watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) OBJECTIVES AND SCALE OF ANALYSIS Forestwide “Coarse Grain” Analysis The objective is to produce a display for resource managers showing the relative vulnerability of Forest watersheds to risks posed by climate change, and identify watersheds containing water “values,” (systems) that may be susceptible to changes in hydrologic conditions (Hurd 1999; Furniss et al. 2010). The analysis framework was outlined by the WVA steering committee and 12 pilot Forests with the overall goal of producing case studies with examples and a framework for National Forest watershed vulnerability assessments. The analysis scale was Forestwide at the subwatershed unit (12-digit hydrologic unit, or HU12). A total of 162 HU12 watersheds contain UNF acres; of these, 101 have 25% or more UNF acres where data and results are most representative. This scale was intended to provide an overview of the Forest, to distinguish relative vulnerability from place to place based on water resource values and non-climate sensitivity (resilience, condition, threats). The climate data resolution was not detailed enough for HU12level analysis, so data were summarized at the HU10 (watershed) scale and applied uniformly to subwatersheds contained within. Generalized Framework Steps Values Sensitivity Exposure Vulnerability Response Water Uses, Infrastructure, Aquatics Base Watershed Condition ratings, Resiliency factors, Threats Historic and Projected Climate (2030 and 2070) Winter Temperature, Summer Temperature, and April 1 Snow water equivalent (SWE) Focused Watersheds or “Fine Grain” Analysis for Bull Trout 212 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Relative rating based on values, sensitivity, and exposure. Composite and individual value ratings Evaluate restoration priorities, infrastructure risk, community engagement Our goal was to develop an understanding of climate change specific to water temperatures and suitable critical bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) habitat on a HU10 forestwide scale. The analysis was focused within HU12 subwatersheds in the three bull trout ESU subareas on the Umatilla NF (John Day, Tucannon in the Snake River and Washington recovery unit, and the Umatilla - Walla Walla recovery unit). The aim was to delineate historic, current, and future suitable bull trout habitat using a multiple regression stream temperature model developed by the RMRS. CONNECTION TO OTHER ASSESSMENTS Climate change vulnerability assessments are now a component of USDA’s Strategic Plan. Region 6 has begun a broad-scale vulnerability assessment for multiple resources, including water uses and aquatics. Revision of the Blue Mountains National Forest management plans is well underway and water resource and aquatics issues are important aspects of planning. The Draft Forest plan identifies climate change as a management challenge both broadly and specifically to water resources. Two Regional aquatics strategies (Aquatic Restoration Strategy, 2005, and Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy, 2008) do not explicitly address climate change implications, although results from vulnerability assessments could be
Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) used to inform aquatic restoration and conservation emphasis and may shift priorities (location, timing, and restoration actions). Forest and Basin restoration strategies could be updated to incorporate results from this initial assessment. Resource planning efforts such as the Umatilla’s Forest Integrated vegetation and fire risk planning, and regulatory programs (recovery planning for listed fish, and water quality Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)) may also consider watershed vulnerability in a changing climate. Step 2 of the National Watershed Condition Framework which prioritizes watersheds for restoration, could take into account the vulnerability of watersheds to risk posed by climate change. Other connections include community and regional risk assessments lead by various interest groups, including water managers, cities, and universities. COARSE SCALE ANALYSIS Water Resource Values Three categories of water resource values were evaluated, with local Forest indicators selected as most representative of these values: • Water uses – Municipal watershed, public supply watershed, Forest Service potable water systems, and state water rights • Infrastructure – Campgrounds, roads, and other developments in potentially vulnerable settings (within 300’ of rivers and streams mapped at 1:100K) • Aquatics (coarse-level) – Number of ESA listed species and Chinook salmon per subwatershed, and groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) indicators (springs, wetlands, and groundwater dependent streams). Fine-scale temperature analysis focused on bull trout within three ESUs. Resource values were classified, weighted, and summed for total composite value ratings per HU12, then binned into 5 value rating categories. Examples of water resource value attributes used in categorizing and ranking, LEFT: Water Uses, RIGHT: Aquatics and Infrastructure 213 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:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 166 and 167: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 214 and 215: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 218 and 219: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 232 and 233: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 242 and 243: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 266 and 267:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 268 and 269:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?