watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Ouachita National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southern Region (R8) identified through quadrants. These quadrants were then used to evaluate watershed health and the potential risk to fisheries from increases in sediment (green is a low risk, yellow is a moderate risk, and red is a high risk. RESULTS The following map shows the surface ownership for the Ouachita National Forest and the sixthlevel subwatersheds associated with that ownership. The map below identifies the subwatershed risk levels for the current condition and the potential Two factors exist for this analysis. The first is that the Forest has not implemented its Travel Analysis. This means that the forest floor is still open and that user created trails still exist. The second factor is that the maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and motorized trails are not being maintained and have fallen below an acceptable road construction standard. To demonstrate the ability of the model to respond to change, the model was recalibrated to assume that the roads and trail systems were brought up to the forest standard for construction and maintenance. The map to the right shows the difference between the 232 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change risk to aquatic biota. This analysis was taken from the Travel Management Assessment that the forest completed in January of 2010. Green subwatersheds are low risk to aquatic biota, yellow are moderate, and red are high risk. This assessment found 88 subwatersheds with a high risk, 46 with a moderate risk and 56 with a low risk.
Ouachita National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southern Region (R8) current condition and a condition with road maintenance and the forest floor closed to OHV use. All subwatersheds show improvement. Some subwatersheds show enough improvement to move to a lower risk category. The dark green subwatershed would actually move from a high risk to a low risk and five other subwatersheds would move from a high risk to a moderate risk. Eleven subwatersheds would move from moderate to low risk (light green). Current Condition and B1 The B1 scenario for 2050 found that an additional four subwatersheds would move from a moderate risk to a high risk (shown in dark red) and that one subwatershed would move from a low risk to a moderate risk (shown in red). Comparing the current condition for 2080 B1 scenario provided the same results. There was no change for the B1 scenario between the near term and long term predictions. Current Condition and A1B The current condition and A1B predicts a poorer condition than B1. There are 16 subwatersheds that moved from a moderate risk to a high risk for aquatic biota. In addition, 15 subwatersheds moved from a low risk to a moderate risk. The long term climate change prediction (2080) is worse with an additional subwatershed moving from a low risk to a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS The predicted climate changes from TNC climate wizard and their application to WEPP is a useful tool to predict different climate scenarios. The use of Phillips (1993) was not as useful because of the scale the data is represented at and improvements in climate predictions from the early 1990s. The current Forest watershed condition has 88 watersheds with a high risk and 46 with a moderate risk. The simple act of maintaining of roads, bringing them up to plan standards, and limiting recreation use can reduce the number of subwatersheds with high risk by six. The number of subwatershed with a moderate risk would decrease by 11. Seventeen subwatersheds (almost 10 percent of all subwatersheds) would move from a higher risk category to a lower risk category by complying with the forest plan (road and trail standards) and providing maintenance. Over time, all of the various scenarios suggest an increased risk to aquatic biota. There are many approaches to managing that risk, the least of which is to provide maintenance. 233 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:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 188 and 189: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 214 and 215: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 216 and 217: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 232 and 233: Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 242 and 243: Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 272 and 273: Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 286 and 287:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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?