From Forest to Faucet: Drinking Water as an Ecosystem Service by Albert H. Todd & Emily Weidner

USDA Forest Service S&PF, Cooperative Forestry Ecosystem Services and Markets

From Forest to Faucet:Drinking Water as an Ecosystem Service

Albert H. Todd & Emily WeidnerUSDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry


I don’t have any Information on this bit

How we get water in our homes…


Project Objectives

1. Identify areas important to surface drinking water quality

2. Understand the role of forests in protecting surface drinking water

3. Identify threats that may affect the forests ability to provide clean surface drinking water in the future

4. Identify opportunities for PWS


Limits

• Surface water only not groundwater

• Drinking water not aquatic system health

• Threats to forests only not industry, point sources, etc.


Collaboration

Science Advisory Team• Dr. Jim Vose, USFS Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory• Dr. Tom Brown, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station• Dr. Paul Barten, Professor, University of Massachusetts• Dr. Steve McNulty, USFS Southern Research StationUSFS Project Advisors• FHTET: Frank Krist and Frank Sapio• USFS Fire Modeling Insttute: Jim Menekis• GIS Advisor: Rebecca Whitney Lilja• NFS: Jean Thomas, Chris Carlson, Rick Swanson• S&PF: Susan Stein, Karl Dalla Rosa


Data Sources

• Surface water intakes, EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)

• Delineated Sub-watersheds (12-digit HUCs), NRCS/USGS National Cartography & Geospatial Center

• Forest Land, USGS 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD)

• Forest Ownership, USFS 2009 NFS Basic Ownership, and Conservation Biology Institute Protected Areas Database Version 4.

• Development Pressure, David Theobald, 2009, Colorado State University (same data used in “Forests on the Edge”)

• Insect and Disease Risk, USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, National Insect & Disease Risk Map, 2007.

• Wildland Fire Potential, USDA Forest Service, Fire Modeling Institute


Map Scale

• Sub-watersheds = 12-digit HUC, lt blue lines

• > 88,000 HUCs• Ave. size =

35 sq mi


Three Step Analysis Process

Step 1: Create a watershed index for surface drinking water importance

- # of consumers, proximity to intakes, water supplyStep 2: Create a watershed index of importance of

forest area to surface drinking water- step 1 results, and forest area

Step 3: Identify threats that may affect the forest’s ability to provide clean drinking water

- step 2 results, and development and other threats


Step 1: Important watersheds for surface drinking water

• What is the relative importance of each sub-watershed in providing surface drinking water? • Population served• Distance to intake


Surface Drinking Water Importance

Index: water protection risk

model

PRn = P0 + ∑ (Wi * Pi)

Pi = the population served by intakes in the ith downstream sub-watershed,

Wi = the proportional weight for ithdownstream sub-watershed


Surface Drinking Water Importance Index: weighting by water supply

IMPn = (Qn) * (PRn)

Qn = the mean annual water supply for sub-watershed n

PRn = the risk-based drinking water protection for sub-watershed n

IMP = surface drinking water importance index

mean annual water supply

mean annual water supply


areas of surface drinking water importance (weighted by mean annual water supply)


areas of surface drinking water importance (weighted by mean annual water supply)


Step 2: Importance of forests for surface drinking water

• To what extent do forests protect important watersheds for surface drinking water? • All forests• Private forests• All protected forests• NFS lands


% All forests

% Private forests

% Protected forests

% NFS forests


the extent to which all forests are currently protecting areas of surface drinking water importance.


the extent to which NFS forests are currently protecting areas of surface drinking water importance.


the extent to which protected forests are currently protecting areas of surface drinking water importance.


the extent to which private forests are currently protecting areas of surface drinking water importance.


Step 3: Threats facing forests important for surface drinking water

• To what extent do development, fire, and insects and disease threaten forests important for surface drinking water?


Housing development increase, 2000-2030

• Dave Theobald FOTE data– 2030: SERGoM v3 model for development– 2000: Census Bureau block dataset

• Eligible change:– Rural 1 to Rural 2– Rural 2 to Exurban/Urban – Rural 1 to Exurban/Urban


% of each sub-watershed expected to increase housing development in forested areas between 2000 and 2030 (Theobald)


Forests important for surface drinking water and threatened by development


Wildland Fire Potential

• USFS Fire Modeling Institute data– Considered fuels potential

and crown fire potential.– Based on fire severity,

weather, frequency, and size.

