Responding to Climate 

Change in National Forests: 

A Guidebook for Developing 

Adaptation Options

David L. Peterson, Constance I. Millar, Linda A. Joyce, 

Michael J. Furniss, Jessica E. Halofsky, Ronald P. Neilson, 

and Toni Lyn Morelli

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-855

November 2011

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

David L. Peterson is a research biological scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire 

Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; Constance 

I. Millar is a research paleoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan St., West Annex 

Building, Albany, CA 94710-0011; Linda A. Joyce is a quantitative ecologist, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 W Prospect, Fort Collins, CO 80526; Michael J. Furniss is a hydrologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97204; Jessica E. Halofsky is a 

research ecologist, University of Washington, College of the Environment, School 

of Forest Resources, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100; Ronald P. Neilson

(retired) was a research bioclimatologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 

SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; and Toni Lyn Morelli is a technical 

advisor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Programs, 

Ministry of the Environment, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 

Furniss currently is located at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood 

Sciences Laboratory, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521-6013.

Contributors

Christopher W. Swanston is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 410 MacInnes Dr., Houghton, MI 

49931; Steven G. McNulty is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 920 Main Campus Dr., Venture Center 

2, Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606; and Maria K. Janowiak is a research scientist, 

Michigan Technological University, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931. 

This publication was developed by the WestWide Climate Initiative, a collaboration of the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Rocky Mountain Research 

Stations of the U.S. Forest Service, with assistance from the Northern and Southern Research Stations. It received a blind peer review administered by Dr. Jill 

Baron of the U.S. Geological Survey. 
Abstract

Peterson, David L.; Millar, Connie I.; Joyce, Linda A.; Furniss, Michael J.; 

Halofsky, Jessica E.; Neilson, Ronald P.; Morelli, Toni Lyn. 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. 

This guidebook contains science-based principles, processes, and tools necessary to 

assist with developing adaptation options for national forest lands. The adaptation 

process is based on partnerships between local resource managers and scientists 

who work collaboratively to understand potential climate change effects, identify 

important resource issues, and develop management options that can capitalize 

on new opportunities and reduce deleterious effects. Because management objectives and sensitivity of resources to climate change differ among national forests, 

appropriate processes and tools for developing adaptation options may also differ. 

Regardless of specific processes and tools, the following steps are recommended: 

(1) become aware of basic climate change science and integrate that understanding with knowledge of local resource conditions and issues (review), (2) evaluate 

sensitivity of specific natural resources to climate change (rank), (3) develop and 

implement strategic and tactical options for adapting resources to climate change 

(resolve), and (4) monitor the effectiveness of adaptation options (observe) and 

adjust management as needed. Results of recent case studies on adaptation in 

national forests and national parks can facilitate integration of climate change in 

resource management and planning and make the adaptation process more efficient. 

Adaptation to climate change will be successful only if it can be fully implemented 

in established planning processes and other operational aspects of national forest 

management.

Keywords: Adaptation, climate change, national forests, national parks, 

science-management partnership, vulnerability assessment.
Summary

National forests are required to take significant steps to incorporate climate change 

in management and planning, including the development of options that facilitate 

adaptation of natural resources to potentially deleterious effects of an altered 

climate. Despite uncertainties about the timing and magnitude of climate change 

effects, sufficient information exists to begin the adaptation process, a form of risk 

management. The following steps, based on a science-management partnership, 

can be used to facilitate adaptation on national forests: (1) become aware of basic 

climate change science and integrate that understanding with knowledge of local 

resource conditions and issues (review), (2) evaluate sensitivity of natural resources 

to climate change (rank), (3) develop and implement options for adapting resources 

to climate change (resolve), and (4) monitor the effectiveness of on-the-ground 

management (observe) and adjust as needed. 

The “resolve” step is used to develop solutions that ensure sustainable resource 

management in meeting conservation goals, and encompasses four management 

strategies—resistance, resilience, response, and realignment—that encourage 

thinking about a range of possible options. The resistance strategy includes actions 

that enhance the ability of species, ecosystems, or environments (including social) 

to resist forces of climate change and maintain values and ecosystem services in 

their present or desired states and conditions. The resilience strategy enhances the 

capacity of ecosystems to withstand or absorb increasing effects without irreversible changes in important processes and functionality. The response strategy works 

directly with climate-induced changes to assist transitions to future states by 

mitigating and minimizing undesired and disruptive outcomes. The realignment 

strategy uses restoration techniques to enable ecosystem processes and functions 

(including conditions that may or may not have existed in the past) to persist 

through a changing climate.

Processes and tools used to accomplish adaptation differ, depending on local 

resource conditions, management objectives, and organizational preferences. 

Therefore, several processes and tools are presented here, all of which have been 

used and evaluated on federal lands. This guidebook provides the documentation of 

science-based principles, processes, and tools necessary for a credible and practical 

approach for adapting to climate change. This credibility is critical whether adaptation options are focused on general strategies (e.g., increasing resilience of dry 

forests to fire) or tactical actions (e.g., reducing stem densities and fuels to specific 

levels). Sharing of experiences from adaptation projects on national forests and 
other federal lands will enable others to implement adaptation more effectively and 

efficiently, and collaboration among different agencies, landowners, and stakeholders will ensure that diverse perspectives are included in climate-change adaptation. 

Integration of adaptation in operational management and administration of national 

forests, including established planning processes, will be challenging but necessary 

to ensure long-term sustainability of natural resources in a changing climate.
iv

Contents

1 Introduction

4 Background

7 Analytical Scale, Models, and Scientific Information

9 Assessing Climate Change Effects at Differential Spatial and 

Temporal Scales

15 Modeling Future Climates and Ecosystem Responses

20 Using and Assessing Scientific Information

22 Facilitating Adaptation Through Science-Management Partnerships

23 Developing a Science-Management Partnership

25 Sharing Scientific and Management Knowledge—Critical Roles 

for Scientists and Managers

28 Identifying Available Scientific Information in Projects and Plans

31 Climate Change Resource Center

34 Assessing the Effects of Climate Change, Developing Adaptation 

Options, and Setting Priorities

47 Implementing Climate Change Information in Planning

49 Legislated Climate Change Analyses to Be Completed by the 

 Forest Service

50 Planning in National Forests

52 Developing Adaptation Options: A Toolkit Approach

54 Ecosystem Management—the Basis for Action

58 Steps for Developing Adaptation Options

81 Conclusions

84 Acknowledgments

84 English Equivalents

85 References

100 Appendix 1—Example Documents From Climate Change 

 Case Studies

101 Appendix 2—Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change: 

The Watershed Vulnerability Assessment Approach
1

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Introduction 

A rapidly changing climate imposes a challenge to the mission of the Forest 

Service, which is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s 

forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Ecosystems that the Forest Service manages have, of course, always been dynamic; 

climate change exacerbates and compounds existing stressors such as fire, insects, 

fungal pathogens, atmospheric pollution, floods, and invasive species (McKenzie et 

al. 2009). Further, decreasing snowpacks, altered streamflows, prolonged droughts, 

and shifting plant and animal habitats are creating a kaleidoscope of new patterns 

and trends (Solomon et al. 2007). The need to respond to climate change is clear, 

and recent mandates from leadership in the Forest Service and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture clearly spell out this responsibility.

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell has begun an assertive program of action, 

outlined in an agencywide strategic framework for responding to climate change 

(USDA FS 2008). As field units began to implement this framework, a need 

emerged for guidance from the national level to help the agency move from strategy 

to operations. Building on the strategic framework, the “National Roadmap for 

Responding to Climate Change” (USDA FS 2010c) was issued in July 2010 to aid 

field units in translating goals into action. Responses to climate change as defined 

in the roadmap include (1) assessing current risks, vulnerabilities, policies, and 

gaps in knowledge; (2) engaging internal and external partners in solutions; and 

(3) managing for resilience, in ecosystems as well as in human communities, 

through adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable consumption strategies. These 

actions are dynamic and mutually reinforcing, interconnected through monitoring 

and evaluation to inform adaptive management. Climate change adaptation, the 

primary focus of this publication, is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 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” (McCarthy et al. 2001).

In addition to the national roadmap, the Chief recently issued the climate 

change performance scorecard for implementing the Forest Service climate change 

strategy (USDA FS 2010a). The scorecard provides a straightforward means of 

addressing specific goals and objectives described in the Department of Agriculture 

strategic plan, and concrete measures of success are described at the national forest 

level. The scorecard consists of 10 yes-or-no questions associated with actions that 

support the four dimensions of climate change response described in the roadmap (box 1). National forests are directed to use the scorecard annually to assess 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

progress and document accomplishments. Similar to the roadmap, the scorecard 

describes how strategic goals can be implemented on the ground. Successful 

accomplishment of scorecard elements is mandated for all national forests by 2015.

Grounded in a strong commitment to assertively address climate change in land 

management, this new direction to field units will help translate climate change 

concepts and goals into action. However, little guidance is provided about specific 

decision tools, models, and planning instruments or on how to set priorities, assess 

vulnerabilities, and develop adaptation goals. Resource managers and planners in 

national forests need information and tools that will enable them to make specific 

decisions, develop concrete practices, and take timely action on the ground to 

address climate change. 

Box 1

Four Dimensions of Climate Change Response

Four dimensions of response to climate change (agency capacity, partnerships 

and education, adaptation, and, mitigation and sustainable consumption) from 

the National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change (USDA FS 2010c) 

are addressed by 10 specific kinds of action. The performance scorecard 

(USDA FS 2010a) has a series of questions to assist national forests in determining if those actions are being accomplished.

Agency capacity

1. Educate employees

2. Designate climate change coordinators

3. Develop program guidance and training

Partnerships and education

4. Integrate science and management

5. Develop partnerships and alliances

Adaptation

6. Assess vulnerability

7. Set priorities

8. Monitor change

Mitigation and sustainable consumption

9. Assess and manage carbon 

10. Reduce environmental footprint
3

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

In response to this need, Forest Service research scientists and cooperators have 

been working to develop tools and guidelines relevant for adaptation to climate 

change on national forests. Forest Service research stations and national forests 

have established science-management partnerships to develop scientific bases for 

adaptation and find effective ways to communicate and implement this knowledge. 

This effort builds on existing principles of adaptation to climate change (Bosworth 

et al. 2008, Joyce et al. 2008, Julius and West 2008, Millar et al. 2007) and provides 

science-based strategic and tactical approaches for adapting to climate change. 

Recent collaborative projects among Forest Service research stations, national 

forests, national parks, and other stakeholders have focused on (1) climate change 

education for resource managers, (2) potential vulnerabilities of natural resources to 

a changing climate, (3) options that facilitate adaptation to the effects of a changing 

climate, and (4) opportunities to implement adaptation in on-the-ground management and planning. Rapid communication of knowledge obtained from these 

collaborations is needed to inform adaptation strategies and facilitate preparation 

for a changing climate.

This guidebook is a summary of current knowledge on climate change 

adaptation from educational syntheses, specific tools, facilitated dialogues, 

workshops, and case studies. It is focused specifically on topics and approaches 

that are relevant to and compatible with resource management on national forests 

and potentially on other federal lands. Indeed, all adaptation options developed 

for case studies to date were conceived by resource managers and disciplinary 

specialists from national forests and national parks. It is our hope that the tools 

and approaches presented here will help focus adaptation on the needs of resource 

managers and planners.

The guidebook is intended to assist the transition to “climate-smart” 

approaches in resource management. It is not intended to be a comprehensive 

accounting of all scientific and management efforts on climate change adaptation, but rather a compilation of information and lessons learned that will inform 

adaptation planning and practice on national forests. The guidebook is intended 

to be dynamic and will continue to evolve as new knowledge becomes available,1

adaptation options on federal lands are implemented and evaluated, policy and 

guidelines are formalized, and the effects of a changing climate are documented. 

1 We anticipate that this guidebook will become an online resource through the Climate 

Change Resource Center (http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc), and that information about adaptation 

efforts on national forests and other federal lands will continually be added and discussed. 

This will encourage rapid communication of experiences with various aspects of adaptation, thus accelerating the learning process and implementation of adaptation on national 

forests and other federal lands.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

This is part of the normal adaptive management process. This adaptation guidebook 

is one of many sources of scientific information and guidance that can be used by 

federal land managers to guide decisionmaking and planning. Starting the process 

of adaptation in a timely way increases the likelihood that resource management 

objectives can be attained in a changing climate. 

Background 

On public lands in the United States, planning and managing for the anticipated 

effects of climate change on natural resources are in their infancy. Despite the 

fact that over 20 years of data are available from federally funded research programs, federal agencies have been slow to integrate climate change as a factor in 

future planning strategies or on-the-ground applications (GAO 2007, 2009). This 

slow response has resulted from insufficient local information on climate change 

effects; the magnitude and uncertainty of potential effects on ecosystem structure, 

processes, and function; lack of institutional capacity (budget and personnel) to 

address a major new topic; and until recently, absence of a mandate to incorporate 

climate change in agency operations. 

An urgent need exists for policymakers, managers, scientists, stakeholders, and 

the broader public to share specific evidence of climate change and its projected 

consequences on ecosystems, and to share their understanding of adaptation 

options, future opportunities, and risks (e.g., Climate Adaptation Knowledge 

Exchange 2010, Vogel et al. 2007). Although this guidebook focuses on national 

forests and draws mostly on examples from the Western United States, many of the 

options presented here are relevant to resource managers on privately owned and 

other publicly managed lands who manage for multiple objectives, in consideration 

of external influences on their lands.

Awareness of the need to incorporate climate change into resource management 

and planning increased globally in association with the Fourth Assessment by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon et al. 2007), and in western 

North America in association with well-publicized reports on regional climate 

and hydrologic trends (e.g., Hayhoe et al. 2004, Knowles et al. 2006, Mote et al. 

2005). Most efforts on adaptation to climate change have focused primarily on 

conceptual issues addressed through general scientific discussion (Easterling et al. 

2004, FAO 2007, Hansen et al. 2003, MacIver and Dallmeier 2000, Wilkinson et al. 

2002), social and economic adaptation (Kane and Yohe 2000), proposed actions by 

governmental institutions (Joyce et al. 2007, Ligeti et al. 2007, Rojas Blanco 2006, 

Snover et al. 2007, Solomon et al. 2007), individual adaptation strategies (Sadowski 

2008, Slaughter and Wiener 2007), and adaptation recommendations for biological 
5

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

diversity (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Recent information on climate change 

adaptation for natural resources provides general adaptation strategies (Innes 

et al. 2009, Joyce et al. 2008, Millar et al. 2007). Only a few sources contain 

information on adaptation to climate change that is relevant and usable for natural 

resource managers from a tactical or operational perspective (Halofsky et al. 2011; 

Littell et al. 2011; Ogden and Innes 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Peterson et al. 2011). 

Efforts to develop strategies that facilitate adaptation to documented (e.g., 

altered hydrologic systems [Barnett et al. 2008]) and expected (e.g., increased area 

burned by wildfire [Westerling et al. 2006]) responses to climate change are now 

beginning in earnest by the U.S. federal government. In the most substantive effort 

to date, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program developed a summary of adaptation options for federal land management agencies (Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.4) (Julius and West 2008), including one chapter devoted to adaptation 

on national forests (Joyce et al. 2008) and one chapter devoted to national parks 

(Baron et al. 2008). Recent discussions on adaptation emphasize the importance of 

implementing adaptive management (in a general sense, as opposed to adaptation 

to climate change), with resource monitoring as a critical feedback to evaluation 

of management strategies (Bosworth et al. 2008, Halofsky et al. 2011, Joyce et al. 

2008, Millar et al. 2007, Swanston and Janowiak 2011). 

Guidance to Forest Service managers states that “climate change is a factor to 

be considered in the delivery of our overall mission,” and managers are directed to 

use the “best available science on climate change that is relevant to the planning 

unit and the issues being considered in planning” (USDA FS 2010b). Guidance 

addressing climate change in national forest planning is one of several focal issues 

around which the new Forest Service planning rule is being developed. The planning rule draft environmental impact statement has been reviewed, with a final rule 

anticipated in 2012. No specific planning guidance on climate change is available at 

this time.

Guidance for considering climate change in project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis describes agency authority to propose projects to 

increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems it manages, mitigate climate change 

effects on those ecosystems, and sequester carbon (USDA FS 2009b). Timely 

implementation of strategic and tactical adaptation options, with an emphasis on 

practical approaches that can be applied within the broader context of sustainable 

resource management, will be critical to meet the goals of restoring and enhancing 

ecosystems while providing and sustaining ecosystem services and benefits (Innes 

et al. 2009). 

Climate change is a 

factor to be considered 

in the delivery of our 

overall mission.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Guidance for project-level NEPA analysis (USDA FS 2009b) identifies two 

types of climate change effects to be considered:

• The effect of a proposed project on climate change (greenhouse gas 

[GHG] emissions and carbon cycling). Examples include short-term GHG 

emissions and alteration of the carbon cycle caused by hazardous fuels 

reduction projects, GHG emissions from oil and gas field development, and 

avoiding large GHG emissions pulses and effects on the carbon cycle by 

thinning overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease the 

potential for large wildfires.

• The effect of climate change on a proposed project. Examples include 

effects of expected shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns on 

seed stock selection for reforestation after timber harvest, and effects of 

decreased snowfall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location (e.g., a southern aspect at low elevation).

The first type of climate change effect focuses on alterations or enhancements 

of the carbon cycle as affected by Forest Service management. This area is under 

continued discussion in management and policy arenas (e.g., GHG guidance by the 

Council on Environmental Quality, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/

ceq/sustainability/fed-ghg). Potential interactions between management actions that 

propose to enhance carbon sequestration need to be addressed to ensure that adaptation options are not foregone (McKinley et al. 2011, Ryan et al. 2010). Similarly, 

adaptation options can affect the potential for carbon sequestration in ecosystems. 

This guidebook focuses on the second category and the adaptation response. 

Scientific understanding over the last 20 years has brought the issue of climate 

change and the vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change decisively into the 

public arena. However, as described above, no consistent framework or portfolio 

of operational strategies has evolved from this scientific understanding to identify 

appropriate resource management responses. Management activities and plans that 

reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems to actual or expected climate 

change effects are considered adaptation. A large and potentially overwhelming 

amount of scientific information on climate change is available to communities of 

practice within different natural resource disciplines, although practical information 

on adaptation is less common. Science-management partnerships must facilitate 

two-way learning in which climate science can be melded with managers’ knowledge of the land being managed. 

Encouraging a learning environment in which novel approaches can be used 

experimentally to alleviate deleterious climate change effects will support federal 

land managers as they develop adaptation options. Scientists and managers will be 
7

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

called upon to sift through diverse approaches to understand the effects of climatic 

variability and change on ecosystems and management responses to a changing 

climate. Management actions intended to facilitate adaptation may, over time, 

appear to be “mistakes,” but they are also opportunities to understand technical 

issues, underlying ecosystem processes, and successful management approaches 

in a changing climate. 

This guidebook provides a framework for building management strategies in the face of climate change, processes to start the science-management 

dialogue about climate change and adaptation, and examples of adaptation 

options. Uncertainty, complexity, and the uniqueness of individual national 

forests need to be considered when developing adaptive approaches for planning and management. Sources of uncertainty—sensitivity of resources, climate 

projections, staff time, funding, and public support—may influence decisions on 

whether it is best to develop reactive responses to changing disturbances and 

extreme events after they occur to protect current resource conditions, or proactive responses in anticipation of climate change to facilitate desired ecosystem 

functions and processes.

The inevitability of novelty and surprise in climate change effects, combined 

with a broad range of management objectives, means that it is certain that no 

single approach will fit all situations. The guidebook presents a toolkit of 

adaptation options that can be selected, modified, and combined to fit a particular 

situation. We define tools as resource management practices, educational and reference modules, decision-support aids, and qualitative or quantitative models that 

address the adaptation of natural and cultural resources to climate change. Tools 

include the application of existing management practices, but in new locations, 

different seasons, or a slightly different context, as well as novel tools distinct 

from past management practices and strategies. The toolkit approach recognizes 

that management strategies may differ based on the spatial and temporal scales of 

decisionmaking. We hope that the information, processes, and decision-support 

tools presented here will motivate land managers to apply science-based adaptation principles in management and planning. 

Analytical Scale, Models, and Scientific Information 

As natural sciences became more formalized during the 19th and 20th centuries, 

scientists and land managers began collecting observational and experimental 

data over space and time, documenting patterns of variation in the physical and 

biological environment. Landscapes and ecoregions are large, and time scales of 

responses are long compared to the generation time of humans, so sampling of the 

The guidebook 

presents a toolkit of 

adaptation options 

that can be selected, 

modified, and 

combined to fit a 

particular situation. 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

natural world was sparse in space and time and may have been biased in ways 

not appreciated until much later.

The time scales of secondary succession for forested landscapes are often too 

long for direct assessment by an individual observer. The durations of various 

intermediate stages between a major disturbance event and a late-successional 

stage are often so long that “space-for-time” substitution was invented as a means 

of documenting the successional trajectories that any given patch of land would 

likely follow within a spatially coherent ecoregion. This approach assumes that 

spatial and temporal patterns of disturbances and succession are relatively stable 

over time. Under this assumption, simple statistical models can quantify spatial and 

temporal patterns of growth and successional change after a disturbance. Statistical 

models are generally limited in the number of variables that can be simultaneously 

considered in one model, such as productivity or individual species distributions. 

Therefore, two scientific perspectives have become entrenched, namely (1) sparse 

data, collected intermittently in space and time, are sufficient to accurately describe 

the space-time dynamics of large ecoregions or domains; and (2) acceptance of 

number 1 presumes that any changes in these space-time dynamics of the natural 

world are very slow compared to the generation time of humanity and can be 

essentially ignored. 

The rate and magnitude of recent climatic warming have largely negated the 

concept of stationarity in natural systems (Milly et al. 2008), leaving the spacefor-time approach with little value for estimating future change in ecosystems. 

Ecosystems consist of life forms and processes that operate on different temporal scales, from short term (e.g., photosynthesis) to long term (e.g., forest stand 

dynamics). Computer simulation models can simulate space-filling and time-filling 

patterns and processes, including integration of processes interacting within 

ecosystems. Increasing knowledge of natural patterns and processes in ecosystems 

combined with increasing computational capacity have led to a better understanding of possible future ecosystem changes across a range of spatial scales. 

Below, we explore spatial- and temporal-scale concepts and other factors that 

influence development and use of scientific knowledge on climate change. We 

address common types of climate and ecosystem models that managers are likely 

to encounter, including limitations for their use in small-scale projects. Finally, we 

provide guidance on evaluating and using credible scientific information.
9

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Assessing Climate Change Effects at Different Spatial 

and Temporal Scales

A framework based on spatial and temporal scales (e.g., Peterson and Parker 1998) 

can help organize large amounts of information according to specific applications 

used to assess vulnerability of resources to climate change and to develop adaptation 

options. Selecting appropriate scales for assessing the effects of climate change and 

planning adaptive responses (Wiens and Bachelet 2010) depends on the nature, magnitude, and mechanisms of potential effects; the nature and extent of linkages with 

ecological, social, and economic systems; information availability and value relative 

to the range of potential consequences; and personnel and budget availability. 

The scale on which adaptation is focused is ideally based on the issues to be 

addressed and potential changes to existing management direction (table 1). Many 

biophysical issues have easily definable scales, such as the range of a plant species 

or hydrologic conditions of a river basin. Each issue may define the scale at which 

climate change effects are assessed, adaptation goals are defined, and project design 

objectives are established.

Table 1—Relevance of spatial scale for assessing vulnerability to climate change

Spatial scale

Largea Intermediateb Smallc

Availability of information High for future climate Moderate for river systems, High for resource data, 

on climate and climate and general effects on vegetation, and animals low for climate change

change effects vegetation and water

Accuracy of predictions of High Moderate to high High for temperature and

climate change effects water, low to moderate 

 for other resources

Usefulness for specific projects Generally not relevant Relevant for forest density Can be useful if confident

 management, fuel treatment, that information can be

wildlife, and fisheries downscaled accurately

Usefulness for planning High if collaboration High for a wide range Low to moderate

 across management of applications

 units is effective

a More than 10 000 km2

 (e.g., basin, multiple national forests). b 100 to 10 000 km2

 (e.g., subbasin, national forest, ranger district). c Less than 100 km2

 (e.g., watershed).

Broad-scale analysis—

Broad-scale analysis (thousands to millions of hectares) can inform managers 

and interested parties of strategic intent for long-term adaptation to climate 

change, provide a context for finer scale analysis units (e.g., watersheds), and set 

priorities for detailed analysis and program planning. Although the watershed 

scale (thousands to tens of thousands of hectares) may be an appropriate scale for 

identifying opportunities to improve resilience of landscapes to climate change, 

The scale on which 

adaptation is focused 

is ideally based on the 

issues to be addressed 

and potential changes 

to existing management 

direction.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

detailed analysis at this scale over an entire national forest may not be necessary. 

Rather, detailed analysis can be focused initially on the most vulnerable watersheds 

identified by a broader analysis. 

Broad-scale analysis helps establish context, provide guidance, allocate budgets 

and expertise, and establish schedules and accountability. It can also evaluate 

ecologically unique portions of the landscape, such as areas with particularly high 

value (e.g., domestic water supplies) or high vulnerability (e.g., landslide-prone 

terrain). Beginning assessment and planning at broad scales can (1) identify effects 

that can be detected only at broad scales (e.g., cumulative effects, species range 

shifts), (2) identify pivotal actions such as large land allocations, (3) reframe administrative authorities to make optimal changes (e.g., collaboration among multiple 

national forests and other units), and (4) avoid collecting unnecessary information 

for land areas with low vulnerability.

