2003 Southwest
Drought
Summary Report
1Northern
Report
Compilers: Elizabeth Clark and Neil Cobb,
http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/megadrought/drought_summit_report/index.htm
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A “Southwest Drought Summit” was held at
INTRODUCTION
The “Southwest Drought Summit”
held at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona on May 12-13, 2003
was designed to bring together scientists and decision makers with the
common goal of providing a synthesis of current scientific and policy
information on the issue of drought in the Southwest. Often, the scientific
community views science as undervalued in policymaking, whereas policy makers
find scientific information to be complex and inaccessible. The
The resulting summit was the formulation of an integrative and proactive strategy to address emerging water and land management issues. The summit addressed a rising concern that the Southwest has emerged from an unusual “wet” period of several decades and entered a drought period that may be the long-term norm. The environmental consequences of a change in weather patterns to a period of sustained drought in the Southwest have far-reaching policy implications for municipal and regional land and water management decision makers. Therefore, the focus of the summit was to integrate and analyze knowledge about the causes and consequences of drought in the Southwest so as to more completely and effectively address the impacts it has on the environment and society.
This goal was achieved by assessing the drought from a long-term climatic perspective, synthesizing research on the ecology and hydrology of drought impacts, which included short- and long-term predictions for Southwest ecosystems, proposing long-term strategies that may involve modifying land management and water-use policies in order to achieve sustainability. This summit complemented other regional meetings in that it covered a range of major issues associated with our regional drought, which go beyond water availability. The topics covered reflected regional expertise and interest in climate, water availabity, increased human population growth, biodiversity, invasive species, emerging diseases, and the functioning of ecosystems.
The report includes the summit agenda, a synopsis of the first day presentations, followed by the summaries of the four working group. The summaries highlight the discussions on the second day of the summit by the working groups, and their subgroups. Specifically, each group identified key issues, proposed major predictions, and assessed specific needs for managers and researchers to more effectively deal with drought issues.
The working groups were divided into Climate, Water, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity, the latter three groups were further divided into subgroups. The Water group was divided into two subgroups that addressed issues of water use and human demographics, and regional hydrologic functions. The Biodiversity group comprised four sub-groups that focused on populations, communities, plants, and animals, including wildlife species, insect outbreaks, invasive species, and diseases. The ecosystem group was divided into groups that focused on issues of rangeland/agricultural sustainability, desertification and global carbon. Researchers, policy experts, and decision makers were represented in each of these groups.
We
provide two appendices in the report including a list of summit attendees with
their pertinent information, and participant responses evaluating the
summit. Our website http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/megadrought/drought_summit_report/index.htm
contains these appendices as well as this final report and the full PowerPoint
presentations and abstracts of the lectures presented at the summit by Day 1
speakers. This same material is also available on CD-Rom from
Neil.Cobb@nau.edu. The
1Please
visit http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/megadrought/drought_summit_report/index.htm
Day One Formal Presentations: Welcome
David Ostergren, 2003 Southwest
Drought
The Current Drought in Historical Perspective.
Julio Betancourt,
Hydroclimatology
of Southwestern Droughts.
Michael Dettinger, U.S. Geological Survey, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, and Greg McCabe, U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO.
Perspectives on Drought
Impacts on Diverse Southwest Ecosystems
Drought
Impacts on Functions of Hydrologic Systems.
Abe Springer and Stephen Flora (NAU, Geology)
Human Demography, Water Supply and Water
Use.
Bark Beetles, Drought and
John Anhold and Joel McMillin (USFS/Forest Health Monitoring,
Altered Fire Regimes and
Tom Kolb and Pete Fule (NAU,
Ecosystem Responses.
Paul Selmants1, Margaret Hiza2,
Matthew Loeser3, and
Drought Effects on
Robert Webb,
Biodiversity of Native Plants and Animals.
Tom Whitham1
and Rick Miller2 (1NAU,
Department of
Invasive species & Vector borne diseases.
Kathryn Thomas and Charles van Riper (USGS/NAU, Colorado Plateau Field Station/Southwest Biological Science Center).
Stakeholders: Federal, State, Tribal, County and Municipal Perspectives
Bureau of Land Management. Carl Rountree
National Park Service. Ron Hiebert
Bureau of Reclamation. Carol Lynn Erwin
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Barry Welch
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Michael Somerville, Don Paulus
Arizona Department of Water Resources Drought Task Force. Kathy Jacobs
United States Geological Survey. Chris Smith
Town of
Drought Planning: A State, National And International Perspective On Strategies For Success.
Donald A. Wilhite, Director,
The Effects of Drought on
Agriculture, Food and Domestic Security.
Highlights of the First Day’s Presentations: A Perspective
From
Dennis B. Fenn, USGS,
1) It was recommended that communities and government use a risk management approach rather than a disaster response approach to drought.
2) The Hydro-Illogical Cycle shown by Dr. Wilhite is a good graphic that illustrates the challenges facing society in taking a long-term approach to drought preparation.
3) Numerous speakers have indicated that there are several types of drought.
Ø Meteorological
Ø Agricultural
Ø Hydrological
Ø Socio-Economic and Political
4) The Southwest has suffered drought before and we will suffer drought again in the future. The difference now is that society’s degree of vulnerability has increased due to population growth and economic development in the region.
