DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PSW-RP-263

February 2012

Climate Project Screening Tool: An 

Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Toni Lyn Morelli, Sharon Yeh, Nikola M. Smith,

Mary Beth Hennessy, and Constance I. Millar 
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a 

growing Nation.

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

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (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 file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Toni Lyn Morelli and Constance I. Millar are research ecologists, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710; Sharon Yeh is 

recreation, lands, and minerals program manager, Olympic National Forest, P.O. 

Box 280, Quilcene, WA 98376; Nikola M. Smith is a Presidential Management 

Fellow, Policy Analysis, Research and Development, 201 14th St., SW, Washington, 

DC 20024; Mary Beth Hennessy is a resource staff officer, Inyo National Forest, 

351 Pacu Lane Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514. Morelli currently is located at the 

University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720.

Cover Photo: Long Lake, Inyo National Forest, Toni Lyn Morelli, USFS. 
Abstract

Morelli, Toni Lyn; Yeh, Sharon; Smith, Nikola M.; Hennessy, Mary Beth; 

Millar, Constance I. 2012. Climate project screening tool: an aid for climate 

change adaptation. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-263. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 29 p.

To address the impacts of climate change, land managers need techniques for incorporating adaptation into ongoing or impending projects. We present a new tool, the 

Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST), for integrating climate change considerations into project planning as well as for developing concrete adaptation options 

for land managers. We designed CPST as part of the Westwide Climate Initiative 

project, which seeks to develop adaptation options for addressing climate change 

through science/management partnerships. The CPST lists projected climate trends 

for the target region and questions to be considered when designing projects in different resource areas. The objective is to explore options for ameliorating the effects 

of climate on resource management projects. To pilot the CPST, we interviewed 

13 staff members and line officers of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management in the Sierra Nevada region of California. We found that a major value 

of the CPST was the process—with the activity of conducting the questionnaire 

being as important as the answers received from the staff. The CPST also serves as 

a priority-setting tool, allowing managers to consider effects of different actions. 

Finally, the CPST helps to reduce uncertainty by identifying the range of impacts 

that both climatic changes and management actions may have on resources. The 

CPST could also be modified to devise mitigation options for resource managers.

Keywords: Climate change, adaptation, land management, mitigation, Sierra 

Nevada.
ii

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Summary

We present a new tool, the Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST), for integrating climate change considerations into project planning as well as for developing 

concrete adaptation options for land managers. We designed CPST as part of the 

Westwide Climate Initiative project, which seeks to develop adaptation options for 

addressing climate change through science/management partnerships. The CPST 

lists projected climate trends for the target region and questions to be considered 

when designing projects in different resource areas. The objective is to explore 

options for ameliorating the effects of climate on resource management projects. 

The major value of the CPST is the process—with the activity of conducting the 

questionnaire being as important as the answers received from staff. The CPST also 

serves as a priority-setting tool, allowing managers to consider effects of different 

actions. Finally, the CPST helps to reduce uncertainty by identifying the range of 

impacts that both climatic changes and management actions may have on resources. 
iii

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Contents

1 Introduction

3 Methods

3 CPST Structure

5 CPST Implementation

6 Results

9 Discussion

12 Acknowledgements

12 References

14 Appendix 1: Climate Project Screening Tool

23 Appendix 2: Responses to the Climate Project Screening Tool 

by Staff Members
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
1

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Introduction

Climate change poses a challenge for resource managers as they review their current management practices. Adaptation to climate change, defined as the “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli 

or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 

2007: 869), is a critical means of addressing climate change in the near term. 

Climate change adaptation is important because, owing to inherent time lags in 

climate impacts, the effects of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases will be felt 

for decades even if effective mitigation begins immediately (IPCC 2001). However, 

climate science is a particularly challenging field of knowledge given the level of 

technical expertise required to understand climate, its high degree of uncertainty, 

and the lack of knowledge of its effects at biologically relevant scales. Thus, climate 

change adaptation, although understood to be important to resource management, 

has not been explicitly incorporated into most national forest planning. 

In response to the needs of resource managers, some decision-support tools 

have been developed to aid climate change planning and preparedness. These 

include international reports (e.g., IPCC 2007), regional reports (e.g., California 

Natural Resources Agency 2009), reports from federal agencies (e.g., Joyce et al. 

2008), journal articles (e.g., Littell et al. 2011), Web sites (e.g., U.S. Forest Service 

Climate Change Resource Center; CCRC 2011), and short courses (e.g., Furniss 

et al. 2009). However, there remains a need for methods that help transform these 

scientific concepts into management actions.

Bridging the gap between the latest climate change science and on-the-ground 

management in the National Forest System is the goal of the Westwide Climate 

Initiative (WWCI) Toolkit Project, an interagency collaboration led by scientists at 

the Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountain Research Stations. 

The WWCI Toolkit Project uses science/management partnerships between the 

western research stations and case-study national forests to develop the decisionsupport needed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to incorporate climate change 

into management and planning in the Western United States (Peterson et al. 2011). 

To aid land managers in incorporating climate change adaptation into their 

planning and project implementation, we explored the needs of two national forests 

in the Sierra Nevada. We began conversations with Tahoe National Forest (TNF) 

staff to identify management needs and discuss tools that would be most conducive 

to applying climate change science to decisionmaking. Through this process, we 

designed a document, the Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST; see app. 1), to 

aid national forests in the early stages of incorporating climate concerns into 

operational work. 

Bridging the gap 

between the latest 

climate change 

science and on-theground management 

in the National Forest 

System is the goal of 

the Westwide Climate 

Initiative.
2

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

The CPST is intended as a platform from which natural resource managers can 

reflect on the potential impacts of climate change on projects and consider concrete 

adaptation options at the pre-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project 

planning level. Although federal agencies are currently transitioning to address 

climate concerns within the context of landscape- or watershed-scale assessments 

such as those conducted for cumulative-effects analysis and land management planning, many current projects were formulated in times before climate concerns were 

recognized. The CPST addresses ongoing or near-term projects that would benefit 

from review for consistency with adaptation goals. It acts as an audit or review tool 

to remind managers to consider climate change in current and impending projects; 

if issues arise during the review that suggest climate implications conflicting with 

project design, modifications to projects can be recommended to the approving 

decisionmaker. The CPST also serves as a review of priorities among current 

projects; whereas project goals and treatments may not need modification, climate 

concerns might trigger changes in resource allocation. Finally, some projects as 

originally designed might be deemed inappropriate altogether, and these would be 

recommended to the deciding officer for comprehensive redesign or removal from 

activity lists. 

The CPST begins with a questionaire of projected climate change trends for the 

focal region, along with a breakdown of these effects in relation to each proposed 

project activity. The major component of the CPST is a table separated into project 

areas that describes projected climatic changes and lists questions to consider given 

the impacts of these changes on the resource. The questions are general in order to 

catalyze the discussion of how climate change will impact the project and modify 

its effects. The CPST was originally intended to determine whether ongoing or 

near-term projects are adequate as is, can be modified to consider climate effects, or 

should be delayed and reworked to incorporate climate effects. It focuses primarily 

on adaptation options, although it could be modified to explore mitigation options.

