economic valuation study: deer grove east - · pdf fileavian monitoring conducted between 2010...

Economic Valuation Study: Deer Grove East

Prepared for: Openlands 25 East Washington St., Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60602 - 1708

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. PO Box 128 Cottage Grove, WI 53527

October 10, 2016

Stantec | Economic Valuation Study: Deer Grove East

i

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Deer Grove East Preserve .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Purpose and Approach ......................................................................................................... 2

2 Methods and Results ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Valuation of Project Implementation ................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits .......................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Ecosystem Services Defined ................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Cultural Services ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Regulating and Supporting Services .................................................................................. 8 2.2.3.1 Water Flow / Regulation................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3.3 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3.4 Climate Regulation ......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3.5 Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.3.6 Regulating and Supporting Service Summary ........................................................... 15

2.3 Marginal Value of Ecosystem Restoration ...................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Cultural Services ................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Regulating and Supporting Services ................................................................................ 17

3 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 4 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

List of Tables Table 2.1 Results of IMPLAN modeling of yearly restoration expenditures at the Deer Grove East preserve for economic activity within the ten county Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area ................................. 5 Table 2.2 List of the 23 ecosystem services identified in the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.3 Results of IMPLAN modeling of estimated yearly visitation expenditures at the Deer Grove East preserve for economic activity within the ten county Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area ......................... 8 Table 2.4 Estimated average per-acre, per-year values for selected ecosystem services associated with general community types within the Deer Grove East preserve ..................................................................... 15 Table 2.5 Willingness to pay values for select features expressed by Cook County residents using forest preserves ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 2.6 Comparison of DGE recreation value based on willingness to pay values for select features expressed by Cook County residents using forest preserves .................................................................................... 17 Table 2.7 Assumed improvement factors for selected ecosystem services resulting from restoration work completed in general community types within the Deer Grove East preserve .......................................... 18 Table 2.8 Estimated average pre and post-restoration per-acre, per-year values for selected ecosystem services associated with general community types within the Deer Grove East preserve ............ 19 Table 2.9 Pre and post-restoration ecosystem service values associated work completed at Deer Grove East preserve, Cook County, Illinois between 2007 and 2015 ...................................................................... 19 Table 3.1 Summary of costs and estimated benefits associated with restoration work carried out at the Deer Grove East preserve as of July 2016 .................................................................................................................... 21


ii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 General Economic Input-Output Model Diagram .................................................................................... 3

Appendix A:

• Figure A-1: Deer Grove East Forest Preserve Location Map

• Figure A-2: Pre-Restoration 2007 NAIP Aerial Photography

• Figure A-3: Post-Restoration 2015 NAIP Aerial Photography


iii

Executive Summary This report summarizes the results of an economic valuation study designed to provide estimated monetary values relating to restoration work completed at Deer Grove East preserve (DGE) in order to improve the area’s ecological functioning as part of Chicago’s green infrastructure. The study examined the economic impact and contribution of monetary expenditures made for planning, implementation, and maintenance of restoration work at DGE as well as the value of improvements to several important regulating and supporting ecosystem services provided by the preserve.1

The DGE restoration effort was one of a series of restorations across the Des Plaines River Watershed that was undertaken in conjunction with the Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Chicago Department of Aviation. In 2008, Openlands started working closely with ecologists from the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (the property owner), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other partner agencies to carefully assess the site's unique ecosystem needs, conducting hydrological monitoring, wetland studies, and plant inventories. The assessment resulted in development of a master restoration plan for the preserve, which was independently reviewed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Results of this valuation study indicate that the costs for restoration of ecosystem service benefits in DGE were more than offset by the short-term economic activity and jobs generated by the work, exhibiting a short-term benefit to cost ratio of approximately 2:1. The study further suggests that, based on the data and assumptions applied, restoration of ecosystem services at DGE provided a 2016 net present value in excess of $33,000,000 for a long-term benefit to cost ratio of 6:1.

This study is not a comprehensive accounting of the preserve’s value or of the value of restoration work completed. Nor are the results static – the values of ecosystem services fluctuate geographically and over time due to variations in the market costs of various goods and services and changes in people’s willingness to pay for them. Therefore, application of values from one site to another that is geographically separate or from one project to another that is later in time is not warranted without appropriate adjustment or recalculation.

Never-the-less, the study does provide an overall indication of the importance of open space and ecosystem restoration to the people of the northern Chicago Area as of 2016 and a framework for additional inquiry or predictive modeling if desired.

1 “Ecosystem services” refers to the benefits human populations derive from ecosystems. Regulating and

supporting services are benefits obtained from ecosystem processes (e.g. water regulation and carbon storage).


1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background Recognition of the importance of green space within United States urban settlements extends back to nearly the country’s founding (Reps 1965; Schuyler 1988; Conzen 2001).2 Incorporation of green space into expanding urban centers began in the nation’s early cities with boulevards, parkways, cemeteries, and public squares; continued during the mid-1800s with greenways, linear parks, and parkway systems; then expanded starting in the early 1900s toward present efforts to develop multi-service green infrastructure (Searns 1985; Schuyler 1988).

In many respects, Chicago was at the forefront of initiating green space development and in moving from aesthetic and recreation-focused green space to regional environmental design. The city’s first residents set aside public space from the beginning for what became Dearborn and Grant Parks (City of Chicago 1998). As the city developed “the motto of the early city was ‘City in a Garden,’ and lots were made deep enough so that sidewalks and houses could be set back from the streets, creating parkways and front yards to display lawns and flower beds developed from imported plants” (Danzer 2005). Planned communities followed, along with landscaped cemeteries, regional park and greenway systems, Burnham’s 1909 City Plan, and the establishment of forest preserves (Abbott 2005). In 1913 when the county forest preserves were authorized, “no similar preserves existed anywhere in the world at the time, but architect Dwight Perkins, the principal proponent of the preserve idea, believed that the preservation of nature would have important value for life in a growing metropolis” (Packard 2005).

Historically, the promotion of green infrastructure was based largely on an intuitive sense that providing open space, improvements to water flows and water quality, biodiversity, native community composition, and overall functioning were generally “a good thing,” rather than on monetary or market considerations. However, decisions regarding the use of green infrastructure unavoidably have monetary implications. These implications involve both the necessary financial investment to plan and implement a project, and what the resulting ecosystem service changes mean economically when compared to alternative approaches to meeting the same goals (Costanza et al. 1998; Foster et al. 2011).

1.2 Deer Grove East Preserve Deer Grove East (DGE) is in the northwest portion of Cook County, Illinois within the Village of Palatine (Figure A-1). The preserve consists of approximately 624 acres of rolling terrain and is managed by the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (FPDCC). Intensive ecological restoration at DGE began in 2008 as a partnership between Openlands and the FPDCC. Nine areas within DGE that were historically farmed and largely unmanaged were restored to wetland and prairie. This restoration effort resulted in a range of wetland types, from inundated

2 This recognition extends back much further if we consider organization of Native American settlements in the

Puebloan southwest and the Mississippi basin (Emerson 2002; Wills and Dorshow 2012)


2

deep and shallow emergent wetlands to seasonally-saturated sedge meadow and wet prairie. Restoration activities completed since 2009 enhanced 17 existing wetlands and restored the 9 unmanaged, farmed wetlands encompassing a total of 28.18 acres. All 595.82 acres of upland were also enhanced as part of the project. Restoration work in the remnant oak woodland preserved heritage oak trees, reduced invasive species in wetlands and buffer, and led to proliferation of native and conservative plant species in existing wetlands (Stantec 2016a).3 Before and after aerial photography indicating the restoration of wetland and other communities in the middle of the site is shown in Figures A-2 and A-3, respectively.

The completed restoration has contributed to significant enhancements of overall ecosystem function with the preserve (Stantec 2016a). The incidence of native wetland plants for example, increased nearly 300% from 2008 to 2015, averaging 79 per wetland at the end of the monitoring period versus 20 at the beginning. At the same time, wetland floristic quality improved nearly 185%, rising from a value of 13 at the time of restoration to 37 at the end of the monitoring period in 2015.4 In the restored prairie, a total of 389 native plant species were found in 2015, with a site Floristic Quality Index of 94.7. Many of the additional species observed support pollinators with associated service benefits. Avian monitoring conducted between 2010 and 2015 revealed usage by 25 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as classified in the Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan and Strategy (Stantec 2016a). A related study of hydrology identified an approximately 95% improvement in water storage following completion of the restoration work (Stantec 2016b).

