watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Historic Record 2033 2058 2080 Air MWMT (°C) 35.7 36.7 37.7 38.7 Flow (m 3 /s) 2.02 2.00 1.98 1.96 Air MWMT - 0.42 °C decadal increase, Flow (m 3 /s) - 0.009 m 3 /s decadal decrease Results: Suitable bull trout critical habitat (2033-2080) It was difficult to quantitatively measure suitable bull trout habitat loss between the years 2033-2080 for many reasons. The model predicted that only 8% of all suitable bull trout habitat forestwide would be lost by the year 2080 (~9,804 total miles with 769 miles lost). This underestimates loss because not all streammiles included in this forestwide analysis have presence of bull trout, so the calculated habitat loss seems small. When more closely examining the NFJD subwatershed, where there is known presence of migratory and rearing bull trout habitat, the critical habitat that is lost is approximately 22% (~81 miles of suitable habitat and ~18 miles lost by 2080). This may also be an underestimate because not all habitats that were projected “suitable” were historically or currently occupied with viable bull trout populations. From our current understanding, only a small percentage of streams in the upper NFJD provide rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout. Therefore, when looking at known juvenile bull trout distribution, a 34% loss of suitable bull trout habitat may be a better estimate of habitat loss in the NFJD watershed. Major habitat losses: • Tucannon - 9.43 mi • Mill Cr. - 20.43 mi • Umatilla and NF Umatilla - 15.28 mi • Upper NFJD watershed - 15.12 mi (Most of the habitat lost was tributary habitat.) Watersheds more resilient to bull trout habitat loss, possibly due to groundwater influence and habitat complexity: • Lookingglass 220 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) • Little Lookingglass • Upper Walla Walla Discussion/Management Objectives It is important to apply this knowledge to active restoration and to highlight the importance of stream connectivity and aquatic organism passage. Resilience of local bull trout populations to disturbance is linked to the condition, structure, and interaction of populations and habitats at larger scales (Dunham and Rieman 1999; Neville et al. 2009; Isaak et al. 2010). Thus, active riparian restoration and improvement to passage barriers are important in addressing any thermal or anthropogenic barriers that may alter bull trout movement. In addition, because bull trout on the UNF are on the edge of their “bioclimatic envelope,” they may provide a leading edge for range shifts with warming temperatures, and it is important to establish this baseline. These peripheral populations may be our best avenue for maximizing future adaptive potentials for high temperature tolerance. Implementing a monitoring protocol or making habitat improvements to bull trout habitat can be costly and prioritizing management response is important, especially because this analysis shows that some watersheds have more temperature resilience than others. Prioritize Key Watersheds: Upper NFJD The responses of most salmonid populations to habitat alteration due to temperature increases have been difficult to quantify, and most efforts with bull trout have focused on linkages between habitat condition and survival of life stages. For example, a slow-growing resident population may not persist even after modest habitat change, while migratory or fast-growing stock might be viable in similar or worse situations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The bull trout populations in the upper NFJD and Desolation Creek are examples of small, isolated, slowgrowing populations and are especially vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbances such as road density and nonnative fish introductions. There have been many efforts in active stream restoration in the upper Granite Creek drainage to improve stream habitat Lookingglass Creek springs , Fall spawning survey, 2009 complexity. Continued restoration efforts are essential for persistence of this bull trout population and are necessary because this population is one of the last strongholds on the NFJD. It is also important to mention that John Day bull trout populations have different allele frequencies from Walla Walla and Umatilla populations and are similar to only a few Grande Ronde populations (Spruell and Allendorf 1997). The Lookingglass drainage and the Upper Walla Walla rivers show a strong resilience to future critical habitat loss, possibly due to groundwater influence, few cumulative stresses (nonnative fish threats), and intact stream complexity. Because of these drainages, a thorough monitoring program is needed. 221 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:
Page 174 and 175: 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:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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?