FORESTS, UTILITIES, AND WATERSHEDS - WordPress
FORESTS, UTILITIES,AND WATERSHEDSPartners in Source Water ProtectionPrepared by:Dr. Kenneth E. WallenDr. Hal O. Liechty
Author Contact Information:Kenneth E. Wallen, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Natural Resources and SocietyUniversity of Idaho875 Perimeter DriveMS 1139Moscow, ID 83844 USAPhone: (208) 885-7132Email: kwallen@uidaho.eduHal O. Liechty, Ph.D.George R. Brown Endowed ProfessorCollege of Forestry, Agriculture, and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Arkansas at MonticelloP.O. Box 3468110 University Ct.Monticello, AR 71655 USAPhone: (870) 460-1452Email: liechty@uamont.eduTo cite this report:Wallen, K. E., & Liechty, H. O. (2019). Forests, utilities, and watersheds: Partners in sourcewater protection. Report prepared for the Arkansas Forest Resources Center, Division ofAgriculture, University of Arkansas System.This report is available electronically at: insert URL
Executive SummaryThe planning and management of public water sources (PWS) are traditionally the domain ofpublic utilities or utilities commissions. Yet, collaboration and partnerships among utilities,watershed, and forest managers can improve the efficiency and sustainability of PWS quality andavailability. The quality and availability of PWSs, especially those originating from overland flow,are dependent on the quality and status of land resources. This is particularly salient in forestedwatersheds, which require appropriate forest management practices.The objective of the “Forests, Utilities, and Watersheds: Partners in Source Water Protection”project was to survey water utility rate payers’ in Hot Springs, AR and Fayetteville, AR in relationto: Frequency of water use for drinking (and other activities); water and forest recreation. Knowledge of water utility operations and forest management. Exposure to information that pertains to water utility’s management and operations. Perspectives on and experiences with and ratings of water and the water utility. Levels of trust and perception of responsibility. Familiarity with and opinions on controlled burns.Past research indicates that while utilities own tracts of forestland within a source watershed,forest management plans, their implementation, and consultation with trained foresters isminimal 1, 2. Moreover, public water utilities may set examples among one another and other landmanagement organizations in terms of source water protection importance, prioritization, anddesign 3. The mutual benefit best managements practices grant water resources and forest healthimplies it may be helpful to understand the extent to which public water utilities implement forestmanagement within a source watershed 4, 5. However, given the relative uncommonness of suchforest management by public water utilities, is it perhaps more strategic and necessary tounderstand rate payers’ perceptions their water utility in relation to forest management practicesin a source watershed 6.0F1F2F3F4F5FKey Takeaways Tap water is the primary source of drinking water for a greater proportion of adults residing in Fayetteville (67.7%) than Hot Springs (51.1%). The survey does not show any obviousreason for the differences between the two groups of residents.o It should be noted that similar proportions of residents from the two areas use tapwater every day for cooking and cleaning (87.7-88.4%) as well as use tap water afew times a week or more for watering grass/plants or washing cars (37.5-42.1%).A total of 46.4% of the respondents visited local lakes or rivers six or more times a year and43.7 % of the respondents visited a local forest six or more times a year. Differences in theDyckman CS, Paulsen K. Not in My watershed! Will increased federal supervision really bring better coordination between landuse and water planning? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 32, 91–106 (2012).2 Herbert, E. Forest management by West Coast water utilities: Protecting the source? J. Am. Water. Works. Assoc. 99, 91–106(2007).3 Richards et al. WH, et al. Landscape-scale forest management in the municipal watersheds of Vienna, Austria, and Seattle, USA:Commonalities despite disparate ecology and history. Nat. Areas J. 32, 199–207 (2012).4 Garcia-Chevesich et al., Forest management and the impact on water resources: A review of 13 countries (2017). Available at:https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs journals/2017/rmrs 2017 garcia chevesich p001.pdf5 Hornbeck JW, et al. Long-term impacts of forest treatment on water yield: A summary of the Northeastern USA. J. Hydrol. 150,323–344 (1993).6 National Research Council. Watershed management for source water protection (2000). Available d099701300011
