Vulnerability of aquatic species and their habitats: Annotated bibliography

• Foden, W., Mace, G., Vié, J.-C., Angulo, A., Butchart, S., DeVantier, L., Dublin, H., Gutsche, A., Stuart, S., and Turak, E. 2008. Species susceptibility to climate change impacts. In: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

  Foden et al. (2008) quantified species traits to measure vulnerability of three animal groups: birds, amphibians, and corals across the world. Specialized habitat or microhabitat climates and limited dispersal capacities were considered most problematic issues for species under changing climates. Approximately 52% of amphibian species were considered vulnerable to future climate changes. The Bufonidae family (toads and true toads) had more than 50% of its species considered susceptible to climate change. Traits associated with amphibian vulnerability, including specialized habitat requirements, exclusive occurrence or reliance on threatened or unbuffered aquatic habitats, and dispersal issues related to barriers created by unsuitable habitats.

• Lawler, J. J., Shafer, S. L., White, D., Kareiva, P., Maurer, E. P., Blaustein, A. R., and Bartlein, P. J. 2009. Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology 90: 588-597.

  Lawler et al. (2009) used a consensus based bioclimate envelope model to assess the effects of climate change as simulated by 10 Global Climate Models (GCMs) under 3 emission scenarios (B1, A1B, and A2) on the range of 1,818 birds, 723 mammals, and 413 amphibians across the western hemisphere. For the majority of climate scenarios (80%), their analysis showed a loss of 11-17% of species. Lawler et al. (2009) estimated that the greatest turnover for all taxa will occur in mountainous regions and that amphibians are most likely to experience range contractions and loss.

• Lawler, J. J., Shafer, S. L., Bancroft, B. A., and Blaustein, A. R. 2010. Projected climate impacts for the amphibians of the western hemisphere. Conservation Biology 24: 38-50.

  Lawler et al. (2010) assesses likely impacts for amphibians using bioclimate model projections and data on the presence of range restricted species and future conditions. Species turnover (due to displacement by non-suitable climates and shifts in distributions) was moderately high (40% turnover) across the western United States under lower emission scenarios and approached 60% or more under higher emission scenarios. Northern areas, including the Northwest and California, had a higher percentage of range restricted species, which are considered more vulnerable to climate induced habitat changes. Within the United States, the Southwest had the highest vulnerability to climate change under lower emission scenarios but the entire west show high vulnerability under more extreme climate conditions.

• Chu, C., Mandrak, N. E., and Minns, C. K. 2005. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions of several common and rare freshwater fishes in Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11: 299-310.

  Chu et al. (2005) compared the vulnerability of cold water and warm water fish species in Canada. The primary species assessed included brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), walleye (Sander vitreus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus), and arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Logistic regressions were developed for each species using data from the Canadian Global Coupled Model 2 (CGCM2) climate change model to predict the change in species occurrence in multiple watersheds. Cold water species were considered likely to be extirpated from their present range and cool water and warm water species were likely to shift distributions northward. However, these expansions could be hindered by current ecological and physical barriers. Cold water fish may remain in deeper waters that could become more isolated under climate change. Smallmouth bass may expand northward with catastrophic consequences for native populations.

• Chessman, B. C. 2013. Identifying species at risk from climate change: Traits predict the drought vulnerability of freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation 160: 40-49.

  Chessman’s (2013) analysis, based in Australia, describes a method for estimating fish vulnerability to drought and climate change with potential applications for North American species. Specifically, Chessman (2013) identified 14 traits associated with either positive or negative response of fish populations to drought and used these traits to assess vulnerability of 36 fish species. Eleven traits describing aspects of diet, life history and physiological tolerance proved to be most important for predicting population trends across all species. Adaptation to warm environments, expressed as a high minimum spawning temperature and heat tolerance, was associated with better drought tolerance. Omnivores did better than obligate invertivores. Chessman et al. (2013) note that their system, based on the Murray-Darling basin, is probably only relevant to systems that hold a similar assemblage of fish groups and food chains. However, these traits may be consistent enough across fish functional groups that they provide a good starting point for assessing other systems.

• Adrian, R., O’Reilly, C. M., Zagarese, H., Baines, S. B., Hessen, D. O., Keller, W., Livingstone, D. M., Sommaruga, R., Straile, D., Van Donk, E., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., and Winder, M. 2009. Lakes as sentinels of climate change. Limnology and Oceanography 54: 2283–2297.

  Adrian et al. (2010) developed a set of indicators to identify vulnerability of lakes to climate change. They propose that lakes may be good sentinels of global climate change because they are sensitive to environmental changes and reflect changes to the surrounding terrain. They selected indicators that reflect key properties of lakes and are likely to change with changing climate. Variables were also selected for their applicability across multiple lake types, ease of measurement, and relevance to ecosystem function. Good indicators for all lake types and climate region were water temperature, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and plankton composition. Distinct climate drivers were apparent in different climate zones. For lakes in temperate arid or tropical zones, air temperature alone drove increases in stratification period and stability, but decreases total Phosphorous and Nitrogen, which decreases productivity. They also predict decreased bottom O2 and increased H2S, NH4 and PO4 which decreases habitat and nutrient storage.

• Aslam, Rana Ammar; Shrestha, Sangam; Pandey, Vishnu Prasad. Groundwater vulnerability to climate change: A review of the assessment methodology. The Science of the total environment, 2018-01-15, Vol.612, p.853-875

  Impacts of climate change on water resources, especially groundwater, can no longer be hidden. These impacts are further exacerbated under the integrated influence of climate variability, climate change and anthropogenic activities. The degree of impact varies according to geographical location and other factors leading systems and regions towards different levels of vulnerability. In the recent past, several attempts have been made in various regions across the globe to quantify the impacts and consequences of climate and non-climate factors in terms of vulnerability to groundwater resources. Firstly, this paper provides a structured review of the available literature, aiming to critically analyse and highlight the limitations and knowledge gaps involved in vulnerability (of groundwater to climate change) assessment methodologies. The effects of indicator choice and the importance of including composite indicators are then emphasized. A new integrated approach for the assessment of groundwater vulnerability to climate change is proposed to successfully address those limitations. This review concludes that the choice of indicator has a significant role in defining the reliability of computed results. The effect of an individual indicator is also apparent but the consideration of a combination (variety) of indicators may give more realistic results. Therefore, in future, depending upon the local conditions and scale of the study, indicators from various groups should be chosen. Furthermore, there are various assumptions involved in previous methodologies, which limit their scope by introducing uncertainty in the calculated results. These limitations can be overcome by implementing the proposed approach.

• Hamilton Schäfer, R. B., Pyne, M. I., Chessman, B., Kakouei, K., Boersma, K. S., Verdonschot, P. F., Verdonschot, R. C., Mims, M., Khamis, K., Bierwagen, B., and Stamp, J. 2020. Limitations of trait-based approaches for stressor assessment: The case of freshwater invertebrates and climate drivers. Global Change Biology, 26(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14846

  The appeal of trait-based approaches for assessing environmental vulnerabilities arises from the potential insight they provide into the mechanisms underlying the changes in populations and community structure. Traits can provide ecologically based explanations for observed responses to environmental changes, along with predictive power gained by developing relationships between traits and environmental variables. Despite these potential benefits, questions remain regarding the utility and limitations of these approaches, which we explore focusing on the following questions: (a) How reliable are predictions of biotic responses to changing conditions based on single trait–environment relationships? (b) What factors constrain detection of single trait–environment relationships, and how can they be addressed? (c) Can we use information on meta-community processes to reveal conditions when assumptions underlying trait-based studies are not met? We address these questions by reviewing published literature on aquatic invertebrate communities from stream ecosystems. Our findings help to define factors that influence the successful application of trait-based approaches in addressing the complex, multifaceted effects of changing climate conditions on hydrologic and thermal regimes in stream ecosystems. Key conclusions are that observed relationships between traits and environmental stressors are often inconsistent with predefined hypotheses derived from current trait-based thinking, particularly related to single trait–environment relationships. Factors that can influence findings of trait-based assessments include intercorrelations of among traits and among environmental variables, spatial scale, strength of biotic interactions, intensity of habitat disturbance, degree of abiotic stress, and methods of trait characterization. Several recommendations are made for practice and further study to address these concerns, including using phylogenetic relatedness to address intercorrelation. With proper consideration of these issues, trait-based assessment of organismal vulnerability to environmental changes can become a useful tool to conserve threatened populations into the future.

• Koutroulis, Papadimitriou L., Grillakis, M., Tsanis, I., Warren, R., and Betts, R. 2019. Global water availability under high-end climate change: A vulnerability based assessment. Global and Planetary Change, 175, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.01.013

  Global sustainability is intertwined with freshwater security. Emerging changes in global freshwater availability have been recently detected as a combined result of human interventions, natural variability and climate change. Expected future socio-economic and climatic changes will further impact freshwater resources. The quantification of the impacts is challenging due to the complexity of interdependencies between physical and socio-economic systems. This study demonstrates a vulnerability based assessment of global freshwater availability through a conceptual framework, considering transient hydro-climatic impacts of crossing specific warming levels (1.5 °C, 2 °C and 4 °C) and related socio-economic developments under high-end climate change (RCP8.5). We use high resolution climate scenarios and a global land surface model to develop indicators of exposure for 25,000 watersheds. We also exploit spatially explicit datasets to describe a range of adaptation options through sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators according to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). The combined dynamics of climate and socio-economic changes suggest that although there is important potential for adaptation to reduce freshwater vulnerability, climate change risks cannot be totally and uniformly eliminated. In many regions, socio-economic developments will have greater impact on water availability compared to climate induced changes. The number of people under increased freshwater vulnerability varies substantially depending on the level of global warming and the degree of socio-economic developments, from almost 1 billion people at 4 °C and SSP5 to almost 3 billion people at 4 °C and SSP3. Generally, it is concluded that larger adaptation efforts are required to address the risks associated with higher levels of warming of 4 °C compared to the lower levels of 1.5 °C or 2 °C. The watershed scale and country level aggregated results of this study can provide a valuable resource for decision makers to plan for climate change adaptation and mitigation actions.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Adaptation

• Wilby, R. L., Orr, H., Watts, G., Battarbee, R. W., Barry, P. M., Chadd, R., Dugdale, S. J., Dunbar, M. J., Elliott, J. A., Extence, C., Hannah, D. M., Holmes, N., Johnson, A. C., Knights, B., Milner, N. J., Ormerod, S. J., Solomon, D., Timlett, R., Whitehead, P. J., and Wood, P. .J. 2010. Evidence Needed to Manage Freshwater Ecosystems in a Changing Climate: Turning Adaptation Principles into Practice. Science of the Total Environment 408: 4150-4164.

Aquatic Animals

• Barsley, W., De Young, C., and Brugère, C. 2013. Vulnerability assessment methodologies: an annotated bibliography for climate change and the fisheries and aquaculture sector. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1083. Rome, FAO. 43 pp.
• Balcombe, S. R., Sheldon, F., Capon, S. J., Bond, N. R., Hadwen, W. L., Marsh, N., and Bernays, S. J. 2011. Climate-change threats to native fish in degraded rivers and floodplains of the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 1099–1114.
• Bonada N., Dolédec, S., and Statzner, B. 2007a. Taxonomic and biological trait differences of stream macroinvertebrate communities between Mediterranean and temperate regions: Implications for future climatic scenarios. Global Change Biology 13: 1658–1671.
• Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., and Prat, N. 2007b. Macroinvertebrate community structure and biological traits related to flow permanence in a Mediterranean river network. Hydrobiologia 589: 91–106.
• Durance, I., and Ormerod, S. J. 2009. Trends in water quality and discharge confound long-term warming effects on river macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology 54: 388-405.
• Ficke, A. D., Myrick, C. A., and Hansen, L. J. 2007. Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 17: 581-613.
• Haxton T. J., and Findlay, C. S. 2008. Meta-analysis of the impacts of water management on aquatic communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 437–447.
• Hlohowskyj, I., Brody, M. S., and Lackey, R. T. 1996. Methods for assessing the vulnerability of African fisheries resources to climate change. Climate Research 6: 97-106.

Terrestrial Animals

• Berggren, Å., Björkman, C., Bylund, H., and Ayres, M. P. 2009. The distribution and abundance of animal populations in a climate of uncertainty. Oikos: 118: 1121-1126.
• Bernardo, J., and Spotila, J. R. 2005. Physiological constraints on organismal response to global warming: Mechanistic insights from clinally varying populations and implications for assessing endangerment. Biology Letters 2: 135-139.
• Blaustein, A. R., Walls, S. C., Bancroft, B. A., Lawler, J. J., Searle, C. L., and Gervasi, S. S. 2010. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on amphibian populations. Diversity 2(2): 281-313. doi:10.3390/d2020281 
• Lawler, J. J., Shafer, S. L., Bancroft, B. A., and Blaustein, A. R. 2010. Projected climate impacts for the amphibians of the Western Hemisphere. Conservation Biology, 24, 38-50, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01403.x. 

Aquatic Animals/Aquatic Ecosystems

• Staudt, A., Leidner, A. K., Howard, J., Brauman, K. A., Dukes, J. S., Hansen, L. J., Paukert, C., Sabo, J., and Solórzano, L. A. 2013. The added complications of climate change: Understanding and managing biodiversity and ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 494–501. doi:10.1890/120275 

Carbon

• Laudon, H., Tetzlaff, D., Soulsby, C., Carey, S., Siebert, J., Buttle, J., Shanley, J., McDonell, J. J., and McGuire, K. 2013. Change in winter climate will affect dissolved organic carbon and water fluxes in mid-to-high latitude catchments. Hydrological Processes 27: 700–709. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9686 

Disturbances

• Kominoski, J. S., and Rosemond, A. D. 2012. Conservation from the bottom up: forecasting effects of global change on dynamics of organic matter and management needs for river networks. Freshwater Science 31: 51–68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1899/10-160.1 
• Pettit, N. E., and Naiman, R. J. 2007. Fire in the Riparian Zone: Characteristics and Ecological Consequences. Ecosystems 10: 763-687.

Framework

• Acreman, M. C., Blake, J. R., Booker, D. J., Harding, R. J., Reynard, N., Mountford, J. O., and Stratford, C. J. 2009. A simple framework for evaluating regional wetland ecohydrological response to climate change with case studies from Great Britain. Ecohydrology 2: 1–17.
• Bayliss, B., Brennan, K., Eliot, I., Finlayson, M., Hall, R., House, T., Pidgeon, B., Walden, D., and Waterman, P. 1997. Vulnerability assessment of predicted climate change and sea level rise in the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory Australia. Supervising Scientist Report 123, Supervising Scientist, Canberra.
• Gitay, H., Finlayson, C. M., and Davidson, N. 2011. A framework for assessing the vulnerability of wetlands to climate change. Ramsar Technical Report No. 5. CBD Technical Series No. 57. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. ISBN 92-9225-361-1 (print), 92-9225-362-X (web)Series 57.
• Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R. L., Crooks, S., Kay, A. L., and Reynard, N. S. 2010. Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: Application to flood risk. Journal of Hydrology 390: 198-209.

Hydrology

• Adams, H. D., Luce, C. H., Breshears, D. D., Allen, C. D., Weiler, M., Hale, V. C., Smith, A. S., and Huxman, T. E. 2011. Ecohydrological consequences of drought- and infestation-triggered tree die-off: insights and hypotheses. Ecohydrology 5: 145-159. DOI: 10.1002/eco.233
• Li, C., Singh, V. P., and Mishra, A. K. 2013. Monthly river flow simulation with a joint conditional density estimation network. Water Resources Research 49(6): 3229-3242.
• Milly, P. C. D., Dunne, K. A., and Vecchia, A. V. 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438: 347-350.
• Neilson, R. P., Prentice, I. C., Smith, B., Kittel, T. G. F., and Viner, D. 1998. Simulated changes in vegetation distribution under global warming. In: The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera, R. H. Moss, and D. J. Dokken, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 439-456.
• Seneviratne, S. I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C. M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y., Marengo, J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C., and Zhang, X. 2012. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M. (eds.). A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 109-230.

