Karl Benedict (UNM)Arriana Brand (SAHRA)

David S. Brookshire (UNM)Craig D. Broadbent (UNM)

Jeff Cavner(UNM)Mark Dixon (USD)

David Goodrich (SAHRA)Kevin Lansey (UA)

Molly McIntosh (BMF & I)Holly Richter (UA)

Steve Stewart (SAHRA)Julie Stromberg (ASU)

Jennifer Thacher (UNM)

ACES Conference, Naples FLDecember 9th 2008

SAHRA

Science Impact Laboratory for Policy and Economics (SILPE)

Upper San Pedro

Upper Rio Grande

EPA

ASSERTION• High-impact successes in joint policy-research efforts have

often occurred due to acute needs of a place or watershed• What is needed is time to develop/build:

– Trust -- essential to the process (=time)– The information infrastructure– Interdisciplinary / interagency partnerships (research enterprise)– Solid scientific foundation– Policy applications with stakeholders

• This foundation is essential for scientifically based ecologicalvaluation as no single agency has the depth & breadth to do it alone

• While we may not be able to afford to do this everywhere we have to do it extremely well in some places and test transferability and the limits of valuation in locations with less science & information

Two Study Areas: San Pedro River and Middle Rio Grande

• Flows north from Cananea Mexico to the Gila River in Arizona• San Pedro Riparian National Cons. Area

• 40 miles in length• 56,000 Acres

• A semi-arid flyway for resident and migratory birds• Riparian vegetation consists of:

• Cottonwood• Salt Cedar• Mesquite• River Grasses

•Stretch of river from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia gage

•Approximately 40 miles of river•Includes the Rio Grande State Park and Bosque del Apache

•Habitat for birds•277+ year round, 146+ migrants•Acquired data set from Hawks Aloft

•Riparian Vegetation consists of:•Cottonwood•Salt Cedar•Russian olive•River Grasses

ATTRIBUTES OF THE SAN PEDRO BASIN

• Groundwater is sole source of water for human use and sustains wetland/riparian flow and birds

Microcosm of local, state, and international water & ecology issues and a good place to do research

• One of world’s most ecologically diverse areas – 1st Congressionally designated National Riparian Conservation Area (SPRNCA)

• Heterogeneous: Strong Topo., Veg., cultural gradients

• Ft. Huachuca – largest employer (>10,000) in S. Arizona (Payroll > $1.2 billion/yr)

• Cananea Mine: 2-3% world’s copper

0 50 km

San Pedro River

Tombstone

Sierra VistaFt. Huachuca

USAMEXICO

Cananea

• First application of International Environ. Law (via NAFTA side accords) in the US

• Apache Powder Superfund site (Nitrogen) near St. David

Santa Cruz, Pop. And SP low Flows

Santa Cruz R. near Tucson1940s 1980s

Trends in SW Population Trends in San Pedro Low Flow

Evolution of Research / Partnerships in the SP

• MONSOON’90, WALNUT GULCH ‘92, NASA-EOS(‘88-’99 - Interdisciplinary – physical science)

0

San Pedro River

Tombstone

USAMEXICO

Cananea

USAMEXICO

• USDA - ARS Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed(1953-Pres. Physical / watershed science, EPA Fiducial Site, NASA-TERRA validation site)

• SALSA Program (’93-’00 Interdiscplinary physical and biological science – begin outreach & integration)

• EPA (ORD, Region 9) –ARS IAG (’98-Pres.Landcover/GIS, surface water hydrology & habitat models, alternative futures)

• Upper San Pedro Partnership (’98-Pres.- Work and plan research directly with elected officials and resource managers)

• SAHRA NSF Science and Technology Center (’00-Pres.- Add economics, social & scenario science, education to all of the above)

• Ecosystem Valuation – EPA STAR Grant (’04-Pres.)

