watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

sensitivity. Most were derived from the Watershed Condition Classification (Figure 12). The Gallatin NF characterization of sensitivity had two components: one included intrinsic watershed attributes, the other included levels of disturbance. The Watershed Condition Classification ratings of “functioning,” “functioning at risk,” and “non-functioning” were used to characterize disturbance. Since National Forests and Grasslands now have completed the Watershed Condition Classification, this data would be useful in conducting future WVAs. Pilot Forests that took advantage of existing condition ratings tended to apply them to all resource issues. Several pilot Forests, however, identified different indicators for each resource value. While many indicators are important influences on multiple water resources, some are not. For instance, the most important factors affecting peak flows and infrastructure may differ from those that most influence springs and other aquatic habitats. Pilot Forests took several approaches to developing ratings of watershed sensitivity. In the simplest applications (Ouachita and Chequamegon-Nicolet NFs), sensitivity indicators (e.g., basin slope, peat land type) were used to place watersheds into different categories. Other pilot Forests produced sensitivity ratings based on numerous indicators. When multiple indicators were used, pilot Forests developed methods of weighting and rating the relative influence of the attributes. For example, when considering influences on stream habitat, the amount of water withdrawn from a subwatershed is likely more important than the condition of terrestrial vegetation, and would therefore be given greater weight in calculating a sensitivity score. One approach to weighting sensitivity indicators, from Subwatershed Attribute Type of Attribute Relative Weight Geochemistry of parent geology Inherent to watershed 0.25 Buffer Extent of glaciation Inherent to watershed 0.75 Buffer Aspect Inherent to watershed 0.50 Additive Hydroclimatic regime Inherent to watershed 1.0 Additive Weighted precipitation Inherent to watershed 1.0 Buffer Extent of surface water features Inherent to watershed 1.0 Buffer Extent of large-scale pine beetle mortality 16 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE Sensitivity x Stressors Risk Ranking Matrix Stressors Net Effect Relative to Climate Change Inherent to watershed 0.5 Buffer (short term) Water uses Anthropogenic 1.0 Additive Development (primarily roads) Anthropogenic 0.5 Additive Extent of beetle salvage Anthropogenic 0.5 Additive (short term) Table 6. Summary of attribute types affecting subwatershed resilience to climate change (White River NF) Sensitivity Low Moderate High Low Moderate Low Low High High Low Low Low High High High Figure 13. Scheme used to rate watershed sensitivity on the GMUG NFs. The matrix combines ratings for water shed stressors and sensitivity. Ratings of erosion sensitivity (6 elements) and runoff sensitivity (7 elements) were combined to produce the sensitivity rating. Stressor rating was derived by combining ratings of past management (2 elements), roads (3 elements), vegetation treatments, private land, and mining. the White River NF assessment, is shown in Table 6. In several cases, pilot Forests distinguished intrinsic and anthropogenic factors, and used a categorical matrix Figure 14. Bayesian belief network for determining overall physical condition, from the Sawtooth NF WVA. Contri buting factors included habitat access, flow, channel condition, habitat elements, water quality, and watershed conditions.
approach to combining and categorizing sensitivity, into a single rating. An example of such an approach (from the GMUG NFs) is displayed in Figure 13. On the Sawtooth NF, assessment of watershed condition was aided by use of Bayesian belief networks (Lee and Rieman 1997). The networks were used to evaluate relative differences in predicted physical baseline outcomes. The basic structure employs a box-andarrow diagram depicting hypothesized causes, effects, and ecological interactions (see Figure 14). The system was used to weight the relative importance of, and connections between, a comprehensive list of intrinsic and management attributes, and watershed and habitat elements. As with the other pilot assessments, results from this process were used to rate watershed condition as high, moderate, or low. While there was no detailed comparison of the products developed from these varied approaches, they had one thing in common: they all made use of available information to the greatest degree possible. By using existing condition and/or sensitivity ratings or developing them from scratch, each pilot produced useful ratings of watershed vulnerability. It is very important to determine what intrinsic and managementrelated attributes are important influences on watershed condition as they strongly affect the selected water resources. If available data, analyses, or assessments include attributes that match those identified in the WVA process or may serve as surrogates, it makes sense to use them. Sensitivity Sensitivity High Moderate/High Moderate Moderate/Low Low Subwatersheds Umatilla National Forest Figure 15. Composite rating of watershed sensitivity from the Umatilla NF. Factors used in the rating include groundwater dependence, watershed restoration invest ment category, road density, near stream road length, road grade, range condition, forest vegetation condition, and aquatic habitat condition. White areas have no NFS ownership. 17 | ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF WATERSHEDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE Stream Habitat Sensitivity Rating Coconino National Forest WVA High Medium Low Figure 16. Watershed Sensitivity for Stream Habitats, Coconino NF. Attributes contributing to this rating were derived from the Forest’s Watershed Condition Classification. Stressors included water diversions, terrestrial vegetation condition, riparian vegetation condition and invasive species, road proximity to streams, and wildfire. Buffers included holding instream water rights and degree of implementation of regional groundwater policy. Important Considerations in Evaluating Sensitivity • Determine the intrinsic factors (such as geology, soils, and topography) affecting the hydrologic processes of concern—those that can most affect the resource values. • Determine the management factors (such as roads and reservoirs) affecting the hydrologic processes of concern. • Determine if management activities will serve as buffers or stressors. • Consider weighing the relative importance of the buffers and stressors in influencing condition and response. • Evaluate trends or expected trends in stressors, and how management actions and restoration could affect them.
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 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 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:
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?