invasive species 

will also need to be considered. 

 A-9. Assess the viability of current forest 

types.

• The Ecosystem Vulnerability 

Assessment and Synthesis (Swanston 

et al. 2011) identifi ed some forest 

types and ecosystem components 

vulnerable to climate change in 

northern Wisconsin, including lowland 

conifer and lowland hardwoods. 

Further assessments could help identify 

additional risks and vulnerabilities 

within these types.

• Managers and researchers could work 

together to assess the likelihood that 

current forest types will persist and the 

likelihood of management success. As 

one example, they could use models 

and monitoring to identify “trigger 

points” (i.e., thresholds where one 

forest type may make the transition to 

something else entirely). 
20 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation

 A-10. Position infrastructure to support 

response to climate change.

• Instead of studying only biological 

infrastructure, managers may also need 

to examine physical infrastructure, 

such as buildings, roads, and bridges. 

For example, managers could increase 

culvert size to accommodate larger 

fl ows projected to occur early in 

the growing season. Appropriatelysized culverts are less susceptible to 

collapse, so would have less impact 

on ecosystems while reducing the 

likelihood of fl ooding.

• Scientists, land managers, and nursery 

managers could cooperatively examine 

nursery stock, especially for species 

that are more adapted to projected 

changes in climate. They could create 

infrastructure to increase the diversity 

of nursery stock and could select 

species that are currently growing 

south of the region but are likely to be 

suited to future climates in northern 

Wisconsin. 

 A-11. Plan for disturbance.

• Making a change after a disturbance 

might be easier than making a change 

in preparation for climate change. Thus 

it makes sense for managers to develop 

a response plan before an event such 

as a tornado or emerald ash borer 

infestation occurs. The objective is to 

get the public on board earlier to have 

options after disturbance. 

• Managers can work with scientists to 

identify pests that are likely to increase 

due to climate change and integrate 

available information about pests and 

diseases into adaptive strategies. 

 A-12. Identify newly suitable habitats.

• In lowland hardwood systems, 

managers may want to encourage 

substitute species that are projected 

to increase under climate change and 

discourage regeneration of ash in 

harvested stands because of emerald 

ash borer. 

• Climate change may improve habitat 

suitability of peatlands for lowland 

conifers if soils become drier from 

increased evaporation during summer 

months. 

Organizational capacity

 A-13. Develop adaptive policies.

• The uncertainty of climate change will 

require institutional fl exibility. Policies 

will need to deliberately address and 

work with uncertainty within strategies 

and plans. Policy-makers may need to 

develop transitional plans or strategies 

because changes in climate will be 

erratic.

• On a local level, forest managers may 

need to plan for shorter winter logging 

seasons because the period when soils 

will be frozen may decrease with 

increasing temperature. 

 A-14. Integrate upscaling and downscaling of 

information into adaptation strategies.

• On-the-ground actions and 

observations at local levels need to 

feed back to broader policymaking 

and modeling efforts, and large-scale 

policies and model projections should 

be brought down to a local level, where 

effective decisions can be made on the 

ground.
 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation 21

 A-15. Increase information transfer with 

people in the surrounding landscape 

and manage social expectations.

• Efforts to promote adaptation need 

to be expanded to incorporate public 

social and economic perspectives 

(i.e., how climate change may affect 

human behaviors and the forest 

products industry and vice versa). 

Public education programs are 

forums for informing citizens about 

the effects of climate change and for 

gathering information on the public’s 

perspectives.

• There is a greater need for managers, 

scientists, and policy-makers to 

communicate with the public, but 

communication must go in both 

directions. Managers, scientists, and 

policy-makers will be more successful 

if they approach communication with 

the intent of engaging in dialogue. 

These groups could introduce the 

ideas of adaptive management and 

uncertainty in dialogue with public 

neighbors and industry. 

• Planning could be more integrated 

among federal, state, county, tribal, and 

private forests and the timber industry. 

Public land managers, for example, 

could form partnerships with private 

landowners to assess climate change 

impacts and adaptation strategies.

 A-16. Create a prioritization process for 

implementing adaptation strategies.

• Prioritization could be based on values 

such as critical habitat, the most 

vulnerable species or systems, or the 

most severe consequences. Triage, 

the prioritization process used in the 

medical industry based on severity of 

condition, could be considered in the 

face of limited resources (Millar et al. 

2007). 

• Managers could import risk 

management or hedging theory into 

natural resource management to help 

prioritize adaptation strategies.

 A-17. Develop and utilize templates or tools 

to systematically assess climate change 

impacts and management activities. 

• For example, the Southern Research 

Station and the U.S. Forest Service 

Southern Region have developed a 

tool called TACCIMO (Template for 

Assessing Climate Change Impacts 

and Management Options) for National 

Forests in the southeastern United 

States and are beginning to include 

information for National Forests in the 

northeastern United States, such as the 

CNNF. 

Additional Research Needs

Understand what factors contribute to refugia 

(Strategy A-1).

• The contribution of factors such as landform, 

aspect, soil characteristics, and climate could be 

examined.

Increase research in plant genetics (Strategies 

A-3, A-7). 

• Scientists could assess genotypes resistant to 

current stressors (such as drought) or better 

adapted to altered climate regimes, and assess 

the genetic variation throughout the ranges for 

selected species. 
22 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation

Develop better models to predict changing 

hydrologic regimes and potential effects of 

those changes (Strategy A-4). 

• Future models could consider effects of 

potential changes in evapotranspiration and 

groundwater on tree species, for example.

Assess the quality or viability of ecosystem 

services from existing and novel forest types 

(Strategies A-9, A-12). 

• For example, research could be conducted to 

examine the effects of species substitutions on 

ecosystem services such as water quality and 

habitat.

Find analogs (or identify the lack thereof) that 

represent a range of future climates in order to 

predict future species ranges (Strategies A-9, 

A-12).

• Models for suitability of aquatic species that are 

somewhat similar to the modeling work from 

the Climate Change Atlas would be helpful. 

Implement species experiments to test model 

predictions on the ground (Strategies A-9, 

A-12).

• Scientists could consider experiments where 

different species mixes or genotypes are 

planted. 

Determine the feedbacks of management and 

disturbance on climate (Strategy A-11).

• Scientists could conduct research to better 

understand ecosystem response to novel 

combinations of disturbances that result from 

climate change and how they, in turn, may have 

effects on climate. 

Based on ecological assessments, undertake 

a social and economic assessment with the 

affected public to explore uncertainty and 

short-term and long-term consequences of 

climate change (Strategies A-13, A-14, A-15, 

A-16).

• Public expectations of alternative futures could 

be identifi ed.

• Trade-offs between social or economic values 

and long-term ecological sustainability or 

ecosystem services sustainability could be 

considered.

• More research on how to better communicate 

uncertainty to decisionmakers and the public 

may be needed.

• The limits, economic effects, and ways to 

overcome new challenges created by climate 

change, such as a shorter winter logging season, 

could be examined.

Adaptation Breakout Session 

Summary

Overall, participants found that identifying 

adaptation strategies for forests in northern 

Wisconsin required clear goals and objectives. 

Participants identifi ed several questions that need 

to be addressed before adaptation planning can 

begin in northern Wisconsin: 

• Why: Why is the project being undertaken 

(i.e., what is the goal or objective)? 

• What: What are you adapting (primarily 

human or ecological systems)? Are you 

trying to preserve species composition, forest 

type, ecosystem function, or socioeconomic 

benefi ts?

• When: Are your adaptation strategies 

addressing short-term (months-years) or 

long-term (decades) goals? 
 Breakout Session 1: Adaptation 23

Despite not being fully able to answer these 

questions, participants were able to identify 

approaches that could be employed on the 

CNNF and the surrounding landscape using the 

conceptual framework provided by Joyce. Two 

overarching themes emerged. One theme was 

the need to adapt not only ecological systems but 

social systems as well, such as policies, public 

perceptions, and organizational structure. More 

research on these social issues combined with 

greater engagement with multiple stakeholders 

will help address this need. A second theme 

was the need for more modeling to help support 

management decisions. Models could help predict 

hydrological changes, assess shifts in species 

ranges, identify climate feedbacks, and analyze 

decisions. A rapid feedback between on-theground actions and observations and modeling 

efforts would help increase the success and utility 

of these models. 
Breakout Session 2: Mitigation

Conceptual Framework Talk: 

Forest Carbon Sequestration 

and Mitigation

Richard Birdsey provided an overview 

of the concepts of forest carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gas 

mitigation along with the preliminary results of 

the mitigation assessment conducted for northern 

Wisconsin (Appendix 2). He spoke on the role 

of public lands in forest carbon sequestration, 

and emphasized that mitigation strategies need to 

involve both public and private lands. National 

policies and programs are evolving to deal with 

the issue of carbon storage in forest management 

in public and private lands. 