Invasive Species

• Rahel, F. J., and Olden, J. D. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 521–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00950.x

Reservoirs

• Wisser, D., Frolking, S., Hagen, S., and Bierkens, M. F. P. 2013. Beyond peak reservoir storage? A global estimate of declining water storage capacity in large reservoirs. Water Resources Research 49: 5732–5739. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20452
• River
• Kleinen, T., and Petschel-Held, G. 2007. Integrated assessment of changes in flooding probabilities due to climate change. Climatic Change 81: 283-312.

Rivers and Streams

• Poff, N. L. 2002. Ecological response to and management of increased flooding caused by climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 360: 1497–1510. 10.1098/rsta.2002.1012
• Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A., Liermann, C. R., and Davies, P. M. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555-561.

Vegetation

• Kominoski, J. S., Shah, J. J. F., Canhoto, C., Fischer, D. G., Giling, D. P., González, E., Griffiths, N. A., Larrañaga, A., LeRoy, C. J., Mineau, M. M., McElarney, Y. R., Shirley, S. M., Swan, C. M., and Tiegs, S. D. 2013. Forecasting functional implications of global changes in riparian plant communities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(8): 423-432.
• Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., and Stephens, S. L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145-2151.
• Ponce-Campos, G. E., Moran, M. S., Huete, A., Zhang, Y., Bresloff, C., Huxman, T. E., Eamus, D., Bosch, D. D., Buda, A. R., Gunter, S. A., Scalley, T. H., Kitchen, S. G., McClaran, M. P., McNab, W. H., Montoya, D. S., Morgan, J. A., Peters, D. P. C., Sadler, E. J., Seyfried, M. S., and Starks, P. J. 2013. Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale altered hydroclimatic conditions. Nature 494: 349-352.

Water Quality

• Paerl, H. W., and Paul, V. J. 2012. Climate change: Links to global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria. Water Research 46: 1349–1363.

Water Resources

• de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393-408.
• Gleick, P. H., Singh, A., and Shi, H. 2001. Emerging Threats to the World’s Freshwater Resources. A Report of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California.
• Viviroli, D., Archer, D. R., Buytaert, W., Fowler, H. J., Greenwood, G. B., Hamlet, A. F., Huang, Y., Koboltschnig, G., Litaor, M. I., López-Moreno, J. I., Lorentz, S., Schädler, B., Schreier, H., Schwaiger, K., Vuille, M., and Woods, R. 2011. Climate change and mountain water resources: Overview and recommendations for research, management and policy. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15: 471-504.

Wetlands

• Sienkiwicz, J., Ostrowska, A., Wohland, K., Stratmann, L., and Grygoruk, M. 2014. Indicators for Monitoring climate change-induced effects on habitats - A wetlands perspective. In Managing Protected Areas in Central And Eastern Europe Under Climate Change Advances in Global Change Research, pp. 77-94.

• Meyer, J.L., Sale, M.J., Mulholland, P.J., and Poff, N.L. 1999. Impacts of climate change on aquatic ecosystem functioning and health. Journal American Water Resources Association 35: 1373-1386.

  Meyer et al. (1999) conducts a review of climate assessments for freshwater systems across the United States with a focus on how climate impacts the provision of goods and services. Meyers et al., (1999) provide qualitative descriptions of the vulnerability of each region according to the extent of the expected effect and the context of the systems with respect to anthropogenic influences. The Arctic, Great Lakes, and Great Plains (particularly the prairie potholes) are identified as vulnerable to climate change effects. For the Rocky Mountains, warmer temperatures will lead to fragmentation of cold water fish habitat and change aquatic insect distributions though it is pointed out that this is a region overtly affected by human activities, which may ultimately be more important than climate impacts. The Great Plains and Prairie regions of the United States and California are considered particularly vulnerable to climate change due to changes in precipitation and flood regimes. Increased salinity as a result of increases in evaporation rates, especially in the western Great Plains, is a leading factor predicted to lead to loss of endemic fish species, many of which are already near their thermal tolerance limit. The arid SW is also vulnerable to climate effects but uncertainty in potential impacts prevents accurate assessment of this region.

• Capon, S.J., Chambers, L.E., Mac Nally, R., Naiman, R.J., Davies, P., Marshall, N., Pittock, J., Reid, M., Capon, T., Douglas, M., Catford, J., Baldwin, D.S., Stewardson, M., Roberts, J., Parsons, M., and Williams, S.E. 2013. Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: Hotspots for climate change adaptation? Ecosystems 16: 359–381. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-013-9656-1

  Though not a vulnerability assessment that ranks vulnerability of different watersheds or species, Capon et al. (2013) demonstrate relative vulnerability among aquatic ecosystem components through a review of major areas of exposure, sensitive and adaptive capacity for riparian ecosystems across the U.S. They discuss ecosystem services and likely impacts. This is a comprehensive yet succinct review of the major issues and underlying causes for climate change impacts. They use this review as a backdrop for presenting adaptation options.

• Gleick, P.H. 1990. Global climatic changes: A summary of regional hydrologic impacts. Civil Engineering Practice 5: 53-68.

  Gleick et al. (1990) identified five measures of vulnerability and used them to rank 18 U.S. water resource regions. The indicators, hydropower dependence, storage ration, demand ratio, streamflow variability, and ground-water overdraft, represent risk to both human and ecological systems. Gleick et al. (1990) assigned critical threshold values for each indicator based on studies and expert opinion and then ranked regions according to how many thresholds were exceeded. Within the West, the Great Basin region and California were identified as highly and moderate vulnerability, respectively.

• Lane, M.E., Kirshen, P.H., and Vogel, R.M. 1999. Indicators of impacts of global climate change on US water resources. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 125: 194–204.

  Lane et al. (1999) built upon on Gleick et al. (1990) and incorporated additional indicators that represented both socio-economic and ecological factors for water resource regions in the U.S. Their final list includes five socio-economic indicators: Consumptive use, storage vulnerability, relative poverty, hydropower, import demand ratio, and five environmental indicators, withdrawal ratio, water quality, coefficient of variation, runoff ratio, and dependence ratio. Indicators for regions in the arid west (13-16 and 18) exceeded warning thresholds for consumption, storage vulnerability, relative poverty, withdrawal, coefficient of variation and runoff ratio indicators. Lane et al. (1999) also provides methods for displaying complicated outputs generated from multiple indicators as well as review the use of indicators for assessing the vulnerability of aquatic systems.

• Hurd, B., Leary, N., Jones, R., and Smith, J. 1999. Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 356: 1399–1409.

  Hurd et al. (1999) also built upon the work of Gleick et al. (1990) with the goal to develop a more refined set of indicators to assess vulnerability at more local scales. The indicators of Hurd et al. (1999) fall into two categories: those pertaining to water supply, distribution, and consumptive use and those that pertain to instream use, water quality and ecosystems support. Overall, southern watersheds tend to be more vulnerable to changes in water quality, flooding and in stream water uses, whereas consumptive water use was among the most vulnerable resources in the West, especially in the southwestern United States. Western watersheds, specifically east of the Rocky Mountains, Central and Southern California, had the most intensive use of available water and were found highly vulnerable to climate related reductions in stream flow. Increased natural variability was also considered an indicator of greater vulnerability and was generally high across the West and in California, the Great Basin, and the northern and southern Great Plains. Western U.S. watersheds also scored high in dryness ratio and consumptive use. Vulnerability associated with groundwater depletion was greatest for the Southwest, California and southern and central Great Plains. Scores for the second category showed the desert southwest, southern Great Plains and cold-water fisheries of the Rocky Mountain States to be most likely to experience thermal stress. Ecosystems with the lowest stream flow and greatest ecosystem vulnerability were found in the Great Plains and the Southwest. The cumulative vulnerability scores for ecological vulnerability were highest for southern California, central Arizona and lowest for watersheds in the Pacific Northwest and Nevada. The western United States and particularly California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, eastern Colorado and Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Western Texas were most vulnerable to water shortage issues.

• Winter, T.C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: A hydrologic landscape perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 305–311.

  Winter (2000) used the characteristics of hydrological landscapes to determine climate change vulnerability. Vulnerability was related to the inherent capacity of the system to compensate (through reliance on other water sources) for variation in precipitation variables. These characteristics serve as a measure of how and why a hydrological system is vulnerable to climate change, which then can be applied to classify systems. Among six types of hydrological landscapes, wetlands in mountainous landscapes, wetlands associated with glacial landscapes and broad interior basins (playas) are predicted to be the most vulnerable. Vulnerability of wetlands in plateaus and high plains and riverine landscapes vary according the degree to which upper and lower regions depend upon precipitation and according to the size of the hydrological systems. Those that rely on precipitation (typical of upland areas) and are small are most vulnerable.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Aquatic ecosystems, water quality, and global change: challenges of conducting multi-stressor global change vulnerability assessments. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-11/011F.

  Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, and online.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a large set of indicators to identify vulnerability of aquatic systems within the U.S. The vulnerability indicators are comprised of biophysical measures that relate to the exposure and sensitivity of the system to environmental change. Adaptive capacity is incorporated by reducing the change in those indicators where systems are sensitive and exposed to stress. Indicators reflect a range of properties including measures of drinking water quality and other ecosystem services to indicators that reflect more inherent ecological or physical vulnerabilities of aquatic systems. The EPA ranked all watersheds within the nation by 25 of these indicators. High scores indicate high sensitivity or low resilience. National maps and indicator scores for each watershed are available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NCEA&dirEntryId=231508&fed_org_id=111.

• Ojima, D.S., and Lackett, J.M. 2000. National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate change impacts on the United States: The potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the Global Change Research Program. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  Ojima and Lackette (2000) compiled climate change impact data for the entire United States into an assessment as part of the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the Global Change Research Program Report. This assessment reviewed knowledge and extrapolated information to identify areas of greatest concern. Though general in its applicability, this report succinctly summarized ongoing issues with respect to climate change in the United States.

• Ojima, D.S., and Lackett, J.M. and the Central Great Plains Steering Committee and Assessment Team. 2002. Preparing for a changing climate: The potential consequences of climate variability and change–central Great Plains. Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Colorado State University. 103 p.

  This report assessed future impacts of climate change on both natural and social systems. Ojima and Lackett (2002) employed a stakeholder driven assessment that drew on participants from multiple economic sectors directed analysis of future vulnerability. Output from climate models were used to inform workshops that were conducted to identify additional issues (socioeconomic), potential vulnerabilities, and coping strategies. From these efforts, Ojima and Lackett (2002) identified areas of greatest change. The greatest increases in winter temperature were expected along the western parts of the Great Plains, especially along the Front Range. They identified several specific elements that will be heavily impacted including shallow aquifer recharge and streamflow timing. Summer temperature increases are likely to impact hail, the spread of invasive tree species, and fire. From the social perspective, farm/ranch families will experience modified vulnerability as a result of climate impacts to ecological and market systems. Water use competition will change and will affect human residence as well as natural resource management. A major product of this effort was to provide coping strategies for future expected changes- a theme relevant to the management of aquatic ecosystems.

• Melillo, J.M., T. (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds. 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2

  The Third National Climate Assessment (Melillo 2014) reviews analyses of climate data and trends for the United States. Though not a vulnerability analysis of climate change impacts, several chapters address vulnerabilities pertaining to the Western United States. Climate is expected to have direct impacts on water cycles as well as water demand leading to increased water shortages in the southern and Midwestern United States. Water quality will suffer as lower flows and less flooding encourages increased sediment, nutrient, and contaminant loads. Warming can also change plant growth and decomposition rates altering feedbacks into the environment. The Southwest, Great Plains and Southeast are expected to be most vulnerable to changes in water supply and demand. These regions are expected to experience more intense and longer-term droughts. Garfin et al. (2015, Southwest chapter) note substantial declines in snow water equivalent values for the lower Colorado and Rio Grande River Basins. Combined with expectation for a 10-50% increase in ground water withdrawals by 2060, water shortages are likely to increase within the Southwest. Watersheds in the Southwest showed widespread water stress due to municipal, energy, and agriculture water demands, using a water stress index. In addition, Native Nations, border cities, identifies agricultural industries are likely to be vulnerable to projected changes in climate conditions.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Adaptation

• Travis, W. R., and Klein, R.A. 2012. Socioeconomic Impacts and Adaptation Strategies: Assessing Research on Quantification of Drought Impacts. Western Water Assessment White Paper.

Aquatic Animals

• Lane, D., Jones, R., Mills, D., Wobus, C., Ready, R.C., Buddemeier, R.W., English, E., Martinich,J., Shouse, K., and Hosterman, H. 2014. Climate change impacts on freshwater fish, coral reefs, and related ecosystem services in the United States. Climatic Change : 1-15.
• Stefan, H.G., Fang, X., and Eaton, J.G. 2001. Simulated fish habitat changes in North American lakes in response to projected climate warming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 459–477.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Groffman, P. M., P. Kareiva, S. Carter, N. B. Grimm, J. Lawler, M. Mack, V. Matzek, and H. Tallis. 2014. Ch. 8: Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. In: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 195-219. doi:10.7930/J0TD9V7H.
• Nelson, E.J., Kareiva, P., Ruckelshaus, M., Arkema, K., Geller, G., Girvetz, E., Goodrich, D., Matzek, V., Pinsky, M., Reid, W., Saunders, M., Semmens, D., and Tallis, H. 2013. Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 483–493. doi:10.1890/120312

Climate Impacts

• Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., and G.W. Yohe, Eds. 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
• Peacock, S. 2012. Projected twenty-first century changes in temperature, precipitation, and snow cover over North America in CCSM4. Journal of Climate 25: 4405–4429. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00214.1.

Ecosystems

• Heinz Center. 2008. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2008. Island Press: Washington, DC.
• Moss, R., P. L. Scarlett, M. A. Kenney, H. Kunreuther, R. Lempert, J. Manning, B. K. Williams, J. W. Boyd, E. T. Cloyd, L. Kaatz, and L. Patton. 2014. Ch. 26: Decision support: Connecting science, Risk perception, and decisions. In: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 620-647. doi:10.7930/J0H12ZXG.

Framework

• Lin, B.B., and Morefield, P.E. 2011. The vulnerability cube: A multi-dimensional framework for assessing relative vulnerability. Environmental Management 48: 631-643. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9690-8.

Hydrology

• Bastola, S. 2013. Hydrologic impacts of future climate change on Southeast US watersheds. Regional Environmental Change 13: S131-S139.
• Brown, T.C., Foti, R., and Ramirez, J.A. 2013. Projected freshwater withdrawals in the United States under a changing climate. Water Resources Research 49: 1259–1276. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20076.
• Mastin, M.C., Chase, K.J., and Dudley, R.W. 2011. Changes in spring snowpack for selected basins in the United States for different climate-change scenarios. Earth Interactions 15: 1–18. DOI: 10.1175/2010EI368.1.
• Mizukami, N., Clark, M.P., Slater, A.G, Brekke, L.D., Elsner, M.E., Arnold, J.R., and Gangopadhyay, S. 2014. Hydrologic implications of different large-scale meteorological model forcing datasets in mountainous regions. Journal of Hydrometeorology 151: 474-488.

