watervulnerability
watervulnerability watervulnerability
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) What tools were most useful? Examples from other units of methods used to deal with different aspects of the analysis were helpful. Similarly, examples of vulnerability assessments in general were useful because they provided methods to rank different data. ArcGIS was the most useful tool to display and evaluate all the spatial data. Microsoft Excel was a useful tool to manipulate and summarize tabular data, as well as display modeled outputs. People with expertise in these programs are necessary in the team makeup. What tools were most problematic? On the GMUG, while we had a relative wealth of information related both to the spatial resource data and climate change predictions, we lacked the knowledge to identify and evaluate the implications of predicted climate changes to our resource values of concern beyond a very general level. Forests completing watershed vulnerability analyses should be teamed up with research station personnel who can provide expertise in interpreting the climate change implications portion of the vulnerability assessment. It was clear that previous work between the Sawtooth NF and Boise research station had created a high level of understanding about the implications of climate change predictions, and familiarity with tools available to evaluate where changes are likely to occur and what the impacts of those changes may be. PROJECT TEAM Carol Howe, Resource Information Specialist (GIS), Climate Change Coordinator John Almy, Forest Hydrologist Clay Speas, Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Lead Warren Young, Forest Soils Scientist Ben Stratton, Hydrologist Steven Jay, Hydrology Technician Sherry Hazelhurst, Deputy Forest Supervisor PROJECT CONTACT Carol Howe Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 2250 Hwy 50 Delta CO, 81416 970-874-6647 chowe@fs.fed.us 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. 110 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Christensen, N.S., and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. “A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1417–1434 (www.hydrol-‐earth-‐syst-‐sci.net/11/1417/2007/).” Colorado Water Conservation Board. Draft 2010. Colorado River Water Availability Study; Phase I Report. Furniss, M.J., B.P. Staab, S. Hazelhurst, C.F. Clifton, K.B. Roby, B.L. Ilhadrt, E.B. Larry, A.H. Todd, L.M. Reid, S.J. Hines, K.A. Bennett , C.H. Luce, P.J. Edwards. 2010. Water, climate change and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW_GTR-812. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland OR. Hirsch, C.L., S. E. Albeke, and T. P. Nessler. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. IPCC. 2008. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Climate Change and Water. [Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S.Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, (eds.)] IPCC Secretariate, Geneva. (Available at: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-‐papers/climate-‐change-‐water-‐en.pdf). Painter, T.H., J. Deems, J. Belnap, A. Hamlet, C.C. Landry, and B. Udall. 2010. Response of Colorado river runoff to dust radiative forcing in snow. Proceedings of the North Academy of Sciences. (accessed at www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/14/0913139107.full.pdf+html) 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. Rieman, B.E. and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate Change, Aquatic Ecosystems, and Fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 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. 111 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
- 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 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
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky<br />
Mountain Region (R2)<br />
What tools were most useful?<br />
Examples from other units of methods used to deal with different aspects of the analysis were helpful.<br />
Similarly, examples of vulnerability assessments in general were useful because they provided methods to<br />
rank different data.<br />
ArcGIS was the most useful tool to display and evaluate all the spatial data. Microsoft Excel was a useful<br />
tool to manipulate and summarize tabular data, as well as display modeled outputs. People with expertise<br />
in these programs are necessary in the team makeup.<br />
What tools were most problematic?<br />
On the GMUG, while we had a relative wealth of information related both to the spatial resource data and<br />
climate change predictions, we lacked the knowledge to identify and evaluate the implications of<br />
predicted climate changes to our resource values of concern beyond a very general level. Forests<br />
completing watershed vulnerability analyses should be teamed up with research station personnel who<br />
can provide expertise in interpreting the climate change implications portion of the vulnerability<br />
assessment. It was clear that previous work between the Sawtooth NF and Boise research station had<br />
created a high level of understanding about the implications of climate change predictions, and familiarity<br />
with tools available to evaluate where changes are likely to occur and what the impacts of those changes<br />
may be.<br />
PROJECT TEAM<br />
Carol Howe, Resource Information Specialist (GIS), Climate Change Coordinator<br />
John Almy, Forest Hydrologist<br />
Clay Speas, Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Lead<br />
Warren Young, Forest Soils Scientist<br />
Ben Stratton, Hydrologist<br />
Steven Jay, Hydrology Technician<br />
Sherry Hazelhurst, Deputy Forest Supervisor<br />
PROJECT CONTACT<br />
Carol Howe<br />
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests<br />
2250 Hwy 50<br />
Delta CO, 81416<br />
970-874-6647<br />
chowe@fs.fed.us<br />
REFERENCES<br />
Barsugli, J.J. and L.O. Mearns. Draft 2010. Climate and Hydrologic Change Scenarios for the Upper<br />
Gunnison River, Colorado. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy in support of the southwest Climate<br />
Change Initiative’s Climate Change Adaptation Workshop for Natural Resource Managers in the<br />
Gunnison Basin.<br />
110 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change