Broad-scale biogeographic patterns can be defined by biome boundaries, such 

as the transition from the Temperate zone, with a hard frost each year, to the Boreal 

zone, generally delineated by winter minimum temperatures cold enough to kill 

temperate trees. At the warm extreme, the Temperate zone transitions to a Subtropical zone, where a hard winter frost may not occur each year, grading to fewer 

frost events as one moves south or lower in elevation. These thermal boundaries 

demarcate major changes in the flora and fauna of ecosystems and are observed 

through elevation in western North America and through latitude in eastern North 

America. In the proximity of cold or warm boundaries, different ecoregions from 

either side are interspersed with one another and delineate microsites caused by 

variation in topography, radiation, and soils. These microsites are not well differentiated in core areas of the Temperate zone, and any given vegetation assemblage 

might be extensive but still within the Temperate biome. For example, in western 

North America, grass or shrublands might dominate south-facing slopes adjacent to 

forests on north-facing slopes at lower elevations. In eastern North America, with 

relatively gentle topography, the scale of contiguous microsites can be large.

Temperature is expected to generally increase (with interannual variation) in 

the future, so if a site is near the northern or upper elevation limits of the Temperate zone, then one might expect microsites with temperate flora/fauna to expand, 

whereas Boreal microsites will contract (Solomon et al. 2007). Species composition 

in Temperate locales might change slightly because migration of species from 

warmer climes will be from within the same broad ecoregions. However, at the 

southern or lower elevation limits of the Temperate zone, one might expect local 

vegetation assemblages to decrease, and species composition could change considerably as species from a nearby biome become established.
11

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Magnitude and spatial variation of future precipitation are also important, but 

less certain and more complex than for temperature (Solomon et al. 2007). Each 

thermal zone can contain all moisture environments from wet to dry. Vegetation 

transitions along that gradient from closed cover (forest, chaparral, etc.) to open 

(woodlands, semiarid to arid shrub-grass). The size of a “homogeneous” unit is 

largest in the center of a biome and becomes smaller as it merges with neighboring 

biomes. Microsites based on moisture are smaller and more sharply defined in the 

West than in the East. Inferring moisture trends can be difficult owing to normal 

climatic variability caused by phenomena such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

(<1 decade), Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation 

(>2 decades for the latter two). 

Multiple national forest scale—

Landscape assessment, land management planning, and adaptation design are most 

effective if they are developed for specific spatial scales. In this and the following 

two sections, various aspects of these topics are summarized with respect to spatial 

scale. These summaries are provided to generate ideas and are not intended as a 

comprehensive list.

The following components of landscape assessment, land management 

planning, and adaptation design are relevant and feasible at the scale of large 

basins that would encompass multiple national forests and other lands (table 1): 

• Defining scenarios of exposure of landscapes to climate changes, such as 

increased heat, changes in rainfall and snowfall, etc.

• Species ranges and vulnerability, and general locations of susceptible plant 

and animal populations of particular concern. 

• Primary beneficial uses of water, such as fish populations, municipal water 

supplies, energy generation, and recreation. 

• Expected changes in regional demographics, and how they could affect the 

demand for water, recreation, and other services, and how trends in demand 

could result in cumulative effects to valued resources.

• Patterns of land ownership and jurisdiction that control the decision space 

for adaptive responses and where stakeholders are crucial to comprehensive 

solutions. 

National forest and ranger district scales—

These components of landscape assessment, land management planning, and adaptation design are relevant and feasible at the scale of subbasins, individual national 

forests, and one or a few ranger districts (table 1): 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

• Priorities and scheduling for acquiring detailed condition and vulnerability 

information, such as priority watersheds for fine-scale inventory and analysis needed to plan and set priorities for project work. 

• Current land allocations and related standards and guides that affect the 

types of adaptation that are permitted, and how these could be modified 

based on the legal and administrative context.

• Defining of "desired conditions" and condition goals to promote landscape 

resilience and establish broad priorities for adaptation based on the range of 

values at risk, adaptive potential of landscapes, and mosaic of current land 

allocations. 

• Priorities for specific landscapes where assessment, planning, and design 

efforts are best focused based on differences in values, vulnerability, 

adaptive capacity, and land use context. 

• Existing capacity of administrative units to plan and accomplish adaptive 

responses and any needed adjustments to capacity.

• Review and potential modification of ongoing or planned projects within 

the NEPA process for consistency with current information and assessments of vulnerability. 

Watershed scale—

These components of landscape assessment, land management planning, and 

adaptation design are relevant and feasible at the scale of watersheds (table 1): 

• Assessment of the vulnerability of important values and services in a 

watershed. 

• Identifying and highlighting areas of special sensitivity, resource values, 

or both. 

• Interactions of climate change with existing land uses and effects that may 

result in worsening or improving cumulative effects to important processes, 

values, and services. 

• Planning and design for the type, amount, and distribution of adaptive 

treatments, land allocations, and standards and guides for adaptation. 

• Suggested priority locations for site-scale evaluation, project design, and 

the NEPA process.

• Specific locations and types of project opportunities that secure, restore, 

realign, and build resilience of the landscape to rapid climate change and 

related impacts, and location-specific design criteria for projects. 
13

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Temporal scales for analysis and planning—

Natural and human-caused forces drive climate change at multiple time scales 

(Millar et al. 2006). Short-period cycles driven by changes in ocean circulation 

include the 2- to 7-year El Niño-Southern Oscillation and multidecadal patterns 

such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Forces influencing even longer duration 

climatic variability range from century-scale effects driven by alternations in solar 

activity to millennial patterns that reflect changes in Earth’s orbital proximity to 

the sun. Although these temporal scales may seem long relative to management 

contexts, interactions among mechanisms at various scales can catalyze rapid 

changes in climate. 

Regardless of efforts to curtail emissions, GHGs will probably accumulate 

steadily in the atmosphere over the coming centuries, and these will interact with 

the combined cycles of natural change (Solomon et al. 2007). Just as unusual 

climatic events result when natural cycles coincide, so are interactions of GHG 

emissions expected to catalyze surprises in Earth’s climate, many of which cannot 

currently be modeled. We anticipate climatic consequences related to GHG emissions to increase over time, although their expression will be amplified, attenuated, 

or reorganized by underlying natural mechanisms. The uncertainty of climate 

change effects increases with each additional decade into the future, a factor that 

must be considered when interpreting the output of models that project those effects.

Temporal perspectives are an important component of vulnerability analysis 

(table 2). Temporal perspectives are also important for planning and priority setting 

(table 3) for adaptation to climatic warming, including the current year (relevant 

for ongoing projects), near to mid term (2 to 20 years hence; relevant for projects 

in development and project planning), and long term (>20 years; relevant for land 

management planning and adaptive management). 

In the current year, quick assessment of in-process projects for their potential 

climatic vulnerability is important. Sometimes current projects originated years 

ago and under different directives, having taken a long time to get through NEPA 

review, and only now are nearing implementation. These projects might have benefited from analysis of climatic effects and thus might not be appropriate to deploy 

without modification that accounts for climate.

For projects in development or near- to mid-term project planning (table 3), 

in which human-caused effects on climate are anticipated to be generally within 

the range of natural climatic variability and extreme events, stop-gap measures 

can be effective. At this scale, institutional change will also be important, because 

this is generally the timeframe of policy and behavioral adjustment within federal 

agencies. We anticipate that learning will spread throughout the Forest Service and 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

other agencies during this time and that new models, tools, and applications will be 

developed during these transitional years.

At scales of planning for future decades (table 3), detailed analyses and proactive responses are increasingly important. Vulnerability assessments are defined by 

the IPCC as efforts that identify future risks induced by climate change, identify 

key vulnerable resources, and provide a sound basis for designing adaptation strategies (IPCC 2001). These assessments are needed to quantify cumulative effects of 

climate change. Proactive management goals and objectives at the broad scale of 

these assessments focus more on enabling and assisting ecosystem changes rather 

Table 2—Relevance of temporal scale for assessing vulnerability to climate change

Temporal scale

Largea Intermediateb Smallc

Availability of information High for climate, High for climate and effects Not relevant for climate 

on climate and climate moderate for effects change and effects 

change effects predictions

Accuracy of predictions of High for climate and High for climate and water, Low

climate change effects water, low to moderate moderate for other resources

 for other resources

Usefulness for specific High for temperature and High for water, moderate for Low owing to inaccuracy

projects water, low to moderate other resources of information at this

 for other resources scale

Usefulness for planning High High for water, moderate for Low

 other resources

a More than 50 years. 

b 5 to 50 years.

c Less than 5 years.

Table 3—Relevance of temporal scale for planning and priority setting for adaptation to climate change

Temporal scale

Currenta Near to mid termb Long termc

Potential applications Ongoing projects Projects in development, Land management plans, 

project planning adaptive management

Useful activities Conduct rapid assessment Promote internal and external Conduct detailed analyses, 

of projects for vulnerability education on climate change implement proactive 

 responses

Adaptation strategy Begin to understand Resist adverse effects, implement Implement many activities

 vulnerabilities, implement some activities that promote that promote ecosystem

no-regrets projects ecosystem resilience, promote resilience

 institutional change

a 1 year. 

b 2 to 20 years.

c More than 20 years. 

Vulnerability assessments are defined as 

efforts that identify 

future risks induced 

by climate change, 

identify key vulnerable 

resources, and provide 

a basis for designing 

adaptation strategies.
15

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

than in resisting undesired effects. Understanding the implications of vulnerability 

assessment and priority setting for different temporal scales can prevent confusion 

over best management practices.

Modeling Future Climates and Ecosystem Responses

No one can know the future for certain, and thus estimating climate change and 

its ecological effects requires using existing knowledge of physical and biological 

systems and applying that knowledge to project future response. Projections of 

future response to increased GHG concentrations and changing climate are most 

often generated through models (Bader et al. 2008). Numerous types of models that 

project future climate and ecological effects of climate change have been developed 

over the past 30 years. 

Global climate models—

Global climate models are the primary way to project the effects of increasing GHG 

concentrations on future climate. Climate models are computer-based simulations 

that use mathematical formulas to re-create chemical and physical processes that 

drive climate (NOAA 2007). To attain the highest confidence of future climatic 

projections, these complex models use a fundamental understanding of how the 

coupled components of the Earth’s climatic system work. 

For the last few decades, scientists have been coupling general circulation models (GCMs) of the atmosphere with those of the oceans (atmosphere-ocean GCM, or 

AOGCM), ice, and the terrestrial biosphere. These complex models exhibit interannual and interdecadal variation similar to those observed in the real Earth system. 

Armed with the basic equations of biological processes, these models can simulate 

a terrestrial biosphere, placing forests, grasslands, and deserts in the appropriate 

locations. 

Output from 24 different GCMs was included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

(Randall and Wood 2007). The models include a range of future possibilities for 

GHG emissions (Nakićenović and Swart 2000), and despite uncertainty in actual 

GHG emissions over the next century, considerable confidence exists in the ability of climate models to provide credible estimates of climate change at the global 

scale (Solomon et al. 2007). Because general agreement exists on basic principles 

of climate change, many models produce broadly similar responses (e.g., general 

amount of expected warming) (Randall and Wood 2007). 

It is difficult to identify a single “best” climate model (Gleckler et al. 2008, 

Santer et al. 2009). Although a model may be good at modeling one variable in 

one location, it may not be as good at modeling a different variable in another 

location. All models incorporate many assumptions, and uncertainty is included 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

in every model projection. In addition, the “mean model,” or average of a group of 

climate models, consistently outperforms any single model in most respects; the 

averaging seems to cancel out errors in individual models (Gleckler et al. 2008). 

Thus, using an ensemble of models provides the most accurate average projections 

for regional and global analyses (Pierce et al. 2009). Although projections from 

a mean model may be simpler to interpret than from multiple models, the mean 

of many models does not portray variability among models, masking potentially 

important temporal patterns (e.g., extremes).

The coarse resolution of global climate models is a major limitation for applications at regional and forest scales. Regional climate models increase the resolution 

of global climate models, and are typically run at resolutions of 50 km or less. 

Unlike global climate models, regional climate models include the influence of 

mesoscale processes on climate such as orographic precipitation, convergence 

zones, and cold air drainage. This may be useful for a large land area such as the 

Tongass National Forest (Alaska) (69 000 km2 ), but less useful for small land areas 

such as the Uwharrie National Forest (North Carolina) (200 km2). Regional models 

are often run within a restricted portion of global climate models, which determine 

the large-scale climatic effects of increased GHG concentrations. The global climate model provides input and boundary conditions for the regional climate model, 

but large-scale biases of the global model are passed along to the regional model. 

Regional climate models are computationally demanding but can provide finer scale 

information for regional assessments (e.g., Salathé et al. 2010). 

Several methods exist for downscaling global climate model output to smaller 

areas. Statistical downscaling is based on the view that regional climate is determined by the large-scale climatic state, but that regional and local physiographic 

features produce unique microclimates within the larger patterns (Wilby et al. 

2004). The simplest and most widely used statistical approach, or “delta” approach, 

corrects for large-scale distortion or displacement of major circulation features, 

such as jet streams and storm tracks. This method determines large-scale changes 

in temperature and precipitation from the simulated current state to the simulated 

future state, then applies those “deltas” to a higher resolution grid of observed 

climatic variables (e.g., Lettenmaier and Gan 1990). A more complex approach 

examines changes in large-scale upper airflow, which is then input to statistical 

models to estimate local and regional climate, statically for averages or dynamically 

for time series (Wilby et al. 2004). 

Statistical approaches can project patterns of historical variability into the 

future, while retaining trends from the future climatic scenarios. However, if 

one relies entirely on AOGCM-generated temporal variability, the richness of 
17

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

historical variability may not be adequately simulated. Changes in variability, 

such as increased persistence of long-term, wet-dry cycles, might emerge from 

AOGCM simulations, but would be missed if historical variability is forced onto 

future trends (Mote and Salathé 2010). There is no “best” approach for downscaling AOGCM output, and the choice of downscaling approach might depend 

on the topic. Hydrologists interested in daily peak flow might choose one method, 

whereas terrestrial ecologists interested in temporal variation in tree growth might 

choose another method. Because terrestrial and hydrologic systems are coupled, 

it is preferable to examine them simultaneously within a single model. Even if 

a good model of this type is unavailable, examining interactions from different 

perspectives and under different scenarios, downscaled or not, provides the best 

insights.

Climate change effects models—

Models are often used to project future ecosystem response to changing climate as 

a component of vulnerability assessment. Many models are available at different 

spatial (table 1) and temporal (table 2) scales. Mechanistic models (also called process-based models), gap models, and climate envelope models (CEMs) (also called 

species distribution models) are the ones most often used to project the effects of 

climate change on ecosystems, vegetation, and species. Landscape models, a subset 

of grid-based ecosystem models, are focused on a “visual” landscape and range 

from purely statistical to highly mechanistic (Scheller and Mladenoff 2007). Spatial 

extent and resolution vary greatly among landscape models. Each model type has 

characteristic spatial scales of application (figs. 1 and 2) and various strengths and 

limitations. 

Mechanistic (process-based) models use mathematical relationships to 

represent physical and biological processes and the interactions of those 

processes. Mechanistic models that simulate the effects of climate change on 

vegetation include dynamic general (global) vegetation models (DGVMs). The 

DGVMs simulate physiological processes to infer vegetation life form over 

time (Robinson et al. 2008). The DGVMs are based on soil, water, and climatic 

information (hourly to yearly), can respond to novel climate and carbon dioxide 

concentrations, and often produce their own fire regimes as an emergent property 

(e.g., Lenihan et al. 2008). The DGVMs are based on processes that range from 

leaf physiology to competition (Prentice et al. 2006). They have been successfully 

implemented on landscape grids of 30- to 50-m resolution, but are typically used to 

simulate vegetation from subregions (e.g., >10 000 km2

) to the entire Earth surface. 

The grain, or cell size, of projections depends on the spatial scale of the gridded 

soil and climate data. Output shows distributions of broad vegetation functional 

Models are often 

used to project future 

ecosystem response 

to changing climate 

as a component 

of vulnerability 

assessment. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Figure 1—Conceptual diagram of the ability of different types of models to characterize land area 

and spatial resolution. After Mladenoff (2004).

Figure 2—Conceptual diagram of the relative emphasis on spatial dynamics and mechanistic 

(process-based) detail in different types of models used to understand the effects of climate change. 

After Mladenoff (2004).

0.001

100 000 000

Spatial resolution (cell size, km2

)

Extent (land area, km2)

100 000

10

1 10 000

0.1

1000

Landscape models

Gap

models

General

circulation

models

Climate envelope

models

Spatially dynamic

Mechanistic detail

Gap

models

Landscape 

models

Climate

envelope

models

High

Low

Low High

models

Mechanistic
19

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

types over time, which can be combined into a physiognomic classification, 

such as “broad-leaved, deciduous forest or savanna” (e.g., Bachelet et al. 2003). 

Boundaries between these classes define ecotones that can be compared to maps 

for verification. The DGVMs can identify limiting factors in different regions, 

and can consider complex topography, land use change, management, insects, and 

herbivores (Prentice et al. 2006).

Gap models simulate vegetation interactions and dynamics on a small 

land area. In-growth, growth, and death of trees of one or more species are 

simulated over time. The scale of gap models is that of a “gap” caused by a tree 

blowdown. They are usually implemented for areas <1 ha to a geographic province 

(Robinson et al. 2008). Dynamics in gap models are based on species-specific 

parameters, competition, light, temperature, and soil moisture. Output includes 

density, basal area, biomass, and leaf area index by species and by stand (Robinson 

et al. 2008). Information on each live tree is available (e.g., species and diameter). 

Gap models use monthly temperature and precipitation, and so can respond to novel 

climate. They are also sensitive to changes in soil moisture and carbon dioxide 

concentrations.

Climate envelope models are statistical models that predict future species 

(both plant and animal) distributions based on the relationship between 

current species distribution and climate variables (and sometimes other 

variables) (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000). The spatial resolution of CEMs (also 

called species distribution models) varies, but usually ranges from about 1 to >15 

km. Output can be developed into maps of expected changes in species distribution 

with climate change. However, CEMs represent a snapshot in time and do not show 

variability in species distribution over time (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). These 

models assume that climate is the primary determinant of a species distribution and 

that the current relationship between a species and climate will remain constant 

in an altered climate, assumptions that are nearly always incorrect (Pearson and 

Dawson 2003). Despite recent efforts to include ecological factors other than 

climate in CEMs (e.g., Williams et al. 2005), most models do not adequately 

account for competition, dispersal, evolutionary change, increased carbon dioxide, 

or changes in disturbance regimes (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). Recent work by 

Iverson et al. (2011) incorporated a spatially explicit cellular model to calculate 

colonization potentials for tree and bird species based on their abundance, historic 

dispersal distances, and the fragmented nature of the landscape. Recommendations 

on the appropriate use of CEMs are included in Iverson et al. (2011).
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Guidelines for using models for vulnerability assessments—

Attention to some general concepts about uncertainty associated with climate 

models and climate change effects models in natural resource management will 

assist vulnerability assessments:

• Use climate change projections from a range of models if possible, but 

also consider variation among models. 

• When assessing projected climate change and climate change effects, focus 

on similarities among different future climate and effects scenarios and 

the most likely trends, but remember that “all models are wrong” and the 

one “outlier” might be the most accurate.

• For model output with discrete time points (e.g., 2050, 2100), consider the 

variability and uncertainty that exist between time points, and incorporate 

(or at least take note of) uncertainty in time series data and how it might 

affect applications of the data.

• Determine if it is possible or necessary to obtain downscaled data for 

a particular landscape, and recognize that coarse-scale data may be 

sufficient for most applications.

• To interpret model output, focus on coarse-scale changes and relate them 

to likely changes in ecosystems and species in a given area by using local 

expertise and experience.

• When assessing sensitivity to climate change, consider changes that have 

been observed with climatic variability in the past or that have been 

observed with recent warming, but also consider how these observations 

could be modified under a higher carbon dioxide concentration with important physiological effects not represented in historical analogs.

Using and Assessing Scientific Information

“Information overload” makes it difficult to store, manipulate, analyze, and visualize scientific data, as well as to identify the best available science to incorporate 

in resource management. Most of the scientific literature on climate change is at 

regional and larger scales, although an increasing amount of information is available at subregional scales (e.g., Elsner et al. 2009). Finding and evaluating scientific 

information relevant for a vulnerability assessment can be challenging, and working 

with local scientific experts is often necessary. Predicted effects of climate change 

may be uncertain and conflicting, which requires users to consider the scientific 

credibility and applicability of different sources. The principles described below 

can help determine the best available science for a particular application (Peterson 

et al. 2007).

Predicted effects 

of climate change 

may be uncertain 

and conflicting, 

which requires users 

to consider the 

scientific credibility 

and applicability of 

different sources.
21

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Keep processes objective and credible—

Summarize the principles, information, and tools available for a particular topic, 

then determine if appropriate peer review has been conducted according to standards for the application of scientific information in resource management on public 

lands (Federal Register 2002, Office of Management and Budget 2004). Lack of 

peer review for a particular model does not mean it has no value, but that it has 

lower scientific stature and does not meet the normal standard for scientific rigor. 

Including a short description of assumptions, limitations, and uncertainty associated with various tools, models, and other information is often appropriate.

Look for success stories—

If you can identify cases in which tools and information have been successfully 

applied to a situation similar to yours, then you have a good recommendation for 

your application. This may be an actual adaptation case study in a national forest, 

or in the case of a recently developed hydrological model, it could be a demonstration in which positive feedback was received (app. 1). In either case, other users are 

available from whom you can obtain insight.

Consult with experts—

It can be helpful to directly contact the developer of a particular tool or technique 

for additional information and insight on principles and applications. If you are 

considering an application somewhat outside the scope described for a particular 

technique (e.g., a forest growth model that claims to incorporate the effects of 

climate), get some feedback first. Although few tools are fully supported by 

technical personnel, a few experts on design and application are typically available. 

Seek them out for a consultation, and consider inviting them to work with you and 

your staff.

Compare alternatives—

Even if you have a preferred source of scientific information for a particular 

application, it is usually best to compare it with other sources. Although no single 

information source of climatic information may be more “correct” than another, it 

is helpful to know the differences between sources. You may need to defend the 

value of your preferred choice, and documentation of alternative approaches for 

obtaining climatic information allows for ready comparison and development of 

rationale for your preferences.

Document the selection process—

Take good notes as you go through the process of reviewing and selecting 

appropriate climatic information and tools. Keep a file with appropriate 

documentation of publications, user guides, scientists consulted, managers 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

consulted, etc. A structured approach to compiling climatic information improves 

the overall credibility of analyses and adaptation planning.

Consult outside reviewers—

After you have selected specific sources of information for a particular application, 

have technical experts review plans or reports that cite those sources. Reviewers can 

include scientists, managers, planners, policymakers, and informed stake-holders—

basically anyone within the broader user community who has some technical 

knowledge about climate change and natural resources. Review comments help 

determine if your selection and use of scientific information are appropriate and 

if planning documentation contains sufficient justification.

Consult potential stakeholders—

After you are confident that you have addressed relevant technical issues, it is often 

valuable to “preview” vulnerability analyses and adaptation plans with stakeholders who may be affected by your management actions. This requires nontechnical 

language to explain and justify your selection. Straightforward graphics and tables 

are often the best way to convey your ideas to interested parties who do not have 

technical expertise in natural resources.

Implementing these additional steps will require considerable time and effort, 

but will improve the scientific credibility of the final product and be a valuable 

investment in the long run. If local resource managers are not familiar or comfortable with scientific review, it can be useful to consult with another management 

unit that has experience with the process.

Facilitating Adaptation Through Science-Management 

Partnerships 

Our experiences in working with federal agencies to prepare for climate change have 

varied according to organizational structure, level of engagement in climate change 

issues, local involvement in planning processes, local emphasis on different resource 

objectives, and personal preferences regarding communication and collaboration. 

This variation is normal, and one would not expect that a single process or approach 

would necessarily work for all management units. In working with these diverse 

units, we have found several processes that facilitate the development of adaptation 

options. These processes include developing a science-management partnership, 

sharing of climate change information by scientists, sharing of local management 

(and often climate) knowledge by managers, identifying available local resource 

data, identifying available tools to assess effects of climate change as a basis for 

setting priorities, and using facilitated workshops to develop adaptation options.
23

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Developing a Science-Management Partnership

A science-management relationship is critical for both establishing the 

scientific basis for proposed adaptation options and bringing to the table 

the management expertise to develop those options (Littell et al. 2011). This 

partnership typically evolves from initial discussions between research scientists 

and federal resource managers, followed by an agreement to work together. These 

discussions about climate change and adaptation identify the goals of the adaptation 

project and the process to reach those goals. Commitment to work together is 

critical, because a year or more may be needed to complete workshops, individual 

dialogues, and writing. The science-management partnership must have good 

communication, a consensus on specific objectives, an established schedule, and 

a clearly identified written product to document the results. A commitment by a 

national forest or other organization to the process of adaptation will need to 

endure for decades, because of the long-term nature of climate change effects.

Starting the conversation—

A strong collaborative relationship between scientists and resource managers 

is the foundation for a successful adaptation effort on federal lands (Vogel et al. 

2007). The approaches that we have used in case studies were tailored to specific 

resource conditions, resource staff capacity and priorities, and general readiness 

of units to discuss climate change and adaptation. The legacy of past management 

often sets the stage for current resource concerns, and national forests are often at 

different stages of the forest planning process or other planning processes such as 

travel management. In addition, availability of place-based research differs across 

national forests and adjacent lands. Differences among national forests in these 

conditions can result in different approaches for internal and external engagement 

regarding climate change issues. 

An adaptation case study in Washington focused on Olympic National Forest 

and Olympic National Park (Halofsky et al. 2011). Forest Service and National Park 

Service resource managers on these adjacent management units were accustomed to 

working together on issues of common interest, so they could quickly engage with 

each other, as well as with the topic of climate change. The availability of scientific 

expertise on climate change science at the University of Washington Climate 

Impacts Group provided additional credibility to the scientific component of the 

case study. Resource managers were initially concerned about the time required 

for the adaptation process, including the eight planned workshops. With this 

concern in mind, all sessions were designed to efficiently communicate and elicit 

information in deference to the amount of time managers had available. 

