watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

with and rely on in many resource decision making processes. The resulting assessments provided placebased identification of priority areas, with discernment of the watersheds most vulnerable and the most resilient to climate change. Assessing vulnerability is the essential first step in adapting to climate change, and this information provides a basis for managers to target investment of limited resources to sustain or improve watershed resilience. The good news is that the knowledge and tools to maintain and improve watershed resilience are already in place, while the National Watershed Condition Framework (USDA, 2011a) serves as a foundation for setting priorities and restoring watersheds and watershed services. Other US Forest Service programs to improve watersheds, meadows, and streams include diverse partners and programs across the country (Furniss et al. 2010). Implementation of this wide array of management activities is supported by decades of technical experience in planning, analysis, and collaboration. These existing core strengths can be effectively applied to address the growing challenge to public natural resources posed by our changing climate. 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. Casola, J.H.; Kay, J.E.; Snover, A.K.; Norheim, R.A.; Whitely Binder, L.C.; Climate Impacts Group. 2005. Climate impacts on Washington’s hydropower, water supply, forests, fish and agriculture. Seattle, WA: Centre for Science and the Earth System, University of Washington. 43 p. Elliot, W.J., R.B. Foltz, and C.H. Luce, 1995. Validation of Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model for Low-Volume Forest Roads. Conference Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Transport Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 178-186. Furniss, Michael J.; Staab, Brian P.; Hazelhurst, Sherry; Clifton, Cathrine F.; Roby, Kenneth B.; Ilhadrt, Bonnie L.; Larry, Elizabeth B.; Todd, Albert H.; Reid, Leslie M.; Hines, Sarah J.; Bennett, Karen A.; Luce, Charles H.; Edwards, Pamela J. 2010. Water, climate change, and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. Gen. 26 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE Tech. Rep.PNW-GTR-812. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 75 p. Gao, H., Q. Tang, X. Shi, C. Zhu, T. J. Bohn, F. Su, J. Sheffield, M. Pan, D. P. Lettenmaier, and E. F. Wood. 2010. Water Budget Record from Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) Model. In Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document for Terrestrial Water Cycle Data Records (in review). Gardali T, Seavy NE, DiGaudio RT, Comrack LA. 2012. A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of California's At-Risk Birds. PLoS ONE 7(3): e29507. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0029507 Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, editors. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Hamlet, A. F., S. Lee, K. E. B. Mickelson, and M. M. Elsner. 2009. Effects of projected climate change on energy supply and demand in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State, in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate, edited by J. S. Littell, M. M. Elsner, L. C. W. Binder and A.K. Snover, pp. 165-190 , University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, WA. 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. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23. Lee, D.C. and B.E. Rieman. 1997. Population viability assessment of salmonids by using probabilistic networks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1144-1157. 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. Luce, Charles; Morgan, Penny; Dwire, Kathleen; Isaak, Daniel; Holden, Zachary; Rieman, Bruce 2012. Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 207 p.
Luo, L. F., and E. F. Wood. 2007. Monitoring and predicting the 2007 U.S. drought, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 6. Mote, P.W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 39–49. 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. Rice, Janine; Tredennick, Andrew; Joyce, Linda A. 2012. Climate change on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: a synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-264. Fort Collins, 27 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 60 p. 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. USFS. 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. USFS Northwest Region. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, Oregon. 26p. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011a. Forest Service watershed condition classification technical guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011b. Forest Service watershed condition classification
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 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 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 80 and 81:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
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:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?