Phase I of the mitigation assessment focused 

on land-use change, bioenergy, the biological 

potential for forests to sequester carbon, and 

the transfer of carbon from forests to wood 

products. Preliminary results showed that housing 

development over the coming decades could lead 

to a decrease in forest land, thereby reducing 

carbon storage. Some of this decrease could be 

offset by afforestation projects if incentives were 

in place. Birdsey mentioned that wood bioenergy 

made up 4.6 percent of energy consumption in the 

State and had the potential to be expanded threefold. The report also showed that forest carbon 

stocks in northern Wisconsin were mainly in soil 

and the greatest proportion of forest carbon stocks 

were in private lands. However, rates of carbon 

sequestration within private lands decreased in 

recent decades, possibly from greater harvesting, 

aging forests, and increasing disturbances. 

Birdsey illustrated the biological potential with 

estimates from David Mladenoff’s lab showing 

that if existing forests in northern Wisconsin 

were allowed to grow to maturity under historical 

disturbance regimes, the average annual gain in 

carbon stocks would increase from 1.5 to about 4.0 

terragrams (1012 grams) carbon per year over the 

entire area for a few decades, until carbon stocks 

became typical of old-aged forests with slower 

growth rates (Fig. 7, Rhemtulla et al. 2009). 

He emphasized, however, that this high carbon 

scenario was unlikely to be consistent with current 

forest utilization and management practices. 

Mitigation Breakout Session 

Goals

The overall goal was to identify approaches and 

activities in northern Wisconsin forests that could 

contribute to enhanced mitigation of greenhouse 

gases. 

Participants were asked the following specifi c 

questions: 

 1. How can our current knowledge be 

applied to carbon sequestration and 

greenhouse gas mitigation in northern 

Wisconsin forests?

 2. What research activities could be carried 

out to help us fi ll in our current gaps 

in scientifi c understanding that impede 

progress in mitigating greenhouse gas 

emissions in northern Wisconsin? 
 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation 25

Biological MiƟgaƟon

PotenƟal Under Historical

Climate and Disturbance

Rhemtulla et al. (2009)

If all exisƟng forests were allowed

to grow to maturity, average

annual change in C stocks

(ecosystem plus wood products)

would increase from 1.5 to about

4.0 Tg C yr-1 for a few decades,

unƟl carbon stocks became typical

of old-aged forests.

Figure 7.—Richard 

Birdsey showed work 

from David Mladenoff’s 

lab indicating that there 

is biological potential 

to sequester additional 

carbon over the coming 

decades in northern 

Wisconsin, both by 

allowing existing forests 

to grow to maturity 

and by converting 

agricultural land to 

forest. (Illustration 

reproduced with 

permission of the 

National Academy 

of Sciences.)

Based on current knowledge of carbon cycling, 

bioenergy, and the effects of land use on carbon 

storage, participants identifi ed strategies that 

could be examined in order to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions or increase carbon storage in 

forests of northern Wisconsin. These strategies 

generally fell under the categories of enhanced 

sequestration or biomass energy and substitution. 

Participants also identifi ed several research needs 

related to quantifying carbon sequestration and 

the benefi ts and tradeoffs of carbon management. 

It is important to note that these strategies have 

not been vetted across disciplines or scrutinized 

for viability and sustainability and could include 

some strategies that will ultimately be deemed 

unsuitable in many landscapes or for certain land 

uses. Strategies are numbered in no particular 

order. For each research need, the corresponding 

strategy numbers that they help address are listed 

in parentheses. 

Application of Current 

Knowledge

Enhanced sequestration strategies

 M-1. Evaluate practices that have mitigation 

potential and align with strategies 

for adaptation and general ecosystem 

health.

• Wetlands have the largest carbon stocks 

of all land cover types in northern 

Wisconsin. Restoration of wetlands 

can help increase carbon sequestration 

and can have adaptation benefi ts, 

such as creating refugia and restoring 

hydrologic function.

• Reducing disturbances to highly 

sensitive systems (a resistance 

adaptation strategy) can also decrease 

carbon loss from dead and downed 

wood. 
26 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation

• Planting trees adapted to a changing 

climate can increase carbon stocks 

more quickly than natural regeneration. 

• Mitigation can be a co-product of 

forest management for biodiversity and 

sustainability. Forest conservation is a 

strategy for mitigation at a landscape 

scale. 

 M-2. A carbon management strategy should 

include both wetlands and forests.

• Managers may have to evaluate 

effects of a warmer, drier climate 

on the carbon balance in wetlands 

and change management strategies 

to maintain sequestration. Enhanced 

evapotranspiration in a warming 

climate may lead to natural 

afforestation of wetlands, potentially 

increasing carbon stocks in those areas. 

Conversely, changes in precipitation 

and summer drought could dry out peat 

and increase fi re risk, thus potentially 

reducing carbon stocks.

• Wetlands have been off-limits to 

harvesting under some circumstances 

in the past due to policy and traditional 

practices. A wetlands management 

strategy may need to be employed. 

Industry may exert pressure in the 

future to manage these lands and 

enhance their mitigation potential, 

but whether management in peatlands 

would truly be benefi cial needs to be 

examined. 

 M-3. Consider extending northern hardwood 

rotation periods for carbon storage, 

but be mindful of carbon sequestration 

rates among various age classes. 

• Extension of rotation periods in 

northern hardwoods is already being 

considered on the CNNF to increase 

carbon sequestration. The tradeoff is 

that storage in the long term may not 

increase as much as in the short term 

due to declining sequestration rates in 

older trees. 

• Longer rotations nationally may 

mean importing more wood from 

international sources, so considerations 

of leakage need to be kept in mind as 

well. 

 M-4. Consider increasing stocking, but be 

mindful of increased susceptibility to 

fi re. 

• The Winrock report (Brown et al. 

2008), which examined carbon storage 

in Wisconsin and recommended 

increased stocking, was unable 

to examine practices occurring at 

fi ner resolutions. Some mitigation 

suggestions in the report entail 

potentially greater risks, such as higher 

susceptibility in fi re-prone systems 

when density is increased.

 M-5. A carbon storage and sequestration 

strategy requires consideration of age 

structure and composition at multiple 

temporal and spatial scales. 

• Time horizon is important. Some 

managers may tend to think about 

mitigation over a shorter time horizon 

(years) and on small spatial scales 

(a particular stand), but all strategies 

should be considered over long-term 

time horizons (decades) and on large 

spatial scales (entire forests, states, 

ecoregions). 
 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation 27

 M-6. Management strategies to increase 

carbon sequestration must be made in 

light of other values. 

• Tools like the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator can help evaluate the effects 

of management actions on carbon 

sequestration and how these effects 

compare with other management goals. 

It is acceptable to not choose an action 

with the greatest sequestration potential 

if another objective is deemed more 

important.

 M-7. A carbon sequestration strategy 

requires consideration of the role of 

both public and private lands. 

• Counties and private landowners often 

want to see someone else try carbon 

markets fi rst before they invest time, 

fi nancial resources, and effort in them. 

The CNNF could be a demonstration 

area for this type of activity to show 

whether or how participation in a 

carbon market could work, stopping 

short of selling credits. However, the 

Forest Service’s mission and goals 

cannot always be translated to private 

lands. 

• The state and county may focus on 

increasing sequestration while the 

CNNF has a greater potential to 

maintain storage in existing forests. 

State and county leaders would then 

seek to enhance sequestration on 

neighboring private lands, and the 

CNNF would focus on maintaining 

storage. Ways the CNNF can develop 

incentives for these strategies need to 

be examined. 

• Land managers on the CNNF can 

help limit deforestation and promote 

reforestation on the landscape scale by 

working with state, local, and county 

entities to identify areas most at risk. 

State forest assessments and strategies 

developed in response to the 2008 

Farm Bill can identify those lands that 

are most at risk to a variety of threats 

or most benefi cial to their states and 

communities. To set priorities for 

expanding the capacity of the CNNF 

to focus on the most benefi cial and 

at-risk lands using the Wisconsin 

state assessment, the CNNF could 

collaborate with the Forest Service’s 

State and Private Forestry. 

• Management decisions on private 

lands are often driven by economics, 

and carbon markets can be incentives 

to encourage carbon management. 