A commitment by a 

national forest or other 

organization to the 

process of adaptation 

will need to endure for 

decades, because of 

the long-term nature of 

climate change effects.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Adaptation case studies in California were conducted on Tahoe National Forest 

(northern Sierra Nevada), Inyo National Forest (southeastern Sierra Nevada), and 

Devils Postpile National Monument (central Sierra Nevada crest). Similar to the 

case studies in the Pacific Northwest, collaboration between the Forest Service and 

National Park Service staffs in this area of California helped contribute to a collegial and effective partnership. The interest of Tahoe National Forest was focused 

on on-the-ground activities and addressing climate change considerations in those 

activities. Inyo National Forest was embarking on revision of its land management plan at the outset of the project, and Devils Postpile National Monument was 

embarking on development of a general management plan. These interests tended 

to focus the process on broader issues such as quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides

Michx.) on the Inyo National Forest and the potential for climate refugia in Devils 

Postpile National Monument. Because Inyo National Forest encompasses large 

amounts of alpine and semiarid mountainous terrain, issues concerned wilderness, 

recreation, grazing, water, wetlands, forests, and fire. Several place-based research 

studies were available at Devils Postpile National Monument, offering valuable 

information to consider in the development of adaptation options.

We found that larger national forests (e.g., the Inyo National Forest, where 

ranger districts are more autonomous) preferred a few large workshops including 

personnel from throughout the forest, whereas smaller national forests (e.g., the 

Olympic National Forest, where management is more centralized) preferred several 

small workshops for personnel in the forest headquarters. It is better to customize 

a process to match personal preferences and experience with climate change issues 

in a given location, rather than impose an off-the-shelf process that may be poorly 

suited to local objectives or working styles. 

Many kinds of collaborative approaches can be used to convene groups 

and elicit information for specific applications, and our efforts represent only a 

small sample. The value of collaborative approaches is enhanced by effective 

leadership, well-organized sessions, and a strong commitment by all parties to 

participate. Collaborative processes will have a high probability of success if these 

characteristics are established early in the project. Climate change adaptation 

can also build on prior collaborations established for topics such as ecological 

restoration and ecosystem management. 
25

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Sharing Scientific and Management Knowledge—

Critical Roles for Scientists and Managers

Development of adaptation options depends on retrieving information from 

over 20 years of climate change science and the experience and place-based 

knowledge of resource management staffs. Both types of information must be 

brought into the discussion of adaptation. All personnel involved in the adaptation 

process need a fundamental, consistent understanding of the physical and biological 

phenomena affected by the changing climate. Similarly, scientists must be aware of 

local conditions and concerns. 

Methods for communicating climate change science differed among the case 

studies from 1-day science workshops to longer, focused short courses. These kinds 

of sessions are focused on education but have the additional benefit of confirming 

the commitment of local management units and line officers to prepare for climate 

change, as well as building the science-management partnership necessary to do so. 

These educational sessions may also set the stage for a focused dialogue on climate 

change adaptation.

A broad focus on climate change and climate change effects, including 

reference to local conditions and concerns, ensures a consistent scientific 

foundation prior to the next steps in the process. Bringing the experience and 

place-based knowledge of resource managers into this discussion of adaptation 

options is critical. Managers have many years of experience, including experience 

with weather-related or climatically extreme events. Exploring past weather- or 

climate-influenced events may result in a basis for some adaptation strategies in 

the future. Managers can reflect on situations in which unusual weather-related 

conditions affected terrestrial or aquatic resources for which they were responsible. 

Discussion about the type of event and about what could have improved the management response may help focus the conversation with scientists on the types of 

information that would be helpful now and in the future (box 2). 

Climate change education—

Preparing national forests for adaptation—Incorporating climate concerns into 

land management benefits from active dialogue between scientists and land managers, each providing the other with experience from their skills, knowledge, and 

perspectives. In the northeastern and upper Midwestern United States, the Northern 

Research Station has been working with the Eastern Region and other institutions 

to build awareness of climate change issues and explore how climate change can be 

incorporated in planning and management (Swanston et al. 2011). Ongoing climate 

change education in these areas is viewed as a sustained dialogue. It is intended to 

increase institutional capacity to understand the likely effects of climate change and 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

to begin taking reasonable actions in specific places to adapt ecosystems to these 

potential effects. Educational approaches used in the Eastern Region are summarized below. Similar approaches have been successfully used in other Forest Service 

regions as well.

Overall approach—Recognizing the varied needs among national forests and resource areas, a multilayered approach was developed to facilitate climate change 

education and dialogue. An effort to build a comprehensive regional education 

program incorporated several elements, including basic education, intensive training, and discipline-specific workshops (fig. 3). Although information is conveyed to 

different audiences at different levels of complexity, three fundamental components 

are common to each educational element: climate change science, ecosystem response to climate change, and management strategies and approaches for adaptation 

and mitigation. Education goes in both directions, with scientists providing the 

latest high-quality information, and practitioners discussing important forestlevel considerations and realistic management responses to ecosystem change. 

Box 2

General Questions to Facilitate Initial Dialogues on 

Climate Change Adaptation

These questions are intended to establish the local management context, elicit 

overarching management responses to climate change, and promote mutual 

learning within the science-management partnership. Questions can be 

designed to accommodate local interests and preferences.

• What are priorities for long-term resource management (e.g., 50 years)? 

How can climate change be integrated in planning at this time scale?

• What is the policy and regulatory environment in which management 

and planning are currently done?

• What are the biggest concerns and ecological/social sensitivities in a 

changing climate?

• Which management strategies can be used to adapt to potentially 

rapid change in climate and resource conditions?

• Which information and tools are needed to adequately address the 

questions above?

• Which aspects of the policy and regulatory environment affect 

(enable, inhibit) management that adapts to climate change?

Education goes in 

both directions, with 

scientists providing 

the latest high-quality 

information, and 

practitioners discussing important forestlevel considerations 

and realistic management responses to 

ecosystem change. 
27

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

The intent is to effectively use existing information and develop approaches, drawing from the combined expertise of all participants. 

Elements of the educational process—Each element within the integrated educational approach has a different structure designed around the educational objectives, 

needs of participants, and desired products. The outcomes may include general information sharing, integrating climate change adaptation into national forest plans, 

and altering or creating specific management tools.

Basic educational seminars convey fundamental principles of climate change 

and the effects of climate change on ecosystems and generate discussion of how 

different resource areas can adapt to projected changes. One- to two-day seminars 

consist of presentations on climate change, forest response, and management 

strategies, followed by a session customized to local needs. The latter session may 

include brainstorming and discussion or may be used to create lists of potential 

activities that can occur at the national forest and project levels. Facilitators are 

available to answer questions, provide continuity by sharing ideas from previous 

seminars, and maintain a dialogue focused on climate change activities. These 

seminars may be used to set the stage for subsequent training, activities, and 

intraforest discussion.

Intensive training includes week-long courses providing more indepth information than the seminars. The course includes prework and a final project to be 

concluded within the participants’ forest. Intensive training provides participants 

with a detailed explanation of fundamental climate processes and interactions, as 

well as greater detail of the mechanisms of forest response to climate stressors. 

Figure 3—Conceptual diagram of educational and training efforts leading to increased complexity of 

adaptation planning and activities. These elements are integrated, but need not be taken consecutively. 

Distance learning (e.g., via interactive Web-based tools) can be incorporated into all activities. General audience

Basic

educational

seminars

Intensive

training

Disciplinespecific

training

Targeted

workshops

Land managers

SpecialistsSpecialists

Distance learning

Increasing specialization and adaptation design
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Tools and applications relevant to climate change are presented by experienced 

instructors. Participants are given the opportunity to evaluate issues or resources in 

their own national forests using these tools. 

Strengths and limitations of the tools for management-related decisionmaking 

are emphasized, and information gleaned from these exercises feeds into subsequent adaptation lectures and discussions. 

Discipline-specific trainings allow for focused presentation and discussion 

of climate change implications for specific resource areas. Although much of the 

information on climate change science, forest response, and management strategies 

described for the above elements is also included in these trainings, information 

most relevant to particular resource areas is emphasized. This type of training is 

designed to draw upon participant expertise and interest. For example, a 2-day 

regional silvicultural workshop incorporated scientific presentations on climate 

change effects on forest ecosystems, a brainstorming session on silvicultural 

considerations for climate change, and breakout sessions to develop regional strategies and local approaches for silviculture in the face of climate change. A similar 

approach could be used for trainings in other disciplines. 

Targeted workshops draw upon the skills of land managers, with the intent 

of designing or altering techniques and programs to incorporate climate change 

considerations. These also involve collaboration between researchers and managers, with discussion facilitated by the questions “Which current management 

approaches are compatible with adaptation, and which need to be modified?” and 

“How can we modify management in response to climatic variability and change?” 

As climate change challenges become more clearly identified, targeted workshops 

help pool expertise to meet specific needs of land managers and focus on specific 

issues, resources, and locations. 

Customizing the educational approach to meet local needs will address climate 

change issues that differ by national forest, resource area, level of knowledge, 

and availability of resources. Adapting educational elements to specific needs and 

outcomes of national forests and resource areas promotes efficient and productive 

discussions.

Identifying Available Scientific Information in Projects and Plans 

Information sources—

A relevant question for the planning process is “How is climate change likely to 

modify conditions on the planning unit?” (USDA FS 2010b). Scientific information 

on climate change is periodically synthesized into international, national, regional, 

and sometimes local (as in national forest) reports by different organizations. 

Examples range from IPCC reports (Solomon et al. 2007), to national reports 
29

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

(Backland et al. 2008), to state reports (Ray et al. 2009), to individual national 

forests, e.g., the Shoshone National Forest (Rice et al., in press), to review of the 

status of aspen for case studies at the Inyo National Forest and Tahoe National 

Forest (Morelli and Carr 2011). These assessments offer a synthesis of science 

(what is known), an evaluation of state-of-science information (what is not known), 

and often some recommendation on confidence about potential effects of climate 

change on resources and ecosystems (how well something is known). Syntheses 

and assessments may help identify risks and vulnerabilities within a planning unit. 

Rigorous scientific review of syntheses and assessments further enrich the value of 

that scientific information.

The Forest Service Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest and rangeland conditions on all ownerships, 

identifies drivers of change including climate change, and projects resource conditions 50 years into the future. This assessment by the Forest Service is the only 

legislatively required analysis with respect to climate change and Forest Service 

planning (1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act, which amended 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974). The specific 

analysis of climate change required by the Forest Service is to assess the effects of 

climate change on renewable resources in forests and rangelands, and to identify the 

rural and urban forestry opportunities to mitigate the accumulation of atmospheric 

carbon dioxide. Since 1990, RPA assessments (e.g., USDA FS 2001; USDA FS, in 

review) have included an analysis of vulnerability of U.S. forests to climate change 

(Haynes et al. 2007, Joyce and Birdsey 2000). These national assessments synthesize current understanding about climate change and forest and rangelands and 

provide information to Forest Service strategic planning (Joyce 2007). 

The 2010 RPA assessment is considering climate change effects on water, 

wildlife, recreation, rangelands, and forest condition. In addition, the 2010 RPA 

assessment will use GHG emission scenarios from Solomon et al. (2007) to explore 

future variability and uncertainty in resource conditions (fig. 4). Three scenarios 

(A2, A1B, B2) (see IPCC [2007]) applied to three climate models provide nine scenarios for analysis. The assessment focuses on opportunities for and vulnerabilities 

in renewable resource production in changing climates and different economic and 

population futures. These analyses at the national level offer a context for potential 

vulnerabilities of ecosystems, as well as opportunities and barriers for resource 

production at regional or smaller spatial scales. Individual resource analysis may 

identify sensitivities within regions, watersheds, and landscapes, as well as situations of high resilience to climate change or situations in which climate change 

effects might be locally buffered.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

The U.S. Global Change Research Program is responsible for providing scientific knowledge to inform management of risks and opportunities associated with 

changes in climate and natural resources. To support its mission, 21 synthesis and 

assessment products (SAP) were written as the current state of science for a wide 

range of climate change issues. Two synthesis and assessment products are relevant 

to management of national forests and national grasslands: The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity (SAP 

4.3) (Backland et al. 2008), and Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for 

Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources (SAP 4.4) (Julius and West 2008). The 

SAP 4.3 describes how climate change will affect forest and arid land ecosystems, 

including variability in different regions. The SAP 4.4 provides a synthesis of 

adaptation options for federally managed lands and waters, as well as the scientific 

basis for those options. 

Figure 4—Use of scenario models and analysis in the 2010 U.S. Forest Service Resource Planning Act assessment. Climate change 

scenarios will be a part of this analysis allowing the exploration of future climate and socioeconomic variability as drivers of resource 

change. Illustration by Linda Joyce.

Global scenarios 

50-year outlook on resources

Socioeconomic

variables

Bioenergy

forecasts

Climate

forecasts

Translation/

downscaling

Translation/

downscaling

Forest conditions, products, 

and carbon accounting

Forest and rangeland area

Wildlife populations and habitat

Water supply and demand

Recreation supply and demand

Domestic

macroeconomics

and demographics

forecasts
31

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

This guidebook builds mostly on the national forests and national parks 

chapters in SAP 4.4. Other sections of the guidebook highlight processes used by 

science-management partnerships to identify what is known about climate change, 

what is not known, and uncertainty about projecting future scenarios. This is 

relevant for workshops in which unique characteristics of a national forest are 

discussed in light of current information at regional and local spatial scales. 

Written reports, such as those recently prepared by Inyo National Forest and 

Shoshone National Forest on aspen and climate (Morelli and Carr 2011), also 

help to provide a common synthesis and assessment of scientific information 

relevant to a management unit in a particular geographic location. 

Information on future climate change scenarios and effects of climate change 

provide insight on probable future conditions of ecosystems on federal lands. For 

example, DGVM modeling results have been used to depict future vegetation 

changes in the Pacific Northwest (fig. 5). This information assists land managers in 

identifying broad changes that may affect landscape condition and habitat for plant 

and animal species. 

Climate Change Resource Center 

The mission of the Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC, http://www.fs.fed.

us/ccrc/) (USDA FS 2011a) is to provide U.S. land managers with an online portal 

to access science-based information and tools concerning climate change and 

ecosystem management options (box 3). The CCRC objectives are to (1) synthesize 

scientific literature on ecosystem response, adaptation, and mitigation; (2) highlight 

recent scientific research that has practical applications for practitioners on public 

and private lands; (3) support communication of information through a userfriendly interface and appropriate use of multimedia; and (4) work with scientists to 

develop educational presentations. 

Management responses to climatic challenges depend on access to adequate 

decisionmaking tools. Climate change science is rapidly evolving as data are 

collected and analyzed and as changing climate contributes to ecosystem changes. 

Although a wealth of online information is available concerning climate change, it 

can be difficult to determine which sources are current and scientifically sound. The 

CCRC assembles relevant scientific knowledge and expertise to present a coherent 

picture of how climate change may affect land management planning and practices. 

The Web site highlights existing resources that are scientifically credible, peer 

reviewed, and relevant to managers, with regularly updated content.

An editorial board comprising representatives from Forest Service research 

stations and other organizations has developed scientific standards and regularly 

Although a wealth of 

online information is 

available concerning 

climate change, it 

can be difficult to 

determine which 

sources are current 

and scientifically 

sound. 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Figure 5—Projected vegetation types in the Pacific Northwest for the 2070–2099 time period compared to modeled historical vegetation 

types. Projections are from the MC1 model for three general circulation models (GCMs) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 carbon dioxide emissions scenario. The CSIRO GCM projects a relatively cool 

and wet Pacific Northwest, whereas the MIROC model projects a hot and wet Pacific Northwest, and the Hadley model projects a hot 

and dry Pacific Northwest. Data courtesy of R. Neilson and the Mapped Atmosphere Plant Soil System Team, U.S. Forest Service and 

Oregon State University. Illustration by Brendan Rogers.

CSIRO A2 MIROC A2 HADLEY A2

HISTORICAL

Cascade Range crest

Subalpine forest

Maritime conifer forest

Temperate conifer forest

Temperate cool mixed forest

Temperate warm mixed forest

Temperate conifer woodland

Temperate shrubland

Temperate grassland

Subtropical mixed forest

Ice/tundra
33

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

reviews proposed revisions to the CCRC. The board also reviews content changes 

and additions that have potential policy relevance. Contributing editors, a group 

comprising scientists, land managers, and communication professionals, contribute content and assist with special projects. A review team of resource managers 

provides feedback to the production team on CCRC Web site content and its 

relevance and usability for land managers.

Box 3

Climate Change Resource Center Operating Principles

The following operating principles for the Climate Change Resource Center 

guide its mission to provide land managers with an online portal to easily 

access credible, science-based, and relevant information and tools concerning 

climate change and ecosystem management options.

• Provide access to scientifically credible, peer-reviewed resources and to 

primary literature within its focus area of climate change and ecosystem 

response, ecosystem adaptation, and mitigation.

• Select and highlight climate change resources that are relevant to land 

managers and practitioners, are tied to articulated needs, and based on 

simple, user-oriented taxonomies.

• Solicit the development of original materials within its focus area.

• Present materials in compelling and varied ways, using multimedia and 

featuring case studies that demonstrate management actions. It offers an 

interface that allows users to easily navigate the site and to find desired 

information via multiple channels and at multiple levels of specificity.

• Provide timely and current information on a rapidly changing subject, 

using periodic updates to fulfill the information needs of returning users.

• Openly disclose limitations and assumptions of the resources it provides.

• Seek diverse feedback and evaluation to determine if it is meeting the 

needs of users.

• Work with other Web sites and organizations to share information fluidly and to complement the resources they provide.

• Focus on what can be done to cope with climate change.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Assessing the Effects of Climate Change, Developing 

Adaptation Options, and Setting Priorities

Developing a vulnerability assessment—

Vulnerability to climate change can be defined as “the degree to which geophysical, 

biological, and socioeconomic systems are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, 

adverse impacts of climate change” (Solomon et al. 2007). Vulnerability is a function of the variation to which a system is exposed to a change in climatic conditions, 

its sensitivity to that change, and its adaptive capacity (Gallopín 2006, Solomon et 

al. 2007). In a climate change context, exposure can be thought of as the degree, 

duration, or extent of deviation in climate to which a system is exposed. Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either positively or negatively and 

directly or indirectly, by climate-related stimuli (Solomon et al. 2007). Adaptive 

capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climatic 

variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of 

opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (Solomon et al. 2007). Adaptive 

capacity is often thought of as the ability of socioeconomic systems to cope with 

climatic variability and associated impacts. Vulnerability to climate change can be 

reduced in two main ways: through mitigation of GHG emissions, which reduces 

exposure to climate change, and through adaptation, which reduces sensitivity and 

enhances adaptive capacity. 

Vulnerability can be assessed at any spatial or temporal scale, and can apply to 

a forest stand, watershed, region, community, population, or any socio-ecological 

system of interest. Vulnerability has been applied to society, ecological systems, 

and coupled socio-ecological systems, depending on the area of interest (Gallopín 

2006). In natural resource management, vulnerability is often referred to in the 

context of ecological systems, with greater focus on the exposure and sensitivity 

components of vulnerability. For the purpose of adaptation in resource management, assessment of climate change vulnerability can be qualitative, quantitative, 

or both. Most vulnerability assessments involve both quantitative and qualitative 

aspects (e.g., Glick et al. 2011), often incorporating quantitative estimates of exposure, but more qualitative estimates of system sensitivity and evaluation of human 

capacity to respond. 

The first step in most vulnerability assessments is a review of available climate 

model projections to determine likely levels of exposure to climate change. Then, 

relevant literature and model projections of climate change effects are reviewed 

to identify likely climate change effects in various resources (e.g., hydrology, 

vegetation, etc.). Scientists and specialists can be consulted to interpret available information and apply it to local ecosystems, a step that is often necessary 

Adaptive capacity is 

the ability of a system 

to adjust to climate 

change (including 

climatic variability and 

extremes), to moderate 

potential damages, 

to take advantage 

of opportunities, 

or to cope with the 

consequences.
35

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

because information on climate change effects may be available only at a regional 

to subregional scale. This downscaling to finer scales of application can be quantitative, requiring manipulation of climatological data, or qualitative, based on expert 

judgment. Finally, current management activities and management constraints are 

identified to evaluate different aspects of adaptive capacity, or the capacity to implement adaptive actions. 

Watershed vulnerability assessment, as currently being developed in the Forest 

Service (Furniss et al. 2010) (app. 2), is a strategic assessment process that describes 

conditions, processes, and interactions at intermediate scales, adapting large-scale 

guidance, analysis, and approaches to ecosystem management to particular places 

at management-relevant scales (box 4). Design of useful strategies for reducing the 

effects of climate change on watershed goods and services requires the ability to (1) 

identify watersheds of highest priority for protecting amenity values (e.g., domestic 

and industrial water supplies, endangered species, and recreational uses), (2) identify 

watersheds in which climate-related risk to those amenity values is greatest and least, 

(3) detect evidence of the nature and likely magnitudes of change as early as possible, 

and (4) select actions appropriate for reducing effects in particular watersheds. Steps 

3 and 4 need to consider both climate effects and other biophysical factors.

Box 4

Steps Defining the Watershed Vulnerability Assessment Process

Steps for the watershed vulnerability assessment process include:

• Set up the assessment

• Assess exposure

• Assess sensitivity of identified values

• Evaluate and categorize vulnerability

• Set priorities for adaptive responses

• Critique the assessment

Typical questions addressed in a watershed vulnerability assessment include:

• Which places are vulnerable?

• Which places are resilient?

• Where are the potential refugia?

• Where will conflicts arise first, and worst?

• Which factors can exacerbate or ameliorate local vulnerability to climate change?

• What are the priorities for adaptive efforts?

• How can context-sensitive adaptations be designed?

• What needs tracking and monitoring?
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Watershed vulnerability assessment provides watershed-specific information 

needed to prioritize and design strategies for reducing the effects of climate change 

on watershed-sourced goods and services. It is applicable in the context of a Forest 

Service watershed condition assessment and as a stand-alone assessment procedure. 

The types of questions to be answered by using this assessment are summarized 

in boxes 4 and 5. Watershed vulnerability assessment incorporates a large amount 

of data on existing species population status, location, and distribution of key 

habitats, and projected changes in stream temperatures, low flows, peak flows, and 

disturbance regimes to determine species and locations that are most susceptible to 

climate change. Local managers and field specialists can identify local constraints 

on species and habitats, and opportunities to address them through management 

activities. 

Box 5

Determining Benefits of Watershed Vulnerability Assessments

Watershed vulnerability assessments provide managers with answers to the following 

questions:

• What is the local, regional, or national importance of ecosystem services, including 

ecological, economic, and social resources?

• Which important aquatic species may be at risk of population decline or habitat 

loss owing to changes in waterflows or levels?

• In which watersheds is the risk to these resources greatest?

• Which watersheds may serve as climate change refugia because they are expected 

to experience the least impact?

• Which watersheds are high priorities for management to sustain desired hydrologic 

functions under changing climate?

• Which ecosystem services are most vulnerable to climate shifts or to the landand water-use changes likely to accompany them?

• Which watershed properties are likely to be affected by climate trends, such as 

changes in runoff from shrinking snowpacks, changing patterns of groundwater 

recharge, and loss of habitat for sensitive species?

• Which management actions can reduce the unwanted effects of climate change, 

protect high-value watershed resources, or increase watershed resilience?

• Which measures can be used to detect and track evidence of climate-related 

change as early as possible?
37

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Rapid assessment of climate change effects and management options—

An ideal decision-support system for climate change adaptation promotes adaptation thinking, as well as specific adaptation options that can be implemented in 

resource management. The Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST) was developed 

to address this need and to formalize the process for incorporating climate change 

information (Morelli et al., in press). The CPST is a process-oriented, prioritysetting tool that allows users to consider effects of different actions and direct 

management. It also attempts to reduce uncertainty in decisionmaking by identifying the range of effects that management actions may have on resource conditions.

The CPST is a straightforward, structured approach for evaluating specific 

kinds of projects for federal lands (table 4). For each project activity, the CPST 

(1) summarizes climate change trends and local effects (vulnerability assessment), 

(2) poses key questions to resource managers regarding how those effects might 

influence the project activity, (3) requires managers to complete a narrative that 

summarizes responses to the questions in number 2, and (4) concludes with a 

judgment to continue the project without modification, continue the project with 

modification, or not continue the project. All steps consider how potential climate 

effects may interact with other biophysical factors that affect resource conditions.

The CPST can be applied to a wide range of project activities, such as restoration (e.g., meadows, wetlands, wildlife habitat), fire and fuels management 

(e.g., forest thinning, prescribed burning), silvicultural activities (timber harvest, 

reforestation), road management (e.g., maintenance, culvert replacement), and 

recreation planning. These activities can be addressed by the CPST at large spatial 

scales (e.g., national forest) or smaller spatial scales (e.g., small watershed). They 

can be addressed for general and strategic cases (e.g., forest thinning) or for specific 

applications (e.g., forest thinning in a specific management unit). 

The CPST can be applied directly to a land management plan, general strategic 

plan (e.g., fire management plan), or a specific project (e.g., forest thinning operation). It is especially useful before the preparation of NEPA documents because 

the CPST can evaluate the effects of alternative activities in a warmer climate. 

