Identifying opportunities for the
Natural Capital Project to engage in
New England
1.
2.
3.
4.
The project
What is NatCap?
Examples of our partnerships
Ideas for how we could engage in New England
1. The Project
Apply NatCap’s InVEST ecosystem services assessment tool in New
England or the Mid-Atlantic from March 2012-May 2013
Webinar goals - scope opportunities for engagement by:
1.
2.
3.
Identifying what ocean use/CMSP decisions you see on the table and on
the horizon
Specify what ocean use/CMSP work you would like to accomplish in the
next year
Based on 1 and 2, discuss how NatCap can be most useful
1.
2.
3.
4.
The project
What is NatCap?
Examples of our partnerships
Ideas for how we could engage in New England
The Natural Capital Project
• Help people understand what we get from nature
• Use that understanding to inform decisions
Scientific basis, policy & finance mechanisms lacking for integrating
natural capital into natural resource decisions
•
•
•
•
•
Hydrology
Economics
Policy
GIS analysis
Computer science
•
•
•
•
•
Ecology
Marine biology
Coastal engineering
Fisheries
Oceanography
The InVEST tool
Applicable anywhere
Flexible (data, scale)
Scenario-based analysis
Biophysical and economic currencies
Multiple ecosystem services
Free and open-source. Available at: www.naturalcapitalproject.org
Renewable energy (wave and offshore wind)
Fisheries
Coastal protection
Aquaculture
Recreation
Aesthetic quality
Carbon storage and sequestration
Habitat risk assessment
Water quality
Input Data (reflect scenarios)
Marine InVEST Models
Model Outputs
(ecosystem services & values)
ECOSYSTEM VALUATION
e.g.
SERVICES
Carbon
Sequestered
Value of
carbon
sequestered
Wave Energy
Energy
Captured
Value of
captured
wave energy
Coastal
Protection
Avoided
Area
Flooded/Erode
d
Value of
avoided
damages
Carbon
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
3
BIO-PHYSICAL
9
Bathymetry & Topography
Species
distribution
Habitat
Risk
5
Oceanography
Recreation
Visitation
Rates
Expenditures
due to
recreation
activity
Fishery
Landed
Biomass
Net present
4
7
Habitat type
Water
Quality
8
value of
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Population density
1
6
2
Aquaculture
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
Aesthetic
Quality
Harvested
Biomass
finfish and
shellfish
Input Data (reflect scenarios)
Marine InVEST Models
Model Outputs
(ecosystem services & values)
ECOSYSTEM VALUATION
e.g.
SERVICES
Carbon
Sequestered
Value of
carbon
sequestered
Wave Energy
Energy
Captured
Value of
captured
wave energy
Coastal
Protection
Avoided
Area
Flooded/Erode
d
Value of
avoided
damages
Carbon
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
3
BIO-PHYSICAL
9
Bathymetry & Topography
Species
distribution
Habitat
Risk
5
Oceanography
Recreation
Visitation
Rates
Expenditures
due to
recreation
activity
Fishery
Landed
Biomass
Net present
4
7
Habitat type
Water
Quality
8
value of
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Population density
1
6
2
Aquaculture
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
Aesthetic
Quality
Harvested
Biomass
finfish and
shellfish
Input Data (reflect scenarios)
Marine InVEST Models
Model Outputs
(ecosystem services & values)
ECOSYSTEM VALUATION
e.g.
SERVICES
Carbon
Carbon
Sequestered
Value of
carbon
sequestered
Energy
Captured
Value of
captured
wave energy
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
Wave Energy
3
BIO-PHYSICAL
9
Bathymetry & Topography
Species
distribution
Coastal
Protection
Habitat
Risk
5
Oceanography
Recreation
Expenditures
due to
recreation
activity
Fishery
Landed
Biomass
Net present
7
Habitat type
Water
Quality
1
8
value of
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
6
2
Aquaculture
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
Value of
avoided
damages
Visitation
Rates
4
Population density
Avoided
Area
Flooded/Eroded
Aesthetic
Quality
Harvested
Biomass
finfish and
shellfish
Input Data (reflect scenarios)
Marine InVEST Models
Model Outputs
(ecosystem services & values)
ECOSYSTEM VALUATION
e.g.
SERVICES
Carbon
Carbon
Sequestered
Value of
carbon
sequestered
Energy
Captured
Value of
captured
wave energy
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
Wave Energy
3
BIO-PHYSICAL
9
Bathymetry & Topography
Species
distribution
Coastal
Protection
Habitat
Risk
5
Oceanography
Recreation
Expenditures
due to
recreation
activity
Fishery
Landed
Biomass
Net present
7
Habitat type
Water
Quality
1
8
value of
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
6
2
Aquaculture
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
Value of
avoided
damages
Visitation
Rates
4
Population density
Avoided
Area
Flooded/Eroded
Aesthetic
Quality
Harvested
Biomass
finfish and
shellfish
1.
2.
3.
4.
The project
What is NatCap?
Examples of our partnerships
Ideas for how we could engage in New England
GENERAL STRUCTURE FOR THE WCVI AND BELIZE
EXAMPLES:
1. Say what partners were doing (generating marine
spatial plans)
2. Say how InVEST was used (weigh pros and cons of the
alternative spatial plans)
3. Show what we produced for them – maps!
REST OF THE SLIDES IN THE WCVI
AND BELIZE SECTIONS ARE
MATERIAL THAT I’LL PULL TO MAKE
A COUPLE OF SLIDES (~5-10 FOR
EACH SITE).
West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
West Coast Aquatic Management Board
[Federal, Provincial, First Nation, and local governments]
Create a marine spatial plan that balances interests of multiple stakeholders
Shoreline protection
Traditional seafood harvest
Recreation (whale
watching, fishing, surfing,
kayaking)
Tourism
Aquaculture (Atlantic
salmon, shellfish)
Healthy habitats
Wave energy generation
Capture fisheries (salmon,
halibut, groundfish)
West Coast Aquatic’s planning process
Yrs 1-2:
a) Extensive stakeholder
interviews: what are
local visions and
values? Where do
people use the marine
space?
b) Identify objectives
Yrs 2-3:
a) Identify vulnerabilities
and suitabilities
b) Develop draft zones
and identify potential
conflicts
c) Use InVEST to learn
about costs and
benefits of alternative
plans
Yrs 3-4:
a) Present zoning options to
stakeholders
b) Re-iterate zoning if
necessary
c) Present plan to governing
authorities
Simple science has big impacts
Aquaculture suitability
Vulnerability to erosion and flooding
Drawing lines on a map is difficult
Draft human use zones
Sample scenario
Issues of concern:
-Effects of forestry and other industrial activities on
aesthetic views
-Effects of shellfish harvest and aquaculture on sensitive
habitats
Models improve decision making: Identify winwins
Timber
Views
Models improve decision making: Identify unexpected consequences and
trade-offs
Population centers
Vulnerability to erosion
and flooding
Space matters: reduce incompatibilities by shifting activities in space
Restore eelgrass in
high risk, high
benefit locations
Move shellfish
tenures away from
population centers
CMSP is about many decisions of all shapes and sizes. We need to be
flexible.
Small
scale
Large
scaleto site
Where
wave energy
facilities?
0 - 1.5
1.5 - 3.0
3.0 - 4.5
4.5 - 6.0
6.0 - 7.5
District of Tofino: Which areas are most vulnerable to
flooding? Setback distances for new development.
NPV
($ mil)
It’s not all about dollars. Biophysical outputs can be
enough.
Quality of views
($ mil)
Where to site
wave energy
facilities?
0 - 1.5
NPV
1.5 - 3.0
($ mil)
3.0 - 4.5
4.5 - 6.0
6.0 - 7.5
Add maps from WEM and Fisheries
manuscript
A. Baseline
Float
Homes
B. Conservation
Recreational
Kayaking
Increased
Kayaking
Shellfish
Aquaculture
C. Industry Expansion
Geoduck
Harvest
Crab
Harvest
Eelgrass
Guerry et al IJBSESM, in press
A. Baseline
B. Conservation
C. Industry Expansion
Ecosystem Risk
High
Low
1.05
1.41
1.73
3.40
5.03
9.22
A. Baseline
B. Conservation
C. Industry Expansion
g/m3 of fecal coliform bacteria
High
Water
Quality
0.000
0.101
0.280
0.527
Low Water
Quality
0.874
1.600
Belize
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
Zones (CURRENT USES)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marine Transportation
Tourism/Recreation
Biodiversity
Critical Habitats
Shoals
Fishing
Coastal & Marine Managed Areas
Special Development Areas
Cultural & Historical Areas
Human Settlements
Coastal Development
The CAC Consultation Process
Usage of CAC Input
Development of Scenarios
Ideal Scenario
Unregulated Scenario
VS.
