U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Techniques and Methods 6-C2

Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural 

Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide
Cover. Cable Mountain near old lookout station, in Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest, Montana. (Photograph from U.S. Forest Service.)
Integrating Climate Change 

Considerations into Natural Resource 

Planning—An Implementation Guide

By Jessi Kershner, Andrea Woodward, and Alicia Torregrosa

Techniques and Methods 6-C2

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation. 

Kershner, J., Woodward, A., and Torregrosa, A., 2020, Integrating climate change considerations into natural resource 

planning—An implementation guide: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. C2, 58 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6C2.

ISSN 2328-7055 (online)
iii

Contents

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

Introduction and Objectives.........................................................................................................................1

Concepts Informing The Climate Adaptation Integration Tool ...............................................................4

Evaluating Climate Data Across Scales ....................................................................................................6

Developing The Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT)..................................................................8

Using CAIT to Evaluate and Select Climate Adaptation Actions for Natural Resource Planning..10

CAIT Step 1: Assess the Vulnerability of the Resource to Climate Change..............................11

CAIT Step 2: Answer Critical Questions..........................................................................................11

CAIT Step 3: Select Management Approach .................................................................................11

CAIT Step 4: Select Adaptation Strategies And Actions To Implement Preferred 

Management Approach .......................................................................................................11

Additional Tool To Support Climate-Informed Natural Resource Management Planning: 

Ameliorates Vulnerability Table ...................................................................................................12

Case Study: Recreation Opportunities .....................................................................................................13

CAIT Step 1. Assess The Vulnerability Of The Resource To Climate Change ..........................13

CAIT Step 2. Answer Critical Questions..........................................................................................16

CAIT Step 3. Select Management Approach .................................................................................18

CAIT Step 4. Select Adaptation Strategies And Actions To Implement Preferred 

Management Approach .......................................................................................................19

Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................19

Case Study: Rangeland Vegetation ..........................................................................................................21

CAIT Step 1. Assess The Vulnerability Of The Resource To Climate Change ..........................21

CAIT Step 2. Answer Critical Questions..........................................................................................21

CAIT Step 3. Select Management Approach .................................................................................22

CAIT Step 4. Select Adaptation Strategies And Actions To Implement Preferred 

Management Approach .......................................................................................................22

Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................22

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................26

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................30

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................30

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................30

Appendix 1. Participants in Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT) Development..................37

Appendix 2. A Primer on Selecting Downscaled Climate Projections................................................38

Characteristics and Uses of Global Climate Models ....................................................................39

Down-Scaling......................................................................................................................................40

Choosing Among Models ..................................................................................................................40

Appendix 3. Selected Sources of Climate Data......................................................................................45

Appendix 4. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Recreation................................................................46

Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation ...........................................51
iv

Figures

1. Conceptual model describing the process of downscaling regional vulnerability

assessments and adaptation strategies and actions for use in natural resource

management plans and projects................................................................................................4

2. The Climate-Smart Conservation Cycle describing a generalized framework for

incorporating climate change considerations into conservation work ..............................5

3. Biplot graph iIllustrating change in projected future change in average

temperature and precipitation (2050–74) from the historical period (1981–2010)..............8

4. Overview of the process used to develop the Climate Adaptation Integration Tool.........9

5. Six screen shots of the National Climate Change Viewer showing annual snow

water equivalent mapped for the Upper Yellowstone region at 800-meter

resolution from six climate models..........................................................................................14

6. Maps that facilitated discussion of motorized winter recreation vulnerabilities............15

Tables

1. Climate change vulnerability of U.S. Forest Service Region 1 recreation

opportunities based on region–wide assessment of Halofsky and others (2018) ...........13

2. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for recreation opportunities.................16

3. Matrix of potential management approaches for recreation opportunities.....................18

4. Adaptation strategies and actions for recreation opportunities........................................20

5. Climate vulnerabilities for rangeland vegetation in U.S. Forest Service Region 1 ..........23

6. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for rangeland vegetation......................24

7. Matrix of potential management approaches for rangeland vegetation..........................26

8. Adaptation strategies and actions for rangeland vegetation .............................................27
v

Abbreviations

CAIT Climate Adaptation Integration Tool

CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

NRAP Northern Rockies Adaptation Partnership

SWE snow water equivalent 

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

cubic meter (m3) 0.0008107 acre-foot (acre-ft) 

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural 

Resource Planning— An Implementation Guide

By Jessi Kershner1, Andrea Woodward2, and Alicia Torregrosa2

Executive Summary 

Climate change vulnerability assessments and associated 

adaptation strategies and actions connect existing climate 

science with possible effects on natural resources and highlight 

potential responses. However, these assessments, which 

are commonly generated for large regional areas, suggest 

management options in general terms without guidance 

for choosing among strategies and actions under specific 

circumstances. Meanwhile, land and resource management 

plans1

 often address smaller geographies, and management 

actions must address specific rather than general situations. 

Thus, there is a need for tools that enable managers to bridge 

the gap by downscaling assessments, plans, and data generated 

at regional scales to identify adaptation actions and strategies 

appropriate for smaller management units and project-level 

planning.

To address this need, we have developed a tool–the 

Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT)–that helps 

resource managers use climate science and assessments, along 

with local knowledge, to identify those adaptation strategies 

and actions most appropriate for a given site or situation. 

Specifically, we provide:

1. Guidance for acquiring and using downscaled climate 

change projections;

2. Procedures for using these data to answer Critical 

Questions to make site-specific determinations of 

the appropriate management approach (specifically, 

resistance, resilience, transition, realignment, or no 

action);

3. Lists of potential adaptation strategies and actions 

appropriate to the chosen management approach; and

4. Supplemental information regarding adaptation 

strategies and actions to help managers choose among 

them.

The CAIT is meant to help managers integrate climate 

change science and assessments into management decisions. 

The CAIT also serves as a way for managers to document 

how they have incorporated climate change information into 

their decision-making and why certain actions were selected 

over others. A particular strength of the CAIT is that it leads to 

potential solutions (that is, adaptation strategies and actions) 

without inflexibly prescribing actions. This flexibility enables 

managers to incorporate other factors and constraints to create 

workable management plans and projects that strengthen their 

ability to achieve long-term conservation goals.

Introduction and Objectives

Climate change vulnerability assessments and associated 

adaptation strategies and actions are commonly generated at 

large spatial extents. While these assessments connect existing 

climate science with possible effects on natural resources and 

identify potential responses, they often suggest management 

options in general terms without guidance for choosing 

among actions given specific circumstances. Meanwhile, 

land and resource management plans2 often address smaller 

geographies, and management actions must address specific 

rather than general situations. Thus, there is a need for tools 

that enable managers to bridge the gap by downscaling 

assessments and data generated at regional scales to identify 

relevant adaptation strategies and actions for smaller 

management units. While “downscaling” usually refers to 

increasing the resolution of climate projections, the concept is 

relevant to any data, processes, or structures that have a lower 

resolution than is useful to meet a particular need. The specific 

examples illustrated in this document come from experience 

addressing the management of recreation opportunities (for 

example, ski areas, hiking trails, campgrounds) and rangeland 

vegetation resources in USFS Region 1, but the concepts are 

widely applicable.

1

EcoAdapt

2

U.S. Geological Survey

3

For example, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) plans, National Park Service

(NPS) general management plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

resource management plans, and environmental compliance documents.

4

Based on projections from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 

(CMIP5; western Montana) or CMIP3 (eastern USFS Region 1) for high 

emissions (A2 for CMIP3, RCP 8.5 for CMIP5) and low emissions (B1 for 

CMIP3; RCP 4.5 for CMIP5) scenarios.
Box 1. Climate change in the northern Rocky Mountains (Halofsky and others, 2018)

Climate Change Projections Increase of 4–5 °Celsius (7.2–9  ̊Fahrenheit) in annual air 

temperature by 2050

Increased winter precipitation

Potential Changes in Hydrology Decreased snowpack and earlier snowmelt

Altered timing of streamflow 

Decreased summer flows

Increased peak flows

Increased water temperature

Potential Changes in Disturbance Increased frequency and magnitude of droughts

Altered fire regimes

Increased insect and disease outbreaks

Potential Changes in Habitats 

and Species

Range and phenological shifts

Loss of biodiversity

Increase in invasive species

Species displacement

Exacerbation of existing stressors (for example, invasive species)

Increase in grassland productivity

Increased growth of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) populations

2 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

The USFS Region 1 includes 183 million acres (74 

million ha) in northern Idaho, Montana, northwestern 

Wyoming, North Dakota, and northern South Dakota. 

Projected changes in temperature and precipitation and their 

potential effects have been summarized by Halofsky and 

others (2018) for this region based on downscaled results from 

multiple global climate models and two emissions scenarios 

(box 1). The base period used to describe current conditions 

was 1970–2009; projections were for 2030–59 and 2070–99 

to describe periods relevant to long-term management actions 

(for example, road building, vegetation restoration). Results 

of overall changes are expected to alter the productivity 

and structure of vegetation and physical processes with 

consequences for habitat quality, quantity, and distribution.

Several governmental and non-profit agencies have 

generated climate impact assessments, climate change 

vulnerability assessments, and/or adaptation strategies for 

individual or multiple resources within areas encompassed by 

or including USFS Region 1. Examples include assessments 

created by the Northern Rockies Adaptation Partnership 

(NRAP), BLM Ecoregional Assessments, and State Wildlife 

Action Plan Updates3. Because of their spatial breadth, the 

recommendations of these reports are general and lack detailed 

guidance regarding how, when, and where to adopt potential 

adaptation strategies and actions (box 2).

3

Bureau of Land Management (2019); Northern Rockies Adaptation 

Partnership (2019); State of Idaho (2019); State of Montana (2019)

The Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT) 

described in this implementation guide is intended to help 

resource managers use climate science and assessments, along 

with local knowledge, to select the adaptation strategies and 

actions that are most appropriate for a given site or situation. 

Process elements of the tool include:

• Reviewing climate change vulnerability assessment 

and adaptation findings and downscaled climate 

information;

• Selecting a general management approach by 

considering the impacts of climate change on the 

resource of interest, the value of the resource, and its 

current condition; and

• Identifying the climate adaptation strategies and 

actions that may best support the selected management 

approach. 

In some cases, consideration of climate effects may result 

in managers reassessing the feasibility of previously stated 

objectives or modifying planned actions (fig. 1). In formal 

decision-making processes (for example, structured decision 

making; Marcot and others, 2012), we anticipate that using the 

CAIT will influence the setting of objectives and identifying 

and analyzing alternative actions. 
Box 2. Adaptation strategies and actions to address climate change vulnerabilities for recreation in 

the northern Rocky Mountains (adapted from table 10.4 in Halofsky and others, 2018)

Climate change effect Warm weather recreation season will increase in length

Adaptation strategy Provide sustainable recreation opportunities in response to changing demand

Action Assess changes in use patterns and identify demand 

shifts

Adjust capacity of recreation sites Adjust timing of actions such as 

road and trail closures

Where to apply Action At multiple levels (regional, 

forest-level, and local)

Where demand increases, as 

appropriate

All lands

Climate change effect Increases in flooding, fire, and other natural disturbances will cause damage to infrastructure

Adaptation strategy Manage recreation sites to mitigate risks to public safety and infrastructure and continue to provide recreation 

opportunities

Action Assess what recreation sites 

and infrastructure are at risk 

from increased flooding and 

other natural hazards

Prioritize post-disturbance treatments, including relocation, armoring and other mitigation measuresInvest strategically in developed 

recreation facilities, prioritizing 

those that will be viable in the 

future, and accommodate changing use patterns

Where to apply action All lands All lands All lands

Terminology varies such that our “actions” are called “tactics” by Halofsky and others (2018).

Introduction and Objectives 3
4 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

tac19-1334_fig 01

Climate Adaptation 

Integration Tool —

what critical questions 

to consider; what 

actions to take and why

Spatial Tools —

maps of current and 

future resource 

conditions to identify 

areas of change

Climate Adaptation 

Integration Tool —

what critical questions 

to consider; what 

actions to take and why

Spatial Tools —

maps of current and 

future resource 

conditions to identify 

areas of change

Regional vulnerability

assessments and 

adaptation strategies

Local planning and

compliance documents

and management actions

Example: Winter Recreation

Vulnerability: loss of 

sufficient snow

Identify current and future 

areas suitable for winter 

recreation based on snow 

depth, access, minimum 

area, etc.

Where will current, high 

value opportunities for 

winter recreation change?

Adjust objectives: identify 

management actions to 

support objectives (such as 

adjust open/close dates for 

snowmobile trails)

Figure 1. Downscaling regional vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies and actions for use in natural resource 

management plans and projects.

The following sections provide additional background 

and detailed guidance for using the CAIT. We first summarize 

the climate adaptation planning methodologies and decisionsupport concepts that informed the development of the 

CAIT. Next, we describe the process and considerations 

involved in selecting and applying downscaled results of 

general circulation models (GCMs) to smaller spatial extents 

and detail the methodology we used to develop the CAIT. 

Following this background information, we present the 

CAIT’s four steps along with two supporting matrix tools and 

highlight two case studies (recreation, rangeland vegetation) 

where the CAIT was used. The final section discusses using 

the CAIT, including lessons learned, and provides guidance on 

how to modify the tool for other resources.

Concepts Informing The Climate 

Adaptation Integration Tool

The CAIT presented here was developed through 

collaboration with resource management and geographic 

information system (GIS) staff of USFS Region 1 (app. 1). 

The specific goal was to build on:

• The Climate-Smart Conservation guidebook (Stein and 

others, 2014);

• Guidance for choosing and using climate scenarios for 

impact assessment (Snover and others, 2013);

• Adaptation approaches described in Scanning the 

Conservation Horizon (Glick and others, 2011);

• The USFS’s Climate Project Screening Tool (Morelli 

and others, 2012);

• The NRAP region-wide climate change vulnerability 

assessment and adaptation planning document 

(Halofsky and others, 2018); and 

• A decision support framework for selecting climateinformed conservation goals and strategies for native 

salmonids (Nelson and others, 2016).

Ultimately, our approach addresses several steps in 

the climate-smart conservation cycle (fig. 2). Specifically, 

the CAIT helps managers assess climate impacts and 

vulnerabilities, clarify management goals, identify possible 

adaptation actions, and evaluate and justify actions selected 

for implementation (steps 2–5). 
tac19-1334_fig 02

Step 6:

Implement 

priority 

adaptation 

actions

Step 2:

Assess climate 

impacts and 

vulnerabilities

Step 3:

Review/revise 

conservation goals 

and objectives

Step 4:

Identify possible 

adaptation options

Step 5:

Evaluate 

and select 

adaptation 

actions

Step 7:

Track action 

effectiveness 

and ecological 

response Step 1:

Define planning 

purpose and scope

Adjust 

actions as 

needed

Revisit

planning

as needed

Re-assess

vulnerability

as needed

Focus of this project

Concepts Informing The Climate Adaptation Integration Tool 5

Figure 2. Conservation Cycle (adapted from Stein and others, 2014) describing a generalized framework for incorporating climate 

change considerations into conservation work. [Dark blue band indicates scope of this guide.]

Effective natural resource management in the era of 

climate change must be informed by future projections of 

resource-relevant climate parameters downscaled to illuminate 

local spatial patterns (fig. 2, step 2; Snover and others, 2013). 

During the development of the CAIT, we found that forecasts 

of changes in temperature and precipitation were not specific 

enough to inform local decisions. For example, projections 

of changes in winter precipitation that are reported as snow 

water equivalents (SWE) were insufficient to inform decisions 

regarding winter motorized recreation that require knowledge 

of snowpack depth. Similarly, output from GCMs, which 

typically project temperature and precipitation in cells that 

span multiple degrees of latitude and longitude, were much too 

coarse. Even downscaled GCM output at the 7.5 by 7.5 mi (12 

by 12 km) scale most frequently used by Halofsky and others 

(2018) lacks the spatial resolution to describe an elevational 

gradient on a range of mountain peaks that is important to 

inform management decisions (for example, the siting of ski 

runs). Using concepts presented by Snover and others (2013) 

and knowledge gained from meetings with resource managers, 

we selected models and emissions scenarios to represent the 

widest range of future climate conditions (that is, warmestcoolest and driest-wettest), identified the set of most useful 

climate-derived variables for informing resource-specific 

decisions, and mapped variables at relatively small spatial 

extents.
6 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Climate change adaptation strategies and actions have 

been organized into three general management approaches: 

resistance, resilience, and transition (Millar and others, 2007; 

Glick and others, 2011). Alternatively, a manager could choose 

to take no action or to change the management goal for a 

site (box 3). Glick and others (2011) recognize that while 

resilience is the more frequently recommended approach, 

managing ecological transition may become more prevalent 

in future conservation projects, and resistance may be the 

only way to address climate vulnerability of highly valued 

resources. Depending on potential climate effects, it may be 

appropriate to take one approach in the near term and another 

in the long term. We used these three types of management 

approaches, along with two others–realignment and no action 

(box 3)–to create a management approach matrix (see “CAIT 

Step 3” description). We then grouped adaptation strategies 

and actions identified by NRAP according to management 

approach (see “CAIT Step 4” description).

The CAIT also draws on the approach presented in 

the USFS’s Climate Project Screening Tool (Morelli and 

others, 2012), which is designed to help managers integrate 

climate change considerations into management projectlevel planning, including developing adaptation strategies 

and actions. For a given management project, the Climate 

Project Screening Tool asks managers to examine climate 

change trends and local impacts, then use the information to 

answer a series of key questions about how climate changes 

may impact the management project activity and/or resource. 

Based on their answers to key questions, managers evaluate 

whether to proceed with the management project (that is, 

yes, no, or yes–with modification) and then are provided 

with recommendations for project-related climate adaptation 

strategies and actions. The CAIT builds on the structured 

question approach by adding guidance for using downscaled 

climate projections and incorporating information about 

current resource condition and value to select the most 

appropriate adaptation strategies and actions for a given 

situation.

The CAIT was developed in association with the 

authors of the three-step decision-support framework for 

climate adaptation for native salmonids in the Northern 

Rockies (Nelson and others, 2016). Similarities between 

tools are intentional, as we wanted managers of different 

resources (for example, fisheries, recreation opportunities, and 

rangeland vegetation) to have a common foundation for, and 

understanding of, how to reflect local and/or individual forest 

situations when selecting potential adaptation strategies and 

actions generated at the regional level. 

Lastly, a primary goal of the CAIT is to help resource 

managers of USFS Region 1 integrate climate change 

considerations, including vulnerability and adaptation, into 

their forest plan revisions as well as project-level planning. 

Halofsky and others (2018) provide the necessary groundwork 

for considering climate change effects. This document 

takes managers to the next step of identifying what specific 

adaptation actions may be most appropriate to implement for a 

given situation and documenting the rationale for the selected 

approach.

