Prepared in cooperation with the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative

Resource Manager Information Needs Regarding 

Hydrologic Regime Shifts for the North Pacific 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2014–1178

Resource Manager Information Needs Regarding 

Hydrologic Regime Shifts for the North Pacific 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

By Andrea Woodward and Karen Jenni

Prepared in cooperation with the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative

Open-File Report 2014–1178

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Woodward, Andrea, and Jenni, Karen, 2014, Resource manager information needs regarding hydrologic regime shifts

for the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1178, 

28 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141178. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.
iii

Contents

Chapter 1.Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Description and Purpose of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ......................................................................... 1

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative.................................................................................................. 1

Identifying Information Needs of Resource Managers ............................................................................................... 3

Decision Analytic Process.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2.Hydrologic Regime Shift Workshop ......................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Geographic Scope.................................................................................................................................................. 5

Climate Change Forecasts..................................................................................................................................... 5

Workshop Details ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Influence Diagram...................................................................................................................................................... 8

Climate Related Drivers ............................................................................................................................................10

Valued Resources.....................................................................................................................................................11

Key Information Needs..............................................................................................................................................11

Wetlands and Riparian Areas................................................................................................................................13

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats..............................................................................................................................15

Infrastructure Planning, Agriculture, Human Habitats and Cultural Resources .....................................................17

Tools for Resource Managers...................................................................................................................................18

Summary...................................................................................................................................................................19

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................22

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix A. Hydrology Workshop Participants.............................................................................................................27

Appendix B. Hydrology Workshop Agenda...................................................................................................................28

Figures

Figure 1.1 Elements of decisions made by resource managers as represented in Analytica® software ...................... 4

Figure 2.1 Predicted changes in abundance and distribution of rain-dominated, transient, and snow-dominated 

watersheds in the focal region (Tohver and others, 2014)............................................................................................. 6

Figure 2.2 Example hydrograph from the Nisqually River, Washington illustrating predicted changes due to 

climate change .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 2.3 Influence diagram illustrating a conceptual model of the relationships among valued natural and 

cultural resources potentially affected by hydrologic regime shifts and the management decision, climate-related 

factors, and related natural process that may affect those resources and the ability to achieve the related 

management objectives................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2.4 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and 

management of wetlands and riparian areas subject of changing hydrologic regimes ................................................ 14

Figure 2.5 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and management of 

aquatic habitats and fisheries that are subject of changing hydrologic regimes........................................................... 15

Figure 2.6 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and management of 

infrastructure that is subject of changing hydrologic regimes ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 2.7 Identified key information needs to support conservation and sustainable natural resource 

management decision about resources affected by climate-induced changes in hydrologic regimes ......................... 20
iv

Tables

Table 2.1 Valued natural and cultural resources potentially affected by hydrologic regime shifts and associated 

management objectives, as identified by workshop participants.................................................................................. 12

Table 2.2 Data and tools that would be useful to meet information needs. ................................................................. 21

Conversion Factors and Datum

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Area

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.
1 

Resource Manager Information Needs Regarding 

Hydrologic Regime Shifts for the North Pacific 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative

By Andrea Woodward1 and Karen Jenni2 

Chapter 1. Background

Description and Purpose of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are a network of 22 public-private 

partnerships, defined by ecoregion, that share and provide science to ensure the sustainability of 

land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources in North America. LCCs were established by the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in recognition of the fact that response to climate change 

must be coordinated on a landscape-level basis because important resources, ecosystem 

processes, and resource management challenges extend beyond most of the boundaries 

considered in current natural resource management. Traditional boundaries include national 

wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, national parks, and even international 

boundaries, but many ecological and natural resources cross all these boundaries. Therefore, DOI 

agencies must work with other Federal, State, Tribal (U.S. indigenous peoples), First Nation 

(Canadian indigenous peoples), and local governments, as well as private landowners, to develop 

landscape-level strategies for understanding and responding to climate change. 

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative

The North Pacific LCC (NPLCC) covers the range of the Pacific coastal temperate 

rainforest, including an area of 528,360 km2

 spanning 22 degrees of latitude from the Kenai 

Peninsula, Alaska, to Bodega Bay, California. The coverage area includes parts of four States, 

two Canadian provinces, and more than 100 Tribes and First Nation language groups. It extends 

from alpine areas at the crest of coastal mountains across subalpine, montane, and lowland 

forests to the nearshore marine environment. This wide range of latitudes and elevation zones; 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats; and complex jurisdictional boundaries hosts a 

diversity of natural resources and their corresponding management issues are equally diverse. 

____________________

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Insight Decisions, LLC.
2 

The specific mission of the NPLCC is to promote “development, coordination, and 

dissemination of science to inform landscape level conservation and sustainable resource 

management in the face of a changing climate and related stressors” (North Pacific Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative, undated). The strategy for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing 

science needs is the responsibility of the Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (S-TEK) 

Subcommittee, which established the following guiding principles in the NPLCC Strategy for 

Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge, 2013–16 (S-TEK Strategy; Jenni and others, 

2012): 

• Focus on helping managers understand the availability and effectiveness of adaptation 

and mitigation response actions; 

• Focus on facilitating coordination, collaboration, and capacity building, and on 

developing or assisting with tools to assist decision-makers; 

• Identify and promote opportunities to use Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) to 

inform partner and stakeholder decisions; 

• Promote and facilitate understanding of the connections and interactions between 

ecosystems. 

These principles emphasize the importance of conducting activities that are immediately relevant 

to resource managers.

In addition to guiding principles, the S-TEK committee also identified five priority topics 

to be addressed in the first 4-year strategic plan:

1. Effects of hydrologic regime shifts on rivers, streams, and riparian corridors; 

2. Effects of change in air temperature and precipitation on forests; 

3. Effects of changes in sea levels and storms on marine shorelines, the nearshore, and 

estuaries; 

4. Effects of the changes in the hydrologic regime on anadromous fish; and

5. Invasive species, diseases, pests, and their effects on biological communities. 
3 

Identifying Information Needs of Resource Managers

As evidenced by the S-TEK Strategy guiding principles (Jenni and others, 2012), 

identifying and responding to the needs of resource managers is key to the success of the 

NPLCC. To help achieve this goal of the NPLCC, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has 

organized several workshops with resource managers and resource scientists to identify 

management information needs relevant to the priority topics identified in the S-TEK Strategy 

(Woodward and others, 2014). Here, we detail the results from a first workshop to address the 

effects of changes in hydrologic regime on rivers, streams, and riparian corridors. The workshop 

focused on a subset of the full NPLCC geography (see section, “Geographic Scope”) and was 

structured to answer the following questions: 

• What are the valued resources and services that may be affected by hydrologic regime 

changes in the region? 

• What are the management goals for those resources?

• How is climate change anticipated to affect valued resources and goals? 

• What adaptation strategies may managers use in response to anticipated changes in 

resources due to climate-related hydrologic change? 

• What information is needed to inform and use management responses?

The workshop was conducted in 1 day and was professionally facilitated using a decision 

analytic process (Keefer and others, 2004). 

