2017 GIS in Conservation Track: Assessing Green Infrastructure in the South Platte River Watershed
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•72 vues
2017 GIS in the Rockies presentation
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (14)
Similaire à 2017 GIS in Conservation Track: Assessing Green Infrastructure in the South Platte River Watershed
Similaire à 2017 GIS in Conservation Track: Assessing Green Infrastructure in the South Platte River Watershed (20)
Plus de GIS in the Rockies
Plus de GIS in the Rockies (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
2017 GIS in Conservation Track: Assessing Green Infrastructure in the South Platte River Watershed
- 2. South Platte River Urban Waters Partnership – History & Context
- 3. National initiative, local roots Collective Impact • Common agenda • Shared measurement systems • Mutually reinforcing activities • Continuous communication • Backbone support organization “Large scale change requires broad cross-sector coordination, yet the social sector remains focused on isolated interventions.” (Kania & Kramer 2011)
- 4. The Basics Launched in 2011 Lead organizations • USFS, EPA • CO State Forest Service • The Greenway Foundation 50+ fed, state and local government agencies, NGOs, private business, Universities
- 5. Goals • WATER AWARENESS: Engaging communities in discovering the value of their urban water resources. • WATER PROTECTION: Protecting critical watershed areas that affect the water supply for Denver metro communities. • WATER QUALITY: Partnership efforts within the community lead to improved health of the watershed and improved water quality.
- 6. Purpose Build on existing studies of the South Platte River Watershed - Natural Capital Asset Map – Assessment evaluating the regional network of green infrastructure / natural capital & the value of the ecosystem services it provides to the people of the watershed - Prioritization – Prioritize key areas for resource investment based on economic value of benefits people obtain from these resources (ecosystem services) Collaborating toward a robust assessment & planning tools to guide strategic investment in a healthy South Platte River Watershed
- 7. Project Team People invested in the S. Platte Representative Organizations Public Private Non-Profit Resources of Greatest Concern Forest River Plains Expertise Watersheds Environmental Quality Forest Resources Rangeland Resources Infrastructure Education Conservation Areas of Greatest Interest Headwaters Urban Plains Upper South Platte Lower South Platte
- 8. Project Approach **INVESTIGATION Data Stakeholder Team META-ANALYSIS Existing Studies Assessments & Tools **ID, MAP, VALUATE Natural Assets Ecosystem Services ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Ecosystem Services Valuation **PRIORITIZATION Stakeholder Identified Priorities ASSESSMENT REPORT & USER GUIDE Resources for Strategic Watershed Investment ** Stakeholder engagement throughout
- 9. Stakeholder Engagement • “Prioritize projects throughout the watershed within context of State Forest Action Plan and Urban Waters Partnership” • “A watershed uniting of priorities with framework for investing in resource needs into the future” • “A visual prioritization tool” • “Build long-term stakeholder investment in this assessment and future work within the watershed” Key to long-term success in the watershed
- 10. Stakeholder Engagement & Investment Assets most important to stakeholders – Natural Assets of Importance • Analyze data & watershed • Listen to stakeholder priorities within context of the watershed • 7 Natural Assets of Importance (NAI) - Most important to the people of the watershed - Produce essential ecosystem services that influence the economy & quality of life in the South Platte Watershed
