Valuing(Restoration(of(New(Hampshire(Salt( - - PDF document

Valuing(Restoration(of(New(Hampshire(Salt( Marshes:((An(Approach(to(Measuring( Ecosystem(Services!

David&Burdick&&&&&&&&&Gregg&Moore&&&&&&&Gail&Chmura

Dept&of&Nat.&Resources& &Dept&of&Biol.&Sciences &Dept&of&Geography&& Marine&Program,&Jackson&Estuarine&Laboratory& &Global&Environmental&&&Climate&Change&Centre& University&of&New&Hampshire,&Durham,&USA & &McGill&University,&Montreal,&Canada!

Tidal!Restric-ons! con-nue!to!degrade! protected!marshes!

Restoration can be costly – is it worth it?

Evalua-ng!Restora-on!

• Success,!Pass/Fail?!!!
• Defined!by!Acres,!Structure,!Func-on?!
• No!Unified!Method,!No!Unified!Parameters!
• Can!sites!be!compared?!readily,!meaningfully?!

!

?

Photo: G.E. Moore

Gulf!of!Maine!GPAC!Protocols!

• Hydrology!

Tidal!Signal!(WL!Recorders),!Eleva-on!

• Soils!and!Sediments!

Salinity!(and!Sulfide,!Eh,!%C,!accre-on)!

• Vegeta-on!

Abundance,!Composi-on,!Invasive!spp,!Ht.!

• Nekton!

ID,!Density,!Length,!Biomass,!Richness!

• Birds!

Abundance,!Richness,!Behavior! Neckles et al. 2002. Restoration

• Ecology. 10(3):556-563.

Konisky et al. 2004.

• 1

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RPI Score

Time (years)

RPI Summary Scores

Nekton Vegetation Pore water Hydrology Reference (Tref)

RPI – An Evaluation Tool

Calculates % Change towards Reference/Project Goal Normalizes actual data into a relative index score Restoration Starting Point Reference Marsh Value Restoration Trajectory

RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Restora-on!change ! Ini-al!difference!from! reference !

!

RPI =

(Salinitypresent – Salinitypre-restoration) (Salinityreference –Salinitypre-restoration) (20ppt – 10ppt) (30ppt – 10ppt) = 0.5

Example!Marsh!Scenario!

4 Functional Areas Each = 1/4 Contribution Pore water Vegetation Hydrology

• Tidal Range
• Flooded Area
• Native % Cover
• Biomass
• Salinity (psu)
• Redox (mV)
• Sulfide (mM)

Nekton

• Abundance
• Diversity

Calculates % Change towards Reference/Project Goal Normalizes actual data into a relative index score

Case Study: Little River Marsh, NH Case Study: Little River Marsh, NH

RPI!Calcula-ons!for!LiUle!River!Marsh!

!"#$"% !"#$%&#'()*+,'

• &+,).'+/'0(,

1,23 4+,51,673 1,23 1,673 &!' 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 89:+&(&;9 !"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%

• ."/01%2/)#

3456 7858 3456 3359 ()** 3456 3359 3456 3359 !"#$%&'(()#)%*+,% :#$.%2/)# 945; <5< 945; =75> ()** 945; =75> 945; =75> ?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%

• ."/01%2/)#

95== <58= 954> 95>; *)+, 954> 95>; 954> 95>; ?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,% :#$.%2/)# 956; <56> 959= <5== *)-. 959= <5== 959= <5== 4&+,)<'7,+

• $'/0/@D%*..@,

6;56 9=58 685< 685= ()** 6356 6;5; >958 >95< .,;,7'%&# E$'(.FD@#%G(H#"%*+, ;853 8353 =<53 >353 *)** ;75; >758 I0H$J/H#%G(H#"%*+, <5< 9<56 <5< 65= *)-/ <59 659 =,>7&# K#0J/@D%*LMC6, 6<59 965=

• .#N/#J%B/NF0#JJ

=58 >59 14? @3AB @3C@ @3CB @3CD !"#$%&#'()*+,'

• &+,).'+/'0(,

1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 89:+&(&;9 !"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%

• ."/01%2/)#

3456 3359 3456 3359 3456 3359 3456 3359 !"#$%&'(()#)%*+,% :#$.%2/)# 945; =75> 945; =75> 945; =75> 945; =75> ?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%

• ."/01%2/)#

954> 95>; 954> 95>; 954> 95>; 954> 95>; ?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,% :#$.%2/)# 959= <5== 959= <5== 959= <5== 959= <5== 4&+,)<'7,+

• $'/0/@D%*..@,

>958 6753 6857 935; 665= 6>5; 645; 6357 .,;,7'%&# E$'(.FD@#%G(H#"%*+, % % ;45< 8954 ;>57 ;>5; I0H$J/H#%G(H#"%*+, % % <5< 953 <5< >59 =,>7&# K#0J/@D%*LMC6, >85; 9>54 >85; >45<

• .#N/#J%B/NF0#JJ

% % 35< 75< ;5<< 35< 14? @3EC @3AD @3BD ) @3BD F,'+)G F,'+)A F,'+)E F,'+)C F,'+)@)H4+,I F,'+)D)H4&67I F,'+)J F,'+)K

RPI!Scores!for!LiUle!River!Marsh!

