Developing appropriate management options for adapting to climate change is a new challenge for land managers, and integration of climate change concepts into operational management and planning on United States national forests is just starting. We established science-management partnerships on the Olympic National Forest (Washington) and Tahoe National Forest (California) in the first effort to develop adaptation options for specific national forests. We employed a focus group process in order to establish the scientific context necessary for understanding climate change and its anticipated effects, and to develop specific options for adapting to a warmer climate. Climate change scientists provided the scientific knowledge base on which adaptations could be based, and resource managers developed adaptation options based on their understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and management. General adaptation strategies developed by national forest managers include: (1) reduce vulnerability to anticipated climateinduced stress by increasing resilience at large spatial scales, (2) consider tradeoffs and conflicts that may affect adaptation success, (3) manage for realistic outcomes and prioritize treatments that facilitate adaptation to a warmer climate, (4) manage Climatic Change (2012) 110:269-296 dynamically and experimentally, and (5) manage for structure and composition. Specific adaptation options include: (1) increase landscape diversity, (2) maintain biological diversity, (3) implement early detection/rapid response for exotic species and undesirable resource conditions, (4) treat large-scale disturbance as a management opportunity and integrate it in planning, (5) implement treatments that confer resilience at large spatial scales, (6) match engineering of infrastructure to expected future conditions, (7) promote education and awareness about climate change among resource staff and local publics, and (8) collaborate with a variety of partners on adaptation strategies and to promote ecoregional management. The process described here can quickly elicit a large amount of information relevant for adaptation to climate change, and can be emulated for other national forests, groups of national forests with similar resources, and other public lands. As adaptation options are iteratively generated for additional administrative units on public lands, management options can be compared, tested, and integrated into adaptive management. Sciencebased adaptation is imperative because increasing certainty about climate impacts and management outcomes may take decades.

Climate change presents a major challenge to natural resource managers both because of the magnitude of potential effects of climate change on ecosystem structure, processes, and function, and because of the uncertainty associated with those potential ecological effects.Concrete ways to adapt to climate change are needed to help natural resource managers take the first steps to incorporate climate change into management and take advantage of opportunities to counteract the negative effects of climate change. We began a climate change adaptation case study at Olympic National Forest (ONF) in partnership with Olympic National Park (ONP) to determine how to adapt management of federal lands on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, to climate change. The case study began in the summer of 2008 and continued for 1½ years. The case study process involved science-based sensitivity assessments, review of management activities and constraints, and adaptation workshops in each of four focus areas (hydrology and roads, fish, vegetation, and wildlife). The process produced adaptation options for ONF and ONP, and illustrated the utility of place-based vulnerability assessment and science-management workshops in adapting to climate change. The case study process provides an example for other national forests, national parks, and natural resource agencies of how federal land management units can collaborate in the initial stages of climate change adaptation. Many of the ideas generated through this process can potentially be applied in other locations and in other agencies.Keywords: Adaptation, climate change, fish habitat management, hydrology, road management, science-management partnerships, vegetation management, wildlife habitat management.iv SummaryIn this report, we describe results of the Olympic Climate Change Case Study, a sciencemanagement collaboration initiated to develop climate change adaptation strategies and actions for Olympic National Forest (ONF) and Olympic National Park (ONP). The case study was one of three parallel climate change adaptation case studies on national forests and adjacent national parks in the Western United States as a part of a larger effort, the WestWide Climate Initiative. This initiative was created by scientists of the U.S. Forest Service to address the urgent need to communicate climate change information to land managers and work with them to develop adaptation options.For the Olympic Climate Change Case Study, we conducted a vulnerability assessment to facilitate development of adaptation strategies and actions for ONF and ONP. The first step in the vulnerability assessment process involved a review of available climate model projections to determine likely levels of exposure to climate change (degree of deviation in temperature and precipitation) on the Olympic Peninsula (chapter 3). In the next step, we reviewed relevant literature on effects of climate change and available projections to identify likely climate change sensitivities in each of four focus areas on the Olympic Peninsu...

Forestry policy, planning, and practice have changed rapidly with implementation of ecosystem management by federal, state, tribal, and private organizations. Implementation entails new concepts, terminology, and management approaches. Yet there seems to have been little organized effort to obtain feedback from on-the-ground managers on the practicality of implementing ecosystem management. We convened a colloquium in Forks, WA, in 1997 to assess the state of ecosystem management. We used a recent interagency modeling exercise to formulate six concepts and questions to present to small working groups of practitioners and listening groups of a scientist, regulator, and conservation group member. Concepts and practices varied in a degree of development and sophistication; practitioners varied in sophistication and comfort with concepts. Many expressed dissatisfaction with new terminology they perceived as abstract and not operational. Research and technology transfer needs were identified. Organizational culture, structure, and centralization of decision making appeared to have influenced the creativity, systems thinking, and professional development of managers. Some practitioners, however, demonstrated narrow focus apparently arising from traditional disciplinary allegiances. Implications for organizations are discussed. West. J. Appl. For. 14(3):153-163.