watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Fisheries and aquatic habitats can be directly affected by the predicted changes in temperature and precipitation. Temperature increase may have both negative and positive effects on cold-water fisheries in general and on cutthroat trout populations in particular. Occupied habitats at lower elevations may be eliminated as stream temperatures increase due to increases in air temperatures. The loss of cold-water fisheries may allow an expansion of occupied habitat for several sensitive species (e.g., bluehead sucker, roundtail chub) currently only found in streams and rivers at lower elevations. Increases in stream temperatures at higher elevations may actually benefit fish populations by making these streams more productive due to increasing growth rates of the fish that occupy them. Our current thinking is that low water temperatures in high-elevation streams limit fish growth and recruitment. Because current stream temperature data are lacking for most of the Forest, it is unknown if and specifically where low stream temperature could be having these effects. In 2011, the Forest began a multi-year project to collect and summarize baseline stream temperature data. The collection effort will focus on streams that support conservation populations of cutthroat trout; however, additional streams will be sampled in order to develop a robust dataset from which changes in stream temperature may be modeled. Botanical aquatic habitats (fens, wetlands, riparian areas) can also be directly impacted by predicted changes in temperature and precipitation, in much the same way water use values were affected. Predicted increases in temperature, associated increases in evapotranspiration, and decreases in aridity indices will all result in reducing water availability. Prolonged drought will further reduce groundwater recharge. Aquatic habitats in areas where these changes are more pronounced will be most vulnerable. Aquatic habitats are currently limited in the drier geographic areas (Uncompahgre, West Elk, Cochetopa) and are likely to become even more so. Aquatic habitats on the Grand Mesa may be most vulnerable because the aridity index is predicted to drop from above 1 to below 1. In reviewing the six previous figures, some areas have high risk much more often than others. Figure 32 displays a count of how often a given subwatershed has a high risk ranking for the combination of values, sensitivities, and stressors. The San Juans geographic area has the largest area (339,717 acres) and largest number of subwatersheds (9) that received “High” rankings for all combinations of values, sensitivities, and stressors. The Upper Taylor geographic area has the largest area (476,936 acres) of subwatersheds with three or more “High” risk rankings. 106 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 32. Count of High Risk Rankings for Values, Sensitivities and Stressors combined Overall vulnerability for the GMUG results from relating the Value × Sensitivity × Stressor Risk rankings shown in Figure 32 with the exposure rankings shown in Figure 20. Table 5 combines these rankings. Geographic Area Exposure Ranking* Value Risk Ranking (weighted average)** 107 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Vulnerability Ranking** Adjusted Vulnerability Ranking*** Uncompahgre 6 1 7/12=0.58 3 Grand Mesa 5 2 7/12=0.58 4 San Juans 4 6 10/12=0.83 6 West Elk 3 3 6/12=0.50 2 Upper Taylor 2 5 7/12=0.58 5 Cochetopa 1 4 5/12=0.41 1 Table 5. Vulnerability Ranking by Geographic Area *Exposure Ranking as shown in Figure 20 and Table 4. A ranking of 6 is the highest ranking, and 1 is the lowest. Based on greatest change in annual average maximum temperature, annual average minimum temperature, and percent change in annual aridity index. **Value Risk Ranking as shown in Figure 32. A ranking of 6 is the highest risk to values based on weighted average of acres × count of high rankings for each subwatershed. ***Vulnerability Ranking based (Exposure Ranking + Value Risk Ranking)/12. ****Adjusted Vulnerability Ranking; Upper Taylor adjusted to be greater than Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre because of area in high risk, then Grand Mesa adjusted to be greater than Uncompahgre because of higher concentration of values.
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: 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 160 and 161:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 162 and 163:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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?