5)
The question was raised about whether
6) We learned that our moisture in the Southwest is the gift of three fickle magi from afar, who answer to the names:
Ø ENSO – El Nińo Southern Oscillation
Ø PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and
Ø AMO – Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation
Sometimes these forces work together for our good; while at other times they fight it out, to our detriment.
7) Several speakers told us about the ecological effects of drought, using examples like the biodiversity bottleneck, reproductive success determinants, the boon and bane of invasive species, and zoonotic disease movers and shakers.
8) The land and water management, and regulatory agencies described how drought could complicate their agency mission, such as in setting maximum animal units for each grazing allotment.
9)
We heard about how drought, federal land management
agency policies in response to drought, and
10) We heard about the need for monitoring protocols and better ecological information on the effects of drought. For example, what are drought indicators that might have practical application for the land manager?
11) We learned
that the
12) Several speakers mentioned the concern that drought is synergistically acting with forest management practices in the U.S. to create more wildfires annually as well as far more destructive fires than ever before.
13) Several speakers called for the development of a list of drought plan triggers that communities and government could use in order to respond more effectively to drought events in a timely fashion.
WORKING
GROUP SUMMARIES
The Climate
Working Group (CWG) examined issues with regard to key research, monitoring,
prediction, and communication needs for the Southwest with a special focus on
The CWG recommends attention and resources be devoted to monitoring drought on many spatial and temporal scales, with a special emphasis on hydrological monitoring and improving the network of high-elevation monitoring sites. In addition, the CWG recommends support of global monitoring systems, in order to improve our ability to track the persistent ocean circulation patterns that control long-term drought in the Southwest, according to the most up-to-date research available.
The CWG found that our ability to predict drought is, at present, poor. Prediction is, in part, constrained by seasonal climate variations that limit forecast accuracy in spring, for example. However, the CWG is sanguine that drought forecasts will improve as deep ocean monitoring networks are expanded, and as information about decade-scale climate variations is incorporated into forecasts. In the absence of substantial forecast skill, and in addition to the present array of available forecast tools, the CWG recommends the development of scenario tests, based on analogues from historical and paleo-climate records.
Key Issues
1) What starts and ends droughts?
Ø Drought inducing ocean patterns
Ø Persistence in climate system
Ø Long-term decade-scale climate variations
2) What could trigger a wet period?
Ø Some combination of the following, which affect the position of the Jet Stream and delivery of moisture to the Southwest:
§
Positive phase of the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO), Negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO: an example would be cooling in the
Ø A consistent combination of positive PDO and negative AMO for ~3 years
Ø Individual events such as El Niño are merely interruptions
3) What drought indices are appropriate for AZ?
Ø Palmer Drought Indices (PDSI< PHDI), Standard Precipitation Index (SPI), Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI), Remote Sensing-derived indices
Ø For effective drought monitoring and assessment, there is a need to calculate drought indices at finer spatial scales
§ For example, is a county or watershed scale more appropriate?
4) What are the sub-regional spatial patterns of precipitation?
5) There is a need for research on droughtas well as drought monitoring to continue during wet periods.
· No predictions were offered by the working group due the limitations of forecasting, however there are some recommendations for ascertaining possible predictions in the future:
Ø A more accurate 9-month forecast of ENSO-related sea surface temperatures is possible following the spring months. During the spring the ocean-atmosphere system is unstable, resulting in poor forecast skill. Forecasts can be provided by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), and from independent Global Circulation Models (GCM’s)
Ø With improved ocean monitoring more accurate forecasts are possible
Ø One long-term consensus forecast is possible
· A distinction important to decision makers in the Southwest is that long-term drought is subject to irregular regimes, rather than regular cycles.
· Droughts recorded in the historical and paleo-climate records can be used to develop a variety of scenarios for planning.
· Decadal-scale climate information, such as that derived from records of the PDO, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and AMO, should be incorporated into scenario development and testing.
· It is important that researchers provide explicit confidence statements with regard to scenarios and scenario testing.
· Re-evaluate management decisions from recent drought years.
Ø For example, if we had 100% foresight about 1999-2002 drought, could certain management decisions have mitigated the effects of drought?
· Mega-drought Scenarios – what would happen if the Great Drought (1200-1300’s) occurred today?
· What are the implications of Arizona-only droughts versus more regionally extensive droughts?
Research Needs
·
Assess
and Implement Solutions to State/Regional Monitoring Gaps
Ø
Ø Maintain funding for stream gauges, groundwater monitoring, and climate stations; high elevation precipitation/snow monitoring stations
Ø Update key tree-ring records
§ Need 2002 to establish a more effective baseline for State/Regional
§ Monitoring gaps
Ø Incorporate remotely sensed data in order to fill in spatial gaps, especially with regard to summer PPT
Ø Non-tropical deep ocean monitoring
Ø Support NOAA (CLIVAR) - have plans to increase instrumentation
Ø Be ware that better monitoring and forecast tools may be available in the near future
Ø Our understanding of climate is improving
Outreach & Communication Needs
· Improve public understanding through outreach programs.
Ø Make published research available to managers and decision makers; encourage & improve such efforts
· Have a state drought spokesperson.
Ø For example, a state climatologist
· Get the attention of federal forecast/climate agencies to focus on SW issues.
Ø For example, decadal-scale drought
· Increase communication among and between disciplines .
