ACCELERATING ACTIONTHE ROLE OF PROTECTION IN ENSURING HEALTHY WATERSHEDS

Will Pricewillprice@pinchot.org

NJ

DE Largest tidal prism in the world 8.6 billion gallons withdrawn daily Power (68%) ; Water Supply (11%) ; industrial (8%)

PA

NJ

1 in 20 Americans drink from the Delaware, 16.2 million people 90 percent of water consumption is surficial 113 miles tidally-influenced

PA NJ

More than 140 water purveyors 838 muncipalities, 42 counties, 4 states

PANJ

North of the Gap, fasted growing counties in each state: 100 acres/weekForest health declining

PA

NY

Longest free-flowing river east of Mississippi Headwaters more than 80 percent forested Mostly privately owned

Pepacton Reservoir = 140 billion gallonsNYC 665 million gallon average daily diversionNYC Watershed program $167 million each year

threats

1. Land development & urbanization2. Energy development3. Inadequate land use planning

regulations

OverviewPike County, PA

OverviewPike County, PA

We can lose much of these forests in the coming decades.

SLEUTH Development Model Dr. Claire Jantz, Shippensburg University

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%

Type $/Acre @ 80 yearsNortheast PA

Softwood $552

Black Cherry $4,876

Oak $479

Northern HW $1,237

Misc. HW $782

Penn State Coop. Extension (2008)

• Commercial Development $$$• Gas Leases/Royalties $$$• Partition Sale/Subdivide $$• Logging $$• Hunting Leases/Club $• Forest Stewardship $• Conservation Incentives $

Protection Priorities

Natural Lands Trust, The Nature Conservancy, US Forest Service, National Park Service

Land ProtectionPocono Kittatinny Cluster

Discussion Case

developed, undeveloped, and protected by HUC12

Discussion CasePocono – KittattinyCluster

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)

Step 2EVALUATING 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) (%)

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

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)

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

Mid-Century StreamflowDr. Ray Najjar, Pennsylvania State University

Common Waters Fund ActivitiesSTEWARDSHIP PLANS, PRACTICES, and EASEMENTS in PRIORITY AREAS

Approved projects 114Approved plans 80Approved practices 30Easements 5Total acreage of enrolled parcels 52,800

PropositionScience & Economics

INPUTSCONTRIBUTION SCENARIOS PROGRAM ALLOCATION SCENARIOS

Sector Rates (Variable) $0.00 per MGY Program Funding Relative to Base in Each Year (%)

Thermolectric 0.15$ Years 0 to 10 (%) 100%Drinking Water 1.00$ Years 10 to 30 (%) 100%Industrial 0.50$ Years 31 to 50 (%) 100%Normalized Rate 0.25 Years 50+ (to 100) 0%

Investment by Sector $0.00 Allocation Among Program Activities (%)

Thermolectric 300,519$ Watershed Stewardship 80%Drinking Water 220,565$ Easements (Donation, Barg, Full) 20%Industrial 76,030$ Annual Investment

Max Facility Investment Watershed Stewardship 477,692$ Thermolectric 162,312$ Easements (Donation, Barg, Full) 119,423$ Drinking Water 57,545$ Bargain Sale Recruitment Rate % 10%Industrial 63,626$ Donation Recruitment Rate % 2.5%

Maximum Company Investment 197,961$ Inflation Rate for Revenues 1.5%Net Investment (three sector/all) 597,115$ Discount Rate for Investments 3.8%All Withdrawals (below NYC), ["y/n"] n Full Easement Base-Year ($) 4,000$ Use Rates ("r") or payment ("p"), value below r Bargain Price as % Full 50%Payment ($) in lump sum 2,000,000$ Evenly Applied to Tiers ["y/n"] n

OUTCOMESOUTCOMES Program Period 0-10 Program Period 0-30 Program Period 0-50

Years 10 30 50Cumulative Investment ($) 7,550,265 38,597,252 111,347,178 Unit Protection Price ($/acre) 1,013$ 1,720$ 2,975$ Easement Cost @ end of period 4,574$ 6,160$ 8,297$ Forests Permanently Protected 7,456 22,440 37,424 Permanent Protection by Tier Program Period 0-10 Program Period 0-30 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%Maximum Land Area in Stewardship 298,557 298,557 298,557

Urbanization* without Program (Jantz) 7,499 22,498 37,496 Urbanized (%) without Program 0.6% 1.7% 2.8%Urbanized (%) with Program 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Water rates by sector

Protection strategies

Outcomes in different periods

Baseline scenarios

“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 stormwatermanagement, and degraded floodplains (Booth et. al. 2003).

Do we know enough?

BUYERSwater 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

Building Consensus for SustainabilityCatskill Forest AssociationDelaware Highlands ConservancyDelaware River Basin CommissionEnvironmental Protection AgencyLeague of Women Voters, PennsylvaniaMonroe County Conservation DistrictNational Audubon SocietyNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationNational Parks Conservation AssociationNational Park Service, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation 

AreaNational Park Service, Rivers and Trails Conservation AssistanceNational Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 

RiverNatural Lands TrustNatural Resources Conservation ServiceNew Jersey Forest ServiceNew Jersey Water Supply AuthorityNew York Department of Environmental ConservationOrange County, NY Department of PlanningPennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural ResourcesPennsylvania Environmental CouncilPike County Conservation DistrictPike County, PA Office of Community PlanningPinchot Institute for ConservationPocono Environmental Education CenterPocono Resource Conservation and Development Council

Sullivan County, NY Division of Planning and Environmental Management

Sussex County Soil Conservation DistrictSussex County, NJ Department of GIS ManagementSussex County, NJ Planning DivisionThe Nature Conservancy, National HeadquartersThe Nature Conservancy, New JerseyThe Nature Conservancy, PennsylvaniaUpper Delaware CouncilUpper Delaware River RoundtableUS Forest Service, Grey Towers National Historic SiteUS Forest Service, State and Private ForestryWayne Conservation District

“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 DalkeSpdalke@pinchot.org

Will Pricewillprice@pinchot.org