watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) Figure 20. HUC-6 vulnerability to climate change based on 5 attributes (groundwater, wetlands, cold and cool water stream fish, and infrastructure-culverts) for Chequamegon-Nicolet NF CONCLUSIONS Wetlands Hydrologic modeling of an upland-bog complex with PHIM for the Park Falls unit of the Chequamegon- Nicolet NF, using WICCI downscaled data for one location, just one GCM (GFDL-CM2.0) and one climate change scenario (A1B), indicates that bogs may be susceptible to climate change impacts. Average annual evapotranspiration would increase about 3.2 inches or 15 percent, runoff could decrease about 1.3 inches or roughly 25 percent with increases in spring and decreases in summer and fall, water levels in the bog would be 2-4.5 inches lower in summer and fall, and no-flow days would increase from about 4 to 23 percent of time. The PHIM modeling may have underestimated runoff, especially in spring, but the overall results seem to provide reasonable estimates of the potential impacts of climate change on bog hydrology. Based on the modeling, it was concluded that climate change poses some risk to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest wetlands, especially bogs. These risks include loss of wetland area, changes in wetland plant communities, and alteration of wetland processes such as water chemistry, peat accumulation, and 260 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) geochemical cycling. These results were extrapolated to all HUC-6s on the Forest based on their percentage of total and acid wetland, and each watershed was placed into one of four classes representing its vulnerability to climate change impacts on wetlands. Groundwater Recharge Results from soil water balance modeling for the Park Falls unit of the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, using WICCI downscaled data for one location, just one GCM (GFDL-CM2.0), and one scenario (A1B), indicates potential groundwater recharge may increase about 7 percent in the future. While these are preliminary results, they indicate that groundwater recharge might be somewhat resilient to climate change impacts. Potential groundwater recharge and increases in recharge were related to hydrologic soil group with coarse textured soils having the highest potential average recharge (13.5 in/yr) and increase in recharge (1.4 in) and fine textured or peat soils having the least potential average recharge (3.5 in/yr) and increase in recharge (0.0 in). These results were extrapolated to all HUC-6s on the Forest and each watershed was placed into one of four classes representing its vulnerability or resilience to climate change impacts on potential groundwater recharge. Infrastructure-Culverts The WICCI downscaled climate projections provide sufficient scientific evidence that the frequency and intensity of large precipitation events will increase and will likely increase floods. Indices of road-stream crossing density and runoff potential based on HSG were developed and used to classify the vulnerability of HUC-6s to impacts on infrastructure. The most vulnerable watersheds have high runoff potential and high stream crossing densities. For watersheds with low to moderate runoff potential, sizing stream crossing structures to channel bankfull width is an adaptive strategy that will most likely accommodate future increases in flood flows. And while hydrologic and hydraulic modeling should be conducted for all stream crossing designs, it is especially important for watersheds with very high runoff potential. In those cases, hydraulic modeling should be conducted to ensure structures pass the 100-yr flood, and preferably the 500-yr flood, with the HW/D
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:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
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
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?