Climate Project Screening Tool

Short Subjects from SAP 4.4 National Forests ♦ No. 4 ♦ July 2011

Climate change poses a challenge 

for resource managers as they 

review current management 

practices. Adaptation is a critical means 

of addressing climate change in the near 

future because, due to inherent time lags 

in climate impacts, the effects of increased 

atmospheric greenhouse gases will be 

felt for decades even if effective mitigation begins now. To address the impacts 

of climate change, land managers need 

techniques for incorporating adaptation 

into ongoing or pending projects. Here we 

present a new tool for integrating climate 

change considerations into project planning. We designed the Climate Project 

Screening Tool (CPST) as part of the 

Westwide Climate Initiative (WWCI), a 

joint project of the three western Forest 

Service research stations whose goal was 

to cultivate science/management partnerships that would develop adaptation 

options for addressing climate change. 

The objective is to explore options for 

ameliorating the effects of 

climate on resource 

management projects. The 

CPST also acts as a prioritysetting tool, allowing 

natural resource managers 

to assess relative vulnerabilities and to anticipate 

effects of different actions. 

Finally, it acts to reduce 

uncertainty by identifying 

the range of impacts that 

both climatic changes 

and management actions 

The questions are general to catalyze the 

discussion of how climate change might 

impact different projects and modify 

its effects. The process should facilitate 

thinking about the potential impacts of 

climate change on a particular project type. 

Questions can be created collaboratively 

to address parameters that determine the 

nature, timing, and extent of an action on 

a particular site. The response narrative 

is the centerpiece of the CPST, where 

managers record their answers to the 

questions and thus their thoughts about 

the interaction between climate change 

and the project. The last column is where 

the user concludes whether to proceed 

with, modify, or cancel the project given 

the response narrative. It is intended as a 

recommendation to the decision-maker 

regarding whether or not climate change 

impacts are likely to be substantial enough 

to require modification to the proposed 

activities, insignificant enough to proceed 

as originally designed, or if the project 

cannot be modified to consider relevant climate change 

effects and thus should be 

withdrawn.

Ideally teams of staff 

members would fill out 

the questionnaire together, 

brainstorming to consider 

how the effects of climate 

change would manifest 

at a project site and reassessing the assumptions 

and objectives they used to 

determine current practices. 

might have on resources. Although focused 

on climate change adaptation, the CPST 

could be modified to devise mitigation 

options for resource managers.

The CPST begins with a list of projected 

climate change effects for an example focal 

region, along with a breakdown of these 

effects in relation to each proposed project 

activity (see example on next page). 

Information about projected climate and 

ecosystem responses can be gathered from 

scientific literature and other sources and 

summarized for key indicators of relevance 

to the local management unit. The major 

component of the questionnaire is a table 

separated into typical project types, developed from a Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA) or other projects list, which describes projected climatic changes and lists 

questions to consider given the impacts of 

these changes on the resource. Examples, 

such as grazing, are shown on the next 

page; other examples, e.g., prescribed fire, 

can be found in Morelli and others (2011). 
Climate Project Screening Tool - Example for the Inyo National Forest

Directions:

Refer to the list of General Climate Change Trends (below) for background information and identify the appropriate project activity that your management unit is considering. 

Applicable climate change trends and local impacts are identified for each Project Activity in the second column to provide a frame of reference in thinking about the 

subsequent questions. Work through the Key Questions in the third column with your interdisciplinary team to identify potential climate change implications and record your 

analysis under the Response Narrative in the fourth column. The final step is to document how your responses impact the project. Does the project still make sense given 

climate change considerations? If so, should any modifications be made to the project plan? These decisions can be documented in the last column.

General Climate Change Trends (e.g., Inyo National Forest)

1. Generally warming average temperatures

2. Reduced snow pack; longer, drier summers 

3. Increased interannual variability in precipitation; increased likelihood of severe flood events

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

5. Increased fuel build-up and risk of uncharacteristically severe and widespread forest fire in traditionally fire-prone forest, woodland, and shrub types

6. Higher-elevation insect and disease and wildfire events

7. Increased stress to forests during periodic multi-year droughts; heightened forest mortality

8. Increased water temperatures in rivers and lakes, lower water levels in late summer, and drying of streams and ponds

9. Decreased water quality as a result of higher temperatures, increased watershed erosion, and sediment flow

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

Project Activity Climate Change Trends and 

Local Impacts Key Questions for Managers

Response Narrative

(please complete, include references 

where possible)

Continue with the 

Project?

Thinning for Fuels 

Management

EXAMPLE: McMullen 

Mixed Conifer Forest 

Treatment

Trends:

Increased water temperatures 

in rivers and lakes and lower 

water levels in late summer; 

increased stress to forests during 

periodic multi-year droughts; 

increased interannual variability 

in precipitation, leading to fuels 

buildup, additional forest stress, 

and risk of uncharacteristically 

severe and widespread forest 

fire; longer fire seasons; decrease 

in water quality from increased 

sedimentation; and higher 

elevation insect, disease, and 

wildfire events.

Local Impacts:

Increased risk for erratic fire 

behavior; decreased window of 

opportunity for prescribed fire 

conditions; increased risk of fire 

spread in high elevation areas; 

flashier, drier fuels; decreased 

water storage in soils

□ How will the projected density of the 

stand after it has been thinned respond 

to erratic and severe wildfire events, 

given the projected increase in forest 

stress and mortality? How does the 

spacing between trees need to increase, 

if at all?

□ At what interval should stands be 

thinned to mitigate for increased forest 

stress and fire susceptibility or for 

changed growth patterns?

□ How does the project area include 

anticipated future fire-prone areas (i.e., 

higher elevation sites or riparian areas)? 

□ How will the season of harvesting need 

to change given the reduced snow pack 

and extreme flood events to mitigate 

for ground disturbance, if at all? Will 

it need to change given shortening and 

less reliable winters?

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

– The thinning should make the 

area more resilient to common fire 

and less vulnerable to severe fire 

(Dale and others 2001). Ponderosa 

pines will be thinned from a mean of 

336 trees/ha to 152 trees/ha (Egan 

and others 2010).

– The project area includes a 

narrow canyon with high density 

development, making it logistically 

difficult for log removal, risky for 

prescribed fire, and also creates 

aesthetics issues. To balance, a 

wider swath will be thinned and 

treatments will be done more 

commonly.

– The thinning will incorporate 

riparian areas that were not 

previously considered. Most of the 

treatment is in the WUI so not very 

high.

– Considering projections for 

earlier spring and later winter in 

the area (Morelli and others 2011), 

the season of harvest will need to be 

shifted somewhat. However, the soils 

in the area are very permeable so 

not too much of an issue.

– This project should help to 

increase forest vigor and resilience 

in the face of projected climate 

change impacts such as increased 

vulnerability to insects and disease 

(Wargo and Harrington 1991; 

Gottschalk 1995), water stress 

(Smith and others 1997; Papadopol 

2000), and more frequent and 

extreme fire (Westerling and others 

2006).

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No

□ Yes with

 modification:

Aspen Restoration Trends:

Reduced snowpack, longer, drier 

summers

Local Impacts:

Reduced plant and animal species 

diversity; reduced water storage 

in soils; changed fire regimes with 

more severe effects

□ Given the anticipated changes, how will 

this site be capable of retaining quaking 

aspen over time?

□ Will aspen occupying this site be 

able to persist under extreme weather 

events?

□ Are there better opportunities for 

sustaining aspen in other locations that 

would provide for sustained migration?

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No

□ Yes with

 modification:
Aquatic and Wildlife 

Species Restoration

Trends:

Loss of seed and other germplasm 

sources as a result of population 

extirpation events; increased 

water temperatures in rivers and 

lakes and lower water levels 

in late summer; reduced snow 

pack; longer, drier summers, 

decreased water quality as a result 

of increased watershed erosion; 

general shifts in temperature 

ranges; severe widespread forest 

fire; longer fire seasons; higher 

elevation insect and disease and 

wildfire events

Local Impacts:

Historic availability of food and 

water sources may be altered 

geographically and temporally; 

changing forest stand structure 

(wildfire, species extirpation) may 

alter suitable habitat range 

Aquatic □ How will target species be viable in the 

future given changes in surface water 

temperatures?

□ Describe the future range of flow. Will 

the hydrologic system change from a 

perennial to an intermittent system? 

□ Given an increase in extreme weather 

events, how will the hydrologic regime 

change? Will it go from a snowmelt to a 

rain on snow regime? 

□ Is the restoration area vulnerable to 

increased fire events and erosion? 

Terrestrial □ What is the future range of habitat for 

the target species? Does this lie within 

management boundaries? 

□ How will target species be viable in the 

future given changes in food and water 

availability, as well as the range of 

future habitat?

□ How will breeding, fawning, and forage 

seasons be altered with the changing 

habitat and climate? Will hunting 

seasons need to be altered? 

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No □ Yes with

 modification:

Grazing Trends:

Historic availability of forage 

and water sources may be altered 

geographically and temporally; 

suitable range for livestock grazing 

may be altered; key species for 

forage monitoring may change on 

a site-specific basis

□ How should the recommended season 

of use change for grazing, if at all?

□ Are recommended utilization levels still 

appropriate?

□ Is the mapping of suitable range for the 

allotment still accurate? Will there be 

water available for this operation? Will 

there be suitable vegetation for forage?

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No □ Yes with

 modification:

Road Maintenance and 

Construction

Trends:

Increased interannual variability 

in precipitation; decreased water 

quality as result of increased 

watershed erosion and sediment 

flow; increased likelihood of 

severe flood; increased risk of 

uncharacteristically severe and 

widespread fire

Local Impacts:

Changed hydrologic regimes; soil 

disturbance due to increased runoff 

and movement of waterways; 

likelihood of road washouts and 

closures increase; storm events 

exacerbate sedimentation and 

erosion from burned areas

□ Given that hydrologic regimes may 

change, how are your crossings 

designated? How are sediment flow 

crossings designed and engineered to 

withstand the predicted changes?

□ Is the project sited at the right location 

to mitigate for watershed erosion and 

sediment flow? 

□ Will the proposed road design be able 

to withstand extreme weather events? 

□ How are current road structures and 

surface treatments able to withstand 

the increased likelihood of severe flood 

events and future use?

□ Is the surrounding topography and 

vegetation susceptible to increased fire 

vulnerability and subsequent erosion?

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No □ Yes with

 modification:

Recreation Planning Trends:

Lower water levels in late 

summer; reduced snow pack; 

decreased water quality as a result 

of increased watershed erosion 

and sediment flow; increased 

likelihood of severe floods; 

increase forest stress and fuel 

build-up; longer fire seasons

Local Impacts:

Lower lake levels; decreased 

water table for campground and 

developed site water systems; 

snow range shifts; developed sites 

adjacent to waterways may be 

impacted by flood events; wildfires 

could damage structures

□ Is the project site located adjacent to a 

water feature? If so, will lower water 

levels or frequent floods affect the 

proposed developed site?

□ How will reduced snowpack impact 

developed winter recreation such as 

snow-parks and skiing? How does 

a potentially reduced season of use 

impact the contractual language in 

special use permits? 

□ How might the transportation and 

access to the project site be affected by 

more severe flood events and increased 

fire risk? 

□ How will the proposed project help 

offset the projected impacts due to 

climate change?

□ Yes without 

modification

□ No □ Yes with 

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

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

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

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

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

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

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

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

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

Rocky

 Mountain

 Research Station

For additional copies contact:

Publishing Services

Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1122

rschneider@fs.fed.us

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Users should take initiative to modify the CPST questions so as to address issues that are 

broader in temporal or spatial scale or that span several resource areas that may not be 

covered by focusing on a single project (e.g., the programmatic level).

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

on the potential impacts of climate change on projects and consider concrete adaptation options at the pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) project-planning 

phase. For example, the recently introduced “Performance Scorecard for Implementing 

the Forest Service Climate Change Strategy” requires action on adaptation efforts that 

are directly addressed by the CPST. The CPST addresses ongoing or near-term projects 

that would benefit from review for consistency with adaptation goals. It acts as an audit 

or review tool to ensure that managers have considered climate change in current and 

impending projects; if issues arise during the review that suggest climate implications 

conflicting with project design, modifications to projects can be recommended. The 

CPST also serves as a review of priorities among current projects; whereas project goals 

and treatments may not need modification, climate concerns might trigger changes in 

resource allocation. Finally, some projects as originally designed might be found to be 

inappropriate altogether, and these would be recommended for comprehensive redesign 

or removal from activity lists.

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

the CPST will be used by USFS, National Park Service, and other land managers to 

incorporate climate change adaptation thinking into project planning. 

Additional Information

This series describes short subjects from the National Forest chapter in SAP 4.4: 

Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and 

Resources: A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/ 

scientific-assessments/saps/sap4-4). More information about the specific research 

described in this short subject and all references cited here can be found in Morelli and 

others (2011), http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.gov. For more information about climate 

change and natural resource management, see the U.S. Forest Service Climate Change 

Resource Center Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc.