Data Management Plan for the California LCC project:

Climate Change/Land Use Change Scenarios for Habitat Threat Assessments on California Rangelands

Table of Contents
Data Input - New Collections
  1   Land use-land cover change maps
  2   Conservation masks

Data Input - Existing Collections
  1   California Basin Characterization Model Layers
  2   Soil thickness
  3   Total ecosystem carbon
  4   Priority conservation focus area map
  5   8-digit watershed boundary dataset

Data Output - Product or Deliverables
  1   Web-based Map Visualization Tool
  2   Percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential
  3   Percent change in critical habitat
  4   Percent change in climatic water deficit
  5   Ratio of recharge to runoff
  6   Water-wildlife hotspot maps
  7   Multiple ecosystem services change maps
  8   Raster Datasets: Integrated Scenarios for Assessing Threats to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands

Not Data - non-data Products
  1   Publication: "Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply"
  2   Presentation at North America Congress for Conservation Biology
  3   Presentation at California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Annual Conference 2012
  4   CA LCC Rangelands Workshop 2011
  5   Presentation at California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Annual Conference 2013
  6   Presentation at American Geophysical Union Meeting
  7   Final presentation to CA Dept. of Water Resources
  8   Outreach campaign organized by the Defenders of Wildlife
  9   Training for Alameda RCD
  10   Online Training for Napa, Sonoma, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo RCDs
  11   CA LCC Hosted Webinar
  12   CA LCC Rangelands Workshop 2012
  13   Rancher's Focus Group
  14   USGS Factsheet: Future Scenarios of Impacts to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands
  15   Case Study in USFWS Scenario Planning Guide
  16   Training for Butte, Glenn, and Tehama County RCDs
  17   Webinar: Economic Valuation of California Range Land Ecosystem Services Impacted by Climate and Land Use Change: Challenges and Opportunities
  18   Bioscience Publication: "Adapting California's Ecosystems to a Changing Climate"
  19   Poster at Climate Smart Agriculture conference

Data Input - Existing Collections
1California Basin Characterization Model Layers
DescriptionThe California Basin Characterization Model (BCM) climate dataset provides historical and projected climate surfaces for the state at a 270 meter resolution. The historical data is based on 4 kilometer PRISM data, and the projected climate surfaces are based on the A2 and B1 scenarios of the PCM and GFDL GCMs, and A1B scenario of CSIRO and MIROC. The BCM approach uses a regional water balance model based on high resolution downscaled precipitation and temperature as well as elevation, geology, and soils to produce surfaces for a wide range of variables. These variables include maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, runoff, recharge, climatic water deficit, actual evapotranspiration, sublimation, soil water storage, snowfall, snowpack, snowmelt, and excess water. Data is distributed as 30-year monthly summaries and 30-year water year summaries, with month-by-month data for each year available by special request.
SourceFlint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2
Formatraster, .ascii
Processing and WorkflowDownscaled GCM variables precipitation, maximum summer temperature, minimum winter temperature, potential evapotranspiration and climatic water deficit were used as input variables to the FORE-SCE land use-land cover change model. Climatic water deficit and ratio of recharge to runoff were averaged by HUC-8 hydrologic unit for each scenario and 30-year water year summaries. Sum of recharge and runoff was defined as total water availability, and was combined with data on critical habitat in each HUC-8 unit to produce a map of water-wildlife hotspots. Recharge and runoff were used as input variables to model streamflow for 6 key watersheds for two cases: no future urbanization and future urbanization.
Backup and StorageCalifornia Climate Commons, Information Center for the Environment, Davis, CA
Volume Estimate22 GB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
CitationFlint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2
ContactLorraine Flint, lflint@usgs.gov, 916-278-3223
Commons Cataloged Dataset2011 California Basin Characterization Model (BCM) Downscaled Climate and Hydrology 30-year Summaries

2Soil thickness
DescriptionSoil thickness dataset based on USDA SSURGO county-level soil surveys. Raster dataset at 270 meter resolution.
SourceFlint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2
Formatraster, .ascii
Processing and WorkflowThe soil thickness dataset was used in the Basin Characterization Model (BCM) to provide improved estimates of soil storage. To model the effects of urbanization and climate on future streamflow and recharge capacity, soil thickness was minimized in future modeled urban areas before running the BCM.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and StorageStored on external hard drives at USGS Sacramento and Menlo Park locations
Volume Estimate68 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
CitationFlint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2
ContactLorraine Flint, lflint@usgs.gov, 916-278-3223
Commons Cataloged Dataset2011 California Basin Characterization Model (BCM) Downscaled Climate and Hydrology 30-year Summaries

