USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008. 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-34

April 2008

Fire Effects on Gambel Oak in Southwestern 

Ponderosa Pine-Oak Forests

Scott R. Abella and Peter Z. Fulé

Abstract—Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) is ecologically and aesthetically valuable in southwestern ponderosa 

pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. Fire effects on Gambel oak are important because fire may be used in pine-oak forests 

to manage oak directly or to accomplish other management objectives. We used published literature to: (1) ascertain 

historical fire regimes in pine-oak forests, (2) discern prescribed burning effects on Gambel oak survival and diameter 

growth, and (3) provide suggestions for using fire to manage oak. Frequent fire is part of Gambel oak’s historical 

environment, as historical fire return intervals often averaged less than 10 years in pine-oak forests. More than 66 percent 

of oaks greater than 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter were alive at least 5 years after two contemporary prescribed fires, 

whereas survival was low (<20 percent) for small oaks less than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. Top-killed oaks resprout 

prolifically, suggesting that fire can maintain shrub-sprout forms of oak constituting browse and cover for some wildlife 

species. Unlike mechanically thinning competing trees, burning has not been found to increase oak diameter growth. We 

conclude that fire can be used to manage Gambel oak densities and growth forms, and that large oaks can be maintained 

during low-intensity burning. Several tactics may enhance survival of large oaks during prescribed fire: keeping pine 

slash away from oak boles, avoiding lighting near oaks or reducing fire intensity near oaks, and raking fuels away from 

oak boles.

Scott R. Abella, Assistant Research Professor, Public Lands 

Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Nevada Las 

Vegas, Las Vegas, NV.

Peter Z. Fulé, Associate Director and Associate Professor, 

Ecological Restoration Institute and School of Forestry, Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Introduction

Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) occurs as an 

understory or mid-story tree in otherwise pure southwestern ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. 

This deciduous oak has high ecological and aesthetic 

value (Harper and others 1985). Large oaks are particularly valuable to some wildlife species and can live 

for more than 400 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Fire effects on Gambel oak are important to understand because fire may be used in ponderosa pine-oak 

forests to accomplish various management objectives (for example, fuels reduction), or to manage oak 

specifically. In this note, we summarize published literature to: (1) evaluate the frequency and timing of 

fire in historical pine-oak forests; (2) assess effects of 

contemporary prescribed burning on oak survival and 

diameter growth; and (3) provide recommendations 

for managing oak directly using fire while maintaining large oaks.

Fire and Oak’s Historical Environment

Most fire-history studies have discovered that 

surface fires burned ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests on average at least once every <13 years before 

policies of fire exclusion beginning in the late 1800s 

(table 1). One exception was an isolated 371-acre 

(150-ha) mesa in southern Utah that Madany and West 

(1983) found burned less frequently than is typical of 

pine-oak forests. At a northern Arizona pine-oak site 

exhibiting a mean fire interval of 3.7 years, Fulé and 

others (1997) found that 40 percent of historical fires 

occurred in spring (late April to June) and 60 percent 

in summer (July to early September). Fire-history research indicates that frequent, spring-summer fires 

have long been part of Gambel oak’s historical environment in many southwestern pine-oak forests.

Despite the historical prevalence of fire on sites containing Gambel oak, Brown and Smith (2000) indicate 

that Gambel oak has low fire resistance at maturity and 

there is no size at which the species attains fire resistance. Simonin (2000) reported that Gambel oak bark 

ranges from 0.5 to 0.75 inches (1.2 to 1.9 cm) thick, 

categorized by Brown and Smith (2000) as “thin.” 