Decision Analytic Process

Decision analysis (DA) is a framework and a process used to formally structure the 

decision-making process, and consists of relevant philosophy, theory, methodology, and 

professional practice (Keefer and others, 2004). Decision analysis includes procedures, methods, 

and tools to help decision makers identify, clearly represent, and formally assess important 

aspects of a decision in order to recommend a course of action. 

The influence diagram is an important tool often used during decision analysis to 

structure and to communicate the various components of a decision situation. Often used as the 

first step towards analyzing decision options, the influence diagram is a simple visual 

representation used to identify and to display the essential elements of a decision problem 

(Howard and Matheson, 2005; Pearl, 2005). Elements include (1) objectives (what people would 

like to achieve in the particular situation being evaluated), (2) types of decisions and decision

points (what actions can be taken to try to bring about more desirable outcomes), and (3) 

uncertainties (factors, events, and processes that affect outcomes but that are outside the control 

of decision-makers), and the relationships between all three elements. The influence diagram is a 

high-level conceptual model from which more detailed quantitative models can be built. We did

not intend to develop quantitative models; rather, we used influence diagrams to describe the 

decision context, management actions, and desired outcomes for the group of natural resources 

addressed during each workshop as a means of conceptualizing the issues and creating 

consensus. 
4 

Influence diagrams were created using Analytica® software developed by Lumina 

Decision Systems®. In this format (fig. 1.1), rectangles denote decision points (variables or 

factors that the decision-maker can modify), ovals denote uncertainties (variables or factors 

about which information is incomplete and that cannot be controlled directly), hexagons denote 

objectives or measures of satisfaction and what managers want to maximize, rounded rectangles 

denote general variables whose values are determined by the quantities on which they depend, 

and arrows denote influences of one variable on another. The influence indicated by arrows is 

not necessarily causal or related to a material flow; rather, the arrow denotes when knowledge 

about one variable is relevant to determining the value of another variable. 

Figure 1.1 Elements of decisions made by resource managers as represented in Analytica® software.
5 

Chapter 2. Hydrologic Regime Shift Workshop

Introduction

Geographic Scope

The NPLCC encompasses a very diverse geography along the coast from Alaska to 

northern California. Previous workshops have focused on identifying topic-related information 

needs that are shared across the full geography (Woodward and others, 2014). For this topic, the 

hydrologic regimes and projected climate-related changes in those regimes are sufficiently 

different across the region that management-related information needs might also be very 

different. Consequently, we focused the workshop on one of four subregions of the NPLCC 

defined based on climate, geology, and the resulting hydrologic regime. The workshop described 

in this chapter spans the NPLCC from mid-Washington to the northern end of the Klamath 

Mountains in southern Oregon. This subregion is typified by volcanic bedrock (basalt and 

andesite) in the Cascade Mountains and a diversity of substrates including sandstone and 

siltstone at low elevations (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973; Whitehead, 1994), snowpack as an 

important driver of water availability and spring runoff (Barnett and others, 2005; Littell and 

others, 2010), and the presence of valley (rather than tidewater) glaciers.

Climate Change Forecasts

Climate change forecasts for the focal area were presented as a webinar prior to the 

meeting. Participants could join the meeting in person or watch a recording at another time. 

Presenters included Ingrid Tohver (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group), who 

talked about hydrologic response to climate change, and Dan Isaak (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station), who talked about predicted 

changes in stream temperature.

With average annual air temperature projected to increase as much as 4.5 o

C by 2071–

2100 relative to 1950–99 (Abatzoglou and others, 2013), the key climate effect on hydrology in 

the Pacific Northwest is predicted to be less snow. The effects will be most noticeable for midelevation basins, which are transitional between the rain-dominated low-elevation basins and 

snow-dominated basins at high elevations. These basins currently store 10–40 percent of winter 

precipitation as snow and release it as melt water later in the year (Hamlet and others, 2013). As 

transient, and eventually even snow-dominated, basins transition to rain-dominated basins (fig.

2.1; Chang and others, 2012; Tohver and others, 2014), hydrologic consequences will include 

earlier and higher peak spring snowmelt and flow, lower summer streamflow (fig. 2.2), and 

increased winter flood risk (Hamlet and others, 2013). 
6 

Figure 2.1 Predicted changes in abundance and distribution of rain-dominated, transient, and snowdominated watersheds in the focal region (Tohver and others, 2014).

Figure 2.2 Example hydrograph from the Nisqually River, Washington, showing predicted changes due to 

climate change.
7 

Increased air temperature also will affect stream temperature and, therefore, fish habitat. 

Although stream temperature is predicted to warm less rapidly than air temperature (Isaak and 

others, 2012), predicted changes are for a 0.30–0.45 o

C increase per decade during summer at 

unregulated sites based on analysis of 30-year records of stream temperature trends from sites 

including tributaries to the Columbia River and projected climate change (Mantua and others, 

2010; Isaak and others, 2012). Several studies indicate that changes in stream temperature will 

affect fish distribution (Rich, 2003; Comte and Grenouillet, 2013; Eby and others, 2014).

Notably, the short time series of information and the variety of statistical models used to project 

change lead to a high degree of variability and uncertainty among these predictions (Arismendi 

and others, in press). The influences of local factors such as riparian canopy shading and land 

and water uses are sometimes more important than warming air on water temperature (Arismendi 

and others, 2012; Diabat and others, 2012). 

Both presenters identified datasets that are available or are being developed to describe 

predicted changes in flow regime and stream temperature for the focal area. These include the 

Columbia River Basins Project (http://warm.atmos.washington.edu/2860/), the Riverscape 

Analysis Project from the University of Montana (http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu/), and the NorWeST 

stream temperature database (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html). 

Some fine-scale projections of flood and low-flow magnitudes are available for a few areas from 

the University of Washington (file onf-q100 at ftp://ftp.hydro.washington.edu/pub/hamleaf/).

Workshop Details

The workshop to identify the information needs of resource managers regarding changes 

in hydrologic regime was held in Portland, Oregon, on January 23, 2014. Fifteen people 

attended, representing one or more of the following agencies and Tribes (see appendix A for a 

list of participants and affiliations): 

• Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

• Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

• Oregon Climate Change Research Institute

• Oregon Metro

• Oregon State University 

• Portland State University

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region Water Resources Branch 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office

• U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

• U.S. Forest Service, Region 6 

• U.S. Geological Survey, Northwest Climate Science Center

• Washington State Department of Ecology

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

• Washington State Department of Transportation 
8 

The workshop was organized by Andrea Woodward and facilitated by Karen Jenni (Insight 

Decisions) using the principles of decision analysis (Keefer and others, 2004) described in 

chapter 1 of this report. The overarching goal was to determine what information managers need 

in order to address the consequences of climate-change given management goals, high-priority 

resources, and available management tools. The workshop agenda is shown in appendix B. 