Ø For example, climatologists and economists
WATER WORKING GROUP
1USGS, Flagstaff Field Office, 2Northern Arizona University, Department of Geology, 3 Northern Arizona University, Center for Environmental Science and Education
Although the focus on droughts is usually on a lack of precipitation, this decrease in precipitation has consequences for hydrologic systems on and below the surface of the Earth. Drought leads to a decrease in recharge to aquifers through reductions in: (1) aerially distributed recharge, (2) focused recharge, (3) waste water return flows, (4) irrigation return flow, and from (5) increased evaporation and transpiration. The typical response of humans to a hydrologic drought is to: (1) pump more groundwater at existing wells to make up for loss of surface water, (2) drill more boreholes to augment supply, (3) remove riparian vegetation to decrease transpiration, (4) implement conservation practices, and/or (5) develop alternative water supplies.
Hydrologic drought impacts soil water and groundwater in many ways. It leads to a loss of groundwater and soil-water storage. This causes water levels in wells to be lowered and an increased depth to water in riparian areas with less water available for the plants to transpire. It also leads to a decrease in aquifer discharge. This will cause a decrease in base-flow in streams and lakes, decreased spring discharges, and decreased aquatic habitat in streams and lakes. Other impacts are increases in the risks from land subsidence and saltwater intrusion.
The U.S. Geological Survey began a
system of monitoring stream discharge in the late 1800’s on many streams in the
Because
of the lack of direct hydrological measurements of the impacts of recent
droughts, it is useful to look at the hydrological impacts of land-use
management to understand potential impacts on hydrological systems. There are good examples of changing agricultural
practices and changing forest management practices to use as surrogates to
understand the changes we might anticipate from drought. Also there may be animal taxa, such as spring
snails, that may be very useful habitat indicators of long-term vegetation
patterns, to understand drought on longer time scales.
The water in the
1) There is a public perception that the resource is unlimited.
Ø The notion that one might have to pay higher water fees, but there is plenty of water to go around right now without a lot of thought towards the future
2) There is a need for adequate land use planning.
Ø Real estate planners, golf courses
3) Conversion of agricultural land to residential land.
Ø Apparently, residential land use uses more water then the previous agricultural uses of the land
4) A desire to preserve “the rural way of life” despite its current conflict with maintaining or creating sustainable conditions.
5) Impacts on hydrologic processes (recharge/storage)
Ø Increased runoff where trees and plants have been removed from the land cover, allowing water to keep moving over the land instead of going into the ground
Ø Increased Fire and
Ø bark beetle infestations
6) There exist short-term institutional barriers to water movement.
Ø Conservation practices
7) There is a need for better communication/outreach/interaction on water shortage/supply.
Ø Devise approaches to educating people on how to conserve water, where the water comes from, who is sharing the water with them, and why they should conserve
8) Urban/rural polarization must be reduced.
Ø Devise better communication between the urban and rural communities with regards to water use, water needs (i.e. livestock needs versus filling your swimming pool). The larger voting body is typically urban and thus rural needs and issues may be overlooked.
9) Regular stakeholder involvement in is needed more in the planning process.
Ø Allow greater public participation
10) Greater communication of hydrological issues to land managers is needed along with promoting greater public participation.
11)
12) The problems that arise with water availability in relation to a growing population must be taken into account.
Ø The growing population means more wells pulling out more water. How many wells can we put in the ground and on what evidence is this water use based? Can a community establish a population number, based on the water availability, beyond which there can be no more growth?
13) Need to evaluate the impact of drought on watershed scale, point monitoring (e.g., single wells) is not adequate.
Ø
An example of this is wells drying up in Parks,
14) Further study of groundwater/surface-water interaction is necessary.
Ø Is ground water being withdrawn from wells near a flowing river impacting the river stage?
Ø
For example,
15) How will the dynamics of drought and decreased snow pack impact water availability?
Ø For example, increased temperatures
Ø
Less snow means less recharge to ground water or
run off to
16) It is necessary for many different constituents to understanding the water budget.
Ø Regional understanding of where the water from the tap is coming from. Learn how to communicate this to water managers and communities to help conserve water and/or limit growth
17) There needs to be centralized management and planning authority.
Ø Make sure all parties involved are making informed decisions based on sound information
18) A greater understanding of supply and demand is necessary.
Ø How much water is available and who needs it?
19) How does location affect water availability in certain communities?
Ø upstream vs. downstream
Ø water rights issues, water quality issues
20) More accurate information/indices are needed.
Ø Make sure the parameters and conditions under which the data were collected are well understood
Ø For example, long-term versus short-term surface water gauging data; or tree ring data; or paleo-climatic data)
21) Time scales for the information being collected and used in planning must be taken into consideration.
Ø Same concerns and suggestions as for #19
22) The integrity of spring, seep, and riparian ecosystems must be protect and preserved.
Ø Make sure riparian ecosystems are not adversely impacted by human needs
23) Protection of endangered species is necessary.
Ø Protection of the ecosystem(s) in which the species lives
Predictions
·
Droughts are normal and will continue.
Ø Understanding that drought is part of the climatic cycle whether caused by anthropogenic or natural causes
·
Less snow pack will decrease recharge to
aquifers and reduce surface water availability.
Ø Fits into understanding the water budget and how drought affects the water used by a community and/or decisions made by City water managers
·
Increased evapotranspiration (i.e., water
transpired by plants) will occur with increases in temperature.
Ø Evapotranspiration removes a lot of water from a system. More plants lead to an increase in water loss
· Aquifers will continue to be drained regardless of drought conditions.
Ø Communities ignore drought conditions and continue with the same level of water usage as in non-drought conditions
· Policy links must be made between groundwater and surface water.