3Total ecosystem carbon
DescriptionThis dataset was produced through the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) national carbon sequestration assessment of ecosystem carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes under present conditions and future scenarios. The assessment, required by the U.S. Congress (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) used a methodology that linked ecosystem carbon models to separate models of wildfires and LULC changes, and produced spatially and temporally explicit carbon stock and flux estimates. Carbon dynamics and GHG fluxes between the land and the atmosphere under land use-land cover (LULC) change, climate change, and land management scenarios were estimated using three ecosystem models: the Erosion-Deposition-Carbon Model (EDCM) (Liu et al. 2003), the CENTURY model (Parton et al. 1987; Parton et al. 1993), and a spreadsheet model (Zhu et al. 2010). Using datasets for LULC change, simulations of areas burned by wildland fires, agricultural land management, climate, and other biophysical data, the three models were run for each of three IPCC-SRES scenarios (A1B, A2 and B1) and for three global climate models (MIROC 3.2-medres, CSIRO and CGCM3). This project used output on total ecosystem carbon from two models - EDCM and Century. Annual model outputs are available for years 2006 through 2050 in raster format at 250 meter resolution. References Liu S, Bliss NB, Sundquist E et al (2003) Modeling carbon dynamics in vegetation and soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1074 Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV et al (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains Grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:1173-1179 Parton WJ, Scurlock JMO, Ojima DS et al (1993) Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7:785-809 Zhu Z, Bergamaschi B, Bernknopf R et al (2010) A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5233. (Also available at http:/pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5233/. ) Zhu, Zhiliang, and Reed, B.C., eds., (2012) Baseline and projected future carbon storage and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the Western United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1797, 192 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/.)
Sourcehttp://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/Data.asp
Formatraster, .img
Processing and WorkflowTotal ecosystem carbon was used to model change in carbon stocks on rangelands, and change in carbon sequestration capacity due to conversion of rangelands to agriculture or urban lands.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and StorageAvailable online at http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/Data.asp, Stored on external hard drives at USGS Menlo Park and Sioux Falls locations
Volume Estimate1.5 GB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive Organizationshttp://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/Data.asp
CitationZhu, Zhiliang, and Reed, B.C., eds., 2012, Baseline and projected future carbon storage and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the Western United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1797, 192 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/.)
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279

4Priority conservation focus area map
DescriptionThis map identifies the focus area of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition (CRCC) and CRCC priority conservation areas. The focus area includes the foothills around the Central Valley and most of the southern Inner Coast Range. The goal of this prioritization process was to identify areas of privately-owned rangelands that have high biodiversity value and require conservation action in the next 2-10 years. The Nature Conservancy assembled the most current and complete data for species and vegetation systems representative of rangeland ecosystems. The approach was not solely driven by GIS data, as much critical information on the status, condition and economic viability of rangelands has not been formally captured in databases.
Sourcehttp://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html
Formatshapefile, geodatabase
Processing and WorkflowAll model outputs and results were clipped to the focus area boundary. The priority conservation area dataset was used to define critical habitat in the study area. Unprotected priority conservation areas were used to generate conservation masks that were applied in land use-land cover (LULC) change modeling. LULC change maps for each scenario were overlaid with the map of priority conservation areas to determine rates of conversion to critical habitat on rangelands.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park office, TNC offices
Volume Estimate20 MB
Archive Organizationshttp://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html
CitationReference: The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Biological Prioritization of Rangelands: Approach and Methods. Available online at: http://www.carangeland.org/images/Appraoch_and_Methods.pdf.

58-digit watershed boundary dataset
DescriptionThe Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) - is a nationally consistent watershed dataset that is subdivided into 6 levels (12-digit hucs) and is available from the USGS and USDA-NRCS-National Cartographic and Geospatial Center's (NCGC). The new 8-digit WBD (130 megabytes) and the new 12-digit WBD (980 megabytes) are available as geodatabases for download, along with the metadata. The WBD contains the most current, the highest resolution and the most detailed delineation of the watershed boundaries. Watershed boundaries define the aerial extent of surface water drainage to a point. The intent of defining hydrologic units (HU) for the Watershed Boundary Dataset is to establish a base-line drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface areas. The selection and delineation of hydrologic boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative or special projects nor particular program or agency. At a minimum, they are being delineated and georeferenced to the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic base map meeting National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). A hydrologic unit has a single flow outlet except in coastal or lakefront areas.
Sourcehttp://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
Formatgeodatabase
Processing and WorkflowMost model outputs were averaged to 8 digit watershed boundaries (HUC8). Six key watersheds were selected for further analysis of ecosystem services change due to potential for rangeland conversion identified in land use-land cover change maps.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and StorageStored on the NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway
Volume Estimate130 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive Organizationshttp://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGHome_StatusMaps.aspx
Citationhttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/water/watersheds/dataset/

