1

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

United States Department of Agriculture

Design of a Workshop Process to Support 

Consideration of Natural Range of Variation and 

Climate Change for Land Management Planning 

Under the 2012 Planning Rule

Thomas Timberlake, Linda A. Joyce, 

Courtney Schultz, Georgina Lampman

Forest Rocky Mountain Research Note

Service Research Station RMRS-RN-82 August 2018

Abstract—The planning units of the National Forest System are beginning to revise their existing land management plans using the 2012 Forest Service regulations. Ecological integrity is a central concept to the regulations. 

However, implementing the concept is challenging in light of climate change. Historical ecology, particularly 

the concept of natural range of variation, informs planning for ecological integrity and climate change. This 

report discusses a March 2016 workshop held for the Intermountain Region to address ecological integrity, 

NRV, and climate change, all high priority topics for land management planning. It describes presentations 

included in the workshop on the evolution of the concept of natural range of variation, the 2012 planning rule, 

and data considerations. As part of the workshop, we developed a worksheet that managers and planners may 

use to consider ecological integrity, climate change, and natural range of variation. This report summarizes the 

use of this worksheet for two ecosystems of interest to the region: spruce-fir and alpine vegetation. We also 

provide recommendations, including to consider natural range of variation as a tool for planning for ecological 

integrity.

Keywords: climate change, NRV, ecological integrity, workshop

Timberlake, Thomas; Joyce, Linda A.; Schultz, Courtney; Lampman, Georgina. 2018. Design of a workshop 

process to support consideration of natural range of variation and climate change for land management 

planning under the 2012 Planning Rule. Res. Note RMRS-RN-82. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 36 p.

Authors

Thomas Timberlake is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Linda A. Joyce is a Research Ecologist in the Human Dimensions Program, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Courtney Schultz is an Associate Professor, Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Georgina Lampman is the Regional Planner, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

INTRODUCTION

National forests, grasslands, prairies, and other administrative units (hereafter “planning units”) of 

the National Forest System (NFS) are beginning to revise their existing land management plans using the 2012 Forest Service regulations that outline how a planning unit should meet the statutory 

requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These regulations, also referred to 

as the 2012 planning rule, aim to “guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that promote the ecological integrity of national 

forests and grasslands and other administrative units of the [National Forest System]” (36 CFR 

219.1). The 2012 planning rule explicitly acknowledges the need for land management planning 

to allow the Forest Service to adapt to a changing climate.

The 2012 planning rule requires consideration of system stressors when addressing ecological 

integrity in the context of ecological sustainability (36 CFR 219.8). The Forest Service directives 

for implementing the 2012 planning rule consider climate change to be a system stressor (USDA 

FS 2015). Planning units had previously begun incorporating considerations of climate change 

adaptation and mitigation into land management planning and project-specific planning in line 

with guidance from the Forest Service’s Washington Office. In 2011, the Forest Service national 

roadmap described the agency response to climate change in three ways: “1) Assess current risks, 

vulnerabilities, policies, and gaps in knowledge; 2) Engage employees and stakeholders to seek 

solutions; and 3) Manage for resilience, in ecosystems as well as in human communities, through 

adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable consumption strategies,” (USDA FS 2011, p. 4). Forest 

Service Research and administrative unit staff have worked together in the development of planning unit-level and region-wide vulnerability assessments (Halofsky et al. 2011; Hayward et al. 

2017; Rice et al. 2012; Swanston et al. 2011). 

Ecological integrity is a central concept of the 2012 planning rule. It is an important component 

of ecological sustainability and of maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities (see 

36 CFR 219.8 and 219.9). The 2012 planning rule defines ecological integrity as “the quality or 

condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics...occur within the natural 

range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural 

environmental dynamics or human influence” (see glossary; 36 CFR 219.8 and 219.9).

Evaluating ecological integrity and ecological sustainability under the long-term stress of climate 

change presents a significant challenge in land management planning. Practitioners must apply ecological concepts in situations defined by considerable uncertainty given the difficulty of 

predicting future environmental dynamics and the human influence. The application of historical 

ecology, specifically the concept of natural range of variation (NRV), enables an understanding of 

system dynamics. However, implementation of historical ecology and NRV into land management 

planning is an evolving practice. Several other similar concepts use reference conditions to guide 

management, including historic range of variability, future range of variability, and social range of 

variability. In this document, we focus on natural range of variation, since the 2012 planning rule 

explicitly mentions this term (see Appendix A).

Natural range of variation (NRV) is a helpful tool for assessing ecological integrity, but there are 

additional considerations in planning beyond NRV, such as the social acceptability of planned 

actions. Natural range of variation represents a frequency distribution of historical conditions 

with long tails. Ideally, specialists conducting land management planning would seek to develop 
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

formal and informal science-management partnerships to aid in addressing this challenge. Further, 

planning units undergoing revision would benefit from having a consistent and science-based 

approach to assess and plan for climate change effects in the context of the NRV and ecological 

integrity. In some regions of the National Forest System, key ecological characteristics are being 

identified regionally, while in other regions, individual planning units are identifying key ecological 

characteristics.

This report discusses a March 2016 workshop held for the Intermountain Region to address 

ecological integrity, NRV, and climate change—all high priority topics for land management planning. Scientists and staff involved with land management planning were brought together to share 

scientific and experiential knowledge around these topics. We provide context for the workshop 

based on the 2012 planning rule, outline the workshop approach, and share key lessons learned. 

Individual planning units or other Forest Service regions may use this document and its appendices to design similar workshops or prepare information to support land management planning in 

the future.

DESIGN OF THE WORKSHOP

The primary objective of this workshop was to identify the information needed by a planning unit 

to determine when climate change could perturb ecological integrity characteristics as indicated by 

examining NRV. Such relationships would be relevant, for example, when climate change could 

perturb structure, function, composition, and connectivity such that the ecosystem was unable to 

withstand or recover from most perturbations. The challenge of considering NRV, ecological integrity, and management has been recognized and different approaches have been suggested (Romme 

et al. 2012; Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016). Of importance to these recommended processes was 

identifying key ecological characteristics and evaluating these characteristics with respect to NRV 

first, then assessing the effects of climate change.

We chose to use a workshop setting to bring research scientists and NFS resource staff together 

to explore the concepts of ecological integrity and NRV. We focused the workshop on only a few 

selected ecosystems to allow the workshop participants the opportunity for close examination of 

NRV and climate change. While NRV plays a substantial role in the workshop, it is important to 

remember that the key goal of land management planning is to restore and maintain ecological 

integrity, and NRV is a tool to support that goal.

Within the Intermountain Region, land management plan revision and a regional climate vulnerability assessment were initiated as independent efforts but have begun to align due to shared 

goals and activities. The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP), a science-management 

partnership, was formed in 2014 to assess the vulnerability of the Intermountain Region to climate 

change and to develop adaptation strategies for resource management.1 The IAP effort is seen as 

providing a scientific basis for understanding and evaluating the potential effects of climate change 

and a published reference that can be drawn on during the planning process. The Ashley National 

Forest and Manti-La Sal National Forest, of the Intermountain Region, formally initiated the land 

management planning process in 2016. They are among the first planning units nationally to do so 

under the Forest Service directives issued in 2015 for implementing the 2012 planning rule.

To provide for a science-based approach that included expertise on climate change effects and 

NRV, we drew on both the IAP and plan revision efforts. Consequently, the workshop followed 
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

recent examples to employ science-management partnerships to develop land management plans 

that effectively address climate change vulnerability (Littell et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 2011; 

Swanston et al. 2016). We engaged members of the IAP to participate in the workshop, bringing 

the early results of the IAP vulnerability assessment into a conversation about land management 

planning. We solicited suggestions from the Ashley National Forest and Manti-La Sal National 

Forest to ensure relevance of the workshop to their land management planning processes. As a 

result, the workshop focused on lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests as an exercise involving all 

workshop participants, because there is a relatively good understanding of the disturbance regime 

for this species. Alpine ecosystems and spruce-fir ecosystems were addressed in separate breakout 

sessions. However, these ecosystems are relevant to the whole region and the consideration of NRV 

focused on the region, as a whole. The same approach could be employed for single administrative 

units.

Workshop participants (scientists, land management planners, and resource specialists) needed to 

be able to share a common language with respect to land management planning and vulnerability 

assessments. To provide the context for this mutual understanding, we created a primer document 

summarizing language pertaining to ecological integrity, NRV, and climate change in the context 

of the 2012 planning rule (Appendix A).