Ø Communities have to be pro-active and learn about the hydrologic connection between groundwater and surface water and make sound water use decisions based on this understanding
· The increase in population will result in an increase of ground water pumping.
·
There will be an increase in sedimentation in
existing reservoirs due to the impacts of fire in watersheds.
Ø Surface water runoff in areas where foliage has been removed by fire or other means will increase the salinity within the reservoirs from increases in the sediment being carried in with the water and diminish the water quality
Ø Decrease storage
Ø Decrease in water quality
·
Changes in channel morphology will occur.
Ø Down cutting and/or aggradations
Ø Apparently, either process can occur in times of drought
· Groundwater usage and pumping will increase as it is no longer possible to create new surface-water reservoirs.
· Rivers, streams and washes will be negatively impacted by the continued loss of discharge from the groundwater systems due to a increased water use and a lack of recharge. This condition will be aggravated by the impacts if pumping in rivers and streams, and base-flow will be especially problematic near pumping centers.
· A greater use of alternative water supplies will need to occur.
Ø Recycled water, reclaimed effluent, and captured water, for example, storm water
Ø Gray water
· Water quality will continue to decline as wastewater is a soup of unregulated compounds.
Ø Know what is in your reclaimed/recycled water and which uses are reasonable
· We will work together---the population will respond.
· We will protect rivers, plants, animals.
· A change in the economic paradigm must occur so that growth is not the only valid indication of the future health of our country.
Manager Needs
·
Define the triggers and thresholds of drought
for clarification and identification purposes.
Ø Through dependable scientific means identify ways to measure aspects of the hydrologic system that clearly declare drought conditions
· Make data readily accessible as well as understandable, and easy to interpret.
· Researchers must produce information and materials in a timely manner.
· Create a comprehensive, integrated spring monitoring program.
Ø Identify vulnerable springs
Ø Establish monitoring program
· Assess hydrologic needs and concerns at the geographic scale of watersheds.
· Know and understand redundant water supplies, especially in rural areas.
· Understand transient nature of water budgets and associated processes.
Ø Recharge
· Generate better GIS information for hydrologic planning/models for floodplains and watersheds.
·
· Define appropriate baseline conditions/trends, triggers, and thresholds of drought.
· Create a comprehensive, integrated, monitoring program in real time in designated monitoring wells.
Ø Determine well sites that are unused, to collect water level data, which can be used to determine the health of the ground water system
Ø Identify vulnerable aquifers
Ø Establish monitoring program
·
Increase resources for proper management.
· Incorporate cultural information into hydrologic system management.
·
Estimate returns on previous investment in
research.
Ø Make sure the manager understands what will happen if they do not invest in gaining knowledge about the hydrologic system they depend on for water
· Need to support long-term monitoring.
Ø Managers often provide funding for short time period, but scientists understand and need long term monitoring to provide information for at least some solutions
· Participation in Drought Task Force and subgroups is required.
· Create an organizational framework that would facilitate communication among researchers, managers, and other stakeholders.
Researcher Needs
· Increase in allocation of resources, including funding that are adequate and sufficient, towards drought research.
· Make data from land and water managers accessible to help guide research efforts
Ø Knowing past & present land uses (e.g., grazing, timber sales) would be helpful for directing research, or placing it in appropriate context
· issues.
· Management planning documents and policy papers need to incorporate more results from studies. Researchers need to know how the results of their research will be disseminated. Despite researchers voluntarily compiling their results for managers, they are not always incorporated into management plans.
· Government and agency support for long-term studies. Land management plans and funding agencies need to invest at least some resources in long-term monitoring and research in order for early detection of drought impacts and initiation of drought mitigation plans.
· Scientists must have a forum for collaboration with stakeholders, managers, and others.
· Scientists must build relationships with managers and take time to interact with them.
· Prioritize research.
· Responsibilities must be delineated.
· Scientists must participate in the AZ Drought Task Force and in each subgroup.
Compiled by Peter Price,
Neil Cobb and Kitty Gehring
Northern
The Biodiversity
Working Group examined several areas of interrelated interest that were highly
relevant to drought issues. Concerns
about loss in biodiversity is relevant because of the direct impact of drought
on plants and animals and the added pressure of human activities exacerbating
the problem of drought for plant and animal species.
The areas of focus by the working group were
native plant and animal populations, species, and communities, with a
complementary but separate focus on key wildlife species. The other areas of focus were the role of
drought in promoting insect outbreaks, invasive plant species, and diseases
affecting humans and wildlife. Here we
summarize the predictions and issues regarding biodiversity and provide some
recommendations for mitigation biodiversity losses, including population
reductions of key wildlife and plant species at risk.
Key Issues
1)
Species at risk – threatened and endangered
species
Ø
We
need to know the species that are impacted by drought, those that are at the
southern end of their range, those that exploit temporary water holes and small
springs, and those that utilize other species susceptible to drought, such as
herbivores
2)
Habitat types at risk (fragmentation and
conversion) along with keystone/dominant species
Ø
There
will be increasers and decreasers in response to drought. The proportion in each of these categories
will likely depend on the length and severity of drought
Ø
Predictions
are needed on the response of many species. Keystone species are defined as
those species that greatly impact the ecosystems in which they live (i.e.
productivity, biodiversity) well beyond their biomass, e.g. ants
3)
The problems of invasive species and several
diseases are likely to increase
Ø
Detection
protocols are needed to reduce movement and colonization of invasive species in
new areas. Monitoring programs need to
provide early warning of the existing of emerging diseases.