In this paper, we describe the components of the CPST and explain how to use 

it. To illustrate the tool’s development as well as its use, we present background and 

results from discussions with two case study forests, the TNF and the Inyo National 

Forest (INF). Finally, we provide general recommendations from the case studies 

regarding climate adaptation options as well as how best to implement the CPST.

The CPST addresses 

ongoing or near-term 

projects that would 

benefit from review 

for consistency with 

adaptation goals.
3

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Methods

CPST Structure

The CPST is delineated as follows: (1) a broad view of climate trends focusing on 

the effects most likely to have relevance to the project, (2) the impacts relevant to 

the project activities and goals and their target species and resources, (3) key questions for managers to address when considering these impacts, and (4) a decision 

point as to whether the project should continue and, if so, with or without modification (see app. 1).

General climate change trends for the focal region— 

Information about projected climate and ecosystem responses can be gathered from 

many sources and summarized for key indicators of relevance to the local national 

forest. The scientific literature was our primary source for this information, although internal reports and discussion with local climate scientists helped to identify projections that were most applicable to the local region. The purpose of this 

summary is to give managers a broad sense of anticipated and ongoing changes in 

climate and related ecological responses for the region of their management unit.

Questionnaire (part of the CPST table)— 

(see excerpt of CPST in fig. 1, along with a breakdown of these impacts relevant to 

each activity in app. 1, table 2, column 2)

Project activity—A list of typical project types was developed using TNF’s 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) as a guide. We then asked TNF resource 

specialists to verify that the CPST framework was relevant considering their future 

projects. To apply the tool to their local management unit, users can replace general 

categories with specific proposed projects.

We chose terminology for the CPST that is used commonly in the National 

Forest System and thus would be familiar to staff members. Although we recognize that the use of some of these terms (e.g., restoration) is under discussion for 

redefinition given a climate-change context, we maintain their use for purposes of 

clarity and ease of communication. Here, restoration refers to the reestablishment 

of processes or ecosystem services, not a return to an historical time point or even 

historical range of variation. Thus, “meadow restoration” can be thought of as 

restoring the processes and benefits of a functioning meadow system.
4

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263 Climate change trends Response narrative Continue with Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers (please complete) project? Meadow Trends:	 •	 How will longer, drier summers and

⁮

Yes without

restoration Reduced snowpack; longer, a reduced snowpack affect the water modification

drier summers; decreased source for the meadow (snowmelt,

⁮ No

water quality as a result of spring, rainfall driven)?

⁮

Yes with

watershed erosion and • How will the topography modification:sediment flow surrounding the meadow

be vulnerable to increased 

Local impacts: sedimentation in light 

Vegetation and wildlife of extreme weather/firespecies movement; events? reduced water storage • Is the project located at thein soils; changed hydrologic edge of the range of suitability regimes; increased severity in climate/topography/ of fire effects/more sediment elevation gradient?loss; reduced plant and animal • How are relevant threatened,diversity endangered, and sensitive 

species likely to be impacted by hydrologic and climate change? Is this area critical as a refugium site? 

• How should the recommended

season of use change for recreation and grazing, if at all? 

• With drying conditions, will this

only be a short-term solution? If so, what is the plan for longer term management for this species/area? 

• Why is this the right time and

location for this project given the climate trends? 

• How will the proposed project

help offset the projected impacts due to climate change?

Figure 1—Example section from the Climate Project Screening Tool.
5

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Climate change trends and local impacts—The second column refines the general 

statements about climate change and ecological responses to the specific project activity. This information can be derived in cooperation with scientists and managers. 

From the general review of climate trend projections and resource responses, those 

elements most relevant to the project type are identified for further consideration. 

The local impacts focus on effects at a scale that is relevant to project design and 

highlight appropriate changes to the project.

Key questions for managers—The purpose of this column is to facilitate thinking 

about the potential impacts of climate change on a particular project type. Questions can be created collaboratively to address parameters that determine the nature, 

timing, and extent of an action on a particular site. In our case study, these questions were developed through meetings with TNF resource specialists from relevant 

program areas to understand the project planning process, including key data and 

indicators that are used to guide project design. Initially, questions were chosen for 

their apparent importance and implication to national forest lands and resources, 

and considering current information suggesting that these factors are (1) most 

robustly projected, and (2) likely changing the most. We later refined the questions 

and used them in interviews with the INF. 

Response narrative—The response narrative is the centerpiece of the CPST, where 

managers record their answers to the questions in the third column and thus their 

thinking about the interaction between climate change and the project. Users are 

encouraged to use and document sources for their answers.

Continue with project?—The last column is where the user concludes whether to 

proceed with, modify, or cancel the project given the response narrative. It is intended as a recommendation to the decisionmaker regarding whether or not climate 

change impacts are likely to be substantial enough to require modification to the 

proposed activities, insignificant enough to proceed as originally designed, or if 

the project cannot be modified, to consider relevant climate change effects and thus 

should be withdrawn. Documentation of one of the three recommendations can 

then become part of a public report on how resource managers considered climate 

change prior to project implementation.

CPST Implementation

After developing the CPST on the TNF, we tested it through several conversations 

with resource specialists regarding current projects focused on thinning for fuels 

reduction, timber salvage, and a plan to reduce grazing. We then revised the tool 

and presented it to 11 staff members (“users”) from the INF and Bureau of Land 

The response narrative 

is the centerpiece of the 

CPST, where managers 

record their answers 

to the questions and 

their thinking about the 

inter-action between 

climate change and the 

project.
6

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Management (BLM) field office in Bishop from June through August, 2009. We 

used the latest two (January 1–June 30, 2009) SOPA reports for the INF to identify 

any projects that fit under the CPST headers (app. 1), regardless of planning status 

(e.g., in progress, on hold). Users were chosen either from the project contact listed 

on the SOPA or through staff recommendations. We conducted in-person conversations with users focused on these specific SOPA projects as well as similar past or 

planned projects within the user’s resource area. Conversations were conducted 

primarily one on one, although occasionally two users were interviewed simultaneously. Statements in appendix 2 are summaries of paraphrased or directly quoted 

user responses from the conversations conducted by Yeh and Smith (TNF) and 

Morelli (INF).

For the Response Narrative (app. 1, table 2, column 4), we recorded users’ 

responses to Key Questions (app. 1, table 2, column 3) and to followup questions 

that resulted from the conversation. We grouped Response Narrative answers by 

project activity, synthesizing to improve clarity and avoid repetition. These results 

are presented in appendix 2, with the Meadow Restoration and Stream Restoration 

categories combined, the Road (Decommissioning and Maintenance and Construction) categories combined, and no responses for the generalized Reforestation/

Restoration category. These results represent statements from the users and were 

not further edited except for review of facts and occasional correction of obvious science-based errors or misinterpretations. Finally, we identified important 

adaptation options from recurring user responses. These key recommendations are 

summarized by project activity (with caveats as described) in table 1.

Results

We interviewed 13 USFS and BLM staff members and line officers located on the 

TNF and the INF. Most conversations focused on specific projects taken from the 

most recent SOPA report. The focus on the SOPA report was designed to develop 

adaptation options for ongoing or impending projects. However, many of the 

projects on the most recent SOPA report were already underway or were no longer 

being considered. In reality, ongoing projects were not likely to be modified as they 

had already been through the NEPA process and were time-sensitive. Therefore, 

although the SOPA project was used to start the interview, most discussions quickly 

generalized to similar projects that may occur in the future.

