Protection by Will Price, Program Director, Pinchot Institute for Conservation

358 views

Published on

Protection by Will Price, Program Director, Pinchot Institute for Conservation

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Protection by Will Price, Program Director, Pinchot Institute for Conservation

  1. 1. ACCELERATING ACTION THE ROLE OF PROTECTION IN ENSURING HEALTHY WATERSHEDS Will Price willprice@pinchot.org
  2. 2. NJ  Largest tidal prism in the world  8.6 billion gallons withdrawn daily  Power (68%) ; Water Supply (11%) ; industrial (8%) DE
  3. 3. NJ PA  1 in 20 Americans drink from the Delaware, 16.2 million people  90 percent of water consumption is surficial  113 miles tidally-influenced
  4. 4. PA NJ  More than 140 water purveyors  838 muncipalities, 42 counties, 4 states
  5. 5. NJ North of the Gap, fasted growing counties in each state: 100 acres/week Forest health declining PA
  6. 6. PA NY  Longest free-flowing river east of Mississippi  Headwaters more than 80 percent forested  Mostly privately owned
  7. 7. Pepacton Reservoir = 140 billion gallons NYC 665 million gallon average daily diversion NYC Watershed program $167 million each year
  8. 8. threats 1. Land development & urbanization 2. Energy development 3. Inadequate land use planning regulations
  9. 9. Overview Pike County, PA
  10. 10. Overview Pike County, PA We can lose much of these forests in the coming decades.
  11. 11. SLEUTH Development Model Dr. Claire Jantz, Shippensburg University
  12. 12. Land Development/ Urbanization Key Stressor Indicator(s) • Urbanization • Impervious surface Literature Values • Biotic Measures of Water  Quality (BMI, fish, IBI, etc.) 4% to 15% • Abiotic/Physical (flows,  temperature, structure) 12% to 30% • Abiotic/Chemical (nutrients,  metals, etc.) 30% to 50%
  13. 13. • • • • • • • Commercial Development $$$ Gas Leases/Royalties $$$ Partition Sale/Subdivide $$ Logging $$ Hunting Leases/Club $ Forest Stewardship $ Conservation Incentives $ Type $/Acre @ 80 years Northeast PA Softwood Black Cherry $552 $4,876 Oak Northern HW $479 $1,237 Misc. HW Penn State Coop. Extension (2008) $782
  14. 14. Protection Priorities Natural Lands Trust, The Nature Conservancy,  US Forest Service, National Park Service
  15. 15. Land Protection Pocono Kittatinny Cluster
  16. 16. Discussion Case developed, undeveloped, and protected by HUC12
  17. 17. Discussion Case Pocono – Kittattiny Cluster
  18. 18. Watershed Selection Criteria Evaluating Watershed Condition and Key Threats to Water Quality at the HUC12-scale • WATERSHED CONDITION Targeting high to moderately-high quality watersheds where conservation can make a difference Includes headwater and riparian corridor ecosystems (Percent Impervious Cover) • FLOODPLAIN CONDITION Targeting high-quality floodplains ( Percent Impervious Cover) • DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Projected Impervious Cover for the HUC12 (Percent Impervious Cover) Protection Project Selection Criteria Evaluating the Size, Condition, and Extent of Key Ecosystems linked to Water Quality • • • • PARCEL SIZE (acreage) PARCEL CONDITION (Percent Impervious Cover) HABITAT CONDITION Identified as high-quality habitat AQUATIC CONDITION Preserves portion of an EV, HQ, Brook or Wild Trout Stream (percent of stream preserved by property) • ABUNDANCE OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS (acreage & percent of property in wetlands) ABUNDANCE OF RIPARIAN & FLOODPLAIN ECOSYSTEMS (acreage & percent of property in riparian or floodplain areas) • Identifying Headwaters and Floodplains of Signifance • HEADWATER CONSERVATION Collection of Projects and existing Protected Lands combine to conserve extensive Headwater Regions of Key HUC12s (acres) • FLOODPLAIN CONSERVATION Protects floodplains along major rivers of Cluster (parcel's feet of river frontage) • FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY Collection of Projects and existing Protected Lands conserve significant extent of floodplains along Major Rivers of Cluster (acres and/or feet of river frontage)
  19. 19. Step 2 EVALUATING PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Funding Feasibility Project Costs vs Project Need • Percent of Capital Costs likely met by Sources other than WPF (%) • Total Capital Funding Needed and Cost per Acre (after applying match) (including up-front, stewardship, and endowment costs) (Dollars) • Type of Deal (Full Acquisition, Easement, Donation) Conservation Readiness The Likelihood of Completing Permanent Protection by 2017 (3-years) • Contact already established with Willing Landowner (Y/Possible(P)/N) • Identified as Priority in Other Partner Plans (List County, Municipal, & Watershed Plans) • Probability of Permanent Protection Completed in 3-Years (best guess) (%)
  20. 20. Urbanization Trends • SLEUTH Model (C. Jantz) • NLT adapted to PKC • Considers attractiveness to  development using a  model calibrated to  historical trends • May have slowed down  but. . .the attractiveness is  based on where  development is likely to go
  21. 21. Water resource “risks” relating to land cover Low flow  Salinity at intakes (treatment & damage)  Available withdrawal (volume & temperature)  Permitted discharge (temperature) High flow  Turbidity & pollutant loading  Damage to facilities (debris & inundation)  Volume stormwater & treatment Δ Quality     Chlorides (“salt line”) Turbidity & sediments Taste & odor (e.g. algal blooms) Enterococci  see Climate Change and the Delaware Estuary, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (2010)