Additionality (whether actions taken 

to increase sequestration are beyond 

business-as-usual) must be considered 

when devising incentives for mitigation 

activities. Current voluntary markets 

are working to ensure all enrolled 

forestry programs are additional and 

not just claiming credit for routine 

management regimes that do not 

increase overall carbon storage. 

• Private landowners can utilize existing 

national programs such as the Forest 

Legacy Program and the Forest 

Stewardship Program to maintain 

forested areas. Programs like these 

are intended to keep blocks of forest 

intact. The Forest Legacy Program’s 

efforts could be combined with public 

land trusts to leverage effects. It 
28 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation

must be remembered that the Forest 

Legacy easements do not allow private 

landowners to retain rights to forest 

carbon sequestration credits. The 

Forest Stewardship Program could be 

utilized to target those private lands 

that may not be likely candidates for 

conservation easements.

• Forest managers could enhance 

working relationships with tribes. 

Managers can utilize existing 

cooperative agreements with tribes 

for harvests and explore opportunities 

for cooperative research. They should 

consult with tribes about treatyprotected harvest rights before 

making changes. 

 M-8. Identify high-priority areas for 

sequestration activities. 

• Managers could break down the 

landscape into three main categories 

according to how the areas are utilized, 

such as extended rotation/management 

areas, production areas, and passive 

areas.

Bioenergy and Substitution Strategies

 M-9. Be aware of the limitations of bioenergy.

• Recent scientifi c evidence suggests that 

the benefi ts of bioenergy in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions may not 

be as high as previously suggested. 

Decisions made related to bioenergy in 

northern Wisconsin should be made in 

light of the latest scientifi c evidence. 

 M-10. Consider marginal agricultural lands 

and alternative species mixes for 

bioenergy production.

• Native forests may not be the best 

option for bioenergy production, 

so alternatives can be examined for 

short-rotation intensive management 

for bioenergy. For example, a paper 

mill in Minnesota has converted from 

use of aspen (Populus tremuloides) to 

hybrid poplar (Populus spp.). Leasing 

marginal farmland and converting to 

poplar is a potential option. 

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) has several sets of authorities 

for business incubation. The USDA 

and the Forest Service could focus on 

some areas as pilot areas. The USDA 

Farm Service Agency, for example, 

has a biomass crop assistance program 

that could be utilized. This approach 

is consistent with the Secretary of 

Agriculture’s goal of “one USDA.”

 M-11. Monitor where demand for bioenergy is 

likely to increase.

• The radius of infl uence of a biomass 

power generation facility could be 

considered and Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s) should be employed 

for biomass facilities. 
 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation 29

Additional Research Needs

Increase understanding of management effects 

on belowground processes and soil carbon 

sequestration effects (Strategy M-1).

• For example, little is known about the longerterm impacts of prescribed fi re on belowground 

carbon sequestration and restoration. If 

managers are interested in infl uencing future 

forest species composition using prescribed 

burning, then it would be helpful to better 

understand belowground processes. 

Address the role of other greenhouse gases such 

as methane and nitrous oxide and non-forest 

landscapes such as wetlands (Strategy M-2).

• Although most emphasis has been placed on 

forests and carbon dioxide, wetlands store 

large amounts of carbon and release methane 

and nitrous oxide. Scientists could consider 

long-term research and monitoring of carbon 

and greenhouse gases in wetlands. AmeriFlux

and the National Ecological Observatory 

Network (NEON) are examples of research 

and monitoring programs that could potentially 

be utilized. Mechanisms to set up long-term 

ecological research sites and funding sources 

could be explored.

Mine data on carbon and management 

activities from the past to direct future 

management of carbon (Strategies M-3, M-4, 

M-5). 

• The CNNF and other researchers have collected 

a lot of data on past management activities 

and carbon storage that could be useful, but 

these data need to be analyzed, organized, and 

automated to help in research, modeling, and 

decisionmaking. 

Conduct research on carbon mitigation across 

ownership boundaries (Strategy M-7). 

• Birdsey reported that carbon sequestration has 

declined recently on private lands. Research to 

validate and understand the drivers behind this 

reduction would be benefi cial. 

• Social science research on private landowners’ 

willingness to participate in carbon markets 

and other incentives would also help in our 

understanding of incentives for sequestration.

Provide information to public managers and 

private landowners interested in markets on 

how much sequestration they can obtain under 

different management scenarios (Strategy M-7).

• The CNNF could provide a place for studies 

that provide these values and validate models.

Assess the ecological consequences of carbon 

mitigation, with a particular emphasis on 

tradeoffs related to biomass energy and other 

resources (Strategies M-9, M-10). 

• Carbon management decisions can also affect 

water resources. Research could examine 

how decisions related to carbon affect the 

water balance, water quality, and lake-related 

ecosystem services in northern Wisconsin.

• Species used for bioenergy production, such 

as aspen, require certain levels of nutrients. 

Nutrient budgets and nutrient cycling could be 

studied where bioenergy production is a goal. 

Conduct an economic analysis of ways to 

provide incentives for activities across the 

landscape (Strategies M-6, M-7, M-11).

• Life-cycle analysis tools can be used to make 

a case for the economic value of local wood 

products. 
30 Breakout Session 2: Mitigation

Develop a research consortium to evaluate 

different strategies for carbon management 

under a changing climate (All strategies).

• A research consortium among scientists and 

managers from the CNNF and other lands 

could be initiated. The consortium could 

set up sequestration experimental areas and 

compare over time the forest type and species 

projected to do best under climate change 

with forest types and species that are currently 

best for sequestration. Results from the study 

could be used to select high-priority areas for 

sequestration and long-term monitoring.

Mitigation Breakout Session 

Summary

Overall, participants were cautious about the 

potential for the CNNF and the surrounding 

landscape of northern Wisconsin to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon 

sequestration through forest management. 

Participants agreed that mitigation strategies 

would not be effective in the long term unless they 

were carried out in conjunction with adaptation 

strategies. Results from the mitigation assessment 

and Birdsey’s presentation showed that the greatest 

potential for enhanced sequestration lies outside 

of the CNNF’s boundaries. Therefore, mitigation 

strategies would require collaborative relationships 

between public and private landowners and a 

greater understanding of incentives. Participants 

also identifi ed several knowledge gaps that need 

to be addressed, most notably the role of soils 

and wetlands in carbon storage and the ecological 

tradeoffs of managing for carbon sequestration and 

bioenergy production.
Breakout Session 3: Monitoring

Conceptual Framework Talk: 

Monitoring and Climate Change

David Cleland provided a national 

perspective on the status and needs 

of climate change monitoring. He 

emphasized that national assessments have 

found that existing monitoring programs were 

insuffi cient to detect the impacts of climate change 

and the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation 

actions (Backlund et al. 2008). Other national 

assessments have emphasized the need for a 

hierarchical approach to monitoring using spatial 

hierarchies such as the Forest Service’s ecological 

5

More information can be found at: http://www.usgs.

gov/global_change/carbon/methodology.asp

6

More information can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/science/SHC/lcc.html

classifi cation system (Fagre et al. 2009). He 

then gave a brief review of emerging monitoring 

programs that are attempting to address 

monitoring needs for climate change, such as the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s LandCarbon5

 project and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives.6 Finally, Cleland used 

an example (Fig. 8) to illustrate the need for an 

integrated hierarchical approach. 

Figure 8.—David 

Cleland emphasized 

the need to take a 

hierarchical approach 

to monitoring climate 

change, its effects, 

and the effectiveness 

of management 

actions. (Illustration 

by David Cleland, 

U.S. Forest Service.)
32 Breakout Session 3: Monitoring

• The Forest Service could potentially expand the 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) network 

to regularly collect other types of data such 

as changes in the understory. FIA already 

has standardized protocols for selecting sites 

and collecting data at two different scales. 

States currently can pay FIA to intensify data 

collection spatially and temporally. Northern 

Wisconsin could be expanded as a trial, but 

there is a legal requirement that FIA not 

disclose exact plot coordinates, which could 

present potential problems with some analyses.

• The CNNF could become part of a national 

citizen-scientist monitoring network. One 

example of such a network, the National 

Phenology Network, looks at climate change 

effects on growing seasons and fl owering dates.

• The impacts of climate change are important 

not only for vegetation but also for water. The 

CNNF could be part of a hydrologic network 

such as the USGS Stream Gauge Network. 

• Coarse-scale monitoring (such as MODISderived phenology monitoring from the Eastern 

Forest Environmental Threat Assessment 

Center) can be tiered to local on-the-ground 

monitoring. 