Influence Diagram

A first-order conceptual model in the form of an influence diagram was developed early 

during the workshop. The influence diagram provided structure to a wide-ranging discussion, 

and highlighted areas for more detailed discussion and identification of potential information 

needs. It was used to draw attention back to the larger context during these detailed discussions 

so that identified information needs could always be connected to the decisions that information 

would be used to support, and to how that information would enable decision-makers to better 

achieve their management objectives for the valued resources. It is not, and was not intended to 

be, a definitive model of hydrologic regime shifts and all the potential impacts of those shifts.

Rather, the goal of conceptual model development was to identify and clarify the group’s 

consensus regarding relationships among: 

• Climate-related drivers of changes in hydrologic regimes (left side of fig. 2.3); 

• Valued natural and cultural resources that are potentially affected by changes in the 

hydrologic regime in the region of the NPLCC being considered, and the desired outcomes or 

management objectives for those valued resources (right side of fig. 2.3); 

• Additional factors, conditions, and processes that comprise the most relevant pathways 

through which climate changes and hydrologic regime changes may affect the valued natural 

resources; 

• Decisions or actions that conservation and sustainable natural resource managers can make to 

affect the valued resources (bottom left of fig. 2.3). 
9 

Figure 2.3 Influence diagram showing a conceptual model of the relationships among valued natural and 

cultural resources potentially affected by hydrologic regime shifts and the management decisions, climaterelated factors, and related natural processes that may affect those resources and the ability to achieve the 

related management objectives.
10

Climate Related Drivers

The group described river and stream conditions as fundamental to the status of valued 

resources and as the scale at which managers primarily take action. Climate change will affect 

conditions in rivers and streams directly and indirectly by affecting watersheds, and habitatforming processes. The emphasis during the workshop discussion of drivers of changes was on 

flood events and conditions leading to them, and rain-on-snow events in particular (Loukas and 

others, 2000; McCabe and others, 2007). Factors affecting flood intensity due to rain-on-snow 

events potentially include the frequency of cold conditions, which result in snow, that are 

followed by ‘atmospheric river’ events, which bring warm air and heavy precipitation (Neiman 

and others, 2008; Leung and Qian, 2009). Changes in watershed area contributing to runoff due 

to shifts in rain-dominated, transient, and snow-dominated basins (Hamlet and others, 2013) also 

were discussed. The potential for atmospheric river events to differ from frontal storms in 

destructiveness was brought up, but dismissed as not an important distinction (Gordon Grant, 

Oregon State University, oral commun., 2014). 

Other important factors related to flooding were mentioned. Specifically, the potential for 

rain on bare ground to also cause severe flooding should not be overlooked, and can result from 

fires or other disturbances (Ziemer, 1998; Miller and others, 2003; Tague and Grant, 2004; Grant 

and others, 2008). Also, floods occur on a continuum of severity, and some level of flooding is 

beneficial. Besides creating and renewing aquatic habitat (Waples and others, 2009), floods may 

be less tolerated by non-native species compared with natives such that non-native species may

be constrained by flood events (Marchetti and Moyle, 2001). Finally, the timing as well as 

severity of floods is relevant to understanding the effects of those floods (Stewart and others, 

2005), including timing relative to periods of increased vulnerability represented by the presence 

of migratory species. 

It also was noted that while the focus of climate change projections is often on changes in 

flood dynamics, in fact droughts may be more dangerous to fish and aquatic species, especially 

in systems where flows are managed for irrigation storage, which have a greater capacity to 

absorb high flows than to mitigate for low flows (Miles and others, 2000; Mote and others, 2003; 

Palmer and others, 2008). Droughts are longer lasting than floods and may exceed the capacity 

of species to cope. Moreover, species in the Pacific Northwest are better adapted to surviving 

floods (Reeves, and others, 1995; Waples and others, 2008) than droughts, and therefore may 

have more tolerance for increased flooding, although justification for this statement is weak. 

Workshop participants suggested that it might be worthwhile to consider which species will be 

affected by changing hydrology in the next 5–10 years, rather than the next 30, because effects of 

drought may be apparent sooner than effects of flood events. 

Participants expressed that while something is known about the linkage between 

meteorology and watershed condition, and between stream condition and status of valued 

resources, not enough is known about the intermediate relationships among watershed conditions 

and habitat-forming processes, which create river and stream conditions (see fig. 2.3). The most 

important elements of river condition were identified as water, sediment, and organic material 

(primarily vegetation). Important habitat forming processes include scour, mobilization, transport 

and deposition of sediment as well as recruitment, deposition and retention of large wood. The 

scale at which least is known—the river and stream scale—is also the scale at which managers

most often can take action.
11

Valued Resources

As shown in figure 2.3, participants identified nine types of valued natural and cultural 

resources associated with rivers, streams, and riparian habitats for which hydrologic regime 

shifts were considered to pose a potential stress or management challenge. For each of these 

valued resources, the workshop participants also identified one or more management 

“objectives.” The term “objectives” is used to differentiate these relatively general statements 

about what managers are trying to achieve with respect to the resources from the much more 

detailed and specific management “goals” that typically are associated with a particular project 

or specific resource. For example, a management objective for Fisheries might be to “maintain 

healthy fish populations,” whereas a management goal might be to increase a given fish stock by 

a specific amount. The identified valued natural and cultural resources, and the management 

objectives for each are shown in table 2.1. Most of the valued resources were affected by climate 

through stream and river condition, but agriculture was identified as also being directly 

responsive to climate.

Key Information Needs

For purposes of workshop discussions, eight of the initially identified valued resources 

were grouped into three groups based on whether it was felt that the information needed to 

support decision-making about those resources would be similar (soils were not considered at 

this point): 

• Wetlands and riparian areas, habitats at the interface between terrestrial habitats and rivers 

and streams. The most significant stresses will likely come from floods or sustained low 

flows.

• Aquatic habitats and fisheries, focusing on the biotic communities directly dependent on the 

flow regime and quality of water in rivers and streams.

• Infrastructure, agriculture, cultural resources and human habitat, all resources where the 

decision-making focus is on maintaining services of direct value and importance to humans. 

For each of these three groups, workshop participants identified a set of key decisionrelevant information needs. In doing so, they first identified a set of management decisions or 

management questions related to the resources, then specified what information they would 

ideally have in order to make those decisions. The initial set of information needs usually led to 

the identification of additional information that would help meet the first information need, and 

so on. 

The information structures diagrammed in figures 2.4–2.6 are meant to illustrate how 

information needs relate to one another, how information will be used, and an indication of the 

sequence in which information is needed. In this way, we attempted to limit the identification of 

information needs to those with the highest priority and greatest applicability. 
12

Table 2.1. Valued natural and cultural resources potentially affected by hydrologic regime shifts and 

associated management objectives, as identified by workshop participants.