- 11. Natural Assets of Importance UPPER WATERSHED Native Forest Resources Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Clean Drinking Water Healthy Waterways Access to Nature DENVER METRO Urban Ecosystem Resources & Parks Clean Drinking Water Healthy Waterways Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Access to Nature PLAINS Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Healthy Waterways Native Forest Resources Clean Drinking Water Access to Nature
- 12. Gather & Organize Extensive Data Sources Meta-Analysis
- 13. Natural Capital Asset Mapping Natural Assets of Importance & Weighting UPPER WATERSHED Native Forest Resources Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Clean Drinking Water Healthy Waterways Access to Nature DENVER METRO Urban Ecosystem Resources & Parks Clean Drinking Water Healthy Waterways Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Access to Nature PLAINS Productive Agricultural Resources Wildlife Habitat Healthy Waterways Native Forest Resources Clean Drinking Water Access to Nature
- 14. Natural Capital Asset Mapping Wetlands + Rivers + Lakes & Reservoirs + Parks & Open Space + Elevation + Recreation Density + Habitat + Contiguous Area + Urban Forest + Riparian + Agriculture + Forest Treatments + Trails – Urban – Wildfire – Human Modification Green Infrastructure = Human Modification Parks & Open Space Contiguous Area GIS Methods
- 15. Natural Capital Asset Mapping ArcGIS Methods • Urban boundary only • 1-meter canopy mapping was “resampled” to 30-meter • Pixels were grouped/ranked by 4 ranges of canopy cover % 0 for 0-10% 2 for 10-20% 3 for 20-30% 4 for >30%
- 16. Natural Capital Asset Mapping ArcGIS Methods Green Infrastructure Raw Values High (34) Low (-4)
- 17. South Platte Watershed Natural Capital Asset Map Project foundation moving forward • Evolved over time based on stakeholder input - 30+ data sources - Extensive stakeholder & project director input over 9 months & revisions incorporated Increased emphasis on Denver Metro & Plains Modified to better align with CSFS Forest Action Plan
- 18. South Platte Watershed Natural Capital Asset Map Project Foundation: Natural Asset Mapping UPPER WATERSHED NA RANK 0 1 2 3 4 PERCENT 20% 23% 24% 17% 16% DENVER METRO NA RANK 0 1 2 3 4 PERCENT 28% 18% 19% 19% 16% PLAINS NA RANK 0 1 2 3 4 PERCENT 4% 40% 16% 23% 18%
- 19. **INVESTIGATION Data Stakeholder Team META-ANALYSIS Existing Studies Assessments & Tools **ID, MAP, VALUATE Natural Assets Ecosystem Services ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Ecosystem Services Valuation **PRIORITIZATION Stakeholder Identified Priorities ASSESSMENT REPORT & USER GUIDE Resources for Strategic Watershed Investment Economic Analysis ** Stakeholder engagement throughout
- 20. Copyright (c) 2014 Earth Economics Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit (EVT) • 200+ fields for every value • 3,800 reviewed values • 45,000 candidate studies
- 21. Original Study Site Applied Values Original Study Site Applied Values Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Benefit Transfer Method • How do we apply valuation data? • How we don’t apply valuation data • Where are the values for this study coming from?
- 22. Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Example Data Sources Land Cover • Forests - Mixed - Evergreen - Deciduous • Wetlands - Emergent - Woody • Shrub/Scrub • Grasslands • Lakes/River • Pasture • Cropland Recreation Attributes • Riparian • Urban Boundary • Agriculture Modifiers • Recreation Density • Human Modification • Contiguous Acreage • Habitat for Imperiled Species • Fire History/Intensity • Forest Management
- 23. Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Identify Ecosystem Services Ecosystem Service Available Studies? Climate Stability x Disaster Risk Reduction Habitat x Pollination Soil Erosion Control Stormwater Retention x Soil Formation Water Storage Water Quality x Biological Control x Recreation and Tourism x Food Provisioning Land Cover: Deciduous Forest (Riparian)