Data Input - New Collections
1Land use-land cover change maps
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionThe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed future scenarios of land use-land cover (LULC) change in the United States as part of a national carbon sequestration assessment required by the U.S. Congress (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). Future potential demand, or the area of land required for each LULC class, was based on a set of scenarios from three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) (Nakicenovic et al. 2000): A2 (emphasizes economic development with a regional focus), A1B (emphasizes economic development with a global orientation), and B1 (emphasizes environmental sustainability with a global orientation). To develop LULC change scenarios that were logically consistent with SRES storylines, Sleeter and others (2012) took projected national LULC change data from the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE) (Strengers et al. 2004) and allocated them to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III ecoregions based on land-use histories from the USGS Land Cover Trends project (Loveland et al. 2002), as well as expert knowledge. The LULC classification scheme of the scenarios closely followed the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Vogelmann et al. 2001) and includes broad classes such as cropland, hay/pasture, development, grassland, forest and wetlands. The USGS used a probabilistic LULC model, FOREcasting SCEnarios of land-use change (FORE-SCE) to distribute future regional LULC change on the landscape for each LULC change scenario (Sohl et al. 2008; Sohl et al. 2012). The allocation was based on probabilities of occurrence determined by present-day LULC associations with biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics of the landscape, such as slope, elevation, soil carbon, climate and distance to roads and cities. For this LCC-funded project, we ran FORE-SCE dynamically with future downscaled global climate model (GCM) outputs, meaning that LULC change was modeled based on socioeconomic demands, as well as changing climate. Two statistically downscaled GCMs were selected for each emissions scenario to provide representative future climate projections for California– one that represents a warm, wet future and one that represents a hot, dry future. GCMs were selected that included variables for minimum or maximum temperatures, which were considered important determinants of vegetation distribution. Climate variables—including 10-year averages of precipitation, summer maximum temperature, winter minimum temperature, potential evapotranspiration, and climatic water deficit—were updated in the model at 10-year intervals. Downscaled climate and hydrological data were generated by the USGS Basin Characterization Model at 270 meter resolution (Flint and Flint 2012), resampled to 250 meters to match spatial resolution of the growth model. We ran the FORE-SCE model for two EPA Level III ecoregions, Central Valley and Chaparral and Oak Woodland. The extent of these ecoregions matches the high priority conservation focus area map in use by the California Rangeland Conservation Coalitition. Model outputs are maps of LULC change generated yearly from 2006 to 2100 at a spatial resolution of 250 meters. Outputs for six scenarios are available: two climate projections each for A1B, A2 and B1 SRES scenario. References: Flint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2 Loveland, T.R., Sohl, T.L., Stehman, S.V., Gallant, A.L., Say­ler, K.L., Napton, D.E., 2002. A strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land-cover changes. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68(10), p. 1091-99. Nakicenovic, N., Swart, R. (Eds.), 2000. IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Sleeter, B. M., Sohl, T. L., Bouchard, M. A., Reker, R. R., Soulard, C. E., Acevedo, W., Griffith, G., Sleeter, R. R., Auch, R. F., Sayler, K. L., Prisley, S., Zhu, Z., 2012, Scenarios of land use and land cover change in the conterminous United States: Utilizing the special report on emission scenarios at ecoregional scales. Global Environ. Change, 22(4): 896-914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.008. Sohl, T. and K. Sayler. 2008. Using the FORE-SCE model to project land-cover change in the southeastern United States. Ecological Modelling 219:49-65. Sohl, T.L., Sleeter, B.M., Sayler, K.L., Bouchard, M.A., Reker, R.R., Bennett, S.L., Sleeter, R.R., Kanengieter, R.L., and Zhu, Z., 2012. Spatially explicit land-use and land-cover scenarios for the Great Plains of the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 153: pp 1-15. Strengers, B. et al. 2004. The land-use projections and resulting emissions in the IPCC SRES scenarios as simulated by the IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJournal 61:381-393. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L et al (2001) Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 67:650-652.
Formatraster, .img format
Processing and WorkflowLULC change maps were overlaid with California Rangeland Conservation Coalition priority conservation areas (TNC, 2007) and HUC-8 hydrologic units (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html) to determine the proportion of watershed area that loses critical habitat over time, by scenario. The developed portion of the LULC maps also served as input to the Basin Characterization Model to determine how changing urbanization and climate influence watershed recharge potential and streamflow. Change in grassland area for six key HUC-8 hydrologic units was used to estimate change in carbon stocks on rangelands over time. Reference: The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Biological Prioritization of Rangelands: Approach and Methods. Available online at: http://www.carangeland.org/images/Appraoch_and_Methods.pdf.
Quality ChecksMaps were visually inspected for consistency in output. LULC change was tabulated by decade and scenario and analyzed identify any outliers of LULC change.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storagestored on external hard drives at USGS Menlo Park and Sioux Falls locations
Volume Estimate21.2 GB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetRaster Datasets: Integrated Scenarios for Assessing Threats to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands

2Conservation masks
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionTo further distinguish scenarios, we incorporated future conservation scenarios into our land-use change modeling. By means of “conservation masks” we can compare and contrast the effects of land use change on rangeland ecosystem services, and we can de-couple climate effects from land use impacts. For the B1 scenario, we created a map of one million acres of presently unprotected land located in high priority conservation areas near other protected lands within the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition boundary. In this conservation mask, no land use change occurs in the model, but climate effects will still occur. (This acreage was determined based on existing conservation goals and historical trends of conservation land protection.) In the A1B scenario, we masked 500,000 acres of land from land use change in high or medium priority conservation areas near urban centers, and in the A2 scenario, we did not identify any land explicitly for future conservation.
NCCWSC Collection ProtocolsHistorical rates of land protection were determined by quantifying private fee title land acquisition and easement acquisition in the California Protected Areas Database (http://www.calands.org/) and the National Conservation Easement Database (http://conservationeasement.us/). Future land conservation goals were determined by interviewing land trusts that focus on rangeland conservation. Units of land conservation were set at approximately 1000 hectares, to represent the typical size of an easement acquisition. For each conservation mask, the number of conservation units were selected for an overall conservation mask based on a rule set determined for each scenario. For the A1B scenario, units were selected that were in high or medium conservation areas, not currently protected and near to urban centers, while in the B1 scenario, units were selected that were in high conservation areas, not currently protected and near existing protected areas.
Formatraster, .img format
Processing and WorkflowLand use-land cover change maps and downscaled global climate model outputs were compared across scenarios to determine how conservation mask areas would otherwise be converted under different scenarios, what change in climate would be expected in these areas.
Quality ChecksMasks were visually inspected to ensure that final products conformed to assigned rule sets.
MetadataFDGC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive located at USGS Menlo Park office
Volume Estimate6.46 MB
RestrictionsSensitive data, not available for download
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279

Data Output - Product or Deliverables
1Web-based Map Visualization Tool
Deliverable TypeWebsite
DescriptionThis is a Google maps-based web application that allows users to compare and contrast results at the watershed scale across three scenarios simultaneously for multiple time periods. The three scenarios are based on the IPCC-SRES emission scenarios A1B, A2, and B1. For hydrological results, users also can view two climate projections for each emission scenario - a warm, wet future and a hot, dry future. Users have the option to zoom and pan maps for the three scenarios simultaneously, and click on the watersheds to retrieve underlying map data. Six sets of maps are available for viewing and download. These include: Percent change in critical habitat, percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential, percent change in climatic water deficit, ratio of recharge to runoff, water-wildlife hotspots, and average percent change in multiple ecosystem services.
Formatwebsite
Quality ChecksThe website went through formal internal and external review.
Backup and StorageUSGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate20 MB
Access and SharingPublic
Exclusive Use EmbargoNone
RestrictionsNone
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
Linkhttp://climate.calcommons.org/aux/rangeland/index.html
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged Web ResourceAssessing Threats to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands

2Percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionPercent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential. These maps display the percent change in the potential for grassland soil carbon sequestration for each watershed under three IPCC-SRES scenarios – A1B, A2 and B1. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). Here soil carbon represents soil organic carbon (up to 20 cm in depth). Future change in soil carbon was modeled by the U.S. Geological Survey's General Ensemble Biogeochemical Modeling System (GEMS) (http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/BGM.asp). Carbon model outputs were produced through the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) national carbon sequestration assessment of ecosystem carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes under present conditions and future scenarios, required by the U.S. Congress (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). Under GEMS, soil carbon was estimated annually from 2006 to 2050 using three ecosystem models: the Erosion-Deposition-Carbon Model (EDCM), the CENTURY model, and a spreadsheet model. Change in carbon was based on land use-land cover change, simulations of areas burned by wildland fires, agricultural land management, climate, and other biophysical data. This rangelands project used the average of EDCM and CENTURY soil carbon model outputs for years 2010 and 2040 for each of three IPCC-SRES scenarios (A1B, A2 and B1). The maps display the percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential by watershed. Percent change in carbon sequestration potential is influenced by the extent of grassland conversion within a watershed over the 30 year time period. In most cases, grassland conversion to another land use such as development or intensive agriculture leads to a loss in soil carbon, and reduces the potential for future carbon sequestration. This metric and is calculated as: ΔC = [(A2040* ΔSOCg + Achange* ΔSOCd)/ (A2010* ΔSOCg)] - 1 Where: ΔC = percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration A2010 = grassland area in 2010 A2040 = grassland area in 2040 Achange = area of grassland converted between 2010 and 2040 ΔSOCg = average change in soil organic carbon on undisturbed grassland from 2010 to 2040 ΔSOCd = average change in soil organic carbon on grasslands converted between 2010 and 2040 Reference Zhu, Zhiliang, and Reed, B.C., eds., (2012) Baseline and projected future carbon storage and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the Western United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1797, 192 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1797/.)
Formatshapefile, kmz, raster
Processing and WorkflowThe maps display the percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration potential by watershed and is calculated as: ΔC = [(A2040* ΔSOCg + Achange* ΔSOCd)/ (A2010* ΔSOCg)] - 1 Where: ΔC = percent change in grassland soil carbon sequestration A2010 = grassland area in 2010 A2040 = grassland area in 2040 Achange = area of grassland converted between 2010 and 2040 ΔSOCg = average change in soil organic carbon on undisturbed grassland from 2010 to 2040 ΔSOCd = average change in soil organic carbon on grasslands converted between 2010 and 2040
Quality Checkssystematically checked data tables for errors, visually checked maps for outliers
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate5 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

3Percent change in critical habitat
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionCritical Habitat: Change in the percentage of watershed area with critical habitat from 2010 to a future time period These maps display the change in the proportion of watershed area that contains critical habitat from 2010 to a future time period for three IPCC-SRES scenarios – A1B, A2 and B1. Future time periods displayed include 2040, 2070 and 2100. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). Critical habitat is defined as critical priority conservation areas mapped in the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition’s focus area map (http://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html). Priority conservation areas were defined by The Nature Conservancy as privately-owned rangelands that have high biodiversity value and require conservation action in the next 2-10 years (TNC, 2007). Future change in priority conservation areas was based on land use-land cover (LULC) change maps generated for each scenario by the U.S. Geological Survey’s probabilistic LULC model, FOREcasting SCEnarios of land-use change (FORE-SCE) (http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/LULC.asp). The LULC classification scheme of the scenarios closely follows the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (http://www.mrlc.gov/) and includes broad classes such as cropland, hay/pasture, development, grassland, shrubland, forest and wetlands. Change in priority conservation areas was defined to occur if areas mapped as either forest, grassland, shrubland or wetland were converted to one of the following classes: developed, logging, mining, cropland or hay/pasture. The maps display the change in the proportion of watershed area that contains critical habitat and is calculated as: ΔH = [(Hx – H2010)/A]*100 Where: ΔH = change in percentage of watershed area that contains critical habitat Hx = area of critical habitat at time x H2010 = area of critical habitat in 2010 A = watershed area Reference The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Biological Prioritization of Rangelands: Approach and Methods. Available online at: http://www.carangeland.org/images/Appraoch_and_Methods.pdf.
Formatshapefile, kmz
Processing and WorkflowThe maps display the change in the proportion of watershed area that contains critical habitat and is calculated as: ΔH = [(Hx – H2010)/A]*100 Where: ΔH = change in percentage of watershed area that contains critical habitat Hx = area of critical habitat at time x H2010 = area of critical habitat in 2010 A = watershed area This data was used to produce water-wildlife hotspots.
Quality ChecksData tables were checked systematically for errors, maps were checked visually for outliers
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate10 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