Monitor species and ecosystem processes that 

are sensitive to climate change and could serve 

as early indicators, keeping cost in mind.

• For trees, managers could monitor early 

regeneration success or failure (<6 years after 

harvest), tree mortality and dieback in crowns, 

or cumulative effects of disturbance agents.

• For animals, managers could target species 

sensitive to climate change, such as trout, 

Monitoring Breakout Session 

Goals

The overall goal of the monitoring breakout 

session was to explore ways to monitor climate 

change impacts and the effectiveness of adaptation 

and mitigation strategies for forests in northern 

Wisconsin. 

Participants were asked the following specifi c 

questions related to monitoring:

 1. How can we monitor climate change 

impacts on northern Wisconsin forests?

 2. How can we monitor the effectiveness of our 

adaptation and mitigation actions in northern 

Wisconsin forests?

Participants identifi ed several strategies and 

approaches to increase monitoring of climate 

change and its impacts on species and ecosystems 

in northern Wisconsin. They also offered insight 

into how to approach effectiveness monitoring for 

adaptation and mitigation strategies. It is important 

to note that these strategies have not been vetted 

across disciplines or scrutinized for viability and 

sustainability and could include some strategies 

that will ultimately be deemed unsuitable in many 

landscapes or for particular land uses.

Monitoring Impacts 

Develop a network of existing monitoring 

efforts. 

• An attempt could be made to work with the 

existing monitoring infrastructure fi rst, then add 

or improve. The current monitoring on National 

Forests is not integrated into a network. The 

CNNF could be a model for how to integrate 

monitoring activities.
 Breakout Session 3: Monitoring 33

salamanders, or aquatic insects. They could 

measure the number of life cycles and growing 

season length for insects and their host plants. 

Small mammals with shorter life spans and 

more mobile species that can move away 

from undesirable conditions may also be early 

indicators.

• Soil processes such as respiration, fl uxes of 

trace gases, mineralization, and nitrifi cation 

could be early indicators, but are expensive to 

monitor. As a “model forest,” the CNNF might 

be a place to do this more high-cost monitoring. 

• Phenological indicators such as leaf-out, 

fl owering, last leaf, bird migration, and iceduration on lakes can be monitored relatively 

easily and are clear climate change indicators. 

• Class 1 and 2 trout streams will be sensitive to 

1 to 2 °C increases in stream temperature and 

could serve as early indicators. 

• Water levels of the Great Lakes and inland 

lakes can also be monitored easily, but direct 

links to climate change can be confounded by 

other factors. 

• Social and economic indicators could include 

tourism, public opinions, and social and 

economic data from the Census Bureau.

• Disturbance agents such as insects, wildfi re, 

and drought will have synergistic effects with 

climate change and should be monitored as 

well. 

Monitor climate directly. 

• There is a need for higher-resolution weather 

data and a higher density of weather stations. 

Currently, the number of weather stations 

across the nation is going down, and the CNNF 

might need to fi ll in those gaps for its area.

• Alternative ways to measure temperature could 

also be considered. For example, in the western 

United States, FIA is installing inexpensive 

temperature sensors on trees. Someone needs to 

return only once a year to collect the data. 

• Information to help in understanding why 

northern Wisconsin is getting drier could also 

be collected. 

Consider a research-management partnership.

• People in leadership roles may need to reassess 

where researchers are located and how they 

are rewarded. For example, researchers and 

managers being co-located can increase 

collaboration. Those in leadership roles also 

could assess how managers might better 

articulate their uncertainties as research 

questions so that research studies are more 

applicable to management. Managers’ questions 

are often time-sensitive and researchers are not 

often rewarded for applying their research to 

management. Leadership will have to assess 

ways to eliminate these barriers. The Wisconsin 

Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) 

wildlife group and Forest Service experimental 

forests provide potential examples for 

implementing these approaches.

• Science-manager partnerships work better 

where specifi c questions are identifi ed and 

forest managers are on board with trying to 

answer those questions. 

• If the CNNF is treated as a “living laboratory,” 

it needs to be approached with the experimental 

forest model (i.e., a place that supports 

long-term research on management issues). 

One working example is the Amerifl ux 

Chequamegon Ecosystem–Atmosphere Study

(ChEAS) on the CNNF.
34 Breakout Session 3: Monitoring

The CNNF could develop a researchmonitoring team to help the Forest better 

integrate monitoring data into management 

and appoint a research liaison.

• A science-manager partnership needs to 

become a monitoring partnership. A research 

and monitoring task force could help interpret 

data that have been gathered and increase 

understanding. The task force could meet with 

managers and see what the data mean and what 

appropriate actions should be taken.

Increase the spatial and temporal scale of 

monitoring in key areas on the landscape.

• Managers and scientists could target monitoring 

to low-diversity and vulnerable ecosystems 

such as forest types identifi ed in the Ecosystem 

Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis

(Swanston et al. 2011).

• Managers and scientists could begin to 

monitor particular species range expansions or 

contractions, by focusing monitoring plots on 

species near and just outside their approximate 

northern or southern limits. 

• Monitoring programs could use spatial 

hierarchies, such as those created by geologic 

landforms, to stratify landscapes into 

meaningful analysis units. 

Ensure that organizations complement one 

another’s monitoring efforts. 

• Information needs to be accessible, and there 

needs to be better communication about the 

range of research and management activities 

occurring that could utilize monitoring 

information. A forum is needed for knowing 

what is out there. The National Park Service 

does a good job of tying together some of these 

networks through the Great Lakes Inventory 

and Monitoring Network. In the Forest Service, 

someone oversees the research that is occurring 

in Research Natural Areas. It would be helpful 

to have oversight for research on the CNNF as 

well.

• The legal, mission-related, evaluation, 

and institutional barriers to working in an 

integrated, inter-agency network need to be 

addressed. If research and management are to 

be coordinated and if organizations are going to 

complement one another’s work, then barriers 

to working with partners must be reduced.

Outline monitoring goals and protocols well 

before monitoring begins.

• For example, the National Park Service’s Great 

Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network

establishes clear goals and protocols that ensure 

standardization and quality. 

Monitoring the Effectiveness 

of Adaptation and Mitigation 

Strategies

Identify cost-effective indicators or suites 

of indicators to streamline effectiveness 

monitoring.

• Those conducting monitoring can re-evaluate 

the list of indicators periodically. Unknowns 

will arise, some indicators may no longer exist, 

our knowledge will improve, and we will learn 

from experience.

• Sometimes suites of indicators will indicate 

changes better than a single indicator.

• The CNNF could look at what partners have 

identifi ed as key indicators and adopt those 

indicators for monitoring on its lands.
 Breakout Session 3: Monitoring 35

7

More information can be found at: http://dnr.wi.gov/

forestry/assessment/strategy/overview.htm 

• Scientists and managers could use ecosystem 

models to assess current conditions, identify 

gaps where measurements and monitoring are 

necessary, project into the future, and monitor 

outcomes to assess model performance.

Consider conducting a purposeful outside 

review of Forest Service monitoring protocols. 

• An outside review can increase transparency 

and help identify potential pitfalls and 

shortcomings in a monitoring protocol. 

Capitalize on collaboration and partnerships 

with other organizations.

• Collaboration can increase the intensity and 

extent of data collection and increase costeffectiveness. The CNNF could consider 

enlisting volunteers or joining with other 

agencies, states, and tribes for monitoring work. 

The CNNF could sponsor an annual monitoring 

network meeting to coordinate monitoring 

efforts.

• “Effectiveness” and success can be defi ned at 

the landscape scale, not just on the CNNF. The 

goal is a healthy landscape, not just a healthy 

National Forest. A measure of success is the 

degree to which the Forest Service collaborates 

with states, WICCI, and other partners and 

the level of interest and investigations on the 

CNNF by the scientifi c community.

• The Wisconsin Statewide Forest Assessment 

and Strategy7

 can help set climate change 

monitoring goals.

Set mitigation goals and monitor carbon 

storage.

• It is also important to monitor other impacts 

over the long term and trade-offs with other 

ecosystem services. Some indirect effects will 

unfold over many years.

• Managers and scientists could utilize carbon 

calculators that also take into account the entire 

investment of carbon into mitigation efforts 

such as electricity, transportation, and cost of 

fertilization.

Use monitoring data to infl uence institutional 

behavior.

• Monitoring the changing social context is 

also important. Social scientists can assess 

the public’s knowledge and perceptions of 

climate change, adaptation, and mitigation. 

This information can then be used to adjust 

behaviors in the context of shared values.

Close the loop on the adaptive management 

circle: lessons from effectiveness monitoring 

should feed back into management actions.