proportion of residents from each study area visiting lakes/rivers and forests six or moretimes a year were minimal.A higher proportion Fayetteville residents indicated that they had a good amount or a greatdeal of knowledge concerning the location of their water supply (63.4% vs. 39.2%) and whatis meant by the term “watershed” (47.9% vs. 33.9%).o Approximately 32-38% if the Hot Springs while only 14-15% of the Fayettevillerespondents indicated they had little or no knowledge concerning these two subjects.o This in part may reflect to what degree residents felt that their utilities providedinformation concerning their drinking water sources. A total of 68.4% of residents in Fayetteville somewhat or strongly agreedwhile 19.4% somewhat or strongly disagreed that their utility providedFayetteville residents with the basic information on their drinking watersource. A total of 58.6% of Hot Springs residents somewhat or strongly agreed thatthe Hot Spring utility provided this information while 31.2 somewhat orstrongly disagreed the utility provided this information.Most respondents (77.4%) rated their water utility B or better on the water utility services.o The proportion of the respondents that rated the services as a B or better wasgreater for Fayetteville residents (87.8%) than Hot Springs residents (65.7%).o More than 3-out-of-4 residents in both study areas somewhat or strongly agreed thattheir water utility provided quality drinking water (80.3-90.1%).Most household water users (74.6%) were willing to pay for part of the costs of improvingwater quality. Differences between individual study areas were minimal.o Most water users (59.7%) also are willing to pay part of the costs of managingforests in the water source area.o Although water users are willing to financially support management costs,approximately 80% of the respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that water usersshould have input on these management decisions.Water users generally recognized that controlled burns (prescribed fire) is somewhat or verynecessary (82.8%) for land management and most water users (69.1%) consideredcontrolled burns somewhat or very safe.o A greater portion of Hot Springs residents generally recognize the necessity andsafety of control burning than did Fayetteville residents. This may reflect the closerproximity of a federal forest lands to Hot Springs compared to Fayetteville.o Although the majority of respondents from both study areas strongly or somewhatagreed that they trusted their utility to make decisions concerning the use ofcontrolled burns (63.2-67.0%) more than 90% of respondents somewhat or stronglyagreed that utility should partner with other federal and state land managementorganizations to conduct controlled burns.
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .3Key Takeaways .3Table of Contents.5Acknowledgements .6Methods and Sampling .7Findings and Results.8Weighting .8Direct Experience and Psychological Distance .9Knowledge .12Information .14Perspectives and Experiences.15Trust and Responsibility .17Controlled Burns.20Sociodemographics .22Appendix .25
AcknowledgementsThis project was completed as a portion of grant no. 16-DG-11083105-001 SPLR, a LandscapeScale Restoration grant from the US Forest Service awarded to the Arkansas ForestryCommission and subsequently sub-contracted to the US Endowment for Forestry andCommunities. The total amount of the grant award to the Arkansas Forestry Commission was 123,930. The Lake Ricks demonstration prescribed burn was conducted to promotecollaboration between the City of Hot Springs and the Arkansas Forests and Drinking WaterCollaborative (the Collaborative), to collect information on the public’s perception of forestmanagement by public utilities and to enhance forest management in the Lake Ricks watershed.The data collected will be beneficial to the Collaborative as it seeks to build further relationshipsbetween water utilities and the forest sector as well as to the City of Hot Springs as it seeks toimprove protection of its drinking water sources.
Methods and SamplingThe project was carried out by the Arkansas Forest Resources Center with funding provided bythe U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. To achieve project objectives, standardresearch protocols were used to collect data via a telephone survey—cellular and landline—fromrate payers in Hot Springs, AR and Fayetteville, AR. Data collection was conducted from MayJuly 2019. All survey data collection was conducted by University of Little Rock Survey ResearchCenter, in partnership with researchers at the Arkansas Forest Resources Center.The population of interest was adults ( 18 years of age) of Hot Springs, AR residing within theHot Spring Water Utility service area and adults ( 18 years of age) of Fayetteville, AR residingwithin the Beaver Lake Water Utility service area who pay for household water service (i.e.,excludes residents whose water services are included in rent or otherwise paid by a second party).Two sampling frames were used: cell phone (listed) and landline (listed and random-digit dialing).A simple random sampling procedure was used at a ratio of 1:1 from each sampling frame untilthe predetermined quota per city (n 400) was reached or response rates dropped below theefficacy threshold (1-respondent/hour). The combined response rate was 25% but differedsubstantially among frames (Table 1). A total of 778 telephone interviews were conducted in thetwo cities (Table 2). The average length of interview was 8-minutes. Error margins are presentedin Table 3.Table 1. Response rate (combined and per telephone type).CombinedLandlineCellTable 2. Sample size (total and per city).TotalHot SpringsFayettevilleTable 3. Margin of error (total and per city).TotalHot 778393385100.0050.549.5Percent6.06.06.0
Findings and ResultsWEIGHTINGData weighting is a standard procedure for survey data analysis; weighting allows data to beinterpreted as representing the population of interest rather than just the sample data wascollected from. Weighting procedures correct for imbalances between the survey sample and thepopulation of interest. For example, people aged 18-24 were under-sampled and people aged75 over-sampled; weighting allows us to correct this under- and over-sampling by calculating a“weight” based on the difference between the percentage of each category in the sample and theknown percentage of each category in the actual population (based on census data 7). By applyingthe weight to our analyses, the results reflect the populations of interest, the cities of Hot Springsand Fayetteville, rather than just the sampled respondents from each city.6FData are presented in two formats: Pooled data (red) are presented as unweighted. The reason for this is that the pooled datais aggregated sample data and not generalizable to a distinct population. Data from Hot Springs (yellow) and Fayetteville (blue) are presented as weighted. Thereason for this is that these city-level data can be interpreted as generalizable to thepopulation of each city, respectively. The respective weights reflect the differences inresponse rates associated with different age categories (as seen by sample percentage).Below are the weights applied to analyses data from each city:7Table 4a. Hot Springs survey weights.Age Category Population Percentage Sample Count Sample 445-5411.75213.255-6414.97920.165-7412.811529.375 10.49824.9Weight2.823.631.630.880.740.440.42Table 4b. Fayetteville survey weights.Age Category Population Percentage Sample Count Sample 23.445-5411.28121.055-6410.16216.165-746.77519.575 4.6225.7Weight3.851.500.540.530.630.340.81Source: American Community Survey, 2018 ACS 1-year estimates subject table (Table ID: S0101)
DIRECT EXPERIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCEFrequency of direct experience or interaction with water influences how abstract or concrete ratepayers perceive the natural resource management issues related to water. In psychology, theabstract-concrete range can be thought of as the time between experiencing or interacting withan object, event, or other phenomenon; this is called psychological distance. Measures ofpsychological distance, in the form of frequency of use, provide information that indicate thepotential for rate payers to take action on or support water-related issues.The results presented below indicate that rate payers in both cities frequently interact with waterthrough various behaviors, from the individual, household, and landscape level.Table 5. How often do you make it a point to drink water?Several times a dayOnce a dayA few times a weekA couple of times a 9*Reporting threshold of 1%Hot SpringsSeveral times a dayOnce a dayA few times a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyCount l times a dayOnce a dayA few times a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyCount Percent265184—590.76.31.3—1.7*Reporting threshold of 1%Table 6. When you drink water do you mostly drink tap wateror water from other sources?Tap waterOther sourcesBoth equallyHot SpringsTap waterOther sourcesBoth equallyCount Percent1611272751.040.48.6FayettevilleTap waterOther sourcesBoth equallyCountPercent4772465461.431.76.9Count Percent197732267.724.97.4
Table 7. How often do you use tap water from yourhousehold faucets for activities like cooking and cleaning?Every dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a 1.2———*Reporting threshold of 1%Hot SpringsEvery dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyNeverCount lleEvery dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyNever*Reporting threshold of 1%Count —5—87.79.8——1.8—*Reporting threshold of 1%Table 8. How often do you use water from your outdoorfaucets for activities like watering grass or plants, or washingyour car?Every dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyNeverHot SpringsEvery dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyNeverCount 19.89.5FayettevilleEvery dayA few times a weekOnce a weekA couple of times a monthRarelyNeverCount Percent37844037523713.029.114.112.818.212.8
Table 9. In the past year, how many times would yousay you have visited a local lake or river?None/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreHot SpringsNone/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreCount Percent5220701815316.66.522.25.648.7Count 05330819.96.327.06.839.6FayettevilleNone/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreTable 10. In the past year, how many times would yousay you have visited a local forest?None/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreHot SpringsNone/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreCountFayettevilleNone/NeverOnly once2-5 times6-9 times10 times or moreCount 8581984030022.97.525.45.138.6Count Percent4618971211815.76.333.34.040.4
