watervulnerability

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10)
To really answer some of these questions, it will take a good deal of professional knowledge and
modeling expertise to predict the effects with more certainty.
The ability to assess risk is also difficult when the biological effects are unknown. Certainly there is the
potential for major disruptions to the food chains, salmon life histories, and aquatic invertebrate life
cycles due to increased water temperatures. The absolute temperature probably isn’t the biggest factor,
but simply that water temperatures will change for species adapted to the former conditions. Thus, all
watersheds may have similar disruptions. The question of risk then becomes whether the organisms can or
cannot easily adapt to these new conditions, and that is unknown.
Implementation
Before conducting a vulnerability assessment, managers need to be able to commit a good deal of time
and have knowledgeable personnel with the appropriate technical skills. For a team with no previous
climate change experience, a large amount of time can be spent learning about the data that are available
and reviewing the literature. Specialists from all fields will be needed to identify values and determine
effects. A diverse, interdisciplinary group will also know more about existing plans, strategies, and what
actions are really possible. Thus, a large commitment of time and personnel is required to do the
assessment, and even more to turn the findings into a plan of action.
It may be better for the Forest Service to establish an Enterprise Team that has expertise using climate
change data and models. A large part of the learning curve can be eliminated in this fashion. Local
specialists will still be needed to identify site-specific values and issues. The team could also develop a
stock set of mitigation prescriptions for a variety of circumstances.
REFERENCES
Arendt, A.A, Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and V. B. Valentine. 2010. Rapid
Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level. Science 297:382-386.
Bair, B. P. Powers, and A. Olegario. 2002. Resurrection Creek stream channel and riparian restoration
analysis, river kilometer 8.0-9.3. Project Report for the USDA Forest Service by the Wind River
Watershed Restoration Team.
Bakke, P. 2008. Physical processes and climate change: A guide for biologists. Unpublished report. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/
publications/documentsNotStream.html. – states depositional areas most sensitive to change. Instream
structures need to be more robust, redundant in areas where channel change more likely, or better, passive
means such as wider riparian buffers.
Blanchet, D. 1983. Evaluation of recent channel changes on the Scott River near Cordova, Alaska.
USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK.
Boggild, Carl E., Niels Reeh, and Hans Oerter. 1994. Modeling ablation and mass-balance sensitivity
to climate change of Stormstrmmen, Northeast Greenland. Global and Planetary Change 9:79-90.
Botz, J., G. Hollowell, J. Bell, R. Brenner, and S. Moffitt. 2010. Fishery Management Report No. 10-
55. 2009 Prince William Sound area finfish management report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Commercial Fisheries, Cordova.
300 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change