watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) Current High Risk Populations - By 2040, bull trout in Slate and Champion Creeks will be at a high risk of extinction, but for different reasons. Champion Creek is projected to see the loss of summer rearing habitat in the very lowest portion of the drainage from increased water temperatures above 15 o C and high risks from winter peak flows. The bull trout population is already “functioning at unacceptable risk” due to low densities (0.7 fish per 100m 2 ), high densities of brook trout (17.1 fish/100m 2 ), recent wildfire effects, and impacts to migration from irrigation diversions. Projected climate changes will likely increase winter peak flows enough to displace and kill newly emerged bull trout. Warmer water temperatures may also further decrease connectivity to migratory bull trout from the Salmon River. By 2080, risks from winter peak flows increase further (4.4 days), water temperatures are predicted to increase as far as the SF Champion confluence, leaving only 2.3 miles of habitat within optimal summer temperatures. Furthermore, baseflows are predicted to decrease by 33%, impacting rearing habitat and connectivity even further, especially if irrigation demands remain constant. By 2040, risks to summer baseflows in Slate Creek are expected to remain low, increases to winter peak flows increase moderately, and summer water temperatures remain high below Silver Rule Creek, due to irrigation diversions. These changes result in an overall low risk from climate change. However, the bull trout population was still projected to be at high risk of extinction due to very low population size and already-poor habitat conditions from grazing, historic mining, roads, irrigation diversions, and lingering impacts from the 1998 Labor Day flood. Thus, by 2040, climate change will add to cumulative effects but will not be the main driver of extinction risks. By 2080, risks from winter peak flows greatly increase (3.7 days), summer baseflows show a moderate decrease (27%), and summer water temperatures increase slightly, leaving 3.3 miles within the optimal temperature range. These risks will make it harder for an already-weak bull trout population to persist lower in this drainage. Subwatershed Name Management Threats Current Physical Condition Current Biological Condition Ecological Departure 176 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change 2040 2080 Population Persistence Risk Ecological Departure Population Persistence Risk Alturas Lake Creek M FR FR M M M M Big Boulder Creek H FR FA L M M M Champion Creek M FR FUR M H M H Fishhook Creek M FA FR M M M M Fourth of July Creek M FR FR L M M M Germania Creek M FA FA L L M M Little Boulder Creek M FR FA L M H M Prospect-Robinson Bar M FA FA M M H M Slate Creek H FUR FUR L H M H Swimm-Martin L FA FA M L M L Upper EF Salmon M FR FR M M M M Upper Warm Spring Creek L FA FA L L M L West Pass Creek M FR FR L M M M Wickiup-Sheep H FR FR M M H H Table 5. Extinction risks and population persistence outcomes for bull trout-occupied subwatersheds
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) Overall, the predictions for bull trout do not seem promising for long-term persistence for many populations. The long-term climate patterns in tributary streams suggest both an expected decrease in the total amount of cold water stream habitat and fragmentation of some colder areas into disconnected “patches” of suitable habitat. Bull trout populations will likely increasingly retreat into these shrinking summer cold water refuges to avoid warming conditions. These restricted tributary populations may become more vulnerable to local extinction (Dunham et al. 1997; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Morita and Yamamoto 2002; Rich et al. 2003; Isaak et al. 2007). Many remaining patches will be subjected to more frequent winter peak flows, which will scour the streambed and destroy redds and/or kill newly emerged fry. Populations may also be subjected to larger, more severe wildfires (McKenzie et al. 2004; Westerling et al. 2006) that can remove riparian vegetation or catalyze severe channel disturbances such as debris flows (Luce, et al 2005). Conceivably, the combined effects of shrinking patch size and increasing frequency or magnitude of stream channel disturbance could chip away at what remaining resiliency these populations have, leaving them in a poorer condition to withstand the next series of disturbances, and accelerating the rate of local extinctions beyond that driven by temperature alone. Forest Infrastructure Developed recreation sites and trails within riparian conservation areas, water diversions, system roads, bridges, and ownership were categorized according to Forest Plan and literature criteria, histograms, and professional judgement, to determine the level of threat associated with each type of infrastructure (Table 6). Bayesian belief networks were then used to evaluate the overall amount of infrastructure and risk to facilities within each subwatershed from winter peak flows caused by rain-on-snow events on the Sawtooth NRA. Those subwatersheds that have moderate/high amounts of infrastructure and high risks from increased winter peak flows were considered to have a high risk of damage to road and trail drainage and facilities within riparian areas. Subwatersheds with less infrastructure were considered to have lower risks from winter peak flow events. Infrastructure Low Threat Moderate High Percent Federal Lands 85-100% 50-84% 8 sites/6 th Field Water Diversions No Diversions 1-2 diversions/6 th Field >2 sites/6 th System Road Density - Miles of Field road/sq. miles (within admin boundaries) < 0.7 mi/mi 2 0.71-1.7 mi/mi 2 >1.7 mi/mi 2 Road Stream Crossings - Number of road/stream crossings on perennial and intermittent streams based current road layer and NHD streams within total subwatershed regardless of ownership or administrative boundaries 0-11 crossings crossings >23 crossings Bridges No bridges present 1-2 Bridges >2 Bridges System Trails within RCAs < 0.7 mi/mi 2 0.71-1.7 mi/mi 2 >1.7 mi/mi 2 Table 6. Forest infrastructure and levels of risk 177 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
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:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 132 and 133: 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 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?