watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Assessment of Watershed Vulnerability to Climate Change Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest July, 2012 Prepared By: Dale Higgins Hydrologist Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Park Falls, WI 236 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) INTRODUCTION Maintaining and restoring watershed resilience is an appropriate strategy for responding to climate change because changes are anticipated to affect every component of the hydrologic cycle. But watersheds can differ greatly in their vulnerability to climate change. Understanding differences in watershed vulnerabilities is necessary to develop adaptive management strategies and implement targeted land management practices. Several National Forests, representing each region of the US Forest Service, are working to assess the potential impacts of climate-induced hydrologic change on important water resources. Each forest is identifying important water resources, assessing their exposure to climate change, evaluating risk, categorizing watershed vulnerability, and recommending potential management responses. The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) is one of the pilot Forests. This report summarizes an assessment of watershed vulnerability associated with four important water resources: wetlands, groundwater recharge, stream fishes and infrastructure (culverts at road stream crossings). More detailed individual reports are available for each of these resource assessments. These four resources were selected because of their importance to people and the local environment. Wetlands (with an emphasis on bogs) were selected because of their importance to the northern Wisconsin landscape and their apparent vulnerability to increased potential evapotranspiration. Groundwater recharge was selected because of the importance of groundwater to the ecology of many streams, lakes, and wetlands; the potential for changes associated with higher evapotranspiration; and to take advantage of a groundwater inventory currently underway on the Forest. The ultimate goal will be to model the projected effects of changes in groundwater recharge on aquifer levels, flow paths and flow rates and to evaluate those effects on surface water resources. Wetlands and groundwater recharge were also selected because they were unlikely to be addressed by the other National Forests in the pilot. Infrastructure was selected because there is a concern that precipitation frequency and intensity may increase in the future, threatening culverts that are not properly sized. This is one of the most urgent management considerations because culverts installed now need to last up to 100 years. Stream fish-water temperature was selected because of the potential for future stream temperature increases and the subsequent effects on cold and cool water fish. It was also selected because there was an opportunity to take advantage of a statewide analysis of the potential effects of climate change on stream fish in Wisconsin. METHODS Methods are summarized here; more detail is provided in the following sections. In all cases, the assessment included two basic steps: (1) some type of modeling to characterize the potential effect or risk of projected climate change on the water resource, and (2) extrapolation of that potential risk to characterize the vulnerability of that resource at the watershed scale. The five individual vulnerability ratings (wetlands, groundwater recharge, infrastructure, cold water fish, and cool water fish) were combined into one composite numerical watershed vulnerability ranking with the following thresholds: 1.0, very low; 1.2-2.4, low; 2.6-3.0, moderate; and 3.2-4.0, high. The composite rankings were based on averages of the individual resource ratings. Climate data required for modeling were obtained from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) program (www.wicci.wisc.edu/). The WICCI Climate Working Group has developed a regional-scale, daily dataset of historical and future projections of total precipitation, and maximum and minimum temperature for the time period 1950-2099 at an 8-km spatial resolution across Wisconsin. This 237 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:
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 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 290 and 291:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?