watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) Figure 14. Relative vulnerability of groundwater recharge to climate change for HUC-6 watersheds on Chequamegon-Nicolet NF Runoff from the groundwater watersheds is dominated by groundwater discharge and they were considered to have low vulnerability. There were 50 HUC-6s classified as groundwater runoff. They were located predominantly in outwash sands on Lakewood/Laona RD, northern Eagle River/Florence RD, and western Great Divide RD. The estimated average annual future and historic potential groundwater recharge for these watersheds was 10.1 and 9.4 inches, resulting in an average increase of 0.7 inches (Table 4). These watersheds are most likely to provide refugia for groundwater-dependent resources such as brook trout and other cold water stream fish. They may be an area to focus adaptive management for these resources. Runoff from mixed watersheds includes a combination of groundwater and surface water and these watersheds were considered to have moderate vulnerability. There were 59 mixed HUC-6s located on Park Falls units, eastern Great Divide RD, and Eagle River/Florence RD. The estimated average annual future and historic potential groundwater recharge for these watersheds was 8.6 and 8.1 inches, resulting in an average increase of 0.6 inches (Table 4). Some of these watersheds may have a few cold water streams in local areas where soil and topography provide adequate groundwater recharge and discharge and these streams may be vulnerable yet important potential refugia. Runoff from surface watersheds is dominated by surface runoff processes and these watersheds were considered to be most vulnerable. There were 37 watersheds classified as surface runoff; 30 were 252 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Eastern Region (R9) complete HUC-6s and seven were split watersheds. These were located in the moraines on the Medford unit, the clay plain along Lake Superior, the southern half of Park Falls unit, southwest portion of Eagle River/Florence RD, and central portion of Great Divide RD. The estimated average annual future and historic potential groundwater recharge for these watersheds was 7.0 and 6.6 inches, resulting in an average increase of 0.4 inches (Table 4). With a few exceptions, these watersheds will contain very few surface waters that are substantially fed by groundwater and these will be the most susceptible to climate change impacts. The exceptions are the split watersheds on the Bayfield Peninsula, which have low groundwater recharge themselves but many of whose main streams are heavily fed by groundwater from upslope groundwater recharge watersheds and an occasional isolated coldwater stream. Infrastructure While it is not possible at this time to predict changes in flood frequency and magnitude due to climate change, the WICCI downscaled projections provide sufficient evidence that the frequency and intensity of large precipitation events will increase and are likely to increase floods. The WICCI Stormwater Working Group reported that more frequent and severe flooding in rural areas are likely from the projected increases in rainfall and shifting precipitation patterns that favor more rain during periods of low evapotranspiration and high soil moisture which result in lower infiltration rates (Potter et al. 2010). Maintaining the current infrastructure, minimizing natural resource impacts, and reducing life cycle maintenance costs will logically require road crossing designs that will last at least 75 and preferably 100 years. Structures installed in the near future must last until the late 21 st century and survive future climate changes. The CNNF 2004 Forest Plan revision included a guideline that all road and trail stream crossings be designed to pass the 100-yr flood (USDA Forest Service 2004). Since 2004, the CNNF has attempted to design all crossings to pass the 100-year flood with the headwater-to-depth (HW/D) ratio of less than 1 (i.e., water level below the top of the culvert) to prevent pressurized flow or surcharging in the structure and to provide freeboard. In 2008, the US Forest Service published a guide for simulating stream channels at road and trail stream crossings to maintain or restore ecological connectivity (USDA Forest Service 2008). This design procedure also maximizes structure life and minimizes maintenance requirements. Using this guide, a structure width is selected that will allow the construction of a channel with bankfull width and stable banks, and a structure height is selected that will prevent pressurized flow and maintain sediment transport. In recent years, the CNNF has used two procedures to design road and trail stream crossings: no-slope with tailwater control, and stream simulation. Both procedures consider bankfull width and pass the 100yr flood with 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: 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 306 and 307:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 308 and 309:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
show all

watervulnerability

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?