watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) Changes to predicted available habitat for the five warm water fishes under a moderate warming scenario vary significantly. Two were predicted to increase by 468 to 973 percent two were predicted to remain about the same, and one was predicted to decline by 79 percent. These results indicate that cold and cool water fish on the CNNF are very vulnerable to moderate and major warming. Such warming could cause large declines in these fish, which could substantially impact stream ecology throughout the CNNF. The predicted fish distributions for the current climate and moderate warming were analyzed to determine the percent change in cold and cool water fish habitat in each HUC-6 on the CNNF. These results were used to place each watershed into one of four vulnerability classes. The most vulnerable HUC-6s are those predicted to contain a substantial amount of habitat under the current climate but which also had substantial declines in predicted habitat with moderate warming. The least vulnerable HUC-6s are primarily those with little or no predicted habitat given the existing climate. The increase of 0.8 o C for each 1.0 o C increase in air temperature used by Lyons et al. (2010) in their study was an oversimplification necessitated by the statewide study that did not take into account how groundwater input, land uses, or changes in flow might alter the response of streams to air temperature increases. Composite Watershed Vulnerability Watersheds with very low composite vulnerability were exclusively or predominantly groundwater recharge zones. These were rated very low because they support low densities of the water resource values (wetlands, stream crossings, cold and cool water stream fisheries). They also contain highly permeable soils, in which adverse effects to groundwater recharge from climate changes are least likely. The vulnerability of other watersheds depended on the combined occurrence of wetlands, runoff potential, road-stream crossing density, and the presence of cold and cool water fisheries. As the occurrence of these attributes increased, so did overall watershed vulnerability to climate changes. RECOMMENDATIONS Wetlands There is a need to conduct much more comprehensive wetland modeling with downscaled data from additional GCMs, scenarios, and locations to verify and refine the preliminary results described above. Modeling should also be conducted for a variety of bogs with different wetland and contributing watershed areas. Other wetland types, including vernal ponds, fens, and weak fens, should be modeled and evaluated for their vulnerability to climate change. Existing mapping that includes wetland units, such as Wisconsin Wetland Inventory, WISCLAND and Forest Service stand inventory, is inadequate to fully evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on wetlands because it does not adequately characterize water source and flow regimes. In addition, this mapping frequently does not include vernal ponds, does not incorporate watershed divides through wetlands, and may have inaccuracies due to limited field verification. National Forest ecological land type inventory mapping provides the most accurate information, but is limited to areas within the National Forest boundary. Wetland inventories and mapping should be upgraded as soon as to solve these shortcomings and to allow more accurate determination of wetland vulnerability to climate change. 262 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) If the above recommendations are completed, the results should be used to identify and develop more specific adaptations to minimize the impact of climate change on wetlands. Groundwater Recharge More comprehensive soil water balance modeling should be conducted with downscaled data from additional GCMs, scenarios, and locations to verify and refine the preliminary results described above. These results could then be incorporated into groundwater flow modeling to predict effects on aquifers, groundwater flow paths, and surface waters dependent on groundwater flow. Once such groundwater modeling is completed, the results need to be evaluated with regard to potential effects on important groundwater-dependent resources such as cold water streams, wetland fens, groundwater-fed lakes, and water supply wells. Use the results from the above activities to identify and develop more specific actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change on watersheds and water resources. Infrastructure-Culverts There is a need to conduct hydrologic modeling using the WICCI downscaled daily precipitation data and a variety of watershed conditions to more accurately determine potential increases in flood flows associated with the projected changes in future climate. The CNNF should support such work to the extent practicable. The CNNF should conduct additional analyses of culverts. The evaluation should determine where sizing to bankfull channel width will adequately adapt to climate change and also assess aquatic organism passage and channel morphology. The CNNF should continue to size stream crossing structures using stream simulation guidelines. Structures should be sized to at least match minimum bankfull width and pass the 100-year and preferably 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:
Page 216 and 217: Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 230 and 231: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?