- 24. Cropland Pastures Grasslands Forests Shrublands Lakes Rivers Wetlands Information Aesthetic Information Recreation and Tourism Provisioning Energy and Raw Materials Food Water Storage Regulating Air Quality Biological Control Climate Stability Flood Control Pollination Disaster Risk Reduction Soil Retention Water Regulation Water Quality Supporting Habitat Gap Analysis
- 25. Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Value Ecosystem Services $1,204 to $2,177 per acre per year Total $/acre/year = Sum of all $/acre/year ecosystem service values Ecosystem Service Low Value $/acre/yr High Value $/acre/yr # Values Climate Stability $81.33 $524.14 18 Disaster Risk Reduction Habitat $598.05 $598.05 1 Pollination Soil Erosion Control Stormwater Retention $19.71 $65.58 6 Soil Formation Water Storage Water Quality $465.86 $465.86 1 Biological Control $1.68 $11.67 2 Recreation and Tourism $37.17 $511.52 8 Food Provisioning Land Cover: Deciduous Forest (Riparian)
- 26. Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Ecosystem Service Values (Million US $ / Yr) Ecosystem Services Value (million $ / yr) Min Avg Max UPPER WATERSHED $3,265 $6,027 $8,808 Native Forest Resources $153 $317 $500 Productive Ag Resources $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 Wildlife Habitat $485 $710 $936 Clean Drinking Water $2,224 $2,622 $3,020 Healthy Waterways $75 $106 $137 Access to Nature $328 $2,272 $4,215 Ecosystem Services Value (million $ / yr) Min Avg Max DENVER METRO $577 $795 $1,103 Productive Ag Resources $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 Wildlife Habitat $54 $55 $56 Healthy Waterways $73 $75 $76 Access to Nature $16 $46 $76 Urban Ecosystem Resources & Parks $434 $620 $806 Ecosystem Services Value (million $ / yr) Min Avg Max PLAINS $389 $561 $732 Native Forest Resources $48 $67 $86 Productive Ag Resources $6 $6 $6 Wildlife Habitat $32 $44 $56 Clean Drinking Water $252 $326 $400 Healthy Waterways $35 $40 $44 Access to Nature $17 $79 $141
- 27. South Platte Watershed Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV) Valuing Ecosystem Services provided Ecosystem Service Values ($ US / Year) Average Upper Watershed $6.03 billion Denver Metro $795 million Plains $561 million TOTAL $7.38 billion
- 28. Project Prioritization Stakeholder identified priorities for future watershed investments UPPER WATERSHED Wildland Fire Water Quality / Quantity Invasive Species / Insect & Disease Development Flooding Biodiversity / Wildlife Habitat Recreation Connectivity DENVER METRO Urban Heat Island Water Quality / Quantity Invasive Species / Insect & Disease Development Flooding Biodiversity / Wildlife Habitat Recreation Demographic Factors (Environmental Justice & Public Health) PLAINS Wildland Fire Water Quality / Quantity Invasive Species / Insect & Disease Development Flooding Biodiversity / Wildlife Habitat Recreation Connectivity
- 29. • Prioritization adds specificity to the planning process - Dependent on Goals - Preserve High Value Landscapes - Restore Low Value Landscapes • Wildfire Risk - Most at risk areas • Biodiversity – Wildlife Habitat - High and Very High Categories Prioritization Uses and data application NA Rank Acres % NA $ ESV Sum % ESV 0 42,403 6% 29,346,089 1% 1 98,202 14% 126,434,963 6% 2 119,153 18% 391,022,456 17% 3 158,492 23% 538,740,675 23% 4 261,546 39% 1,232,649,193 53% Total 679,795 100% 2,318,193,374 100%
- 30. • Urban Heat Island - Explore “Hot” Areas in Denver Metro Prioritization Uses and data application NA Rank Acres % NA $ ESV Sum % ESV 0 32,458 53% 2,195,016 18% 1 12,276 20% 1,606,740 13% 2 7,983 13% 1,410,091 12% 3 5,553 9% 2,145,526 18% 4 3,393 6% 4,883,105 40% Total 61,664 100% 12,240,478 100% • Flooding - FEMA Floodplains (restoration/protection) NA Rank Acres % NA $ ESV Sum % ESV 0 17,915 12% 32,521,158 6% 1 47,427 31% 117,539,823 23% 2 25,229 16% 95,160,756 18% 3 23,412 15% 85,409,036 16% 4 40,715 26% 188,754,899 36% Total 154,698 100% 519,385,672 100%