• The feedback arrow in the adaptive 

management cycle is often weak (Fig. 9). For 

example, The Nature Conservancy does not do 

much monitoring because data from monitoring 

often do not infl uence management decisions. 

However, the Great Lakes Inventory and 

Monitoring Network organized by the National 

Park Service is doing a good job of bringing 

researchers and managers together and may 

serve as a model. 
36 Breakout Session 3: Monitoring

Figure 9.—Workshop 

participants discussed 

the adaptive 

management cycle, 

illustrated here. The 

monitoring step is 

often missing or not as 

strong as it could be, 

weakening the entire 

cycle. (Illustration 

by Leslie Brandt, 

U.S. Forest Service.)

• The CNNF may need to adjust how monitoring 

feeds into management. This is the perfect 

time for the CNNF to ask for resources to close 

the research-management gap. The Forest is 

currently at the midpoint of its Forest Plan. In 3 

to 5 years, climate change-related information 

could have an effect on future monitoring 

efforts and feed back to the Plan revision. 

Monitoring Breakout Session 

Summary

Some overarching themes emerged from the 

breakout session, and reinforced the points raised 

in Cleland’s talk on monitoring impacts and 

effectiveness of management actions. Current 

monitoring efforts in northern Wisconsin were 

deemed insuffi cient to detect impacts and were not 

perceived as well-integrated with each other. Many 

factors confound the impact of climate change 

and will interfere with land managers’ ability to 

detect climate change impacts. Participants said 

that managers need to decide what questions they 

want to answer and to determine whether they 

are monitoring the right things in the right way 

to answer those questions. For example, if the 

management community of northern Wisconsin 

set priorities, collaborated, utilized citizen 

scientists, and identifi ed key indicators that were 

not expensive to monitor, then costs would be 

reduced. Finally, participants agreed it would be 

diffi cult to monitor the effectiveness of adaptation 

and mitigation strategies until managers and 

researchers establish what those strategies are. 
Workshop Themes and Conclusions

General strategies identifi ed in the 

workshop were similar to those 

described previously in the literature, 

but specifi c approaches to these strategies 

refl ected the unique aspects of the northern 

Wisconsin landscape. For example, the need to 

increase connectivity to allow migration to more 

suitable habitats is one of the most frequently 

mentioned strategies in the adaptation literature 

(Galatowitsch et al. 2009, Heller and Zavaleta 

2009), but participants were able to suggest 

a few specifi c approaches that could work in 

northern Wisconsin to achieve that goal. Likewise, 

increased forest stocking and afforestation have 

been previously identifi ed as broad strategies 

in the mitigation literature (Fissore et al. 2009). 

Participants discussed the difference in potential 

for afforestation between private and public lands 

in Wisconsin, and were able to propose incentives 

for private landowners to increase forested land. 

Outcomes from this workshop emphasized the 

importance of a place-based response to climate 

change. Unlike many places, northern Wisconsin 

is still supported economically by an active 

timber industry. Compared to many western 

National Forests, the CNNF is smaller and more 

heavily interspersed with private lands. Wisconsin 

also has a large concentration of wetlands that 

participants agreed should be integrated into 

mitigation and adaptation decisions because they 

are both large carbon sinks and potential refugia. 

Past glaciation and land management have altered 

hydrology and species composition in northern 

Wisconsin and continue to leave a footprint to 

this day. Understanding how these processes have 

contributed to current ecosystem and species 

distributions was seen as critical. Considering the 

variety of landowners surrounding the CNNF, 

strategies devised for responding to climate 

change on the CNNF must be made in concert 

with its neighbors. 

Several major themes emerged from the workshop:

 1. In order to be effective at responding 

to climate change, forest managers in 

northern Wisconsin need to establish 

clear goals for adaptation, mitigation, 

and monitoring and make sure these are 

articulated and integrated. Ecological, 

social, and economic goals will need to be 

weighed, and mitigation will have to be 

balanced with adaptation. 

 2. Land managers and scientists alike 

need to remember that all management 

decisions will ultimately be made in a 

social and economic context. While taking 

an adaptation or mitigation action may 

make sense from an ecological standpoint, 

it has little chance of success if it is not 

favorable economically or socially. 

 3. Change in the way forests are managed in 

response to climate change requires a large 

investment of time and resources from a 

diverse group of experts and stakeholders. 

A National Forest or group of scientists 

cannot undertake such change in isolation 

because no single entity encompasses the 

breadth of perspectives and values of the 

larger community across the landscape. 
38 Workshop Themes and Conclusions

 4. Science and management need to be better 

integrated. Institutional barriers, time lags, 

lack of a common language, and different 

incentive structures will continue to 

impede cooperation and coordination until 

changes are made institutionally. 

Participants at the workshop suggested the forests 

of northern Wisconsin have a potential to serve 

as a model adaptive management landscape. 

This model landscape can bring strong research 

capacity to bear when management decisions 

are made in the face of climate change. A 

stronger incorporation of a research element into 

management and vice-versa will help ensure that 

we learn from monitoring and management, while 

delivering products that are tailored to suit specifi c 

needs. Although many climate change strategies 

identifi ed in this workshop will be infl uenced by 

place, this concept of integration of science and 

management can be replicated widely and help 

forests be better prepared for a rapidly changing 

climate. 
Glossary

adaptation strategies—Actions taken to help a 

system to resist or accommodate climate change. 

adaptive capacity—The general ability of 

institutions, systems, and individuals to moderate 

the risks of climate change, or to realize benefi ts, 

through changes in their characteristics or 

behavior. Adaptive capacity can be an inherent 

property or it could have been developed as a 

result of previous policy, planning, or design 

decisions.

adaptive management—An iterative approach 

that treats on-the-ground management actions 

and policies as hypotheses, which are tested and 

monitored (Holling 1978). 

additionality—A term used in carbon markets to 

refer to the concept that in order for an action to 

qualify as a carbon offset, it must be in addition to 

“business as usual. ” 

afforestation—The act of planting trees or tree 

seeds on land that has not been forested recently. 

debiasing—A technique that removes regional 

biases from models where they tend to over- or 

underestimate precipitation or temperature. 

downscaling—A method for obtaining highresolution climate or climate change information 

from relatively coarse-resolution global climate 

models. Downscaling involves examining the 

statistical relationship between past climate data 

and on-the-ground measurements. 

edaphic conditions—Characteristics of the 

soil (for example, the drainage, texture, or soil 

chemical properties, such as the pH).

effectiveness monitoring—Evaluating outcomes 

from on-the-ground management activities. Goals 

for effectiveness monitoring could be to gauge an 

activity’s ability to increase carbon storage, reduce 

stressors, enhance resilience, or conserve species.

emission avoidance—Aims to reduce the loss of 

forest land to other uses. 

enhanced sequestration—Efforts to increase 

carbon stocks in forests and wood products.

evapotranspiration—The sum of evaporation and 

plant transpiration from the Earth’s land surface to 

the atmosphere. 

hedging—The act of spreading risk by investing 

in multiple strategies (form of risk management). 

leakage—Condition occurring when policies or 

actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 

one place result in an increase in greenhouse gas 

emissions elsewhere. 

mitigation—In the context of climate change, 

a human intervention to reduce the sources or 

enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.

monitoring—The collection of information over 

time, generally on a sample basis by measuring 

change in an indicator or variable, to determine the 

effects of resource management treatments in the 

long term.
40 Glossary

realignment—The process of tuning ecosystems 

or habitats to present and anticipated future 

conditions in such a way that they can respond 

adaptively to ongoing change.

refugia—Locations and habitats that support 

populations of organisms that are limited to small 

fragments of their previous geographic range.

resilience—Adaptation option intended to 

accommodate some degree of change, but allow 

for a return to prior conditions after a disturbance, 

either naturally or through management.

resistance—Adaptation option intended 

to improve the defenses of a forest against 

anticipated changes or directly defend the forest 

against disturbance in order to maintain relatively 

unchanged conditions.

response—An adaptation option to accommodate 

change and enable ecosystems to adaptively 

respond to changing and new conditions.

risk management—The identifi cation, 

assessment, and prioritization of risks followed 

by coordinated and economical application of 

resources to minimize, monitor, and control the 

probability and/or impact of unfortunate events or 

to maximize the realization of opportunities.

substitution—Using forest products in place 

of more greenhouse-gas intensive products, 

especially the use of wood for bioenergy.

systematic monitoring—The establishment of 

monitoring locations across large areas, with 

monitoring stations often located in an established 

grid of various resolutions. Examples of 

systematic monitoring include the Forest Inventory 

and Analysis program, the U.S. Geological 

Survey National Stream Gauge Network, and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Natural 