We also developed the NRV workshop tool worksheet and accompanying guide to lead participants through a structured approach for planning and facilitate resource specialists to identify 

dominant ecological characteristics and assess the following:

•	 the NRV of these characteristics;

•	 how climate change may affect these characteristics and their relationship to NRV;

•	 the role of other stressors; and

•	 how management actions consistent with the land management plan may affect these 

characteristics.

We used the workshop as a test run for the worksheet, with the intention that it could be used 

thereafter by planning and resource specialists as part of the assessment phase in the land management planning process. The worksheet and accompanying guide, revised based on feedback from 

the workshop, are presented in Appendix B.

WORKSHOP

In March 2016, we convened the NRV and climate change workshop in Ogden, Utah. Organizers 

included individuals from the Forest Service Intermountain Region, Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, and Colorado State University. Workshop attendees included NFS 

regional resource specialists, Forest Service and academic researchers, and planning and resource 

specialists from administrative units in the region beginning or planning for plan revision.

The workshop spanned 2 days (see Appendix C for the agenda). The first afternoon included 

general presentations providing overviews of the 2012 planning rule and NRV as part of ecological integrity, a discussion of how NRV can inform management in the context of climate change, 

and information from the IAP vulnerability assessment. The first part of the second day was spent 

considering additional information from the IAP vulnerability assessment and a detailed look at 

how Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data can inform defining the relationship 
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

between NRV and recent conditions for lodgepole pine. For the afternoon of the second day, the 

group then split into subgroups to develop NRV characterizations for two different ecosystem 

types, spruce-fir and alpine ecosystems.

Conceptual Evolution of NRV

On Day 1 of the workshop, James Long, T.W. Daniel Professor of Forestry, Utah State University, 

discussed the development of the concept of NRV, summarized here. The NRV concept gained 

prominence as a result of Morgan et al. (1994) and is rooted in restoration ecology employing 

concepts of disturbance and historical ecology. The NRV “characterizes fluctuations in ecosystem 

conditions or processes over time...define(s) the bounds of system behavior that remain relatively 

consistent over time,” (Morgan et al. 1994). Although definitions may vary, the concept focuses 

on reference conditions for structural, compositional, and functional characteristics, with a strong 

emphasis on disturbance processes. The concept emphasizes the fact that ecosystem characteristics 

vary over time, and NRV captures the pattern of this variation. When considering NRV, it is 

integral to recognize scale, both temporal and spatial. A particular characteristic may not reflect the 

NRV on the stand scale, but, at broader spatial scales, the characteristic may represent a common 

condition in the NRV (see Turner et al. 1993). Timescales generally focus on the pre-European 

settlement time period. In general, scholars of NRV implicitly acknowledge Native American 

influence on landscapes, but do not often try to explicitly account for it. An example of successful 

incorporation of NRV into management decisionmaking is the use of the natural fire regime to 

inform management in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests in the Southwest. In sum, there 

is considerable utility of the NRV tool in the context of management and planning; however, application of NRV must proceed carefully.

In the context of a changing climate, the use of reference conditions in the form of NRV may 

guide forest restoration and management. Natural range of variation represents a range of conditions under which a system was able to function in the past and recover from perturbation. Thus, 

restoration of system structures informed by NRV may enable restoration of system functions. 

Hanberry et al. (2015) note that using reference conditions can be useful for evaluating approaches 

to restoring historical trajectories of ecosystems so they are better positioned to adapt to climate 

change and can help us to recognize ecological integrity. It also is important to recognize that NRV 

and reference conditions may not be applicable in all situations.

The presentation included several suggestions for considering the NRV in the context of planning:

1. Ultimately, when determining key ecological characteristics, it is operationally necessary to 

focus on a short list (i.e. less than six characteristics).

2. Explicitly defining terms such as resistance and resilience is integral to considering 

alternative approaches to climate change adaptation. Climate change adaptation often 

focuses on resistance and resilience. Essentially, land managers seek to build systems 

that can bounce back from disturbance. It is important to explicitly define what is 

meant by resilience in a particular ecosystem. DeRose and Long (2014) provide more 

information on the relationship between resistance and resilience and how management 

directions can be developed to address these concepts.

3. Natural range of variation is often misinterpreted as a target, but is more useful as a tool to 

assess the status of systems. The NRV informs the development of desired conditions and 
6

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

other plan components. The NRV can help planners understand how a system with 

ecological integrity operates and when conditions may be more or less resilient. When 

establishing reference conditions, it may be difficult to determine the appropriate time 

period. In general, timeframes for considering NRV are defined by the frequency of 

disturbance and the rate of system recovery associated with the major disturbance 

regimes for the ecosystem in question.

4. Maintaining a system to manifest characteristics that were common during the reference 

period may not always be possible or appropriate. The Forest Service directives that 

accompany the 2012 planning rule provide insight on how to proceed when these 

situations arise (USDA FS 2015, p. 59–60; see also Appendix A). For instance, 

maintaining conditions for species protected by the Endangered Species Act may 

take precedence over NRV at some scales, or in some situations, it may be difficult or 

impossible to maintain conditions commonly experienced during the reference period 

within the NRV for a system.

5. The assessment phase of unit planning is an opportunity to characterize NRV. In the 

assessment phase, administrative units may identify the types of aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems in the NFS lands covered by the land management plan (plan area), identify 

key characteristics for these systems, explore the NRV, and assess changes in these 

systems through time.

6. Several questions may help managers use NRV. The following questions drawn from 

Romme et al. 2012 may help managers think about how NRV guides management. Are 

elements of NRV socially acceptable? Are there conditions outside NRV that threaten 

ecological integrity? Does NRV provide clues about intervention? Is restoration 

of historical conditions both socially acceptable and ecologically feasible? As these 

questions suggest, the overall purpose of using NRV should be to inform planning for 

ecological integrity.

Ecological Integrity and NRV in the 2012 Planning Rule

Chris Iverson, Deputy Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, provided an 

overview of NRV and ecological integrity requirements in the 2012 planning rule. This presentation noted the key role of ecological integrity in meeting ecological sustainability requirements 

(36 CFR 219.8). Ideally, a robust and comprehensive expression of desired conditions to provide 

for ecological integrity at multiple scales throughout the planning area will provide a “systems” 

approach to sustain component parts of the ecosystems—individual species to achieve diversity 

requirements. In addition, managing for ecological integrity offers a “coarse filter” approach to 

meeting requirements to manage for the diversity of plant and animal communities (36 CFR 

219.9). Where the coarse-filter desired conditions for the ecological integrity “systems” approach 

are insufficient to sustain Federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act, proposed and 

candidate species, and species of conservation concern, complementary “fine filter” species-specific 

desired conditions will be required to meet diversity requirements.

As noted in the Forest Service directives, NRV helps managers identify key characteristics pertaining to structure, function, composition, and connectivity at multiple scales, for which plan 

components may be important. In his presentation, Chris Iverson emphasized that the NRV concept is a tool rather than a management target. Using NRV may not be appropriate in situations 
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

where systems are severely degraded, where restoration is not feasible given the jurisdictional or 

fiscal capability of the Forest Service, and where it may interfere with public health or safety. He 

also noted that the Forest Service has been considering NRV as a guide for land management planning for some time; the 2000 interim planning rule incorporated NRV as a guiding concept, for 

example.

The presentation also provided examples of implementation of NRV for managing habitat for the 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and for stream monitoring. For the sage-grouse, 

desired conditions for characteristics at the landscape scale, such as percentage of sagebrush cover, 

and stand-scale characteristics, such as sagebrush canopy cover and perennial grass height, can provide conditions to sustain key components of sage-grouse habitat. For streams, indicators such as 

width-depth ratio, bank stability, and stream departure can be addressed by using departure from 

reference conditions as an expression of NRV in order to sustain salmon and steelhead habitat.

Identifying the NRV for Specific Ecosystems: Data Considerations and 

Worksheet Implementation

Before working on individual ecosystems, participants heard presentations about the Forest Service 

FIA program, a robust data collection effort that monitors the health, productivity, and status of 

forest resources in the United States (USDA FS 2016). The FIA data can help managers understand the distribution of vegetation and age classes across administrative units. These data provide 

an overview of age class distribution of lodgepole pine across the region. Insect outbreaks and fires 

drive this distribution, and the legacy of fire suppression following settlement is evident in the 

distribution. The FIA data also provide perspective on how ecosystems may change following disturbance. Staff from FIA discussed data on NRV for lodgepole pine to inform the group exercise 

on lodgepole pine.

