Source Water Protection Through Healthy Forests

Source Water Protection Through Healthy Forests

G. Tracy MehanThe Cadmus Group, Inc.

2014 AWWA ACE14 - Uniting the World of Water - Boston, MA - June 8-11, 2014

Today’s Presentation1

2

3

4

Watershed Conditions & Water Quality Impacts

Forested Watersheds & Management

U.S. Endowment & AWWA Partnership

Source Water Protection Efforts

2014 AWWA ACE14: Uniting the World of Water - Boston, MA - June 8-11

6 Resources

5 Funding Source Water Protection

• Increased imperviousness & disturbances lead to decline in water quality

• Effects of urbanization on headwater streams

• Relationship between degree of forest cover and drinking water treatment cost

Watershed Conditions & Water Quality Impacts


Forested Watersheds & Management


What is a Healthy, Well-Managed Forest?• Managed for multiple values:

– Lumber– Fiber– Recreation– Ecosystem services– Wildlife

• Protected against catastrophic fire, invasive species, disease, overstocking (high stand density)

• One approach: forest certification, e.g. SFI• Protection of both public and private forests


Poor Forest Management Affects Water Quality

• Less filtration, removal of sediment, uptake of chemicals/ pollutants

• Increased sediment runoff, ash from forest fires, water temperature from tree/shade removal


Utilities Don’t Need to Own Land to Protect It

2014 AWWA ACE14: Uniting the World of Water - Boston, MA - June 8-112014 AWWA ACE14: Uniting the World of Water - Boston, MA - June 8-11

• Private landowners may be incentivized to improve management to benefit water quality

• Third parties, e.g. land trusts, may also own and manage land or facilitate easements

Healthy, well-managed forests

High quality, protected source water

Less water treatment

Less energy and chemicals

Sustainable communitiesLess cost to utilities and citizens

Ancillary values (e.g. carbon sequestration, habitat)


Benefits of Well-Managed Forests

U.S. Endowment & AWWA Partnership


The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and CommunitiesA perpetual endowment to promote healthy, sustainable forests and their many

societal benefits (www.usendowment.org)


Partnership with AWWA• Seeks systemic, transformative change in protection of forested

watersheds via “beneficiary pays” (payments for watershed services) and other approaches

• Links water consumers with water producers—forest landowners • Promotes cost-effectiveness of watershed protection as a complement to

traditional treatment• Supports local efforts to develop long-term or sustainable funding: utility

base budgets, fees for water consumers, sales taxes, conservation ballot measures

http://www.usendowment.org/

AWWA Utilities Survey - Goals


• AWWA provided support to the U.S. Endowment by conducting a survey of utility members on source water protection issues in 2013

• Three primary goals:1. Notify its members of the collaboration2. Garner support and identify relevant contacts3. Gather input on the potential of forested watershed management and conservation efforts to improve source water quality

AWWA Utilities Survey – Key Findings


• 75% of respondents indicated forest lands play a very or somewhat significant role in protecting their water quality

• There was a diverse mixture of public lands and private lands in source watersheds. Equal numbers indicated 75-100% public lands and <25% private lands.

• Nearly 90% of respondents have or are developing a source water protection program

AWWA Utilities Survey - Trends


• Most common concern (62%) of respondents was agricultural non-point source pollution.

• Respondents were also concerned about:– Impervious surface runoff (52%)– Urban non-point source pollution (49%)– Point source pollution (45%)– Mining, oil, natural gas, and other mineral extraction (30%)

• Conclusions:– Many opportunities exist to improve source water protection – More research may be needed to determine whether other utilities that

did not participate in the survey are interested in source water protection


Beneficiary Pays ApproachForested watersheds supply nearly two-thirds of the clean water supply in the U.S.

The “Beneficiary Pays” approach helps communities develop sustainable funding to protect and management of forested watersheds and water supplies.

Top-down planning and bottom-up implementation are necessary for source water protection (SWP).


Green Complements Gray

+$27-$1

$2 billion

$10 billion

$1 spent on SWP saves $27 on water treatment (Winecki, 2012)

10% increase in forest cover reduces treatment and chemical costs by 20% (TPL & AWWA, 2004) (needs further research and verification*)* TPL concluded in a 2008 study reviewing the 2004 data and additional data that “relationships [between source water quality, percent land cover, and drinking water treatment costs] are weak due to high variability within the data”

NYC filtration avoidance waiver allowed $2 billion investment in watershed vs projected $10 billion in treatment, operations, and maintenance


Financial Benefits

Source Water Protection Efforts


Back to the Future• Philadelphia, PA

• 1812: Bought 9,000 acres to protect source water • Seattle, WA

• 1889: Began acquiring the forested Cedar River Watershed to protect and filter its source water. It now owns the entire 99,000 acre watershed

