watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) 4. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology provided statewide surficial geology coverage. What were the most important data deficiencies? 1. Data beyond forest boundaries. − The mathematical equation used to develop the terrain sensitivity analysis will theoretically work on any landscape, but currently has only been calibrated to a montane landscape. More effort will be needed to modify the equation and more accurately characterize entire subwatersheds that go beyond Forest boundaries. − The R1 VMap dataset may have great potential in future runs of the WVA; unfortunately, this is limited to the Forest boundaries and will likely stay that way. 2. Groundwater data would be extremely helpful for this analysis, particularly to identify areas with buffering capacities to increased stream temperatures. Unfortunately, this data is currently lacking and it will be very time-consuming to develop an accurate dataset. 3. Stream temperature data is also lacking on the GNF. We have only just begun a comprehensive effort in collecting this data, which, along with local air temperature data, will be helpful in the modeling and prediction of future stream temperatures. 4. Field validations will be essential when there is available time and money. The physical characterization node of the WVA currently has only been “validated” by professional knowledge. What tools were most useful? 1. ArcGIS – Without this program, spatial analyses would have been severely limited, particularly because open-source GIS programs are significantly less well-developed in user-friendliness, tools, and options. 2. Google Earth is a useful tool to disseminate some of this spatial information for users who are not GIS-savvy. 3. Video/phone conference calls, website and webinar technology greatly facilitated the group’s information-sharing and coordination, especially with limited funds for agency travel. What tools were most problematic? 1. Citrix and T:\ drive on the Forest Service network. When fully functioning, these are excellent tools and make GIS more accessible for any Forest Service employee. Unfortunately, they have not yet reached their full potential and instead have created numerous issues for GIS users. 2. ArcGIS often contains bugs and is not always the most intuitive for non-GIS people. New versions also come out relatively often and are mostly incompatible with the previous versions. This a non-issue for Forest Service employees utilizing Citrix, but can cause more issues when working with external agencies that cannot keep up with the latest ArcGIS versions. PROJECT TEAM Joan Louie, GIS analyst/fisheries biologist (R1 Regional Office) Scott Barndt, Forest fisheries biologist (GNF) Mark Story, Forest hydrologist (GNF) Tom Keck, Soil scientist (GNF) 44 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) PROJECT CONTACT Joan Louie, GIS Analyst, R1 Regional Office Gallatin National Forest Office: (406) 329-3209 Email: joanlouie@fs.fed.us REFERENCES Littell, J.S., M.M. Elsner, G. S. Mauger, E. Lutz, A.F. Hamlet, and E. Salathe. 2011. Regional Climate and Hydrologic Change in the Northern US Rockies and Pacific Northwest: Internally Consistent Projections of Future Climate for Resource Management. Available online at: http://cses.washington.edu/picea/USFS/pub/Littell_etal_2010/ Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges. 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land-surface water and energy fluxes for general-circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.- Atmospheres, 99, 14415-14428. Liang, X., E. F. Wood, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 1996. Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC2L model: Evaluation and modification, Global Planet. Change, 13, 195–206. Rieman, B.E., Isaak, D.J. 2010. Climate Change, Aquatic Ecosystems, and Fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: Implications and Alternatives for Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p. US Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. FS-977. May 2011. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/ 10/3/11. Wenger, S.J., Isaak, D.J., Dunham, J.B., Fausch, K.D., Luce, C.H., Neville, H.M., Rieman, B.E., Young, M.K., Nagel, D.E., Horan, D.L., Chandler, G.L. 2011. Role of climate and invasive species in structuring trout distributions in the interior Columbia River Basin, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 68: 988-1008. Wenger, S.J., Isaak, D.J., Luce, C.H., Neville, H.M., Fausch, K.D., Dunham, J.B., Dauwalter, D.C., Young, M.K., Elsner, M.M., Rieman, B.E., Hamlet, A.F., Williams, J.E. 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108: 14175-14180. 45 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 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 98 and 99:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
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:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?