Propuesta de zonificación ambiental para cuencas hidrográficas: aplicación en la Unidad de Planificación y Gestión de los Recursos Hídricos Afluentes del Bajo Paranaíba, Minas Gerais, Brasil

Rosa, Rafael Mendes; Ferreira, Vanderlei de Oliveira

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • GEOUSP 26 (2) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2179-0892.geousp.2022.180525.en copiar

Propuesta de zonificación ambiental para cuencas hidrográficas: aplicación en la Unidad de Planificación y Gestión de los Recursos Hídricos Afluentes del Bajo Paranaíba, Minas Gerais, Brasil

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumen

La creciente y casi siempre desacreditada explotación de los recursos naturales planteó la importancia de las iniciativas de conservación del medio ambiente. En este contexto, la zonificación ambiental se ha convertido en un instrumento en la gestión territorial. Este artículo propone un procedimiento metodológico para la zonificación ambiental específicamente orientada a cuencas hidrográficas, con aplicación en la Unidad de Planificación y Manejo de Recursos Hídricos de las Cuencas Hidrográficas de los Afluentes del Bajo Paranaíba, Minas Gerais (Brasil). La propuesta incluye la evaluación de las vulnerabilidades a la pérdida de suelos, cuali-cuantitativa de las aguas superficiales y las áreas legalmente protegidas. La metodología implica reconocer conflictos desde la intersección de las vulnerabilidades y áreas legalmente protegidas con el uso del suelo para señalar áreas para conservación, recuperación y manejo. Se espera que el trabajo pueda ser de utilidad para los gestores y que el modelo se pueda aplicar en unidades territoriales similares.

Palabras clave:
Zonificación ambiental; Cuencas hidrográficas; Afluentes del Bajo Paranaíba

stage	aspects found and worked on
(1) thematic maps of the physical-geographical and environmental components	Geology, slope, soils, rainfall intensity, land cover and land use, natural surface water availability, areas of conflict over water use, and surface water quality were found.
(2) natural vulnerability to soil loss, quali-quantitative vulnerability of surface waters and legally protected areas	Natural vulnerability to soil loss was found by adapting Crepani et al.’s (2001CREPANI, E.; MEDEIROS, J. S.; HERNANDEZ FILHO, P.; FLORENZAO, T. G.; DUARTE, V.; BARBOSA, C. C. F. Sensoriamento remoto e geoprocessamento aplicados ao zoneamento ecológico-econômico e ao ordenamento territorial. São José dos Campos, SP: Inpe, 2001.) proposal according to the first five themes of the previous stage. With the same logic, the quali-quantitative vulnerability of surface waters was established from the three other themes. In the legally protected areas, Permanent Preservation Areas, Legal Reserve, and Conservation Units were found.
(3) recognition of conflicts between land use and vulnerability and between land use and legally protected areas	The base map is land cover and use, which was used at the intersection with maps of natural vulnerability to soil loss, quali-quantitative vulnerability of surface waters, and legally protected areas.
(4) proposed environmental zoning	Zones of conservation or recoverable interventions and of consolidated occupations and/or productive activities were defined. The two zones aim to separate areas protected by environmental laws (called legally protected areas) from those with consolidated occupation or where productive activities are carried out. The interior of the two zones was subdivided into areas (subzones) in conflict levels to support the indications of the later stage.
(5) indication of areas for preservation, recovery, and management	The proposal covers a set of actions to be applied in the areas (sub-areas) according to the levels of conflicts previously established.

