watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Water Resources/Values The following water resources and values were chosen for the vulnerability analysis. 1. Infrastructure • Roads • Trails • Developed recreation sites 2. Water use and water developments • Point of use locations • Diversions 3. Cutthroat Trout • “Sensitive species” designation by Forest Service • “Species of special concern” designation by state of Montana • Management indicator species for the GNF The purpose of this dataset is to quantify selected water resource values in each HUC-6 subwatershed. Areas with the greatest density of values may indicate important sites where there may have been significant economic investment and/or would require the greatest investment to maintain/conserve the resource. Datasets for each value were used to place subwatersheds into three classes (low, medium, and high) based on natural breaks in the data. All of the datasets were then combined to create one Values dataset, identifying subwatersheds with the lowest to highest amount of values (Figure 8). Figure 8. Levels of watershed resource/values by subwatershed. 40 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Exposure To evaluate exposure, we used the regional downscaled climate and hydrological projections developed by Littell et al. (2011), which build on research and data from the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington. We chose their Ensemble model to examine potential climate change impacts more closely. This model is composed of the 10 best-fitting global circulation models (GCMs) for the Upper Missouri River Basin region. The modeled time periods available are 1916-2006 (historic), 2030- 2049 (mid-21 st century), and 2070-2099 (late 21 st century). The climate projections are downscaled to 6 km 2 resolution and are most appropriately summarized at the HUC-5 scale. The HUC-6 subwatersheds were overlaid to examine how they may be influenced by these climate projections. The metrics retrieved for the most current run of the WVA include variable infiltration capacity (VIC) derived (Liang et al. 1994; Liang et al. 1996) hydrological projections: combined annual flow, seasonality of flow, and snowpack vulnerability (hydrologic regime). For the Upper Missouri River Basin, some of the overall trends predicted for the mid- to late 21 st century include increases in average annual air temperature, increases in seasonal air temperatures, increases in winter precipitation, and decreases in summer precipitation. Currently, we have used only the air temperature projections to examine predicted trends. In the future, these predicted air temperatures, combined with our stream temperature model (in development) and local air temperature data, may be used to model and predict stream temperatures across the forest. Potential Impacts to Water Resources 1. Increased instances of low flows and lower flows • Water uses/diversions would amplify the anticipated low flows • Culverts currently passable by fish may become barriers during low flows 2. Changes in flow regime • Increased winter flooding could increase summer low flows; increased/prolonged drought in the summer will further amplify the effects of changes in flow • Increased winter scouring of fall spawners (brook trout) − May favor native cutthroat trout 3. Increased stream temperatures • Previously unsuitable stream habitats (too cold) may become suitable for fish • At lower elevations, native cold-water fish will be negatively affected − More tolerant invasive fish species may outcompete natives − 4. Increased precipitation events • Roads would have increased sedimentation into streams • Culverts may need to be enlarged and/or maintained more frequently to accommodate higher flow • Some roads may need more frequent maintenance 5. Increased drought events • Water use/diversions would exacerbate drought events • Possible increases in wildfires 41 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 94 and 95:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
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:
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?