However, no information was provided as to whether 

thickness increases with age, as it does in some oak 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008.

species (Peterson and Reich 2001). Nevertheless, bole 

charring (occasionally visible on large, living Gambel 

oak) likely obtained before fire exclusion in the late 

1800s suggests that large oaks had at least some capacity to survive low-intensity fire (fig. 1). It is also 

possible that rocky microsites or other areas Gambel 

oak sometimes occupies burned less frequently than 

surrounding areas. However, this explanation does 

not account for oak’s persistence on relatively flat, 

uniform sites that also burned frequently (Hanks 

and others 1983). Differences in fuel characteristics 

between Gambel oak and ponderosa pine litter are additional factors that may have allowed oak to persist 

on frequently burned sites. Compared to pine, looser, 

less resinous, and moister oak litter may have resulted 

in decreased fire intensity near oak boles, allowing 

large oaks to persevere. Such fine-scale variations in 

fire intensities have been recorded during contemporary burns in other oak forests (Franklin and others 

1997).

In addition to some ability of large Gambel oaks to 

survive low-intensity fire, oaks top-killed by fire usually resprout (Harrington 1985, Kunzler and Harper 

1980). Gambel oak is thus both a resister and an endurer of fire, following Rowe’s (1983) classification 

of plant adaptations to fire. Large oaks develop some 

ability to survive (resist) fire, while stems top-killed 

by fire resprout (endure).

Table 1—Summary of surface fire frequencies before fire exclusion in ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests. With some exceptions, 

pine-oak forests generally burned at least once every 10 years, similar to pure ponderosa pine forests.

MFI Reconstruction Elevation

Location (years)a period (feet) Reference

Rincon Mountains, AZ 6 to 10 1657 to 1893 >7544 Baisan and Swetnam 1990

Camp Navajo, AZ 4 1637 to 1883 7134 to 8046 Fulé and others 1997

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ 4 1744 to 1879 7708 Fulé and others 2003a

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ 3 to 7 1679 to 1899 7360 to 7767 Fulé and others 2003b

Gila National Forest, NM 4 to 8 1633 to 1900 7639 to 8397 Swetnam and Dieterich 1985

San Juan National Forest, CO 7 to 13 1679 to 1880 7380 to 8397 Grissino-Mayer and others 2004

Zion National Park, UT – Plateaub 4 to 7 Pre-1881 6429 to 7888 Madany and West 1983

Zion National Park, UT – Mesab 56 to 79 1757 to 1980 7052 to 7393 Madany and West 1983

a Range of mean fire return intervals.

b This study included 8994-acre (3640 ha) plateau and 371-acre (150 ha) isolated mesa study sites.

Figure 1—Charred bole 

on a Gambel oak, 

possibly reflecting the 

historical occurrence 

of frequent surface 

fires in southwestern 

ponderosa pineGambel oak forests. 

This site had no known 

history of fire after the 

last presettlement fire 

in about 1883 based 

on nearby research 

(Fulé and others 1997). 

Photo taken 6 miles 

(10 km) southwest of 

Flagstaff, Arizona, in 

the Northern Arizona 

University Centennial 

Forest. Photo by S.R. 

Abella, October 21, 

2005.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008. 3

Prescribed Burning Effects on 

Different Size Classes

To track Gambel oak survival 5 years after fall or 

early spring burning, we used data collected from two 

northern Arizona sites that are part of ecological restoration projects detailed in Fulé and others (2005) 

and Roccaforte (2005). Survival of oaks greater than 

6 inches (15 cm) in diameter at 4.5 ft (1.4 m) exceeded 

66 percent at both sites, while survival was low (11 to 

20 percent) for small stems less than 2 inches (5 cm) in 

diameter (fig. 2). These findings reflect survival after 

these particular fires, and may differ from other burns 

conducted under different weather or fuel characteristics. Survival may also vary depending on operational 

aspects of burns, such as whether fuel is raked away 

from oak boles or if oak clumps are deliberately lit 

(Ken Moore, Bureau of Land Management, pers. 

comm. 2005). Nonetheless, these data support the 

conclusions of Fulé and others (2005) that large oaks 

can be maintained during burns, and are consistent 

with oak’s persistence in recurrently burned pine-oak 

forests (table 1).

