watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) factor related to the total quantity and intensity of rainfall. The RUSLE R factor is the average annual product of kinetic energy and maximum 30-minute rainfall intensity. The rainfall factor was considered to be a stressor. Based on the prediction that storm intensity is likely to increase, this factor is expected to increase in the future. 5. Runoff potential – percent of subwatershed in Hydrologic Group D. Runoff potential is determined by soil infiltration capacity after prolonged wetting, permeability, depth to water table, and depth to restrictive or impervious layer. Soils with the highest potential for runoff are identified as Hydrologic Group D in soil survey data. Runoff potential was considered to be a stressor. 6. Waterbodies, riparian and wetland areas – density of these aquatic features within a given subwatershed. Waterbodies and riparian and wetland areas were considered buffers to runoff response and the ratings for this factor were given negative values so they would buffer the combined runoff response ranking. 7. Average annual baseflow – weighted average annual baseflow for each subwatershed. This value was determined from VIC data (modeled data for historic baseflow at the 6 km-grid scale). Baseflow is considered a buffer to runoff response and the ratings for this factor were given negative values so they would buffer the combined runoff response ranking. Values for each of the individual factors listed above were calculated and standardized for each factor (as described above for values). The overall runoff response sensitivity ranking was determined by adding the individual factor standardized ratings together for each subwatershed. The resulting Runoff Sensitivity Rankings were classified into quartiles. The top 25% were classified 3 (high), middle 50% were classified 2 (moderate), and lowest 25% were classified 1 (low). Figure 22 shows the resulting Erosion Sensitivity Ranking. 94 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Figure 22. Runoff Sensitivity Ranking Past Management Activity Stressors Data used to evaluate past management or activity stressors were taken from the watershed assessment conducted for the Forest plan revision. (Additional discussion of the data uses, limitations of that data, and the effects of these anthropogenic stressors can be found in the Chapter 5, Section C of the watershed assessment completed for the Forest plan revision (2005).) A mix of long-term effects (e.g., dams and major roads) and short-term effects (e.g., timber harvests) have been included. Some stressors have direct effects on or near channels; others affect areas throughout a subwatershed. Several individual stressors were combined so that effects were not overweighed in the final subwatershed rankings. Data used for this evaluation were limited to areas within the GMUG boundary. For watersheds that have a large portion of off-Forest area, these rankings may need to be adjusted as off-Forest data become available. Individual activity stressors considered include those listed below. Flow Related Stressors 1. Stream miles below diversions, expressed as a percentage of perennial and intermittent stream network in a watershed. There are some significant caps in understanding of the specific effects of diversions on aquatic systems. Operation information is only available for the major diversion, concerning timing and quantity of water diverted from or into the natural stream network 2. Stream miles below reservoirs, expressed as a percentage of perennial and intermittent stream network in a watershed. Only reservoirs of 50 surface acres or larger were included. There are many smaller reservoirs and stockponds whose effects are not addressed; however, it was felt that these smaller reservoirs would have limited ability to influence flow regimes. Operation of larger reservoirs can regulate flows in ways that benefit fisheries and other aquatic values. 95 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 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
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 70 and 71: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 148 and 149:
Coconino National Forest Watershed
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?