1.3 Project Purpose and Approach This report summarizes the findings of a study designed to provide estimated values relating to the restoration work described above to improve DGE’s functioning as part of Chicago’s green infrastructure. The study was carried out to provide some site-specific information that could aid in understanding the costs and benefits of ecosystem restoration in the Chicago area, and in making decisions regarding the types of restoration that may be most beneficial. The study considered the economic impact and contribution of expenditures made for planning, implementation, and maintenance of the restoration work as well as the value of improvements to several cultural, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services. The methods used and results from the evaluation of expenditures and service improvements are described in the next section, followed by a discussion of the results with respect to the study purposes.

3 Conservative: degree to which a species is representative of intact ecosystems where ecological processes, functions,

composition, and structure have not been or been only minimally degraded/modified by human stressors. 4 The Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) approach was defined by Swink and Wilhelm and published in Plants of the

Chicago Region (1994). The FQA method assigns to plant species a rating that reflects the fundamental conservatism that the species exhibits for natural habitats. A native species that exhibits specific adaptations to a narrow spectrum of the environment is given a high rating. Conversely, an introduced, ubiquitous species that exhibits adaptation to a broad spectrum of environmental variables is given a low rating. The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is an indication of native vegetative quality for an area calculated by taking the mean conservatism score of all plants in an area and multiplying it by the square root of the number of plants. In general, a score of 1-19 indicates low vegetative quality; 20-35 indicates high vegetative quality and above 35 indicates “Natural Area” quality. Wetlands with a FQI of 20 or greater are considered high quality aquatic resources.


3

2 Methods and Results 2.1 Valuation of Project Implementation Phase one of the valuation study was completed using expenditure data, provided by Openlands, spent to plan for, complete, monitor, and maintain the restoration work. Stantec coded the data and evaluated the regional economic impact of the work using IMPLAN, an input-output model and database for estimating local economic impacts obtained from Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.5 IMPLAN is a widely accepted modeling tool that has been used by agencies such as the US Forest Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service for decades.6 The model is built around an input-output dollar flow table or “social accounting matrix” that represents the interdependencies within the regional economy. For a specified region, the input-output table links all dollar flows between different sectors of the economy. Using these linkages, IMPLAN models the way a dollar expended within one sector of the economy is spent and re-spent in other sectors, generating additional economic activity, or “economic multiplier” effects (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. General economic input-output model diagram 7

To complete the implementation analysis, Stantec obtained a copy of the county-level IMPLAN Pro software package for Illinois with a base year of 2014. A model was constructed using the software default settings using all Illinois counties identified in the Federal Highway Administration 5 www.implan.com. 6 http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/applications.shtml and

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail//?cid=nrcs143_009748 (October 5, 2015) 7 Figure aadapted from Neill (2013). Not intended as a complete depiction of all model inputs or analytical structure.


4

journey to work profile for the Chicago area.8 This area, encompassing Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, was selected as the area representative of the labor force affected by economic changes within the Chicago region served by Forest Preserve Districts. Use of this set of counties provides an estimate of the impact and contribution of work projects to the economy of north-eastern Illinois. However, the model does slightly underestimate the total economic impact to the larger regional economy because it does not capture workers who commute more than 200 minutes per day and workers located in Kenosha County, Wisconsin and Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana. Therefore, the model constructed should provide a conservative estimate of benefits.

Once the model was constructed, industry change activities were set up for each of the years for which expenditure data were available (2007 – 2015).9 Each activity consisted of a set of events covering expenditures for planning and design, construction, monitoring and maintenance, and Openlands staff time. Planning and design expenditures were allocated to Sector 449, Architectural, Engineering and Related Services and Sector 455, Environmental and Other Technical Consulting Services depending upon whether the work was engineering or environmental. Construction expenditures were allocated to Sector 469, Landscape and Horticultural Services. Monitoring and Maintenance expenditures were allocated to Sector 455, Environmental and Other Technical Consulting Services and Sector 469, Landscape and Horticultural Services respectively. Openlands staff time expenditures were allocated to Sector 535 Employment and Payroll of Federal Government, Non-Military. Expenditures were entered into each event in the value of the year of expenditure and model scenarios were then run to evaluate the economic impact of expenditures within each year. The results of the modeling are provided in Table 2.1 below. In general, the results indicate that each dollar spent on restoration work at Deer Grove East approximately doubles within the regional Illinois economy through related indirect and induced activity; every approximately $50,000 in expenditures supports one full time equivalent (FTE) position. Most of the economic activity and jobs occur within environmental and other technical consulting services, landscape and horticultural services, government (non-military), healthcare, full and limited-service restaurants, wholesale trades, and retail food and beverage stores.

8 www.fhwa.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/dataproducts/journey_to_work/jtw8.cfm 9 Industry Change is tied to a group of establishments engaged in the same or similar types of economic activity.

Commodity Change reflects spending on goods that may be produced by one or more industries.


5

Table 2.1 Results of IMPLAN modeling of yearly restoration expenditures at the Deer Grove East preserve for economic activity within the ten county Chicago, Illinois metropolitan areaa

Year Direct Effectb Indirect Effectc Induced Effectd Total Effecte FTE Jobs Supported

2007 $158,043 $41,997 $149,008 $349,048 3.1

2008 $239,850 $85,491 $188,853 $514,194 4.0

2009 $363,485 $98,655 $279,086 $741,226 7.4

2010 $1,443,263 $377,406 $1,043,656 $2,864,325 31.9

2011 $590,828 $162,825 $465,303 $1,218,956 11.8

2012 $1,124,927 $294,079 $800,166 $2,219,172 22.5

2013 $371,430 $88,924 $273,558 $733,912 7.4

2014 $312,887 $76,729 $241,587 $631,203 5.9

2015 $303,802 $76,599 $242,586 $622,987 5.7

a Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties. Dollar amounts shown are uninflated (presented in the value of the year when expended). Presented in actual year dollars.

b Direct economic activity from purchases of materials and labor by the industries directly in question. Equivalent to expenditures.

c Change in inter-industry transactions as supplying industries respond to increased demands from the directly affected industries.

d Change in local spending which results from income changes in directly and indirectly affected industry sectors. e Total contribution to regional economic activity due to the industry expenditures plus associated indirect and

induced effects.

Openlands reported expending a total of $4,908,515 toward restoration activities at DGE over nine years. The 2016 value of those expenditures when adjusted using the consumer price index (CPI) data provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is approximately $5,267,808. By comparison, when the total economic effect generated by the work is adjusted to 2016 dollars, the total value is approximately $10,585,816, or about twice the amount expended.

2.2 Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits 2.2.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DEFINED Ecosystem services are the aspects of ecosystems actively or passively used to produce human well-being (Fisher et al. 2009). As described in the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEACFWG 2003), such services include “provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as habitat quality, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth” (Table 2.2).


6

Table 2.2 List of the 23 ecosystem services identified in the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEACFWG 2003)

Regulating and Supporting Services

1 Gas regulation Role of ecosystems in bio-geochemical cycles

2 Climate regulation Influence of land cover and biological processes on climate

3 Disturbance prevention Dampening of environmental disturbances

4 Water regulation Role of land cover in regulating runoff and river discharge

5 Water supply Filtering, retention and storage of fresh water

6 Soil retention Role of vegetation root matrix and soil biota in soil retention

7 Soil formation Weathering of rock, accumulation of organic matter

8 Nutrient cycling Role of biota in storage and recycling of nutrients

9 Waste treatment Removal or breakdown of xenic nutrients and compounds

10 Pollination Role of biota in movement of floral gametes

11 Biological control Population control through trophic-dynamic relations

12 Habitat and refugium Suitable living space for wild plants and animals

13 Nursery Suitable reproduction habitat

Provisioning Services

14 Food Edible plants and animals

15 Raw materials Biomass for human construction and other uses

16 Genetic resources Genetic material and evolution in wild plants and animals

17 Medicinal resources Substances in, and other medicinal uses of, natural biota

18 Ornamental resources Biota in natural ecosystems with (potential) ornamental use

Cultural Services

19 Aesthetic resources Sensory experiences of landscapes

20 Recreation Variety in landscapes with (potential) recreational uses

21 Cultural and artistic resources Variety in natural features with cultural and artistic value

22 Spiritual and historic resources Variety in natural features with spiritual and historic value

23 Science and education Variety in nature with scientific and educational value

Preserves such as DGE provide many of these 23 ecosystem services to people of the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The value of these services can be estimated using techniques such as direct market pricing, replacement costs, avoided costs, travel cost studies, contingent valuation, and hedonic pricing (De Groot et al. 2002). Estimation of the local value of several services provided by habitat types similar to those found in DGE was carried out as described below in order to give a partial indication of the general value of Forest Preserve open space. Additional analysis was then carried out in order to estimate the marginal value of ecosystem service improvements resulting from restoration work carried out at DGE.