State: AZ Dept. of Water Resources, State Land Department, ADEQ, AZ Assoc. of Conservation Districts

Federal: USDA-ARS-SWRC, USGS, USFS, BLM, Ft. Huachuca, National Park Service, US Fish & Wildlife Service, BOR

NGOs: TNC, AudubonPrivate: Bella Vista Water Company

OutreachCommittee

TechnicalCommittee

Administrative Committee

Partnership Advisory Commission

MembersLocal: Bisbee, Huachuca City, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, Cochise County, Hereford NRCD

A consortium of 21 agencies, NGOs and private firms established in 1998 that cooperate in the implementation of comprehensive policies & projects to assist in meeting the water needs of the Upper San Pedro. In 2004, designated by Congress (McCain) as the entity to bring the basin into balance by 2011.

Upper San Pedro Partnership

Staff Working Group

Executive Committee

Several Major Research Results and Tools

Basin characterization, land cover change, alternative futures and SW Modeling (AGWA) (Kepner)Quantify basin rechargeState of the art Groundwater ModelQuantify riparian water needs and riparian functional condition classes (Dixon)Decision Support Model developed with USPP Downscaling of Global Change Model results

Riparian Water Needs Report• New estimates of total riparian ET• Develops condition class model which

relates classes to hydrologic metrics • Each condition class is reflective of

different levels of ecosystem functional capacity

Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J.C., and Scott, R.L., eds., 2006, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5163, 154 p.

“State of the San Pedro”

Allows prediction of change in riparian condition class with GW changes predicted by the GW / DSS models (Dixon)

Develop ScenariosAnthropogenic

Climatic

ChangesHydrology

Component

ChangesRiparian

Component

ChangesAvian

Component

Survey(Education)

Ecosystem ServicesDemandCurves

DSS(current

conditions)

EcosystemValuation

Component(Attributes)1. Surface

Water2. Birds

3. Vegetation4. Cost

Characterization of an Ecosystem1. Components2. Processes3. Outputs

The Scientific Foundation of Ecosystem Services Valuation

IntegrateValues

Into DSS

Decision Support System (DSS)Incorporates multiple factors

USGS groundwater model Surface water supplyGroundwater storageResidential/commercial water uses (infrastructure, well location)

Simulations up to 50 yearsCan vary (e.g.):

populationslocation of recharge basinlocation of future wells

Generates growth, conservation, augmentation alternative futures

Effect of pumping at well location

Time 1 – small effect

Time 2 – some effect

Time 3 – larger effect

land

well

river

groundwater

Run the DSS-Effect of Pumping

DSS model shows changes in groundwater by reach

Green represents small changeRed represent a large changeYellow is a moderate change

Veg Changes

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

Sections of the River

Intermediate30%

(601 acres)

Dry 10%

(196 acres)

Wet 60%

(1175 acres)

Total Miles: 38

N

Current Conditions

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

Wet43%

(850 acres)Dry 41%

(825 acres)

Sections of the River

Total Miles: 38

N

Option A

CC-1 (dry)

CC-2 (Int.)

CC-3 (wet)

Hydrologic Change => Veg./Rip. Habitat Change

Migrating Birds:Abundance by Scenario

Tota

l Abu

ndan

ce (n

umbe

r of b

irds

)

S3 Current S1 S2Declining Groundwater by Scenario

17000

19000

21000

23000

Current

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

S2 S3

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

S1

N

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

Condition Class

CC2CC1CC3

25000

Develop ScenariosAnthropogenic

Climatic

ChangesHydrology

Component

ChangesRiparian

Component

ChangesAvian

Component

Survey(Education)

Ecosystem ServicesDemandCurves

DSS(current

conditions)

