watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Season Precipitation (%) Temperature (˚C) Temperature (˚F) Annual -10.0 +3.0 +5.4 Winter ~0.0 +3.0 +5.4 Spring -15.0 +3.0 +5.4 Summer -20.0 +4.0 +7.0 Fall -10.0 +3.0 +5.4 Table 2. Temperature and Precipitation Changes for “More Extreme” Climate Change Scenario developed by Barsugli and Mearns for the Gunnison Basin Predicted changes under the “more extreme” scenario include: 1. Increase in annual temperatures of 3 ˚C (5.4 ˚F). 2. A 10% decrease in annual precipitation, with greater decreases in warm season precipitation. 3. Decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature, both act to reduce annual stream flow totals in the range of 20% to 25%. 4. Warming temperatures lead to a later accumulation of snow in the fall and earlier snowmelt in the spring. Because this likely represents a hot/dry scenario for much of the west, the potential exists for more frequent dust deposition events, which also may lead to an earlier melt and to reduced water yield from the snowpack. 5. Snowmelt-driven stream flow will peak about two or more weeks earlier in the spring, though this effect may be less if dust effects on snowmelt are strong. The combined effects of dust and temperature on snowmelt timing tend to be dominated by the dust effects. 6. The much earlier melt, along with decreased summer precipitation and increased summer temperatures, will result in extremely low amounts of water stored in the soils during summer and fall. VIC Model Climate Change Predictions The primary predictive model used to display climate changes was the VIC hydrologic model. Data derived using the VIC model were available from the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington. Historic trends were developed from the climate record from 1916 to 2006. Future prediction results for temperature- and precipitation-related parameters were generated using: 1) a composite of the 10 climate models that best resembled the historic trend, 2) the MIROC_3.2 model (more extreme temperature increases), and 3) the PCM1 model (less extreme temperatures increases) for two time periods (2030-2059 and 2070-2099) using the A1B emissions scenario. Data were available at the ~6 km-grid scale for monthly averages for 21 parameters for each model, but not all parameters were reviewed by the GMUG team. (Data downloaded from ftp://ftp.hydro.washington.edu/pub/climate/USFS_monthly_summaries/CO/ on 11/5/2010). In addition, some of the data were summarized at the HUC-5 scale. (Data downloaded from ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/gis/PNF/WVA/ on 10/22/2010). Outputs obtained from the VIC Model data are described below. 84 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Initially, we reviewed the HUC-5 data for the composite, and MIROC_3.2 models, comparing projections of historic condition with two time periods (2030-2059 and 2070-2099) for the following parameters: • precipitation (monthly total, seasonal* total) • tmax (daily maximum temperature monthly average, seasonal* average) • tmin (daily minimum temperature monthly average, seasonal* average) • runoff (monthly total, seasonal* total) • baseflow (monthly total, seasonal* total) • hydrograph (runoff + baseflow as monthly total, seasonal* total) *Seasonal breakdown: winter = December, January, February; spring = March, April, May; summer = June, July, August; fall = September, October, November Charts for each HUC-5 were created to compare the composite and MIROC_3.2 model results to the historic trend for these parameters (this information is available as GMUG Appendix A at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes). (Note: We did not chart the PCM1model results that averaged between the composite and MIROC_3.2 results). For most HUC-5 watersheds, the data display future decreases in summer and fall precipitation and shifts in precipitation between winter and spring. Temperature increases of 2 to 3 ˚C are predicted for both maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the year. Runoff periods are predicted to shift one to two months earlier and total runoff is reduced. (Note: these predictions are in addition to the changes already seen since 1978, described earlier.) Because some HUC-5 watersheds include a wide range of elevations (ranges of 5,000 to 7,000 feet), we also reviewed the 6 km-grid scale VIC data. Predicted results for the composite and MIROC_3.2 models were compared to the historic trend for the same parameters listed above, as well as for evapotranspiration. We looked at the actual change between modeled and historic results, and the percent change on a monthly basis at the 6 km-grid scale. Maps showing monthly results at the grid scale display large differences between higher and lower elevation areas (see this information is available as GMUG Appendix B at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes). We used the six geographic areas (areas with similar climatic regimes and elevation ranges) to examine predicted climate changes (see Figure 4). Since most of the lower elevations within the HUC-5 scale watersheds are actually below the GMUG Forest boundary, reviewing exposure parameters at the geographic area scale is more representative for the GMUG. We chose to focus on a smaller subset of VIC parameters at the geographic area scale. We compared the predicted seasonal temperature changes (both maximum and minimum averages) from the MIROC_3.2 model to the historic model. Figure 16 displays the seasonal increase in maximum average temperature by geographic area. Figure 17 displays the seasonal increase in minimum average temperature by geographic area. 85 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: 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 138 and 139:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?