Although not required within the CPST, scientific documentation (i.e., references 

from the scientific literature) can strengthen the rationale for each decision. The 

amount of detail included in each category of the CPST (table 4) may depend on the 

amount of information available on climate change effects and on preferences of 

individual users. If specific climate change trends and effects are uncertain, or there 

could be multiple outcomes, it is helpful to articulate all possibilities if the selection of one outcome is not possible, allowing multiple key questions and multiple 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Table 4—The Climate Project Screening Tool in tabular format, with an example project activitya

Climate change trends and Continue

Project activity local impacts Key questions for managers Response narrative with project?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Completed by specialists or scientists - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Completed by managers - - - - - - - -

Thinning for Trends: Increased fuel • Will the projected density • The proposed basal area Yes, without

reduction of buildup and risk of of the stand after it has and average distance modification

hazardous uncharacteristically severe been thinned withstand between remaining

fuels and widespread forest fire; extreme wildfire events? trees should buffer

longer fire seasons; higher Does spacing between trees this stand from all

elevation insect, disease, and need to increase? but the worst crown

wildfire events; increased fires. Removal of smallinterannual variability in diameter trees adds to

precipitation, leading the fire resistance of

to fuels buildup and the stand.

causing additional forest

stress; increased water • Should stands be thinned • Yes, we should plan to Yes, with

temperatures in rivers at a more frequent interval thin this stand, perhaps modification

and lakes and lower water to mitigate for increased every 10 years.

levels in late summer; forest stress and fire

increased stress to forests susceptibility or for

during periodic multiyear altered growth patterns?

droughts; decrease in

water quality from • Does the project area • This stand is in the middle No

increased sedimentation. include anticipated future of the elevation zone

fire-prone areas (i.e., for the native species.

higher elevation sites We do not anticipate

or riparian areas)? increases in invasive

species, accelerated

 establishment of

understory vegetation, 

or increased occurrence

of high-intensity fire.

Local impacts: Increased risk • Given reduced snowpack • We already plan to harvest Yes

for extreme fire behavior; and extreme flood events, this unit when there is

decreased window of will season of harvest need snow on the ground;

opportunity for acceptable to change to mitigate for decreased snowpack might

prescribed fire conditions; ground disturbance? Will it give us a smaller window

increased risk of fire spread need to change, given shorter of access, so we will

in high-elevation areas; and less reliable snowpack? need to be prepared

drier fuels; decreased to harvest as soon as

water storage in soils. the snow is deep enough.

• Will the proposed project • Thinning should increase Yes

help offset projected effects the health of the remaining

caused by climate change? trees, thereby helping

them defend against

bark beetles, fires, and

other climate-aggravated

 stresses.

a Project activities can be general or specific, and of large or small spatial scale.
39

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

responses to be summarized. An accurate representation of uncertainty is a valuable part of the decisionmaking process and should not be considered ambiguous 

(Granger et al. 2009).

Facilitated workshops to develop options for adapting to climate change—

Building on educational sessions and review of available scientific information and 

tools, a science-management partnership can begin to focus on specific climate 

change adaptation issues and options for resource management (Swanston and 

Janowiak 2011). Adaptation options are developed after the scientific information 

available and tools to identify vulnerabilities have been completed. Adaptation 

options are typically generated for individual resource disciplines (e.g., vegetation, 

wildlife, water), although it is also possible to focus on adaptation for individual 

biogeographic entities (e.g., watersheds, subalpine forests, coastal ecosystems) 

and projects (e.g., forest thinning at a specific location, bridge design). 

In general, scientists provide information on climate change and climate 

change effects, including vulnerability assessments (e.g., table 5), and resource 

managers provide strategic and tactical adaptation options and guidance on 

how they can be implemented (e.g., box 6). Options identified by resource managers for adapting to climate change in Olympic and Tahoe National Forests (Littell 

et al. 2011) were:

• General adaptation options

▪ Prioritize treatments, manage for realistic outcomes

▪ Manage for resilience, reduce vulnerability

▪ Manage dynamically and experimentally

▪ Manage for process

▪ Consider tradeoffs and conflicts

• Specific adaptation options

▪ Increase landscape diversity

▪ Treat large-scale disturbance as a management opportunity

▪ Promote education and awareness about climate change

▪ Increase resilience at large spatial scales

▪ Increase management unit size

▪ Maintain biological diversity

▪ Implement early detection/rapid response for invasive species

▪ Match engineering of infrastructure to expected future conditions

▪ Collaborate with a range of partners on adaptation strategies

Adaptation options are 

developed after the 

scientific information 

available and tools to 

identify vulnerabilities 

have been completed.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Table 5—Anticipated effects of climate change on natural resources in Olympic and Tahoe National Forests 

Natural resource

status or condition Olympic National Forest Tahoe National Forest

Climate:

Temperature 2.0 °C increase by 2040s, 3.3 °C 1.6 °C increase by 2040s, 3.4 °C

increase by 2080s increase by 2090s

Precipitation Small increase in winter Small decrease in winter

Snow Decrease at <1500 m; decrease in Large decrease at all elevations

snow:rain ratio

Water:

Surface runoff a Increase in winter, decrease in summer Increase in winter, decrease in summer 

Streamflowa Large increase in winter, large decrease Increase in winter, decrease in summer

 in summer

Tree growth Decrease at low elevation, increase at Decrease at all elevations

 high elevation

Vegetation distribution Significant shifts but poorly quantified; Significant shifts but poorly quantified; 

and abundance no change in forest cover large decrease in forest cover

Aquatic systems Decrease in habitat quality for Large decrease in habitat quality for anadromous

anadromous and resident fish and resident fish; extirpations possible

Disturbance:

Wildfire area burned Small increaseb Large increase 

Insect attack Possible increase Large increase

Windstorms Unknown, but increased storms Unknown

would have major impact

a Expected trends for surface runoff and streamflow will be especially prominent in basins dominated by snow hydrology, 

with magnitude of impact dependent on how much snow:rain ratio decreases.

b Threshold relationships may exist in forest ecosystems with high-severity fire regimes that dominate the Olympic Peninsula. 

Although fires have historically been infrequent (200- to 500-year fire-free intervals), they are often very large (hundreds of thousands 

of hectares) when they do occur.

Source: Littell et al. 2011.

A research scientist or specialist with training in climate change science can 

provide scientific information and interact with resource management staff during 

the adaptation effort. A resource staff director or similar person with oversight 

of resource management can provide management leadership, coordinate with 

scientific experts, and ensure communication with local managers involved in the 

adaptation effort. Frequent discussions among all participants ensure that activities 

are proceeding according to schedule. Opportunities may also exist to include 

university scientists, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders in the 

collaboration.

In the Olympic case study, Forest Service and National Park Service managers jointly requested that the case study focus on hydrology and roads, vegetation, 

wildlife, and fish. For each disciplinary topic (hydrology and roads, vegetation, 

etc.), a 1-day workshop explored the vulnerability of each resource to a changing 
41

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 6

Examples of Strategic and Tactical Adaptations

Key adaptation recommendations developed from workshops at Olympic and Tahoe National Forests: 

• Increase interagency coordination and information and resource sharing

• Increase communication of ongoing research and results from scientists to land managers and across 

disciplines; this could be partly accomplished by hiring a climate change coordinator to work with 

the forest.

• Conduct more/better monitoring and develop monitoring as integral to adaptive management

▪ Create and prioritize a list of data gaps

▪ Use new technology and citizen participation to help with monitoring

▪ Create a monitoring coordinator position on the forest to organize research, plan research, and collect 

data, and make sure that research and monitoring are applicable to management plans and actions

• Develop a broad-scale, dynamic perspective at the program level

▪ Manage habitat, not species

▪ Manage for process and ecosystem services

▪ Reconsider targets: for example, it might be more valuable to treat a small area of pepperweed 

than a large area of another species, but the current system is geared to quantity of widgets

▪ Reconsider naturalness and historical range of variability

▪ Reconsider definitions of wilderness

▪ Develop a realistic approach to invasive species vs. current zero-tolerance stance

▪ Managers need latitude to take chances

• Educate the public about climate change, changes in the environment, and changes to management 

strategies needed

▪ Communicate why the Forest Service is managing differently, for example, with fire

▪ Educate the public about the need for changes to forest, aquatic, range, and recreation management

▪ Use new and traditional communication methods

▪ Include more interpretation of management actions

• Increase resilience on the landscape by focusing on minimizing human impacts on sensitive resources

▪ Work with disturbance

▪ Minimize stressors

▪ Promote healthy ecosystems (cultural and natural)

▪ Rebuild diversity

• Consider mitigation/sustainability options for new proposed actions/renewed permits

▪ For example, require increased energy efficiency, renewable resource use, recycling

• Reassess seed bank rules to allow more flexibility

• Develop a strong but flexible policy for water management as resources become more strained

• Conduct social science analyses on how recreation will change: Move to different elevations? 

Different activities? Different season?

Source: Littell et al 2011
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

climate. Vulnerability assessment workshops consisted of several scientific presentations followed by facilitated discussion through which a list of potential effects 

was compiled. A subsequent workshop was convened to develop adaptation options 

based on the vulnerability assessment. This dialogue resulted in a list of adaptation 

options for management issues within each disciplinary topic. This entire process 

was documented and peer reviewed (Halofsky et al. 2011) and is now used by 

resource managers when considering climate change issues in plans and projects.

In the Tahoe case study, resource managers requested a structured approach 

that would facilitate evaluation of a large number of management objectives and 

specific projects. Therefore, the CPST (Morelli et al., in press) was used as a means 

of evaluating the relevance of climate change for projects on the Schedule of Proposed Actions list. This tool was used to compile a summary of expected climate 

change effects next to potential management actions that will help address those 

effects.

Inyo National Forest staff had several specific requests of scientists as part of 

the case study process: (1) compile a summary of climate trends and adaptation 

options relevant to the eastern Sierra Nevada (Morelli et al. 2011), (2) develop a 

regional bibliography of information on climate change (e.g., USDA FS 2011a), (3) 

establish a technical advisory board that includes climate scientists conversant in 

eastern Sierra regional issues (box 7), (4) prepare a report and field survey for a 

potentially novel climate threat to quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) in 

the eastern Sierra (Morelli and Carr 2011), (5) participate in the public engagement 

process before the land management plan revision process, and (6) convene facilitated climate applications workshops (box 8). A primary objective was to implement resource treatments informed by case-study discussions and products, and 

to incorporate climate considerations in the land management plan revision. This 

process was documented so that resource managers can use it when considering 

climate change issues in plans and projects.

As part of the Inyo National Forest case study, Devils Postpile National Monument, whose lands are surrounded by Inyo National Forest, identified as priorities 

a need for high-resolution climate monitoring, and the potential role of the monument as a cold-air pool that could serve as a climate refugium for some species in 

a warmer climate. Interest in the latter prompted a request for scientists to develop 

an analysis of cold-air pooling in the upper watershed of the monument. In this 

case, focusing on a relatively small management unit required that scientific and 

management issues be considered at small spatial scales. Case study activities at the 

monument had a strong focus on science, including a combined field and classroom 

workshop, summary of ongoing research, and synopsis of research and monitoring 
43

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 7

Options for Scientific Consultation

Scientific review, advice, and consultation can be achieved through diverse formats 

that depend on national forest needs and regional contexts. A sample charter for a 

federal advisory board to provide input on national forest issues is shown below, as 

well as a variety of other directions to take when soliciting review.

Example of charter for a national forest science advisory board:

Inyo National Forest

Science Advisory Board

CHARTER

May 2009

Purpose

As the National Forest System Land Management Planning Final Rule (36 CFR Part 

219) states, “The responsible official must take into account the best available science” 

and to do this “may use a science advisory board...to evaluate the consideration of 

science in the planning process,” a science advisory board is established for issues 

concerning Inyo National Forest, including project design and implementation, the 

development and subsequent updates of the comprehensive evaluation report, and the 

update of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan.

Objectives and Duties

The Inyo National Forest Science Advisory Board (SAB) is an interdisciplinary, 

independent board of academic, agency, and nongovernmental scientists dedicated to 

providing expert input on scientific and land management issues to employees of Inyo 

National Forest. Membership on the SAB and opinions put forth by the SAB are the 

sole responsibility of the SAB. 

Board members will be chosen for the knowledge in the geographic area, in addition to their ability to consider the context in which single issues relate to other issues 

of concern for the Inyo National Forest. Moreover, in their role as advisors, board 

members will be expected to consider the mission of the Forest Service: to achieve 

quality land management under the “sustainable multiple-use management concept.”

Board members will be appointed to a 2-year term initially, renewable for three 

consecutive terms. Each member will be expected to provide expert scientific assistance intermittently throughout their tenure through technical assistance on projects, 

expert opinion, peer review, and collaboration.

The SAB will meet at least once per year, although this meeting need not take 

place in person. Members of the SAB will not be compensated for their services.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Organizational options for climate-science technical advisory boards to advise resource managers and decisionmakers.

Committee formed 

under the Federal 

Advisory Committee 

Act, convened by 

the USDA and 

national forest (e.g., 

Black Hills National 

Forest, Bureau of 

Land Management 

Resource Advisory 

committees.) 

Nonfederal entity

convenes council 

(e.g., Sierra Nevada

Adaptive Management Program 

convened by University of California

Berkeley; Sierra 

Nevada Collaboration

Group, convened by

the U.S. Institute for

Environmental 

Conflict Resolution.

All members are

federal scientists,

but include nonForest Service

● Science Advisory 

 Board (SAB) 

 (e.g., Inyo 

 National Forest, 

 Devils Postpile 

 National Monu-

 ment SABs)

All members are

Forest Service

Research and

Development

scientists

● Memorandum

 of Understanding

 (e.g., Region 5

 and the Pacific

 Southwest Re-

 search Station.)

OR

Advice is about process, not content. Advice 

does not affect National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) decision.

Advice is about 

content and affects 

NEPA decision.

OR

Council meets

more than once

Council meets

only once

One-time

formal 

meeting

OR

All members are

federal scientists

Members are mixed

affiliation, including

nonfederal institutions

● Open meetings

● E-mail or phone 

 consultation

● Written reviews 

OR

Formal

council

Informal

consultation OR Many options:

● Formal group, 

 one time or ongoing

● Open-invitation 

 meetings

● One-on-one 

 consultation

Box 7—continued
45

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 8

Example of a Facilitated Workshop to Assess Adaptation Options

Example of a facilitated workshop to assess adaptation options involving the public (day 1) and internal national forest staff (day 2).
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

efforts needed to guide future adaptation efforts. This process was documented and 

will be published so resource managers can use it when considering climate change 

issues in plans and projects. A scientific technical committee will be convened to 

consult on general management plan development and to advise on implementation 

of adaptation treatments. 

In the Shoshone National Forest (Wyoming) case study, resource managers 

were interested in a synthesis of the current literature on climate change effects of 

the area encompassing the Shoshone National Forest. This review describes what is 

currently understood about the climate of the Shoshone National Forest and the surrounding Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, including paleoclimate, and how future 

climate change may affect plants, animals, and ecosystems (Rice et al., in press). 

Resource managers were also interested in a vulnerability assessment to provide 

information for the forest planning process. The ongoing vulnerability assessment 

focuses on key water and vegetation resources. 

The variety of case study activities described above reflects the diversity of 

local needs and preferences for how climate change is integrated in management 

and planning. It also reflects different organizational cultures and management 

styles. These differences need to be respected as a component of the sciencemanagement partnership. Customizing conceptual and logistical aspects of the 

adaptation dialogue to accommodate local circumstances will contribute to effective discussions and outcomes.

Another important component of facilitated dialogue is capturing ideas and 

information that are relevant to preparing for a warmer climate but may not be 

explicit adaptation options (box 6). For example, it is helpful to summarize opportunities and barriers to adaptation as a context related to administrative process, 

policy, and budgets that affect all management issues (box 9). It is also helpful to 

compile a list of analytical tools and information needs that can assist the adaptation 

process (box 10). This provides a heads-up for the science-management partnership 

on future steps that may be needed to facilitate adaptation and informs scientists 

about specific ways in which they can help.

Documenting all aspects of the workshops, scientific information, vulnerability 

assessments, and adaptation options in reports ensures a unified statement on 

adaptation for the participating units and interested stakeholders. The reports are a 

reference for management, not an “official” planning document. To date, national 

forests and national parks have chosen to develop mostly strategic adaptation 

options, as opposed to specific actions at specific places, but both strategic and 

tactical adaptation are useful outcomes of facilitated workshops.

Customizing 

conceptual and 

logistical aspects 

of the adaptation 

dialogue to accommodate local 

circumstances 

will contribute to 

effective discussions 

and outcomes.
47

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 9

Adaptation Opportunities and Barriers

Opportunities and barriers for adapting to climate change in Olympic and Tahoe National Forests:

• Opportunities

▪ Collaborate with adjacent landowners and the general public

▪ Integrate climate-change science into planning and management guidelines

▪ Coordinate planning among multiple management units

▪ Improve science-management collaboration

▪ Expand internal and external education about climate change

▪ Expand fuel treatments owing to decreased snowpack

• Barriers

▪ Limited financial resources and management personnel

▪ Constraints imposed by policies, laws, and regulations that are static relative to climate

▪ National and regional budget policies and processes

▪ Traditional focus on historical references for restoration and management

▪ Legacy of past management and regulatory constraints, including small management units

▪ “Checkerboard” pattern of land ownership

▪ Expansion of residential development and recreational activities on private land

▪ Regulatory standards that restrict quantity and timing of management actions

▪ Appeals and litigation of proposed projects

Source: Littell et al 2011

Implementing Climate Change Information in Planning 

Climate change will influence many ecological and socioeconomic components of 

national forests and interact with climate change effects on neighboring landscapes. 

If climate change is not considered, factors that could inhibit sustainability of 

ecosystem services may be overlooked. It will be important to anticipate and plan 

for surprise and threshold effects associated with climate change that are difficult 

to predict yet certain to result from the interaction of climate change and other 

stressors (e.g., unprecedented large fires and insect attacks). In addition, it will be 

increasingly important to include climate change considerations in planning to 

avoid appeals and litigation.

Although historical conditions are a useful reference, as the local effects of 

climate change become apparent, an adaptive management approach can be used to 

test assumptions about ecological change and make adjustments in desired future 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

condition and in goals and objectives of plans (Joyce et al. 2009). Flexibility to 

address inherent uncertainty about local effects of climate change in the future 

could be achieved through enhancing the resilience of ecosystems now. These 

assumptions would allow the plan components to be designed in a way that allows 

for adaptation to climate change, even though the magnitude and direction of that 

change is uncertain.

The adaptive capacities of the social and economic environments in which 

national forests exist, as well as physical, institutional, social, political, economic, 

and technological barriers to adaptation, influence the success of the planning 

process. Whereas the public is actively involved through commenting on proposed 

actions on national forests, the broader community of policymakers, managers, 

scientists, stakeholders, and the general public will benefit from evaluating specific 

Box 10

Tools and Information Needed for Adaptation

Tools and information needed to facilitate adaptation to climate change in 

the Olympic and Tahoe National Forests:

• Long-term science-management partnership focused on landscape 

and project planning

• Web-based clearinghouse with scientific information, tools, and 

guidelines to inform adaptation, planning, and priority setting

• Simulations of quantity, seasonal patterns, and temperature of 

streamflow for river systems

• Simulations of future climate, vegetation, and species movements, 

and uncertainties associated with these projections

• Assistance with interpreting simulation output, so projections can 

be reconciled with management priorities for adaptation

• Data on genetic variability of dominant and rare plant species to 

determine vulnerability to a warmer climate

• Case studies of planning and practices for adaptive responses to 

climate, including specific examples that can be documented and 

quickly communicated to others

• Seed banks of native species for vegetation establishment 

following disturbance

Source: Littell et al. 2011 The adaptive 

capacities of the 

social and economic 

environments in which 

national forests exist, 

as well as physical, 

institutional, social, 

political, economic, 

and technological 

barriers to adaptation, 

influence the success 

of the planning 

process. 
49

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

evidence of climate change and its projected consequences in the context of desired 

choices, future opportunities, risks, and difficult tradeoffs. Neighboring land 

managers and private landowners will likely observe species, populations, and 

ecosystems changing across broad landscapes in a warming climate. Opportunities 

to address vulnerability to climate change will require collaboration, as well as the 

recognition that human communities and a range of economic sectors, which are 

also dynamic systems, benefit from natural resources. Consideration of climate 

change in the planning process thus calls for enhanced collaboration within the 

matrix of ownerships surrounding national forests and with interested stakeholders.

Federal, state, and local organizations are just beginning to consider how 

adaptation will be addressed in planning processes (GAO 2009). Most planning 

processes are premised on a climate that is stationary, constant frequencies of 

natural disturbances, and ecosystems that respond to climate and management as 

in the past. These assumptions, which are fundamental to the way organizations, 

institutions, and people make choices, are no longer valid (Milly et al. 2008). Current attempts to incorporate climate change considerations into planning at federal, 

state and local levels include a focus on assessing the effects of climate change, 

identifying vulnerabilities to climate change, and developing adaptation options 

(Cruce 2009, GAO 2009, Heinz 2007). Challenges for national forests engaged in 

planning for adaptation to climate change will be similar to those identified by most 

federal agencies and other organizations: competing priorities, lack of site-specific 

information about changes in climate and effects on ecosystems and economies, 

and lack of clarity on roles of various institutions in adapting to climate change. 

Legislated Climate Change Analyses to Be 

Completed by the Forest Service

The RPA (1974) requires a national renewable resource assessment to provide 

reliable information on the status and trends of the Nation's renewable resources on 

a 10-year cycle. The RPA assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest and 

rangeland conditions and trends on all ownerships, identifies drivers of change, and 

projects 50 years into the future. Analyses of the status and trends for recreation, 

water, timber, wildlife (biodiversity) and range resources as well as land use change 

and urban forestry are included. With respect to climate change, two additional 

requirements were added as an amendment to the RPA in 1990: (1) an analysis 

of the potential effects of global climate change on the condition of renewable 

resources on the forests and rangelands of the United States, and (2) an analysis 

of rural and urban forestry opportunities to mitigate the buildup of atmospheric 

carbon dioxide and reduce the risk of global climate change. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

The 2010 RPA assessment is considering how future renewable resource 

conditions are influenced by common driving forces such as population change, 

economic growth, climate change, and land use change, as well as other drivers 

of change unique to individual resources (fig. 4). As noted previously, a scenario 

approach based on different GHG emission futures is being used to characterize 

the common demographic, socioeconomic, and technological driving forces underlying changes in resource condition and to evaluate the sensitivity of resource 

trends to the future range of these driving forces. The use of scenarios links underlying assumptions of the individual analyses and frames the future uncertainty in 

these driving forces within the integrated modeling and analysis framework of the 

2010 RPA assessment. Data on population and economic projections at the county 

level will be available on the RPA Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa), and 

downscaled climate scenarios are available (Coulson et al. 2010). As in previous 

assessments, these RPA results may offer information for other levels of planning. 

Planning in National Forests

The Forest Service uses a two-stage approach to decisions guided by the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) and NEPA. National forests conduct a variety of 

assessments within their planning efforts (e.g., roads analysis, landscape assessments, watershed analysis) (fig. 6). Every national forest and national grassland 

must develop a forest plan, which is guided by the NFMA. National forests also 

use other processes to gather information, such as landscape assessments. Watershed vulnerability assessment would be an example of a process (fig. 6, app. 2) 

that gathers information about 

climate change and watersheds. 

Forest plans are to be amended 

as necessary and revised at least 

every 15 years. The process for 

the development and revision 

of the plans (fig. 6), along with 

prescribed content, is outlined 

in planning regulations, or the 

national planning rule, which 

addresses adherence to NEPA.

An initiative to develop 

a new planning rule began in 

December 2009 with a Federal 

Register Notice of Intent (NOI). 

The NOI outlines a process for 

Figure 6—The National Forest Management Act and 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)–Monitoring 

planning triangle showing the number of processes that 

are used on the left side to gather information. From 

USDA FS (1999).
51

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

developing a new national planning rule, as well as proposing substantive (content) 

principles and process principles that would guide how forest plans are developed 

and revised. Substantive principles emphasize (1) restoration and conservation to 

enhance ecosystem resilience; (2) effects of climate change and role of monitoring, 

mitigation, and adaptation planning; (3) maintenance and restoration of watershed 

health; (4) provision for diversity of species and wildlife habitat; and (5) sustainable 

lands that support vibrant rural economies. Process principles emphasize (1) collaborative engagement with all stakeholders, (2) an “all-lands” approach that engages 

relevant ownerships to achieve management goals, and (3) use of the latest science 

to achieve effective decisions. Because the new planning rule will explicitly address 

climate change issues and overlap many of the recommendations for addressing 

climate described in this publication, national forest planning in regard to climate 

will be influenced by the new rule.

The Forest Service recently released guidance for climate change considerations in land management plan revisions and in NEPA processes (USDA FS 2009b, 

2010b), identifying the need to consider climate change in the delivery of the Forest 

Service mission (USDA FS 2010b) (box 11). Climate change is to be integrated, as 

Box 11

Principles for Incorporating Climate Change Into Forest Service Land 

Management Plan Revisions

• The focus of Forest Service land management is multiple-use management with ecological, social, 

and economic sustainability. Climate change is to be considered in the delivery of our overall mission.

• Use the best available science on climate change that is relevant to the planning unit and the issues 

being considered in planning.

• Where necessary to make informed decisions and provide planning direction responsive to changing 

climate, use climate change science and projections of change in temperature and precipitation patterns 

at the lowest geographic level (national, broad, mid, base) that is scientifically defensible. Given the 

uncertainty involved and limits to modeling capability, this is most likely at much broader scales than 

appropriate for the planning unit.

• Address climate change during land management plan (LMP) revision (USDA FS 2010b) in terms 

of “need for change” from current LMP direction, so that the unit will continue contributing to social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability.

• Place increased value on monitoring and trend data to understand actual climate change implications 

to local natural resource management. 

• Include adjacent land managers and stakeholders in the planning process and review components.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

opposed to being considered individually, in plan documents. Syntheses in the 2010 

RPA assessment will offer another information source on climate change and natural resources. Finally, the Web-based tool, Template for Assessing Climate Change 

Impacts and Management Options (box 12), connects planning and best available 

science through a report generation service. 

Forest Service guidance identifies the need to assess adaptation over time, 

including identification of risks and vulnerabilities, the ecological adaptation 

likely to occur, and how management can also adapt (USDA FS 2010b). Processes 

described previously, such as facilitated workshops and watershed vulnerability 

assessments, may start the conversation and provide a framework for information 

gathering. Including the general public as reviewers of proposed actions and alternatives is a NEPA requirement, and including stakeholders throughout the planning 

process will increase opportunities for innovative ideas about adaptation.