- 31. • Development - Human Modified Areas (CSFS) - Preserve high value landscapes - Restore human modified landscapes Prioritization Uses and data application NA Rank Acres % NA $ ESV Sum % ESV 0 120,060 29% 36,471,070 9% 1 133,732 32% 77,320,347 19% 2 93,862 22% 138,107,216 34% 3 48,869 12% 89,688,759 22% 4 23,878 6% 61,482,808 15% Total 420,401 100% 403,070,200 100%
- 32. Natural Capital Decision Support Tool Demonstration • Demonstration - https://pg-cloud.com/NaturalCapital/ • Using the tool and GIS data for project prioritization Collaborating toward robust assessment & planning tools to guide strategic investment in a healthy South Platte River Watershed
- 33. Project Case Studies – Identifying Areas for Resource Investment •How Do I Use This Data to Meet My Organizations Needs? • Three Case Studies - Water Quality/Water Quantity (Flooding) – Chatfield Reservoir - Connectivity in an Urban Setting - Respiratory Hazard and Urban Heat Island
- 34. Project Case Studies – Chatfield Reservoir WQ/WQ (Flooding) • Denver Water South Platte Reservoirs • Goal of Case Study: Identify Potential Projects - Upland Restoration (Improved Watershed Function) - Floodplain Restoration (Riparian Condition) - Improve Capacity of Reservoirs (Reduce Sedimentation) Denver Water South Platte Reservoirs Capacity (acre-feet) Eleven Mile 97,779 Cheesman Lake 79,064 Strontia Springs 7,863 Chatfield 27,076 *https://www.denverwater.org/your-water/water-supply-and-planning/reservoir-levels
- 35. Project Case Studies – Improving Connectivity in an Urban Environment Connectivity in a Developed Environment • CSFS Degree of Human Modification Layer • Composite Layer of Connectivity: - Greenprint trails, CoMAP Parks and Open Space, and River Preservation Areas • Goal of Case Study: Identify Potential Projects - Improve Connectivity - Improve Safety along Urban Corridors - Improve Urban Aesthetics
- 36. Project Case Studies – Improving Conditions for At-Risk Populations Respiratory Hazard and Urban Heat Island • City and County of Denver, Parks and Recreation/Office of the Forester and UC-Davis. 2013 UTC Assessment Urban Heat Island Layer (HOT Areas) • EPA’s EJSCREEN Air Toxics Respiratory Hazard Index (NATA Respiratory HI) - Multiple indices where the ratio of exposure concentration in the air to the health-based reference concentration set by EPA (EJSCREEN website) • Goal of Case Study: Identify Potential Projects - Improve Natural Assets (GI) in at-risk areas - Reduce the concentrations of some hazardous pollutants (e.g. PM10) - Reduce UHI effect
- 37. Thank you! Collaborating toward a robust assessment & planning tools to guide strategic investment in a healthy South Platte River Watershed …. Building lasting relationships through a common vision for the watershed
- 38. Project Contacts • Project Director, Keith Wood - 303-438-9338 - keith.wood@colostate.edu • Project Manager, Lance Davisson - 208-994-1135 - ldavisson@TheKeystoneConcept.com
Notes de l'éditeur
- Means to address complex social & environmental problems Involves many organizations with similar goals, independent actors judged collectively
- Original EPA application was just the urban area, expanded upstream and down 2011/12 pilot selected/launched
- Reference terms: Natural Capital, Natural Assets of Importance, Ecosystem Services Zach Hill is making five images for natural assets of importance – NFR, AG, UFR&P, HW, CDW.
- Meta-Analysis 1. Describe all the data provided to NAT CAP team 2. Graphically display and describe data used per project area (UTC for urban area) 3. Graphically display data used per project area per prioritization category (i.e. CUSP priority subwatersheds) 4. Graphically display and describe remaining data provided to NAT CAP team used for local information (very site specific data such as erosion areas of south platte).