Invasive Species

• Lee Ii, H., Reusser, D.A., Olden, J.D., Smith, S.S., Graham, J., Burkett, V., Dukes, J.S., Piorkowski, R.J. and J. Mcphedran. 2008. Integrated monitoring and information systems for managing aquatic invasive species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 22: 575–584. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00955.x
• Rahel, F. J., Bierwagen, B. and Y. Taniguchi. 2008. Managing aquatic species of conservation concern in the face of climate change and invasive species. Conservation Biology, 22: 551–561. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00953.x Public
• Snover, A.K., Binder, L.W., Lopez, J., Willmott, E., Kay, J., Howell, D., and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A guidebook for local, regional and state governments. In association with and published by ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability, Oakland, CA.

Restoration

• Norton, D.J., Wickham, J.D., Wade, T.G., Kunert, K., Thomas, J.V., and Zeph, P. 2009. A method for comparative analysis of recovery potential in impaired waters restoration. Environmental Management 44: 356–368.
• 19. Seavy, N.E., Gardali, T., Golet, G.H., Griggs, F.T., Howell, C.A., Kelsey, R., Small. S.L., Viers, J.H., and Wiegand, J.F. 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: Recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 330-338.

Rivers and Streams

• Hurd, B., Leary, N., Jones, R., and Spiecker, K. 1998. Water climate change: A national assessment of regional vulnerability. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• Kaushal, S.S., Likens, G.E., Jaworski, N.A., Pace, M.L., Sides, A.M., Seekell, D., Belt, K.B., Secor, D.H., and Wingate, R.L. 2010. Rising stream and river temperatures in the United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 89: 461–466.
• Naiman, R.J., Elliott, S.R., Helfield, J.M., and O’Keefe, T.C. 2000. Biophysical interactions and the structure and dynamics of riverine ecosystems: the importance of biotic feedbacks. Hydrobiologia 410: 79-86.
• Palmer, M.A., Lettenmaier, D.P., Poff, N.L., Postel, S.L., Richter, B., and Warner, R. 2009. Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management 44(6): 1053-68.
• Resh, V.H., Brown, A.V., Covich A.P., Gurtz, M.E., Li, H.W., Minshall, G.W., Reice, S.R., Sheldon, A.L., Wallace, J.B., and Wissmar, R.C. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7(4): 433–455.

Rivers and Water Bodies

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the Nation’s streams. EPA 841-B-06-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.

Terrestrial, Water, Economic, Social

• Kareiva, P., C. Enquist, A. Johnson, S. H. Julius, J. Lawler, B. Petersen, L. Pitelka, R. Shaw, and J. M. West. 2008. Ch. 9: Synthesis and conclusions. In: Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, S. H. Julius, and J. M. West Eds., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 9-1 to 9-66.
• Melillo, J.M., T. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Tribal

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Tribal climate change adaptation options: A review of the scientific literature.
• EPA. 2010. Climate change vulnerability assessments: A review of water utility practices. First National Expert Workshop on Water Utilities and Climate Change, held January 20-21, 2009, in Washington, D.C.
• Freas, K., Bailey, B., Munevar, A., and S. Butler. 2008. Incorporating climate change in water planning. Journal of the American Water Works Association 100: 6. Vegetation
• Schimel, D., Melillo, J., Tian, H., McGuire, A.D., Kicklighter, D., Kittel, T., Rosenbloom, N., Running, S., Thornton, P., Ojima, D., Parton, W., Kelly, R., Sykes, M., Neilson, R., and Rizzo, B. 2000. Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 287: 2004-2006.

Water Quality

• Murdoch, P.S., Baron, J.S., and Miller, T.L. 2000. Potential effects of climate change on surface water quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association : 347-366.

Water Resources

• Averyt, K., Meldrum, J., Caldwell, P., Sun, G., McNulty, S., Huber-Lee, A., and Madden, N. 2013. Sectoral contributions to surface water stress in the coterminous United States. Environmental Research Letters 8: 035046 9pp. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035046
• Bierbaum, R., A. Lee, J. Smith, M. Blair, L. M. Carter, F. S. Chapin, III, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, S. McNeeley, M. Stults, L. Verduzco, and E. Seyller, 2014: Ch. 28: Adaptation. Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 670-706. doi:10.7930/J07H1GGT.
• Brekke, L.D., Kiang, J.E., Olsen, J.R., Pulwarty, R.S., Raff, D.A., Turnipseed, D.P., Webb, R.S., and White, K.D. 2009. Climate change and water resources management—A federal perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331, 65 p.
• Georgakakos, A., P. Fleming, M. Dettinger, C. Peters-Lidard, T.C. Richmond, K. Reckhow, K. White, and D. Yates, 2014: Ch. 3: Water resources. In: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program 69-112. doi:10.7930/J0G44N6T.
• Hibbard, K., T. Wilson, K. Averyt, R. Harriss, R. Newmark, S. Rose, E. Shevliakova, and V. Tidwell. 2014. Ch. 10: Energy, water, and land use. In: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 257-281. doi:10.7930/J0JW8BSF.
• Jacobs, K., Adams, D.B., and Gleick, P. 2001. Chapter 14. Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the water resources of the United States. In: National Assessment Synthesis Team Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Report for the US Global Change Research Program, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 620pp.
• Spears, M., Harrison, A., Sankovich, V., and Gangopadhyay, S. (peer reviewer). 2013. Literature synthesis on climate change implications for water and environmental resources. Technical Service Center Water Resources Planning and Operations Support Group Water and Environmental Resources Division Technical Memorandum 86-68210-2013-06.

Watersheds

• Hay, L.E., Markstrom, S.L. and Ward-Garrison, C. 2011. Watershed-scale response to climate change through the twenty-first century for selected basins across the United States. Earth Interactions 17: 1–37. DOI: 10.1175/2010EI370.1
• U.S. EPA. 2013. Watershed modeling to assess the sensitivity of streamflow, nutrient, and sediment loads to potential climate change and urban development in 20 U.S. Watersheds (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-12/058F.

Wetlands

• Burkett, V., and Kusler, J. 2000. Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 313-320.
• Mitsch, W. J., Bernal, B., Nahlik, A. M., Mander, Ü., Zhang, L., Anderson, C.A., Jørgenson, S. E., and Brix, H. 2013. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landscape Ecology 28: 583-597. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8

• Theobald, D.M., Merritt, D.M., and Norman III, J.B. 2010. Assessment of threats to riparian ecosystems in the western U.S. A report presented to The Western Environmental Threats Assessment Center, Prineville, OR by The U.S.D.A. Stream Systems Technology Center and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 61p.

  This study analyzed threats to riparian ecosystems in the Western United States using a risk assessment approach. Using geospatial data, models of runoff and sediment yield were generated and past and future scenarios of climate and land-use change were integrated to characterize landscape-scale processes influencing riverine and riparian areas. Two stressors, urbanization and changes in climate (primarily precipitation), were also considered in this assessment. The most modified watersheds occurred in the lower Colorado River and Great Basin regions. Decreased precipitation and increased temperatures are expected to increase erosion and decrease riparian vegetation cover leading to increased sedimentation. This effect is more pronounced in steeper and more arid part of the west, in particular, within the Southern Rocky mountains, Basin and Range and the Sierra Nevada. Overall the highest combined threat score was found for western Washington, the Great Basin, southern Idaho and northern Utah, and southern Arizona and New Mexico. The least threatened riparian systems were the Cascade and Sierra ranges, western Colorado and southeastern Utah. Theobald et al. (2010) found decreased flows in the Rio Grande region due to increased discharge but predicted increased flow for Colorado and Great Basin Regions. Southern Arizona and New Mexico received very high riparian threats scores. Flow fragmentation was among the worst for watersheds in Arizona and New Mexico though these same watersheds were not among those with the highest degree of modified riparian area.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Reiman, B. E., Isaak, D., Adams, S., Horan, D. Nagel, D., and C. Luce. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia river basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1552-1565.
• Rieman, B., Lee, D., Burns, D., Gresswell, R., Young, M., Stowell, R., Rinne, J. and Howell, P. 2003. Status of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 197–211.
• Wenger, S.J., D.J. Isaak, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, K.D. Fausch, J.B. Dunham, D.C. Dauwalter, M.K. Young, M.M. Elsner, B.E. Rieman, A.F. Hamlet, and J.E. Williams. 2011: Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175–14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108.

Climate Impacts

• Hughes, M.K., and Diaz, H.F. 2008. Climate variability and change in the drylands of Western North America. Global and Planetary Change 64: 111-118. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.07.005
• Disturbances
• Travis, W., K. Gangwer and R. Klein. 2011. Assessing measures of drought impact and vulnerability in the Intermountain West. Western Water Assessment White Paper no. 9.

Ecosystems

• Poff, B., Koestner, K.A., Neary, D.G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• 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. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Arismendi, I., Safeeq, M., Johnson, S.L., Dunham, J.B., and Haggerty, R. 2013. Increasing synchrony of high temperature and low flow in western North American streams: double trouble for coldwater biota? Hydrobiologia 712: 61–70. doi:10.1007/s10750-012-1327-2
• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L.C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S.A., and Diffenbaugh, N.S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Cayan, D.R., Vano, J.A., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R.W. and Miller, N.L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Lundquist, J. D. and Flint, A. L. 2006. Onset of snowmelt and streamflow in 2004 in the western United States: How shading may affect spring streamflow in a warmer world. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7: 1199–1217.
• McCabe, G.J. and Fountain, A.G. 2013. Glacier variability in the conterminous United States during the twentieth century. Climatic Change 116: 565–577. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0502-9.
• McCabe, G.J., and Wolock, D.M. 1999. General circulation model simulations of future snowpack in the Western United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1473-1484.
• Mote, P.W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Hidalgo, H.G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B.D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., Mirin, A., Wood, A.W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S.A., Pal, J.S., Diffenbaugh, N.S., and Benedetti, M.M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S.K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Schlaepfer, D.R., Lauenroth, W.K., and Bradford, J.B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Analysis of hydrologic variability sensitivity, Appendix N in Final EIS—Colorado River interim guidelines for lower basin shortages and coordinated operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Wenger, S.J., Luce, C.H., Hamlet, A.F.. Isaak, D.J., and H.M Neville. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839.

Planning

• City of Boulder. 2012. Climate change preparedness plan.
• City of Denver. 2007. Climate action plan.
• Salt Lake City. 2012. Sustainable Salt Lake 2015. Regional Climate Adaptation Planning Alliance.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T. P., and D. W. Pierce. 2009. Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 7334-7338. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812762106.
• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62: 1-11.
• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Hamlet, A.F., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R.J., and D.G. Groves. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974.
• Means, E., III, M. Laugier, J. Daw, L. Kaatz, and M. Waage. 2010. Decision support planning methods: Incorporating climate change uncertainties into water planning. Water Utility Climate Alliance White Paper, Water Utility Alliance, San Francisco, CA. 113 pp.
• Perry, L.G., Andersen, D.C., Rynolds, L.V., Nelson, S.M., and Shafroth, P.B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• Rajagopalan, B., K. Nowak, J. Prairie, M. Hoerling, B. Harding, J. Barsugli, A. Ray, and B. Udall, 2009: Water supply risk on the Colorado River: Can management mitigate? Water Resources Research, 45, W08201, doi:10.1029/2008wr007652.
• Ray, A. J., Barsugli, J.J., 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. CU-NOAA Western

Water Assessment

• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Detinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

• Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 1-197.

  The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas - water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services - regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities.

  The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter streamflows, lower summer flows, and higher stream temperatures. These changes will in turn reduce fish habitat for cold-water fish species, negatively affect riparian vegetation and wildlife, damage roads and other infrastructure, and reduce reliable water supplies for communities. Increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances (drought, insect outbreaks, wildfire) will reduce the area of mature forest, affect wildlife populations (some positively, some negatively), damage infrastructure and cultural resources, degrade the quality of municipal water supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration. Climate change effects on recreation, a major economic driver in the IAP region, will be positive for warm-weather activities and negative for snow-based activities. IAP participants developed adaptation options that can be implemented in planning, project management, monitoring, and restoration as climate-smart responses to altered resource conditions.

• Rice, Janine R.; Joyce, Linda A.; Regan, Claudia; Winters, David; Truex, Rick. 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-376. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 216 p.

  Vulnerability assessments are important tools to assist in climate adaptation planning. Six priority ecosystems were identified in the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region: alpine turf and dwarf-shrubland; aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems in glaciated valleys; subalpine spruce-fir; low-gradient mountain stream reaches; ponderosa pine; and Great Plains streams and riparian areas. Vulnerability to nonclimate and climate stressors for these priority ecosystems is assessed. Criteria used to assess vulnerability include ecosystem traits related to the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the ecosystem. We engaged scientists through an expert review to vet the vulnerability rankings and confidence in the assessment. Aquatic ecosystems were the most vulnerable priority ecosystem, and alpine ecosystems had higher vulnerability than lower elevation terrestrial ecosystems. The narrative for each priority ecosystem describes the nature of the vulnerability to climate change.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Al-Chokhachy, R., Alder, J., Hostetler, S., Gresswell, R. and Shepard, B. 2013. Thermal controls of Yellowstone cutthroat trout and invasive fishes under climate change. Global Change Biology 19: 3069–3081. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12262
• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Rader, R. B., Voelz, N. J., and Ward, J. V. 2008. Post-flood recovery of a macroinvertebrate community in a regulated river: Resilience of an anthropogenically altered ecosystem. Restoration Ecology 16: 24–33.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Tucker, A. J., and Williamson, C. E. 2014. The invasion window for warmwater fish in clearwater lakes: The role of ultraviolet radiation and temperature. Diversity and Distributions 20: 181–192. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12138
• Underwood, Z. E., Myrick, C. A., and Rogers, K. B. 2012. Effect of acclimation temperature on the upper thermal tolerance of Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus: Thermal limits of a North American salmonid. Journal of Fish Biology 80(7): 2420-2433.
• Zeigler, M. P., Todd, A. S., and Caldwell, C. A. 2012. Evidence of recent climate change within the historic range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout: Implications for management and future persistence. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1045-1059.

Terrestrial Animals

• Muhlfeld, C. C., Giersch, J. J., Hauer, F. R., Pederson, G. T., Luikart, G., Peterson, D. P., Downs, C. C., and Fagre, D. B. 2011. Climate change links fate of glaciers and an endemic alpine invertebrate. Climatic Change 106: 337–345. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0057-1

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Goode, J. R., Luce, C. H., and Buffington, J. M. 2012. Enhanced sediment delivery in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: Implications for water resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Geomorphology 139–140: 1–15.
• Aquatic Ecosystems/Hydrology/Biogeochemistry
  Hauer, F. R., Baron, J. S., Campbell, D. H., Fausch, K. D., Hostetler, S. W., Leavesley, G. H., Leavitt, P. R., McKnight, D. M., and J. A. Stanford. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Anderson, S., Aziz, O., Tootle, G., Grissino-Meyer, H., and Barnett, H. 2012. Using Pacific Ocean climatic variability to improve hydrologic reconstructions. Journal of Hydrology 434-435: 69-77.
• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Amospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.
• Rice, J., Tredennick, A., and Joyce, L. A. 2012. Climate change on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: A synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 60 p.

