Understanding water in the social-ecological system of the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin, Wyoming and Montana Authors: Chris Armatas1, Bill Borrie1, Alan Watson2, Neal Christensen3, Tyron Venn4, Dan McCollum5, and Ken Cordell2 Final Report June 2016 U.S. Forest Service Joint Venture Agreement Number: 14-JV-11221639-173 1 The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA 2 Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA 3 Christensen Research, Missoula, Montana, USA 4 University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia 5 Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA This research was funded by: The National Natural Resource Economics Research Center, USDA Forest Service, Landscape Restoration and Ecosystem Services Research; Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Christensen Research; and The University of Montana. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Understanding a Social-Ecological System ............................................................................. 3 2.1. Vulnerability..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Ecosystem Services .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1. Approaches for Valuing Ecosystem Services ........................................................... 9 2.2.1.1. Choice Modeling ............................................................................................. 11 2.3. The Need for a Holistic Approach ................................................................................. 13 3. Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1. Physical Characteristics.................................................................................................. 15 3.2. Social, Economic, and Cultural Characteristics ............................................................. 18 3.2.1. Threats to the water-based ecosystem services in the Basin ................................... 23 3.2.2. Stakeholder perceptions of vulnerability in the Basin ............................................ 24 4. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 27 4.1. Problem definition .......................................................................................................... 28 4.2. Selection of water-based ecosystem services ................................................................. 28 4.3. Defining water-based ecosystem services ...................................................................... 30 4.3.1. Defining the status quo ........................................................................................... 30 4.3.1.1. Angling ............................................................................................................ 31 4.3.1.2. Motorized winter recreation ............................................................................ 31 4.3.1.3. River and riverbank biological diversity ......................................................... 32 4.3.1.4. Agricultural Community.................................................................................. 33 4.3.1.5. Cost .................................................................................................................. 33 4.3.2. Defining the alternate levels ................................................................................... 33 4.4. Experimental design and survey instrument development ............................................. 36 4.4.1. Experimental design................................................................................................ 36 4.4.2. Survey instrument development ............................................................................. 37 4.5. Defining the population to be surveyed ......................................................................... 38 4.6. Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 39 4.7. Data analysis and interpretation of results ..................................................................... 40 5. Results ................................................................................................................................... 41 5.1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents ............................................................ 42 5.2. Respondent attitudes toward the Basin, and opinions on importance of WESs, threats to important WESs, and management and policy of natural resources ......................................... 44 5.3. Respondent opinions on survey instrument, and preferences for water-based ecosystem services ...................................................................................................................................... 48 6. Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 53 References ..................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix A. Choice Modeling Survey Questionnaire ................................................................. 65 i Executive Summary Natural resource managers and policy-makers are confronted with the difficult task of addressing the complex interrelationship between ecological and social systems in a way that, to the greatest extent practicable, sustains the broad range of ecosystem services flowing from public land that support human well-being. Both human and natural change (e.g., climate change, land-use change, and drought) can result in an altered flow of ecosystem services to a broad range of beneficiaries, who not only have disparate preferences for ecosystem services, but also differing abilities to adapt and cope with change. In the context of water management in the western United States, this task is particularly difficult as a result of both water scarcity and the competing nature of the many uses of water (e.g., irrigation and instream flow). In order to improve management and policy related to water-based ecosystem services flowing from public land, there is a need to provide better information to natural resource managers and policy- makers about tradeoffs and impacts of management actions on stakeholder benefits derived from water. In support of land management and policy in the western United States, this case study in Wyoming and Montana, USA, provides preliminary results from a choice modeling survey, which required respondents to make explicit tradeoffs between important water-based ecosystem services. This research builds upon previous research that focused on potential changes in ecosystem functions and the perceptions of a broad range of stakeholders regarding the importance of, and threats to, water benefits. Specifically, this report provides: 1) quantitative indicators (i.e., values) regarding four highly relevant water-based ecosystem services (agriculture, river-based angling, motorized winter recreation, and aquatic and riparian biodiversity); 2) social attitudes and values regarding water and public land management; and 3) potential tradeoffs across important water-based ecosystem services (WESs) that may occur due to climate change and land-use change. A choice modeling survey was completed by 310 heads of households, and the data highlight a broad range of attitudes and values associated with water-based ecosystem services in the study area. For instance, nearly 82% of respondents agree that future generations should get the same consideration as current generations in the context of natural resource management, and 65% of respondents support a modification of water law that would allow private land owners to temporarily use existing water rights for the improvement of instream flow. Although the ii primary threat to the future provision of important water-based ecosystem services, according to respondents, was too much government regulation and management, other threats including climate change, oil and natural gas extraction, and mining were perceived as threatening by many respondents. Like most choice modeling studies, respondents had a tendency to select the current state of the environment; however, there were several instances where respondents appeared willing to pay for an increase in the provision of water-based ecosystem services. That is, given a choice between three different sets of management outcomes, the majority of respondents chose ‘No Change in Management’. However, a good number of respondents appear willing to pay a substantial increase in annual costs to their household where there are significant increases in benefits received such as increased river and riverbank biological diversity, more land open to motorized