MANAGING THE ROLE OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS IN...
1
Fine-Grained Soil/ Sediment Fine Bed Coarse Bed Water Column Estuaries Mudflats Coastal Floodplain Upland Floodplain Wetlands River and Nav Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs Salmonids/ cyprinids Column Feeding Fish Bottom Feeding Fish Invertebrates Coarse Bed Invertebrates Fine Bed Diatoms Coarse Bed Diatoms Fine Bed Macrophytes Coarse Bed Macrophytes Fine Bed Fisheries Supporting/ Regulating 1˚ Production Stabilization/ Habitat maintenance Provisioning/ game Cultural/ Recreation Water Quality Water Conveyance and Storage In Water/ Bank Structures Navigation Flood Defence/ Coastal Defence Buried Contaminants, Artefacts, Stratigraphy, Fossils Fine Bed Coarse Bed Water Column Estuaries Mudflats Coastal Floodplain Upland Floodplain Wetlands River and Nav Channel/Bank Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs Fine-Grained Soil/ Sediment Provisioning/ Water Regulating/ flood Control; stabilization Resource access/ Transport Regulating/ Waste Control Cultural/ Archival MANAGING THE ROLE OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS IN SUSTAINING LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: TOOLS AND EXAMPLES Sabine E. Apitz 1,2 and Samantha Deacon 2 1 SEA Environmental Decisions Ltd; 2 Environ UK, Ltd Underlying processes and tools Integration Synthesis Decision Context Site-specific models evaluate how landscape management and intrinsic conditions affect status Water Framework Directive Programs of Action Systematic regional risk model ”maps” risk pathways from sites to catchments as a function of region, industry, endpoint, an habitat To protect endpoints within regions and river basins, we must understand and manage sediment inputs and transport at the field scale Catchment/ Basin Scale Risk Region Scale Pixel/ Field Scale Catchment/ Basin Scale Risk Region Scale Pixel/ Field Scale hierarchical patch dynamics paradigm (HPDP)* approach was used to address multi- scale interactions Crop management options Risk Reduction Marginal Abatement Cost (£/unit risk reduced) -ve +ve Livestock management options Changing tillage method Exclude cropping activities Retrofit urban drainage Tertiary treatment at SWT 0 Desired risk reduction Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Integrated in situ studies examine the responses of benthic ecosystem structure and function to natural and simulated perturbations Integrated Sediment Disturber Biogeochemical lander (MPIMM) (AWI) Lander with microprofiler and conceptual drawing (LCSE) In situ image of organism effects on oxygen dynamics (U- COP) Fisheries and ICZM Policy Driver – regional effort 2001 Response: impact assessment of •Inter-annual variability •Zero trawling scenario •Management changes – fleet and effort redistribution Pressure 2001 Pressure 2002 y = 36.248eR= 0.7523 Impact model State 2001 State 2002 Impact – difference 2001-2002 GIS impact scenario testing on regional carbon budgets - trawling Service impacts of policy scenarios are modelled and mapped regionally using GIS tools Mapping and zoning for Marine Spatial Planning Costs and benefits of various landscape and catchment management policies and scenarios can be compared 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 9 8 11 12 12 5 13 Hg 1 3 5 13 10 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Before 1 month 1 year Evidence score Benthic exposure Primary producer effects Primary producer exposure Human health exposure Microbial effects Microbial exposure Pelagic exposure Benthic effects Benthic function Fisheries Regulating - contaminants Primary production Such studies are helping inform lagoon-wide sustainability decisions in Venice Dredged material and habitat restoration Aquatic Service Provision Aquatic Service Provision Aquatic Service Provision Aquatic Service Provision Landscape Biophysical Conditions Landscape Management Soil Status Sediment Status Aquatic Biophysical Conditions Aquatic Management Landscape Ecosystem Services Aquatic Ecosystem Services Water Status Changes in ecosystem service providers over time are put in the context of ecological models- resistance and resilience are evaluated using an ecosystem-based adaptation of a weight of evidence framework Recommendations The impacts of various actions, decisions and policies on ESS are complex; they should be evaluated in the