DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-862

October 2012

Adaptations to Climate Change: 

Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forests

William L. Gaines, David W. Peterson, Cameron A. Thomas,

and Richy J. Harrod

Tonasket

Colville

g90

a395

20

21

25

g90

a2

a2

a97

a97

20

153

28

a12

a97

410

WASH INGTON

o 0 5 10 20 Miles 
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States 

and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, 

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

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

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual 

orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training 

programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or 

activities).

If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), 

contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD).

If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than 

English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 

632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at 

(800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). You may use USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Forms AD-3027 or AD-3027s (Spanish) which can be found at: 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or upon request from a local Forest 

Service office. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

William L. Gaines is a wildlife ecologist, Cameron A. Thomas is an aquatic 

biologist, and Richy J. Harrod is a fire ecologist, Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801; David W. Peterson is a research 

forest ecologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1133 N Western Ave., Wenatchee, 

WA 98801.
Abstract

Gaines, William L.; Peterson, David W.; Thomas, Cameron A.; Harrod,

Richy J. 2012. Adaptations to climate change: Colville and OkanoganWenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-862. Portland, OR:

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

Station. 34 p.

Forest managers are seeking practical guidance on how to adapt their current 

practices and, if necessary, their management goals, in response to climate change. 

Science-management collaboration was initiated on national forests in eastern 

Washington where resource managers showed a keen interest in science-based 

options for adapting to climate change at a 2-day workshop. Scientists and managers reviewed current climate change science and identified resources vulnerable to 

expected climate change. Vulnerabilities related to vegetation and habitat management included potential reductions in forest biodiversity and low forest resilience to 

changing disturbance regimes. The vulnerabilities related to aquatic and infrastructure resources included changing water quality and quantity, the risk to roads and 

other facilities from changes to hydrologic regimes, and the potential loss of at-risk 

aquatic species and habitats. Managers then worked in facilitated groups to identify 

adaptations that could be implemented through management and planning to reduce 

the vulnerability of key resources to climate change. The identified adaptations 

were grouped under two major headings: Increasing Ecological Resiliency to Climate Change, and Increasing Social and Economic Resiliency to Climate Change. 

The information generated from the science-management collaborative represents 

an initial and important step in identifying and prioritizing tangible steps to address 

climate change in forest management. Next would be the development of detailed 

implementation strategies that address the identified management adaptations. 

Keywords: Science-management collaborative, Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest, Colville National Forest, climate change, resource vulnerability, adaptations, 

resiliency.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Methods

3 Resource Vulnerability Questions

3 Adaptation and Mitigation Questions 

4 Biogeographical Setting and Natural Resources

4 Colville National Forest

5 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

7 Policy, Planning, and Management Environments 

7 Observed and Anticipated Climatic Changes and Effects on Natural

Resources 

7 Regional Climate Change Overview 

9 Disturbances 

10 Hydrology and Fish 

12 Vegetation 

13 Wildlife 

16 Resource Vulnerabilities 

16 Adapting to Climate Change Through Management and Planning

19 Increasing Ecological Resiliency to Climate Change 

21 Increasing Social and Economic Resiliency to Climate Change 

22 Information and Tool Needs

23 Conclusions

23 Acknowledgments

23 Metric Equivalents

24 Literature Cited
1

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Introduction

In 2008, Forest Service Chief Abigail R. Kimbell characterized the agency’s 

response to the challenges presented by climate change as, “one of the most 

urgent tasks facing the Forest Service.” Subsequently, Chief Tom Tidwell began 

an assertive program of action outlined in the agencywide “Strategic Framework 

for Responding to Climate Change” (USDA FS 2008a) that identified seven areas 

to address: (1) science development, (2) adaptation, (3) mitigation, (4) policy, (5) 

sustainable operations, (6) education, and (7) alliances with partners. Direction 

provided to forest and district planning teams further developed some of these 

emphasis areas. These include Forest Service Manual direction on ecological restoration and resilience (FSM 2000, Chapter 2020), and climate change considerations 

in project-level analysis (USDA FS 2008b). 

In the 2010–2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Plan, a strategic 

goal was established to “ensure our national forests and private working lands are 

conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources” (USDA 2010). Building upon this and the Strategic 

Framework, the Forest Service developed a “National Roadmap for Responding to 

Climate Change” and a “Climate Change Scorecard” (USDA FS 2010). The roadmap identified three types of actions that the Forest Service will take to respond 

to climate change: (1) assessing current risks, vulnerabilities, policies, and gaps in 

knowledge; (2) engaging internal and external partners in seeking solutions, such as 

science-management partnerships; and (3) managing for resilience, in ecosystems 

as well as in human communities, through adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable 

consumption strategies (USDA FS 2010). In this document, we address each of the 

actions identified in the roadmap through a science-management partnership to 

provide forest managers with an initial starting point to address climate change on 

two national forests. 

Forest managers are seeking practical guidance on how to adapt their current 

practices and, if necessary, their management goals to address climate change concerns (Blate et al. 2009: Joyce et al. 2008; Ogden and Innes 2009; Peterson et al. 

2011a, 2011b; Seppala et al. 2009; Spies et al. 2010). Adaptations to forest management would ideally reduce the negative impacts of climate changes and help managers take advantage of any positive impacts (Blate et al. 2009, Ogden and Innes 

2009). However, it is currently a challenge for national forest and project-level 

planners to scale down both national-level policy and regional-scale climate science 

to address site-specific issues (Peterson et al. 2011). Provided in this report is information for the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (OWNF) and Colville National 

Forest (CNF) that can be used in both national forest- and project-level planning.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Science-management collaboration was initiated on these two national forests 

in eastern Washington, where resource managers showed a keen interest in sciencebased options for adapting to climate change following guidance in Peterson et al. 

(2011). Similar efforts have occurred on other national forests (Halosky et al. 2011) 

and guide forest management adaptations in Canada (Ogden and Innes 2009). Our 

work represents an initial effort of collaboration to develop specific concepts and 

applications that could potentially be implemented in management and planning 

to address climate change. This report (1) summarizes current climate change 

science relevant to eastern Washington, (2) describes the collaboration process, (3) 

describes for the OWNF and CNF the adaptation options for climate change identified from this effort, and (4) recommends development of further strategies that 

implement the highest priority adaptations (of those discussed).

Methods

Over a 2-day process, a focus group reviewed climate change information and 

elicited recommendations for adapting forest management. The first day focused 

on developing a scientific understanding of climate change and the potential effects 

to resources relevant to the OWNF and CNF. Scientists made presentations, and 

discussion occurred among scientists and resource management staff. The topics 

covered during the science presentations included:

Topic Presentor(s)

Pacific Northwest climatic David L. Peterson, research ecologist,

variability: past, present, and future Pacific Northwest Research Station

Introduction to the concepts of Jessica Halofsky, research ecologist,

vulnerability and adaptation Pacific Northwest Research Station

Aquatics: snow and stream hydrology Rick Woodsmith, aquatic ecologist,

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Aquatics: aquatic biota Karl Polivka, aquatic ecologist, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Vegetation Dave W. Peterson, research forest

ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research

Station

Disturbances: insects and disease Darci Carlson and Jim Hadfield, forest

entomologist and pathologist,

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

Disturbances: fire Dave W. Peterson, research forest

ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research

Station

Science-management 

collaboration was 

initiated on these two 

national forests in 

eastern Washington, 

where resource 

managers showed 

a keen interest in 

science-based options 

for adapting to climate 

change. 
3

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Terrestrial wildlife Bill Gaines, wildlife ecologist,

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest,

John Lehmkuhl, research wildlife

biologist, Pacific Northwest Research

Station

Landscape perspective Paul Hessburg, landscape ecologist,

Pacific Northwest Research Station

The second day focused on elicitation of feedback from OWNF and CNF 

resource managers about their concerns regarding climate change and recommendations for strategies and specific actions that would promote adaptation.

The following questions were posed to resource managers:

Resource Vulnerability Questions

• How vulnerable is your resource area to anticipated future climate change?

• Where are the key areas of vulnerability (e.g., roads, invasive plants, lynx 

habitat, fire behavior in dry forests, loss of campgrounds, regeneration 

failures)?

• What aspect of future climate change creates the vulnerability (e.g., 

increased summer temperatures/drought, reduced winter snowpack, rainon-snow events)?

• What is the level of vulnerability for each key area (e.g., high, medium, 

low)?

• What are the potential impacts of vulnerability (e.g., resource drain, failure 

of critical mission, loss of ecosystem service, threat to human health/safety, 

potential property losses)?

