watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) and Stewart et al. (2005) found that stream runoff steadily advanced during the latter half of the twentieth century and now occurs 1 to 3 weeks earlier, due largely to concurrent decreases in snowpack and earlier spring melt (Mote et al. 2005). These changes diminished recharge of subsurface aquifers that support summer baseflows (Hamlet et al. 2005). Luce and Holden (2009) found that three-fourths of the 43 gauge records they examined from the Pacific Northwest exhibited statistically significant declines in summer low flows. Luce and Holden (2009) also found that the driest 25% of years are becoming drier across the majority of the Pacific Northwest sites, with most streams showing decreases exceeding 29% and some showing decreases approaching 50% between 1948 and 2006. Sites on or near the Sawtooth National Forest showed similar declines in mean annual flow (Table 3). Site Name 13139510 13186000 13302500 Big Wood River at Hailey SF Boise River NF Featherville Salmon River at Salmon Table 3. Mean annual flow from 1948-2006 Average Annual Flow (mm) 25 th Percentile Change 170 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Median Change 75 th Percentile Change Mean Change 257 -31% -13% -6% -7% 411 -43% -30% 1% -21% 182 -42% -29% -11% -26% In the upper Salmon River drainage, there are numerous irrigation diversions on federal and private land within the Sawtooth NRA. There are nine subwatersheds (Champion, Elk, Fisher, Huckleberry, Iron- Goat, Park-Hanna, Pole, Slate, and Smiley Creeks) at risk from declining baseflows and water diversion (Table 4). Future decreases in summer baseflows in these subwatersheds are likely to have severe consequences for aquatic ecosystems where there are already high water demands from diversions. HUC-6 Name % Decrease in MeanSummer Baseflows from Current 2040 2080 Overall Influence Water Diversions Miles of Stream Impacted Alturas Lake 24 39 None -- Beaver Creek 30 42 Low 1.21 Beaver-Peach 14 25 Low 3.88 Big Boulder Creek 109 15 Low 0.58 Big Casino Creek 10 14 Moderate 1.06 Big Lake Creek 11 20 None -- Bluett-Baker 10 22 Low 3.96 Boundary-Cleveland 15 28 Low 5.25 Cabin-Vat 22 34 Low 1.99 Champion Creek 17 33 Mod/High 3.13 East Basin-Kelly 24 30 None -- Elk Creek 25 53 Moderate 0.30 Fisher Creek 24 27 High 1.95 Fishhook Creek 25 37 None -- Fourth of July Creek 122 21 Low/Mod 4.52 French-Spring 13 24 Low 5.16 Germania Creek 13 27 None --
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) HUC-6 Name % Decrease in MeanSummer Baseflows from Current 2040 2080 Overall Influence 171 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Water Diversions Miles of Stream Impacted Gold-Williams 16 29 Low/Mod 10.77 Harden-Rough 15 28 None -- Hell Roaring-Mays 20 32 Low 2.63 Holman-Mill 14 24 Low 2.88 Huckleberry Creek 18 23 High 1.64 Iron-Goat 26 35 High 13.22 Joes-Little Casino 15 28 Low 5.58 Little Boulder Creek 8 22 Low 0.15 Lower Yankee Fork 17 23 None -- Meadow Creek 34 38 None -- Muley-Elk 15 26 None -- Nip and Tuck-Sunny 15 29 Low 7.27 Park-Hanna 32 42 High 8.46 Pettit Lake Creek 18 31 None -- Pole Creek 26 37 High 3.19 Prospect-Robinson Bar 12 27 None -- Redfish-Little Redfish 11 29 None -- Sawtooth City-Frenchman 29 35 Low 3.14 Slate Creek 15 27 Moderate 6.42 Smiley Creek 31 35 Moderate 0.92 Spud-Clayton 12 22 None -- Stanley Creek 25 34 None -- Stanley Lake Creek 25 33 Low 1.19 Sullivan-Clayton 12 22 None -- Swimm-Martin 9 29 None -- Thompson Creek 5 10 None -- Upper EF Salmon 23 32 None -- Upper Redfish Lake Creek 5 33 None -- Upper Salmon River 31 37 Low 4.04 Upper Warm Spring Creek 1 29 None -- Warm-Taylor 38 35 Low 9.00 West Pass Creek 8 12 Moderate 0.54 Wickiup-Sheep 11 23 Low 4.66 Yellow Belly Lake Creek 9 31 None -- Table 4. Comparison of summer baseflow changes and subwatersheds with water diversions * Green shaded (low risk) = < 20% decrease in baseflow; Yellow shaded (moderate risk) = 20 to 40% decrease; and Orange shaded (high risk) = > 40% decrease in baseflow. * Overall water diversion influence takes into account the number of diversions and miles of stream impacted by water withdrawals within each subwatershed.
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:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
White River National Forest Watersh
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 214 and 215: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 216 and 217: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 224 and 225:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
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?