Worksheet Implementation

On Day 2, the participants separated into two groups to address specific ecosystems: spruce-fir and 

alpine vegetation. Our intention here is not to provide a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem but to provide the essence of the outcomes of the workgroup discussions. These outcomes 

could be important for understanding NRV, ecological integrity, and influences of climate change. 

Land management planning teams analyzing the same ecosystem may implement the worksheet 

independently rather than rely on the above assumptions. Furthermore, the information included 

in this report reflects an understanding of the local history and scientific findings of the specific 

ecosystems discussed at this workshop. We encourage land management planning teams to use the 

worksheet along with best available scientific information to validate the information collected.

Spruce-fir

James Long, Utah State University, and Justin DeRose, Research Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, led the group discussion on spruce-fir ecosystems in the 

Intermountain Region. Spruce-fir refers to ecosystems that include both Engelmann spruce (Picea 

engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The group began by discussing general characteristics of spruce-fir ecosystems. Appendix D includes a completed worksheet for the spruce-fir 

ecosystem.
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

•	 Geographic setting. Spruce-fir ecosystems are found at high elevations in moist and cool 

sites.

•	 Disturbance. Fuel is abundant in spruce-fir ecosystem, although climate limits fire. 

Fire is infrequent, but generally large and severe when it does occur. Insect outbreaks 

represent the most important disturbance to spruce-fir ecosystems. Spruce beetles are 

endemic to the ecosystem, but reach epidemic populations when there are high densities 

of large-diameter trees and appropriate climatic conditions for the beetles.

•	 Climate change vulnerability. The potential for increased drought and temperatures as 

a result of climate change increases the vulnerability of spruce to disturbances, such as 

insect epidemics. It is unclear whether recent spruce beetle epidemics are unprecedented 

or fall within the natural range of variation. However, it is important to seriously consider 

potential impacts of climate change on spruce beetles.

•	 Structure. Spruce stands display gap-phase dynamics driven by wind, insect- and diseasedriven mortality, and other disturbance interactions.

•	 Processes. Regeneration occurs in openings; clear cutting often results in very low spruce 

regeneration density. The high value that humans associate with spruce forests suggests 

that planting may be necessary when regeneration does not occur. Models may determine 

where and what may be planted. An important consideration in seed or seedling selection 

is identifying the seed source that reflects the likely future climate of the site where 

planting is desired.

In the exercise implementing the workshop tool, the spruce-fir group identified spruce beetle 

(Dendroctonus rufipennis) regimes as a key ecological characteristic (Appendix D). The group assessed this characteristic at both stand and landscape scales:

•	 General. Endemic spruce beetle populations create and maintain the gap-phase dynamic 

thus ensuring structural and compositional diversity. Spruce beetles are the dominant 

disturbance for this ecosystem. Endemic (as opposed to epidemic beetle populations) 

allow for connectivity of stands of living trees.

•	 Current status. Recent epidemics have resulted in widespread mortality throughout the 

region. The group indicated that FIA and aerial detection surveys provide information on 

the current status of the spruce beetle populations. A well-developed body of literature 

provides insight on the natural range of the variation of spruce beetle regimes. This 

literature suggests the presence of less severe epidemics in the past. Dendrochronological 

and paleoecological (pollen) data provides information on return intervals.

•	 Natural range of variation. Metrics to assess NRV include the extent and severity of 

beetle-caused mortality. The NRV of spruce beetle regimes suggests that the most severe 

epidemic events are very infrequent; thus, it is difficult to assess whether recent epidemics 

are in line with historical conditions. As a result of outbreaks, stand-level structure and 

composition may also be out of NRV.

•	 Climate change. As demonstrated in peer-reviewed literature, spruce beetle populations 

are vulnerable to climate change. Changes in temperature and moisture have been 

demonstrated to influence beetle population success. Climate change will affect the 

frequency and intensity of the spruce beetle disturbance regimes.
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

•	 Management actions. Forest managers have no practical ability to control a spruce 

beetle epidemic at the landscape scale. However, ensuring age class diversity prior to 

an outbreak may confer resilience, since younger, smaller diameter trees would not be 

susceptible to the outbreak and will influence the rate of forest development following 

the disturbance. At a stand scale, managers may implement silvicultural treatments and 

semiochemical strategies to respond to spruce beetle epidemics.

•	 Land management plan development and priorities. Spruce-fir is an important 

ecosystem in the region, and the Forest Service manages a substantial majority of the 

system. Accordingly, spruce beetle disturbances represent an important feature for 

assessment and planning units may develop narratives to inform plan components that 

consider the influence of spruce beetle disturbances. This assessment may inform desired 

future conditions that reflect the need to maintain a diversity of size classes for spruce 

or an understanding that older spruce-fir forests are less likely to occupy the plan area. 

Guidelines, such as “Increase size class diversity” with measurable outcomes and specific 

timeframes, may also be incorporated into plan development. Monitoring may also track 

spruce beetle outbreaks.

Alpine Vegetation

Dave Tart, Regional Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, led the group addressing alpine plant communities. This category includes non-forested vegetation found above the 

continuous forest line. The group identified two dominant ecological characteristics: soil cover and 

protection, and plant species composition.

Soil Cover and Protection

For soil cover and protection, the group discussed the following:

•	 General. Alpine areas vary widely in the proportions of ground covered by gravel, rock, 

or vegetation. Soil is critical to the survival of alpine plant species and vegetative cover is 

critical to holding and protecting the soil.

•	 Current status. On the Ashley National Forest, monitoring indicates that total ground 

cover is high, with less than 10 percent bare soil, but areas where persistent snow beds 

melt are slowly colonized by plants due to the very short growing seasons. Thawing 

of snow banks uncovers bare ground; this natural occurrence needs to be explained to 

stakeholders. Existing monitoring efforts and historic photos offer information on the 

current status of soil cover.

•	 NRV. Ground cover ranges from 70 percent near late-melting snow banks to 100 percent 

in alpine turf and meadow communities. Monitoring data indicate that the system does 

not currently appear to be uncharacteristic; it exhibits structures and functions expected 

based on NRV.

•	 Climate change. Climate change may reduce plant cover due to warmer, and possibly 

drier, conditions. Changes in snow cover may also expose more bare soil. It is uncertain 

whether climate change will reduce ground cover to values uncharacteristic of the NRV 

of the region’s alpine vegetation. Over time, newly exposed bare soil may be colonized 

by species, such as conifers, moving from lower elevations. Paleoecological data may 

document past climate change effects.
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

•	 Other stressors. Other stressors include herbivory and increased recreation use of alpine 

areas leading to increased soil compaction, displacement, and erosion. These stressors 

may reduce ground cover and increase the amount of bare soil to uncharacteristic values 

based on the reference value. Information on these stressors include monitoring goat 

herbivory and using trail counters to assess recreational use.

•	 Management actions. Management may affect this soil cover through actions such as 

the rerouting and maintenance of trails.

Plant Species Composition

The group also considered plant species composition:

•	 General. Plant species composition is considered important for protection of soil 

resources, biodiversity, and habitat for pollinators and animals.

•	 Current status. On both the Ashley National Forest and the Manti-La Sal National 

Forest, species compositions are as expected, based on available monitoring data.

•	 NRV. Knowledge of NRV for species composition suggests that a variety of species 

should be present; however, there is no detailed knowledge regarding the distribution or 

relative abundance of species. The loss of individual species or loss of a community type 

may suggest the system is uncharacteristic, as based on NRV. Such changes have likely 

occurred during past warming periods. Monitoring data provides limited insight on 

NRV. The group determined that the system is similar to that expected, based on NRV.

•	 Climate change. Climate change may result in loss of plant cover or change in species 

composition on some sites; although on moist sites, plant cover may stay the same. In 

warmer or drier areas, climate change may shift plant species composition out of NRV. 

Paleoecological data that incorporate past warm periods may provide information on how 

climate change will affect species richness, the mix of plant communities, and the spatial 

extent of the alpine zone. However, it appears that human activities are accelerating the 

rate of climate change, and species may not have sufficient time to adapt or migrate from 

their current locations.

•	 Other stressors. Herbivory and increased recreation use will also stress plant species 

composition, affect reproduction of plant species, and result in a loss of species. These 

stressors were not present during past climate change events and will very likely shift 

species composition in ways uncharacteristic of the system, as based on NRV. Information 

on these stressors include monitoring goat herbivory and using trail counters to assess 

recreational use.

