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