Adaptation and Mitigation Questions

• For each area of vulnerability, what management options exist for reducing vulnerability to future climate change (e.g., managing fuels to modify 

future wildfire behavior)?

• For each area of vulnerability, what management options exist for assisting the resource area to adjust to changing climate? Would these activities 

be implemented as part of normal work (proactive) or in response to some 

event or other trigger (reactive)?

• For the options described above, which of these are “no regrets” options 

that would be good resource management practices even if climate did not 

change as predicted?

The second day 

focused on elicitation 

of feedback from OWNF 

and CNF resource 

managers about their 

concerns regarding 

climate change and 

recommendations for 

strategies and specific 

actions that would 

promote adaptation.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

• What information and tools are needed to address identified vulnerabilities? Are there any legal, policy, or management barriers to implementing 

proposed adaptation strategies?

Although the questions were addressed in the order listed, discussions were far 

ranging and often digressed to topics that had been discussed earlier. The scientists 

in attendance (the first three authors of this report) facilitated discussions and 

recorded responses from the group sessions. The responses were then summarized 

by topic and reviewed by OWNF and CNF staff for accuracy. In some cases, detail 

has been reduced in order to highlight the primary ideas and promote clarity.

Biogeographical Setting and Natural Resources

The Okanogan-Wenatchee and Colville National Forests (Forests) are located in 

north central and northeastern Washington state. The Forests are bounded on the 

west by the crest of the Cascade Range, on the north by the Canadian border, and 

on the east by the Idaho border. This area totals over 5 million acres of National 

Forest System lands spanning much of the eastern half of Washington state (fig. 1). 

Colville National Forest

The 1.1-million-acre CNF in northeast Washington is bordered to the north by British Columbia, to the west by the Okanogan National Forest, to the east by the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests, and to the south by a portion of the Colville Confederated Tribes Indian Reservation. The CNF has three ranger districts: Republic, 

Sullivan Lake-Newport, and Three Rivers. The forest headquarters is located in 

Colville. 

Northeast Washington is geologically complex and includes the Columbia 

Basin and the Okanogan Highlands, which function as a transition zone between 

the Cascade and the Rocky Mountain Ranges. The major forest types that comprise 

the CNF include 11,900 acres of subalpine forest, 12,900 acres of cold-dry forest, 

530,000 acres of cold-moist forest, 492,600 acres of dry forest, and 41,200 acres of 

mesic forest. About 16,850 acres of the CNF are other nonforest vegetation types. 

Most of the CNF was burned during the 1920s and 1930s, so the current forest is 

relatively young. Federally listed species include the endangered woodland caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus), threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), and Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis). There are currently no federally listed plants on the Colville; however, 

the moonwort (Botrychium lineare W.H. Wagner) was determined to be warranted 

but precluded.
5

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

The OWNF encompasses 3.9 million acres of public land including about 1.4 million acres of designated wilderness. It includes seven ranger districts, with offices 

in Naches, Cle Elum, Leavenworth, Entiat, Chelan, Winthrop, and Tonasket. The 

Forest headquarters office is located in Wenatchee. 

The major forest types that comprise the OWNF include 656,800 acres of subalpine forest, 329,700 acres of cold-dry forest, 1.5 million acres of cold-moist forest, 

1.1 million acres of dry forest, and 214,700 acres of mesic forest. About 17,000 acres 

are identified as nonforested vegetation.

The Okanogan portion of the Forest is located in north central Washington 

state, and includes 1.7 million acres of public land, including portions of the 

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The Okanogan portion of the Forest is 

comprised of two distinct zones. The western zone includes the Methow Valley. 

Here, vegetation ranges from sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) lowlands, through the dry 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa C. Lawson), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii 

(Mirb.) Franco), western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.), and cold-moist subalpine 

fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.), Engleman spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex 

Engelm.) forests to timberline where whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.), and 

Figure 1—The climate change collaboration case study included the Colville National 

Forest and the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in eastern Washington.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carriere) share a scattered presence 

(Williams and Lillybridge 1983). The eastern zone, from the Meadows through the 

Okanogan Highlands, is drier with much less elevation gradient. Consequently, 

only the sagebrush and dry forest types are widely represented (Williams and 

Lillybridge 1983). Federally listed species include the endangered gray wolf (Canis 

lupus), threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), grizzly bear, 

and Canada lynx. 

The Okanogan portion of the Forest includes land in Okanogan, Skagit, Whatcom, and Chelan Counties. Okanogan County covers most of the Forest. Forestry, 

grazing, and recreation are important to local economies and are supported by 

activities that occur on national forest lands. Water, an important resource provided 

by the national forest, supports the agricultural industry. Through special use 

permits, the Loup Loup Ski Bowl and an extensive network of cross-country ski 

trails provide winter recreation opportunities on national forest lands.

The Wenatchee portion of the Forest includes 2.2 million acres, stretching from 

Lake Chelan in the north to the Goat Rocks Wilderness in the south. It begins at the 

crest of the Cascade Range in central Washington and falls sharply to the breaks of 

the Columbia River. Elevations on the Wenatchee portion range from 800 to over 

9,500 feet. 

Geologic variety and great differences in amounts of precipitation throughout 

the Forest result in a diversity in vegetation and an associated richness of wildlife 

species. The vegetation changes with elevation and moisture as the Forest landscape 

rises from grassland and shrub-steppe vegetation in the low-lying eastern areas, 

through stands of ponderosa pine, and into mixed forests of pine, Douglas-fir, and 

larch (Lillybridge et al. 1995). At higher elevations and closer to the crest of the 

Cascade Range, subalpine areas support true firs and lodgepole pine, while alpine 

meadows support stands of alpine firs, larch, and whitebark pine (Lillybridge et 

al. 1995). Areas near the crest of the Cascade Range receive up to 140 inches of 

precipitation and as much as 25 feet of snow accumulation each year (Lillybridge et 

al. 1995). Moisture declines markedly from west to east, with less than 10 inches of 

precipitation falling annually on the eastern fringes of the Wenatchee portion of the 

OWNF. Federally listed wildlife species include the grizzly bear, northern spotted 

owl, Canada lynx, and gray wolf. There are two federally protected plants on the 

OWNF: the Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva) 

and the showy stickseed (Hackelia venusta (Piper) H. St. John).
7

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Policy, Planning, and Management Environments

Two overarching management plans set the standards and guidelines used to manage natural resources on the OWNF and CNF. The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

(USDA and USDI 1994) and amended existing land and resource management 

plans for national forests located within the range of the northern spotted owl. The 

NWFP includes all of the Wenatchee portion of the OWNF and the portion of the 

Okanogan that lies west and south of the Chewuch River. The remainder of the 

Okanogan portion of the OWNF and all of the Colville Forest are managed under 

the second management plan, the east-side screens (USDA FS 1998a). Both of these 

regional management plans recognized the need to protect and restore old-growth 

and late-successional forest habitat but used two different approaches. The NWFP 

accomplishes this through a system of reserves, which limit forest management 

activities to those that either maintain or promote the development of late-successional forest. There are 1.1 million acres (26 percent) of the OWNF within a system 

of 27 reserves (USDA FS 1997, 1998b). The east-side screens management plan 

promotes the development of old-growth and late-successional forests by managing 

toward the natural range of variation (Hessburg et al. 1997, 1999) and by limiting 

the cutting of trees to those less than 21 inches in diameter.

Observed and Anticipated Climatic Changes and 

Effects on Natural Resources

This section briefly summarizes observed and projected changes in atmospheric 

chemistry, the global climate system, and the climate of Washington state based 

on a review of current scientific literature. Also discussed are the influences these 

projected changes are likely to have on natural resources (e.g., water, vegetation, 

and wildlife) and disturbance regimes managed by national forests.

Regional Climate Change Overview

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases 

have increased rapidly over the past century or more. Records from Mauna Loa 

Observatory in Hawaii (Keeling et al. 1995) show that global atmospheric concentrations of CO2

 rose by almost 17 percent during the period 1958 through 2005, 

from about 325 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm (IPCC 2007). Atmospheric CO2

concentrations are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, although 

future rates of increase may vary with changes in the global economy and the success or failure of international efforts to reduce or limit the growth of greenhouse 

gas emissions. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations are of concern primarily 

because of their potential to influence global temperatures (i.e., the “greenhouse 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

effect”), higher CO2 concentrations may also influence vegetation growth and 

water-use efficiency and are therefore linked more directly to forest ecosystem 

functioning and natural resource management.