4)
The scale of studies and interactions affect
perceptions on the importance of drought
Ø
Highly
mobile animals may be less impacted than immobile plants and poor dispersers
such as snails and fish. Conversely,
large animals might be more impacted than small animals. Wildlife species, insects and plants will
respond to drought in different ways, which we need to understand
5)
Long-term and short-term effects are important
to understand
Ø
This
will require long- term studies and the establishment of a data bank with any
relevant long-term data generally available. Shortage of long-term studies,
experiments and monitoring of permanent plots is a disadvantage for
understanding the consequences of drought.
Existing data sets should be exploited
Ø
There
are few sources of funding designated to support the long-term integrated
aspects of drought
6)
Education at all levels, from bio-political to
management and cultural
Ø
Paradigm
shifts will be necessary for any activity that could have major impacts on
biodiversity during droughts. Such activities and policies include grazing and
grazing rights, home water use, irrigation, grey water, storage of run-off,
promotion of efficiency and general water conservation
7)
Priorities need to be set, scenarios developed
and general planning established to interface society, research, management and
policies
8)
Socioeconomic priorities need to be debated and
resolved, including outdoor recreation, promotion of planning for urban
development or its restriction, farming, sports, natural areas and
wilderness. Protection of property and sensitive
habitats against fire will be essential
9)
The role of temperature as a factor explaining
insect outbreaks and invasive species needs to be considered. Although we focus on precipitation during
droughts, increased temperatures can play an important role in promoting pest
outbreaks.
Predictions
· We predict several changes will occur in the biodiversity of plants and animals. One of the biggest concerns is that sensitive species will go locally extinct. These will include species that are the most directly dependent on water resources such as springs. Populations of most species will be more likely to move north in latitude or up elevational gradients to areas that fulfill needs for sufficient water and reduced temperatures. Contraction of geographic range may be common as large areas become too stressful for reproduction and survival. Drought-adapted species will increase in abundance and/or expand their range. Thus, there will be different responses to drought, both in the short term and long term. Some species will increase in abundance and distribution while other species will decrease. Examples of species include:
Ø Short-Term Response
§ increasers – bark beetles, invasive plants, generalist species, bark foragers
§ decreasers – threatened and endangered species, specialists, many wildlife species
Ø Long-Term Response
§ increasers - invasive species, some wildlife (depends on habitat shifts)
§ decreasers – bark beetles and bark foragers, specialists
· Resetting of succession. Death of dominant plants and fire will set plant community succession back to earlier stages, for example from forest to weedy annuals. Drought may result in terrestrial plant succession succeeding aquatic habitats
· Existing refugia may decline or be lost. Sky island habitat will shrink, and aquatic and moist habitats will decline, perhaps resulting in unsustainable populations of residents
· Foci of interactions concentrate around limited water resources, leading to greater competition and potential for spread of diseases
· Bottlenecks develop in space and time. As size of populations decrease to critical levels, genetic bottlenecks result and establishment of new and viable populations is greatly limited
Common Needs for Managers and
Researchers
· Priority lists for planning, including identifying species of concern, habitats of concern, and how their viability depends on water conservation, and land use practices
· Setting socioeconomic priorities such as outdoor recreation, private property use and hunting.
· Long-term data sets from experiments to monitoring of species distributions and abundances, plant and animal community structure, and response of key species to drought
· Network of long-term protected plots representing all southwest habitat types, including control plots, for extended observation of communities, interactions and responses to drought
· Monitoring criteria and protocols for standardized data collection and directly comparable results
· Acceleration of permitting processes to conduct critical studies for understanding how drought impacts populations, and plant and animal communities
· Improved information exchange between researchers and managers
Ø Meetings, conferences and online research forums necessary for researchers and managers to effectively respond to one another’s needs
· Review and synthesis of scientific information needs to be conducted on an annual basis through interdisciplinary research/management teams
· Historical photographs, remote sensing, databases should be incorporated into current drought-specific data so that we can better ascertain how habitats have changed over time (historic photos) and across the Southwest (remote sensing), as well as how they might impact different land management practices (existing databases)
· Development of predictive models and scenario modeling to better understand how sensitive species, dominant species, and biodiversity will be impacted across spatial and temporal scales
· Identification of sensitive habitats and environments and the reduction of impacts by increased active management during drought
· Management for movement and range extension of exotics, invasives, disease and vectors of disease. Disease transmission dynamics will change with drought conditions, which need to be anticipated
Ø
e.g., How is an emerging disease like
· Management at multiple scales. Management needs to be concerned with genetic, population, community, ecosystem, landscape, bioregion and global scales
· Management as if every year is a drought year, at least for species and communities at risk so that they are buffered during droughts, which are unpredictable
The
Ecosystems Working Group (EWG) identified the effects of drought on rural
ecosystems, including reduced food security, lost economic vitality, and
diminished environmental sustainability.
The drought of 2002 in combination with consecutive years of dry
conditions has had extensive negative effects on the rural lands and people of
The EWG predicts future droughts will produce many of the same negative effects of the 2002 drought on rangelands and agriculture because regional mitigation plans do not exist. Rural economic security would be bolstered by further economic diversification as well as emphasis on managing our natural resources for drought-readiness. Successful preparedness will depend on an educated public, particularly on the issues of natural resources and food production. We recommend the creation of a drought-focused educational outreach program for rural and urban communities.
