watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 14. Coldwater Fisheries and Known Cutthroat Trout Occurrences Initially, the list of aquatic ecological values to be evaluated in this WVA was more extensive. Springs were identified as an important resource value likely to be affected by climate change; however, the spring inventory for the Forest is very limited. Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas, a sensitive species) was not included because known occurrences are limited to very few sites on the Forest, and evaluation of effects to riparian habitats would address the effects to boreal toads and other amphibian species. Four warm water-sensitive fish species (bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (C. latipinnis), mountain sucker (C. platyrhynchus), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta)) were also not included in the WVA because of limited data on occurrence and stream temperatures. Botanical species and communities were eliminated from consideration because general effects to their habitat would also be addressed through riparian habitats. Aquatic ecological value metrics were designed to compare subwatersheds in a more relative way. For each individual value, the results were standardized (results for each subwatershed were divided by the largest result of all the subwatersheds). The standardized results for each value were then summed to get a cumulative aquatic ecological value (Fen/wetland/riparian habitat + coldwater fisheries + cutthroat trout fisheries = Aquatic Ecological Value Ranking). The cumulative Aquatic Ecological Value Rankings were classified into quartiles. The top 25% were classified 3 (high), middle 50% were classified 2 (moderate), lowest 25% were classified 1 (low). Figure 15 shows the resulting Aquatic Ecological Values Ranking. 80 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 15. Aquatic Ecological Value Rankings The Grand Mesa has the largest area with high rankings for aquatic ecological values, primarily due to the dense concentration of riparian and wetland areas and associated waterbodies. The Grand Mesa also has subwatersheds with cutthroat trout populations. The Upper Taylor geographic area has the second largest area with high rankings, also for a combination of aquatic habitats as well as cutthroat trout populations. The lower, drier Uncompahgre geographic area has the lowest rankings for aquatic ecological values. EXPOSURE Information on exposure, or the predicted climate changes anticipated to occur on the GMUG, came from a variety of sources. Published climate change reports for the State of Colorado were used as sources for predicted climate changes (Colorado Water Conservation Board Draft 2010; Ray et al. 2008; Spears et al. 2009). This information was downscaled from global circulation models to the State of Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin. Further downscaled information was obtained from a report describing several climate and hydrologic change scenarios for the Upper Gunnison River (Barsugli and Mearns Draft 2010). Regional implications of climate change to fisheries information came from Rieman and Isaak (2010). Data modeled using the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model were also used to evaluate potential climate changes for the GMUG. These data are described below. Anticipated Climate Change State of Colorado 81 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 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?