Appendix 2 contains a summary of these interviews, grouped by project area. 

The following is from the section on grazing:

Meadow restoration through temporarily reduced grazing can increase 

water storage, allowing for future grazing operations and mitigating for 
7

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Table 1—Recommendations for climate change adaptation by project area from the Climate Project Screening Tool 

case study forests

Project area Recommendations for climate change adaptation

Fuels Management • Conduct more thinning in the form of repeated treatments over time in one area.

• Support the development of a fuels market, e.g., a biofuels plant.

• Consider higher elevation sites or riparian areas as future targets for fuels treatment.

• Learn about historical fire regimes in riparian systems.

• Shift harvesting schedules and prescribed burns forward or backward considering earlier

snowmelt, etc.

• Consider the effects of altered burn season on wildlife, e.g., earlier burns may interfere with

breeding birds.

• Increase safeguards against fire going out of prescription since season is becoming less

predictable, e.g., later and less snow.

• Conduct more detailed watershed analysis to consider increased sedimentation and water

temperature.

• Salvage dead wood to limit the spread of future insect outbreaks and reduce the chance

of wildfire.

• Educate the public about the need for thinning and prescribed burns to reduce air quality issues,

wildfire risk, and spread of invasive species and to increase forest resilience to climate change.

Restoration • Choose aspen treatment areas for multiple management objectives: reduce wildfire risk, address

bark beetle infestation, increase water retention, etc.

• Increase stream bank building, replace old structures, and stabilize stream banks with vegetation 

to restore drying streams.

• Increase the flood plain by reducing the stream width, with larger built flood plains to

accommodate extreme weather.

• Select project sites strategically to concentrate on meadows and streams that will not

dry out.

• Consider how to manage new habitat created by changing climate, e.g., in areas that were

permanent snow fields.

• Develop/use techniques that can withstand an extreme event even if it happens soon after

the project’s completion.

• As appropriate, reduce grazing near streambanks, especially late in the season.

• Move hiking trails out of meadows to increase resilience.

• Consider possible new approaches to conserving threatened, endangered, and sensitive species,

e.g., manage some habitats as climate refugia.

• Regarding Sierra bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra), increase focus on the availability 

of quality winter forage and seasonality of breeding and fawning, as these could change under 

warming conditions; other requirements, such as mineral licks and specific topography, are

unlikely to change.

• Evaluate dates of hunting season and tag limits.

Grazing • Consider temporarily reducing grazing levels and shifting grazing levels, especially to earlier in

the season, to increase meadow resilience.

• Reconsider the standard benchmarks used for grazing decisions, e.g., breeding dates, as wildlife

adapt to changing seasons.

• Update inventories and protocols that determine the extent of suitable range as conditions

change.

• Consider future water availability under drying climates when determining allotments.

• Review and revise the Watershed Condition Inventory and Hydrologic Function Protocol.

• Consider potential disease issues and the shift of wildlife breeding, birthing, forage seasons,

and distribution.
8

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

anticipated drying conditions. If meadows are shrinking due to climate 

change, then grazing might be a less suitable use of rangeland. However, if 

restoration efforts are successful, grazing could still remain viable. Grazing 

allotments on the INF already consider watershed conditions and wildlife 

use. Allotments can be closed but only for legal and project-defensible 

reasons, such as the impact on threatened and endangered species. In 

general, in many INF allotments, allowable use is being reduced based on 

monitoring and condition assessments and a need to improve vegetative and 

hydrologic conditions. Grazing reduction is occurring on the TNF to allow 

for re-vegetation and hydrologic restoration.

Grazing seasons may change owing to the anticipated shorter growing 

season. With shorter growing seasons, utilization levels might still be 

appropriate if the season was moved earlier, or if meadow restoration 

efforts are successful. The standard benchmarks that are used for these 

decisions, for example sage grouse breeding season is June 15, may need 

to be reconsidered as wildlife adapt to changing seasons. Utilization levels 

also depend on the species mix of forage. Inventories and protocols that 

determined the mapping of suitable range may need to be updated to take 

climate change and local ground conditions into consideration. If spring 

arrives earlier, the schedule might be moved forward to take advantage of 

the new growth. Likewise, cattle might need to be taken off earlier than 

Table 1—Recommendations for climate change adaptation by project area from the Climate Project Screening Tool 

case study forests (continued)

Project area Recommendations for climate change adaptation

Road Maintenance, • Consider the potential impacts of the increasing rate of extreme weather events such as severe

Construction, and flooding when planning road maintenance, construction, and decommission.

Decommission • Capitalize on wildfire and other disturbance as a time to increase the resilience of infrastructure, 

such as upgrading culverts to accommodate higher runoff.

Recreation planning • Consider the effects of higher social densities, changes in use patterns (e.g., higher elevation)

and marginal permittee operations.

• Consider greater stress on ground water when planning campgrounds (or upgrades) or reviewing

special use permits.

• Develop safe places and viable escape routes for fire emergencies or extreme weather, e.g.,

flash floods.

• Consider imposing greater fire restrictions in campgrounds as fire risk increases.

Mitigation • Amend special use permits to include sustainability contract language, e.g., require recycling,

renewable energy use.

• Educate the public to increase efficiency and reduce waste, e.g., solar power on forest buildings,

hand out a compact flourescent bulb to every visitor, post green checklists, develop mass transit

options, use efficient toilets.
9

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

usual if summers are drier. Water availability is considered when determining allotments but not future water availability under drying climates. 

Meadow restoration efforts can help offset the impact of climate change 

by increasing the amount of water storage and availability. The Watershed 

Condition Inventory and Hydrologic Function Protocol are from 1995 and 

would benefit from review and updating. Finally, there are wildlife disease 

transfer concerns which climate change may exacerbate.

We also synthesized 35 project recommendations (table 1) for climate change 

adaptation by resource area that we identified from the CPST conversations (app. 2). 

For example, recommendations resulting from the grazing conversations included 

adjustments to project siting and timing and updates to protocols to reflect changing 

conditions. Some of the key ideas were to support actions that were already being 

conducted by land managers, but could benefit from increased focus or increased 

resources. Ideas ranged from specific (e.g., review and revise the Watershed Condition Inventory and Hydrologic Function Protocol) to more general (e.g., develop/

use techniques that can withstand an extreme event even if it happens soon after 

the project’s completion). Some suggestions could be enacted by staff members 

themselves (e.g., select project sites more strategically to concentrate on meadows 

and streams that will not dry out), whereas others were beyond the individual staff 

member’s mandate (e.g., support the development of a fuels market, e.g., a biofuels 

plant) and thus could be considered recommendations to the regional or national 

leadership of the USFS.

It is important to note that the points in table 1 were not, in most cases, 

presented as explicit recommendations from staff members, but arose from the 

repeated questions and conversations on the topic. However, all of the ideas are 

from staff members and are not based on input from the interviewer, beyond some 

simple rewording.