- Contiguous Area, Parks and Open Space, Human Modification
- Contiguous Area, Parks and Open Space, Human Modification
- Contiguous Area, Parks and Open Space, Human Modification
- Natural Capital Assets – WHAT WE HAVE
- The valuation is performed using the Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) and our online tool EVT. EVT is an online database of ecosystem service valuation literature. Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) applies previously published ecosystem service values (based on land cover classifications) from comparable ecosystem types and transfers them to the South Platte. A good analogy is a home appraisal in which the value and features of comparable, neighboring homes (e.g. two bedrooms, garage, one acre, recently remodeled) are used to estimate the value of the home in question. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria_-_Heiligenkreuz_Abbey_-_1707.jpg
- How do we apply…? We use many criteria to choose the most appropriate studies for BTM. Criteria include: Similarity of land cover between our study site and original site in literature Similarity of service provided at our study site and original site in literature Appropriate valuation methodologies and data Similarity of sociodemographics between our study site and original site in literature How we don’t apply… Each value included in the ESV is carefully reviewed to determine applicability to South Platte Watershed Studies that included inappropriate services or land cover types were not included (ex. Hurricane protection values, tropical rainforest habitat are inappropriate for the South Platte) Studies that had questionable methods were not included Where do values come from? Most values come from the Colorado region and nearby states Gaps are filled in with appropriate studies from comparable sites
- The first step is to determine land cover data for study area. This forms the basis of the analysis. ESV is conducted on a per-acre basis. Chosen ES values from the EVT are then organized by NLCD categories present in the study area. They are further refined with indicators describing the location of landcovers in a watershed (Called “spatial attributes”, which include: riparian, urban, ag). These improve the analysis by allowing the consideration of the spatial distribution of ES values (for example, urban parks are valued differently by people than a national park, or wetlands adjacent to cultivated and valued more highly for ability to filter runoff). We created health modifiers (treated forests, contiguous area, human modification, recreation, habitat, etc) to adjust ESV values based on an “ecosystem health” context. Degraded ecosystems = lower value, high quality ecosystems = higher values. Results were aggregated by project area and individual natural asset of importance. Results presented as $/year values.
- After land cover types are determined in the study area, we apply criteria to select ecosystem service values from EVT. There is often gaps in published data – some ES have studies available and some do not.
- Blue squares indicate combinations that were valued Blank squares indicate combinations that lacked any applicable data Able to value2 to 11 ES per LC Blank square DO NOT MEAN that ES doesn’t exist on that LC or that it isn’t valuable, just that we lacked data This gap analysis shows that the values produced by this report are underestimates – it was not possible to value every ES produced by a LC
- Values are summed across ecosystem services on a land cover type to produce a $/acre/year for each combination of land cover type and spatial attribute Typically provide a range of values, which shows variation in data. This variation is due to several factors: scarcity, income effects, uniqueness, demand scenarios, states of the environment, etc. In this project, we also provided averages which are used in the maps. Averages are also useful to show a measure of central tendency of the ES values. Essentially, $/acre/year values are multiplied by the total acres of that land cover/spatial attribute combination. (Ex. $1204/acre/year times 10 acres of riparian deciduous forest is $12,040/year). This project had one more layer of complexity due to the health adjustment. We calculated the “ecosystem health” index for each pixel. The ESV of the land cover type on that pixel was adjusted by the health score. The adjusted ESV was then applied to the acres corresponding to each health/land cover/spatial attribute combination. It was then multiplied acres and aggregated for all land cover/spatial attribute combinations. The $/year values are then summed across all land cover types to provide a total estimate for the study area.
- The $/year values are also broken up by NAI and project area (providing totals by plains, metro, upper; and by NAI). We took care in the aggregation so the values per NAI and Project Area do not double-count.
- These are the final, aggregated results Stress again that these are underestimates. The gap analysis shows many services that are provided by the land cover types in the South Platte that we did not have data for.
- The Gaps in Children's Access to Parks model analyzes children's access to existing parks and open space. The analysis incorporates a two-step approach: 1) determines where there are gaps in park availability across the landscape, and constructs a demographic profile to identify gaps with the Gaps in Children s most urgent need for parkland 2) incorporates opportunities Access to Parks NA most urgent need for parkland. 2) incorporates opportunities for parks based on land use and cover characteristics. The two components are combined using a weighted sum computation.
- In 2011, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) partnered with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) to examine conservation priorities for children's access to green spaces, protecting riparian habitats, and enhancing regional trail connectivity across the 8-county Denver Metropolitan region. 1. Bike lane in south west of image - improve access to and from Applewood park 2. Crown Hill Open Space Park - improve access to and from Crown Hill open space park 3. Walking and biking along w 44th ave.
- Air toxics respiratory hazard index (the sum of hazard indices for those air toxics with reference concentrations based on respiratory endpoints, where each hazard index is the ratio of exposure concentration in the air to the health-based reference concentration set by EPA). EPA 2011 National Air Toxics Assessments Planting vegetation in city streets could significantly reduce air pollution in urban street canyons, according to new research. Traffic pollutants are deposited on vegetation at a higher rate than on hard, built surfaces and could reduce the concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and PM10 in the air by as much as 40% and 60%, respectively, under certain conditions.