watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Helena National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Projected Climatic Changes Anticipated Watershed Response Warmer air temperatures • Warmer water temperature in streams Changes in precipitation amounts and timing Less snowfall, earlier snowmelt, increased snowpack density Intensified storms, greater extremes of precipitation and wind • Altered timing and volume of runoff • Altered erosion rates • Higher winter flows • Lower summer flows • Earlier and smaller peak flows in spring • Greater likelihood of flooding • Increased erosion rates and sediment yields 50 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Potential Consequences to Watershed Services • Decrease in coldwater aquatic habitats • Increases or decreases in availability of water supplies • Complex changes in water quality related to flow and sediment changes • Changes in the amounts, quality and distribution of aquatic and riparian habitats and biota • Changes in aquatic and riparian habitats • Increased damage to roads, campgrounds, and other facilities Table 1. Projected hydrologic changes relative to the HNF identified values. Adapted from Water, Climate Change, and Forests GTR (Rieman and Isaak, 2010) The models used to predict climate changes were developed by the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington. The Climate Impacts Group selected the A1B climate scenario to provide projections most relevant for vulnerability assessment and scenario planning exercises. They then modeled change (from time period 1916-2006 representing historic) and for two future time periods representing the mid-21 st century (2030-2049) and late 21 st century (2070-2099), using the emissions scenario A1B with the composite climate model. The composite model is an ensemble of climate models that falls between those models that predict cooler and warmer climate scenarios. It includes 10 Global Circulation Models that perform similarly well in the PNW / Columbia Basin, the Northern Rockies / Upper Missouri Basin, and the Central Rockies / Upper Colorado Basin and this is what the Helena National Forest chose to use to represent climate change in this analysis. Data was summarized at the HUC-5 scale for the entire Forest (downloaded from ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/gis/PNF/WVA/ on 12/10/2010). Predicted changes in selected hydrologic attributes were derived from the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model. Parameters from VIC modeling were used to assess potential impacts to the selected forest water resource values. We compared the HUC-5 scale CIG’s VIC outputs for the historic trend and composite models for the following parameters (by resource value): 1. Bull trout – Average summer maximum air temperature 2. Cutthroat trout – Average summer maximum air temperature 3. Infrastructure – Snowpack vulnerability (defined as the ratio of April1 snow water equivalent and October-March precipitation)
Helena National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Predicted Average Summer Maximum Temperature Projection Period Historic Composite Mean Range Mean Range 1916-‐2006 23.7 21.1-‐26.0 2030-‐2059 26.0 (+10%) 23.4-‐28.2 2070-‐2099 28.2 (+19%) 25.6-‐30.5 Predicted Average April 1 SWE Projection Period Historic Composite Mean Range Mean Range 1916-‐2006 41.3 0.2-‐342.7 2030-‐2059 29.6 (-‐28%) 0-‐289.2 2070-‐2099 18.6 (-‐55%) 0-‐216.9 Predicted Average June Runoff Projection Period Historic Composite Mean Range Mean Range 1916-‐2006 10.1 2.9-‐87.6 2030-‐2059 7.4 (-‐27%) 2.5-‐59.4 2070-‐2099 5.6 (-‐45%) 2.3-‐33.0 Summer Baserflow (September Runoff) Projection Period Historic Composite Mean Range Mean Range 1916-‐2006 2.3 1.1-‐5.2 2030-‐2059 2.5 (9%) 1.1-‐7.0 2070-‐2099 1.2 (-‐48%) 0.2-‐3.2 Table 2. Historic (1916-2006) and future (2030-2059 and 2070-2099) hydrologic output climate predictions averaged over all watersheds on the Helena National Forest. Based on Global models downscaled to 1/16th degree (~6 km) grid. VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS BY RESOURCE VALUE For this watershed vulnerability assessment, pilot forests were tasked with identifying the relative vulnerability of watersheds to potential risks posed by climate change by focusing on the potential effects of those changes to water resource values. Based on our current evaluation of water resource values on the Helena National Forest, values evaluated include fisheries habitat for bull trout and cutthroat trout, and infrastructure. Vulnerability analysis was conducted specific to each individual water resource value. Water Resource Value: Bull Trout Habitat Sensitivity Bull trout habitat condition was characterized using the regional bull trout watershed baseline analysis completed in 2007. This analysis was a consultation requirement for species listed under the Endangered Species Act since the late 1990’s. Baseline information was summarized according to important environmental parameters for each subwatershed within the Helena National Forest. This summary was 51 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 104 and 105:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
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?