comparative tool application to the san pedro watershed ...€¦ · ecoaim case study present by:...
TRANSCRIPT
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