context of relevant objectives, scales and drivers The selection of the appropriate mix to tools for a project should be driven by context, scale and scope of the questions at hand Stakeholder involvement is essential; this requires consistent and transparent language and clear links between models, objectives and outcomes There is a need for more rigorous evaluation and communication of uncertainty in such projects; this should drive decision formulation and adaptive management 1 SEA Enviromental Decisions Ltd., 1 South Cottages, The Ford; Little Hadham; Hertfordshire; SG11 2AT Tel: +44 (0)1279 771890; [email protected] 2 ENVIRON UK Ltd.; www.environcorp.com Box House, Box, Wiltshire, SN13 8AA Tel: +44 (0)1225 748420; [email protected] Coastal management can be considered in terms of overall spatial planning, maximising ESS provision considering multiple uses Models (informed by site-specific assessment and in situ research) predict impacts and interactions Sediment dynamics operate at multiple scales; effective sediment models must address this in layers of information Integrated studies of ecosystem response over time following habitat restoration using dredged material Potential impact pathways for suspended and deposited fine-grained, clean sediment on a range of biotic and abiotic endpoints as a function of exposure location, and the resultant links with ecosystem services (ESS). Arrows between impact location and endpoint in green indicate desirable effects; those in red indicate undesirable effects. These desirable and undesirable impacts on a range of ESS must be balanced in management decisions and policy (b) (a) (c) SUMMARY While there are still great uncertainties about the links between ecosystem biophysical drivers, biotic community structure and ecosystem functions and services, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is being applied in a rapidly expanding number of decision, management and policy frameworks. As emergent properties of ecosystems, ESS are integrators of effects from multiple stressors and biophysical interactions at a range of spatial and temporal scales. ESS thus have the potential to provide a “common coin” between environmental issues, helping us join up various programs for a more integrated and sustainable management of the environment. Landscape management to optimize preferred ESS has a range of impacts on soil/sediment and water status. The dynamic nature of the hydrologic system means that landscape management affects the viability and sustainability of aquatic ecosystem services (ESS) at the watershed scale (a); but management of rivers and other water bodies can also affect both aquatic and landscape biophysical conditions (b). As mobile connecting media between various parts of the ecosystem via the hydrocycle, soils, sediments and water play both positive and negative roles in the viability and sustainability of social, economic, and ecological objectives throughout river corridors, estuaries and coastal systems (c provides examples for clean, fine-grained sediment). How these roles are interpreted depends upon whether biophysical status is appropriate to the needs of a given endpoint; ultimately, trade-offs between endpoints, services and locations must be identified if better decisions are to be made. The complex natural and anthropogenic interactions between landscape management and aquatic ecosystem service viability and sustainability create multi-scale, multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary problems that will only become more difficult as climate change affects hydrodynamics dynamics, landscape and coastal use. However, a number of tools and approaches are emerging that allow for the systematic consideration of ESS within assessment, management and regulatory frameworks. While approaches vary, the ESS concept provides a conceptual thread between underlying measures and models, cross-scale and model integration, synthesis from complex processes to ESS-linked outcomes, and translation into a decision context. The table below illustrates examples using a range of tools, including adaptations of regional and ecological risk assessment models, being developed in support of river basin and coastal management plans, to help “map” and quantify, often in a spatially explicit manner, the dynamic interactions of landscape and aquatic management options on soil/sediment status and