7

2.2.2 CULTURAL SERVICES The value of recreation cultural service activities at DGE was evaluated based upon results of the Cook County Community Recreation Needs Survey of 2012, several assumptions based on the behavior of recreationists in areas surrounding the preserve, willingness to pay (WTP) studies completed by the USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, and values for national average daily per-trip expenditures from a 2013 report to the Outdoor Industry Association (Southwick Associates 2013).

The Community Recreation Needs Survey was conducted as part of the Recreation Master Plan study during the summer of 2012 (PRG 2012, FPDCC 2013). The survey results indicated that approximately 74.5% of county residents visited a forest preserve during the year, the average number of visits was four, and 21% of the visits took place in the northwest part of the county (where DGE is located). Assuming that these values remain relatively constant, based on the 2015 Cook County population of 5,238,216, county residents made 3,278,075 visits to preserves in the county’s northwest zone. Deer Grove East covers approximately 624 acres which is about 6% of the Forest Preserve land area in northwest Cook County. Assuming visitation is distributed proportional to land and amenity area, 196,684 of the Cook County resident visits would have occurred at DGE. However, Cook County residents are not the only people visiting the preserve. Du Page, Kane, Lake, and McHenry counties also have large populations within a short distance of DGE. Cook County’s population constitutes 67.9% of the total surrounding population. Assuming preserve visitation from residents in the other counties follows the same pattern as reported for Cook County results in an additional 92,983 visits for a total annual visitation to DGE of 289,667.10

The total value of annual visitation to DGE was estimated using national average daily per-trip expenditures reported for 2013 (Southwick Associates 2013). These amounts are the average per-day, per-participant expenditures made by individuals engaged in a particular day-trip activity. The average national day trip values excluding purchase of souvenirs reported for hiking ($52.63), cycling ($38.57), and camping ($164.73), were applied based on the assumption that these activities constituted the vast majority of visits to DGE. After considering preserve features, Forest Preserve District descriptive material, and the Southwick Associates report data detailing the type distribution for Illinois non-motorized recreation, hiking, cycling, and camping were set at 25%, 70%, and 5% of the total visitation, respectively.11 The resulting values were inflated to 2016 dollars using the CPI, yielding a weighted daily trip expenditure value of $50.67. The total expenditure value of $14,677,426 (weighted daily trip expenditure times the estimated number of visits) was broken out into sector expenditures based on the national day trip spending distribution reported by Southwick Associates for transportation (gasoline stores), food and drink

10 By comparison, a 1984 study of the Ned Brown preserve (Busse Woods) just south of DGE indicated annual visitation of

approximately 2,500,000 which, at a 1% per year increase, would be about 3,400,000 in 2015 (Dwyer 1984 reported in Dwyer 1989)

11 http://fpdcc.com/deer-grove/ Southwick Associates reported an estimated 123,448,084 non-snow season, non-water based outdoor recreation day trips in Illinois during 2012. These trips were identified as being 24.6% trails, 71.1% biking, and 4.3% camping.


8

(split equally between full and limited-service restaurants), and other miscellaneous items (split equally between sporting goods and general merchandise). The resulting values were modeled in IMPLAN as industry changes using purchaser prices for retail transactions. Results of the modeling are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Results of IMPLAN modeling of estimated yearly visitation expenditures at the Deer Grove East preserve for economic activity within the ten county Chicago, Illinois metropolitan areaa

Data Source Direct Effectb Indirect Effectc Induced Effectd Total Effecte FTE Jobs

Supported

National Day Trip Expenditure Data (Southwick Associates 2013)

$ 7,516,108 $ 2,925,826 $ 3,694,460 $ 14,136,394 154.4

a Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties. Dollar amounts shown are uninflated (presented in the value of the year when expended). Presented in 2016 dollars.

b Direct economic activity from the margined value of purchases of goods and services by recreation visitors. Does not equal total expenditure value due to a portion of the amount being allocated to producer prices within the model.

c Change in inter-industry transactions as supplying industries respond to increased demands from the directly affected industries.

d Change in local spending which results from income changes in directly and indirectly affected industry sectors. e Total contribution to regional economic activity as a consequence of the industry expenditures plus associated

indirect and induced effects.

2.2.3 REGULATING AND SUPPORTING SERVICES The local values of regulating and supporting services for average quality community types similar to those found within DGE were estimated using a variety of source materials. These materials were selected to represent present economic and ecological conditions within the northern Illinois Chicago Metropolitan Area (CMA) around DGE as nearly as possible. Where available, recent studies carried out in the local area were used. When recent local sources were not available, older studies and/or studies from Illinois and surrounding mid-west areas were applied. Absent any regional studies, reports evaluating similar ecosystem types in other areas or meta-analyses of valuation studies were used. Once the best sources were identified, the values were adjusted to represent the characteristics of communities similar to those found in and around DGE based on site data. Values were estimated for water flow/regulation, water quality, groundwater recharge, climate (air quality, temperature regulation, carbon sequestration and storage), and habitat services as described below. It was assumed that the estimated values correspond to those provided by average quality habitats of the type considered and that the pre-restoration habitats within DGE were of average quality. Following estimation of these average local ecosystem service values, the marginal value of service improvements resulting from restoration of lands within DGE was estimated based on service


9

improvement percentages identified within the preserve for hydrologic processes and plant communities, assuming the average values as a base condition.

2.2.3.1 Water Flow / Regulation

Wetland

The US Environmental Protection Agency (2001, 2006) reported that a typical wetland can store between one and 1.5 million gallons of water per acre.

The Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (2015) reported that development of the McCook water control reservoir would provide 10 billion gallons of storage worth $114 million per year in flood control benefits. This equates to $0.0115 per gallon when adjusted to 2016 dollars using the CPI.

Assuming that an average quality wetland in the vicinity of DGE can store the mid-range quantity of water identified by the EPA, based on the WRDGC storage value for McCook Reservoir, an acre of wetland in northern Cook County provides an estimated $14,375 per year on average in water regulation service benefits.

Grassland

Brye et al. (2000) studied the water budget of restored prairie in the Audubon Society Goose Pond Sanctuary near Madison, Wisconsin. The researchers reported a mean volumetric water content of 0.34 cubic meters per cubic meter of soil within the top 140 centimeters. These reported values convert to approximately 125.75 gallons in the top 1.4 meters of soil or approximately 508,880 gallons per acre. Based on the WRDGC storage value for McCook Reservoir, an acre of grassland in northern Cook County provides an estimated average of $5,852 per year in water regulation service benefits.

Forest

McPherson et al. (2006) reported water interception rates of 292, 1,129, and 2,162 gallons per year for small, medium, and large trees respectively. Assuming a 40%, 40%, 20% distribution of tree sizes around Chicago as indicated by Nowak (2012), the average water interception per tree per year is approximately 1001 gallons.

Nowak et al. (2012) reported an average tree density within the CMA of about 61 trees per acre with an associated tree and canopy cover of approximately 21%. For a natural forest stand these values are rather low. Based on dot-grid analysis of aerial photographs, the canopy cover of forested areas within DGE appears to be between 70 and 75%. Assuming a related 4.5 times abundance of trees in the forested portions of DGE as compared to the CMA average reported by Nowak, this yields approximately 275 trees per acre for forest such as those in DGE.12 Based on the assumed interception rate from McPherson et al. (2006), these 275 trees collect

12 This number falls at the lower range reported by Stout (1991) for transition oak stands in Pennsylvania, and by Leak et

al. (2015) in a silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods. Crocker et al. (2009) reported an average of 459 trees per acre for Illinois forestland.


10

approximately 275,275 gallons of water per acre per year. This storage figure is likely conservative as it does not include through-fall that is stored in the soil but not intercepted.

Based on the WRDGC per-gallon storage value for McCook Reservoir, an acre of forested land in northern Cook County with the assumed tree density of DGE provides an estimated average of $3,166 per year in water regulation service benefits.

Shrubland

Nowak et al. (2012) reported a shrub density within the CMA that was approximately 35% of the tree density. Assuming that rainfall interception is proportional to canopy cover, this yields an estimated interception rate for shrublands similar to those found in DGE of approximately 96,346 gallons per acre per year. Based on the WRDGC storage value for McCook Reservoir, an acre of such shrubland in northern Cook County provides an estimated average of $1,108 per year in water regulation service benefits. This storage figure, like that for forests, is likely conservative as it does not include through-fall that is stored in the soil but not intercepted.

2.2.3.2 Water Quality

Wetland

According to the National Weather Service, the Chicago area receives an average of 36.86 inches of precipitation as rain and snow.13 This amount of water equates to 1,001,722 gallons per acre. Assuming a 10% evaporation rate, as reported by Lull and Sopper (1969), this results in 901,549 gallons per acre per year that infiltrates, runs off, or is taken up by plants.

