watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

White River National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 1. Schematic of the climate change vulnerability assessment process ANALYSIS PROCESS Determination of the relative vulnerability of each subwatershed involves the following steps, which are discussed in detail below: 1) identify the aquatic resource values of concern; 2) quantify the anticipated exposure from a changing climate; 3) identify the relative influence of the ecological drivers and anthropogenic influences for each subwatershed; and 4) assess the relative vulnerability of the resource values based on the interaction of the ecological drivers, anthropogenic influences, and the anticipated climate change exposure. Step 1. Identify the Resource Values of Concern Initial brainstorming on prominent aquatic resources gave a laundry list of potential values. These included aquatic habitat, water uses, infrastructure (roads, trails, and campgrounds) in streams or floodplains, wetlands, and water dependent recreation. This list proved to be overly ambitious and was eventually pared down. The final list of aquatic resource values to be considered includes the following. 1. Aquatic Habitat - specifically for Colorado River cutthroat trout and boreal toads 2. Water Uses - irrigation and water supply 3. Infrastructure - culverts and bridges at road-stream crossings 114 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
White River National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) This abbreviated list was considered comprehensive enough to cover the most significant aquatic issues while not generating redundant information across a long list of resource values. It became apparent that narrowing the list of resource values was justified since there is only modest variability in the final relative vulnerability of the three selected resource values. Step 2. Quantify the Anticipated Exposure from Climate Change Exposure is the term used to describe the amount of anticipated change in climate over time. The types of exposure typically considered for the mountainous West include changes in air temperature, changes in precipitation, and changes in runoff. Exposure estimates are not only highly variable but are highly uncertain as well. Variability of exposure estimates arise primarily from differences in carbon emission scenarios and the time frame of concern. High (A2) and low (B1) emission scenarios give very different exposure results when modeled at midcentury (often shown as year 2040 or 2050) versus those modeled at the end of the century. Uncertainty is also a major factor in estimating exposure. Exposure estimates, whether for temperature, precipitation, or runoff, are generated from global circulation models that attempt to predict weather patterns around the globe simultaneously for any given emission scenario. These large-scale global estimates are then down-scaled to smaller areas of concern, such as a state or some smaller region. A single model is rarely used to estimate exposure in a given locale. Rather, many different models are run and the exposure value presented is often the median of the predictions, along with a potential range of values. Since water supply is such a significant issue in the arid west, many states have compiled summaries of climate change predictions in order to assess future water supplies. Colorado is one of those states. For this analysis, climate change exposure data were taken from the 2008 report for the Colorado Water Conservation Boards entitled Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation (Ray et al. 2008). Predicted changes to temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and runoff (Christensen and Lettenmaire, 2006) are shown below in Figures 2 through 5. Figure 2 shows that air temperatures are predicted to increase over time. For the high-emission scenario (A2), the median predictions suggest an increase of 2.5 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit for mid- and late-century timeframes, respectively. This is in addition to an estimated 2 degree increase that has occurred over the last 30 years. Summers are projected to warm more than winters; winter projections show fewer extreme cold months, more extreme warm months, and more strings of consecutive warm winters (Ray et al. 2008). These warmer temperatures are likely to influence precipitation type, stream temperatures, and stream flow rates. 115 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:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 120 and 121: 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: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 168 and 169:
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
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?