watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) Figure 12. Difference in potential groundwater recharge average 2046-2065 minus 1971-1990, Park Falls Unit, Chequamegon-Nicolet NF 250 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) GW Recharge Difference (inches/yr) 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 -‐0.25 A B C D Water Hydrologic Soil Group Figure 13. Average annual difference in potential groundwater recharge by hydrologic soil group These estimates need to be viewed cautiously; but in spite of these shortcomings, the regressions are strong, they are consistent with the modeled results by HSG, and the climatic differences across the Forest are not large. Therefore, they should provide reasonable estimates for the entire Forest until more comprehensive modeling can be conducted. The number, location, and relative vulnerability of the four HUC-6 classes are presented in Figure 14. The groundwater recharge watersheds have few or no streams, very high permeability, and are entirely groundwater recharge zones that were considered to be resilient or to have very low vulnerability to impacts from the projected climate change. There were 12 watersheds in this class; nine were split HUC- 6s and three were complete HUC-6s. All were located on the Bayfield Peninsula. The estimated average annual future and historic potential groundwater recharge for these watersheds were 13.4 and 12.4 inches, respectively, resulting in an average increase of 1.0 inch (Table 4). These watersheds may provide the best opportunities on the Forest to implement adaptive management practices to respond to climate change for resources other than water. HUC-6 # of Est. Avg. Annual Potential Watershed HUC-6 Groundwater Recharge (inches) Class Watersheds 2046-2065 1971-1990 Difference Groundwater Recharge 12 13.4 12.4 1.0 Groundwater Runoff 50 10.1 9.4 0.7 Mixed Runoff 59 8.6 8.1 0.6 Surface Runoff 37 7.0 6.6 0.4 Table 4. Estimated Average Potential Groundwater Recharge for the historic (1971-1990) and future (2046-2065) time periods for HUC-6 watersheds on the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF 251 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 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: 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 304 and 305:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?