Discussion

We found that the CPST is process-oriented, whereby the activity of going through 

the questionnaire is as important as the answers themselves. In considering the 

general implications of climate change for their resource area, staff brainstormed 

how these climate-change effects would manifest at the project site and reassessed 

the assumptions and objectives they used to determine current practices. The CPST 

is also a priority-setting tool, allowing managers to consider effects of different 

actions and direct management accordingly. Finally, the CPST, by exploring local 

climate change effects, helps lower uncertainty by identifying the range of impacts 

that management actions may have on resources.

The CPST is processoriented, whereby 

the activity of 

going through the 

questionnaire is as 

important as the 

answers themselves.
10

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Feedback obtained after conversations on the TNF and the INF indicated that 

staff members considered the CPST a useful thought exercise. Even within an interview, we observed that the CPST was successful in helping staff members think 

through the process of incorporating climate change adaptation into project planning. Specifically, our conversations facilitated identification of potential climate 

change issues and options in different project areas. Our project was limited in 

its scope and the time availability of the users; as a result, some ideas were not 

expressed and some issues were not addressed. Nevertheless, key recommendations for resource management in the face of climate change emerged from the 

conversations (table 1). 

One benefit of the CPST process was the advantage gained in filling out 

the questionnaire in conversational style. Although these case studies employed 

research scientists to conduct conversations with one or two resource specialists, 

we designed the response narrative to be completed by local resource specialists or 

interdisciplinary teams. Results indicate that the process of working through the 

questions as a team will be a productive exercise. As the CPST was designed to 

be used by staff within a local management unit or possibly extended to a regional 

level, ideally pairs or teams of staff members would fill out the questionnaire 

together, thus maintaining the conversation and mutual brainstorming element of 

the process.

Through the platform of the CPST, staff members were able to devise new 

activities that could help with climate change adaptation for their individual projects. More commonly, users identified current management practices that could 

benefit the resource if they were applied more frequently or slightly differently. 

Results indicate that the national forests are already conducting certain management practices that would incidentally benefit the resource in terms of climate 

change adaptation. For example, increasing forest resilience, generally used to 

maintain stand viability and decrease wildfire risk, is considered one of the primary 

climate change adaptation options for land managers (Millar et al. 2007). Thus the 

CPST could be used to prioritize ongoing practices for further funding and staff 

time.

A potential issue with the CPST framework was the limit imposed by using 

the latest SOPA reports. The SOPA report was chosen as a framework because 

it allowed the users to consider the CPST questions in a tangible context that we 

believe was a benefit to the process. However, some of the SOPA projects were 

already completed, and others were likely to go ahead regardless because of timing 

and implementation needs. In addition, the SOPA report may exclude some recent 

short-term projects. In future use, the CPST would benefit from implementation at 

the project planning stage, to incorporate adaptation options pre-NEPA.
11

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Another concern is that issues that are broader in temporal or spatial scale or 

that span several resource areas may not be covered by focusing on a single project. For example, a discussion about restoring a specific stand of aspen (Populus 

tremuloides Michx.) may not consider the effect that herbivore populations shifting in response to changing climate may have on aspen regeneration. Many users 

appeared to have a narrow focus on their project area, either reflecting a shortcoming of the CPST as written or a true lack of the broader context by staff members. 

Users can take the initiative to modify the CPST questions to address these issues 

for their own project area. Moreover, the CPST can easily be adjusted to address 

climate change adaptation at the programmatic level. There is also room to add 

additional sections to the CPST, such as a project activity row for minerals 

(i.e. oil and gas).

Through our interviews, ideas arose for increasing the sustainability of operations, a current emphasis for the USFS. Users expressed that there is a great opportunity in talking with the public to introduce climate change mitigation ideas and to 

encourage the public to be better consumers and environmental citizens. One user 

suggested that there is a role for USFS to educate the public to increase efficiency 

and reduce waste by using solar power on forest buildings, handing out a compact 

flourescent bulb to every visitor, posting “green” checklists, developing mass transit 

options, and using more efficient toilets. More directly related to land management, 

users suggested the possibility of amending special use permits to include sustainability contract language, for example, requiring recycling and renewable energy 

use. Although the CPST is currently written for developing adaptation options, 

there is potential for it to be modified to focus on mitigation of climate change. This 

could eventually create a platform for joining the related climate change initiatives 

of adaptation and mitigation.

The CPST is currently hard copy (i.e., app. 1). To expand its availability and 

use, it could be converted to interactive software. Efforts are ongoing in Region 5 

(Pacific Southwest Region) and Region 9 (Eastern Region) of the USFS to present and distribute the CPST. Furthermore, the recently introduced “Performance 

Scorecard for Implementing the Forest Service Climate Change Strategy” requires 

action on adaptation efforts that are directly addressed by the CPST. As climate 

change considerations become part of the federal mandate, we hope that the CPST 

will be used by USFS, National Park Service, and other land managers to incorporate climate change adaptation thinking into project planning (see Peterson et 

al. 2011). The CPST could be used (1) during pre-NEPA discussions and priority 

setting, (2) when developing project implementation and prescriptions, and (3) as an 

aid to resource specialists to prepare for discussions with the public about projects 
12

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

and justification. The results published here can act as a starting point for examples 

of adaptation, and also could be modified to explore mitigation options.

Acknowledgments

We would thank Carol Kennedy, Laurie Perrot, Tom Quinn, and many other key 

contributors on the Tahoe National Forest. We also thank Jim Upchurch and the 

Inyo National Forest staff for giving generously of their time and input.

References

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California climate adaptation 

strategy discussion draft. A report to the Governor of the State of California in 

Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation. 

(November 15, 2009).

Furniss, M.J.; Millar, C.I.; Peterson, D.L.; Joyce, L.A.; Neilson, R.P.; 

Halofsky, J.E.; Kerns, B.K. 2009. Adapting to climate change: a short 

course for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-789. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

DVD and online. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/hjar/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2001. Climate change 

2001: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the third assessment 

report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 753 p.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 

2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; 

Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E., eds. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the IV assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

976 p. www.ipcc.ch.
13

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, 

S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; O’Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. National forests. In: 

Julius, S.H.; West, J.M., eds. Review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive 

ecosystems and resources. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 3-1 to 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. 110: 269–296.

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.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 109 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Climate Change Resource 

Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/. (November 11, 2009).
14

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Appendix 1: Climate Project Screening Tool

Developed by: Connie Millar, Sharon Yeh, Nikola Smith, and Toni Lyn Morelli

Product of the Westwide Climate Initiative Climate Toolkit Project 

U.S. Forest Service

The Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST) is intended to help integrate climate 

change considerations at the pre-National Environmental Policy Act project planning level. The tool (table 2) uses a questionnaire with questions that both are broad 

and general in nature to help begin the discussion of how the project might impact 

climate change, or how climate change will impact the project. There are no correct 

or incorrect responses. Instead, this tool allows you to document whether or not 

climate change was considered in a project and whether or not the project will aid in 

climate adaptation efforts.

Directions for using the CSPT (table 2):

Please refer to the list of general climate change trends (below) for background 

information and identify the appropriate project activity that your management unit 

is considering. To provide a frame of reference in thinking about the subsequent 

questions, applicable climate change trends and local impacts are identified for each 

project activity in the second column. With your planning team, work through the 

key questions in the third column to identify potential climate change implications. 