Temperatures have been increasing in Washington over the past century. In 

the last 100 years, temperatures have increased by about 1.5 °F (Mote 2003b). 

The warming trends have been strongest in the winter months and weakest in the 

autumn months. Precipitation has also been increasing during the past century with 

the largest relative increases occurring during the spring in the eastern portion of 

the state (Mote 2003b).

The Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington has projected 

future changes in climate of the Pacific Northwest based on climate projections 

produced for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report. They predict that temperatures will rise an average of 0.54 °F per 

decade over the next century (Elsner et al. 2009), a potentially much larger increase 

than experienced in the past 100 years. Predictions are for warming trends to be 

greater in the eastern part of the state. Precipitation projections for the region are 

more variable than temperature projections. In general, precipitation is predicted to 

increase in the winter and decrease in the summer (Mote et al. 2005a). 

Winter temperatures play a large role in determining whether precipitation 

falls as snow or rain. Despite increases in precipitation in eastern Washington, 

warming temperatures have led to decreases in snowpack. Mote (2003a) reported 

reductions of 30 to 60 percent in April 1 snowpack from 1920 through 2000 over 

much of Washington (fig. 2). The largest decreases in snowpack have been at lower 

elevations (less than 5,900 feet). Projected temperature increases for the coming 

century are expected to increase the proportion of winter precipitation falling as 

rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce snowpack, increase winter 

streamflow, result in earlier peak flows, and decrease late spring and summer 

flows (Hamlet et al. 2007; Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999; Mote et al. 2003a, 2003b, 

2005a). The snowpack in the Cascades is projected to decrease by 44 percent by 

2020 and by 58 percent by 2040 relative to the recent past. Peak runoff is expected 

to occur 4 to 6 weeks earlier (Climate Change Impacts Group 2004), while reduced 

summer streamflows will be more common and widespread (Climate Change 

Impacts Group 2004; Miles et al. 2000; Mote et al. 1999, 2003a, 2003b; Snover et 

al. 2003; Stewart et al. 2004). April 1 snow water equivalent is projected to decrease 

by an average of 27 to 29 percent across the state by the 2020s, 37 to 44 percent by 

the 2040s, and 53 to 65 percent by the 2080s (Elsner et al. 2009).

Temperatures have 

been increasing in 

Washington over 

the past century. In 

the last 100 years, 

temperatures have 

increased by about

1.5 °F.
9

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Disturbances

Since the mid 1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the Western United 

States have increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006). The frequency of large 

fires increased fourfold from 1970 through 1986 compared to 1987 through 2003. 

On average, the length of fire season has increased by 78 days over the same 

period. Westerling et al. (2006) attributed increases in large fires to reductions in 

fuel moisture driven by increased temperatures and lower snowpack. In addition, 

the increase in fire severity and risk has been driven in part by increased fuel loads 

because of fire suppression practices (McKenzie et al. 2004). 

The predicted increases in spring and summer temperature will exacerbate the 

frequency and intensity of disturbances such as fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton 

and Flannigan 1993) (Littell et al. 2009). Some forest insects have already expanded 

their ranges northward, and others have switched from a 2-year to a 1-year life 

cycle, increasing the probability of large outbreaks (Logan and Powell 2001, Logan 

Figure 2—Percentage change in snowpack within the Pacific Northwest during 1920–2000 

(http://cses.washington.edu/cig).

Since the mid 1980s, 

the size and intensity 

of large wildfires in 

the Western United 

States have increased 

markedly. The predicted 

increases in spring and 

summer temperature 

will exacerbate the 

frequency and intensity 

of disturbances such as 

fire and forest insects.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

et al. 2003). Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) populations are 

expected to become more viable at higher elevations, leading to increased incidence 

of mountain pine beetle outbreaks (Littell et al. 2009).

Even under relatively modest greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, there may 

be a doubling in the area burned in Western States (McKenzie et al. 2004). In the 

interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned is likely 

to double or even triple by the end of the 2040s. Models predict an increase in the 

length of the fire season and in the likelihood of fires east of the Cascade Range 

(Bachelet et al. 2001, McKenzie et al. 2004). The higher rates of disturbance by 

fires and insects are likely to be more significant agents of change in forest structure and composition in the 21st century than species turnover or declines in productivity (Littell et al. 2009). This suggests that understanding future disturbance 

regimes is critical for successful adaptation to climate change.

Hydrology and Fish

Vano et al. (2009) modeled the effects of climate change on water availability 

within the Yakima River basin. They found that water shortages occurred historically in 14 percent of the years. The percentage of years with water shortages was 

projected to increase to 27 to 32 percent in the 2020s, 33 to 36 percent in the 2040s, 

and 50 to 77 percent in the 2080s. These projections for reduced water availability 

are a result of predictions for earlier and reduced spring snowmelt as the century 

progresses (Vano et al. 2009).

Climate change is expected to increasingly alter stream function on the OWNF 

and CNF based on studies that have considered the effects of climate change for 

the Columbia River basin. A review of scientific information completed by the 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)(ISAB 2007) identified numerous 

consequences. Bisson (2008) summarized expected changes in the ISAB report 

as follows: (1) warmer temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as 

rain rather than snow; (2) snowpack will diminish and streamflow timing will be 

altered; (3) peak river flows will likely increase; and (4) water temperatures will 

continue to rise (fig. 3).

In addition to an increase in large flood events, wildfires and forest insect outbreaks are also expected to increase as noted earlier. Fish habitat in some instances 

will respond favorably to these events as they are likely to reconnect flood plains 

and increase large wood accumulations, which, in combination, will increase 

stream channel complexity (Bisson 2008). Depending on landscape position, stream 

habitat and dependent species such as trout and salmon might also experience negative consequences resulting from climate change. A higher frequency of severe 
11

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

floods will scour streambeds and reduce spawning success for fall spawning fish 

(Bisson 2008). Decreasing snowpacks and earlier spring runoff will affect migration patterns for salmon that could further affect their survival in the ocean (Mote 

et al. 2003a, Pearcy 1997). Summer base flows are expected to be lower and last 

longer, which would shrink available habitat, forcing fish into smaller and less 

diverse habitat (Battin et al. 2007, Bisson 2008). Additionally, summer temperatures 

in some stream locations that currently support salmon and trout could rise to a 

point where they become lethal (Crozier et al. 2008). Higher stream temperatures 

will likely favor nonsalmonid species that are better adapted to warmer water, 

including potential predators and competitors (Reeves et al. 1987, Sanderson et al. 

2009).

Mantua et al. (2009) evaluated the sensitivity of freshwater habitat of Pacific 

salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) to climate change. They found that predicted increases 

in stream temperatures will only slightly increase thermal stress for salmon in 

eastern Washington for the 2020s, but thermal stress will increase as the century 

progresses. Streamflow simulations predict that the largest hydrologic sensitivities 

are for watersheds that currently have a mix of direct runoff from autumn rainfall 

and springtime snowmelt (transient watersheds). The combined effects of warming 

stream temperatures and altered streamflows will very likely reduce reproductive 

success for many salmon populations, but impacts will differ according to different 

Figure 3—Reduced snowpack and earlier runoff alter peak and base flows in 

the Naches River basin (http://cses.washington.edu/cig). The blue line represents historical flow regime in 1950, and the red line is a modeled flow regime 

based on a 2 °C increase in temperature.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

life-history types and watershed types. Salmon populations having a stream-type 

life history with extended freshwater rearing periods (steelhead, Oncorhynchus 

mykiss; coho, O. kisutch; sockeye, O. nerka; stream-type Chinook, O. tshawytscha; 

bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus) are predicted to experience large increases 

in hydrologic and thermal stress in summer owing to diminishing streamflow 

and increasing water temperatures. Salmon with an ocean-type life history are 

predicted to experience the greatest freshwater productivity declines in transient 

runoff watersheds where future warming is predicted to increase the magnitude 

and frequency of winter flooding that will reduce egg-to-fry survival rates (Mantua 

et al. 2009). Habitat restoration and protection can help to mitigate some of the 

anticipated effects of climate change; however, habitat deterioration associated with 

climate change will make salmon recovery targets more difficult to attain (Battin

et al. 2007).

Vegetation

Climate change is expected to alter the distribution of forests, with a trend that is 

generally upward in elevation and northerly in latitude. Climate change will likely 

have the greatest effect at forest boundaries, both at the upper and lower elevations 

of forest distribution. At high elevations, seedling establishment and tree growth 

may be enhanced by warmer temperatures and decreased snowpack (Bachelet et al. 