•	 Management actions. Similar to soil cover, management may affect plant species 

composition through actions such as the rerouting and maintenance of trails.

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

Feedback from the workshop participants suggested that the workshop’s structure was helpful 

to critically address climate change and ecological integrity through NRV to inform land management planning. Workshop participants found the presentation on the 2012 planning rule 

valuable, and we recommend that future workshops include such an overview. Furthermore, future 
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

workshops may benefit from expert presentations on ecological integrity and NRV and FIA data to 

provide a common context among participants to facilitate subsequent discussions.

We identified several challenges with implementing the workshop. While we identified the ecosystems to focus on prior to the workshop, we spent considerable time identifying key characteristics 

of those ecosystems during the workshop. In the future, it may expedite the process to have 

resource specialists and other members of the planning team identify potential key characteristics 

in advance of meeting to go through the worksheet. Both groups narrowed in on a few dominant 

characteristics, which were largely focused on species composition and disturbance dynamics.

Identifying the appropriate scale for assessing and parameterizing NRV also presented challenges. 

The spruce-fir group decided to assess spruce beetle regimes at both the stand and a broader spatial 

scale concurrently, in order to address this challenge, an approach that other planning units may 

want to consider using. During the workshop, we described this broader spatial scale as a “landscape scale.” We recognize that using this term may be complicated as “landscape” can describe 

scales of different magnitudes depending on the context.

Participants also had suggestions regarding the NRV workshop tool worksheet. For future iterations, participants suggested that individuals fill out the tables independently prior to coming 

together as a group. This would avoid the possibility of “group think.” One participant suggested 

that, given the expected uncertainty associated with climate change impacts, it is important to 

qualitatively assess the level of certainty associated with the assumptions made about ecological 

integrity when completing the table. An additional column would allow users to assess certainty 

of assumptions on a coarse (for example, low, medium, high) scale. Workshop participants emphasized that use of this tool is best suited as a part of the assessment of current conditions and 

available information rather than as analysis to support particular objectives.

Participants also thought that implementation of the tool could occur outside of the context of 

formal workshops. One participant suggested that land management planning teams might use the 

tool to develop ecosystem narratives to spark a conversation on what ecological integrity means for 

a particular system. Participants suggested that planning units using the tool consider whether the 

tool could support better communication with the public

Workshop attendees also identified thought-provoking questions that arose around several different 

issues related to NRV, ecological integrity, and climate change. Researchers and regional specialists 

who support planning efforts may benefit from preparing to address the following questions:

•	 How do you reconcile NRV and management of lands to meet desired conditions based 

on social, cultural, or economic objectives?

•	 Would you assess ecological integrity and NRV for a wildlife population or should 

wildlife populations be handled separately?

•	 Do ecosystem function, structure, and composition account for other more fine-scale 

factors (e.g., a particular ecosystem service)?

•	 How do you approach situations where an ecosystem state may be stable or resilient, 

but not desirable? For example, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasions are stable in the 

long-term and can withstand perturbation, but the presence of cheatgrass does not fall 

within NRV.

•	 What does resilience mean for a stand or landscape, particularly when we expect changes 

due to climate change?
12

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

•	 What are examples of reference conditions across NRV for an ecosystem? Which metrics 

can be used to describe reference conditions?

•	 What is the relationship between ecosystem and habitat type?

•	 For individual planning units, ecosystems are generally geographic not taxonomic. How 

do you put these concepts in geographic context?

•	 How do you reconcile when climate change adaptation strategies, such as resistance and 

resilience, may conflict with NRV as a tool?

•	 Planning units have to develop a land management plan for their planning area, but also 

have to reflect on larger scales as well. How do you reconcile these scales? For instance, 

understanding the NRV for many ecosystems often will require considerations at a scale 

larger than the plan area.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2012 planning rule requires planning units undergoing land management plan revision to 

consider climate change. Plans should seek to maintain or restore ecological integrity, a concept 

that integrates NRV and the ability of ecosystems to withstand and recover from perturbations. 

In this report, we discuss efforts to improve the Forest Service’s capacity to address climate change 

in the context of land management planning and science-management partnerships. We developed the NRV workshop tool that offers an opportunity to structure an assessment of ecological 

integrity, NRV, and climate change. We implemented this tool in a workshop associated with the 

Intermountain Adaptation Partnership vulnerability assessment effort. This workshop was an opportunity for initiating discussions and testing tools described herein so future groups may build 

upon the work and adapt it to their needs.

Based on the workshop, we have identified several key insights and recommendations that we 

highlight below:

•	 Ecological integrity is the key focus. As a first consideration, managers may consider 

whether characteristics reflect reference conditions. However, it is also necessary to 

consider whether the current system may persist. Natural range of variation helps identify 

whether there are relevant management responses that may help maintain or restore 

ecological integrity. It is also necessary to consider whether the system may withstand and 

recover from disturbances, which reflects the second half of the definition of ecological 

integrity.

•	 NRV is complicated. Using historical ecology to guide management is challenging in 

light of considerable uncertainty in terms of both reconstructing the past and anticipating 

the likely future conditions with regards to the impacts of climate change. The concept is 

an evolving pursuit in academic scholarship.

•	 Using NRV as a tool to determine ecological integrity. NRV is a tool or a guide for 

evaluating ecological integrity, not a management goal. The NRV for an ecological 

characteristic represents a frequency distribution of conditions that occurred in the past. 

Accordingly, using the concept dichotomously has limited utility; that is, describing 

characteristics as “inside” or “outside” of NRV is often not productive in determining 

ecological integrity. Rather, it is important to use NRV to inform decisionmaking in light 

of climate change to pursue ecological sustainability.
13

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

•	 Determining dominant ecological characteristics. Identifying dominant ecological 

characteristics to guide management for ecological integrity is a necessary first step in 

order to develop plan components for ecological integrity. Yet, identifying appropriate 

characteristics for which to explore NRV and build plan components presents a challenge 

to planning teams. We encourage planning teams to use the worksheet and approach 

outlined here to iteratively assess the appropriateness of selected characteristics as being 

dominant characteristics. Important considerations when identifying characteristics 

include data availability, the feasibility of affecting the characteristic through management 

actions, opportunities to monitor the characteristics, and scale considerations.

•	 Scale. Across the National Forest System, different approaches to determine scale exist, 

including identifying key characteristics at the regional level or at the level of the individual 

plan area. Furthermore, selecting the appropriate scales—both temporal and spatial—at 

which to explore NRV presents an additional challenge. Using longer temporal or larger 

spatial scales likely broadens the distribution of reference conditions.

We recommend several changes to the design and execution of the workshop that may help practitioners and scientists convening future workshops or engaging with planning and NRV:

•	 Pre-reading. We assigned the primer (Appendix A) as pre-reading for the workshop. 

However, attendees had different levels of familiarity with the 2012 planning rule and 

with the concepts of ecological integrity and NRV. Accordingly, we suggest that attendees 

of future workshops or planning teams read the primer or other readings on NRV and 

land management planning prior to convening a workshop.

•	 Context or setting. Implementation of a workshop considering NRV needs to 

consider the context of the focal region or planning units. Our workshop addressed 

the Intermountain Region. Accordingly, we focused on ecosystem types of value to the 

Intermountain Region, particularly to the two planning units that were beginning their 

plan revisions at the time of the workshop. When addressing NRV for other planning 

units or region, researchers and managers may want to consider important human uses 

and ecosystems that make up the context of those units or region.

•	 Workshop timing. We conducted our workshop prior to the formal initiation of 

land management planning processes in the region. There are benefits and drawbacks 

associated with identifying dominant ecological characteristics and addressing NRV for 

these characteristics depending on when this is done in the land management planning 

process. For example, planning units may undertake the process outlined in this research 

note early in the assessment phase in order to identify key information sources that 

inform consideration of ecological integrity, NRV, and climate change. Alternatively, 

undergoing this process after completing the assessment phase may be more productive 

in terms of identifying specific characteristics and developing plan components informed 

by a consideration of the NRV of these characteristics. It may be most beneficial to 

consider NRV using an iterative process at multiple stages of the land management 

planning process.