In summary, the EWG supports a pro-active
approach to drought and its effects on rangelands, agriculture, and
desertification. It was our estimation
that cost-savings, in both economic and environmental terms, would greatly
exceed the costs of initiating a drought-readiness program.
Ø Drought commonly crosses political boundaries, but agencies struggle to work across those same boundaries
Ø Resource managers would benefit from an enumeration of the shared goals of constituents
Ø The public should be better educated on the interrelationships of hydrology, geology, and biology
Ø
In some parts of
Ø Resource managers rarely have information on ecological dynamics that occur at multi-century time scales, let alone multi-decadal scales. We need scientific information to put ecological change in context
Ø Effective monitoring requires an assessment of the appropriate scale. We recommend a large-scale approach
Ø Different agencies apply different monitoring protocols which makes inter-agency collaboration difficult
Ø
There needs to be an assessment of the costs of
drought based on its effects to
Ø Drought conditions can push ranching families into selling land for development that may have negative consequences for ecosystems
Ø As farmland becomes developed, more water is consumed. Communities may wish to apply growth boundaries
Ø More informed citizens would lead to more effective decisions
Ø Resource managers would benefit from an enumeration of the shared goals of constituents
18) There is evidence of frequent, low-intensity fires in Southwestern ponderosa pine forests prior to Euro-American settlement. The disruption of this fire regime in the late 1800’s, and large increases in tree density since then, are irrefutable.
Ø Increasing fuel loads and drought in Southwest ponderosa pine forests cause large, synchronous crown fires
Ø Drought tends to lead to increases in soil loss through erosion which may lead to the following ecological responses
§ Higher proportions of woody vegetation
§ Increased desertification
Ø Human behavior may be more limiting to changing land use practices than scientific knowledge
· Frequency of large synchronous crown fires will likely increase in the future because present fuel loads and future increases in fuels overwhelm current capacity for fuels reduction treatments.
Ø Effects of these large synchronous crown fires include: increased opportunities for invasion by exotic, noxious weeds; massive soil erosion; flooding; damage to down slope riparian areas; deforestation for decades to centuries; degradation of aesthetics; degradation of recreation opportunities; and many others
Ø Heavy crown damage to ponderosa pine reduces tree resistance to bark beetle attack, and may promote landscape scale beetle outbreaks
·
Heavy ponderosa pine mortality from bark
beetles, an effect of the 2002 drought, will likely affect fire incidence and
behavior, but data is scarce. A
hypothesis is: As long as dead needles
remain on the dead trees the hazard for an intense crown fire is high. When the needles fall to the ground the
probability of an intense crown fire decreases, but increases for a
low-intensity ground fire until they deteriorate. When the dead trees fall, the
probability of crown fire is nil, and the residence time of ground fires should
increase because of more slow-burning fuels.
·
Severe
drought decreases herbaceous productivity and diversity, with the following
possible effects: increased soil erosion, increased opportunities for exotic
plant invasion, reduced energy transfers through food webs, lower NPP and
carbon sequestration, altered food webs ,
and less animal forage.
·
Thinning
causes small, ephemeral increases in down slope water runoff and drainage;
effects diminish as vegetation recovers.
·
Landscape
scale thinning in the future will be limited by the high costs of treatment,
low wood value, and lack of regional markets; inadequate resources for quick
NEPA has been suggested as a constraint.
Solutions include: 1) coordinated/consistent wood supply, 2) incentives
to stimulate local markets/biomass energy, 3) “super NEPA” teams, 4) large
state/federal subsides/public works programs.
· An adequate response to drought will require the effort of more people and funding.
Ø Better monitoring of rangeland, determining forage production
Ø Established protocol for decision making due to drought
·
Planning
should take into account the beneficial effects of thinning on ponderosa pine
water uptake and growth are most pronounced in drought years; thinning
ameliorates effects of drought on tree stress.
·
Thinning is recommended to reduce ponderosa pine
tree density in order to increase tree resistance against bark beetles and
reduce crown fire occurrence
· Policymakers need to be informed on the consequences of developing rural land.
Ø Getting criteria for drought management into land use plans for federal agencies
§ For example, individual vs. common allotments
·
Rapid response to drought will be more effective
than a post-mortem approach.
Ø Giving people options for what to do with their livestock
Ø Good ways of identifying onset and relief of drought
·
Researchers need to know the questions to which
the resource managers are seeking answers.
·
Much
less is known about effects of thinning and fuels treatments on pinyon-juniper
woodlands than ponderosa pine forests. Current thinning experiments in P-J
offer research opportunities.
Ø Need to provide information from the 2003 drought summit and other sources to people to ensure an educated public
Ø
urban-rural interface issues , for example, development
impacts on water resources
Grazing practices should incorporate drought planning.