2001; Franklin et al. 1971; Nakawatase and Peterson 2006; Peterson and Peterson 

1994, 2001; Peterson et al. 2002; Woodward et al. 1995). Thus, expansions of forests 

into the alpine zones should be expected. Conversely, at lower elevations, decreased 

summer precipitation, decreased snowpack, and increased temperatures have the 

potential to shift treeline up in elevation (Mote et al. 2003b, Neilson et al. 2005).

However, these simple predictions of forest response to climate change do 

not account for other factors that may influence forests. For example, the upslope 

contraction of eastern Washington forests in response to warmer and drier conditions may be offset by increased water-use efficiency resulting from increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Bachelet et al. 2001, Krajick 2004). Models that 

consider this CO2 effect predict expansions of forests into lower elevations (Daly et 

al. 2000, Neilson and Drapek 1998). 

Littell et al. (2009) studied the potential impacts of climate change on forests of 

Washington. They predicted that by the mid-21st century, some areas of the interior 

Columbia Basin and eastern Cascade Range are likely to experience substantial 

declines in climatically suitable areas for Douglas-fir, particularly in the Okanogan 

Highlands. In addition, they projected increased climate-related stress to pine tree 

species, and increased susceptibility to mountain pine beetle.

Habitat restoration 

and protection can 

help to mitigate some 

of the anticipated 

effects of climate 

change; however, 

habitat deterioration 

associated with 

climate change will 

make salmon recovery 

targets more difficult

to attain.
13

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

In eastern Washington, there is a strong interaction between climate-induced 

changes in disturbances and changes to vegetation in fire-prone ecosystems. 

Climate-driven changes in fire regimes will likely be the dominant driver of change 

in Western U.S. forests over the next century (McKenzie et al. 2004). This is especially true in eastern Washington forests where increased temperatures, reduced 

snowpack and summer precipitation, and increased fuel loads from fire exclusion 

create conditions for increased large fire occurrences.

Wildlife

The anticipated climatic changes to eastern Washington environments described in 

the preceding sections are likely to result in a variety of effects to wildlife populations and their habitats. A striking conclusion reached from reviewed climate 

change literature was the degree of change to wildlife habitats and populations 

that has already occurred and been documented (Lawler and Mathias 2007, Root 

et al. 2003). The remainder of this section is devoted to describing the effects that 

changing climates are likely to have, or already have had on wildlife populations 

and habitats. While not all of the studies used to exemplify these effects occurred 

in eastern Washington, they do address species relevant to eastern Washington and 

provide insights into the kinds of changes for which planning is needed.

Changes in species distributions—

As environments adjust to changing climate, species will shift their distributions in 

order to find suitable conditions to carry out various life history stages. Some birds 

have been shifting their ranges both poleward in latitude and upward in elevation 

in response to warming climates (Root 1992, 1993; Thomas and Lennon 1999). 

The most extensive predictions about how species distributions are likely to change 

because of climate change have been made for land birds (Price 2002, Wormworth 

and Mallon 2006). Table 1 shows predicted changes in species distributions (based 

on Price 2002) for bird species common to the dry and mesic forests of eastern 

Washington. The list of species was developed from monitoring studies conducted 

in the dry and mesic forests of eastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2007, 2009, 2010).

Gonzalez et al. (2007) provide an example of predicted changes in the habitat 

distribution for the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). They modeled lynx habitat 

based on the distribution of boreal forest and snow cover, and predicted that suitable 

conditions for lynx habitat may shift as far as 120 miles northward. Their analysis 

suggested that these changes in lynx habitat would affect peninsular populations 

and predicted that habitat in the Okanogan and Wenatchee mountains, and presumably the Kettle Crest, would be vulnerable to climate change in the long term.

Climate-driven changes 

in fire regimes will 

likely be the dominant 

driver of change in 

Western U.S. forests 

over the next century. 

This is especially true 

in eastern Washington 

forests where increased 

temperatures, reduced 

snowpack and summer 

precipitation, and 

increased fuel loads 

from fire exclusion 

create conditions for 

increased large fire 

occurrences.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Changes in the timing of breeding and other activities—

Blaustein et al. (2001) studied the onset of breeding by western toads (Bufo boreas) 

and Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae). They showed that earlier breeding was related 

to warmer water temperatures and lower mountain snowpack (fig. 4). Breeding of 

tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) has been documented to begin 5 to 9 days earlier across North America, related to increasing average May temperatures (Dunn 

and Winkler 1999). 

Changes in pathogens and invasive species distributions—

Outbreaks of the pathogen Saprolegnia ferax have been documented in western 

toads and Cascades frogs (Kiesecker et al. 2001). These outbreaks are due to increased UV-B exposure and have been identified as a cause of high mortality in 

amphibian embryos in the Pacific Northwest. Amphibians, particularly those that 

breed in shallow montane lakes and ponds, may be quite susceptible to climateinduced changes in UV-B exposure (Kiesecker et al. 2001).

Table 1—Predicted changes in the distribution of some bird species associated 

with dry and mesic forests, eastern Washingtona

May exclude May contract Little change

Mountain chickadee Chipping sparrow Brown-headed cowbird

(Parus gambeli) (Spizella passerina) (Molothrus ater)

Townsend’s warbler Dark-eyed junco Spotted towhee

(Dendroica townsendi) (Junco hyemalis) (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

Hammond’s flycatcher Nashville warbler Purple finch

(Empidonax hammondii) (Vermivora ruficapilla) (Carpodacus purpureus)

Cassin’s finch MacGillivray’s warbler Western tanager

(Carpodacus cassinni) (Oporornis tolmiei) (Piranga ludoviciana)

Red crossbill Yellow-rumped warbler

(Loxia curvirostra) (Dendroica magnolia)

Cassin’s vireo

(Vireo cassinii)

Red-breasted nuthatch

(Sitta canadensis)

Dusky flycatcher

(Empidonax oberholseri)

Pine siskin

(Carduelis pinus)

Warbling vireo

(Vireo olivaceus) 

a

 The species list is based on surveys described in Gaines et al. 2009a. The predicted changes in distribution are 

based on Price 2002.
15

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Changes in survival and extinction risks—

Some species will be better able to adjust to climate-induced changes to their habitats than will others. In general, species with limited distributions, limited dispersal abilities, highly specialized habitat needs, and with already at-risk populations 

are likely to be the most vulnerable (Thomas et al. 2004). One of the best documented examples of increased risk of extinction because of climate change is the 

American pika (Ochotona princeps). Pika populations throughout the inland West 

have already experienced several extinctions over the last 50 years (Beever et al. 

2003, Root et al. 2003). Pikas have characteristics that make them vulnerable to 

climate change: they do not move large distances (less than 0.62 mile); their habitat generally occurs in small, isolated patches; they do not use burrows that could 

dampen extreme temperatures, and are densely furred so they do not dissipate heat 

easily. Other species that occur on the OWNF or CNF that may be vulnerable to 

extirpation owing to their limited distributions include the Chelan mountainsnail 

(Oreohelix sp. and other Oreohelix spp.) (Burke 1999, Gaines et al. 2005, Weaver et 

al. 2009) and woodland caribou (Apps and McLellan 2006).

Changes in interactions among species—

Community-level effects and interactions are difficult to study and predict because 

they have to account for individual responses of many species simultaneously. 

Resulting from differential species responses, terrestrial communities are likely

to be restructured (Graham and Grimm 1990), altering interspecific interactions, 

such as competition, predation, nest parasitism, etc. For example, the complex

relationships that occur among species within late-successional forests in eastern

Figure 4—The earlier onset of breeding in Cascade frog and western toad populations as temperature increases (based on Blaunstein et al. 2001).
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Washington are just beginning to be understood. Northern spotted owls compete with barred owls (Strix varia) for space and resources (Singleton et al. 2010). 

The primary prey species of the spotted owl includes the northern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) whose populations depend on the abundance of lichens and 

truffles (Lehmkuhl 2004; Lehmkuhl et al. 2004, 2006). It is unknown how climate 

change will affect this chain of interactions, but it is likely that different species 

within the community will react differently, altering the community structure and 

our understanding of how the community functions. 

To really understand how communities of species are likely to be restructured 

by climate change, models must include more than just changes in the distribution 

of habitats. Niche modeling that includes multiple species and multiple interactions 

(such as climate and vegetation) (Carroll 2010) will be needed, and this is challenging when little is known about many species (Kickert et al. 1999).