GLOSSARY

Adaptation—Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation includes, but is not limited to, maintaining primary productivity and basic ecological 
14

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

functions such as energy flow; nutrient cycling and retention; soil development and retention; predation and herbivory; and natural disturbances. Adaptation occurs primarily by organisms altering 

their interactions with the physical environment and other organisms. (FSH 1909.12, Zero Code)

Ecological integrity—The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological 

characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation [NRV] and can withstand and 

recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence. 

(36 CFR §219.19)

Ecological sustainability—The capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity. (36 CFR 

§219.19)

Economic sustainability—The capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit 

from goods and services including contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits. (36 

CFR §219.19)

Ecosystem services—Benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including:

1. Provisioning services, such as clean air and fresh water, energy, fuel, forage, fiber, and 

minerals;

2. Regulating services, such as long term storage of carbon, climate regulation; water filtration, 

purification, and storage; soil stabilization; flood control; and disease regulation;

3. Supporting services, such as pollination and nutrient cycling; and

4. Cultural services, such as education, aesthetic, spiritual and cultural heritage values, recreational experiences and tourism opportunities. (36 CFR §219.19)

Landscape—A defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries, such as a 

spatial mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landforms, and plant communities, repeated in 

similar form throughout such a defined area.

1. Broader landscape—For land management planning pursuant to 36 CFR part 219 and this 

Handbook, the plan area and the lands surrounding the plan area. The spatial scale of the 

broader landscape varies depending upon the social, economic, and ecological issues under 

consideration. (36 CFR §219.19; FSH 1909.12, Zero Code)

Natural range of variation—The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over scales 

of time and space that are appropriate for a given management application. In contrast to the 

generality of historical ecology, the NRV concept focuses on a distilled subset of past ecological 

knowledge developed for use by resource managers; it represents an explicit effort to incorporate a 

past perspective into management and conservation decisions (adapted from Wiens et al. 2012). 

The pre-European influenced reference period considered should be sufficiently long, often several 

centuries, to include the full range of variation produced by dominant natural disturbance regimes 

such as fire and flooding and should also include short-term variation and cycles in climate. 

The NRV is a tool for assessing the ecological integrity and does not necessarily constitute a 

management target or desired condition. The NRV can help identify key structural, functional, 

compositional, and connectivity characteristics, for which plan components may be important for 

either maintenance or restoration of such ecological conditions. (FSH 1909.12, Zero Code)

Plan components—The parts of a land management plan that guide future project and decisionmaking. Specific plan components may apply to the entire plan area, to specific management 
15

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

areas or geographic areas, or to other areas as identified in the plan. Every plan must include the 

following plan components—Desired conditions; Objectives; Standards; Guidelines; Suitability of 

Lands. A plan may also include Goals as an optional component. (FSH 1909.12, Zero Code)

Social sustainability—The capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and support 

vibrant communities. (36 CFR §219.19)

Stressor—Factors that may directly or indirectly degrade or impair ecosystem composition, structure or ecological process in a manner that may impair its ecological integrity, such as an invasive 

species, loss of connectivity, or the disruption of a natural disturbance regime. (36 CFR §219.19)

Sustainability—The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising 

the ability of future generations to meet their needs. (36 CFR §219.19)

REFERENCES

DeRose, R.J.; Long, J.N. 2014. Resistance and resilience: A conceptual framework for silviculture. 

Forest Science. 60(6): 1205–1212.

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; O’Halloran, K.A.; [et al.], eds. 2011. Adapting to climate change 

at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-844. 

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

Station. 130 p.

Hanberry, B.B.; Noss, F.F.; Safford, H.D.; [et al.]. 2015. Restoration is preparation for the future. 

Journal of Forestry. 113: 425–429.

Hayward, G.H.; Colt, S.; McTeague, M.L.; [et al.], eds. 2017. Climate change vulnerability 

assessment for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-950. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 340 p.

Littell, J.S.; Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; [et al.]. 2012. U.S. National Forests adapt to climate 

change through Science-Management partnerships. Climatic Change. 110: 269–296.

Morgan, P.; Aplet, G.H.; Haufler, J.B.; [et al.]. 1994. Historical range of variability: A useful tool 

for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2(1–2): 87–111.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; [et al.]. 2011. Responding to climate change in national 

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

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

Station. 109 p.

Rice, J.; Tredennick, A.; Joyce, L.A. 2012. Climate change on the Shoshone National Forest, 

Wyoming: A synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 60 p.

Romme, W.H.; Hayward, G.D., Regan C. 2012. A framework for applying the historical range of 

variation concept to ecosystem management. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; 

[et al.], eds. 2012. Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource management. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell: 246–261.
16

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Swanston, C.; Janowiak, M.; Iverson, L.; [et al.]. 2011. Ecosystem vulnerability assessment 

and synthesis: A report from the Climate Change Response Framework Project in northern 

Wisconsin. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-82. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 142 p.

Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K.; Brandt, L.A.; [et al.]. 2016. Forest adaptation resources: Climate 

change tools and approaches for land managers, 2nd ed. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-87-2. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 161 p.

Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H.; Gardner, R.H.; [et al.]. 1993. A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: Disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landscape Ecology. 8: 213–227.

USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011. National roadmap for responding to climate change. FS957b. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015. FSH 1909.12: Land management planning handbook. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutagency/regulations-policies [Accessed 2018 February 6].

USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016. Forest Inventory and Analysis: Strategic Plan. FS-1079. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; [et al.]. 2012. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Wurtzebach, Z.; Schultz, C. 2016. Measuring ecological integrity: History, practical applications, 

and research opportunities. Bioscience. 66: 446–457.
17

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

APPENDIX A: PRIMER2

OVERVIEW OF KEY 2012 PLANNING RULE LANGUAGE ON 

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, NATURAL RANGE OF VARIATION, 

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Introduction

On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service released a final rule (“2012 planning rule”) detailing how 

National Forest System (NFS) planning units should meet planning requirements outlined in the 

National Forest Management Act. The Forest Service also produced final directives in January 

2015, specifically Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

1909.12, providing more detailed policy, instructions, and definitions. This document describes 

how the rule and directives address ecological integrity, natural range of variation (NRV), and 

climate change. This primer is provided as background for a workshop or less formal work by 

practitioners to develop criteria and considerations to use in informing assessment and plan 

development when climate change has implications for how we apply NRV to examine ecological 

integrity.

Ecological Integrity

The purpose of the 2012 planning rule is “to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that promote the ecological integrity 

of national forests and grasslands and other administrative units of the NFS,” (36 CFR 219.1(c)). 

Accordingly, plans should enable that national forests and grasslands “consist of ecosystems 

and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse plant and animal communities” (36 CFR 

219.1(d)). Ecological integrity is an important component of ecological sustainability and of maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities (see 36 CFR 219.8 and 219.9). In 219.19, 

the 2012 planning rule defines ecological integrity as follows:

The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics 

(for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition 

and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation [NRV] and can withstand and 

recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human 

influence.

ECOSYSTEM

The 2012 planning rule defines an ecosystem as follows (36 CFR 219.19):

A spatially explicit, relatively homogenous unit of the Earth that includes all interacting 

organisms and elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries. An ecosystem is 

commonly described in terms of its:
18

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

1. Composition. The biological elements within the different levels of biological 

organization, from genes and species to communities and ecosystems.

2. Structure. The organization and physical arrangement of biological elements such as, 

snags and down woody debris, vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream 

habitat complexity, landscape pattern, and connectivity.

3. Function. Ecological processes that sustain composition and structure, such as energy 

flow, nutrient cycling and retention, soil development and retention, predation and 

herbivory, and natural disturbances such as wind, fire, and floods.

4. Connectivity. Ecological conditions that exist at several spatial and temporal scales that 

provide landscape linkages that permit the exchange of flow, sediments, and nutrients; 

the daily and seasonal movements of animals within home ranges; the dispersal and 

genetic interchange between populations; and the long distance range shifts of species, 

such as in response to climate change.

Natural Range of Variation

The 2012 planning rule does not define natural range of variation (NRV). However, the 

Handbook provides a comprehensive definition of NRV: 

The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over scales of time and space 

that are appropriate for a given management application. In contrast to the generality of 

historical ecology, the NRV concept focuses on a distilled subset of past ecological knowledge developed for use by resource managers; it represents an explicit effort to incorporate 

a past perspective into management and conservation decisions (adapted from Wiens, J.A. 

et al., 2012). The pre-European influenced reference period considered should be sufficiently long, often several centuries, to include the full range of variation produced by 

dominant natural disturbance regimes such as fire and flooding and should also include 

short-term variation and cycles in climate. The NRV is a tool for assessing the ecological 

integrity and does not necessarily constitute a management target or desired condition. 

