Methods for evaluating freshwater ecosystem services in support of decision making
David Yates (RAP), Claudia Tebaldi (CGD), Kathleen Miller (ESIG), Susi Moser (ESIG)
Other Collaborators: David Purkey, Natural Heritage Institute, Sacramento CaliforniaHector Galbraith, University of Colorado, Boulder Annette Huber-Lee, SEI/Tellus, MIT BostonOthers.. (University of California Davis and Stanford University)
Climate & Climate Change
Physical Hydrology
Watershed Management
Decisions:•Sykes Reservoir•FERC Relicensing•Conjunctive Use•System Operations
Socio-Economics
Decision-Makers•CALFED•State Assembly•California Water Dept•Others
EcosystemServices
credibility
Integrated Decision Support
relevancy
legitimacy
Water quantityWater quality
Seasonality of flowRegulation
Water for agriculture
Domestic water
Water for industry
Water for nature
Water for recreation
Integrating framework placed in the contextof a “Trade-off” landscape
Physical Hydrology and Water Management
Seamlessly integrating watershed hydrologic processes with water resources management.
Ecosystem services
Ecosystem•components•processes
Goods and Services
H2OQuantityQualitySeasonalityGovernance
Ecosystem•components•processes
Goods and Services
H2OQuantityQualitySeasonalityGovernance
Ecosystem Service Evaluation
Ecosystem Service Evaluation
Ecosystem•components•processes
Goods and Services
H2OQuantityQualitySeasonalityGovernance
Ecosystem•components•processes
Goods and Services
H2OQuantityQualitySeasonalityGovernance
Ecosystem services
Wetland – water flow slowed by:•Low gradient•Hydrophilic soils•Channel morphology•Plant roots and leaves•Land use planning
Seasonal flooding1st Order DecayChannelization
Flood/Drought
Water purification
Biodiversity/Rec
Ecosystem services in the SFBW
Extractable; Direct Use; Indirect Use
Recre-
ation, aesth. beauty
Trans-port
Power gener.
Nutr. cycl-ing
Regen. of soil fertility
Water for ag., urban, indust.
Har-vest. biota
Flood/
drought
mitig.
Water purifi-
cation
Ero-sion
con-trol
Habitat/
biodi-versity
Bay
Delta
Lower Rivers
Upper Rivers
Recre-
ation, aesth. beauty
Trans-port
Power gener.
Nutr. cycl-ing
Regen. of soil fertility
Water for ag., urban, indust.
Har-vest. biota
Flood/
drought
mitig.
Water purifi-
cation
Ero-sion
con-trol
Habitat/
biodi-versity
Bay
Delta
Lower Rivers
Upper Rivers
But what is needed are high resolution time series for the entire watershed
Climate and climate change
WNAWNABayesian model gives regional distributions of seasonal changes
The Inter-Disciplinary Framework
Ecosystem Service Assessment Properties
(ESAPs)
Ecosystem Service Indicators/Params
(ESIPs)
Ecosystem Service Prioritization and
SelectionStakeholder
Process
Scenario Development:
Climate, Land, Pop
ESIP/model estimate variance
Water Resources Modeling
Change in Eco Service
Translation Functions(Models)
ADAPTAT ION
Stylized schematic of Sacramento(garnering credibility)
Sacramento River Basin: • 50+ watersheds• Reservoirs• Central Valley Groundwater• Canals and DiversionsDemands:• Ag. & Urban Atm.• Municipal and Industrial• Reserves, Instream• Regional Diversions
Whiskey town
Pit
Cow
Battle
Cotton-Wood
Shasta Trinity
Clear
Oroville
Upper Feather
Almanor
Yolo B
ypass
Tehem
a
Chico
Butte
Sutter B
ypass
Thomes
Clear
Black Butte
Colusa
Cache
Putah
Bullards Bar Yuba
Bear
Folsom
Coon
Lower American
Upper American
Sacramento Weir
Feather
Upper Pit
McCloud
Delta
Sacram
ento R
iver
N. Pit
Pit Virt Res
San Joaquin Inflows
Irrigated Agriculture
M&I Water Demand
Rivers and Tributaries Inter-Basin Transfer
Reservoir
Instream Flow Requirement
Groundwater
WEAP Schematic of Sacramento Watershed
WEAP Schematic of Sacramento Watershed
Calibration and Validation
Model Evaluation (1961-1999):1. Flows Along Mainstem and Tributaries
2. Reservoir Storage and Release
3. Trinity Diversion
4. Agricultural Water Demand
5. Groundwater Storage Trends
6. Yolo Bypass Flood Inundation
