Shasta Trinity National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) better protect our precious water resources. The Forest needs to share results and develop educational tools to show how large scale climate information can be used at smaller scales and what new challenges and opportunities exist. LESSONS LEARNED • Scale Matters • Simplify Assessments − Focus on “processes” related to key values − Identify, locate and prioritize solutions based on these same key processes and potential effects. • Synthesis is key and most challenging − Seek assistance and involve critical thinkers! PROJECT TEAM • Tyler Putt, GIS Specialist, Shasta Trinity National Forest • Lois Shoemaker, Fire Ecologist, Shasta Trinity National Forest • Ralph Martinez, GIS Specialist, Plumas National Forest • Brenda Olson, Biologist Fish and Wildlife Service • Michael Wopat, Engineering Geologist, California Geological Survey • Sherry Mitchell Bruker, Hydrologist, Lassen National Forest The above individuals provided many reference resources and participated in initial brainstorming processes or development of data layers and critical reviews that helped to guide this project. Ken Roby, Lassen National Forest and USFS Stream Systems Technology Center (retired) provided advice during the analysis, and edited the draft report. Dr Lee Benda of Earth Systems Institute provided solar exposure to stream dataset products from the Net Map Model. We acknowledge the modeling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP's Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset. Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. REFERENCES Aguado, E., D. R. Cayan, L. G. Riddle, and M. Roos. 1992. Climatic fluctuations and the timing of West Coast streamflow. J. Climate, 5, 1468–1483. Bailey. 1994. Hierarchy of Ecoregions at a Range of Scales. Bakke, Jostein; Lie, Øivind; Heegaard, Einar; Dokken, Trond Martin; Haug, Gerald; Birks, Hilary H; Dulski, Peter; Nilsen, Trygve. 2009. Rapid oceanic and atmospheric changes during the Younger Dryas cold period. Nature Geoscience 2, s. 202-205. (html) 206 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Shasta Trinity National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) Benda, L., Miller, D. J., Andras, K., Bigelow, P., Reeves, G., and Michael, D. 2007. NetMap: A new tool in support of watershed science and resource management, Forest Sci., 52, 206–219, Caissie, D. 2006. The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology 51:1389–1406. Cayan DR, Kammerdiener S, Dettinger MD, Caprio JM, Peterson DH. 2001. Changes in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(3):399–415 Crozier, L. G., and R. W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:1100–1109. Daly, Christopher. 2010. PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) climate mapping system, PRISM Climate Group director. http://prism.oregonstate.edu/ Dettinger, M. D. and D. R. Cayan. 1995. Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early snowmelt runoff in California. J. of Climate, 8, 606-623. Fausch, K. D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G. D. Grossman, and C. R. Townsend. 2001. Flood disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five holarctic regions, Ecol. Appl., 11, 1438-1455. Hamlet, A. F., P. W. Mote, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western United States, J. Clim., 18, 4545 4561. Isaak, D.I, Luce, C.H, Rieman, B.E, Nagel, D.E., Peterson, E.E, Horan, D.L., Parkes, S., and Chandler, G.L 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications, 20(5), 2010, pp. 1350–137. Isaak, D. J.; Thurow, R. F.; Rieman, B. E.; Dunham, J. B. 2007. Relative roles of habitat size, connectivity, and quality on Chinook salmon use of spawning patches. Ecological Applications. 17: 352- 364. Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges. 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land-surface water and energy fluxes for general-circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.- Atmospheres, 99, 14415-14428. Liang, X., E. F. Wood, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 1996. Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC-‐2L model: Evaluation and modification, Global Planet. Change, 13, 195–206. Luce, C. H., and Z. A. Holden. 2009. Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest United States, 1948–2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16401, doi:10.1029/2009GL039407. Luo, L. F., and E. F. Wood. 2007. Monitoring and predicting the 2007 U.S. drought, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 6. Maurer, E. P., L. Brekke, T. Pruitt, and P. B. Duffy. 2007. 'Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies', Eos Trans. AGU, 88(47), 504. "bias-corrected and spatially downscaled climate projections derived from CMIP3 data and served at: http://gdodcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections/, described by Maurer et al (2007)." 207 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:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 40 and 41:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 42 and 43:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 44 and 45:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 46 and 47:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 48 and 49:
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:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 56 and 57:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 58 and 59:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 60 and 61:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 62 and 63:
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:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 74 and 75:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 76 and 77:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 78 and 79:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 80 and 81:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 82 and 83:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 84 and 85:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 86 and 87:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 88 and 89:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 90 and 91:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 92 and 93:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 94 and 95:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 96 and 97:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 98 and 99:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 100 and 101:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 102 and 103:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 104 and 105:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 106 and 107:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 108 and 109:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 110 and 111:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 112 and 113:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 114 and 115:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 116 and 117:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 118 and 119:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 120 and 121:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 122 and 123:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 124 and 125:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 126 and 127:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 128 and 129:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 130 and 131:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 132 and 133:
White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 134 and 135:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 136 and 137:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 138 and 139:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 140 and 141:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 142 and 143:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 144 and 145:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 146 and 147:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 148 and 149:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 150 and 151:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 152 and 153:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 154 and 155:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 156 and 157:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 158 and 159:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 160 and 161: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 162 and 163: 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: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 172 and 173: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 174 and 175: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 176 and 177: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 178 and 179: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 180 and 181: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 182 and 183: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 184 and 185: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 186 and 187: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 188 and 189: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 192 and 193: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 194 and 195: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 196 and 197: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 198 and 199: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 200 and 201: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 202 and 203: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 204 and 205: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 206 and 207: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 208 and 209: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 212 and 213: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
- Page 214 and 215: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 216 and 217: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 218 and 219: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 220 and 221: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 222 and 223: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 224 and 225: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 226 and 227: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 228 and 229: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
- Page 230 and 231: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 232 and 233: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
- Page 234 and 235: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
- Page 236 and 237: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
- Page 238 and 239: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
- Page 240 and 241: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 242 and 243: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 244 and 245: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 246 and 247: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 248 and 249: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 250 and 251: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 252 and 253: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 254 and 255: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 256 and 257: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 258 and 259: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 260 and 261:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 262 and 263:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 264 and 265:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 266 and 267:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 268 and 269:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
- Page 270 and 271:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 272 and 273:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 274 and 275:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 276 and 277:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 278 and 279:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 280 and 281:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 282 and 283:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 284 and 285:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 286 and 287:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 288 and 289:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 290 and 291:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 292 and 293:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 294 and 295:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 296 and 297:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 298 and 299:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 300 and 301:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 302 and 303:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 304 and 305:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 306 and 307:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
- Page 308 and 309:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V