landscape units	added vulnerability values	vulnerability degree
U1, U2, U3, and U4	3.0, 2.9, 2.8, and 2.7	vulnerable
U5, U6, U7, and U8	2.6, 2.5, 2.4, and 2.3	moderately vulnerable
U9, U10, U11, U12, and U13	2.2, 2.1, 2.0, 1.9, and 1.8	medium stable/vulnerable
U14, U15, U16, and U17	1.7, 1.6, 1.5, and 1.4	moderately stable
U18, U19, U20, and U21	1.3, 1.2, 1.1, and 1.0	stable

surface water availability (Q_{7, 10})	vulnerability value	availability degree
< 3.00 m³/s	3.0	very low
3.00 to 8.00 m³/s	2.5	low
8.01 to 13.00 m³/s	2.0	medium
13.01 to 18.00 m³/s	1.5	high
> 18.00 m³/s	1.0	very high

areas of conflict over water use	vulnerability value	vulnerability degree
watersheds with declared conflict	3.0	very high
watersheds without declared conflict	1.0	very low

indicator	vulnerability value	class (vulnerability degree)
WQI	1.0	excellent (90 < WQI ≤ 100)
	1.5	good (70 < WQI ≤ 90)
	2.0	medium (50 < WQI ≤ 70)
	2.5	bad (25 < WQI ≤ 50)
	3.0	very bad (≤ 25)
TC	1.2	low (≤ 20% above the legal limit)
	2.0	medium (> 20% and ≤ 100% above the legal limit)
	2.8	high (> 100% above the legal limit)
TSI	1.0	ultraoligotrophic (= 47)
	1.4	oligotrophic (47 < TSI = 52)
	1.8	mesotrophic (52 < TSI = 59)
	2.2	eutrophic (59 < TSI = 63)
	2.6	supereutrophic (63 < TSI = 67)
	3.0	hypereutrophic (> 67)

added vulnerability values	quality degree
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3	very high
1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7	high
1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2	medium
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6	low
2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.0	very low

added vulnerability values	vulnerability degree
3.0, 2.9, 2.8, 2.7	very high
2.6, 2.5, 2.4, 2.3	high
2.2, 2.1, 2.0, 1.9, 1.8	medium
1.7, 1.6, 1.5, 1.4	low
1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0	very low

defined intersection for the conflict between land use and vulnerability to soil loss
	vulnerable	moderately vulnerable	medium stable/vulnerable	moderately stable	stable
urbanized areas	very high	very high	very high	high	medium
temporary crops	very high	high	medium	low	low
permanent crops	very high	high	medium	low	very low
pastures	very high	very high	high	medium	low
forestry	very high	high	medium	low	very low
defined intersection for the conflict between land use and quali-quantitative vulnerability of surface waters
	very high	high	medium	low	very low
urbanized areas	very high	very high	high	medium	medium
temporary crops	very high	very high	high	medium	low
permanent crops	high	high	medium	medium	low
pastures	very high	high	high	medium	medium
forestry	high	high	medium	medium	low
defined intersection for the conflict between land use and legally protected areas
	conservation unit		legal reserve		permanent preservation area
urbanized areas	high		high		high
temporary crops	high		medium		medium
permanent crops	high		medium		medium
pastures	medium		medium		low
forestry	medium		medium		medium

zone of conservation or recovering interventions
conflict between land use and legally protected areas	area definition
high	areas for low-urgency recovery
medium	areas for medium-urgency recovery
low	areas for high-urgency recovery
nonexistent (native vegetation)	areas for preservation
zone of consolidated occupations and/or productive activities
conflict between land use and vulnerability to land loss	area definition
any	urbanized areas
very high	inappropriate areas
high	apt areas with relevant restrictions
medium	apt areas with moderate restrictions
low	apt areas with elementary restrictions
very low	apt areas
nonexistent (native vegetation to be inserted in the conservation area)	areas for preservation
river basins with priority to recovery and management actions
priority	criteria
very high	Watershed with very high conflict or watershed with high conflict but that has a DAC.
high	Watershed with high conflict or watershed with medium conflict but that has a DAC. When the conflict is high and there is a DAC and yet another basin in the same situation, set the priority for the one with the oldest UPGRH DAC.
medium	Watershed with medium conflict or watershed with high conflict, without a DAC and at least two watersheds already with a DAC in the UPGRH.
low	Watershed with low conflict or watershed with medium conflict, without a DAC and at least two watersheds already with a DAC in the UPGRH.
very low	Watershed with very low conflict.

zone of conservation or recovering interventions
subdivision of the zone (subzone)	area	percentage
areas for preservation	5,335.14 km²	19.84%
areas for low-urgency recovery	1.27 km²	0.01%
areas for medium-urgency recovery	953.29 km²	3.54%
areas for high-urgency recovery	563.77 km²	2.09%
total	6,853.47 km²	25.48%
zone of consolidated occupations and/or productive activities
subdivision of the zone (subzone)	area	percentage
apt areas with elementary restrictions	1,076.45 km²	4.01%
apt areas with moderate restrictions	6,252.17 km²	23.25%
apt areas with relevant restrictions	11,890.15 km²	44.22%
inappropriate areas	199.43 km²	0.74%
consolidated urban areas	63.61 km²	0.23%
total	19,481.81 km²	72.45%
bodies of water
bodies of water	557.11 km²	2.07%
total (zones + bodies of water)	26,892.39 km²	100%
watersheds with priority to recovery and management actions
priority	area	percentage
very high (Piedade watershed)	1,759.20 km²	6.54%
high (Douradinho watershed)	922.66 km²	3.43%
medium (other watersheds)	8,221.56 km²	30.57%
(Tijuco and Arantes rivers)	15,988.97 km²	59.46%
total	26,892.39 km²	100%

zone	area (subzone)	land cover and use	preservation or recovery guidelines	preservation or recovery actions
zone of conservation or recovering interventions	areas for preservation	native vegetation (100%)	maintenance of native vegetation	general protection measures for the native vegetation cover
	areas for low-urgency recovery	temporary crops (5.51%) permanent crops (94.49%)	recomposition of native vegetation from areas of legal incompatibility	- natural regeneration without management - direct seeding - enriching - densification - nucleation - planting by seedlings - control of competing plants
	areas for medium-urgency recovery	temporary crops (16.15%) permanent crops (21.18%) pastures (60.36%) forestry (2.31%)
	areas for high-urgency recovery	pastures (100%)
zone	area (subzone)	land cover and use	land use management guidelines	land use management actions
zone of consolidated occupations and/or productive activities	apt areas with elementary restrictions	temporary crops (59.97%) permanent crops (35.16%) pastures (0.81%) forestry (4.06%)	crop and pasture management for areas with elementary restrictions	- no-tillage - controlled application of pesticides and fertilizers - terracing techniques - level planting
	apt areas with moderate restrictions	temporary crops (25.80%) permanent crops (30.85%) pastures (35.60%) forestry (7.75%)	crop and pasture management for areas with moderate restrictions	- no-tillage - crop-livestock integration - controlled application of pesticides and fertilizers - terracing techniques - planting and pasture formation techniques - erosive process control techniques - level planting and controlled cutting of forestry
	apt areas with relevant restrictions	temporary crops (0.04%) permanent crops (0.24%) pastures (99.72%)	crop and pasture management for areas with relevant restrictions	- no-tillage - crop-livestock integration - controlled application of pesticides and fertilizers - terracing techniques - planting and pasture formation techniques - adoption of pasture support capacity - erosive process control techniques
	inappropriate areas	pastures (100%)	re-composition of native vegetation from inappropriate areas	- natural regeneration without management - direct sowing - enriching - densification - nucleation - planting by seedlings - control of competing plants
	consolidated urban areas	urbanized areas (100%)	environmental improvement of urbanized areas	- relative reduction of - waterproofing of urban soil - expansion of the sewage treatment system - effective management of solid waste

Universidade de São Paulo Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 338 - Cidade Universitária, São Paulo , SP - Brasil. Cep: 05339-970, Tels: 3091-3769 / 3091-0297 / 3091-0296 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistageousp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mail:
rafaelmendesr@hotmail.com