2017 gis in conservation track: assessing green infrastructure in the south platte river watershed

South Platte River Urban Waters Partnership – History & Context

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)

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

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.

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

Project TeamPeople invested in the S. Platte

Representative Organizations

Public

Private

Non-Profit

Resources of Greatest Concern

Forest

River

Plains

ExpertiseWatersheds

EnvironmentalQualityForestResourcesRangelandResourcesInfrastructure

Education

Conservation

Areas of Greatest Interest

Headwaters

Urban

Plains

Upper SouthPlatte

Lower SouthPlatte

Project Approach

**INVESTIGATION DataStakeholder

Team

META-ANALYSISExisting 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

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

Stakeholder Engagement & InvestmentAssets 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

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


Healthy Waterways


Wildlife Habitat

Access to Nature

PLAINS


Wildlife Habitat

Healthy Waterways



Access to Nature

Gather & Organize Extensive Data SourcesMeta-Analysis

Natural Capital Asset MappingNatural Assets of Importance & Weighting

UPPER WATERSHED



Wildlife Habitat


Healthy Waterways

Access to Nature

DENVER METRO

Urban Ecosystem Resources & Parks


Healthy Waterways


Wildlife Habitat

Access to Nature

PLAINS


Wildlife Habitat

Healthy Waterways



Access to Nature

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

Natural Capital Asset MappingArcGIS 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%

Natural Capital Asset MappingArcGIS Methods

Green Infrastructure

Raw ValuesHigh (34)

Low (-4)

South Platte Watershed Natural Capital Asset MapProject 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 &

PlainsModified to better align

with CSFS Forest Action

Plan

South Platte Watershed Natural Capital Asset MapProject 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%

**INVESTIGATION DataStakeholder

Team

META-ANALYSISExisting 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

Copyright (c) 2014 Earth Economics

Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit (EVT)

• 200+ fields for every value

• 3,800 reviewed values

• 45,000 candidate studies

Original

Study SiteApplied

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?

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

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)

Cro

pla

nd

Past

ure

s

Gra

ssla

nd

s

Fore

sts

Shru

bla

nd

s

Lake

s

Riv

ers

Wet

lan

ds

InformationAesthetic Information

Recreation and Tourism

Provisioning

Energy and Raw Materials

Food

Water Storage

Regulating

Air Quality

Biological Control

Climate Stability

Flood Control

Pollination


Soil Retention

Water Regulation

Water Quality

Supporting Habitat

Gap Analysis

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 ServiceLow Value

$/acre/yr

High Value

$/acre/yr# Values

Climate Stability $81.33 $524.14 18


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)

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


(million $ / yr)

Min Avg Max

DENVER METRO $577 $795 $1,103

Productive Ag

Resources

$0.4 $0.4 $0.4


Healthy

Waterways

$73 $75 $76

Access to Nature $16 $46 $76

Urban Ecosystem

Resources &

Parks

$434 $620 $806


(million $ / yr)

Min Avg Max

PLAINS $389 $561 $732

Native Forest

Resources

$48 $67 $86

Productive Ag

Resources

$6 $6 $6


Clean Drinking

Water

$252 $326 $400

Healthy Waterways $35 $40 $44

Access to Nature $17 $79 $141

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

Project PrioritizationStakeholder 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



Development

Flooding


Recreation

Demographic Factors (Environmental Justice &

Public Health)

PLAINS

Wildland Fire



Development

Flooding


Recreation

Connectivity

• 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

PrioritizationUses 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%

• Urban Heat Island

- Explore “Hot” Areas in Denver Metro



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)


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%

• Development

- Human Modified Areas (CSFS)

- Preserve high value landscapes

- Restore human modified landscapes



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%

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

https://pg-cloud.com/NaturalCapital/

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

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

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


- Improve Connectivity

- Improve Safety along Urban Corridors

- Improve Urban Aesthetics

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)


- Improve Natural Assets (GI) in at-risk areas

- Reduce the concentrations of some hazardous

pollutants (e.g. PM10)

- Reduce UHI effect

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

Project Contacts

• Project Director, Keith Wood

- 303-438-9338

- [email protected]

• Project Manager, Lance Davisson

- 208-994-1135

- [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2017 gis in conservation track: assessing green infrastructure in the south platte river watershed

Technology