Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 38, Supplement 1, pp 9–18 | Cite as

Estimating Benefits in a Recovering Estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida

  • Marc RussellEmail author
  • Holly Greening
Article

Abstract

Restoration and preservation of riparian forests and coastal marshes provides nutrient removal and other biochemical and physical functions which may preclude, reduce, or delay the need for additional water treatment, while also protecting human health. We examined the ecosystem goods and related potential cost savings for the Tampa Bay community from seagrass expansion (more than 3,100 ha since 1990), coastal marsh, and mangrove restoration/recovery (more than 600 ha since 1990), and habitat that has been maintained or preserved. Habitats in and around Tampa Bay provide nutrient reductions equivalent to just over US$22 million per year in avoided wastewater treatment plant costs. Future accrual of value associated with maintaining the ecosystem good of usable clean water could rapidly increase to as high as ∼US$3 billion per year, when one takes into account the additional costs of water treatment and storm water diversion infrastructure that is likely as the region’s population continues to grow. There is additional value accrual close to a quarter million dollars per year based on avoided social costs to the global community due to greenhouse gases sequestered by bay habitats. Most human beneficiaries associated with the maintenance of usable clean water in Tampa Bay are part of the surrounding regional community. The large current and future cost savings for the community surrounding Tampa Bay and additional benefits for the global community speak to the value of maintaining a healthy bay through past and continued restoration and preservation efforts.

Keywords

Ecosystem goods Tampa Bay Estuarine valuation Habitat restoration Water quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the fact that this type of study cannot take place without, and would like to thank, dedicated teams at the US EPA and the Tampa Bay estuary program for their contributions, several reviewers for quality feedback and suggestions, and the many people involved to protecting and restoring Tampa Bay for providing us the rare resource of a recovering bay.