function, and, ultimately, on a diverse range of endpoints and services at various scales. Examples of the Integration of ESS into Landscape, River and Coastal Decision Frameworks • A: Starting point • B: Ecological status resistant to biophysical pressure • C: Tipping point • D: Ecological status decrease due to biophysical pressure • E: No recovery when biophysical status improved (irreversible damage) • F: Partial resilience/recovery when biophysical status improved • G: Complete resilience/recovery when biophysical status improved • H: Enhanced structure, function or service • I: Net biophysical status improvement Heavy Machinery Score High Density Animal Score (Other Factor Score) Low Density Animal Score Heavy Machinery? High Density Animals? Low Density Animals? (Other Factors?) Heavy Machinery? High Density Animals? Low Density Animals? (Other Factors?) Heavy Machinery? High Density Animals? Low Density Animals? (Other Factors?) Compaction Score lookup table Sum Compaction Score Lookup Table Threshold Compaction-based Runoff Score Compaction Vulnerability (Other Factor Score) (Other Factor Score) Polytunnels? (Other Factors?) Runoff Score lookup table Sum Runoff Score Polytunnel Score Runoff Vulnerability High Density Animal Score High Density Animal Score (Other Factor Score) (Other Factor Score) Low Density Animal Score High Density Animals? Low Density Animals? (Other Factors?) High Density Animals? High Density Animals? Low Density Animals? Low Density Animals? (Other Factors?) (Other Factors?) Poaching Score lookup table Sum Poaching Score Poaching Vulnerability Sum Water Erosion Score Exposed Soil in Winter? Exposed Soil in Winter? Poor Soil Structure? Field Drainage? Field Drainage? Crop Cover Factor? Woodland Harvest? Compaction Erosion Score Soil Structure Score Field Drainage Score Crop Cover Score Woodland Harvest Score Water Erosion Score lookup table Process Total Threshold Comparison Process Total Threshold Comparison Exposed Soil Score Runoff Erosion Score Poaching Erosion Score Erosion Vulnerability Connectivity factor? Connectivity factor? Field Area (hecares? Multiply Field Production Score Field Area (hectares? Buffer? yes/? no Source Strength Score Buffer interception calculation Wind Speed Score Wind Speed Score Soil Disturbance Score Soil Disturbance Score Crop Cover Score Average Wind Speed? Crop Cover Factor? Dry Soil Disturbed? Average Wind Speed? Average Wind Speed? Crop Cover Factor? Crop Cover Factor? Dry Soil Disturbed? Dry Soil Disturbed? Wind Erosion Score lookup table Wind Erosion Score Wind Erosion Vulnerability Slope Shape Score Slope Shape Score Slope Percent? Slope Shape? Slope risk lookup table Slope risk lookup table Average Slope Score Slope percent Score Annual Rainfall? Rainfall Score Rainfall risk lookup table Rainfall risk lookup table Multiply Water Production Score Add Sediment Production Score Slope Shape Score Slope Shape Score Slope Percent? Slope Shape? Slope risk lookup table Slope risk lookup table Average Slope Score Slope percent Score Annual Rainfall? Rainfall Score Rainfall risk lookup table Rainfall risk lookup table Multiply Water Production Score Add Sediment Production Score SC CFF BF IF IC D M WF WQ NV CD WS WCC MG4 P CS -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 SC CFF BF IF IC D M WF WQ NV CD WS WCC MG4 P CS Endpoint RRA RRB RRC RRD RRE RRF Ri s ks B enefi ts Ranked, Summed and/or Graphed Risk Ranks (SSR) Source Strength Ranking Table (SSE) Source-Stressor Exposure Filters (RRC) Risk Region Connectivity Filters (ELR) Endpoint Location Ranking Table (EELE) Endpoint-Endpoint Location Exposure Filters (SEELE) Stressor- Endpoint-Endpoint Location Effects Filters Impact Type Switch (ITS) Risk Region Transfer Filter (RRT) Matrix Calculations (SedCalc) Ranked, Summed and/or Graphed Risk Ranks (SSR) Source Strength Ranking Table (SSE) Source-Stressor Exposure Filters (RRC) Risk Region Connectivity Filters (ELR) Endpoint Location Ranking Table (EELE) Endpoint-Endpoint Location Exposure Filters (SEELE) Stressor- Endpoint-Endpoint Location Effects Filters Impact Type Switch (ITS) Risk Region Connectivity Modules Impact Type Switch (ITS) Field-Scale Source Ranking Modules (including connectivity to river) Risk Region Source Rank Aggregation Upstream Input Module Risk Region Transfer Filter (RRT)
Transcript of MANAGING THE ROLE OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS IN...