• Eligible threats: – High or very high wildland

fire potential


% of sub-watershed containing forests with high or very high wildland fire potential(USFS Fire Modeling Institute)


Forested areas important for surface drinking waterand threatened by wildland fire


Insect and Disease• USFS Forest Health

Technology Enterprise Team– 188 models of agent/host

interactions which result in tree mortality

• Eligible threat:– areas where, without remediation,

25 percent or more of the standing live basal area of will die over the next 15 years


% of sub-watershed classifiedas having high risk of mortalitydue to insects and disease(USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team)


Forested areas important for surface drinking waterand threatened by insects and disease


Insect and Disease

Development

Wildland Fire


Overlay of Other threats

• Stress due to climate change (work of Ge Sun and Steve McNulty)

• Risk from other disturbances – mining• Linkage with water quality improvement

efforts• Concurrence with aquatic system needs.


Key Benefits of Results

• Aid decision-making to protect, restore, or manage priority watersheds– State forest resource assessments & strategies– Hazardous Fuels Priority Allocation System– Wildland Fire Decision Support System– West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment– “Landscape Conservation/All lands” prioritization models (FHTET)– Stewardship Program Planning– Land conservation programs - legacy

• Heighten awareness of dependency on forests for clean water • Enhance Performance Measures – provides context


Application to PES siting:Helping to identify 3 criteria

• Consumer demand for the clean water and a willingness to pay

• A clear connection between forest management and drinking water

• Future threat to the existing watershed services that can be avoided or averted through a payment designated for management or protection


Putting a value on water from forests

• Assume clean water is produced for free!• Take services for granted • No consequences for loss• Undervaluing leads to overuse or lack of

protection


Less Forest Cover = Higher Treatment Costs

Impact of Forest Cover on Chemical Treatment Costs

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Forest in Drainage Area

Ch

em

ica

l co

st/M

G

A 10% decline in forest cover leads to an $8-12 increase in chemical costs per million gallons of water treated. E.g. 26 MGD ($10) = 228.8 (365) = $

95,000/yr

or stated another way…

For every 10% decline in forest cover, there may be a 8-20% increase in chemical treatment costs. May be higher when other costs are added.


NYC Watershed

• Supply for 6+ million people• Threat of regulation or

protection of forests and agricultural lands

• $7+ billion-capital invest ; $50 million/year in conservation vs. $300+ million/year in operating costs.

• Enhanced services model


Denver Water

• 2.5 + million people • Upper Platte & St.Vrain Rivers

or Colorado Front Range• Fire and flood degraded quality

and damaged treatment and storage facilities ($27 million)

• $25 million fund for fire reduction, road rehab, and fire prevention measures in watersheds (City and FS)


Sante Fe, NM

• City of Sante Fe, Watershed Association, TNC, USFS

• Prevent wildfire damage• Forest thinning 17,000 acres• 20-year 6.2 million plan with

shared costs • $43.5 million in avoided costs in

provisioning/regulating services


Payments for Watershed Servicesin Latin America

• Longest Running Experience with PWS programs

• National Programs in Costa Rica, Mexico, & Ecuador

• 5.7 Million Acres - $31M for Watershed Conservation

• Drinking Water and Hydropower key concerns

Costa Rica

Mexico

Equador


Ecuador - Quito Region

• Water supply for Quito and surrounding areas - comes from two public reserves

• Water Conservation Trust fund • Water tariff /user fee(1 cent /m3)on

water use or dependent goods• Land acquisition, management

practices within 1.3 million acre area. • Landowners receive support for

improved management not payments.Antisana Volcano – Nicole Balloffet

Quito, Ecuador - David Berkowitz ©©


From Forest to Faucet: Drinking Water as an Ecosystem Service by Albert H. Todd & Emily Weidner

Education

usda forest servicespf

drinking water protection

groundwater drinking

drinking water quality

clean surface drinking

clean drinking water

importance of forests

water supply step