watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Individual Value Ranking: Aquatic species vulnerability Aquatic species’ vulnerability was assessed using the number of focal aquatic species per subwatershed as the value metric. All sensitivity and threats variables, as used in the composite analysis, were used in this analysis. All climate factors, including winter and summer temperature and SWE, were also included in the analysis. Results were placed in three categories; high, medium, and low. Greatest vulnerability tends to be in subwatersheds with 3 focal aquatic species; however, not all subwatersheds with 3 focal aquatic species show high vulnerability. 218 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) FINE SCALE ANALYSIS FOR BULL TROUT Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was used as our aquatic focal species in the WVA because bull trout require cold (≤ 17 °C) and relatively low gradient, pristine waters to rear and spawn. They have a small thermal niche and are very responsive to changes in stream temperature. Analysis of suitable habitat on the UNF is necessary because bull trout are on the edge of their bioclimatic envelope (Beever et al. 2010, Dunham et al. 2003); the UNF is a fairly low elevation, dry forest landscape. Bull trout populations in the southern parts of the UNF can also be described as peripheral populations or species that are at the geographic edge of their range; they often have increased conservation value because they maximize within-species biodiversity, retain important evolutionary legacies, and may provide a “gene pool” for future adaptation (Haak et al. 2010). Previous research suggests future stream temperature increases on the forest, but influences on distribution and abundance of stream organisms is not well documented (Rieman et al. 2007). To begin the analysis, current bull trout distributions were identified in the Umatilla, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Lookingglass, and North Fork John Day (NFJD) drainages. Previous stream surveys conducted by USFS and ODFW/WDFW were used to verify current bull trout distribution. Multiple Regression Stream Temperature Model A multiple regression stream temperature model developed by the RMRS was used to model historic, current and future (years 2033, 2058, 2080) suitable bull trout habitat. Stream temperature model information and methods to the can be found at www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/stream_temperature.shtml The regression model used observed mean weekly maximum temperature (MWMT) and physical parameters or predictor variables and geomorphic variables that have direct effects on stream temperatures. (The regression equation and coefficients can be found at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes.) Physical metrics: • Water diversion • Wildfire – Used data from the last 20 years; ~4km from the stream. • Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (resiliency): number of springs and wetlands per HU12, rated Geomorphic variables or metrics (National hydrologic data set): • Cumulative drainage area (km 2 ) • Slope (%) • Elevation (m) Observed Stream Temperature and Climate Data Observed summer MWMT were taken from 37 locations and provided a total of 333 stream observations. A separate regression model was developed to predict historic and future stream temperatures using the same physical and geomorphic predictor vales, however, air MWMT data (1979-2009) and flow (m 3 /s) data (1957-2009) were considered. (Details about this regression model are available at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes.) 219 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:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173: 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 232 and 233: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 242 and 243: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
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?