  22. 22. Mid-Century Streamflow Dr. Ray Najjar, Pennsylvania State University Which outcome is likely? • Low flow in summer, early spring melt, salinity, discharge of cooling water • High flows in late fall/winter, higher intensity events, flooding
  23. 23. STEWARDSHIP PLANS, PRACTICES, and EASEMENTS in PRIORITY AREAS Common Waters Fund Activities Approved projects 114 Approved plans Approved practices Easements Total acreage of enrolled parcels 80 30 5 52,800
  24. 24. Proposition Science & Economics INPUTS CONTRIBUTION SCENARIOS PROGRAM ALLOCATION SCENARIOS $0.00 per MGY Sector Rates (Variable) Water rates  by sector Program Funding Relative to Base in Each Year (%) Thermolectric $ 0.15 Years 0 to 10 (%) $ 1.00 Years 10 to 30 (%) 100% 0.50 Years 31 to 50 (%) 100% Years 50+ (to 100) Protection  strategies 100% Drinking Water 0% Industrial $ 0.25 Normalized Rate $0.00 Investment by Sector Allocation Among Program Activities (%) Thermolectric $ 300,519 Watershed Stewardship 80% Drinking Water $ 220,565 Easements (Donation, Barg, Full) 20% Industrial $ 76,030 Annual Investment Watershed Stewardship Max Facility Investment Thermolectric $ Drinking Water $ Industrial 162,312 $ $ Easements (Donation, Barg, Full) $ 57,545 Bargain Sale Recruitment Rate % Maximum Company Investment $ $ 597,115 Discount Rate for Investments All Withdrawals (below NYC), ["y/n"] n r 2.5% 1.5% 3.8% Full Easement Base-Year ($) Use Rates ("r") or payment ("p"), value below Bargain Price as % Full Payment ($) in lump sum $ 119,423 10% 63,626 Donation Recruitment Rate % 197,961 Inflation Rate for Revenues Net Investment (three sector/all) 477,692 $ 4,000 50% n 2,000,000 Evenly Applied to Tiers ["y/n"] OUTCOMES OUTCOMES Baseline  scenarios Program Period 0-10 Program Period 0-30 10 Years 7,550,265 Cumulative Investment ($) Program Period 0-50 30 50 38,597,252 111,347,178 Unit Protection Price ($/acre) $ 1,013 $ 1,720 $ 2,975 Easement Cost @ end of period $ 4,574 $ 6,160 $ 8,297 Forests Permanently Protected Permanent Protection by Tier 7,456 Program Period 0-10 22,440 Program Period 0-30 37,424 Program Period 0-50 Tier 1 Priorities (63% current protection) 68% 77% 87% Tier 2 Priorities (41% current protection) 41% 41% 41% Tier 3 Priorities (20% current protection) 20% 20% 20% 298,557 298,557 298,557 7,499 22,498 37,496 Urbanized (%) without Program 0.6% 1.7% 2.8% Urbanized (%) with Program 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Maximum Land Area in Stewardship Urbanization* without Program (Jantz) Outcomes in  different periods
  25. 25. Do we know enough? “The friends and enemies of the forest have both said more than they can prove.” “…questions of this kind cannot be answered without long and careful observation. . .” (Gifford Pinchot, 1905) “Reduction of forest cover increases water yield; establishment of forest cover …decreases water yield; and, response to treatment is highly variable and, for the most part unpredictable.” (Hibbert 1965) No magic threshold for a watershed (e.g. 10% impervious, or 75% forested (Brabec et. al. 2002) Water quality & quantity influenced by cumulative forest loss, poor stormwater management, and degraded floodplains (Booth et. al. 2003).
  26. 26. BUYERS water users & stakeholders Drinking Water & Wastewater Utilities ● Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) ● New Jersey Water Supply Authority ● United Water ● Veolia Water North America ● American Water (PA and NJ) ● Aqua America  Energy Generation ● PSEG  ● PPL ● Exelon ● PECO Bottling Companies & Food ● Ocean Spray ● Campbell Soup ● Nestle Waters North America ● Coca‐Cola ● Pepsico Industry ● DuPont ● Essroc Cement  ● Kimberly‐Clark  ● Johnson & Johnson  Multiple Sectors ● Water Resources Assoc.  of the Delaware R. Basin ● Camden Aquarium  Corporate Sustainability ● Ceres ● U.S. Business Council on Sustainable Devel. State & Federal ● U.S. Forest Service ● DRBC ● NRCS ● US EPA Regions 2‐3
  27. 27. Building Consensus for Sustainability Catskill Forest Association Delaware Highlands Conservancy Delaware River Basin Commission Environmental Protection Agency League of Women Voters, Pennsylvania Monroe County Conservation District National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation National Parks Conservation Association National Park Service, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation  Area National Park Service, Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational  River Natural Lands Trust Natural Resources Conservation Service New Jersey Forest Service New Jersey Water Supply Authority New York Department of Environmental Conservation Orange County, NY Department of Planning Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Environmental Council Pike County Conservation District Pike County, PA Office of Community Planning Pinchot Institute for Conservation Pocono Environmental Education Center Pocono Resource Conservation and Development Council Sullivan County, NY Division of Planning and Environmental  Management Sussex County Soil Conservation District Sussex County, NJ Department of GIS Management Sussex County, NJ Planning Division The Nature Conservancy, National Headquarters The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey The Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania Upper Delaware Council Upper Delaware River Roundtable US Forest Service, Grey Towers National Historic Site US Forest Service, State and Private Forestry Wayne Conservation District
  28. 28. “Sellers” (Projects & Partners)  Grow & sustain program  Expand activities (e.g. adaptation) “Proposition”  Cost/benefit analyses  Flood/drought analyses “Buyers” (Users & Stakeholders)  Engage in science  Evaluate investment strategies Contacts: Stephanie Pendergrass Dalke Spdalke@pinchot.org Will Price willprice@pinchot.org

×