Quantifying Spatial Change in Vegetation Cover in the Colorado River Delta, 1992-1999:

Its relationship with water flows and implications for future water and habitat management.

General objective:

To determine the impacts and management implications of water river flows and human uses in the vegetation pattern distribution of the Colorado River Delta.

Specific objectives:

•To determine change in per cent vegetation cover, quantifying contributing factors (water river flows and land and water uses).

•To determine spatial vegetation patterns and their implications for wildlife, including estimation of water needs to maintain current or necessary (proposed restoration) habitats.

•To develop a model to estimate vegetation patterns distribution in the Colorado River Delta based on proposed or expected natural and human induced conditions....POST DOC!!

% Veg. Cover Map

Change Analysis

1992-1999

Remote Sensingand Field Work

INPUTS: water flows, land use, ground water,

salinity, other

Simulation Model

ManagementImplications and

Recommendations

Analysis of % Vegetation Cover

Based on Thematic Mapper (TM) Images:

1992 (May)1993 (June)1994 (July)1996 (June)1997 (February and July)1998 (June)1999 (May)

Methods:

Using Scaled NDVI method by Carlson and Ripley (1997) andthe equation:

% Veg. Cover = 74 NDVIscaled + 18.2

from Dycam and TM NDVI validation.

% Vegetation Cover Analysis

1996

Previous 2 years were relatively dry

(less than 500 million cubic meters).

Change in % Vegetation Cover, 1996 and 1999

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Bare soil 20-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-80% 80-100% greater100%

Vegetation Cover class

Are

a (i

n H

ecta

res)

1996

1999

Change

1999Previous 2 years with relatively

large water flows(3500 million cubic meters)

1996 1999

Impact of water flows

Flooded area due to water flows

June 199315,000 Million

cubic meters

February 1997100 cubic meters/sec

in same month

#

# # #

#

# #

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

# ##

##

#

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

## # #

# #

#

# ##

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

# #

#

##

##

##

## # #

##

##

##

#

##

###

##

##

##

##

##

##

##

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Depth to groundwater, 1993

Tin_well1993Breaklines

HardSoft

Elevation Range-43 - -40.95-40.95 - -38.9-38.9 - -36.85-36.85 - -34.8-34.8 - -32.75-32.75 - -30.7-30.7 - -28.65-28.65 - -26.6-26.6 - -24.55-24.55 - -22.5-22.5 - -20.45-20.45 - -18.4-18.4 - -16.35-16.35 - -14.3-14.3 - -12.25-12.25 - -10.2-10.2 - -8.15-8.15 - -6.1-6.1 - -4.05-4.05 - -2

# Well_prof_93.shpBordo1.shp

#

## #

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# ##

#

##

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

# #

#

# ##

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

##

## # #

##

##

##

##

###

##

##

##

##

##

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

Tin_well1993Breaklines

HardSoft

Elevation Range-43 - -41.975-41.975 - -40.95-40.95 - -39.925-39.925 - -38.9-38.9 - -37.875-37.875 - -36.85-36.85 - -35.825-35.825 - -34.8-34.8 - -33.775-33.775 - -32.75-32.75 - -31.725-31.725 - -30.7-30.7 - -29.675-29.675 - -28.65-28.65 - -27.625-27.625 - -26.6-26.6 - -25.575-25.575 - -24.55-24.55 - -23.525-23.525 - -22.5-22.5 - -21.475-21.475 - -20.45-20.45 - -19.425-19.425 - -18.4-18.4 - -17.375-17.375 - -16.35-16.35 - -15.325-15.325 - -14.3-14.3 - -13.275-13.275 - -12.25-12.25 - -11.225-11.225 - -10.2-10.2 - -9.175-9.175 - -8.15-8.15 - -7.125-7.125 - -6.1-6.1 - -5.075-5.075 - -4.05-4.05 - -3.025-3.025 - -2

# Well_prof_93.shpBordo1.shp

Depth to ground water, 1993