watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) rankings based on the different types of sensitivities were each related to the three aquatic resource values. The process used to compare the Resource Values Rankings to the Sensitivities x Stressors Risk Rankings is displayed in the following matrix. Values × Sensitivity Stressors Risk Ranking Matrix Values Sensitivity × Stressors Low High Low Low Low Moderate Low High High Low High Subwatersheds with a High Sensitivity × Stressor Risk Ranking and a High or Moderate Values ranking were rated as High. Subwatersheds with a High Sensitivity × Stressor Risk Ranking but a Low Values ranking were rated Low because of the reduced level of concern for the values. All Subwatersheds with a Low Sensitivity × Stressor Ranking were rated as Low when compared to Values because there is lower risk from the existing conditions within these subwatersheds. The results of the values related risk rankings are discussed below. Infrastructure Values Vulnerability Infrastructure in and near streams and rivers are vulnerable to flooding and/or sediment and debris flows that may result from climate change-related disturbances. These effects are most likely to occur in subwatersheds that have the highest risk due to inherent sensitivities for erosion or runoff response and a concentration of past management activities. Infrastructure values were related to Erosion Sensitivity × Activity Stressors with results displayed in Figure 26. Subwatersheds where infrastructure values are at the highest risk from erosion or sediment production are in the Upper Taylor, San Juans, and West Elk geographic areas. Infrastructure values were related to Runoff Response Sensitivity × Activity Stressors with results displayed in Figure 27. Subwatersheds with the highest risk from rapid runoff response are mostly in the San Juans, with some localized areas in the Grand Mesa, Upper Taylor, and Cochetopa geographic areas. Increased runoff could erode sections of roads and trails, and could wash out crossings and structures. High densities of roads and trails can collect overland flow and divert it into stream networks, adding to high flow conditions. Road networks with undersized pipes to accommodate existing flows will become more vulnerable. Increased sediment or debris loads could also plug culverts at crossings or bury sections of roads or structures. All results could threaten public safety and greatly increase maintenance costs. 100 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 26. Risk Ranking for Infrastructure Values related to Erosion Sensitivities and Stressors Figure 27. Risk Ranking for Infrastructure Values related to Runoff Response Sensitivities and Stressors 101 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: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 68 and 69: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 154 and 155:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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?