KNOWLEDGEKnowledge is a fundamental component of informed decision-making and ability to respond tonatural resource management challenges. For water utility providers, an informed constituency ofrate payers who know where their water comes from, that forests are a component of waterquality, and that forests and water interact at a watershed level can be seen as a positive asset.In terms of knowing the waterbody that is the source of their household water, results suggest amix of knowledge—either little/none or great deal—and a disparity between Hot Springs andFayetteville. Different patterns emerge in terms of rate payers’ knowledge of forests importanceto maintaining water quality. For Hot Springs and Fayetteville, 49-54% of responses fall within thegreat/good deal response categories. However, in terms of knowledge of what a watershed is, aover 40% of Hot Springs respondents have little to no knowledge, whereas a similar percentageof Fayetteville respondents indicate they have a good or great deal of knowledge.Table 11. Your level of knowledge of where the water you useat home comes from, that is, the location of the exact riversor lakes that supply your water?Little or no knowledgeSome knowledgeA moderate amountA good amount of knowledgeA great deal of knowledgeDon’t 7.1—*Reporting threshold of 1%Hot SpringsCount PercentLittle or no knowledge10132.0Some knowledge4313.7A moderate amount4313.7A good amount of knowledge4414.0A great deal of knowledge7925.2Don’t know*51.4FayettevilleCount PercentLittle or no knowledge4214.4Some knowledge258.5A moderate amount4013.8A good amount of knowledge6522.3A great deal of knowledge12041.1Don’t know*——*Reporting threshold of 1%
Table 12. Your level of knowledge of why trees and forestsare important to drinking water quality?Little or no knowledgeSome knowledgeA moderate amountA good amount of knowledgeA great deal of knowledgeDon’t know*Hot SpringsCount PercentLittle or no knowledge6219.6Some knowledge4313.7A moderate amount5116.3A good amount of knowledge4815.4A great deal of knowledge10132.2Don’t .531.61.0FayettevilleCount PercentLittle or no knowledge3712.6Some knowledge4615.6A moderate
proportion of residents from each study area visiting lakes/rivers and forests six or more times a year were minimal. A higher proportion Fayetteville residents indicated that they had a good amount or a great deal of knowledge concerning the location of their water supply (63.4% vs. 39.2%) and what
Deciduous forests Tundra Tundra Boreal forests Boreal forests Figure 10. Vegetation types, temperature, and rainfall If you guessed humans, you are right! FAO wanted to understand how forests are changing as a result of human activity. To study the infl uence of humans on forests, the scientists
Forests cover a large expanse of the Midwest ranging from boreal forests around the northern Great Lakes to oak-hickory forests of the Ozarks. The Midwest is characterized by savannas and open woodlands, which mark a major transition zone between forest and grassland biomes within the U.S. Overall, forests cover some 87 million acres in the .
Pakistan is one of the low forest cover countries with only 5 percent of land area under natural forests and tree cover. Major forest types include coastal mangroves, reverine forests, sub-tropical scrub forests, moist temperate conifer forests, dry temperate conifer forests and irrigated plantations including linear plantations.
action is needed to sustain the planet’s forests. Time is running out for the world’s forests, whose total area is shrinking by the day. By halting deforestation, managing forests sustainably, restoring degraded forests and increasing the global forest area, potentially damaging consequences for t
A) clouds are formed over the moist forests B) forests hold the rainwater in the leaves of the trees C) forests keep the entire balance of the atmosphere D) the number of forests is decreasing 15. What does “they” in the 3rd paragraph refer to? 1 point A) forests B) leaves C) trees D) water cycles 16. According to the 4th paragraph, which .
Oracle Utilities Work and Asset Management 22 Oracle Utilities Mobile Workforce Management 24 Oracle Utilities Other Sessions (ODM, Opower, Etc.) 26 Oracle Utilities Technical Sessions 28 . 4 2017 ORACLE UTILITIES EDGE CUSTOMER
MEXICO, ITS LAKES AND WATERSHEDS NETWORK FOCUS Description of "Lakes and their watershed" Working Group MEXICAN WATERSHED NETWORK. Mexico, its lakes and watersheds 1,960,189 km2 1,471 watersheds 366,000 km of rivers and streams 653 aquifers with 115 overexploided
ANIMAL NUTRITION Tele-webconference, 27 November, 10 and 11 December 2020 (Agreed on 17 December 2020) Participants Working Group Members:1 Vasileios Bampidis (Chair), Noël Dierick, Jürgen Gropp, Maryline Kouba, Marta López-Alonso, Secundino López Puente, Giovanna Martelli, Alena Pechová, Mariana Petkova and Guido Rychen Hearing Experts: Not Applicable European Commission and/or Member .