Fine-GrainedSoil/
Sediment
Fine Bed
Coarse Bed
Water Column
Estuaries
Mudflats
Coastal Floodplain
UplandFloodplain
Wetlands
River and NavChannel/Bank
Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs
Salmonids/cyprinids
Column Feeding Fish
BottomFeeding Fish
InvertebratesCoarse Bed
InvertebratesFine Bed
DiatomsCoarse Bed
DiatomsFine Bed
MacrophytesCoarse Bed
MacrophytesFine Bed
Waterfowl
Fisheries
Supporting/Regulating
1˚ Production
Stabilization/Habitat maintenance
Provisioning/game
Cultural/ Recreation
WaterQuality
WaterConveyanceand Storage
In Water/Bank
Structures
Navigation
Flood Defence/Coastal Defence
BuriedContaminants,
Artefacts,Stratigraphy,
Fossils
Fine Bed
Coarse Bed
Water Column
Estuaries
Mudflats
Coastal Floodplain
UplandFloodplain
Wetlands
River and NavChannel/Bank
Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs
Fine-GrainedSoil/
Sediment
Provisioning/Water
Regulating/ floodControl; stabilization
Resource access/ Transport
Regulating/Waste Control
Cultural/ Archival
MANAGING THE ROLE OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS IN SUSTAINING LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: TOOLS AND EXAMPLES
Sabine E. Apitz1,2 and Samantha Deacon21SEA Environmental Decisions Ltd; 2Environ UK, Ltd
Underlying processes and tools Integration Synthesis Decision Context
Site-specific models evaluate how landscape management and intrinsic conditions affect status
Wat
er F
ram
ewor
k D
irect
ive
Prog
ram
s of
Act
ion
Systematic regional risk model ”maps” risk pathways from sites to catchments as a function of region, industry, endpoint, an habitat
To protect endpoints within regions and river
basins, we must understand and
manage sediment inputs and transport at
the field scale
Catchment/Basin Scale
Risk RegionScale
Pixel/Field Scale
Catchment/Basin Scale
Risk RegionScale
Pixel/Field Scale
hierarchical patch dynamics paradigm
(HPDP)* approach was used to address multi-
scale interactions
Crop management options
Risk Reduction
Marginal Abatement Cost (£/unit risk reduced)
-ve
+ve
Livestock management options
Changing tillage method
Exclude cropping activities
Retrofit urban drainage
Tertiary treatment at SWT
0
Desired risk reduction
Marginal Abatement Cost Curve
Integrated in situ studies examine the responses of
benthic ecosystem
structure and function to natural and simulated
perturbations
Int egr at ed Sed imen t Dist u r berIn t eg r at ed Sed imen t Dist u r ber
Biogeochemical lander (MPIMM)
(AWI)
Lander with microprofilerand conceptual drawing
(LCSE)
In situ image of organism effects
on oxygen dynamics (U-
COP)
Fish
erie
s an
d IC
ZM P
olic
y
1°W
1°W
0°E
0°E
1°E
1°E
2°E
2°E
3°E
3°E
4°E
4°E
5°E
5°E
6°E
6°E
7°E
7°E
51°N
52°N 52°N
53°N 53°N
54°N 54°N
55°N 55°N
Vesse l D ensityHigh Low
Driver – regional effort 2001
Response: impact assessment of•Inter-annual variability•Zero trawling scenario•Management changes – fleet and effortredistribution
Pressure 2001
Pressure 2002
y = 36.248e-1.866x
R2 = 0.7523
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Trawling pressure (satellite)
Cou
pled
den
itrifi
catio
n D
n (µ
mol
N/m
2/hr
)
Impact model
State 2001
State 2002Impact – difference 2001-2002
GIS impact scenario testing on regional carbon budgets - trawling
Service impacts of policy scenarios are modelled and mapped regionally using GIS tools
Mapping and zoning for Marine Spatial Planning
Costs and benefits of various landscape and catchment management policies and scenarios can be compared
12
3
4
4
6
7
9
8
11
12
12
5
13
Hg
Hg inorg
MMHg
DMHg
Biota
batteri
13
5
13
10
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Bef
ore
1 m
onth
1 ye
ar
Evid
ence
sco
re
Ben
thic
exp
osur
e
Prim
ary
prod
ucer
effe
cts
Prim
ary
prod
ucer
exp
osur
e
Hum
an h
ealth
expo
sure
Mic
robi
al e
ffect
s
Mic
robi
al e
xpos
ure
Pel
agic
exp
osur
e
Ben
thic
effe
cts
Bent
hic
func
tion
Fish
erie
s
Reg
ulat
ing
-co
ntam
inan
ts
Prim
ary
prod
uctio
n
Such studies are helping inform lagoon-wide sustainability decisions in VeniceD
redg
ed m
ater
ial a
nd h
abita
t res
tora
tion
Aquatic Service Provision
Aquatic Service Provision
Aquatic Service Provision
Aquatic Service Provision
LandscapeBiophysicalConditions
LandscapeManagement
SoilStatus
SedimentStatus
AquaticBiophysicalConditions
AquaticManagement
LandscapeEcosystem
Services
AquaticEcosystem
Services
WaterStatus
Changes in ecosystem service providers over time are put in the context of ecological models- resistance and resilience are evaluated using an ecosystem-based adaptation of a weight of evidence framework
RecommendationsThe impacts of various actions, decisions and policies on ESS are complex; they should be evaluated in the context of relevant objectives, scales and driversThe selection of the appropriate mix to tools for a project should be driven by context, scale and scope of the questions at handStakeholder involvement is essential; this requires consistent and transparent language and clear links between models, objectives and outcomesThere is a need for more rigorous evaluation and communication of uncertainty in such projects; this should drive decision formulation and adaptive management
