watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) that depicts hypothesized causes, effects, and ecological interactions) can be readily modified to reflect new information or differences in perceptions about key relationships (Figure 4). Outcomes also are expressed as probabilities, so uncertainty is explicit. Bayesian belief networks (BBN) were constructed through a series of meetings with Boise and Sawtooth Forest biologists and the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 2004 to identify what baseline condition we believed possible when multiple indicators and pathways had certain functionality outcomes. Conceptual models (boxand-arrow diagrams) that depicted the hypothesized causal relationships were developed to show how each indicator resulted in pathway determinations and specific pathway outcomes resulted in an overall physical or biological baseline condition. Each BBN network variable or “node” was described as a set of discrete states that represented possible conditions or values, given the node’s definition. Arrows represent dependence or a cause-and-effect relationship between corresponding nodes. Conditional dependencies among nodes were represented by conditional probability tables (CPTs) that quantify the combined response of each node to its contributing nodes, along with the uncertainty in that response. The BBN was implemented in the modeling shell Netica software (Norsys Software Corp). Key model assumptions included: Figure 4. Bayesian belief network for determining overall physical condition from the six matrix pathways. • All independent variables (Parent Nodes) in each model exert some influence on the dependent variables (Daughter Nodes). There are no “inert” variables in the Bayesian belief networks and influence diagrams. • Some variables may exert greater influence than others. For example, large pools and substrate embeddedness were “weighted” more heavily than four other WCIs in the belief network developed for evaluating the Aquatic Habitat pathway functional rating. In other words, the probabilities in the relation table reflect a belief that the functional ratings for large pools and substrate embeddedness exert greater influence on the overall Aquatic Habitat pathway than any of the other four WCIs. • Where all independent variables (parent node are functioning appropriately, there is zero probability that the overall pathway/threat (daughter node) will be functioning at risk. Conversely, where all independent variables (parent nodes) are functioning at risk, there is zero probability that the overall pathway/threat (daughter node) will be functioning appropriately. • The probability that the overall pathway (daughter node) is functioning appropriately decreases incrementally with departure from the FA condition in its parent nodes. Conversely, the probability that the overall pathway or risk (daughter node) is functioning at unacceptable risk (FUR) decreases incrementally with improvement from the FUR condition in its parent nodes. 162 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Sawtooth National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Intermountain Region (R4) Figure 5. Overall physical baseline condition of subwatersheds within the Upper Salmon subbasin on the Sawtooth NRA. Red areas have conditions “functioning at unacceptable risk,” yellow areas have conditions “functioning at risk,” and green areas have conditions “functioning appropriately.” 163 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: Assessment of Watershed Vulnerabili
Page 118 and 119: White River National Forest Watersh
Page 136 and 137: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: Shasta Trinity National Forest Wate
Page 216 and 217:
Umatilla National Forest Watershed
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Ouachita National Forest Watershed
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Chugach National Forest Watershed V
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
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?