watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

White River National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) LESSONS LEARNED The important thing to remember is that this analysis is an attempt to determine the relative vulnerability of subwatersheds to the anticipated effects of climate change and to give managers a general idea about geographic areas of concern. It is, by nature, a broad-brush approach, and the level of precision and detail of the input parameters need to be commensurate with the precision of the final product. To a significant degree, less is more. As an example, when the scope of the analysis is being determined, there is inevitably a lot of brainstorming about what resource values would be affected by certain aspects of a changing climate. The initial list of resource values can be long. We found that resource issues often had similar sensitivities and expected responses. For example, two resource values that both respond negatively to decreases in streamflow are likely to give very similar vulnerability results. In the mountainous region of the Rocky Mountain west, it may be reasonable to limit resource values to one affected by timing/magnitude of decreasing flows, one affected by timing/magnitude of increasing peak flows, and/or one affected by changes in stream temperatures. Similarly, the list of inherent subwatershed attributes and anthropogenic influences (e.g., geology, precipitation, roads) that affect the vulnerability of a resource value can also be quite long. Although many small factors can cumulatively affect resource value vulnerability, they may not exert much influence in a particular numeric rating scheme. We found that factors with a low influence (assigned weights) had very little influence on the final rating. It would be a simple matter to do a sensitivity analysis of the numeric results to see if some attributes could be dropped early in the process, to streamline the analyses. Finally, as time goes on, much more detailed data on climate change exposure becomes available. Models are constantly being tuned and down-scaled to smaller areas. These data have limits based on their uncertainty, and that uncertainty grows with down-scaling. We structured this analysis so that the actual values for temperature changes, runoff changes, etc. were not critical. Rather, we focused on the magnitude and direction of the predicted change. We were more concerned with the direction of change (increasing or decreasing) and whether that change was a big number or small number relative to the annual variability that we see now. Not getting lost in the myriad of details of the Variable Infiltration Capacity model results was easily justified by keeping the original goal of the process in mind. REFERENCES Christensen, N. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2006. A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion, 3:1-44. Merritt, D.M. and N.L. Poff. 2010. Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications, 20(1): 135-152. Painter, T.H., J.S. Deems, J. Belnap, A.F. Hamlet, C.C. Landry and B. Udall. 2010. Response of Colorado River runoff to dust radiative forcing in snow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 6 pp. Full report available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/14/0913139107.full.pdf+html 128 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
White River National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Ray, R.J, J.J Barsugli, and K.B. Averyt. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. A report by the Western Water Assessment for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. 52 pp. Full report available at http://wwa.colorado.edu/CO_Climate_Report/index.html Staley, D.M., D.J. Cooper, and E. Wohl, 2008. White River National Forest – Aquatic and Riparian and Wetland Assessment. Draft Report, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver, CO. 129 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:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
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:
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: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 116 and 117: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 182 and 183:
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
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?