1SEA Enviromental Decisions Ltd., 1 South Cottages, The Ford; Little Hadham; Hertfordshire; SG11 2ATTel: +44 (0)1279 771890; [email protected] UK Ltd.; www.environcorp.comBox House, Box, Wiltshire, SN13 8AATel: +44 (0)1225 748420; [email protected]
Coastal management can be considered in terms of overall spatial planning, maximising ESS provision considering
multiple uses
Models (informed by site-specific assessment and in situ research) predict impacts and interactions
Sediment dynamics operate at multiple scales; effective sedimentmodels must address this in layers of information
Integrated studies of ecosystem response over time following habitat restoration using dredged material
Potential impact pathways for suspended and deposited fine-grained, clean sediment on a range of biotic and abiotic endpoints as a function of exposure location, and the resultant links with ecosystem services
(ESS). Arrows between impact location and endpoint in green indicate desirable effects; those in red indicate undesirable effects. These desirable and undesirable impacts on a range of ESS must be
balanced in management decisions and policy
(b)
(a)
(c)
SUMMARYWhile there are still great uncertainties about the links between ecosystem biophysical drivers, biotic community structure and ecosystem functions and services, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is being applied in a rapidly expanding number of decision, management and policy frameworks. As emergent properties of ecosystems, ESS are integrators of effects from multiple stressors and biophysical interactions at a range of spatial and temporal scales. ESS thus have the potential to provide a “common coin” between environmental issues, helping us join up various programs for a more integrated and sustainable management of the environment. Landscape management to optimize preferred ESS has a range of impacts on soil/sediment and water status. The dynamic nature of the hydrologic system means that landscape management affects the viability and sustainability of aquatic ecosystem services (ESS) at the watershed scale (a); but management of rivers and other water bodies can also affect both aquatic and landscape biophysical conditions (b). As mobile connecting media between various parts of the ecosystem via the hydrocycle, soils, sediments and water play both positive and negative roles in the viability and sustainability of social, economic, and ecological objectives throughout river corridors, estuaries and coastal systems (c provides examples for clean, fine-grained sediment). How these roles are interpreted depends upon whether biophysical status is appropriate to the needs of a given endpoint; ultimately, trade-offs between endpoints, services and locations must be identified if better decisions are to be made. The complex natural and anthropogenic interactions between landscape management and aquatic ecosystem service viability and sustainability create multi-scale, multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary problems that will only become more difficult as climate change affects hydrodynamics dynamics, landscape and coastal use. However, a number of tools and approaches are emerging that allow for the systematic consideration of ESS within assessment, management and regulatory frameworks. While approaches vary, the ESS concept provides a conceptual thread between underlying measures and models, cross-scale and model integration, synthesis from complex processes to ESS-linked outcomes, and translation into a decision context. The table below illustrates examples using a range of tools, including adaptations of regional and ecological risk assessment models, being developed in support of river basin and coastal management plans, to help “map” and quantify, often in a spatially explicit manner, the dynamic interactions of landscape and aquatic management options on soil/sediment status and function, and, ultimately, on a diverse range of endpoints and services at various scales.
Examples of the Integration of ESS into Landscape, River and Coastal Decision Frameworks
• A: Starting point • B: Ecological status resistant to biophysical pressure • C: Tipping point • D: Ecological status decrease due to biophysical pressure• E: No recovery when biophysical status improved (irreversible
damage)• F: Partial resilience/recovery when biophysical status
improved• G: Complete resilience/recovery when biophysical status
improved• H: Enhanced structure, function or service• I: Net biophysical status improvement
Heavy Machinery
Score
High DensityAnimal Score
(Other Factor Score)
Low DensityAnimal Score
Heavy Machinery?
High DensityAnimals?
Low DensityAnimals? (Other Factors?)Heavy
Machinery?High Density
Animals?Low Density
Animals? (Other Factors?)Heavy Machinery?
High DensityAnimals?
Low DensityAnimals? (Other Factors?)
Compaction Score lookup table
Sum
CompactionScore
Lookup TableThreshold Compaction-basedRunoff Score
Compaction Vulnerability
(Other Factor Score)
(Other Factor Score)
Polytunnels? (Other Factors?)
