watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Ouachita National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southern Region (R8) Scenario 2010 Current 2010 Mngt resp* 2040 B1 2040 B1 Mngt resp 2080 B1 2080 B1 Mngt resp 234 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change 2040 A1B 2040 A1B Mngt resp 2080 A1B Risk High 88 82 93 85 93 85 105 96 105 96 Moderate 46 40 42 43 42 43 44 43 45 43 Low 56 68 55 62 55 62 41 51 40 51 *Mngt resp – responsible management that brings roads and trail up to FS standards APPLICATION 2080 A1B Mngt resp This project is applicable at the sixth-level subwatershed scale. Conceivably, it is applicable at the fourth and fifth level scales as well. However, the risk levels would have to be reevaluated at the fourth-level basin scale. The information exists for application across the south – many forests have established aquatic thresholds by ecoregion. It is also applicable on the project level when used at the subwatershed scale. CRITIQUE What important questions were not considered? • This approach uses thresholds for fish. Other aquatic biota such as mussels are more sensitive to changes in sediment. • This particular exercise did not include water yield and regimen which could easily provide additional stress to aquatic biota. • The analysis is based on averages. Extreme events such as droughts or floods which would modify aquatic and riparian habitats were not taken into account. What were the most useful data sources? • TNC climate wizard − user friendly − multiple scenarios with multiple GCMs • WEPP climate generator − Individual sites are easily modified − A national application for the lower 48 states What were the most important data deficiencies? • The USLE R-factor. Given more time or knowledge, I would have recalculated those values. This was the weakest part of the analysis. What tools were most useful? • TNC climate wizard • WEPP climate generator • ArcView and ArcMap
Ouachita National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southern Region (R8) PROJECT CONTACT Alan Clingenpeel Ouachita National Forest (501) 321-5246 aclingenpeel@fs.fed.us REFERENCES Dissmeyer, G.E., and G.R. Foster. 1984. A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forestland. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Publ. R8-TP 6. 40. EWAP. 2000. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5291793.pdf. Phillips, D.L., D. White, and C.B. Johnson. 1993. Implications of climate change scenarios for soil erosion potential in the United States. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 4: 61-72. Roehl, J. W. 1962. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios, and influencing morphological factors. IASH Comm of Land Eros, Pub 59:202-213. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: aquatic conditions. Report 3 of 5. GTR SRS-33. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 317 p. WEPP. 1999. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fsweppdoc.html 235 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:
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 288 and 289:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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?