Hydrology

• Arrigoni, A. S., Greenwood, M. C., and Moore, J. N. 2010. Relative impact of anthropogenic modifications versus climate change on the natural flow regimes of rivers in the Northern Rocky Mountains, United States. Water Resources Research 46: 1–16. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009162
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin climate effects network. U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Clark, G. M. 2010. Changes in patterns of streamflow from unregulated watersheds in Idaho, western Wyoming, and northern Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 486–497.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Gray, S. T., Lukas, J. J., and Woodhouse, C. A. 2011. Millennial-length records of streamflow from three major upper Colorado River tributaries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 474: 702-712.
• Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W., and Prairie, J. R. 2012. The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1611: 3989-4007.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Jin, X., and Sridhar, V. 2012. Impacts of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Boise and Spokane river basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48: 197–220.
• Leppi, J. C., DeLuca, T. H., Harrar, S. W., and Running, S. W. 2011. Impacts of climate change on August stream discharge in the central-Rocky Mountains. Climatic Change 112: 997-1014. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0235-1
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W. P., De Rosa, G. M., Gangopadhyay, S., and Valdés, J. B. 2013. Predicting regime shifts in flow of the Gunnison River under changing climate conditions. Water Resources Research 495: 2966-2974.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Oubeidillah, A. A., Tootle, G. A., Moser, C., Piechota, T., and Lamb, K. 2011. Upper Colorado River and Great Basin streamflow and snowpack forecasting using Pacific oceanic-atmospheric variability. Journal of Hydrology 41(3): 169-177.
• Painter, T. H., Skiles, S. M., Deems, J. S., Bryant, A. C., and Landry, C. C. 2012. Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 1. A 6-year record of energy balance, radiation, and dust concentrations. Water Resources Research 48: DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011985.
• Pederson, G. T., Gray, S. T., Ault, T., Marsh, W., Fagre, D. B., Bunn, A. G., Woodhouse, C. A., and Graumlich, L. J. 2011. Climatic controls on the snowmelt hydrology of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Climate 24: 1666–1687. DOI: 10.1175/2010JCLI3729.1
• Rood, S. B., Pan, J., Gill, K. M., Franks, C. G., Samuelson, G. M., and Shepherd, A. 2008. Declining summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: Changing seasonal hydrology and probable impacts on floodplain forests . Journal of Hydrology 349: 397–410.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Salzmann, N., and Mearns, L. O. 2012. Assessing the performance of multiple regional climate model simulations for seasonal mountain snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology 132: 539-556.
• Skiles, S. M., Painter, T. H., Deems, J. S., Bryant, A. C., and Landry, C. C. 2012. Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 2. Interannual variability in radiative forcing and snowmelt rates. Water Resources Research 48: DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011986.
• Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674
• Invasive Species
  Martinez, P. J. 2012. Invasive crayfish in a high desert river: Implications of concurrent invaders and climate change. Aquatic invasions 7: 219-234.

Vegetation

• Hultine, K. R., Burtch, K. G., and Ehleringer, J. R. 2013. Gender specific patterns of carbon uptake and water use in a dominant riparian tree species exposed to a warming climate. Global Change Biology 19: 3390–3405. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12230
• Johnson, W. C., Dixon, M. D., Simons, R., Jenson, S., and Larson, K. 1995. Mapping the response of riparian vegetation to possible flow reductions in the Snake River, Idaho. Geomorphology 13: 159-173.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River, Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770. 

At this time we do not know of regional assessments focused on aquatic systems in this area.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R. N. Palmer, E. Korb, K. K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 6720-6725. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701685104.
• Winder, M., and Schindler, D.E. 2004. Climate change uncouples trophic interactions in an aquatic ecosystem. Ecology 85(8): 2100-2106.

Disturbances

• Benda, L., and Dunne, T. 1997. Stochastic forcing of sediment supply to channel networks from landsliding and debris flow. Water Resources Research 33(12): 2849-2863.

Hydrology

• Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1597–1623.
• Mayer, T.D., and Naman, S.W. 2011. Streamflow response to climate as influenced by geology and elevation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(4): 724-738.

Rivers and Streams

• Melack, J.M., Dozier, J., Goldman, C.R., Greenland, D., Milner, A.M. and Naiman, R.J. 1997. Effects of climate change on inland waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 971–992.
• Swanson, F.J., Johnson, S.L., Gregory, S.V., and Acker, S.A. 1998. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain landscape. BioScience 48(9): 681-689.

Water Resources

• Viviroli, D., Archer, D.R., Buytaert, W., Fowler, H.J., Greenwood, G.B., Hamlet, A.F., Huang, Y., Koboltschnig, G., Litaor, M.I., López-Moreno, J.I., Lorentz, S., Schädler, B., Schreier, H., Schwaiger, K., Vuille, M., amd Woods, R. 2011. Climate change and mountain water resources: Overview and recommendations for research, management and policy. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15: 471-504.

• Thorne, J. H., Choe, H., Stine, P. A. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests in the Southwest USA. Climatic Change 148, 387–402 (2018). 

  Climate change effects are already apparent in some southwestern U.S. forests and are expected to intensify in the coming decades, via direct (temperature, precipitation) and indirect (fire, pests, pathogens) stressors. We grouped Southwestern forests into ten major types to assess their climate exposure by 2070 using two global climate models (GCMs) and two emission scenarios representing wetter or drier conditions and current or lowered emission levels. We estimate future climate exposure over forests covering 370,144 km2 as the location and proportion of each type projected to experience climate conditions that fall outside 99% of those they currently occupy. By late century, 27–77% is climatically exposed under wetter or drier current emission levels, while lowered emission levels produce 10–50% exposure, respectively. This difference points to the benefits of reducing emissions from the RCP8.5 to the RCP4.5 track, with regard to forest retention. Exposed areas common to all four climate futures include central Arizona and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Vulnerability assessments also comprise sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which we scored subjectively by forest type according to the number of key stressors they are sensitive to and the resilience conferred by life history traits of their dominant tree species. Under the 2070 RCP8.5 emissions, four forest types are critically vulnerable and six are highly vulnerable under the hotter GCM; and eight are highly vulnerable and two moderately vulnerable under the wetter GCM. We discuss forest management adaptation strategies and the barriers to and co-benefits of such plans.

• Wahlberg, M. M., Triepke, F. J., and Rose, A. 2021. Riparian-aquatic climate change vulnerability assessment – Executive report. USDA Forest Service resource report available online. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, Albuquerque NM. 20 pp. 

  Land managers are considering ongoing and potential effects of climate and drought on natural resources to coordinate responses for the protection of ecosystems and their water supply, aquatic and riparian biodiversity, and other ecosystem services (Smith and Friggens 2017). Though climate vulnerability of these systems remains understudied (Mott Lacroix et al. 2017), the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) of the USDA Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and other organizations have developed assessments, tools, and methods for evaluating specific localities or the vulnerability for key ecosystem components. The Aquatic-Riparian Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (ARCCVA) complements prior work with a regionwide vulnerability assessment of sufficient thematic detail to support natural resource policy and management prioritization, watershed assessment, monitoring systems, and effects analyses of landscape-scale projects. This work builds on an approach established by Smith and Friggens (2017) and adds additional indicators and spatial extent. The ARCCVA satisfies some requirements of the Forest Service Climate Scorecard and partially fulfills the vulnerability assessment requirement of the agency’s Climate Adaptation Framework used to support the subsequent step of building an adaptation strategy. The ARCCVA includes subwatershed-scale reporting (HUC12) for all lands of Arizona and New Mexico along with watersheds that include Forest Service lands in the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles (Figure 1). The assessment was supported by existing data sources on over two dozen intrinsic and climate-related indicators associated with watershed condition, riparian and aquatic habitat, and the presence of warm- and cold-water fish.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Animals, aquatic

• Bêche, L. A., Connors, P .G., Resh, V. H., and Merenlender, A. M. 2009. Resilience of fishes and invertebrates to prolonged drought in two California streams. Ecography 32: 778–788.
• Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., Prat, N. and Resh, V. H. 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in Mediterranean-climate streams of northern California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 32–43.
• Grantham, T. E., Merenlender, A. M., and Resh, V. H. 2010. Climatic influences and anthropogenic stressors: An integrated framework for streamflow management in Mediterranean-climate California, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 55: 188-204.
• Grantham, T. E., Newburn, D. A., McCarthy, M. A., and Merenlender, A. M. 2012. The role of streamflow and land use in limiting oversummer survival of juvenile steelhead in California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 585–598.
• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Jaeger, K. L., Olden, J. D., and Pelland, N. A. 2014. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 13894-13899.
• Matthews, W. J., and Zimmerman, E. G. 1990. Potential effects of global warming on native fishes of the southern Great Plains and the Southwest. Fisheries 15: 26–32.
• Strecker, A. L., Olden, J. D., Whittier, J. B., and Paukert, C. P. 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3002-3013.
• Zeigler, M. P., Todd, A. S., and Caldwell, C. A. 2012. Evidence of recent climate change within the historic range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout: Implications for management and future persistence. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1045-1059.

Terrestrial Animals

• Viers, J. H., and Rheinheimer, D. E. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 266–278.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Goodrich, G. B., and Ellis, A. W. 2008. Climatic controls and hydrologic impacts of a recent extreme seasonal precipitation reversal in Arizona. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47: 498-508.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Stromberg, J. C., Dixon, M. D., Scott, R. L., Maddock III, T., Baird, K. J., and Tellman, B. 2009. Status of the Upper San Pedro River (United States) riparian ecosystem. In: Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River. Stromberg, J.C., and Tellman, B., Eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. p.371-387.

Hydrology

• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Drexler, J. Z., Knifong, D., Tuil, J., Flint, L. E., and Flint, A. L. 2013. Fens as whole-ecosystem gauges of groundwater under climate change. Journal of Hydrology 481: 22–34.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P. A., Breshears, D. D., Huxman, T. E., Switanek, M. B., and Durcik, M. 2011. Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 4063-4: 225-233.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Merenlender, A. M., Deitch, M. J., and Feirer, S. 2008. Decision support tools for stream flow recovery and enhanced water security. California Agriculture 62: 148–155.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River Basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674
• Yarnell, S. M., Viers, J. H., and Mount, J. F. 2010. Ecology and management of the spring snowmelt recession. BioScience 602: 114–127.

Planning

• City of Flagstaff. 2012: City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Study, City of Flagstaff Climate and Adaptation Management. 57 pp.
• City of Taos. 2010. Climate Adaptation Plan.

Vegetation

• Shafroth, P. B., Stromberg, J. C., and Patten, D. T. 2002. Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecological Applications 12: 107-123.
• Skirvin, S. M., Drake, S. E., McClaran, M. P., March, S. E., and Meko, D. M. 2000. Climate change and land tenure: Potential impacts on vegetation and developments in the San Pedro River watershed, southeastern Arizona. 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling: Problems, Prospects and Research Needs, Banff, Alberta, Canada, Sept 2-8, 2000.
• Stevens, L. E., and Siemion, G. 2012. Tamarisk reproductive phenology and Colorado River hydrography, southwestern USA. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 44: 46-58.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River, Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Colby, B. G., and Frisvold, G. B. (eds). 2011. Adaptation and Resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American Southwest, RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Kiparsky, M., and Gleick, P. H. 2003. A survey and summary of the literature. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Oakland, California Climate Change and California Water Resources.
• Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources. 2003. Navajo Nation drought contingency plan, 163 pp., Division of Natural Resources, Department of Water Resources, Water Management Branch, Fort Defiance, AZ, Navajo Nation.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

• Julius, S. H., Bierwagen, B. G., Johnson, T. E., Freed, R., Asam, S., and Shapiro, S. 2006. Climate and land use change effects on ecological resources in three watersheds: A synthesis report. EPA/600/R-07/086.

  This study applied a risk assessment approach to the San Pedro National Conservation area in Southern Arizona. Species, vegetation, and habitat suitability were evaluated under five climate scenarios. They found evidence that climate change leads to greater fragmentation of riparian habitats and a transition to more xeric plant communities. Late successional habitats dominated by mesquite, ash patch-types, and sacaton grassland are expected to become more dominant over the next 100 years. Results of comparing habitat suitability indexes showed a varied response for avian biodiversity: 26% of the most abundant species expected to decline, 25% remain unaffected and 43% likely to benefit from future conditions. Species that are likely to decline were those most dependent on cottonwood/willow gallery forests.

• Austin, D., Barabe P., Benequista N., Fish A., Gardener, A., Hansen E., McGuire, T., Stewart, S., and Tschakert, P. 2000. An assessment of climate vulnerability in the Middle San Pedro River. P. Finan, ed. T. J., Wested. Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZCLIMAS Report Series CL3-00. 

  Austin et al. (2000) report on an assessment of climate vulnerability in the Middle San Pedro River. Their research finds that under current conditions, residential/commercial water providers seem to be least sensitive while irrigation providers, depending on the availability of surface water in the San Pedro River, could be considered most affected by climatic variations. Electricity providers appear best equipped to respond to meteorological and short-term climatic changes.

• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Hydrological and Earth Systems Science 11: 1417-1434: doi:10.5194/hess-11-1417-2007.

  Christensen and Lettenmaier (2007) conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate the implications of future climate change on runoff for the Colorado River Basin. This publication provides a comprehensive modeling effort for the Colorado River Basin and is the first to identify specific outcomes as a result of climate change. They predict increased winter precipitation and decreased summer precipitation and substantial declines in runoff. The authors found evapotranspiration had greatest influence on runoff estimates and runoff declines were reflected in reservoir performance, which led to lost reservoir storage and declines in hydropower.

• Hurd, B. H., and Coonrod, J. 2008. Climate change and its implications for New Mexico's water resources and economic opportunities. NM State University Technical Report 45, 28p.

  Hurd and Coonrod (2008) conducted an analysis focused within the Southwest using models of streamflow and runoff. They also include assessments for how land use and future agricultural and urban water demands might interact with climate impacts. Hurd and Coonrod (2008) show that peak flow and total stream flow declines across both wetter and drier scenarios. Further, they indicate that increased monsoons will not offset effects of reduced snowpack in headwaters. Finally, over time, there will be a pronounced shift to an early peak flow and significant shift in late winter runoff. This leads to greater reliance on reservoirs and aquifers.

• Steinke, R. 2012. Assessment of watershed vulnerability to climate change: Coconino National Forest In: Furniss, M. J., Roby, K. B., Cenderelli, D., Chatel, J., Clifton, C. F., Clingenpeel, A., Hays, P. E., Higgins, D., Hodges, K., Howe, C., Jungst, L., Louie, J., Mai, C., Martinez, R., Overton, K., Staab, B. P., Steinke, R., and Weinhold, M. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of watersheds to climate change: Results of national forest watershed vulnerability pilot assessments. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-884. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. plus appendix.

  Using a step-wise approach based on USDA Watershed Analysis (USDA 1994), this assessment compared vulnerability among five watersheds in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. Each watershed was given a resource value based on the number of resident sensitive fish and amphibian species, degree of anthropogenic disturbance (roads), and miles of riparian habitat. Exposure estimates of future temperature, precipitation, runoff, and snowpack for years 2030 and 2080 were generated using predictions from climate and the Variable Infiltration Capacity models provided by the Climate Impacts Group (CIG). Sensitivity was determined by considering current condition as well as natural sensitivities of watershed to changes in climate and flow parameter. The greatest perceived issue arising from changes in climate dealt with decreased snowpack, to which watersheds above 6400 ft. are most likely to be susceptible. In addition, high elevation sites tended to have high resource values and sensitivity scores and were generally found most vulnerable in this assessment.

• Coe, S., Finch, D. M., and Friggens, M. M. 2012. An assessment of climate change and the vulnerability of wildlife in the Sky Islands of the Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-273. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 208 p.

  This assessment used the SAVS vulnerability scoring system (Bagne et al., 2011) and focused on 30 species in the Sky Island region of southern Arizona. Riparian associated birds (elegant trogon, Trogon elegans, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus) and amphibians (Tarahumara frog, Lithobates tarahumarae, Chiricahua leopard frog, Lithobates chiricahuensis) were among the highest scoring species. The primary issues contributing to species’ vulnerability included: drier environments which reduce over wintering survival and reduced activity periods, mortality from increased spring flooding, and multi-year droughts that reduce the success and number of breeding events. The riparian associated Western red bat (Lasirurs blossevillii) also received a score indicating high vulnerability primarily due to expected impacts to its habitat and changes in the timing of critical resources. The introduced American bullfrog (L. catesbeianus) received a lower score but was still considered vulnerable to negative habitat impacts.

