watervulnerability

Figure 1. Location of National Forests participating in the Watershed Vulnerability Pilot Assessments. Coordination
was provided by representatives from Regional Office Staffs in Regions 2 and 6, and the Pacific Northwest and Rocky
Mountain Research Stations. Note that the GMUG comprises the Grand Mesa, Uncomgahgre, and Gunnison National
Forests. A parallel WVA was conducted on the Shoshone NF (Rice et al. 2012) and coordinated with the core WVA group
of 11 pilots.
National Forests were selected to provide a range of
water resource issues and environmental factors, and
each National Forest brought different levels of staffing,
expertise, and existing information to the project. A
few pilot Forests had taken initial steps to consider how
climate change might impact management priorities,
though most had not. The goal was to conduct pilot
assessments with a range of analytical rigor, in different
geographic settings and organizational structures, with
varying subject-matter focus.
The pilot team and steering committee met to develop a
methodology to guide the assessments. The initial step
was to define the purpose of the assessments, which was
to identify (for each unit) areas with highest priority for
implementing actions to maintain or improve watershed
resilience. This approach is based on two assumptions.
The first is that there is a strong correlation between the
condition and resilience of watersheds, with watersheds
in better condition displaying more resilience than
comparable watersheds in poor condition. The second
3 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
assumption is that climate change is one of many
factors, both natural and anthropogenic, that affect
hydrology and watershed condition. A conceptual
model illustrating these factors and linkages is
displayed in Figure 2.
The objective of the pilot assessments stemmed from
the need to prioritize where to concentrate management
activities to improve or maintain resilience. Comparing
analysis options against this objective helped National
Forest staff focus their efforts.
The process was intended to produce useful results
with differing levels of data availability and resource
investment. Given the variety of watershed types, water
resource issues, experience, and data availability on the
pilot Forests, a flexible assessment method was needed.
The team developed an analysis method that relied
heavily on previous experience with Watershed Analysis
(USFS 1995) and the basic model of vulnerability (Figure
2). The assessment steps are summarized in the box below.