Record your responses in the fourth column. The final step is to document how 

your responses impact the project. Does the project still make sense given climate 

change considerations? If so, should any modifications be made to the project plan? 

These decisions can be documented in the last column.

General climate change trends (e.g., Inyo National Forest)

1. Increased interannual variability in precipitation against generally warming 

average temperatures

2. Reduced snowpack; longer, drier summers

3. Increased likelihood of severe flood events

4. Longer fire seasons; atypical fire seasons (e.g., winter, early spring)

5. Increased fuel buildup and risk of uncharacteristically severe and widespread 

forest fire in traditionally fire-prone forest, woodland, and shrub types

6. Higher elevation insect and disease and wildfire events
15

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

7. Increased stress to forests during periodic multiyear droughts; heightened 

forest mortality

8. Increased water temperatures in rivers and lakes, lower water levels in late 

summer, and drying of streams and ponds

9. Decreased water quality as a result of higher temperatures, increased watershed 

erosion, and sediment flow

10. Loss of seed and other germplasm sources as a result of population extirpation 

events
16

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263 Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool Response narrative Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project? Thinning for 

Trends: • How will the projected density of the • Yes without

fuels management Increased fuel buildup and risk of stand after it has been thinned respond modification

uncharacteristically severe and widespread to erratic and severe wildfire • Noforest fire; longer fire seasons; higher elevation events, given the projected increase • Yes withinsect, disease, and wildfire events; increased in forest stress and mortality? modification:interannual variability in precipitation, leading How does the spacing between to fuels buildup and causing additional forest trees need to increase, if at all? stress; increased water temperatures in rivers • At what interval should stands be thinned and lakes and lower water levels in late summer; to mitigate for increased forest stress increased stress to forests during periodic multi- and fire susceptibility or for changedyear droughts; decrease in water quality from growth patterns? increased sedimentation • How does the project area include

anticipated future fire-prone areas

Local impacts: (i.e., higher elevation sites or 

Increased risk for erratic fire behavior; riparian areas)?decreased window of opportunity • How will the season of harvestingfor prescribed fire conditions; need to change given the reducedincreased risk of fire spread in snowpack and extreme flood eventshigh-elevation areas; flashier, drier to mitigate for ground disturbance,fuels; decreased water storage in soils if at all? Will it need to change given

shortening and less reliable winters? 

• How will the projected project help

offset the projected impacts resulting from climate change?

Prescribed fire

Trends: • Describe options for managing the • Yes without

Increased fuel buildup and risk of prescribed burn to mitigate the risk of modificationuncharacteristically severe and increased fire vulnerability, dry fuel • Nowidespread forest fire; longer fire buildup, and risk of ignition. • Yes withseasons; higher elevation insect, disease, • Considering the increased drought modification:and wildfire events; increased interannual conditions, how is this the bestvariability in precipitation, leading to time and technique to reduce fuels buildup and causing additional forest fuels or dispose of wood piles?stress; increased water temperatures in rivers • Will the prescribed burn area beand lakes and lower water levels in late near a water source, given increased summer; increased stress to forests during sedimentation and water periodic multiyear droughts; decrease in temperature concerns? water quality from increased sedimentation • How will the proposed project help

offset the projected impacts resulting 

Local impacts: from climate change? 

Increased risk for erratic fire behavior;decreased window of opportunity for
17

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued)

Response narrative

Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue

Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project?

prescribed fire conditions; increasedrisk of fire spread in high-elevationareas; flashier, drier fuels; decreasedwater storage in soils

Timber salvage

Trends: • How does the project timeline need to be • Yes without

operation Increased fuel buildup and risk of altered to account for the increased forest modification

uncharacteristically severe and stress and susceptibility to insects, pests • Nowidespread forest fire; longer fire and disease? Will salvaging dead wood • Yes withseasons; higher elevation insect, protect stands from future insect infestations? modification:disease, and wildfire events; increased • Are there reliable water sources nearbyinterannual variability in precipitation, given predicted drought conditions? leading to fuels buildup and causing • What is the dead fuel loading onadditional forest stress; increased water the ground, and how will it affect temperatures in rivers and lakes and lower the soil in future fires?water levels in late summer; increased • How does the status of the currentstress to forests during periodic multiyear timber market as compared to cost droughts; lower water quality from of harvesting affect the profitabilityincreased sedimentation of the operation? Will the increase in 

frequency and severity of wildfire

Local impacts: events cause an increase in timber supply? 

Increased risk for erratic fire behavior; How will increased drought and potentialincreased risk of fire spread in high- susceptibility to pests and diseases affect theelevation areas; more large wood fuel loading amount of salvage timber available? on the ground; flashier, drier fuels; • How will the proposed project help offsetdecreased water storage in soils; an the projected impacts resulting from increase in standing dead wood may climate change? promote future insect infestations

Reforestation/ 

Trends: • Will local conditions change enough to • Yes without

restoration Increased stress to forests during multi- alter the desired species composition? modification

year droughts; reduced snowpack; higher • How does tree planting density and • Noelevation insect, disease, and wildfire spacing address anticipated water • Yes withevents; fuel buildup from precipitation availability and mortality rates? modification:variability • Are there certain species or genetic

pools of native species that are well 

Local impacts: suited for anticipated vulnerabilities? 

Increased risk of tree mortality; • How will the proposed project helpchanges in local species composition; offset the projected impacts resulting geographic movement of species from climate change?
18

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263 Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued) Response narrative Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project? Aspen restoration

Trends: • Given the anticipated changes, how • Yes without

Reduced snowpack; longer drier summers will this site be capable of retaining modificaton

aspens over time? • No

Local impacts: • Will aspen occupying this site • Yes withReduced plant and animal species be able to persist under extreme modification:diversity; reduced water storage in soils; weather events? changed fire regimes with more severe effects • Are there better opportunities for

sustaining aspen in other locations that would provide for sustained migration? 

• How will the proposed project help

offset the projected impacts resulting from climate change?

Meadow restoration

Trends: • How will longer, drier summers and • Yes without

Reduced snowpack; longer, drier summers; a reduced snowpack affect the water modificationdecreased water quality as a result source for the meadow (snowmelt, • Noof watershed erosion and sediment flow spring, rainfall driven)? • Yes with

• How will the topography surrounding modification:

Local impacts: the meadow be vulnerable to increased 

Vegetation and wildlife species movement; sedimentation in light of extreme reduced water storage in soils; changed weather/fire events?hydrologic regimes; increased severity of • Is the project located at the edge of the rangefire effects/more sediment loss; reduced of suitability in climate/ topography/plant and animal diversity elevation gradient? 

• How are relevant threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species likely to be impacted by hydrologic and climate change? Is this area critical as a refuge site? 

• How should the recommended season of

use change for recreation and grazing, if at all? 

• With drying conditions, will this only be a

short-term solution? If so, what is the plan for longer term management for this species/area? 

• Why is this the right time and location for

this project given the trends? 