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RPI Score Time (years) !"#$%&' (")"$*+%&' ,%-"'.*$"-' /01-%2%)0'

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RPI Score

Time (years)

RPI Summary Scores

Nekton Vegetation Pore water Hydrology Reference (Tref)

4 PARAMETERS Pore Water, Vegetation, Nekton and Hydrology Data 6-7 yrs ? NOAA funded study 2009: Moore, Burdick, Peter, Leonard-Duarte and Dionne REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TIDAL MARSH RESTORATION IN NEW ENGLAND USING THE RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX RESERVE% HYDROLOGIC%% EXCAVATION% Wells,0ME0 (1!reference!site)! 4! Narraganse4,0RI0 (!3!reference!sites)!! 5! Chesapeake0Bay,0VA00 (2!reference!sites)! 3! North0Carolina0 (1!reference!site)! 3! South0Slough,0OR0 (2!reference!sites)! 2! 1! Total!Restora-on!Sites! 11! 7!

Measuring Salt Marsh Plant, Soil, and Hydrologic Response to Restoration Using Performance Benchmarks from Local Reference Systems at NERRs

• M. Dionne, C. Peter*, K. Raposa, S. Lerberg, J. Fear, C. Cornu, N. Garfield !

Valuing%benefits%from%salt%marsh% restoraBon!

Goals: To restore natural functions To provide benefits

• r values to people
• a disconnect

Assessment: Structural indices (hydrology, soils, vegetation, nekton)

FuncBonal%values%associated%with%Bdal%marshes:!!

• Plant growth to support food webs
• Secondary production - fisheries
• Plant structure to provide habitat
• Support of biodiversity
• Protection from flooding
• Protection from coastal erosion
• Removal of sediments and excess

nutrients

• Aesthetic, Recreational &

Educational values

• Self-sustaining ecosystems
• Long term carbon storage

Daily et al. 1997 Costanza et al. 1997 Millennium

• Assmnt. 2005

Zedler & Kircher 2005 Brander et al. 2006 No Particular Ecosystem Tidal marsh & mangroves Estuaries & marshes Wetlands Wetlands not included food production; raw materials fiber, timber, fuel food production; raw materials commercial and recreational fishing & hunting; harvesting of natural materials; energy resources maintenance of biodiversity habitat/refugia biodiversity habitat/refugia appreciation of species existence provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation that lift the human spirit recreation cultural & amenity; aesthetics; recreational cultural; recreation recreational activities; appreciation of uniqueness to culture/heritage protection of coastal shores from erosion by waves. disturbance regulation flood/storm protection; erosion control disturbance regulation storm protection flood protection protection - UV rays; climate stabilization; moderation of weather extremes & impacts. not included atmosphere & climate regulation gas regulation climate stabilization; reduced global warming purification of air & water; detoxification & decomposition of wastes waste treatment waste processing waste treatment improved water quality; waste disposal cycling & movement

• f nutrients

none nutrient cycling & fertility nutrient cycling improved water quality; waste disposal

Ecosystem%Services!

Value!of!Tidal!Marsh!Ecosystem! Services!per!Annum!per!Hectare !

• Costanza!et!al.!1987:!!$9,900!
• In!2008!$!(Gedan!et!al.!2009):!$14,400!
• Carbon!sequestra-on!(European!market):!$135!
• Denitrifica-on!(Piehler!and!Smyth!2011):!$6,128!

Value!of!Tidal!Marsh!Ecosystem! Services!per!Annum!per!Hectare !

• Will!researchers!develop!beUer!es-mates!for!

specific!func-onal!values!over!-me?!

• Will!some!values!overlap!and!perhaps!conflict?!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PROBABLY!! ! But!.!.!.Lets!take!the!next! step!anyway

Take:% Ecological!Valua-on!i!structural!and!func-onal!indicators!

used!to!measure!marsh!response!to!restora-on!

New%ValuaBon%Strategy !

Reference! Marsh! 100%! Restored! Marsh! 89%! Impacted! Marsh! 39%! Time

Net Gain in Ecosystem Services = $7200/ha/yr

100% = $14,400 /yr 39% = $5,600 /yr 89% = $12,800 /yr

Set%it%equal%to:% Economic!Valua-on!–!ecosystem!service!values!of!

Costanza!et!al.!1997!(2008:!$14,400/ha/yr)!

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RPI Score Time (years) !"#$%&' (")"$*+%&' ,%-"'.*$"-' /01-%2%)0'

RPI!Scores!for!LiUle!River!Marsh! Calcula-on!of!Value!of!Net!Benefits!from!Ecosystem! Services! RPI%=%0.91%in%Year%7;%% Value%lost%due%to%impacts%from%Bdal%restricBon%=%41%% Year%7%value%relaBve%to%reference%marsh%=%0.91%% SO%.%.%Restored%benefits%=%$14,%400/ha%*%0.41%*%0.91%*%70%ha%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%=%$376,000%

OVER%first%5%years%(2001`2005)%=%$1.2%million% OVER%next%6%years%(2006`2011)%=%$2.2%million% Cost%%$1.3%million%%

Thank you