• Bagne, K. E., and Finch, D. 2013. Vulnerability of species to climate change in the Southwest: Threatened, endangered, and at-risk species at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-302. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 183 p.

  This assessment used the SAVS vulnerability scoring system (Bagne et al., 2011) to examine species inhabiting Ft. Huachuca in southwestern Arizona. They focused on Threatened, Endangered, and At-risk species including 21 animals and 2 plants (Bagne and Finch 2012). Their findings suggest that many already threatened species are at risk of additional issues due to climate change. Among aquatic species, they found the Sonoran tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) and Chiricahua leopard frog (L. chiricahuensis) both vulnerable to further habitat loss due to increase temperatures, reductions in aquatic or moist habitat, and reduced quality of remaining habitat (e.g. UV, pollution, invasive species). The Huachuca water umbel received scores indicating increased vulnerability under climate change which was related to its restriction to wet sites.

• Thorne, J. H., Choe, H., Stine, P. A. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests in the Southwest USA. Climatic Change 148, 387–402 (2018). 

  Climate change effects are already apparent in some southwestern U.S. forests and are expected to intensify in the coming decades, via direct (temperature, precipitation) and indirect (fire, pests, pathogens) stressors. We grouped southwestern forests into ten major types to assess their climate exposure by 2070 using two global climate models (GCMs) and two emission scenarios representing wetter or drier conditions and current or lowered emission levels. We estimate future climate exposure over forests covering 370,144 km2 as the location and proportion of each type projected to experience climate conditions that fall outside 99% of those they currently occupy. By late century, 27–77% is climatically exposed under wetter or drier current emission levels, while lowered emission levels produce 10–50% exposure, respectively. This difference points to the benefits of reducing emissions from the RCP8.5 to the RCP4.5 track, with regard to forest retention. Exposed areas common to all four climate futures include central Arizona and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Vulnerability assessments also comprise sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which we scored subjectively by forest type according to the number of key stressors they are sensitive to and the resilience conferred by life history traits of their dominant tree species. Under the 2070 RCP8.5 emissions, four forest types are critically and six are highly vulnerable under the hotter GCM; and eight are highly and two moderately vulnerable under the wetter GCM. We discuss forest management adaptation strategies and the barriers to and co-benefits of such plans.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Jaeger, K. L., Olden, J. D., and Pelland, N. A. 2014. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 13894-13899.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Strecker, A. L., Olden, J. D., Whittier, J. B., and Paukert, C. P. 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3002-3013.

Terrestrial Animals

• Hauer, F. R., Baron, J. S., Campbell, D. H., Fausch, K. D., Hostetler, S. W., Leavesley, G. H., Leavitt, P. R., McKnight, D. M., and Stanford, J. A. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River Basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Goodrich, G. B., and Ellis, A. W. 2008. Climatic controls and hydrologic impacts of a recent extreme seasonal precipitation reversal in Arizona. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47: 498-508.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K. A., Neary, D. G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• Rieman, B. E., and Isaak, D. J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.
• Stromberg, J. C., Dixon, M. D., Scott, R. L., Maddock III, T., Baird, K. J., and Tellman, B. 2009. Status of the Upper San Pedro River (United States) riparian ecosystem. In: Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River. Stromberg, J. C., and Tellman, B., Eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. p.371-387.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L. C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S. A., and Diffenbaugh, N. S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin climate effects network. U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912391107
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P. A., Breshears, D. D., Huxman, T. E., Switanek, M. B., and Durcik, M. 2011. Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 4063-4: 225-233
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the intermountain west. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R. W. and Miller, N. L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in eastern U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S. A., Pal, J. S., Diffenbaugh, N. S., and Benedetti, M. M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Bradford, J. B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Analysis of hydrologic variability sensitivity, Appendix N in Final EIS—Colorado River interim guidelines for lower basin shortages and coordinated operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674

Planning

• City of Flagstaff. 2012: City of Flagstaff resiliency and preparedness study. City of Flagstaff Climate and Adaptation Management. 57 pp.

Vegetation

• Shafroth, P. B., Stromberg, J. C., and Patten, D. T. 2002. Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecological Applications 12: 107-123.
• Skirvin, S. M., Drake, S. E. McClaran, M. P. March, S. E. and Meko, D. M. 2000. Climate change and land tenure: Potential impacts on vegetation and developments in the San Pedro River watershed, southeastern Arizona. 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling: Problems, Prospects and Research Needs, Banff, Alberta, Canada, Sept 2-8, 2000.
• Stevens, L. E., and Siemion, G. 2012. Tamarisk reproductive phenology and Colorado River hydrography, southwestern USA. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 44: 46-58.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T. P., and Pierce, D. W. 2009. Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 7334-7338. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812762106.
• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the West: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770. www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/3/3727/2006/
• Colby, B. G. and Frisvold, G. B. (eds). 2011. Adaptation and resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American Southwest. RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R. J., and Groves, D. G. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974.
• Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources. 2003. Navajo Nation drought contingency plan, 163 pp., Division of Natural Resources, Department of Water Resources, Water Management Branch, Fort Defiance, AZ, Navajo Nation.
• Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Rynolds, L. V., Nelson, S. M., and Shafroth, P. B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center. Available online at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/innovative-approaches-for-adapting-to-water-variability-in-the-west.
• Rajagopalan, B., Nowak, K., Prairie, J., Hoerling, M., Harding, B., Barsugli, J., Ray, A., and Udall, B. 2009: Water supply risk on the Colorado River: Can management mitigate? Water Resources Research, 45, W08201, doi:10.1029/2008wr007652.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Detinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

• Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 1-197.

  The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas - water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services - regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities.

  The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter streamflows, lower summer flows, and higher stream temperatures. These changes will in turn reduce fish habitat for cold-water fish species, negatively affect riparian vegetation and wildlife, damage roads and other infrastructure, and reduce reliable water supplies for communities. Increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances (drought, insect outbreaks, wildfire) will reduce the area of mature forest, affect wildlife populations (some positively, some negatively), damage infrastructure and cultural resources, degrade the quality of municipal water supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration. Climate change effects on recreation, a major economic driver in the IAP region, will be positive for warm-weather activities and negative for snow-based activities. IAP participants developed adaptation options that can be implemented in planning, project management, monitoring, and restoration as climate-smart responses to altered resource conditions.

• Moyle, P. B., Kiernan, J. D., Crain, P. K., and Quiñones, R. M. 2013. Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: A systematic assessment approach. PLoS ONE 8: e63883. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063883

  This systematic assessment approach is based on expert knowledge. The system includes 23 baseline vulnerability and climate change vulnerability components. These indicators were used to score vulnerability for 121 native and 43 alien species within Californian water systems. Overall, native species were more vulnerable to future conditions. Anadromous species also tended to be more vulnerable. Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were the single most vulnerable species. Vulnerability scores for baseline and climate change impacts tended to be correlated and, in turn, vulnerability scores tended to be correlated with the protected status of species. Moyle et al. (2013) also note that vulnerability was similar among species within a family and propose that family level scores could be representative of the species. They also include a discussion of the implications of modified streams for fish community composition.

• Quiñones, R. M., and Moyle, P. B. 2014. Climate change vulnerability of freshwater fishes of the San Francisco Bay area. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 123. jmie_sfews_19144.

  This assessment calculated scores representing baseline and climate change influences using a rubric described in Moyle et al. (2013). They scored 25 native and 23 alien species in the estuary system of California. Fish were divided into two broad categories in this area; estuary-dependent and stream-based fish. None of the alien species were found to be vulnerable to climate effects on habitat and four species may benefit from climate change. Eight native species were classified as critically vulnerable and nine native species had highly vulnerable scores; no native species were expected to benefit from climate effects. As found for other aquatic assessments, fish appear to be more threatened by ongoing issues than by climate change though the difference between each threat category was small. Of the non-climate threats, the highest (most vulnerable) species were predicted to be negatively impacted by estuarine alteration.

• Thorne, J. H., Choe, H., Stine, P. A. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests in the Southwest USA. Climatic Change 148, 387–402 (2018).

  Climate change effects are already apparent in some southwestern U.S. forests and are expected to intensify in the coming decades, via direct (temperature, precipitation) and indirect (fire, pests, pathogens) stressors. We grouped southwestern forests into ten major types to assess their climate exposure by 2070 using two global climate models (GCMs) and two emission scenarios representing wetter or drier conditions and current or lowered emission levels. We estimate future climate exposure over forests covering 370,144 km2 as the location and proportion of each type projected to experience climate conditions that fall outside 99% of those they currently occupy. By late century, 27–77% is climatically exposed under wetter or drier current emission levels, while lowered emission levels produce 10–50% exposure, respectively. This difference points to the benefits of reducing emissions from the RCP8.5 to the RCP4.5 track, with regard to forest retention. Exposed areas common to all four climate futures include central Arizona and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Vulnerability assessments also comprise sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which we scored subjectively by forest type according to the number of key stressors they are sensitive to and the resilience conferred by life history traits of their dominant tree species. Under the 2070 RCP8.5 emissions, four forest types are critically and six are highly vulnerable under the hotter GCM; and eight are highly and two moderately vulnerable under the wetter GCM. We discuss forest management adaptation strategies and the barriers to and co-benefits of such plans.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Bêche, L. A., Connors, P. G., Resh, V. H., and Merenlender, A. M. 2009. Resilience of fishes and invertebrates to prolonged drought in two California streams. Ecography 32: 778–788.
• Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., Prat, N., and Resh, V. H. 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in Mediterranean-climate streams of northern California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 32–43.
• Grantham, T. E., Merenlender, A. M., and Resh, V. H. 2010. Climatic influences and anthropogenic stressors: an integrated framework for streamflow management in Mediterranean-climate California, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 55: 188-204.
• Grantham, T. E., Newburn, D. A., McCarthy, M. A., and Merenlender, A. M. 2012. The role of streamflow and land use in limiting oversummer survival of juvenile steelhead in California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 585–598.
• Strecker, A. L., Olden, J. D., Whittier, J. B., and Paukert, C. P. 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3002-3013.
• Tucker, A. J., and Williamson, C. E. 2014. The invasion window for warmwater fish in clearwater lakes: The role of ultraviolet radiation and temperature. Diversity and Distributions 20: 181–192. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12138
• Julius, S. H., Bierwagen, B. G., Johnson, T. E., Freed, R., Asam, S., and Shapiro, S. 2006. Climate and land use change effects on ecological resources in three watersheds: A synthesis report. EPA/600/R-07/086.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Viers, J. H., and Rheinheimer, D. E. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 266–278.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Amospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K. A., Neary, D. G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• Rieman, B. E., and Isaak, D. J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L. C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S. A., and Diffenbaugh, N. S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Drexler, J. Z., Knifong, D., Tuil, J., Flint, L. E., and Flint, A. L. 2013. Fens as whole-ecosystem gauges of groundwater under climate change. Journal of Hydrology 481: 22–34.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R. W., and Miller, N. L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Lundquist, J. D., and Flint, A. L. 2006. Onset of snowmelt and streamflow in 2004 in the western United States: How shading may affect spring streamflow in a warmer world. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7: 1199–1217.
• Mayer, T. D., and Naman, S. W. 2011. Streamflow response to climate as influenced by geology and elevation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(4): 724-738.
• McCabe, G. J. and Fountain, A. G. 2013. Glacier variability in the conterminous United States during the twentieth century. Climatic Change 116: 565–577. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0502-9.
• Merenlender, A. M., Deitch, M. J., and Feirer, S. 2008. Decision support tools for stream flow recovery and enhanced water security. California Agriculture 62: 148–155.
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S. A., Pal, J. S., Diffenbaugh, N. S., and Benedetti, M. M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Bradford, J. B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• Tague, C., and Grant, G. E. 2009. Groundwater dynamics mediate low-flow response to global warming in snow-dominated alpine regions. Water Resources Research 45: 1–12. doi:10.1029/2008WR007179.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674
• Yarnell, S. M., Viers, J. H., and Mount, J. F. 2010. Ecology and management of the spring snowmelt recession. BioScience 602: 114–127.
• Rivers and Streams
  Arismendi, I., Johnson, S. L., Dunham, J. B., Haggerty, R., and Hockman-Wert, D. 2012. The paradox of cooling streams in a warming world: Regional climate trends do not parallel variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 39: 1–7. doi:10.1029/2012GL051448
• Melack, J. M., Dozier, J., Goldman, C. R., Greenland, D., Milner, A. M. and Naiman, R. J. 1997. Effects of climate change on inland waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 971–992.

Water Management

• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.
• Water Resources
• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the West: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Colby, B. G., and Frisvold, G. B. (eds). 2011. Adaptation and resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American southwest, RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on Southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Kiparsky, M., and Gleick, P. H. 2003. A survey and summary of the literature. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Oakland, California Climate Change and California Water Resources.
• Lempert, R. J., and Groves, D. G. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.007.
• Means III, E., Laugier, M., Daw, J., Kaatz, L., and Waage, M. 2010. Decision support planning methods: Incorporating climate change uncertainties into water planning. Water Utility Climate Alliance White Paper, Water Utility Alliance, San Francisco, CA. 113 pp.
• Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Rynolds, L. V., Nelson, S. M., and Shafroth, P.B . 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Detinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

• Decker, K., and Fink, M. 2014. Colorado wildlife action plan enhancement: Climate change vulnerability assessment. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Ft. Collins, CO. 

  This vulnerability assessment focuses on terrestrial ecosystems in Colorado including playas, riparian woodlands and shrublands, and non-riparian wetlands. They consider the current range of climate conditions for each ecosystem within its distribution and estimate exposure and sensitivity based on the degree of departure from those conditions by 2050. Adaptive capacity was estimated through a scoring process based on a modified version of the system used by the Manomet Center for Conservation Science (MCCS 2010). Playas were considered highly vulnerable to climate change due to spring and summer temperature increases, their isolated nature, and human activities like agriculture. Riparian woodlands and shrublands scored differently based on their location. Ecosystems in western Colorado were considered moderately vulnerable to climate change, whereas those in eastern or mountainous portions of the state had low vulnerability. Future spring precipitation, drought days, and mean summer temperature are expected to exceed tolerances for these habitats. Drought and invasive species were identified as likely issues. Wetlands including marshes, seeps, springs, and wet meadows also differed depending on their geographic locations. Eastern ecosystems were more vulnerable to climate impacts because they are likely to experience a greater degree of change in future climate conditions, especially drought days.

• Decker, K. and Rondeau, R. 2014. San Juan / Tres Rios climate change ecosystem vulnerability assessment. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

  In a similar assessment, Decker and Rondeau (2014) apply the process outlined in Decker and Fink (2014) to terrestrial habitats within the San Juan and Tres Rios areas of southwestern Colorado. Three wetland types were included in the analysis: riparian, wetland, and fen habitats. Low elevation riparian/wetland habitats scored as highly vulnerable and high elevation riparian/wetland habitats as moderately vulnerable. Lower elevation habitats were typically under greater stress due to streamflow modifications and were more vulnerable to droughts than habitats at higher elevations.

• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin, Hydrological and Earth Systems Science 11: 1417-1434: doi:10.5194/hess-11-1417-2007

  Christensen and Lettenmaier (2007) conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate the implications of future climate change on runoff for the Colorado River Basin. This publication provides a comprehensive modeling effort for the Colorado River Basin and is the first to identify specific outcomes as a result of climate change. They predict increased winter precipitation and decreased summer precipitation and substantial declines in runoff. The authors found evapotranspiration had greatest influence on runoff estimates and runoff declines were reflected in reservoir performance, which led to lost reservoir storage and declines in hydropower.

• Woodbury, M., Baldo, M., Yates, D., and Kaatz, L. 2012. Joint Front Range climate change vulnerability study. Denver: Water Research Foundation.

