watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Sensitivity (Resiliency, Watershed Condition, and Non-climate Stressors) Watershed sensitivity was evaluated by combining factors representing watershed resiliency, base watershed condition, and non-climatic stressors. Resiliency Factors, or “Buffers” to climate change • Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems – number of springs and wetlands and overall presence of GDEs, including springs, wetlands, rivers, and lakes per HU12, rated (also Value indicator) • Watershed restoration investment – 3 categories: 0= limited or no active restoration; 1= sustained ongoing actions to improve conditions and habitat; and 2=Focus watersheds with Action Plans, more than 50% percent complete. Resiliency factors considered but not used in this iteration include: elevation, aspect, relief ratio, geology, stream density, stream type, stability (mapped landslides and stability class), and other groundwater indicators (meadows, permeability, faults, and alluvial deposits). Watershed Condition We used available data from the Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision watershed condition model (Gecy file “KWS_August2010”). Watershed condition scores (-1 to +1) from “Netweaver” decision support model analysis, incorporated the following factors: • road density, road gradient, miles in buffer as % stream mile • range condition (AUMs/acre, compared range use based on 2009 AUMs compared to forage production • forest vegetation as weighted departure of stand condition, and • aquatic habitat attributes from stream survey (LWD, pools, shade, and riparian type). The score is the average of upslope (roads, range, and forest vegetation) and habitat (range-riparian). Scores for Umatilla HUC-6 subwatersheds range from -0.5937 to +0.6473. Watershed Condition Rating (See figure to right) Watershed Condition Class FPR Model Rating # HUC-6 All # HUC-6 UNF >25% 1. Good >0.2 22 14 2. Fair -0.2 to 0.2 101 62 3. Poor
Umatilla National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Stressors or factors that may exacerbate climate change • Mines: coded 1= mine(s) shows no evidence of impacting water quality; 2= mine(s) has the potential to impact water quality; 3= mine(s) is actively impacting water quality. • Ditches, reservoirs: present/absent • Fire: percent acres burned last 10 years coded 0=0% watershed burned; 1=50% burned in the last 10 years. • Developments and floodplain roads: Campgrounds and developments coded 0=none,\; 1=1,\; 2>1. Roads coded 0=0 miles; 1=1-10 miles; 2=>10-20 miles; 3=>20 miles (also under Values). Overall sensitivity scoring was the simple sum of weighted factors for watershed condition, resiliency, and stressors, binned into 5 classes per HU12: from 1=LOW Sensitivity (High resiliency) to 5=HIGH Sensitivity (Low resiliency) We used a categorical matrix approach to combining and categorizing water resource value and sensitivity into “Risk-Value” groups. Exposure A growing body of published research in the Pacific Northwest shows regional trends in historic temperatures (warming), precipitation, declining snowpack, and streamflow (Mote 2003; Knowles et al. 2006; Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). Exposure represents the pressure or change imposed by future climate systems outside the historic range of variability. We used University of Washington-based Climate Impacts Group (CIG) downscaled gridded data at the watershed scale for spatial Forest overlay and identification of locations of greatest projected future change. The subwatershed scale was considered too fine to apply macro-scale climatehydrologic model outputs (grid cells about 6 km 2 Historic compared to 2030 ). Changes in winter and summer temperatures range from about 3 to 5 °C increase but spatial differences are very small (
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:
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 168 and 169: 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 268 and 269:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
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?