4Percent change in climatic water deficit
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionPercent change in climatic water deficit relative to the 1981-2010 climate period These maps display the average percent change in climatic water deficit (CWD) from the 1981-2010 climate period to a future climate period for each watershed. Percent change in CWD is provided for two climate projections for each of the three IPCC-SRES scenarios – A1B, A2 and B1. Future time periods displayed include 2010-2039, 2040-2069 and 2070-2099. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). CWD is defined as potential evapotranspiration minus actual evapotranspiration. This term effectively integrates the combined effects of solar radiation, evapotranspiration, and air temperature on watershed conditions given available soil moisture derived from precipitation. Future change in CWD was modeled using the U.S. Geological Survey’s Basin Characterization Model (BCM), a regional water balance model (Flint et al. 2013, Flint and Flint, 2012). The BCM was run with two statistically downscaled global climate models (GCMs) (a warm, wet future and a hot, dry future) for each emissions scenario. Selected GCMs included variables for minimum or maximum temperatures, which were considered important determinants of vegetation distribution. Table 1 summarizes the GCMs for each emission scenario. Table 1. Summary of Global Climate Models (GCMs) Emission scenario Hot, dry scenarios Warm, wet scenarios A2 B1 GFDL = GFDL CM2.1 model, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory PCM = National Center for Atmospheric Research and Department of Energy Parallel Climate Model A1B MIROC = MIROC 3.2 (medres), Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate, Japan CSIRO = CSIRO Mark 3.5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia These representative projections were downscaled to 270 meter spatial resolution for monthly estimates of precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperature. The BCM uses the downscaled precipitation and temperature as well as elevation, geology, and soils to produce 270 meter-resolution maps of potential evapotranspiration, runoff, recharge, CWD, actual evapotranspiration, sublimation, soil water storage, snowfall, snowpack, snowmelt, and excess water. Thirty-year water year summaries of CWD were used for this rangelands project. The maps display the percent change in the CWD 30-year average from 1981-2010 to a future CWD 30-year average, averaged by watershed area. Percent change in CWD is calculated as: ΔCWD = [(CWDx – CWD1981-2010)/ CWD1981-2010]*100 Where: ΔCWD = percent change in CWD CWDx = average CWD for climate period x CWD1981-2010 = average CWD for climate period 1981-2010 References Flint, L.E., A.L. Flint, J.H. Thorne, and R. Boynton. 2013. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecological Processes 2:25. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/25 Flint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2  
Formatshapefile, kmz
Processing and WorkflowThirty-year water year summaries of CWD were used for this rangelands project. The maps display the percent change in the CWD 30-year average from 1981-2010 to a future CWD 30-year average, averaged by watershed area. Percent change in CWD is calculated as: ΔCWD = [(CWDx – CWD1981-2010)/ CWD1981-2010]*100 Where: ΔCWD = percent change in CWD CWDx = average CWD for climate period x CWD1981-2010 = average CWD for climate period 1981-2010
Quality Checkssystematically checked data tables for errors, visually checked maps for outliers
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate20 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

5Ratio of recharge to runoff
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionRatio of Recharge to Runoff for each 30-year climate period These maps display the ratio of average recharge to average runoff for each watershed for the present-day climate period and for three future climate periods. The present-day climate period is 1981-2010 and the future climate periods include 2010-2039, 2040-2069 and 2070-2099. Recharge:runoff is provided for two climate projections for each of the three IPCC-SRES scenarios – A1B, A2 and B1. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). The ratio of in-place recharge to runoff indicates the mechanisms, including soils, geology, and precipitation patterns that likely control ground-water recharge for a given watershed. A ratio of 0.5 or less indicates that more than twice as much water has the potential to become runoff than to become in-place recharge. A ratio of 2.0 or greater indicates that water has at least twice as much potential to become in-place recharge than to become runoff (Flint and Flint, 2007). Recharge and runoff were modeled using the U.S. Geological Survey’s Basin Characterization Model (BCM), a regional water balance model (Flint et al. 2013, Flint and Flint, 2012). The BCM was run with two statistically downscaled global climate models (GCMs) (a warm, wet future and a hot, dry future) for each emissions scenario. Selected GCMs included variables for minimum or maximum temperatures, which were considered important determinants of vegetation distribution. Table 1 summarizes the GCMs for each emission scenario. Table 1. Summary of Global Climate Models (GCMs) Emission scenario Hot, dry scenarios Warm, wet scenarios A2 B1 GFDL = GFDL CM2.1 model, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory PCM = National Center for Atmospheric Research and Department of Energy Parallel Climate Model A1B MIROC = MIROC 3.2 (medres), Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate, Japan CSIRO = CSIRO Mark 3.5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia These representative projections were downscaled to 270 meter spatial resolution for monthly estimates of precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperature. The BCM uses the downscaled precipitation and temperature as well as elevation, geology, and soils to produce 270 meter-resolution maps of potential evapotranspiration, runoff, recharge, CWD, actual evapotranspiration, sublimation, soil water storage, snowfall, snowpack, snowmelt, and excess water. Thirty-year water year summaries of recharge and runoff were used for this rangelands project. The maps display the ratio of the 30-year averages of recharge to runoff, averaged by watershed area. The recharge:runoff ratio is calculated as: Rch/Run, where Rch = the 30-year recharge average, averaged by watershed area, and Run = the 30-year runoff average, averaged by watershed area. References Flint, L.E., A.L. Flint, J.H. Thorne, and R. Boynton. 2013. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecological Processes 2:25. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/25 Flint, L.E. and A.L. Flint. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2 Flint, L.E. and A.L. Flint. 2007. Regional analysis of ground-water recharge. In: Stonestrom, D.A., J. Constantz, T.P.A. Ferré, and S.A. Leake (eds). Ground-water recharge in the arid and semiarid southwestern United States. Professional Paper 1703. Reston (VA): U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1703/b/.  
Formatshapefile, kmz
Processing and WorkflowThe maps display the ratio of the 30-year averages of recharge to runoff, averaged by watershed area. The recharge:runoff ratio is calculated as: Rch/Run, where Rch = the 30-year recharge average, averaged by watershed area, and Run = the 30-year runoff average, averaged by watershed area.
Quality Checksdata tables were systematically checked for error, maps were visually inspected for outliers.
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate20 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