  Woodbury et al. (2012) analyzed the sensitivity of streamflow to climate changes within three Colorado watersheds. They compared observed changes and extrapolated responses to future conditions to compile a dataset that would allow users to gauge the impacts of climate change under multiple scenarios on water availability. They find streamflow estimates vary across scenarios in unique ways. They do not find evidence for elevation based differences in response in contrast to predictions made by others (e.g., Meyer et al., 1999; Weinhold 2012).

• Howe, C. 2012. Assessment of watershed vulnerability to climate change: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests In: Furniss, M. J., Roby, K. B., Cenderelli, D., Chatel, J., Clifton, C. F., Clingenpeel, A., Hays, P. E., Higgins, D., Hodges, K., Howe, C., Jungst, L., Louie, J., Mai, C., Martinez, R., Overton, K., Staab, B. P., Steinke, R., and Weinhold, M. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of watersheds to climate change: Results of national forest watershed vulnerability pilot assessments. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-884. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. plus appendix.

  This assessment combined climate projections, current status assessments, VIC models, and value resource layers to identify most vulnerable watersheds within the Gunnison National Forest, CO. Howe (2012) includes a number of measures: runoff variables, erosion/sedimentation, exposure to precipitation/temp changes, stressors (roads, recreation, water draw), and values (presence of cold water fish, water bodies). Watersheds within the Uncompahgre National Forest are expected to experience the greatest exposure, followed by Grand Mesa, then San Juan and West Elk. Watersheds within the Upper Taylor and Cochetopa National Forests experience less extreme changes. Results represented the culmination of water use values with sensitivities and stressors. Ultimately, the San Juans had the highest overall vulnerability followed by Upper Taylor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, West Elk and Cochetopa.

• Weinhold, M. 2012. Assessment of watershed vulnerability to climate change: White River National Forest In: Furniss, M. J., Roby, K. B., Cenderelli, D., Chatel, J., Clifton, C. F., Clingenpeel, A., Hays, P. E., Higgins, D., Hodges, K., Howe, C., Jungst, L., Louie, J., Mai, C., Martinez, R., Overton, K., Staab, B. P., Steinke, R., and Weinhold, M. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of watersheds to climate change: Results of national forest watershed vulnerability pilot assessments. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-884. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. plus appendix.

  This assessment identified important attributes for watersheds in the White River National Forest, Colorado, to predicting resiliency. Overall, lower elevation subwatersheds had highest vulnerability to changing climate because they are the most dependent snowpack and snowmelt characteristics. Natural and anthropogenic factors were not important factors within this area.

• Neely, B., Rondeau, R., Sanderson, J., Pague, C., Kuhn, B., Siemers, J., Grunau, L., Robertson, J., McCarthy, P., Barsugli, J., Schulz, T., and Knapp, C. (eds.). Gunnison Basin: Vulnerability assessment for the Gunnison Climate Working Group. The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Natural Heritage, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Project of the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

  The Gunnison Basin Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment measures the relative impact of climate changes on habitats (including seven freshwater) and species. They use a mid-century mark (2040-2069) and assessed habitats and species based on whether they would be sensitive to climate related stressors like temperature increases, extreme events, reduced baseflows, and snowmelt changes. They also considered indirect or non-climate stressors relating to disease, human disturbances, and current status. Among the freshwater habitats assessed, montane groundwater-dependent wetlands were given a “highly vulnerable” score. Mid-size streams, rivers and reservoirs and associated wetlands received “moderately to highly vulnerable” scores and small high-elevation streams, high-elevation, groundwater-dependent wetlands and high-elevation lakes were given “low to moderate vulnerability”. The current condition of wetland habitat was an important predictor of vulnerability because many changes resulting from warming conditions are likely to exacerbate ongoing challenges. Higher elevation sites were expected to remain cold enough to avoid drastic impacts. Species assessments were based on NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI, Young et al., 2011). Fifty plant species were assessed, the majority of which (43 of 50) were scored as extremely vulnerable to climate change. Of those,18 were associated with ground water dependent wetlands, one species with subalpine riparian habitats and one with montane riparian habitats. The primary drivers of plant species vulnerability were poor dispersal capability, restriction or reliance on cool microhabitats, narrow or restricted range and dependence on ice and snow. Among animals, amphibians (two species), fish (one species) and insects (one species) obtained the highest vulnerability scores. Amphibian and fish scores were driven in large part by their restricted habitats and limited capacity to disperse to new habitats. The insect was associated with alpine zones, which are likely to recede in the future.

• Gordon, E., and Ojima, D. 2014. Colorado climate change vulnerability study, edited by University of Colorado, Boulder, CO and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

  Gordon and Ojima (2015) present a review of the key vulnerabilities of Colorado’s economy and resources under climate change. They measure the capacity of Colorado’s economy, resources, and populations to cope with negative impacts of climate change. Within the ecosystems sector they identify vulnerabilities for forests, alpine ecosystems, grasslands, and aquatic wildlife species. Within the Water (utility) sector, entities with inadequate storage such as small municipal utilities, those with junior rights, with aging water supply infrastructure, and municipalities that supplement surface waters with groundwater withdrawal are likely to be most vulnerable to hydrological consequences of climate change. In addition, water treatment facilities in fire prone areas or with older technology are at risk, and endangered fish programs and recreation activities might be negatively affected.

• Rice, Janine R.; Joyce, Linda A.; Regan, Claudia; Winters, David; Truex, Rick. 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-376. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 216 p.

  Vulnerability assessments are important tools to assist in climate adaptation planning. Six priority ecosystems were identified in the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region: alpine turf and dwarf-shrubland; aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems in glaciated valleys; subalpine spruce-fir; low-gradient mountain stream reaches; ponderosa pine; and Great Plains streams and riparian areas. Vulnerability to nonclimate and climate stressors for these priority ecosystems is assessed. Criteria used to assess vulnerability include ecosystem traits related to the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the ecosystem. We engaged scientists through an expert review to vet the vulnerability rankings and confidence in the assessment. Aquatic ecosystems were the most vulnerable priority ecosystem, and alpine ecosystems had higher vulnerability than lower elevation terrestrial ecosystems. The narrative for each priority ecosystem describes the nature of the vulnerability to climate change.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Matthews, W. J., and Zimmerman, E. G. 1990. Potential effects of global warming on native fishes of the southern Great Plains and the Southwest. Fisheries 15: 26–32.
• Rader, R. B., Voelz, N. J., and Ward, J. V. 2008 Post-flood recovery of a macroinvertebrate community in a regulated river: Resilience of an anthropogenically altered ecosystem. Restoration Ecology 16: 24–33.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Underwood, Z. E., Myrick, C. A., and Rogers, K. B. 2012. Effect of acclimation temperature on the upper thermal tolerance of Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus: Thermal limits of a North American salmonid. Journal of Fish Biology 80(7): 2420-2433.
• Wenger, S. J., Isaak, D. J., Luce, C. H., Neville, H. M., Fausch, K. D., Dunham, J. B., Dauwalter, D. C., Young, M. K., Elsner, M. M., Rieman, B. E., Hamlet, A. F., and Williams, J. E. 2011: Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175–14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108
• Zeigler, M. P., Todd, A. S., and Caldwell, C. A. 2012. Evidence of recent climate change within the historic range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout: Implications for management and future persistence. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1045-1059.
• Terrestrial Animals
• Zack, S., Ellison, K. , Cross, M., and Rowland, E. 2010. Climate change planning for the Great Plains: Wildlife vulnerability assessment and recommendations for land and grazing management. Summary Report, Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Covich, A. P., Fritz, S. C., Lamb, P. J., Marzolf, R. D., Matthews, W. J., Poiani, K. A., Prepas, E. A., Richman, M. B., and Winter, T. C. 1997. Potential effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems of the Great Plains of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 993–1021.
• Aquatic Ecosystems/Hydrology/Biogeochemistry
  Hauer, F. R., Baron, J. S., Campbell, D. H., Fausch, K. D., Hostetler, S. W., Leavesley, G. H., Leavitt, P. R., McKnight, D. M., and Stanford, J. A. 1997. Asessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Disturbances

• Travis, W., Gangwer, K., and Klein, R. 2011. Assessing measures of drought impact and vulnerability in the Intermountain West. Western Water Assessment White Paper no. 9

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K. A., Neary, D. G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• Rieman, B. E., and Isaak, D. J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L. C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S. A., and Diffenbaugh, N. S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin climate effects network. U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Crosbie, R. S., Scanlon, B. R., Mpelasoka, F. S., Reedy, R. C., Gates, J., and Zhang, L. 2013. Potential climate change effects on groundwater recharge in the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water Resources Research 49: 3936–3951. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20292
• Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Gray, S. T., Lukas, J. J., and Woodhouse, C. A. 2011. Millennial-length records of streamflow from three major upper Colorado River tributaries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 474: 702-712.
• Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P. A., Breshears, D. D., Huxman, T. E., Switanek, M. B., and Durcik, M. 2011. Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 4063-4: 225-233.
• Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W., and Prairie, J. R. 2012. The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1611: 3989-4007.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R. W. and Miller, N. L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Lundquist, J. D., and Flint, A. L. 2006. Onset of snowmelt and streamflow in 2004 in the western United States: How shading may affect spring streamflow in a warmer world. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7: 1199–1217.
• McCabe, G. J. and Fountain, A. G. 2013. Glacier variability in the conterminous United States during the twentieth century. Climatic Change 116: 565–577. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0502-9.
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in Western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W. P., De Rosa, G. M., Gangopadhyay, S., and Valdés, J. B. 2013. Predicting regime shifts in flow of the Gunnison River under changing climate conditions. Water Resources Research 495: 2966-2974.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado river basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Painter, T. H., Skiles, S. M., Deems, J. S., Bryant, A. C., and Landry, C. C. 2012. Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 1. A 6-year record of energy balance, radiation, and dust concentrations. Water Resources Research 48: DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011985.
• Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S. A., Pal, J. S., Diffenbaugh, N. S., and Benedetti, M. M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Rosenberg, N. J., Epstein, D. L., Wang, D., Vail, L., Srinivasan, R., and Arnold, J. G. 1999. Possible impacts of global warming on the hydrology of the Ogallala Aquifer region. Climatic Change 42: 677–692.
• Salzmann, N., and Mearns, L. O. 2012. Assessing the performance of multiple regional climate model simulations for seasonal mountain snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology 132: 539-556.
• Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Bradford, J. B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Skiles, S. M., Painter, T. H., Deems, J. S., Bryant, A. C., and Landry, C. C. 2012. Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 2. Interannual variability in radiative forcing and snowmelt rates. Water Resources Research 48: .DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011986.
• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Analysis of hydrologic variability sensitivity, Appendix N in Final EIS—Colorado River interim guidelines for lower basin shortages and coordinated operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wenger, S. J., Luce, C. H., Hamlet, A. F., Isaak, D. J., and Neville, H. M. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674

Invasive Species

• Martinez, P. J. 2012. Invasive crayfish in a high desert river: Implications of concurrent invaders and climate change. Aquatic Invasions 7: 219-234.
• Rahel, F. J., and Olden, J. D. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 521–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00950.x

Planning

• City of Boulder. 2012. Climate Change Preparedness Plan.
• City of Denver. 2007. Climate Action Plan.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T. P., and Pierce, D. W. 2009. Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 7334-7338. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812762106
• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R. J., and Groves, D. G. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974.
• Ojima, D., Garcia, L., Elgaali, E., Miller, K., Kittel, T. G. F., and Lackett, J. 1999. Potential climate change impacts on water resources in the Great Plains. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1443–1454.
• Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Rynolds, L. V., Nelson, S. M., and Shafroth, P. B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• Rajagopalan, B., K. Nowak, J. Prairie, M. Hoerling, B. Harding, J. Barsugli, A. Ray, and B. Udall, 2009. Water supply risk on the Colorado River: Can management mitigate? Water Resources Research, 45, W08201, doi:10.1029/2008wr007652
• Ray, A. J., Barsugli, J. J., and Averyt, K. B. 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. CU-NOAA Western Water Assessment.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Detinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.
• U.S. EPA. 2013. Watershed modeling to assess the sensitivity of streamflow, nutrient, and sediment loads to potential climate change and urban development in 20 U.S. watersheds (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-12/058F.

• Louie, J. 2012. Assessment of watershed vulnerability to climate change: Gallatin National Forest In: Furniss, M. J., Roby, K. B., Cenderelli, D., Chatel, J., Clifton, C. F., Clingenpeel, A., Hays, P. E., Higgins, D., Hodges, K., Howe, C., Jungst, L., Louie, J., Mai, C., Martinez, R., Overton, K., Staab, B. P., Steinke, R., and Weinhold, M. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of watersheds to climate change: Results of national forest watershed vulnerability pilot assessments. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-884. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. plus appendix.

  Louie (2012) presents results for the Gallatin National Forest, Montana. Watersheds were characterized to assess relative sensitivity to disturbance as described in Steinke (2012). This assessment’s objective was to develop a broad-scale GIS model to predict the effects of climate change on stream thermal regime that, in turn, provides the bias for estimating impacts on fishery resources. A second vulnerability analysis was applied to further prioritized watersheds using geophysical/sensitivity characterization, the WCF, resources of value (fish aquatic habitat), and exposure (climate projections). Results of their assessment describe the general consequences of warmer temperatures for water resources including reductions in flows exacerbated by current water uses/diversions and potential shifts in fish populations to favor invasive fish and fish that favor warmer water.

• Johnson, W. C., Millett, B. V., Gilmanov, T., Voldseth, R. A., Guntenspergen, G. R., and Naugle, D. E. 2005. Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. BioScience 55: 863-872.

  Johnson et al. (2005) used WETSIM, an applied simulation model, to predict wetland status under warming and identified potential outcomes for breeding waterfowl in the prairie pothole region of the U.S. They used a scenario based approach based on three climate futures: 1) 3°C temperature increase with no change in precipitation; 2) 3°C temperature increase with a 20% increase in precipitation, and 3) 3°C temperature increase with a 20% decrease in precipitation. Across all scenarios, the most productive habitats for waterfowl shift to the northeast. Additionally, wetlands in dryer areas of the region were found to be highly vulnerable to drought induced habitat degradation and loss with warming temperatures. Johnson et al. (2005) conclude that substantial increases in rainfall would be necessary to head off habitat loss for waterfowl.

• Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 1-197.

  The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas - water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services - regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities.

  The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter streamflows, lower summer flows, and higher stream temperatures. These changes will in turn reduce fish habitat for cold-water fish species, negatively affect riparian vegetation and wildlife, damage roads and other infrastructure, and reduce reliable water supplies for communities. Increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances (drought, insect outbreaks, wildfire) will reduce the area of mature forest, affect wildlife populations (some positively, some negatively), damage infrastructure and cultural resources, degrade the quality of municipal water supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration. Climate change effects on recreation, a major economic driver in the IAP region, will be positive for warm-weather activities and negative for snow-based activities. IAP participants developed adaptation options that can be implemented in planning, project management, monitoring, and restoration as climate-smart responses to altered resource conditions.

• Rice, Janine R.; Joyce, Linda A.; Regan, Claudia; Winters, David; Truex, Rick. 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-376. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 216 p.

