My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Dealing With Drought Workshops Synthesis Notes
CWCB
>
Grants
>
DayForward
>
Dealing With Drought Workshops Synthesis Notes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2014 2:16:59 PM
Creation date
3/29/2011 9:23:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Grants
Applicant
University of Colorado - Western Water Assessment
Grant Type
Non-Reimbursable
Fiscal Year (i.e. 2008)
2010
Project Name
Dealing With Drought Workshops
CWCB Section
Water Conservation & Drought Planning
Related Templates
Drought Mitigation
Grants - Doc Type
Supporting Documentation
Document Relationships
Dealing With Drought Workshop Final Report
(Message)
Path:
\Drought Mitigation\DayForward
Dealing With Drought Workshops SOW
(Message)
Path:
\Grants\DayForward
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7. Low levels of water storage <br />➢ 2002 PAWS enacted drought surcharges <br />➢ Average consumption down since 2002 across any regions <br />8. Fisheries were depleted (fires, low flow conditions) <br />9. Air quality decreased due to fires <br />10. Impact on animals in general <br />➢ Not enough knowledge about potential impacts <br />➢ Could use this knowledge to protect most threatened by climate change <br />➢ Using species as indicators <br />Taryn Hutchin's Cabibi's Group <br />Impacts of 2002 <br />➢ Livestock impacts /agriculture <br />➢ Increased agriculture efficiency <br />➢ Municipal demand due to less precipitation <br />➢ Negative impact to recreation industry (fly- fishing and rafting) <br />➢ Tree stress /ecosystem <br />➢ Fires <br />➢ Summer camp delays (due to fire and safety concerns <br />➢ Economic impacts <br />➢ Aquatic hatches were altered <br />➢ Health impacts (air quality) <br />➢ Heightened awareness: spurred water conservation position <br />➢ Dry riverbeds <br />➢ Had to pump water to plant to treat due to dry river conditions <br />➢ Change approach to farming sustainability and storage <br />What went wrong? What could have been avoided? <br />)0- No mitigation practices for fires in place <br />➢ No conservation plans <br />➢ Mitigation for fires from homes <br />➢ Struggled to get water for fire prevention <br />➢ After fire response: water quality mudslides <br />➢ Better buffering to respond to dry wells (year to year) <br />What information that could have helped? <br />➢ Reserved grazing allotments to aid ranchers during drought for USFS <br />➢ More information on aquifer status /health <br />➢ Municipal backup: dry wells or call <br />➢ Snowpack information (moisture content) <br />➢ Evaporative rates <br />➢ Snowpack to runoff information <br />➢ Community outreach education <br />➢ More formulated response to reduce sediment loading impacts <br />➢ Better training for post fire response <br />➢ Information on how to protect trees, etc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.