• How will the proposed project help offset the

projected impacts resulting from climate change?
19

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued)

Response narrative

Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue

Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project?Stream restoraTrends: • Describe the future range of flow. • Yes without

tion (prevent Reduced snowpack; longer, Will the hydrologic system change modificationheadcutting, drier summers; decreased water from a perennial to an intermittent • Noreplace old quality as a result of watershed system? • Yes withstructures, erosion and sediment flow • Given increase in extreme weather modification:stabilize banks events, how will the hydrologic regimewith vegetation) Local impacts: change? Will it go from a snowmelt 

Vegetation and wildlife species system to a rain-on-snow regime?movement; reduced water storage in • How will water rights for the projectsoils; changed hydrologic regimes; be affected by a change in water increased severity of fire quality and availability?

• Can this project withstand extreme 

weather events? 

• How will target species be viable

in the future given changes in surface water temperatures? 

• How is the restoration area vulnerable to 

increased fire events and erosion, if at all?

• How will the proposed project help

offset the projected impacts resulting from climate change?

Aquatic and

Trends: Aquatic • Yes without

wildlife Loss of seed and other • How will target species be viable modificationspecies germplasm sources as a result in the future given changes • Norestoration of population extirpation in surface water temperatures? • Yes with

events; increased water • Describe the future range of modification:temperatures in rivers and flow. Will the hydrologiclakes and lower water levels system change from a perennial in late summer; reduced to an intermittent system? snowpack; longer, drier • Given an increase in extremesummers; decreased water weather events, how will the quality as a result of increased hydrologic regime change? watershed erosion; general shifts

Will it go from a snowmelt to a 

in temperature ranges; severe rain on snow regime? widespread forest fire; longer fire Is the restoration area vulnerableseasons; higher elevation insect to increased fire events and erosion?and disease and wildfire events

Terrestrial• What is the future range of habitat

Local impacts: for the target species? Does this 

Historical availability of food and lie within management boundaries?
20

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263 Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued) Response narrative Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project? water sources may be altered • How will target species be viable geographically and temporally; in the future given changes in changing forest stand structure food and water availability, (wildfire, species extirpation) as well as the range of future habitat? may alter suitable habitat range • How will breeding, fawning, and forage seasons be altered with the changing habitat and climate? 

Will hunting seasons need to be altered? 

• How will the proposed project

help offset the projected impacts resulting from climate change?

Grazing 

Trends: • How should the recommended • Yes without

Historical availability of forage season of use change for grazing, modificationand water sources may be if at all? • Noaltered geographically and • Are recommended utilization • Yes withtemporally; suitable range for levels still appropriate? modifiation:livestock grazing may be altered; • Is the mapping of suitablekey species for forage range for the allotment still monitoring may change accurate? Will there be water on a site-specific basis available for this operation?

Will there be suitable vegetation for forage? 

• How will the proposed project help offset the projected 

impacts resulting from climate change?

Road Trends: • Given that hydrologic regimes • Yes without

maintenance Increased interannual may change, how are your modificationand construction variability in precipitation; crossings designated? How are • No

decreased water quality sediment flow crossings designed • Yes withas a result of increased and engineered to withstand modification:watershed erosion and the predicted changes? sediment flow; increased • How is the project located atlikelihood of severe flood; the right location to mitigate forincreased risk of uncharac- watershed erosion and sediment flow?teristically severe and wide- • Will the proposed road designspread fire be able to withstand extreme

weather events?
21

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued)

Response narrative

Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue

Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project?

Local impacts: • How are current road structures

Changed hydrologic regimes; and surface treatments able to soil disturbance owing to withstand the increased likelihood increased runoff and move- of severe flood events andmeant of waterways; future use?likelihood of road washouts • Is the surrounding topographyand closures increase; storm and vegetation susceptible to events exacerbate sedimenta- increased fire vulnerabilitytion and erosion from burned and subsequent erosion? areas • How will the proposed project

help offset the projected impacts resulting from climate change?

Road

Trends: • Given that hydrologic regimes are • Yes without

decommissioning Increased interannual variability changing with more frequent modification

in precipitation; decreased water flood events, are assumptions • Noquality as a result of watershed regarding the hydrologic cycle • Yes witherosion and sediment flow; (i.e., 100-year floods) accurate? modification:increased likelihood of severe • How will the road design processflood events; increased risk of ensure mitigation of erosionsevere, widespread fire and sedimentation?

• Are road structures and surface

Local impacts: treatments able to withstand more 

Changed hydrologic regimes; frequent severe flood events?impacts of disturbed soil may • How does the decommissionbe exaggerated in changing design account for extreme hydrologic patterns; increased weather events? runoff and movement of • Is the surrounding topographywaterways; roads vulnerable to and vegetation susceptible to washouts and closures; erosion increased fire vulnerability and erosion?and sedimentation areas in • How are project materials andpreviously burned or disturbed plant sources ensured to be free sites are exacerbated; forest of potential invasive species? stress leads to invasive spread; • How will the proposed projectdecrease in suitable habitat help offset the projected impacts for wildlife species resulting from climate change?

Recreation

Trends: • Is the project site located adjacent • Yes without

planning Lower water levels in late to a water feature? If so, will modification

summer; reduced snowpack lower water levels or frequent • Nodecreased water quality as a floods affect the proposed • Yes withresult of increased watershed developed site? modification:
22

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Table 2—Climate Project Screening Tool (continued)

Response narrative

Climate change trends (please complete, include Continue

Project activity and local impacts Key questions for managers references where possible) with project?

erosion and sediment flow; • How will reduced snowpackincreased likelihood of severe impact developed winter floods; increase forest stress recreation such as snowparksand fuel buildup; longer fire and skiing? How does a potentiallyseasons reduced season of use impact 

the contractual language in

Local impacts: special use permits? 

Lower lake levels; decreased water • How might the transportationtable for campground and and access to the project sitedeveloped site water systems; be affected by more severe floodsnow range shifts; developed events and increased fire risk?sites adjacent to waterways • How will the proposed project helpmay be impacted by flood offset the projected impacts resultingevents; wildfires could damage from climate change?structures
23

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Appendix 2: Responses to the Climate Project 

Screening Tool by Staff Members

Thinning for Fuels Management

Thinning helps reduce the likelihood of severe, widespread fire events, promotes a 

functional forest ecosystem, and thus helps the stand to adapt better in the future to 

a changing climate. The goal is to thin so that the stand can withstand future wildfire events where fire could play a beneficial, as opposed to catastrophic, role in the 

ecosystem. There are competing pressures on fuel treatment, including aesthetics 

and screening for campsites for privacy, as well as demand for fire risk reduction 

in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). There are also public concerns about too 

much intervention. On the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) in particular, legal and 

policy frameworks limit the amount that stands can be thinned. On the other hand, 

the largest fuels management problem on the Inyo National Forest (INF) is the lack 

of a market for the material, making it expensive, if not impossible, to cut and haul 

away the optimal amount of material. Because many areas are overgrown, it is risky 

to burn them. Therefore, managers are thinning to make areas more resilient to fire, 

but current actions may not be adequate to prevent severe wildfires in warmer and 

drier climates. One solution is to do repeated thinning treatments over time (“maintenance”) in one area, or to increase the rate at which thinning occurs, but this is 

often cost-prohibitive. A biofuels plant/market would create an opportunity to do 

more active management.