Fire Season, Frequency, and 

Intensity Effects

Season of burning affects both fire intensity and 

oak carbohydrate reserves that influence sprouting 

ability. Harrington (1985, 1989) tested the effects 

of burn season (spring [June], summer [August], or 

fall [October]) and frequency (one or two burns in a 

4-year period) on Gambel oak in a Colorado pine-oak 

stand. He found that after 4 years, all burn treatments 

sharply increased sprout densities relative to unburned 

controls because of prolific sprouting of top-killed, 

small-diameter stems. A second burn in summer, 

however, resulted in the least sprouting because oak 

carbohydrate reserves that incite sprouting were lowest at this time. Nevertheless, it seems that burning in 

Figure 2—Survival of different sized 

Gambel oak stems 5 years after 

prescribed burning at two northern 

Arizona study sites in ponderosa 

pine-oak forests. Survival exceeded 

66 percent for stems greater than 6 

inches (15 cm) in diameter, while 

survival was low for smaller stems. 

Numbers at the top of each bar 

represent the actual number of 

stems in each category. The (a) Mt. 

Trumbull study site is on the Arizona 

strip and managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (Roccaforte 

2005). The (b) Grandview site is near 

the south rim of the Grand Canyon 

in the Kaibab National Forest (Fulé 

and others 2005).

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

(a) Mt. Trumbull

(b) Grandview

Survival (%) Survival (%)

Diameter class (inches)

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 >12

Control

Burn

Control

Burn

87

42

83 61 23

429 22

86

108

41

12

4 7

13

6

2

11

1

54

14

175 84

174

166

60

61

319

526
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008.

any season top kills small stems and stimulates shrublike sprouting (Harrington 1985). Continued frequent 

burning and top-killing would likely maintain shrubby 

growth forms of oak, although effects of specific burn 

intervals on sprouting dynamics and persistence of 

oak are not well known.

Several studies have reported large increases in 

Gambel oak dominance after intense wildfires have 

reduced densities of competing vegetation (Kunzler 

and Harper 1980, Savage and Mast 2005). This is 

not surprising given oak’s strong sprouting ability, in 

contrast to many other competing species in pine-oak 

forests (for example, ponderosa pine). Savage and 

Mast (2005) proposed a successional model for pineoak forests after severe fires that included a succession 

to oak shrubfields after removal of the ponderosa pine 

overstory. Any such intense disturbance likely promotes oak, illustrated by a similar succession to oak 

shrubfields after clearcutting ponderosa pine on the 

Beaver Creek watershed in Arizona (Ffolliott and 

Gottfried 1991).

Burning Effects on Diameter Growth

Large oaks have high ecological and aesthetic 

value, and increasing oak diameter growth may be 

a management objective on some sites. Onkonburi 

(1999) reported that prescribed burning had variable 

effects on oak diameter growth at 7 northern Arizona 

sites, but reasons for the among site differences could 

not be pinpointed. In her study, burning resulted in 

an average decrease of 0.1 inches (0.2 cm) to an increase of 0.3 inches (0.8 cm) in diameter growth 

among sites over a 10-year period. Fulé and others 

(2005) also found that burning did not significantly 

increase oak diameter growth 5 years after burning. 

However, fire effects on oak diameter growth could 

depend on the degree of charring damage or whether 

competing trees are killed or damaged. These factors 

likely hinge upon fire characteristics and prescriptions. 

Nevertheless, current data suggest that management 

tools other than fire, such as thinning competing pine 

or other trees, more reliably increase oak diameter 

growth (Onkonburi 1999).

