watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Helena National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) What were the most useful data sources? 1. The Forest Service GIS database as well as the state GIS database (NRIS) was useful in describing sensitivity on a watershed basis (http://nris.mt.gov/). 2. VIC data available from the Climate Impacts group was useful in describing projected climate change under several models. What were the most important data deficiencies? 1. The data analyzed was based on layers that were approximations of what is on the ground. For example, NHD Streams and the roads layers are approximations and resulting stream crossing point layer is not necessarily an accurate representation. Field inventories in general are not complete. This is a data gap that could be improved in the future. 2. Climate data was complex and time consuming to use. What tools were most useful? 1. Examples of how the analysis was approached on other units including what kind of data to include and how to organize and display the information. 2. Communication and support from all members of the WVA group willing to share their ideas and experiences throughout the process. Information sharing included monthly conference calls and Google share site. 3. ArcGIS was a necessary tool throughout the entire process including evaluation and display of all data. 4. Microsoft Excel was used as an interface between tabular data and spatial data. Often tables would be exported from ArcGIS to excel, manipulated and then imported and new values could then be displayed spatially. What tools were most problematic? 1. Downscaled climate data 2. Forest level GIS data 3. Accurately displaying climate change projections and resolving differences in scale between the forest level data and downscaled climate data. PROJECT TEAM Core Team: Laura Jungst, Hydrologist; Dave Callery, Hydrologist; Len Walch, Fisheries Biologist Support: Melanie Scott, GIS analyst; Kerry Overton, RMRS Data: Climate Impacts Group (Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) modeled data for several climate change scenarios at the HUC-5 scale and raster data at the 6 km grid scale) • RMRS – Boise, Kerry Overton • Jim Morrisson • Montana Natural Resource Information System Digital Atlas of Montana (http://maps2.nris.mt.gov/mapper/) • Helena National Forest GIS analyst Melanie Scott 62 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Helena National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) • Western US Stream Flow Metric Dataset (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/modeled_stream_flow_metrics.shtml) • Helena National Forest Fisheries Watershed Baseline PROJECT CONTACT Laura Jungst, Hydrologist Helena National Forest ljungst@fs.fed.us (406) 495-3723 REFERENCES Copeland, T., Meyer, K.A. 2011. Interspecies Synchrony in Salmonid Densities Associated with Large- Scale Bioclimatic Conditions in Central Idaho, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140:4, 928-942 Hamlet, A.F., Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Effects of 20 th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research, 43, W06427. Sirucek, D., 2001. Soil Survey of the Helena National Forest Area, Montana. USDA Forest Service and natural Resources Conservation Service. Northern Region. Littell, J.S., M.M. Elsner, G. S. Mauger, E. Lutz, A.F. Hamlet, and E. Salathé. 2011. Regional Climate and Hydrologic Change in the Northern US Rockies and Pacific Northwest: Internally Consistent Projections of Future Climate for Resource Management. Draft report: January 7, 2011. Online at: http://cses.washington.edu/picea/USFS/pub/Littell_etal_2010/ 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(a). 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. 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(b). 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. 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. 63 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 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?