6Water-wildlife hotspot maps
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionWater-Wildlife Hotspots: Areas where changes in water availability (recharge plus runoff) and loss of critical habitat coincide. These maps display percent change in water availability relative to the 1981-2010 climate period where 5% or more of watershed area has lost critical habitat. Water availability is defined as recharge plus runoff. Critical habitat is defined as critical priority conservation areas mapped in the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition’s focus area map (http://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html) (TNC, 2007). Percent change in water availability is provided for two climate projections for each of the three IPCC-SRES scenarios – A1B, A2 and B1. Scenarios of critical habitat loss for years 2040, 2070 and 2100 were coupled with percent change in water availability for climate periods 2010-2039, 2040-2069 and 2070-2099, respectively. In some scenarios and time periods, no water-wildlife hotspots exist. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). Loss of critical habitat was identified in this project’s critical habitat change maps. Future change in water availability was modeled using the U.S. Geological Survey’s Basin Characterization Model (BCM), a regional water balance model (Flint et al. 2013, Flint and Flint, 2012). The BCM was run with two statistically downscaled global climate models (GCMs) (a warm, wet future and a hot, dry future) for each emissions scenario (see Ratio of recharge to runoff dataset page for model details). Important hotspots are those watersheds where water availability is greatly reduced (labeled as dark red), though areas where water availability become more plentiful are also identified (labeled as blue). Thirty-year water year summaries of the sum of recharge and runoff were used for this rangelands project. The maps display percent change in the sum of 30-year averages of recharge to runoff, averaged by watershed area. Percent change in water availability is calculated as: ΔW = [(Wx – W1981-2010)/ W1981-2010]*100 W = Rchx + Runx Where: ΔW = percent change in water availability Wx = average water availability for climate period x W1981-2010 = average water availability for climate period 1981-2010 Rchx = average recharge for climate period x, averaged by watershed area Runx = average runoff for climate period x, averaged by watershed area References Flint, L.E., A.L. Flint, J.H. Thorne, and R. Boynton. 2013. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecological Processes 2:25. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/25 Flint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2 The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Biological Prioritization of Rangelands: Approach and Methods. Available online at: http://www.carangeland.org/images/Appraoch_and_Methods.pdf.
Formatshapefile, kmz
Processing and WorkflowThirty-year water year summaries of the sum of recharge and runoff were used for this rangelands project. The maps display percent change in the sum of 30-year averages of recharge to runoff, averaged by watershed area. Percent change in water availability is calculated as: ΔW = [(Wx – W1981-2010)/ W1981-2010]*100 W = Rchx + Runx Where: ΔW = percent change in water availability Wx = average water availability for climate period x W1981-2010 = average water availability for climate period 1981-2010 Rchx = average recharge for climate period x, averaged by watershed area Runx = average runoff for climate period x, averaged by watershed area
Quality Checksdata tables were checked systematically for errors, maps were inspected for outliers
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate20 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

7Multiple ecosystem services change maps
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionAverage percent change in multiple ecosystem services from 2010 to 2040 These maps display the average percent change in three rangeland ecosystem services – total ecosystem carbon, critical habitat and water availability – from 2010 to 2040 for three IPCC-SRES scenarios (A1B, A2 and B1) and two climate projections (warm, wet future and hot, dry future). Total ecosystem carbon is total carbon stored in vegetation and soils (up to 20 cm in depth), and was estimated annually from 2006 to 2050 by the U.S. Geological Survey’s General Ensemble Biogeochemical Modeling System (GEMS) (http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/BGM.asp). See Percent change in total ecosystem carbon dataset page for model details. Critical habitat is defined as critical priority conservation areas mapped in the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition’s focus area map (http://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html) (TNC, 2007). Modeling change in critical habitat is described on the Percent change in critical habitat dataset page. Water availability is defined as recharge plus runoff. Future change in water availability was modeled using the U.S. Geological Survey’s Basin Characterization Model (BCM), a regional water balance model (Flint et al. 2013, Flint and Flint, 2012). See Ratio of recharge to runoff dataset page for model details. Scenarios of critical habitat and carbon for 2040 were coupled with percent change in water availability under two climate projections for climate period 2010-2039. All model outputs were averaged by watershed area. Watershed boundaries are from the 8-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). Average percent change in multiple ecosystem services was calculated as: AVEES = (ΔH + ΔC + ΔW)/3 AVEES = average percent change in ecosystem services ΔH = change in percentage of watershed area that contains critical habitat from 2010 to 2040 ΔC = percent change in total ecosystem carbon from 2010 to 2040, averaged by watershed area ΔW = percent change in water availability from climate period 1981-2010 to 2010-2039, averaged by watershed References Flint, L.E., A.L. Flint, J.H. Thorne, and R. Boynton. 2013. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecological Processes 2:25. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/25 Flint, L.E. and Flint A.L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecologic modeling and analysis. Ecological Processes 1:2. Available online at: http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/1/1/2 Leh, M. D. K., M. D. Matlock, E. C. Cummings, and L. L. Nalley. 2013. Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 165:6-18. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Biological Prioritization of Rangelands: Approach and Methods. Available online at: http://www.carangeland.org/images/Appraoch_and_Methods.pdf.
Formatshapefile, kmz
Processing and WorkflowAverage percent change in multiple ecosystem services was calculated as: AVEES = (ΔH + ΔC + ΔW)/3 AVEES = average percent change in ecosystem services ΔH = change in percentage of watershed area that contains critical habitat from 2010 to 2040 ΔC = percent change in total ecosystem carbon from 2010 to 2040, averaged by watershed area ΔW = percent change in water availability from climate period 1981-2010 to 2010-2039, averaged by watershed
Quality Checksdata tables were systematically checked for error, maps were inspected for outliers
MetadataFGDC
Backup and Storageexternal hard drive at USGS, Menlo Park, California Climate Commons
Volume Estimate10 MB
Access and SharingPublic, Read
Archive OrganizationsCalifornia Climate Commons
ContactKristin Byrd, kbyrd@usgs.gov, 650-329-4279
Commons Cataloged DatasetCalifornia Rangeland Threats, summary by HUC watershed