Valued natural and / or cultural resources Management objective(s)

Wetlands • Maintain healthy wetland habitats—defined by appropriate water 

levels in particular seasons and maintenance of 

groundwater/surface- water interactions

• Maintain / provide flood management capability

Riparian areas • Maintain healthy riparian habitats, including shade and source for 

large wood recruitment

• Maintain / provide flood management capability

Aquatic habitat • Maintain healthy aquatic habitats

• Maintain healthy fish populations

Fisheries • Maintain healthy fish populations

• Protect Tribal history and culture 

• Provide recreation access and opportunities

Infrastructure resources • Protect human health (for example, through flood protection and 

maintenance of evacuation routes)

• Minimize economic losses (for example, due to floods)

• Provide recreation access and opportunities

• Maintain transportation corridors (including evacuation routes)

• Protect/provide appropriate and necessary infrastructure (for 

example roads, bridges, waste water treatment, hazardous waste 

containment)

• Protect historical infrastructure, which may include dams and 

national park service structures

• Hydropower production

Agriculture • Maintain / improve agricultural productivity

• Address water availability, both physically through flow regulation 

and legally through allocation of water rights

• Prevent water and insect-borne crop diseases

Human habitat • Protect human health (for example, through flood protection, 

provision of water for human uses, prevention of disease spread)

• Provide recreational access and opportunities

Cultural resources • Protect Tribal history and culture

• Protect historical sites

• Maintain / provide aesthetic resources

Soils • The issue of soils as a valued natural resource potentially affected 

by hydrologic regime changes came up relatively late in the 

workshop and was not the focus of detailed discussion. However, it 

mainly related to the importance of soils in determining agricultural 

practices and acknowledgment that soils are only regulated when 

they cause turbidity and pollution in water.
13

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

The key information needs identified for wetlands and riparian areas is shown in figure 

2.4. The figure was created moving from right to left—starting with the management decisions 

that must be made in order to protect or manage the valued resources of wetland and riparian 

areas on the far right and then working “backwards,” identifying the most directly relevant 

information that would be used to support those decisions first and then additional information 

that might be necessary to create the primary information needed. In developing a plan to 

provide the key information, the figure might be read from left to right—the information on the 

far left supports the development of the information in the middle of the diagram, which directly 

supports the decisions. 

For this set of valued resources, participants asserted that the primary management 

decisions would be regarding water flow regulation and dam operations in regulated flow 

systems, and decisions about land use and water management in unregulated flow systems. 

Water management actions in unregulated systems include such activities as well use and 

irrigation withdrawals. Most research to date (2014) has focused on predicting effects of climate 

change on flow and stream temperature (Kundzewicz and others, 2008). The key new

information that workshop participants identified as necessary to support these decisions is an 

accurate understanding of how much of the climate-driven changes in hydrology can be 

addressed through each possible management action. Thus, there is a need to quantify the ratio of 

the amount of climate driven changes to the amount of change that can be addressed through 

management. We know that in regulated flow systems (regulated physically and legally), the 

capacity to adjust flow far exceeds the potential effect of climate change on flow, although doing 

so may reduce the capacity of the river to meet needs for energy, recreation, and irrigation 

(Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999; Palmer and others, 2008). Given this capacity to adjust the 

amount and timing of flows, there is substantial ability to mitigate climate-driven changes in 

regulated systems. Less is known about the capacity to adjust flow in unregulated flow systems 

by adjusting land and water management, and about how that compares with the potential effect 

of climate change on flow. We also lack this information regarding the capacity of various 

management tools to affect stream temperature relative to potential changes due to climate 

change. Information that would be necessary to develop an understanding of that relationship 

includes predicted streamflows, specifically intensity, duration, and Intensity-Frequency-Curves 

(IDF curves; Durrans, 2010). It also includes an assessment of the effectiveness of available 

management tools in both regulated flow and unregulated flow systems. 
14

Figure 2.4 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and 

management of wetlands and riparian areas subject of changing hydrologic regimes.

The workgroup emphasized that, because management resources are limited, 

conservation and sustainable natural resource management entities must set priorities, deciding 

what management actions to take, and where and when to take those actions. Ideally, priorities 

would be set based on monetizing costs and benefits of management actions. A first step toward 

this involves improving our understanding of the benefits of various management actions such as

wetlands restoration, floodplain reconnection, and side-channel enhancement on stream 

temperature, sediment, and other water quality measures. Many of these actions are being done 

today to support biodiversity goals, but could also have substantial benefits for water quality, 

especially temperature. An example from Oregon is Washington County’s Clean Water Services, 

which is implementing a large shade program to maintain their permit for waste water discharge 

into the Tualatin River (Jonathan Soll, Oregon Metro, written commun., 2014). If they, or other 

utilities with a mitigation need, were able to invest in additional activities with confidence, the 

results could be mitigation for warming streams as well as improved aquatic system function and 

biodiversity. However, the required confidence in the effectiveness of additional mitigation 

activities requires better documentation of when such actions provide real benefit and better 

quantification of the amount of benefit.
15

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats 

The key information needs identified for aquatic habitats and fisheries is shown in figure 

2.5. For this set of valued resources, participants identified the primary management decisions as 

decisions regarding where to implement habitat protection and/or restoration activities. Filling 

the need for information requires identifying watersheds and reaches within watersheds where 

protection or restoration activities are likely to be successful. Other decisions regard choosing 

specific actions to undertake, but participants indicated that there is less uncertainty about what 

to do than where to do it. 

Figure 2.5 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and 

management of aquatic habitats and fisheries that are subject of changing hydrologic regimes.
16

Therefore, participants identified vulnerability assessments of watersheds and 

identification of resilient stream reaches as the most important information needed to support 

management decisions. To date (2014), resource managers have planned activities based on 

watershed assessments, which do not consider changing climate (Beechie and others, 2003; 

Beechie and others, 2013). Moving forward, climate change vulnerability assessments must 

become an important input to management decisions regarding fisheries and habitat protection 

and restoration; a framework for including vulnerability assessments as part of watershed 

assessments is needed. Some modules of watershed assessments likely can be easily modified to 

address climate vulnerability. Additionally, a tool is required at the reach scale to identify 

resilient reaches where resilience is defined as the ability to absorb substantial change in input 

factors without substantial change in ecosystem function. Important elements to evaluate may 

include upstream and downstream connectivity, floodplain connectivity, vegetation 

characteristics, geology, food web processes, and others (Roni and others, 2002; Bellmore and 

others, 2013). These might be assessed by adapting the properly functioning condition (PFC) 

protocol used for riparian and wetland areas (Bureau of Land Management, 1998). 

Developing assessment tools at both the watershed and reach scales depends on 

understanding that habitat quality is a function of flow regime, water quality (including 

temperature), and habitat complexity. At present (2014), we can make dynamic projections for 

flow and water quality, particularly water temperature (Isaak and others, 2012), to describe 

changes due to climate change scenarios over time (Mote and others, 2003; Littell and others, 

2010). However, habitat complexity has only been described statically using habitat surveys. 

