1. ESValue-SWF Valuing Ecosystem Services on Public Lands in Southwest Florida

2. Project Scope  Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem Services provided by District land: –Use available GIS data –Develop screening-level estimate of value –Consider baseline and alternative land uses –Develop estimates according to four mission areas Screening-level Value Estimate Scenarios Available Data

3. ESValue-SWF Basic Framework  Property value is a composite good Land Values Group 1 Core Mission Group 2 Human Use Group 3 Revenue Producing Group 4 Economic Impact Group 1 Core Mission Water Supply Water Quality Flood Protection Natural Systems Group 4 Economic Impact JobsTaxes (Indirect) Output Group 3 Revenue Producing TimberTax Revenue Direct Cattle Leases Group 2 Human Use RecreationHuntingSpecial Events

4. Ecosystem Services Valuation Approach Identify land uses and ecosystem types Ecological structure and function Soil type Recharge Nutrient cycling Water storage Ecological structure and function Soil type Recharge Nutrient cycling Water storage Geographic attributes Proximity to receiving waters Adjacent land uses Geographic attributes Proximity to receiving waters Adjacent land uses Baseline level of services and benefit provided Land conversion scenarios 1)None 2)Agriculture 3)Residential Land conversion scenarios 1)None 2)Agriculture 3)Residential Change in service and value with and without District regulations

5. Quantity – Production Function  Applied to ¾ core mission areas –Water supply –Water quality –Flood control  SCS curve method to compute rainfall excess and potential runoff  Water Quality – changes in nutrient concentration and mass load  Water Supply – changes in infiltration and recharge  Flood control – changes in peak flow and associated costs Image credit: The Economist. 2005. "Rescuing Environmentalism." http://www.economist.com/node/3888006?story_id=3888006.

6. Price – Economic Value Function  Replacement cost or avoided cost  Replace baseline value with structural/engineered solution  Water quality – Cost of BMPs and untreated nutrients  Water supply – replacement costs for water supply development  Flood control – cost of storage to match pre- and post-hydrology Image credit. Clever Green. 2011. "Water Tariff Soars by 38%." http://www.clevergreen.co.za/2011/05/25/water- tariff-soars-by-38/.

7. Natural Systems  Non-priced services: –Biodiversity –Unique natural communities –Landscape connectivity Images. 1.) National Forest Foundation. "Longleaf Pine Forest." http://www.nationalforests.org/conserve/programs/conservation/ocala; 2.) The Resilient Earth.com "The Endangered Florida Panther." http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/biodiversity; 3.) Summit County Citizen’s Voice. “A Young Alligator floats in the Myakka river estuary in southwest Florida.” http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/06/25/biodiversity-gators-a-key-link- between-between-ecoystems.http://www.nationalforests.org/conserve/programs/conservation/ocalahttp://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/biodiversity

8. Tradeoff Analysis - Example AttributesProperty AProperty B Water Supply from Site (MGD) 0.150.42 Potential Habitat Richness2-4 species5-6 species Natural Community TypeSemi-natural land cover Insufficiently-protected natural community Landscape Connectivity Score 95 Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Objectives ? A is Much Better than B A is Better than B Neither B is Better than A B is Much Better than A

9. Preliminary Results Vote= Robust Coef.Std. Err.zP>z[95% Conf.Interval] Water supply3.230.645.040.001.9727984.4871 Species richness0.150.0246.330.000.1047120.1986 Natural systems0.630.125.160.000.3935050.8758 Connectivity10.440.113.910.000.2190130.6584 Connectivity21.240.167.630.000.9241141.5631

10. Input 1a. Enter Site Information (i.e., from a GIS): 2a. User-Defined Scenario, General: Select District Planning Region:Heartland Enter Site Information for SWFWMD Parcel Annualization Rate (%):3% Site land use (FNAI type):Mesic Flatwoods Annualization Period (years):20 Site area (acres):1645 District Land Use Conversion?No Soil hydrologic group for Site:D Conversion to:Residential Slope of Site(%):2% BMP Implementation Rate (%):95% Enter Recharge Rate (in./yr):6.5 Distance from site to nearest water body (ft.): 500 2b. User-Defined Scenario, Water Quality: CLIP 2.0 Potential Species Richness:2-4 species BMP removal efficiency (%):70% Natural or Semi-natural Community Type?Natural CLIP Florida Ecological Greenway Score:Priority 5 2c. User-Defined Scenario, Water Supply: Enter Lost Recharge Offset Ratio (%)^:1 BMP Infiltration Factor(%)*:37% 1b. Enter information for off-site areas contributing runoff to District site: Off-site area contributing runoff (acres): 1700 Possible runoff input from up-gradient overland flow Land use of off-site area contributing runoff Residential Soil Hydrologic Group upstream:D 1d. Enter watershed information: 100 yr. 24-hr Storm (in):12

11. Output TOTALSCapitalizedCap/AcreAnnualizedAnn/Acre Water Quality $ 20,278,201 $ 12,327 $ 1,363,014 $ 829 Water Supply $ 7,826,541 $ 4,758 $ 391,327 $ 238 Flood Control $ 594,197 $ 361 $ 29,710 $ 18 Natural Systems $ 24,327 $ 15 $ 1,216 $ 1 Sum $ 28,723,266 $ 17,461 $ 1,785,267 $ 1,085

12. Next Steps  Develop pilot application  Uncertainty and Sensitivity –Are more complex production functions warranted?