  Vulnerability assessments are important tools to assist in climate adaptation planning. Six priority ecosystems were identified in the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region: alpine turf and dwarf-shrubland; aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems in glaciated valleys; subalpine spruce-fir; low-gradient mountain stream reaches; ponderosa pine; and Great Plains streams and riparian areas. Vulnerability to nonclimate and climate stressors for these priority ecosystems is assessed. Criteria used to assess vulnerability include ecosystem traits related to the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the ecosystem. We engaged scientists through an expert review to vet the vulnerability rankings and confidence in the assessment. Aquatic ecosystems were the most vulnerable priority ecosystem, and alpine ecosystems had higher vulnerability than lower elevation terrestrial ecosystems. The narrative for each priority ecosystem describes the nature of the vulnerability to climate change.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Al-Chokhachy, R., Alder, J., Hostetler, S., Gresswell, R. and Shepard, B. 2013. Thermal controls of Yellowstone cutthroat trout and invasive fishes under climate change. Global Change Biology 19: 3069–3081. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12262
• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Reiman, B. E., Isaak, D., Adams, S., Horan, D. Nagel, D., and Luce, C. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1552-1565.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River Basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Wenger, S. J., Isaak, D. J., Luce, C. H., Neville, H. M., Fausch, K. D., Dunham, J. B., Dauwalter, D. C., Young, M. K., Elsner, M. M., Rieman, B. E., Hamlet, A. F., and Williams, J. E. 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175–14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108.

Terrestrial Animals

• Muhlfeld, C. C., Giersch, J. J., Hauer, F. R., Pederson, G. T., Luikart, G., Peterson, D. P., Downs, C. C., and Fagre, D. B. 2011. Climate change links fate of glaciers and an endemic alpine invertebrate. Climatic Change 106: 337–345. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0057-1
• Sorenson, L. G., Goldberg, R., Root, T. L., and Anderson, M. G. 1998. Potential effects of global warming on waterfowl populations breeding in the northern Great Plains. Climatic Change 40: 343–369.
• Zack, S., Ellison, K. , Cross, M., and Rowland, E. 2010. Climate change planning for the Great Plains: Wildlife vulnerability assessment and recommendations for land and grazing management. Summary Report, Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Covich, A. P., Fritz, S. C., Lamb, P. J., Marzolf, R. D., Matthews, W. J., Poiani, K. A., Prepas, E. A., Richman, M. B., and Winter, T. C. 1997. Potential effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems of the Great Plains of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 993–1021.
• Goode, J. R., Luce, C. H., and Buffington, J. M. 2012. Enhanced sediment delivery in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: Implications for water resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Geomorphology 139–140: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.021

Aquatic Ecosystems/Hydrology/Biogeochemistry

• Hauer, F. R., Baron, J. S., Campbell, D. H., Fausch, K. D., Hostetler, S. W., Leavesley, G. H., Leavitt, P. R., McKnight, D. M., and Stanford, J. A. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Anderson, S., Aziz, O., Tootle, G., Grissino-Meyer, H., and Barnett, H. 2012. Using Pacific Ocean climatic variability to improve hydrologic reconstructions. Journal of Hydrology 434-435: 69-77.
• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River Basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.
• Rice, J., Tredennick, A., and Joyce, L. A. 2012. Climate change on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: A synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 60 p.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K. A., Neary, D. G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• Rieman, B. E., and Isaak, D. J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Arismendi, I., Safeeq, M., Johnson, S. L., Dunham, J. B., and Haggerty, R. 2013. Increasing synchrony of high temperature and low flow in western North American streams: Double trouble for coldwater biota? Hydrobiologia 712: 61–70. doi:10.1007/s10750-012-1327-2
• Arrigoni, A. S., Greenwood, M. C., and Moore, J. N. 2010. Relative impact of anthropogenic modifications versus climate change on the natural flow regimes of rivers in the northern Rocky Mountains, United States. Water Resources Research 46: 1–16. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009162
• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L. C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S. A., and Diffenbaugh, N. S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin Climate effects network. U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Clark, G. M. 2010. Changes in patterns of streamflow from unregulated watersheds in Idaho, western Wyoming, and northern Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 486–497.
• Crosbie, R. S., Scanlon, B. R., Mpelasoka, F. S., Reedy, R. C., Gates, J., and Zhang, L. 2013. Potential climate change effects on groundwater recharge in the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water Resources Research 49: 3936–3951. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20292
• Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Gray, S. T., Lukas, J. J., and Woodhouse, C. A. 2011. Millennial-length records of streamflow from three major upper Colorado River tributaries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 474: 702-712.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1597–1623.
• Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W., and Prairie, J. R. 2012. The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1611: 3989-4007.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Jin, X., and Sridhar, V. 2012. Impacts of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Boise and Spokane River Basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48: 197–220.
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R. W. and Miller, N. L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Leppi, J. C., DeLuca, T. H., Harrar, S. W., and Running, S. W. 2011. Impacts of climate change on August stream discharge in the central-Rocky Mountains. Climatic Change 112: 997-1014. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0235-1
• McCabe, G. J., and Fountain, A. G. 2013. Glacier variability in the conterminous United States during the twentieth century. Climatic Change 116: 565–577. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0502-9.
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in Western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River Basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Pederson, G. T., Gray, S. T., Ault, T., Marsh, W., Fagre, D. B., Bunn, A. G., Woodhouse, C. A., and Graumlich, L. J. 2011. Climatic controls on the snowmelt hydrology of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Climate 24: 1666–1687. DOI: 10.1175/2010JCLI3729.1
• Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S. A., Pal, J. S., Diffenbaugh, N. S., and Benedetti, M. M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rood, S. B., Pan, J., Gill, K. M., Franks, C. G., Samuelson, G. M., and Shepherd, A. 2008. Declining summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: Changing seasonal hydrology and probable impacts on floodplain forests . Journal of Hydrology 349: 397–410.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Rosenberg, N. J., Epstein, D. L., Wang, D., Vail, L., Srinivasan, R., and Arnold, J. G. 1999. Possible impacts of global warming on the hydrology of the Ogallala Aquifer region. Climatic Change 42: 677–692.
• Salzmann, N., and Mearns, L. O. 2012. Assessing the performance of multiple regional climate model simulations for seasonal mountain snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology 132: 539-556.
• Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Bradford, J. B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wenger, S. J., Luce, C. H., Hamlet, A. F.. Isaak, D. J., and Neville, H. M. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674

Rivers and Streams

• Arismendi, I., Johnson, S. L., Dunham, J. B., Haggerty, R. and Hockman-Wert, D. 2012. The paradox of cooling streams in a warming world: Regional climate trends do not parallel variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 39: 1–7. doi:10.1029/2012GL051448

Vegetation

• Johnson, W. C., Dixon, M. D., Simons, R., Jenson, S., and Larson, K. 1995. Mapping the response of riparian vegetation to possible flow reductions in the Snake River, Idaho. Geomorphology 13: 159-173.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the West: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Colby, B. G. and Frisvold, G. B. (eds). 2011. Adaptation and resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American southwest, RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R. J., and D. G. Groves. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974.
• Ojima, D., Garcia, L., Elgaali, E., Miller, K., Kittel, T. G. F., and Lackett, J. 1999. Potential climate change impacts on water resources in the Great Plains. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1443–1454.
• Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Rynolds, L. V., Nelson, S. M., and Shafroth, P. B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Detinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

Wetlands

• Poiani, K. A., Johnson, W. C., Swanson, G. A., and Winter, T. C. 1996. Climate change and northern prairie wetlands: Simulations of long-term dynamics. Limnology and Oceanography 41: 871-881.

• Thorne, J.H., Choe, H., Stine, P.A. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests in the Southwest USA. Climatic Change 148, 387–402 (2018).

  Climate change effects are already apparent in some Southwestern US forests and are expected to intensify in the coming decades, via direct (temperature, precipitation) and indirect (fire, pests, pathogens) stressors. We grouped Southwestern forests into ten major types to assess their climate exposure by 2070 using two global climate models (GCMs) and two emission scenarios representing wetter or drier conditions and current or lowered emission levels. We estimate future climate exposure over forests covering 370,144 km2 as the location and proportion of each type projected to experience climate conditions that fall outside 99% of those they currently occupy. By late century, 27–77% is climatically exposed under wetter or drier current emission levels, while lowered emission levels produce 10–50% exposure, respectively. This difference points to the benefits of reducing emissions from the RCP8.5 to the RCP4.5 track, with regard to forest retention. Exposed areas common to all four climate futures include central Arizona and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Vulnerability assessments also comprise sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which we scored subjectively by forest type according to the number of key stressors they are sensitive to and the resilience conferred by life history traits of their dominant tree species. Under the 2070 RCP8.5 emissions, four forest types are critically and six are highly vulnerable under the hotter GCM; and eight are highly and two moderately vulnerable under the wetter GCM. We discuss forest management adaptation strategies and the barriers to and co-benefits of such plans.

• Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie, J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 1-197.

  The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas - water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services - regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities.

  The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter streamflows, lower summer flows, and higher stream temperatures. These changes will in turn reduce fish habitat for cold-water fish species, negatively affect riparian vegetation and wildlife, damage roads and other infrastructure, and reduce reliable water supplies for communities. Increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances (drought, insect outbreaks, wildfire) will reduce the area of mature forest, affect wildlife populations (some positively, some negatively), damage infrastructure and cultural resources, degrade the quality of municipal water supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration. Climate change effects on recreation, a major economic driver in the IAP region, will be positive for warm-weather activities and negative for snow-based activities. IAP participants developed adaptation options that can be implemented in planning, project management, monitoring, and restoration as climate-smart responses to altered resource conditions.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Reiman, B. E., Isaak, D., Adams, S., Horan, D. Nagel, D., and C. Luce. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia river basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1552-1565.
• Strecker, A.L., Olden, J.D., Whittier, J.B., and Paukert, C.P. 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3002-3013.
• Tucker, A.J., and Williamson, C.E. 2014. The invasion window for warm water fish in clearwater lakes: the role of ultraviolet radiation and temperature. Diversity and Distributions 20: 181–192. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12138
• Wenger, S.J., D.J. Isaak, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, K.D. Fausch, J.B. Dunham, D.C. Dauwalter, M.K. Young, M.M. Elsner, B.E. Rieman, A.F. Hamlet, and J.E. Williams. 2011: Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175–14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108.
• Aquatic Ecosystems/Hydrology/Biogeochemistry
  Hauer, F.R., Baron, J.S., Campbell, D.H., Fausch, K.D., Hostetler, S.W., Leavesley, G.H., Leavitt, P.R., McKnight, D.M., and J.A. Stanford. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the rocky mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River Basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S.R., and Predick, K.I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K.A., Neary, D.G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• 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. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L.C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S.A., and Diffenbaugh, N.S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Cayan, D.R., Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N.S., Wood, A.W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D.P., and Palmer, R.N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Clark, G. M. 2010. Changes in patterns of streamflow from unregulated watersheds in Idaho, western Wyoming, and northern Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 486–497.
• Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Cayan, D.R., Vano, J.A., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D.L., Stewart, I.T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1597–1623.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the intermountain west. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R.W. and Miller, N.L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Miller, W.P., and Piechota, T.C. 2011. Trends in Western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Mote, P.W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Hidalgo, H.G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B.D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., Mirin, A., Wood, A.W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S.A., Pal, J.S., Diffenbaugh, N.S., and Benedetti, M.M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S.K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E.A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Schlaepfer, D.R., Lauenroth, W.K., and Bradford, J.B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J.A. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J.A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wenger, S.J., Luce, C.H., Hamlet, A.F.. Isaak, D.J., and H.M Neville. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839.
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H.F., and Castro, C.L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674

Rivers and Streams

• Arismendi, I., Johnson, S.L., Dunham, J.B., Haggerty, R. and Hockman-Wert, D. 2012. The paradox of cooling streams in a warming world: Regional climate trends do not parallel variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 39: 1–7. doi:10.1029/2012GL051448
• Melack, J.M., Dozier, J., Goldman, C.R., Greenland, D., Milner, A.M. and Naiman, R.J. 1997. Effects of climate change on inland waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 971–992.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D.G., Fishbach, J.R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R.A., and Forde, N.A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Colby, B.G. and G.B. Frisvold (eds). 2011. Adaptation and resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American southwest, RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Hamlet, A.F., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R.J., and D.G. Groves. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.007.
• Perry, L.G., Andersen, D.C., Rynolds, L.V., Nelson, S.M., and Shafroth, P.B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104 51.
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative Approaches for Adapting to Water Variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Detinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

• Friggens, M.M., Finch, D.M., Bagne, K.E., Coe, S.J., and Hawksworth, D.L. 2013. Vulnerability of species to climate change in the Southwest: Terrestrial species of the Middle Rio Grande. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-306. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 191 p.

  In this assessment, 117 species inhabiting the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico were scored using the SAVS vulnerability index (Bagne et al., 2011 http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/grassland-shrubland-desert/products/species-vulnerability/). Aquatic amphibian species were more vulnerable than more terrestrial amphibians such as the spade foot toads (Spea spp.). Reduced pond duration, reduced availability of appropriate breeding habitat, increased water temperatures, and increased crowding and invasive species were the primary drivers of increased vulnerability for amphibians. Reptile vulnerability was greatest for water dependent species (e.g. turtles and garter snakes) and loss of riparian associated vegetation and water as might occur with increasing drought were the primary drivers of high vulnerability scores. Riparian obligate birds found highly vulnerable to future climate impacts primarily due to expected habitat loss and highly specific habitat needs. For mammals, species that depend on moist habitats and large trees tended to be most vulnerable.

• Friggens, M., Loehman, R., Holsinger, L., and D. Finch. 2014. Vulnerability of riparian obligate species to the interactive effect of fire, climate and hydrological change. Final Report for Interagency Agreement #13-IA-11221632-006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 213p.

  Another study used a modified version of SAVS combined with species’ niche models to assess the vulnerability of 12 riparian obligate species inhabiting the riparian corridor in New Mexico. Niche model results often corresponded with vulnerability scores, where species with high scores (high vulnerability) also tended to lose the most habitats under future scenarios. All three birds, the Yellow-billed cuckoo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae), both reptiles, the Western painted turtle (Chrysemys pita belli) and the black-necked garter snake (Thamnophis crytopsis), two bats, the Yuma bat (Myotis yumanensis) and the occult bat (Myotis occultus), and the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse appear to be at high risk of population declines in the near future. Among amphibians, the American bullfrog appeared to have more resilience to climate impacts but experiences significant habitat loss under all three future scenarios. In contrast, the leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), appeared more vulnerable to climate change impacts (from this and Friggens et al., 2013b assessments), but might experience increased availability of suitable habitat.

• Enquist, C., and Gori, D. 2008. A climate change vulnerability assessment for biodiversity in New Mexico. Part I: Implications of Recent Climate Change on Conservation Priorities in New Mexico. The Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Society.

  This study ranked the vulnerability of watersheds in New Mexico using two measures: magnitude of exposure (change in climate conditions) and biological diversity. In general, lower elevation watersheds have experienced greater drying than high elevation watersheds though about 93% of watersheds overall showed some decrease in moisture availability over the 1970-2006 study period. There tended to be more drying at drier watersheds though some watersheds, primarily in the southeast quadrant of the state, appeared to experience less drying for summer and fall seasons. Enquist and Gori (2008) report that though there were no significant trends overall, they did find a strong and significant relationship between increasing moisture stress and species richness when considering only the most species-rich watersheds. The Jemez, Cloverdale, and Playas Lake watersheds were identified as the most vulnerable due to the magnitude of observed moisture stress. The Pecos Headwaters, Upper Rio Grande, Upper Gila, and San Francisco watersheds have less moisture stress but are species rich. Enquist and Gori (2008) conclude that changes in climate and hydrology affect species in numerous ways and, within the SW, may be especially important where species face critical thresholds relating to metabolic and reproductive success (noted first in Burkett et al., 2005 and Ryan et al., 2008).

• Hurd, B. H., and Coonrod, J. 2008. Climate change and its implications for New Mexico's Water resources and economic opportunities. NM State University Technical Report 45, 28p.

