watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) assessments. Again, the watershed is generally functioning properly in a natural condition, as is evidenced by its abundant fisheries resources. However, the watershed needs to be managed well, maintained, and monitored to continue its productivity. The local community and user groups that derive the benefits of the resources are probably the best stewards. Resurrection Creek Watershed Figure 5. The Resurrection Creek watershed association. The town of Hope and the areas along the coast lie outside of the Resurrection Creek watershed. Area Description The Resurrection Creek watershed was added to this assessment to examine the issues and conditions on the western side of the Chugach National Forest. Although the watershed is coastal in the sense that it drains directly to saltwater, the mountains and prevailing storm patterns reduce the precipitation, giving the watershed a drier climate. Potkin (1997) describes the Kenai Peninsula as a transitional area between the coastal rainforest and the inland boreal forests. Climate change predictions, however, call for increasing temperatures, particularly in winter, and increases in precipitation. The Resurrection Creek watershed is a U-shaped valley with steep slopes, a low- to moderate-gradient valley floor, and a dendritic stream drainage pattern. The tributary streams are generally steep and form alluvial areas as they reach the floor. This watershed is a popular recreation area and has five species of Pacific salmon; it also has a history of hydraulic mining, forest insect infestation, and occasional wildfires. Mining has been the most disruptive. The natural tributary channels have been diverted to power hydraulic cannons (Kalli and Blanchet 2001), while the main creek has been diverted from one side of the valley to the other for easier access to the alluvial deposits. A one-mile section of the upper creek has had extensive restoration work but the lower creek still has substantial problems. 288 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) The town of Hope (population 182) lies near the mouth of the creek; most of the residences and development are outside of the watershed. The town is supported mainly by tourism. The historic buildings and a modest pink salmon recreational fishery are the main attractions. Commercial miners have claims to old tailings piles and alluvial material in the lower floodplain but activity has been sporadic. There is no industrial, agricultural, or other large-scale use of water. The mining activities occur at a level that does not require large diversions of water. The water supply for the town comes from private wells. Watershed Values • Recreational fishing, primarily for pink salmon. • Five species of Pacific salmon (peak counts): chinook (600), chum (892), coho (900), pink (40,000), and sockeye (37). • Resurrection Pass Trail in the main valley: 19 miles of trail and three Forest Service recreation cabins. Popular for summer and winter recreation including hiking, mountain biking, snowmachining, skiing, and snowshoeing. • Recreational gold dredging and gold panning. • Limited commercial mining operations on floodplain. • Limited residential structures and tourist oriented businesses within the watershed, to which the town of Hope is immediately adjacent. Data Available, Data Needs • Air temperature and precipitation collected 1979-1995. Some data are missing. Permanent station at Moose Pass, 25 miles south. • United States Geologic Survey Stream Gauge 1967-1986. • SNAP program conducted by the UAF has predictions for temperatures, precipitation, and freeze/thaw dates at a 2km scale. This was calculated with PRISM and five climate models. Online maps and bar graphs are available for Alaska communities. Raw data is available for use with GIS. • Global Land Data Assimilation System (NASA 2011) has soil moisture, evapotranspiration estimates using VIC for 1979 to present, but no future estimates yet. Different models show conflicting results for amounts and increases in evapotranspiration rates but two of three show increases for 1979-1991 compared to 1992-2010. • Limited data for the stream restoration work in upper Resurrection Creek are available. • Additional data are needed for total fish habitat and for miles of stream still disconnected from the floodplain by tailings piles and channelization. Resurrection Creek Sensitivity and Stressors As with many mountainous areas, there are steep, unvegetated slopes at the higher elevations, which are prone to snow avalanches and landslides. Avalanches occur in most of the tributary streams during winter and spring, providing a source of colluvial sediment along the streams (Kalli and Blanchet 2001). At lower elevations, the thick vegetation, relatively low precipitation, and low precipitation intensity and duration reduce flashy flows, stream bank erosion, and surface erosion (Kalli and Blanchet 2001). Human derived stressors are mostly confined to the valley floor where mining has severely altered channels and flow patterns. Mining has affected about 2,560 acres of the floodplain along the main stem, as well as patches along a one-half mile stretch at the mouth of Palmer Creek. The mining-caused problems that may be exacerbated by climate change include: 289 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:
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?