Resource Vulnerabilities

Based on the scientific understanding developed on the first day of the 2-day 

climate change workshop, participants were asked to identify and rank resources 

(as high, moderate, or low) in relation to perceived vulnerability to climate change 

(table 2). Vulnerability was defined as the extent to which a natural or social system 

is susceptible to sustained damage from weather extremes, climate variability, and 

change (and other interactive stressors) (table 3, Binder et al. 2009). Vulnerabilities 

were categorized into those related to the management of vegetation and habitats, 

and those related to aquatics and infrastructure. The vulnerabilities related to 

vegetation and habitat management included two general themes: the conservation 

of biodiversity, and the restoration of resilient forests and disturbance regimes. 

The vulnerabilities related to aquatic and infrastructure resources included water 

quality and quantity, the risk to roads and other facilities from changes to hydrologic regimes, and at-risk aquatic species and habitats. The next section addresses 

potential adaptations that address these vulnerabilities.

Adapting to Climate Change Through Management and 

Planning

Forest managers present at the workshop identified vulnerabilities and adaptive 

strategies that could be implemented to address the vulnerabilities. The goal of 

these strategies is to make human and natural systems more resilient to the impacts 

of climate change (Binder et al. 2009, Millar et al. 2007). A resilient system is 

one that has the capacity to absorb and rebound from weather extremes, climate 

variability, or change while continuing to function (Binder et al. 2009, IPCC 

Forest managers 

present at the 

workshop identified 

vulnerabilities and 

adaptive strategies that 

could be implemented 

to address the 

vulnerabilities.
17

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Table 2—Low, moderate, and high vulnerabilities identified by forest managers at the 2008 climate change 

workshop, Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Resource vulnerability area Ranking Vulnerability

Vegetation and habitat High • Plant migration could reduce the availability of

whitebark pine and shift the location of other

forest types reducing the availability of alpine habitats.

• Habitat specialists (caribou, lynx, and wolverine (Gulo gulo)

denning habitat) will have the most difficult time adjusting.

• Riparian and wetland habitats may be particularly vulnerable.

• Habitat connectivity will be reduced for some species and may

be most detrimental for low-mobility habitat specialists.

• Dry forest stands with high tree densities and fuel loads become

increasingly susceptible to fire, insects, disease, and drought.

• Larger and more frequent disturbances could make it difficult

for forests/habitats to recover and cause them to be more

susceptible to invasive species.

• Past management for timber production and fire exclusion has

made old forests more susceptible to fire, including severe fire.

• Species with narrow ecological amplitude and endemics may be

at high risk for local extinction.

Moderate • Elk and deer may be vulnerable to increased diseases.

• Species on the edges of their ranges or with limited mobility may

be at risk for local extinction. We need to assess whether or not

these are “lost causes” before investing in their conservation.

Low • Habitat generalists (grizzly bear, wolves, red squirrel, black bear)

that are more mobile may fair better.

• Increased carbon dioxide might increase growth of already

overstocked stands.

Aquatic and infrastructure High • Municipal/agricultural watersheds may lose the capacity to

deliver water at current levels.

• Reduced cold water in streams could reduce fish habitat

availability and alter the timing of spawning or the ability

of fish to spawn.

• Roads and other facilities could be threatened by increased

frequency of extreme hydrologic events such as floods and

debris flows.

• Some aquatic species could become more susceptible to disease

and changes in stream productivity.

• Water availability for ecosystem processes (e.g., soil water for

plant growth) could be reduced or shifted seasonally.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Table 2—Low, moderate, and high vulnerabilities identified by forest managers at the 2008 climate change 

workshop, Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests (continued)

Resource vulnerability area Ranking Vulnerability

Aquatic and infrastructure Moderate • Ski area operation could be affected by reduced winter snowpack.

• Riparian areas could become harder to manage as stream

networks become smaller and less connected (loss of perennial

headwater streams).

• Grazing allotments may be changed owing to changes in water

availability and forage productivity.

• Cultural sites may be sensitive to increased fire.

Low • Sustaining tribal use areas may become more difficult as resources

become scarcer.

• Roads may require more maintenance owing to increased use.

Facilities may receive greater use (and wear) from longer

recreational seasons.

Source: Binder et al. 2009.

Table 3—Basic concepts in adaptation planning

Stressors	 Definition

Sensitivity The degree to which a system is affected, either negatively or

positively, by climate variability or change. The effect may be

direct or indirect.

Exposure The nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant

climatic variations. Exposure to climatic stresses may vary by

geography, elevation, length of time, and other factors.

Vulnerability The extent to which a natural or social system is susceptible to

sustained damage from weather extremes, climate variability,

and change (and other interactive stressors).

Adaptive The ability of a system to adjust to climate stresses (including

capacity weather extremes, climate variability, and climate change) so

that potential damages are reduced, consequences coped with,

or opportunities maximized.

Restoration Putting or bringing back into a former, normal, unimpaired state

or condition.

Resilience The ability of an ecosystem to respond to disturbance. The

concept is commonly used and incorporates the idea of resistance

to disturbance as well as the time it takes a system to respond.

Source: Binder et al. 2009.
19

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

2007, Turner et al. 2003). The concept of a resilient system has been applied to 

both ecological and social systems (O’Brien et al. 2009, Folke 2006). The identified adaptations were grouped under two major headings: Increasing Ecological 

Resiliency to Climate Change, and Increasing Social and Economic Resiliency to 

Climate Change.

Increasing Ecological Resiliency to Climate Change

Generally, conservation efforts of the recent past have taken a static approach to 

conserving biodiversity and protecting ecological systems (Millar 2008). Usually this has involved the delineation of a system of reserves (Heller and Zavaleta 

2009, Spies et al. 2006), or the restoration of the landscape to a historical condition 

(Landres et al. 1999). Areas selected to protect ecosystems today may not protect 

ecosystems in a future altered by climate change (Bengtsson et al. 2003, Carroll et 

al. 2009, Hannah and Salm 2004, Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Pearsons et al. 1992). 

Increasing ecological resiliency will require landscape planning to determine 

restoration priorities, restoration of ecosystems in anticipation of future disturbance 

regimes, better tools to predict climate change effects, and the ability to monitor 

and adapt strategies relatively quickly as conditions change (Heller and Zavaleta 

2009). Following are the strategies identified by the work groups to increase 

ecological resiliency:

Restore landscape resiliency—

• Use landscape-level planning to identify restoration treatment areas, the 

most effective locations to reduce fire flow, to restore patch sizes, and to 

sustain wildlife habitats (Agar et al. 2007, Finney 2004, Franklin et al. 

2008, Perry et al. 2011, Peterson et al. 2011b, Spies et al. 2010).

• Use landscape-level planning to evaluate the interaction between hydrologic regimes and infrastructure such as roads. Identify significant problem 

areas (areas where access is needed for treatments, recreation, etc.) and prioritize road restoration opportunities (Ogden and Innes 2009, Peterson et al. 

2011b).

• Conduct landscape planning across ownerships in order to evaluate patterns, processes, and functions (Franklin et al. 2008; Heller and Zavaleta 

2009, Hessburg et al. 2005, 2007).

• Use the range of variation (historical and future) to determine where treatments are needed and to restore landscape pattern, functions, and processes (see Hessburg et al. 2005 for a description of the historical range of 

variation, and Gartner et al. 2008 for a description of the future range of 

variation).

Increasing ecological 

resiliency will require 

landscape planning to 

determine restoration 

priorities, restoration 

of ecosystems in 

anticipation of future 

disturbance regimes, 

better tools to predict 

climate change effects, 

and the ability to 

monitor and adapt 

strategies relatively 

quickly as conditions 

change.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

• Match treatment unit sizes with desired patch sizes determined from landscape level planning (Hessburg et al. 2005, 2007; Perry et al. 2011).

Restore forest patch resiliency—

• Use the range of variation (historical and future) to guide patch-level restoration of species composition, structure, and spatial pattern (Franklin et al. 

2008, Harrod et al. 1999, Spies et al. 2010).

• Use thinning (mechanical and through prescribed fire) to reduce biomass, 

provide more vigorous growing conditions, and reduce vulnerability to 

uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect outbreaks (Franklin et al. 

2008, Hessburg et al. 2005, Spies et al. 2010).

• Retain the most fire-tolerant tree species and size classes commensurate 

with the forest type (Franklin et al. 2008, Harrod et al. 1999, Perry

et al. 2011).

• Retain and restore old- and large-tree structures because they are the most 

difficult to replace and most resilient to disturbances (Franklin et al. 2008, 

Harrod et al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2005).

• Minimize soil disturbance and restore soil productivity (Ogden and Innes 

2009).

Maintain or restore biological diversity—

• Implement the restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Aubry et al. 2008).

• Provide for habitat connectivity (fish, plants, and wildlife) so that species can adjust their ranges to changes brought about by changing climates 

(Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opdam and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

Spies et al. 2010).

• Restore beaver (Castor canadensis) populations to increase water storage 

and retain wetlands (Brown 2008).

• Protect cold-water areas, as they are important refugia for at-risk fish

species (Mantua et al. 2009, Spies et al. 2010).

• Reduce the impacts of roads on wetland and riparian habitats (Battin et al. 

2007, Ogden and Innes 2009).

Implement early detection rapid response for invasive species—

• Implement integrated pest management to treat existing and new populations (Peterson et al. 2011b).

• Focus on treating small problems before they become large, unsolvable 

problems. Recognize that proactive management is more effective than 

delayed implementation (Halofsky et al. 2011, Peterson et al. 2011b). 
21

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Treat landscape disturbances as management opportunities—

• Plan for postdisturbance recovery. Because large fires and other disturbances are expected periodic occurrences, incorporating them into the 

planning process will encourage postdisturbance management actions that 

take climate into account, rather than treating disturbance as an anomaly or 

crisis (Halofsky et al. 2011, Peterson et al. 2011b, Spies et al. 2010).

• Develop more dynamic approaches to recovery after a major disturbance as 

standard postfire management practices are typically not climate-proactive 

(Peterson et al. 2011b).

Increasing Social and Economic Resiliency to Climate Change

The following strategies are intended to reduce impacts of climate change on forest 

infrastructure that would cause and, in some cases, already has caused, expensive 

repairs, temporary closures, etc. These impacts are anticipated on account of 

changes in the hydrologic regimes brought about by climate change. In addition, 

these strategies are intended to educate forest employees and the public about climate change and provide support for collaborative learning that facilitates adaptive 

management.

Match infrastructure to expected future conditions—

• Reduce the impacts of roads on water quality, quantity, and flow regimes 

(Binder et al. 2009, Ogden and Innes 2009, Peterson et al. 2011b).

• Decouple roads, or remove roads that interrupt hydrologic function (Binder 

et al. 2009).

• Relocate roads and other structures that are at risk from increased peak 

flows (Ogden and Innes 2009, Woodsmith 2008).

Promote education and awareness about climate change—

• Educate employees about climate change science and adaptations (Binder

et al. 2009; Heller and Zavaleta 2009; Peterson et al. 2011a, 2011b).

• Proactively engage the public in an education program that increases 

understanding of the need for adaptation (Binder et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 

2011a, 2011b).

• Develop educational materials and programs about climate change.

Collaborate to implement adaptive management strategies—

• Monitoring and adaptive management will be critical to understanding how 

strategies are working and if adaptations are needed (Binder et al. 2009; 

Heller and Zavaleta 2009; Millar et al. 2007; Peterson et al. 2011a, 2011b; 

Spies et al. 2010).

These strategies are 

intended to educate 

forest employees 

and the public about 

climate change and 

provide support for 

collaborative learning 

that facilitates adaptive 

management.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

• A high level of collaboration between research and management will be 

necessary to integrate evolving science understanding and to design and 

implement monitoring (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Peterson et al. 2011a).

• Planning across jurisdictional boundaries and collaboration on projects 

across boundaries will be vital to successfully adapting to climate change 

and creating more resilient forest and human systems (Heller and Zavaleta 

2009, Peterson et al. 2011b).

Information and Tool Needs

The primary information and tools that managers identified during the workshop 

included models to better predict climate change impacts to resources and to evaluate management options. There was considerable discussion concerning how to 

develop a scientifically credible monitoring program with a concise and realistic

set of variables that are important in monitoring climate change.

Managers identified the following tools that would be useful to better predict 

climate change impacts and understand the effectiveness of management options:

• Tools and expertise to evaluate fire flow over landscapes, and to identify 

strategic locations on the landscape where treatments are most effective at 

reducing unwanted fire effects.

• Tools and an approach to evaluate landscapes to determine past, current, 

and future vegetation patterns (cover types, structure stages), processes 

(fire, insects), and functions (wildlife habitats).

• Models to predict the movement of plant and animal species, and the potential effects of climate change on species distribution (Heller and Zavaleta 

2009). 

• Models to predict the timing and intensity of peak flows and to determine 

channel maintenance flows.

• Location of areas that will likely provide refugia for fish.

Managers identified a need to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan to deal 

with climate change. Monitoring would be a collaborative effort between science, 

management, and stakeholders. Some specific items for monitoring that were 

identified included:

• Monitor the effectiveness of weed treatments.

• Monitor whitebark pine as it is highly vulnerable to climate change.

• Monitor fish populations and habitat across broad areas.

• Monitor wildlife populations to determine the effectiveness of conservation 

strategies and recovery plans.

• Identify and monitor key indicators of climate change.

Managers identified 

a need to develop 

a comprehensive 

monitoring plan to deal 

with climate change. 

Monitoring would be 

a collaborative effort 

between science, 

management, and 

stakeholders.
23

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Conclusions

We summarized the best available science relevant to climate change and the 

potential effects of climate change on eastern Washington forest environments. 

With this knowledge base, forest managers identified resource vulnerabilities and 

potential adaptations to management that can address anticipated climate change 

impacts. We identified four primary areas of adaptation strategies: (1) increase 

patch- and landscape-level forest resiliency through aggressive restoration based on 

understanding of the natural range of variation and projected effects of changing 

climate on the range of variation; (2) restore hydrologic function and fish passage in 

priority areas where water interacts with roads and other infrastructure; (3) increase 

employee and public awareness of the potential impacts of climate change on forest 

resources and the adaptations being implemented to address them; and (4) owing to 

the high degree of uncertainty associated with climate change predictions and the 

effectiveness of adaptations, develop an adaptive management approach that relies 

of rigorous monitoring and research.

A workshop participant provided a quote that thoughtfully and succinctly 

defines what lies ahead: “To deal with climate change will require a new level of 

focus, meaning some things will have to fall off the plate. The scale and immediacy 

of climate change is different from past challenges.”

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the employees of the Okanogan-Wenatchee and 

Colville National Forests who participated in this workshop. We are equally grateful to the scientists from the Pacific Northwest Research Station who so willingly 

shared their expertise at the 2008 workshop. D.L. Peterson and K. O’Halloran 

provided valuable advice on the organization of the workshop. D.L. Peterson, K. 

O’Halloran, and J. Hadfield provided thorough and thoughtful reviews of this 

manuscript. B. Fish and C. Wilson made numerous editorial suggestions that greatly 

enhanced this report. Funding for the development of this manuscript was generously provided by the Pacific Northwest Region Climate Change Coordinator.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet 0.305 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Degrees Fahrenheit 0.55(°F-32) Degree celsius

“To deal with climate 

change will require 

a new level of focus, 

meaning some things 

will have to fall off the 

plate. The scale and 

immediacy of climate 

change is different from 

past challenges.”
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Literature Cited

Agar, A.A.; Finney, M.A.; Kerns, B.K.; Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling wildfire risk 

to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in central Oregon, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 45–56.

Apps, C.D.; McLellan, B.N. 2006. Factors influencing the dispersion and 

fragmentation of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological 

Conservation. 130: 84–97.

Aubry, C.; Goheen, D.; Shoal, R.; Ohlson, T.; Lorenz, T.; Bower, A.; Mehmel, 

C.; Sniezko, R. 2008. Whitebark pine restoration strategy for the Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 90 p. + appendixes.

Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.J. 2001. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. 

Ecosystems. 4: 164–185.

Battin, J.; Wiley, M.W.; Ruckelshaus, M.H.; Palmer, R.N.; Korb, E.; Bartz, 

K.K. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(16): 6720–6725.

Beever, E.A.; Brussard, P.F.; Berger, J. 2003. Patterns of apparent extirpation 

among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. 

Journal of Mammalogy. 84: 37–54.

Bengtsson, J.; Angelstam, P.; Elmqvist, T. 2003. Reserves, resilience and 

dynamic landscapes. Ambio. 32: 389–396.

Binder, L.C.W.; Barcelos, J.K.; Booth, D.B. [et al.]. 2009. Preparing for climate 

change in Washington state. In: Elsner, M.M.; Littel, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for 

Science in the Earth System, University of Washington: 373–407.

Bisson, P. 2008. Salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest and climate change. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/salmon-trout.shtml. (June 16, 2008).

Blate, G.M.; Joyce, L.A.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, 

S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; O’Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2009. Adapting to climate 

change in United States national forests. Unasylva. 231/232(60): 57–62.

Blaustein, A.R.; Belden, L.K.; Olson, D.H.; Green, D.M.; Root, T.L.; 

Kiesecker, J.M. 2001. Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation 

Biology. 15(6): 1804–1809.
25

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Brown, R. 2008. Implications of climate change for conservation, restoration,

and management of national forest lands. Washington, DC: Defenders of 

Wildlife. 32 p.

Burke, T.; Applegarth, J.S.; Weasma, T.R. 1999. Management recommendations 

for Survey and Manage terrestrial mollusks. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 22 p.

Carroll, C.; Dunk, J.R.; Moilanen, A. 2009. Optimizing resiliency of reserve 

networks to climate change: multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. Global Change Biology. 

Carroll, C. 2010. Role of climatic niche models in focal-species-based conservation 

planning: assessing potential effects of climate change on northern spotted owl 

in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 143: 1432–1437.

Climate Change Impacts Group. 2004. Overview of climate change impacts in 

the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: Western Governor’s Climate Change 

Initiative.

Crozier, L.; Zabel, R.W.; Hamlet, A.F. 2008. Predicting differential effects of 

climate change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook 

salmon. Global Change Biology. 14: 236–249.

Daly, C.; Bachelet, D.; Lenihan, J.M.; Neilson, R.P.; Parton, W.J.; Ojima, 

D. 2000. Dynamic simulation of tree-grass interactions for global change 

studies. Ecological Applications. 10: 449–469.

Dunn, P.O.; Winkler, D.W. 1999. Climate change has affected the breeding 

date of tree swallows throughout North America. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society, London. 266: 2487–2490.

Elsner, M.M.; Cuo, L.; Vousin, N.; Deem, J.S.; Hamlet, A.F.; Vano, J.A.; 

Mickelson, K.E.B.; Lee, S.; Lettenmeir, D.P. 2009. Implications of 21st

century climate change for the hydrology of Washington state. In: Elsner, 

M.M.; Littel, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, 

Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of 

Washington: 69–106.

Finney, M.A. 2004. Landscape fire simulation and fuel treatment optimization. In: Hayes, J.L.; Ager, A.; Barbour, R.J., eds. Methods for integrated 

modeling of landscape change: interior Northwest landscape analysis system. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-610. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 117–131.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological 

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16: 253–267.

Franklin, J.F.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Van Pelt, R.; Hull, S. 2008. The case for 

active management of dry forest types in eastern Washington: perpetuating 

and creating old forest structures and functions. Olympia, WA: Washington 

State Department of Natural Resources. 97 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Moir, W.H.; Douglas, G.W.; Wiberg, C. 1971. Invasion 

of subalpine meadows by trees in the Cascade Range, Washington and 

Oregon. Arctic and Alpine Research. 3: 215–224.

Gaines, W.L.; Haggard, M.; Begley, J.; Lehmkuhl, J.; Lyons, A. 2010.

Short-term effects of thinning and burning restoration treatments on avian 

community composition, density and nest survival in the eastern Cascades 

dry forests, Washington. Forest Science. 56(1): 88–99.

Gaines, W.L.; Lyons, A.L.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Haggard, M.; Begley, J.S.; 

Farrell, M. 2009. Chapter 8: Avian community composition, nesting ecology, and cavity-nester foraging ecology. In: Agee, J.K.; Lehmkuhl, J.F., 

comps. Dry forests of the northeastern Cascades Fire and Fire Surrogate 

Project site, Mission Creek, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Res. 

Pap. PNW-RP-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 108–141.

Gaines, W.L.; Haggard, M.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Lyons, A.L.; Harrod, R.J. 

2007. Short-term response of land birds to ponderosa pine restoration. 

Restoration Ecology. 15(4): 670–678.

Gaines, W.L.; Lyons, A.L.; Sprague, A. 2005. Predicting the occurrence of 

a rare mollusk in the dry forests of north-central Washington. Northwest 

Science. 70(2&3): 99–105.

Gartner, S.; Reynolds, K.M.; Hessburg, P.F.; Hummel, S.; Twery, S. 2008.

Decision support for evaluating landscape departure and prioritizing forest management activities in a changing environment. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 256: 1666–1676.

Gonzalez, P.; Nielson, R.P.; McKelvey, K.S.; Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.J. 

2007. Potential impacts of climate change on habitat and conservation 

priority areas for Lynx canadensis (Canada lynx). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 19 p.

Graham, R.W.; Grimm, E.C. 1990. Effects of global climate change on the 

patterns of terrestrial biological communities. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution. 5(9): 289–292.
27

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; O’Halloran, K.A.; Hawkins Hoffman, 

C., 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.

Hamlet, A.F.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology 

and water resources in the Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 35: 1597–1623.

Hamlet, A.F.; Mote, P.W.; Clark, M.P.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Trends in runoff, 

evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of 

Climate. 20: 1468–1481.

Hannah, L.; Salm, R. 2004. Protected areas management in a changing climate. 

In: Lovejoy, T.E.; Hannah, L., eds. Climate change and biodiversity. New Haven, 

CT: Yale University Press. 363–374.

Harrod, R.J.; McRae, B.H.; Hartl, W.E. 1999. Historical stand reconstruction in 

ponderosa pine forests to guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 114: 433–446.

Heller, N.E.; Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate 

change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation.

142: 14–32.

Hessburg, P.F.; Salter, R.B.; James, K.M. 2007. Re-examining fire severity 

relations in pre-management era mixed conifer forests: inferences from 

landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology. 22(1): 5–24.

Hessburg, P.F.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2005. Dry mixed conifer forests of the 

inland Northwest, USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement 

and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 117–139.

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Salter, R.B. 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial 

pattern from reference condition. Ecological Applications. 9: 1232–1252.

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Salter, R.B.; Kreiter, S.D. 1997. Estimating natural 

variation in spatial patterns of forests: a case study of the northern Cascade 

Mountains of Washington state. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 99 p.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Independent Scientific Advisory Board [ISAB]. 2007. Climate change impacts 

on Columbia River basin fish and wildlife. Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. ISAB 2007-2. http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/ISAB%20

2007-2%20Climate%20Change.pdf. (November 2007).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Mitigation. 

Contribution of Working Group III to the 4th assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, 

S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; O’Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. National forests. 

In: Julius, S.H.; West, J.M., eds. Preliminary review of adaptation options 

for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 3-1-3-127.

Keeling, C.D.; Whorf, T.P.; Wahlen, M.; van der Plicht, J. 1995. Interannual 

extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature. 

375: 666–670.

Kickert, R.N.; Tonella, G.; Simonov, A.; Krupa, S.V. 1999. Predictive modeling 

of effects under global change. Environmental Pollution. 100: 87–132.

Kiesecker, J.M.; Blaustein, A.R.; Belden, L.K. 2001. Complex causes of 

amphibian population declines. Nature. 410: 681–684.

Krajick, K. 2004. Climate change: All downhill from here? Science.

303: 1600–1602.

Landres, P.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F. 1999. Overview of the use of natural 

variability in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications.

9: 1279–1288.

Lawler, J.J.; Mathias, M. 2007. Climate change and the future of biodiversity in 

Washington. Report prepared for the Washington Biodiversity Council. College 

of Forest Resources. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 42 p.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2004. Epiphytic lichen diversity and biomass in low-elevation 

forests of the eastern Washington Cascade Range, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 187: 381–392.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Gould, L.; Cazares, E.; Hosford, D. 2004. Truffle abundance 

and mycophagy by northern flying squirrels in eastern Washington forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 200: 49–65.
29

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kistler, K.D.; Begley, J.S.; Boulanger, J. 2006. Demography 

of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior 

forests. Ecological Applications. 16(2): 584–600.

Lillybridge, T.R.; Kovalchik, B.L.; Williams, C.K.; Smith, B.G. 1995. Field 

guide for forested plant associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 336 p.

Littell, J.S.; Oneil, E.E.; McKenzie, D.; Hicke, J.A.; Lutz, J.A.; Norheim, 

R.A.; Elsner, M.M. 2009. Forest ecosystems, disturbances, and climate change 

in Washington state, USA. In: Elsner, M.M.; Littel, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for 

Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and 

Oceans, University of Washington: 255–284.

Logan, J.A.; Powell, J.A. 2001. Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain 

pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). American Entomologist. 47: 160–172.

Logan, J.A.; Regniere, J.; Powell, J.A. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global 

warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. 1: 

130–137.

