ArcGIS REST Services Directory Login | Get Token
Home > services > r03 > r03_ARCCVA_01 (MapServer) > ARCCVA API Reference
JSON

Layer: ARCCVA (ID: 0)

Name: ARCCVA

Display Field: HU_12_NAME

Type: Feature Layer

Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon

Description: Analysis Overview As with most climate change vulnerability assessments, the ARCCVA was designed to provide information on the relative risk and, conversely, the priority needs of the region and to complement agency and Regional needs and conventions at a subwatershed scale including landscape prioritization, Shared Stewardship, and watershed prioritization under the Watershed Condition Framework. The ARCCVA analysis examined coldwater fish habitat and warmwater/riparian habitats based on three different aspects of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity: o Exposure – The climatic or ecological forces affecting the target ecosystems or their elements within an area of interest o Sensitivity – The known or predicted susceptibility of target ecosystems or their elements to a given level of exposure o Adaptive Capacity: The potential of target ecosystems or elements to further cope with a given level of exposure Measures of exposure were further delineated based on if the vulnerability was due to future climate or intrinsic vulnerability. Sensitivity and adaptive capacity metrics were based on intrinsic vulnerability. The ARCCVA leveraged multiple data sources to represent current and anticipated risk, involving the rescaling, analysis, and integration of 23 metrics (Figure 2) representing the base components of vulnerability (Friggens et al. 2013, Glick et al. 2011). These metrics were then combined to arrive at a vulnerability component score and ultimately a vulnerability rating. For each of the 23 metrics (Figure 2) spatial data were identified relevant to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to represent characteristics of risk and resilience within each subwatershed. Riparian and Warmwater Habitat The majority of subwatersheds in the study area are considered riparian/warmwater systems (Figure 1). These include watersheds with perennial and intermittent/ephemeral stream segments. Because several of the metrics used in the vulnerability rating by this assessment relate to perennial waters, watersheds with perennial features inherently have more metrics/indicators influencing their vulnerability. To account for this difference between watersheds with and without perennial segments, vulnerability class ratings are classified as low, moderate, or high and perennial or non-perennial. Only those watersheds with perennial stream segments as designated in the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) are rated for the perennial metrics. The authors acknowledge that perennial springs, seeps and smaller flowing stream segments may be present in some watersheds deemed non-perennial. Where they occur, these features can have outsized ecological importance and should be considered accordingly. However, the information available at the time of this assessment precluded rating the perennial metrics for these settings. Riparian/Warmwater Climate Change Vulnerability (climate expressed) Multifactor scoring was used to determine the vulnerability rating for riparian/warmwater climate-expressed vulnerability (future climate). The metrics used in determining this rating are flow volume, flow timing, and temperature (Figure 2). Additionally, the upland CCVA rating for a given watershed influenced the rating. The climate-expressed vulnerability ratings (Table 1) for riparian/warmwater watersheds were provided for perennial watersheds only (Figure 3). For intermittent and ephemeral watersheds, the CCVA rating alone provides an overall climate vulnerability rating (low, moderate, high). Riparian/Warmwater Overall Vulnerability The overall vulnerability ratings for riparian/warmwater used a full suite of intrinsic and climate expressed metric scores (Figure 2). Overall vulnerability utilizes the combined rating for both impact (exposure + sensitivity) and adaptive capacity (Table 2). Because adaptive capacity represents the ability of the system to absorb and adjust to change, it has a compensatory effect in the overall vulnerability rating so that overall vulnerability can be expressed as exposure plus sensitivity and minus adaptive capacity. If the combined numeric score of overall vulnerability (impact minus adaptive capacity) is less than 0 then the watershed was rated as low vulnerability. These watersheds have higher adaptive capacity and are therefore considered to have lower overall vulnerability. If the combined score numeric was greater than 0 but less than 2, then the watershed was rated as moderate vulnerability. These watersheds have greater impact scores from exposure and sensitivity (impact) than adaptive capacity and therefore represent elevated climate change vulnerability. Where the combined score was greater than 2 the watershed was rated as high vulnerability. For these watersheds, the impact score was far greater than any metric for adaptive capacity to represent the highest overall climate change vulnerability relative to other watersheds. Coldwater Habitat Coldwater habitat vulnerability ratings were only developed for subwatersheds with perennial segments that have contemporary water temperatures to support coldwater species (. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, Albuquerque NM. 20 pp. References Friggens, M.M., K.E. Bagne, D.M. Finch, D. Falk, F.J. Triepke, and A. Lynch. 2013. Review and recommendations for climate change vulnerability assessment approaches with examples from the Southwest. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-309. Fort Collins CO. 106 pp. Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson. 2011. Scanning the conservation horizon: A guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. National Wildlife Federation technical guide . Washington, DC. 168 pp. Mott Lacroix, K.E., E. Tapia, and A. Springer. 2017. Environmental flows in the desert rivers of the United States and Mexico: Synthesis of available data and gap analysis. Journal of Arid Environments 140: 67-78. Smith, D.M., and M.M. Friggens. 2017. A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of coldwater fish habitat and riparian corridors in the intermountain West. USDA Forest Service technical report available online . Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO. 185 pp. Triepke, FJ, EH Muldavin, and MM Wahlberg. 2019. Using climate projections to assess ecosystem vulnerability at scales relevant to managers. Ecosphere,10(9), p.e02854.

Copyright Text:

Default Visibility: true

MaxRecordCount: 2000

Supported Query Formats: JSON, geoJSON, PBF

Min Scale: 0.0

Max Scale: 0.0

Supports Advanced Queries: true

Supports Statistics: true

Has Labels: false

Can Modify Layer: true

Can Scale Symbols: false

Use Standardized Queries: true

Supports Datum Transformation: true

Extent:
Drawing Info: Advanced Query Capabilities:
HasZ: false

HasM: false

Has Attachments: false

HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText

Type ID Field: null

Fields:
Supported Operations:   Query   Query Attachments   Query Analytic   Generate Renderer   Return Updates

  Iteminfo   Thumbnail   Metadata