watervulnerability
watervulnerability watervulnerability
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 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: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 40 and 41: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 42 and 43: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 44 and 45: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 46 and 47: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 48 and 49: Gallatin National Forest Watershed
- Page 50 and 51: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 52 and 53: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 54 and 55: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 56 and 57: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 58 and 59: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 60 and 61: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 62 and 63: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 64 and 65: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 66 and 67: Helena National Forest Watershed Vu
- Page 68 and 69: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 74 and 75: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 76 and 77: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 78 and 79: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 80 and 81: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 82 and 83: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 84 and 85: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 86 and 87: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 88 and 89: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 90 and 91: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 92 and 93: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 94 and 95: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 96 and 97: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 98 and 99: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 100 and 101: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 102 and 103: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 104 and 105: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 106 and 107: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 108 and 109: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 110 and 111: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 112 and 113: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 114 and 115: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 116 and 117: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 120 and 121: White River National Forest Watersh
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky<br />
Mountain Region (R2)<br />
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ASSESSMENTS, PLANS AND EFFORTS<br />
The WVA used data and results from a previous watershed assessment completed as part of the 2005-<br />
2007 Forest plan revision process, specifically: 1) a summary of past activities that have occurred in each<br />
subwatershed (used as the anthropogenic stressors in the WVA); 2) a summary of intrinsic characteristics<br />
of each subwatershed (i.e. geology, soil types, topography) that indicate how sensitive a given watershed<br />
is to erosion (used as the indicator for erosion and sediment production for the WVA); and 3) a summary<br />
of water uses by subwatershed (used as the water uses values for this WVA). Data and results from the<br />
Forest plan watershed assessment were limited to National Forest System lands. Off-Forest data were<br />
lacking or very limited and were not incorporated into the existing data for the WVA. The WVA will<br />
incorporate consideration of potential effects of predicted climate changes, which was not previously<br />
done.<br />
Results of the WVA will be used as part of a vulnerability assessment for the Upper Gunnison Basin, an<br />
ongoing collaborative effort with The Nature Conservancy (part of its Southwest Climate Change<br />
Initiative), the BLM, National Park Service, Gunnison County, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado<br />
River Conservation Board and the USFS. The Upper Gunnison Basin vulnerability assessment will<br />
incorporate terrestrial resources that the WVA did not, as well as aquatic resources that occur off the<br />
National Forest.<br />
The WVA will also inform additional outcomes from the Upper Gunnison Basin collaborative effort,<br />
which include: 1) developing landscape-scale strategic guidance for climate adaptation and resiliencebuilding<br />
for a set of conservation targets (e.g., Gunnison sage-grouse); 2) developing tools and<br />
information to make current conservation projects climate smart; and 3) developing a climate adaptation<br />
demonstration project.<br />
The WVA and the subsequent vulnerability assessment for the Gunnison Basin will provide a basis for<br />
incorporating climate change considerations into project planning and implementation. When Forest plan<br />
revision efforts resume on the GMUG, identified climate change considerations can also be designed into<br />
Forest plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines.<br />
Data gaps and uncertainties in predicting climate changes and potential effects are needs that can be filled<br />
through a variety of monitoring efforts.<br />
In 2011, the GMUG NF completed a Watershed Condition Classification. Information from the WVA,<br />
while not specifically part of the watershed condition classification protocol, can be used to help identify<br />
priority watersheds for future restoration activities.<br />
WATER RESOURCES<br />
This WVA is intended to identify the relative vulnerability of watersheds to potential risks posed by<br />
climate change, by focusing on the potential effects of those changes to water resource values. For the<br />
pilot project, water resource values needed to include floodplain and in-channel infrastructure, water uses,<br />
and aquatic species. Following this direction, the GMUG team initially identified a list of resources in<br />
these three categories. As we worked through the process, lack of available data and time constraints<br />
reduced the list of values that were ultimately evaluated. We also adjusted how several resource values<br />
were grouped so that the final three categories combined values that would respond in similar ways to<br />
predicted climate changes. Modifications made during the process are discussed for each category, below.<br />
69 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change