watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) daily temperatures are below or above freezing. Changes in the number of days between the freeze and thaw provide clues about changes in the annual hydrologic cycle, such as earlier snowmelt and runoff. Figure 2. An example of a GIS product developed from SNAP data. The 2 km cells were clipped to the watershed boundaries and the mean precipitation for the watershed was calculated. Monthly temperature and precipitation data were obtained from the SNAP community charts that provide predictions for selected towns. These data are an average of the five best-fitting GCM’s. As described on the website, “SNAP then scaled down outputs to the local level using data from Alaskan weather stations and PRISM, a model that accounts for land features such as slope, elevation, and proximity to coastlines.” (University of Alaska, Fairbanks 2011). The data are predictions for the 2 km grid square closest to the town. The data provided are derived from an average of five models (out of a total of 15) that best fit the historic data. Variability among the models is generally in the range of 0-4 °F and 0-0.7 inches for precipitation (ibid). 272 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) Figure 3. An example of the community graphs provided by SNAP. The black bars show the amount of variation among the five models used for these projections. Graphs are also available for precipitation and with projections for low and high emissions scenarios as well. The predicted changes to hydrologic processes were only examined qualitatively. In part, this was due to the limited availability of personnel, hydrologic models for Alaska, and stream gauge data. Moreover, the available quantity of water does not appear to be a problem in Alaska as it is in other areas. The climate models call for increased precipitation in all months of the year and the relatively high average elevations of the watersheds would appear to buffer potential changes in snowmelt and runoff timing. To determine effects on water resources and values, I investigated the use of the NetWeaver knowledge-based decision support system. The appeal of this and similar systems is that they can incorporate empirical data as well as “expert opinion” in a logical transparent method. I thought this might be useful given the limited amount of available data for current and historic stream flows, water temperatures, and other parameters. It might also have been useful for comparing conditions across watersheds, since the system output is a numerical score measuring how “true” a certain proposition might be – for example, “Watershed X can sustain a viable coho salmon population.” The usefulness of this method, however, is limited by the complexity of the situation, how qualitative input is scaled (high, medium, low or numerically), and the confidence the experts have in making a rating or judgment. In short, this method did not prove to be practical and the analysis was not completed. My experience, however, provides a practical lesson for land managers that will be addressed in the assessment section. Further determination of the effects on aquatic resources and values, and the overall watershed risks, were made qualitatively, based on information in the literature, consideration of stressors and buffers, current investigations in the area, and personal communications. The issues are complex and there is a great deal of uncertainty, especially with the biological effects. These will be presented in the discussion. 273 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:
Page 226 and 227: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 228 and 229: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?