Recently, a qualitative stream evolution model (Cluer and Thorne, 2014) has been developed to 

describe the evolution of habitat over time; workshop participants felt that quantification of that 

model would make it more useful. Other factors in need of deeper understanding and predictive 

capability include the role of groundwater in providing thermal refugia (Tague and others, 2008) 

and the relationship of climate change to geology and consequent sediment load. Finally, 

although transient and snow-dominated basins have been identified as most sensitive to climate 

change (Hamlet and others, 2013), there may be significant changes happening in rain-dominated 

basins as well (Chang and Jong, 2010). Examples include changes in native species compositions 

and invasions of nonnatives that are linked to climate change (Lawrence and others, 2014). 
17

Infrastructure Planning, Agriculture, Human Habitats and Cultural Resources

Although these four types of valued resources were identified as having some 

commonalities, workshop participants focused primarily on infrastructure when identifying the 

potential information needs related to this set of resources. Although the other topics were 

discussed, there was insufficient time to develop diagrams for them. The key information needs 

identified for infrastructure resources is shown in figure 2.6. 

For this set of valued resources, participants identified the primary management decisions 

as decisions about where and how to protect and maintain existing infrastructure, and about the 

design, location, and emplacement timing for new infrastructure. As with the other resources, the 

need of management entities to set priorities about where, when, and what actions to pursue also 

was identified as important. Priorities might be set based on vulnerability assessments, which 

categorize structures as ‘fixable,’ ‘resilient therefore worthy of protection,’ and ‘cannot be fixed 

so do not waste money.’ Participants emphasized the need for improved, detailed projections of 

water flows, especially flood-level flows. In particular, they identified the need for fine-scale 

information, to enable better understanding of local scale vulnerability and potential adaptation 

actions. Specifically mentioned was the importance of creating improved predictive tools (for 

example, regression equations and IDF curves) that account for non-stationarity in the frequency 

and severity of high-flow events (Merz and others, 2011; Yousef and Ouarda, 2013). Work on 

this is being done for the focal geographic area by researchers at Oregon State University and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Gordon Grant, Oregon State University/Forest 

Figure 2.6 Identified key information needs to support decision-making related to protection and 

management of infrastructure that is subject of changing hydrologic regimes.
18

Service, oral commun., 2014). As was the case with aquatic habitats and fisheries, the 

participants indicated that there was relatively less need for additional information on the 

effectiveness of specific management actions related to infrastructure protection than for 

information on vulnerabilities. 

This group also discussed the effect of changes in hydrology on agriculture, identifying 

the most important issue as water availability, both physically and legally. Physical access to 

water can be addressed in some locations using flow regulation, while legal access is determined 

by surface-water and groundwater rights and the laws determining how they are maintained or 

lost. Fundamentally, the information need is for tools to help farmers plan for changes in water 

availability—for both drought and flood planning. Farmers can respond to forecasts through such 

decisions as crop choice, including genetically modified crops, tilling methods, soil amendments, 

and others to mitigate for changes in soil moisture conditions, prevalence of pests and diseases, 

and other factors (Easterling and others, 1993; Reilly and others, 2003). The importance of the 

response of soil to hydrologic change (Weltzin and others, 2003) came up relatively late in the 

workshop and was not the focus of detailed discussion. However, participants noted the 

importance of soils in determining agricultural practices and observed that soils are only 

regulated when they cause turbidity and pollution in water. 

Protection on the basis of culture importance is afforded Tribal, archaeological, and 

historical sites. Management decisions regarding protection of these types of sites usually occur 

in the context of determining dam operations, infrastructure placement, and other resource 

management operations. Notably, dams can become subject to protection as historical structures 

at the same time they are tools for affecting other resources.

The participants also identified a need for better information regarding how to effectively 

communicate future changes to the public (Nisbit, 2010; Kim, 2012). Public understanding of 

risks and consequences of hydrologic regime shifts, including the concept of non-stationarity

(Cooley, 2013), is needed to make better public decisions (for example, zoning regulations, 

infrastructure placement, federal flood zone maps) and personal decisions about where to live 

and work, and to anticipate changes in costs such as rates for utilities and flood insurance. 

Moreover, there are resource use conflicts that can best be resolved by negotiation among wellinformed parties. Specific examples include the conflict between engineered log jams in rivers 

for fish habitat versus passage for recreational boats; and riparian restoration for habitat and 

flood control versus an increase in pests as suggested by farmers. Within national parks, there is 

a need to weigh differing management requirements for natural resources, cultural resources, and

visitor facilities, integrating among them when possible. Improved communication methods and 

tools would facilitate mutual understanding of the effects of climate-related changes in water 

flows on these resources of interest to multiple parties. Workshop participants were particularly 

supportive of communication tools in the form of interactive maps.

Tools for Resource Managers

Workshop participants discussed the watershed as the contextual spatial unit in which 

decisions are made about where to implement management actions. Therefore, tools for 

efficiently conducting vulnerability assessments for watersheds are an important need. In 

general, participants thought it would be useful to focus on the ratio of climate induced change to 

change that can be addressed by management (Beechie and others, 2013). Specific watershed 

characteristics and other information listed by the group that would help in understanding the 

vulnerability of the watershed to climate-related changes in hydrology include connectivity, land 
19

uses, geology, climate projections, abundance and location of thermal refugia, sediment 

transport, infrastructure, flood plain conditions, riparian condition, location of redds and other 

biologically significant features, location of culverts and other infrastructure (for example, 

buildings, levees, and others), and a measure of biodiversity. The ability to assess watershed 

vulnerability would be greatly enhanced by a tool that would enable streamlined collection and 

synthesis of these data, perhaps in checklist format that would be primarily based on extant data. 

Participants noted that, some data are more available than others. For example, Washington State 

does not have an adequate database for levees that would help determine where floodplains have 

been disconnected and where there might be restoration opportunities. Accordingly, some data 

collection might be required even for a streamlined vulnerability assessment tool. 

Once the tool is created, it should be tested in a variety of ways. One option would be to 

use it in a few watersheds representing rain-dominated, transient, and snow-dominated 

conditions, or perhaps watersheds with sedimentary versus igneous bedrock geology, or compare 

watersheds with different ratios of change expected from climate change versus management 

potential. Another option is to compare results from the evaluation tool based on a subset of the 

available data versus all data in a data-rich watershed to see whether they indicate the same 

condition. It also makes sense to conduct vulnerability assessments in areas where damage to 

resources is urgent. An example is high elevation wetlands that are experiencing climate changedriven changes in depth, hydroperiod, and thermal conditions, and where native organisms also 

may be threatened by exotic fish stocked for sport fishing (Ryan and others, 2014). 

Vulnerability assessments can be used to determine where management actions should be 

conducted. They also can be used to communicate with the public regarding where the risks are, 

a justification for the planned response, and how to evaluate the trade-offs among the 

consequences of public policy. Vulnerability assessment work has been done for the Willamette 

(Jung and Chang, 2011) and Columbia Rivers (Hamlet and others, 2013), which demonstrates 

methods and provides examples of leveraging funds to accomplish large-scale assessment

projects. 

In addition to tools for assessing vulnerability and resilience of watersheds, resource 

managers would benefit from tools that specifically describe the effects of land-use practices

common in urban areas, such as impervious surfaces, wells, and septic systems, on streamflow. 

The most powerful tools presently (2014) available to meet this need are Hydrological 

Simulation Model-Fortran models. These models simulate hydrologic and associated waterquality processes on pervious and impervious land surfaces and in streams and well-mixed 

impoundments (Bicknell and others, 1997), but they are very complex and difficult to apply. 

Perhaps a tool could be developed for watersheds based on global information system layers 

describing impervious surfaces, wells, and other hydrologically related structures. The 

Washington State Department of Ecology has such a tool for application to shorelines that may 

be adaptable to streams.

Summary

There were numerous commonalities in the key information needs identified for each set 

of valued resources, as well as a few unique needs. Figure 2.7 represents a consolidation and 

summary of the needs identified in figures 2.4–2.6. In general, workshop participants identified 

several fundamental data gaps regarding hydrology and three categories of tools needed by 

resource managers to make the decisions appropriate for managing wetlands, riparian areas, 

infrastructure, and fisheries: (1) comprehensive vulnerability assessments of watersheds, (2) 
20

estimates of the effectiveness of potential actions to create the desired change, and (3) tools for 

communicating with and engaging the public. These are summarized in Table 2.2. Completing 

watershed assessments has additional information requirements for projections of the effects of 

climate change on streamflow, water quality, and habitat complexity as well as the location of 

infrastructure and resilient stream reaches. Making projections regarding the effects of climate 

change requires fundamental scientific understanding of the role of groundwater in hydrologic 

systems and the need to incorporate non-stationarity into projection of flows. This simplified list, 

background regarding the complexities of topics, and linkage of information needs to 

management decisions developed during this workshop will provide a firm foundation for 

NPLCC staff to prioritize needs and develop funding calls to address the effects of hydrologic 

regime shifts on rivers, streams, and riparian corridors. 

Figure 2.7 Identified key information needs to support conservation and sustainable natural resource 

management decision about resources affected by climate-induced changes in hydrologic regimes.
21

Table 2.2 Data and tools that would be useful to meet information needs.

[Abbreviations: LiDAR, Light Detection and Ranging; FLIR, forward looking infrared] 

Information need Useful data and tools (some 

available, some not yet available)

Additional discussion items

Predicted water flows (magnitude, 

frequency, timing, duration, 

sediment load, etc.) 

Data:

• for example, LiDAR, snowpack, 

flow, precipitation, land use, 

local knowledge, repetitive cross

sections, FLIR

Models:

• Note need to consider questions 

related to model calibration: 

comparison of stream gauge 

measurements with model 

projections

Tools:

• for example, regression 

equations, IDF curves. Simpler 

tools are preferred, but need an 

understanding of when they 

provide sufficient information

Critical gaps include:

• Data / information for nongaged streams

• Data / information for raindominated systems

• Fine-scaled data 

Contribution of groundwater to 

water quality

• Seepage runs

• Well monitoring results

• Stream gauge analyses

• Measurement of other water 

quality parameters

• Use of FLIR and temperature 

data to find locations of

groundwater – surface water 

connections

• Geologic mapping

Where to conduct these studies 

(applies to more than just 

groundwater)?

• Connect to vulnerability 

assessments; focus in watersheds 

that are of interest from the 

vulnerability perspective

• Small number of index sites over 

10 years – use to create a 

framework/template that can be 

applied in other watersheds

Watershed-wide vulnerability • Existence/location of thermal 

refugia

• Existence / location / state of 

identified infrastructure assets

• Sediment loading

• Connectivity

• Flood plain, Riparian, Wetland 

conditions

• Land uses

• Geology

• Climate

• Biodiversity

• Timing of vulnerability: what 

will be affected first / worst

How to select one or a few 

watersheds to do the initial 

development of the framework?

(consider the “index watershed” 

approach with longer-term 

monitoring)

• Select an initial “portfolio” of 

representative watersheds that 

differ from each other

• Management

• Geologic

• Find a watershed that is about to 

do work

Actions available, and their 

effectiveness at created change 

(which management actions deliver 

value under what conditions)

Regulated systems:

• Assess dam capacity and 

operating parameters to 

understand management 
22

Information need Useful data and tools (some 

available, some not yet available)

Additional discussion items

capacity (may be lots of 

information? Know less 

about systems that are 

managed for irrigation)

• Consider operating 

mandates and feasibility of 

making changes

Unregulated systems:

• Effect of land use on flow 

– look at several 

watersheds with very 

different land uses;

• “Historic” study of the 

effects of previously – 

conducted restoration 

projects

• Experimental approach – 

with short and long-term 

monitoring of the results of 

different management 

approaches

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the enthusiastic discussion and breadth of ideas provided 

by meeting participants. We also thank Jason Dunham and one anonymous reviewer for 

improvements to the draft manuscript. 

References Cited

Abatzoglou, J.T., Rupp, D.E., and Mote, P.W., 2013, Seasonal climate variability and change in 

the Pacific Northwest of the United States: Journal of Climate, v. 27, p. 2,125–2,142. 

Arismendi, I., Johnson, S.L., Dunham, J.B., Haggerty, R., and Hockman-Wert, D., 2012, The 

paradox of cooling streams in a warming world—Regional climate trends do not parallel 

variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States: 

Geophysical Research Letters, v. 39, L10401. 

Arismendi, I., Safeeq, M., Dunham, J., and Johnson, S.L., in press, Can air temperature be used 

to project influences of climate change on stream temperature?: Environmental Research 

Letters.

Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C., and Lettenmaier, D.P., 2005, Potential impacts of a warming climate 

on water availability in snow-dominated regions: Nature, v. 438, p., 303–309. 

Beechie, T., Imaki, H., Greene, J., Wade, A., Wu, H., Pess, G., Roni, P., Kimball, J., Stanford, J., 

Kiffney, P., and Mantua, N., 2013, Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate: River 

Research and Applications, v. 29, p. 939–960. 
23

Beechie, T.J., Pess, G., Beamer, E., Lucchetti, G., and Bilby, R.E., 2003, Role of watershed 

assessments in recovery planning for endangered salmon in Montgomery, D., Bolton, S., 

Booth, D., and Wall, L., eds., Restoration of Puget Sound rivers: Seattle, University of 

Washington Press, p. 194–225. 

Bellmore, J.R., Baxter, C.V., Connolly, P.J., and Martens, K., 2013,The floodplain food web 

mosaic: a study of its importance to salmon and steelhead with implications for their recovery: 

Ecological Applications, v. 23, p. 189-207. 

Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Jr., Donigian, A.S., Jr., and Johanson, R.C., 1997, 

Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran, user's manual for version 11: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, Ga., EPA/600/R-97/080, 

755 p. 

Bureau of Land Management, 1998, Riparian area management, process for assessing proper 

functioning condition: Bureau of Land Management, Technical Reference 1737-9. 

Chang, H., and Jong, I.-W., 2010, Spatial and temporal changes in runoff caused by climate 

change in a complex large river basin in Oregon: Journal of Hydrology, v. 388, p. 186–207. 

Cluer, B., and Thorne, C., 2014, A stream evolution model integrating habitat and ecosystem 

benefits: River Research and Applications, v. 30, p. 135–154. 

