watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) areas (Cochetopa, Uncompahgre, and West Elk). The amount of available water is expected to become limiting in the Uncompahgre, Cochetopa, and West Elk geographic areas for three out of four seasons. Figure 19 displays the annual change in aridity indices for both the composite and MIROC_3.2 models, compared to the historic trend. All geographic areas are predicted to become drier. The largest changes will actually occur at the highest elevations (San Juans, Upper Taylor, and Grand Mesa) in those geographic areas with the highest precipitation. These areas also have the greatest capacity to buffer the effects of climate change because of the high levels of water produced from snowmelt and higher occurrence of aquatic habitats. These areas also support high levels of water development for human uses, so any increase in aridity could have a dramatic effect on water uses. This is potentially a very big concern in the Grand Mesa geographic area, where the annual aridity index is predicted to drop below 1. Airidity Index (mm/mm) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -‐11.18% -‐23.35% Historic COMP MIROC -‐9.37% 1.29 -‐18.31% -‐11.87% 1.07 -‐22.00% Figure 19. Annual Change in Aridity Index by Geographic Area 0.88 0.87 Geographic areas were ranked for exposure, based on the predicted changes (from the MIROC_3.2 model outputs) for maximum and minimum temperatures and the annual percent change in aridity index (Table 3). A score of 1 indicates lower exposure; a score of 6 indicates higher exposure. Figure 20 displays this ranking. 88 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change -‐8.72% -‐9.53% -‐8.57% -‐18.05% -‐18.79% -‐18.80% San Juans Upper Taylor Grand Mesa West Elk Cochetopa Uncompahgre 0.75 0% -‐10% -‐20% -‐30% -‐40% -‐50% -‐60% -‐70% -‐80% -‐90% -‐100% Percent Change (%)
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Geographic Area Tmin Rank* TMax Rank* Aridity Index Rank* 89 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Exposure Rank** Exposure Rank (numeric) Uncompahgre 6 6 4 0.89 6 Grand Mesa 5 5 5 0.83 5 San Juans 4 4 6 0.78 4 West Elk 3 3 1 0.39 3 Upper Taylor 2 2 2 0.33 2 Cochetopa 1 1 3 0.28 1 Table 3. Geographic Area Exposure Ranking * Highest number has most change ** (Tmin Rank + Tmax Rank + Aridity Index Rank) / 18 Figure 20. Geographic Area Exposure Ranking Table 4 summarizes key potential climate changes described above and their potential effects to hydrologic process and identified aquatic resource values. This table was modified from Table 2 found in Furniss et al (2010).
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: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
Page 50 and 51: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 142 and 143:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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?