The NRV can help identify key structural, functional, compositional, and connectivity 

characteristics, for which plan components may be important for either maintenance or 

restoration of such ecological conditions. (FSH 1909.12, Zero Code, page 14)

There are situations when it may be inappropriate for plans to include components to restore or 

maintain NRV, and this may be a consideration during assessment. FSH 1909.12 states:

For specific areas within an ecosystem, the Responsible Official may determine that it is 

not appropriate, practical, possible, or desirable to contribute to restoring conditions to 

the natural range of variation. Natural range of variation includes a wide range of characteristics, some more common than other characteristics. To achieve social, economic, cultural, or ecological objectives it may be desirable to manage for uncommon conditions in 

specific areas in the plan area. For an ecosystem to withstand or recover from disturbance 

events caused under unique circumstances, it may be necessary to manage for characteristics that were rare or never occurred in the past. The following are examples of situations 

where it is NOT appropriate, practical, possible, or desirable to design plan components 

to restore past conditions for specific areas within an ecosystem:
19

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

a. The system is so degraded that restoration is not possible. 

b. The ability to restore the desired ecological conditions or key ecosystem characteristics 

is beyond the authority of the Forest Service, the fiscal capability of the unit, or the 

inherent capability of the plan area. 

c. The system is no longer capable of sustaining key ecosystem characteristics identified as 

common in the past based upon likely future environmental conditions.

d. Conditions that rarely or never occurred in the past, but that can be managed for in the 

future, will better contribute to long-term ecosystem sustainability and adaption to the 

effects of a changing climate. 

e. Conditions that rarely or never occurred in the past, but that can be managed for in the 

future, will better address public health and safety concerns.

f. Conditions common in the past are directly opposed to integrated desired conditions 

(desired conditions that represents a balance of social, economic, cultural and ecological 

needs). 

(FSH 1909.12, Chapter 20, section 23.11a. Pages 59-60)

Considerations of Climate Change in the 2012 Planning Rule

The planning framework outlined in the 2012 planning rule is intended to enable the “Forest 

Service to adapt to changing conditions, including climate change, and improve management 

based on new information and monitoring,” (36 CFR 219.5). The rule classifies climate change 

as a system stressor that must be considered when addressing ecological integrity in the context 

of ecological sustainability (36 CFR 219.8). Furthermore, monitoring activities should track the 

impacts of climate change and other stressors (36 CFR 219.12).

FSM 1920 includes the following as an objective of planning:

4. Improve the resilience of National Forests and Grasslands to climate change and other 

stressors.

(FSM 1920, Chapter 1921, Section 1921.02, page 9)

FSH 1909.12 defines climate change adaptation as follows:

Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli 

or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. This adaption 

includes initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems 

against actual or expected climate change effects. Adaptation strategies include the following:

1. Building resistance to climate-related stressors.

2. Increasing ecosystem resilience by minimizing the severity of climate change impacts, 

reducing the vulnerability, and/or increasing the adaptive capacity of ecosystem 

elements.

3. Facilitating ecological transitions in response to changing environmental conditions.

(FSH 1909.12, Zero Code. Page 5)
20

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Planning Process

The rule outlines a three-part planning framework, involving assessment, plan development, and 

monitoring (36 CFR 219.5). 

In the assessment phase, national forest and grassland planning teams must assess which ecosystem 

types occur in the plan area, identify and evaluate existing information for those ecosystems, and 

assess the need for change (36 CFR 219.6). Of the fifteen required assessment topics, the following five relate to ecological integrity:

(1) Terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, and watersheds; 

(2) Air, soil, and water resources and quality;

(3) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and 

stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; 

and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change;

(4) Baseline assessment of carbon stocks;

(5) Threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, and potential species of 

conservation concern present in the plan area; ...”

(36 CFR 219.6(b))

In plan development, addressed in the rule at 36 CFR 219.7, the set of plan components must 

meet the requirements set forth for sustainability, plant and animal diversity, multiple use, and 

timber. The requirements for sustainability at 36 CFR 219.8(a)(1) and plant and animal diversity 

at 36 CFR 219.9(a)(1) include the requirement that the plan includes plan components to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of the ecosystems in the plan area. 

The plan must also include a plan monitoring and evaluation program (36 CFR 219.7(f)(1)(iii)). 

The monitoring section of the rule at 36 CFR 219.12 requires that the plan monitoring program 

enables the responsible official, usually the forest supervisor, “to determine if a change in plan 

components or other plan content that guide management of resources on the plan area may be 

needed,” (36 CFR 219.12(a)(1). The rule requires monitoring questions and indicators be developed to test relevant assumptions, track relevant changes, and measure management effectiveness 

and progress toward achieving the plan’s desired conditions and objectives (36 CFR 219.12(a)

(2)). They must address at least eight required topics, the following of which relate to ecological 

integrity: 

(i) The status of select watershed conditions

(ii) The status of select ecological conditions including key characteristics of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems

(iii) The status of focal species to assess the ecological conditions required under §219.9 

[which emphasizes ecosystem diversity and integrity to maintain or restore plant and 

animal diversity]...

(iv) Measureable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors 

that may be affecting the plan area.
21

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Prompting Questions for the Workshop Around Employing NRV to 

Evaluate Ecological Integrity in Light of Climate Change

1. What key ecological characteristics are most useful for informing our understanding of 

the integrity of the ecosystem? Which are useful during each phase of planning?

2. Will climate change degrade ecological integrity, and if so, what are appropriate actions 

in the next 10–20 years? How might we assess this, plan for it, and monitor for it?

3. How do we know managing to maintain system characteristics in the past based on 

NRV is no longer appropriate for social, cultural, economic, or ecological reasons?

4. For systems that currently exhibit high ecological integrity reflective of reference 

conditions, how can we manage those systems to keep key ecological characteristics 

consistent with NRV to support resilience in the face of climate change? In other 

words, where is there a current need for change?

5. How might climate change affect how we conceptualize the NRV for a system?

6. What insights regarding the dynamics of the system become apparent when we examine 

its historical dynamics across longer time horizons? What does this tell us about 

potential responses to scenarios of climate change?

Endnotes

1

 The climate change vulnerability assessments for the Intermountain Region were recently 

published. 

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Ho, J.J.; [et al.], eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and 

adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. p. 1-197.

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Ho, J.J.; [et al.], eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and 

adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 2]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. p. 199-513.

2

 The primer presented in this report incorporates edits made following the workshop based on 

suggestions provided by reviewers. Accordingly, it slightly differs from the primer provided to 

workshop attendees.

REFERENCES

Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; [et al.]. 2012. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
22

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

APPENDIX B. WORKSHEET AND ACCOMPANYING 

INSTRUCTIONS (SEE EXAMPLE IN APPENDIX D)
23

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Part 1

General Current Status

Dominant ecological characteristic Category Relevant spatial scale Importance

Description of current 

status

Information on current 

status

Provide a brief description of dominant ecological characteristic.

Select one of the following: composition, structure, function, connectivity.

Select one of the following: landscape (broad-scale), forest, or stand. Provide additional description if necessary.

Why is this ecological characteristic important?

Provide description of the current status of the characteristic. Quantify if possible.

Available information on the current status.
24

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018. Part 2 NRV Climate Change NRV of characteristic Metrics for NRV NRV information Reflects NRV? Climate change vulnerability Affect NRV? Climate change information What is the NRV of the characteristic? How do we tell if the system reflects conditions in line 

with NRV for the characteristic?

Available information on NRV.

Does the system currently reflect NRV for this characteristic? What information is needed to determine the causal factor? 

Is this characteristic vulnerable to climate change? In what ways will climate change impact this characteristic?

Will climate change shift the characteristic away from reference conditions? How can we tell?

Available information on impacts of climate change to characteristic.
25

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Part 3

Other Stressors

Management 

Actions Plan Development and Priorities

Other stressors

Impacts of other stressors Affect NRV?

Information on other stressors

Likelihood of management to affect characteristics Assessment Plan components Monitoring

List stressors other than climate change.

Describe impacts of other stressors on the characteristic.

Will the stressor shift the characteristic away NRV? How can we tell?

Available information on stressors.

How feasible is it to impact this characteristic through management actions? What specifically could be done and are these practical to implement?

Is this a high priority for assessment and why? Consider data availability; importance of the characteristic to ecological, social, and economic sustainability; and impacts of climate change.

