watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Authors* Michael J. Furniss, Pacific Northwest Research Station Ken B. Roby, Lassen National Forest, retired Dan Cenderelli, Stream Systems Technology Center John Chatel, Sawtooth National Forest Caty F. Clifton, Umatilla National Forest Alan Clingenpeel, Quachita National Forest Polly E. Hays, Rocky Mountain Regional Office Dale Higgins, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Ken Hodges, Chugach National Forest Carol Howe, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Laura Jungst, Helena National Forest Joan Louie, Gallatin National Forest Christine Mai, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Ralph Martinez, Plumas National Forest Kerry Overton, Rocky Mountain Research Station Brian P. Staab, Pacific Northwest Region Rory Steinke, Coconino National Forest Mark Weinhold, White River National Forest * All are USDA Forest Service, with units specified Design and Layout April Kimmerly, Peters Kimmerly Design Associates Margaret Livingston The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with Contributors and Reviewers** Christopher P. Carlson, Washington Office National Forest System Jim Morrison, Northern Regional Office Janine Rice, Rocky Mountain Research Station Jeremy Littel, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Dan Isaak, Rocky Mountain Research Station Charlie H. Luce, Rocky Mountain Research Station Linda Joyce, Rocky Mountain Research Station David Cleaves, Washington Office Research and Development Sherry Hazelhurst, Washington Office National Forest System Sarah J. Hines, Rocky Mountain Research Station John Potyondy, Stream Systems Technology Center Ryan Foote, Lassen National Forest Ann Rosecrance, Ventura River Watershed Council Derik Olson, Council on Environmental Quality ** All are USDA Forest Service, with units specified, except Jeremy Littel. Ann Rosecrance, and Derik Olson Cover Photograph Recommended Citation North Pole Basin, Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest, by Cindy Dean, White River National Forest Michael J. Furniss, Roby, Ken B., Cenderelli, Dan; Chatel, John; Clifton, Caty F.; Clingenpeel, Alan; Hays, Polly E.; Higgins, Dale; Hodges, Ken; Howe, Carol; Jungst, Laura; Louie, Joan; Mai, S Christine; Martinez, Ralph; Overton, Kerry; Staab, Brian P.; Steinke, Rory; Weinhold, Mark. 2012. Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change: Results of National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Pilot Assessments. Climate Change Resource Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 305p. www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva Online Presentations by the pilot National Forests Two sets of oral presentations that describe the analyses were conducted and recorded: 1) An early set of detailed presentations by each pilot National Forest, presented to other pilot Forest staff in Salt Lake City in September of 2010, can be found here: ==> www.fsl.orst.edu/fs-pnw/wva/ Presentations are ~50 minutes each, and reflect analyses-in-progress. 2) A series of 3 webinars were given in Januay and February of 2012 by each of the pilot National Forests. These are more advanced and refined than the previous set, but are shorter and have less detail. Basic recordings of the webinars may be found here: ==> www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/livelearn/wva/ disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ASSESSSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE: Results of National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Pilot Assessments ABSTRACT Existing models and predictions project serious changes to worldwide hydrologic processes as a result of global climate change. Projections indicate that significant change may threaten National Forest System watersheds that are an important source of water used to support people, economies, and ecosystems. Wildland managers are expected to anticipate and respond to these threats, adjusting management priorities and actions. Because watersheds differ greatly in: (1) the values they support; (2) their exposure to climatic changes; and (3) their sensitivity to climatic changes, understanding these differences will help inform the setting of priorities and selection of management approaches. Drawing distinctions in climate change vulnerability among watersheds on a National Forest or Grassland allows more efficient and effective allocation of resources and better land and watershed stewardship. Eleven National Forests from throughout the United States, representing each of the nine Forest Service regions, conducted assessments of potential hydrologic change due to ongoing and expected climate warming. A pilot assessment approach was developed and implemented. Each National Forest identified water resources important in that area, assessed climate change exposure and watershed sensitivity, and evaluated the relative vulnerabilities of watersheds to climate change. The assessments provided management recommendations to anticipate and respond to projected climate-hydrologic changes. Completed assessments differed in level of detail, but all assessments identified priority areas and management actions to maintain or improve watershed resilience in response to a changing climate. The pilot efforts also identified key principles important to conducting future vulnerability assessments.
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 50 and 51: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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 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?