• Providence, RI • 1980s: Began collecting fee for land acquisition: One penny per hundred gallons

of water delivered• Providence Water owns 33% of land surrounding reservoir

• Manchester, NH• Owns 8,000 acres around source lake• Revenue from sustainable timber harvests: $150,000-$200,000 per year

• CT Southern Water Authority • Owns and carefully manages 27,000 acres


Boston: Green Complements Gray• Division of Water Supply Protection (DWSP), Massachusetts Department of

Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Quabbin Watershed:• 2.5 million people – Boston & Chicopee Valley• 1920-1930s: Purchased 60,000 acres of the Quabbin watershed• Today: DWSP owns 81,000 acres• Revenue from sustainable timber harvests: $300,000-$800,000 per year

• Multiple Barrier approach:• Watershed protection to provide high quality source water

• Funded entirely by ratepayers• Filtration (by forest) to remove particulate contaminants and some pathogens

• Filtration waiver (SDWA)• Disinfection to kill surviving microorganisms


Funding Source Water Protection


Raleigh, NC40 cents/month$2 million/year

Denver, CO33 cents/month$3.3 million/year

Little Rock, AR45 cents/month~$1 million/year

Flagstaff, AZ$25 per $250k home, $50 per $500k home, etc.$10 million bond

San Antonio, TX1/8 cent sales tax$90 million cap

San Francisco, CAUtility base budget$50 million/ 10 years


Communities with Established SWP Revenue

Providence, RI3 cents/100 gallons$1.5-2 million/year

Example of a Successful Fee Project by The U.S. Endowment

• Raleigh, NC Watershed Protection Fee• >300,000 people get drinking water from Falls Lake, Upper Neuse River

Basin, NC • Watershed protection fee instituted in 2012• Average 40 cents/month/household• Generates $1.8 million annually for watershed protection


Conservation Ballot Measures

• In 2012, voters passed 81% of ballot measures, raising an estimated $767 million

• Concern for public drinking water supplies (90%) and clean water (76%) always the top motivator for voters

• The Endowment is working with The Trust for Public Land to expand this approach to more communities


Resources & Collaboratives


Resources & Collaboratives• AWWA

• G300 Standard for SWP (with guidebook): bit.ly/1kFpso3• Survey of large water systems regarding SWP• Exemplary SWP Awards• Forest Cover Impacts on the Cost of Water Treatment Project (co-funded by AWWA

& The Endowment)

• Source Water Collaborative: sourcewatercollaborative.org• Pilot projects (e.g., Salmon Falls, ME & NH; WI, WY, PA)• Working with State Conservationists (NRCS/NSDA)

• State Source Water Collaboratives: • North Carolina Source Water Collaborative (ncswc.org)• Connecticut Source Water Collaborative (1.usa.gov/1gxJfk8) • Idaho Source Water Collaborative (protectthesource.org)

• U.S. Forest Service – Forest to Faucets: 1.usa.gov/1egxHFD2014 AWWA ACE14: Uniting the World of Water - Boston, MA - June 8-11

http://bit.ly/1kFpso3

http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/

http://www.ncswc.org/

http://1.usa.gov/1gxJfk8

http://www.protectthesource.org/

http://1.usa.gov/1egxHFD

Water Research Foundation: waterrf.org• Source Water Protection Vision and Roadmap• Source Water Protection Project:

www.waterrf.org/resources/NewsletterStories/WaterProtectionWorkshop_fullArticle.html

World Resources Institute (WRI) Report: Natural Infrastructure (2013)• wri.org/publication/natural-infrastructure• Research partly funded by the U.S. Endowment• Identifies opportunities to protect source water by

investing in natural infrastructure



http://www.waterrf.org/

http://www.waterrf.org/resources/NewsletterStories/WaterProtectionWorkshop_fullArticle.html

http://www.waterrf.org/resources/NewsletterStories/WaterProtectionWorkshop_fullArticle.html

http://www.wri.org/publication/natural-infrastructure

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities Can:• Connect you with experts• Provide resources for community stakeholders• Work with you to explore options• Targeted funding




“Perhaps the two most important lessons from experience to date are the power of individuals and the importance

of partnerships. Ultimately, the most effective messengers are influential individuals within their own institutions.”

– Gartner, et al. 2013, Natural Infrastructure

“All politics is local” – Tip O’Neil

Additional Slides on AWWA SWP Survey

The following slides contain additional information on the 2013 AWWA Source Water

Protection survey

AWWA 2013 Source Water Protection Survey – additional detailed information

Contact:Adam T. CarpenterRegulatory Analyst

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Population ServedRetail and Wholesale population served by your utility (enter without commas) 59 complete surveys

Answer Options Response Average Response Total Response Count

Approximate retail population served by your utility (Not number of accounts).

205,861.38 11,528,237 56

Approximate wholesale population served by your utility (Not number of wholesale accounts).

