lessons from case studies of collaborative watershed ... · maggie clary nicholas school of the...
TRANSCRIPT
Lessons from Case Studies of Collaborative
Watershed Management
Maggie ClaryNicholas School of the Environment at Duke University
With Lydia Olander and Dean UrbanNicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
ACES 2010
The Service-Boundary Mismatch
Ecosystem services are provided on a variety of spatial scales
Provision areas rarely align with political and jurisdictional boundaries
This situation creates management conflicts and inequities in the costs and benefits of resource protection
Management solutions must often involve collaboration
Study Purpose Use case studies of watershed management to study the
efficacy of collaborative policy interventions
Ask:
1. What drives collaborative efforts?
2. What are the financial and/or regulatory enabling conditions?
3. Who are the members and how are they chosen?
4. What policy intervention was developed?
5. What authority does the collaboration have?
Identify exportable elements
Case Studies
The New Jersey Pinelands
The Willamette Ecosystem
Marketplace
The Upper San Pedro Partnership
The Ohio Balanced Growth
Program
Arizona’s Upper San Pedro Partnership
Initiated in 1998 as part of AZ’s Rural Watershed Initiative
Driver: San Pedro ran dry in 2005, federal mandate to reach “sustainable use” by 2011 or face army base closure
Enabled by: $35 million over 5 years from federal earmarks thanks to Congressman Jim Kolbe
Membership: 21 agencies that must own or control land, make policy, or contribute resources in the watershed
Source: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arizona/features/art26621.html
Upper San Pedro Partnership Policy Tool: Developed the
Decision Support System, a computer program that allows decision-makers to see the potential impacts of water management scenarios.
Authority: Research intended to influence decision makers. New legislation granting increased authority to rural municipalities may be due to USPP efforts.
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ShaunMcKinnon/Page20
Ohio’s Balanced Growth Program
Initiated in 2001 by Task Force of Ohio Lake Erie Commission
Driver: Sediment pollution and bacterial contamination in Lake Erie
Enabled by: Emphasis on no new legislation or finance, pilot received grant from Ohio Water Development Authority
Membership: OLEC is directors of 6 state agencies, Task Force was composed of stakeholders
Source: http://www.ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Is_it_a_Hellbender_or_Mudpuppy.html
Balanced Growth Program Policy Tool: Local
governments designate priority conservation and development areas, these areas get higher priority access to state financing programs and expedited permit review processes
Authority: Local governments retain land use authority but forfeit incentives if they don’t participate
Source: http://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Coastweeks/LifeonLakeEriePhotoContest/2008PhotoWinners.aspx
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Initiated in 1979
Driver: Development pressure from Philadelphia, New York, and Atlantic City
Enabled by: Governor established Commission to write Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Pinelands Protection Act required county and municipal plans and ordinances to conform.
Membership: 15 Commissioners appointed by the NJ Governor, counties, and U.S. Secretary of the Interior
Source: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nj/county/atlantic/Pinelands/pinelands htm
Pinelands Commission
Policy Tool: CMP’s tools to affect land use include land acquisition, environmental standards, zoning, development review, and development credits.
Authority: Local municipalities must conform their land use plans and ordinances to the CMP, Commission has power to disapprove projects.
Source: http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/photo/land/wetlands.html
Oregon’s Willamette Partnership Initiated in 2004
Driver: Increased river temperature, unsafe levels of toxic chemicals in fish tissue
Enabled by: Governor appointed Willamette task force in 1996, Willamette temperature TMDL adopted 2006, 2 Federal grants
Membership: Coalition of >30 conservation, city, business, farm, and scientific leaders
Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/case10.html
Willamette Partnership Policy Tool: Developing an
ecosystem marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade four types of ecosystem credits: wetlands, salmonid habitat, prairie habitat, and riparian habitat
Authority: 2009 law encourages state agencies to consider ecosystem services markets to meet mitigation needs
Source: http://www.wmswcd.org/content.cfm/Who-We-Are/Watersheds
Lessons Learned Collaborations tend to be reactionary, driven by
ecological damage
Collaborations were established through legislative or other government action
Collaboration is necessary but not sufficient –authority over local land use decisions is needed to overcome self-interest
Incentives can be used to bring in actors outside of local government control, e.g. agriculture, septic
Exportable Elements Examine planning institutions and culture to identify
what strategies for land use management will be effective
Integrate scientific research and involve stakeholders throughout the process to generate buy-in and adaptive capacity
Create accessible tools for decision-makers
Seek unified authority in order to have the greatest influence
Thank You!Thanks to Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, and the
Ecosystem Services Working Group at Duke University
Source: http://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Coastweeks/LifeonLakeEriePhotoContest/2006PhotoWinners.aspx