For the most part, areas that have been unlikely to burn in the recent past (e.g., 

higher elevation sites or riparian areas) are not yet being considered as future targets for fuels treatment. Riparian areas are particularly difficult to manage because 

of watershed and wildlife issues. However, some areas, for example in the riparian zone along Sherwin Creek and the higher elevation recreation sites like June 

Mountain Ski Area, are being considered for fuels treatment, although not with the 

idea of climate change in mind. Most treatments, particularly in the southern INF, 

occur in the WUI, which tends to be lower elevation. Nevertheless, treatments can 

reach as high as 10,000 feet. It was noted that it would be useful to learn about any 

fire histories that have been researched in riparian systems. Finally, harvesting 

schedules might be shifted forward or backward, depending on seasonal forecasts; 

earlier snowmelt might move harvesting schedules forward. 

Prescribed Fire

There are always concerns about a prescribed fire escaping the predetermined burn 

area, although increased risks under climate change are not actively being considered in all cases. For example, to address concerns about a fire jumping a road, the 
24

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

burn may be located where there is snow above the road. However, with warming 

climates, snow levels may change and even diminish.

There are, more generally, potential problems with changing seasons and later 

snowfall. Some see the season of fuels treatment becoming less predictable, with 

later and less reliable snowfall; others point out that weather is always unpredictable 

and managers expect interannual variability. For the most part, it is felt that the 

flexibility currently built into fire prescriptions for the timing of the burning will 

be adequate for dealing with shifting climate. For example, the prescriptions that 

ascertain when to burn are not date-dependent, but condition-dependent, so burns 

can be moved to later or earlier in the season using the current prescription. If the 

burn window moves much, there are other potential conflicts; for example, earlier 

burns may interfere with breeding birds.

In addition to the lack of a market for timber and small-diameter material 

around the INF, there are limitations on prescribed burns owing to public concern 

about air quality. There does not seem to be a sense of urgency from residents about 

catastrophic wildfire, seen in some other places in the Western United States, that 

may offset the concern about air quality. There is an opportunity here to persuade 

the public that there will be worse air quality concerns, as well as greenhouse gas 

emissions, from a large-scale wildfire.

Issues of increased sedimentation and water temperature are not considered 

huge concerns on the INF as most burns do not occur near fragile water sources. 

There is a watershed analysis conducted as part of the fuels reduction projects, 

but it may not show enough detail to consider increased sedimentation and water 

temperature.

Finally, there were concerns about the spread of invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass) in response to prescribed burns. However, the spread of invasives is likely to 

be less problematic with higher frequency, lower intensity fire as opposed to rare 

large-scale severe wildfire.

Although, for the most part, changing climates have not been actively considered in fire treatments, most fuels treatment projects seemed to meet similar goals 

of offsetting the projected impacts owing to climate change. In other words, there 

is an awareness of increased wildfire risk and thus increased need for action, even 

if the cause is not focused on drying and warming climates. There is an exciting 

vegetation management landscape analysis forthcoming for the southern half of the 

INF and corresponding parts of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to consider 

just that. The objective is to create diverse and resilient ecosystems considering the 

new climate regime.
25

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Timber Salvage Operation

On the TNF, a timber salvage operation was conducted to remove dead or downed 

wood. Managers salvaged the timber to limit the spread of future insect infestations. Timber salvage operations can also mitigate the impacts of climate change by 

sequestering carbon in wood products instead of allowing it to decompose or burn 

on the landscape. Moreover, salvaging dead wood may reduce high fuel loading and 

thus decrease the risk of large wildfires in the long term. 

On the TNF, salvage operations may increase the timber supply and reduce 

prices on a short-term basis, but the long-term impact is negligible. Timber salvage operations occur on a small scale on the INF, especially in the south where 

the primary use of felled trees is for personal firewood by the public. Lack of a 

commercial timber or biomass market is a limiting factor for the amount of fuel 

treatments that are possible on the INF. A biomass pilot project would be helpful in 

determining whether the area could support a biomass plant.

Aspen Restoration

A forestwide condition assessment for aspen stands (Populus tremuloides Michx.) 

is currently being conducted that will identify areas where treatments can be 

prioritized based on needs for stand improvement. Conditions that lead to a stand’s 

risk of loss include conifer encroachment, browsing, and campground development. 

Aspen treatment areas are chosen for multiple management objectives including 

reduction of fuel loading and beetle infestation. Treatment allows aspen to regenerate, increasing water retention in the system and supporting biodiversity. Another 

example is prioritizing aspen treatments in the WUI, for example, around the town 

of Mammoth Lakes. It is hoped that the site will be capable of retaining aspen over 

time, although there has not been an indepth analysis. No consideration of extreme 

weather events is occurring, but additional thinning, in excess of what is needed 

for other purposes such as bark beetle infestation, is done to increase resilience and 

provide for a more resilient aspen stand.

Meadow and Stream Restoration

With warming temperatures and reduced snowmelt, many meadows are starting 

to dry. Whether rainfall or snowmelt is more important for groundwater recharge 

depends on the site characteristics. Meadows that are stream-fed may experience 

drying from decreased and intermittent streamflow. Rain-on-snow events and 

extreme weather are concerns for some of the lower elevation streams. The hydrologic regime could change, with reduced waterflow in the summer. On the other 

hand, there may potentially be new habitat created, for example, in areas that used 

to be permanent snowfields.
26

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

Managers are considering climate change in meadow restoration, although 

grazing and aquifer depletion may also be causing drying that has been occurring 

for decades. There is some concern that investment in meadow restoration may be 

futile if streams will eventually dry out owing to climate change.

Solutions that are being considered to restore streams include increasing bank 

building, replacing old structures, stabilizing banks with vegetation, increasing the 

flood plain by reducing the stream width, potentially maintaining a smaller channel system to accommodate lower flows, although with larger built flood plains to 

accommodate more frequent and heavier flash floods.

In general, these actions may only be temporary solutions, but they may be 

better than no action in some situations. Project sites are selected opportunistically 

rather than strategically, focusing on those that are the least degraded, have an 

obvious fix, have been in the queue for years, or that involve a threatened or endangered species and thus require legal action. For example, bank incision by cattle and 

packstock has already reduced flow in some streams, particularly in late summer. 

Stream restoration at these sites provides an obvious fix to increase resilience to 

warming, extreme weather events, and changed precipitation patterns.

The ongoing stream restoration projects, although not specifically focused on 

climate change effects, nevertheless counteract warming and drying effects by 

increasing riparian vegetation, reducing streambank erosion, creating cold water 

pools, and increasing meadow storage of water. Furthermore, California golden 

trout are a major focus for stream restoration on the INF. Their size and reproduction are adversely affected by high water temperatures; thus, stream restoration 

can help offset the effects of warming climates for the golden trout. However, 

the restoration actions that are being implemented, at least in some cases, are not 

strong enough to withstand an extreme event, especially if it happens soon after the 

project’s completion.

Grazing and recreation were not considered a major threat for most of the 

ongoing meadow restoration projects. In one case, it was felt that reduced grazing 

near streambanks would help, especially late in the season when it’s dry and cattle 

congregate on the streambanks. At one site, there was a lot of hiking activity on the 

edge of the meadow, and, in some cases, through the meadow that could potentially 

be moved and at least formalized to protect the meadow.