Mantua, N.; Tohver, I.; Hamlet, A. 2009. Impacts of climate change on key 

aspects of freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. In: Elsner, M.M.; 

Littel, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for

the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington: 217–254.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, 

wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890–902.

Miles, E.L.; Snover, A.K.; Hamlet, A.F.; Callahan, B.M.; Fluharty, D.L. 2000.

Pacific Northwest regional assessment: the impacts of climate variability and 

climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River basin. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association. 36: 399–420.

Millar, C. 2008. Natural resource strategies and climate change. http//www.fs.fed.

us/crcc/natural-resource.shtml. (April 2009).

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and forests 

of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications.

17(8): 2145–2151.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Mote, P.W.; Hamlet, A.F.; Clark, M.P.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Declining 

mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorlogical Society. 86: 39–49.

Mote, P. 2003a. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their 

climatic causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30: 1601–1604.

Mote, P. 2003b. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest 

during the twentieth century. Northwest Science. 77: 271–282.

Mote, P.W.; Canning, D.J.; Fluharty, D.L. 1999. Impacts of climate variability 

and change, Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: National Atmospheric and Oceanic 

Administration, Office of Global Programs. 

Nakawatase, J.M.; Peterson, D.L. 2006. Spatial variability in forest growth—

climate relationships in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 36: 77–91.

Neilson, R.P.; Drapek, R.J. 1998. Potentially complex biosphere responses to 

transient global warming. Global Change Biology. 4: 505–521.

Neilson, R.P.; Pitelka, L.F.; Solomon, A.M.; Nathan, R.; Midgley, G.F.; 

Fragoso, J.M.; Lischke, H.; Thompson, K. 2005. Forecasting regional to 

global plant migration in response to climate change. BioScience. 55: 749–759.

O’Brien, K.; Hayward, B.; Berkes, F. 2009. Rethinking social contracts: building 

resilience in a changing climate. Ecology and Society. 14(2): 12. 

Ogden, A.E.; Innes, J.L. 2009. Application of structured decision making to an 

assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and adaption options for sustainable 

forest management. Ecology and Society. 14(1): 11. 

Opdam, P.; Wascher, D. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: 

linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. 

Biological Conservation. 117: 285.

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate 

change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 37: 637–669.

Pearcy, W.G. 1997. Salmon production in changing ocean domains. In: Stouder, 

D.J.; Bisson, P.A.; Naiman, R.J., eds. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status 

and future options. New York: Chapman and Hall: 331–352.

Pearsons, T.N.; Li, H.W.; Lamberti, G.A. 1992. Influence of habitat complexity 

on resistance to flooding and resilience of stream fish assemblages. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. 121: 427–436.
31

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Henry 

Taylor, A.; Franklin, J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of 

mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 703–717.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011a. 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.

Peterson, D.L.; Halofsky, J.E.; Johnson, M.C. 2011b. Chapter 10: Managing 

and adapting to changing fire regimes in a warmer climate. In: McKenzie, D.; 

Miller, C.; Falk, D.A., eds. The landscape ecology of fire. Ecological Studies 213, 

Springer Science and Business Media, New York: 249–267.

Peterson, D.W.; Peterson, D.L. 1994. Effects of climate on radial growth of 

subalpine conifers in the North Cascade Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 24: 1921–1932.

Peterson, D.; Peterson, D. 2001. Mountain hemlock growth responds to climatic 

variability at annual and decadal time scales. Ecology. 82: 3330–3345.

Peterson, D.W.; Peterson, D.L.; Ettl, G.J. 2002. Growth responses of subalpine 

fir to climatic variability in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 32: 1503–1517. 

Price, J.T. 2002. Global warming and songbirds: Washington. The birdwatcher’s 

guide to global warming. www.abcbirds.org/climatechange. (April 2008).

Reeves, G.H.; Everest, F.H.; Hall, J.D. 1987. Interactions between the redside 

shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) 

in western Oregon: the influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 44: 1602–1613.

Root, T.L. 1992. Temperature mediated range changes in wintering passerine 

birds. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 73: 327.

Root, T.L. 1993. Effects of global climate change on North American birds and 

their communities. In: Kareiva, P.M.; Kingsolver, J.G.; Huey, R.B., eds. Biotic 

interactions and global change. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.: 

280–292.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Root, T.L.; Price, J.T.; Hall, K.R.; Schneider, S.H.; Rosenzweig, C.; Pounds, 

J.A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. 

421: 57–60.

Sanderson, B.L.; Barnas, K.A.; Wargo Rub, M.A. 2009. Nonindigenous species 

of the Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? Bioscience. 

59(3): 245–256. 

Seppala, R.; Buck, A.; Katila, P. 2009. Adaptation of forests and people to climate 

change: a global assessment report. IUFRO World Series, Volume 22. Helsinki, 

Finland: International Union of Forest Research Organizations: 135–186.

Singleton, P.H.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Gaines, W.L.; Graham, S. 2010. Barred owl 

space use and habitat selection in the eastern Cascades, Washington: implications 

for northern spotted owl conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74(2): 

285–294.

Snover, A.K.; Hamlet, A.F.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2003. Climate-change scenarios 

for water planning studies: pilot applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society. 84: 1513–1518.

Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel, S. 2006. Conserving 

old growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation 

Biology. 20: 351–362.

Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Lach, D.; Johnson, 

K.N. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape 

Ecology. 25(8): 1185–1199.

Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff 

timing in western North America under a ‘business as usual’ climate change 

scenario. Climate Change. 62: 217–232.

Thomas, C.D.; Lennon, J.J. 1999. Birds extend their ranges northward. Nature. 

399: 213.

Thomas, C.D.; Cameron, A.; Green, R.E.; Green, R.E.; Bakkenes, M.; 

Beaumont, L.J.; Collingham, Y.C.; Erasmus, B.F.N.; de Siqueira, M.F.; 

Grainger, A.; Hannah, L.; Hughes, L.; Huntley, B.F.; van Jaarsveld, A.S.; 

Midgley, G.F.; Miles, L.; Ortega-Huerta, M.A.; Peterson, A.T.; Phillips, 

O.L.; Williams, S.E. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature. 427: 

145–148.
33

Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Turner, B.L.; Kasperson, R.E.; Matson, P.A.; McCarthy, J.J.; Corell, R.W.; 

Christensen, L.; Eckley, N.; Kasperson, J.X.; Luers, A.; Martello, M.L.; 

Polsky, C.; Pulsipher, A.; Schiller, A. 2003. A framework for vulnerability 

analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences. 100(14): 8074–8079.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2010. Strategic Plan: FY 2010–2015. 

Washington, DC. 33 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1997. Forest-wide 

assessments for late-successional reserves and managed late-successional areas, 

Wenatchee National Forest. Wenatchee, WA: Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest. 217 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1998a. Eastside 

screens: interim direction for the management of national forest lands within the 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1998b. Forest-wide 

assessments for late-successional reserves and managed late-successional areas, 

Okanogan National Forest. Wenatchee, WA: Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008a. Strategic 

framework for responding to climate change. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008b. Climate 

change considerations in project level NEPA analysis. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010. National 

roadmap for responding to climate change. Washington, DC. 30 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Vano, J.A.; Scott, M.; Voisin, N.; Stockle, C.O.; Hamlet, A.F.; Mickelson, 

K.E.B.; Elsner, M.M.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2009. Climate change impacts 

on water management and irrigated agriculture in the Yakima River basin, 

Washington, USA. In: Elsner, M.M.; Littel, J.; Binder, L.W., eds. The Washington 

Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the 

Earth System, University of Washington.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-862

Weaver, K.; Morales, V.; Sprague, A.G.; Gaines, B.; Aubry, C. 2009.

Biogeographic and taxonomic analysis of the Chelan Mountainsnail, OkanoganWenatchee National Forest, Washington. Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming 

and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313: 

940–943. 

Williams, C.K.; Lillybridge, T.R. 1983. Forested plant associations of the 

Okanogan National Forest. R6-Ecol-132b-1983. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 140 p.

Woodsmith, R. 2008. Climate Change Implications for Aquatics: snow and stream 

hydrology. Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region.

Woodward, A.; Schreiner, E.G.; Silsbee, D.G. 1995. Climate, geography, and tree 

establishment in subalpine meadows of the Olympic Mountains, Washington, 

USA. Arctic and Alpine Research. 27: 217–225.

Wormworth, J.; Mallon, K. 2006. Bird species and climate change. Sydney, 

Australia. World Wildlife Fund. 12 p.

Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D. 1993. Length of the fire season in a changing 

climate. Forestry Chronicle. 69: 187–192.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

	 	 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300