Numerous studies have evaluated the costs of using wetlands for wastewater treatment versus traditional mechanical systems. Dawson (1989) for example reported savings of approximately 90% for treatment wetlands versus mechanical systems. Cardoch et al. (2000) reported approximately 70% savings from use of wetlands for treating shrimp processing water versus conventional alternatives. The US Army Corps of Engineers (2003) reported an approximately 85% savings for the use of treatment wetlands associated with Army installations, and Ko et al. (2004) reported 80% annual savings for use of wetland tertiary treatment instead of sand filters.

The Village of Palatine, Illinois surrounds most of DGE. For 2016, the village is charging an average sewer rate for all service users of $1.71 per thousand gallons.14

Assuming an average of 80% cost reduction associated with wetland treatment, as compared to traditional mechanical treatment, equates to a savings of approximately $1.37 per thousand gallons, based on Palatine’s sewerage rates for 2016, and an overall value of $1,233 per acre per year in water quality service benefits from wetland areas, based on annual average precipitation.

13 http://www.weather.gov/lot/ord_rfd_monthly_yearly_normals 14 http://www.palatine.il.us/departments/finance/utility/sewer_rates.aspx


11

Grassland

Schilling and Jacobson (2010) studied groundwater conditions under restored prairie in Iowa and found an approximately 75% reduction in agricultural contaminants under mature prairie as compared to recently restored areas and row crops. Helmers et al. (2011) reported a 96% sediment trapping efficiency by prairie buffer strips in a four year study carried out in Iowa. Fogle et al. (1994) provided a summary of previous studies on grass-filter nutrient trapping and reported an average efficiency of just over 71% for studies completed in Minnesota. Based on these studies, an average contaminant reduction rate of 70% was applied to grasslands similar to those found in DGE. Assuming a direct reduction in costs for reduced contamination, the 70% reduction equates to a savings of approximately $1.20 per thousand gallons based on Palatine’s sewerage rates for 2016 and an overall value of $1,079 per acre per year in water quality service benefits from shrub areas in DGE based on annual average precipitation.

Forest

Ernst (2004) reported on a study of 27 wastewater treatment and water supply facilities conducted by the Trust for Public Land and the American Waterworks Association. According to the study, “for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area, treatment and chemical costs decreased approximately 20 percent, up to about 60 percent forest cover.” Findings above 60% canopy cover were inconclusive due to limited data.

Based on Ernst (2004), allocating a 60% canopy cover to forested areas similar to those found in DGE results in an approximate 59% improvement in water quality from runoff leaving forested areas as compared to impermeable urban surface. The associated savings per gallon based on Palatine’s sewerage rates is approximately $1 per thousand gallons, translating to an estimated value of $910 per acre per year in water quality service benefits from forested areas based on annual average precipitation.

Shrubland

Studies of shrubs and shrub communities have reported that shrub species take up nutrients, exchange gasses, and intercept and store water in similar fashion to trees but at rates proportional to their smaller mass and surface areas (Niinemets 1996, Niinemets and Kull 2003, Garcia-Estringana et al. 2010). Based on these general findings, it was assumed that the value of water quality services provided by shrub communities similar to those found in DGE would be similar to that provided by forested areas but reduced in quantity proportional to their smaller surface area and metabolic activity (assuming comparable density).

Ricklefs (1990) reported that the net primary productivity (NPP) and leaf surface area of shrubland is approximately half that of temperate forest. The reductions in treatment costs reported by Ernst (2004) for forests were reduced by 50% (each 10% increase in shrub cover results in a 10% decrease in costs) and applied to shrub communities. Based on this adjustment and allocating a 50% canopy cover based on aerial photograph interpretation of shrub areas around DGE results in an approximate 34.4% improvement in water quality from runoff leaving forested areas as compared to impermeable urban surface.


12

The associated savings per gallon based on Palatine’s sewerage rates is approximately $0.59 per thousand gallons, translating to an estimated value of $530 per acre per year in water quality service benefits from shrub areas similar to those in DGE based on annual average precipitation.

2.2.3.3 Groundwater Recharge

The water supply for municipalities around DGE is presently Lake Michigan. However, groundwater remains an important resource. Groundwater provides base flow to local streams, there are numerous domestic and industrial wells still in use, and most municipalities have maintained their groundwater wells as a backup supply (ISWS 2006). In general, the more abundant domestic wells are constructed into the shallow glacial drift and dolomite aquifer while the smaller number of industrial and municipal wells is constructed into the deeper Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer below the Maquoketa Formation. 15 Recharge rates for these two aquifers varies considerably. Walton (1965) and Yeh and Famigletti (2009), for example, reported an estimated average groundwater recharge rate to Illinois surficial aquifers of 25% of annual precipitation. However, recharge to the deep Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer by contrast, has been estimated at less than 1% of annual precipitation (Walton 1965).

On a local basis, published literature suggests that, in general, and other conditions being equivalent, recharge is higher for grassland than shrubland and higher for shrubland than forests (e.g.). However, recharge rates can vary substantially due to differences in the abundance of vegetative cover, soil type, and subsurface geology (van der Kamp and Hayashi 1998, Keese et al 2005, Batelaan and De Smedt 2007).

Given the lack of site-specific data upon which to realistically assign varied recharge rates to different community types such as those found in DGE, the 25% average rate from Walton (1965) Yeh and Famigletti (2009) was considered most representative of the groundwater source of primary importance in northern Cook County and applied uniformly to all community types.16

Based on the average annual precipitation data provided by the National Weather Service, at 25% recharge, approximately 250,430 gallons per acre enter the groundwater under DGE each year. The Village of Palatine uses groundwater for their municipal supply and charges varying rates depending upon whether a user is within the village, within the village and tax exempt, or outside the village. Rates per thousand gallons for the first 74,810 gallons are $3.85, $9.50, and $12.54 respectively.17 The rates per thousand gallons increase by $1.10 each for all consumption over 74,810 gallons. Assuming a 90% within, 8% within exempt, and 2% outside user pool and using the base per thousand gallons cost results in a blended cost rate of approximately $4.48 per thousand gallons. The estimated blended cost rate was multiplied by the average annual per acre recharge of 250,430 gallons resulting in an average value of $1121 per acre per year for groundwater recharge in the vicinity of Palatine.

15 http://maps.isgs.illinois.edu/ILWATER/ 16 Delin et al. (2007) also reported an average of 25% recharge for Minnesota using three different methods. 17 http://www.palatine.il.us/departments/finance/utility/water_rates.aspx


13

2.2.3.4 Climate Regulation

Wetland

Nowak (2012) reported per acre per year pollution removal and temperature regulation values for Chicago forests of $53.37 and $17.14, respectively. These values were averages using an approximate canopy cover of 15.5% and 61 trees per acre. Estimates for the value of pollution removal services provided by wetlands in DGE were made using the values reported by Nowak et al. (2012) for forests and adjusting for relative difference in NPP and leaf area between forested communities and wetland communities reported by Ricklefs (1990). Ricklefs reported NPP values and leaf surface area for wetland that were 200% and 87.5% of those reported for temperate forest, respectively. The per acre per year value for forest pollution removal services reported by Nowak et al. (2012) was adjusted to 2016 dollars ($56) and then multiplied by 1.4375 to account for the variation in NPP and leaf area, resulting in an estimated annual yearly average value for wetland of approximately $81 per acre.

The value of carbon sequestration and storage services for wetlands was calculated based on carbon accumulation data from wetlands in Ohio reported by Mitsch et al. (2013), storage data for reference wetlands within the prairie pothole region of the United State reported by Euliss et al (2006), and the per ton carbon value reported by the US Government Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWG) (2015).

In July 2015, the IWG published revised values for the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis (IWG 2015). The published per ton social cost value of carbon in 2016 dollars using a 2.5% average discount rate was $51.27.

Mitsch et al. (2013) reported an average carbon accumulation rate for wetlands in Ohio of 0.851 tons per acre per year. This average accumulation rate was multiplied by the IWG’s (2015) CPI adjusted per ton carbon value of $51.27, resulting in an estimated carbon sequestration service value for wetlands of $44 per acre per year.

Euliss et al (2006) reported an average carbon storage amount of approximately 26.6 tons per acre for prairie pothole reference wetlands. This average storage amount was multiplied by the IWG’s (2015) CPI adjusted per ton carbon value of $51.27, resulting in an estimated carbon storage service value for wetlands of $1,364 per acre per year.

Grassland

The value of pollution removal services for grasslands was estimated based on the values for forests reported by Nowak et al (2012) and adjusting for the relative difference in NPP and leaf surface area. Ricklefs (1990) reported NPP values and leaf surface area for grassland that were 40% and 50% of those reported for temperate forest respectively. The $56 per acre per year for forest pollution removal services reported by Nowak et al. (2012) was multiplied by 0.45, resulting in an annual yearly average value for grassland of approximately $25 per acre.

The value of carbon sequestration and storage services for grasslands was calculated based on carbon accumulation and storage data for grassland in the Conservation Reserve Program


14

(CRP) reported by Gebhart et al (1994) and the per ton carbon value reported by the IWG (2015). Gebhart et al. (1994) reported a carbon accumulation value for CRP grasslands in Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska of 1.1 metric tons per hectare per year (0.49 tons per acre per year) with an average stored value of 71.7 metric tons per hectare (31.9 tons per acre). The IWG reported a per ton carbon value of $51.27 using a 2.5% discount rate and adjusted to 2016 dollars. The sequestration of 0.49 tons per acre per year and average storage value of 31.9 tons per acre per year were multiplied by the adjusted IWG carbon value to obtain an estimated grassland annual value of approximately $25 and $1636 per acre for carbon sequestration and storage respectively.

Grasslands within DGE were assumed to have negligible temperature regulation services.

Forest

Based on the assumption of 60% cover in forested areas within DGE as described above, the valuations for pollution removal and temperature regulation should be approximately 3.5 times higher than reported by Nowak et al. (2012) values for Chicago forests ($53.37 and $17.14 respectively). When converted to 2016 dollars this results in pollution removal values of approximately $56 and temperature regulation values of approximately $18 per acre per year for forested areas.

Nowak et al.’s (2012) reported storage and sequestration rates for carbon in Chicago forests were 6.58 tons per acre and 0.264 tons per acre per year respectively. Increasing these amounts by 3.5 times as described above to account for higher tree density in DGE yields 23.03 tons per acre of carbon storage and 0.924 tons per acre per year of carbon sequestration. Based on the published IWG value for the social cost of carbon, forests in DGE have an estimate 2016 value of approximately $1,181 per acre for carbon storage and $47 per year for carbon sequestration.

Shrubland

Estimates for the value of climate regulating services provided by shrublands in DGE were made using the density, pollution, and temperature values reported by Nowak et al (2012) for forests and the per ton social cost of carbon reported by the IWG (2015). Nowak et al.’s (2012) shrub density numbers were adjusted upward by 3.5 times as was done for trees. The resulting number was then adjusted for leaf area based on a study by Asner et al (2003) that reported shrublands had an average leaf area index of 2.1 compared to an index value of 5.1 for temperate deciduous broadleaf forest. The climate regulating services value calculated for forests was multiplied by the leaf index ratio of 0.412, resulting in a value for shrubland areas in DGE of approximately $536 per acre per year.

2.2.3.5 Habitat

Habitat ecosystem service values for land cover types within DGE were estimated based on average values reported for habitat/refugium, pollination, and biological control by Batker et al (2010, 2015) and Wilson (2008). The values reported in each source for a given category were adjusted to 2016 dollars using the CPI, averaged within each category, and then summed for


15

each ecosystem type. Following this approach resulted in annual per acre habitat values of $489, $327, $36, and $3058 for forests, shrubland, grassland, and wetland, respectively.

2.2.3.6 Regulating and Supporting Service Summary

The total estimated per acre per year value of the ecosystem service benefits considered ranged from a low of $3,622 for shrublands to a high of $21,276 for wetlands (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4 Estimated average per-acre, per-year values for selected ecosystem services associated with general community types within the Deer Grove East preserve

Service Community Type

Wetlands Grassland Forest Shrubland

Water Flow/Regulation $14,375 $5,852 $3,166 $1,108 Water Quality $1,233 $1,079 $910 $530 Groundwater Recharge $1,121 $1,121 $1,121 $1,121 Climate Regulation $1,489 $1,686 $1,302 $536 Habitat $3,058 $36 $489 $327

TOTAL $21,276 $9,774 $6,988 $3,622

2.3 Marginal Value of Ecosystem Restoration 2.3.1 CULTURAL SERVICES The marginal annual value of ecosystem improvements completed at DGE with respect to cultural services were estimated using willingness to pay values for Chicago residents who use parks and forest preserves reported by Dwyer et al. (1989). The Dwyer et al. study gave people choices regarding various park and preserve attributes then asked them how much more they would be willing to pay to visit a park or preserve with a certain attribute (all other factors remaining the same) up to a maximum of three dollars. Attributes considered included vegetative composition types, the presence or absence of different water features, terrain alternatives, the presence or absence of various developed features such as picnic areas and trails, and conditions relating to other visitors and general site maintenance. The 1989 dollar values for the different attributes were inflated to 2016 values using BLS CPI data. The resulting 2016 values were then associated with features within DGE before and after the completion of restoration activities to estimate the overall value of the preserve to residents as well as the value of the improvements. The analysis indicated that Chicago residents who visit parks and preserves would have been willing to pay approximately $19.37 to visit DGE prior to restoration work being initiated, and approximately $27.52 to visit it in its restored and maintained state (Table 2.5).


16

Table 2.5 Willingness to pay values for select features expressed by Cook County residents using forest preserves

Attribute Willingness to pay ($)a Unrestored Restored

Vegetation Mowed grass, few trees − Mowed grass, scattered trees .41 Mowed grass, scattered trees, some dense woods 1.94 X Mostly wooded, some open grassy areas under trees 3.14 X

Water No streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes − X Small stream or small pond 4.99 X Large stream or river 3.40 Large natural or human-made lake > 5.89

Terrain Mostly flat − Rolling with some flat terrain .80 X X

Maintenance/Litter/Vandalism Grounds maintenance lacking − Grounds maintenance spotty 1.96 Grounds infrequently maintained 3.93 X Grounds regularly maintained > 5.89 X

Bicycling trails Absent − Present 3.02 X X

Hiking Trails Absent − Present 1.59 X X

Picnic areas and tables Absent − Present 2.89 X X

Picnic shelters Absent − Present 2.26 X X

Other recreation (Play Area/Pool/Boats/Camping) Absent − One 1.47 Two 2.94 X X Three 4.42 More than Three 5.89

TOTAL 19.37 27.52 a Adapted from Dwyer et al. (1989), values adjusted to 2016 dollars.


17

The improved condition translates to a 2016 annual restoration value for recreation services of $2,230,233 (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Comparison of DGE recreation value based on willingness to pay values for select features expressed by Cook County residents using forest preserves

Condition Willingness to Pay Valuea

Annual Number of Visitors Annual Value

Unrestored $ 19.37 289,667 $ 5,610,850 Restored $ 27.52 289,667 $ 7,971,636

Difference (annual value of restoration) $ 2,360,786 a Adapted from Dwyer et al. (1989), values adjusted to 2016 dollars.

Assuming a service life of 20 years and an inflation rate set at the average of the past 20 years (2.2%), the 2016 net present value of the improvements with respect to recreation is approximately $20,048,636.18

2.3.2 REGULATING AND SUPPORTING SERVICES The marginal annual value of ecosystem improvements completed at DGE with respect to regulating and supporting services was estimated based on site-specific improvements relating to hydrology and plant community composition measured at the site. The results of these studies were used to estimate an average service improvement percentage that was then used to calculate pre and post-restoration values based on the averages described above.

Stantec (2016b) carried out a study using EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) designed to determine the storm water benefit (specifically quantity and/or rate of release) related to landscape-level ecosystem restoration at DGE for both pre-restoration and post-project conditions. This study found that post-restoration water retention at the preserve had improved by approximately 60% when considering surface runoff and tile drainage as compared to the unrestored condition. With respect to groundwater, the model indicated essentially no change to recharge resulting from site restoration. Given the substantial additional water being retained on site, this may be a conservative result.

A separate monitoring study of plant community development in restored areas (Stantec 2016a) found that the number of native species, the total number of species, and native species floristic quality in restored wetlands had improved 287%, 306%, and 152% respectively, since the completion of restoration work. In buffer areas, the same quality measures had improved an average of 15% in one year of monitoring.

18 Does not include the costs and benefits of future maintenance activities.


18

Based on the site-specific monitoring data from DGE, improvement factors were applied to the average estimated ecosystem service values described above. It was assumed that water flow/regulation services improved by approximately 60 percent, water quality improved by approximately 30 percent, groundwater recharge did not change, and climate regulation and habitat quality improved by approximately 40 percent overall (Table 2.7).

