watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

NF (Region 8) relied on information from The Nature Conservancy’s Climate Change Wizard (Table 2). The Chequamegon-Nicolet NF (Region 9) employed data from WICCI, and the Chugach NF (Region 10) utilized projections provided by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning Project (Figure 7). All the pilot assessments used air temperature change projections in their analyses and most pilots included projected changes to precipitation. These projections were obtained from the variety of publically available state or regional climate sources listed above. All projections of future climate are based on General Circulation Models (GCM). These models are mathematical representations of atmospheric and oceanic motion, physics, and chemistry, and employ different emission scenarios to yield predictions of temperature and precipitation change. The globalscale model outputs are very coarse, so data are often downscaled and used as inputs to macro-scale hydrologic models for use in regional and finer scale analysis, such as the WVA pilots. The accuracy of the data becomes more uncertain with each subsequent layer of modeling. The greatest certainty is associated with air temperature projections. Precipitation projections Projected Climatic Changes Anticipated Hydrologic Response Warmer air temperatures • Warmer water temperature in streams Changes in precipitation amounts and timing Less snowfall, earlier snowmelt, increased snowpack density Intensified storms, greater extremes of precipitation and wind • Altered timing and volume of runoff • Altered erosion rates • Higher winter flows • Lower summer flows • Earlier and smaller peak flows in spring • Greater likelihood of flooding • Increased erosion rates and sediment yields 10 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE are highly variable, with even less certainty for derived attributes like snowmelt, runoff, and stream baseflows. Precise changes in hydrologic extremes, such as flood and drought frequency, cannot be credibly modeled at the stream reach scale at present. The WVA pilot experience points to the value of broader scale (e.g., Regional) vulnerability analyses in providing exposure data and recommending future climate scenarios to National Forests. Interpreting exposure data at a broad scale would be useful for several reasons. First, exposure data is not available at finer scales. Second, consistency among National Forests in selected emissions scenarios and modeling assumptions would allow comparisons of expected climate changes across National Forests. Evaluating Hydrologic Changes Using projections of future temperatures and other climatic changes, most pilot Forests then considered what specific hydrologic changes would result from projected climate changes, and how water resource values would be affected by these changes. This step was integrative. In addition to the obvious connection Potential Consequences to Watershed Resources • Decrease in coldwater aquatic habitats • Increases or decreases in availability of water supplies • Complex changes in water quality related to flow and sediment changes • Changes in the amounts, quality and distribution of aquatic and riparian habitats and biota • Changes in aquatic and riparian habitats • Increased damage to roads, campgrounds, and other facilities Table 3. Projected hydrologic changes relative to identified values (Helena NF). Adapted from Water, Climate change, and Forests GTR (Furniss et al. 2010).
etween exposure and water resources, the evaluation served to stimulate thinking about which watershed characteristics might influence (either moderate or exacerbate) the hydrologic response to climate change, providing a segue to evaluating watershed sensitivity. An example of this type of analysis, which tracks climate changes through hydrologic responses to potential impacts on water resources from the Helena NF, is provided in Table 3. Applying Exposure Projections Once the hydrologic processes important to selected water resource values were identified, exposure metrics closely linked to those processes were identified. The list of metrics used to characterize exposure was limited because of the commonality in water resources in the assessments (Table 4). The selection of exposure metrics differed among National Forests for three reasons. The first is the water resources themselves. The Chequamegon-Nicolet was the only pilot Forest to include assessment of changes to groundwater recharge, and the only pilot Forest to use soil-water balance as an exposure metric. The second difference in selecting metrics was data availability. Both the Sawtooth NF and Umatilla NF assessments included finer-scaled analysis of potential changes to water temperature in evaluating change to bull trout habitat. These analyses were possible because of the availability of stream temperature data and predictive models, and the support of the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS). The third difference in exposure metrics was the level of analysis. Differences in the depth of analysis were partly the result of data availability, as in the example described above. But the amount of time team leads could devote to the assessment was also a factor. Available time and perceived need for detailed analysis were practical National Forest Exposure Metrics Gallatin Combined flow, Snowpack vulnerability Helena Winter water temps, Summer air temps, Snow Water Equivalent (SWE), Precipitation GMUG Seasonal temperature, Aridity index Ouachita Monthly precipitation and Temperature White River Snowpack vulnerability Sawtooth Winter peak flows, Summer stream temperature, Summer flows Coconino Snowpack vulnerability Shasta-Trinity Air temperature, Stream aspect, Snowpack vulnerability Umatilla Winter and summer temperatures, SWE Chequamegon-Nicolet Air temperature, Precipitation, Soil water balance, Rainstorm frequency and intensity Chugach Air temperature, Precipitation, Freeze and thaw days Table 4. National Forests and metrics included to evaluate exposure effects in Water Vulnerability Assessments 11 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE Assessment Principle Four: Exposure Before Sensitivity The first iteration of the WVA process used in the pilot project called for assessment of sensitivity before evaluating exposure. The result was development of rather generic sensitivity factors that did not have the strongest links to hydrologic processes most likely to be affected by climate. Exposure is considered first in order to produce a list of the most important hydrologic changes affecting each water resource. Sensitivity elements that strongly modify these hydrologic changes are then selected. matters in the exposure analysis. Some pilots chose to make use of more detailed information that was available, and provided metrics with closer links to the subject water resources. Baseflow, for example, may be more closely linked with trout habitat than snowpack vulnerability but the decision to conduct more detailed analysis was largely driven by the anticipated need for adequate detail to rate watersheds and set priorities. Some analysts thought more detailed analysis would further discriminate areas at risk. Others thought the objective of rating watersheds could be met adequately with coarser evaluation of exposure. There are advantages and limitations to both the coarser and more detailed approaches to characterizing exposure. The common factor in cases where the most detailed analyses were conducted is that they evaluated effects on species which, because of population status and trend, were already the focal point of restoration strategies and management emphasis. In such cases, additional detail may be warranted. At the same time, exposure is the assessment component with the greatest
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 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 50 and 51: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
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 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
White River National Forest Watersh
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?