Evaluating Climate Data Across Scales 

Fundamental to integrating climate change considerations 

into natural resource planning is projecting future climate 

conditions in order to assess future climate suitability for the 

resource under consideration. Two decisions must be made 

when using future projections of climate models for the 

assessment: which models to consider and which variables 

to use. These two decisions can occur in either sequence. In 

this section we describe the sequence that first selects a subset 

of GCMs followed by a subsequent sub-setting of model(s) 

based on climate variables. In appendix 2, we describe the 

alternative approach of first selecting appropriate models 

based on climate variables and then selecting a subset from 

those to arrive at a tractable number of models. 

The first decision involves identifying a subset of models 

that adequately simulate current climate. In USFS Region 1, 

this meant reproducing seasonal cycles and a twentieth century 

warming trend of 0.8 oC (1.5 °F) (Mote and Salathé, 2010). 

The models can be evaluated using validation statistics found 

in the literature (for example, Rupp and others, 2013). While 

identifying useful models is complicated by the multiplicity 

of available models, resources from the Coupled Model 

Intercomparison Project (CMIP; box 4) are helpful. CMIP5, 

which is the latest iteration of this process, was released in 

2014, with 20 modeling groups each contributing from 1–5 

different models. 

Next, from the set with the best simulations, a smaller 

subset of models is selected to represent the range of 

potential climate futures (best case, worst case, median). In 

USFS Region 1, we graphed the subset of models with good 

validation statistics to select representative extremes. In figure 

3, the importance of downscaling becomes more evident when 

annual statistics are run for different states, such as Idaho 

(ID) and Montana (MT). For example, GFDL-ESM2M, the 

model with driest/warmest projections for ID is the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), whereas for MT 

it is MIROC3. The distribution of models will also differ with 

variables graphed. The AdaptWest portal for Western North 

American spatial data (AdaptWest, 2020) has a wealth of 

comparative tables helpful for climate-data selection (Wang 

and others, 2016) using the four-quadrant approach. Other 

sources of climate data and evaluation tools are available in 

appendix 3.
Box 3. Management approaches (definitions)

Resistance A management strategy or action designed to limit climate change impacts on a resource and/or bolster a resource’s 

capacity to retain fundamental structure, processes, and functioning in response to rapid environmental change (for 

example, promote native plant species). Near-term, management intensive approach.

Resilience A management strategy or action designed to bolster a resource’s ability to absorb and recover from rapid 

environmental change (for example, revegetate with species adapted to projected conditions). Management intensive 

in the near-term with the goal of getting a resource to a place where it has the capacity to reorganize and regain its 

fundamental structure, processes, and functioning when altered by stressors. Near- to mid-term approach.

Transition A management strategy or action designed to intentionally accommodate change and adaptively respond to 

new conditions (for example, create new recreation opportunities at existing sites). Long-term approach.

Realignment A management strategy or action aimed at revisiting and revising underlying management goals and 

priorities (for example, introduce endemic species into future climatically suitable areas). Long-term approach.

No Action A deliberate management strategy to respond to change with no action beyond observation. Long-term approach.

Notes: These terms refer to the planning horizon, not necessarily the time when actions should be taken. For example, if “transition” is 

the goal, it may require near-term actions to achieve the goal over the long-term. 

Definitions were adapted from Holling (1973), Millar and others (2007), Heller and Zavaleta (2009), and Chambers and others (2017).

Evaluating Climate Data Across Scales 7

Box 4. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) 

Models are periodically analyzed through the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which compares model output 

from a variety of models all using the same inputs. Results clarify differences in methods for modeling climate dynamics, 

illuminate differences in modeled climate projections, and support international assessments of climate change 

(see app. 2 for more detail).

The models for CMIP3 and CMIP5 range in grid cell resolution from 30–500 km, which cannot capture important variation due to finer

landscape patterns. Processes such as cold-air pooling, which is especially important in areas with significant topographic relief, strongly 

impact snowpack dynamics and affect assessments of snow-dependent resources (Curtis and others, 2015). Capturing the relevant 

level of climatic variability across the landscape requires downscaling GCM output to smaller grid sizes. Additionally, the projections 

are only useful if they describe future conditions at a scale appropriate for decision-making and illustrate a range of future climate

scenarios (Mote and others, 2011; Rupp and others, 2013). To meet these needs, monthly temperature and precipitation output from 

30 CMIP5 climate models run under the radiative forcing levels (watts per square meter) of four representative concentration 

pathways (RCP) emission scenarios are available at 800-meter resolution nationwide (Thrasher and others, 2013). Model output from 

two RCP scenarios were used by Hostetler and Adler (2016) to derive nationwide grids at 800 m for runoff, snow water equivalent, soil

storage, and evaporative deficit using the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model under two emission scenarios: 

RCP 4.5, a future trajectory of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that peaks around 2040 and then declines and RCP 8.5, 

a trajectory that leads to a much hotter earth, and the expected trajectory if emissions continue to rise at the current rate.
tac19-1334_fig 03

Dry/Warm

Dry/Cool Moist/Cool

Moist/Warm

BNU-ESM (ID) CanESM2 (ID)

GFDL-ESM2M (ID)

HadGEM2-CC (ID)

MIROC5 (ID)

GFDL-CM3 (ID)

BNU-ESM (MT)

CanESM2 (MT)

GFDL-ESM2M (MT)

HadGEM2-CC (MT)

MIROC5 (MT)

GFDL-CM3 (MT)

HadGEM2-AO (ID)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Change in annual maxium temperature , in degrees Celsius

Change in precipiation, in millimeters per month

HadGEM2-AO (MT)

FIO-ESM (ID) FIO-ESM (MT)

MRI-CGCM3 (MT)

MRI-CGCM3 (ID)

GFDL-ESM2G (MT)

GFDL-ESM2G (ID)

8 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Figure 3. Illustrating change in projected future change in average temperature and precipitation (2050–74) from the 

historical period (1981–2010), using output from seven CMIP5 GCMs: BNU-ESM, CanESM2, FIO-ESM, GFDL-CM3, GFDLESM2G, HadGEM2-AO, HadGEM2-CC, MIROC5, and MRI-CGCM3 for Idaho (ID) and Montana (MT) with four quadrants 

demarcated: moist/cool, moist/warm, dry/cool, and dry/warm conditions (adapted from Alder and Hostetler, 2013). See 

appendix 2 for climate model acronyms and suggested steps for generating a similar quadrant graph for your area.

The second decision, picking climate variables, involves 

identifying the indicators that best inform the management 

discussion about the resource. In some cases, this is the 

climate variable that has the strongest impact on the 

functioning of the resource (for example, snowpack depth for 

snowmobiling). In other cases, it may be a climate variable 

that indirectly affects the resource (for example, minimum 

temperature as an indicator of early spring). Identifying the 

key climate change vulnerability factors (fig. 4) helps with 

the selection of the climate variable associated with the 

most significant threat. With the selection of a key variable, 

managers consider the model outputs with the widest range 

for that climate variable using the previously described fourquadrant approach. For example, we used snow layers from 

the CSIRO and Japanese MIROC3 models for the workshop 

with the Gallatin National Forest in Montana, whereas we 

used snow layers derived from the NCAR and MIROC3 

models for the workshop with the Nez Perce-Clearwater 

National Forest in Idaho. 

Developing The Climate Adaptation 

Integration Tool (CAIT)

In this section we provide an overview of the process 

used to develop the CAIT and details on how we tailored it 

to support recreation and rangeland vegetation management 

planning in USFS Region 1. The CAIT was developed through 

iterative interactions with USFS Region 1 resource managers, 

GIS spatial analysts, and regional coordinators via in-person 

workshops, conference calls, and emails (fig. 4). The tool itself 

is presented in the following section, with specific examples 

for recreation opportunities and rangeland vegetation 

presented in subsequent sections, respectively.

We initiated the process by having USFS staff identify 

high-priority resource topics of interest (fig. 4) for which 

to develop a draft CAIT. The staff selected recreation 

opportunities and rangeland vegetation as topics because those 

items were already receiving attention in forest plan revisions. 
Developing The Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT) 9

tac19-1334_fig 04

Match 

management 

approaches 

with climate 

adaptation 

options

Create 

management 

approach 

matrix

Develop

Critical Questions 

for assessing and 

ranking relative 

vulnerability

Identify 

primary 

planning 

considerations 

of managers

Consult

NRAP to identify 

climate change 

vulnerability 

factors

Identify

high priority 

resources of 

management 

interest

Figure 4. Process used to develop the Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT) in collaboration 

with U.S. Forest Service staff.

Besides being subjects of management planning efforts, these 

topics were of great interest to resource managers who were 

also available to provide input through in-person and remote 

engagements (app. 1).

We then used vulnerability assessment and adaptation 

planning documents produced by Halofsky and others (2018) 

to identify the key climate change vulnerability factors (fig. 4) 

influencing each resource topic (CAIT Step 1 below and case 

studies). For example, warmer winter temperatures and the 

amount, timing, and type of precipitation were key climate 

factors identified for winter recreation opportunities. Climate 

projections, expected impacts, vulnerability assessments, and 

local knowledge were all used to identify the ways in which 

climate change may affect a resource. For the purposes of the 

CAIT, it is important to select the factors that represent the 

most significant threat to the resource. For example, type and 

amount of precipitation significantly influence conditions for 

snowmobiling, a recreation activity that depends entirely on 

snow levels. 

Simultaneous to our exploration of key climate change 

vulnerability factors, we experimented with several types of 

decision-support structures (for example, Oliver and others, 

2012; Castro and others, 2015), testing these with managers to 

arrive at a framework that struck a balance between being too 

prescriptive to address a range of situations against too general 

to truly provide guidance. As part of this testing, we worked 

with both recreation and rangeland vegetation managers to 

describe their primary planning considerations when making 

decisions about a specific resource. Based on these discussions 

and a review of papers and reports, we identified three primary 

planning considerations (fig. 4):

• Future climatic suitability: To what extent will climate 

change impact the resource? For example, climate 

change can lead to the loss or creation of recreation 

opportunities, shift the timing or availability of 

access, and/or alter use patterns. Climate change 

can also lead to the loss or expansion of rangeland 

habitats, exacerbate the impacts of existing, nonclimate stressors (for example, ungulate grazing), and 

increase the extent and severity of disturbance regimes 

(Halofsky and others, 2018). 

• Resource/site value: How important and/or unique is 

the resource opportunity/site, and is it likely to persist? 

For example, a rangeland site may be considered 

highly valuable if it contains rare or endemic species or 

is recognized as an important grazing area. Similarly, 

a recreation site that provides the only snowmobiling 

opportunity within 100 miles (mi) of a population 

center may also be highly valued.

• Current condition: What is the current state of the 

resource opportunity/site being considered? For 

example, some recreation sites may already exist 

at the edge of climatic suitability (for example, ski 

resorts in lower elevation areas) and/or have degraded 

or marginal infrastructure that requires substantial 

investment. Similarly, the ecological condition of a 

given rangeland site may be currently degraded, for 

example, due to invasive species or uncharacteristic fire 

regimes.

Once the primary planning considerations were identified, 

we developed Critical Questions for assessing and ranking a 

resource’s relative vulnerability (fig. 4) to climate change (see 

section, “CAIT Step 2”). The Critical Questions were designed 

to help managers document their logic and understanding of 

the likely impact of climate change, resource/site value, and 

current condition to justify decisions regarding management 

objectives and appropriate strategies and actions. The order 

in which the planning considerations and their questions are 

presented is intended to encourage managers to confront 

the projected degree of changing climatic conditions before 

addressing the site characteristics that are routinely considered 

in management plans and projects. Placing consideration 

of future suitability first is a powerful method of mental 

reorganization that serves to bring the reality of a changed 

climate to the forefront (Wollenberg and others, 2000; Cook 

and others, 2014).
10 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Answering these three sets of Critical Questions gives 

an overall picture of relative vulnerability of the resource 

to climate change and helps narrow down the adaptation 

strategies and actions to those that may be most applicable. 

Recorded answers to Critical Questions can also be 

incorporated into justification statements for planning and 

decision-making in environmental compliance documents. For 

recreation and rangeland vegetation, the Critical Questions 

related to each of the planning considerations were drawn 

from a literature review and discussed with managers who 

were actively involved in updating forest plans and designing 

management projects. We found that preparing a draft set of 

Critical Questions and presenting them during a structured 

workshop with managers, as done by the Climate Project 

Screen Tool (Morelli and others, 2012), was the most effective 

approach for obtaining feedback. Post workshop feedback 

indicated that the group had attained more co-production 

of potential solutions to management challenges than they 

usually experienced in these types of situations. Participants 

and workshop leaders ascribed this result to the strategic 

inclusion of individuals with skills and expertise in each of the 

following:

• Technical expertise in the resource topic (for example, 

recreation, rangeland vegetation);

• Region-wide understanding of institutionally specific 

planning mechanisms;

• Knowledge of and familiarity with plans and projects 

occurring across the region and an ability to use this 

perspective to cut across jurisdictional boundaries;

• Knowledge of and familiarity with USFS institutional 

geospatial holdings;

• Knowledge of and access to local geospatial data; and

• Long-term experiential knowledge of existing 

conditions and memory of prior institutional responses 

to extreme weather and environmental conditions.

Using the answers to the Critical Questions, we went on 

to create a management-approach matrix (fig. 4; see CAIT Step 

3 and case studies below) that aligned relative vulnerability 

with different management approaches that could be taken in 

the near- or long-term (see box 3). For example, a high-value 

resource with good current condition that is likely to remain 

climatically suitable in the future is considered less vulnerable, 

and management approaches that maintain or enhance the 

resource will likely be appropriate. Conversely, a high value 

resource with marginal current condition that is likely to 

become climatically unsuitable in the future is considered more 

vulnerable, and managers may need to consider new or different 

approaches and adaptation strategies. Managers can also use 

the matrix to choose one approach to take now with the goal of 

implementing a longer-term approach later.

After linking management approaches with Critical 

Question responses, we matched approaches with climate 

adaptation strategies and actions (case studies sections and 

“CAIT Step 4” description) culled from the scientific literature 

and summary reports from regional climate adaptation 

workshops. The adaptation strategies and actions listed are 

not meant to be exhaustive but are representative of the ideas 

developed by managers and scientists in the region. Managers 

are encouraged to consider other ideas or actions they have 

developed or seen applied elsewhere.

Using CAIT to Evaluate and Select 

Climate Adaptation Actions for Natural 

Resource Planning

The CAIT involves four steps, which are detailed 

here. Two case studies describing use of the CAIT follow 

in subsequent sections. The CAIT can be used to evaluate 

and select adaptation strategies and actions at the project or 

site level as well as program or planning levels. In general, 

the Critical Questions (CAIT Step 2 described below) are 

aimed at project-level planning; however, several questions 

are intended to place the assessment of individual sites into a 

broader context (for example, considering the fate of nearby 

sites and whether the site’s function is available elsewhere). 

For more holistic adaptation planning, we recommend 

answering the Critical Questions for multiple sites in a 

larger planning area (for example, watershed, forest), with 

the intention of considering the sites relative to one another. 

For example, looking at multiple sites that provide winter 

snowmobiling opportunities to better assess which sites may 

be more vulnerable and which adaptation actions may be best 

suited to a given site. This will help ensure that a portfolio 

of adaptation strategies and actions is selected, spreading 

risk across sites, rather than the implementation of the same 

adaptation strategy or action at all sites. 
Using CAIT to Evaluate and Select Climate Adaptation Actions for Natural Resource Planning 11

Considering answers above, choose 

the most 

appropriate level of vulnerability

Considering answers above, choose 

the most appropriate level of 

vulnerability

Summary Determination

A- Climatically Suitable (conditions 

likely to become or remain suitable 

to meet demand for opportunity)

B- Climatically Marginal (conditions 

may remain suitable in the 

short–term to meet demand for the 

opportunity)

C- Climatically Unsuitable (conditions 

likely to become unsuitable to meet 

demand for the opportunity)

D- High Value (higher value; 

unique opportunity provided 

by the forest)

E- Moderate Value (somewhat valued; 

opportunity may be provided 

elsewhere)

F- Low Value (lower value; 

opportunity may be provided 

elsewhere

Future suitability: ______ Resource value: ______

Find your 3–letter code (Future suitability + Resource value + Current condition) in 

the list below

If you answered:Go to Matrix Cell: If you answered: If you answered:

A D G 1 B D G C D G

A D H 10 B D H C D H

Adaptation strategies Adaptation actions

Resistance

Manage recreation sites to 

mitigate risks to public 

safety and infrastructure and to 

continue to provide 

recreation opportunities for as 

long as possible

• Focus on activities that will remain feasible 

given projected changes, and preserve those 

recreation opportunities

• Shift location of activities to maintain 

opportunities and/or to mitigate safety risks

• Relocate at-risk infrastructure

• Maintain to safety standards for as long 

as possible

• Maintain and/or improve current recreation 

infrastructure at sites that will remain viable 

under future climate conditions

Resilience

Increase management flexibility 

to respond to 

changing access demands, 

use patterns, 

and resource availability

• Adjust infrastructure maintenance schedule as 

needed to accommodate changing conditions 

and/or demand issues

• Monitor recreation sites and set trigger points 

to determine when a site should be closed or 

access restricted

• Educate the public about changing site 

conditions 

and/or safety issues

CAIT Step 1: Assess the Vulnerability of the Resource to Climate Change

To begin this first step, define the focal resource (for example, recreation opportunity 

or rangeland vegetation) and assess its vulnerability to climate and non-climate stressors. 

Regional climate change vulnerability assessments can be used to identify the key climate 

and non-climate factors that influence the resource. For example, key climate vulnerabilities 

for winter-based recreation may include amount, timing, and type of precipitation, while 

non-climate vulnerabilities include increased human populations and deferred or neglected 

maintenance. Document the key climate and non-climate stressors for a resource, including the 

data and information that you consulted. 

Use the list of key climate and non-climate vulnerabilities to help guide the choice of 

spatial information and maps to assemble and map and use as aids in answering the Critical 

Questions in CAIT Step 2.

CAIT Step 2: Answer Critical Questions

Use the results compiled in CAIT Step 1: assessment of climate change vulnerabilities, 

expert knowledge, and spatial data and maps, to answer the Critical Questions for three 

planning considerations: future climatic suitability, value, and current condition. It is important 

to define a reference point6 prior to answering Critical Questions for current condition, as these 

Critical Questions are intended to help you evaluate how much a resource departs from a given 

point. When considering Critical Questions regarding value, maps of value determined for 

multiple sites can put individual sites into the context of regional conditions so assessments 

of high, medium or low value are consistent. Consider and document your answers to the 

questions, including the data and information that you consulted and how it influenced your 

answers. Based on your responses to the Critical Questions, select the overall summary 

determination for each planning consideration.