Resource Inventory. 

targeted monitoring—Assessing particular areas 

based on specifi c objectives, using measurements 

or indicators related to that objective. Examples of 

targeted monitoring include population monitoring 

of endangered species, detecting changes in 

hydrology in watersheds, and monitoring 

outbreaks of insects and diseases.

tension zone—A transitional area between two 

distinctive areas of fl oristic composition that is 

infl uenced by climatic or geologic factors, creating 

an area where fl ora from the two areas overlaps.

triage—In the context of forest management, a 

systematic process to sort management situations 

into categories according to urgency, sensitivity, 

and capacity of available resources to achieve 

desired goals.
Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by 

the USDA Forest Service Global Change 

Program, the Eastern Region, and the 

Northern Research Station. The authors would 

like to thank the speakers, participants, breakout 

session facilitators, and note-takers. Leslie Brandt 

organized and provided logistical support for 

the workshop. Avery Dorland, Linda Nagel, and 

Steve McNulty served as breakout facilitators 

for adaptation. Ankur Desai, Sarah Hines, and 

Tia Nelson served as breakout facilitators for 

mitigation. Knute Nadelhoffer, Greg Nowacki, 

and Brian Palik served as breakout facilitators 

for monitoring. Patricia Butler, Maria Janowiak, 

Megan Matonis, and Elizabeth Reinhardt served 

as note-takers. The authors would also like to 

thank the three technical reviewers, Ankur Desai, 

Sarah Hines, and Emily Peters, for their helpful 

comments in strengthening the manuscript.
Literature Cited

Aubry, C.; Devine, W.; Shoal, R.; Bower, A.; 

Miller, J.; Maggiulli, N. 2011. A vulnerability 

assessment and action plan for National 

Forests in western Washington. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacifi c Northwest Region. 310 p. 

Backlund, P.; Janetos, A.; Schimel, D. 2008. The 

effects of climate change on agriculture, 

land resources, water resources and 

biodiversity in the United States. In: Walsh, 

M., ed. Synthesis and Assessment Product 

4.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Change Research. 240 p.

Bader, D.C.; Covey, C.; Gutowski, W.J.; Held, 

I.M.; Kunkel, K.E.; Miller, R.L.; Tokmakian, 

R.T.; Zhang, M.H. 2008. Climate models: 

an assessment of strengths and limitations.

Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

124 p. 

Barnes, M.; Todd, A.H.; Lilja, R.W.; Barten, 

P.K. 2009. Forests, water and people: 

drinking water supply and forest lands in 

the Northeast and Midwest United States.

NA-FR-01-08. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 

71 p. 

Birdsey, R.; Behrenfeld, M.; Davis, K.; Doney, 

S.C.; Feely, R.; Hansell, D.; Heath, L.; 

Kasischke, E.; Kheshgi, H.; Law, B.; Lee, 

C.; McGuire, A.D.; Raymond, P.; Tucker, 

C.J. 2009. Carbon cycle observations: gaps 

threaten climate mitigation policies. EOS. 

90: 292-293. 

Brown, S.; Grimland, S.; Pearson, T.; Harris, N. 

2008. Forest carbon baseline for Wisconsin.

Arlington, VA: Winrock International. 36 p. 

Curtis, J. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin.

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

640 p. 

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, 

P.J.; Irland, L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; 

Simberloff, D.; Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; 

Wotton, B.M. 2001. Climate change and 

forest disturbances. BioScience. 51(9): 

723-734. 

Fagre, D.B.; Charles, C.W.; Allen, C.D.; 

Birkeland, C.; Chapin, F.S., III; Groffman, 

P.M.; Guntenspergen, G.R.; Knapp, A.K.; 

McGuire, A.D.; Mulholland, P.J.; Peters, 

D.P.C.; Roby, D.D.; Sugihara, G. 2009. 

Thresholds of climate change in ecosystems.

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Change Research. 157 p. 
 Literature Cited 43

Fissore, C.; Espeleta, J.; Nater, E.A.; Hobbie, 

S.E.; Reich, P.B. 2009. Limited potential 

for terrestrial carbon sequestration to 

offset fossil-fuel emissions in the upper 

Midwestern US. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 8(8): 409-413. 

Galatowitsch, S.; Frelich, L.; Phillips-Mao, L. 

2009. Regional climate change adaptation 

strategies for biodiversity conservation in 

a midcontinental region of North America.

Biological Conservation. 142: 2012-2022. 

Heller, N.; Zavaleta, E. 2009. Biodiversity 

management in the face of climate change: 

a review of 22 years of recommendations.

Biological Conservation. 142: 14-32. 

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. London: John 

Wiley. 377 p.

Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change 

[IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 2007: 

synthesis report. Contribution of working 

groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: 

Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. 

104 p.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; 

Peters, M. 2008. Estimating potential habitat 

for 134 eastern US tree species under 

six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 254(3): 390-406. 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, 

S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; Neilson, 

R.P.; O’Halloran, K.A.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. 

Chapter 3: National Forests. In: Julius, 

S.H.; West, J.M., eds. Preliminary review 

of adaptation options for climate-sensitive 

ecosystems and resources. A report by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency: 

3-1 – 3-127. 

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; 

O’Halloran, K.A. 2011. U.S. National Forests 

adapt to climate change through science–

management partnerships. Climatic Change. 

DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0066-0

Loomis, J.; White, D.S. 1996. Economic benefi ts 

of rare and endangered species: summary 

and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 

18(3): 197-206.

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences & 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife (Manomet and DFW). 2010. Climate 

change and Massachusetts fi sh and wildlife: 

habitat management. Report. 23 p. Available 

at http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.

org/fi les/scidocs-pdfs/CC_Management.pdf. 

(Accessed on August 24, 2011). 

Marsh, A.; Mawdsley, J.; Negra, C. 2009. Forest 

observations and indicators needed to 

respond to climate change. Journal of 

Forestry. 107(5): 231-232. 
44 Literature Cited

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 

2007. Climate change and forests of the 

future: managing in the face of uncertainty.

Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145-2151.

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program 

(NVUM). 2010. National visitor use 

monitoring results. USDA Forest Service 

national summary report: data collected FY 

2005 through FY 2009. Report. 32 p. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/

nvum/nvum_national_summary_fy2009.pdf 

(Accessed August 17, 2011). 

National Research Council (NRC). 2010. 

Advancing the science of climate change.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

528 p. 

Nitschke, C.R.; Innes, J.L. 2008. Integrating 

climate change into forest management 

in south-central British Columbia: an 

assessment of landscape vulnerability and 

development of a climate-smart framework.

Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 

313-327.

Rhemtulla, J.M.; Mladenoff, D.J.; Clayton, 

M.K. 2009. Historical forest baselines 

reveal potential for continued carbon 

sequestration. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 15: 6082-6087.

Ryan, M.G.; Harmon, M.E.; Birdsey, R.A.; 

Giardina, C.P.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; 

Jackson, R.B.; McKinley, D.C.; Morrison, J.F.; 

Murray, B.C.; Pataki, D.E.; Skog, K.E. 2010. 

A synthesis of the science on forests and 

carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology. 

13: 1-16.

Scheller, R.; Mladenoff, D. 2008. Simulated 

effects of climate change, fragmentation, 

and inter-specifi c competition on tree 

species migration in northern Wisconsin, 

USA. Climate Research. 36: 191-202.

Skog, K.; Rosen, H.N. 1997. United States 

wood biomass for energy and chemicals: 

possible changes in supply, end uses, and 

environmental impacts. Forest Products 

Journal. 47(2): 63-69. 

Spittlehouse, D.L.; Stewart, R.B. 2003. 

Adaptation to climate change in forest 

management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and 

Management. 4: 1-11.

Swanston, C.; Janowiak, M.; Iverson, L.; Parker, 

L.; Mladenoff, D.; Brandt, L.; Butler, P.; St. 

Pierre, M.; Prasad, A.; Matthews, S.; Peters, 

M.; Higgins, D.; Dorland, A. 2011. Ecosystem 

vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a 

report from the Climate Change Response 

Framework Project in northern Wisconsin.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-82. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 142 p.

United States Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). 2009. Global climate change 

impacts in the United States. Karl, T.R.; 

Melillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C., eds. New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 188 p. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2008. U.S. Forest 

Service—caring for the land and serving 

people. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml. 

