watervulnerability

Recommendations

Info

Shasta Trinity National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) Figure 16. Ranking of watershed sensitivity based on snow dominated runoff processes. Higher numerical scores represent higher percentage of the watershed with snow. Combining Values, Exposure (Stressor) and Sensitivity A rating of each element (resource value, exposure, and sensitivity) was derived for each watershed, and these scores divided into fifths to obtain relative ratings of 1-5, based solely on values on the Shasta Trinity National Forest. They do not represent ecological thresholds. A “one” represents the lowest value (or stressor). A “five” corresponds to the highest value (or stressor). Each of the ratings is the combination of several elements. For example, the aquatic features resource combined information on both springs and lakes (see Table 3). The scores were then added together using the weighted average approach from the WVA (USDA 2011) to obtain a total “resource value” score, a total “exposure” score and a total sensitivity score. The process of combining two data sets into one combined ranking is displayed by using both Table 3 and Figure 17. For example, the final “value score” in Table 3 (6 th column from the left) is multiplied by 10. Refer next to the matrix (Figure 17) to find the intersection of this “resource value” score (10 to 50) and the corresponding “exposure” score (1 to 5); this intersection (labeled from Low to High) represents the combined “value/exposure” ranking. Again, a “low” combined score is represented by the number 1, up 200 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change
Shasta Trinity National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) to “high” as a 5. The process is repeated, merging this new combined data set with the sensitivity ranking. This is done to produce an overall score of vulnerability that includes values, stressors, and sensitivity. Subbasins Drying Lake Density Rank Spring Density Rank Aquatic Features Susceptible to Loss from Drying Values at Risk Exposure Sum of Values Weighted Value (Sum- Min/Max- Min) 1 Value Score Matrix Value Score = Value x 10 NetMap Thermal Exposure Rank 2030 A2 Global Climate Model Rank 201 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change Sum of Exposure Weighted Exposure (Sum-Min /Max-Min) Exposure Score Combined Value & Exposure Cottonwood 1 2 3 0.1 1 10 1 1 2 0.3 2 1 Cow 4 5 9 0.9 5 50 1 1 0.0 1 3 Lower Pit River 3 2 5 0.4 2 20 5 5 10 1.0 5 4 McCloud 1 4 5 0.4 2 20 4 5 9 0.9 5 4 Sacramento Headwaters 2 5 7 0.6 4 40 2 4 6 0.5 3 4 Sacramento/ Clear 4 1 5 0.4 2 20 1 5 6 0.5 3 2 Shasta 5 5 10 1.0 5 50 4 4 0.8 4 5 South Fork Trinity River 2 3 5 0.4 2 20 3 3 6 0.5 3 2 Trinity 3 3 6 0.5 3 30 2 4 6 0.5 3 3 Table 3. Combining multiple attributes into final scores (sample table) High Exposure Low Rank 5 4 3 2 1 Rank High 50 H H H MH M 50 High 40 H H MH M ML 40 30 MH MH M ML ML 30 20 MH M ML L L 20 Low 10 M ML L L L 10 Low Rank 5 4 3 2 1 Rank High Exposure Low Values Figure 17. Example of matrix used to combine resource and sensitivity (stressor) ratings. Results shown in pink received overall rating of “5”; those in light blue received a rating of “1”. Value Exposure Score 2 It is important to note that this very simplistic model has many limitations. Other factors and more refined datasets could be employed to improve this model. The results presented are a first cut at identifying and analyzing factors that can be considered in evaluating watershed vulnerability to climate change. 1 This calculation is based on the weighted average approach used in the Watershed Vulnerability Assessment. Technical Guide USDA 2011. ( 5= >0.8, 4=0.6 to 0.8, 3= 0.4 to 0.6, 2=0.2 to 0.4 and 1 =
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: Coconino National Forest Watershed
Page 164 and 165: Sawtooth National Forest Watershed
Page 190 and 191: 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 254 and 255:
Chequamegon-‐Nicolet National F
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?