Changing emphasis from drought mitigation to management early on in drought
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
|
Abraham |
Joe |
|||
|
|
Henry |
NAU |
|
|
|
|
R. Scott |
NAU |
|
|
|
Archer |
Scott |
BLM |
|
|
|
Aumack |
Ethan |
NAU |
|
|
|
Balice |
Randy |
LANL |
|
|
|
Barnett |
Loyd |
Verde Watershed Ass. |
|
|
|
Battin |
James |
NAU |
|
|
|
Beard |
Sue |
USGS |
|
|
|
Benally |
Ailema |
NPS |
|
|
|
Besich |
|
|
||
|
Bessler |
Sierra Club |
|
||
|
Betancourt |
USGS |
|
||
|
Billingsley |
USGS |
|
||
|
Bills |
USGS |
|
||
|
Blueyes |
Navajo Nation |
Window Rock, AZ |
||
|
Bogle |
USGS |
|
||
|
Bonomo |
USFS |
|
||
|
Boothe |
Ft. McDowell/Yavapai Nation |
|
|
|
|
Bowker |
NAU |
|
||
|
Brand |
USGS |
|
|
|
|
Brewer |
USFS |
Williams, AZ |
||
|
Brock |
ASU |
|
||
|
Broscheid |
AZ Game and Fish |
|
||
|
Brose |
AZ Hydrological Society |
|
||
|
Brown |
City of |
Page, AZ |
||
|
Brown |
U of A |
|
||
|
Bury |
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe |
|
||
|
Calhoun |
The Nature Conservancy |
|
||
|
Carter |
CLIMAS/ U of A |
|
||
|
Castillo |
Navajo Nation |
Window Rock, AZ |
||
|
Chanler |
|
|
||
|
Chavez |
USGS |
|
||
|
Clemmons |
National Weather Service |
|
||
|
Cobb |
NAU |
|
||
|
Cole |
USGS |
|
||
|
Cortner |
NAU-ERI |
|
||
|
Crawford |
USFS |
|
||
|
Crisp |
NAU |
|
||
|
Crosswhite |
Rancher |
|
||
|
Cullen |
Desert Bighorn Sheep Society |
|
||
|
Cullom |
CAP |
|
||
|
Daly |
BLM |
|
|
|
|
|
BIA |
|
||
|
de la Torre |
Southwest Strategy |
|
||
|
Decker |
NAU |
|
||
|
Dettinger |
USGS |
|
||
|
Didier |
Hualapai & Havasupai Reservations/ U of A |
|
||
|
Dittberner |
BLM |
|
||
|
Emery |
AZ State Parks |
|
||
|
Erwin |
USBR |
|
||
|
Ester |
SPR |
|
||
|
Fenn |
USGS |
|
||
|
Fisk |
USGS |
|
||
|
Fiss |
NAU |
|
||
|
Flora |
NAU |
|
||
|
Flynt |
NAU |
|
||
|
Fontes |
|
|
||
|
Forsgren |
USFS/SWS |
|
||
|
Fox |
NAU |
|
||
|
Frye |
USFS |
|
||
|
Fule |
NAU |
|
||
|
Garfin |
CLIMAS/ U of A |
|
||
|
Gaylord |
NAU |
|
||
|
Gehring |
NAU |
|
||
|
Gitlin |
NAU |
|
||
|
Gonzales |
BLM |
|
|
|
|
Green |
USFS |
|
||
|
Grossi |
BLM |
|
||
|
Haeger |
NAU |
|
|
|
|
Hart |
USGS |
|
||
|
Hedwall |
|
|||
|
Heffernon |
Morrison Institute for Public Policy |
|
||
|
Helm |
USGA |
|
||
|
Helmandollar |
U of A |
|
||
|
Herder |
BLM |
|
||
|
|
USGS |
|
||
|
Herring |
Prescott College |
|
jherring@prescott. |
|
|
Hiebert |
NPS |
|
||
|
Hiza |
USGS |
|
||
|
Hollister |
|
|
||
|
Hornewer |
USGS |
|
||
|
Hudgins |
Hudgins Consulting, PC |
|
||
|
Hunt |
AZ Dept. of Agriculture |
|
||
|
|
BLM |
|
||
|
Jacobs |
Water Resources Research/ U of A |
|
kjacobs@ag.arizona.edu |
|
|
Janeseck |
NAU |
|
||
|
Janeseck |
NAU |
|
||
|
Jerman |
USFS |
Happy |
||
|
Joens |
|
|
||
|
Jones |
Agri-Business Council of AZ |
|
||
|
Kaye |
ASU |
|
||
|
Kolb |
NAU |
|
||
|
Kornrumph |
SRP |
|
||
|
Kuhr |
Museum of Northern Arizona |
|
|
|
|
Lacher |
Lacher Hydrological Consulting |
|
||
|
LaMesa |
NAU |
|
||
|
Loeser |
NAU |
|
||
|
Lomaomvaya |
Hopi Tribe |
|
||
|
MacPhee |
USFS |
|
||
|
|
BLM |
|
a._j._martinez@blm.gov |
|
|
Masek Lopez |
NAU |
|
||
|
McCord |
|
|
||
|
McGivney |
Backpacker Magazine/ NAU |
|
||
|
McMillin |
USFS |
|
||
|
Meneses |
NAU |
|
||
|
Meyers |
USBR |
|
||
|
Miller |
AZ Game and Fish |
|
||
|
Miller |
City of |
|
||
|
Mondry |
USFS |
|
||
|
|
USGS |
|
||
|
Morin |
NAU |
|
||
|
Munderloh |
|
AZ |
||
|
Nabhan |
NAU |
|
||
|
Natori |
|
NM |
||
|
Nelson |
|
|
||
|
Nystedt |
|
|
||
|
Ockenfels |
|
|||
|
Odell |
BLM |
|
||
|
Oms |
Southwest Strategy |
|
||
|
Ostapuk |
Friends of |
Page, AZ |
||
|
Ostergren |
NAU |
|
||
|
Pailzote |
|
|
||
|
Parnell |
NAU |
|
||
|
Paulus |
NRCS |
|
||
|
Pfeifer |
USGS |
|
||
|
Phillips |
USFS |
|
bphillip@fs.fed.us |
|
|
Pitterle |
|
|
||
|
Plough |
Town of |
|
||
|
Prather |
NAU |
|
||
|
Price |
NAU |
|
||
|
Priest |
USGS |
|
||
|
Reider |
NAU |
|
||
|
Reigle |
SRP |
|
||
|
Rhode |
Desert Research Institute |
|
||
|
Rich |
Navajo Nation/ EPA |
|
||
|
Robb |
AZ Game and Fish |
|
||
|
Roberson |
FWS |
|
||
|
Rountree |
BLM |
|
||
|
Sánchez |
USFS |
|
||
|
Schlimgen-Wilson |
Nature Conservancy |
|
||
|
Schlinger |
NAU |
|
||
|
Schmutz |
