watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Consumptive water use values (public and private water rights for irrigation, domestic and stock water use, and source water protection areas for communities) are vulnerable due to predicted changes in temperature and precipitation. Increased temperatures can alter the timing of runoff and lengthen the season of demand for water in the spring and fall. Aridity indices are expected to decrease even if precipitation does not change, because warmer temperatures will result in increased evapotranspiration. The result is potentially less available water for ecological processes and human use. Predicted reductions in annual precipitation, along with the potential for longer and more frequent droughts, further reduce water availability. Water will be most limited in those areas with aridity indices below 1.0 (Uncompahgre, West Elk, and Cochetopa). If these landscapes become more arid, existing water developments may no longer hold water, potentially reducing livestock management opportunities. Consumptive water uses on the Grand Mesa geographic area may be most vulnerable, because the aridity index is predicted to decrease to less than 1.0. It is not clear how the large concentration of existing waterbodies and associated riparian/wetland habitats found on the Grand Mesa may buffer predicted effects. Aquatic Ecological Values Vulnerability Similar to water use values discussed above, aquatic ecological values are vulnerable to predicted climate changes in several ways. Aquatic values, such as fisheries and riparian/wetland habitats associated with streams, are vulnerable to flooding and sediment/debris loading. Risk is exacerbated in subwatersheds that have inherent sensitivity and are impacted by past management activities. Aquatic Ecological Values related to Erosion Sensitivity × Activity Stressors are shown in Figure 30. The areas where erosion or sediment potential has the highest risk of affecting aquatic ecological values are highest in the Upper Taylor and San Juans geographic areas. Aquatic Ecological Values related to Runoff Response Sensitivity × Activity Stressors are shown in Figure 31. The areas where runoff potential has the highest risk of affecting aquatic ecological values are in the San Juans geographic area, with smaller groupings of subwatersheds in the remaining geographic areas. Flooding due to earlier and/or rapid runoff can result in scouring out of aquatic habitats, resulting in loss of vegetation and other habitat features, as well as flushing resident trout or eggs out of the most suitable habitats. Increased sediment loads could fill in aquatic habitats and riparian areas, as well as smother nesting gravels for stream-dwelling fish. Debris flows simplify channel habitats through removal of banks and large wood, especially in headwater streams with moderate to high gradient. Wetlands and offchannel habitats become filled with sediment, reducing the size and functionality of these habitats. Subwatersheds with aquatic ecological values in the Upper Taylor and San Juans geographic areas are most vulnerable to these combined effects. 104 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 30. Risk Ranking for Aquatic Ecological Values related to Erosion Sensitivities and Stressors Figure 31. Risk Ranking for Aquatic Ecological Values related to Runoff Response Sensitivities and Stressors 105 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: 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 158 and 159:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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?