watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

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 Unpublished report.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
Chugach National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Alaska Region (R10) Bryant, M. D. 2009. Global climate change and potential effects on Pacific salmonids in freshwater ecosystems of southeast Alaska. Climatic Change 95:169-193. Chittenden, C. M., Beamish, R. J., and R. S. McKinley. 2009. A critical review of Pacific salmon marine research relating to climate. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 2195–2204. Copper River Watershed Project. 2011. Prioritizing Fish Passage Improvement Projects in the Copper River Watershed. Cordova, AK. Copper River Watershed Project and Prince William Sound/ Copper River Marketing Association. 2011. Personal communication. Kate Alexander (CRWP) sent an e-mail to numerous agencies, organizations, Native groups, fishing groups, and others, soliciting interest in a fisheries sustainability plan for the Prince William Sound and Copper River fishing areas. Crawford, R.E. 2010. Hydroacoustic visualization of Eyak Lake’s bathymetric features: Updating the AMSA bathymetric map of Eyak Lake. Prepared for the Copper River Watershed Project. Cordova, AK. Criscitiello, A., M. A. Kelly, and B. Tremblay. 2010. The response of Taku and Lemon Creek glaciers to climate. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 42(1):34-44. Dowdeswell, J.A. et al. 1997. The Mass Balance of Circum-Arctic Glaciers and Recent Climate Change. Quaternary Research 48, 1–14. States that no uniform trend for Arctic, but high loss in mass balance in Alaska due to higher summer temperatures, increases for maritime Scandinavia and Iceland due to increased precipitation. Ecology and Environment Incorporated. 2006. Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities Near Chugach National Forest, Alaska: Hope, Sunrise, Summit Lake. Prepared in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest. http://www2.borough.kenai.ak.us/SBB/documents/CWPP/Hope-Sunrise- Summit%20CWPP%20Final%20Draft%2007-28-06.pdf Farr, W.A. and A.S. Harris. 1979. Site index of Sitka spruce along the Pacific coast related to latitude and temperatures. Forest Science 25:145-153. Furniss, M.J. and 12 others. 2010. Water, climate change, and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-812. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hamlet, A. F., and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on flood risk in the western U.S., Water Resources. Research, 43, W06427. Haufler, J.B., C.A. Mehl, and S. Yeats. 2010. Climate change: anticipated effects on ecosystem services and potential actions by the Alaska Region, U.S. Forest Service. Ecosystem Management Research Institute, Seeley Lake, Montana, USA. Hilborn, R., T.P. Quinn, D. Schindler, and D. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100:11:6564-6568. Hitch, Kenneth E. 1995. Letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Scott Janke, City Manager, City of Cordova. Available at the Chugach National Forest, Cordova Ranger District. 301 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: 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?