NAU |
|
||
|
Schwartzman |
AZ Hydrological Society |
|
||
|
Selmants |
NAU |
|
||
|
|
NAU |
|
||
|
Shaw |
USFS-IWFIA |
|
||
|
Skindlov |
SPR |
|
||
|
Skrzynski |
Kaibab Paiute Tribe |
|
||
|
Smith |
BLM |
|
||
|
Smith |
|
|
||
|
Smith |
|
|
||
|
Smith |
|
|
smithm@igc.org |
|
|
Smith |
|
|||
|
Smith |
USGS |
|
||
|
Sockwell |
Mohave |
|
||
|
|
USDA NRCS |
|
||
|
Springer |
NAU |
|
||
|
St.George |
BLM |
|
||
|
Stevens |
Thono O’odham Nation |
Sells, AZ |
|
|
|
Stevens |
NAU |
|
||
|
Stone |
NAU |
|
||
|
Stratton |
Town of Water Dept. |
|
||
|
Stulz |
NAU |
|
||
|
Summerfelt |
|
|
||
|
|
NAU |
|
||
|
Tecle |
NAU |
|
||
|
Their |
USFS |
|
||
|
Thomas |
USGS |
|
||
|
Thomas |
USGS |
|
||
|
Thomas |
|
|
||
|
Tohannie |
NAU/ERI |
|
||
|
Trotta |
NAU |
|
||
|
Trotter |
NAU |
|
||
|
Truini |
USGS |
|
||
|
Tucker |
USGS |
|
||
|
Turner |
|
|||
|
Vahle |
AZ Game and Fish |
|
||
|
van Riper III |
USGS/NAU |
|
||
|
Velasco |
USGS |
|
||
|
Watkins |
Office of the NM State Engineer |
|
||
|
Webb |
USGS |
|
rhwebb@usgs.gov |
|
|
Weidman |
NAU |
|
||
|
Welch |
BIA |
|
|
|
|
West |
U of A |
|
||
|
Whipple |
NAU |
|
Amy.whipple@nau.edu |
|
|
Whitefield |
NPS |
|
||
|
Whitham |
NAU |
|
||
|
Whitmer |
|
Young, AZ |
||
|
Wilcox |
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhite |
|
|||
|
Wirt |
USGS |
|
||
|
Zickus |
NOAA/NWS |
|
|
|
|
Zirbes |
USGS |
|
||
|
Zittle |
SRP |
|
Appendix II
Participant Questionnaire
1. How did you hear about the presentation?
Email Newsletter Daily Newspaper Radio Colleague Other___________
2. How easy was registration?
Easy Moderately
Hard Difficult
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Was the material presented at the conference
completely new, or a review of information you have had?
New Moderately
New Complete
Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. Was the material presented in a clear,
understandable manner?
Clear Moderately Clear Difficult to
Understand
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. How would you evaluate the visual material
(power point, charts, tables)?
Clear Moderately Clear Difficult to
Understand
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6. Were the goals of the conference clear?
Clear Moderately Clear Difficult to
Understand
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. Do you think we achieved our goals?
Achieved goals Moderate Achievement Lacked achievement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. Did you achieve your goals?
Achieved goals Moderate Achievement Lacked achievement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. Should there be another Drought Summit in:
3 months 6
months 1 year 2 years Never
The tables below display the responses of the previous Participant Questionnaire. Of the ten questions, one, nine and ten are non-ranking in nature, whereas the other results displayed demonstrate a ranking from good to bad, with one being good, and ten being bad.
|
|
|
QUESTIONS |
||||||||
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
Good |
1 |
24 (email) |
33 |
|
7 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
3 (3
months) |
|
|
2 |
4 (Newsletter) |
3 |
5 |
7 |
10 |
6 |
3 |
12 |
12 (6
months) |
|
|
3 |
0 (Newspaper) |
5 |
7 |
13 |
13 |
8 |
12 |
10 |
27 (1
year) |
|
|
4 |
2 ( Radio) |
|
6 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 ( 2
years) |
|
Average |
5 |
16 ( Colleague) |
2 |
7 |
7 |
1 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
2 (other) |
|
5 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
10 |
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
4 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
Bad |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Good
(1-3) |
41 |
12 |
27 |
32 |
24 |
25 |
31 |
|
|
Total |
|
Average
(4-6) |
2 |
18 |
15 |
11 |
16 |
14 |
12 |
|
|
Total |
|
Bad
(7-10) |
0 |
14 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
|
|
|
10. Where should the next sumit be held? |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Chinle |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Kayenta |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|