Table 2.7 Assumed improvement factors for selected ecosystem services resulting from restoration work completed in general community types within the Deer Grove East preserve

Service Type Assumed Improvement Factor (%) Rationale Wetland Grassland Forest Shrubland

Water flow/regulation 60 60 60 60 Indicated by DGE hydrology study (Stantec 2016b)

Water quality 30 30 30 30

Cohen and Brown (2007) reported that use of wetland networks like those at DGE can greatly enhance overall water quality effectiveness (annual retention improvements of 31% for flow, 36% for sediment and 27% for phosphorus). Other communities were assumed to provide similar benefits through greater interception and retention within the site system as modeled.

Groundwater recharge 0 0 0 0 Indicated by DGE hydrology study (Stantec 2016b)

Climate Regulation 35 10 70 35

Professional judgement based on improvements to coverage, growth rates, leaf area density ratios, and leaf area per ground area ratios (e.g. Saunders et al 2011, UFORE data tables) 19

Habitat Quality 100 15 30 10

Professional judgement based on community composition, structure, and use data from monitoring reports (e.g. Stantec 2016a)

In order to apply the factors, it was assumed that pre-restoration ecosystem services were approximately 50% of full function. The restored values as of 2016 were then estimated by adding the appropriate service improvement factors to the pre-restoration service values then summing for each community type (Table 2.8).20

19 http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/data/urban/state/city/?city=16 20 For example, the unrestored wetland value for the water quality service (50% functioning) was multiplied by 1.3 to

generate the functional value for a 30% improvement in the restored condition (65% functioning).


19

Table 2.8 Estimated average pre and post-restoration per-acre, per-year values for selected ecosystem services associated with general community types within the Deer Grove East preservea

Community Type Annual Value

Unrestored Restored

Wetland $21,276 $33,850 Grassland $9,774 $13,783 Forest $6,988 $10,219 Shrubland $3,622 $4,666

a Services considered: Water Flow/Regulation, Water Quality, Groundwater Recharge, Climate Regulation, and Habitat.

The resulting estimated pre and post-restoration ecosystem service values were used, along with the changes in ecosystem type abundance, to calculate the marginal benefit of the completed restoration work (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9 Pre and post-restoration ecosystem service values associated work completed at Deer Grove East preserve, Cook County, Illinois between 2007 and 2015a

Pre-Restoration Condition Land Cover Class Ecosystem Service Values ($/ac/yr) Acres Subtotal

Wetlands $21,276 188.5 $4,010,526 Forest $6,988 240.1 $1,677,819 Shrubland $3,622 15 $54,330 Grassland $9,774 96.3 $941,236 Developed − 84.1 $0

Total 624 $6,683,911

Post-Restoration Condition Land Cover Class Ecosystem Service Values ($/ac/yr)a Acres Subtotal

Wetlands (unrestored) $21,276 174 $3,702,024 Wetlands (restored) $33,850 42.7 $1,445,395 Forest (unrestored) $6,988 156.5 $1,093,622 Forest (restored) $10,219 62.7 $640,731 Shrubland (unrestored) $3,622 4.2 $15,212 Shrubland (restored) $4,666 0 $0 Grassland (unrestored) $9,774 3.8 $37,141 Grassland (restored) $13,783 97 $1,336,951 Developed − 83.1 $0

Total 624 $8,271,077

Difference (per year) $1,587,166

a Values are presented in 2016 dollars


20

Assuming a service life of 20 years and an inflation rate set at the average of the past 20 years (2.2%), the 2016 net present value of the improvements with respect to ecosystem services is approximately $13,478,555.21

At first glance, the values calculated, even for unrestored conditions may appear large. Therefore, to provide a rough check on the methodology, data, and assumptions used in this study, the estimated restored versus unrestored values were compared to values from some other studies where relative service quality could be considered. Kozak et al (2010), for example, reported ecosystem service values (absent recreation) of $3038 per acre per year in 2008 dollars for wetlands along the Des Plaines River that the Illinois DNR had documented as below average in ecological quality (IDNR 2001). Ingraham and Foster (2008), by comparison, reported ecosystem service values (also absent recreation) for wetlands within US Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region refuges of $12,248 per acre per year in 2008 dollars. Using the Ingraham and Foster values as a proxy for higher quality wetlands suggests that restored wetlands can be worth four times as much as degraded ones. The estimates made for DGE by comparison indicate an increase in value of approximately 50%.

21 Does not include the costs and benefits of future maintenance activities.


21

3 Discussion During the 103 years since establishment of Chicago’s forest preserve system, our understanding of the complex role green infrastructure plays in urban ecosystems has greatly expanded. The “value for life” Dwight Perkins envisioned back in 1913 now includes not just recreation, aesthetics, and gardens, but also air quality, water quality, flood control, temperature regulation, carbon sequestration, and the resilience of cities in the face of changing climate patterns (Foster et al. 2011; Gomez-Baggethun and Barton 2013). Within the forest preserves, these services are generated through maintenance of a diverse set of habitats including gardens, forests, prairies, shrublands, lakes, ponds, rivers and creeks, and wetlands. Monitoring of the restoration activities carried out at DGE indicates clearly that such ecosystem services can be improved. Yet, despite the very large demand and need for urban ecosystem services, projects designed to conserve or restore natural areas are typically seen as net-cost projects. This analysis provides evidence that the perception of net-cost is mistaken.

Results of this valuation study indicate that the costs for restoration of ecosystem service benefits in DGE were more than offset by the short-term economic activity and jobs generated by the work, exhibiting a short-term benefit to cost ratio of approximately 2:1. The study further suggests that, based on the data and assumptions applied, restoration of long-term ecosystem services at DGE provided a 2016 net present value in excess of $33,000,000, yielding a long-term benefit-cost factor of greater than 6:1, the majority of which is related to wetland services (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Summary of costs and estimated benefits associated with restoration work carried out at the Deer Grove East preserve as of July 2016

Short-Term Costs and Benefits Estimated Present Value of Restoration Expenditures $ 5,267,808 Estimated Present Value of Temporary Regional Economic Effect $ 10,585,816

Short-term Benefit:Cost Factor 2:1 Long-Term Ecosystem Service Benefits

Estimated Net Present Value of Cultural Service Improvements $ 20,048,636 Estimated Net Present Value of Regulating and Supporting Service Improvements $13,478,555

Total Long-Term Benefit $33,527,191 Long-term Benefit-Cost Factor 6.3:1

The substantial estimated value of restoring DGE appears to be the case even without including services provided to people outside Illinois or various services that are more difficult to quantify. For example, the evaluation does not include the benefits of pollination, nutrient cycling, genetic resources, improved health when people use the preserve, improved mental well-being from the experience of natural space, or the sense of place and community created when people recreate together. Never-the-less, the findings illustrate that, as Elmqvist et al. (2015) noted, “investments in green infrastructure in urban landscapes can bring multiple monetary


22

and non-monetary benefits to society and human well-being, contributing to maintenance of biodiversity, and development of more resilient urban areas.”

This study is not a comprehensive accounting of the preserve’s value or of the value of restoration work completed. Nor are the results static – the values of ecosystem services fluctuate over time as the costs of various goods and services and people’s willingness to pay for them changes. Never-the-less, the study does provide an overall indication of the importance of different types of open space and ecosystem restoration to the people of the Chicago Area. It also provides a functional template for various additional inquiries. If desired, the approach applied can be refined with additional data, can be updated with new data as economic conditions change, can be applied to other areas, and/or can be adapted to provide a predictive tool for evaluation of the net environmental benefits of future potential projects. By targeting areas, habitats, and species that will provide the greatest ecosystem services net benefit for the available dollars, Openlands and its partners can help Chicago adapt to future conditions in the most efficient manner possible.


23

4 References Abbott, C. 2005. Planning Chicago. Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/972.html

Asner, G.P., Scurlock, J.M. and A Hicke, J., 2003. Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(3), pp.191-205.

Batelaan, O. and De Smedt, F., 2007. GIS-based recharge estimation by coupling surface–subsurface water balances. Journal of Hydrology, 337(3), pp.337-355.

Batker, D., M. Kocian, B. Lovell, and J. Harrison-Cox. 2010 Flood protection and ecosystem services in the Chehalis River basin. Earth Economics: Tahoma, WA. 172p.

Batker, D. Z. Christin, C. Cooley, W. Graf, K. Jones, J. Loomis, and J. Pittman. 2015. Nature’s value in the Colorado basin. Earth Economics: Tahoma, WA. 102p.

Brye, K.R., Norman, J.M., Bundy, L.G. and Gower, S.T., 2000. Water-budget evaluation of prairie and maize ecosystems. Soil science society of America journal, 64(2), pp.715-724.

Cardoch, L., Day, J.W., Rybczyk, J.M. and Kemp, G.P., 2000. An economic analysis of using wetlands for treatment of shrimp processing wastewater—a case study in Dulac, LA. Ecological Economics, 33(1), pp.93-101.