Chang, H., Jung, I.-W., Steele, M., and Gannett, M., 2012, Spatial patterns of March and 

September streamflow trends in Pacific Northwest streams, 1958–2008: Geographical 

Analysis, v. 44, p. 177–201. 

Comte, L., and Grenouillet, G., 2013, Do stream fish track climate change?—Assessing 

distribution shifts in recent decades: Ecography, v. 36, p. 1,236–1,246. 

Cooley, D., 2013, Return periods and return levels under climate change, in AghaKouchak, A., 

Easterling, D., Hsu, K., Schubert, S. and Sorooshian, S., eds., Extremes in a changing climate: 

Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer, Detection, Analysis and Uncertainty, Springer, 423 p. 

Diabat, M., Haggerty, R., and Wondzell, S.M., 2012, Diurnal timing of warmer air under climate 

change affects magnitude, timing, and duration of stream temperature change: Hydrological 

Processes, v. 27, p. 2,367—2,378. 

Durrans, S.R., 2010, Intensity-duration-frequency curves, in Testik, F.Y., and Gebremichael, 

Mekonnen, eds., Rainfall—State of the Science: Geophysical Monograph Series 191, p. 159–

171. 

Easterling, W.E., Crosson, P.R., Rosenberg, N.J., McKenney, M.S., Katz, L.A., and Lemon, 

K.M., 1993, Paper 2, Agricultural impacts of and responses to climate change in the MissouriIowa-Nebraska-Kansas (MINK) region: Climatic Change, v. 24, p. 23–61. 

Eby, L.A., Helmy, O., Holsinger, L.M., and Young, M.K., 2014, Evidence of climate-induced 

range contractions in bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, in a Rocky Mountain watershed, 

U.S.A.: PLoS ONE, v. 9, p. e98812. 

Franklin, J.F., and Dyrness, C.T., 1973, Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington: 

Corvallis, Oregon State University Press,. 

Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J, Cissel, J.H., and McDonnell, J.J., 2008, Effects of forest 

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response—A state of the science report for 

western Oregon and Washington: U.S. Forest Service, PNW-GTR-760. 

Hamlet, A.F., Elsner, M.M., Mauger, G.S., Lee, S.-Y., Tohver, I., and Norheim, R.A., 2013, An 

overview of the Columbia Basin climate change scenarios project—Approach, methods, and 

summary of key results: Atmosphere-Ocean, v. 51, p. 392–1,246. 
24

Hamlet, A.F., and 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, 

v. 35, P. 1,597–1,623. 

Howard, R.A., and Matheson, J.E., 2005, Influence diagrams: Decision analysis, v. 2, p. 127–

143. 

Isaak, D.J., Wollrab, S., Horan, D., and Chandler, G., 2012, Climate change effects on stream 

and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980–2009 and implications for 

salmonid fishes: Climatic Change, v. 113, p. 499–524. 

Jenni, K., Shipley, F., and Mahaffy, M., 2012, Strategy for science-traditional ecological 

knowledge, 2013–2016 (Version 1.0): Lacey, Washington, North Pacific Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative, 19 p., accessed September 8, 2013, at 

http://northpacificlcc.org/Documents/S-TEK%20Strategy_Final_11-2012.pdf. 

Jung, I.W., and Chang, H., 2011, Assessment of future runoff trends under multiple climate 

change scenarios in the Willamette River basin, Oregon, USA: Hydrological Processes, v. 25, 

p. 258–277. 

Keefer, D.L., Kirkwood, C.W., and Corner, J.L., 2004, Perspective on decision analysis 

applications, 1990–2001: Decision Analysis, v. 1, p. 5–24. 

Kim, H.-S., 2012, Climate change, science, and community: Public Understanding of Science, v. 

21, p. 268–285. 

Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mata, L.J., Arnell, N.W., Doll, P., Jimenez, B., Miller, K., Oki, T., Sen, Z., 

and Shiklomanov, I., 2008, The implications of projected climate change for freshwater 

resources and their management: Hydrological Resources Journal, v. 53, p. 3–10. 

Lawrence, D.J., Stewart-Koster, B., Olden, J.D., Ruesch, A.S., Torgersen, C.E., Lawler, J.J., 

2014, The interactive effects of climate change, riparian management, and a non-native 

predators on stream-rearing salmon: Ecological Applications, v. 24, no. 4, p. 895–912. 

Leung, L.R., and Qian, Y., 2009, Atmospheric rivers induced heavy precipitation and flooding in 

the western U.S. simulated by the WRF regional climate model: Geophysical Letters, v. 36, p. 

L03820. 

Littell, J.S., Oneil, E.E., McKenzie, D., Hicke, J.A., Lutz, A.A., Norheim, R.A., and Elsner, 

M.M., 2010, Forest ecosystems, disturbance and climatic change in Washington State, USA: 

Climatic Change, v. 102, p. 129–158. 

Loukas, A., Vasiliades, L., and Dalezious, N.R., 2000, Flood producing mechanisms 

identification in southern British Columbia, Canada: Journal of Hydrology, v. 227, p. 218–235. 

Mantua, N.J., Tohver, I., and Hamlet, A., 2010, Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes 

and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon 

habitat in Washington State: Climatic Change, v. 102, p., 187–223. 

Marchetti, M.P., and Moyle, P.B., 2001, Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a 

regulated California stream: Ecological Applications, v. 11, p. 530–539. 

McCabe, G.J., Hay, L.E., and Clark, M.P., 2007, Rain-on-snow events in the western United 

States: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 88, p. 319–328. 

Merz, R., Parajka, J., and Bloschl, G., 2011, Time stability of catchment model parameters: 

implications for climate impact analyses: Water Resources Research, v. 47, p. W02531. 

Miles, E.L., Snover, A.K., Hamlet, A.K., Callahan, B., and Fluharty, D., 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, 

v. 36, p. 399–420. 
25

Miller, D., Luce, C., and Benda, L., 2003, Time, space and episodicity of physical disturbance in 

streams: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 178, p. 121–140. 

Mote, P.W., Parson, E.A., Hamlet, A.F., Keeton, W.S., Lettenmaier, D., Mantua, N, Miles, E.L., 

Peterson, D.W., Peterson, D.L., Slaughter, P., and Snover, A.K., 2003, Preparing for climatic 

change—The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest: Climatic Change, v. 61, p. 

45–88. 

Nesbit, M.C., 2010, Communicating climate change—Why frames matter for public 

engagement: Environment—Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, v. 51, p. 12–23. 

Nieman, P.J., Ralph, F.M., Wick, G.A., Lundquist, J.D., and Dettinger, M.D., 2008, 

Meteorologic characteristics and overland precipitation impacts of atmospheric rivers 

affecting the west coast of North America based on 8 years of SSM/I satellite 

observations: Journal of Hydrometeorology, v. 9, p. 22–47. 

North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative, undated, North pacific landscape 

conservation cooperative charter, http://northpacificlcc.org/NPLCC_Charter.pdf. 

