watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) Hodges, K. 2000. Project status of proposed Scott River dike. Unpublished Forest Service report. Cordova Ranger District, Cordova, AK. Hodges, K., S. Greenwood, and K. Buckley. 1995. Changes in cutthroat trout spawning habitat in the Eyak Lake watershed, Cordova, Alaska. Unpublished Forest Service report available at the Chugach National Forest, Cordova Ranger District. ISAB. 2007. Independent Science Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report 2007-2. Kalli, G. and D. Blanchet. 2001. Resurrection Creek Watershed Association Hydrologic Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, unpublished internal report. Kenai Peninsula Borough. 2004. Interagency all lands/all hands action plan for fire prevention and protection, hazardous fuel reduction, forest health and ecosystem restoration, community assistance in Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula Borough. Kenai Peninsula Borough. 2011. All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Website http://www2.borough.kenai.ak.us/emergency/HazMit/plan.htm Lang, D. W. 2010. A survey of sport fish use on the Copper River Delta, Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-814. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Lang, D.W., G.H. Reeves, J.D. Hall, and M.S. Wipfli. 2006. The influence of fall-spawning coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on growth and production of juvenile coho salmon rearing in beaver ponds on the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63:917- 930. Martin, A.E., M.S. Wipfli, and R.E. Spangler. 2010. Aquatic community responses to salmon carcass analog and wood bundle additions in restored floodplain habitats in an Alaskan stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1828-1845. McClure, C.J.W., B.W. Bolek, K. McDonald, and G.E. Hill. 2012. Climate change and the decline of a once common bird. Ecology and Evolution. 2(2):370-378. McCullough, D. 1999. A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to Chinook Salmon. Columbia Intertribal Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. EPA 910-R-99-010. Montgomery, D., J. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 1996. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:1061-1070. Montgomery, D., E. Beamer, G. Pess, and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 56: 377–387. 302 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Global Land Data Assimilation System http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=GLDAS10_M viewed 10/2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Coastal salmon restoration: working guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration initiatives on the Pacific coast. Piper, R. I. McElwain, L. Orme, J. McCraren, L. Fowler, and J. Leonard. 1982. Fish hatchery management, third printing. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Poff, L. N., M. Brinson, and J. Day. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Potential impacts on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Report prepared for the Pew Center on Climate Change. Potkin, M. 1997. Fire history disturbance of the Kenai Peninsula mountainous portion of the Chugach National Forest. Unpublished USDA Forest Service report. Available online at http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/publication/Potkin_1997.pdf Professional Fishery Consultants. 1985. Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Management Plan. Prepared for the Eyak Lake AMSA (area meriting special attention) Study Team. Funding from the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; and US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ramstad, K.M., C.J. Foote, J.B. Olsen, and D. Rogers. 2005. Genetic and phenotypic evidence of reproductive isolation between seasonal runs of sockeye salmon in Bear Lake, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 997-1013. Reeves, G. et al. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p. Reynolds, K. M. 2001. Fuzzy logic knowledge bases in integrated landscape assessment: examples and possibilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-521. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p. Rothwell, E. and A. Bidlack. 2011. Using hydrology equations to estimate a water budget and data gaps, Eyak Lake, AK. Poster presentation at the Copper River Delta Symposium, March 22-24, 2011, Cordova, AK. Ruff, C.P. et al. 2011. Temperature-associated population diversity in salmon confers benefits to mobile consumers. Ecology 92(11):2073-2084. Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning. 2011. Community charts. Available on the internet at: http://www.snap.uaf.edu/home. Sea-Run Fisheries. 2006. Fish, wildlife and water quality monitoring for 2005 per FERC license article 410 Power Creek Hydroelectric Project FERC project no. 11243 Cordova, Alaska. For Cordova Electric Cooperative, Cordova, AK. Seppälä, R., A. Buck, and P. Katila. (eds.). 2009. Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Volume 22. Helsinki. 224 p. 303 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 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 270 and 271: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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?