1

Comparative Tool Application to the San Pedro Watershed: EcoAIM Case Study

Present by:

Pieter Booth

Sheryl Law

Presented at:A Community on Ecosystem ServicesGila River Indian Community, ArizonaDecember 8, 2010

2

BSR Roundtable on Emerging Ecosystem Service Tools—October 2010

Comparative application of tools to a single location using a uniform data set Tools to address corporate-relevant questions related

to hypothetical residential development Focus on water provisioning, carbon sequestration,

biodiversity, and cultural services Tools demonstrated: ARIES, EcoMetrix, InVest,

EcoAIM, ESValue, NAIS, ESR

3

The EcoAIM Decision Support Framework

Problem formulation: Define decision space Objectives and priorities Ecosystem services of primary concern Define ecological production functions Identify biophysical endpoints Elicit preferences and values

EcoAIM Spatial Analysis Tool

Stakeholder Engagement

Develop and refine modeling parameters

4

Example Flow of Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands

5

Application and External Validation of the EcoAIM Tool

EcoAIM has been applied to private lands At one site, EcoAIM evaluated: 5 ecosystem services, 15,987 wetlands in 343,315 acres

Presentations: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2008) EPA’s Office of Research and Development Ecosystem

Services Seminar Series (2009) BSR Roundtable on Ecosystem Service Tools (2010) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2010) A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES) (2010)

6

How the Tool is Developed and Deployed

Key development steps Identify priority ecosystem services, production functions and

measurement endpoints, and stakeholder preferences and values Compile, assess, and upload data Identify, evaluate, and implement vetted and publically available

sub-models Design and develop customized user-interface and output to meet

user needs and preferences Input data from Publically available geospatial data Site-specific geospatial data generated by management programs

at the site

7

Typical User Inputs

Preference ranking for ecosystem services Biodiversity Water provisioning Carbon sequestration Cultural/spiritual

Weighting of measurement endpoints for each ecosystem service Protection classification for special status species Ranking of habitats

8

Data Relied Upon

Southern Arizona data services program (GIS data) Property ownership Potential habitats for amphibians, mammals, birds, reptiles Vegetation types Species richness

USGS (GIS data) Impervious surfaces

Arizona Fish and Game—Species abstracts Literature review

9

Examples of Data LayersVegetation

Cover TypesParcel

Ownership Presence of

Tiger Salamander

10

San Pedro Watershed

Questions: What would be the ideal site for a new residential project in

order to have the least impact on ecosystem services?

Where would you expand growth of residential units on the U.S. side of the border? Why?

What are the areas where focused ecosystem service-related investments would offer potential benefits?

11

General Assumptions

The 500-acre residential development will be near Highways 10, 80, and 90

Development can occur only on privately-owned land

All public lands are considered to be protected

Shape of residential area is flexible (any shaped polygon)

Data are accurate, current, and complete

12

Corporate Relevant Assumptions

For development siting, biodiversity services are a function of: Habitat quality Number of species

For restoration siting, preferences are: Habitat corridor preservation Habitat preservation/enhancement for special status species Preservation of important vegetation types

13

Method: Variables Quantified

Species richness

Presence of special status species

Designation of special status species

Distance to impervious surfaces used as a proxy for habitat quality/vulnerability

14

Method: Variables Quantified (continued)

Distance to potential habitat corridors as a proxy for fragmentation Area between two public parcels or between public parcels

and San Pedro riparian area Axis measured as minimum distance between two public

parcels

Vegetation cover type (urban/agricultural, mixed grass scrub, important vegetation types)

15

Method: Siting Objective is to Minimize Biodiversity Impacts

Target areas of low species richness

Target areas at minimum distance from impervious surfaces

Target areas at maximum distance from potential wildlife corridors

Target areas of less important vegetation types

16

Method: Spatial Analysis

Calculate value of each pixel

Break out values into 10 levels using quantiles

Perform weighted sum of each pixel

Calculate average value of pixels in each development polygon

Weight Metric Rank4 Species richness

Present 2Absent 1

Species statusEndangered 4Threatened 3Special concern 2Common 1

3 Habitat quality (impervious surfaces)Distance

2 Habitat corridorDistance

1 VegetationImportant habitat types 10Mixed scrub series, mixed grass scrub habitat 5Urban, agricultural 1

17

Results: Species Richness and Protection Status

123456789

10

Species Richness and Protection StatusLowest

Highest

Reptiles

Mammals

Amphibians

Birds

Protection Status RanksEndangered 4Threatened 3Special Concern 2Common 1

18

Results: Habitat Quality/Vulnerability

123456789

10

Distance to Impervious SurfacesLowest

Highest

19

Results: Wildlife Corridors

123456789

10

Distance Between Two Public ParcelsLongest

Shortest

20

Results: Vegetation Cover Types

Vegetation Cover Type

Urban/Agricultural

Scrub

Important Vegetation

1

5

10

21

Results: Combined Biodiversity Score

123456789

10

Biodiversity Score

Lowest

Highest

22

123456789

10

Biodiversity Score

Lowest

Highest

Results: Average Biodiversity Score at Four Selected Development Sites

#341

#225

#145

#437

23

Results

Amphibians Status Site # 1 Site # 2 Site # 3 Site # 4Chiricahua leopard frog T 1 1 1 1Lowland leopard frog SC 1 1 1 1Western green toad SC 1 1 1 1Sonoran tiger salamander SC 1 0.5

ReptilesTexas horned lizard T 1Desert tortoise T 0.5Sonoran coral snake T 1 1 1 1Hognosed snake SC 1 1 1 1Western banded gecko SC 1 1 1 1Chihahuan hook-nosed snake CS 1 1 1 1

BirdsYuma rufous crowned sparrow E 0.5Golden eagle T 0.5Peregrine falcon SC 1 1 1 1Loggerhead shrike SC 1 1 1 1Burrowing owl SC 1 1 1 1Grasshopper sparrow CS 0.33 1

MammalsSouthwestern myotis E 1 0.5 0.25Western pipistrelle E 1 0.2Arizona grey squirrel T 1 1 1 1Mexican long-tongued bat SC 1 1 1 1Greater western mastiff bat SC 0.5 0.2Yellow nosed cotton rat SC 1 1 0.5 1Brazilian free-tailed bat CS 1 1 1 1California myotis CS 1 0.2Fringed myotis CS 1 1 0.5 1Hoary bat CS 1 1 0.5 1Long-legged myotis CS 1 0.5 0.3Mountain lion CS 1Pallid bat CS 1 1 1 1Pocketed free tailed bat CS 1 0.2

24

The EcoAIM Framework is Designed to Meet a Wide Range of Land Management Needs

Understand location and nature of ecological assets corporate-wide Quantify tradeoffs in ecosystems provisioning for selected

actions Identify opportunities for revenue generation and cost savings Document/quantify goodwill/license to operate benefits of

alternative actions Maintain confidentiality of information and data Integrate with existing EHS programs and improve information

bases for broader decision-making

25

The EcoAIM Framework is Designed to be Implemented in Phased/Iterative Manner

Screening and sensitivity analysis to identify decision drivers Ecosystem services Ecological production functions Stakeholder preferences

Model refinement as appropriate Data collection/EPF model development Stakeholder engagement User interface

26

Thank You!

Pieter BoothExponent15375 S.E. 30th Place, Suite 250Bellevue, WA 98007

425-519-8709boothp@exponent.com