Forest Service management decisions often involve other federal agencies, 

state agencies, and Native American tribes. Nearly a quarter of National Forest 

System land has been statutorily set aside—wildernesses, monuments, recreation 

areas, game refuges and wildlife preserves, wild and scenic rivers, scenic areas, 

and primitive areas—requiring collaborative management across these national 

systems. Checkerboard ownership patterns and private in-holdings associated with 

western national forests, and scattered land parcels of eastern national forests make 

it imperative to coordinate with neighboring agencies, tribes, and private landowners.

Developing Adaptation Options: A Toolkit Approach

In this section, we present a conceptual framework for developing adaptation 

options on federal lands. The strategic steps, tactical steps, and examples discussed 

here were developed in collaboration with resource managers, planners, and decisionmakers. We use a “toolkit approach,” offering an array of options from which 

approaches that are most effective and appropriate for specific projects, landscapes, 

time scales, resource areas, and budgets can be selected. Whereas the Forest 

Service is organized traditionally by resource areas (e.g., timber, range, watershed, 

recreation, wilderness), we move beyond disciplinary organization to introduce 

process-oriented approaches. This is intended to provoke innovative thinking 

about the challenges and opportunities that climate change brings, and to stimulate 

dynamic and effective solutions. Examples in text boxes (e.g., box 12) show the 

relationship of familiar resource areas to the conceptual framework. 

Forest Service 

guidance identifies 

the need to assess 

adaptation over 

time, including 

identification of risks 

and vulnerabilities, the 

ecological adaptation 

likely to occur, and 

how management 

can also adapt
53

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 12

Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options

Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options (TACCIMO) is a Web-based 

tool connecting planning and science through a report generation service.

The TACCIMO inputs are (1) projected climate change, (2) effects and management options derived 

from a literature review, and (3) Forest Service land and resource management plans. The Web-based 

interface (4) uses a relational database environment to synthesize inputs based on user selections to generate a report. Forest Service planners will be able to readily construct a current situation report (8) from 

the planning template report (6), while state and private users will focus mainly on forecasts and effects 

(5). Feedback tracking will ensure completeness of information and usefulness of functionalities (7).

Input

Projected climate change

• 4 global circulation models

• 3 Intergovernmental 

 Panel on Climate 

 Change scenarios

• Precipitation

• Temperature

1 2 3

6

TACCIMO

4

5

7 8

Output

Climate change factors

affecting ecosystems

• Direct impacts

• Management options

• Source literature

• Supporting literature

• Geographic location

Land and resource

management plans

• Desired conditions

• Objectives

• Design criteria

• Monitoring questions

Planning template report 

(U.S. Forest Service planners)

• Exportable

• Customized

 ▪ Maps and figures

 ▪ Factors affecting ecosystems

• Related plan components

Basic template report

(state and private)

• Exportable

• Customized

 ▪ Maps and figures

 ▪ Factors affecting ecosystems

Feedback tracking

Allow users to

• Provide feedback on

 content and function

• Recommend new sources

• Update plan database

Current situation report

• Readily composed from 

 “Planning Template 

 Report”
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Ecosystem Management—the Basis for Action

An explosion of new scientific understanding in recent years decisively brought 

the issue of climate change to center stage in resource management arenas and 

left resource managers concerned about what to do about it. One might expect 

that a large number of novel stresses would demand an overhaul of traditional 

resource management practices and replacement with new paradigms. Fortunately, 

ecosystem management as practiced in land management since the late 1980s (e.g., 

Grumbine 1994, Kaufmann et al. 1994, Kohm and Franklin 1997, Lackey 1995, 

USDA FS 1995) provides a foundation for addressing most aspects of climate 

change effects. Ecosystem management acknowledges that natural systems change 

continuously (Kohm and Franklin 1997, Millar and Woolfenden 1999, Tausch et al. 

2004); recognizes that such dynamics bring high levels of uncertainty (Williams 

and Jackson 2007); stresses interconnections of natural processes with structure 

and composition (Heinimann 2010; Kohm and Franklin 1997; USDA FS 1993, 

1995); embraces the integrated nature of watersheds and entire ecosystems (Folke 

et al. 2004, Heathcote 1998); focuses on species interactions with each other and 

their environment (Christensen et al. 1996, Costanza et al. 1992); and emphasizes 

disturbance processes as essential to species and ecosystem health (Folke et al. 

2004, Kohm and Franklin 1997). 

Box 12—continued

Climate change factors affecting ecosystems form the core that links TACCIMO content and 

the basis of user interactions. Direct effect and management options are derived from current 

peer-reviewed literature and stored in an easily updated database that will grow as climate change 

science evolves. Projected climate change is available through the TACCIMO geospatial interface, 

including temperature and precipitation forecasts in 1⁄8-degree (~12 km) resolution. Users can 

generate standard and custom maps, tables, and figures documenting the magnitude and direction 

of anticipated change for a given location. This information serves as context for evaluating direct 

effects and management options.

Land and resource management plan components (including forestwide desired conditions, 

objectives, design criteria, and monitoring questions) are stored in an easily updated database that 

allows users to connect climate change factors affecting ecosystems directly with the planning 

language with which they are familiar. Users can directly link current management capabilities and 

conditions with emerging climate change science. This aids planners, managers, and scientists in 

indentifying current management opportunities, potential limitations, and areas for future study.

TACCIMO is available on the Web at http://www.taccimo.sgcp.ncsu.edu.
55

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Ecosystem management utilizes strategic assessments and interdisciplinary 

analysis of whole ecosystems at large spatial scales (Christensen et al. 1996, 

Kohm and Franklin 1997). This perspective remains important for incorporating 

climate change in evaluations and strategic analysis. For terrestrial environments, 

ecosystem management promotes a landscape analysis process, in which natural 

processes and variability are evaluated relative to desired future conditions and 

processes (e.g., USDA FS 1995). In addition, watershed vulnerability assessment 

has been widely used to guide interdisciplinary teams to a robust understanding 

and basis for planning (Furniss et al. 2010).

Natural climatic variability is one of the drivers of ecological change that ecosystem management has long recognized (Millar and Woolfenden 1999, Swetnam 

et al. 1999, Tausch et al. 2004), although resource attention to this has been mostly 

missing in operational practice (box 13). Resource managers have always considered climatic variability to some extent because natural variability at interannual 

and interdecadal scales affects ecosystems regardless of human influences. Incorporating rapid human-caused climate change extends this long-term perspective, and 

knowledge of historical climatic variability can be helpful in planning for the future 

(box 14). However, we can no longer assume that future climate will be similar to 

past climate, or that ecological conditions are static or in equilibrium with climate. 

Human-caused climate change creates the prospect of a warming climate 

interacting with other biophysical factors and stressors such as insects, fungal 

pathogens, and air pollution. For example, a combination of warmer temperatures, 

increased mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) attack, and 

increased fire occurrence in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Louden var. 

latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson) forests is a stress complex that may alter disturbance regimes, productivity, and species composition (McKenzie et al. 2009). Some 

ecological effects of climate change may be gradual, such as mortality of some 

conifer species (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Some may be episodic and reversible, 

such as periods of high precipitation and severe flooding, accelerated expansions 

of exotic plant species, and periods of severe wildfires. The episodic nature of 

these events has been related to interaction of human-caused change with natural 

climate cycles at interannual (e.g., El Niño Southern Oscillation) and decadal scales 

(e.g., Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation) (Mantua et al. 1997, Millar 

et al. 2004, Wang et al. 2010). Others may be entirely unexpected and novel owing 

to large-scale ecological responses to climate change (Jackson 1997, Jackson and 

Overpeck 2000, Williams and Jackson 2007) interacting with small-scale ecological 

processes that are poorly understood (Pepin and Lundquist 2008).

Natural climatic variability is one of the 

drivers of ecological 

change that ecosystem 

management has long 

recognized.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Box 13

Incorporating Climatic Variability and Change in Planning: 

Examples From California

Ecosystem management acknowledges the importance of natural climatic 

variability by incorporating this knowledge into landscape assessment, 

watershed analysis, and restoration planning. Examples include (1) climate as 

a critical finding of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report on the Sierra 

ecoregion (CWWR 1996), and (2) climate as a key factor affecting whitebark 

pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) ecosystems (Salwasser and Huff 2001).

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. During the period of recent human 

settlement in the Sierra Nevada, climate was much wetter, warmer, and more 

stable than climates of the past two millennia; successful ecosystem evaluations and planning for the future must factor climate change into analyses. 

Many resource assessments and consequent land use and management decisions have been made under the assumption that the current climate is stable 

and indicative of recent past and future conditions. Water delivery systems 

in the Sierra have been designed under the recent favorable climate, and 

fire management strategies now being planned reflect forest conditions that 

developed under the current unusually wet climate. Periods of century-long 

droughts have occurred within the last 1,200 years and may recur in the near 

future.

Whitebark pine. Climate change is a significant factor in all aspects of 

ecosystem management. We have abundant evidence that older forests (>400 

years old) were established during a period that was wetter and colder than 

the current climate. Some white pines, e.g., Great Basin bristlecone pine 

(Pinus longaeva D.K. Bailey), approach 4,000 years old, and thus could have 

been established during the Holocene warm period. Future climatic variability and change will affect the elevations and aspects where restoration of 

white pines can be successful. Climate change will affect species distribution 

and the processes that govern ecosystem dynamics (e.g., fire, precipitation, 

storm disturbance, insect infestations, growing season length, erosion rates).
57

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 14

Using Past Climate to Place Projected Temperatures in Context of 

Management Experiences

Projected temperatures for Grand Junction, Colorado, are outside of the historical range of 

temperatures for summer, but precipitation remains within the historical range. Magnitude 

of projected temperature change is comparable to or greater than the year-to-year variations 

throughout the historical records; however, this is not the case for precipitation.

Observed monthly average temperature (°F) and precipitation (inches) compared with projections for 2050 over a 

30 × 40 mile region on the west slope near Grand Junction, Colorado. Monthly average (solid black) and 10th and 

90th percentile values (dashed lines) are based on observation from 1950 to 1999. Projected monthly climatologies 

(thin red lines) are from the multimodel ensemble for the 20-year period centered on 2050 (Ray et al. 2008.)

Effective climate adaptation strategies may need to emphasize ecological processes and ecosystem services rather than structure and composition 

(Chambers et al. 2004, Millar and Brubaker 2006). Ecological process refers to 

natural functions associated with a range of natural variation, such as periodic fire, 

insect and pathogen interactions, and flooding. Ecosystem services are those values 

deriving from natural processes that benefit humans, such as clean air and water 

(Corvalan et al. 2005). Working with disturbance events (e.g., fire, insect outbreaks) 

to create landscape mosaics of forest patches, rather than designating fixed land 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

units and expecting them to remain on a specific successional trajectory, is an 

appropriate adaptation strategy. Using disturbance processes (natural and managed) 

to stimulate natural regeneration of trees is another example of managing for process, even if the species mix or life form (tree vs. shrub vs. grassland) differs from 

former vegetative cover. Planting with broader mixes of species and germplasm 

than may have formerly been present, and allowing natural selection to mediate tree 

survival, is another approach to managing for climate change. Expanding genetic 

guidelines for reforestation is experimental by design, and careful documentation and monitoring of treatments, seed sources, and planting locations will allow 

managers to learn about effectiveness of plant seed mixes. 

Long-term monitoring of relevant ecological, climatic, and social variables is 

critical for effective adaptive management. The effects of changing climate are 

affecting species and ecosystems most commonly through altered disturbance 

regimes (Joyce et al. 2008), and managing multiple stresses and novel disturbance 

effects is the first line of defense for climate adaptation (Allen et al. 2010, Barnett 

et al. 2008, McKenzie et al. 2009, Peterson et al. 2011, Raffa et al. 2008). Monitoring and adaptive management are challenging programs to maintain in the best of 

circumstances, dependent on sufficient personnel and sustained funding. As climate 

continues to change, the ability to detect change may become increasingly difficult 

and uncertain, yet ever more valuable. These variables and uncertainties place the 

success of adaptive management fundamentally at risk (Joyce et al. 2009). 

The conceptual framework and strategic steps outlined below offer a process 

for integrating climate adaptation into resource management activities. The following sections are not a “cookbook” approach for incorporating climate, but an 

invitation to think about strategies that have proven useful for resource managers. 

Ultimately this approach may evolve, or other approaches, different reference 

terms, and changes in emphases may prove more useful. All effective approaches 

lead to the same end: understanding the influence of climate change on natural 

resources and effective development of adaptation actions to address them.

Steps for Developing Adaptation Options

As discussed previously, efforts to identify adaptation options will be most effective 

when incorporated early in the planning and analysis process rather than during 

project implementation. In the planning and design phases, evaluations at large 

spatial scale are conducted, long-term effects projected, uncertainties assessed, 

and cumulative effects considered. However, significant changes may be made at 

the project scale because of climate-induced changes or information acquired from 

monitoring. Therefore, the steps and strategies below are applicable for both planning and project development.

Long-term monitoring 

of relevant ecological, 

climatic, and social 

variables is critical 

for effective adaptive 

management. 
59

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Four practical steps can be used to organize activity when addressing 

climate-related resource conditions, assessments, plans, or projects (fig. 7): 

• Review

• Rank

• Resolve

• Observe

These steps are summarized in progressive order, but in practice, they are 

best considered iteratively, with repetitive review and rank phases even before 

plans are finalized, treatments implemented, or monitoring begun. The steps 

are repeated following evaluation of monitoring results, similar to the adaptive 

management process.

 Step 4

 Observe

• Monitor responses to

treatments; modify project

goals, objectives, and

methods accordingly.

• Consider all outcomes as

learning opportunities and

feed knowledge to future

projects. 

 Step 1

 Review

• Read background literature

 on climate science, climate

 projections, and ecosystem

 effects and vulnerabilities.

• Review project histories and

 applicable policy and legal

 documents. 

 Step 3

 Resolve

• Develop goals and objectives

 and prescribe actions needed.

• Implement treatments using

 project-appropriate approaches

 such as promoting resistance,

 developing resilience, assist- 

 ing response, or realigning 

 disturbed ecosystems. 

 Step 2

 Rank

• Assess relative project 

 urgencies based on 

 information from background 

 review.

• Develop priorities by using

 win-win, no-regrets, triage,

 or other strategies. 

Figure 7—Steps for developing and implementing adaptation options. 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Step 1: Review—

The review step brings knowledge into specific project analyses and planning 

efforts. At the onset of any resource management effort, a resource manager or 

team leader determines whether climate change is affecting or likely to affect a 

project. This can be determined through targeted review of scientific literature, 

discussion with specialists, and indepth assessments and vulnerability analyses 

(box 15). 

Box 15

Preparing for a Climate Change Assessment: Opportunities 

and Resources

Examples of specific opportunities and resources for reviewing background 

material on climate change pertinent to national forest issues and projects:

• Conduct climate change workshops

• Conduct scenario exercises

• Consult climate change regional bibliographies (e.g., Eastern Sierra 

Climate Change Digital Bibliography: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/

climate_change/wwci_toolkit/escc_bib)

• Participate in climate change online short courses (e.g., Adapting to 

Climate Change: A Short Course for Managers: http://www.fs.fed.us/

psw/topics/climate_change/wwci_toolkit/escc_bib)

• Participate in classroom climate change short courses

• Consult decision-support groups such as the University of Washington 

Climate Impacts Group (http://cses.washington.edu/cig) and the 

University of Arizona Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS, 

http://www.climas.arizona.edu)

• Form discussion groups to interpret local effects of regional climate 

projections

• Review climate policy-guidance documents, such as Forest Service 

guidelines for project/NEPA preparation (USDA FS 2009b) and land 

management plan revisions (USDA FS 2009a)
61

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Most existing and planned project plans and existing or developing forest plans 

have limited consideration of climate change. Some type of review of those efforts 

would be beneficial in terms of climate change effects and adaptation options. 

The CPST can be used as a checklist to review projects on current national forest 

Schedule of Project Actions lists. Using the question-answer format to elicit discussion about potential interaction of climate, one can determine if a warmer climate 

will affect a project. If so, then the project is identified as needing further attention, 

and those aspects most likely influenced by climate are highlighted for further 

consideration. 

Climatic variability and other natural processes (e.g., fire, floods, insect outbreaks) are included in evaluations of ecological variability in the context of ecosystem management (Salwasser and Pfister 1994, USDA FS 1995). Climate change is 

considered to be a higher order process, essentially a moving stage on which other 

ecological dynamics (fire, succession, etc.) occur (Jackson 1997). Consultation with 

a scientific technical committee may be needed to address situations in which the 

potential effects of climate change are complex, long term, or highly uncertain. 

Consultation can range from one-time discussion with local scientists to interaction 

with regional science advisory boards (see box 7). Comprehensive evaluations are 

often necessary for large-scale and long-term projects. Existing protocols, such as 

those developed for watershed assessment (Furniss et. al. 2010, Heathcote 1998, 

Hornbeck and Swank 1992) and ecoregional assessments (Johnson et al. 1999), 

sometimes address the role of climate, although they may need to be modified 

for emphasis on climate effects. These assessments are typically conducted by 

scientific specialists, but are more effective if resource managers are involved to 

assist with local information and priorities. Coordination within resource areas 

(e.g., headwater vs. downstream aquatic systems in a large watershed) and across 

resource areas (e.g., fuels management and wildlife management) will ensure that 

multiple perspectives are captured at the start of the adaptation process.

The nature of the review process evolves as increasing knowledge about climate 

change informs scientists and managers. More projects and plans can be developed 

with climate change considerations included at the start. As indicated by Forest Service guidance on NEPA analysis, “the effects of climate change on natural resource 

management are best considered when developing a proposal before initiating 

NEPA. In this way, it is efficient to integrate climate change considerations together 

with the agency mission objectives” (USDA FS 2009b). Tools such as the CPST 

may be replaced by processes identified in box 15 to review background material 

on climate change pertinent to national forest plans and projects. 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Step 2: Rank—

Once climate-related background materials have been adequately reviewed, plans, 

project proposals, and existing projects need to be ranked, that is, relative priorities 

for action determined, and priority locations evaluated. This ranking can be general 

or qualitative (e.g., low, moderate, high) as opposed to ordinal (1, 2, 3,...). After 

review of potential climate effects, details of management activities might not differ 

from what would be done otherwise, although relative priorities for projects may 

change because of climate concerns. National forests often have long lists of proposed and existing projects, as well as many long-term plans and projects. Owing 

to limited staff and budgets, a key element of decisionmaking is to rank projects for 

priority of implementation.

Three strategic junctures for incorporating climate change in resource priorities 

commonly arise (Joyce et al. 2008). First, major disturbances, such as fire, flood, 

or forest mortality present an opportunity for revising standard management 

approaches by resetting ecological trajectories in new climate-adapted directions. 

For example, tree planting after wildfire can promote species assemblages that 

are expected to have acceptable survival and growth in a warmer climate, thus 

mimicking historical processes by which species have adapted to natural climatic 

variability. Planting with new species mixes or new genotype combinations, or 

assisting development of new animal habitats after disturbance, are examples of 

actions that can be taken after a disturbance. 

Second, incorporating climate-sensitive actions in planning is proactive 

adaptation that enables species and ecosystems to shift gradually to new states. 

Examples include using prescribed fire, introducing new species mixes, and 

moving species to new locations. Third, some priority-setting exercises may deem 

that no climate-related action is warranted; that is, resources are at low risk, species 

have stable populations not sensitive to a warmer climate, or refugial areas have 

minimal response to climate change. Additional guides for taking action or postponing action are summarized in figure 8.

Use adaptation if:

• Climate-sensitive risks are already urgent

• Increasing risks are projected reliably

• Future impacts are potentially damaging 

or irreversible

• Decisions have long-term effects

• Adaptation measures have a long lead time

Postpone adaptation if:

• Current and anticipated future risks 

are moderate

• Adaptation is very costly

• Timely response options are 

readily available

Figure 8—Guidelines for setting priorities to implement adaptation options. Sources: Morelli et al. (2011) and Füssel (2007).

Incorporating climatesensitive actions in 

planning is proactive 

adaptation that enables species and 

ecosystems to shift 

gradually to new 

states.
63

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Priorities in a climate change context often differ for short- versus long-term 

projects. Uncertainties increase over time, so ranking projects for the long term is 

riskier. As described previously, managers and decisionmakers routinely address 

many types of uncertainty (Granger et al. 2009). Uncertainties about how climate 

will change locally and how local species and ecosystems will respond are smaller 

in the near term because there are fewer unknown variables. Climate change is 

relatively gradual, and the magnitude of ecological responses in 10 to 20 years is 

anticipated to be relatively small compared to those anticipated in 50 to 100 years. 

In the near term, interannual and decadal modes of climatic variability, such as the 

El Niño Southern Oscillation (Diaz and Markgraf 2000) and the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation (Mantua et al. 1997), will continue to drive variation that affects natural 

systems and tend to swamp longer term trends. However this should not preclude 

proactive adaptation activities. Over a few decades or more, climatic warming will 

increase and dominate natural climatic mechanisms. 

In the short term, managers can address climate concerns by minimizing and 

reducing detrimental human effects, taking actions to improve forest and ecological 

health, managing impacts of disturbance and multiple stresses, reducing cumulative 

effects to crucial habitats and services, and withdrawing or assigning low priority 

to projects that are likely to be unsuccessful because of long-term climatic trends 

(box 16). Examples of minimizing human effects include using fuel treatments and 

managed fire in areas affected by fire exclusion; restoring rangelands, meadows, 

and riparian corridors affected by overgrazing or recreational use of off-road 

vehicles; improving and decommissioning roads; and removing exotic species 

(Joyce et al. 2008, 2009). Many of these satisfy a goal to improve species viability 

and ecosystem function regardless of climate effects, and are sometimes called 

no-regrets strategies. 

Other examples might be administrative, such as changes in hiring schedules 

of fire suppression personnel to accommodate a longer fire season. An example of a 

project that has low probability to succeed is restoration of species into habitats that 

are unlikely to be suitable in the future owing to a changed climate. Tools are being 

developed to identify where cold-water fisheries habitats may be marginal already 

or nonexistent in the future (Isaak et al. 2010). Reintroducing trout in streams where 

water temperatures are expected to be too high to support cold-water fish species 

will have a low probability of success, even if the stream was previously inhabited 

by trout (Batin et al. 2007).
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Box 16

Considerations in Project Ranking

Considerations to aid ranking of project priorities for short-term projects and 

long-term planning, given uncertain climatic futures in all cases:

• Priorities for short-term projects (1 to 20 years)

▪ Context

• New risks and uncertainties owing to climate are lower in the 

short term than in the long term; effects of climate change are 

felt primarily as multiple stresses and through altered disturbance 

regimes; natural climatic variability remains dominant relative to 

effects of directional human-caused climatic trends.

▪ Priorities

• Minimize and reduce detrimental human effects on ecosystem 

condition, ecological processes, and ecosystem services.

• Improve forest and ecosystem health.

• Withdraw or assign low rank to projects that are unlikely to succeed 

as a result of long-term climate effects.

• Priorities for long-term projects (>20 years)

▪ Context

• Risks and uncertainties are high; direct effects of climate change 

are widely apparent and affect ecosystem condition and ecological 

processes; directional climatic trends overwhelm short-term natural 

climatic variability.

▪ Priorities

• Anticipate significant conversions in vegetation and faunal types and 

migration of species to novel habitats and geographic regions.

• Anticipate significant and novel changes in ecosystem condition, 

ecological processes, and successional pathways.

• Enable species and systems to move to new states with minimal loss 

of biological diversity, functional integrity, and ecosystem services.
65

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Several different approaches can be used to facilitate the ranking process. The 

CPST was developed in conjunction with case study forests as a guide to setting 

priorities from Schedule of Project Actions lists. In addition to its value as a background review tool, the CPST improves decisions about which projects deserve 

further attention for climate adaptation and which are unlikely to be affected by 

climate. On Olympic National Forest, a reprioritization exercise involving paired 

workshops to review current information and to develop and rank adaptation 

options was used to address a wide range of management goals (box 17), thus 

arriving at outcomes similar to those achieved with the CPST. 

Box 17

Assessing Risk and Setting Priorities: Examples From 

Olympic National Forest

Olympic National Forest (ONF) has developed a forest strategic plan, integrating aquatics, 

wildlife, silviculture, and fire, which helps to identify priority areas for management activities such as habitat restoration, road decommissioning, forest thinning, and fuel reduction 

treatments. Activities are prioritized based on factors such as habitat improvement potential, 

economic viability of activities, and existing priorities and land allocation restrictions. In the 

future, ONF will incorporate climate change into the forest strategic plan.

As a part of the forest strategic plan, ONF developed a road management strategy to 

help prioritize road management activities on the ONF. The road management strategy 

assesses the risks that individual road segments pose to various resources, especially aquatic 

resources, against the need for access that the road provides. This information is used for 

setting priorities for road maintenance, upgrading, and decommissioning. 

Factors used to assess road risk to aquatic resources include (but are not limited to) 

riparian zone proximity and upslope hazard, which are both likely to be influenced by 

climate change. To incorporate climate change predictions, ONF proposes to modify the 

upslope hazard factor to consider the amount of area upslope that is in the transient snow 

zone or rain-on-snow (ROS) zone. With increasing temperatures, there will be shifts in the 

location and extent of ROS zones. Future locations of ROS zones can likely be predicted 

by using a model that accounts for factors such as climate, snow cover, and elevation. 

ONF proposes to model the area within the ROS zone in the hillslope areas directly above 

and connected to road segments. Road segments will be evaluated for ROS under current 

conditions and for future projected conditions (e.g., 2040). Current and future hazard 

evaluations will be compared, and those areas with a higher hazard rating under projected 

(continued on next page)
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

future conditions will be prioritized for maintenance, upgrading, or decommissioning. This 

comparative evaluation will likely result in recommendations for increased frequency and 

intensity of road treatments for specific roads, including the recommendation to decommission 

some road segments rather than try to maintain them.

