Transcript Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species

Economic Impacts of Aquatic
Invasive Species
Oconto County presentation
Dale Mohr CNRED
UW-Extension
Originally Presented by Chad Cook Basin Educator
August 22nd 2006
What are Invasive Species?
 Definition: Non-native
plants and animals that
may cause economic,
environmental, or
recreational harm or
affect human health.
 Invasive because:
(See Handouts and posters)
• No natural predators,
parasites, etc.
• Often aggressive, prolific,
and mature early
Plants
Eurasian Water-Milfoil
Purple Loosestrife
Common Reed
Invertebrates
Zebra Mussels
Spiny & Fishhook Waterfleas
Rusty Crayfish
Vertebrates
Alewife
Round Goby
Sea Lamprey
White Perch
Others
Quagga Mussels
Common Carp
Rainbow Smelt
Threespine Stickleback
Reed Canary Grass
Curly-Leaf Pondweed
Flowering Rush
‘Cylindro’
And More
Future Threats?
Asian Carp
Snakehead
Three-spine stickleback
New Zealand mud snail
Numerous Plants:
•
•
•
•
Hydrilla
Water chestnut
Water hyacynth
Water lettuce
AIS Economic Impacts In U.S.
Ecological damage &
control costs: $9 billion
annually (Pimentel, 2003)
• Fish - $5.4 billion
• Zebra/Quagga Mussels $1 billion
• Plants - $500 million
Zebra Mussels
Damage & control costs
• $1 billion annually (Pimentel et al., 2005)
• $5 billion annually (Lovell and Stone, 2005)
Municipal and industrial water intake costs
• Small: $20,000 annually
• Large: $350,000 - $400,000 annually (Ruetter)
Power plant costs (USGS)
• Hydropower: $83,000 annually
• Fossil fuel: $145,000 annually
• Nuclear: $822,000 annually
Sea Lamprey
Chemical Control - $13
million annually in Great
Lakes
Release of sterile males
Barrier construction
Lake trout stocking program
Losses of other Lake
Michigan sport and
commercial fishes
• = $26 million/yr
Ruffe
Losses to native fishery: $500,000
annually
(Lovell and Stone, 2005)
Eurasian Water-Milfoil &
Curly-Leaf Pondweed
$400 - $600/ac to
treat EWM/CLP in WI
$1.1 million spent for
chemical treatment on
2,300 ac in 2003 in
WI (DNR)
Purple Loosestrife
Spreading at 285,000 ac/yr
Losses and control: $45 million annually in
U.S. (Pimentel et al., 2005)
Secondary Impacts –
Nuisance Control
Property Values
Tourism
Fisheries
Health
Difficult to measure
Nuisance Algae
$4 million annually
at each power
plant on Lake
Michigan on
nuisance algae
control
(pers. comm. WE Energies)
Property Value Impacts
High potential from
nuisance conditions
created by AIS
Many costs born by
riparians
Demand for lake
front property
remains strong
Property Value Impacts
 Correlation between property value and water quality -
clarity (Krysel et al., 2003)
 Residential property value quantified as being at risk at
approximately 10% due to EWM infestation (Deamud et
al., 2004)
 Infestation by hydrilla reduced property value by at least
10% (TVA, 1994 in Bell & Bonn, 2004)
• = Willingness to pay
• Complete control raised property values 17 – 35%
 No apparent impact of AIS on real estate market in Door
County or Shawano Lake area (personal communication)
• Major effect is putting up with nuisance conditions
 Studies to be conducted in Vilas County and Waupaca
Chain O’Lakes in 2006
Tourism Impacts
Proliferation of EWM/CLP
Cladophora on beaches
Tourism Impacts
Value of day at the beach in
Chicago estimated at
$35/person (Shaikh, 2005)
State Park Day Visitors
Jun - Aug
800,000
PEN
600,000
WD
400,000
PB
KA
200,000
HB
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fishery Impacts
Lake Michigan fishery is
comprised of many exotic
species
Fishery Impacts
Zebra mussels are changing the
Lake Michigan food chain
Potential to impact WI’s $120
million salmon and trout fishery
Millions of pounds
Smelt Catch
2
Summer LM
1.5
Green Bay
Lk Michigan
1
0.5
0
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
Uses of AIS Economic Data
Actual
• Costs to control AIS
o Water intake costs to control ZM
o Riparians’ costs to control EWM
• Cost data for impacts other than control are sparse
Fear-Based
• Drives many AIS management decisions
o Riparians fear reduction in property value
o Local gov’ts concerned about potential for reduced property
tax revenue
• Fears can be real
Summary
 AIS cost estimates often vary widely, either due
to actual differences in AIS impacts, or because
of inconsistent estimation methodology
 Many impacts have not been estimated or are
difficult to economically assess
 Economic fear drives many AIS management
decisions
 AIS cost estimates need to consider valuations
other than just control costs – e.g., human
health values, use values, existence values, or
valuations of ecosystem services
AIS Management Messages
Wisconsin’s Comprehensive AIS Management Plan
1. Prevent new introductions
• Collaborate with user groups representing potential
transport vectors
2. Limit the spread of established populations
• Public awareness
• Monitoring
3. Abate the harmful impacts from AIS
• Develop control strategies
Effective AIS Management/Control
Programs
 Clean Boats, Clean Waters
• Contact Laura Felda, UWEX/DNR
 AIS Grants
• Contact DNR regional lakes/AIS grant coordinator
 Purple loosestrife bio-control
• Contact Brock Woods, DNR
 Citizen Monitoring Network
• Contact Laura Herman, UWEX
 Fish hatchery/bait collector HACCP plans
• Contact Phil Moy, Sea Grant
 Sea lamprey control
Thank You!
New Exotic Found in Wisconsin July 2nd
2006 – Originally introduced by Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
to control the Deer population and spread
of CWD.