7. Sacramento River Water Temperature
Streamflow reproduction for select watershed
Reservoir Storage Reproduction
FOLSOM Reservoir
0.E+00
2.E+05
4.E+05
6.E+05
8.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+06
Oct
-56
Oct
-58
Oct
-60
Oct
-62
Oct
-64
Oct
-66
Oct
-68
Oct
-70
Oct
-72
Oct
-74
Oct
-76
Oct
-78
Oct
-80
Oct
-82
Oct
-84
Oct
-86
Oct
-88
Oct
-90
Oct
-92
Oct
-94
Oct
-96
Oct
-98
Obs
Model
88 Rule Rev
Old Operating Rule
New Operating Rule
Probabilities ofClimate Change
Probabilities of change in
Hydrological Variables
Decisions onAdaptation Planning
(e.g. new storage infrastructure)
Presently, difficult to determine densities of hydrologic variables
flow“Joint” scenarios
Presently, difficult to determine densities of hydrologic variables
Probabilities ofClimate Change
Probabilities of change in
Hydrological Variables
Decisions onAdaptation Planning
(e.g. new storage infrastructure)
?T
P flow
What is the joint probability?CSIRO and CCC heavily weighted in determining the winter distributions
Western North America Climate Scenarios
But not consistent-
These same models are given less weight for the summer distributions
Western North America Climate Scenarios
A stage along the way to getting at probabilities…Stylized Scenarios using K-nn
WmDry
WmDryT2
WtWnt
WtWntT2
WtWntT4
VWtWntr
VWtWntrT3
(Yates et al. 2002)
Scenarios of Monthly Avg. Tmp (55 Stn, ~40 yrs)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
C
Scenarios of Monthly Avg. Precip. (55 Stn., ~40 yrs)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
mm
Stylized Sacramento Climate Scenarios
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
hist
WrmDry (+1.9C)
WrmDryT2 (+3.9C)
WtWnt (+0.9C)
WtWntT2 (+3.2C)
WtWntT4 (+5.2C)
VWtrWnt (+3.2)
VWtWntT3 (+6.2)
Assumed No Irrigation or Storage
Irrigation w/ all Available Storage
Avg. Monthly River flows below Yolo and Sacramento
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
acre
-fee
t x
1e6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
hist
WrmDry (+1.9C)
WrmDryT2 (+3.9C)
WtWnt (+0.9C)
WtWntT2 (+3.2C)
WtWntT4 (+5.2C)
VWtrWnt (+3.2)
VWtWntT3 (+6.2)
Avg. Monthly River Flows below Yolo and Sacramento
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
acre
-fee
t x
1E
6
Whiskey town
Pit
Cow
Battle
Cotton-Wood
Shasta Trinity
Clear
Oroville
Upper Feather
Almanor
Yolo B
ypass
Tehem
a
Chico
Butte
Sutter B
ypass
Thomes
Clear
Black Butte
Colusa
Cache
Putah
Bullards Bar Yuba
Bear
Folsom
Coon
Lower American
Upper American
Sacramento Weir
Feather
Upper Pit
McCloud
Delta
Sacram
ento R
iver
N. Pit
Pit Virt Res
San Joaquin Inflows
River Flow
Sacramento @ Butte Avg. Water Temps.
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
C
Sacramento @ Butte Avg. Water Temps.
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
C
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
hist
WrmDry (+1.9C)
WrmDryT2 (+3.9C)
WtWnt (+0.9C)
WtWntT2 (+3.2C)
WtWntT4 (+5.2C)
VWtrWnt (+3.2)
VWtWntT3 (+6.2)
Assumed No Irrigation or Storage
Irrigation w/ all Available Storage
Whiskey town
Pit
Cow
Battle
Cotton-Wood
Shasta Trinity
Clear
Oroville
Upper Feather
Almanor
Yolo B
ypass
Tehem
a
Chico
Butte
Sutter B
ypass
Thomes
Clear
Black Butte
Colusa
Cache
Putah
Bullards Bar Yuba
Bear
Folsom
Coon
Lower American
Upper American
Sacramento Weir
Feather
Upper Pit
McCloud
Delta
Sacram
ento R
iver
N. Pit
Pit Virt Res
San Joaquin Inflows
Water Temperature
threshold
threshold
1. Refine Water Resources Model to able to address relevant issues
• FERC Re-licensing of the Yuba, American Bear
• Sykes Reservoir Analysis
• Others..
2. Regional Scenarios
Develop complete probabilistic approach w/ Bivariate Bayesian Model
3. Refine Ecosystem service evaluation by placing into an uncertainty construct
4. Legitimacy: Continue to engage relevant stakeholders in model development and application process, especially utility of probabilistic results!
Plans for ‘05
