watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 3. Modified HUC-6 Subwatersheds and HUC-5 Watersheds used in Watershed Vulnerability Assessment Uncompahgre Grand Mesa San Juans West Elks Upper Taylor Cochetopa Figure 4. Geographic Area and Modified HUC-6 Subwatersheds used in Watershed Vulnerability Assessment 68 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ASSESSMENTS, PLANS AND EFFORTS The WVA used data and results from a previous watershed assessment completed as part of the 2005- 2007 Forest plan revision process, specifically: 1) a summary of past activities that have occurred in each subwatershed (used as the anthropogenic stressors in the WVA); 2) a summary of intrinsic characteristics of each subwatershed (i.e. geology, soil types, topography) that indicate how sensitive a given watershed is to erosion (used as the indicator for erosion and sediment production for the WVA); and 3) a summary of water uses by subwatershed (used as the water uses values for this WVA). Data and results from the Forest plan watershed assessment were limited to National Forest System lands. Off-Forest data were lacking or very limited and were not incorporated into the existing data for the WVA. The WVA will incorporate consideration of potential effects of predicted climate changes, which was not previously done. Results of the WVA will be used as part of a vulnerability assessment for the Upper Gunnison Basin, an ongoing collaborative effort with The Nature Conservancy (part of its Southwest Climate Change Initiative), the BLM, National Park Service, Gunnison County, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado River Conservation Board and the USFS. The Upper Gunnison Basin vulnerability assessment will incorporate terrestrial resources that the WVA did not, as well as aquatic resources that occur off the National Forest. The WVA will also inform additional outcomes from the Upper Gunnison Basin collaborative effort, which include: 1) developing landscape-scale strategic guidance for climate adaptation and resiliencebuilding for a set of conservation targets (e.g., Gunnison sage-grouse); 2) developing tools and information to make current conservation projects climate smart; and 3) developing a climate adaptation demonstration project. The WVA and the subsequent vulnerability assessment for the Gunnison Basin will provide a basis for incorporating climate change considerations into project planning and implementation. When Forest plan revision efforts resume on the GMUG, identified climate change considerations can also be designed into Forest plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Data gaps and uncertainties in predicting climate changes and potential effects are needs that can be filled through a variety of monitoring efforts. In 2011, the GMUG NF completed a Watershed Condition Classification. Information from the WVA, while not specifically part of the watershed condition classification protocol, can be used to help identify priority watersheds for future restoration activities. WATER RESOURCES This WVA is intended to identify the relative vulnerability of watersheds to potential risks posed by climate change, by focusing on the potential effects of those changes to water resource values. For the pilot project, water resource values needed to include floodplain and in-channel infrastructure, water uses, and aquatic species. Following this direction, the GMUG team initially identified a list of resources in these three categories. As we worked through the process, lack of available data and time constraints reduced the list of values that were ultimately evaluated. We also adjusted how several resource values were grouped so that the final three categories combined values that would respond in similar ways to predicted climate changes. Modifications made during the process are discussed for each category, below. 69 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 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 120 and 121: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 122 and 123:
White River National Forest Watersh
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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?