Fire and the Management of 

Pine-Oak Forests

Fire may be used in pine-oak forests to manage 

Gambel oak directly or to accomplish other objectives 

such as fuel reduction. Because of their ecological 

and aesthetic value, we believe that any management 

strategy should strive to maintain existing large, old 

oaks. We offer the following suggestions to maintain 

large oaks during prescribed burning: (1) reduce fire 

intensity and duration near oak boles or avoid deliberately lighting near oaks; (2) keep pine slash away 

from oaks to be retained; and (3) rake fuel (particularly pine litter) away from bases of oak boles. Because 

fuel loads in contemporary forests are much greater 

than in pre-fire exclusion pine-oak forests, raking fuel 

is a conservative measure that may increase oak survival. If raking around old ponderosa pine already is 

planned, there seems little reason not to rake around 

old oaks as well. Several studies suggest that burning 

can be implemented without killing large oaks (fig. 2; 

Fulé and others 2005, Roccaforte 2005). In addition, 

particular consideration could be given to maintaining 

medium-sized oaks of 10 to 15 inches (25 to 38 cm) 

in diameter, which McCulloch and others (1965) 

found to produce the most acorns. It is not currently 

well-known how fire may affect acorn production, as 

production also depends on crown vigor (McCulloch 

and others 1965). Crown vigor could be positively or 

negatively affected by fire.

Fire can be used to manage Gambel oak directly 

to top kill small-diameter (<6-inch, 15-cm) stems 

(fig. 2). Densities of these small-diameter oaks may 

have increased in pine-oak forests since initiation of 

fire exclusion in the late 1800s (Fulé and others 1997). 

By stimulating sprouting, fire can also maintain shrubthicket forms of oak, which are important habitat for 

some wildlife species (Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998). 

However, a key research need is to increase our understanding of oak stand structures and recruitment 

patterns that may arise after long-term burning at various frequencies.

Summary and 

Management Implications

• Fire is part of Gambel oak’s historical environment. 

Oak persisted in historical ponderosa pine-oak 

forests that typically burned at least once every 

10 years.

• Large Gambel oak exhibit some capacity to survive 

low-intensity fire, and stems top- killed by fire 

usually resprout prolifically.

• Fire of any kind is unlikely to eliminate Gambel 

oak from a site. Intense wildfires that remove 

competing vegetation often facilitate development 

of oak brushfields on sites formerly dominated by 

ponderosa pine.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008. 5

• Large oaks have high ecological and aesthetic 

value. To help ensure survival of large oaks during 

prescribed burning, we suggest that managers: 

avoid deliberately lighting near the bases of oak 

boles, keep pine slash away from oaks, and rake 

fuel away from oaks to reduce fire intensity.

• Prescribed burning can temporarily decrease 

densities of small-diameter oaks, which may 

have increased in density since initiation of fire 

exclusion in pine-oak forests in the late 1800s. 

However, due to prolific sprouting, single burns 

could also result in subsequent increases in oak 

density. Manipulating burn frequency has potential 

for maintaining a variety of oak growth forms, 

including shrub-thicket forms of oak important for 

some species of wildlife.

• Other management techniques, such as thinning 

pine or other competing trees, appear better 

suited than prescribed burning for increasing oak 

diameter growth.

Acknowledgments

We thank the U.S. Forest Service and the Ecological 

Restoration Institute for funding this research, and 

Mick Harrington, Gerald Gottfried, Charlie Denton, 

and Kristi Coughlon for reviewing the manuscript.

References

Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire 

history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain 

Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 20:1559-1569.

Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler. eds. 2000. Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 257 p.

Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J. 1991. Natural tree regeneration after clearcutting in Arizona’s ponderosa pine 

forests: two long-term case studies. Res. Note RM-507. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 6 p.

Franklin, Scott B.; Robertson, Philip A.; Fralish, James S. 

1997. Small-scale fire temperature patterns in upland 

Quercus communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

34:613-630.

Fulé, Peter Z.; Covington, W. Wallace; Moore, Margaret M. 

1997. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem 

management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. 

Ecological Applications. 7:895-908.

Fulé, Peter Z.; Crouse, Joseph E.; Heinlein, Thomas A.; 

Moore, Margaret M.; Covington, W. Wallace; Verkamp, 

Greg. 2003a. Mixed-severity fire regime in a highelevation forest: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Landscape 

Ecology. 18:465-486.

