The document discusses a USDA Forest Service project that analyzed the importance of forests for providing clean drinking water from surface sources. The project identified watersheds important for surface drinking water, determined the extent that forests currently protect these watersheds, and identified threats to these forested areas from development, wildfires, and insects/disease. The results of this analysis can help prioritize areas for protection/management to aid decision-making and enhance drinking water security. Examples of existing payments for watershed services programs in the U.S. and Latin America are also summarized.
Effects of Federal Conservation Payments on Fertilizer-use in the MidwestRural Soc
Fertilizer use on agricultural land contributes to both nutrient pollution of surface and ground water as well as to global climate change. Voluntary conservation programs run by the USDA encourage farmers to reduce their use of fertilizers and to adopt practices and technologies that reduce nutrient run-off, but do the funds that go into these programs have the desired effect? OLS regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of federal conservation subsidies on both the number of farmland acres treated with fertilizer and the number of farms that reported using conservation practices. The analysis uses county level data for Michigan, Illinois and Iowa from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and subsidy data obtained by the Environmental Working Group from the USDA. Conservation subsidies are found to have a significant, negative effect on the acres of farmland treated with fertilizer and a significant, positive effect on the number of farms using conservation practices. Crop insurance subsidies are also found to have a large, significant and positive effect on acres fertilized. Variables such as average farmer age, number of female operators, average farm size, number of organic acres, number of irrigated acres and number of rented acres per county are not found to be significant. This analysis has substantial implications for achieving conservation outcomes though agricultural policies because it highlights ways that production policies can work at counter purposes to the goals of conservation programs.
Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition CIFOR-ICRAF
Presented by Terry Sunderland, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), on June 27, 2017.
Effects of Federal Conservation Payments on Fertilizer-use in the MidwestRural Soc
Fertilizer use on agricultural land contributes to both nutrient pollution of surface and ground water as well as to global climate change. Voluntary conservation programs run by the USDA encourage farmers to reduce their use of fertilizers and to adopt practices and technologies that reduce nutrient run-off, but do the funds that go into these programs have the desired effect? OLS regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of federal conservation subsidies on both the number of farmland acres treated with fertilizer and the number of farms that reported using conservation practices. The analysis uses county level data for Michigan, Illinois and Iowa from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and subsidy data obtained by the Environmental Working Group from the USDA. Conservation subsidies are found to have a significant, negative effect on the acres of farmland treated with fertilizer and a significant, positive effect on the number of farms using conservation practices. Crop insurance subsidies are also found to have a large, significant and positive effect on acres fertilized. Variables such as average farmer age, number of female operators, average farm size, number of organic acres, number of irrigated acres and number of rented acres per county are not found to be significant. This analysis has substantial implications for achieving conservation outcomes though agricultural policies because it highlights ways that production policies can work at counter purposes to the goals of conservation programs.
Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition CIFOR-ICRAF
Presented by Terry Sunderland, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), on June 27, 2017.
Ecological-edaphic and Socio-economic drivers of on-farm tree farming enterpr...Agriculture Journal IJOEAR
The biophysical-edaphic and socioeconomic factors do equally influence the on-farm tree farming in the smallholder farming systems. Naturally, neither of the factors do act in isolation, but they are interrelated. The study was carried out in Nsangi sub-county, Wakiso District, 2018. Using the stratified random sampling method based on landholding sizes, a sample of size of sixty households were selected and interviewed. The objectives of the study were to examine the influence of the bio-physical, edaphic and socio-cultural-economic factors onto the performance of the on-farm tree farming enterprise, and to evaluate the farmer's participation in on-farm tree farming activities. The results showed that both ecological-edaphic and socio-cultural-economic factors influence the performance of the tree volume, tree species diversity and tree stand density/ha. There is a negative correlation between size of landholding and farmer's interaction with the on-farm tree farming enterprises. Judging from the results of this study, there is a need for a policy review aimed at devising appropriate socio-cultural-economic and ecological-edaphic practices that promote on-farm tree farming programmes.
Vulnerabilities of forests and forest dependent people
Peter Minang, FTA, ICRAF
Social and environmental justice as a trigger of robust ambitious climate action and prosperous future for all
Chilean pavilion, COP 25, Madrid, 7th December 2019
Forest Certification: Biological Benefits or Just Landowner Costs?D. Stuart Hale, CF
Presentation outlining the benefits and costs of forest certification and sustainable forest management. First presented at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville on October 6, 2010.
Healthy ecosystems provide a variety of such critical goods and services. Created by the interactions of living organisms with their environment, these “ecosystem services” provide both the conditions and processes that sustain human life. The awareness of ecosystem services’ importance in human life styles started more than 2500 years ago. Economists have developed different ways to measure the economic value of the nature, all of which required extrapolation or assumptions.
Ignorance, Institutions and Market Failure are the main reasons to the under-protected status of Ecosystem Services. The environment provides critically important services. Some of these are captured by markets, but many are not. They are positive externalities that are therefore regarded by the beneficiaries as free. As a result, many ecosystem services tend to be both under-conserved and undervalued. If beneficiaries had to pay for explicit service provision, however, governments would think differently about their policies and property owners would think very differently about sustainable land management practices. In basic economic terms, payments for ecosystem services (PES) seek to “get the incentives right” by capturing the positive externalities, by providing accurate signals to both service providers and users that reflect the real social benefits that ecosystem services deliver.
Voluntary agreements between buyers and sellers of ecosystem services for cash or other rewards creating markets for ecosystem services which provide incentives and finance to land and resource managers and thereby strengthening conservation and livelihoods are called as PES.
Wide range of potential buyers and sellers are available depending on the ecosystem service. When the market fails to reward on-site ecosystem service providers, or to compensate them for their costs (e.g. changing land use) charge off-site users for the benefits they enjoy (e.g. clean water) PES create a market for natural resources making conservation a more profitable land-use proposition. Information, technical barriers, policy and regulation and institutional barriers are the major challenges in implementing PES.
Creating economic incentives that encourage PES schemes, including environmental taxes and subsidies, transferable discharge permits and environmental labelling, developing specific PES projects with farmers, foresters and/or fisher folks in their region, or their watershed and providing incentives for the private sector to engage in PES schemes are some recommendations for a better PES system.
Treasuring the Trinity: Challenges and OpportunitiesTrinity Waters
The Trinity River supplies water to 45% of the Texas population, making it perhaps the most important river basin in Texas. Water quality issues have challenged this river, as well as drought, land fragmentation and habitat loss. Trinity Waters and AgriLife Extension are working with partners to promote land stewardship to improve landowner quality of life and water supplies by connecting urban resources back into the watersheds that support them.
Impacts of co-management on Western chimpanzee habitat and conservation in Ni...CIFOR-ICRAF
This presentation by several CIFOR scientists describes the current situation of the Wester chimpanzees and the management efforts taken to protect that species. The development of a co-management model is shown, specifically in the area of Nialima.
Ecological-edaphic and Socio-economic drivers of on-farm tree farming enterpr...Agriculture Journal IJOEAR
The biophysical-edaphic and socioeconomic factors do equally influence the on-farm tree farming in the smallholder farming systems. Naturally, neither of the factors do act in isolation, but they are interrelated. The study was carried out in Nsangi sub-county, Wakiso District, 2018. Using the stratified random sampling method based on landholding sizes, a sample of size of sixty households were selected and interviewed. The objectives of the study were to examine the influence of the bio-physical, edaphic and socio-cultural-economic factors onto the performance of the on-farm tree farming enterprise, and to evaluate the farmer's participation in on-farm tree farming activities. The results showed that both ecological-edaphic and socio-cultural-economic factors influence the performance of the tree volume, tree species diversity and tree stand density/ha. There is a negative correlation between size of landholding and farmer's interaction with the on-farm tree farming enterprises. Judging from the results of this study, there is a need for a policy review aimed at devising appropriate socio-cultural-economic and ecological-edaphic practices that promote on-farm tree farming programmes.
Vulnerabilities of forests and forest dependent people
Peter Minang, FTA, ICRAF
Social and environmental justice as a trigger of robust ambitious climate action and prosperous future for all
Chilean pavilion, COP 25, Madrid, 7th December 2019
Forest Certification: Biological Benefits or Just Landowner Costs?D. Stuart Hale, CF
Presentation outlining the benefits and costs of forest certification and sustainable forest management. First presented at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville on October 6, 2010.