How can we build plan components for this characteristic and why? How can we address NRV and ecological integrity in these plan components? 

Is this a high priority for monitoring and why? How feasible is it to monitor this characteristic?
26

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, NRV, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATE 

CHANGE

Introduction

The purpose of this document and accompanying worksheet is to allow Forest Service planners and 

scientists to systematically address ecosystem integrity in the face of climate change by evaluating 

individual dominant ecological characteristics. Ecological characteristics derive from the following categories: composition, structure, function, and connectivity. The worksheet considers NRV 

of these characteristics as well as vulnerability to climate change and other stressors. Information 

inputted on characteristics, NRV, and stressors informs consideration of specific management 

actions, assessment priorities, plan component development, and monitoring objectives. Section 

1 of this appendix includes instructions for the accompanying worksheet. Section 2 asks general 

questions that can be addressed after completing the worksheet.

Section 1: Worksheet Instructions

Before beginning the worksheet, you will want to consider relevant ecosystems found within your 

planning unit. You will use a worksheet for each ecosystem. You will begin by listing stressors to 

the ecosystem (e.g., climate change, invasive species, grazing, timber harvesting, insects) on the 

sheet titled Stressors. Feel free to brainstorm on this sheet. You will likely select a subset of these 

stressors to include on the next table.

After listing stressors, you will move on to the sheet titled Ecological characteristics. You will 

consider ecological characteristics of the ecosystem. The table asks questions organized into several 

categories:

•	 General. This section includes general information about the dominant ecological 

characteristic.

o Dominant ecological characteristic. Provide a brief description of dominant 

ecological characteristic. In this field, you will provide a short description of 

the ecological characteristic that will be addressed in this row (e.g., “Sapling 

recruitment”; “Age-class distribution”; “Fire return interval”).

o Category. Select one of the following: composition, structure, function, connectivity. 

This field requires you to categorize the characteristic. Options to choose from 

include composition, structure, function (or process), and connectivity. Definitions 

of these categories can be found in the accompanying primer or in the 2012 

planning rule directives.

o Relevant spatial scale. Select one of the following: landscape, forest, or stand. Provide 

additional description if necessary. This field addresses the appropriate spatial scale 

for considering the ecological characteristic. Spatial scale can be considered on a 

spectrum from stand-level to forest-level to landscape-level. Landscape-level refers 

to a broad spatial scale larger than an individual planning unit. Feel free to provide 

additional details on the spatial scale including whether the characteristic can be 

evaluated at multiple scales.
27

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

o Importance. Why is this ecological characteristic important? In this section, you 

will describe the characteristic and explain its importance to the ecosystem and its 

ecosystem integrity.

•	 Current Status. This section addresses the current status of the characteristic.

o Description of current status. Provide description of the current status of the 

characteristic. Quantify if possible. In this field, you will describe the current status 

of the characteristic. If possible, you will quantify the characteristic using the 

appropriate metric. Please address how the current status may vary across locations 

within your planning unit.

o Data on current status. Available data on current status. You will list data sources 

that are available on the current status of the characteristic as well as any general data 

sources pertinent to the characteristic. Data sources may include geospatial datasets, 

FIA data, General Technical Reports, peer-reviewed literature, and others.

•	 NRV. This section addresses the natural range of variation (NRV) of the characteristic, an 

important aspect of ecological integrity in the 2012 planning rule. The primer provides 

a definition of NRV.

o NRV of characteristic. What is the NRV of the characteristic? In this field, you 

will describe the NRV of the characteristic, quantifying metrics when possible. 

Qualitative descriptions are helpful in addition to quantification. If possible, please 

address the spatial and temporal scales considered when defining NRV. Numbers can 

be expressed as ranges.

o Metrics for NRV. How do we tell if the system reflects conditions in line with NRV 

for the characteristic? When filling in this field, you will want to consider whether 

there are specific monitoring items, experiments, data, or observations that can 

inform whether the system is within NRV. For some characteristics such as fire 

return interval given the long time scale, it may be difficult to tell whether a system 

is within or outside of NRV.

o NRV data. Available data on NRV. You will discuss data sources available to classify 

NRV for the characteristic. Paleoecological and dendrochronological data are often 

helpful for classifying NRV. If relevant, address data gaps in this field.

o Reflects NRV? Does the system currently reflect NRV for this characteristic? What 

data is needed to determine the causal factor? Based on the metrics established in 

the previous field, the current status of the characteristic, and your knowledge of the 

ecosystem, you will want to describe whether the ecosystem exhibits conditions that 

reflect common conditions during a historical reference period for this particular 

characteristic. Please include description of relevant uncertainties.

•	 Climate Change. This section addresses the characteristic’s vulnerability to climate change 

and how climate change may impact NRV and ecological integrity.

o Climate change vulnerability. Is this characteristic vulnerable to climate change? 

In what ways will climate change impact this characteristic? In this field, you will 

discuss the vulnerability of the ecosystem and the specific characteristic to climate 

change. Consider changes in mean temperature and precipitation as well as the 

occurrence of extreme events such as droughts. Please discuss relevant uncertainties.
28

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

o Affect NRV? Will climate change shift the characteristic away from reference 

conditions? How can we tell? Discuss the relationship between climate change 

vulnerability, NRV, and ecological integrity. The impacts of climate change 

may impact a characteristic such that it moves out of NRV. If the characteristic 

is not currently within NRV, consider whether climate change would shift the 

characteristic towards or away from NRV.

•	 Data. Available data on impacts of climate change to characteristic. Discuss data sources 

that may inform consideration of climate change vulnerability of the ecosystem and 

the specific characteristic. Potential data sources include downscaled climate change 

projections and vulnerability assessments.

•	 Other Stressors. Factors other than climate change may be stressors for the ecosystem. 

Possible other stressors include invasive species, grazing, timber harvesting, and insects. 

You will have already listed relevant stressors to the ecosystem; return to your list for this 

section.

o Other stressors. List stressors other than climate change. Incorporate your list of 

stressors made on the previous sheet. Feel free to provide additional description 

beyond a list. If stressors interact, are cascading or cumulative, note that in the table.

o Impacts of other stressors. Describe impacts of other stressors on the characteristic. 

In this field, you will provide information on how these other stressors may affect 

the characteristic.

o Affect NRV? Will the stressor shift the characteristic away from the NRV? How can 

we tell? You will want to think about whether the listed stressors will affect whether 

the characteristic continues to reflect NRV.

o Data on other stressors. Available data on stressors. Discuss data sources as well as 

data gaps.

•	 Management Actions. This section requires you to think about specific management 

actions that may have an impact on the characteristic.

o Likelihood of impact. How feasible is it to impact this characteristic through 

management actions? What specifically could be done and are these practical to 

implement? Consider whether there are feasible management actions or tactics 

that can affect the characteristic. For certain characteristics, there may not be any 

management actions that can affect the characteristic given economic, technical, 

or policy barriers. Discuss feasible management actions that could be employed 

to affect the characteristic. It is especially helpful to consider whether these 

management actions would maintain or restore ecological integrity. For management 

actions that might not be practical, discuss why this is the case.

•	 Plan Development and Priorities. This section addresses how the planning team may 

incorporate information developed in this worksheet about dominant ecological 

characteristics, NRV, and climate change into plans. It addresses the assessment, plan 

development, and monitoring phases.

o Assessment. Is this a high priority for assessment and why? Consider data availability, 

importance of the characteristic to ecological, social, or economic sustainability, and 

impacts of climate change. In this field, you will consider whether this characteristic 
29

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

should be a priority for assessment in the first phase of planning. You should 

consider the importance of the characteristic to ecological, social, or economic 

sustainability. You should consider whether the Forest Service has any influence or 

management control over the characteristic. Public interest in the characteristic may 

elevate its importance for assessment.

o Plan components. How can we build plan components for this characteristic? How 

can we address NRV and ecological integrity in these plan components? Consider 

how the characteristic and its NRV can be incorporated into the plan. Consider 

the need for desired conditions that have specific enough descriptions to determine 

progress or achievement; objectives for measurable, time-specific changes in the 

conditions; design criteria as standards or guidelines to ensure subsequent projects 

or activities result in or at least do not prevent attainment of objectives or desired 

conditions; or the need to prohibit certain activities from specified areas to ensure 

progress toward or achievement of desired conditions or objectives. 

o Monitoring. Is this a high priority for monitoring and why? How feasible is it 

to monitor this characteristic? In this field, address whether monitoring for the 

characteristic would provide information that the responsible official can use to 

determine if a change to the plan, a change in management under the plan, a change 

in future monitoring, or a new assessment is needed. 