Fulé, Peter Z.; Heinlein, Thomas A.; Covington, W. 

Wallace; Moore, Margaret M. 2003b. Assessing fire regimes on Grand Canyon landscapes with fire scar and 

fire record data. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

12:129-145.

Fulé, Peter Z.; Laughlin, Daniel C.; Covington, W. Wallace. 

2005. Pine-oak forest dynamics five years after ecological restoration treatments, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 218:129-145.

Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Romme, William H.; Floyd, M. 

Lisa; Hanna, David D. 2004. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes of the southern San Juan Mountains, 

Colorado, USA. Ecology. 85:1708-1724.

Hanks, Jess P.; Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Hanks, Sharon R. 1983. A 

habitat type classification system for ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-97. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 22 p.

Harper, Kimball T.; Wagstaff, Fred J.; Kunzler, Lynn M. 

1985. Biology and management of the Gambel oak vegetative type: a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-179. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 31 p.

Harrington, M.G. 1985. The effects of spring, summer, and 

fall burning on Gambel oak in a southwestern ponderosa 

pine stand. Forest Science. 31:156-163.

Harrington, M.G. 1989. Gambel oak root carbohydrate response to spring, summer, and fall prescribed burning. 

Journal of Range Management. 42:504-507.

Kruse, William H. 1992. Quantifying wildlife habitats within Gambel oak/forest/woodland vegetation associations 

in Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; 

Bennett, Duane A.; C. Hernandez, Victor Manuel; OrtegaRubio, Alfredo; Hamre, R.H., tech. coords. Ecology and 

management of oaks and associated woodlands: perspectives in the southwestern United States and northern 

Mexico; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: 182-186.

Kunzler, L.M.; Harper, K.T. 1980. Recovery of Gambel 

oak after fire in central Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 

40:127-130.

Madany, Michael H.; West, Neil E. 1983. Livestock grazing-fire regime interactions within montane forests of 

Zion National Park, Utah. Ecology. 64:661-667.

McCulloch, C.Y.; Wallmo, O.C.; Ffolliott, P.F. 1965. 

Acorn yield of Gambel oak in northern Arizona. Res. 

Note RM-48. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 2 p.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-34. 2008.

Onkonburi, Jeanmarie. 1999. Growth response of Gambel 

oak to thinning and burning: implications for ecological 

restoration. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 

129 p. Dissertation.

Peterson, David W.; Reich, Peter B. 2001. Prescribed fire 

in oak savanna: fire frequency effects on stand structure 

and dynamics. Ecological Applications. 11:914-927.

Roccaforte, John Paul. 2005. Monitoring landscape-scale 

forest structure and potential fire behavior changes following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. Flagstaff, 

AZ: Northern Arizona University. 102 p. Thesis.

Rosenstock, S.S. 1998. Influence of Gambel oak on breeding birds in ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. 

Condor. 100:485-492.

Rowe, J.S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., 

eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. 

NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons: 135-154.

Savage, Melissa; Mast, Joy Nystrom. 2005. How resilient 

are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown 

fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35:967-977.

Simonin, Kevin A. 2000. Quercus gambelii. In: Fire effects information system, [online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available: http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2005, June 20].

Swetnam, Thomas W.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Oldest known 

conifers in the southwestern United States: temporal and 

spatial patterns of maximum age. In: Kaufmann, Merrill 

R.; Moir, W.H.; Bassett, Richard L., tech. coords. Oldgrowth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain 

Regions: proceedings of a workshop; 1992 March 9-13; 

Portal, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-213. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station: 24-38.

Swetnam, Thomas W.; Dieterich, John H. 1985. Fire history of ponderosa pine forests in the Gila Wilderness, 

New Mexico. In: Lotan, James E.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; 

Fischer, William C.; Mutch, Robert W., tech. coords. 

Proceedings, symposium and workshop on wilderness fire; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: 390-397.
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. A

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is 

designed to meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest 

engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife 

and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are 

conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 

Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

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.

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper