watervulnerability
watervulnerability watervulnerability
Coconino National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southwest Region (R3) relative assessment of risk for recreation facilities. Results of the infrastructure rating (with the location of campgrounds within 300 ft of channels) are shown in Figure 6. Water Uses Water from the forest supports domestic, livestock, wildlife and fish, recreational, and agricultural uses downstream, and all watersheds within the analysis area are highly valued for this reason. Additionally, water for domestic use is captured by and delivered from the C.C. Cragen Reservoir. Substantial surface water is stored close to its source in stockponds or tanks, where it used for stock water and wildlife purposes. Numerous agricultural diversions exist on the lower reaches of Oak, Beaver, and West Clear Creeks and the Verde River. Ratings of relative subwatershed values for water uses were based on a combination of all these factors. The amount of water (acre ft) diverted in each watershed was determined, and subwatersheds with no diversions were given a low value, watersheds with less than 500 acre ft diverted (annually) were classed as moderate, and those with greater than 500 acre ft were rated as high. GIS was used to obtain a count of tanks per subwatershed. Subwatersheds were divided into three classes: those subwatersheds with 16 or fewer tanks were given the lowest value, those with 17 to 32 had moderate value, and those with more than 32 received the highest rating. Tanks and diversions were given equal weight, and were combined to produce a single water resource score. These values were then divided into thirds, with the highest third of subwatersheds given a rating of “high.” Finally, all subwatersheds that contribute flow to the C.C. Cragen reservoir were rated as high. The results of the water-uses rating are displayed in Figure 7. Riparian and Spring Habitats Relative to other areas of the country, the amount of aquatic and riparian habitat (including springs) on the CNF is limited. Riparian areas represent 0.7% of the area on the Forest. These spatially limited areas provide habitat for 80% of the Forest’s bird species, including neotropical species. Eighty percent of the Forest’s vertebrate species depend on riparian habitat for at least half of their life cycles. These habitats are vitally important as habitat for numerous reptiles and amphibians not listed above and other aquatic organisms, such as macroinvertebrates. Springs also provide habitat for aquatic and riparian species, including numerous endemic macroinvertebrate species. The relative value of subwatersheds for this resource was based on two data sources: miles of riparian habitat and the number of springs. GIS was used to determine the miles of riparian habitat in each subwatershed. As with other attributes, values for each watershed were ranked and then grouped into thirds, with subwatersheds with the most riparian habitat (>17 miles) given the highest scores. Forest GIS data for springs were used to determine the number of springs per watershed; these were then grouped into thirds. A riparian-spring rating was obtained by combining the subwatershed scores for the individual factors, with the riparian value given twice as much weight as the spring rating. To be clear, ratings of “high” were given a score of 3, and low ratings were given a score of 2. The combined scores were then ranked and divided into thirds, with the highest third rated as high value. 138 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Coconino National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southwest Region (R3) Figures 7 and 8. Relative Ratings of Water Uses and Riparian and Spring Habitats 139 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
- Page 92 and 93: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 94 and 95: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 96 and 97: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 98 and 99: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 100 and 101: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 102 and 103: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 104 and 105: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 106 and 107: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 108 and 109: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 110 and 111: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 112 and 113: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 114 and 115: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunniso
- Page 116 and 117: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 120 and 121: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 122 and 123: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 124 and 125: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 126 and 127: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 128 and 129: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 130 and 131: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 132 and 133: White River National Forest Watersh
- Page 134 and 135: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
- Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 138 and 139: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 140 and 141: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 144 and 145: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 146 and 147: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 148 and 149: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 150 and 151: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 152 and 153: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 154 and 155: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 156 and 157: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 158 and 159: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 160 and 161: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 162 and 163: Coconino National Forest Watershed
- Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 166 and 167: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 168 and 169: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 170 and 171: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 172 and 173: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 174 and 175: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 176 and 177: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 178 and 179: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 180 and 181: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 182 and 183: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 184 and 185: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 186 and 187: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 188 and 189: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
- Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Coconino National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Southwest Region (R3)<br />
relative assessment of risk for recreation facilities. Results of the infrastructure rating (with the location of<br />
campgrounds within 300 ft of channels) are shown in Figure 6.<br />
Water Uses<br />
Water from the forest supports domestic, livestock, wildlife and fish, recreational, and agricultural uses<br />
downstream, and all watersheds within the analysis area are highly valued for this reason. Additionally,<br />
water for domestic use is captured by and delivered from the C.C. Cragen Reservoir. Substantial surface<br />
water is stored close to its source in stockponds or tanks, where it used for stock water and wildlife<br />
purposes. Numerous agricultural diversions exist on the lower reaches of Oak, Beaver, and West Clear<br />
Creeks and the Verde River.<br />
Ratings of relative subwatershed values for water uses were based on a combination of all these factors.<br />
The amount of water (acre ft) diverted in each watershed was determined, and subwatersheds with no<br />
diversions were given a low value, watersheds with less than 500 acre ft diverted (annually) were classed<br />
as moderate, and those with greater than 500 acre ft were rated as high. GIS was used to obtain a count of<br />
tanks per subwatershed. Subwatersheds were divided into three classes: those subwatersheds with 16 or<br />
fewer tanks were given the lowest value, those with 17 to 32 had moderate value, and those with more<br />
than 32 received the highest rating. Tanks and diversions were given equal weight, and were combined to<br />
produce a single water resource score. These values were then divided into thirds, with the highest third<br />
of subwatersheds given a rating of “high.” Finally, all subwatersheds that contribute flow to the C.C.<br />
Cragen reservoir were rated as high. The results of the water-uses rating are displayed in Figure 7.<br />
Riparian and Spring Habitats<br />
Relative to other areas of the country, the amount of aquatic and riparian habitat (including springs) on<br />
the CNF is limited. Riparian areas represent 0.7% of the area on the Forest. These spatially limited areas<br />
provide habitat for 80% of the Forest’s bird species, including neotropical species. Eighty percent of the<br />
Forest’s vertebrate species depend on riparian habitat for at least half of their life cycles. These habitats<br />
are vitally important as habitat for numerous reptiles and amphibians not listed above and other aquatic<br />
organisms, such as macroinvertebrates. Springs also provide habitat for aquatic and riparian species,<br />
including numerous endemic macroinvertebrate species.<br />
The relative value of subwatersheds for this resource was based on two data sources: miles of riparian<br />
habitat and the number of springs. GIS was used to determine the miles of riparian habitat in each<br />
subwatershed. As with other attributes, values for each watershed were ranked and then grouped into<br />
thirds, with subwatersheds with the most riparian habitat (>17 miles) given the highest scores. Forest GIS<br />
data for springs were used to determine the number of springs per watershed; these were then grouped<br />
into thirds. A riparian-spring rating was obtained by combining the subwatershed scores for the individual<br />
factors, with the riparian value given twice as much weight as the spring rating. To be clear, ratings of<br />
“high” were given a score of 3, and low ratings were given a score of 2. The combined scores were then<br />
ranked and divided into thirds, with the highest third rated as high value.<br />
138 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change