Transcript Mod23-C Watershed Management

WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
Module 23, part C – Economic Component
Watershed management organization
 Social
Component
 Ecological
Component
 Economic
Component
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s2
Watershed management structure
 A strong watershed structure
 uses sound science
 facilitates communication and partnerships
 fosters actions that are well planned and cost
effective
 stimulates actions and tracks results
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s3
Economic component
 Economic Components
 Watershed Economics and Ecosystems
 Watershed Protection Economics
 Funding Sources
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s4
Watershed economics and ecosytems
 The nations gross domestic product (GDP) is
considered the nation’s barometer of economic
well-being.
 Ecosystem services are important in our day to
day lives. Since these fundamental services
were in place long before the introduction of
humans and operate at a very large scale, they
are easily taken for granted.
Desotelle
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s5
Ecosystem services do not have a price
 Water regulation is a function of hydrological
flows.
 Water supply is a function of storage and
retention (wetlands, ponds, streams, etc.) in the
watershed.
 Erosion control is a function of soil retention
within an ecosystem.
 Waste treatment is a function of a wetlands
ability to remove or breakdown excess
nutrients.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s6
GDP’s failures
 The GDP is merely a gross tally of products and
services bought and sold. There is no distinction
made between transactions of what adds to or
distracts from a watershed’s well-being.
 If something lacks a price (e.g., water regulation,
erosion control, water treatment, etc.) regardless
of its importance to our health or welfare it is not
included in the GDP.
 If a transaction (e.g., land use change) destroys
an ecosystem service, it is considered an
economic gain under the GDP method.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s7
Watershed protection economics
 There is never enough money for watershed
protection and watershed managers must make
careful choices about how to spend their
limited resources.
 Placing a value on our watersheds and its site
specific characteristics such as soil type, land
use, land cover, etc. is important for deciding
the best future land use patterns in the
watershed.
 Studies are becoming available to help begin to
understand and value water resources.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s8
Public trust vs. private property rights
 Groups such as developers, farmers, realtors
may argue that a person owning land has a
right to develop it as they please. Taking of the
use of this land must be compensated
according to the value of the property.
 Public trust has an obligation to safeguard the
public health, safety, and welfare of the public.
 The value of land is an important consideration
and should be assessed with ecosystem
services in mind.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s9
Balancing development and protection
 Watershed development does not have to be
synonymous with resource degradation.
 Growth managed in a watershed context can
locate and design homes and businesses in a
way that will reduce or eliminate impacts in the
watershed.
 Protecting a watershed requires, good planning
to protect forest cover, provide storage, and
reduce impervious cover to the extent
necessary for natural resource protection.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s10
Economic watershed protection tools
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s11
Watershed planning considerations
 Direct appropriate level of new growth to the
subwatersheds that can best afford and accommodate
the changes.
 Requires investment of time and money for technical
studies, monitoring, decision-making, etc.
 Citizens rank protection of water resources highly. A
North Carolina survey showed a strong preference for
spending more public funds on environmental
protection than highway construction, welfare, or
economic development. Only crime and education
ranked as higher spending priorities among citizens
(Hoban and Clifford 1992).
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s12
Land conservation considerations
 Property adjacent to protected wetlands,
floodplains, shorelines, and forests are great
locations for development (U.S. EPA 1995). This
is expressed in research showing a greater
willingness to pay to live near these habitats.
 Conserving trees saves money on energy bills
and runoff treatment.
 Coastal wetland areas contribute to the local
economy through recreation, fishing, and flood
protection.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s13
Aquatic buffer considerations
can help protect valuable
wildlife habitat. Each mile
of buffer protects 12 acres
of habitat along shorelines
and 25 acres along creeks
(Schueler 1995).
 Corporate landowners can
save between $270 to $640
per acre in annual mowing
and maintenance costs
when open lands are
managed as a natural
buffer rather than turf
(Wildlife Habitat
Enhancement Council
1992).
Developed by: Desotelle
Lakes and the Economy
$700/ft
Property Value
 A shoreline or creek buffer
$300/ft
$50/ft
Sources: Mississippi Headwaters Board and
Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources, 2003; University of Maine 1996;
Itasca County, MN Assessor’s Office 2003.
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s14
Site design considerations
 Clustering development can
reduce capital cost of
subdivision development by
10 to 33%, primarily by
reducing the length of
infrastructure (streets, sewer,
etc.) needed to serve
development (NAHB 1986;
Maryland Office of Planning
1989; Schueler 1995).
 Clustering typically keeps
from 40 to 80% of total site
area in permanent open space.
 Minimizing impervious cover
by narrowing streets, shared
drives, reduced parking area is
a cost savings to developers.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s15
Erosion & sediment control considerations
 Typically, the cost to install and
maintain ESC can average $800 to
$1,500 per cleared acre per year
depending on duration of
construction and site conditions
(SMBIA 1990; Paterson et al. 1993).