Healthy ecosystems provide a variety of such critical goods and services. Created by the interactions of living organisms with their environment, these “ecosystem services” provide both the conditions and processes that sustain human life. The awareness of ecosystem services’ importance in human life styles started more than 2500 years ago. Economists have developed different ways to measure the economic value of the nature, all of which required extrapolation or assumptions.
Ignorance, Institutions and Market Failure are the main reasons to the under-protected status of Ecosystem Services. The environment provides critically important services. Some of these are captured by markets, but many are not. They are positive externalities that are therefore regarded by the beneficiaries as free. As a result, many ecosystem services tend to be both under-conserved and undervalued. If beneficiaries had to pay for explicit service provision, however, governments would think differently about their policies and property owners would think very differently about sustainable land management practices. In basic economic terms, payments for ecosystem services (PES) seek to “get the incentives right” by capturing the positive externalities, by providing accurate signals to both service providers and users that reflect the real social benefits that ecosystem services deliver.
Voluntary agreements between buyers and sellers of ecosystem services for cash or other rewards creating markets for ecosystem services which provide incentives and finance to land and resource managers and thereby strengthening conservation and livelihoods are called as PES.
Wide range of potential buyers and sellers are available depending on the ecosystem service. When the market fails to reward on-site ecosystem service providers, or to compensate them for their costs (e.g. changing land use) charge off-site users for the benefits they enjoy (e.g. clean water) PES create a market for natural resources making conservation a more profitable land-use proposition. Information, technical barriers, policy and regulation and institutional barriers are the major challenges in implementing PES.
Creating economic incentives that encourage PES schemes, including environmental taxes and subsidies, transferable discharge permits and environmental labelling, developing specific PES projects with farmers, foresters and/or fisher folks in their region, or their watershed and providing incentives for the private sector to engage in PES schemes are some recommendations for a better PES system.
Treasuring the Trinity: Challenges and OpportunitiesTrinity Waters
The Trinity River supplies water to 45% of the Texas population, making it perhaps the most important river basin in Texas. Water quality issues have challenged this river, as well as drought, land fragmentation and habitat loss. Trinity Waters and AgriLife Extension are working with partners to promote land stewardship to improve landowner quality of life and water supplies by connecting urban resources back into the watersheds that support them.
Impacts of co-management on Western chimpanzee habitat and conservation in Ni...CIFOR-ICRAF
This presentation by several CIFOR scientists describes the current situation of the Wester chimpanzees and the management efforts taken to protect that species. The development of a co-management model is shown, specifically in the area of Nialima.
Assessing the roles of forests in reducing poverty and enhancing climate resilience in the Philippines.
This presentation was delivered at the third Asia-Pacific Forestry Week 2016, in Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines.
The five sub-thematic streams at APFW 2016 included:
Pathways to prosperity: Future trade and markets
Tackling climate change: challenges and opportunities
Serving society: forestry and people
New institutions, new governance
Our green future: green investment and growing our natural assets
NAP-Ag Webinar - Addressing Forestry in National Adaptation Planning UNDP Climate
The NAP-Ag Webinar on 'Addressing agriculture, forestry and fisheries in National Adaptation Plans' provided insight on climate change adaptation in the livestock and forestry sector, also highlighting key elements in addressing the agriculture sectors in National Adaptation Plans, and looking forward to how these plans will contribute to NDCs, SDGs and links to other global accords such as the Sendai Framework.
CIFOR/ICRAF sloping lands in transition (SLANT) projectCIFOR-ICRAF
This presentation informs viewers about the CIFOR SLANT project including its objectives and goal, current activities and the structure of the partnership.
In this presentation, the International Food Policy Research Institute, in partnership with University of Massachusetts Amherst, detailed the obstacles and opportunities in crowdsourced data for Agent-based Modeling.
"Valoração Espacialmente Explícita dos Serviços Ecossistêmicos da Floresta Am...UNDP Policy Centre
Apresentação intitulada "Valoração Espacialmente Explícita dos Serviços Ecossistêmicos da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira" (em inglês), proferida por Jon Strand, Consultor do Grupo Banco Mundial, no Seminário Internacional Oportunidades de Negócios para uma Economia Rural Sustentável: A Contribuição das Florestas e da Agricultura, realizado nos dias 14 e 15 de maio de 2019.
