watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) Wetland Vulnerability Rating All Acid Combined low (0-10%) low (0-10-30%) low (0-10-30%) moderate (5-10%) moderate moderate (>10-30%) high (>10%) high high (>30%) low (0-30%) moderate (5-10%) high high (>30%) high (>10%) very high Table 2. Wetland vulnerability ranking criteria for HUC-6 watersheds on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Figure 11. Relative vulnerability of wetlands to climate change for HUC-6 watersheds on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest The small increase in potential groundwater recharge can be explained by the timing of groundwater recharge and projected changes in the climate of northern Wisconsin. In northern Wisconsin and throughout much of the Lake States, most groundwater recharge occurs in spring when there is excess soil moisture at the end of the snowmelt season and prior to the onset of summer (Boelter and Verry 1977). While the GCM projections for precipitation are generally less consistent than for temperature, they tend 248 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) to show a small increase in precipitation during fall, winter, and spring for northern Wisconsin. This additional water, available at the time of year when evapotranspiration is low, will most likely go to satisfying soil moisture deficits and recharging groundwater. Both the absolute potential groundwater recharge and the difference for the two time periods varied by soil type. Highly permeable soils have greater potential recharge and showed a greater positive difference than heavy or peatland soils. Average potential recharge ranged from 13.5 inches for HSG A to 3.5 inches for HSG D (Table 3). HSGs A, B, C, and D had average increases of 1.3, 0.8, 0.7, and 0.0 inches, respectively (Table 3, Figure 13). HSGs are based on runoff potential when soils are thoroughly wet, considering texture, presence of impermeable layers, and depth to water table. HSG A soils have low runoff potential and consist primarily of sand and gravel. HSG B soils have moderately low runoff potential, consisting of mostly loamy sand and sandy loam textures. HSG C soils have moderately high runoff potential and finer textures such as loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam and silty clay loam. Hydrologic Soil Group Area (acres) Avg. Annual Potential Recharge (inches) 2046- 2065 1971- 1990 249 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Mean Difference A 62,351 14.88 13.54 1.34 B 96,384 11.51 10.75 0.76 C 37,134 7.16 6.51 0.65 D 116,218 3.47 3.51 -0.04 Water 14,144 1.19 1.17 0.02 Total 326,231 8.35 7.81 0.54 Table 3. Summary of average annual potential groundwater recharge (inches) by hydrologic soil group for HUC-6 watersheds on the Park Falls Unit of the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF HSG D soils have high runoff potential because of clayey textures, an impermeable layer within 20 inches, or water table within 24 inches. Based on the results of the groundwater recharge modeling, HSG As were considered least vulnerable or most resilient to climate change impacts while HSG Ds were considered most vulnerable or least resilient. Because the response of potential groundwater recharge to the projected climate change varied by HSG, this information was used to estimate potential groundwater recharge and vulnerability to climate change for each HUC-6 on the Forest. An HSG index was developed for each HUC-6, based on the areaweighted proportion in each HSG, with A=1, B=2, C=3, and D=4. This index was used, along with the presence of surface water features, to classify the watersheds into four classes: groundwater recharge (HSG index2.837). Regression analysis was used to relate this index to the future and historic potential groundwater recharge for the HUC-6s on the Park Falls unit. These regression equations were then used to estimate and summarize potential historic and future recharge for all HUC-6s across the Forest.
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:
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: 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 272 and 273: Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 302 and 303:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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?