watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) What tools were most useful? Examples from other units of methods used to deal with different aspects of the analysis were helpful. Similarly, examples of vulnerability assessments in general were useful because they provided methods to rank different data. ArcGIS was the most useful tool to display and evaluate all the spatial data. Microsoft Excel was a useful tool to manipulate and summarize tabular data, as well as display modeled outputs. People with expertise in these programs are necessary in the team makeup. What tools were most problematic? On the GMUG, while we had a relative wealth of information related both to the spatial resource data and climate change predictions, we lacked the knowledge to identify and evaluate the implications of predicted climate changes to our resource values of concern beyond a very general level. Forests completing watershed vulnerability analyses should be teamed up with research station personnel who can provide expertise in interpreting the climate change implications portion of the vulnerability assessment. It was clear that previous work between the Sawtooth NF and Boise research station had created a high level of understanding about the implications of climate change predictions, and familiarity with tools available to evaluate where changes are likely to occur and what the impacts of those changes may be. PROJECT TEAM Carol Howe, Resource Information Specialist (GIS), Climate Change Coordinator John Almy, Forest Hydrologist Clay Speas, Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Lead Warren Young, Forest Soils Scientist Ben Stratton, Hydrologist Steven Jay, Hydrology Technician Sherry Hazelhurst, Deputy Forest Supervisor PROJECT CONTACT Carol Howe Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 2250 Hwy 50 Delta CO, 81416 970-874-6647 chowe@fs.fed.us REFERENCES Barsugli, J.J. and L.O. Mearns. Draft 2010. Climate and Hydrologic Change Scenarios for the Upper Gunnison River, Colorado. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy in support of the southwest Climate Change Initiative’s Climate Change Adaptation Workshop for Natural Resource Managers in the Gunnison Basin. 110 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Christensen, N.S., and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. “A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1417–1434 (www.hydrol-‐earth-‐syst-‐sci.net/11/1417/2007/).” Colorado Water Conservation Board. Draft 2010. Colorado River Water Availability Study; Phase I Report. Furniss, M.J., B.P. Staab, S. Hazelhurst, C.F. Clifton, K.B. Roby, B.L. Ilhadrt, E.B. Larry, A.H. Todd, L.M. Reid, S.J. Hines, K.A. Bennett , C.H. Luce, P.J. Edwards. 2010. Water, climate change and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW_GTR-812. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland OR. Hirsch, C.L., S. E. Albeke, and T. P. Nessler. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. IPCC. 2008. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Climate Change and Water. [Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S.Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, (eds.)] IPCC Secretariate, Geneva. (Available at: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-‐papers/climate-‐change-‐water-‐en.pdf). Painter, T.H., J. Deems, J. Belnap, A. Hamlet, C.C. Landry, and B. Udall. 2010. Response of Colorado river runoff to dust radiative forcing in snow. Proceedings of the North Academy of Sciences. (accessed at www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/14/0913139107.full.pdf+html) Ray, A.J., J.J. Barsugli, K.B. Averyt, K. Wolter, M. Hoerling, N. Doesken, B. Udall, R.S. Webb. 2008. Climate Change in Colorado: a Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation. Western Water Assessment. Boulder, CO. Rieman, B.E. and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate Change, Aquatic Ecosystems, and Fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. Spears, M., L. Brekke, A. Harrison, and J Lyons. 2009. Literature Synthesis on Climate Change Implications for Reclamation’s Water Resources. Technical memorandum 86-68210-091. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Research and Development Office. Denver, CO. 111 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Page 2 and 3:
AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Authors* M
Page 4 and 5:
ASSESSSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WAT
Page 6 and 7:
staff; the task group included repr
Page 8 and 9:
Figure 2. Conceptual model for asse
Page 10 and 11:
Figure 3. Density of springs and sm
Page 12 and 13:
Using Historic Data One finding con
Page 14 and 15:
NF (Region 8) relied on information
Page 16 and 17:
level of uncertainty. Though there
Page 18 and 19:
climate (Casola et al. 2005). Only
Page 20 and 21:
sensitivity. Most were derived from
Page 22 and 23:
The sensitivity evaluation typicall
Page 24 and 25:
in exposure. The result of combinin
Page 26 and 27:
highest priority for management act
Page 28 and 29:
to information affected the assessm
Page 30 and 31:
with and rely on in many resource d
Page 32 and 33:
Pilot National Forest Reports Conte
Page 34 and 35:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 36 and 37:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 66 and 67: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 68 and 69: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165:
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?