  Hurd and Coonrod (2008) conducted an analysis focused within the SW using models of streamflow and runoff. They also include assessments for how land use and future agricultural and urban water demands might interact with climate impacts. Hurd and Coonrod (2008) show that peak flow and total stream flow declines across both wetter and drier scenarios. Further, they indicate that increased monsoons will not offset effects of reduced snowpack in headwaters. Finally, over time, there will be a pronounced shift to an early peak flow and significant shift in late winter runoff. This leads to greater reliance on reservoirs and aquifers. The southern reaches of the Rio Grande are likely to be most vulnerable to these effects.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Hopken, M.W., Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Zeigler, M.P., Todd, A.S., and Caldwell, C.A. 2012. Evidence of recent climate change within the historic range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout: Implications for management and future persistence. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1045-1059.

Terrestrial Animals

• Zack, S., Ellison, K. , Cross, M., and E. Rowland. 2010. Climate change planning for the Great Plains: Wildlife vulnerability assessment and recommendations for land and grazing management. Summary Report, Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Covich, A.P., Fritz, S.C., Lamb, P.J., Marzolf, R.D., Matthews, W.J., Poiani, K.A., Prepas, E.A., Richman, M.B., and Winter, T. C. 1997. Potential effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems of the Great Plains of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 993–1021.
• Aquatic Ecosystems/Hydrology/Biogeochemistry
  Hauer, F.R., Baron, J.S., Campbell, D.H., Fausch, K.D., Hostetler, S.W., Leavesley, G.H., Leavitt, P.R., McKnight, D.M., and J.A. Stanford. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the rocky mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11: 903-924.

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S.R., and Predick, K.I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K.A., Neary, D.G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• 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. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L.C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S.A., and Diffenbaugh, N.S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin climate effects network. U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D.R., Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912391107
• Christensen, N.S., Wood, A.W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D.P., and Palmer, R.N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Crosbie, R.S., Scanlon, B.R., Mpelasoka, F.S., Reedy, R.C., Gates, J.. and Zhang, L. 2013. Potential climate change effects on groundwater recharge in the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water Resources Research 49: 3936–3951. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20292
• Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Cayan, D.R., Vano, J.A., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D.L., Stewart, I.T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P.A., Breshears, D.D., Huxman, T.E., Switanek, M.B., and Durcik, M. 2011. Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 4063-4: 225-233
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the intermountain west. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R.W. and Miller, N.L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Miller, W.P., and Piechota, T.C. 2011. Trends in Western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W.P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River Basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Mote, P.W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Hidalgo, H.G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B.D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., Mirin, A., Wood, A.W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S.A., Pal, J.S., Diffenbaugh, N.S., and Benedetti, M.M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S.K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E.A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Rosenberg, N.J., Epstein, D.L., Wang, D., Vail, L., Srinivasan, R., and Arnold, J.G. 1999. Possible impacts of global warming on the hydrology of the Ogallala Aquifer region. Climatic Change 42: 677–692.
• Schlaepfer, D.R., Lauenroth, W.K., and Bradford, J.B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.

At this time we do not have climate change vulnerability assessments to report for this area.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Reiman, B. E., Isaak, D., Adams, S., Horan, D. Nagel, D., and C. Luce. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia river basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1552-1565.

Aquatic Ecosystems

• Goode, J.R., Luce, C.H., and Buffington, J.M. 2012. Enhanced sediment delivery in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: Implications for water resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Geomorphology 139–140: 1–15.

Carbon

• Laudon, H., Tetzlaff, D., Soulsby, C., Carey, S., Siebert, J., Buttle, J., Shanley, J., McDonell, J.J., and McGuire, K. 2013. Change in winter climate will affect dissolved organic carbon and water fluxes in mid-to-high latitude catchments. Hydrological Processes 27: 700–709. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9686

Disturbances

• Benda, L., and Dunne, T. 1997. Stochastic forcing of sediment supply to channel networks from landsliding and debris flow. Water Resources Research 33(12): 2849-2863.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S.R., and Predick, K.I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K.A., Neary, D.G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• 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. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Arismendi, I., Safeeq, M., Johnson, S.L., Dunham, J.B., and Haggerty, R. 2013. Increasing synchrony of high temperature and low flow in western North American streams: Double trouble for coldwater biota? Hydrobiologia 712: 61–70. doi:10.1007/s10750-012-1327-2
• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S.-C., Bowling L.C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S.A., and Diffenbaugh, N.S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Cayan, D.R., Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Cayan, D.R., Vano, J.A., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1597–1623.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the intermountain west. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R.W. and Miller, N.L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Mayer, T.D., and Naman, S.W. 2011. Streamflow response to climate as influenced by geology and elevation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(4): 724-738.
• McCabe, G.J. and Fountain, A.G. 2013. Glacier variability in the conterminous United States during the twentieth century. Climatic Change 116: 565–577. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0502-9.
• Mote, P.W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Hidalgo, H.G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B.D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., Mirin, A., Wood, A.W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S.A., Pal, J.S., Diffenbaugh, N.S., and Benedetti, M.M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S.K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Schlaepfer, D.R., Lauenroth, W.K., and Bradford, J.B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• Tague, C., and Grant, G.E. 2009. Groundwater dynamics mediate low-flow response to global warming in snow-dominated alpine regions. Water Resources Research 45: 1–12. doi:10.1029/2008WR007179.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Wenger, S.J., Luce, C.H., Hamlet, A.F.. Isaak, D.J., and H.M Neville. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839.

Rivers and Streams

• Arismendi, I., Johnson, S.L., Dunham, J.B., Haggerty, R. and Hockman-Wert, D. 2012. The paradox of cooling streams in a warming world: Regional climate trends do not parallel variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 39: 1–7. doi:10.1029/2012GL051448
• Swanson, F.J., Johnson, S.L., Gregory, S.V., and Acker, S.A. 1998. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain landscape. BioScience 48(9): 681-689.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Hamlet, A.F., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R.J., and D.G. Groves. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.007.
• Perry, L.G., Andersen, D.C., Rynolds, L.V., Nelson, S.M., and Shafroth, P.B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the west. Georgetown Climate Center.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the west under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Detinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.

• Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 1]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 1-197.

  The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas - water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services - regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities.

  The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter streamflows, lower summer flows, and higher stream temperatures. These changes will in turn reduce fish habitat for cold-water fish species, negatively affect riparian vegetation and wildlife, damage roads and other infrastructure, and reduce reliable water supplies for communities. Increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances (drought, insect outbreaks, wildfire) will reduce the area of mature forest, affect wildlife populations (some positively, some negatively), damage infrastructure and cultural resources, degrade the quality of municipal water supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration. Climate change effects on recreation, a major economic driver in the IAP region, will be positive for warm-weather activities and negative for snow-based activities. IAP participants developed adaptation options that can be implemented in planning, project management, monitoring, and restoration as climate-smart responses to altered resource conditions.

• Thorne, J. H., Choe, H., Stine, P. A. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests in the Southwest USA. Climatic Change 148, 387–402 (2018). 

  Climate change effects are already apparent in some southwestern U.S. forests and are expected to intensify in the coming decades, via direct (temperature, precipitation) and indirect (fire, pests, pathogens) stressors. We grouped Southwest forests into ten major types to assess their climate exposure by 2070 using two global climate models (GCMs) and two emission scenarios representing wetter or drier conditions and current or lowered emission levels. We estimate future climate exposure over forests covering 370,144 km2 as the location and proportion of each type projected to experience climate conditions that fall outside 99% of those they currently occupy. By late century, 27–77% is climatically exposed under wetter or drier current emission levels, while lowered emission levels produce 10–50% exposure, respectively. This difference points to the benefits of reducing emissions from the RCP8.5 to the RCP4.5 track, with regard to forest retention. Exposed areas common to all four climate futures include central Arizona and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Vulnerability assessments also comprise sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which we scored subjectively by forest type according to the number of key stressors they are sensitive to and the resilience conferred by life history traits of their dominant tree species. Under the 2070 RCP8.5 emissions, four forest types are critically and six are highly vulnerable under the hotter GCM; and eight are highly and two moderately vulnerable under the wetter GCM. We discuss forest management adaptation strategies and the barriers to and co-benefits of such plans.

Relevant Climate Studies and Sources by Topic

Aquatic Animals

• Hopken, M. W., Douglas, M. R., and Douglas, M. E. 2013. Stream hierarchy defines riverscape genetics of a North American desert fish. Molecular Ecology 224: 956-971.
• Roberts, J. J., Fausch, K. D., Peterson, D. P., and Hooten, M. B. 2013. Fragmentation and thermal risks from climate change interact to affect persistence of native trout in the Colorado River Basin. Global Change Biology 195: 1383-1398.
• Strecker, A. L., Olden, J. D., Whittier, J. B., and Paukert, C. P. 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3002-3013.
• Wenger, S. J., Isaak, D. J., Luce, C. H., Neville, H. M., Fausch, K. D., Dunham, J. B., Dauwalter, D. C., Young, M. K., Elsner, M. M., Rieman, B. E., Hamlet, A. F., and Williams, J. E. 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175–14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108

Climate Impacts

• Gao, Y., Vano, J. A., Zhu, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. Evaluating climate change over the Colorado River Basin using regional climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 116, Issue D13.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2011. Evaluating changes and estimating seasonal precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using a stochastic nonparametric disaggregation technique. Water Resources Research 47: 1-26.
• Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic-atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48.

Ecosystems

• Archer, S. R., and Predick, K. I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands 303: 23-28.
• Poff, B., Koestner, K. A., Neary, D. G., and Henderson, V. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 476: 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00571.x
• Rieman, B. E., and Isaak, D. J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Hydrology

• Ashfaq, M., Ghosh, S., Kao, S. C., Bowling L. C., Mote, P., Touma, D., Rauscher, S. A., and Diffenbaugh, N. S. 2013. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 10,676–10,693. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50816.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Upper Colorado River Basin Climate Effects Network: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3092. 2p. Source: GEOREF
• Cayan, D. R., Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Tyree, M., and Gershunov, A. 2009. Future dryness in the Southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21271–21276.
• Christensen, N. S., Wood, A. W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N. 2004. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change 62: 337-363.
• Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2011. The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow changes. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-5.
• Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., Barsugli, J. J., Belnap, J., and Udall, B. 2013. Combined impacts of current and future dust deposition and regional warming on Colorado River Basin snow dynamics and hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 4401-4413.
• Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. 2013. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71297.
• Gray, S. T., Lukas, J. J., and Woodhouse, C. A. 2011. Millennial-length records of streamflow from three major upper Colorado River tributaries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 474: 702-712.
• Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P. A., Breshears, D. D., Huxman, T. E., Switanek, M. B., and Durcik, M. 2011. Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 4063-4: 225-233.
• Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W., and Prairie, J. R. 2012. The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1611: 3989-4007.
• Harpold, A., Brooks, P., Rajagopal, S., Heidbuchel, I., Jardine, A., and Stielstra, C. 2012. Changes in snowpack accumulation and ablation in the Intermountain West. Water Resources Research 48(11).
• Kim, J., Kim, T.–K., Arritt, R. W. and Miller, N. L. 2002. Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15: 1926–1942.
• Knowles, N., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545–4559.
• Miller, W. P., and Piechota, T. C. 2011. Trends in Western U.S. snowpack and related upper Colorado River Basin streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 476: 1197-1210.
• Miller, W. P., Piechota, T. C., Gangopadhyay, S., and Pruitt, T. 2011. Development of streamflow projections under changing climate conditions over Colorado River Basin headwaters. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 157: 2145-2164.
• Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. Journal of Climate 19: 6209-6220.
• Murphy, K., and Ellis, A. 2014. An assessment of the stationarity of climate and stream flow in watersheds of the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 509: 454-473.
• Nowak, K., Hoerling, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Zagona, E. 2012. Colorado River Basin hydroclimatic variability. Journal of Climate 25(12): 4389-4403.
• Oubeidillah, A. A., Tootle, G. A., Moser, C., Piechota, T., and Lamb, K. 2011. Upper Colorado River and Great Basin streamflow and snowpack forecasting using Pacific oceanic-atmospheric variability. Journal of Hydrology 41(3): 169-177.
• Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T. 2008. Attribution of declining western U.S. snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate 21: 6425-6444.
• Rauscher, S. A., Pal, J. S., Diffenbaugh, N. S., and Benedetti, M. M. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 1-5.
• Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., Clark, M., and Pitlick, J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372-384.
• Rosenberg, E. A., Clark, E. A., Steinemann, A. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2013. On the contribution of groundwater storage to interannual streamflow anomalies in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(4): 1475-1491.
• Salzmann, N., and Mearns, L. O. 2012. Assessing the performance of multiple regional climate model simulations for seasonal mountain snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology 132: 539-556.
• Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Bradford, J. B. 2012. Consequences of declining snow accumulation for water balance of mid-latitude dry regions. Global Change Biology 18: 1988–1997.
• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D. 2006. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
• U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Spring arriving earlier in western streams. Southwest Hydrologist 6(1): 26-27-36.
• Vano, J. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2014. A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change 1224: 621-634.
• Vano, J. A., Das, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2012. Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. Journal of Hydrometeorology 13(3): 932-949.
• Wenger, S. J., Luce, C. H., Hamlet, A. F., Isaak, D. J., and Neville, H. M. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839
• Wi, S., Dominguez, F., Durcik, M., Valdes, J., Diaz, H. F., and Castro, C. L. 2012. Climate change projection of snowfall in the Colorado River Basin using dynamical downscaling. Water Resources Research 48: 1–17. doi:10.1029/2011WR010674

Invasive Species

• Rahel, F. J., and Olden, J. D. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22: 521–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00950.x

Planning

• Salt Lake City. 2012. Sustainable Salt Lake 2015. Regional Climate Adaptation Planning Alliance.
• Rivers and Streams
  Melack, J. M., Dozier, J., Goldman, C. R., Greenland, D., Milner, A. M. and Naiman, R. J. 1997. Effects of climate change on inland waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America. Hydrological Processes 11: 971–992.

Vegetation

• Hultine, K. R., Burtch, K. G., and Ehleringer, J. R. 2013. Gender specific patterns of carbon uptake and water use in a dominant riparian tree species exposed to a warming climate. Global Change Biology 19: 3390–3405. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12230
• Stevens, L. E., and Siemion, G. 2012. Tamarisk reproductive phenology and Colorado River hydrography, Southwestern USA. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 44: 46-58.

Water Management

• Dawadi, S., and Ahmad, S. 2012. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology 430-431: 127-141.
• Groves, D. G., Fishbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D., and Keefe, R. 2013. Adapting to a changing Colorado River. Rand Corporation.
• Wildman, Jr., R. A., and Forde, N. A. 2012. Management of water shortage in the Colorado River Basin: Evaluating current policy and the viability of interstate water trading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 411-422.

Water Resources

• Barnett, T., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, B., and Washington, W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the West: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11.
• Belnap, J., and Campbell, D. H. 2011. Effects of climate change and land use on water resources in the upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3123. Source: GEOREF
• Christensen, N. S., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 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 Discussions 3: 3727–3770.
• Colby, B. G., and Frisvold, G. B. (eds). 2011. Adaptation and resilience: The economics of climate, water, and energy challenges in the American southwest. RFF Press, Washington, DC and London, 264 pp.
• Garfin, G., and Lenart, M. 2007. Climate change effects on southwest water resources. Southwest Hydrology 16-17: 34.
• Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43(6): 1–17. doi:10.1029/2006WR005099.
• Lempert, R. J., and Groves, D. G. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77: 960-974.
• Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Rynolds, L. V., Nelson, S. M., and Shafroth, P. B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821-842.A104
• Propst, S. C. 2012. Innovative approaches for adapting to water variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.
• The Natural Resource Council. 1991. Managing water resources in the West under conditions of climate uncertainty. By Committee on Climate Uncertainty and Water Resources Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
• Udall, B. 2013. Water: Impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds). A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.197–217.

Watersheds

• Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Detinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a "business as usual" climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62: 217-232.