watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) Eyak Lake Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) Cooperative Management Plan The Copper River Watershed Project is working on an update of the Eyak Lake AMSA plan (Professional Fishery Consultants 1985) that assesses the condition of Eyak Lake, which was designated as an “area meriting special attention.” The ADFG, Prince William Sound Science Center, City of Cordova, Native Village of Eyak, Ecotrust, USDA Forest Service, and others have worked together identifying resource issues, community concerns, monitoring needs, and possible projects for restoration or to improve recreational uses. Some of the issues identified include non-point source pollutants, effects of the Power Creek Road and its culverts on the lake and spawning areas, pollution from the flooding of developed areas along Eyak River, and relocating a boat ramp. While these issues do not directly relate to climate change, maintaining the health of the watershed and its fish and wildlife species, is perhaps the best way to mitigate potential effects in a system that is generally functioning in a natural condition. Fisheries Management The Forest Service has no direct management authority over fish populations but sport and subsistence fishers are important users of National Forest lands in the Cordova area. The nutrients that spawning salmon bring to the watershed are also an important part of the ecosystem, not only for predators such as bears and eagles, but for future generations of salmon as well (Lang et al. 2006). Thus, it is important to have sufficient numbers of salmon returning to streams in National Forests and for the Forest Service to provide input and assistance where possible. Just recently, the CRWP and the Prince William Sound/Copper River Marketing Association (a commercial fishing group) recently started an outreach to see if there is interest in developing a sustainability plan for the Copper River and Prince William Sound fisheries. The announcement stated, “Our goal is to bring together information resources on fisheries, management and habitat; identify data gaps and information needs; and identify indicators for tracking sustainability of the fisheries over time.” (CRWP and PWSCRMA 2011.) This appears to be a good cooperative opportunity for agencies, organizations, commercial interests, Native groups, and others to provide input for the managers at the ADFG. One example would be the management of the coho salmon fishery. Currently, coho salmon in the Copper River Delta and adjacent systems are managed as a single stock based on aerial observations of index streams. There are no set escapement goals for individual streams; rather, the management biologists work to meet an overall total. In practice, the desired range of the combined counts has been met consistently (Botz et al. 2010). Hilborn et al. (2003) and Bryant (2009), however, suggest that genetic stocks may occur on a much smaller level, either among or within stream systems. Ruff et al. (2011) identified distinct genetic stocks associated with different spawning behaviors within a single system. Thus, to maintain the ability of a species to adapt to change, especially in their behaviors, diverse stocks need to be preserved. Bryant (2009) concludes that in view of the potential disruptive effects of climate change, future harvests should be conservative to ensure that all stocks have sufficient escapement. Given the satisfactory overall counts, the management strategy appears to be working well under the present conditions. However, in order to conserve all of the stocks, interested parties should collaborate on ways to monitor escapement in the numerous smaller systems. The Forest Service and other partners could take an active role and provide additional personnel to obtain this information and ensure that the current management is effective. 286 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) Watershed Restoration Restoring damaged watersheds to improve their natural function is widely seen as the key to increasing resiliency to the effects of climate change (Furniss et al. 2010, Haufler et al. 2010). The Eyak Lake watershed has not been severely damaged, but there have been restoration opportunities, and some still exist. The CRWP has taken the lead in implementing restoration projects through their FishWatch and Million Dollar Eyak Lake programs. The Forest Service, ADF&G, Native Village of Eyak, and others have worked with CRWP to identify and prioritize projects. Some of the specific projects have included the following. • Replaced three undersized failing culverts with an arch culvert that restores passage to upstream fish habitat and downstream transport of spawning gravels to sockeye salmon spawning areas in the lake. • Installed a Stormceptor oil and grit separator to remove sediment and hydrocarbons from street runoff and an urban stream that flow into the lake. • Removed an artificial spit and abandoned floatplane dock that adversely affected sockeye salmon spawning habitat in the lake. • Revegetated disturbed shorelines where roads border the lake. Vegetation will reduce erosion, trap sediment runoff from the roads, and provide shade and cover to improve fish habitat. • Worked with the City of Cordova to address snowplowing and dumping practices to help keep sand, salt, and hydrocarbons from entering the lake. Thus, many of the existing problems have been addressed. There are still some culverts that prevent fish passage, but the loss of habitat is relatively small, and replacement costs would be high. The CRWP, in partnership with Ecotrust, ADFG, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Alaska Department of Transportation, has also developed a culvert replacement prioritization protocol that has been used in the Eyak watershed and surrounding areas (CRWP 2011). The highest priority sites are outside of the watershed. Eyak Lake Watershed Summary The Eyak Lake watershed was chosen because it is typical of coastal Alaska and because its climate change issues would be similar for most rainforest watersheds in southcentral and southeast Alaska. Higher precipitation, melting glaciers, and more frequent rain-on-snow events increase the possibility of floods, erosion, increased sediment transport, and changes to channels in depositional areas. All of these increase the risks to infrastructure and fish habitat. As discussed by Rothwell and Bidlack (2011) there are many data gaps that hinder the development of a water budget for Eyak Lake, therefore, it is difficult to quantify flows and their effects. There are also no models that can predict and quantify snow avalanches and how they affect the landscape. However, a general look at the issues and values allows land managers to identify possible mitigation actions, or things to leave as is – in this case the existing flows and habitats that appear to be functioning well. Maintaining the habitat and the diverse genetic stocks may be all that mangers can do to buffer the effects of climate change. This brief study also shows the value of an active, concerned community. NGO’s like the CRWP have taken an extensive role in identifying and implementing restoration projects. The Prince William Sound Science Center, Ecotrust, and others are conducting studies that will provide baseline data for future 287 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:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 242 and 243: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 270 and 271: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 272 and 273: Chugach National Forest Watershed V
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?