 Applying other watershed
protection tools can help reduce the
Minnesota Erosion Control Association
cost for ESC (e.g., buffers, site
design, forest conservation).
 Careful timing of land clearing
activities as development proceeds
can be economical.
 Benefits to resources by preventing
impacts is difficult to measure, but
we do know prevention is more cost
effective than restoration.
Minnesota Erosion Control Association
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s16
Stormwater bmp considerations
 Used to promote recharge (infiltration), remove
pollutants (filtering), prevent streambank
erosion, control downstream flooding.
 Engineered BMPS (i.e., stormwater ponds,
wetlands, swales, etc.) are among the most
expensive watershed protection tools.
 Homes near a stormwater wetland in Minnesota
were nearly identical in value to homes
bordering a high quality urban lake (Clean
Water Partnership, 1997).
 BMPs must be maintained and this task often
falls on landowners or local government.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s17
Non-stormwater discharge considerations
 On-site treatment systems (septics) must have
appropriate drainage area and soil to function
properly.
 There are costs to installing and maintaining
these systems, but without proper design,
installation, and maintenance, the cost to water
quality degradation and property values can be
extreme.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s18
Watershed protection programs
 Educating citizens and businesses about their
daily role in protecting the quality of the watershed
is on-going.
 Investment in programs on watershed education,
public participation, monitoring, inspection of onsite treatment systems, low input lawn care,
household hazardous waste, business pollution
prevention is a key element in the protection of the
watershed.
 Management and application costs are often
generated by local government. Preventing
impacts maintains ecosystem integrity and
reduces restoration costs.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s19
Funding Sources
 The three more common types of funding
mechanisms for watershed programs are
 General revenues
 Permit fees
 Dedicated revenues (i.e., stormwater utility fees)
 Grants
 Loans
 Tax levies
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s20
General revenues
 General revenues come from local government
revenues (income, fees, fines, etc.). It is used
by all levels of government to fund programs
and service.
 Generally stable during economic downturns
 Allocation is highly variable and watershed
protection is often considered a low priority
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s21
Permit fees
 Permit fees place the cost of watershed
programs on those who create the need for the
service. Fees may be assessed on the basis of
the amount of area disturbed, type of
development (i.e., residential, commercial), or
the amount of land developed.
 Disadvantages include: burden to collect fees,
dependent on the level of growth in the
community, and the potential for fees to be
diverted into a general agency fund rather than
used for watershed management.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s22
Stormwater utility
 This is a dedicated funding system providing a
stable source of revenue for watershed
protection.
 The user charges typically reflect the
proportion of stormwater runoff a property
contributes to stormwater sewer system. Often
impervious surface is used as an indicator for
fees.
 Fees are used to finance capital and operating
expenses needed for local stormwater
management programs.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s23
Grants
 Grant programs may come from federal, state,
or private foundations.
 Time-consuming for staff to write and
administer grants.
 Effective for specific projects easy to identify a
start and end time where funds are not
available from fees or permits.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s24
Loans
 The State Revolving Loan (SRF) is often a way
to obtain a low interest loan for watershed
implementation.
 Applicable for local agencies.
 Money borrowed must be repaid, and therefore,
there must be a plan for repayment. Repayment
does not have to come from the activity for
which the loan is used.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s25
Tax levies
 Ad valorem taxes are often used for watershed
management programs. This process requires
a special assessment district for a specific
function or geographic area (watershed).
 Special assessment districts operate as an
independent government agency (e.g.,
watershed district) capable of imposing a tax
levy in order to finance watershed planning and
implementation.
 Governing comes from a board appointed by
the local agency (e.g., county board).
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s26
References
 Center for Watershed Protection. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for







Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland. http://www.cwp.org.
Center for Watershed Protection. 1997. The Economics of Watershed Protection.
Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 2, No. 4. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott
City, Maryland. http://www.cwp.org.
Honachefsky, William B. 2000. Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use Planning. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 256 pp.
Know Your Watershed. Putting Together A Watershed Management Plan – A Guide for
Watershed Partners. Conservation Technology Information Center, W. Lafayette, IN.
http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/PutTogether.html
Ministry of Environment and Energy and Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Water
Management on a Watershed Basis: Implementing an Ecosystem Approach. Ministry of
Environment and Energy and Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada. 32 pp.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/3109e.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004. A Quick Guide to Using Natural
Resource Information. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.
www.dnr.state.mn.us.
Terrene Institute. 1996. A Watershed Approach to Urban Runoff – Handbook for
Decisionmakers. Terrene Institute, Inc. Alexandria, VA. 115 pp. (Terrene Institute is no
longer in operation – see http://www.enviroscapes.com/images/communit.JPG for a
poster concept).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned.
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information. 800-490-9198.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lessons/lessonspdfs/top10.pdf.
Developed by: Desotelle
Updated:10/2004
U5-m23a-s27