Kelly Mooij, Esq., Vice President Government Relations, New Jersey Audubon Society
Jill Witkowski, Esq., Director, Choose Clean Water
Mark Zakutansky, Mid-Atlantic Policy Manager, Appalachian Mountain Club
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
How to Create Map Views in the Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
The map views are useful for providing a geographical representation of data. They allow users to visualize and analyze the data in a more intuitive manner.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
We all have good and bad thoughts from time to time and situation to situation. We are bombarded daily with spiraling thoughts(both negative and positive) creating all-consuming feel , making us difficult to manage with associated suffering. Good thoughts are like our Mob Signal (Positive thought) amidst noise(negative thought) in the atmosphere. Negative thoughts like noise outweigh positive thoughts. These thoughts often create unwanted confusion, trouble, stress and frustration in our mind as well as chaos in our physical world. Negative thoughts are also known as “distorted thinking”.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...
From Forest to Faucet: Drinking Water as an Ecosystem Service by Albert H. Todd & Emily Weidner
1. 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 Weidner
USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry
2. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
How we get water
in our homes…
I don’t have any
Information on this bit
3. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
4. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Limits
• Surface water only
not groundwater
• Drinking water
not aquatic system
health
• Threats to forests
only not industry,
point sources, etc.
Ecosystem Services and Markets
5. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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 Station
USFS 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
6. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
7. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Map Scale
• Sub-watersheds =
12-digit HUC,
lt blue lines
• > 88,000 HUCs
• Ave. size =
35 sq mi
Ecosystem Services and Markets
8. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
Three Step Analysis Process
Step 1: Create a watershed index for surface drinking
water importance
- # of consumers, proximity to intakes, water supply
Step 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
9. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
Step 1: Important watersheds for
surface drinking water
• What is the relative
importance of each subwatershed in providing surface
drinking water?
• Population served
• Distance to intake
10. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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 ith
downstream subwatershed
11. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
Surface Drinking Water Importance Index:
weighting by water supply
IMPn = (Qn) * (PRn)
mean annual
mean annual
water supply
water supply
Qn = the mean annual
water supply for subwatershed n
PRn = the risk-based
drinking water
protection for subwatershed n
IMP = surface drinking
water importance
index
12. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
areas of surface drinking
water importance (weighted by
mean annual water supply)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
13. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
areas of surface drinking
water importance (weighted by
mean annual water supply)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
14. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
15. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
% All forests
% Protected forests
% Private forests
% NFS forests
16. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
the extent to which all forests
are currently protecting areas of
surface drinking water importance.
Ecosystem Services and Markets
17. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
the extent to which NFS forests
are currently protecting areas of
surface drinking water importance.
Ecosystem Services and Markets
18. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
the extent to which protected forests
are currently protecting areas of
surface drinking water importance.
Ecosystem Services and Markets
19. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
the extent to which private forests
are currently protecting areas of
surface drinking water importance.
Ecosystem Services and Markets
20. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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?
21. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
22. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
% of each sub-watershed
expected to increase housing
development in forested areas
between 2000 and 2030 (Theobald)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
23. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Forests important for surface
drinking water and threatened by
development
Ecosystem Services and Markets
24. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
25. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
% of sub-watershed containing
forests with high or very high
wildland fire potential
(USFS Fire Modeling Institute)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
26. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Forested areas important for
surface drinking water
and threatened by wildland fire
Ecosystem Services and Markets
27. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
28. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
% of sub-watershed classified
as having high risk of mortality
due to insects and disease
(USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
29. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Forested areas important for
surface drinking water
and threatened by insects and disease
Ecosystem Services and Markets
30. USDA Forest Service
Insect and Disease
Development
Wildland Fire
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
31. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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.
32. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
33. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
34. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
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
35. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
Less Forest Cover = Higher Treatment Costs
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
Impact of Forest Cover on Chemical Treatment
Costs
Chemical cost/MG
$250.00
$200.00
$150.00
or stated another way…
$100.00
$50.00
$0.00
0
20
40
60
80
Percent Forest in Drainage Area
100
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.
36. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
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
Ecosystem Services and Markets
37. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
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)
Ecosystem Services and Markets
38. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
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
Ecosystem Services and Markets
39. USDA Forest Service
S&PF, Cooperative Forestry
Ecosystem Services and Markets
Payments for Watershed Services
in 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