8Raster Datasets: Integrated Scenarios for Assessing Threats to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands
Deliverable TypeDatasets / Database
DescriptionRaster datasets developed in the project Climate Change/Land Use Change Scenarios for Habitat Threat Assessments on California Rangelands. Layers: Soil organic carbon Soil Depth Land use/land cover Basin Characterization Model outputs Ratio of average recharge to average runoff Recharge Runoff Water availability
Formatgeotiff
RestrictionsNone
Archive OrganizationsPoint Blue
ContactKristin Byrd kbyrd@usgs.gov
Commons Cataloged DatasetRaster Datasets: Integrated Scenarios for Assessing Threats to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands

Not Data - non-data Products
1Publication: "Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply"
Deliverable TypePublication
DescriptionAbstract: CONTEXT In addition to biodiversity conservation, California rangelands generate multiple ecosystem services including livestock production, drinking and irrigation water, and carbon sequestration. California rangeland ecosystems have experienced substantial conversion to residential land use and more intensive agriculture. OBJECTIVES To understand the potential impacts to rangeland ecosystem services, we developed six spatially explicit (250 m) climate/land use change scenarios for the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills consistent with three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenario narratives. METHODS We quantified baseline and projected change in wildlife habitat, soil organic carbon (SOC), and water supply (recharge and runoff). For six case study watersheds we quantified the interactions of future development and changing climate on recharge, runoff and streamflow, and precipitation thresholds where dominant watershed hydrological processes shift through analysis of covariance. RESULTS The scenarios show that across the region, habitat loss is expected to occur predominantly in grasslands, primarily due to future development (up to a 37% decline by 2100), however habitat loss in priority conservation errors will likely be due to cropland and hay/pasture expansion (up to 40% by 2100). Grasslands in the region contain approximately 100 teragrams SOC in the top 20 cm, and up to 39% of this SOC is subject to conversion by 2100. In dryer periods recharge processes typically dominate runoff. Future development lowers the precipitation value at which recharge processes dominate runoff, and combined with periods of drought, reduces the opportunity for recharge, especially on deep soils. CONCLUSION Results support the need for climate-smart land use planning that takes recharge areas into account, which will provide opportunities for water storage in dry years. Given projections for agriculture, more modeling is needed on feedbacks between agricultural expansion on rangelands and water supply.
CitationByrd, K.B., L. Flint, P. Alvarez, C.F. Casey, B.M. Sleeter, C.E. Soulard, A. Flint and T. Sohl. 2015. Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon and water supply. Landscape Ecology, In Press.
DOIDOI: 10.1007/s10980-015-0159-7

2Presentation at North America Congress for Conservation Biology
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionByrd, K.B., C. Soulard, L. Flint, C. Casey, P. Alvarez B. Sleeter and T. Sohl. 2012. Climate Change/Land Use Change Scenarios For Assessing Threats To Ecosystem Services On California Rangelands. North America Congress for Conservation Biology, 15-18 July 2012, Oakland, CA.

3Presentation at California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Annual Conference 2012
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionPelayo Alvarez presented a talk on Integrated Scenarios for Habitat Threat Assessment on California Rangelands at the California Resource Conservation District Annual Meeting, November 16, 2012 in San Diego, CA.

4CA LCC Rangelands Workshop 2011
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionKristin Byrd and Pelayo Alvarez organized and presented at a California LCC Rangelands Workshop held at The Nature Conservancy offices in Sacramento on November 1, 2011. Kristin's talk was titled, "Integrating Science into Decisions: Climate Change/Land Use Change Scenarios and Outreach for Habitat Threat Assessments on California Rangelands."

5Presentation at California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Annual Conference 2013
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionOral presentation at the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Annual Conference, November 15, 2013,

6Presentation at American Geophysical Union Meeting
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionByrd, K.B., L. Flint, A. Flint, F. Casey, P. Alvarez, B. Sletter and T. Sohl. 2013. “Integrated climate/land use/hydrological change scenarios for assessing threats to ecosystem services on California rangelands.” Oral presentation at the American Geophysical Union Annual Fall Meeting, December 9 – 13, San Francisco, CA.

7Final presentation to CA Dept. of Water Resources
Deliverable TypePresentation
DescriptionKristin Byrd and Pelayo Alvarez hosted a workshop at the California Department of Water Resources in Sacramento, CA on May 29 titled, Future Scenarios of Impacts to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands. Kristin presented final results of study of the same title. Multiple stakeholders from government agencies, non-profits and land trusts attended.
Linkhttp://climate.calcommons.org/sites/default/files/dmpfiles/FinalWorkshop.pdf

8Outreach campaign organized by the Defenders of Wildlife
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionOutreach campaign organized by the Defenders of Wildlife

9Training for Alameda RCD
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionFocusing on the RCDs located in the 6 case-study watersheds, we will conduct 3 trainings that summarize findings from the project and provide instruction on the use of the online tool.

10Online Training for Napa, Sonoma, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo RCDs
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionFocusing on the RCDs located in the 6 case-study watersheds, we will conduct 3 trainings that summarize findings from the project and provide instruction on the use of the online tool.

11CA LCC Hosted Webinar
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop : Webinar
DescriptionCA LCC hosted webinar, March 2013
Linkhttp://californialcc.org/webinars/climate-changeland-use-scenarios-habitat-threat-assessments-ca-rangelands

12CA LCC Rangelands Workshop 2012
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionKristin Byrd and Pelayo Alvarez hosted a California LCC Rangelands workshop in Davis on September 11 to present results of the first year of the project on integrated scenarios to assess threats to ecosystem services on California rangelands. There were18 attendees representing organizations including The Nature Conservancy, California Department of Water Resources, the ranching community, NRCS, Resource Conservation Districts, and local land trusts.