Palmer, M.A., Reidy Liermann, C.A., Nilsson, C., Florke, M., Alcamo, J., Lake, P.S., and 

Bond, N., 2008, Climate change and the world’s river basins—Anticipating 

Management Options, v. 6, p. 81–89. 

Pearl, J., 2005, Influence diagrams—Historical and personal perspectives: Decision Analysis, v. 

2, p. 232–234. 

Reeves, G.H., Bende, L.E., Burnett, K.M., Bisson, P.A., and Sedell, J.R., 1995, A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily 

significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest: American Fisheries

Society Symposium, v. 17, p. 334–349. 

Reilly, J., Tubiello, F., McCarl, B., Abler, D., Darwin, R., Fuglie, K., Hollinger, S., Izaurralde, 

C., Jagtap, S., Jones, J., Mearns, L., Ojima, D., Paul, E., Paustian, K., Riha, S., Rosenberg, N., 

and Rosenzweig, C., 2003, U.S. agriculture and climate change—New results: Climatic 

Change, v. 57, p. 43–69. 

Rich, C.F., McMahon, T.E., Rieman, B.E., and Thompson, W.L., 2003, Local-habitat, 

watershed, and biotic features associated with bull trout occurrence in Montana streams: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 132, p. 1,053–1,064. 

Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M., and Pess, G.R., 2002, A 

review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration 

in Pacific Northwest watersheds: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 22, p. 

1–20. 

Ryan, M.E., Palen, W.J., Adams, M.J., and Rochefort, R.M., 2014, Amphibians in the climate 

vice—Loss and restoration of resilience of montane wetland ecosystems in the western US: 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v.12, p. 232–240. 

Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D., 2005, Changes toward earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America: Journal of Climate, v. 18, p. 1,136–1,155. 

Tague, C., and Grant, G.E., 2004, A geological framework for interpreting the low flow regimes 

of Cascade streams, Willamette River Basin, Oregon: Water Resources Research, v. 40, p. 

W04303. 

Tague, G., Grant, G., Farrell, M., Choate, J., and Jefferson, A., 2008, Deep groundwater 

mediates streamflow response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades: Climatic Changes, 

v. 86, p. 189–210. 
26

Tohver, I.M., Hamlet, A.F., and Lee, S.-Y., 2014, Impacts of 21st-century climate change on 

hydrologic extremes in the Pacific Northwest region of North America: Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association, p. 1–16, DOI:10.1111/jawr.12199. 

Waples, R.S., Beechie, T., and Pess, G.R., 2009, Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance 

regimes, and anthropogenic change—What do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon 

populations?: Ecology and Society, v. 14, article 3. 

Waples, R.S., Pess, G.R., and Beechie, T., 2008, Evolutionary history of Pacific salmon in 

dynamic environments: Evolutionary Applications, v. 1, p. 189–206. 

Weltzin, J.F., Loik, M.E., Schwinning, S., Williams, D.G., Fay, P.A., Haddad, B.M., Harte, J., 

Huxman, T.E., Knapp, A.K., Lin, G., Pickman, W.T., Shaw, R.M., Small, E.E., Smith, M.D., 

Smith, S.D., Tissue, D.T., and Zak, J.C., 2003, Assessing the response of terrestrial ecosystem 

to potential change in precipitation: BioScience, v. 53, p. 941–952. 

Whitehead, R.L., 1994, Groundwater atlas of the United States, Segment 7, Idaho, Washington, 

Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-H.

Woodward, A., Liedtke, T., and Jenni, K., 2014, Identifying resource manager information needs 

for the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2014-1032, 54 p. 

Yousef, L.A., and Ouarda, T., 2013, Formulation of intensity-duration-frequency curves 

incorporating non-stationarity: American Geophysical Union, abstract #ED31F-07. 

Ziemer, R.R., 1998, Proceedings of the conference on coastal watersheds—The Caspar Creek 

story: U.S. Forest Service, PSW-GTR-168.. 
27

Appendix A. Hydrology Workshop Participants

Name Affiliation

Paul Bakke U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office

Gustavo Bisbal U.S. Geological Survey, Northwest Climate Science Center

Janine Castro U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries 

Service

Bruce Duffe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Keith Duffy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Gordon Grant U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station; Oregon State University

David Graves Columbia River Intertribal Fish Council

Karen Jenni Insight Decisions, LLC

Casey Kramer Washington State Department of Transportation

Nick Legg Washington State Department of Ecology

Mary Mahaffy North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative

Tim Mayer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region Water Resources Branch

Patricia Olson Washington State Department of Ecology

Paul Pickett Washington State Department of Ecology

Jonathan Soll Oregon Metro

Julie Vano Oregon Climate Change Research Institute

Meghan Walter Natural Resource Conservation Service

Andrea Woodward U.S. Geological Survey – Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center
28

Appendix B. Hydrology Workshop Agenda

Effects of Climate-Related Hydrologic Changes on Natural Resources of the North Pacific 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC) 

January 23, 2014

Focal Geography: Snoqualmie Pass to Klamath Mountains; Cascade crest to Pacific Ocean

Workshop Goals:

1) Develop list of resources expected to be affected by changes in hydrology.

2) Consider how priority resources will be affected.

3) Identify potential management actions and decisions that could be used to prevent or mitigate hydrologyrelated effects.

4) Identify and prioritize information needs that will affect the ability of managers to enact decisions or take 

actions.

5) Summarize the group discussions in a conceptual framework that clarifies linkages.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

8:30 – 9:00 am Coffee and pastries

9:00 – 9:30 am Introductions to each other, to NPLCC, and to meeting goals and process

9:30 – 10:30 am Conceptual Model I: Review elements of conceptual model of climate change impacts to 

hydrology (based on webinar from previous week)

• Valued Resources

• Management Goals

10:30 – 10:40 am Break

10:40 – 11:15 am Conceptual Model II: Continue reviewing conceptual model with focus on:

• Management Actions

• Management Decisions

11:15 – 11:30 Prioritize topics for break-out groups and describe desired outcome

11:30 am – 12:00 pm Pick up lunch in cafeteria

12:00 – 1:45 pm Break-out groups: Identify information needed to support management decisions 

(working lunch)

1:45 – 2:30 pm Group reports

2:30 – 2:45 pm Break

2:45 – 4:45 pm Comprehensive evaluation of information needs

• Are there commonalities across topics?

• What information needs have already have sufficient information to support 

decision making? Partial information?

• For un-met information needs, what approaches and which entities are best 

suited to address each need? (e.g., field studies by academics; meta-analysis 

by the NPLCC; etc.)

• What information needs can be uniquely met by the NPLCC?

• Make recommendations for information priorities

 

4:45 – 5:00 pm Summarize and conclude meeting

________________________________________________________________________________________
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

 Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

777 NW 9th Street, Suite 400

Corvallis, Oregon 97330

http://fresc.usgs.gov
Woodward and Jenni—Resource Manager Information Needs Regarding Hydrologic Regime Shifts for the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative—Open-File Report 2014-1178

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141178