Riparian area and stream proximity are other factors used to evaluate the risks that roads 

present to aquatic systems at ONF. Stream-adjacent or riparian area roads are recognized as 

risky because they often have direct impacts on stream channels. Stream-adjacent roads also 

have high potential for frequent damage from floods and stream channel changes that result in 

higher maintenance costs. To incorporate climate change predictions, ONF proposes to modify 

the riparian area/stream proximity factor by manually validating the locations of streamadjacent roads and degree of connectivity of these roads to streams. Roads will be assessed 

under current and future projected conditions. Those roads that are determined to be within a 

proposed flood hazard corridor (in a potential area of inundation or channel migration zone, 

and in a geotechnical setback buffer) will be assigned a higher riparian zone proximity hazard 

rating. Roads that have a higher hazard rating under future projected conditions (e.g., owing to 

increased flood risk) will be considered as high priority for maintenance, upgrading, or decommissioning.

The forest strategic plan identifies focus areas for restoration where projects, such as 

commercial thinning, may achieve multiple objectives. The strategic plan currently emphasizes 

restoring and connecting fragmented terrestrial and aquatic habitats. However, increasing 

habitat connectivity could be further emphasized, and modification of treatment prioritization 

could help make the plan “climate smart.” For example, thinning treatments could be prioritized 

around existing late-successional forest to increase late-successional habitat connectivity and 

help increase wildlife resilience to climate change. A geographic information system analysis 

could be used to identify gaps in desirable conditions and determine where treatments would be 

most effective. Also, surveys could help in determining where the best corridors for movement 

exist on the Olympic Peninsula, and treatments could be positioned accordingly. Wildlife could 

also be given greater consideration in prioritization of road decommissioning on the forest; 

roads that inhibit species movement could be prioritized for decommissioning. 

Another way to potentially increase late-successional habitat connectivity is through 

restoration thinning treatments and protection of headwater stream areas on ONF, because 

forests that surround headwater streams are widespread and connected along continuous slopes. 

Protection of headwater streams and encouraging vigorous conifer growth could help prevent 

increasing stream temperatures with climate change and prevent sediment movement downstream. Thinning in landslide-prone areas in headwaters may also help accelerate the establishment of large trees that provide wood to streams, thus improving aquatic habitat quality. 

Box 17—continued
67

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

As climate and ecosystem trajectories deviate significantly from natural variability over time, direct effects are expected on species and ecosystems. Species 

migrations, changes in vegetation and faunal assemblages, and altered watershed 

condition are anticipated. This suggests that it may be necessary to shift priorities 

to anticipate which effects might accrue in the future, minimize disruptive ecological conversions, and guide transitions to desired new ecological functions (box 16). 

Because uncertainty about climate change effects increases several decades into 

the future, risk assessment and uncertainty analyses are especially important for 

long-term projects (e.g., Turner et al. 2003). 

Many tools and guides are available to help rank projects and actions (IPCC 

2001, Moser and Luers 2008). As noted above, implementing no-regrets adaptation 

actions is usually a priority because these practices benefit resources regardless of 

future climate. Related to this are low-regrets adaptation options, which include 

situations for which project costs are relatively low, project effectiveness is high 

even given future uncertainties, and anticipated benefits are potentially high under 

anticipated future climate.

Win-win adaptation options are actions that provide benefits to many 

resources affected by climate change, and confer benefits for non-climate reasons. 

In all cases, these imply situations in which actions might be proposed. For example, actions proposed to reduce fire severity, restore watershed health, or improve 

forest productivity can also facilitate adaptation to climate change. Climate-related 

projects can sometimes be implemented by “piggy-backing” them with other 

high-ranking projects. For example, if fuel reduction projects are a high priority, 

and budgets are available to implement them in the wildland-urban interface, then 

climate-focused projects that coincide with targeted forest types and locations in the 

interface can be implemented concurrently.

Triage is another systematic approach to setting priorities (Millar et al. 2007, 

Mitchell 2008, Yohe 2000) (fig. 9). Often misinterpreted as a reaction to crisis, triage is a process-based approach to treating emergency situations in which capacity 

to respond adequately is less than the immediate need. Projects are sorted into 

categories based on their need for immediate attention, urgency of condition, capacity for treatment to be implemented (budget, staff, skill), and likelihood of success 

given available capacity. A weighting factor can be added, or projects of similar 

value can be evaluated in separate triage exercises.

Collaborative approaches for ranking and priority setting are useful when 

values differ among parties interested in a particular issue, uncertainties are high, 

outcomes could be interpreted differently by different stakeholders, and treatments 

Win-win adaptation 

options are actions 

that provide benefits 

to many resources 

affected by climate 

change, and confer 

benefits for nonclimate reasons.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Figure 9—Categories for determining priorities under a triage system of ranking.

Triage Approach:

Step 1: Assess condition; sort into four categories:

Red = Urgent condition, treatable: highest priority

Yellow = Serious condition: will become urgent unless treated soon: high priority

Green = Stable condition: low priority

Black = Urgent condition, untreatable with current resources: lowest priority, no action

Step 2: Treat according to determined priorities.

Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 routinely.

are costly. Many collaborative frameworks exist within resource contexts (e.g., 

Cortner and Moote 1999), and most can be adapted for application to climate 

contexts. Keys to the success of collaborative processes include representing all 

stakeholder positions; evaluating and reviewing all positions and appropriate input; 

clearly defining ground rules and constraints of law, policy, and decisionmaking; 

and implementing actions consistently from collaborative decisionmaking. Collaborative processes in the National Forest System were recently used to develop 

acceptable recommendations for managing travel patterns on road systems, and 

are also being recommended for revision of land management plans.

Step 3: Resolve—

Decisions about appropriate strategies and treatments are resolved after the effects 

of climate change have been reviewed and project priorities have been ranked 

(box 18). Appropriate adaptation options are determined by the conditions 

and context of the resource, social and ecological values, time scales for 

management, and feasible goals for treatment relative to climate effects.

Adaptation literature most commonly focuses on resilience as a primary goal to 

address these factors (Hansen et al. 2003). We expand this framework to address 

potential adaptation strategies that fit one or more of the following objectives: 

resistance, resilience, response, and realignment (Joyce et al. 2008, Millar et al. 

2007). These four categories encourage thinking about the range of possible options 

and do not imply that a treatment fits into one specific category. Some treatments 

may reflect only one strategy, and others may combine them. The overriding 

objective is to construct effective management solutions that fit a specific situation.
69

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Promote resistance to climate change—This strategy includes actions and 

treatments that enhance the ability of species, ecosystems, or environments 

(including social) to resist forces of climate change and that maintain values and 

ecosystem services in their present or desired rates and conditions (box 18). This 

may seem counter to working with change, focusing on dynamics, and moving 

beyond static solutions. However, situations exist in which resisting the effects of 

climate is appropriate. For example, where steep slopes have been altered by road 

construction, resisting erosion and landslides is always an objective, especially 

if increased flooding accompanies climate change, and not inconsistent with a 

dynamic view. Resisting change is often appropriate for situations and resources 

associated with high social or ecological value that are vulnerable to direct or 

indirect effects of climate change.

Box 18

Strategies and Actions to Promote Resistance, 

Resilience, and Response

Examples from the Olympic climate change case study of strategies and 

actions to promote ecosystem resistance, resilience, and response:

• Resistance

▪ Utilize prescribed fire and postfire planting to maintain native species 

and prevent tree encroachment in alpine meadows.

▪ Use early detection-rapid response to control exotic species. 

▪ Place fuel reduction treatments around high-value riparian areas to 

prevent (temporary) habitat loss and aquatic habitat degradation.

• Resilience

▪ Focus on maintaining, reconnecting, and reestablishing ecosystem 

processes and functions.

▪ Reduce existing pressures on species from sources other than climate 

change.

▪ Increase the amount of restoration thinning in young stands to reduce 

competition and drought stress, increase tree growth and vigor, 

increase structural complexity, increase species diversity, improve 

wildlife habitat quality, and shift the strategy in placement of thinning 

treatments to increase resilience across large landscapes.

(continued on next page)
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

▪ Modify thinning prescriptions to further decrease forest density 

and increase gap size to provide for establishment and vigorous 

growing conditions for desired tree, shrub, and herbaceous 

species, and to reduce fire hazard.

▪ Increase wildlife habitat quality through creation and protection 

of legacy structures, including old-growth trees, snags, and large 

downed wood.

• Response

▪ Increase culvert size and prevent road failures to allow streams to 

respond to increased flooding.

▪ Increase the capacity to restore forest lands after large disturbances 

by doing the following:

• Increase seed storage for native tree species that are either adapted 

to a drier climate and/or to greater variation in climate.

• Be prepared to treat increases in invasive plant species from 

disturbances by continuing to implement the early detection–

rapid response program.

• Prepare to seed/plant appropriate native and nonnative plant species 

after flooding by increasing the native plant materials program.

• Protect and conduct restoration treatments in riparian areas to 

provide corridors for species movement.

▪ Collaborate with neighbors about where to strategize treatments and 

increase extent of protected areas to increase habitat quality and connectivity.

▪ Reduce late-successional habitat fragmentation by conducting restoration thinning treatments near existing late-successional forest.

▪ Maintain and restore connectivity and fish passage in headwater areas 

that are likely to go dry, and restore damaged habitat in headwater 

streams that are expected to retain adequate streamflows to help maintain viable resident fish populations in as many areas as possible.

▪ Correct fish passage barriers as funds are available.

▪ Protect cold water refugia and wild fish strongholds to help ensure 

continued wild fish population viability in the face of climate change.

The adaptation strategy of realignment was not addressed in this case study.

Box 18—continued
71

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Adaptation examples include constructing fuel breaks around a vulnerable 

population of a valued plant species to prevent extinction from climate-aggravated 

wildfire; rescuing a highly valued and climate-vulnerable animal species by captive 

propagation (e.g., California condor [Gymnogyps californianus Shaw]); prescribing 

methods otherwise socially undesired (e.g., insecticides) to aggressively combat 

insect mortality that threatens high-value resources (e.g., insect- and pathogeninfected young bristlecone pine [Pinus longaeva D.K. Bailey] forests in the White 

Mountains); requesting more than otherwise allotted water rights to maintain a 

unique and ecologically critical aquatic ecosystem (e.g., Mono Lake, California, 

relative to water delivery to Los Angeles for human use); and aggressively removing invasive species (box 19).

Actions that attempt to resist climate change are usually successful only in 

the short term, and become less effective over time as effects of climate change 

accumulate or management priorities change. As climate pressure increases, not 

only will it become more difficult to resist change, but when change occurs, it may 

exceed physical and biological thresholds and result in undesirable outcomes (e.g., 

severe wildfire, forest mortality, species extinction). Some resistance approaches, 

such as managing high-value species in designated refugial networks, involve 

relatively low risk or investment. An example is refugial networks proposed for 

American pika (Ochotona princeps Richardson 1828), a small mammal that lives 

primarily in high-elevation habitats and is considered at risk from a warmer climate 

(box 20) (Millar and Westfall 2010).

Another interpretation of the resistance strategy is to defer proposed (or 

approved) projects that are unlikely to succeed because of increasing climate 

pressure and future conditions. Examples include removing lodgepole pine (Pinus 

contorta subsp. murrayana [Balfour] Engelmann) seedlings that invade alpine 

meadows such as Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park; reintroducing 

salmon in streams where future water temperatures will be too high to support 

them; and chaining (removing) junipers (Juniperus spp.) that are becoming established in Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe communities.

Develop resilience to climate change—Promoting resilience is the strategy 

most often recommended for adaptation (Folke et al. 2004, Hansen et al. 2003). 

Resilience, which has both ecological and socioeconomic implications, can range 

from short-term response to disturbance to long-term tolerance of prolonged 

droughts. As mentioned above, agreement on definition is less important than how 

the range of meanings informs development of effective adaptation plans. In an engineering context, resilience refers to the capacity of a system or condition to return 

Resilience, which 

has both ecological 

and socioeconomic 

implications, can 

range from shortterm response to 

disturbance to longterm tolerance of 

prolonged droughts. 
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Box 19

Using Early Detection–Rapid Response to Reduce Exotic Species

Olympic National Forest (ONF) aggressively attempts to remove and control exotic plant 

species to reduce impacts on native plant species and animal habitat. Monitoring is used to 

locate and report exotic species when populations are still small and isolated (early detection). A decision is then made on whether it is possible to eradicate or significantly reduce 

the distribution and abundance of the plant, and an appropriate action is implemented (rapid 

response). Reducing exotic plant species increases resistance of native vegetation to climate 

change by eliminating a stressor that increases competition. Many exotic species, especially 

annuals, are more competitive than native species in a warmer climate and especially following disturbance. 

ONF uses early detection–rapid response (EDRR) 

to reduce populations of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum Siebold & Zucc.) and other knotweeds 

(Polygonaceae) that spread along riparian corridors 

through prolific seed dispersal and dense root systems, 

rapidly displacing native species. Knotweed can be so 

competitive that it excludes regeneration of trees, thus 

reducing the potential for conifers and hardwoods to 

grow near streams. Lack of trees reduces the potential 

for woody debris to fall into streams, removing a 

critical habitat element for Pacific salmon populations. 

Multiple mechanical treatments and herbicide applications are typically needed to remove knotweed, but 

this level of effort is considered worthwhile to protect 

riparian habitat. 

Over 200 exotic plant species currently exist on the 

Olympic Peninsula. Most of those species are widely 

distributed and are either mixed with native systems 

or considered relatively benign (e.g., they cannot 

survive in shade). It is not realistic to eliminate most of 

these species, so application of EDRR focuses on new 

arrivals on the landscape. Originally conceived as a 

tool for conserving native biological diversity, EDRR is 

improving resistance of native systems to a warming 

climate.

Resistance strategies. Early detection–

rapid response treatment to remove 

invasive weeds at Devils Postpile 

National Monument (California) is a 

key preventative measure in response to 

changing climatic conditions that favor 

the spread of these species. 

National Park Service National Park Service
73

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 20

Interagency Collaboration Ensures Conservation 

of Native Flora and Fauna

Olympic National Forest (ONF) and Olympic National Park (ONP) 

share borders on the Olympic Peninsula in the northwestern corner 

of Washington state. This region has a high degree of endemism in 

native plant and animal species owing to its glacial history, ocean 

border, and isolation from other mountainous landscapes. Areas 

that were ice free (above about 1200 m) during glaciations contain 

rare species and habitats and served as both refugia and sources 

of biological diversity following glacial recession, thus creating 

resistance to impacts during past variations in climate.

ONF and ONP both emphasize conservation of native flora and 

fauna in management policy. The ONF has been restoring forest 

habitat for over 20 years, with an emphasis on accelerating late-successional structure in coniferous forests, following several decades 

of extensive timber harvest. The ONP served as an “island” of latesuccessional forest amidst timber harvest on ONF and private lands, 

providing habitat for those species (e.g., northern spotted owl [Strix 

occidentalis caurina Merriam], marbled murrelet [Brachyramphus 

marmoratus Gmelin]) that depend on habitat in old forests.

Equally important, wilderness at higher elevations in ONF and 

ONP provides refugia for flora and fauna across a common landscape that has never been disturbed by logging. As climate continues to warm, these subalpine and alpine landscapes may change 

owing to altered competitive relationships among species, with 

effects determined largely by the effects of warming on duration of 

snowpack. Survival of species and populations in these areas in a 

warmer climate should be maximized because most native biota are 

still present and may be able to resist future stress.

Mountainous areas of the West provide heterogeneous habitat for alpine species and afford opportunities 

to protect biodiversity in refugia under changing climates. In the Sierra Nevada of California, as in the 

Olympic Mountains of Washington, parts of the range were unglaciated during the last ice age, supporting 

a wide variety of species. (A) California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita Jordan 1892), 

California’s state fish, is an endemic species that persisted in ice-free regions of the Sierra Nevada. (B) 

American pika (Ochotona princeps Richardson 1828), an alpine talus-dwelling rabbit relative, thrives 

in Sierra Nevada regions where continuous high-quality habitat exists. Management actions such as (C) 

improving riparian cover and shade, and (D) constructing trailside rock walls when erosion control is 

required, can double as escape and dispersal corridors when thoughtfully designed.

Kathleen Matthews Andrey Shcherbina Kathleen Matthews Connie Millar

B

C

D

A
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

to its prior state after disturbance (Holling 1996). In an ecological context, a forest 

that regenerates and restores its former vegetation structure, composition, and function after wildfire is resilient (Holling 1996). In a climate change context, resilience 

refers to the capacity of a system or environment to withstand or absorb increasing 

impact without changing state (Chapin et al. 2006). Because climate change will 

exert directional change (e.g., increasing temperature, rising atmospheric carbon 

dioxide levels) over time, a resilient system is one that retains its original character and function in the face of such pressure. Examples of resilient systems include 

conifer forests that regenerate to forest rather than to shrublands or grasslands after 

repeated wildfire (e.g., pine forests of the Colorado Plateau); animal species that retain viable populations despite climate-induced habitat degradation; and watersheds 

that retain erosion control, adequate water supply, and fish habitat despite floods, 

fires, insect epidemics, or spread of exotic plant species.

Life-history characteristics of plant and animal species provide clues about how 

well a species might be buffered to a changing climate. Characteristics of resilient 

plant species include tolerance of a wide range of climatic conditions over millennia 

(e.g., bristlecone pine), long-lived seeds that persist in soil banks, wind-pollinated 

flowers, high seed-production, and wind-dispersed seeds. These traits can be 

negated by the spread of insects and pathogens that may thrive in new climatic 

conditions. Characteristics of resilient animal species include high mobility (birds, 

bats, flying insects), being a seasonal migrant (e.g., deer, migratory bat species, 

Neotropical bird species), flexible behavioral thermoregulation, and ability to store 

large amounts of body fat (Zielinski 2010). Studies on direct effects of climate 

change over the past 100 years, such as the Grinnell resurveys in California (Moritz 

et al. 2008) corroborate that these life-history elements confer resilience to species 

such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilous beecheyi) and yellow-bellied 

marmot (Marmota flaviventris).

Similarly, characteristics, conditions, and trends can be described for physical 

systems, whole ecosystems, and watersheds that help determine resilience. Traditional approaches to watershed assessments have been modified to add analyses 

about effects of climate (Furniss et al. 2010), and these point to characteristics that 

confer resilience. Those features that buffer watersheds and hydrologic systems 

against loss of natural function and ecosystem services relate primarily to geologic 

substrate and history of disturbance. Some ecosystems experience considerable 

disturbance, such as desert landscapes with naturally high erosion rates, and may 

have fewer changes in physical processes over time (higher resilience) than systems 

that currently experience low disturbance. Extensive road networks, overgrazing, 

and large areas of eroded and compacted soils can cause watersheds to have low 
75

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

resilience even under quasi-static climate. A warmer climate may exacerbate loss 

of functional integrity for damaged watersheds, which may be partially offset by 

timely actions to increase resilience. 

Adaptation treatments with a goal of increasing resilience reduce species or 

system vulnerability to acute or chronic stress. Examples include reducing forest 

densities (e.g., mechanical thinning, prescribed fire), thereby minimizing water 

stress to trees, fire hazard, and some types of insect outbreaks (box 21); increasing the stocking of seed banks for postdisturbance regeneration; enhancing and 

widening riparian zones; relocating, improving, and decommissioning roads; restoring water tables in degraded montane meadows; buffering road projects against 

extreme precipitation and floods (box 22); and projects to remove exotic species. In 

a recreation context, ski resorts that can expand operations to summer or year-round 

activities can improve their economic resilience.

Assist response to climate change—The most proactive strategic actions are those 

that work directly with the changes that climate is provoking; that is, they assist 

transitions to future states by mitigating and minimizing undesired and disruptive 

outcomes. Adaptation options that follow this strategy include all actions that 

ease transitions in response to climate. Examples include assisting migration, 

whereby species (individuals or their propagules) are moved to locations currently 

outside native ranges and projected to be favorable future habitat (McLachlan et 

al. 2007); planting novel species mixes in regeneration or restoration projects; 

reducing the effects of past management by removing roads; modifying grazing 

patterns; managing recreation to emphasize locations that can tolerate recreational 

activities; modifying gene transfer and restoration rules to incorporate genotypes 

more adapted in the future than local genotypes; enhancing riparian habitats and 

other dispersal corridors to encourage natural migration; minimizing habitat 

fragmentation (e.g., checkerboard ownership) and encouraging collaborative, 

ecoregional management to promote natural movements of plants and animals and 

natural selection; and in a rural community context, easing economic transition 

from dependence on single resources (e.g., timber) to diverse sources of generating 

revenue (e.g., timber plus multiple forms of recreation). Response strategies can be 

similar to or closely aligned with resilience strategies.

Realign highly disturbed ecosystems—When ecosystems have been disturbed 

beyond historical ranges of natural variability, restoration goals are often prescribed 

to return structure, composition, process, and ecosystem services to prior states. 

Conditions of the project area before disturbance are often used to describe 

restoration goals. This approach is sensible where disruption has been so severe 

The most proactive 

strategic actions are 

those that work directly 

with the changes that 

climate is provoking; 

that is, they assist 

transitions to future 

states by mitigating 

and minimizing 

undesired and 

disruptive outcomes. 
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Box 21

Forest Thinning Increases Tree Vigor

Olympic National Forest (ONF) routinely thins young conifer stands to control stand density, 

improve the growth of residual trees, and accelerate late-successional structural characteristics. 

Thinning increases the vigor of trees in the stand by reducing competition, thereby increasing 

resilience to low soil moisture, insects, and fungal pathogens.

All these benefits also increase the resilience of coniferous forest to a warmer climate by reducing susceptibility to other stressors. Therefore, trees are more likely to tolerate chronic stress such as 

low soil moisture and periodic stress caused by insects and fire, both of which will be more common 

in a warmer climate. Although insects and fire are not as prevalent on ONF as in the drier eastern 

Cascade Range, the northeastern portion of the Olympic Peninsula is relatively dry and could experience higher potential for insects and fire in the future. Olympic National Park policy does not allow 

forest harvest, although they occasionally conduct prescribed fires to reduce stand density and allow 

fire to play its natural role in the northeastern portion of the park.

ONF explicitly includes climate change as a factor in decisionmaking about forest management 

projects. Residual stand density is a component of thinning prescriptions, and lower stand densities 

may be necessary in a warmer climate to achieve the same level of reduced intertree competition as 

was achieved in the past. This aspect of managing for resilience is one of several objectives (e.g., 

wildlife habitat quality) that need to be considered when planning for forest thinning.

Promoting resilience 

through thinning 

and surface fuel 

treatment. Fuel 

reduction can be an 

effective means to 

reduce fire hazard, 

improving resilience 

to changes in future 

climate. Here on 

the Tahoe National 

Forest (California), 

fire is a prescribed 

treatment to reduce 

understory fuels 

and remove smalldiameter trees. 

Tahoe National Forest
77

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 22

Managing Road Systems to Reduce Flooding Impacts

Olympic National Forest (ONF) has 3200 km of roads within its boundaries, many of 

which were built to support logging operations prior to 1990. Roads are a potential 

source of sediment that can be transported to streams, thereby damaging aquatic 

habitat. Damaged roads are expensive to maintain and repair. ONF has an ongoing 

program of decommissioning roads to restore forest habitat, limit erosion, and reduce 

costs.

During the past decade, major winter storms on ONF caused flooding that damaged roads, campgrounds, and other infrastructure. Increased winter flooding is a 

certain outcome of a warmer climate in this region. Therefore, ONF is responding

to climate change by evaluating road maintenance and decommissioning with an eye 

toward higher flood levels and more frequent flooding. This may lead to decommissioning of some roads, such as those parallel to large rivers, which will be frequently 

damaged and expensive to repair. It may also require different road standards, such as 

larger culverts to accommodate increased waterflow.

This response by ONF to the effects of a warmer climate demonstrates that it is 

possible to address physical, biological, and economic factors within the single context 

of road management. Projections of future hydrographs of rivers on the Olympic 

Peninsula, including magnitude and frequency of peak flows, is helping to inform 

decisions about road maintenance and decommissioning. It is a good example of incorporating climate change thinking directly into resource management and engineering.

Promoting resistance to changing 

climates. Olympic National Forest 

promotes resilience to extreme precipitation events, heavy erosion, and 

runoff by reinforcing roads at stream 

crossings and promoting robust corridors for spawning salmon. 

Kathy O’HalloranKathy O’Halloran
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

(e.g., mining, road construction) that restoration is deemed successful if it returns 

the site to any quasi-natural condition (e.g., excavating a buried stream). In other 

cases, historical and predisturbance conditions may be inappropriate targets 

for restoration because climate change will create significant differences from 

historical conditions (Millar and Brubaker 2006). For example, old-growth forests 

of western North America that established 300 to 500 years ago and grew under the 

cold climates of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1600–1850) are unlikely to be appropriate 

examples of forests that will be adapted to drought anticipated for the 21st century. 

Rather than restoring to conditions of the past, a climate-centric strategy is to 

realign disrupted systems to present and future conditions.

This strategy is commonly used in watershed restoration. The Mono Lake ecosystem (California) is an inland sea system that is critical for migrating waterfowl 

(Millar and Woolfenden 1999). Tributary streams were first diverted to serve water 

needs of metropolitan Los Angeles in the early 1940s, and continued diversions 

led to extreme lowering of lake levels, increasing lake salinity and reducing habitat 

quality and biological diversity. Warmer temperature will magnify these effects 

and stresses. Water-balance models that incorporated current and future precipitation, evaporation, snowpack, and air temperatures were used to develop adaptation 

and realignment goals. These continue to be modified as information about future 

climates and impacts to Mono Lake water status become better known. Similar 

measures have been used to realign forest diversity from conditions that were 

highly altered because of decades of timber harvest (box 23).

Step 4: Observe—

A final step for incorporating adaptation strategies is to observe the effects of adaptation actions through monitoring, assess the efficacy of those actions, and modify 

them as appropriate. This step injects adaptive management into the climate toolkit. 