13Rancher's Focus Group
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionKristin Byrd, Chris Soulard and Pelayo Alvarez organized and presented at a Rancher's Focus Group meeting on January 24, 2012 in Davis. The purpose of the workshop was to get ranchers' input on the development of scenarios for the CA LCC Rangelands project.

14USGS Factsheet: Future Scenarios of Impacts to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands
Deliverable TypePublication
DescriptionAbstract: The 18 million acres of rangelands in the Central Valley of California provide multiple benefits or “ecosystem services” to people—including wildlife habitat, water supply, open space, recreation, and cultural resources. Most of this land is privately owned and managed for livestock production. These rangelands are vulnerable to land-use conversion and climate change. To help resource managers assess the impacts of land-use change and climate change, U.S. Geological Survey scientists and their cooperators developed scenarios to quantify and map changes to three main rangeland ecosystem services—wildlife habitat, water supply, and carbon sequestration. Project results will help prioritize strategies to conserve these rangelands and the ecosystem services that they provide.
CitationByrd, K., Alvarez, P., Flint, L., and Flint, A., 2014, Future Scenarios of Impacts to Ecosystem Services on California Rangelands: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2014–3019, 2 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20143019.

15Case Study in USFWS Scenario Planning Guide
Deliverable TypePublication : Article
DescriptionCase Study chapter in USFWS Scenario Planning guide that presents a broad synthesis of scenario planning concepts and approaches, focused on applications in natural resource management and conservation. The guide is intended to help natural resource and conservation professionals, including managers, planners, and researchers to: Understand the core elements of scenario planning; Identify situations for which scenario planning could be a valuable tool, and what distinguishes it from other decision support frameworks and methods; Understand the range of options for implementing scenario planning and identify approaches that fit their needs; Get started on their own scenario planning effort; and Find additional resources to support the application of a given scenario planning approach
CitationByrd, K.B., B. Sleeter, L. Flint, C. Soulard, P. Alvarez, F. Casey and T. Sohl. 2014. Integrated scenarios and outreach for habitat threat assessments on California Rangelands. Chapter 3.7 in: Erika L. Rowland, Molly S. Cross, and Holly Hartmann (eds.). Considering Multiple Futures: Scenario Planning To Address Uncertainty in Natural Resource Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 162 pp. http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/Scenario-Planning-Report.pdf
Linkhttp://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/Scenario-Planning-Report.pdf

16Training for Butte, Glenn, and Tehama County RCDs
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop
DescriptionFocusing on the RCDs located in the 6 case-studywatersheds, we will conduct 3 trainings that summarize findings from the project and provide instruction on the use of the online tool.

17Webinar: Economic Valuation of California Range Land Ecosystem Services Impacted by Climate and Land Use Change: Challenges and Opportunities
Deliverable TypeTraining / Outreach / Workshop : Webinar
DescriptionAbstract: The presentation by Dr. Frank Casey of the US Geological Survey will discuss the challenges faced when attempting to value changes in ecosystem services in response to climate/land use change impacts on California rangelands, identify data gaps, but also provide suggestions for near term research opportunities that could assist in addressing gaps in economic data and analysis of selected ecosystem services. The presentation will start with a short introduction to the project funded by the CA LCC and provide a brief overview how an economics conceptual framework and tools can be used to value three ecosystem services that California rangelands provide: carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and water flow and quality. The Alameda Creek watershed is selected as a case study example illustrating the challenges and opportunities in valuing changes in these services under two climate/land use change scenarios. Scenario 1 is characterized by low density development, intensive agriculture, low levels of land conservation, and no conservation planning. Scenario 2 is based on high density development, moderate levels of agriculture, high levels of biodiversity conservation, and the protection of about a million acres by the end of the century. Since there are no active private carbon markets for rangeland sequestration, the benefits of sequestration are calculated based on the Social Cost of Carbon. A review is provided of the few and secondary quantitative and qualitative data available for estimating economic impacts on wildlife habitat and water availability. The presentation will conclude with recommendations for an economics research agenda in the near term and suggest specific quantification tools that could be used to estimate values of ecosystem services associated with California range lands in the face of climate change.
Linkhttps://usgs.webex.com/usgs/lsr.php?RCID=1900d3d706ee4697914113613ff9512c

18Bioscience Publication: "Adapting California's Ecosystems to a Changing Climate"
Deliverable TypePublication
DescriptionA set of case studies that demonstrate ecosystem adaptation and applications of diverse scientific tools (e.g., scenario analyses, downscaled climate projections, ecological and connectivity models) tailored to specific planning and management situations in California (e.g., alternative energy siting, wetland management, rangeland management, and open space planning).
CitationElizabeth A. Chornesky, David D. Ackerly, Paul Beier, Frank W. Davis, Lorraine E. Flint, Joshua J. Lawler, Peter B. Moyle, Max A. Moritz, Mary Scoonover, Pelayo Alvarez, Kristin Byrd, Nicole Heller, Lisa Micheli, Stu Weiss. 2015. Adapting California’s Ecosystems to a Changing Climate. Bioscience, In Press.

19Poster at Climate Smart Agriculture conference
Deliverable TypePresentation : poster
DescriptionKristin Byrd presented a poster at the Climate Smart Agriculture Conference in Davis, CA on March 21. The poster title was Integrated Scenarios and Outreach for Threat Assessments on California Rangelands: Metrics and Economic Analysis for Decision Support.

This Data Management Plan structure is based on recommendations from the Data Management Plan Guidance document from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center