Once summary determinations in the form of a three-letter code have been selected for each 

of the three planning considerations, go to 

CAIT Step 3.

CAIT Step 3: Select Management Approach

Use the three-letter code summary determination made in CAIT Step 2 to locate the 

corresponding management approach matrix cell. Each cell in the matrix lists at least one 

management approach that reflects the summary determinations for climate suitability, value, 

and current condition. Management approaches include resistance, resilience, transition, 

realignment, and no action (box 3). Select the approach that best suits the given situation for 

your resource. Consider approaches to implement in the near- or short-term (that is, resistance, 

resilience) as well as those more suitable in the long-term (that is, transition, realignment). 

Once the preferred management approach has been selected, move on to CAIT Step 4.

6

For example, historical range of variation assessments provide baseline information on ecosystem conditions (composition, structure, and function) that can 

be compared to current conditions.

CAIT Step 4: Select Adaptation Strategies and Actions to Implement 

Preferred Management Approach

Use the preferred management approach selected in CAIT Step 3 to locate the associated 

adaptation strategies and actions in the CAIT Step 4 reference table. Adaptation strategies may 

be most appropriately integrated into plans and programs, while adaptation actions may be 

most applicable to on-the-ground projects. Adaptation actions can also be integrated into the 

Potential Management Approaches section of a forest plan.
Additional Tool to Support ClimateInformed Natural Resource 

Management Planning: Ameliorates 

Vulnerability Table

To support the selection and prioritization of adaptation 

actions to implement, we created “ameliorates vulnerability 

tables” (appendices 4 and 5), which link potential adaptation 

actions with the climate and non-climate stressors they are 

thought to reduce or minimize. Based on scientific literature 

review and expert opinion, each action was evaluated 

according to whether it is likely to reduce the impact of 

a given climate and non-climate stressor, and/or likely to 

increase general resilience of the resource. In some cases, 

actions were classified as indirect, indicating that they may 

not immediately reduce a given impact but perhaps could if 

given time and/or an appropriate implementation response. 

Strategies and actions based on research, monitoring, and 

assessment, and planning and collaboration were primarily 

classified as indirect (based on expert opinion).

Information gathered during the four CAIT steps can be 

integrated directly into land and resource management plans 

(box 5). Generally, climate impacts and vulnerability 

assessment information can help resource managers articulate 

the purpose and need for a plan or project as well as the 

affected environment and environmental consequences; 

while adaptation strategies provide the proposed actions. In 

particular, the ameliorates vulnerability tables that have been 

created through this project can be used to more explicitly 

address the purpose, demonstrate why the proposed action 

was selected over alternatives, and guide the creation of 

monitoring indicators. 

Box 5. Identifying the “need for change”

“Need for change” describes a strategic change to the current Forest Plan. As part of Forest Plan revisions, all forests are required 

to identify where and how the current plan requires modification in order to ensure long-term sustainability of resources given 

resource conditions, trends, and risks. Identifying the “need for change” provides the foundation for creating forest plan 

components, especially articulation of “desired conditions.”

CAIT Steps 1 and 2, as well as the downscaled climate maps, provide important information to help develop “need for change” 

statements. Reviewing vulnerability assessment information for a given resource (CAIT Step 1) presents managers with a general overview 

of the current condition of the resource as well as current and projected future trends and risks to the resource due to 

climate change. Answering Critical Questions (CAIT Step 2) and using downscaled climate maps goes beyond generalities to more directly 

consider the long-term sustainability of the resource (for example, are climate conditions likely to become or remain suitable to meet 

demand for the recreation opportunity?) and provide critical support (for example, high value, unique recreation opportunity provided by the 

forest) for articulating the “need for change.” For example, a current forest plan may limit the pace and scale of 

vegetation management activities in or near recreation and/or historic sites. Based on projected future trends in wildfire, it may be important 

to develop new “desired conditions” that encourage vegetation management in these sites to avoid the loss of these 

resources during catastrophic fire events.

While “need for change” statements are specific requirements of Forest Plans, the need to explain and justify changes 

in resource management is generally required across all government agencies.

12 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide
Case Study: Recreation Opportunities 13

Case Study: Recreation Opportunities

We worked with staff of the USFS regional office and 

Custer-Gallatin, Flathead, Helena-Lewis and Clark, and Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests to test the CAIT using 

recreation opportunities. Recreation is notable because the 

topic generates the most public comments during Forest Plan 

revisions. Managers indicated that climate change generally 

is considered less relevant to recreation management than 

resources that are more strictly biological, so they were 

interested in exploring how changes in climate might affect 

management decisions regarding recreation. While discussions 

focused on using the CAIT in the context of Forest Plan 

revisions, the CAIT development group also explored how the 

tool supports site-based planning.

CAIT Step 1. Assess the Vulnerability of the 

Resource to Climate Change 

Recreation opportunities were addressed for three 

categories: winter-based, warm-weather-based, and waterbased. Unsurprisingly, climate vulnerabilities vary with 

category (table 1). In our discussions with resource managers, 

we focused on winter recreation. 

We used the National Climate Change Viewer (based on 

Adler and Hostetler, 2013; fig. 5) (U.S Geological Survey, 

2019) to familiarize USFS Region 1 managers with the range 

of climate projections available and the geography of impact, 

select a subset of climate projections relevant for winter 

recreation opportunities, and discuss how to plan for changing 

conditions. We layered relevant climate variables into an 

interactive mapping software platform GIS that included 

USFS-generated datasets. The goal of this activity was to tap 

the site-based knowledge and experience of managers while 

exploring familiar sites under several future climate scenarios. 

Placing familiar sites within the larger context of climate 

impacts across the region also served to expand the geography 

of options. For example, if a site was no longer climatically 

suitable for a given winter recreation opportunity, there may 

be another site in the region to replace it.

Through discussions with recreation managers, reduction 

in snow depth was identified as the most significant threat 

to winter recreation because it constrains opportunities for 

motorized activities. Specifically, resource managers identified 

the need to know the spatial distribution of snow depth by 

month to identify areas and times suitable for snowmobiling 

(fig. 6). Snow depth is not a climate variable output from 

GCMs; however, SWE is an output. We converted SWE to 

snow depth using calculations from snow research literature. 

The use of snow depth as the portal for viewing a potential 

future landscape condition opened the door for participants 

to incorporate their management expertise into the discussion 

regarding the logic, rationale, and issues associated with winter 

recreation decisions (for example, when to open or close a 

snowmobiling trail or relocate trailhead infrastructure)

Table 1. Climate change vulnerability of U.S. Forest Service Region 1 recreation opportunities based on region–wide 

assessment of Halofsky and others (2018).

Recreation opportunity Key climate vulnerabilities

Winter–based (for example, downhill skiing, 

cross–country skiing, snowmobiling)

Maximum and minimum daily temperatures

Amount, timing, and phase of precipitation

Warm–weather–based (for example, hiking, 

biking, 

camping, sightseeing)

Timing and number of days with comfortable temperature ranges

Season length

Wildfire (specifically, changes in site quality and characteristics, smoke)

Water–based (for example, rafting, kayaking, 

boating, swimming)

Changes in water levels due to increased temperatures, decreased snowpack, 

and increased precipitation variability

Increasing temperatures

Longer warm–weather seasons
tac19-1334_fig 05

A

C

E

B

D

F

14 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Figure 5. Annual snow water equivalent mapped for the Upper Yellowstone region at 800-meter resolution from six climate models. 

[The redder the shading is, the greater the decrease in snow water equivalent (SWE). The bluer the shading is, the greater the increase 

in SWE. Watershed boundaries appear in black, with the Clarks Fork Yellowstone Watershed highlighted in bold. The “climograph” on 

the left, underneath each map, shows historical (1950–2005) annual inches of SWE in blue for each month (January–December) and 

projected future (2050–74) in red. The histogram on the right, underneath each map, is identical for all models and shows the number of 

models (Y-axis) distributed by projected change in annual SWE (0”, -0.4”, -0.8”, -1.2”), with the majority of models falling into the -0.4” 

change category. Climate models include: (1) HadGEM2, (2) ACCESS1, (3) CanESM2, (4) CCSM4, (5) GFDL-ESM2M, and (6) GISS-ER-R 

(see appendix 2 for more information on models and acronyms used in this Techniques and Methods; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.]
tac19-1334_fig 06

Editor: Because thse maps are screen shots showing the results of a particular program, there will not be latlongs, formal scale bar or projection/datum 

listed in a credit note.

EXPLANATION

Recreational opportunity spectrum

Primitive

Roaded motorized

Roaded natural

Semi-primitive nonmotorized

Semi-primitive motorized

EXPLANATION

Snow depth, in inches

0 to 6

7 to 11

Greater than or equal to 12

National Forest boundary

National Forest trails IDAHO

Map

area

A

C

B

D

Figure 6. Motorized winter recreation vulnerabilities. A) Winter recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) map showing semi-primitive 

motorized areas in yellow, B) depth of snow under current climatological condition, where all trails in the semi-primitive motorized 

area have adequate snow depth, C) depth of snow using CMIP5 RCP 4.5 under GFDL-ESM2M climate conditions (model that replicates 

historic data), and D) under MIROC-ESM (the model that describes most extreme loss of snow depth).

Case Study: Recreation Opportunities 15
16 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

CAIT Step 2. Answer Critical Questions

Because climate vulnerabilities vary with recreation 

opportunity (table 1), it is appropriate to separately answer 

the Critical Questions for each. After determining that the 

depth and duration of snow are important to winter recreation, 

particularly semi-primitive motorized winter recreation 

activities, we worked with Nez Perce-Clearwater staff to 

answer the Critical Questions (table 2). Answering the Critical 

Questions (table 2) based on maps of snow depth and other 

information led recreation managers from the Nez PerceClearwater National Forest to conclude that conditions may 

remain suitable for motorized winter recreation in the future 

(B; less than 6 inches of snow is considered suitable for 

snowmobiling), resources have high value (D), and most sites 

are currently in good condition (G). The final 3-letter code for 

this CAIT Step 2 example is BDG.

Table 2. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for recreation opportunities.

[Numbers in the bottom section direct the user to the appropriate cell in the management approach matrix (table 3), which reflects the answers 

in the upper section.]

Future suitability

What is the future climatic suitability of the 

recreation opportunity?

Value

What is the value of the recreation 

opportunity?

Current condition

What is the current condition of the 

recreation opportunity?

Use projected future climate scenarios 

and maps to help answer the 

following questions:

Use expert knowledge of ecological, socio–

economic, and cultural values to answer 

the following questions:

Use the defined reference point to 

answer the following questions:

Critical questions

Will the timing of access for the 

opportunity likely shift in the future?

Are trailheads and other infrastructure 

strategically located to provide sufficient 

access to areas where the opportunity 

will likely be available in the future?

Will other nearby areas open up as 

possible sites/opportunities?

Will use likely become concentrated in 

particular areas or at particular times 

due to projected climate changes?

Is climate change likely to substantially 

alter the spatial distributi)on of animal 

habitat–related visitor restrictions (for 

example, to avoid bear, lynx)?

Are climate–driven changes in disturbance 

regimes (for example, fire, flooding, 

wind) likely to limit opportunity access 

(for example, close trails or facilities)?

Will demand for the opportunity likely be 

met in future?

Winter-specific considerations

Is snowpack projected to decline beyond 

a suitable level for different winter 

recreation activities (for example, limit 

type or quality of activities)?

Water-specific considerations

Is the amount or timing of streamflow 

projected to limit water–based 

recreation activities (specifically, type or 

quality of activity)?

Is the opportunity highly valued by the 

public?

Does the forest provide a unique recreation 

opportunity? (for example, provided by no 

other forest unit, agency or business in the 

area)

What is the fate of similar nearby 

opportunities?

Can the opportunity be made available 

(relocated) somewhere else? If so, how 

close?

Does the provision of the opportunity 

provide significant economic importance 

to the local communities?

Is the value of the opportunity likely to 

persist?

• Near–term (less than 5 years)

• Mid–term (5–10 years)

• Long–term (greater than 10 years)

Are there sites that are currently 

climatically unsuitable or marginal 

(specifically, for providing the 

recreation opportunity)?

Are there sites within the recreation 

category that have degraded or 

marginal infrastructure (specifically, 

for providing the recreation 

opportunity)?
Case Study: Recreation Opportunities 17

Table 2. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for recreation opportunities.—Continued.

in the upper section.]

Answer the critical questions by choosing the 

most appropriate level of vulnerability

Answer the critical questions by 

choosing the most appropriate level of 

vulnerability

Answer the critical questions by 

choosing the most appropriate level 

of vulnerability

Summary Determination

A- Climatically Suitable (conditions likely to 

become or remain suitable to meet demand for 

opportunity)

B- Climatically Marginal (conditions may remain 

suitable in the short–term to meet demand for 

the opportunity)

C- Climatically Unsuitable (conditions likely to 

become unsuitable to meet demand for the 

opportunity)

D- High Value (higher value; unique 

opportunity provided by the forest)

E- Moderate Value (somewhat valued; 

opportunity may be provided 

elsewhere)

F- Low Value (lower value; 

opportunity may be provided 

elsewhere

G- Good Condition (most sites 

currently provide opportunity)

H- Marginal Condition (some sites 

are climatically marginal or have 

degraded infrastructure for 

providing opportunity)

I- Poor Condition (some sites are 

climatically unsuitable and/or 

have degraded infrastructure for 

providing the opportunity)

Future suitability: ______ Resource value: ______ Current condition: ______

Find your 3–letter code (Future suitability + Resource value + Current condition) in the list below

If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell: If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell: If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell:

A D G 1 B D G 2 C D G 3

A D H 10 B D H 11 C D H 12

A D I 19 B D I 20 C D I 21

A E G 4 B E G 5 C E G 6

A E H 13 B E H 14 C E H 15

A E I 22 B E I 23 C E I 24

A F G 7 B F G 8 C F G 9

A F H 16 B F H 17 C F H 18

A F I 25 B F I 26 C F I 27

[Numbers in the bottom section direct the user to the appropriate cell in the management approach matrix (table 3), which reflects the answers 
18 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

CAIT Step 3. Select Management Approach

Based on the Summary Determination from the example 

in CAIT Step 2 (specifically, BDG, which points to matrix 

cell 2 in table 3), managers at Nez Perce-Clearwater National 

Forest determined that resistance, resilience, and transition 

are management approaches to consider for motorized winter 

recreation. Light green cells are those that have at least two 

of the following: (1) good current condition, (2) high value, 

or (3) suitable future climate conditions. Dark green cells are 

those that have at least two of the following: (1) poor current 

condition, (2) low value, or (3) unsuitable future climate 

conditions.

Table 3. Matrix of potential management approaches for recreation opportunities.

[Choice of appropriate matrix cell is determined by answers to Critical Questions shown in table 2.]

Current site 

condition

Value of 

resource

Area becomes or 

remains suitable Area becomes marginal Area becomes 

unsuitable

Good

High

No action

Resilience

Resistance

Resilience

Transition

Resistance

Realignment

Moderate

Resilience

Transition

Resistance

Resilience

Transition

Resistance

Realignment

Low No action

Transition

Transition

Realignment

No action

Realignment

Marginal

High

Resilience Resistance

Resilience

Transition

Resilience

Realignment

Moderate

Resilience

Transition

Resistance

Resilience

Transition

Resilience

Realignment

Low No action No action No action

Poor

High Resilience Resilience

 Transition

Transition

Realignment

Moderate

 Resilience Resilience

 Transition

Transition

Realignment

Low

 No action No action No action
Case Study: Recreation Opportunities 19

CAIT Step 4. Select Adaptation Strategies and 

Actions to Implement Preferred 

Management Approach

We grouped adaptation strategies and actions from NRAP 

(table 4; Halofsky and others, 2018) according to management 

approach. Due to time constraints during the workshop, we 

did not explore this table in detail with recreation resource 

managers. However, we have seen adaptation strategies and 

actions incorporated into revised Forest Plans. For example, 

Flathead National Forest included the following Desired 

Condition and Potential Management Strategy in their revised 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2018):

• Desired Condition: “Sustainable recreation 

opportunities are responsive to changing conditions 

due to system stressors such as climate change and 

changing use patterns and demands.”

• Potential Management Strategy: “Evaluate potential 

for new motorized over-snow vehicle opportunities 

and evaluate areas for restricting motorized over-snow 

vehicle opportunities.”

To help determine which strategies and actions to select, 

resource managers can consider which climate stressors, 

disturbances, and non-climate stressors each strategy helps to 

reduce or minimize (app. 4).

Lessons Learned

Discussions with recreation resource managers brought 

to light several things to consider when revising management 

plans. It became clear that revised forest plan components 

need to be written in a way that avoids limiting a manager’s 

ability to respond to changes in resource availability due to 

changes in climate; for example, adjusting opening or closing 

of facilities based on conditions (for example, snow depth) 

rather than a specific date. A plan that includes specific, 

detailed actions runs the risk of becoming an inflexible 

structure that cannot accommodate changing conditions. 

Desired conditions for a given area or resource, as described 

in a forest plan, could also be more flexible if they reflect 

projected or changing conditions. For example, areas that 

are projected to have marginal or poor ability to provide a 

particular resource (for example, a given recreation activity) 

in the future may have different desired conditions than those 

for areas projected to be less vulnerable to climate change. 

Lastly, in addition to the direct impacts of climate change on 

recreation opportunities, managers will need to consider the 

ways in which climate change will influence factors such as 

wildlife distribution, demographics, and technology so as to 

incorporate sufficient flexibility into plans.
20 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Table 4. Adaptation strategies and actions for recreation opportunities.

Adaptation strategies Adaptation actions

Resistance

Manage recreation sites to 

mitigate risks to public 

safety and infrastructure 

and to continue to provide 

recreation opportunities 

for as long as possible

• Focus on activities that will remain feasible given projected changes, and preserve those recreation 

opportunities

• Shift location of activities to maintain opportunities and/or to mitigate safety risks

• Relocate at-risk infrastructure

• Maintain to safety standards for as long as possible

• Maintain and/or improve current recreation infrastructure at sites that will remain viable under future 

climate conditions

Resilience

Increase management 

flexibility to respond to 

changing access demands, 

use patterns, and resource 

availability

• Adjust infrastructure maintenance schedule as needed to accommodate changing conditions and/or demand 

issues

• Monitor recreation sites and set trigger points to determine when a site should be closed or access 

restricted

• Educate the public about changing site conditions and/or safety issues

Minimize synergistic impacts 

of climate changes, 

recreation use, and other 

stressors

• Modify existing infrastructure to better withstand future climate conditions

• Maintain and/or improve current recreation infrastructure to respond to changing use patterns/demand

• Prioritize post-disturbance treatments (for example, relocation, armoring)

Transition

Increase collaborations 

with partners and 

concessionaires to address 

changes in recreation 

opportunity supply and 

demand

• Develop new recreation sites designed for flexibility in use and/or resilient to climate impacts, or create 

new recreation opportunities at existing sites

• Invest strategically in infrastructure that will accommodate new access needs and/or changes ivn existing 

access

• Adopt new technology that may help disperse use, direct users, and provide information about changing 

conditions/climate impacts

• Develop options for diversifying snow-based recreation (for example, cat-skiing, helicopter skiing, higherelevation runs)

Make the necessary 

transitions to address 

changing use and seasonal 

patterns

• Develop additional access restrictions, which may include changes to permitting processes, seasonal 

closures, or allowable uses

• Adjust the timing of actions (for example, open/close dates, road or trail closures, food storage orders, 

special use permits) to accommodate changing conditions and/or demand issues

• Adjust capacity of recreation sites to accommodate changes in demand

• Identify nearby areas where similar activities might still be possible and consider feasibility of developing

Realignment

Revisit and revise goals 

and priorities in response 

to changing supply and 

demand

• Create new/different recreation opportunities at existing sites

• Develop additional access restrictions, which may include changes to permitting processes, seasonal 

closures, or allowable uses

• Limit expansion and/or pioneering of new recreation sites in areas projected to be climatically unsuitable 

and/or marginal

Realignment

Use research and assessment 

to increase knowledge 

about current conditions 

and projected changes

• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining the current opportunities over time in order to determine 

whether prioritized opportunities may need to change

• Assess the long-term viability of snow-based recreation sites under future climate conditions

• Assess changes in use patterns and identify expected shifts in supply and demand, demographics, and 

economic trends

• Assess infrastructure vulnerability to climate change and natural hazards, and prioritize by seasonal use, 

viability, and required investment

No Action

Monitor site and/or resource 

conditions

• Monitor climate variables critical to current and future use, and use monitoring results to determine 

whether to continue current opportunity and/or develop alternative opportunities

• Monitor snow dates, event dates, and snowpack depth using SNOTEL data and incorporate that data into 

decision-making processes

Implement preventative 

strategies in areas likely 

to remain or become 

climatically suitable

• Invest in regular site maintenance and/or upkeep
Case Study: Rangeland Vegetation 21

Case Study: Rangeland Vegetation 

We worked with staff of the USFS Region 1 Regional 

Office and Custer-Gallatin National Forest on the rangeland 

vegetation resource. Our discussions initially addressed 

primary planning considerations and how they are 

incorporated into forest and project plans. Later discussions 

focused on refining draft Critical Questions (CAIT Step 2) 

to improve effectiveness and relevance for directing users to 

appropriate management approaches. We did not have the 

opportunity to explore spatial data by manipulating data layers 

with GIS; however, managers noted that using spatial data in 

combination with the Critical Questions (CAIT Step 2) would 

be most effective for their planning efforts.

CAIT Step 1. Assess the Vulnerability of the 

Resource to Climate Change 

Key climate vulnerabilities for rangeland vegetation in 

the Northern Rockies include warmer temperatures, changes 

in precipitation timing and amount, declines in available soil 

moisture, and altered fire regimes (Halofsky and others, 2018; 

table 5). 

CAIT Step 2. Answer Critical Questions

We held an initial meeting with staff from the USFS 

regional office and Custer-Gallatin National Forest to discuss 

the three primary planning considerations–future climate 

suitability, value, and current condition–for rangeland 

vegetation. As part of this meeting, we also presented a 

draft list of Critical Questions based on information from 

Halofsky and others (2018). While managers felt the three 

primary planning considerations were accurate, there were 

many other Critical Questions that needed to be added. For 

example, managers recommended we add a question about 

important endemic or rare species under the “value” planning 

consideration. Managers also recommended that we add 

explicit questions about climate vulnerabilities (specifically, 

changes in precipitation, altered fire regimes), rather than a 

single general question about whether climate change will 

alter suitability for rangeland vegetation. 

We used the input from this initial meeting to develop 

a revised list of Critical Questions. The revised list was 

presented to another group of managers from the regional 

office, who helped to refine and organize the questions 

(table 6). Two important points arose from this additional 

meeting: (1) the “value” planning consideration includes both 

ecological and socioeconomic values, as rangeland habitats 

provide important biodiversity, grazing, and recreation 

ecosystem services; and (2) users need to define a reference 

point prior to answering Critical Questions. For users to 

effectively answer the Critical Questions under current 

condition and value, it is important to define a reference point 

in order to determine how departed a site is from a given 

point. For example, determining whether woody plant and/

or conifer presence and abundance is appropriate for the site 

depends on the reference point selected. A site with significant 

woody plant presence may be appropriate if a recent reference 

point is defined (for example, within the last 10 years); 

however, it may not be appropriate if an earlier point is defined 

(for example, within the last 100 years). The reference point 

can be defined based on a historic, desired, legally mandated, 

or other condition.
22 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

CAIT Step 3. Select Management Approach

Management approaches reflect the overall direction that 

could be taken in the near- or long-term (table 7). Light green 

cells are those that have at least two of the following: (1) good 

current condition, (2) high value, or (3) suitable future climate 

conditions. Dark green cells are those that have at least two of 

the following: (1) poor current condition, (2) low value, or (3) 

unsuitable future climate conditions

CAIT Step 4. Select Adaptation Strategies and 

Actions to Implement Preferred Management 

Approach

We grouped adaptation strategies and actions from 

NRAP (table 8; Halofsky and others, 2018) according to 

management approach. Due to time constraints, we did 

not explore this table in detail with rangeland vegetation 

managers. However, managers did recommend including 

monitoring and preventative strategies and actions under the 

no action management approach (table 8). To help determine 

which strategies and actions to select, rangeland managers 

can consider which climate stressors, disturbances, and nonclimate stressors each helps to reduce or minimize (app. 5).

Lessons Learned

An important point that arose during our discussions with 

rangeland vegetation managers was the need to go through the 

CAIT using a set of sites rather than a single site. Managers 

noted that it was particularly important to think about site values 

relative to one another, as responses to Critical Questions for a 

site may differ when considering it alone versus comparing it to

other sites. Managers also noted that going through the CAIT 

using a set of sites encourages the selection of diverse adaptation 

strategies and actions rather than selecting the same action to 

be implemented at multiple sites. This ensures a portfolio of 

adaptation options are implemented across the landscape, helping 

diversify risk. 

We did not have an opportunity to explore spatial datasets 

as part of our discussions in this case study. However, managers 

agreed that using the CAIT in conjunction with maps would 

provide the most powerful information for comparing across 

sites and selecting a portfolio of adaptation strategies and 

actions. In addition to climate projections, it would be instructive 

to map the outcomes of the Critical Questions for sites within a 

landscape to improve strategic decisions and selection of projects 

for investment.
Case Study: Rangeland Vegetation 23

Table 5. Climate vulnerabilities for rangeland vegetation in U.S. Forest Service Region 1.

Rangeland 

vegetation type Key climate vulnerabilities

Northern Great Plains Soil water availability and water stress influence plant species distribution and community composition.

Increased winter precipitation, warmer temperatures, and higher levels of carbon dioxide could favor some herbaceous 

forbs, legumes, and woody plants.

Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons favor warm season (C4) grasses, but higher carbon dioxide may 

benefit cool season (C3) grasses.

Montane shrubs More frequent, severe fires and drier conditions could lead to shifts from mesic species to more xeric species and 

expansion of non-native invasive plants.

Warmer temperatures and drier soils may cause some mesic species to shift their distribution up in elevation or 

to cooler, moister sites.

Montane 

grasslands

More frequent, severe fires could lead to increased mortality of native species and invasion by nonnative plants.

Increased winter and spring precipitation could facilitate establishment of exotic annual grasses.

Warmer and drier conditions will likely lead to increased invasion of nonnative plants and shifts in dominance to more 

drought-tolerant species.

Warmer temperatures and more frequent fires will likely lead to grassland expansion.

Wyoming big

 sagebrush and basin big 

sagebrush

Amount and timing of precipitation (affects seedling establishment); warmer minimum temperature and lower snow 

depth (affects germination and survival).

Increasing drought leading to declines in soil water availability, with impacts on seedling germination and survival as 

well as growth and survival of adult plants.

More frequent, intense fires could affect postfire recovery and reduce the extent of big sagebrush communities.

Black and low sagebrush Increasing drought that leads to reductions of plant cover and increasing erosion could affect seedling establishment.

Reduced precipitation, especially if combined with annual grass invasion, could eliminate low sagebrush species from 

some areas.

Increased fire activity would negatively impact both species.

Threetip and silver 

sagebrush

Increased winter and spring precipitation could facilitate establishment of exotic annual grasses. 

More frequent, severe fires will likely shift community composition to dominance by fire-adapted shrub and 

herbaceous species, and nonnative species.

Warmer, drier conditions may result in a shift to more xeric grassland species, and both sagebrush species may shift 

their distribution up in elevation or to cooler, moister sites.

Mountain bigsagebrushshrublandsMore frequent, severe fires will likely shift community composition to dominance by fire-adapted shrub and 

herbaceous species, and nonnative species.

Increased winter and spring precipitation could facilitate establishment of non-native annual grasses.

Warmer, drier conditions could shift herbaceous understory composition to more xeric species and/or invasive species, 

and the distribution of mountain big sagebrush may shift to cooler and moister sites.
24 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Table 6. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for rangeland vegetation. 

[Numbers in the bottom section direct the user to the appropriate cell in the management approach matrix (table 7), which reflects the answers in the upper section] 

Future suitability

What is the future climatic suitability 

of the site?

Value

What is the value of the site?

Current condition

What is the current ecological 

condition of the site?

Critical questions

Use projected future climate scenarios 

and maps to help answer the 

following questions:

Use expert knowledge of ecological, 

socio–economic, and cultural values 

to answer the following questions:

Use the defined reference point to answer 

the following questions:

What is the projected direction of change 

for the site? For example:

• Is temperature expected to remain or 

become unsuitable for native species?

• Is soil moisture/soil water availability 

expected to remain or become 

unsuitable for native species?

• Will projected changes in the 

timing and amount of precipitation 

(for example, winter/ spring) 

likely encourage invasive species 

establishment and/or expansion?

• Are fires projected to become more 

frequent and/or severe leading to 

significant site impacts (for example, 

reduced regeneration success, 

increased invasion)?

Is the site in an area naturally buffered 

from changing climate conditions (for 

example, higher elevations, north-east 

aspects)

Are native species likely to persist at the 

site given changing climate conditions 

and associated disturbance events (for 

example, wildfire, erosion, insects and 

disease) and/or will connectivity to 

nearby suitable sites remain? 

If invasive plants are currently present, 

might projected climate changes alter 

the influence of invasive plants on 

native species of concern (for example, 

via increased competition for limited 

water resources)?

Are current or proposed Desired 

Conditions attainable in the future? 

Does the site include important endemic 

or rare species or communities, high 

species diversity, or serve as an important botanical site?

What is the current management function/

use of this site (for example, grazing, 

recreation, biodiversity)?

• Does the site include important 

endemic or rare species or 

communities, high species diversity, or 

serve as an important botanical site?

• What is the current management 

function/use of this site (for example, 

grazing, recreation, biodiversity)?

Does the site provide critical wildlife 

habitat?

Is the site highly valued by the public and/

or management?

If the site provides an important service/

use (for example, grazing, recreation), 

can the service/use be made available 

(relocated) nearby and/or in another 

season?

What is the fate of similar, nearby sites?

Is the value of the site likely to persist 

over the:

• Near-term (less than 5 years)?

• Mid-term (5–10 years)?

• Long-term (greater than10 years)?

Biotic considerations

Does the presence and abundance of native 

plant species and/or functional groups 

indicate an intact, functioning plant community?

If the site includes important endemic or 

rare species or communities, what is 

their current ecological condition (for 

example, highly degraded)?

Is woody plant and/or conifer presence and 

abundance appropriate for the site (given 

disturbance/succession dynamics)?

Hydrologic Considerations

What is the apparent soil nutrient status 

(for example, is there a well-developed 

surface horizon)?

What is the status of plant available soil 

moisture?

Site integrity Considerations

Are invasive plants currently present? If 

yes, what is the level of invasive species 

occupancy/impairment?

What is the amount of bare ground? 

Is the site significantly departed/degraded/ 

disturbed owing to:

• Climatic stressors (for example, 

temperature, precipitation)?

• Disturbances (for example, insects, 

disease, wildfire, native ungulate 

herbivory)?

• Management pressure (for example, 

grazing, land use conversion, 

recreation)?

• Natural weather events?

• Connected to a larger network of native 

plant species and communities?

Other Considerations

How far has the site departed from current 

Desired Conditions (for example, 

providing desired animal unit months 

(AUMs), habitat for wildlife)?

What is the current direction of change? 

Is there any monitoring data showing 

problematic trends?
Case Study: Rangeland Vegetation 25

Table 6. Planning considerations and Critical Questions for rangeland vegetation.—Continued.

[Numbers in the bottom section direct the user to the appropriate cell in the management approach matrix (table 7), which reflects the answers in the upper section] 

Answer the critical questions by 

choosing the most appropriate answer

Answer the critical questions the most 

appropriate answer

Answer the critical questions the most 

appropriate answer

Summary determination

A- Climatically suitable (site likely 

to remain suitable for native 

species and/or uses) 

B- Climatically marginal (site likely 

to become marginal for native 

species and/or uses)

C- Climatically unsuitable (site 

likely to become unsuitable for 

native species and/or uses)

D- High value (includes rare/endemic 

species and/or provides important 

management uses/service)

E- Moderate value (may include 

some rare/endemic species; 

management uses/service may be 

provided nearby)

F- Low value (no rare/endemic 

species; management uses/service 

can be provided nearby) 

G- Good condition (includes healthy 

native vegetation; site is not 

significantly disturbed/degraded/

departed)

H- Marginal condition (may include 

some native vegetation; site 

exhibits some degradation)

I- Poor condition (limited native 

vegetation and/or vegetation 

in degraded condition; site is 

significantly disturbed/departed)

Future suitability: ______ Resource value: ______ Current condition: ______

Find your 3–letter code (Future suitability + Resource value + Current condition) in the list below

If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell: If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell: If you answered: Go to Matrix Cell:

A D G 1 B D G 2 C D G 3

A D H 10 B D H 11 C D H 12

A D I 19 B D I 20 C D I 21

A E G 4 B E G 5 C E G 6

A E H 13 B E H 14 C E H 15

A E I 22 B E I 23 C E I 24

A F G 7 B F G 8 C F G 9

A F H 16 B F H 17 C F H 18

A F I 25 B F I 26 C F I 27
26 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Discussion 

Climate change requires resource managers to add a 

new dimension to the list of factors they routinely consider 

when setting conservation goals and developing plans and 

projects. The CAIT presented here provides a structured 

process to help managers integrate climate change effects and 

adaptation strategies and actions into ongoing management 

planning and articulate the logic for selecting specific 

strategies and actions. The CAIT combines fine-scale climate 

change projections with local knowledge to answer three 

Table 7. Matrix of potential management approaches for rangeland vegetation. 

[Choice of appropriate matrix cell is determined by answers to Critical Questions (table 6)]

Current site 

condition

Value of 

resource

Area becomes or 

remains suitable Area becomes marginal Area becomes 

unsuitable

Good

High

No action

Resilience

Resistance

Resilience

Resistance

 Realignment

Moderate

Resilience

Transition

Resistance

Resilience

Resistance

 Realignment

Low No action Transition No action

Realignment

Marginal

High Resilience Resistance

Resilience

Resilience

Realignment

Moderate

Resilience Resistance

Resilience

Resilience

Realignment

Low No action No action No action

Poor

High Resilience Resilience Realignment

Moderate

 Resilience Resilience Realignment

Low

 No action No action No action

sets of Critical Questions to assess likely future viability of a 

resource at a site. The CAIT suggests possible management 

approaches based on answers to the Critical Questions, and 

each management approach is associated with a distilled menu 

of effective adaptation strategies and actions for resource 

managers to consider. The CAIT is structured to facilitate 

discussion among resource managers rather than provide a 

single, prescriptive answer. Use of the CAIT may lead to 

modification of the tool itself if more useful Critical Questions 

and additional adaptation strategies and actions should come 

to light.
Discussion 27

Table 8. Adaptation strategies and actions for rangeland vegetation.

Adaptation strategies Adaptation actions

Resistance

Maintain intact ecosystems 

and increase the resilience 

and resistance of native 

rangeland habitats

• Inventory intact areas with high native cover (specifically, weed-free areas)

• Monitor areas with high endemism or biodiversity (for example, Pryor Mountains) or unique communities 

(for example, groundwater dependent ecosystems that are sentinels for larger landscapes)

• Employ preventative measures to reduce the spread and introduction of invasive species into intact 

plant communities (see strategy below on preventing invasive species)

• Promote the growth and occurrence of native species

• Determine and implement proper grazing (for example, use rest and rotation and/or low-intensity 

grazing practices; manage the timing of grazing to promote native plant species); increase 

collaboration among management agencies and ranchers

• Identify site-specific indicators of grazing impacts to trigger movement of livestock to another site

• Employ preventative measures to reduce the spread and introduction of invasive species into intact 

plant communities (see strategy below on preventing invasive species)

• Promote the growth and occurrence of native species

• Determine and implement proper grazing (for example, use rest and rotation and/or low-intensity 

grazing practices; manage the timing of grazing to promote native plant species); increase 

collaboration among management agencies and ranchers

• Identify site-specific indicators of grazing impacts to trigger movement of livestock to another site

Prevent invasive species 

establishment and spread • Apply early detection and rapid response (EDRR) and inventory and mapping

• Conduct integrated weed management (specifically, spraying, chemical, biological, mechanical, 

manual control, targeted grazing)

• Update weed risk assessments (WRAs) to include potential climate change impacts

• Maintain or enhance native plant cover and minimize bare ground to prevent establishment of 

invasive species.

• Implement prescriptive grazing, fire, herbicide, and re-seeding.

• Establish competitive vegetation barriers to protect rangeland habitats from invasive species.

• Use best invasive management practices to address vectors; emphasize invasive species education.

• Develop weed management areas and coordinate with multiple agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

and the public.

Restore natural disturbance 

regimes in rangeland 

habitats

• Apply prescribed burns and/or utilize natural fires to prevent woodland expansion.

• Utilize mechanical treatments and harvest.

Resilience

Maintain, increase and/

or restore native plant 

vigor, cover, and species 

richness in rangeland 

habitats

• Revegetate habitats with a diverse community of native species that are collectively adapted to the 

full range of potential future climatic conditions.

• Restore habitats using seed sources that include genotypes suited to future conditions.

• Promote early-season native species.

• Develop funding and native seed sources for post-fire restoration of burned areas where grass and 

forb communities are not naturally regenerating.

• Use prescribed and natural fires to actively promote native species and maintain plant cover, annual 

yield, and native species diversity.

• Use low-intensity grazing or mowing to increase species diversity in grasslands.

• Maintain adequate shrub cover, vigor, and species richness, and avoid bare ground; create different 

age classes and compositions of shrubfields.

• Use snow fencing to increase snow drift accumulation and soil moisture in montane habitats.

Maintain and restore natural 

rangeland habitat to 

ensure pollination

• Revegetate rangelands with a diverse mix of native species, including those with drought-tolerant 

genotypes, to support native pollinators.

• Encourage native pollinators; provide other habitats for pollinators (nesting/feeding/brooding cover).

• Restore and enhance habitat using tools such as grazing, fire, herbicide application, and re-seeding.

• Educate agency staff and the public about the benefits of native pollinators, potential threats, and 

existing/needed regulatory protections.

• Implement long-term monitoring of pollinators.
28 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Table 8. Adaptation strategies and actions for rangeland vegetation.—Continued

Adaptation strategies Adaptation actions

Resilience

Manage prescribed and 

natural fire to reduce 

the negative impact of 

changes in fire frequency 

and severity in rangeland 

habitats

• Design burn prescriptions that consider soil moisture requirements.

• Implement strategically located non-burn fuel reduction techniques to reduce the risk of severe wildfire.

• Use low- to moderate-intensity grazing to reduce fuel loads and lower fire risk.

• Implement Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions.

Increase collaborations 

with agencies, NGOs, 

and private landowners

• Communicate the implications of climate change on rangeland quality and/or availability and grazing 

management practices, as well as associated uncertainty, with ranchers and other stakeholders.

• Provide information to landowners and managers about the projected impacts of and responses 

to climate change and disturbances on rangelands, including the effects of repeated burns, weed 

identification and reporting, and site potential when determining appropriate vegetation.

Identify and protect priority 

rangeland habitats (for 

example, high-quality 

rangelands)

• Encourage private landowners to designate conservation easements.

• Identify and maintain public management of ecologically significant remnant plant communities 

(for example, rough fescue, Palouse prairie)

Realignment

Revisit and revise goals 

and priorities in response 

to changing conditions

• Develop criteria to help determine whether to resist or allow forest encroachment into rangeland 

habitats.

• Develop criteria to prioritize intact and/or high-quality rangeland habitat sites and redirect resources 

to these sites as needed.

• Create and implement a management plan for rangelands based on thresholds/triggers for activities 

such as thinning, prescribed burns, and revegetation.

• Facilitate transition of endemic or rare species to future climatically suitable areas.

Use research and 

assessment to increase 

knowledge about current 

conditions and projected 

changes

• Develop and apply models that include consideration of climate change when projecting the 

location and extent of invasive species establishment and spread.

• Evaluate and include the role of native ungulate grazing and competition in grassland management 

plans.

• Monitor post-fire effects beyond the scope of fire suppression and BAER and implement appropriate 

actions.

• Locate and map important grassland soil types (for example, molisols).

• Determine whether individual sites are fire- or snow-maintained.

• Map sites at risk of drought and monitor vegetation and water availability.

• Improve understanding of the relationship between climate change and rangeland ecology.

• Identify areas where the interaction between existing stressors and climate change will be most 

pronounced.

No action

Monitor site and/or 

resource conditions • Monitor climate variables and impacts.

• Monitor fire activity in area to assess level of threat.

• Monitor resource conditions and trends and incorporate that data into decision-making processes.

Implement preventative 

strategies in areas likely 

to remain climatically 

suitable

• Employ preventative measures to reduce the spread and introduction of invasive species, insect 

pests, and disease.

• Prevent and/or limit the impacts of non-climate stressors (for example, grazing, recreation, land use 

conversion).
Discussion 29

The CAIT represents an evolution in the development 

of climate adaptation tools that help resource managers 

incorporate climate vulnerability and adaptation into plans 

and projects. Calls for the need to incorporate climate change 

in resource management (for example, summarized in Glick 

and others, 2011) were answered by the Climate Project 

Screening Tool for the USFS (Morelli and other, 2011). This 

tool asks users to consider broad-scale climate trends and 

answer specific questions to generate discussion about whether 

to proceed with a specific project. Nelson and others (2016) 

adopted the Critical Question approach and applied it to fish 

conservation, aided by the availability of fine-scale water 

temperature data from the NorWEST project (Isaak and others, 

2015). We expanded the Nelson and others (2016) approach 

to additional resources by providing guidance for obtaining 

fine-scale information regarding derived climate parameters 

to help determine whether projected climate conditions allow 

for persistence of resources. Conclusions regarding resource 

viability are linked to suggested adaptation strategies and 

actions. 

The particular strength of the CAIT is the use of 

downscaled climate data to enable regional natural resource 

climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation 

planning efforts to be used in management plans and projects 

for smaller areas (for example, individual forest units). Often, 

the scale of climate conditions used in regional efforts is 

spatially coarse and limited to temperature and precipitation 

and other GCM outputs rather than more informative derived 

parameters (for example, snow depth, climatic water deficit). 

Moreover, management recommendations in adaptation 

plans usually lack specificity for when and where the 

recommendations may be most appropriate. The CAIT helps 

to identify useful climate parameters by asking managers to 

specify conditions that support where and when the resource 

can persist. These conditions are usually described by 

derivatives of temperature and precipitation and are affected 

by site characteristics such as elevation or soil properties. 

Maps of climate conditions and site characteristics at the finest 

available spatial scale are combined with local knowledge of 

thresholds or requirements to determine where and when a 

resource can occur. Together with other information about the 

site and/or resource, such as current condition and value, the 

most suitable management approach (specifically, resistance, 

resilience, transition, realignment, or no action) can be 

selected, which in turn directs the user to a limited list of 

potential adaptation strategies and actions. 

A unique feature of the CAIT compared with other 

decision frameworks is the reliance on “value” questions. 

Based on answers to a set of questions, managers are asked 

to determine whether sites have low, medium, or high value. 

The assessment of site value is subjective and relative 

to other resources in the area. Consequently, managers 

must think about other locations in context with the site 

under consideration. Adding a “value” consideration to the 

framework results in more strategic decisions, including costeffective selection of projects for investment.

The framework presented here is also useful for clearly 

documenting the reasoning behind selection of a given 

adaptation strategy or action. Transparent documentation 

provides accountability for agency mandates to consider 

climate change in management decisions (for example, 

USFS Climate Change Performance Scorecard, U.S. Forest 

Service, 2018) as well as an interpretable record of a 

decision’s rationale that will be available to future managers 

who may need to continue evaluating and responding to the 

consequences. Moreover, the CAIT provides information 

that supports planning and decision-making in environmental 

compliance documents (for example, National Environmental 

Policy Act) as well as explaining and justifying decisions to 

resource managers from other disciplines, other agencies, and 

the public. 

The reliance of the CAIT on collaborative discussion 

provides an opportunity for managers to comprehensively 

consider how climate change will affect a given resource. 

For example, anticipating changes in wildlife distribution, 

demographics, and technology, in addition to climate 

changes and impacts, will help inform predictions about the 

availability and demand for recreational opportunities. The 

broad discussion of all relevant factors can help managers 

incorporate sufficient flexibility into management plans 

such that future managers can achieve management goals. 

Moreover, the discussion format facilitates the mining of 

institutional knowledge regarding management decisions that 

were useful in previous situations when climate-related events 

or conditions posed challenges to effective management.

Creating flexibility is an especially important aspect of 

forest plan revisions in the era of climate change. Forest plans 

are long-lived documents expected to last 15 years, but they 

often guide forest management for much longer than that. 

They are essentially a contract creating transparency between 

a national forest and the public. Through a lengthy public 

process, the plan details agreed-upon management desired 

conditions and the objectives to achieve them. Because a plan 

is legally binding, it must be written so that managers have the 

necessary tools to achieve goals stated in the plan even when 

a changing climate destabilizes historic conditions to create a 

“new normal.”
30 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

The CAIT described here was tested and applied 

by managers of recreation opportunities and rangeland 

vegetation resources. It matches the framework created by 

Nelson and others (2016) for fisheries managers. Prominent 

natural resource categories yet to be covered include forested 

vegetation, hydrology, and wildlife. Resource managers 

of these remaining topics can use this CAIT as well as the 

framework created by Nelson and others (2016) as a model 

to create their own Critical Questions and adaptation strategy 

and action tables. The first step is to establish planning 

considerations, which determine the categories of Critical 

Questions. For forested vegetation, these might include future 

habitat suitability, value, and current condition, in parallel with 

those used for rangeland habitats. Planning considerations for 

wildlife might be modeled on those used for fish (specifically, 

future habitat suitability, connectivity, and threats from 

non-native species or competitors). After Critical Questions 

are developed to help rate each situation by level within the 

planning considerations (for example, low, medium, or high 

future habitat suitability), a matrix of management approaches 

(resilience, resistance, transition, realignment, no action) can 

be developed. If the same planning considerations are used as 

for recreation and rangeland habitats, the same management 

approaches table will be appropriate. Adaptation strategies 

and actions developed during regional climate vulnerability 

and adaptation efforts can then be grouped by management 

approach to complete the tool.

Incorporating climate vulnerability and adaptation 

into resource management decisions is vital; however, it is 

only one of many dimensions that must be considered. In 

particular, the CAIT does not consider regulatory aspects and 

only superficially touches on social and economic aspects. 

Nevertheless, it can be incorporated into the overall decision 

process to ensure that climate change is effectively addressed.

Glossary

Adaptation Natural or human adjustments in a resource 

in response to changing climate conditions. Adaptation 

strategies and actions attempt to reduce the negative effects 

of and/or take advantage of opportunities presented by 

climate change. 

Adaptation strategies Broad or general adaptation 

responses that consider ecological conditions and 

overarching management goals (Swanston and others, 

2016). 

Adaptation actions Specific adaptation responses that 

consider site and/or situational conditions and management 

objectives.

Climate impacts assessments The evaluation of the direct 

and indirect consequences of climate change on a resource.

Vulnerability The degree to which a resource is susceptible 

to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change. 

Vulnerability is a function of the sensitivity of a resource 

to climate changes, its exposure to those changes, and its 

capacity to adapt to those changes (International Panel on 

Climate Change, 2007). 

Vulnerability assessments A tool for evaluating what 

resources are at risk due to climate change and why they are 

vulnerable (Glick and others, 2011). 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank Linh Hoang for her vision and 

leadership during this project. We are also grateful to the 

many U.S. Forest Service staff members who contributed 

interest, expertise, and time (app. 1). This project would not 

have been possible without them. Funding came from the 

USGS Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center and 

was encouraged and supported by Gustavo Bisbal and Nicole 

DeCrappeo of that organization. Finally, we thank three 

anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive reviews 

of an earlier version of this document.
References Cited 31

References Cited 

Abella, S.R., Craig, D.J., Smith, S.D., and Newton, A.C., 

2012, Identifying native vegetation for reducing exotic 

species during the restoration of desert ecosystems: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 20, no. 6, p. 781–787. 

AdaptWest, 2020, AdaptWest climate adaptation data portal: 

AdaptWest, web, accessed July 28, 2018, at https://

adaptwest.databasin.org/.

Alder, J.R., and Hostetler, S.W., 2013, USGS National climate 

change viewer: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed June 11, 

2019, at https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv.asp.

Anderson, K.L., Smith, E.F., and Owensby, C.E., 1970, 

Burning bluestem range: Journal of Range Management, 

v. 23, no. 2, p. 81–92.

Auestad, I., Rydgren, K., and Austad, I., 2016, Near-natural 

methods promote restoration of species-rich grassland 

vegetation—Revisiting a road verge trial after 9 years: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 24, no. 3, p. 381–389.

Bachelet, D., Lenihan, J.M., Daly, C., and Neilson, R.P., 

2000, Interactions between fire, grazing and climate change 

at Wind Cave National Park, SD: Ecological Modelling, 

v. 134, no. 2–3, p. 229–244.

Balbi, S., Giupponi, C., Perez, P., and Alberti, M., 2013, 

A spatial agent-based model for assessing strategies of 

adaptation to climate and tourism demand changes in an 

alpine tourism destination: Environmental Modelling & 

Software, v. 45, p. 29–51. 

Bass, B., and Baskaran, B., 2003, Evaluating rooftop and 

vertical gardens as an adaptation strategy for urban areas: 

Ottawa, Canada, National Research Council Canada, 

Institute for Research in Construction.

Bates, J.D., Rhodes, E.C., Davies, K.W., and Sharp, R., 2009, 

Postfire succession in big sagebrush steppe with livestock 

grazing: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 62, no. 1, 

p. 98–110. 

Baughman, C., Forbis, T.A., and Provencher, L., 2010, 

Response of two sagebrush sites to low-disturbance, 

mechanical removal of piñyon and juniper: Invasive Plant 

Science and Management, v. 3, no. 2, p. 122–129.

Beck, J.L., Connelly, J.W., and Reese, K.P., 2009, Recovery 

of greater sage-grouse habitat features in Wyoming big 

sagebrush following prescribed fire: Restoration Ecology, 

v. 17, no. 3, p. 393–403.

Bernstein, E.J., Albano, C.M., Sisk, T.D., Crews, T.E., and 

Rosenstock, S., 2014, Establishing cool-season grasses 

on a degraded arid rangeland of the Colorado Plateau: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 22, no. 1, p. 57–64.

Beunen, R., Regnerus, H.D., and Jaarsma, C.F., 2008, 

Gateways as a means of visitor management in national 

parks and protected areas: Tourism Management, v. 29, 

no. 1, p. 138–145.

Booth, M.S., Caldwell, M.M., and Stark, J.M., 2003, 

Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species—

Implications for community invasibility and vegetation 

dynamics: Journal of Ecology, v. 91, no. 1, p. 36–48.

Brattebo, B.O., and Booth, D.B., 2003, Long-term stormwater 

quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement 

systems: Water Research, v. 37, no. 18, p. 4369–4376.

Briske, D.D., Derner, J.D., Brown, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., 

Teague, W.R., Havstad, K.M., Gillen, R.L., Ash, A.J., and 

Willms, W.D., 2008, Rotational grazing on rangelands—

Reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence: 

Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 61, no. 1, p. 3–17.

Brown, R.N.K., Rosenberger, R.S., Kline, J.D., Hall, T.E., and 

Needham, M.D., 2008, Visitor preferences for managing 

wilderness recreation after wildfire: Journal of Forestry, 

v. 106, p. 9–16.

Burkeljca, J., 2013, Shifting audience and the visual language 

of avalanche risk communication, in International Snow 

Science Workshop, Grenoble, France, 2013, Proceedings: 

International Snow Science Workshop Steering Committee, 

p. 415–422.

Butterfield, B.J., Copeland, S.M., Munson, S.M., Roybal, 

C.M., and Wood, T.E., 2016, Prestoration—Using species 

in restoration that will persist now and into the future: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 25, p. S155–S163.

Bureau of Land Management, 2019, Rapid ecoregional 

assessments: Bureau of Land Management, web, accessed 

June 12, 2019, at https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/

catalog/REAs/REAs.page.

Calo, A., Brause, S., and Jones, S., 2012, Integrated treatment 

with a prescribed burn and postemergent herbicide 

demonstrates initial success in managing cheatgrass in a 

northern Colorado natural area: Natural Areas Journal, 

v. 32, no. 3, p. 300–304. 
32 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Carter, D.L., and Blair, J.M., 2012, High richness and dense 

seeding enhance grassland restoration establishment 

but have little effect on drought response: Ecological 

Applications, v. 22, no. 4, p. 1308–1319.

Castro, J.M., MacDonald, A., Lynch, E., and Thorne, C.R., 

2015, Risk-based approach to designing and reviewing 

pipeline stream crossings to minimize impacts to aquatic 

habitats and species: River Research and Applications, 

v. 31, no. 6, p. 767–783. 

Chambers, J.C., Maestra, J.D., Pyke, D.A., Boyd, C.S., 

Pellant, M., and Wuenschel, A., 2017, Using resilience 

and resistance concepts to manage persistent threats to 

sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse: Rangeland 

Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 2, p. 149–164. 

Chambers, J.C., Roundy, B.A., Blank, R.R., Meyer, S.E., and 

Whittaker, A., 2007, What makes Great Basin sagebrush 

ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum?: Ecological 

Monographs, v. 77, no. 1, p. 117–145.

Coe, D.B.R., 2006, Sediment production and delivery from 

forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, California: Fort Collins, 

Colorado State University, Master of Science thesis.

Collins, S.L., Knapp, A.K., Briggs, J.M., Blair, J.M., and 

Steinauer, E.M., 1998, Modulation of diversity by grazing 

and mowing in native tallgrass prairie: Science, v. 280, 

no. 5364, p. 745–747.

Cook, C.N., Inayatullah, S., Burgman, M.A., Sutherland, W.J., 

and Wintle, B.A., 2014, Strategic foresight—How planning 

for the unpredictable can improve environmental decisionmaking: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 29, no. 9, 

p. 531–541. 

Copeland, H.E., Pocewicz, A., Naugle, D.E., Griffiths, T., 

Keinath, D., Evans, J., and Platt, J., 2013, Measuring the 

effectiveness of conservation—A novel framework to 

quantify the benefits of sage-grouse conservation policy and 

easements in Wyoming: PLoS One, v. 8, no. 6, p. e67261.

Courtois, D.R., Perryman, B.L., and Hussein, H.S., 2004, 

Vegetation change after 65 years of grazing and grazing 

exclusion: Journal of Range Management, v. 57, no. 6, 

p. 574–582.

Creutzburg, M.K., Henderson, E.B., and Conklin, D.R., 2015, 

Climate change and land management impact rangeland 

condition and sage-grouse habitat in southeastern Oregon: 

AIMS Environmental Science, v. 2, p. 203–236. 

Curtis, J.A., Flint, L.E., Flint, A.L., Lundquist, J.D., Hudgens, 

B., Boydston, E.E., and Young, J.K., 2015, Correction—

Incorporating cold-air pooling into downscaled climate 

models increases potential refugia for snow-dependent 

species within the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, CA: PLoS 

One, v. 10, no. 4, p. e0124729.

David, E., 2013, Innovative snow harvesting technology 

increases vegetation establishment success in native 

sagebrush ecosystem restoration: Plant and Soil, v. 373, 

no. 1-2, p. 843–856. 

Davies, K.W., and Bates, J.D., 2014, Attempting to restore 

herbaceous understories in Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities with mowing and seeding: Restoration 

Ecology, v. 22, no. 5, p. 608–615.

Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Miller, R.F., 2007, Shortterm effects of burning Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in 

southeast Oregon: Rangeland Ecology and Management, 

v. 60, no. 5, p. 515–522.

Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., and Boyd, C.S., 

2010a, Effects of long-term livestock grazing on fuel 

characteristics in rangelands—An example from the 

sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, 

v. 63, no. 6, p. 662–669.

Davies, K.W., Nafus, A.M., and Sheley, R.L., 2010b, Nonnative competitive perennial grass impedes the spread of 

an invasive annual grass: Biological Invasions, v. 12, no. 9, 

p. 3187–3194.

Davies, K.W., Svejcar, T.J., and Bates, J.D., 2009, Interaction 

of historical and nonhistorical disturbances maintains native 

plant communities: Ecological Applications, v. 19, no. 6, 

p. 1536–1545.

Delach, A., Matson, N., Murray, H., and Colegrove, C., 2014, 

Environmental reviews and case studies—Reasonably 

foreseeable futures—Climate change adaptation and 

the National Environmental Policy Act: Environmental 

Practice, v. 16, no. 1, p. 52–76. 

DeNardo, J.C., Jarrett, A.B., Manbeck, H.B., Beattie, D.J., and 

Berghage, R.D., 2005, Stormwater mitigation and surface 

temperature reduction by green roofs—Transactions of the 

ASAE: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, v. 48, 

no. 4, p. 1491–1496. 
References Cited 33

Department of Interior, 2014, Department of the Interior 

Climate Change Adaptation Plan: Department of the Interior 

Office of Policy Analysis, 48 p., accessed June 11, 2019, at 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/

sustainability_plan/upload/2014_DOI_Climate_Change_

Adaptation_Plan.pdf?.

Derner, J.D., and Hart, R.H., 2007, Livestock and vegetation 

responses to rotational grazing in short-grass steppe: Western 

North American Naturalist, v. 67, no. 3, p. 359–367.

DiTomaso, J.M., Kyser, G.B., and Hastings, M.S., 1999, 

Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity: 

Weed Science, v. 47, no. 2, p. 233–242.

Dupont, L., and Van Eetvelde, V., 2013, Assessing the 

potential impacts of climate change on traditional 

landscapes and their heritage values on the local level—

Case studies in the Dender basin in Flanders, Belgium: 

Land Use Policy, v. 35, p. 179–191.

Espiner, S.R., 1999, The use and effect of hazard warning 

signs: Wellington, New Zealand, Department of 

Conservation, Science for Conservation, v. 108, accessed 

June 12, 2019, at https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/

science-and-technical/sfc108.pdf.

 Glick, P., Stein, B.A., and Edelson, N.A., eds., 2011, 

Scanning the conservation horizon—A guide to climate 

change vulnerability assessment: Washington, D.C., 

National Wildlife Federation, 168 p.

Gornish, E.S., and Ambrozio dos Santos, P., 2016, Invasive 

species cover, soil type, and grazing interact to predict longterm grassland restoration success: Restoration Ecology, 

v. 24, no. 2, p. 222–229.

Government of Canada, 2019, Scenarios and climate models: 

Government of Canada, web, accessed March 19, 2019), 

at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/

services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/

basics/scenario-models.html.

Gray, M.E., and Dickson, B.G., 2016, Applying fire 

connectivity and centrality measures to mitigate the 

cheatgrass-fire cycle in the arid West, USA: Landscape 

Ecology, v. 31, no. 8, p. 1681–1696.

Halofsky, J.E., Peterson, D.L., Dante-Wood, S.K., Hoang, 

L., Ho, J.J., and Joyce, L.A., eds., 2018, Climate change 

vulnerability and adaptation in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-374, 475 p.

Hanna, S.K., and Fulgham, K.O., 2015, Post-fire vegetation 

dynamics of a sagebrush steppe community change 

significantly over time: California Agriculture, v. 69, no. 1, 

p. 36–42. 

Hemstrom, M.A., Wisdom, M.J., Hann, W.J., Rowland, M.M., 

Wales, B.C., and Gravenmier, R.A., 2002, Sagebrush-steppe 

vegetation dynamics and restoration potential in the Interior 

Columbia Basin, U.S.A.: Conservation Biology, v. 16, no. 5, 

p. 1243–1255. 

Heller, N.E., and Zavaleta, E.S., 2009, Biodiversity 

management in the face of climate change—A review of 22 

years of recommendations: Biological Conservation, v. 142, 

no. 1, p. 13–32. 

Holling, C.S., 1973, Resilience and stability of ecological 

systems: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 4, 

no. 1, p. 1–23.

Hostetler, S.W., and Alder, J.R., 2016, Implementation and 

evaluation of a monthly water balance model over the U.S. 

on an 800 m grid: Water Resources Research, v. 52, no. 12, 

p. 9600–9620.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate 

change 2007—Synthesis report, contribution of working 

groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, 

Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

104 p.

Isaak, D.J., Young, M.K., Nagel, D., Horan, D.L., and Groce, 

M.C., 2015, The cold-water climate shield—Delineating 

refugia to preserve salmonid fishes through the 21st century: 

Global Change Biology, v. 21, no. 7, p. 2540–2553.

Littell, J.S., Elsner, M.M., Mauger, G.S., Lutz, E., Hamlet, 

A.F., and Salathe, E., 2011, Regional climate and 

hydrologic change in the Northern US Rockies and Pacific 

Northwest—Internally consistent projections of future 

climate for resource management: Seattle, Washington, 

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, 109 p.

Kessler, K.C., Nissen, S.J., Meiman, P.J., and Beck, 

K.G., 2015, Litter reduction by prescribed burning can 

extend downy brome control: Rangeland Ecology and 

Management, v. 68, no. 4, p. 367–374.

McAvoy, L.H., Schatz, C., and Lime, D.W., 1991, Cooperation 

in management—A model planning process for promoting 

partnerships between resource managers and private service 

providers: Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 

v. 9, p. 42–58.
34 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

McCammon, I., and Hägeli, P., 2007, An evaluation of rulebased decision tools for travel in avalanche terrain: Cold 

Regions Science and Technology, v. 47, no. 1-2, p. 193–206. 

Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, S.L., 2007, 

Climate change and forests of the future—Managing in the 

face of uncertainty: Ecological Applications, v. 17, no. 8, 

p. 2145–2151.

Miller, S.A., Bartow, A., Gisler, M., Ward, K., Young, A.S., and 

Kaye, T.N., 2011, Can an ecoregion serve as a seed transfer 

zone? Evidence from a common garden study with five native 

species: Restoration Ecology, v. 19, no. 201, p. 268–276.

Morelli, T.L., Yeh, S., Smith, N.M., Hennessy, M.B., and 

Millar, C.I., 2012, Climate project screening tool—An 

aid for climate change adaptation: U.S. Forest Service, 

Research Paper PSW-RP-263, 29 p.

Mote, P.W., and Salathe, E.P., Jr., 2010, Future climate in the 

Pacific Northwest: Climatic Change, v. 102, no. 1-2, p. 29–50.

Mote, P.W., Brekke, L., Duffy, P., and Maurer, E., 2011, 

Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios—EOS, 

Transactions: Geophysical Union, v. 92, no. 31, p. 257–264. 

Munson, S.M., Long, A.L., Decker, C., Johnson, K.A., Walsh, 

K., and Miller, M.E., 2015, Repeated landscape-scale 

treatments following fire suppress a non-native annual 

grass and promote recovery of native perennial vegetation: 

Biological Invasions, v. 17, no. 6, p. 1915–1926.

Nelson, R., Cross, M., Hansen, L., and Tabor, G., 2016, 

A three-step decision support framework for climate 

adaptation–Selecting climate-informed conservation 

goals and strategies for native salmonids in the northern 

U.S. Rockies: Bozeman, Montana, Wildlife Conservation 

Society, EcoAdapt, Center for Large Landscape 

Conservation, 21 p., accessed June 12, 2019, at http://rmpf.

weebly.com/cold-water-ecosystem-management-tool.html.

Northern Rockies Adaptation Partnership, 2019, Northern 

Rockies Adaptation Partnership subregions: Northern 

Rockies Adaptation Partnership, web, accessed June 12, 

2019, at http://adaptationpartners.org/nrap/.

Oliver, T.M., Smithers, R.J., Bailey, S., Walmsley, C.A., and 

Watts, K., 2012, A decision framework for considering climate 

change adaptation in biodiversity conservation planning: 

Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 49, no. 6, p. 1247–1255.

Peña, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I., and Onaindia, M., 2015, 

Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological 

and a social evaluation approach: Ecosystem Services, 

v. 13, p. 108–118. 

Pocewicz, A., Kiesecker, J.M., Jones, G.P., Copeland, 

H.E., Daline, J., and Mealor, B.A., 2011, Effectiveness 

of conservation easements for reducing development 

and maintaining biodiversity in sagebrush ecosystems: 

Biological Conservation, v. 144, no. 1, p. 567–574. 

Prevéy, J.S., Knochel, D.G., and Seastedt, T.R., 2014, Mowing 

reduces exotic annual grasses but increases exotic forbs 

in a semiarid grassland: Restoration Ecology, v. 22, no. 6, 

p. 774–781. 

Pywell, R.F., Warman, E.A., Hulmes, L., Hulmes, S., Nuttall, 

P., Sparks, T.H., Critchley, C.N.R., and Sherwood, A., 

2006, Effectiveness of new agri-environment schemes in 

providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively 

farmed landscapes: Biological Conservation, v. 129, no. 2, 

p. 192–206.

Richardson, P.J., Horrocks, J., and Larson, D.W., 2010, 

Drought resistance increases with species richness in 

restored populations and communities: Basic and Applied 

Ecology, v. 11, no. 3, p. 204–215.

Richardson, R.B., and Loomis, J.B., 2004, Adaptive recreation 

planning and climate change—A contingent visitation 

approach: Ecological Economics, v. 50, no. 1-2, p. 83–99.

Richardson, R.B., Loomis, J., and Weiler, S., 2006, Recreation 

as a spatial good—Distance effects on changes in recreation 

visitation and benefits: The Review of Regional Studies, 

v. 36, p. 362–380.

Roundy, B.A., Young, K., Cline, N., Hulet, A., Miller, 

R.F., Tausch, R.J., Chambers, J.C., and Rau, B., 2014, 

Piñon–juniper reduction increases soil water availability 

of the resource growth pool: Rangeland Ecology and 

Management, v. 67, no. 5, p. 495–505. 

Rupp, D.E., Abatzoglou, J.T., Hegewisch, K.C., and Mote, 

P.W., 2013, Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate 

simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, D, Atmospheres, v. 118, p. 10,844–

10,906.

Schmidt, D.A., Taylor, A.H., and Skinner, C.N., 2008, The 

influence of fuels treatment and landscape arrangement 

on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade Range, 

California: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 255, 

no. 8-9, p. 3170–3184. 

Scott, D., Dawson, J., and Jones, B., 2008, Climate change 

vulnerability of the U.S. Northeast winter recreationtourism sector: Mitigation and adaptation strategies for 

global change, v. 13, no. 5-6, p. 577–596.
References Cited 35

Scott, D., McBoyle, G., Minogue, A., and Mills, B., 2006, 

Climate change and the sustainability of ski-based tourism 

in eastern North America—A reassessment: Journal of 

Sustainable Tourism, v. 14, no. 4, p. 376–398.

Simmons, M.T., Windhager, S., Power, P., Lott, J., Lyons, R.K., 

and Schwope, C., 2007, Selective and non-selective control 

of invasive plants—The short-term effects of growing-season 

prescribed fire, herbicide, and mowing in two Texas prairies: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 15, no. 4, p. 662–669.

Snover, A.K., Mantua, N.J., Littell, J.S., Alexander, M.A., 

McClure, M.M., and Nye, J., 2013, Choosing and using 

climate-change scenarios for ecological-impact assessments 

and conservation decisions: Conservation Biology, v. 27, 

no. 6, p. 1147–1157. 

Stack, L., Simpson, M.H., Crosslin, T., Roseen, R., Sowers, 

D., and Lawson, C., 2010, The Oyster River culvert analysis 

project: Durham, New Hampshire, Piscataqua Region 

Estuaries Partnership, 68 p.

Stafford, A.K., 2011, Sediment production and delivery from 

hillslopes and forest roads in the southern Sierra Nevada, 

California: Fort Collins, Colorado State University, M.S. 

thesis.

State of Idaho, 2019, State wildlife action plan: State of Idaho, 

web, accessed June 12, 2019, at https://idfg.idaho.gov/swap.

State of Montana, 2019, Montana’s State Wildlife Plan 

2015: State of Montana, web, accessed June 12, 2019, at 

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/conservationInAction/

actionPlan.html. 

Stein, B., Glick, P., Edelson, N., and Staudt, A., 2014, 

Climate-smart conservation, putting adaptation principles 

into practice: Merrifield, Virginia, National Wildlife 

Federation.

Swanston, C.W., Janowiak, M.K., Brandt, L.A., Butler, P.R., 

Handler, S.D., Shannon, P.D., Derby Lewis, A., Hall, K., 

Fahey, R.T., Scott, L., Kerber, A., Miesbauer, J.W., Darling, 

L., Parker, L., and St. Pierre, M., 2016, Forest Adaptation 

Resources—Climate change tools and approaches for land 

managers (2nd ed.): U.S. Forest Service, General Technical 

Report NRS-GTR-87-2, 161 p., accessed June 11, 2019, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-87-2.

Taylor, K., Brummer, T., Rew, L.J., Lavin, M., and Maxwell, 

B.D., 2014, Bromus tectorum response to fire varies with 

climate conditions: Ecosystems (New York, N.Y.), v. 17, 

no. 6, p. 960–973.

Thrasher, B., Xiong, J., Wang, W., Melton, F., Michaelis, A., 

and Nemani, R., 2013, Downscaled climate projections 

suitable for resource management: Eos Transactions, v. 94, 

no. 37, p. 321–323.

Tilman, D., Reich, P.B., and Knops, J.M.H., 2006, 

Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long 

grassland experiment: Nature, v. 441, no. 7093, p. 629–632. 

Tix, D., and Charvat, I., 2005, Aboveground biomass removal 

by burning and raking increases diversity in a reconstructed 

prairie: Restoration Ecology, v. 13, no. 1, p. 20–28. 

Underwood, E., Ustin, S., and DiPietro, D., 2003, Mapping 

nonnative plants using hyperspectral imagery: Remote 

Sensing of Environment, v. 86, no. 2, p. 150–161. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2011, 

Navigating the climate change performance scorecard, a 

guide for national forests and grasslands: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Forest Service, 104 p.

U.S. Forest Service, 2018, Forestwide direction: U.S. Forest 

Service, Flathead National Forest Land Management Plan, 

chap. 2, p. 55–62, accessed June 11, 2019, at https://www.

fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603502.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, National climate change 

viewer: U.S. Geological Survey, web, accessed June 18, 

2018, at https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv.asp.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D.L., and Carroll, C., 

2016, Locally downscaled and spatially customizable 

climate data for historical and future periods for North 

America: PLoS One, v. 11, no. 6, p. e0156720.

Weart, Spencer, and American Institute of Physics, 2020, 

General circulation models of climate: Weart and American 

Institute of Physics, The Discovery of Global Warming, 

web, accessed July 11, 2018, at https://history.aip.org/

climate/GCM.htm.

Whitson, T.D., and Koch, D.W., 1998, Control of downy 

brome (Bromus tectorum) with herbicides and perennial 

grass competition: Weed Technology, v. 12, no. 2, p. 391–

396. 

Williams, A.P., and Hunt, E.R., Jr., 2002, Estimation of leafy 

spurge cover from hyperspectral imagery using mixture 

tuned matched filtering: Remote Sensing of Environment, 

v. 82, no. 2-3, p. 446–456.
36 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., and Buck, L., 2000, Using 

scenarios to make decisions about the future—Anticipatory 

learning for the adaptive co-management of community 

forests: Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 47, no. 1-2, 

p. 65–77. 

World Climate Change Program, 2020, X: World Climate 

Change Program, web, accessed March 18, 2019, at https://

www.wcrp-climate.org/modelling-wgcm-mip-catalogue/

modelling-wgcm-cmip6-endorsed-mips.

Young, K.R., Roundy, B.A., and Eggett, D.L., 2013, Tree 

reduction and debris from mastication of Utah juniper alter 

the soil climate in sagebrush steppe: Forest Ecology and 

Management, v. 310, p. 777–785.

Yu, K.R., Schwartz, Z., and Walsh, J.E., 2009, Effects of 

climate change on the seasonality of weather for tourism in 

Alaska: Arctic, v. 62, no. 4, p. 443–457.
Appendix 1. Participants in Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT) Development

Table 1.1. Resource managers, scientists, conservation practitioners, and other contributors to this project.

[Abbreviations: FS, U.S. Forest Service; GIS, geographic information systems; ID, Idaho; MT, Montana; NF, National Forest; R1, Region 1]

Name Position (at time of involvement) Role

Jim Barber FS, R1 GIS Coordinator Tested tools (MT); advisor (spatial data)

Renate Bush FS, R1 Inventory and Analysis Advisor (spatial data)

Gunnar Carnwath FS, Vegetation Specialist, Forest Plan Revision Team, 

Custer-Gallatin NF

Advisor

Elizabeth Casselli FS, Recreation Specialist, Forest Plan Revision, 

Lewis & Clark NF

Provided feedback on early tools

Molly Cross Wildlife Conservation Society Advisor; led development of similar decision support 

framework for fisheries managers

Jesse English FS, R8 Recreation Program Manager Tested tools (ID, MT)

Deb Entwistle FS, Forest Plan Revision, Helena and Lewis & Clark 

NF

Advisor

Susan Graves FS, R1 Civil Engineer Tested tools (ID)

Shawn Heinert FS, R1 Watershed, Wildlife, Fisheries & Rare Plants Advisor; tested tools

Linh Hoang FS, R1 Inventory, Monitoring, Assessment and 

Climate Change Coordinator

Main contact; helped organize project; provided feedback 

and guidance

Steve Hostetler USGS, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center Provided GIS data

Zach Holden FS, R1 Fire Specialist Advisor

Stu Hoyt FS, R1 Regional Fuels Specialist Advisor

Virginia Kelly FS, Forest Plan Revision Team Leader, CusterGallatin NFAdvisor

Jonathan Kempff FS, R1 Forest Engineer Roads, Facilities, Trails, & 

Bridges

Tested tools (MT)

Jerry Krueger FS, Forest Plan Revision, Flathead NF Advisor

Jordan Larson FS, R1 Regional Economist Tested tools (ID)

Tim Love FS, District Ranger, Lolo NF Advisor

Mary Manning FS, R1 Vegetation Ecologist Advisor; tested tools

Marsha Moore FS, R1 Recreation/Wilderness Planner Revision 

Team

Tested tools (MT)

Regan Nelson Crown Conservation Initiative Advisor; led development of similar decision support 

framework for fisheries managers

Lis Novak FS, R1 Recreation Planner Advisor; provided feedback on early tools

Pam Novitzky FS, R1 Recreation Planner Forest Plan Revision 

Team

Tested tools (MT)

Lauren Oswald FS, Recreation, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Program Manager, Custer-Gallatin NF

Tested tools (MT)

Meghan Oswalt FS, R1 Sustainable Operations Coordinator Tested tools (MT)

Timory Peel FS, R1 Forest Planner Tested tools; provided feedback on early tools

Zach Peterson FS, Lead Land Management Planner, Nez PerceClearwater NFTested tools (ID)

Katie Renwick FS, R1 Assistant Planner Advisor; tested tools

Steve Shelly FS, R1 Regional Botanist Advisor

Mark Slacks FS, Planner and Environmental Coordinator, CusterGallatin NFProvided feedback on early tools

Norma Staaf FS, Environmental Coordinator, Nez PerceClearwater NFTested tools (ID)

Jeff Ward FS, R1 Recreation Business Program Manager Provided feedback on early tools

Meredith Webster FS, R1 Regional Soil Scientist Advisor

37 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide
38 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

Appendix 2. A Primer on Selecting Downscaled Climate Projections

Envisioning how future environmental conditions might affect management of natural resources depends on having 

forecasts of what those conditions might be. Projections of future climate are based on general circulation models, also called 

“global climate models” (GCMs; table 2.1). Because they integrate the entire global climate system, limits of computing capacity force them to have spatial resolutions that are too coarse to adequately inform most management decisions. This appendix 

provides a brief primer on GCMs, how they are used, why they differ, how to choose among them, how they are down-scaled 

to describe finer spatial resolutions, and the availability of derived variables (for example, snow water equivalent, soil moisture 

deficit) that may be more informative than temperature and precipitation for resource managers.

Table 2.1 Abbreviated model name, source, and brief description of 56 global climate models.

Model Source and description

ACCESS1.0 Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator 1.0

ACCESS1.3 Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator 1.3

BCC-CSM1.1 Beijing Climate Center - Climate System Model BCC-CSM1.1(m)

BCC-CSM1.1(m) Beijing Climate Center - Climate System Model (moderate resolution)

BNU-ESM Beijing Normal University- Earth System Model

CCSM4 NCAR Community Climate System Model

CESM1(BGC) NCAR Community Earth System Model (biogeochemistry)

CESM1(CAM5) NCAR Community Earth System Model (Community Atmosphere Model 5)

CESM1(FASTCHEM) NCAR Community Earth System Model (Component CAM-CHEM)

CESM1(WACCM) NCAR Community Earth System Model (Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model)

CFSv2-2011 NCEP (NOAA National Cnt for Environmental Prediction) Climate Forecast System

CMCC-CESM Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per I Cambiamenti Climatici -Climate Model with resolved Stratosphere

CMCC-CM Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per I Cambiamenti Climatici -Coupled Model

CMCC-CMS Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per I Cambiamenti Climatici -CMS

CNRM-CM5 Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques - Climate Model

CNRM-CM5-2 Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques - Climate Model2

CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - Mk3 stage of model code

CSIRO-Mk3L-1-2 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-Mk3 lagrangian additions

CanAM4 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis 4th generation atmospheric model

CanCM4 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis 4th generation coupled model

CanESM2 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis 2nd generation earth system model

EC-EARTH European community Earth-System Model (couples 6 models using Oasis-3 MCT coupler)

FGOALS-g2 Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model -Grid Point, version 2 Sate Key Laboratory of 

Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric 

Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Sate)

FGOALS-gl Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model -grid/low res (Sate)

FGOALS-s2 Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model -coupled (Sate) 

GEOS-5 Goddard Earth Observing System v5 Atmosphere-Ocean-Global-Climate-Model

GFDL-CM2.1 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory climate model 200 kilometer grid cell (NOAA)

GFDL-CM3 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory -climate model to focus on aerosol chemistry

GFDL-ESM2G Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory earth system model -ocean model uses vertical pressure

GFDL-ESM2M Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory earth system model -ocean model uses isopycnal (density)

GISS-E2-H Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) atmosphere coupled to hycom ocean model

GISS-E2-H-CC Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) same as E2-H adding interactive carbon cycle

GISS-E2-R Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) atmosphere coupled to rusell ocean model

GISS-E2-R-CC Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) same as -R adding interactive carbon cycle

HadCM3 Hadley Center (Met Office) Climate Model (good for decadal)

HadGEM2-A Hadley Center (Met Office) Earth System Model atmosphere

HadGEM2-AO Hadley Center (Met Office) Earth System Model coupled atmosphere-ocean

HadGEM2-CC Hadley Center (Met Office) Earth System Model coupled carbon

HadGEM2-ES Hadley Center (Met Office) Earth System Model

INM-CM4 Institute of Numerical Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences- climate model v4

IPSL-CM5A-LR Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (Paris) Earth System Model, 5th IPCC report low resolution

IPSL-CM5A-MR Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (Paris) Earth System Model, 5th IPCC report medium resolution

IPSL-CM5B-LR Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (Paris) Earth System Model B, 5th IPCC report low resolution

MIROC-ESM Japanese Institutes (AORI, NIES, JAMSTEC) Earth System Model
Appendix 2. A Primer on Selecting Downscaled Climate Projections 39

Table 2.1 Abbreviated model name, source, and brief description of 56 global climate models.—Continued

Model Source and description

MIROC-ESM-CHEM Japanese Institutes (AORI, NIES, JAMSTEC) Earth System Model (aerosol Chemistry)

MIROC4h Japanese Institutes (AORI, NIES, JAMSTEC) version 4h

MIROC5 Japanese Institutes (AORI, NIES, JAMSTEC) version 5

MPI-ESM-LR MPI-ESM - Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie- Earth System Model -low resolution

MPI-ESM-MR MPI-ESM - Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie- Earth System Model -medium resolution

MPI-ESM-P MPI-ESM - Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie- Earth System Model -paleo experiments

MRI-AGCM3-2H Meteorological Research Institute - Atmospheric General Circulation Model - 2H

MRI-AGCM3-2S Meteorological Research Institute - Atmospheric General Circulation Model - 2S

MRI-CGCM3 Meteorological Research Institute - Atmosphere Ocean Coupled General Circulation Model - 2S

MRI-ESM1 Meteorological Research Institute - Earth System Model - version 1

NorESM1-M Norwegian Earth System Model -medium resolution

NorESM1-ME Norwegian Earth System Model -emission driven

Characteristics and Uses of Global Climate 

Models

Global climate model (GCM) forecasts are often aggregated into monthly averages to project conditions decades and 

centuries into the future using the same equations as weather 

models. They project future conditions by including interactions that are not included in day-to-day regional weather 

models such as change in global ice cover extent or solar 

radiation. Extensive improvements have been made since the 

first GCM in 1955, including much better meteorological and 

oceanic data, better understanding of weather dynamics, more 

realistic coupling of ocean, atmosphere, and biological system 

physics, and increased spatial resolution of model grid cells. 

Most GCMs currently have a grid cell width of about 70 mi 

(110 kilometers [km]) but some are as fine as 20 mi (30 km) 

and as coarse as 350 mi (560 km). Each GCM grid cell runs 

coded calculations for each timestep passing the results in the 

next timestep to adjacent grid cells. The timestep interval is 

based on how fast the atmospheric or oceanic processes occur 

within the cell. The finer the spatial resolution the shorter the 

timestep must be. To be realistic, cells 70 mi wide must have 

timesteps no longer than 8 minutes. As computational power 

increases so does the capacity to add equations to represent 

physical processes and increase the spatial resolution of the 

GCM. For an account of the development of the science in 

GCM models, see Weart and American Institute of Physics 

(2018).

The GCMs do what a model is intended to do: reduce 

the complexity of a system so that the system can be understood and system outcomes under different conditions can be 

predicted. Each model reduces complexity differently. Global 

climate dynamics are so massively complex that none of the 

models can attempt to provide a full representation of the system, but each can give valuable insights. Each model tends to 

optimize for specific dynamics. The international community 

has invested in more than 50 model configurations to conduct 

simulations under multiple greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to produce hundreds of climate projections. Comparisons 

among models using an ensemble of agreed-upon emissions 

scenarios (box 4), and model-year start points are conducted 

under the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). 

The goals of CMIP are to comprehensively examine differences among model dynamics and model results and to better 

understand the underlying assumptions embedded in each 

model’s code. The results of climate projections are detailed in 

Assessment Reports (AR) that use CMIP results. The ARs are 

a product of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), an international group of thousands of scientists who 

produce reports detailing the latest scientific consensus on 

climate dynamics, climate projections, and potential impacts. 

In our project, we have used models from AR4 and AR5 that 

use results from CMIP3 and CMIP5, respectively. The AR6 

Report, due in 2020, will be using CMIP6 model outputs that 

are also being used to run 23 experiments each designed to 

deepen our understanding of specific climate relationships: 

carbon dioxide removal, volcanic eruption, glacial ice melt, 

sea ice, geoengineering, and others (World Climate Change 

Program, 2020). 

A graphical comparison of model results for global 

annual temperature from 29 GCMs used in CMIP5 show the 

consequences of different representation of atmospheric processes among models (fig. 2.1). Model results do not diverge 

in the short-term (that is, to 2025) but continue to diverge 

substantially in the long term through 2100.
40 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

tac19-1334_fig A2.1

EXPLANATION

Recreational opportunity spectrum (RCP)

Historical

RCP 8.5 – high globale mission scenario

RCP 4.5 – moderate global emission scenario

RCP 2.6 – low global emission scenario

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

Change in global average temperature, in degrees Celsius

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Year

2025 2050 2075 2100

Figure 2.1. Graph of global annual temperature as simulated for past years and projected for future years by 

29 Global Climate Models used in Climate Model Intercomparison Project 5. [Solid black lines indicate data and solid 

colored lines indicate model averages; grey and colored areas indicate the range of model results. 

From Government of Canada (2019)]

Down-Scaling

The climate change research community recognizes that 

grid cell resolutions of 20–350 mi (30–560 km) do not provide 

sufficient detail for many planning purposes and that planners cannot wait for the next generation of higher resolution 

GCMs. Consequently, higher resolution versions of GCM 

results are being provided using a variety of methods ranging 

from simple schemes that divide each large GCM grid cells 

into smaller area grid cells with the same values to much more 

complicated schemes that run GCM results through regional 

climate models. The latter method, called dynamic downscaling, requires high-powered computations and more input data 

than are usually available. An intermediate approach uses statistical methods to compare GCM model output with historical 

climate data at a finer resolution than the GCM. Projections 

of future climate are then adjusted by the amount needed to 

describe the finer scale as determined using historical data.

The Climate Impacts Group, the source of climate projections in Halofsky and others (2018), used the bias-correction 

and spatial disaggregation statistical approach to downscale 

GCMs at 60–180 mi (100–300 km) grid cell resolution to a 

7.5 mi (16 km) grid cell spatial resolution (Littell and others, 

2011; Rupp and others, 2013). These downscaled results were 

used to generate sub-regional assessments that more realistically differentiate the western, central, and eastern Rockies 

from the Greater Yellowstone Area and the grasslands of 

Montana and the Dakotas. Even at this scale, the projections 

proved too general for site-specific application. Complex 

terrain and local weather patterns create conditions that are 

not discernable at coarse scales. To address these concerns, we 

sought projections at higher spatial resolution and adopted the 

800 m resolution (Thrasher and others, 2013) dataset available 

for the conterminous U.S. and applied the selective regionspecific parameter extraction approach to be described below.

Choosing Among Models

Selecting a minimum number of models to represent the 

wide range of projected climate futures is often based on standard climate variables such as temperature and precipitation. 

Other relevant criteria are often added, such as whether the 

model has been selected by other partner groups or whether it 

captures important regional dynamics such as seasonal cycles. 

Downscaled GCM model output often highlights the striking 

regional differences that emerge among models. Model output 

differs especially in topographically complex settings due to 

the various ways GCMs couple different earth system components: atmosphere, ocean, and land, and the different methods 

for incorporating interactions among heat, moisture, wind, 

evaporation, and other physical dynamics. Models will change 

as surprising discoveries are integrated such as the increased 

melt of Greenland ice sheets due to lubrication between the 

ice and underlying ground or increased outgassing of methane 

from wetlands and peat. A challenge to your model selection 

process will be incorporating the new information that continues to be produced at an accelerated rate. 
Appendix 2. A Primer on Selecting Downscaled Climate Projections 41

The next four steps illustrate an approach for selecting a 

subset of climate models by first deciding which are best for 

the resource-relevant climate variables. We illustrate the steps 

below using only the CMIP5 output. 

1. Decide on the climate parameters that best represent the 

change that will impact the resource in question. The 

most frequently chosen parameters are precipitation and 

temperature. However, many other parameters are available from CMIP5 models that may link more closely 

to the extreme conditions that put the resource at risk, 

including maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, runoff, snow water equivalent, soil moisture 

storage, and evaporative deficit. These can all be viewed 

on the National Climate Change Viewer (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). We determined that snow water 

equivalent was most relevant to the changing availability 

of winter recreation opportunities, while soil moisture 

parameters were most useful for determining changes in 

distribution of rangeland vegetation. The range of model 

projections for multiple relevant parameters can be visualized as illustrated in figure 4 (main text). Relationships 

among models will depend on the parameters graphed. 

The CMIP6 process will provide even more parameters.

2. Decide on the level of downscaling needed based on 

the spatial extent of the resource. The National Climate 

Change Viewer offers summary statistics at the national, 

state, county, and watershed scale. Depending on the 

parameters, the change in scale may substantially change 

the summary statistics (fig. 2.2).

3. Identify other criteria beyond the GCM climate parameter projections that are relevant to the decision-making 

process. In some cases, comparative analyses of the 

GCMs conducted by the scientific community to 

understand the differences among the global models can 

augment and guide the selection of downscaled versions 

of the GCMs (fig. 2.3). Other criteria might include the 

use of particular models by partners or repeating the use 

of models from previous projects when comparison is 

desired.

4. Assemble statistics on the climate parameters of interest 

and other criteria relevant for answering CAIT Step 2 

Critical Questions (figure 2.4). Values describing model 

projections are available from the “data table” tab on 

the National Climate Change Viewer (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2019).
42 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

tac19-1334_fig A2.2

Editor: Because thse maps are screen shots showing the results of a particular program, there will not be latlongs, formal scale bar or projection/datum 

listed in a credit note.

A

B

Figure 2.2. Screenshots of (A) the map of the mean maximum temperature projections from the CESM1-BGC model 

shows little difference across Idaho, whereas (B) the map of precipitation projected by the HadGEM2-ES model shows 

significant differences among the counties of Montana (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019).
Appendix 2. A Primer on Selecting Downscaled Climate Projections 43

tac19-1334_fig A2.3

1 to 2

1 to 4

1 to 5

All

EXPLANTION

Principal components

CESM1-CAM5

CESM1-FASTCHEM

CESM1-BGC

CCSM4

CNRM-CM5-2

CNRM-CM5

HadGEM2-CC

CMCC-CM

EC-EARTH

ConESM2

IPSL-CM5A-MR

HadGEM2-ES

bcc-csm1-1-m

HadGEM2-AO

MIROC5

NorESM1-M

CMCC-CMS

CESM1-WACCM

HadCM3

CSIRO-Mk3-6-0

IPSL-CM5A-LR

MPI-ESM-MR

FIO-ESM

BNU-ESM

MP1-ESM-LR

FGOALS-g2

GFDL-CM3

FGOALS-s2

MRI-CGCM3

inmcm4

GISS-E2-R-CC

GISS-E2-R

GISS-E2-H-CC

GISS-E2-H

bcc-csm1-1

GFDL-ESM2M

GFDL-ESM2G

MIROC-ESM-CHEM

MIROC-ESM

CMCC-CESM

IPSL-CM5B-LR

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Normalized error score

Figure 2.3. This graph from Rupp and others (2013) arrays the results from statistical analyses that explore the fidelity to 

regional climate patterns of each of the 35 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models. [Scores are based on 

results from five principal component axes that describe how well each model simulated seasonal and regional 20th century 

climate patterns for the Pacific Northwest. A larger error (y-axis) indicates poorer simulation of regional patterns.]

PPT (mm) -2.5 - 0 0 - 1 1 - 1.5 1.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 -5 5 - 7 7 -11

Criteria B Criteria A T (oC) + 2-3 + 3-4 + 4-5 + 5-6 + 6-7 + 7-8 + 8-9 + 9-10 + 10-11

1 3 CCSM4 1 1

4 CESM1-BGC 1 1

6 CNRM-CM5 1 1

1 7 HadGEM2-ES 1 1

8 HadGEM2-CC 1 1

9 CMCC-CM 1 1

1 11 CanESM2 1 1

12 IPSL-CM5A-MR 1 1

13 bcc-csm1-1-m 1 1

1 14 HadGEM2-AO 1 1

1 15 MIROC5 1 1

16 NorESM1-M 1 1

20 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 1 1

21 IPSL-CM5A-LR 1 1

22 MPI-ESM-MR 1 1

23 FIO-ESM 1 1

24 BNU-ESM 1 1

25 MPI-ESM-LR 1 1

26 FGOALS-g2 1 1

27 GFDL-CM3 1 1

29 MRI-CGCM3 1 1

30 inmcm4 1 1

1 34 GISS-E2-R 1 1

37 bcc-csm1-1 1 1

1 38 GFDL-ESM2M 1 1

39 GFDL-ESM2G 1 1

40 MIROC-ESM-CHEM 1 1

41 MIROC-ESM 1 1

42 IPSL-CM5B-LR 1 1

99 ACCESS1-0 1 1

Total Models in 

Temp Bin 1 4 4 5 4 7 1 2 2 30

Used by 

Partnering 

Stakeholder

Rupp et 

al. (2013) 

score

Montana: Change in Maximum Temperature and Change in Precipiation

Figure 2.4. Projected average change in maximum temperature (T) and precipitation (PPT) from 1981–2010 to 2050–74 for Montana 

from 30 CMIP5 models run over RCP 8.5 conditions. [The amount of change is arrayed horizontally in bins. Each model is represented 

by two bins, one for T (color-coded red) and one for PPT (color-coded in blue); models at the extremes of the ranges are circled These 

models are also graphically arrayed in figure 2.5. The circled models in this figure can be found at the outer edges of the cluster 

(fig. 2.5) in each of the four quadrants. Additional selection criteria are marked for each model in columns 1 and 2 (see fig. 2.3 for 

criteria details). 
44 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide

tac19-1334_fig A2.5

Dry/Warm

Dry/Cool Moist/Cool

Moist/Warm HadGEM2-AO, 5.7

HadGEM2-ES, 5.4

HadGEM2-CC, 5.6

IPSL-CM5A-MR, 4.3

CESM1-BGC, 3.9

MIROC-ESM-CHEM, 5.1

MIROC-ESM, 4.9

MIROC5, 4.1

ACCESS1-0, 4.3

NorESM1-M, 3.7

FIO-ESM, 2 CMCC-CM, 2.1

GFDL-ESM2M, 2.4

GISS-E2-R, 2

IPSL-CM5B-LR, 2.6

MPI-ESM-MR, 2.8 MPI-ESM-LR, 2.7

IPSL-CM5A-LR, 3.9

CSIRO-Mk3-6-0, 3.4

bcc-csm1-1-m, 3.1 CNRM-CM5, 3.2

CCSM4, 3.3

bcc-csm1-1, 3.5

BNU-ESM, 3.9

inmcm4, 2.4

MRI-CGCM3, 1.6

GFDL-ESM2G, 2.2

CanESM2, 4

GFDL-CM3, 3.6

FGOALS-g2, 2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Change in precipitation, in millimeters per month

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Temperature change, in degrees Celsius

Climate projections from 30 GCM for Montana under RCP8.5 

Figure 2.5. Projected average change in temperature (T) and precipitation (PPT) from 1981–2010 to 2050–74 for 

Montana from 30 CMIP5 models run under RCP 8.5 conditions superimposed with 4-square quadrant subdivisions 

(see fig. 4).
Appendix 3. Selected Sources of Climate Data 45

Appendix 3. Selected Sources of Climate Data

Table 3.1. Selected sources of climate data. 

[All websites were accessed June 12, 2019. Abbreviations: CMIP, Climate Model Intercomparison Project; GCM, global circulation model; NA, not applicable; 

SWE, snow water equivalent]

Name of source Description of available information Climate variables or other details Website

Climate Impacts 

Group

Portal for downloading daily and monthly 

downscaled (coarse ~55 kilometers; fine 

~800 meters) hydroclimate projections for 

various spatial extents throughout Pacific 

Northwest

Runoff, snow water equivalent, April 1st 

snowpack ratio1, soil moisture, potential 

evapotranspiration and others depending 

on spatial extent

https://cig.uw.edu/resources/

data/cig-datasets/

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Climate Wizard

Future Climate Viewer (Global) and dataset 

downloader

Global views of GCMs https://climatechange.lta.org/

tnc-climate-wizard/

National Climate 

Change Viewer

Future Climate Viewer (United States) and 

dataset downloader

Runoff, snow water equivalent, soil 

storage, evaporative deficit 

https://www2.usgs.gov/

landresources/lcs//nccv.asp 

AdaptWest portal 

for Western North 

American 

Extensive and growing collection of spatial 

data for conservation planning

Location specific, wide range of climate 

variables 

https://adaptwest.databasin.

org/

Andreas Hamann’s 

website

Current and projected climate and climate 

velocity data for North America, South 

America, and software download

Excellent source of analytic results in 

graphic form to compare models based 

on extremes and validation statistics.

http://www.ualberta.

ca/~ahamann/data/

climatewna.html

World Climate 

Research 

Programme 

(WCRP)

Background on the multiple CMIPs and 

future efforts for improving global climate 

projections

Links to CMIP iterations https://www.wcrp-climate.

org/modelling-wgcm-mipcatalogue/modelling-wgcmcmip6-endorsed-mips

Northern Rockies 

Adaptation 

Project (NRAP)

Extensive regional datasets and reports Links to Climate Impacts Group (see first 

item in this list)

http://adaptationpartners.org/

nrap/docs/NRAP_climate_

projections.pdf). 

American Institute 

of Physics

Historical description of global circulation 

models with general descriptions of the 

scientific advance accomplished by each 

generation of models 

NA https://history.aip.org/climate/

GCM.htm

1

April 1 snowpack ratio is equal to the total SWE accumulative by April 1 for that year divided by the 30-year average annual SWE
46 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Appendix 4. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Recreation Table 4.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize. Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature; ↑

extreme heat ↑

Changes in precipitation

Drought ↑

Low flows/water levels ↓

Snowpack; earlier ↓

melt/runoff

Water temperature ↑

High peak flow/flooding ↑

Altered wildfire regime

Pollution and poisons

Water demand— ↑

downstream users

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition

Manage recreation sites to 

mitigate risks to public safety and 

infrastructure; continue to provide 

recreation opportunities

Modify existing infrastructure to better withstand future climate 

conditions

● ● ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ ● ○ Bass and Baskaran 

(2003); Bratelbo and Booth (2003); DeNardo and others (2005); Stack and others (2010)

Adjust infrastructure maintenance schedule as conditions change ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Stafford (2011); Coe 

(2006)

Relocate at-risk infrastructure (such as move from lower elevations) ○ ○ ○ ○Develop new recreation sites designed for flexibility of use, or create 

new opportunities at existing sites

● ● ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Balbi and others (2013)

Prioritize post-disturbance treatments (such as relocation, armoring) ○ ○ ○ ○

Increase management flexibility 

to respond to changing access 

demands and resource availabilityInvest in infrastructure for new access needs and/or changes in access

● ● ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Balbi and others (2013)

Monitor recreation sites and set trigger points determining when a 

site should be closed or access restricted

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Develop new access restrictions (changes to seasonal closures, 

permitting processes, or allowable uses)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Vary whitewater permit season to adapt to changes in peak flow and 

duration

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Inform public about changing conditions (snowpack, lake levels, 

streamflow)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Appendix 4. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Recreation 47

Table 4.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature; ↑

extreme heat ↑

Changes in precipitation

Drought ↑

Low flows/water levels ↓

Snowpack; earlier ↓

melt/runoff

Water temperature ↑

High peak flow/flooding ↑

Altered wildfire regime

Pollution and poisons

Water demand— ↑

downstream users

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Provide sustainable recreation 

opportunities in response to 

changing supply and demand

Adjust capacity of recreation sites (enlarge campgrounds, install 

fences and gates, collect added fees)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● Beunen and others, 2008

Adjust the timing of actions (open/close dates, road/trail closures, 

food storage orders, special use permits) in response to changing conditions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Focus on activities that will remain feasible given projected changes; 

preserve existing opportunities (such as invest in snow-making)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Adopt new technology that may help disperse use, direct users, and 

provide facts about impacts of climate change

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Limit expansion or pioneering of new recreation sites in riparian 

areas (restrict access, revegetate, add signage)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Make necessary transitions 

to address shorter winter 

recreation seasons and 

changing use patterns

Develop options for diversifying snow-based recreations (such as 

helicopter or cat-skiing, higher-elevation runs)

● ● ● Balbi and others 2013; 

Scott and others, 2006, 2008

Increase safety education to warn the public of increased risk of 

avalanches and thin ice

● ● ● Burkeljca, 2013; 

McCammon and Hageli, 2007; Espiner, 1999

Maintain/improve current recreation infrastructure at sites that will 

remain viable under future climate conditions

● ● ● Balbi and others, 2013

Shift location of winter activities to maintain opportunities and/or 

mitigate safety risks (such as move ski trails)

○ ○ ○
48 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 4.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature; ↑

extreme heat ↑

Changes in precipitation

Drought ↑

Low flows/water levels ↓

Snowpack; earlier ↓

melt/runoff

Water temperature ↑

High peak flow/flooding ↑

Altered wildfire regime

Pollution and poisons

Water demand— ↑

downstream users

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Protect users from 

contaminated 

water/sediments

Cap/harden contaminated water areas ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Provide other water-based recreation in areas with lower exposure 

risk 

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Provide transportation to safer and more develop water-based 

recreation sites in economically depressed areas

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Adaptation strategies and actions for cultural heritage sites

Protect cultural and heritage 

sites and the use of cultural 

landscapes

Develop interpretation/education opportunities in cultural/heritage 

sites most vulnerable to climate change

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ○ Brown and others, 2008

Develop a vegetation plan to mitigate natural hazards, promote 

resilience in cultural landscapes (such as encourage age/size class heterogeneity, manage invasive species, restore native plants)

○ ○ ○ ○

Identify and prioritize management of cultural and heritage sites 

most vulnerable to climate change 

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ Dupont and Van Eetvelde (2013)

Increase use of surveys and monitoring at cultural and historic 

sites

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○
Appendix 4. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Recreation 49

Table 4.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature; ↑

extreme heat ↑

Changes in precipitation

Drought ↑

Low flows/water levels ↓

Snowpack; earlier ↓

melt/runoff

Water temperature ↑

High peak flow/flooding ↑

Altered wildfire regime

Pollution and poisons

Water demand— ↑

downstream users

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on research, monitoring and assessment

Use research, monitoring, and assessment to increase 

knowledge of current conditions and projected change

Assess infrastructure vulnerability to climate change, natural 

hazards; prioritize by seasonal use, viability, and required investment

Stack and others (2010)

Assess changes in use patterns; identify expected shifts in supply 

and demand, demographics, and economic trends

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ Richardson and Loomis 

(2004); Richardson and others (2006); Balbi and others (2013); Pena and others (2015)

Monitor climate variables critical to current and future site use ● ● ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ Yu and others (2009)

Use monitoring results to decide to maintain current site use, 

develop other opportunities, or abandon the site

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Yu and others (2009)

Analyze costs, benefits of keeping current opportunities to decide 

whether prioritized uses should change

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Assess viability of snow-based recreation sites under future 

climate 

○ ○ ○ ○ Balbi and others (2013); 

Yu and others (2009)

Monitor snow dates, event dates, and snowpack depth using 

SNOTEL data; incorporate data into decisions

● ● Yu and others (2009)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ●

○

○

●
50 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 4.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature; ↑

extreme heat ↑

Changes in precipitation

Drought ↑

Low flows/water levels ↓

Snowpack; earlier ↓

melt/runoff

Water temperature ↑

High peak flow/flooding ↑

Altered wildfire regime

Pollution and poisons

Water demand— ↑

downstream users

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on planning and/or collaboration

Increase collaborations and incorporate climate 

change into planning processes

Evaluate and prioritize existing access by season to ensure 

consistency with changing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Develop management strategies to maintain/shift Recreation 

Opportunity Settings in areas likely to change under future climate conditions

● ● ● ● ● Yu and others (2009)

Coordinate with concessionaires, partners to identify possible 

recreation impacts from change in supply/demand

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Collaborate with local Chambers of Commerce, other businesses 

and

organizations that entice visitors to address changes in supply and 

demand

McAvoy and others (1991)

Incorporate projected changes in concentrated winter use into 

forest management planning

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

Determine if changes in recreation are addressed in Master 

Development Plan; add these considerations if needed (add permitted uses, extend season)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ● ● ●○○
Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation 51

Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize. 

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition

Identify and 

protect priority 

rangeland 

vegetation habitatsUrge private land owners to designate conservation easements to conserve intact and/or high-quality rangeland habitats

● ● Pocewicz and others 

(2011); Copeland and others (2013)

Identify and maintain public management of ecologically 

significant remnant plant communities (rough fescue, Palouse prairie)

○

Maintain and/or restore 

native plant vigor, 

cover, and species 

richness in grasslands 

and shrublands

Revegetate habitats with a diversity of native species collectively 

adapted to the range of potential future climatic conditions

● ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ● Tilman and others 

(2006); Richardson and others (2010); Carter and Blair (2012)
52 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Maintain and/or restore native plant vigor, cover, and species 

richness in grasslands and shrublands

Restore habitats with seed sources including genotypes suited to 

future climate conditions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Miller and others 

(2011); Auestad and others (2016); Butterfield and others (2016) 

Promote early-season native grassland-shrubland species ● ○ Whitson and Koch 

(1998); Bernstein and others (2014)

Use prescribed and natural fires to activelypromote native species and maintain plant cover, annual yield, 

and species diversity in grassland and shrubland habitats

○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● Chambers and others 

(2007); Davies and others (2007); Bates and others (2009); Beck and others (2009); Hanna and Fulgham (2015); Kessler and others (2015)

Use low-intensity grazing or mowing to increase species diversity 

in grasslands

● ● Collins and others 

(1998); Tix and Charvat (2005); Davies and Bates (2014)

Provide habitat for native 

pollinators to maintain 

healthy grassland 

habitats

Revegetate grasslands and shrublands with diversity of native 

species, including drought-tolerant genotypes, to support pollinators

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Pywell and other 

(2006)

Reduce/eliminate herbicide and pesticide use to minimize 

impacts on non-target species (such as native plants, pollinators)

○

Educate agency staff and public about ecosystem benefits of 

native pollinators, potential threats, and existing/needed regulatory protections (such as Farm Bill)

○
Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation 53

Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Implement flexible grazing management 

practices to maintain rangeland vegetation 

habitats and reduce the impacts of 

overgrazing

Implement rotational and/or low intensity grazing to reduce the 

impacts of overgrazing

● Hemstrom and others 

(2002); Courtois and others (2004); Derner and Hart (2007); Briske and others (2008); Gornish and Ambrozio dos Santos (2016) 

Manage timing of grazing to promote native plant species (such 

as graze when undesirable species are most palatable; after native plants have produced seed)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Identify site-specific indicators of grazing impacts on sagebrushgrassland to trigger movement of animals to another site

○

Prevent woodland expansion 

into rangeland

Apply prescribed burns and/or facilitate wildfire to prevent 

woodland expansion

● ● ● ● ● Bachelet and others 

(2000); Beck and others (2009); Roundy and others (2014)

Thin trees to reduce forest/woodland encroachment into 

rangeland vegetation habitats and conserve soil moisture

● ● ● ● ● Baughman and others 

(2010); Young and others (2013); Roundy and others (2014);Creutzberg and others (2015)
54 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Prevent invasive species 

establishment and spread

Create and apply early detection and rapidresponse protocols to control invasive species in priority 

rangeland habitats

○

Use integrated control strategies to manageinvasive species

● ● ● Calo and others 

(2012); Kessler and others (2015); Munson and others (2015)

Maintain or enhance native plant cover andminimize bare ground to prevent establishment of invasive 

species

○ ● ○ Booth and others 

(2003); Abella and others (2012); Chambers and others (2007)
Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation 55

Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Prevent invasive species establishment and spread 

(continued)

Allow targeted low- to moderate-intensity grazing at sites 

where it may reduce the risk of invasion or slow the spread of already-established species

● ○ Davies and others 

(2009); Gornish and Ambrozio dos Santos (2016)

Establish competitive vegetation barriers toprotect rangelands from invasive species

● Davies and others 

(2010b)

Use fire management practices toreduce/minimize the risk of invasive speciesestablishment and spread

● DiTomaso and others 

(1999); Simmons and others (2007); Calo and others (2012); Taylor and others (2014); Kessler and others (2015)

Use mowing treatments to slow the spread ofinvasive species

● ● Simmons and others 

(2007); Davies and Bates (2014); Prevey and others (2014) 
56 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and action that are based on enhancing resistance, promoting resilience, or facilitating transition—Continued

Manage prescribed/natural fire to 

reduce negative effect of changes 

in fire frequency and intensity

Design burn prescriptions that consider soil moisture 

requirements

○ ○ ● ○ ○ ● Anderson and others 

(1970); Bachelet and others (2000)

Implement strategically-located non-burn fuel reduction 

techniques to reduce risk of severe wildfire in rangeland vegetation habitats

○ ○ ○ ○ ● Schmidt and others 

(2008); Davies and others (2009); Gray and Dickson (2016)

Use low to moderate intensity grazing to reduce fuel loads and 

lower fire risk in rangeland vegetation habitats

○ ○ ○ ● ○ Davies and others 

(2009); Davies and others (2010a)

Implement Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions ● ○

Maintain 

snow cover

Use snow fencing to increase snow drift accumulation and soil 

moisture

● ● ○ ● David (2013)

Reduce 

travel 

impact

Identify and manage trails/paths created by recreation users to 

minimize their impact on rangeland vegetation habitats

○ ○ ○
Appendix 5. Ameliorates Vulnerability Table for Rangeland Vegetation 57

Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued

Key:↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on research, monitoring and assessment

Use research, monitoring, and assessment to increase knowledge 

of current conditions and projected changes

Develop and apply models that consider climate change 

when projecting the area and location of invasive species establishment and spread

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Inventory and map weed-free sites and potential site invasibility 

to aid in prioritization of management and restoration activities

● Underwood and others 

(2003); Williams and Hunt (2002)

Monitor weed-free sites to increase early detection of new 

invasions

○

Evaluate and include the role of native ungulate grazing and 

competition in grassland management plans

○

Monitor post-fire effects beyond the scope of suppression and 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) and implement appropriate actions

○

Locate and map important soil types, such as mollisols, and 

prioritize them for restoration

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Determine whether individual sites are fire- or snow-maintained ○ ○

Map sites at risk of drought and monitor vegetation and water 

availability

○ ○ ○ ○

Improve understanding of link between climate change and 

rangeland ecology

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
58 Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning—An Implementation Guide Table 5.1. Potential adaptation strategies and actions linked with the climate and non-climate stressors and disturbance regimes they are thought to reduce or minimize.—Continued Key:

↑, increasing↓, decreasing ● Evidence based● Evidenced based, indirect○ Expert opinion○ Expert opinion, indirect

Air temperature ↑

Changes in precipitation

Soil moisture ↓

Drought ↑

Snowpack; earlier melt/ ↓

runoff

Altered wildfire regime

Insect/disease outbreaks ↑

Invasive species

Grazing/herbivory

Land-use and recreation

Action increases general 

resilience

Adaptation 

strategies Adaptation actions Climate stressors Disturbances Non-climate stressors Other Citations

Adaptation strategies and actions that are based on planning and-or collaboration

Increase collaborations and incorporate climate change into planning 

processes 

Create and implement a management plan for grasslands and/or 

shrublands based on thresholds/triggers for activities such as thinning, prescribed burns, and planting

Establish interagency collaborative weed management program 

to improve coordination and resource use among agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private land owners

Communicate implications of climate change on rangeland 

quality/availability and grazing management practices and associated uncertainty with stakeholders

Provide information to land owners and managers about 

projected impacts of climate change and disturbances on rangeland ecology, including effects of repeated burns, weed identification and reporting, and the importance of site potential

Develop criteria to help determine whether to resist or allow 

forest encroachment into rangeland vegetation habitats

Develop criteria to prioritize intact and/or high-quality rangeland 

sites and redirect management resources to them as needed

Increase collaboration among management agencies and ranchers 

to actively control grazing allotments and grazing intensity

Update weed risk assessments (WRAs) to include potential 

climate change impacts 

Develop funding and native seed sources for postfire restoration 

of burned areas where plant communities are not regenerating

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

○

○

○

○

○○
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey 

777 NW 9th St., Suite 400

Covallis, Oregon 97330

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/fresc/
Kershner and others—Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Natural Resource Planning: An Implementation Guide—Techniques and Methods 6-C2

ISSN 2328-7055 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6C2