Section 2: Key questions for framing end-of-day presentation

Insert Ecosystem Here

Answer the below questions based on the worksheet exercise.

Which are the most valuable ecological characteristics for telling us if the system 

exhibits ecological integrity? What do they tell us about the status?

What scientific information describes key characteristics of NRV, ecological integrity, 

and climate change for this ecosystem?

Are there management options that can maintain or restore ecological integrity? Will 

climate change affect ecological integrity?

Are there particular ecological characteristics relevant to NRV and ecological integrity 

included on the worksheet worth prioritizing for assessment, plan development, and 

monitoring? (Consider which assessment items would give us the best opportunities to 

track current conditions and trends, what plan components can be included, and how 

can monitoring test assumptions about ecological integrity, NRV, track trends, or track 

the impact of stressors and management actions.)
30

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

APPENDIX C: AGENDA

Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4) Workshop on 

Climate Change and Natural Range of Variation

Date: March 21–22, 2016 (1.5 workdays)

March 21 Location: USFS Intermountain Office, 324 25th St, Ogden, UT 84401

March 22 Location: Courtyard Marriott Ogden, 247 24th St, Ogden, UT 84401

Project Objective (from BeSmart proposal): 

The objective is to identify the information needed by the land management planning process, in 

particular the assessment, to determine when climate change could perturb ecological integrity 

characteristics (structure, function, composition, connectivity) outside of the NRV.

Organizers:

•	 Linda Joyce, Research Ecologist, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station

•	 Courtney Schultz, Assistant Professor of Forest and Natural Resource Policy, Colorado 

State University

•	 Gina Lampman, Regional Planner, USFS Intermountain Region

AGENDA

Day 1 (Courtney Schultz – Moderator)

Location: Regional Office, Room 5118

•	 1:00–1:15: Welcome and statement of purpose (Courtney Schultz, Linda Joyce)

•	 1:15–1:30: Introductions: workshop participants 

•	 1:30–2:15: Overview of 2012 Planning Rule and NRV as part of ecological integrity 

(Chris Iverson, USFS Intermountain Region)

•	 2:15–2:30: Break/Informal discussion

•	 2:30–3:30: Overview of Natural Range of Variation (NRV) and how the concept can 

be useful for management and in the context of climate change (Jim Long, Utah State 

University)

•	 3:30–3:45: Break/Informal discussion

•	 3:45–4:30: Overview of the Intermountain Adaptation Partnership, including results 

from the Vegetation Chapter on projected changes to ecosystems and resultant key 

vulnerabilities under climate change (Pat Behrens, USFS Intermountain Region)
31

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Day 2

Location: Courtyard Marriott Ballroom

•	 8:00–8:10: Welcome and housekeeping

•	 8:10–9:00: Overview of the Disturbance Chapter from the IAP, reporting results on how 

climate change will affect major disturbances in the Intermountain Region (Danielle 

Malesky, USFS Intermountain Region)

•	 9:00–10:45: Full group exercise on defining NRV for lodgepole pine. (Jim Long, and 

John Shaw, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, to lead.)

•	 10:45–11:00: Break

•	 11:00–11:15 – Introduction to the group exercises – Following the introduction, full

group separates into two sub-groups to address two different ecosystems. Ballroom

will be divided into two rooms.

•	 (Facilitators: Spruce-fir—Thomas Timberlake/Courtney Schultz; Alpine—Linda Joyce)

•	 11:15–11:45: Presentation from ecosystem experts on how to characterize NRV for the 

ecosystem at various temporal and spatial scales for two chosen ecosystem types (Sprucefir—Justin DeRose, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station; Alpine—David Tart, USFS 

Intermountain Region)

•	 11:45–1:00: Lunch

•	 1:00–2:00: Group discussion on how to use this information to define and assess 

dominant ecosystem characteristics. Objectives include to: 1) outline the current status 

of the characteristics; 2) capture the NRV of the characteristics and track whether climate 

change is pushing characteristics outside of NRV; and, 3) address the impact of other 

stressors. During this period, groups should cover the following worksheet sections:

o General;

o Current status;

o NRV;

o Climate change; and,

o Other stressors.

•	 2:00–3:00: Group discussion of management actions to address NRV of characteristics 

and incorporation into plan development phases: assessment, plan components, and 

monitoring. During this period, groups should cover the following worksheet sections:

o Management actions; and,

o Forest plan development and priorities.

•	 3:00–3:15 Break

•	 3:15–4:30: Presentations to entire group from both ecosystem sub-groups on progress 

for the day

•	 4:30–5:00: Wrap-up and next steps (capturing lessons learned; identifying follow-up 

steps and future needs)
32

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED WORKSHEET
33

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Part 1

General Current Status

Dominant ecological characteristic Category Relevant spatial scale Importance

Description of current 

status

Information on current 

status

Provide a brief description of dominant ecological characteristic.

Select one of the following: composition, structure, function, connectivity.

Select one of the following: landscape (broad-scale), forest, or stand. Provide additional description if necessary.

Why is this ecological characteristic important?

Provide description of the current status of the characteristic. Quantify if possible.

Available information on the current status.

Spruce beetle regimes Process Landscape

Endemic spruce beetle populations create and maintain the gap-phase dynamic (structural and compositional diversity). Spruce beetles are the dominant disturbance for this ecosystem. Endemic (as opposed to epidemic) beetle populations are important to connectivity.

Recent epidemics have resulted in widespread mortality throughout the region.

FIA data; Aerial Detection Survey (ADS)
34

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018. Part 2 NRV Climate Change NRV of characteristic Metrics for NRV NRV information Reflects NRV? Climate change vulnerability Affect NRV? Climate change information What is the NRV of 

the characteristic?

How do we tell if the system reflects conditions in line with NRV for the characteristic?

Available information on NRV.

Does the system currently reflect NRV for this characteristic? What information is needed to determine the causal factor? 

Is this characteristic vulnerable to climate change? In what ways will climate change impact this characteristic?

Will climate change shift the characteristic away from reference conditions? How can we tell?

Available information on impacts of climate change to characteristic.

Good literature on less severe epidemics and return intervals. Endemic populations result in mortality to small patches (order of a few acres or less).

Extent and severity of beetle-caused mortality.

Dendrochronological data and paleo data (pollen) may be used to determine return intervals of events. Written records may be used for more recent events.

Incredibly infrequent most severe epidemic events. Recent most severe epidemics may be unprecedented.

Yes. Changes in temperature and moisture have been shown to influence beetle population success.

Yes. See answer to the left. Shift from endemic to outbreak likely as a result of temperature increases and moisture deficit. Length of epidemics may be extended depending on hosts.

Peer-reviewed literature.
35

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

Part 3

Other Stressors

Management 

Actions Plan Development and Priorities

Other stressors

Impacts of other 

stressors Affect NRV?

Information on 

other stressors

Likelihood of 

management 

to affect 

characteristics Assessment Plan components Monitoring

List stressors other than climate change.

Describe impacts of other stressors on the characteristic.

Will the stressor shift the characteristic away NRV? How can we tell?

Available information on stressors.

How feasible is it to impact this characteristic through management actions? What specifically could be done and are these practical to implement?

Is this a high priority for assessment and why? Consider data availability; importance of the characteristic to ecological, social, and economic sustainability; and impacts of climate change.

How can we build plan components for this characteristic and why? How can we address NRV and ecological integrity in these plan components? 

Is this a high priority for monitoring and why? How feasible is it to monitor this characteristic?

(Wind; avalanches - may be inherent aspects of systems)

No ability to practically control an epidemic at the landscape scale. Age class diversity prior to an outbreak may confer resilience, since some trees will not be susceptible to the outbreak. Staggered planting to create structural diversity.

There are data available. Spruce beetles affect ecological, economic, and social sustainability. Spruce-fir is an important system region-wide and the Forest Service manages 85% of the system. Develop narrative to build plan components on.

Desired future condition: maintain a diversity of size class for spruce. Create guidelines for size class distribution (e.g., “Increase size class diversity”). It is important to maintain infrastructure. Yes. 
36

Research Note RMRS-RN-82. August 2018.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by a USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station BeSMART 

grant. The authors would like to acknowledge workshop attendees for their participation and feedback, as well as reviewers of the draft manuscripts.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/