Post on 03-Aug-2020
wrrc.arizona.edu/GCASE
Riparian Thresholds: a product of
Water RAPIDS
Groundwater Climate and Stakeholder Engagement (GCASE)
Milestone Workshop 2 – November 20, 2013
Jacob Prietto
Water Resources Research Center
jprietto@email.arizona.edu
Funded by the Sectoral Applications Research Program (SARP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office.
• Critical Thresholds– Limits where response is impossible without dramatic change to system
(Lite & Stromberg, 2005)
• Thresholds of Probable Concern– Warnings to potentially undesirable changes (Rogers and Biggs, 1999)
• Used to help define management goals– Not predictive values for desired conditions (Lite & Stromberg, 2005)
Thresholds:
Based on Scientific Data
2
Santa Cruz Active Management Area
Third Management Plan
3
• Management Goals (1.3.2.2)– safe yield
– prevent local water table declines long term
– unique hydrologic conditions
• Target Water Levels (1.3.2.2)– younger alluvium
– multiple use objectives
– sensitive to water levels changes
– majority of region’s water supply.
• Emerging Challenges (1.7)– protection of core aquatic and
riparian habitatsSanta Cruz Active Management Area 1997-2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Report (ADWR)
4
5
San Pedro River near Tombstone, AZ
Santa Cruz River near Amado, AZ
• Cottonwood
• Willow
• Tamarisk
• Mesquite
Riparian Vegetation
6
www.saguaro-juniper.com
www.nasa.gov
en.wikipedia.org
Hydrologic Variables
7
Depth to Groundwater
• Greatest depth measured over year
• Spatially averaged over floodplain
Groundwater Fluctuation
• Dry Season: January to June
• Estimate of annual fluctuation
Surface Flow Permanence
• Percentage of year with surface flow
• Strongest indicator of forest composition
Hydrologic Index
• Index = – (100 – Permanence %) * Maximum Depth * Fluctuation(Lite & Stromberg, 2005)
Mature Survival
• Cottonwood
• Willow
Species Dominance
• Tamarisk
• Co-Dominant
• Cottonwood & Willow
Sapling Survival
Seedling Establishment
• Specific & Narrow Conditions
Riparian Health
8
“wet”
“dry”
Maximum DepthDepth Fluctuation Flow Permanence
• Watershed management and planning that integrates natural resources, water resources, and community development
• Stakeholder engagement process design and facilitation services for communities seeking feedback on water resources issues or in need of assistance to address water-related conflicts
• GIS analysis of water and natural resource issues
• Innovative approaches and tools for increasing household water conservation, while building awareness of the relationship between natural resources and water use
• Contact: Kelly Mott Lacroix (klacroix@cals.arizona.edu)
9
Database Methodology
Biological Element
Natural Flow Regime Element
EcologyRelationship
Flow need• Depends upon• Does not depend on• Uses• Associated with
Flow response• Influenced• Enhanced• Harmed
Hydrology
• Magnitude• Frequency• Duration• Timing • Rate of Change
• Abundance• Age structure• Composition• Diversity• Health• Survivorship• Reproduction
10
Findings: 111 Studies (July 2013)
Study Subject
Number
of
Studies
Populous
fremonti27
Salix gooddingii 15
Tamarix
ramosissima14
Prosopis velutina 13
Cottonwood/
Willow Forest7
11
Database Example
12
• What quantitative information is
available on the ecological flow
needs or responses of cottonwoods?
www.cals.arizona.edu
Freemont Cottonwood
Age Ecology Relationship Depth (m)* Rate*Citation
#
Seed
AbundanceAssociated with
<0.8 to <1.6 < 4.4 cm/day 11
Survivorship <1.0 2 cm/day 13
Abundance/Survivorship Enhanced by 0.5 to < 2.6< 2 to 3 cm/day,
<0.5 m/year5, 16
Juvenile Abundance/Survivorship Associated with 0.2 to 2 8, 13
Adult
Abundance/Composition
Associated with
1 to 3 < 1m/ year4, 7,8, 14
Abundance/Survivorship/ Heath
0.1 to 5.1 2, 13
AbundanceEnhanced by
< 1.5 6
< 2.6 to 2.7 1, 5
Health 0.5 to 2.3 15
Survivorship/Health Harmed by >2 to 3 abrupt > 1m2, 12,
15
13*active monitoring necessary
14
Goodings Willow
Age Ecology Relationship Depth (m)* Rate*Citation
#
Seed
Abundance Associated with <0.8 to <1.4 <3.1 cm/day 11
Survivorship Associated with1 to 2 12
< 1m 2 cm/day 13
Juvenile Abundance Associated with 0.1 to 2 13
Adult
Abundance Associated with
0.1 to 3.2 13
0.5 to 3.3 14
2.2 to 4.2 16
Survivorship
Associated with3.5 to 4.0 2
< 3 < 1m/year 4
Harmed by> 2.5 to 3 2, 4
abrupt 1 m 12
*active monitoring necessary
15
Velvet Mesquite
Age Ecology Relationship Depth (m)* Rate*Citation
#
Juvenile
Abundance
Associated with
0.6 m/year 10
Abundance, Composition 2.9 13
Abundance, Health 3.6 13
Abundance, Composition, Survivorship
0.7 to 6.6 13
Adult
Abundance Associated with
> 2.2 16
2.0 to 4.8 14
0.9 to 1.3 m/year
10
Abundance, Composition
Associated with
3.4 13
Abundance, Composition, Survivorship
0.9 to 8.0 13
Abundance, Health 5.2 13
Survivorship Harmed by 14 3
*active monitoring necessary
16Kelly Mott Lacroix (2013)
Cottonwood*
*active monitoring necessary
17
• Adult:Cottonwood, Willow, MesquiteSpecies Age
• Survivorship Harmed ByEcologic Relationship
• Maximum Groundwater Depth
• Rate of DeclineHydrologic
Variable
GCASE Threshold Considerations
Citation #
Author(s)
1 Busch & Smith (1995)
2 Horton et al. (2001)
3 Leake et al. (2008)
4 Leenhouts et al. (2006)
5 Lite & Stromberg (2005)
6 Merritt & Bateman (2012)
7 NPS (2008)
8 Pima County (2009)
9 Shafroth et al. (1998)
10 Springer et al. (1999)
11 Strafroth et al. (1998)
12 Stromberg (2008)
13 Stromberg et al. (1996)
14 Stromberg et al. (2009)
15 Turner & Haney (2008)
16 Williams & Scott (2009)
18
Jacob Prietto
Water Resources Research Center
jprietto@email.arizona.edu
Riparian Thresholds: A
product of Water RAPIDS
Photo by Kelly Mott Lacroix