watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Forest-scale rating of relative watershed vulnerability to climate change shows that a majority of the Forest has “moderate” to “high” vulnerability, using categorical indicators for Water Values, Sensitivity, and Exposure. Two “hot spots,” or cluster watersheds, show the highest rating: mid-Columbia marine influence zone (temperature vulnerability), and upper NFJD, higher elevation snow zone (water supply vulnerability). A total of 29 HU12 subwatersheds, or 18%, ranked highest vulnerability. (A summary of vulnerability factors and management options is available at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes.) Bull trout habitat modeling shows current habitat quality and projected losses and fragmentation in response to warming climate. Populations in Upper NFJD may be more susceptible to human impacts. Groundwater and habitat complexity may buffer climate impacts in some watersheds. More resilient areas in Upper Lookingglass and Walla Walla could be a focus for protection and restoration. Management Actions • Verification: Field verification of potential susceptibility to hydrologic regime changes of campground and other high value developments. GIS analysis of these values was limited by quality of spatial data; some developments may or may not be vulnerable. Field verification and more detailed hydrologic modeling is needed. • Increase resilience: Use existing programs for protecting watersheds; measures include “Best Management Practices”, Forest Flood Emergency Response Plan, and land allocations (wilderness and roadless areas as refugia). • Actively restore: Evaluate restoration priorities and activities, and address vulnerable infrastructure, passage barriers, and riparian conditions. • Improve coordination: Forests are critical sources of water and habitat, but resource availability and conditions are changing, with more uncertainty. Consider findings in Forest planning, Regional vulnerability assessments, and restoration strategies. Engage with communities in adaptation strategies. Assess current juvenile bull trout populations in the key watersheds to begin the process of establishing the “thermal” limit of juvenile bull trout. • Improve monitoring: Follow the bull trout monitoring protocol and example application in the Secesh River basin (published by RMRS) to design bull trout monitoring protocol for the UNF. • Expand inventory of culvert barriers and compile other cumulative effects that may alter bull trout distribution. • Refine modeling to address variation in stream temperature scale; for example, site versus systematic variation at stream, landscape, and regional scales is an issue with many temperature studies (Isaak et al. 2010). There is a need to collect further climatic data at finer scales and consult PRISM data (OSU application) to make improvements to temperature models. 222 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) CRITIQUE Questions not considered: This first run-through for the Forest and initial fine-scale analysis for the bull trout did not address many questions, such as downstream resource values at risk. The analysis also does not fully represent resilience factors and did not use a full suite of climate exposure factors, including flow metrics. Most useful data sources: Forest Plan revision watershed condition data, CIG data, and Forest water temperature data. Most important data deficiencies: Physical framework, water uses data, and complexity of using gridded climate data. Useful tools: ArcGIS, RMRS temperature model, with caveats (need technical assistance) Problem tools: Water rights data and climate data sets. FUTURE WORK • Refine coarse-scale analysis: validate ratings, run individual values with specific climate exposure (Water Uses and SWE), and consider 2070 timeframe. • Improve fine-scale model analysis – incorporate finer-scale historic climate data into model, identify where habitat losses and disconnects are likely. In Forest Restoration strategy, consider individual actions to improve connectivity and maintain habitat. Identify “lost causes.” • Comparison of bull trout habitat modeling to coarse-scale aquatic species vulnerability analysis. • Use flow metrics in more detailed hydrologic analysis (Wenger et al, 2010). PROJECT TEAM Core Team: Caty Clifton, Forest hydrologist; Kate Day, hydrologist; Allison Johnson, fish biologist Support: Kristy Groves, Dave Crabtree, Tracii Hickman - fish biologists, aquatic analysis. Bob Gecy - watershed condition ratings from the Blue Mountains Forest plan revision, basis for sensitivity rating, and analysis of historic climate and gage data in the Blue Mountains RMRS: Dan Isaak and Dona Horan - temperature modeling and data processing assistance Ralph Martinez, - GIS analyst, Plumas NF - support preparing CIG climate data. Pilot Forests - for a community of practice; in particular, Christine Mai for risk matrix concept External: Ken Roby, USFS fish biologist emeritus - project support and coordination Rich Carmichael, ODFW - Mid Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan vulnerability assessment example Climate Impacts Group: Jeremy Littell - climate data, expertise, and advice The Nature Conservancy, Oregon: Jenny Brown - groundwater assessment data PROJECT CONTACT Caty Clifton, Forest Hydrologist Umatilla National Forest cclifton@fs.fed.us (541) 278-3822 223 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:
Page 176 and 177: 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:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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?