References

  1. Barbier, E.B., S.D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E.W. Koch, A.C. Stier, and B.R. Silliman. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81: 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, M.B.L., B.M. Gramig, W.R. Moomaw, O.C. Doering III, and C.J. Reeling. 2011. Why metrics matter: evaluating policy choices for reactive nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, J.W., and H.S. Banzhaf. 2005. Ecosystem services and government accountability: the need for a new way of judging nature’s value. Resources:16–19.Google Scholar
  4. Cicchetti, G., and H. Greening. 2011. Estuarine biotope mosaics and habitat management goals: an application in Tampa Bay, FL, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1278–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cloern, J.E. 2001. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Marine Ecology - Progress Series 210: 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compton, J.E., J.A. Harrison, R.L. Dennis, T.L. Greaver, B.H. Hill, S.J. Jordan, H. Walker, and H.V. Campbell. 2011. Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for US decision making. Ecology Letters 14: 804–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corredor, J.E., J.M. Morell, and J. Bauza. 1999. Atmospheric nitrous oxide fluxes from mangrove sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38: 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2009. Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America.Google Scholar
  10. Doering, O.C., F. Diaz-Hermelo, C. Howard, R. Heimlich, F. Hitzhusen, R. Kazmierczak, J. Lee, L. Libby, W. Milon, T. Prato, and M. Ribaudo. 1999. Evaluation of the economic costs and benefits of methods for reducing nutrient loads to the gulf of mexico: topic 6 report for the integrated assessment on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean Program.Google Scholar
  11. Duarte, C. 2009. Coastal eutrophication research: a new awareness. Hydrobiologia 629: 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyre, B.D., and A.J.P. Ferguson. 2002. Comparison of carbon production and decomposition, benthic nutrient fluxes and denitrification in seagrass, phytoplankton, benthic microalgae- and macroalgaedominated warm-temperate Australian lagoons. Marine Ecology - Progress Series 229: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eyre, B.D., A.J.P. Ferguson, A. Webb, D. Maher, and J.M. Oakes. 2011. Denitrification, N-fixation and nitrogen and phosphorus fluxes in different benthic habitats and their contribution to the nitrogen and phosphorus budgets of a shallow oligotrophic sub-tropical coastal system (southern Moreton Bay, Australia). Biogeochemistry 102: 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FDEP. 2004. A strategy for water quality protection: wastewater treatment in the Wekiva study area. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  15. Greening, H., and A. Janicki. 2006. Toward reversal of eutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Environmental Management 38: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greening, H.S., L.M. Cross, and E.T. Sherwood. 2011. A multiscale approach to seagrass recovery in Tampa Bay, Florida. Ecological Restoration 29: 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haddad, K.D. 1989. Habitat trends and fisheries in Tampa and Sarasota Bays. St. Petersburg, Florida: Florida Marine Research Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Janicki, A.J., and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating critical nitrogen loads for the Tampa Bay estuary: an empirically based approach to setting management targets. St. Petersburg, Florida: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  19. Johansson, J.O.R. 1991. Long-term trends in nitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2: 157–176.Google Scholar
  20. Johansson, J.O.R. 2005. Shifts in phytoplankton, macroalgae, and seagrass with changing nitrogen loading rates to Tampa Bay, Florida. St. Petersburg, Florida: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.Google Scholar
  21. Johansson, J.O.R., and T. Ries. 1997. Seagrass in Tampa Bay: historic trends and future expectations. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying our Knowledge:139–150.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, K.A., S. Polasky, E. Nelson, and D. Pennington. 2012. Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecological Economics 79: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, L., and C. Hope. 2012. The social cost of carbon in U.S. regulatory impact analyses: an introduction and critique. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2: 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kristensen, E., M.H. Jensen, G.T. Banta, K. Hansen, M. Holmer, and G.M. King. 1998. Transformation and transport of inorganic nitrogen in sediments of a southeast Asian mangrove forest. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 15: 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, R.R., and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile. Biological Report 85 (7.18). U.S. Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, R.R., and D. Robison. 1995. Setting priorities for Tampa Bay habitat protection and restoration: restoring the balance. #09-95. St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  27. Lotze, H.K., H.S. Lenihan, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay, S.M. Kidwell, M.X. Kirby, C.H. Peterson, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312: 1806–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLeod, E., G.L. Chmura, S. Bouillon, R. Salm, M. Björk, C.M. Duarte, C.E. Lovelock, W.H. Schlesinger, and B.R. Silliman. 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 552–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Morris, J.T. 1991. Effects of nitrogen loading on wetland ecosystems with particular reference to atmospheric deposition. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nedwell, D.B., T.H. Blackburn, and W.J. Wiebe. 1994. Dynamic nature of the turnover of organic carbon, nitrogen and sulphur in the sediments of a Jamaican mangrove forest. Marine Ecology Progess Series 110: 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PBS&J, Inc. 2009. Tampa Bay estuary program habitat master plan update, 2009. 06–09. St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  33. PBS&J, Inc. 2010. SWFWMD Seagrass 2010 Seagrass Distribution from Tarpon Springs to Boca Grande. Tampa, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management District.Google Scholar
  34. Raabe, E., L. Roy, and C. McIvor. 2012. Tampa Bay coastal wetlands: nineteenth to twentieth century tidal marsh-to-mangrove conversion. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 1145–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reality Check Tampa Bay. 2007. Exercise results & summary report. Page 64 Many choices. One future. Tampa, FL: Tampa Convention Center.Google Scholar
  36. Rivera-Monroy, V.H., and R.R. Twilley. 1996. The relative role of denitrification and immobilization in the fate of inorganic nitrogen in mangrove sediments (Terminos Lagoon, Mexico). Limnology and Oceanography 41: 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roeder, E. 2007. A range of cost-effective strategies for reducing nitrogen contributions from onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Health.Google Scholar
  38. Russell, M., J. Rogers, S. Jordan, D. Dantin, J. Harvey, J. Nestlerode, and F. Alvarez. 2011. Prioritization of ecosystem services research: Tampa Bay demonstration project. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15: 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seitzinger, S.P., J.A. Harrison, J.K. Bohlke, A.F. Bouwman, R. Lowrance, B. Peterson, C. Tobias, and G. Van Drecht. 2006. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 16: 2064–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stetler, R., B. Wharton, E. Kelly, G. Morrison, and E. Lesnett. 2003. Freshwater wetlands: status and trends. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, BASIS 4: 27–30 October 2003. St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  41. Tampa. 2011a. City of Tampa department of wastewater. http://www.tampagov.net/dept_wastewater/.
  42. Tampa. 2011b. City of Tampa department of wastewater. http://www.severntrentservices.com/enews/vol19/tampa.aspx.
  43. TBEP. 2006. Charting the course: the comprehensive conservation and management plan for Tampa Bay. St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  44. TBNEP. 1996. Funding source inventory for comprehensive conservation and management action plans. Technical Publication #14-95 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program prepared by Hazen and Sawyer.Google Scholar
  45. Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening, and G.E. Raulerson. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation in seagrass coverage in Southwest Florida: assessing the relative effects of anthropogenic nutrient load reductions and rainfall in four contiguous estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 797–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, R.K., S. Morse-Jones, and B. Fisher. 2010. Ecosystem valuation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. US Government. 2010. Interagency working group on social cost of carbon. Technical support document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866.Google Scholar
  48. USEPA. 1997. Benefits of reducing deposition of atmospheric nitrogen in estuaries and coastal waters. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, P.F., J. Martin, and G. Morrison. 1999. Water quality and eutrophication in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Welsh, D., G. Castadelli, M. Bartoli, D. Poli, M. Careri, R. de Wit, and P. Viaroli. 2001. Denitrification in an intertidal seagrass meadow, a comparison of 15N-isotope and acetylene-block techniques: dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonia as a source of N2O? Marine Biology 139: 1029–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wigand, C., R.A. McKinney, M.A. Charpentier, M.M. Chintala, and G.B. Thursby. 2003. Relationships of nitrogen loadings, residential development, and physical characteristics with plant structure in New England salt marshes. Estuaries 26: 1494–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolfe, S.H., and R.D. Drew. 1990. An ecological characterization of the Tampa Bay watershed. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center.Google Scholar
  53. Yates, K.K., H. Greening, and G. Morrison. 2011. Integrating science and resource management in Tampa Bay, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1348. U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US EPAGulf Ecology DivisionGulf BreezeUSA
  2. 2.Tampa Bay Estuary ProgramPetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations