watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) WATER RESOURCE VALUES Columbia River Bull Trout • Threatened Species under Endangered Species Act since1998 • Sawtooth NF Management Indicator Species • More specific habitat requirements than other salmonids • Associated with the coldest streams; upper tolerance limits appear to be 12-15°C • Climate change could lead to smaller and more isolated habitat patches and the loss of local populations in the Upper Salmon. • Embryos and juveniles are vulnerable to channel scour associated with the rain-on-snow events and winter peak flows. Infrastructure • Roads, campgrounds, water diversions, bridges, etc., with poor drainage or in riparian areas will be at increased risk from rain-on-snow events and winter peak flows. Water Resource Indicators Value Infrastructure Recreation Sites (Campgrounds) Water Diversions System Roads and Trails Private Ownership Projected Hydrologic Changes Rain-on-Snow Events Increased Winter Peak Flows Aquatics Bull Trout Rain-on-Snow Events Increased Winter Peak Flows Lower Summer Base Flows Increased Summer Water Temps Table 1. Water resource values, indicators, and analysis tools WATERSHED SENSITIVITY 160 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Analysis Tools Potential Impacts VIC – Winter 95 (# of days in the winter in which flows are among the highest 5% for year) VIC – Winter 95 VIC – MeanSummer (Mean flow during June 1 to September 30) Stream Temperature Model (Summer Maximum Weekly Temperature) Flood Damage Egg and Juvenile Scour Habitat Reduction Habitat Fragmentation Watershed sensitivity includes natural risks from increased sediment, debris flows, and landslides to fish populations. The following factors were considered. Subwatershed Vulnerability - Percent of a subwatershed with sensitive land types (e.g., inherent surface soil erosion, sediment yield, and mass stability) (Figure 2). Landslide Prone Terrain – Included are areas with a tendency for rapid soil mass movements typified by shallow, non-cohesive soils on slopes with shallow translational planar landsliding phenomena are
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) controlled by shallow groundwater flow convergence. Also included are landforms with slow soil mass movements with deep earth-flows and rotational slumps, snow avalanche and rock fall areas (Figure 3). Figure 2. Subwatershed vulnerability within the Upper Salmon subbasin on the Sawtooth NRA. Red areas have high risk, yellow have moderate risk and green have low risk of surface erosion. WATERSHED CONDITION Watershed condition was determined using the "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" and Bayesian belief networks. The "Matrix of Pathways and Indicators" has been a consultation requirement for species listed under the Endangered Species Act since the late 1990’s. Baseline information was already organized and summarized by the matrix according to important environmental parameters for each subwatershed within the Upper Salmon subbasin within Sawtooth NRA. This matrix was divided into six overall pathways: -- Water Quality -- Channel Condition and Dynamics -- Habitat Access -- Flow/Hydrology -- Habitat Elements -- Watershed Conditions Each of the above pathways is further broken down into watershed condition indicators (WCIs). WCIs are described in terms of functionality (Appropriate {FA}, At Risk {FR}, and At Unacceptable Risk {FUR}). The Functioning Appropriately column represents the desired condition to strive toward for each particular WCI. The current condition of each WCI is represented as falling within its respective functionality class (Figure 5). The units of measure for WCIs are generally reported in one of two ways: (1) quantitative metrics that have associated numeric values (e.g., “large woody debris: > 20 pieces per mile”); or (2) qualitative descriptions based on field reviews, professional judgment, etc. (e.g., “physical barriers: man-made barriers present”). The suite of relevant WCIs, considered together, encompasses the environmental baseline or current condition for the subwatershed and associated aquatic resources. Bayesian belief networks (Lee and Rieman, 1997) were used to evaluate relative differences in predicted physical baseline outcomes. They are appealing because their basic structure (a box-and-arrow diagram 161 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Figure 3. Landslide-prone terrain within the Upper Salmon sub-basin on the Sawtooth NRA. Red areas have high risk, yellow have moderate risk, and green have low risk of landslides
Page 2 and 3:
AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Authors* M
Page 4 and 5:
ASSESSSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WAT
Page 6 and 7:
staff; the task group included repr
Page 8 and 9:
Figure 2. Conceptual model for asse
Page 10 and 11:
Figure 3. Density of springs and sm
Page 12 and 13:
Using Historic Data One finding con
Page 14 and 15:
NF (Region 8) relied on information
Page 16 and 17:
level of uncertainty. Though there
Page 18 and 19:
climate (Casola et al. 2005). Only
Page 20 and 21:
sensitivity. Most were derived from
Page 22 and 23:
The sensitivity evaluation typicall
Page 24 and 25:
in exposure. The result of combinin
Page 26 and 27:
highest priority for management act
Page 28 and 29:
to information affected the assessm
Page 30 and 31:
with and rely on in many resource d
Page 32 and 33:
Pilot National Forest Reports Conte
Page 34 and 35:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 36 and 37:
Gallatin National Forest Watershed
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 116 and 117: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 166 and 167: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

watervulnerability

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

Delete template?

Save as template?