watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) assessment will stress the course of action that managers can take to mitigate the predicted negative effects. Realistically, there are a number of limitations on the analysis, particularly simple hydrologic data. Most of the Forest is accessible only by aircraft or boat, so data collection has generally been limited to projectspecific sites on a short-term basis. Since many of the watersheds have little historic or proposed human disturbance, data collection has not been a priority. I also assume that given the predicted climate changes for the area, undisturbed watersheds are best left alone. Predictions for coastal Alaska include increased precipitation, higher temperatures, and more intense storm events. While there may well be changes in stream flows, flow timing, or other effects, trying to “correct” those effects without altering other natural processes may be difficult. In addition, where there are no direct effects to infrastructure or threats to population centers, land managers may have higher priorities. Thus, instead of looking at all of the watersheds on the Forest and trying to rank their vulnerability, this assessment focuses on two of the more highly developed watersheds where more data are available, where a wider variety of restoration activity might occur, and that are representative of their ecological areas. These are the Eyak Lake watershed in a coastal rainforest ecosystem near Cordova, and the Resurrection Creek watershed in a relatively drier boreal forest setting on the Kenai Peninsula. Figure 1. The Chugach National Forest, its location in Alaska, and the two watersheds that were examined for this study Another limitation is that many of the biological effects are intuitively predictable – such as warmer water temperatures causing salmon eggs to develop and hatch sooner – but how these individual effects interact with other components of the ecosystem are unknown or cannot be quantified. Thus, there is a vast need for biological research that can help land managers reach decisions for on-the-ground mitigation activities. 270 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) This assessment was made based on the conditions of the Chugach National Forest along the southcentral coast of Alaska, but it could be applicable to other areas in coastal Alaska, including southeast Alaska. The intent of focusing on just two watersheds is to have them serve as examples for land managers who may have watersheds with similar issues. METHODS The directions that participants in this pilot project were given included a number of practical steps. These included: • Describing the assessment areas, existing conditions, and the major water resources, or the waterrelated values or benefits in these areas. • Determining the anticipated climate change and its degree, using various predictive climate models. • Describing the predicted changes to hydrologic processes. • Determining the effects on water resources or values. • Describing the conditions that might amplify the changes and effects (stressors) or reduce them (buffers). • Determining the degree of watershed risk. • Describing how the findings might be applied to management activities at various geographic levels. The initial steps required consultations with area managers, literature searches (particularly of the gray literature), collecting historic temperature and precipitation data, and determining the availability of site specific data such as stream flows or water temperatures. The University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), in collaboration with government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, conducts the Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning project (SNAP), which provides climate change data using a variety of Global Circulation Models (GCM) linked with historic Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slope Models (PRISM) data. The resulting SNAP data can then make climate change predictions based on historic data that also take into account elevation, topographic facet, coastal proximity, slope, and distance from weather stations. This is particularly important in Alaska where there are large areas with few or no stations. There are ready-made maps with 2 km cells available online for temperature and precipitation, but the scale increments are somewhat coarse: 3 °C for temperatures close to freezing and 50 mm increments for precipitation. However, these maps are sufficient to determine overall trends and a rough estimate of the amount of change. Analysis requires downloading the data. For the initial efforts, UAF provided me with GIS layers of the Eyak Lake watershed where I could manipulate the scales to better detect freezing points and finer changes in precipitation. Since the elevations range from near sea level to 4,600 ft, the temperatures and precipitation vary significantly over short distances. The data were an average of the five GCM’s that best matched historical data. After the project was expanded to include Resurrection Creek, a GIS specialist for the Chugach National Forest downloaded and manipulated additional data available from SNAP for both watersheds. By using the raw data for each 2 km cell, the GIS specialist was able to average and obtain mean values for the watersheds as a whole. This was done for annual mean temperatures, annual mean precipitation, the freeze day, and the thaw day. The freeze and thaw days are extrapolated predictions of when the average 271 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:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 230 and 231: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?