City of Chicago. 1998. City Space: an open space plan for Chicago. City of Chicago: Chicago, IL. 52 p.

Cohen, M. and M. Brown. 2007. A model examining hierarchical wetland newtorks for watershed stormwater management. Ecological Modeling. 201:179-193.

Conzen, M.P., 2001. The study of urban form in the United States. Urban Morphology, 5(1), pp.3-14.

Costanza, R., R d’Arge, R. DeGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. O’Neil, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1998. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issue in perspective. Ecological Economics. 25:67-72.

Crocker, S.J., Brand, G.J., Butler, B.J., Haugen, D.E., Little, D.C., Meneguzzo, D.M., Perry, C.H., Piva, R.J., Wilson, B.T. and Woodall, C.W., 2009. Illinois' forests 2005. US Forest Service Northern research Station: Newtown Square, PA. 124p.

Danzer, G. 2005. Landscape. Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/722.html

Dawson, B. 1989. High hopes for cattails. Civil Engineering. 59(5):48-50

Delin, G.N., Healy, R.W., Lorenz, D.L. and Nimmo, J.R., 2007. Comparison of local-to regional-scale estimates of ground-water recharge in Minnesota, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 334(1), pp.231-249.

De Groot, R. M. Wilson, and R. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408.

Dwyer, J. 1984. Looking at the economic value of urban plants. Am. Nurseryman. 159(12):69-79.


24

Dwyer, J.F., Schroeder, H.W., Louviere, J.J. and Anderson, D.H., 1989. Urbanites willingness to pay for trees and forests in recreation areas. Journal of Arboriculture, 15(10), pp.247-252.

Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S.N., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Nowak, D.J., Kronenberg, J. and de Groot, R., 2015. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, pp.101-108.

Emerson, T.E., 2002. An introduction to Cahokia 2002: Diversity, complexity, and history. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 27(2), pp.127-148.

Ernst, C., Hopper, K. and Summers, D., 2004. Protecting the source: Land conservation and the future of America's drinking water. Trust for Public Land.

Gleason, R.A., Euliss Jr, N.H., McDougal, R.L., Kermes, K.E., Steadman, E.N. and Harju, J.A., 2005. Potential of restored prairie wetlands in the glaciated North American prairie to sequester atmospheric carbon. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 92p.

Euliss, N.H., Gleason, R.A., Olness, A., McDougal, R.L., Murkin, H.R., Robarts, R.D., Bourbonniere, R.A. and Warner, B.G., 2006. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Science of the Total Environment, 361(1), pp.179-188.

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68(3), pp.643-653.

Fogle, A.W., Carey, D.I., Barfield, B.J., Blevins, R.L., Evangelou, V.P., Madison, C.E. and Inamdar, S.P., 1994. Impact of riparian grass filter strips on surface-water quality. Kentucky Geological Survey: Lexington, KY. 19p.

Foster, J., Lowe, A. and Winkelman, S., 2011. The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Center for Clean Air Policy: Washington, DC. 52p.

Forest Preserve District of Cook County. 2013. Recreation Master Plan. FPDCC: River Forest, IL. 192p.

Garcia-Estringana, P., Alonso-Blázquez, N. and Alegre, J., 2010. Water storage capacity, stemflow and water funneling in Mediterranean shrubs. Journal of Hydrology, 389(3), pp.363-372.

Gebhart, D.L., Johnson, H.B., Mayeux, H.S. and Polley, H.W., 1994. The CRP increases soil organic carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,49(5), pp.488-492.

Gomez-Baggethun, E. and D. Barton. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86:235-245.

Helmers, M.J., Zhou, X., Asbjornsen, H., Kolka, R., Tomer, M.D. and Cruse, R.M., 2012. Sediment removal by prairie filter strips in row-cropped ephemeral watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41(5), pp.1531-1539.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Fox and Des Plaines Rivers Watersheds. In: Critical Trends in Illinois Ecosystems. IDNR Office of Realty and Environmental Planning: Springfield, IL. 105p.

Illinois State Water Survey. 2006. Illinois community water supply wells. Map Series 2006-01. ISWS: Champaign, IL. 1p.


25

Ingraham, M.W. and Foster, S.G., 2008. The value of ecosystem services provided by the US National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous US. Ecological Economics, 67(4), pp.608-618.

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2015. Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866. US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC. 21p.

Keese, K.E., Scanlon, B.R. and Reedy, R.C., 2005. Assessing controls on diffuse groundwater recharge using unsaturated flow modeling. Water Resources Research, 41(6).

Ko, J.Y., Day, J.W., Lane, R.R. and Day, J.N., 2004. A comparative evaluation of money-based and energy-based cost–benefit analyses of tertiary municipal wastewater treatment using forested wetlands vs. sand filtration in Louisiana. Ecological Economics, 49(3), pp.331-347.

Kozak, J., Lant, C., Shaikh, S. and Wang, G., 2010. The geography of ecosystem service value: The case of the Des Plaines and Cache River wetlands, Illinois. Applied Geography, 31(1), pp.303-311.

Leak, W.B., Yamasaki, M. and Holleran, R., 2014. Silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods in the northeast. US Forest Service Northern Research Station: Durham, NH. 52p.

Lull, H.W. and Sopper, W.E., 1969. Hydrologic effects from urbanization of forested watersheds in the Northeast. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-149. NE Forest Experiment Station: Upper Darby, PA. 35p.

McPherson, E. Simpson, J. Peper, P. Maco, S. Gardner, S. Cozad, and Q. Xiao. 2006 Midwest community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-199. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 99p.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Conceptual Framework Working Group. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press: Washington, DC. 266p.

Mitsch, W.J., Bernal, B., Nahlik, A.M., Mander, Ü., Zhang, L., Anderson, C.J., Jørgensen, S.E. and Brix, H., 2013. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landscape Ecology,28(4), pp.583-597.

Neill, J. 2013. IMPLAN, RIMS-II, and REMI Economic Impact Models - Comparisons in Context of EB-5 Analysis. AKRF Inc.:NY, NY. 9 p.

Niinemets, Ü., 1996. Plant growth-form alters the relationship between foliar morphology and species shade-tolerance ranking in temperate woody taxa. Vegetatio, 124(2), pp.145-153.

Niinemets, Ü. and Kull, K., 2003. Leaf structure vs. nutrient relationships vary with soil conditions in temperate shrubs and trees. Acta Oecologica, 24(4), pp.209-219.

Nowak, D.J., Hoehn III, R.E., Bodine, A.R., Crane, D.E., Dwyer, J.F., Bonnewell, V. and Watson, G., 2012. Urban trees and forests of the Chicago region. Resource Bulletin. NRS-84. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Packard, S. 2005. Forest Preserves. Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/475.html

Public Research Group. 2012. Survey findings for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. PRG: Naperville, IL. 106p.


26

Reps, J.W., 1965. The making of urban America: a history of city planning in the United States. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Ricklefs, R.E., 1990. The economy of nature. W.H. Freeman and Company: NY, NY. 510p.

Saunders, S., E. Dad, and K. Van Niel. 2011. An urban forest effects (UFORE) model study of the integrated effects of vegetation on local air pollution in the Western Suburbs of Perth, WA. In: Proceedings, 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Perth, Australia. P1824 – 1830.

Schilling, K.E. and Jacobson, P., 2010. Groundwater conditions under a reconstructed prairie chronosequence. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 135(1), pp.81-89.

Schuyler, D., 1988. The new urban landscape: the redefinition of city form in nineteenth-century America. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.

Searns, R.M., 1995. The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form. Landscape and urban planning, 33(1), pp.65-80.

Southwick Associates. 2013. The economic contributions of outdoor recreation: technical report on methods and findings. Southwick Associates: Fernanda beach, FL. 179p.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2016a. 2015 Management and Monitoring Report: O’Hare Modernization Mitigation Account Jens Jensen Preserve / Deer Grove East Mitigation Area East of Quentin Road Village of Palatine, Cook County, IL. Stantec: Cottage Grove, WI. 530p.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2016b. Openlands tool application final report: ecosystem restoration and hydrology changes tool application and analysis. Stantec: Cottage Grove, WI. 34p.

Stout, S. 1991. Stand density, stand structure, and species composition in transition oak stands of northwestern Pennsylvania. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 54 p.

Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region, 4th ed. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. 921pp.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Applicability of constructed wetlands for Army installations. Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-1-21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 39p.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Functions and values of wetlands. USEPA Office of Water: Washington, DC. 2p.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetlands: protecting life and property from flooding. USEPA Office of Water: Washington, DC. 4p.

van der Kamp, G. and Hayashi, M., 1998. The groundwater recharge function of small wetlands in the semi-arid northern prairies. Great Plains Research, pp.39-56.

Walton, W. 1965 . Ground water recharge and runoff in Illinois. Report of investigation 48. Illinois Dept. of Registration and Education Water Survey Division: Urbana, IL. 62p.

Wills, W.H. and Dorshow, W.B., 2012. Agriculture and community in Chaco Canyon: Revisiting Pueblo Alto. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 31(2), pp.138-155.

Wilson, S.J., 2008. Ontario's wealth, Canada's future: appreciating the value of the Greenbelt’s eco-services. David Suzuki Foundation: Vancouver, CA. 70p.


27

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. 2015. Comprehensive annual financial report. MWRDGC: Chicago, IL. 190p.

Yeh, P.J. and Famiglietti, J.S., 2009. Regional groundwater evapotranspiration in Illinois. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 10(2), pp.464-478.


APPENDIX A Figures

Projec

t Loc

ation

Clien

t/Proj

ect

Figure

No.

Title

Lake

Mich

igan

Cook

DuPa

geKa

ne

Lake

McHe

nry

Deer

Grov

e Eas

t Pro

ject L

ocati

on an

d Top

ogra

phy

1 Open

lands

Deer

Grov

e Eas

tVa

luatio

n Pilo

t Stud

y

Notes

1. 2. 3.

01,0

002,0

00 Feet

V:\1937\active\193704215\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Figure_1_Topo.mxd Revised: 2016-07-07 By: cpekar

($

$ ¯1:2

4,000

(At o

rigina

l doc

umen

t size

of 11

x17)

1937

0421

5

Discla

imer:

Stan

tec a

ssume

s no

resp

onsib

ility fo

r dat

a su

pplie

d in

elect

ronic

form

at. T

he re

cipien

t acc

epts

full r

espo

nsibi

lity fo

r veri

fying

the

accu

racy

and

com

plete

ness

of th

e dat

a. Th

e rec

ipien

t relea

ses S

tant

ec, it

s offic

ers, e

mploy

ees,

cons

ultan

ts an

d ag

ents,

from

any a

nd a

ll clai

ms a

rising

in a

ny w

ay fro

m th

e co

nten

t or p

rovis

ion o

f the d

ata.

Cook

Cou

nty,

ILPre

pare

d by

CP o

n 201

6-07-0

7Te

chnic

al Re

view

by D

G on

2016

-07-07

Indep

ende

nt Re

view

by RD

on 20

16-07

-07

Lege

nd Prese

rve Bo

unda

ry

Coord

inate

Syste

m: N

AD 19

83 UT

M Zo

ne 16

NDa

ta So

urces

Inclu

de: U

SCB,

FPDC

C an

d Esri

Back

groun

d: US

GS 7.

5' To

pogra

phic

Quad

rangle

s

Projec

t Loc

ation

Clien

t/Proj

ect

Figure

No.

Title

Lake

Mich

igan

Cook

DuPa

geKa

ne

Lake

McHe

nry

£ ¤12

£ ¤12

£ ¤12 Thornhill

Ln

OakSt

Rosil

andR

d

Dund

eeRd

Lake

Cook

Rd

Hom e

A ve

Hill R

d

Quentin Rd

Cherr

ywoo

dDr

Gard

en Av

e

King Edward Ct

Doral

Ct

ElmSt

Rosa

lie R

d

GatewoodAveLenwood Dr

Oak Ridge Rd

Louise Ln

Del Mar Dr

Lake

view

Dr

Smith St

King

Geor

geDr

B ren

twoo

d Dr

Tang

lewoo

d

Ave

Osage LnSpruce

WestwoodLn

Shad

yLn R

d

Irene Dr

Dee Ln

Falki

rk Pl

Wood

landR

d

Hill c

r est R

d

Cree

kwoo

d Dr

Fore

st Kn

olls D

r

South

Rd

Ruhl Rd

Cente

r Rd

Hicks Rd

Spruce

Dr

Pepper Tree DrKing George Ct

Diane Dr

StMarks

Pl

Deer

Grov

e Eas

t Pre

-resto

ratio

n Site

Con

dition

s

2 Open

lands

Deer

Grov

e Eas

tVa

luatio

n Pilo

t Stud

y

Notes

1. 2. 3.

025

050

075

0 Feet

V:\1937\active\193704215\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Figure_2_2007_NAIP.mxd Revised: 2016-07-07 By: cpekar

($

$ ¯1:9

,000 (

At or

igina

l doc

umen

t size

of 11

x17)

1937

0421

5

Discla

imer:

Stan

tec a

ssume

s no

resp

onsib

ility fo

r dat

a su

pplie

d in

elect

ronic

form

at. T

he re

cipien

t acc

epts

full r

espo

nsibi

lity fo

r veri

fying

the

accu

racy

and

com

plete

ness

of th

e dat

a. Th

e rec

ipien

t relea

ses S

tant

ec, it

s offic

ers, e

mploy

ees,

cons

ultan

ts an

d ag

ents,

from

any a

nd a

ll clai

ms a

rising

in a

ny w

ay fro

m th

e co

nten

t or p

rovis

ion o

f the d

ata.

Cook

Cou

nty,

ILPre

pare

d by

CP o

n 201

6-07-0

7Te

chnic

al Re

view

by D

G on

2016

-07-07

Indep

ende

nt Re

view

by RD

on 20

16-07

-07

Lege

nd Prese

rve Bo

unda

ry

Coord

inate

Syste

m: N

AD 19

83 UT

M Zo

ne 16

NDa

ta So

urces

Inclu

de: U

SCB,

FPDC

C an

d Esri

Ortho

phot

ograp

hy: 2

007 N

AIP

Projec

t Loc

ation

Clien

t/Proj

ect

Figure

No.

Title

Lake

Mich

igan

Cook

DuPa

geKa

ne

Lake

McHe

nry

£ ¤12

£ ¤12

£ ¤12 Thornhill

Ln

Quentin Rd

OakSt

Rosil

andR

d

Dund

eeRd

Lake

Coo k

Rd

Home

A ve

Cherr

ywoo

dDr

Gard

en Av

e

Hill R

d

King Edward Ct

Doral

Ct

ElmSt

Rosa

lie R

d

GatewoodAveLenwood Dr

Oak Ridge Rd

Louise Ln

Smith St

Del Mar Dr

Lake

view

Dr

King

Geor

geDr

B ren

two o

d Dr

Tang

lewoo

d

Ave

Osage LnSpruce

WestwoodLn

Shad

yLn R

d

Irene Dr

Dee Ln

Falki

rk Pl

Wood

landR

d

H il lc

r estR

d

Cree

kwoo

d Dr

Fore

st Kn

olls D

r

South

Rd

Ruhl Rd

Cente

r Rd

Hicks Rd

Spruce

Dr

Pepper Tree DrKing George Ct

Diane Dr

StMarks

Pl

Deer

Grov

e Eas

t Po

st-res

torati

on Si

te Co

nditio

ns

3 Open

lands

Deer

Grov

e Eas

tVa

luatio

n Pilo

t Stud

y

Notes

1. 2. 3.

025

050

075

0 Feet

V:\1937\active\193704215\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Figure_3_2015_NAIP.mxd Revised: 2016-07-07 By: cpekar

($

$ ¯1:9

,000 (

At or

igina

l doc

umen

t size

of 11

x17)

1937

0421

5

Discla

imer:

Stan

tec a

ssume

s no

resp

onsib

ility fo

r dat

a su

pplie

d in

elect

ronic

form

at. T

he re

cipien

t acc

epts

full r

espo

nsibi

lity fo

r veri

fying

the

accu

racy

and

com

plete

ness

of th

e dat

a. Th

e rec

ipien

t relea

ses S

tant

ec, it

s offic

ers, e

mploy

ees,

cons

ultan

ts an

d ag

ents,

from

any a

nd a

ll clai

ms a

rising

in a

ny w

ay fro

m th

e co

nten

t or p

rovis

ion o

f the d

ata.

Cook

Cou

nty,

ILPre

pare

d by

CP o

n 201

6-07-0

7Te

chnic

al Re

view

by D

G on

2016

-07-07

Indep

ende

nt Re

view

by RD

on 20

16-07

-07

Lege

nd Prese

rve Bo

unda

ry

Coord

inate

Syste

m: N

AD 19

83 UT

M Zo

ne 16

NDa

ta So

urces

Inclu

de: U

SCB,

FPDC

C an

d Esri

Ortho

phot

ograp

hy: 2

015 N

AIP

economic valuation study: deer grove east - · pdf fileavian monitoring conducted between 2010...

Documents