Many guides for adaptive management are available (e.g., Margoluis and Salafsky 

1998, Walters 1986) and can be modified for climate contexts. Although intuitively 

reasonable, formal adaptive management projects are rarely completed successfully 

owing to their long-term nature, staff requirements, analytical demands, difficulty 

of attributing cause and effect in resource conditions, and high costs. In a climate 

context, “observe and modify” is more flexible than for adaptive management. For 

example, low-technology observations such as repeat photos may be as valuable as 

intensive monitoring if they can be implemented successfully. 

Historical and 

predisturbance 

conditions may be 

inappropriate targets 

for restoration because 

climate change will 

create significant 

differences from 

historical conditions.
79

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Box 23

Restoring Structure and Function of Late-Successional Forests

Following extensive forest harvest prior to 1990, Olympic National Forest (ONF) 

is now considered a “restoration forest” whose principal resource management 

objective is to restore forest habitat and conserve biological diversity. In most 

cases, creating and accelerating late-successional forest structure (large trees, 

high crowns, gaps between trees, multiple vegetation strata) is a priority that 

drives forest management. Late-successional structure provides several valuable 

ecological functions, such as habitat for certain species of plants and animals, 

protection of riparian systems, and carbon retention.

For many years, Olympic National Park provided a core area of late-successional forest surrounded by the more disturbed landscape of ONF and private 

commercial forest. The opportunity now exists to restore and realign large 

landscapes on ONF and begin to erase the “hard” visual boundary between the 

national forest (young forest) and national park (old forest). A forest mosaic of 

different ages and structure across the Olympic Peninsula is an adaptation strategy that will provide functional diversity and a range of habitats at large spatial 

and temporal scales. This will increase resilience to stressors and ensure that the 

effects of a warmer climate will not have uniform effects across this landscape. 

One or more age or structure combinations is likely to survive fires, windstorms, 

or other large disturbances.

Restoring and realigning ecosystems. On the Tahoe National Forest (left) and Plumas National 

Forest (California) (right), silvicultural treatments restore diversity of stand composition, 

structure, and function, and align forests to conditions of future climates. Connie Millar

Connie Millar
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

The key to this adaptation step is to observe responses over time; learn from 

successes, surprises, novelty, and failure; and use this knowledge to modify future 

actions (box 24). Effective communication that shares experiences across space and 

time can greatly increase the value of lessons learned. Not every adaptation practice 

will necessarily be successful, but every attempt at adaptation is a learning opportunity. Therefore, organizational support for resource managers to participate in 

long-term monitoring of adaptation practices and to feel “safe to fail” will facilitate 

learning and effective adaptation to climate change over decades to centuries. 

Box 24

Restoring Streambanks

Ecosystem services of river and riparian processes are important values of aquatic and upland 

ecosystems, and are increasingly vulnerable to climate-aggravated cycles of severe flooding and 

low water. Implementation of science-based treatments to restore streambanks, followed by 

monitoring of initial efforts, is helping to improve techniques for future applications. National Park Service

National Park Service

Restoring and monitoring degraded streambanks along the 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River in Devils Postpile 

National Monument (California). 
81

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Conclusions 

This guidebook presents a framework on which to build adaptation, processes that 

facilitate dialogue between scientists and managers, and examples from the efforts 

of scientists and managers working in national forests that are moving forward 

with adaptation. Ecosystem management as practiced in land management agencies 

remains the foundation for addressing most aspects of climate change. Ecosystem 

management recognizes continuous change within ecosystems, the role of climate 

as an ecosystem driver, interconnections of natural processes with structure and 

composition, and the integrated nature of watersheds, landscapes, and entire 

ecosystems. The present challenge is to incorporate into the ecosystem management 

framework novel changes resulting from human-caused climate change and their 

interactions with the natural background of environmental change. 

Science-management partnerships are the foundation for the development 

of adaptation strategies and practices. Much has been said about how different 

the culture of science is from that of management, hence the need to begin the 

dialogue carefully and thoughtfully to enhance mutual learning. Reaching mutual 

understanding and agreement about resources, goals, and expectations can lead to 

thoughtful exchanges of information on climate change science and on management 

knowledge on national forests. 

The steps for developing adaptation options can be described as review, rank,

resolve, and observe. To review means to educate oneself, one’s staffs, stakeholders and communities of interest on climate science, effects on ecosystems, and 

desired futures for landscapes being managed. The educational process can involve 

short courses, a checklist to review projects as affected by climate change, or a 

more involved process of consultation with a scientific technical committee. Rank

requires identifying and assessing vulnerabilities of the national forest to climate 

change and developing short- and long-term priorities for management. Tools such 

as watershed vulnerability assessment can identify priorities for management. Over 

the short term, managers can address climate concerns by minimizing and reducing 

non-climatic stressors, taking actions to improve ecological health, and managing 

the effects of disturbances. Resolve is the step whereby adaptation options are 

developed and conservation and management are implemented. Here the four categories of managing for resistance, resilience, response, and realignment encourage thinking about the range of possible options. Management treatments may fall 

into one or more of these categories with the overriding objective of constructing 

management solutions that fit the situation at hand. The last step of observe refers 

to a treatment response being detected (monitoring) as climate changes, with modifications being made if necessary and appropriate (adaptive management). 

Over the short term, 

managers can address 

climate concerns 

by minimizing and 

reducing non-climatic 

stressors, taking 

actions to improve 

ecological health, and 

managing the effects 

of disturbances. 
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Adaptation options differ by ecosystem, landscape, and the socioeconomic 

environment in which landscapes are embedded. No single approach will work 

in all ecosystems, and no single approach will work repeatedly over time in a 

changing climate. Rather, managers will need a portfolio of options, or a toolkit, 

from which a variety of tools and experiences can be used to match the current 

need. We define tools as resource management practices, educational and 

reference modules, decision-support aids, and qualitative or quantitative 

models that address the adaptation of natural and cultural resources to climate 

change. This guidebook offers a number of tools, often developed in the context of 

workshops, such as the adaptation options for roads and water, wildlife, fish, and 

vegetation on Olympic National Forest. Many others exist and, no doubt, more will 

be developed in time.

The guidebook offers examples of collaboration where federally managed land 

encompasses large landscapes. Similarity of ecosystem services across agencies 

provides an opportunity to share adaptation options for common issues. Increased 

collaboration can facilitate accomplishing common goals that can be attained only 

on larger connected (or contiguous) landscapes. Common goals under climate 

change might include protection of threatened and endangered species habitats, 

maintenance of land and water productivity, integrated treatment of fuels or insect 

and disease conditions that place adjacent ownerships at risk, and developing effective strategies to minimize loss of life and property in the wildland-urban interface. 

Attempting to collaborate multi-institutionally across large landscapes can bring 

into focus opportunities, as well as institutional barriers and societal responses. 

What might adaptation to climate change look like in the future for the Forest 

Service? We present this optimistic vision: 

• Climate change considerations will be incorporated into on-the-ground 

activities, project planning, and forest plans as seamlessly as other considerations commonly addressed now, such as fire, insects, and human drivers 

of change. 

• Monitoring activities will include indicators that detect change in specific 

species and ecosystems in relation to changing climate. Periodic summaries 

of this information become the basis on which to evaluate the need for management adjustments or to amend the land management plan. 

• Assessments of how future ecosystem services will be affected by the many 

natural and human drivers of change including climate change will be 

periodically developed as a joint effort of science and management for large 

landscapes. 
83

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

• The forest planning process will be sufficiently flexible that climate 

change assessments and management objectives can be used to identify 

the advantages of managing across boundaries or within agency boundaries. Planning options will include the land management plan as well as new 

planning instruments that bridge neighboring federal and state lands, with 

considerations of social and economic systems surrounding these lands. 

• The effects of climate change on ecosystem services will be examined in 

terms of whether near-term management options exist to reduce undesirable 

future effects. For example, how will management actions (or inactions) 

affect valuable ecosystem services? 

• Investment in restoration activities will be evaluated in light of potential 

challenges that climate change will have on the success of those restoration 

activities. 

• Management activities that sequester carbon will be developed in concert 

with adaptation options.

• Institutional capacity will expand such that technical expertise for questions on adaptation and mitigation is available within the National Forest 

System, perhaps the regional staffs, or even interagency regional staffs. 

• Research will continue to explore the boundaries of knowledge about how 

the many natural and human drivers of change will affect natural resources 

and landscapes and the role of ecosystem management in restoring, sustaining, and enhancing forests and grasslands in the United States. 

Even in this optimistic vision, uncertainty about future climate and how to 

respond to it will remain. Science-management partnerships will need to facilitate 

the identification of new questions about natural resources and climate change, and 

climate change science will need to expand our knowledge of the nature of climate 

change and its effects on ecological, economic, and social systems. Application of 

this knowledge at fine spatial and temporal scales on national forest landscapes will 

be limited by the highly variable nature of climate and ecosystems. If scientists and 

managers begin to reframe and quantify uncertainty about climate change effects, 

then it will be possible to compare climate-related issues with many other factors 

that contain uncertainty and affect decisionmaking.

Like most federal agencies and other institutions, the Forest Service is in 

transition from viewing climate as unchanging to viewing climate as dynamic and 

mediating changes in the environment. Continual advancement within science, 

developments of climate policy and regulations, and near-term changes on national 

forest landscapes will necessitate a continual evolution of adaptation options 

If scientists and 

managers begin to 

reframe and quantify 

uncertainty about 

climate change 

effects, then it will be 

possible to compare 

climate-related issues 

with many other 

factors that contain 

uncertainty and affect 

decisionmaking.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

appropriate for land management. Science is rapidly changing with new information 

about the effects of a changing climate on ecosystems. National forest managers are 

experiencing near-term changes in weather and disturbances such as fire and insect 

outbreaks, are responding to those changes in on-the-ground management, and 

are learning in real time about adaptation. Hence, this guidebook is meant to be a 

dynamic collection of information, a platform on which to document the effectiveness of adaptation practices. By sharing this information, adaptive management in 

the broadest sense of the term will facilitate ecosystem change and maintenance of 

ecosystem processes. 

Acknowledgments

We thank Jill Baron and three anonymous reviewers for timely and insightful 

comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank the many resource 

managers and planners from the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and 

other organizations who provided valuable content for this publication and helpful 

reviews of previous drafts. Participants in “Adapting to Climate Change in National 

Forests: A Workshop for Resource Managers” provided feedback and ideas that 

greatly improved this publication. We are especially grateful to resource managers 

at Inyo National Forest, Olympic National Forest, Shoshone National Forest, Tahoe 

National Forest, Devils Postpile National Monument, and Olympic National Park—

dedicated collaborators in adaptation case studies—for their insight on adapting 

to climate change. Ellen Eberhardt and Crystal Raymond assisted with editing the 

manuscript. Funding for preparation of this publication was provided by an award 

from the U.S. Forest Service Global Change Research Program to the WestWide 

Climate Initiative, and by the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Pacific Southwest Research Station, and Rocky Mountain Research Station.

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Kilometers (km) .621 Miles

Square kilometers (km2) .386 Square miles

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Degrees Celsius (C) 1.8 °C + 32 Degrees Fahrenheit
85

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

References 

Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H. [et al.]. 2010. A global overview of 

drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks 

for forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 259(4): 660–684.

Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Hickler, T. [et al.] 2003. Simulating past and future 

dynamics of natural ecosystems in the United States. Global Biogeochemical 

Cycles. 17: 1–21.

Backland, P.; Janetos, A.; Schimel, D. [et al.]. 2008. The effects of climate 

change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in 

the United States: a report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 362 p.

Bader, D.C.; Covey, C.; Gutkowski, W.J. [et al.]. 2008. Climate models: an 

assessment of strengths and limitations. Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental 

Research. 124 p.

Barnett, T.P.; Pierce, D.W.; Hidalgo, H.G. [et al.] 2008. Human-induced changes 

in the hydrology of the western United States. Science. 319: 1080–1083.

Baron, J.S.; Allen, C.D.; Fleishman, E. [et al.]. 2008. National parks. In: 

Julius, S.H.; West, J.M., eds., and Baron, J.S.; Joyce, L.A.; Kareiva, P. [et al.], 

eds.; Keller, B.D.; Palmer, M.A.; Peterson, C.H.; Scott, J.M., authors. 2008. 

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

Environmental Protection Agency: 4-1 to 4-68.

Batin, J.; Wiley, M.W.; Ruckelshaus, M.H. [et al.] 2007. Projected impacts 

of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 104: 6720–6725.

Bosworth, D.; Birdsey, R.; Joyce, L.; Millar, C. 2008. Climate change and the 

nation’s forests: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Forestry. 106: 214–221. 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources [CWWR]. 1996. Status of the Sierra 

Nevada: summary of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report. Wildland 

Resources Center Report 39. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources. 24 p.
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R.; Germanoski, D.; Weixelman, D.A. 2004. Processbased approaches for managing and restoring riparian ecosystems. In: Chambers, 

J.C.; Miller, J.R., eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 261–292. Chapter 9.

Chapin, F.S., III; Hoel, M.; Carpenter, S.R. [et al.]. 2006. Building resilience 

and adaptation to manage arctic climate change. Ambio. 35(4): 198–202.

Christensen, N.L.; Bartuska, A.M.; Brown, J.H. [et al.]. 1996. The report of the 

Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem 

Management. Ecological Applications. 6: 665–691.

Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange. 2010. CAKE: Climate Adaptation 

Knowledge Exchange. http://www.cakex.org. (3 February 2010).

Cortner, H.J.; Moote, M.A. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 178 p. 

Corvalan, C.; Hales, S.H.; McMichael, A. [et al.]. 2005. Ecosystems and human 

well-being: health synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 53 p.

Costanza, R.; Norton, B.; Haskill, D.G. 1992. Ecosystem health. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press. 269 p.

Coulson, D.P.; Joyce, L.A.; Price, D.T. [et al.]. 2010. Climate scenarios for 

the conterminous United States at the 5 arc minute grid spatial scale using 

SRES scenarios A1B and A2 and PRISM climatology. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/data_archive/dataaccess/US_ClimateScenarios_grid_

A1B_A2_PRISM.shtml. (8 February 2011).

Cruce, T.L. 2009. Adaptation planning: what U.S. states and localities are doing. A 

special report prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, November 

2007 (updated August 2009). 25 p. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/stateadaptatoin-planning-august-2009.pdf. (4 February 2011). 

Diaz, H.F.; Markgraf, V. 2000. El Niño and the Southern Oscillation: multiscale 

variability, global, and regional impacts. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 512 p. 

DiLuzio, M.; Johnson, G.L.; Daly, C. [et al.]. 2008. Constructing retrospective 

gridded daily precipitation and temperature datasets for the conterminous United 

States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 47: 475–497.
87

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Easterling, W.E.; Hurd, B.; Smith, J. 2004. Coping with global climate change: 

the role of adaptation in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change. 52 p. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Adaptation.pdf. 

(8 February 2011).

Elsner, M.M.; Littell, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. 2009. The Washington climate 

change impacts assessment. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for 

Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere 

and Oceans. 414 p. http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf. (8 

February 2011).

Federal Register. 2002. Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. 

67: 8452–8460.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B. [et al.]. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and 

biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 

and Systematics. 35: 557–581.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. P.L. 101-624.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 2007.

Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, 

framework and priorities. Rome, Italy: FAO Information Division. 32 p.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [RPA]; 16. 

U.S.C. 1601 (note).

Furniss, M.J.; Staab, B.P.; Hazelhurst, S. [et al.]. 2010. Water, climate change, 

and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-812. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 75 p.

Füssel, H.M. 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment 

approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science. 2: 265–275.

Gallopín, G.C. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive 

capacity. Global Environmental Change. 16: 293–303.

Gleckler, P.J.; Taylor, K.E.; Doutriaux, C. 2008. Performance metrics for 

climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D06104, doi:

10.1029/2007JD008972. 20 p.
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Glick, P.; Stein, B.A.; Edelson, N.A. 2011. Scanning the conservation horizon: a 

guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. Washington, DC: National 

Wildlife Federation. 168 p.

Government Accountability Office [GAO]. 2007. Climate change: agencies 

should develop guidance for addressing the effects on federal land and water 

resources. GAO-07-863. Washington, DC. 184 p.

Government Accountability Office [GAO]. 2009. Climate change adaptation: 

strategic federal planning could help government officials make more informed 

decisions. GAO-10-113. Washington, DC: Governmental Accountability Office. 

86 p. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10113.pdf. (8 February 2011).

Granger Morgan, M.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Henrion, M. [et al.], eds. 2009. Best 

practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating 

scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. Climate Change Science Program 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 94 p.

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 

8: 27–38.

Guisan, A.; Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than 

simple habitat models. Ecology Letters. 8: 993–1009.

Guisan, A.; Zimmermann, N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in 

ecology. Ecological Modelling. 135: 147–186.

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; O'Halloran, K.A.; Hawkins Hoffman, C. 2011. 

Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National 

Park. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-844. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p.

Hansen, L.J.; Bringer, J.L.; Hoffman, J.R., eds. 2003. Buying time: a user’s 

manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change in natural 

systems. Berlin, Germany: World Wildlife Fund. 244 p.

Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B. [et al.]. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate 

change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science. 101: 12422–12427.

Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Alig, R.J. [et al.]. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber 

assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699. Portland, OR: U.S. 

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

212 p.
89

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Heathcote, I. 1998. Integrated watershed analysis: principles and practice. New 

York: Wiley and Sons. 415 p.

Heinimann, H.R. 2010. A concept in adaptive ecosystem management: an 

engineering perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 848–856. 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2007. 

A survey of climate change adaptation planning. 52 p. http://www.heinzctr.org/

publications/PDF/Adaptation_Report_October_10_2007.pdf.

Heller, N.E.; Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate 

change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation. 

142: 14–32.

Holling, C.S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: 

Schulze, P.C., ed. Engineering within ecological constraints. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press: 31–44.

Hornbeck, J.W.: Swank, W.T. 1992. Watershed ecosystem analysis as a basis 

for multiple-use management of Eastern forests. Ecological Applications. 

2: 238–247.

Innes, J.; Joyce, L.A.; Kellomäki, S. [et al.]. 2009. Management for adaptation. 

In: Seppälä, R.; Buck, A.; Katila, P., eds. Adaptation of forests and people to 

climate change: a global assessment report. IUFRO World Series Volume 22. 

Vienna, Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations: 135–169.

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

2001. Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Working Group III. Mitigation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 753 p.

Isaak, D.J.; Luce, C.; Rieman, B.E. [et al.]. 2010. Effects of climate change and 

recent wildfires on stream temperature and thermal habitat for two salmonids in 

a mountain river network. Ecological Applications. 20: 1350–1371.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M.P.; 2011. Lessons 

learned while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, and life-history traits 

into species habitat models under climate change. Ecosystems. 14: 1005–1020.

Jackson, S.T. 1997. Documenting natural and human-caused plant invasions using 

paleoecological methods. In: Luken, J.O.; Thieret, J.W., eds. Assessment and 

management of plant invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag: 37–55.
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Jackson, S.T.; Overpeck, J.T. 2000. Responses of plant populations and 

communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. Paleobiology. 

25: 194–220.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S., eds. 1999. Bioregional 

assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 392 p.

Joyce, L.A. 2007. The impacts of climate change on forestry. In: Adams, 

D.M.; Haynes, R.W., eds. Resource and market projections for forest policy 

development: twenty-five years of experience with the US RPA timber 

assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 449–488.

Joyce, LA.; Birdsey, R., tech. eds. 2000. The impact of climate change on 

America's forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest 

Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 133 p.

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S. [et al.]. 2008. National forests. In: Julius, 

S.H.; West, J.M., eds. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climatesensitive ecosystems and resources. Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 19–84.

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S. [et al.]. 2009. Managing for multiple 

resources under climate change. Environmental Management. 44: 1022–1032.

Joyce, L.; Haynes, R.; White, R.; Barbour, J. 2007. Bringing climate change 

into natural resource management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-932. Portland, 

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

Station. 150 p.

Julius, S.J.; West, J.M., eds. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options 

of climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 873 p.

Kane, S.; Yohe, G. 2000. Societal adaptation to climate variability and change: an 

introduction. Climatic Change. 45: 1–4. 

Kaufmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A. [et al.]. 1994. An ecological basis 

for ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-246. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 22 p.
91

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Knowles, N.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus 

rainfall in the Western United States. Journal of Climate. 19: 4545–4559.

Kohm, K.A.; Franklin, J.F. 1997. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the 

science of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 475 p.

Lackey, R.T. 1995. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 40: 21–30.

Lenihan, J.M.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Drapek, R. 2008. Simulated response 

of conterminous United States ecosystems to climate change at different levels 

of fire suppression, CO2 emission rate, and growth response to CO2. Global 

and Planetary Change. 64: 16–25.

Lettenmaier, D.P.; Gan, T.Y. 1990. Hydrologic sensitivities of the Sacramento–

San Joaquin River basin, California, to global warming. Water Resources 

Research. 26: 69–86.

Ligeti, E.; Penney, J.; Wieditz, I. 2007. Cities preparing for climate change: 

a study of six urban regions. Toronto, ON: Clean Air Partnership. 

90 p. http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/cities_climate_change.pdf. 

(8 February 2011).

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; O’Halloran, K. 2011. U.S. national 

forests adapt to climate change through science-management partnerships. 

Climatic Change. 106(2). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0066-0.

MacIver, D.C.; Dallmeier, F. 2000. Adaptation to climate change variability: 

adaptive management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 61: 1–8.

Mantua, N.J.; Hare, S.R.; Zhang, Y. [et al.]. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate 

oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society. 78: 1069–1079.

Margoluis, R.; Salafsky, N. 1998. Measures of success: designing, managing, 

and monitoring conservation and development projects. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 384 p.

McCarthy, J.J.; Canziani, O.F.; Leary, N.A. [et al.], eds. 2001. Climate change 

2001. Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Working Group II. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 976 p.
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; Littell, J. 2009. Global warming and stress 

complexes in forests of western North America. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, 

M.J.; Riebau, A.R.; Anderson, C., eds. Wildland fires and air pollution. The 

Hague, Netherlands: Elsevier Publishers: 317–337.

McKinley, D.C.; Ryan, M.G.; Birdsey, R.A. [et al.]. 2011. A synthesis of current 

knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 21: 1902–1924.

McLachlan, J.S.; Hellmann, J.J.; Schwartz, M.W. 2007. A framework for 

debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology. 

21: 297–302.

Millar, C.I.; Brubaker, L.B. 2006. Climate change and paleoecology: new 

contexts for restoration ecology. In: Palmer, M.; Falk, D.; Zedler, J., eds. 

Restoration science. Covelo, CA: Island Press: 315–340. Chapter 15.

Millar, C.I.; Neilson, R.N.; Batchelet, D. [et al.]. 2006. Climate change at 

multiple scales. In: Salwasser, H.; Cloughesy, M., eds. Forests, carbon, and 

climate change: a synthesis of science findings. Portland, OR: Oregon Forest 

Resources Institute Publication: 30–60. Chapter 3.

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: 2145–2151.

Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D. 2010. Distribution and climatic relationships of 

American pika (Ochotona princeps) in the Sierra Nevada and western Great 

Basin, USA; periglacial landforms as refugia in warming climates. Arctic, 

Antarctic, and Alpine Research. 42: 76–88.

Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D.; Delany, D.L. [et al.]. 2004. Response of subalpine 

conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA, to 20th-century warming and 

decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. 36: 181–200.

Millar, C.I.; Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. The role of climatic change in interpreting 

historic variability. Ecological Applications. 9: 1207–1216.

Milly, P.C.D.; Betancourt, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Hirsch, R.M.; Kundzewicz, 

Z.W.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Stouffer, R.J. 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither 

water management? Science. 319: 572–574.

Mitchell, G.W. 2008. A brief history of triage. Disaster Medicine and Public Health 

Preparedness. 2(S1): S4-S7.
93

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Mladenoff, D.J. 2004. LANDIS and forest landscape models. Ecological 

Modelling. 180: 7–19.

Morelli, T.L.; Carr, S.C. 2011. A review of the potential effects of climate change 

on quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the Western United States and a 

new tool for surveying sudden aspen decline. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-235. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 31 p.

Morelli, T.L.; McGlinchy, M.C.; Neilson R.P. 2011. A climate change primer 

for land managers from the Sierra Nevada. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-262. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 44 p.

Morelli, T.L.; Yeh, S.; Smith, N.; Millar, C.I. [In press]. Climate project 

screening tool: an aid for climate change adaptation. Gen. Tech. Rep. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station.

Moritz, C.; Patton, J.L.; Conroy, C.J. [et al.]. 2008. Impact of a century of 

climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. 

Science. 322: 261–264.

Moser, S.; Luers, A.L. 2008. Managing climate risks in California: the need to 

engage resource managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic Change. 

(Suppl. 1) 87: 309–322.

Mote, P.W.; Hamlet, A.F.; Clark, M.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Declining 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society. 86: 39–49. 

Mote, P.W.; Salathé, E.P., Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. 

Climatic Change. 102: 29–50.

Nakićenović, N.; Swart, R., eds. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios: a 

special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 599 p.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. 2007. The first 

climate model. http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_

model/welcome.html#model. (3 February 2011).
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Office of Management and Budget. 2004. Final information quality bulletin for 

peer review. 45 p. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.

pdf. (10 February 2010).

Ogden, A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2007a. Incorporating climate change adaptation 

considerations into forest management and planning in the boreal forest. 

International Forestry Review. 9: 713–733.

Ogden, A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2007b. Perspectives of forest practitioners on climate 

change adaptation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada. Forestry 

Chronicle. 83: 557–569.

Ogden, A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2008. Climate change adaptation and regional forest 

planning in southern Yukon, Canada. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for 

Global Change. 13(8): 833–861.

Pearson, R.G.; Dawson, T.P. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change 

on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global 

Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 12: 361–371.

Pepin, N.C.; Lundquist, J.D. 2008. Temperature trends at high elevations: 

patterns across the globe. Geophysical Research Letters. 35: L14701, doi: 

10.1029/2008GL034026. 6 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Evers, L.; Gravenmier, R.A.; Eberhardt, E. 2007. A consumer 

guide: tools to manage vegetation and fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-690. 