Draft
DEVELOPMENT
CURRENT
MANAGED
High impact
Low impact
Protected Areas
UNCHECKED
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
VULNERABILITY
HIG
H
RISK
Draf
HABITAT
EXPOSURE
CURRENT
MANAGED
UNCHECKED
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
Marine InVEST Lobster fishery model
Inputs
What areas are most
importantFishing
for catch
zone of
Where do people
spiny lobster?
catch lobster?
Where should
Habitat
mangroves
and corals
Where?
be protected
in order to
How much?
maintain lobster catch?
Fishing pressure
How much do
people fish?
Outputs
Catch of spiny
lobster
(no./m2/yr)
Market value of
catch ($/m2/yr)
Value of habitats
that support lobster
LOBSTER CATCH & HABITAT AREA
CURRENT
1816 lbs
MANAGED
UNCHECKED
1722 lbs
1343 lbs
Dra
Coral
Mangro
Seagra
(Areas in k
65
112
410
64
94
408
49
60
385
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
Coastal protection
Inputs
Site characteristics
bathymetry, topography
Will restoration
or
protection of critical
habitatsBiotic
provide
featurescost
kelp,protection
seagrass, coral,
effective
mangrove
from flooding and
Storm
erosion?
characteristics
wind, waves, sea level
Social data
land tenure, population
levels, home values
Outputs
Relative exposure
Erosion and flood
control (area of land
protected)
Avoided damage
costs to property
($)
# of people
protected
Erosion for Current & Future Unchecked Development
Changes in wave height due to SLR, habitat change, and hurricane cat 4
Managed future
Unchecked development
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
HIGH
RISK
Fisheries
Coastal
protection
EXPOSURE
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports (e.g.,
sustainable tourism)
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Tourism
opportunities
Tourism/recreation
Inputs
Demographics
are most
What areas
population
visited by tourists and
how would visitation
Attractors
be affected
by
cultural, natural
conservation or
development?
Superstructure
roads, hotels
Outputs
% of visitors to
different locations
Expenditures by
visitors
RECREATION/ TOURISM
D
CURRENT
MANAGED
Draft
% Visitation
UNCHECKED
Effect of alternative zoning schemes on uses
and services
Current zones
of use
Managed
development/
protection
Unchecked
development
High impact dev
0.22 km
0.22 km
46.66 km
Low impact dev
0.08 km
14.21 km
0 km
Habitat area
587 km
565 km
493 km
Lobster catch
1816.19 lbs
1721.77 lbs
1342.58 lbs
Coastal protection
Tourism/recreation
Economic effect of alternative zoning
schemes on uses and services
Current
zones of
use
Managed
development/
protection
Unchecked
development
High impact dev
$
$
$
Low impact dev
$
$
$
Lobster catch
$
$
$
Coastal protection
$/# people
$/# people
$/ #people
Tourism/recreation
$
$
$
Habitat area
Effect of alternative zoning schemes on uses and services
Managed
Unchecked
High impact dev
No
Yes
Low impact dev
Yes
No
Habitat area
Lobster catch
Coastal protection
Recreation/tourism
Draft
DEVELOPMENT
CURRENT
MANAGED
High impact
Low impact
Protected Areas
UNCHECKED
Erosion for Current &
Future (Unchecked)
Development
Erosion Averages
• Current = 1.58m
• Future (Unchecked) = 89.17m
Category 4 Storm
CURRENT
3m
180m
UNCHECKED
0 - 26
26 - 66
66 - 79
79 - 94
94 - 180
(in meters)
DRAFT
Effect of alternative zoning schemes on uses and services
Managed
Unchecked
High impact dev
No
Yes
Low impact dev
Yes
No
Habitat area
Lobster catch
Coastal protection
Recreation/tourism
Coastal zone management plan for
Belize
VULNERABILITY
Stakeholder, local scientists
and government officials
Draft zoning schemes
• current uses
• future uses
• CACs, other stakeholder
engagement
• Other reports
(e.g., sustainable tourism)
HIGH
RISK
EXPOSURE
Risk to habitats
• coral
• mangroves
• seagrass
Coastal
protection
Fisheries
Tourism
opportunities
Scenarios:
Storylines that describe
possible futures
Examples
1) Current
2) Managed Development
3) Unchecked Development (BAU)
The CAC Consultation Process
Usage of CAC Input
Development of Scenarios
Ideal Scenario
Unregulated Scenario
VS.
DEVELOPMENT
CURRENT
MANAGED
Protected Areas
HIGH impact
LOW impact
UNCHECKED
DRAFT
HABITAT
CURRENT
MANAGED
UNCHECKED
DRAFT
LOBSTER CATCH & HABITAT AREA
CURRENT
MANAGED
UNCHECKED
1816 lbs
1722 lbs
1343 lbs
Coral
Mangrove
Seagrass
(Areas in km2)
65
112
410
64
94
408
49
60
385
DRAFT
Erosion for Current &
Future (Unchecked)
Development
Erosion Averages
• Current = 1.58m
• Future (Unchecked) = 89.17m
Category 4 Storm
CURRENT
3m
180m
UNCHECKED
0 - 26
26 - 66
66 - 79
79 - 94
94 - 180
(in meters)
DRAFT
Effect of Alternative Zoning Schemes
on Uses and Services
current
zones
of use
managed
development/
protection
unchecked
development
high impact
development
0.22 km
0.22 km
46.66 km
low impact
development
0.08 km
14.21 km
0.00 km
habitat area
587 km
565 km
493 km
lobster catch
1816.19 lbs
1721.77 lbs
1342.58 lbs
16,037
visitor days
16,298
visitor days
22,976
visitor days
coastal protection
tourism/recreation
DRAFT
Economic Effect of Alternative Zoning Schemes on
Uses and Services
current
zones
of use
managed
development/
protection
unchecked
development
high impact
development
$
$
$
low impact
development
$
$
$
habitat area
km2
km2
km2
lobster catch
$
$
$
coastal protection
$/ # people
$/ # people
$/ # people
tourism/recreation
$
$
$
DRAFT
Effect of Alternative Zoning Schemes
on Uses and Services
Managed
Unchecked
low Impact
development
high impact
development
habitat area
lobster catch
coastal protection
recreation/tourism
DRAFT
Coastal zone management questions
(examples)
• What areas are most important for catch of
spiny lobster?
• Where should mangroves and corals be
protected in order to maintain lobster catch?
What areas are important
for catch of spiny lobster?
What areas are important
for catch of spiny lobster?
What areas are important
for catch of spiny lobster?
Catch in year 2021 (lbs/km2)
Valuation?
• Gross export revenue
• Net revenue – we need better information on
fishing and processing costs
• NPV – need net revenue
• Do we want to value lobster exported, sold
locally, together, separately?
What habitat areas are important
for catch of spiny lobster?
Catch in year 2021 (lbs/km2)
Loss of habitats decreases catch
Current habitat
50% reduction in
habitat per planning region
How do our engagements generally work?
Stakeholder Engagement
Identify Objectives
Develop Scenarios
Compile Data
Run InVEST
(create maps in supply, ecosystem service,
and/or value metrics)
Synthesize Results
(e.g. identify trade-offs/win-wins)
1.
2.
3.
4.
The project
What is NatCap?
Examples of our partnerships
Ideas for how we could engage in New England
We have flexibility and can do multiple scales –
just need to scope how much each application
entails; this is what we’ve done in Monterey Bay
We realize there’s been a ton done here already
(Mass Ocean Partnership; RI SAMP; offshore
wind; application of MIMES) and would like to
complement that work, not be redundant.
At the large scale (RPBscale):
• Maps. Existing services,
vulnerabilities:
– Renewable energy (offshore
wind)
– Fisheries
– Coastal protection
– Aquaculture
– Recreation
– Aesthetic quality
– Carbon storage and
sequestration
– Habitat risk assessment
– Water quality
• Climate scenario from
NOAA?
At the smaller scale:
• Likely something involving wind and fisheries
– Application related to Dept. of Interior’s Smart
from the Start Initiative (mandate to get wind
energy going on the E. Coast)
– Potential site: New Bedford scallop grounds and
wind energy siting
Discussion:
1. What ocean use/CMSP decisions do you see
on the table and on the horizon?
2. What ocean use/CMSP work you would like
to accomplish in the next year?
3. How NatCap can be most useful?