watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Coconino National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southwest Region (R3) Management Approach #1 and Guidelines for Integration of WVA and the WCF Findings of the WVA can be used to help prioritize sixth field HUC watersheds in the WCF. Findings of the WVA can be used to help identify project areas with moderate or high value and moderate or high sensitivity that are most vulnerable to climate change. Up to now, climate vulnerability has not been included in the prioritization of sixth field HUC watersheds in the WCF process. Guidelines: 1. Focus on WCF priority watersheds first (top 5) and allow the WVA to inform prioritization and condition classification of the sixth HUCs. 2. Reprioritize (if needed) selected priority watersheds based on results of WVA, to include climate vulnerability. 3. Select only high-value or moderate-value watersheds from WVA. 4. Consider highly and moderately sensitive HUCs before low-sensitivity HUCs. 5. Filter to see if TES species are present in watershed and then consider prioritization. Start with species that are listed and have critical habitat (including spinedace, Gila chub, loach minnow spike dace, Chiricahua leopard frog) and/or critical and historical habitat. 6. Look closer at the most vulnerable sixth-field HUCs that have high exposure to change in baseflow (based on VIC projections). 7. Verify to see if stressor (high or moderate sensitivity) can be effectively managed to improve conditions, and if so, prioritize accordingly. 8. The WRAP will identify practices that will enhance restoration in the short and long term. Management Approach #2 and Guidelines for Integration of WVA and Projects Outside of WCF Findings of the WVA can be used to help identify and prioritize project areas with moderate or high value and moderate or high sensitivity that are most vulnerable to climate change. Up to now, climate vulnerability has not been included in assessments or project identification process. Guidelines: 1. Select only high value or moderate value watersheds from WVA. 2. Consider highly and moderately sensitive HUCs before low-sensitivity HUCs. 3. Filter to see if TES species are present in watershed and then consider prioritization. Start with ones that are listed and have critical habitat (including spinedace, Gila chub, loach minnow, and spike dace) and/or critical and historical habitat. Also consider the Chiricahua leopard frog. 4. Look closer at the most vulnerable sixth-field HUCs that have high exposure to change in baseflow (based on VIC projections). Verify to see if stressor (high or moderate sensitivity) can be effectively managed to improve conditions, and if so, prioritize accordingly. 5. Practices to enhance and improve resource conditions to be determined by IDT. 154 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Coconino National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southwest Region (R3) Additional Management Considerations 1. How do the results from WVA influence/modify existing Forest Priorities, Project Planning, and NEPA? The WVA highlights those valuable and sensitive water resources potentially most affected by climate change and better informs the need for change. 2. How does the outcome from WVA affect Forest Planning? For the CNF, the WVA does not inform the current forest plan revision, because we are about to release our DEIS. For upcoming forests in revision, the WVA should inform the ecological need for change with respect to the most valuable and sensitive water resources as they may be affected by climate change. This may result in a change in short- and long-term planning direction. 3. Completing WVA will allow the Forest to complete portions of the climate change scorecard. 4. How do we integrate the climate change (WVA) into watershed condition classification? This is disclosed above through two potential management approaches and guidelines. 5. How do we use WVA to guide the identification of priority baseline watersheds using the watershed restoration framework? This is disclosed above through two potential management approaches and guidelines. 6. How does the outcome from WVA affect special-use authorizations (ski areas, additional snowmaking needs; water diversions; new reservoirs; expansion of reservoirs; grazing allotments)? The WVA will inform potential deficiencies in water quantity and location in the long-term (greater than 20-70 years). This may result in a change in short- and long-term planning direction and issuance of association special uses. 7. How does the outcome from WVA road infrastructure affect water resources? For the CNF, the WVA highlighted road stream crossings as a stressor. A reduction of water quality may occur as riparian streamside management zones (buffers) decrease due to climate change. It also helps identify watersheds where decommissioning roads would improve water quality, because their location currently contributes to water quality degradation. 8. How does the outcome from WVA affect recreation areas (location)? Riparian areas are expected to shrink and may cause developed and dispersed sites to locate even closer to water, thus impacting riparian function and water quality. However, the recent TMR decision should remove some of the recreation sites posing risk to water resources. Fall flows would be flashier, putting some recreation sites and roads at risk of flooding and damage. Site-specific analysis of these facilities is necessary to assess these risks. 9. How does the outcome from WVA affect restoration priorities (e.g., remove barriers, reduce habitat fragmentation, restore and protect riparian areas)? The WVA provides additional information for assessment of the ecological need for change for the selected water resource values, and should assist in focused management in those watersheds. STEP 6 - Critique the Vulnerability Assessment 1. Values identified in the WVA were limited to water resources, aquatic habitat, and biota, and did not include terrestrial bio-physical resources such as soils and upland vegetation. Therefore, fifth 155 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: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 116 and 117: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 208 and 209:
Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?