Runoff Score lookup table
Sum
RunoffScore
PolytunnelScore
RunoffVulnerability
High DensityAnimalScore
High DensityAnimalScore
(Other Factor Score)
(Other Factor Score)
Low DensityAnimal Score
High DensityAnimals?
Low DensityAnimals? (Other Factors?)High Density
Animals?High Density
Animals?Low Density
Animals?Low Density
Animals? (Other Factors?)(Other Factors?)
Poaching Score lookup table
Sum
PoachingScore
Poaching Vulnerability
Sum
Water ErosionScore
Exposed Soil in Winter?
Exposed Soil in Winter?
Poor Soil Structure?
FieldDrainage?
FieldDrainage?
Crop CoverFactor?
WoodlandHarvest?
CompactionErosionScore
Soil Structure
Score
Field Drainage
Score
Crop CoverScore
WoodlandHarvest
Score
Water Erosion Score lookup table
Process Total Threshold ComparisonProcess Total Threshold Comparison
Exposed Soil Score
RunoffErosion
Score
Poaching Erosion
Score
Erosion Vulnerability
Connectivity factor?
Connectivity factor?
Field Area(hecares?
Multiply
FieldProduction Score
Field Area(hectares?
Buffer?
yes/?no
Source Strength Score
Buffer interception calculation
Wind SpeedScore
Wind SpeedScore
Soil Disturbance
Score
Soil Disturbance
Score
Crop Cover Score
AverageWind Speed?
Crop CoverFactor?
Dry SoilDisturbed?
AverageWind Speed?
AverageWind Speed?
Crop CoverFactor?
Crop CoverFactor?
Dry SoilDisturbed?
Dry SoilDisturbed?
Wind Erosion Score lookup table
Sum
Wind ErosionScore
Wind Erosion Vulnerability
Slope ShapeScore
Slope ShapeScore
Slope Percent? Slope Shape?
Slope risk lookup tableSlope risk lookup table
Average
SlopeScore
Slope percentScore Annual
Rainfall?
RainfallScore
Rainfall risk lookup tableRainfall risk lookup table
Multiply
Water Production Score
Add
Sediment Production Score
Slope ShapeScore
Slope ShapeScore
Slope Percent? Slope Shape?
Slope risk lookup tableSlope risk lookup table
Average
SlopeScore
Slope percentScore Annual
Rainfall?
RainfallScore
Rainfall risk lookup tableRainfall risk lookup table
Multiply
Water Production Score
Add
Sediment Production Score
SCCFF
BF IF IC D M
WF
WQ
NV
CDW
SW
CCMG4 P
CS
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
SCCFF
BF IF IC D M
WF
WQ
NV
CDW
SW
CCMG4 P
CS
Endpoint
RRARRBRRCRRDRRERRF
Ris
ks
Benefits
MatrixCalculations(SedCalc)
Ranked,Summed and/or
GraphedRisk Ranks
(SSR)Source Strength Ranking
Table
(SSE)Source-Stressor
ExposureFilters
(RRC)Risk RegionConnectivity
Filters
(ELR)Endpoint Location
Ranking Table
(EELE)Endpoint-EndpointLocation Exposure
Filters
(SEELE)Stressor-
Endpoint-EndpointLocation Effects
Filters
Risk Region Connectivity
Modules
Impact Type Switch(ITS)
Field-Scale Source RankingModules (including connectivity to river)
Risk Region Source RankAggregation
Upstream Input ModuleRisk Region
Transfer Filter(RRT)
MatrixCalculations(SedCalc)
Ranked,Summed and/or
GraphedRisk Ranks
(SSR)Source Strength Ranking
Table
(SSE)Source-Stressor
ExposureFilters
(RRC)Risk RegionConnectivity
Filters
(ELR)Endpoint Location
Ranking Table
(EELE)Endpoint-EndpointLocation Exposure
Filters
(SEELE)Stressor-
Endpoint-EndpointLocation Effects
Filters
Risk Region Connectivity
Modules
Impact Type Switch(ITS)
Risk Region Connectivity
Modules
Impact Type Switch(ITS)
Field-Scale Source RankingModules (including connectivity to river)
Risk Region Source RankAggregation
Field-Scale Source RankingModules (including connectivity to river)
Risk Region Source RankAggregation
Upstream Input ModuleRisk Region
Transfer Filter(RRT)
