watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) Stressors that currently affect condition or may affect condition in the future Stressors or threats to aquatic resources were determined by 13 indicators of past and current management activities. These indicators included, among others, the amount of federal ownership within each subwatershed, number of abandoned mines, number of dispersed and developed recreation sites, route densities, water diversions, culvert barriers, and allotments. (Table 2). Criteria for each indicator were determined based on the Forest Plan (e.g., water quality and geomorphic integrity), literature (e.g., route densities), distribution through histograms (e.g., recreation) and professional judgment (e.g., culvert barriers) to determine the level of threat. Indicators Low Threat Moderate Threat High Threat Percent Federal Ownership 85-100% 50-84% 32 sites/6 th Field Dispersed Recreation Sites 0-8 sites/6 th Field 9-31/6 th Field >31/6 th Field Developed Recreation Sites 0-1 sites/6 th Field 2-7 sites/6 th Field >7 sites/6 th Field Route Density Miles of road/sq. miles of classified and unauthorized roads (w/in admin boundaries) < 0.7 mi/mi2 0.71-1.7 mi/mi 2 >1.7 mi/mi 2 RCA Route Density Miles of road/sq. miles of classified and unauthorized roads (w/in admin boundaries) within RCAs < 0.7 mi/mi2 0.71-1.7 mi/mi 2 >1.7 mi/mi 2 Landslide Prone Road Density 0.7 mi/mi 2 Water Diversions No Diversions 1-2 diversions/6 th Field >2 sites/6 th Field Culvert Barriers No barriers present Culverts are partial Barriers to all life barriers (passable to stages (juveniles and adults, but barrier to juveniles) or complete barriers, but less than 0.5 miles are blocked on minor tributary adults) Water Quality Integrity No damaged stream 20% stream Ratings are based on the cumulative segments; fully damaged; may not fully segments damaged; effects of localized physical problems— supports beneficial support beneficial uses does not fully support such as poorly constructed roads, mineral activities, failed culverts, and landslides—or dispersed sources such as areas of extensive grazing, timber harvest, road construction or wildfire. The ratings determine the streams and riparian water quality relative to their potential. uses (303d-listed) beneficial uses (TMDL developed) 164 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) Geomorphic Integrity Rating determinations are based on the ability of subwatershed soil-hydrologic conditions to function as a sponge-andfilter system to absorb and store inputs of water, and on geomorphic resilience of streams, and riparian and wetland areas. Both natural and anthropogenic disturbances were used to estimate existing geomorphic conditions of each subwatershed. Subwatershed is in good condition, near or at properly functioning condition, and has low risk from further disturbance. 165 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Subwatershed is in fair condition, functioning at risk, and has moderate risk from additional disturbance. Allotments No allotments Sheep/Goat allotments and less than 25% of 6 th Field in Cattle/Horse allotment Equivalent Clearcut Acres 20% Table 2. Indicators and criteria used to determine threats to aquatic resources Figure 6. Bayesian belief network for determining overall threat level for each subwatershed on the Sawtooth NRA. Subwatershed is in poor condition, not properly functioning, and has high risk from additional disturbance. Greater than 25% of 6 th Field in Cattle/Horse allotment and Sheep/Goat allotments present Figure 7. Composite threat rating for subwatersheds in the Upper Salmon subbasin on the Sawtooth NRA. Red areas have the most threats, yellow areas have moderate threat levels, and green areas have low threat levels. After each indicator was rated (low, moderate, or high), outcomes were entered into a Bayesian belief network to determine a composite threat rating for each subwatershed within the Upper Salmon subbasin on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (Figure 6). Threat ratings were used later in this analysis to determine bull trout persistence. A key assumption in this analysis is that subwatersheds with a higher composite risk rating would be more at risk to the influences of 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 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: 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 218 and 219:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?