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

Research Station. 151 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Halofsky, J.E.; Johnson, M.C. 2011. Managing and adapting to 

changing fire regimes in a warmer climate. In: McKenzie, D.; Miller, C.; Falk, 

D., eds. The landscape ecology of fire. New York: Springer Verlag: 249–267. 

Chapter 10.

Peterson, D.L.; Parker, V.T. 1998. Ecological scale: theory and applications. New 

York, NY: Columbia University Press. 608 p.

Pierce, D.W.; Barnett, T.P.; Santer, B.D.; Gleckler, P.J. 2009. Selecting global 

climate models for regional climate change studies. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 106: 8441–8446.
95

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Prentice, I.C.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W. [et al.]. 2006. Dynamic global 

vegetation modelling: quantifying terrestrial ecosystem responses to largescale environmental change. In: Canadell, J.G.; Pataki, D.; Pitelka, L.F., eds. 

Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag: 

175–192.

Raffa, K.F.; Aukema, B.H.; Bentz, B.J. [et al.]. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of 

natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark 

beetle eruptions. Bioscience. 58: 501–517. 

Randall, D.A.; Wood, R.A. 2007. Climate models and their evaluation. In: 

Solomon, S.; Quin, D.; Manning, M. [et al.], eds. Climate change 2007: the 

physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press: 598–662. 

Ray, A.J.; Barsugli, J.J.; Averyt, K.B. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: a 

synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. Boulder, CO: 

CU-NOAA Western Water Assessment. 52 p.

Regional Ecosystem Office [REO]. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed 

scale: federal guide for watershed analysis. Version 2.2. Revised August 1995. 

Available from Regional Ecosystem Office, PO Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-

3623. http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/watershd.pdf. (10 February 2011).

Reid, L.M.; Furniss, M.J. 1998. On the use of regional channel-based indicators 

for monitoring. 24 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA 95521. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/8519. (3 February 2011).

Rice, J.; Tredennick, A.; Joyce, L.A. [In press]. Climate change on the Shoshone 

National Forest, Wyoming: a synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and 

ecosystem implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Robinson, D.C.; Buekema, S.J.; Grieg, L.A. 2008. Vegetation models and 

climate change: workshop results. 50 p. Unpublished report. On file with: ESSA 

Technologies Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6H 3H4. http://www.essa.com/

documents/Vegetation%20Models%20and%20Climate%20Change%20-%20

Workshop%20Results.pdf. (8 February 2011).

Rojas Blanco, A.V. 2006. Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. 

Disasters. 30: 140–147. 
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Ryan, M.G.; Harmon, M.E.; Birdsey, R.A. [et al.]. 2010. A synthesis of the 

science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology. 13: 1–16.

Sadowski, M. 2008. An approach to adaptation to climate changes in Poland. 

Climatic Change. 90: 443–451.

Salathé, E.P., Jr.; Leung, L.R.; Qian, Y.; Zhang, Y. 2010. Regional climate model 

projections for the State of Washington. Climatic Change. 102: 51–75.

Salwasser, H.; Huff, M. 2001. Social and environmental challenges to restoring 

white pine ecosystems. In: Tomback, D.F.; Arno, S.F.; Keane, R.E., eds. 

Whitebark pine communities: ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 402–405.

Salwasser, H.; Pfister, R.D. 1994. Ecosystem management: from theory to 

practice. In: Covington, W.W.; DeBano, L.F. eds. Sustainable ecological systems: 

implementing an ecological approach to land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 150–161.

Santer, B.D.; Taylor, K.E.; Gleckler, P.J. [et al.] 2009. Incorporating model 

quality information in climate change detection and attribution studies. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106: 14778–14783.

Scheller, R.M.; Mladenoff, D.J. 2007. An ecological classification of forest 

landscape simulation models: tools and strategies for understanding broadscale forested ecosystems. Landscape Ecology. 22: 491–505.

Slaughter, R.; Wiener, J.D. 2007. Water, adaptation, and property rights on 

the Snake and Klamath Rivers. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. 43: 308–321.

Snover, A.K.; Whitely Binder, L.C.; Lopez, J. [et al.]. 2007. Preparing for 

climate change: a guidebook for local, regional, and state governments. Oakland, 

CA: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. 172 p.

Solomon, S.; Quin, D.; Manning, M. [et al.], eds. 2007. Climate change 2007: the 

physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 996 p.

Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K., eds. 2011. Forest adaptation resources: climate 

change tools and approaches for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-87. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 108 p.
97

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K., Iverson, L. [et al.]. 2011. Ecosystem 

assessment and synthesis: a report from the Climate Change Response 

Framework Project in northern Wisconsin. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-82. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 142 p. 

Swetnam, T.C.; Allen, C.; Betancourt, J. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using 

the past to manage the future. Ecological Applications. 9: 1189–1206.

Tausch, R.J.; Nowak, C.L.; Mensing, S.A. 2004. Climate change and associated 

vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: the paleoecological record. In: 

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R. eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 24–48. Chapter 2.

Turner, B.L.; Kasperson, R.E.; Matson, P.A. [et al.]. 2003. A framework for 

vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 100: 8074–8079.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1993. A first 

approximation of ecosystem health: National Forest System lands. Portland, OR: 

Pacific Northwest Region. 109 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1995. Sustaining 

ecosystems; a conceptual framework. R5-EM-TP-001. San Francisco, CA: 

Pacific Southwest Region. 216 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1999. Roads 

analysis: informing decisions about managing the national forest transportation 

system. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 222 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. 2000 RPA 

assessment of forest and range lands. Washington, DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/

research/2000rpa/rpaasses.pdf. (February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008. Forest 

Service strategic framework for responding to climate change: version 1.0. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climatechange-1-0.pdf. (3 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009a. Climate 

change considerations in land management plan revisions. http://www.fs.fed.us/

emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_land_mgmt_plan_rev.pdf. (3 February 

2011). 
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009b. Climate 

change considerations in project level NEPA analysis. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/

nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf. (3 February 2011). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010a. A 

performance scorecard for implementing the Forest Service climate change 

strategy. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/performance_scorecard_final.

pdf. (July 2010). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010b. Climate 

change considerations in land management plan revisions. http://www.fs.fed.us/

emc/nepa/climate_change. (3 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010c. National 

roadmap for responding to climate change. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/

pdf/roadmap.pdf. (3 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011a. Climate 

Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc. (8 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011b. Eastern 

Sierra climate change bibliography. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/climate_

change/wwci_toolkit/escc_bib/. (4 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. [In review].

RPA assessment of forest and range lands. Manuscript in preparation. http://

www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/pubs-supporting-2010-rpa-assessment.shtml. 

(4 February 2011). 

van Mantgem, P.J.; Stephenson, N.L.; Byrne, J.C. [et al.]. 2009. Widespread 

increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science. 

323: 521–524. 

Vogel, C.; Moser, S.C.; Kasperson, R.E.; Dabelko, G. 2007. Linking 

vulnerability, adaptation and resilience science to practice: players, pathways 

and partnerships. Global Environmental Change. 17: 349–364.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York, NY: 

Macmillan. 374 p.

Wang, J.; Bai, X.; Leshkevitch, G. 2010. Severe ice cover on Great Lakes during 

winter 2008–2009. EOS. 91: 41 R5-EM-TP-001. 43.
99

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan; D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006.

Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. 

Science. 313: 940–943.

Wiens, J.A.; Bachelet, D. 2010. Matching the multiple scales of conservation with 

the multiple scales of climate change. Conservation Biology. 24: 51–62.

Wilby, R.L.; Charles, S.P.; Zorita, E. [et al.]. 2004. Guidelines for use of climate 

scenarios developed from statistical downscaling methods. Bristol, United 

Kingdom: Environment Agency of England and Wales. 27 p.

Wilkinson, R.; Clarke, K.; Reichman, J. 2002. Preparing for climate change: 

the potential consequences of climate variability and change: a report of the 

California Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. Final draft report. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. 

431 p. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/CA_Report.pdf. (3 February 2010).

Williams, J.W.; Jackson, S.T. 2007. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and 

ecological surprises: past and future. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

5: 475–482.

Williams, P.; Hannah, L.; Andelman, S. [et al.]. 2005. Planning for climate 

change: identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae. 

Conservation Biology. 19: 1063–1074.

Yohe, G. 2000. Assessing the role of adaptation in evaluating vulnerability to 

climate change. Climatic Change. 46: 371–390.

Zielinski, B. 2010. Personal communication. Research ecologist, U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 

95521-6013.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Appendix 1—Example Documents From Climate 

Change Case Studies

These documents are posted on the Climate Change Resource Center Web site 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/adaptationguide):

Agenda from an Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park case 

study workshop

Analysis of cold air pooling at Devils Postpile National Monument

Inyo National Forest case study—collaboration workshop agenda

Inyo National Forest case study—collaboration workshop summary

Inyo National Forest case study—climate workshop summary

Inyo National Forest case study—planning and project implementation summary

Inyo National Forest case study—Eastern Sierra digital bibliography

Devils Postpile National Monument—science day agenda

Devils Postpile National Monument—science day summary

Devils Postpile National Monument—science day abstracts

Devils Postpile National Monument—resource planning workshop summary
101

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Appendix 2—Assessing Vulnerability to Climate 

Change: The Watershed Vulnerability Assessment 

Approach

Resource managers need locally based information to develop adaptive strategies 

for climate change and other issues. Intermediate scales, including subbasin, watershed, and subwatershed, are essential scales and units for assessing vulnerability 

because different exposures to climatic variability and change produce a wide range 

of effects on resource values in different watersheds. Therefore, appropriate adaptive responses, priorities, and prescriptions are needed for different locations (Reid 

and Furniss 1998). Priority setting, planning, project design, and decisionmaking 

are conducted most often at the intermediate scales, so assessment at these scales 

is typically relevant and applicable to specific programs and projects. After relative 

ecological vulnerabilities are determined, and administrative and logistic feasibilities are determined, land managers can target watersheds where resources can be 

most effectively invested to sustain or improve resilience.

In 2010, a pilot watershed vulnerability assessment (WVA) project, using a 

national forest-research collaboration, developed a draft assessment process that 

was then pilot tested by watershed and aquatic specialists on 11 national forests 

(table 6; fig. 10). The goal of the pilot WVA was to quantify the current and 

projected future condition of watersheds as affected by climate change to inform 

management decisionmaking (fig. 11). Because locally-based evaluation is a key 

component of the process, pilot forests were given latitude in geographic scale 

assessed, issues addressed, and reporting units used. Pilot forests were asked to 

include infrastructure, aquatic species, and water uses in the assessments. It was 

also agreed that the analysis area would include at least one “river basin” watershed 

(hydrologic unit code [HUC] 4). 

A principal objective of the pilot WVA was to develop a generalized process 

that could be tailored to local data availability and resource investment (fig. 10). 

Pilot forests were selected to provide a range of water resource issues and environmental factors, and each forest brought different levels of staffing and expertise to 

the project. Some forests had already begun to consider climate change and had 

some climate science available. The pilot results represent a range of analytical 

intensities, geographic settings, organizational settings, and subject-matter focus. 

A six-step process was developed (see box 4). It is based on a conceptual 

framework (fig. 11) that considered potential climate change effects as an additional 

factor affecting water resources, as influenced by watershed and hydrologic 

condition. These steps drew heavily from previous experience with watershed 
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

analysis (REO 1995). Some pilot forests changed the order of the steps as their 

assessment task was better understood, but in all cases, all six steps proved 

important in conducting the assessments. 

Step 1: Set Up the Assessment

Establish the geographic area for assessment, decide who will participate, and 

identify water resource values and essential information that will drive the 

assessment. Assessments need to be conducted over large areas, typically an entire 

national forest, with distinctions made at the subwatershed scale (HUC-6). Assessments can be simplified if they concentrate on only the highest priority values. 

Usually, lists of values can be prioritized to focus the analysis, and other values or 

issues can be evaluated during future iterations or other assessment efforts. For the 

pilot project, selection of resource values to be assessed included flood-plain and 

in-channel infrastructure, water uses (diversions and improvements), and aquatic 

species. The location and relative importance (within the analysis area) of the 

selected resources were characterized in this step. 

Table 6—National forests included in the pilot watershed vulnerability assessment

Pilot forest(s) Lead Scale of analysis Reporting scale Water resource values assessed

Chequamegon- Dale Higgins Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Wetlands, coldwater fishes, 

Nicolet ground water

Chugach Ken Hodges Eyak Lake basin HUC-4 (subbasin) Salmon, hydropower, infrastructure

Coconino Rory Steinke Five 5th-field HUC-6 (subwatershed) Amphibians, stream and riparian

watersheds habitat, infrastructure, water uses

Gallatin Laura Jungst Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Westslope cutthroat trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, water uses, 

 infrastructure

Grand Mesa, Carol Howe Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Aquatic habitats and species, 

Uncompahgre, water uses, infrastructure

and Gunnison

Helena Joan Louie Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Westslope cutthroat trout, bull

trout, recreational fisheries, 

 infrastructure

Ouachita Alan Clingenpeel Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Warmwater fishes, infrastructure

Sawtooth John Chatel National recreation HUC-6 (subwatershed) Salmon, bull trout, water uses, 

 area infrastructure

Shasta-Trinity Christine Mai Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Springs, salmon, redband trout, 

infrastructure, water uses

Umatilla Caty Clifton Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Salmon, water uses, infrastructure

White River Mark Weinhold Forest HUC-6 (subwatershed) Amphibians, Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, water uses, 

 infrastructure

HUC = Hydrologic unit code. 
103

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Figure 11—Terminology and conceptual model used in the pilot watershed vulnerability assessment.

Figure 10—Map of the distribution of national forests conducting pilot watershed vulnerability assessments. Each Forest Service region 

is represented by one or more national forests and together they encompass a wide diversity of natural settings and management contexts.

Exposure to

climatic

changes

Exposure × Values × Sensitivity = Vulnerability

Modifies

Intrinsic

sensitivity

Composite

sensitivity Vulnerability

Buffers

Stressors Adaptive

capacity

Management

Values

Influences Depends on Controls

Depends 

on

Depends 

on

Depends 

on

Tends to

increase

Tends to

increase

Tends to

increase

Tends to

decrease

Results

in

Modifies

Modifies

E

Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest

Watershed vulnerability assessment (WVA) pilot forests

Participating national forests

Other national forests

Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest

Umatilla 

National 

Forest

Sawtooth National Forest

Helena National Forest

Gallatin National Forest

White River National Forest

 Gunnison National Forest Uncompahgre 

 National Forest

Coconino National Forest

Ouchita National Forest 

Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest

Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest

Umatilla 

National 

Forest

Sawtooth National Forest

Helena National Forest

Gallatin National Forest

White River National Forest

 Gunnison National Forest Uncompahgre 

 National Forest

Coconino National Forest

Ouchita National Forest 

Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest

Chugach

National Forest

 Grand Mesa 

National Forest
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

Who participates in the assessment? Assessment of vulnerability is an important interdisciplinary issue for national forests. The assessment should include those 

specialists and staff who are relevant to the identified values. This may represent 

many specialties as water resources affect and are affected by most components of 

the environment and management activities. Available time and staff often limit 

participation, and limits should be noted so that the next iterations of assessment 

include missing input or involvement. 

Which information is needed? Existing data, model results, assessments, 

and plans are used whenever possible. Information needs differ according to the 

values and scope of each assessment. Whereas some important information may 

be acquired during the assessment, some may be too difficult, costly, or timeconsuming to obtain, and the assessment must proceed without it. This should be 

explicitly acknowledged, and the missing information can be prioritized for future 

acquisition. A useful outcome of assessments is knowledge of what is not known 

but is considered to be important. 

Important considerations for step 1 include: 

• Involve partners who can improve the assessment. 

• Determine the geographic scale of the analysis.

• Determine which water resources are most important in the analysis area.

• Determine which relevant broad-scale evaluations, assessments, and 

plans are available.

• Describe why a particular place is important. At a minimum, consider 

water uses, aquatic species and infrastructure (roads and recreational 

facilities) that could be affected.

• Identify the most important places if possible, categorize their value 

(high, moderate, low), and map them. 

• Consider potential uses (species, diversions, etc.) downstream of the 

watershed.

• Identify ecological thresholds or risk levels (flow requirements, 

temperatures, etc.) associated with specific resource values.

• Document critical data gaps, rationale and assumptions for inferences, 

references for data sources, and confidence (or uncertainty) associated 

with assessment outputs.

Step 2: Assess Exposure

Identify observed and projected climate change for the assessment area. “Exposure” is defined as the extrinsic climatic changes that have been documented or are 

projected to occur in the watershed. In this step, climatic data and modeled climatic 
105

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

projections provide a picture of how climate in the area has changed and is likely to 

change in coming decades. 

Projections of future climate should be based on the best available (generally 

more recent multimodel) published information on simulated changes in annual 

and seasonal average temperature and precipitation. Projections through 2050 have 

relatively high confidence, and although projections beyond 2050 can be considered, they have lower confidence. It is useful to document a range of scenarios (e.g., 

warm/dry, warm/wet) from multiple model projections. Considering projections 

based on moderate to high GHG emissions will allow a range of socioeconomic 

futures to be explored. Local historical data are especially valuable in providing 

context for climate change projections because the data can be directly linked with 

local water resource values relevant to resource management (e.g., snow depth).

Important considerations for step 2 include: 

• Quantify trends in available, relevant climate metrics. Local and regional 

data that display significant changes during the historical record demonstrate the potential for future changes. Include an example in the assessment if possible.

• Identify the effects of an altered climate on watershed processes.

• Identify hydrologic processes important to the identified resource value. 

• Determine how an altered climate will affect each resource value.

• Quantify the magnitude of differences in effects, as well as spatial and 

temporal variation.

• Include disturbance regimes in the analysis and quantify any disturbancerelated effects.

• Document critical data gaps, rationale and assumptions for inferences, 

references for data sources, and confidence (or uncertainty) associated 

with assessment outputs.

Step 3: Evaluate Sensitivity of Identified Values

Determine how identified values are likely to be affected by observed and 

projected exposure to climate change. This step of the assessment evaluates how 

natural and human-caused climatic variability and change will affect the response 

of each watershed to hydrologic changes resulting from observed and projected 

climatic changes. Some factors might minimize effects (buffers) and some might 

amplify effects (stressors). This step considers intrinsic characteristics of the 

watershed (geology, size, slope, aspect, etc.) and management-related characteristics 

(road density, grazing, water withdrawals, etc.) that affect the condition of the water 

resource value in question, and combine to influence the overall response of each 

Projections of future 

climate should be 

based on the best available (generally more 

recent multimodel) 

published information 

on simulated changes 

in annual and seasonal 

average temperature 

and precipitation.
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

resource. This combined assessment describes the likelihood that climate-induced 

hydrologic change will occur.

The product of this step is a ranking (e.g., low, moderate, high probability of 

response) for each watershed, typically at the HUC-5 or HUC-6 scale, in the assessment area relative to each water resource issue identified in step 1. Recent trends 

and projected future trends in resource conditions should also be included. For 

example, water diversions would exacerbate effects on a resource, whereas anticipated road improvements would improve condition and reduce effects that might 

otherwise occur. 

This step is likely to include factors of short-term importance to individual 

forests, but that may drive priorities for management. For example, duration of 

snowpack is critical for water supply and a wide range of other resource values, 

and spatial extent of tree mortality caused by insects and wildfire affects vegetation 

condition, fuels, and water yield. It may also be possible to use fire regime condition 

class to estimate the potential effects of wildfire on water quality and water yield.

Important considerations for step 3 include: 

• Determine the natural factors (geology, slope, etc.) affecting the hydrologic 

processes of concern. 

• Determine the sensitivity of watershed values to anticipated changes in 

natural features (geology, slope, etc.).

• Determine the sensitivity of watershed values to changes in existing and 

anticipated human-caused factors (roads, reservoirs, etc.). 

• Determine if each human-caused factor will serve as a buffer or stressor, 

and weigh the relative importance of the buffers and stressors in influencing condition and response.

• Evaluate trends or expected trends in stressors, and how they might affect 

restoration activities, as well as planned changes to management activities 

(e.g., changes to range allotments, water releases).

• Document critical data gaps, rationale and assumptions for inferences, 

references for data sources, and confidence (or uncertainty) associated 

with assessment outputs.

Step 4: Evaluate and Categorize Vulnerability

Combining exposure and sensitivity, determine the vulnerability of watersheds 

and subwatersheds to climate change. In this step, the location and extent of 

exposure are merged with the location and relative risk to water resource values. 

The product is a classification, typically by subwatershed (HUC-6), that displays 

relative vulnerability of the identified values. Results are described in narrative 

form, and mapped for the entire assessment area.
107

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

For example, relative vulnerabilities of water resources to climate change on 

the Umatilla National Forest were determined by displaying the relative density 

of water resource values by subwatershed, relative risk of change, and sensitivity 

of each subwatershed; these factors were combined to yield relative vulnerability. 

Relative risk of change to infrastructure for subwatersheds on the White River 

National Forest was based on factors affecting peak flows. Relative rating of 

watershed condition on the Ouachita National Forest was based on guilds of aquatic 

species affected by sediment, where sediment production was a function of projected changes in precipitation. Locations where changes in condition are expected 

can be used to prioritize management actions.

Important considerations for step 4 include: 

• Identify the highest risks of changes to hydrologic processes (e.g., using 

a risk-severity matrix).

• Determine how changes in hydrologic processes affect water resource 

values.

• Determine the relative vulnerabilities of subwatersheds across the assessment area (e.g., low, moderate, high) to inform priorities for adaptive 

response. In places where vulnerabilities are high, can resource values 

be sustained? 

• Identify administrative factors that should be factored into the rating, such 

as mixed ownership, likely partners, and potentially irreversible impacts 

such as dams and highways. 

• Document critical data gaps, rationale, and assumptions for inferences,

references for data sources, and confidence (or uncertainty) associated 

with assessment outputs.

Step 5: Set Priorities for Adaptive Responses

Establish priorities for adaptive management actions intended to maintain 

values and services in the assessment area. Overlaying administrative and social 

considerations on physical and biological vulnerabilities helps define priority 

watersheds for adaptive response. This step depicts where funding and personnel 

might be best focused to ensure desired resource conditions and watershed services. 

Recommendations for monitoring may also be included and should validate the 

effectiveness of adaptive responses. Results for the step are displayed in narrative 

form and mapped.

Important considerations for step 5 include: 

• Identify approaches that can enhance resilience and resistance sufficiently 

to protect resource values. Consider which effects of climate change might 

be irreversible, and how that can inform priority setting. 
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-855

• Identify management practices that would enhance restoration and 

realignment in both the short and long term, including the magnitude of 

treatment that would be required.

• Determine if land ownership and administrative status are conducive to 

planning and implementing treatments.

• Identify partners who would improve the likelihood of success.

• Determine if sufficient technical and financial capacity is available to 

implement treatments.

• Consider if additional information, analysis, or consultation is needed 

before setting priorities, including what is needed and when it is likely to 

be provided.

• Identify monitoring opportunities that should be prioritized to validate 

assumptions made in the assessment, track trends in key resource values, 

and provide data that inform key adaptive responses.

• Document critical data gaps, rationale, and assumptions for inferences, 

references for data sources, and confidence (or uncertainty) associated 

with assessment outputs.

Step 6: Critique the Assessment

Summarize understanding that was gained in the assessment to make subsequent assessments more efficient and useful. This step captures lessons learned 

and recommends ways to improve the WVA process. This is primarily a qualitative evaluation that benefits from broad participation by resource managers, 

scientists, and others in the assessment. Although the evaluation can be obtained 

through a roundtable discussion, documenting and distributing the comments in 

written form is recommended as a legacy of the project.

Important considerations for step 6 include: 

• Determine which information that was not available would have 

improved the assessment.

• Determine which partners or participants, if included, would have 

improved the assessment.

• Identify which components of the process were necessary, which made 

the biggest contribution, and which were not efficient or necessary.

• Make general and specific recommendations on how the next iteration 

of WVA could be improved.
109

Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options

Summary: Lessons Learned

Watershed and aquatic specialists from participating pilot forests were able to 

develop an approach for quantifying watershed vulnerability within a relatively 

short period, and move forward with assessments. Four national forests were able 

to complete the process within 8 months. Despite large differences in context and 

values across national forests, the basic framework and approach were applied 

successfully on all pilot forests. 

One of the most difficult aspects of the assessment process was acquiring 

suitable exposure data, which had not been used to any degree by the participants. 

Project completion could have been accelerated by making exposure data available 

at the regional level at the outset. Species and water use values of concern varied 

widely across pilot forests. In one case, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) was 

viewed as a stressor on one forest and a valued resource on another. The differences 

suggest that although information on various processes and resource conditions can 

be shared among forests, local (forest- and watershed-scale) assessments have the 

greatest value.

Focusing the assessment on values or key resources, which had been agreed 

upon earlier, was useful in developing a product with limited investment. Linkages 

with ongoing research were especially fruitful, resulting in assessments with a 

high level of scientific detail. Ongoing collaborative work in downscaling climatic 

projections to assess future stream temperature provided critical information at a 

useful spatial scale. In a few locations, national forest or regional managers had 

identified climate change effects on water resources as a concern, so some pilot 

forests had a head start in terms of funding, support, and data availability. 

Exposure projections are inherently uncertain, cannot typically be derived 

by forest specialists, and must be gathered and selected from what is currently 

available for each area assessed. By contrast, the sensitivity of forest resources is 

frequently well-known, and forest specialists are adept at analyzing how watersheds 

and landscapes would respond to rapid climatic changes Such sensitivity can be 

determined with levels of confidence that inform land management decisions and 

adaptive responses. 

As with most endeavors, the resulting products were strongly influenced by 

the experience and expertise of those participating. Those participants with the 

best local knowledge of forest resources and interactions tended to have the easiest 

time with the process. Use of pilot participants as trainers or facilitators for future 

assessments will make those assessments more credible and efficient. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

 Portland, OR 97208-3890

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.
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300