Aquatic and Wildlife Species Restoration

The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus), 

California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and Sierra bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra) have been the 
27

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

primary focus for ongoing projects on the INF. Some feel that the treatment of land 

to conserve threatened and endangered species is a short-term fix, but the combination of legal status and wilderness designation often greatly reduces the options 

for management. From a climate change perspective, a future approach could be 

to manage some habitats as climate refugia for potentially threatened wildlife such 

as the American pika (Ochotona princeps). Knowing the future range of wildlife 

would be very helpful and relevant but is currently unknown for most species.

The Sierra bighorn sheep project on the INF, an action from the species’s recovery plan, was proposed and designed by California Department of Fish and Game 

in areas where it was felt that the population had the greatest chance for recovery 

and maintenance and where vegetation changes were responsible for constricting 

sheep to higher elevations. Basically it strives to increase access to winter habitat 

with reduced predation pressure from mountain lions (Puma concolor). Sierra 

bighorn sheep are shifting their range to higher elevations, most likely because of 

increased predation: “lions have forced them to do what climate change may force 

them to do in the future.” The biggest problem for the species seems to be finding 

quality forage during the winter months; warming conditions could change this. 

The population seems stable, although they are not living in their optimal habitat. 

Some other requirements, such as mineral licks and specific topography, should not 

change under climate change.

The INF is also restoring habitat for sage grouse, which are currently under 

petition for federal listing. It has been removing conifers from sagebrush habitat 

since fire suppression and warming climates have contributed to their expansion 

over the past century. There are other threats to sage grouse habitat, including the 

opposing concern of too intense fires leading to sagebrush converting to cheat 

grass and other invasives, oil and gas leasing throughout their range, and urban 

and human expansion. The future range of sage grouse is unknown, except that 

sagebrush will be a limiting factor. There are concerns that sagebrush habitat will 

be converted to agriculture or lost to fire or development and that pinyon pine will 

expand its range and negatively affect sage grouse habitat.

The effects of changing climate on breeding, birthing, and forage seasons are 

unpredictable. Breeding is flexible in sage grouse so climate shifts may not be a 

problem. Day length may determine the sage grouse reproductive cycle; therefore, 

extreme weather and changing climates may create a mismatch between the food 

source and natural history, reducing offspring survival. Sage grouse depend on 

moist environments to sustain their food source, particularly in spring, when young 

get a protein boost from burgeoning insect populations. If there is a decrease in 

precipitation such that insect populations decline, there could be a reduction in sage 
28

Researc h Pap er PSW-RP-263

grouse numbers. If the sagebrush move up in elevation (which is unlikely because 

of conifer shading), sage grouse will not follow because they do not like the cover 

for predators that shading creates. Sage grouse may move preferentially onto 

ecotypes such as those currently administered by BLM.

In the case of the Sierra bighorn sheep, the forage season is lengthening. As a 

result, the breeding and fawning season might change. Considerations of effects of 

climate change on hunting wildlife, for example, sage grouse, may be important; 

hunting season may need to shift or perhaps numbers allowed will need to be 

reduced.

Grazing

Meadow restoration through temporarily reduced grazing can increase water 

storage, allowing for future grazing operations and mitigating for anticipated 

drying conditions. If meadows are shrinking as a result of climate change, then 

grazing might be a less suitable use of rangeland. However, if restoration efforts 

are successful, grazing could still remain viable. Grazing allotments on the INF 

already consider watershed conditions and wildlife use. Allotments can be closed 

but only for legal and project-defensible reasons, such as the impact on threatened 

and endangered species. In general, in many INF allotments, allowable use is being 

reduced based on monitoring and condition assessments and a need to improve 

vegetative and hydrologic conditions. Grazing reduction is occurring on the TNF to 

allow for revegetation and hydrologic restoration.

Grazing seasons may change owing to the anticipated shorter growing season. 

With shorter growing seasons, utilization levels might still be appropriate if the 

season was moved earlier, or if meadow restoration efforts are successful. The standard benchmarks that are used for these decisions, for example, sage grouse breeding season is June 15, may need to be reconsidered as wildlife adapt to changing 

seasons. Utilization levels also depend on the species mix of forage. Inventories and 

protocols that determined the mapping of suitable range may need to be updated 

to take climate change and local ground conditions into consideration. If spring 

arrives earlier, the schedule might be moved forward to take advantage of the new 

growth. Likewise, cattle might need to be pulled off earlier than usual if summers 

are drier. Water availability is considered when determining allotments but not 

future water availability under drying climates. Meadow restoration efforts can help 

offset the impact of climate change by increasing the amount of water storage and 

availability. The Watershed Condition Inventory and Hydrologic Function Protocol 

are from 1995 and would benefit from review and updating. Finally, there are 

wildlife disease transfer concerns, which climate change may exacerbate.
29

Climate Project Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation

Road Maintenance, Construction, and Decommission

Road maintenance is used to improve stream crossings, improve hydrologic function, and reduce erosion. However, increasing extreme weather effects such as 

severe flooding are not yet being considered. Projects are often short-term fixes, 

needing maintenance every 3 to 5 years, and some roads are not used often enough 

to justify spending the resources so they can withstand extreme weather events. 

Road maintenance and road repair after a wildfire is an opportunity to replace 

culverts and consider sizing up the culvert to accommodate higher runoffs. 

Road decommissioning can act to increase resilience in a system by decreasing 

stressors. When roads are decommissioned, normal, not extreme, weather is considered. However, it is unclear whether there would be a different kind of treatment 

regardless. Finally, INF is concerned about invasive species in road decommissioning and many other projects, and it has established a strict protocol to prevent their 

spread.

Recreation Planning

For the most part, managers are not actively considering climate change in the 

context of recreation planning. However, there is precedent for such consideration 

as issues of water shortage are taken into account.

The effect of climate change may be to shift activity types; for example, the 

length of the ski season may shorten as a result of a shorter snow season. Thus there 

may be higher social densities, permittees may have more marginal operations, 

people may ski in different areas (e.g., higher elevation), or perhaps new technology 

will develop (along the line of wet snow skis or mountain boarding). Ground water 

issues could increase if snowmaking becomes more common. Some ski resorts 

may actually expand use if they are at higher elevations with better snow and better 

access than other ski lodges. For now, the potentially reduced season of use has not 

impacted the contractual language on the INF in special use permits, although it 

could change in the future.

There is a concern with having safe places for people to go or viable escape 

routes when there are extreme weather events or fire emergencies. Furthermore, 

wildfires will likely become more frequent and more severe as the environment 

warms and dries. The increase in severe wildfires is already causing concern 

among managers, although it is less of an issue on the INF than other national 

forests in California. In response, greater fire restrictions could be imposed, for 

example, more frequent use of stage 2 restrictions (no fires, even in rings). There 

may be awareness growing for flash floods as well, especially after wildfire, but 

no new action has been taken to protect the public from these increased threats.
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
This publication is available online at www.fs.fed.us/psw/. You may also order additional 

copies of it by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following 

means. Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center 

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

 Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

Pacific Southwest Research Station

800 Buchanan Street

Albany, CA 94710
This Page Left Blank Intentionally