Economic Value of Wetlands as a Conservation Tool in the Tinkers Creek Watershed

Transcription

1 Economic Value of Wetlands as a Conservation Tool in the Tinkers Creek Watershed Mike McNutt, Watershed Coordinator Tinkers Creek Watershed Partners Cuyahoga County Board of Health

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Tinkers Creek Watershed

11 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

12

13 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

14

15 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

16

17 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

18

19 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

20

21 Cool Sites in the Watershed Great Falls of Tinkers Creek National Scenic Overlook Tinkers Creek State Park Herrick Fen Bridal Veil Falls Tinkers Creek Aqua Duct

22

23

24

25

26 Watershed Facts 96.4 square miles in drainage area 33 miles of river length Spans 4 Counties Diverse Land Use (very urban, suburban, rural) 21% Imperviousness on average Population 109,199 Largest tributary to the Cuyahoga River 7 discharging WWTP s

27

28

29 Causes of Impairment Organic Enrichment Nutrient Enrichment Low In-stream Dissolved Oxygen Toxicity Sedimentation Habitat Degradation Yet unknown impairment (s)

30

31

32

33 The Need for Wetlands Northeast Ohio experiences substantial flooding Sedimentation is leading water quality degrader Streams no longer can handle water quantity being inputted Too much nutrients (P/N) in system Riparian/Wetland setbacks only recently implemented by local governments

34 Ohio s Wetlands Regulations Obtain 401/404 permits Allow impacts to navigable waters of the State OEPA requires the 401 to be had first 401 permits must include an ant-degradation analysis: Preferred Alternative Minimum degradation alternative Non-Degradation Lax Wetland Setback Regulations

35 Ohio s Construction Activities

36 Wetland Setbacks are Encouraged

37 Wetland Mitigation All wetland mitigation is allowed within the 8- digit hydrologic unit code Ohio allows wetland mitigation banks Most urban wetland impacts are mitigated outside of the original watershed Less expensive to purchase a credit at a mitigation bank than to buy costly urban land Oxy-Moron to think that removing wetlands from watersheds and allowing outsourcing of the mitigation to be done in distant areas will achieve EPA water quality standards

38 Issues In most local economies, development is an instant source of increasing the tax base and funneling new money into the local economy Little consideration is given to resource value when development occurs Historic mindset is to engineer our way to control Mother Nature (Manifest Destiny Mentality) Regulations favor developers Local ordinance/regulation regarding setbacks or construction site maintenance are minimally enforced Virtually no tools to convince elected officials to preserve/conserve wetlands

39 Economics of Wetlands Four major wetland valuation categories: Direct Use Values (fish production, recreation, hunting) Can be measured using direct market pricing Indirect Use Values (nutrient retention, flood control, increased property values) Estimated using replacement costs, damage costs avoided, hedonic pricing Option Value (individual derives a benefit by ensuring future use of resource) Non-Use Value (resource maintained for future generations even when a person has no use for resource)

40 Study Criteria Ecological Significance Hydrological Significance Economic Significance

41 Ecological Significance ORAM Scores (Ohio Rapid Assessment Method) Used ORAM scores from (Ohio EPA, Cuyahoga River RAP) ORAM data on 162 wetlands totaling 2,148 ac DNAP to identify T/E Species Field Visits using ORAM Scores Ranges Study scores ORAM Category # of Wetland s Area, ac Category Category Category ,432 Not Categorized 832 1,769

42 Hydrologic Significance (AVGWLF) Arc View Generalized Watershed Loading Function ArcView 3.2 Interface Developed by Penn State University Simulates runoff, sediment, and nutrient loading, based on land cover, soil type, and precipitation Provides model to calculate storage capacity of wetlands Surface flow is modeled using Soil Conservation Service TR-55 method

43 Inputs Time Steps (Daily, Monthly) Uses (Soil Conservation Service) TR-55 Model for Runoff USLE for Erosion Land cover Data from CCAP (Coastal Change Analysis Program) Soil Data (NRCS) Digital elevation Model Local weather station data for precipitation & temperature

44 How the Model Was Run Ran under 4 different scenarios 1. Current Conditions (Mean annual precipitation & temperature) to give a baseline value 2. All wetland land cover was converted to impervious surface and ran again 3. Current Condition using both 10yr. & 24-hour precipitation events 4. All wetland land cover was converted to impervious surface using both 10yr. & 24-hour precipitation events Process repeated for all 13 subwatersheds to estimate the amount of water and sediment retained The volume retained was divided by the total wetland area to give a per-acre measure of retention

45 Hydrologic Stats 951 Wetlands Identified Equals 6.2 acres of the total size or 3,917 acres If filled to capacity the wetlands would hold 591 acre-feet of water (Based on OEPA Regression Equations) Depressional Wetlands: V = * A Riverine Wetlands: V = * A AVGWLF calculated wetlands to store and process 16,006 acre-feet through retention and evapotranspiration per year Wetlands reduced stream input by 8,000 acre-feet Wetlands returned another 8,000 acre-feet of water to atmosphere by evapotranspiration For a 10-year, 24 hour storm, wetlands within the Tinkers Creek Watershed retain 3,149 ac-ft Cost to retain this amount of water in the Tinkers Creek Watershed through storm water basins: $81.7 million Or not spending any money and save $74,160,561 by keeping the wetlands

46 Economic Valuation Methods House Values- hedonic model Storm water Retention- USEPA (1997) costs Flood Reduction Permitting Costs Recreational Value of Public Wetlands USFWS use values Benefit analysis IMPLAN multiplier of 1.4 (Impact of dollars as they filter through the economy; 1.4 means for every dollar spent on recreation, 1.4 is spent in the regional economy)

47 Economic Valuation Category Value in Perpetuity per Acre of Wetland (2007 U.S. Dollars, Lump Sum) Per Year Value (Perpetual Value*0.03) (Annual Dividend) Added Housing Value $976 $29.28 Public Recreation Value (State Parks and Preserve) $231,423 ($5,273 to $520,523) $6,943 ($158 to $15,616) Avoided Flood Costs $663 $19.89 Avoided Permitting and Mitigation Costs Stormwater Basin Replacement Costs (Not including water quality treatment) Sum of Above per-acre Values and Avoided Costs $110,000 ($85,000 to $135,000) $3,300 ($2,550 to $4,050) $18,933 $ $393,470 ($110,845 to $676,095) $12,059 ($3,325 to $20,283)

48 Final Results Wetland rankings for ecological and hydrologic values were very consistent Economic values driven by public use and size Many high quality wetlands remain in the watershed Most high quality wetlands are protected, but some remain unprotected

49 Study Conclusions Wetlands have a high societal value in the Tinkers Creek Watershed $110,845-$676,095/ac in perpetuity $3, $20,282.85/ac per year Wetlands do provide an economic benefit to both the homeowner and the community Community education to both homeowners and elected officials is essential to the sustainability of the watershed Balancing development with maintaining the integrity of the environment is crucial to revitalizing Northeast Ohio

50 Thank You Contact Information: x1224