EcosystemValuation

Component(Attributes)1. Surface

Water2. Birds

3. Vegetation4. Cost

Characterization of an Ecosystem1. Components2. Processes3. Outputs

The Scientific Foundation of Ecosystem Services Valuation

IntegrateValues

Into DSS

Physical

SciencePlant

ScienceAvian

Science

Modeling

Science

Scenario &

Social Science

Abiotic, Biotic,

Geography & Remote

Sensing Science

Ecosystem / Behavioral Demand: San Pedro River, AZ and Rio Grande, NM

• Ecosystem Attributes Valued:• Vegetation

Diversity• Canopy to Shrub

• Avian Species Diversity

• Canopy / Shrub / Water Bound birds

• Surface Water

DC

/ CV

M

SanPedro

RioGrande

Traditional Survey Coarse Survey Fine Survey

San Pedro

RioGrande

Cho

ice Q

uest

ions

Spatial vegetation and bird information

Spatial vegetation and bird information

No spatial vegetation and bird information

Detailed Spatial vegetation and bird information

Separate Attribute and Bundle Values

Separate Attribute and Bundle Values

Increasing the Scientific Information

Critical Issue: Need GW and SW / Veg. / Riparian / Avian Models that drive the valuation of Ecosystem Services

Survey Educational Component• Introduction

– Define the Study Site (SPRNCA)• Explain the Water Attribute• Explain the Vegetation Attribute• Explain the Relationship between Water and Vegetation• Condition Class Model

– Wet– Intermediate– Dry

• Explain Birds– Breeding Birds by Nest Height– Breeding Birds by Water Dependence– Migratory Birds

• Current Conditions of the SPRNCA• Proposed Infrastructure Changes

Current ConditionsMiles of Surface Water =

Migratory Birds = 19,000

Low Shrub2300 Waterbound

1100

High Shrub2700

Non-Waterbound

6800

Canopy2900

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

By Nest Height By Water Dependence

Num

ber o

f Bird

s in

SPR

NC

A

Breeding Birds Described in Two WaysTotal Number of Birds in SPRNCA = 7900

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

Sections of the River

Intermediate30%

(601 acres)

Dry 10%

(196 acres)

Wet 60%

(1175 acres)

Total Miles: 38

N

Intermediate16%

(302 acres)

Option A:Miles of Surface Water =

Migratory Birds = 16,800

Low Shrub 2200

Waterbound 800

High Shrub3000

Non-Waterbound

6800

Canopy2400

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

By Nest Height By Water Dependence

Num

ber o

f Bird

s in

SPR

NC

A

Breeding Birds Described in Two WaysTotal Number of Birds in SPRNCA = 7600

8

5

2

3

7

9

1

4

6

12

1314

1011

Wet43%

(850 acres)Dry 41%

(825 acres)

Sections of the River

Total Miles: 38

N

Develop ScenariosAnthropogenic

Climatic

ChangesHydrology

Component

ChangesRiparian

Component

ChangesAvian

Component

Survey(Education)

Non-marketDemandCurves

FocusGroups

DSS(current

conditions)Valuation

Component(Attributes)1. Surface

Water1. Birds2. Veg.3. Cost

Marginal ValuesFor Ecosystem

Services

ImplementationInternet

MailSurveys

MitigationOptions

(offset anthropogenic)

• Marginal Values for Ecosystem Services• Place these values back into the DSS

– Demand Curves– This gives a P*Q where we only had Q on first run– Change in values associated with alternative

scenarios• Revise the scenarios based on mitigation

options• Mitigation Costs

– A comparison of marginal mitigation costs to marginal social benefits

• A Valuation Tool where:– Ecosystem services are considered in

anthropogenic and climatic changes

Valuation Conclusions

• The San Pedro characterization / research / decision-maker enterprise took much more time than a 3 year grant cycle or 5 year agency planning cycle and it could not have been accomplished by a single agency or university

• Given the foundation established in the San Pedro we have the opportunity to establish a “gold-standard” in ecosystem valuation

• Testing the transferability of San Pedro results to the less informed Rio Grande will allow us to quantify what level of ecosystem valuation can be done in the case of less informed (researched) locations

Overall Conclusions