501,801.33 24,588,265 49

answered question 58

skipped question 2

Forested Lands

50.9%

24.6%

8.8%

14.0%

1.8%

Do forested lands play a role in protecting water quality in your watershed(s)? (n = 57)

Yes, forested lands play a very significant role in protecting water quality in our watershed(s).

Yes, forested lands play a somewhat significant role in protecting water quality in our water-shed(s).

Yes, forested lands play a minor role in protect-ing water quality in our watershed(s).

No, forest lands do not play a role in protecting water quality in our watershed.

I do not know.

Public Lands

34.5%

7.3%

10.9%

32.7%

14.5%

What percentage of these watershed(s) are on public lands? (n = 55)

75%-100%

50%- <75%

25%- <50%

<25%

I do not know

Established SWP Program

71.9%

10.5%

17.5%

Do you have an established source water protection program? (n = 57)

Yes

No

No, but one is currently under development

Primary SWP Concerns

Stormwater runoff from impervious

surfaces

Point source pollu-tion (such as indus-

trial discharges, sewer overflows or CAFO discharges)

Agricultural non-point source pollu-

tion

Urban non-point source pollution

Mining, oil, natural gas, or other mineral

extraction

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

What are your primary source water protection challenges or concerns? (check all that apply)

(n=51)

Loss of Forest Cover

55.4%44.6%

Are you concerned about the ef -fect of lost forest cover on

source water quality in your util-ity's wastershed(s)? (n=56)

YesNo

29.8%

70.2%

Is there information suggesting loss of forest cover is affecting

source water quality in your utility's watershed(s)? (n=57)

YesNo

Loss of Forest Cover, continuedIf you answered yes to the previous question, please select all problems that may be contributing to loss of forest cover in your utility's watershed(s)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Development (urban) 56.5% 13

Expanding row crop / grassland agriculture 8.7% 2

Invasive Species, insect pests, or disease 43.5% 10

Forest fires 47.8% 11

Failure to implement, or lack of forest management practices39.1% 9

Drought 34.8% 8

Changing Climate 39.1% 9

Other (please specify) 21.7% 5

answered question 23

skipped question 37

Cost-Benefit Analysis

10.5%

14.0%

75.4%

Have you considered perform-ing a cost-benefit analysis on

the merits of source water protection via forest conserva-tion, restoration, and/or man-

agement? (n=57)We have already per-formed an analysis

We are considering / planning to conduct an analysis

We have not con-sidered performing an analysis

35.1%

7.0%

57.9%

Would you be interested in ac-quiring technical assistance to

perform or update such an anal-ysis? (n=57)

Yes, we are interested in acquiring technical assistance to perform an analysis.

Yes, we are interested in acquiring technical assistance to update our analysis.

No, we are not in-terested.

SWP StudiesFlo

odpl

ain/

ripar

ian

zone

re...

Fore

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ct...

Redu

ced

sedi

men

t loa

ds

Redu

ced

nutri

ent l

oads

Flood

redu

ctio

n

Road

man

agem

ent/d

ecom

m...

Fire

risk

miti

gatio

n

Othe

r (pl

ease

des

crib

e)

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Have you undertaken or are you planning to undertake studies on the impacts of any of the following mitigation measures on source water

quality? (n = 24)Note: 36 participants skipped this question

SWP Improvement Project FundingFlo

odpl

ain/

ripar

ian

zone

refo

re...

Fore

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ctice

s

Redu

ced

sedi

men

t loa

ds

Redu

ced

nutri

ent l

oads

Flood

atte

nuat

ion

Road

man

agem

ent/d

ecom

miss

...

Fire

risk

miti

gatio

n

Vege

tatio

n Bu

ffers

05

101520253035404550

Is your utility currently implementing projects to improve source water quality, and if so,

what funding sources are you using for those projects? (check all that apply) (n=41)

User or watershed management fees

Water rates

Local government general fund

State grant funds

Federal grant funds

State loan program

Federal loan program

Philanthropic funds

Volunteer Efforts

Not Applicable

SWP Improvement Projects

Floodp

lain/rip

arian

zone r

efores

tation

Forest

man

agemen

t prac

tices

Redu

ced se

diment

loads

Redu

ced nu

trient

loads

Flood

atten

uation

Road

man

agem

ent/d

ecommiss

ioning

Fire ris

k mitig

ation

Vege

tation

Buffers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Are there efforts, being undertaken by others, within your watershed(s) to help improve

source water quality? (n=53)

Yes No

I don't know

SWP Potential Projects

User or watershed management fee

Land trusts for purchase of land or conservation

easements

Land trusts for re-forestation or forest

stewardship

Bond issue Cost share, such as with a USDA/NRCS

program

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 how likely your utility or the community you serve is to utilize the following tools for source water protection (1 = very unlikely and 5 = very

likely or already in use) (n=55)

1

2

3

4

5

Documents

Source Water Protection Through Healthy Forests