(Accessed 23 March 2012).
 Literature Cited 45

Woodall, C.; Oswalt, C.M.; Westfall, J.A.; Perry, 

C.H.; Nelson, M.D.; Finley, A.O. 2009. An 

indicator of tree migration in forests of the 

eastern United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 257: 1434-1444.

Xu, C.; Gertner, G.Z.; Scheller, R.M. 2009. 

Uncertainties in the response of a forest 

landscape to global climatic change. Global 

Change Biology. 15: 116-131.
Appendix 1: Climate Change Response Framework 

Project Documents

Climate Change Response 

Framework 

Project Summary

This one-page briefi ng document provides an 

overview of the goals and objectives of the 

Climate Change Response Framework project 

and highlights the four main components of the 

Framework development process. 

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/climate/framework/

Ecosystem Vulnerability 

Assessment and Synthesis

This document evaluates key ecosystem 

vulnerabilities in northern Wisconsin under a 

range of future climates using existing models 

and information. Later versions may provide 

additional information on social, environmental, 

and economic implications. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/38255

Mitigation Assessment

This draft document evaluates options to increase 

carbon stocks in forests and wood products, 

increase the use of wood for bioenergy, and 

engage in greenhouse gas markets and registries. 

Later versions of this document may integrate 

future forecasts of the Vulnerability Assessment 

to address the potential viability of mitigation 

options under potential changes in climates and 

ecosystems. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/climate/Wisconsin/

draft_docs/docs/Full_CNNF_Mitigation_

Assessment_Draft.pdf

Shared Landscape Initiative 

Workshop Summary

The Shared Landscapes Initiative is a means 

to ensure that products from the CCRF project 

are actively shared and discussed with both 

landowners and the public in northern Wisconsin. 

A Shared Landscapes Initiative workshop was held 

February 24-25, 2010 in Rhinelander, WI. 

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/climate/northwoods/sli/
 Appendix 1 47

Forest Adaptation Resources: 

Climate Change Tools 

and Approaches for Land 

Managers

This draft document provides perspectives, 

information, and tools to help managers 

incorporate climate change considerations into 

management and adapt forest ecosystems in 

northern Wisconsin to a changing climate. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/climate/Wisconsin/

draft_docs/docs/FAR_Final_Draft.pdf

Lessons Learned from the 

Climate Change Response 

Framework Project in Northern 

Wisconsin

This document records the processes, products, 

and lessons learned from the Climate Change 

Response Framework Project to provide 

information and inspiration to others working 

in the arenas of climate change assessment and 

adaptation response. This document features 

major lessons and observations, as well as more 

subtle considerations and suggestions for moving 

forward on similar projects. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/local-resources/

docs/LESSONS_LEARNED_from_the_CCRFP.pdf
Appendix 2: List of Participants

Participant Organization 

Richard Birdsey U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Leslie Brandt Northern Institute of 

 Applied Climate 

 Science/U.S. Forest 

 Service

Patricia Butler Northern Institute of 

 Applied Climate 

 Science/Michigan 

 Technological University

Geoff Chandler Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Connie Chaney Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Esteban Chiriboga Great Lakes Indian 

 Fish and Wildlife 

 Commission

David Cleaves U.S. Forest Service

David Cleland U.S. Forest Service

Louise Clemency U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service 

Kent Connaughton U.S. Forest Service, 

 Eastern Region

Matt Dallman The Nature Conservancy

Ankur Desai University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Avery Dorland Wisconsin Department 

 of Natural Resources

Degi Dugarjav University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Tony Erba Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Faith Fitzpatrick USGS Wisconsin 

 Water Science Center

Suzanne Flory Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Lee Frelich University of 

 Minnesota—Twin Cities

Tom Gower University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Eric Gustafson U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Sarah Hines U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northeastern Area

Louis Iverson U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Maria Janowiak Northern Institute of 

 Applied Climate 

 Science/U.S. Forest 

 Service 

Sarah Johnson University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Linda Joyce U.S. Forest Service, 

 Rocky Mountain 

 Research Station

Dick Lathrop Wisconsin Department 

 of Natural Resources, 

 Bureau of Science 

 Services

Danny Lee Eastern Forest 

 Environmental Threat 

 Assessment Center

Jeremy Lichstein Princeton University

John Lyons Wisconsin Department 

 of Natural Resources, 

 Bureau of Science 

 Services

Karl Martin Wisconsin Department 

 of Natural Resources
 Appendix 2 49

Megan Matonis U.S. Forest Service, 

 Policy Analysis

Steve McNulty U.S. Forest Service, 

 Southern Research 

 Station

Nick Miller The Nature Conservancy 

David Mladenoff University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Knute Nadelhoffer University of Michigan

Linda Nagel Michigan Technological 

 University 

Tia Nelson Board of Commissioners 

 of Public Lands

Michael Notaro University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison 

 Center for Climatic 

 Research

Greg Nowacki U.S. Forest Service, 

 Eastern Region 

Eunice Padley Wisconsin Department 

 of Natural Resources

Brian Palik U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Linda Parker Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Mike Prouty Great Lakes Forest 

 Alliance

Volker Radeloff University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Elizabeth Reinhardt U.S. Forest Service, 

 Policy Analysis

Suzanne Sanders National Park Service, 

 Great Lakes Network 

 Offi ce 

Tom Schmidt U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Matt St. Pierre Chequamegon-Nicolet 

 National Forest

Susan Stewart U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station

Brian Sturtevant U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northern Research 

 Station 

Chris Swanston Northern Institute of 

 Applied Climate 

 Science/U.S. Forest 

 Service

Barbara Tormoehlen U.S. Forest Service, 

 Northeastern Area

Phil Townsend University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Don Waller University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Jack Williams University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison

Weimin Xi University of 

 Wisconsin—Madison
Appendix 3: Biographies of Speakers

Chris Swanston is the Director of the Northern 

Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS) and 

a Research Ecologist for the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Northern Research Station. His scientifi c research 

focuses on the processes that control organic 

carbon dynamics in forest soils. Since becoming 

director of NIACS in 2008, Swanston has taken 

the lead on developing educational outreach and 

technology transfer products and services to 

assist the National Forest System in responding 

to climate change. He is the principle investigator 

on the Chequamegon-Nicolet Climate Change 

Response Framework Project. Swanston holds a 

B.S. in Forest Ecology and Soils from Humboldt 

State University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Forest 

Science from Oregon State University. 

David Cleaves is the Climate Change Advisor 

to the Chief of the Forest Service. Prior to his 

appointment, Cleaves served as Associate Deputy 

Chief of Research and Development for the 

Forest Service. He has served in many capacities 

throughout his Forest Service career. He was 

Director of the Rocky Mountain Research Station; 

staff director for all national research programs 

in economics, forest products, social science, 

recreation and tourism, urban forestry, and science 

education; the National Program Leader for Fire 

Systems Research; and research project leader in 

fi re economics and management. Prior to joining 

the Forest Service, Cleaves was a professor at 

Oregon State University. Cleaves is the author 

of numerous publications in the fi eld of decision 

science and risk analysis. He has a B.S. and M.S. 

from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in 

Economics from Texas A&M University.

Kent Connaughton was Regional Forester of 

the Forest Service’s Eastern Region from 2008 to 

2011. In that capacity, Connaughton oversaw 14 

National Forests and the country’s only National 

Tallgrass Prairie. Connaughton came to the Eastern 

Region from the Forest Service’s Washington 

Offi ce, where he served as Associate Deputy 

Chief for State and Private Forestry. Connaughton 

began his career at the Forest Service’s Pacifi c 

Northwest Research Station as a forest economics 

researcher. Over the course of his 30-year career 

in the Forest Service, his assignments included 

Forest Supervisor on the Lassen National Forest 

in California, and Deputy Regional Forester for 

State and Private Forestry in the Pacifi c Southwest 

Region. Connaughton holds a B.A. from Stanford 

University, a Master of Forestry from Oregon 

State University, and a Ph.D. from the University 

of California, Berkeley. He was elected fellow of 

the Society of American Foresters in 1991.

Thomas Schmidt is the Assistant Director 

of Research for the Forest Service’s Northern 

Research Station. Prior to his current position, 

Schmidt held positions in the Forest Service as 

Assistant Director for Information Management 

and Program Delivery, Project Leader in Ecology 

and Management of Riparian/Aquatic Ecosystems, 

and Research Scientist in Forest Inventory and 

Analysis. Outside the Forest Service, Schmidt 

has held positions at Utah State University, 
 Appendix 3 51

the University of Nebraska, and the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, and as a 

Peace Corps volunteer. He has a B.S. in Forest 

Management and M.S. in Forestry from the 

University of Missouri and a Ph.D. in AgronomyRange Ecology from the University of Nebraska. 

Michael Notaro is an associate scientist at the 

Center for Climatic Research at the University 

of Wisconsin—Madison. He is also a member 

of the Climate Working Group of the Wisconsin 

Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. Notaro’s 

research interests include global and regional 

climate modeling and vegetation-climate 

interactions. He holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in 

Atmospheric Science from the State University of 

New York at Albany. 

Louis Iverson is a Research Landscape Ecologist 

with the Forest Service’s Northern Research 

Station in Delaware, OH, and Adjunct Professor 

with the School of Natural Resources at the Ohio 

State University. He has served in many offi ces, 

including president of the U.S. Chapter of the 

International Association for Landscape Ecology 

(IALE) and vice president of the international 

governing body of IALE. Iverson is the book 

review editor for Landscape Ecology and was 

named Distinguished Landscape Ecologist for 

US-IALE in 2002. Prior to his current position, 

he worked for the Illinois Natural History Survey 

and was a Fulbright Scholar to the University of 

York, England. Iverson’s current research interests 

include understanding the potential impacts of 

climate change on tree species, spatially modeling 

risk from the invasive emerald ash borer, using 

prescribed fi re and thinning in restoring oak 

communities, and investigating ecology’s role in 

disaster and poverty alleviation. Iverson received 

his Ph.D. from the University of North Dakota.

David J. Mladenoff is the Beers-Bascom 

Professor of Conservation in the Department of 

Forest and Wildlife Ecology at the University 

of Wisconsin—Madison. Mladenoff has held 

positions in The Nature Conservancy as western 

region Science and Stewardship Director, and 

the University of Minnesota Natural Resources 

Research Institute in Duluth. At the University 

of Wisconsin, he manages the Forest Landscape 

Ecology Lab, where work has been directed 

at sustainable forest issues in Wisconsin, such 

as old growth forest characteristics including 

structure, biodiversity, nutrient cycling, and 

carbon dynamics; developing and testing methods 

for reconstructing past forests and change; 

disturbance, ecological change, and management; 

and modeling of future forest landscapes under 

climate change and other scenarios. Mladenoff was 

the originator of the LANDIS forest model, which 

has been adapted and used in many locations in 

North America and elsewhere. He was also editorin-chief of the journal Landscape Ecology from 

1999-2005. Mladenoff earned his Ph.D. from the 

University of Wisconsin—Madison.

Linda Joyce’s research focuses on quantifying 

the effects of climate change on ecosystems, 

wildlife habitat, and the forest and wood products 

sector. As the Climate Change Specialist for the 

Forest Service Resource Planning Act national 

assessment, she works with resource specialists to 

include climate change in their analysis of forest 

and rangeland renewable resources over the 50-

year planning horizon. She is also a co-principal 

investigator of the WestWide Climate Initiative—

a partnership of Forest Service research and 

National Forests with the goal of developing a set 

of decision-support tools to incorporate climatechange considerations into resource management 

and planning. Joyce has contributed to the 

International Panel on Climate Change reports, 
52 Appendix 3

U.S. National Assessments on Climate Change, 

and the recent global assessment of forests by 

the International Union of Forest Research 

Organizations. She holds a B.S. in Mathematics 

from Grand Valley State College in Michigan; a 

Master of Environmental Science from Miami 

University in Ohio; and a Ph.D. in Range Ecology 

from Colorado State University.

Richard Birdsey is the project leader for the 

Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Science group 

of the Forest Service’s Northern Research 

Station. He is also responsible for coordinating 

a national research effort to analyze the impacts 

of international protocols on carbon accounting 

for the United States, and to identify forest 

management strategies to increase carbon 

sequestration. He spent 2 years as a Peace Corps 

forester in Ecuador, 10 years as a Research 

Forester with the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Project at the Southern Research 

Station, and 3 years on the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis staff in the Washington Offi ce of the 

Forest Service. He has been Program Manager for 

Global Change Research for more than 10 years 

at the Northeastern and North Central Research 

Stations. Birdsey is a specialist in quantitative 

methods for large-scale forest inventories and has 

pioneered the development of methods to estimate 

national carbon budgets for forest lands from 

forest inventory data. Birdsey has a bachelor’s 

degree in anthropology and a master’s degree 

in world forestry. Birdsey received a Ph.D. in 

quantitative methods from the State University of 

New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry. 

David Cleland has more than 30 years with the 

Forest Service. He has worked in deputy positions 

in management and research at the National 

Forest, Research Work Unit, Regional Offi ce, 

and Washington Offi ce levels. He currently is the 

acting National Program Manager for Vegetation 

Ecology, Washington Offi ce. He received his 

Ph.D. in Forest Ecology, Soils, and Quantitative 

Methods from Michigan State University. 
Appendix 4: Programs Mentioned in Report

Below is a list of programs that were mentioned in 

the breakout sessions with links to websites with 

more information. 

Monitoring Networks

• USA-National Phenology Monitoring 

Network: http://www.usanpn.org/home

• Forest Inventory and Analysis: 

http://fi a.fs.fed.us/

• USGS National Water Information System 

(Stream Gauge Network): 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt

• National Park Service Great Lakes Inventory 

and Monitoring Program: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/GLKN/ 

• Amerifl ux: 

http://public.ornl.gov/amerifl ux/

▪ Chequamegon-Nicolet Ecosystem 

Atmosphere Study (ChEAS): 

http://cheas.psu.edu/

• National Ecological Observatory Network 

(NEON): http://neoninc.org/

• Eastern Forest Environmental Threat 

Assessment Center: 

http://www.forestthreats.org/

Conservation Easements and 

Land Protection Programs

• Forest Legacy Program: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/

fl p.shtml

• Research Natural Areas: 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/rna/about/

• Working forest conservation easements: 

http://www.privatelandownernetwork.org/

plnlo/working%20forest%20

conservation%20easements.asp

• Forest Stewardship Program: http://www.

fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/fsp.shtml

Climate Change Tools 

and Models

• Climate Change Atlas: 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/

• Forest Vegetation Simulator: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/

• LANDIS-II: http://www.LANDIS-II.org/

• Template for Assessing Climate Change 

Impacts (TACCIMO): 

http://www.taccimo.sgcp.ncsu.edu/

• Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change 

Impacts (WICCI): 

http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 

(voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or 

call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper

Brandt, Leslie; Swanston, Chris; Parker, Linda; Janowiak, Maria; Birdsey, Richard; 

Iverson, Louis; Mladenoff, David; Butler, Patricia. 2012. Climate change science 

applications and needs in forest ecosystem management: a workshop organized 

as part of the northern Wisconsin Climate Change Response Framework Project. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-95. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 53 p.

Climate change is leading to direct and indirect impacts on forest tree species 

and ecosystems in northern Wisconsin. Land managers will need to prepare 

for and respond to these impacts, so we designed a workshop to identify forest 

management approaches that can enhance the ability of ecosystems in northern 

Wisconsin to cope with climate change and address how National Forests and 

other lands could be used to test these approaches. The workshop had three 

major themes: (1) adaptation of forest management to current and expected 

climate change, (2) forest management to support greenhouse gas mitigation, and 

(3) monitoring of climate change impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation and 

adaptation strategies. A group of nearly 60 experts in the fi elds of forest science, 

policy, and forest resource management identifi ed place-based management 

approaches and new research directions that addressed these major themes. 

One concept that emerged was the need to adapt not only ecological systems but 

social systems as well, and research to adapt social systems was identifi ed as a 

key knowledge gap. Participants were cautious about the potential for northern 

Wisconsin lands to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon 

sequestration through forest management. The experts identifi ed the need for more 

research to quantify that potential, especially for non-forested lands and greenhouse 

gases other than carbon dioxide. Participants also agreed that mitigation strategies 

will not be effective in the long term unless they are carried out in conjunction 

with adaptation strategies. According to participants, current monitoring efforts 

in northern Wisconsin are insuffi cient to detect climate change impacts at spatial 

scales relevant to land management and are not as well-integrated with each other 

as they could be. However, participants identifi ed several regional and national 

programs that could serve as models for integration. Outcomes from this workshop 

emphasized the importance of a place-based response to climate change. Forest 

managers in northern Wisconsin will need to establish and articulate clear goals for 

adaptation, mitigation, and monitoring, as well as ensure these goals are integrated 

with one another, in order to be effective at responding to climate change.

KEY WORDS: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, climate change, adaptation, 

 mitigation, monitoring, adaptive management, Wisconsin
www.nrs.fs.fed.us